[eDebate] ADA changes

Kuswa, Kevin kkuswa
Tue Apr 22 10:18:44 CDT 2008


Hello.  Are you interested in promoting some changes in the ADA?  Submit
a proposal over the next week.  If you are coming to the ADA meeting,
submit your proposal to John Katsulus and then come and defend it.  If
you are not coming to the ADA meeting, send your proposal to me or to
others in the organization and I am sure we can find a way to discuss it
at the meeting (or send it to edeabte for "vetting."
 
 
kevin
 
here are the current rules:
 
 
AMERICAN DEBATE ASSOCIATION
STANDING RULES OF TOURNAMENT PROCEDURE
 
I. RULES GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF A DEBATE 
 
1.    FORMAT--Cross-examination style debate format will be used, with
two-person teams. There will be four nine-minute constructive speeches,
beginning with the affirmative. After each constructive, there will be a
three-minute cross-examination by a member of the opposition. There will
be four six-minute rebuttals, beginning with the negative. Each team
will be allocated ten minutes of preparation time to be used in between
speeches and cross-examination periods.
 
2.    TOPIC--The ADA will adopt the policy topic approved by the
Executive Committee.
 
3.    CONSTRAINTS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE-- The first affirmative
constructive speaker is expected to present a complete case which
includes a topical plan of action and a rationale justifying that plan.
The affirmative team must present and defend through the entirety of the
debate only one plan, and once presented, this plan cannot be changed,
altered, or amended in any way during the debate. This does not preclude
permutations. The affirmative team is not obligated to reveal their case
before the debate.
 
4.    COUNTERPLANS-Counterplans should compete with the affirmative.
 
5.    CRITIQUES--If the negative chooses to critique it has the burden
of defending an alternative which justifies rejection of the
affirmative's proposed plan of action. The unique reason for voting must
be clearly identified during the initial presentation of the criticism.
If the affirmative team demonstrates that the critique fails to meet any
of these criteria the judge must disregard the critique.
 
6.    TOPICALITY-Topicality asks whether the affirmative is sufficiently
within the scope of the resolution and is a voting issue.
 
7.    CONSTRAINTS DURING REBUTTALS-- No new constructive argument or new
constructive positions may be advanced in rebuttal speeches, absent
arguments or positions made in the 1AR to address new 2NC constructions.
This does not restrict the use of new evidence to address arguments
presented in the constructive speeches.
 
8.     MATERIALS-- Evidence presented in debates should include the
following orally presented citation: the author (if any) or the source
of the publication, author's qualifications, and date. Page numbers must
be available upon request. This citation is expected for all pieces of
evidence the first time the evidence is presented. For subsequent
references to the same author or work, the citation may be abbreviated.
If an evidence challenge is made premised upon intentional fabrication,
distortion, or misrepresentation, then it is an ethical challenge and
the burden of proof is upon the challenger. Debaters should understand
that judges may choose to penalize frivolous accusations. All words
inserted in evidence must be enclosed in square brackets or slash marks;
all internally ellipsed parts of the evidence must be available
immediately upon the request by the opponents, or at the conclusion of
the round upon request by the judge. The material in the brackets or
internally ellipsed ought in no way alter the original author's intent.
Material presented in the debate must be accompanied by an original oral
explanation justifying the introduction of that material into the debate
and the material being presented must be available as a textual
transcription for inspection by the opposing team.
 
9.    OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE--Once the debate has begun, a team may not
receive assistance, suggestions, or coaching from anyone while the round
is in progress. This does not prevent debate partners from helping one
another, but does prevent outside persons from helping a team during the
course of a debate. Debaters may not receive electronic assistance from
outside sources or perform electronic research during the course of a
debate.

10.  PROMPTING/CROSS-TALK--Only the person speaking, asking a question
in cross-examination, or answering a question in cross-examination
should be talking. Partners should not vocally 'prompt' the speaker
during his/her speech. Cross-examination questions should be asked and
answered only by the two debaters involved in the cross-examination
period. MINIMAL consultation with opponents is allowed during the
questioning team's preparation time.
 
11.  DECORUM--Debaters and judges should refrain from the use of
profanity during debates. Debaters and judges should treat one another
with civility during debates and when debate decisions are revealed and
discussed. Debaters and judges should treat one another with generosity,
respect and kindness. Participants (debaters, judges, coaches,
observers, etc.) may not engage in any nudity, sexually explicit or
illegal behavior, or use illegal substances while at the location of the
debate rounds or during a debate.
 
12.  DELIVERY--Debaters should speak comprehensively and intelligibly
while giving speeches and engaging in cross-examination. Debaters should
refrain from shouting or yelling while speaking. Debaters have the
burden to develop clearly all ideas presented and to do so in an oral
style that recognizes and adapts to the inherent limitations on human
speech production and listening, as well as any expressed preferences of
the judge in the round.
 
13.  EXPIRATION OF TIME--Debaters should cease speaking when the time
expires. The debater's idea which is being presented when time expires
may be finished but no new statements may be initiated after the time
expires.
 
14.  RESPONSIBILITIES OF JUDGES--Judges should listen conscientiously
and in a manner designed to promote recognition and recall of positions
advanced in speeches and question periods. Judges are encouraged to
provide verbal and nonverbal feedback to encourage comprehensibility and
to discourage violating the rules of debate. Further, judges will
attempt to avoid verbal and nonverbal feedback which degrades,
humiliates or otherwise belittles the efforts of the debater speaking.
Judges should listen to all proofs offered by debaters and render a
decision based on the clash in the debate, uninfluenced by the judge's
preconceptions about the proposition or the type of proof called for in
a given situation. Oral critiques by judges are encouraged for all
rounds so long as the critique does not delay teams or the judge from
getting to the next scheduled round before the forfeit time. Judges
should refrain from long critiques when debaters need to get off campus
to eat during meal breaks. Judges must render a decision in which one of
the teams participating in the debate is declared the winner.
 
15.  DEBATE DECISIONS--Judges choosing to reveal decisions will do so to
both teams involved in the debate. Judges must write a critique for each
preliminary round debate they are assigned to judge. Written critiques
for preliminary rounds should be turned in to the tabulation room so
that they can be distributed to competing teams no later than the start
of the second elimination round. A school's packet of ballots and
results sheets will not be released by the tab room if any judge from
that school or hired by that school has not turned in a completed ballot
for any preliminary round in which they judged. Judges hired by the
tournament will not be paid until they have turned in a completed ballot
for any preliminary round judged. Writing a statement such as 'oral
critique given' on the ballot does not satisfy the expectation that
judges should write a critique for each preliminary round they are
assigned to judge. Written critiques presenting a judge's reasons for
decision in elimination rounds are optional and completed at the judge's
discretion. If completed they should be turned in so that they can be
distributed no later than the conclusion of the tournament. If the judge
elects not to write an elimination round critique, he/she should discuss
the debate and the rationale for the decision made with both teams
involved in the debate.
 
16.  ANNOUNCEMENT OF ELIMINATION ROUND DECISIONS AT ADA TOURNAMENTS --
At ADA tournaments, the Tournament Director shall designate a Chair for
all elimination round panels except for the final round in each
division. Judges shall submit their ballots to the designated Chair.
After all judges have voted and the original ballots have been returned
to the Tournament Director or his/her designated representative, the
Chair shall announce the decision of the judges in the room in which the
debate was held. Decisions in the final round of each division shall be
announced by the Tournament Director or his/her designee at a time and
place designated by the Director.
 
 

II. RULES GOVERNING THE ADMINISTRATION OF TOURNAMENTS
 
1.    COMPLIANCE WITH THE A.F.A. CODE--Tournament Directors agree to
abide by the American Forensic Association Code of Forensics Program and
Forensics Tournament Standards for Colleges and Universities, Article
III (Tournament Practices).
 
2.    TOURNAMENT SANCTIONING -- For a tournament to be sanctioned by the
ADA and to count for ADA Sweepstakes points, the tournament director
must submit a request to be sanctioned to the President of the ADA by
August 1 before the season of competition for which that tournament
wishes to be sanctioned. That tournament director agrees in submitting
such a request to announce in the tournament invitation that the
tournament will be conducted in accordance with the American Debate
Association rules, to enforce the ADA rules as the tournament director,
and to submit tournament results to the Vice-President for Records
within two weeks after the conclusion of the tournament. The President
of the ADA in consultation with the ADA Executive Committee will approve
a tournament's request by August 15 before the season of competition for
which a tournament is seeking sanctioning. Tournaments that have been
previously sanctioned, will remain sanctioned as long as they meet the
above criteria, but do not need to submit a request to the President of
the ADA. Tournament directors should make their request to the President
of the ADA in written form or via e-mail. The ADA National Tournament is
automatically sanctioned. Under special circumstances, the Executive
Committee can vote to sanction a tournament after the August 15th
deadline.
 
3.    JUDGING
 
A.    Eligibility. To be eligible to judge in an ADA tournament a person
must either: 1) have attained a baccalaureate degree or 2) have no
remaining intercollegiate debate eligibility and be enrolled in their
last year of undergraduate studies. Tournament Directors may make
individual exceptions to this rule in the case of persons who are
enrolled in their last two semesters of undergraduate study and who are
no longer competing in intercollegiate debate. Undergraduate students
are eligible to judge for a maximum of two semesters. Any person who
judges at an ADA tournament forfeits the right to compete in any ADA
tournament thereafter. Exceptions to this rule based on emergencies or
tournaments of special character may be made by the director, in
consultation with available members of the ADA Executive Committee, in
such circumstances to enable the tournament to continue.
 
B.    Assignment. Judges will be assigned to debate rounds by using one
of three methods of judge placement decided by the tournament director
and announced before the first preliminary round of the tournament. If
the tournament offers multiple divisions, the same method of judge
placement must be used in each division. Method one is to assign judges
randomly with judges being placed within the criteria described below.
Additionally, in random placement, judges may not preclude themselves
from judging any division of debate, unless they are judges who are in
their first or second year of judging or they have judged fewer than
fifty debates during the past three years, in which case, they may
restrict themselves to judging in the novice and junior varsity
divisions. Method two is random after an appropriate number of team
preclusions (determined by the tournament director) have been offered to
each participating team during the registration period (each team could
strike judges from hearing them). Method three is to assign judges by a
mutual preference system beginning in at least the third preliminary
round of debate. Judges will be assigned to the first two preliminary
rounds using a random placement system. The mutual preference system may
employ a rating system for judges and may be combined with judge
preclusions. When using a random system of placement, judges may not be
subjectively evaluated by the tournament director or the tournament
participants for placement in random rounds of debate (including the
first two preliminary rounds for method three, mutual preference).
Judges may never be subjectively evaluated by tournament directors for
preclusion from teams or divisions, for mutual preference or for judge
placement. Tournament directors should announce in their invitations the
method they intend to use. The ADA National Championship Tournament will
use method three of judge placement. The following criteria should be
observed in placing judges in debates: 
 
1. A judge should not judge his/her own teams;
 
2. A judge will not judge a team if he/she debated at that school within
the last four years, coached at the school within the last two years, or
coached either of the debaters on the team;
 
3. Judges may request for good reasons that they not judge a particular
team;
 
4. Judges should not judge the same team twice in prelims, unless it is
mathematically unavoidable. If this rule cannot be upheld, a judge
should hear the same team a second time on the opposite side of the
proposition and he/she should hear the team a second time only in one of
the last two prelim rounds;
 
5. Judges will be assigned to debates in accordance with some
predetermined, mathematical order. In instances where mutual preference
judging is not used, a judge will hear the first debate
he/she is eligible to hear;
 
6. Judges may not preclude themselves from judging any division of
debate, unless they are judges who are in their first or second year of
judging or they have judged fewer than fifty debates during the past
three years, in which case, they may restrict themselves to judging in
the novice and junior varsity divisions. Emergency eligibility
exceptions to this rule can be made by the tournament director in
consultation with the ADA Executive Committee.
 
7. If a judge competed in the same academic year they are judging, they
may only judge in divisions of lesser debate experience than those they
competed in during that year. If the tournament cannot proceed due to
lack of judges, this rule may be suspended.

C. Philosophies. Judges should make judge philosophies available either 
electronically or should submit them to the tournament host in written
form at all of the tournaments they judge. The judge philosophies are
required for the ADA National Tournament, and must be to submitted to
the host one week in advance of the tournament. A copy of these judge
philosophies will be made available at registration of the American
Debate Association National Tournament. Judges who fail to comply at the
ADA National Tournament will be ineligible to judge and the schools they
represent will be fined $50 plus $25 per committed round.
 
4.    SECRECY--The tournament staff will keep results secret from
tournament participants until the end of the preliminary round.
Tournament staff will not disclose round pairings to debaters or coaches
or judges prior to the public announcement of those pairings.
 
5.    FORFEITURE--A fifteen minute forfeiture rule will be in effect.
Beginning with the announced starting time for a round of debate, teams
and judges will have a fifteen minute 'grace' period. A team which is
not ready to begin debating after the fifteen minutes have expired will
be declared to have lost the debate. A judge who is not prepared to
start judging at the end of the grace period will cause his/her best
team in the tournament at that point to receive a loss for the round the
judge failed to be ready to judge. Hired judges will forfeit all pay for
the tournament if they fail to meet a judging obligation and if they
cannot be replaced by a substitute judge.
 
 
6.    SWING TEAMS--Tournament hosts should enter a swing team (or teams)
to divisions of debate so that the division will have an even number of
competing teams, thereby eliminating the need for bye rounds. Tournament
hosts who cannot supply swing teams of their own shall try to recruit
swing teams from other schools. Tournament hosts will not enter their
own teams in a division of debate if that entry has the effect of
creating an uneven number of teams in a division. Bye rounds shall occur
only as a last resort. This rule does not apply to the ADA National
tournament.
 
7.    TOURNAMENT PROFIT-- Tournament directors should ensure that their
tournament is not run to benefit financially the host school. An
anticipated profit in excess of 10% of total entry fees is considered
excessive.
 
8.   NOVICE DEBATE
 
A. TEACH-IN -- Tournaments should strive to provide at least one round
of "teaching sessions" for novices where novice debaters meet with
judges and coaches during the time allotted for the debate (2 hours or
two 50 minute sessions). These teaching sessions could focus on any
number of topics and could involve small or large groups.
 
B. EARLY MOVES - Novice teams progressing to junior varsity or varsity
during their first year and not returning to novice (at any tournament
after the move up) should be recognized at ADA Nationals. The school of
each debater that moves up and competes in at least three additional
non-novice tournaments including ADA Nationals should be awarded 5
points in the Grand Sweepstakes. It is the responsibility of the
director of each individual program to notify the Vice President of
Records of the progression
 
III. RULES GOVERNING DEBATER ELIGIBILITY
 
1.    DEBATER ELIGIBILITY -- To participate in the ADA National
Championship Tournament a debater must be an undergraduate student who
is regularly enrolled and in good standing at the institution for which
s/he is competing at the tournament. Any student in compliance with the
AFA standards is eligible for competition for the ADA National
Tournament. Students may attend a maximum of four ADA Nationals. A
student who has debated at any intercollegiate debate tournament in more
than ten semesters is ineligible to attend ADA Nationals.
 
2.    TRANSFER STUDENTS-- Students transferring from one four year
college debate program to another will be eligible for competition
unless the transfer violates the rules specified in the AFA Code of
Forensics Program and Forensics Tournament Standards. If a transfer
student is held to have violated those provisions, he/she will be
ineligible for competition in ADA until the academic year following the
transfer.
 
3.    PIRACY-- Coaches agree to refrain from acts of piracy, meaning
that they will voluntarily avoid attempts to lure debaters away from
active four-year college debate programs and into their own. 
 
4.    ELIGIBILITY FOR DEBATE DIVISIONS-- Tournaments will define
eligibility for particular divisions of debate in the following ways:
A. Varsity Debate--open to all students;
 
B. Junior Varsity Debate
 
1.    open only to students who are competing in their first two
academic years of intercollegiate debate beyond the novice level. 
2.    Progression during the year. Debaters competing in JV must
progress to open or varsity debate: 
a.    if they advance to the final round of three JV, open, or varsity
tournaments (no matter where) in which there are 20 or more teams in the
division, or 
b.    if they qualify to attend the National Debate Tournament
3.     ADA Nationals. The aforementioned progression requirement based
on advancing to the final rounds of three junior varsity, open, or
varsity tournaments does not apply to ADA Nationals and Round Robins. 
 
C.   Novice Debate--This division is designed for debaters who are truly
in their first year of competitive
     debate or who have so little previous experience that they are
functionally first-year debaters.
 
1.     Eligibility. This division is open to debaters who: 
a.    have no more than a combined total of 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas
and policy debate prior to the current academic year of which no more
than 18 rounds can be policy debate.
b.    have competed in the novice division in a previous year but have
not advanced into the elimination rounds at two tournaments.
 
2.    Forced progression into the JV division in the middle of the
academic year does not count against the two years of JV eligibility ADA
Nationals. The aforementioned progression requirement based on advancing
to the final rounds of three novice, junior varsity, open, or varsity
tournaments does not apply to ADA Nationals or Round Robins for which
participants are invited based on the current year's record of
competition.
 
D.    Any program director seeking an exemption from the above standards
shall submit a request to the Vice President who, in conjunction with
the Executive Committee or subcommittee thereof, shall rule upon it.
Appeals, once granted, may be revoked based on tournament performance.
 
5.    ADA Nationals. For the purposes of the ADA National tournament
only, a debate team is defined as the two-person team that begins the
first rounds of the tournament and who debate together throughout the
course of the tournament. Hybrids may debate together at the ADA
National Tournament, but they may not clear to elimination rounds.   If
one of the debaters of a team cannot debate in any given round, that
round will be forfeited. Teams that forfeit rounds will be given average
speaker points, but are ineligible to clear to elimination rounds if
speaker points are the determining factor for their clearing. Debaters
who forfeit rounds are ineligible for speaker awards
 

6.      Debate Teams at ADA Tournaments. For the purposes of ADA
tournaments, a debate team is defined as the two-person team that begins
the first round of the tournament and who debate together throughout the
course of the tournament. Hybrid teams are allowed at the discretion of
the tournament director, and are allowed to clear to elimination rounds
at the discretion of the tournament director. A tournament's policy on
hybrid teams must be indicated in the tournament invitation. If one of
the debaters of a team cannot debate in any given round, that round will
be forfeited. Speaker points in forfeit situations will be averaged, but
the team forfeiting is ineligible to clear to elimination rounds if
speaker points are the determining factor for their clearing. The debate
may still occur for educational purposes. However, that team will still
be eligible for speaker awards and elimination rounds.
 
 
IV. RULES GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF COACHES, PROGRAM DIRECTORS AND
JUDGES.
Coaches and Program Directors should treat one another and debaters
(whether from their school or other institutions) with civility,
generosity, respect and kindness during ADA sanctioned debate
tournaments. This, at a minimum, means refraining from the use of
hostile or abusive speech, acts of intimidation, or threats or acts of
physical violence.
 
V.          ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
 
1.    VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE I BY DEBATERS--Unless otherwise specified,
violations of rules in Article I will be penalized by the judge either
disregarding arguments which do not meet the standards established,
diminishing the speaker points for debaters violating the rules in
Article I, or in extreme cases (to be determined by the judge) awarding
a loss to the team which has violated these rules.
 
2.    VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE I BY JUDGES/COACHES-Unless otherwise
specified, a coach/judge held in violation of the ADA rules in Article I
will be penalized after investigation by an ad hoc group commissioned by
the ADA President. If the complaint is judged to be substantial, the
offending coach/judge may either receive a letter of reprimand (with
copies sent to appropriate school officials) or be barred from judging
at ADA tournaments. Judges who are in violation of rule I.14 of ADA
rules may be removed from the judge pool by the tournament director.
Judges who are removed from the tournament are responsible for
compensating the tournament for judging fees or removal of an
appropriate number of their teams.
 
3.    VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE II--Unless otherwise specified, violations
of Article II provisions will result in penalties imposed on the school
which hosted the tournaments. If a complaint is raised, the president of
the American Debate Association will appoint an ad hoc group to
investigate and rule on the complaint. If the complaint is judged to be
substantial, the following penalties will be imposed:
 
a.     The host school (if a member of ADA) will forfeit its best
tournament results for sweepstakes purposes;
 
b.     The host school will receive a letter of reprimand from the ADA
President, with copies sent to  appropriate school officials;
 
c.       The host school will be prevented from participation in ADA
tournaments in subsequent years.
 
4.    VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE III--Unless otherwise specified, schools
which compete in ADA events with ineligible students will forfeit any
points earned by those students at the tournaments in which those
students were ineligible. Any school which incurs two infractions
involving the use of ineligible students in the same academic year will
be barred from further competition in ADA.
 
5.    VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE IV-Unless otherwise specified, a coach,
program director or judge held in violation of the ADA rules in Article
IV will be penalized after investigation by an ad hoc group commissioned
by the ADA President. If the complaint is judged to be substantial, the
punishment may include a letter of reprimand or being barred from
attending or judging at ADA tournaments or the loss of all ADA points
accumulated at the tournament at which the infraction occurred.
 
6.    DUE PROCESS--Schools or persons charged with violations of ADA
rules will be informed of any charges against them. These persons will
have the right to present their 'case' to the ADA President or the ad
hoc investigative group. Any decisions made may be appealed to the
President, who will call an appeals board to review the appeal. This
board will be made up of persons not on the ad hoc investigative group.
Any special groups or boards convened will be made up of three to five
persons who are subscribers to the ADA.
 
 
VI. RULES GOVERNING SWEEPSTAKES COMPETITION
 
1.    Only ADA member schools who have paid the annual patron membership
dues prior to the start of the opening round of ADA Nationals (or
whatever tournament concludes the ADA season) are eligible to win
sweepstakes awards, or participation at the National Tournament. 
 
2.     A school's best eight records in a given division count; however,
no more than two of these records may be compiled at a single
tournament.
 
3.    1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place awards will be presented in
varsity, junior varsity, and novice divisions. The 'Grand Sweepstakes'
category, where points from the other three divisions are added
together, will also feature 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place awards.
There will finally be an appropriate number of "Newcomer" awards,
presented to the highest-ranked new or re-newed (after at least a
five-year absence) program/s in the "Grand Sweepstakes" category.
 
4.   Teams earn points as follows:
 
Undefeated 10 points
 
7-1 8 points
 
6-2 or 5-1 7 points
 
5-3 or 4-2 6 points
 
4-4 or 3-3 5 points
 
3-5 or 2-4 4 points
 
2-6 or 1-5 3 points
                        
1-7 2 points
                        
0-8 or 0-6 1 point
 
Missing Elims on Points 1 point
 
Clearing to Elims 3 points
 
Each Elim round win 3 points
 
1st Speaker 3 points
 
2nd Speaker 2 points
 
3rd -10th Speakers 1 point
 
5.  A school hosting a tournament cannot earn any points at that
tournament. 
 
6.  Speaker awards are awarded with the following restrictions:
 
20 or fewer debaters in a division--Speakers 1-3;
 
22-30 debaters in a division--Speakers 1-5;
            
31 or more debaters in a division--Speakers 1-10

7.      The first elimination round held in any division of debate shall
include no more than or less than half of the teams competing in the
preliminary rounds of debate in that division. In divisions with an odd
number of teams entered, the number of teams clearing will be rounded
down to the next whole number. A tournament may depart from the
provision under only 3 circumstances: a) building space is unavailable
to hold the required number of elim round debates on the final day of
the tournament; or b) the announced prelim round tournament schedule
would have to be altered to accommodate the required number of elim
rounds. Results of all elim round debates will count toward sweepstakes
points unless the elim bracket contained more than half of the teams
competing in the preliminary rounds. 
 
If an ADA tournament 'breaks' to a partial elim round bracket, the
partial bracket should involve the maximum number of teams eligible to
break (with the exception of a double-octo-final bracket or beyond).
Prior to the start of the first debate, the tournament director must
announce the size of the first elim round bracket for each division.
Once announced, the elim round bracket decisions are final. 
 
Novices who are the higher seed must advance over other teammates unless
the team advancing is in their final semester of debate.
 
8.      If a tournament director chooses to collapse two or more
divisions into one in the preliminary rounds, only one set of
elimination rounds shall count for points for that combined division. In
the case of combining varsity and junior varsity, points shall be
awarded in varsity. In the case of combining junior varsity and novice
division, points will be awarded in junior varsity.
 
9.      Ties in the sweepstakes competition will not be broken.
 
10. A school's record earned at the ADA National Tournament will be
multiplied by 1.5 for purposes of calculating sweepstakes points.
 
 
 
 
**************************************************
Dr. Kevin Douglas Kuswa
Director of Debate, Dept. of Rhetoric & Comm. Studies
400-A Weinstein Hall
(U)
University of Richmond, VA 23173                           Spide(R)bate
(804) 289-8269

http://debate.richmond.edu <http://debate.richmond.edu/> 

 

**************************************************
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080422/ff8aeeb4/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list