From rrach Tue Jul 1 02:21:03 2008 From: rrach (rrach at juno.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:21:03 GMT Subject: [eDebate] paging steve clemmons Message-ID: <20080701.022103.16118.7@webmail14.vgs.untd.com> please backchannel. Russell Rach ____________________________________________________________ Beauty Product Reviews Read Unbiased Beauty Product Reviews and Join Our Product Review Team! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/JKFkuJi7UvsTvsZBTQCEhgrp9cdEACkSmW4fjmeIINXEWWl5F2PIRy/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080701/22617468/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson Wed Jul 2 13:05:51 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 11:05:51 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Las Vegas Classic Round Robin and Invitational Tournament Invitation Message-ID: Hi all... I am pasting and attaching the invite for the 2008 Las Vegas Classic Round Robin and Invitational Tournament. Once again we will try to host the most hospitable and enjoyable college debate tournament in America. We are excited to see all of our friends in Las Vegas again this October. Dear Colleagues: The Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas is proud to host the second annual Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament. In 2007, 88 teams in 3 divisions competed at the Las Vegas Classic; this year we expect to surpass 100 teams. As always, we promise to provide classic Vegas hospitality and excellent competition. This year, we are very excited to announce four important improvements to our tournament! 1) The creation of the 8 team, 7 round Las Vegas Round Robin Tournament, with NO ENTRY FEES, which promises to employ an OPEN AND TRANSPARENT APPLICATION PROCESS. The round robin tournament will precede our regular-season tournament with rounds occurring on Wednesday October 1 and Thursday October 2, 2008. 2) A new tournament hotel with FREE WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS THROUGHOUT. In addition, this is the closest possible hotel to the UNLV campus (just across the street). If you wish to save money and not rent a car, you can easily walk to the campus each morning. 3) Tournament rounds will only occur in rooms on campus with FREE WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS. 4) Following the tournament (on Tuesday) we will host an afternoon Argumentation and Debate conference, to which students, coaches, and directors are welcome to submit papers, abstracts, panel discussion proposals, etc. I will work with the CEDA leadership to ensure that this is a strong professional development opportunity. Once again we are happy to welcome all of our friends to beautiful and exciting Las Vegas! Jacob Thompson Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Joe Battocletti, Ian Beier, Justin Eckstein, and Grace Saez Assistant Debate Coaches For additional information, please contact Jake at jacob.thompson at unlv.edu (office) 702-895-3474 (cell) 702-809-9670 ENTRY INFORMATION: General Information: We will use debateresults for tournament entries and judge preferences. The invitational tournament will offer varsity, junior varsity, and novice divisions in policy debate. Given any viability for a novice-only division, we will not collapse the novice and JV divisions. We will compile an exhaustive list of each school's affirmative and negative arguments, and distribute a printed or electronic copy of the case list to each school attending the tournament. Jeff Jarman will run the tab room for the tournament. We will use the NDT/CEDA policy topic. The time limits will be 9-3-6, with 10 minutes of preparation time per team. The round robin tournament will accept eight teams and there will be seven rounds of competition. We will have an eighth round runoff if it is necessary to break a tie. The invitational tournament will have seven preliminary rounds; four prelims will occur on Saturday and three will occur on Sunday. The first elimination debate also will occur on Sunday night. Rounds 1 and 2 will be preset, 3 and 4 will be paired off 1 and 2. All remaining rounds will be straight power matched. Deadline: The entry deadline to enter the invitational tournament is Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. In order to ensure that teams have adequate time to make travel arrangements, the deadline to apply for admission to the round robin tournament is Sunday August 24, 2008. We will notify the community of those teams admitted to the tournament by Wednesday August 27, 2008. Fees: Entry fees for the invitational tournament will be $125.00 per team. We will charge NO ENTRY FEES for the round robin tournament, as long as the team agrees to stay and participate at the invitational tournament. Round robin teams who do not wish to participate in the invitational tournament will be assessed a $200.00 entry fee. HOTEL INFORMATION: We have a new tournament hotel with incredibly nice accommodations and FREE WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS THROUGHOUT. The tournament hotel will be the Hyatt Place located at 4520 Paradise Road, Las Vegas, NV 89169. It is important to the viability of our tournament that you make reservations at the tournament hotel, so PLEASE MAKE YOUR HOTEL RESERVATIONS AT THE TOURNAMENT HOTEL!!! It is the closest hotel in Las Vegas to the UNLV campus, and it is an bargain during peak tourism season in Las Vegas. The tournament rate is $89 per night Tuesday through Thursday night (for the round robin) and a mere $109 per night Friday through Sunday (for the invitational tournament). Registration for the round robin and regular debate tournament and release of debate pairings each morning will all occur at the Hyatt Place. The cutoff date for block-rate reservations is September 20, 2008, so make your reservations early. To book your room online at a special group rate go to: 1. www.lasvegas.place.hyatt.com 2. Choose your check-in date and check-out date. Your arrival and departure dates must be between the group dates of September 30, 2008 and October 5, 2008. 3. Enter group code G-DEBA for the UNLV Debate group rate in the box labeled Group/Corporate #. 4. You then hit the check availability button. 5. From here verify that your group name is specified next to rate details and if everything matches then hit book. ** If you would prefer to book by phone please call 702-369-3366 or 1-888-444-0611 just ask for the UNLV Debate block rate or mention group code G-DEBA. The Hyatt Place has a FREE hotel shuttle that will take you to and from McCarran International Airport. Given that the Hyatt Place is adjacent to the campus (it?s only a five minute walk to the buildings you will compete in), you may choose to forego a rental car at our tournament. However, at this time we cannot provide an evidence shuttle to and from the tournament hotel. The Hyatt Place shuttle runs from 5 am until midnight. It leaves for the airport once every hour arriving at approximately 15 minutes past the hour. To have the shuttle pick you up, please notify the hotel when you are making reservations and call the hotel directly (702-369-3366) or call them from the free phone on the ?phone board near luggage carousel 9. OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Judging: Each school is expected to provide qualified judges to accompany their teams. Every judge entered must have a judging philosophy posted on debateresults. If we believe that a judge representing your team proves him or herself to be unqualified, we may ask another judge from your school to increase their judging commitment to compensate the tournament for lost rounds. Each team participating in the round robin tournament is expected to provide five rounds of judging (we?ll most likely only use four, but just in case?). We will (to the best of our ability) use judge preferences to place round robin judges. Each team participating in the invitational tournament is expected to provide four rounds of judging. All judges are committed through the first elimination debate on Monday, or one round beyond which their team is eliminated. Judges should be able to cover a school's commitment despite potential constraints. We can not provide hired judging. If you have extra judges available from your school, please let us know?we will almost certainly be able to point them toward some school that needs hired judging. We will use judge preferences for preliminary and elimination debate rounds. Preferences will be available on the Bruschke system. All judges at the tournament are expected to render a decision where they indicate one, and only one, team that won the round (did the better job of debating). Judges' ballots not adhering to this principle will be "corrected" by the tab room through use of a coin flip. Elimination rounds: Given an adequate number of teams, and available judging for the first and second elimination debates, we will clear up to half of the field (although not more than 32 teams) in the varsity division, as long as those teams have (at least) a .500 record. We will not break brackets in elimination rounds. Awards: Our awards will be awesome! They will include large poker chip sets for the finalists and champions in all three divisions; additional awards will include silver flasks, gigantic Las Vegas belt buckles, and other classic Vegas accoutrements. Hybrid Teams: We believe in maximizing the competitive opportunities for eligible students. Thus, we will accept hybrid teams at the invitational tournament. If two schools each have an extra debater, we would allow a combined team from two institutions to compete in the preliminary rounds of the tournament, and would allow those individuals to be eligible to receive speaker awards. Hybrid teams will not be allowed to advance to elimination debates at the invitational tournament, and hybrid teams will not be allowed to apply for admission to the round robin tournament. Transportation Information: Fly in to the McCarran International Airport (LAS). Every major air-carrier has regular flights into and out of McCarran. McCarran is a hub for both Southwest Airlines and Allegiant Air?check these carriers? websites (www.allegiantair.com) for incredibly cheap flights. Parking: Parking at the tournament hotel is free as is parking at UNLV on the weekend. The tournament will purchase 1-day temporary parking passes for all participants on Monday October 6. In order to receive a free parking pass for Monday you will need to send an email to battocle at unlv.nevada.edu with a subject line ?UNLV Debate Tournament Parking,? and indicate the number of permits that your team needs. These requests must be received no later than noon (CST) on Monday October 1, 2007. Please try to minimize the number of permits that you request as we are paying for them. Round Robin Application Procedure: We are hosting an open and transparent application-based round robin tournament. The decision-making process that determines which teams are admitted to this tournament will be impartial and based on a mathematic formula. Round robin debate tournaments are a unique and proven forum for high quality debate competition. Existing invitational round robin debate tournaments are, without a doubt, some of the most prestigious tournaments in America. Unfortunately, invitational round robin tournaments sometimes leave out deserving or qualified teams, and they sometimes include teams that do not deserve the invitation. We believe that a round robin debate tournament with a transparent application process and an impartial admission process will make for better and more credible NDT first and second round applications. Our goal is to have the best debate teams in America apply for our round robin tournament and be admitted based on their merit. To achieve that goal we already have sought input from many members of the debate community to refine the application process. Given that this is the first year of our round robin tournament, we believe that the application criteria could become more refined and precise in the future. That being said, we also believe that we the initial application process that we are developing is very good and will help us to select/invite the best possible teams that apply. The application process for the 2008 Las Vegas Round Robin Debate Tournament will be available online at debateresults.com by the end of July. Dr. Jon Bruschke will set up debateresults to accept applications, and to allow anyone to view those applications by the end of July. The delay in posting the application criteria is to allow Jon to write the programming for the application and to allow us to run simulations to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. Remember, the deadline to apply for admission to the round robin tournament is August 24, 2008. We will notify the community of those teams admitted to the tournament by August 27, 2008. Briefly, the application process will operate in the following way: 1. Debaters apply and earn points based on their performance and rankings last year 2. The formula is set up to accept any of the following: a team of two debaters who debated together last year, a team of two debaters who were on the same squad but debated with different partners last year, or a team that includes one or two freshpersons. 3. Any ties for the eighth place application will be broken using Bruschke?s RPI system. We will accept the top 8 point-earning teams to our round robin tournament. Tournament Schedule: Tuesday September 30, 2008 7 p.m.-9 p.m. Las Vegas Classic Round Robin tournament registration (at Hyatt Place) Wednesday October 1, 2008 10:00 a.m. Round 1 12:30 p.m. lunch (at Hyatt Place provided by tournament) 1:30 p.m. Round 2 4:00 p.m. Round 3 6:30 p.m. Round 4 Thursday October 2, 2008 10:00 a.m. Round 5 12:30 p.m. Lunch (at Hyatt Place provided by tournament) 1:30 p.m. Round 6 4:00 p.m. Round 7 Friday, October 3, 2008 7 p.m.-9 p.m. Las Vegas Classic Invitational tournament registration (at Hyatt Place) Saturday, October 4, 2008 8:00 a.m. Pairings Released, Rounds 1 & 2, Hyatt Place 8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast, UNLV Campus 9:00 a.m. Round 1 Required Starting Time 11:30 a.m. Round 2 Required Starting Time 1:30 p.m. Lunch 3:00 p.m. Round 3 Required Starting Time 5:45 p.m. Round 4 Required Starting Time, All Round 3 ballots should be in Sunday, October 5, 2008 8:00 a.m. Pairings Released, Round 5, Hyatt Place 8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast, UNLV Campus 9:00 a.m. Round 5 Required Starting time 11:00 a.m. a bevy of delicious snacks will be available?lunch following round 6 12:00 Noon Round 6 Required Starting time 2:00 p.m. Lunch 3:00 p.m. Round 7 Required Starting Time 6:00 p.m. 1st Elimination Round Required Starting Time (both open and junior varsity) Monday, October 6, 2008?Elimination Rounds in the UNLV Student Union 8:00 a.m. Pairings Released, Alexis Park Hotel Resort 9:00 a.m. Second Elimination Round Required Starting Time 11:30 a.m. Awards Assembly 12:30 Third Elimination Round Required Starting Time 3:00 p.m. Fourth Elimination Round Required Starting Time 6:00 p.m. Fifth Elimination Round Required Starting Time In case you missed them before?here are our top 11 reasons to consider coming to the Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament. 1) IT?S IN LAS VEGAS?This point requires no further explanation. 2) HIGH QUALITY COMPETITION?Last year our tournament hosted 88 teams with 55 in the open division. This year we expect that we will have over 100 teams competing. The Round Robin tournament will definitely add a deeper element of competition. We already have early commitments from dozens of schools?all of D9, the bulk of the west, and several schools in the Midwest (D3 and D4). We?re working on other folks? 3) LOW COST?You can find incredibly cheap flights to Vegas (especially on Southwest and Allegiant Air, but also on all other major carriers). In addition, we?re charging ABSOLUTELY NO ENTRY FEE for our round robin tournament. 4) HOSPITALITY THAT IS OFF THE HOOK!?Seriously?we?re going ALL IN on the hospitality front. Our goal is to convince you that this is and will continue to be the most hospitable tournament in the nation. We have a professional massage therapist giving free massages. We will serve serious breakfasts and lunches on both Saturday and Sunday. We will provide a TON of snacks throughout all 3 days of competition. We also will hire Elvis Presley (or perhaps an impersonator if The King is unavailable) to entertain the tournament (this year entertainment will occur at the awards assembly on Monday). This year we will again try to set up a private poker tournament on Monday evening at the Monte Carlo Casino (professional dealers, cool poker room setting, one of Jake?s favorite places to play). Finally, we WERE going to plan a big post-tournament party for Monday, but then we realized there is already a party going on....it's Vegas. 5) COMPS?One hallmark of classic Vegas is the comps system (basically, ?you come here, we give you free stuff?), we are going to give you a TON of free Vegas-related schwag. 6) CENTRALIZED LOCATION?The airport, campus, and tournament hotel are all within 5 minutes of one another (they all also are 5 minutes from the Las Vegas strip). Almost all of our debates will take place 2 buildings in the center of campus just a 1 minute walk to our brand new student union (with 5 good restaurants, a Starbucks, and a Jamba Juice) 7) FREE WIRELESS?In the hotel and at the tournament. 8) AWESOME TROPHIES?Although most of what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, public evidence of your success at our tournament will be both gaudy and fashionable as we will be awarding the winners and finalists in all 3 divisions very nice poker chip sets. Other classic Vegas accoutrements like dice sets, stainless steel flasks, and gigantic belt buckles, etc will round out the trophy selections. 9) SUPPORT A NEW PROGRAM?Despite recent lamentations about the decline of NDT/CEDA debate, we just started, and we?re here to stay. All of those who purport to support new and/or beginning debate teams should come to our tournament to evince a public display of that support. 10) SUPPORT ALL 3 DIVISIONS OF DEBATE?We will offer all 3 divisions of competition (N, JV, V)? We expect that the novice and JV divisions will stay viable and distinct from one another. All of you who purport to support novice and JV competition should pony up. 11) IT?S IN LAS VEGAS?Seriously?your school will pay for you to take a trip to America's ultimate vacation destination. How can you say no? Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080702/2874bcc8/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Vegas Classic and Round Robin invite 2008.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 55296 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080702/2874bcc8/attachment.obj From Jacob.Thompson Wed Jul 2 14:44:15 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:44:15 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UPDATE! Las Vegas Round Robin Application Message-ID: The Application "form" for the Las Vegas Classic Round Robin Tournament is now active on debateresults. We are still in the process of refining/programming/testing the mathematical formula for selecting the best applicants, BUT that should NOT stop you from applying now!!! The more early interest and applicants that we have, the better the competition will be at our round robin, so please apply as soon as you can. Applying for our round robin for the tournament is simple: 1) go to www.debateresults.com, log in, and select the "Vegas RR" link at the bottom of the "Tournament Participants" box 2) On the round robin application page, select the "Apply to the Vegas RR" link 3) Enter your team according to the directions at the top of the page. Please note that you may apply a team that already has debated together by selecting them from the droppdown menu in the first row, or you may apply a team that has not debated together in the past by selecting the individual debaters names from the dropdown menu in the second row (if you choose the latter option, please do not forget to click the "create record" button). 4) Once you have added your team to the application page, simply click the "create application" button and you are done. The competitive records for all applicants (from the previous season) is available to view by clicking the "View Bid Applications" button on the main application page. In case you missed it before--here is additional information on the Las Vegas Classic Round Robin Tournament and our rationale for using an application procedure: 1. There is NO entry fee for the round robin tournament as long as the team applying stays to compete at our invitational tournament. 2. We will accept the top 8 point-earning teams to our round robin tournament. 3. Registration for the round robin will occur on Tuesday September 30, from 7-9 pm in the tournament hotel (The Hyatt Place--for more information see the official tournament invitation). 4. There will be 7 rounds of round robin competition, four rounds will take place on Wednesday Oct.1 and three rounds will take place on Thursday Oct 2. We will have a run-off debate after round 7 in the event of a tie. 5. All rounds for the round robin will take place in the tournament hotel 6. We will provide hearty continental breakfasts and catered lunches for round robin teams on Wednesday and Thursday Round Robin Application Procedure: We are hosting an open and transparent application-based round robin tournament. The decision-making process that determines which teams are admitted to this tournament will be impartial and based on a mathematic formula. Round robin debate tournaments are a unique and proven forum for high quality debate competition. Existing invitational round robin debate tournaments are, without a doubt, some of the most prestigious tournaments in America. Unfortunately, invitational round robin tournaments sometimes leave out deserving or qualified teams, and they sometimes include teams that do not deserve the invitation. We believe that a round robin debate tournament with a transparent application process and an impartial admission process will make for better and more credible NDT first and second round applications. Our goal is to have the best debate teams in America apply for our round robin tournament and be admitted based on their merit. To achieve that goal we already have sought input from many members of the debate community to refine the application process. Given that this is the first year of our round robin tournament, we believe that the application criteria could become more refined and precise in the future. That being said, we also believe that we the initial application process that we are developing is very good and will help us to select/invite the best possible teams that apply. The application process for the 2008 Las Vegas Round Robin Debate Tournament is available online at debateresults.com NOW, thanks to Dr. Jon Bruschke. Debateresults is now set up to accept applications, and to allow anyone to view those applications. We will not be able to post the mathematical formula that will decide who is invited until the end of July. This small delay will allow Jon to write the programming for the decision criteria and will allow us to run simulations to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. Remember, the deadline to apply for admission to the round robin tournament is August 24, 2008. We will notify the community of those teams admitted to the tournament by August 27, 2008. Briefly, the application process will operate in the following way: 1. Debaters apply and earn points based on their performance and rankings last year 2. The formula is set up to accept any of the following: a team of two debaters who debated together last year, a team of two debaters who were on the same squad but debated with different partners last year, or a team that includes one or two freshpersons. 3. Any ties for the eighth place application will be broken using Bruschke?s RPI system. Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080702/4b44ecf7/attachment.htm From regedebate Wed Jul 2 17:28:56 2008 From: regedebate (David Register) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:28:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 2008 WDI Update Message-ID: <8f08f7f30807021528x1be76df4m63205ab582f1f193@mail.gmail.com> WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE National College Policy Debate Workshop July 24 ? August 7, 2008 University of Vermont & State Agricultural College Dates: One Week Session: July 24 ? Aug 1, 2008 Two Week Session: July 24 ? Aug 7, 2008 The 2008 WDI is right around the corner, but it is not too late to enroll! If your institution wants to fund you, we have the potential to arrange flexible payment options to help. To sign up, visit debate.uvm.edu/wdi, or call (800) 639-3210 or (802) 656-2085. I leave for Europe tomorrow and will be there until the College Policy program begins. If you have questions about College Policy, please direct your correspondence to Sarah Green at snider.sj at gmail.com. For all other questions about the WDI, please contact Tuna at alfred.snider at uvm.edu. BEGIN ON DAY 1 The pre-camp evidence production has begun! We will complete a quality set of evidence that you will receive as soon as you arrive. This allows you to have good debates with solid evidence at the beginning of the institute, and allows us to focus on training you how to debate better. You can also get on-line as soon as you get to your room. All of the dorms are hardwired, so you do not have to set up VPN access until you want to go wireless. Just make sure to bring an Ethernet cord. If you are not bringing your own computer, you will have daily access to computer labs. ELECTIVES Each faculty member will propose a series of elective topics for lectures, and then you will have the opportunity to select the lectures you want to hear. This will allow us to cover a wide range of items to best equip you for the upcoming season. THE LIBRARY & VERMONT The University of Vermont also includes the State Agricultural College. The holdings in the UVM library reflect this, and you will find an abundance of works relevant to the topic in the Bailey-Howe stacks. Vermont leads the nation in per capita growth of organic farming, and is also the healthiest state in the union. Interested in the battle between corporate agriculture and small farmers? Vermont is one of the few places where the small farmers seem to be winning. Come to Burlington and see how a community of people who care about how their food is produced is working toward a future of sustainability. YOUR STAY All rooms are doubles, so you will have some space for yourself if you want some privacy. The campus is beautiful and all areas are easily accessible on foot, as is downtown. In addition, the College Street shuttle is a free bus service that runs between the campus and downtown. Burlington's downtown is similar to Boulder, CO or Eugene, OR. Church Street is closed to vehicle traffic, so there is a several block long pedestrian marketplace running through downtown. Here you'll find street performers, food carts, restaurants, nightclubs, and many retail stores. A walk down Church Street in the summer is always bound to produce something interesting. Burlington also features a sprawling waterfront park with amazing views of the lake, and just across town from the campus there are public sandy beaches. The campus has public basketball courts and a large green outside of the classroom buildings that is ideal for summer activities. It is rumored that there are frequent poker games in the dorms. MORE COMING Look for an update in the next couple of weeks on the details of the pre-camp evidence set! GET MORE INFORMATION Call: (800) 639-3210 or (802) 656-2085 Web: debate.uvm.edu/wdi Previous posts: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-May/075063.html , http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-May/075164.html ACADEMIC CREDIT OPTION You may enroll for academic credit; call 800-639-3210 or visit the website for more information. David Register Lecturer/Debate Coach Lawrence Debate Union Department of Theatre College of Arts & Sciences University of Vermont David.Register at uvm.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080702/8c068cb3/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu Jul 3 12:43:11 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:43:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] congratulations to Ryan and Jamie (Piechura) Cheek! Message-ID: I just wanted to congratulate Ryan and Jamie for their nuptuals, and also to thank them, and everyone else, for one of the happiest days our team and many other people from the intermountain debate community have shared in a long, long time. The ceremony was beautiful, the reception was a blast (I realize my 3-year-old daughter was the life of the party--go figure) and the evening activities were equally fun. I'm also happy to welcome Ryan to our coaching staff. Thanks to everyone for making this blessed event so wonderful. matt stannard _________________________________________________________________ Watch ?Cause Effect,? a show about real people making a real difference. Learn more. http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/MTV/?source=text_watchcause -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080703/42977ab9/attachment.htm From ajohns58 Thu Jul 3 13:24:12 2008 From: ajohns58 (Anthony M. Johnson) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 12:24:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Congrats to the new Mr. and Mrs. Ryan Cheek Message-ID: <77D8D3FD1E2C864AB73523248CD717540268350F@TELEGRAPH2.uwyo.edu> In an incredible ceremony that took place yesterday on the UW campus, Ryan Cheek and Jamie Piechura committed themselves to each other. I can only wait to see the fantastic things that these two will accomplish, as individuals and as a couple. Congrats and Good Luck! T. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080703/ad275d4c/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu Jul 3 14:59:54 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:59:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Valdosta State public speaking instructors Message-ID: Mike Eaves phoned me this morning--Valdosta State is looking for public speaking instructors. An MA is required. It sounded as if almost-being-finished-with-MA might even be negotiable. His email is meaves at valdosta.edu and he'd love to hear from you with any questions or if you are interested. mjs _________________________________________________________________ Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play chicktionary! http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_feb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080703/cb4fa362/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson Thu Jul 3 16:31:36 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:31:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Vegas Round Robin update 2 Message-ID: The Las Vegas Round Robin already has 4 applicants and one of them is the 2007-2008 CEDA National Champion Towson CL!!! Ed Lee also has assured me that one of Emory's top two teams also will apply for our round robin as soon as their partner pairing process is complete. Obviously, this tournament is shaping up to be very competitive. We believe that participating in our round robin makes a great "merit-based" argument for applying for a prebid... please consider applying. Jake Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080703/a71e6fe3/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 Sat Jul 5 14:35:57 2008 From: jwpatt00 (Patterson, J W) Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 15:35:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky Fellows Debate: # ONE Message-ID: THE ROAD GOES ON FOREVER AND INSTITUTES NEVER END Lexington, KY, June 24, 2008 GOOD EVENING MR. AND MRS. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND ALL SHIPS AT SEA, LET'S GO TO PRESS. In the first Fellows debate of the 2008 Kentucky National High School Debate Institute, Fellows Robin Gray from Fullerton Union, CA and Craig Smeyser, from the Kinkaid School, TX affirmed the resolution against Tyler Boykins from Ft Lauderdale, FL and Brian Shim from Berkley Prep. Following the debate Brian Manuel, coach at Cathedral Prep and 2 week lab director, filed this report. "During the debate both students and staff witness a hard nose fight with some unseen events. The 1AC was delivered by Robin "Death Ray" Gray, where she spoke about the need for NASA to incentivize the development of Solar-Powered Satellites by the private sector. She argued there were five advantages for enacting the affirmative. The first was the lack of incentives for renewable energy is hurting the US competitiveness and that NASA specifically could use Solar Powered Satellites to boost this competitiveness. Also there were advantages to "GET OFF THE ROCK", the credibility of NASA, why SPS would replace nuclear energy, and lastly that the SPS will help us develop fuel for the military and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, that without the aff would collapse our leadership. Tyler "T-Boi" Boykins delivered the 1NC with such blazing speed you could feel the heat getting turned up in the room. He began with a CP to only incentivize space use of energy and exclude terrestrial use. He claimed that the microwave transmissions needed for terrestrial use would tradeoff with military telecommunication transmissions which are critical to overall military readiness, solving the aff and turning the leadership advantage. He also include some postmodern mumbo ?jumbo talking about the teachings of Martin Heidegger and also a discussion of NOMADS. You get the point! After that he spent a significant amount of time arguing that the SPS would fail and that its terrestrial uses are bad. After this heavy 1nc filled with tons of evidence, Craig "Why Do I Have To Defend Realism and Hegemony Simultaneously" Smeyser took the podium. He gave his best attempt to defend his realist affirmative and took the stance that the negative needs to defend a policy option in the debate and that their criticisms of modernity and technology and war are all non sensical and that policy debate was good...well at least for this debate. Along with his Death to the K protest he argued that the CP would be bad because it would lead us to rely on space based weapons which culminate in the death of everyone. At this point Brian "The Asian Dragon" Shim stepped up looking spiffy to deliver his hippie filled 2NC where he extend the discussion of Martin Heidegger and how horrible our management of the environment is and why we should reject our use of technology to do so. He threw around buzz words such as "ontology" and "being" and argued that you couldn't be affirmative if you took this approach. He was able to flip Craig's framework arguments around and made argument for why their discourse and representations come before enacting the affirmative. "T-Boi" had to pick up the rest of the slack for his partner by taking the case debate and the CP flows? which at this point had the majority of evidence on them. I think T-Boi could tell that this wasn't where the focus of the rest of the debate was going to be. Well after the block "Death Ray" Gray got up to clean up the wreckage the block laid waste to. While flying through the 1NR arguments with ease and discussing why space weapons will end the planet, she then entered hippieville and started to build up why the affirmative was the better policy option and why the lack of a consistent framework for debate was bad and why the neg should be rejected. She then also advocated why they could still do the plan why rejecting technological managerialism. This clearly put the pressure on "The Asian Dragon" who was so heated at this point he removed his shirt and thought he'd show his masculinity by going for the Heidegger criticism and reasons why the affirmative was flawed and that the view of debate that defending a stable advocacy was for the birds. He claimed that the "framework" the aff was forcing the negative into was the same types of control and managerialism that they were kritiking which then was another reason to reject the aff. At the end of the 2nr I could feel Heidegger looking on with delight as the "Dream Team from Florida" were pleased with their performance. With all eyes up front "Mr Realism" himself to the podium. With an empassioned plea to the institute that the negative be rejected for not falling within his constructs of policy debate and going for the permutation to do the plan and reject technological thinking, "Mr Realism" took a seat to allow the on lookers to cast their ballots. The ballot count in this debate didn't represent the hard work and hard fought debating that took place during the round. When all the ballots were collected ? the negative won on a 27-6 vote, with all the fellows agreeing with the rest of the camp. Signing off from Lexington, Brian Manuel 2 Week Lab Director" JW Patterson Kentucky Institute Director From tpeters Mon Jul 7 15:49:34 2008 From: tpeters (Peters Tammie L.) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 14:49:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Master's Thesis Complete Message-ID: <02806BDC91CA4848A5DF52FF55B94511067A5CEC@EXCHANGE.jeffco.schools> I would like to thank those of you who have sent me suggestions regarding my thesis. It is now complete. After comparing Honors English students with forensics experiencee to Honors English students with no forensics experience (done to eliminate the self-selection pardox), I found that 1) forensics students scored significantly higher on state writing tests, 2) forensics students scored significantly higher on the reading portion of the ACT, and 3) debate competitors and non-debate competitors both demonstrated these gains -- there was no significant difference between the two groups. I invite everyone who is interested to read my study for themselves. It is posted on my website at http://sc.jeffco.k12.co.us/education/components/docmgr/default.php?sectiondetailid=191727&fileitem=84814&catfilter=20661 I will be submitting it to *Communication Teacher.* I will also submit a shorter version to the NFL's Rostrum. Thanks again for your help and support. Tammie Peters Golden, Colorado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080707/0527984d/attachment.htm From nicole.serrano Mon Jul 7 23:06:07 2008 From: nicole.serrano (Nicole Serrano) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 00:06:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Lectures podcasts Message-ID: <2b7193330807072106r9d25753vc28f7f82c46d0276@mail.gmail.com> Hello, The Dartmouth Debate Workshop lectures, which are available on our website free of charge - ddw.wikispaces.com - are also now available as a podcast. More lectures will be added in the coming weeks. You can either go to this url http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=284449482 or search within the itunes store "Dartmouth Debate Workshop." Please feel free to leave feedback on itunes! Stay tuned for the various Dartmouth Debate Institute lectures which will be available on our website - ddi.wikispaces.com - and which will also be available as podcasts. Thanks, Nicole -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080708/9fc16e13/attachment.htm From stables Tue Jul 8 10:41:23 2008 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:41:23 +0200 Subject: [eDebate] Congrats to the new DOF at Arizona State Message-ID: Some folks may have heard, but I wanted to publicly congratulate Adam Symonds for his appointment as the new Director of Forensics at Arizona State University. This is great news for Adam, ASU and college debate (except when folks have to debate against ASU). ASU is in very good hands with their new DOF! Congrats. Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From louiedebate Tue Jul 8 14:50:14 2008 From: louiedebate (Louie Petit) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 14:50:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Martin Osborn Bio Message-ID: *DISCLAIMER*: We do not take responsibility for anything that is written below, but we are responsible for the writing below. Hopefully that statement expresses our stupidity, which will allow us to get off the hook if we offend anyone. All jokes are made with the intent of humor, but in reality Ben Warner and Louie Petit are not funny. Ben and Louie would like to thank those that helped in writing this bio and those that give us material to use. There is a lot more that we would like to say and lots more that we would have liked to include, but we did not. We want to mention that the random number throughout the bio line up with the numbers at the end. It is almost like footnotes, but not really.... Also, we wrote this because we thought there would be DCA awards and Martin Osborn would at best receive an honorable mention, so we wanted to be ready. We are not really sure what happened to the DCA?s. We remember Chris Burk saying that he was on top of them, and that they would be coming soon, but we thought that maybe he was joking. By joking we mean he forgot he said he would do them because he is a very busy man. So in the spirit of good jokes, self-deprecating humor, and in honor of our good friend Martin Osborn, we provide you all with his bio? Key stats about Martin: Employment: unemployed. He says that he is a professional poker player, but I think if you pay other people it isn?t technically a job. Moreover, one can hardly be considered a professional poker player when you mirror your game after Chris Moneymaker and the advice Macgyver gave him. You can watch that advice here: (make sure your volume is on) http://macgyverpoker.ytmnd.com/ Fianc? employment: art class model and the lead conspiracy writer for why drinking milk (yeah MILK the good for your bones stuff) will kill you. She is also an aspiring eastern medicine voodoo hack (1), this is functionally the same as a chiropractor but they use more smelly oils and candles. Update- Martin and Amelia got married!! Congrats!! Past Bio that you should read because it is funny: Having immigrated across the Rio Grande, Martin Osborn marks a rare break in a long chain of Mexican boxing Osborns. Raised by a set of highly-skilled maids and his wealthy grandparents, life on the white sandy beaches of Mexico instilled him with very little "appreciation" for second-rate activity and pastimes. At some point Osborn's healthy respect for authority wafted out to sea along with the soft sound of Mariachi guitars and the sway of Spanish horns. Despite his "scrap" and "wit" Martin is best known for his complete lack of showering habits. Seriously, this guy is more rank than a Mike Kearney-divised neg strategy against an S.U.V. case. Usually sporting a case with huge impacts, he and his partner can be found spread out like fake cheese on a cracker at almost any moment at a debate tournament or in practice round against novices (2). Sports: Martin grew up in Wyoming so he just picked sports teams at random. As a result, he is a fan of the Green Bay Packers in the NFL (actually cried for two days when Brett Favreeeararaaaa retired), the Boston Red Sox in MLB (Has recently become a Kansas City Royals fan because Boston has enjoyed too much success and since Shanahan showed his ass the image of Red Sox fans have been tarnished- literally), the Kansas Jayhawks in NCAA (Ben dropped this KU crap in order to justify his own bandwagon love of the dirty Jayhawks, and in reality Martin would be the first to piss on whatever KU was given for winning that championship) and?in the NBA?the New York Knickerbockers. I don?t think he has received nearly enough pain for this. How many times have you thought, ?I wish I knew a Knicks fan. Man, I would love to talk some shit to a Knicks fan right about now.? Forward all such thoughts to bandanamartin at gmail.com (3). Music: Martin has nearly impeccable taste in music. I mean, 99% of what he likes is pure gold. He does not listen to that garbage that most people do. If you ask what he likes and he tells you ?good music, not shit,? that would be a pretty accurate way to describe it. As a matter of fact he is such a music snob that he created a music class, syllabus and all, and demanded that people take his class. The lasted about two weeks and then Kearney told him to fuck off (he was really drunk, trust us) and Warner was too busy looking up naked pictures of Steve (MVP) Nash and Amare Stoudemire (4) to burn the required material for that night?s class. However, there are these two completely true stories about Martin?s music taste. Example One: Martin was pawning all of his CDs for poker money, or food money or something like that so he had them all in the squad room. The following conversation ensued: BW: Hey, wtf is this Chumbawumba cd? MO: Dude, actually that cd is pretty good. I know everyone just thinks of the Tubthumper song but the deeper cuts are quality. BW: ??? I can?t believe you are defending this shit. Seriously, Chumbawumba? MO: No, dude, listen to ?The Good Ship Lifestyle? --about 45 seconds pass? MO: Ok man, I may have been wrong about this. BW: I hope someday you win a DCA award so I can tell this story Example Two: Martin had just returned from Wyoming. By all accounts this trip takes something like 300 hours and the dude was driving a 1970s Satellite (like this: http://www.mopar.de/member_68sate.jpg but bigger, more beige and more rusted out). The car had no air conditioning or cd player?just the radio and the hot summer wind in his face. He get back and says ?dude, you are going to make fun of me(5), but I kinda like that new Ashlee Simpson song.? I think the song was pieces of me or something, but I?m not that familiar with her catalogue. No punch line here, just a true story about Ozzy digging the musical styling of Ashlee Simpson. I chalk it up to heat stroke. Early childhood: Martin, as is the case with most Mexicans, had a fascination with taking apart small machinery and bicycles and trying to build larger ones with their parts. This fascination ended abruptly when Martin crashed his rebuilt bicycle into a neighbor?s house because he forgot to install brakes on the rebuilt bicycle. This was the first of many examples of Oz hitting the wall face first. His inability to ever beat the K (when Malgor and whatever sac he was debating with read it) with his framework file is just the most recent example. There will be more about how Malgor owns Oz?s soul below. In 4th grade or something Martin was on a local Wyoming news station?s investigative report about education in Cheyenne. They asked some smart white girl easy questions that she had no trouble answering. They asked Martin what the capital of Canada was. He shrugged. They asked him if he knew where Afghanistan was. He said, in the high pitched voice of a child, ?how should I know.? This would foreshadow a 5 year career of disinterested and brutally honest cross examination periods in which Martin would pay fleeting attention to the question and make jokes about not understanding the K. Martin has this ?investigative report? on vhs. I pray he will learn how to put it on YouTube. Martin was also on the news a lot later in life, for 6 consecutive months as the Cheyenne Wyoming ?silent witness of the week? crime. I don?t know this story but it has something to do with a Foucault book, police cars and a Thanksgiving turkey. High school debate: Martin debated with Will Jensen. He was double 1s, in part because Wyoming people are racist and had an easier time voting for that ?attractive Jensen boy,? but also because Martin was crappy. So crappy that he got destroyed at the TOC, winning only 1 debate. However that win was over Ross Ricendorferrrrrrrerr (that guy from Whitman that everyone likes and as a last name that is impossible to spell) and ensured Ross would roll the doughnut. I like to remind Dylan Quigley that this is 100% more than he won at the TOC. I especially like to remind Dylan because his uptight academic scruples force him to point out that technically 1 round is infinitely more than 0, not 100%(6). Dylan talks about this a lot because he never shuts up about his high school debate career. Martin also was on the B team in high school. Travis Cram was on the A team. (And for good reason, Cram rules. Welcome to Kansas Cram) (7). By the way to all you kids that love Ozzy for defending the wall and being a staunch statist get on lexis and search Osborn AND resistance AND police AND Wyoming. You?re a traitor Oz. College debate: When Martin was a frosh he was kinda good. He debated with Kearney, who rules and was probably much better than Martin, so they did ok. Martin also HATED circuit kids. Anytime he beat a TOC kid (his whole debate career) it made him insanely happy. In fact, before the story of the GBN debate is told, you should know this TOC/Rich kid story from Joe Carver (self-confessed coach of rich kids): The second time we hired Ozzie [for the TOC] he showed up and started ranting about how rich the girls were and how he hated them for it. Not as bad as the time Nirav traveled with us and the girls thought he was their valet, but still pretty bad. Anyway Ozzie's introduction to adolescent girls was to give them all cute nicknames like "Beetlejuice" , "#3" and "dummie". Despite his obvious character flaws [read: race] the girls loved him. When he came to the TOC this year, he insisted on playing Donkey Kong the whole time. Thad needed one card from him and it took until Sunday to get it. This is what the conversation on those days were like Me (joe Carver): Oz we need some "No RRW" cards Oz: Oh that's how it's gonna be? You think because you got more money than me, I'll just roll over and play Mexican? Me (Joe Carver): Louie, can you get these cards for me? *The Glenbrook north debate* Perhaps only a tangent on the story at hand, but I couldn?t rob you of that one. Now, the GBN debate (distinct from the time in high school when GBN sent him packing): His frosh year he went to the Heart of America tournament, avoided almost every good team entered (all 2 or 3 of them), got beat down by James and Justin (easily the best win ever for these two debaters, they actually never won another round, seriously) from UCO in prelims, and managed to squeak all the way to finals. They never debated NYU or MalGor (btw, Martin loves it when Malcom calls him Marty, absolutely loves it) or really anyone else. KO end up debating the Klinger/Nathan reunion tour in finals. This was Europe and Ozzy was running the giant Iraq case with little defense of it so we were popping popcorn and gearing up for a good old fashion passionate ass whipping. Something funny was going on though, Klinger was walking around smiling and saying ?this round is going to be crazy? and ?you?ll have something to say?but this is going to be crazy.? Apparently by ?crazy? Klinger meant that, instead of doing 360 dunks with a d/a and some case, GBN would be ?sparking? the kids from SMS. Here is a widely known secret about D3, everyone sparks in D3 (thanks Emporia and the fat redheaded man we call Ken D.). We had devoted a week of districts prep work to locking down our spark frontline because EVERYONE in D3 sparks (Michigan State learned this the hard way at the swings one year). Not only did KO have something to say, they had a brand spanking new frontline that was the product of hours of work by Ben Warner, Ermo and Kearney. With that collaboration of minds it ensured whenever sparked SMS would have the goods on the intrinsic criticisms of any spark author (8). Short synopsis: Stacy makes Ozzy look dumb in cx, then lets him get over on her when she tries to argue that bees don?t have eyes. The frontline looks good. The block is literally the motherfucking hammer. The judges, out of respect for KO and their game performance, take 45 minutes to announce that it was an ass beating. Afterword to the story: Kentucky tournament the next year (or Wake or whatever) Klinger gets into an elevator with Ozzy after beating Chris Loghry in a debate where Loghrey sparks. Loghrey went to high school with Ozzy too, and was a best friend and mentor. Klinger says ?hey man, thanks. If it weren?t for you in that spark debate we might have lost this round.? Ozzy says something like ?fucking great, glad I could help you beat one of my best friends? and gets off the elevator. Last thing about Ozzy as a frosh. Ask him about his experience with a performance of Oedipus Rex by the Jordans of Kansas and the subsequent ass-beating he received because he failed to confront his mortality through ancient Greek tragedy. This was now the last time that the Greek?s got the best of Ozzy. Well actually it might be because I cannot think of any jokes to make here or think if a story about Greece. Wait Greece/Turkey was in the Europe topic, a few good school?s ran that as an aff. Okay that is all that I know. The Scott Phillips year There isn?t much to say about this year. KO would go up 2 with 27s and debate Scott Phillips. They would get beat down, learn a lot about debate, lose a bunch more rounds, and repeat. I only bring this up at all so I can remind Phil Samuels of the time he let Scotty off the hook for double turning himself in the 1ac by reading so2 screw cards in his warming advantage. Kearney: what about the warming debate? Phil: I don?t think you win the so2 arguments. Kearney: what about the 1ac card that says so2 cools the earth? Phil: hmm, don?t have that on my flow??uh?..I?M NOT FUCKING YOU HERE MAN! China topic I don?t remember much about KO this year. I do know that this was the year they started cutting 90% of what they read in rounds. One big myth about top level teams is that they have lots of card cutters. I?ve heard that a small number of people cut most of the cards for Emory and Cal, but I have no idea. I do know that almost all of Bricker and Jennings cards (We use cards in a loose sense so that it includes blogs and random advertisements you find on google) were cut by Bricker and Jennings (in spite of the 30 debaters and 25 coaches at KU) and that Ozzy and Kearney damn near refused to read evidence that they didn?t cut for themselves. The occasional file I (Ben) cut was read (till I got them in trouble against Emory CG) and Louie eventually took over the ?bad strat against good teams? role formerly inhabited by Kearney, but the idea that you need an army to keep up with the borg is just horseshit. The good teams do it damn near singlehanded. If you are the only card cutter on your team, well, pony up. It?s not an excuse to ignore the topic. One story. When KO debated Whitman teams they always got into Holocaust trivialization debates. I don?t know how good the files were but KO didn?t typically lose on this variety of argument and Whitman typically kicked it. In one round Whitman kicked the argument in the block. The result was some true holocaust trivialization. ?This flow is a literal debate holocaust? ?I?m not exaggerating or being metaphorical, we are holocausting them on this argument? and, when Martin finished with 30 seconds left in the 2ar, ?Holocaust Holocaust Holocaust Holocaust? till the buzzer went off.(9) Two story. So KO after losing to Malgor and partner like it was Kearney?s job, they get another chance, the fourth chance, at the district 3 tournament. The panel was classic D3 best, just know that Terri Easley was on that panel, so every cheap shot ever dreamed up was hidden somewhere in the T shell, I mean this was a Darrin ?chief? Elliot?s wet dream. (Clay wanted me to note here that the T argument was not hidden because he did not want people to think that Oz?s only win ever against Malgor was an illegitimate win.) (I wanted to note here that Clay is kind of jack ass, believes he is always right and rarely is.) Anyway I mention Easley was on the panel because she voted for Malgor like it was her job or as if they were in a relationship, wait were they?? Moving on, the round had this sweet (sweet as in I have no clue what it was) Topicality argument in it, some framework args, some case cards that made no sense, and K/cp that Ermo dreamed up (and only Ermo understood). As any half brained monkey could decipher the strategy was to go for T, regardless of what Ermo was telling Kearney about the intrinsic criticism of Malgor?s aff. Well it got ugly fast, the cx of the 1nc was fall apart city for Oz who directed all questions to Kearney, and Kearney who could not even create a reason to why the k/cp ?mumbo jumbo? was competitive. It was at this time Oz began to wonder if anyone on the coaching staff understood what competition was (while you might think Ermo debated pre-perm, photographic evidence of his curly mullet suggests otherwise) (10). Anyway, it is a 2-1 for neg, not sure how, but I know that Easley voted neg, so her and Malgor must have been in a couples squabble (11). Malgor, so afraid to lose to KO again, no shows the CEDA 4-0 4-0 debate, and withdraws from the tournament complaining that his man organ is in pain. I have no clue what that means or how it happened (I was going to make an inappropriate joke here, but held back). Fuck it, I was going to make a joke about Terri and Malgor?s relationship. The fear of debating KO had a similar affect on many men, but Malgor was the only dude to need surgery to fix it. Courts (With and Without Kearney) This was a tragic year. GSU only served to remind KO that they could not beat Malgor no matter whom he debated with, and they lost in the doubles to Harvard DZ on a fast (super fucking fast) 3-0 (they loved losing in doubles, they are likely a first ballot ?doubles and out? hall of fame inductee). You should know that KO was negative and now let me remind you that negatives won like 98% of the time on that topic. Sadly, Kearney couldn?t shake the education he got on the China topic. It haunted him. Eventually, after he laid a sick beating on Harvard PL on amend c/p and legitimacy d/a (sweet revenge for the years of loses KO sustained to Lux?s SUVs cases), Kearney left the debate activity. It has been a long time since I?ve heard from him, but I have very credible intelligence on this question. He quit debate to patrol the SLOCs, warding off terrorists, pirates and the Chinese. Kearney, who has always loved America more than the average bear, is currently keeping the shipping lanes safe and clear for us all. (Update: Kearney has been sighted?that all you need to know) This loss really shook Martin though. He loved debate because he loved being the ?O? in SMS KO. It was his identity (in a weird ?you complete me? sort of way). He could barely stand the idea of debating with someone else. To be honest, I could barely fathom it. Worse, Martin had only done the 2N twice in his life and both times he was HORRIBLE. While everyone knew the courts topic was terribly neg bias, those who knew Martin best (Will Jensen, his high school partner, and I think Ami Hamraie?could be wrong on that one) flipped Aff against him. Here is a story to illustrate how bad it was: Martin was debating Fullerton at the coast in his first trip as the 2N. Fullerton was really destroying him and, somewhere in the middle of the 2NR, he began to realize that he was hopelessly behind. He had no idea what was going on, how to control or manage the debate in this position, what was up, what was down; really all he knew was that he was getting beaten and it was not close. The feelings of helplessness and confusion that followed sent Martin spiraling into a rage. He began to spit ridiculous and offensive things like ?If you want to debate in Spanish go start a debate league in Mexico.? I think Martin hoped that since he himself was ?textually? Mexican the judge would take it easy on him. No such luck for Martin. He would be held accountable. It is difficult to really put into words how much Kearney contributed to Ozzy?s debate success, but Joe Carver was kind enough to provide the representative example from Ozzy?s time coaching at Carrollton. ?The first time Ozzie coached for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart was the TOC 2006. He showed up at the hotel with his girlfriend in tow and insisted we feed him. We got him pizza and did not see him again for three days. Thank god Kearney was there. We decided immediately that we would hire Kearney and disown Oz. When Kearney disappeared Ozzie became the default option.? Indeed, for many Martin represents the ?you?ll do? reaction in the face of the devastating loss of Michael Wayne Kearney. The end of Kearney and the new beginning of Martin as the 2nc ushered a new era in negative strategy for Missouri State that in involved every 1nc having at least 4 minutes of case debate, and by case debate I mean the entirely impact defensive style. Martin would not allow for a single case argument to be in the 1nc if the evidence had the slightest hint of an argument that could be construed as an offensive argument. The new era also brought in the 1 cp, 1 da, 1 T, and 1 dumb procedural 1nc. Many were taken back by this approach, but Louie could not comprehend why a 1nc would be so transparent. Although Louie would eventually come around to this debate style it was not without many conversations between Martin and Louie. Here is one that might offer some context: MO: Louie is the 1nc almost complete, we need Blake (Moore) to take a look so we can make sure he can read. LP: Yeah I think I about got everything all together but as luck has it I think we will be able to read two disads in this debate. MO: What? Louie I told you what to do, now stop fucking around and just get it done. LP: Dude, the second disad will not eat much time, we can still get in 5 minutes of case defense. MO: Is it a net benefit for the cp? LP: Of course it is. MO: Then we cannot read it. It will mess up the debate. The aff might link turn or something. LP: No you d-bag it is a net-benefit as in disad to the plan the cp does not link too MO: Listen, we can only read things that link to the cp, so shut the fuck up till you understand debate. LP: but it is a net-benefit?. MO: Louie shut up and give me that 1nc, with 1 disadvantage only. Needless to say the second disad gets into the 1nc (Louie is a very persuasive coach and obviously dumb), and Martin and Blake lose because the second disad is link turned?. The only job Blake ?dead weight? Moore had in the debate round, other than reading the 1nc, was to kick out of the second disad. He attempted to complete his job by answering the link turn debate in the 1nr by extending the UQ args the aff made? Post the now devastating 1ar here is the conversation between Martin and Blake during the 2nr prep: MO: WTF Blake I thought you kicked out of this disad? Is he link turning it? BM: Impossible! I did kick out of the disad? MO: What adid you extend to get out of the disad? BM: I extended withdraw is inevitable? because democrats will make us.. MO: that is our uniqueness arg? that Bush must be strong to prevent democratic calls for withdraw BM: oh that makes sense MO: (shouting out loud) Fuck you Louie Yeah that shit really happened. I guess Martin can see the future, would not be the first Missouri State debater with that mad skill. (13) Even though Kearney was long gone and Martin was enjoying some success debating with Blake ?dead weight? Moore the same teams kept owning Martin, hello Wake CC, and the same people kept owning him as well, hello Ryan Burke (even though he was not debating anymore he still managed to fuck (Martin) up as a judge). Although some things changed, like Oz finally beat an Emory team, thanks Emory MP for being easiest 8-0 top seed in the history of Northwestern tournament. It was a pretty quick 3-0 and Martin having too much pride did not even go for the procedural they answered the wrong way in both the 2ac and 1ar (All judges, including Repko, said the decision could have been made in minutes if Martin goes for the procedural). But what remained the same was Martin?s inability to getting back with people about cite request. Now that he was both 2?s there was even more cite request. Although I am not quite sure why there was an increase in cite request because nothing changed, I mean it was the courts topic, once December arrived it was researched. So the neg strat remained the same, ?amend to win?. To give you an example of a cite request and how Martin would respond we thought we would use the famous Ross Ricendorferrrrrrrerr email exchange: RR: Oz, what do you all say to Casey affs? Any cites I should have? Thanks buddy. MO: Casey affs? we amend the fucking constitution and read the fucking legitimacy disad. RR: do you have cites for that? MO: I hate casey affs. BTW, war hurts women game over. When we asked Ross Ricendorferrrrrrrerr what he remembered of the email exchanged and if he could add in anything else funny about the cite request, he simply replied: RR: and I sent him this email again a month or so ago when I found it and he said: lol yeah I'm awesome ain't I. The end of the road?Never the bride Sometimes, if you are really lucky and debate in the post-Malcom Gordon (rule) world, you get two senior years. Georgia CR did (more on that later). Bricker is about to. Martin did as well. This year was characterized by a series of 2nd place speaker awards. Martin did get 1st speaker at Kentucky, but not because he was good, just cause he had an axe to grind with the Kentucky people. You see, SMS KO didn?t get invited to the KY RR the year before, felt jilted, and went 8-0 (quarters finish, a real blight on their ?doubles and out? hall of fame resume). Again Martin didn?t get invited, so he won top speaker (again a quarters finish). I think the NDT vindicated Kentucky on this one though. Other than this revenge tournament, I don?t think Martin placed higher than 2nd speaker at anything but a few regional tournaments. He did compile an impressive list of statistics comparing his speaker points to Clay?s (14). Before we go any further into Martin?s final year in debate as a competitor it should be noted that Martin did not lose Malgor in his final year (thank god malgor graduated). Wait, Malgor voted against Oz 2 of the 3 times he judged him. Fucking Malgor! At GSU, OW?s season got off to a great start with the first round draw of Emory HW, a team that featured a returning NDT champ and some kid who has been coached by Emory coaches since he was 5. Emory HW had a quality season if you think that 2nd in the Copeland Race and top seed at the NDT is worthy of the quality label. So Emory HW had no problem beating OW at GSU, just as Julie had no problem beating Martin her entire career. Losing to Emory round one was only fitting because Emory would defeat OW two others time at the tournament. Emory MS sent OW to the rail in doubles and Emory MT dropped a loss on OW round 5. The round 5 loss still sits badly with Martin to this day, not just because Ermo talked about it in a speech he delivered at the awards assembly at CEDA (15), but due to the magnitude of the loss. It was 1 of only 2 non-bid losses OW suffered the entire season. The other non-bid loss happened two rounds later to Michigan PZ, a round in which Martin double turned himself but went for both args anyway under the logic the 1ar did not point it out so fuck it the 2ar will not find it. However, the 2ar discovered the error in the 2nr logic. Fancy that. Clay Webb- Along for the Ride We were going to write a section here about why Clay was the luckiest man ever, but then we found out he once dated Sheena Walters. Nothing against Clay or Sheena, but why date? Clay should of talked with Powers or M. Jones on the same night. The NDT: He will read DEFENSE till the END Martin was really bad at the NDT. His frosh year he started out 0-6 with ZERO ballots. In his 7th round he and Kearney lost on a 2-1 and, in post round conversation, the judge that voted for them admitted he made a bad decision and asked them if they would mind if he changed his ballot. Martin flew off the handle, something like ?fuck you, you voted for us, you can?t take it back, I know where you live, I?ll find your family?? They kept the ballot. It is impossible to put into words how much Martin hated losing. He truly hated it more than he loved winning. I can?t imagine a time when Martin felt lower in debate than at the exact moment the judge asked if he could change the ballot. Martin would go on to beat Connor Cleary in round 8 on a 3-0, making him 1-7 and Connor 0-8 with zero ballots. KO the sophomores went 3-5. The most interesting thing about this was when, in round one, Arizona State read consult Brazil on them. KO read a da or two to the c/p, maybe impact turned the net benefit. No theory though. ASU must have read 8 add on advantages. This from Brandy Johnson-Faith: ?Consult Brazil was our big strat and they knew that was what we were going to run? and ?that is all we read in the 1NC with a ridiculous number of add-ons. ?I just kept on having to hand John more and more add-ons throughout the 1NC -- ones that I had randomly cut when I was cutting the CP but had never ever read. Colombian guerilla warfare, Venezuelan drug trade, AIDS in rural villages in Brazil? Oops, so much for the impact turn. Always read theory on a counter plan kids. Also this year, Kearney wrote a CP text wrong. Instead of reducing fossil fuel emissions by millions of tons, Kearney wrote trillions. I think that would crash the economy ?send us back to the stone ages. Always double check the counterplan text. KO as juniors went 3-5. They should have gone 4-4 though. Georgia CR got one of those round 8 2-1 decisions on ?these dudes are seniors and really shouldn?t go 3-5 at the NDT.? Ozzy was ok with this till Georgia CR decided to give that senior year a second ?Malcom Gordon? try. For amusing detail see: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-May/070924.html Ozzy senior year try the first. Kearney quit, no NDT Ozzy senior year try the second, ?Malcom Gordon rule? senior year. Ozzy was top speaker and made it to semis where he got blasted by a new Wake aff that he had nothing to say too. When we say he had nothing to say, we are talking about some offense. The debate had much defense, as Oz would demand clay to the entire terrorism defense file. (Louie cut the file so all are certain that 1 out of every 5 cards were worth reading) He didn?t mind though. He told me that night that it was nice knowing it would be a fast 5-0 and he could just sit back and revel in the semis of the NDT. ?Better to know you don?t have a chance than to lose a nail-biter? he said. Lessons from Martin When the DCAs first started, before they were profane and offensive, I read the bios for a good laugh and accidently learned stuff about debate. I felt that Ace Garen?s bio of Alex Berger was always exemplary of this. I can?t promise a good laugh and I don?t know enough about debate to teach you anything, but there are some lessons to be learned from Ozzy?s debate career. I have worked at many debate camps with Martin many times and he always gives the kids some variety of the same pep talk. Here is his formula: ?1. you are terrible at debate [he really belabors this point, lots of examples and emphasis] 2. everyone here is just as terrible, it is actually very difficult for me to tell the difference between the best and worst of all the garbage at this camp 3. this is true of debate in general, in fact very few people do it right?almost everyone is terrible 4. at the end of the day any miniscule difference between you and the other terrible people you will debate against will be made up 10 times over by hard work 5. that is what I love about debate, any poor kid can beat the shit out of any rich kid because all that matters is hard work.? (Martin once gave this speech to a bunch of rich kids and, despite the implications, they started cheering and yelling?I guess, no matter how rich you are, there are always richer kids to hate). Martin exemplified this philosophy. If you want to know how to debate like him I have one bit of advice; set up camp square in the middle of the topic and learn as much about it as a human can possibly learn about a single issue over the course of a year. Work for hours and never stop. ?Life is a game of inches. So is [Debate]. In either game the margin of error is small. One half a step too late or too early and you don?t quite make it. But the inches we need are everywhere around us. In every minute of our lives. We have to go for every inch. Because we know that when we add up those inches, that will make the fuckin? difference between winning and losing. And I know that if I?m gonna have any life anymore, it?s because I?m still willing to go for that inch. And that?s what living is. The six inches in front of your face. Now what are you gonna do?? Myths about Martin Anyone that knows Martin will tell you he is a really genuinely nice guy (16). Just ask Shit-bag Molly, Lazy, #3, Beatlejuice, dummy, or Kai the Novice. He is one of our closest friends and no amount of nice things we could say about him would do justice to the sense of pride felt when he fought his way to the Semis of both national tournaments. The community reaction to his speaker awards and his final debate are a louder testament to what a truly unique, respected, and universally loved competitor he was than anything you?ll read in an e-mail. Every year someone wins top speaker at the NDT but rarely is that person respected and admired by his opponents, his judges, his coaches, his camp labies, that young team that didn?t clear but hit him in round 1, those folks that bumped into him in an elevator, anyone from the state of Wyoming not named Cheney, the staff at the tournament hotel, the homeless guy on the street making fun of his outfit, etc etc etc. People get the impression from Martin that he actually likes them and respects them regardless of who they are or how good they are at debate. They are right too; I?ve never met someone so willing to be mean to everyone while simultaneously liking and respecting them all. Martin is a ?once in an era? kind of guy. That?s why, at the end of the day, even the ?shit bag Mollys? of the world will look back fondly on their interactions with him. You had a great career Martin, it was a pleasure being part of it. ******************************************************************************************************* (1) Bastyr University is the real accredited place that Amelia is learning stuff from. (2) This was originally authored by Martin for the MoState debate electronic brochure. (3) This e-mail is made up. Anything you send here has about as much chance of being read and responded to as a cite request. (4) This is lie, Ben only likes Shaq?s porno. [editors note: we made the class upon request, kids these days listen to total shit, Sheena heard Kashmir on the radio and thought it was P Diddy. Also, I love all Suns porno that doesn?t involve the brief Sam Cassel stint?that shit gives me nightmares]. (5) He was right, I do make fun of him. Now I hope you will too. (6) Dylan was proofreading this joke and stopped mid stream to say, ?That?s actually not true, I don?t believe it is 300%.? No lie, the dude is uptight. He also talks non stop about how good he was in high school and how much better he is going to be than Cormack. (7) Martin always points out that he didn?t lose a single debate the entire first semester of his senior year. This seems worthy of note, I am unaware of similar streaks. Still, I don?t want to compliment him too much (especially since he was double 1s?Clay feels me here) so I leave this detail to the footnotes. (8) If you don?t get this inside joke it is because you?ve never run a K aff against an Ermo strat. Keep ?em coming Ermo, the community will get behind you someday. (9)He has since apologized for his insensitive behavior and formally distanced himself from Farrakhan and Rev. Wright. (10) Get it, it?s a perm joke about hair. Like, curly hair. That shit is funny. The real mullet wasn?t permed but it did have blond streaks. Ozzy has a picture somewhere. It was a totally boss haircut. (11)To my knowledge Terri and Malgor never had relations WHILE Malgor was debating. (12) Martin has lamented this round. He says he really likes Louis and feels bad that he went of the handle. You have to understand this about him though, he truly believes that you should be able to laugh about everything. Life is hard on everyone. He certainly hasn?t had it easy. He just believes a good sense of humor is the way to deal with it. Plus, a debate league in Mexico would really do a lot of good, right? (13) Martin cannot really see the future and to the best of my (Louie) knowledge nobody else at Missouri State can. [editor?s note: I, Ben, fully believe Mapes can and removed my only psychic joke from the bio upon first edit. Louie just couldn?t resist] (14) Just 2 examples: ?I out spoke you by more than you out spoke the worst debater at the tournament; my average speaker award is lower than your average in round rank.? (15) If you were at CEDA and heard this story but had no fucking idea what Ermo was talking about, here it is: The loss to Rob Mills. Martin thought he was ahead in the debate and was not sure what was taking the judge so long to figure out the debate. Martin was confident in the debate because in the 2ac he read two add-ons that the neg never answered, so with two conceded nuke war impacts and a disad without a impact scenario that went nuclear, he felt the round was ?in the bag.? In comes the decision, ?I vote neg???! It was a first year judge so Martin sat patiently as the decision was explained. Once the judged finished with the decision, Martin says ?I have but just one question, how do evaluate the add-ons?? The judge looks at the flows and then looks up and says, ?I might have made a mistake.? Martin simply looked at the judge, smiled and said, ?okay then, thanks for judging.? Clay attempted ramble some words, incoherent I am sure, and Martin told him it was cool and then needed to leave. So that is the Rob Mills story Ermo managed to babble about at the CEDA awards assembly. (16) Here are two examples of how nice a guy Martin is: Lindsey Lathrop short stories (aka things Martin to make her sad): ?Hey, did you know you are legally a midget? No, really, here is the link to the midget site, it says 4?10? is the cutoff, you?re 4?10? right?? ?Do you have to use a ladder to climb into bed or do you have a real short bed and just use a small ladder?? ?Do you sleep in a racecar bed?? ?Here little girl, have a lollypop.? The Teri-toe incident: MO: ?Hey Teri, why do you paint that little, mutant toe?? TE: ?I want it to be like the rest.? MO: ?But it?s not like the rest, it?s fucked up.? _________________________________________________________________ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080708/cfe1094a/attachment.htm From jbruschke Tue Jul 8 15:27:34 2008 From: jbruschke (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:27:34 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CSUF, USC date change announcement Message-ID: <21E1A1BE7ED80C4287FA47FD8B13A35C0CB2D010@SFEXCH1.AD.FULLERTON.EDU> After consultation with lots of people, including vendors, past attendees, and campus officials, USC and CSUF will change the dates of their annual swing. The new dates will be: USC, Jan 3-5 (Jan 2 is the travel day) CSUF, Jan 7-9 (Jan 6 is a USC to CSUF travel day) The motivations for the change are (a) the opportunity to reduce costs for travel and hotel, (b) the extreme difficulty of dealing with vendors the week of Dec 20-27, (c) the lack of preparation time for almost all attendees, given that most people are with families until at least the 26th and need to travel on the 28th to get to USC in the status quo, and (d) at least on the CSUF side, a desire to allow our staff and squad members a chance to enjoy the holiday with their families. Happily, CSUF should be able to get the Marriot back this year with a rate of $89. Air fare should get cheaper the farther we all get from the post-25th peak travel times. We realize that the new dates are not equally convenient for everyone, and we do sincerely apologize if this change creates travel difficulties for some programs. We will continue to do our best to provide high quality tournaments run efficiently, and we hope that an extended stay in a warm-weather climate in January continues to appeal to the community. Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080708/c7a425d6/attachment.htm From gregachten Tue Jul 8 15:32:27 2008 From: gregachten (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Cal Tournament Dates In-Reply-To: <21E1A1BE7ED80C4287FA47FD8B13A35C0CB2D010@SFEXCH1.AD.FULLERTON.EDU> References: <21E1A1BE7ED80C4287FA47FD8B13A35C0CB2D010@SFEXCH1.AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Message-ID: <2193.128.32.242.83.1215549147.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> The Cal college tournament this season will be January 24-26, 2009. We are planning on hosting both the NDT and CEDA Nationals in 2010 at Cal (on back to back weekends) and as such we are using a different tournament hotel. We will send out a full invitation in the coming weeks, but we would like to see a large showing at our tournament this year so that we can test out our venue for the 2010 National tournaments. Prelims will be on our campus once again and elims will be at the Downtown Oakland Convention Center. Greg Achten Cal From jeffrey.jarman Tue Jul 8 23:40:03 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:40:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Voting Reminder Message-ID: I just sent a reminder to all coaches regarding the process to vote. The deadline is next Wednesday, July 16. If you did not receive an email from me, please let me know. Jeff From jwpatt00 Wed Jul 9 11:07:35 2008 From: jwpatt00 (Patterson, J W) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:07:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] KENTUCKY FELLOWS DEBATE #2 Message-ID: GOOD EVENING MR. AND MRS. NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA AND ALL SHIPS AT SEA, LET?S GO TO PRESS. The Kentucky Debate Institute Fellows staged their second demonstration debate on Saturday, July 6th. Following the debate, Institute Instructor Angelo Theodosopoulos filed this report: "Hello from the Bluegrass where we bring you into the world of top class competition. In the second Kentucky Fellows debate Fellows Katrina Cadle from Bishop Guertin and Michael Luxembourg from Georgetown Day School on the affirmative debated Dakota Alcontera Camacho from Mercer Island High School and Steven Murray from Westwood High School on the negative. Katrina ?the truth? Cadle delivered the 1AC with great speed and poise. In order to hold the mega corporations, e.g. Haliburton, responsible for the rebuilding efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the federal government was prompted to subsidize green housing for those peoples affected by the storm. The 1AC claimed that the plan would solve for racism and biopolitical control. Steven ?wrong but oh so right? Murray delivered the negative?s diversity of arguments including a Spending disadvantage, States counterplan, Psycho-analysis criticism and numerous case arguments responding to each affirmative contention. In answering the first negative constructive Michael ?superbad? Luxemberg managed to increase the amount of off case positions in the debate by criticizing the negative?s spending disadvantage. The block held to the task with Dakota ?Patterson named me Geronimo?!?? Alcontera Camacho taking the states counterplan, the spending disadvantage, luxemberg?s new off case position and a case advantage in the 2NC. Steven ?zizek? Murray extended case arguments but focused his energies in extending the negative?s criticism of the affirmative. Katrina ?the hurricane? Cadle?s 1AR laid waste to the negative?s block. The negative?s final speech focused on the criticism?s ability to turn and solve for the affirmative. With no external impacts to criticism extended in the 2NR, the 2AR extended the permutation having the benefit of solving for racist housing policies. Michael ?the funny thing about my back isS? Luxembourg?s 2AR was good enough for the W on a 17 ? 13 vote. This is Angelo Theodosopoulos saying thank you and goodnight." JW Patterson Kentucky Institute Director From stannardmatt Wed Jul 9 11:36:36 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 10:36:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] racism update Message-ID: The attack on Towson (and Kansas, and the debate community, and debate judges) by the racist Stix has been re-posted at another racist website, libertyforum.com. The article is followed by a comment from a poster who answers by saying that "academia has been hijacked by Marxist Jews and it being used to push their agenda of destroying Western civilization through feminism, homosexuality, and racial lies." This demonstrates a certain unity and global racism among people who think this way. Anti-semitism and anti-black racism have often been presented as polar/ideological opposites, but obviously they are part of the same overall spectrum. This presents an opportunity for those who find one of those two forms of racism to be more acceptable than the other to re-think their positions. I know too many otherwise moderate people, including many in the debate community, who laugh off one or the other. We need to remember that these are people who, if they could get away with it (and they often do) would do serious violence to people who are different from them. mjs _________________________________________________________________ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080709/538b00f9/attachment.htm From alfred.snider Wed Jul 9 11:37:06 2008 From: alfred.snider (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:37:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Joe Jackson, great Oklahoma coach and educator Message-ID: <4874E932.2000105@uvm.edu> See http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/joe-jackson-famous-debate-coach-and.html Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From jbhdb8 Wed Jul 9 12:32:27 2008 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 13:32:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Joe Jackson, great Oklahoma coach and educator In-Reply-To: <4874E932.2000105@uvm.edu> References: <4874E932.2000105@uvm.edu> Message-ID: My second edebate post since my promise not to post until next year....But as an alum of UCO I wanted to tip my cap with all other Bronchos for the passing of Joe C. Jackson. Josh On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Alfred Snider wrote: > See > > http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/joe-jackson-famous-debate-coach-and.html > > Tuna > > -- > Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna > Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics > University of Vermont > Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA > Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com > Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu > World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ > World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com > 802-656-0097 office telephone > 802-656-4275 office fax > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080709/99688a11/attachment.htm From jrlyle Wed Jul 9 20:00:20 2008 From: jrlyle (James Lyle) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:00:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c) Message-ID: <25fd497f0807091800u204d61a9ua1412158f7b9b3f0@mail.gmail.com> It's amazing that there has been ZERO discussion of the resolutions since the topic meeting. So, here's a late appeal for one of the "1" resolutions. Although I think "a" is the best area since the 29 commodities listed under Title 1 scare me a little, I think the need for "1" is clear. Originally I thought the 2nd set were better but have changed my mind. Here's why: If you read the resolutions, you will see that the independent clause (which holds the subject and primary verb) is "usfg substantially reduce Ag support." The dependent clause, which modifies this statement is either "by eliminating all/nearly all" (close-ended qualifer) or "by eliminating at least" (open-ended qualifier). If this read is accurate then an aff that reduces an explicit topic commodity AND another form of ag support is topical. For instance, under 2c an aff that reduces corn and fishery subsidies is topical because both actions are "subs redux of ag support" and the "at least" phrase justifies the fish action even though it isn't listed. The solution to this problem would be a topicality interpretation that says ignore "at least" and go by the explicit verbage of the resolution. If this is the accepted interpretation, then an aff that included export subsidies and/or market access barriers would not be topical. While the ability to counterplan out of the "topic-mandated extra-topicality" (or the above identified approach to T) solves the concern a Neg team may have with the resolution, the Aff needs to be guaranteed export subsidies and/or market access barriers (especially since the best forms of topic creativity probably lie in the mechanism area of the rez as opposed to the crop portion). Anyhow, that's my read. Jim Lyle Clarion University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080709/55d28670/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Wed Jul 9 21:06:57 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:06:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] racism update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807091906m40441497lb9d9167c515f6741@mail.gmail.com> Thank you to Matt for keeping the watch. To the rest of you: It is interesting that the discussion amongst the policy community and on cross-x.com almost ignored this attack as if nicholas stix was such a creatin that a response would be below us. And perhaps it is, and thats the problem. I wonder what would you say to nicholas stix if he was sitting across a bar table or a starbucks or if he sat down next to you on a long flight...Is it worth it to try to convince him he is wrong? Is it worth it to furitivly post a counter blog? How do you deal with the Schiros/Stix of the world? How much of what he says do you find yourself agreeing with, even if you dont like the way he says it, and wish he wherent so racist? Where do you specifically disagree? Is his understanding of debate so undeveloped? Strip out the racism and how much does it sound like your framework blocks?How much is he verbalizing what you have either thought or have "been sure that other people are saying"? Perhaps the relative silence of the policy debate community compared to the parli community comes from a variety of reasons, but ill suggest two. 1) We have had fantastic opportunities to discuss the theory of social justice and difference and diversity and multiculturalism, but in practice this segment of the academy has largely seen itself sheltered from the diversity battles that have gone in the rest of the academy. Since there are very few black women with the requisite experience to direct a policy debate team there are not really black women in the candidate pool for college debate jobs. The requisite experience component keeps white men in the position of power because they are the dominant demographic amongst competitors and directors. White men can look at the coaching pool and be like hmm i am pretty sure if i stick with this i have a good chance of getting a job. That chance becomes less and less once you think of other identities. Thus our desire for expertise have insulated us from hiring decisions that are often parts o university policy and mechanisms to ensure the diversity of the professorship.Debate avoids this because it requires expertise that does not draw from as diverse a pool as most other university jobs draw from. This by the way has direct effects on the demographics of participants as well as coaches. 2) There is something painful about seeing white supremacists inhabit the argumentative space on which those of you who defend traditional debate practices have staked the future of the game. The fairness of the topic line drawn in the sand is stixs main argument and for many people its their main argument too...and it kinda stings when the best press your side of that debate has is a crazy white supremacist. My response would be do you know what an impact turn is mr stix(of course you do im sure schiros has told you all about them)? And My Second question would be tell me what you know about mau mau and we will go from there... On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:36 PM, matt stannard wrote: > The attack on Towson (and Kansas, and the debate community, and debate > judges) by the racist Stix has been re-posted at another racist website, > libertyforum.com. The article is followed by a comment from a poster who > answers by saying that "academia has been hijacked by Marxist Jews and it > being used to push their agenda of destroying Western civilization through > feminism, homosexuality, and racial lies." > > This demonstrates a certain unity and global racism among people who think > this way. Anti-semitism and anti-black racism have often been presented as > polar/ideological opposites, but obviously they are part of the same overall > spectrum. > > This presents an opportunity for those who find one of those two forms of > racism to be more acceptable than the other to re-think their positions. I > know too many otherwise moderate people, including many in the debate > community, who laugh off one or the other. We need to remember that these > are people who, if they could get away with it (and they often do) would do > serious violence to people who are different from them. > > mjs > > ------------------------------ > Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get > started. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080709/4af0ea35/attachment.htm From drmosbornesq Wed Jul 9 21:22:44 2008 From: drmosbornesq (bandana martin) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 19:22:44 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] racism update In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0807091906m40441497lb9d9167c515f6741@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0807091906m40441497lb9d9167c515f6741@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <39c09a80807091922n2e48fe13y5bea95c3cf9545bb@mail.gmail.com> i am not getting into much of a conversation about this but i haven't delisted myself from edebate yet so i figure i'll respond to andy's post. i don't really know much about being a white, even middle-class, man in debate so i won't respond to the first explanation for why nobody gives a fuck what psycho racist lunatics say on their blogs (or the brains on cx.com). i am just glad to have jobs since my identity puts me at such a disadvantage. THANK YOU CARVER AND ERMO. as to the second point: that stix dude is a psycho racist lunatic. do i care that he is "inhabiting" my argumentative space? lol no. do i think that him and i have the same idea of a good debate round? roflcopter. is it a humorous leap of logic to assume that topicality and the internet-KKK are bff? LEAVE IT TO THE VIEWER. ozzy On 7/9/08, Andy Ellis wrote: > > Thank you to Matt for keeping the watch. > > To the rest of you: > It is interesting that the discussion amongst the policy community and on > cross-x.com almost ignored this attack as if nicholas stix was such a > creatin that a response would be below us. And perhaps it is, and thats the > problem. I wonder what would you say to nicholas stix if he was sitting > across a bar table or a starbucks or if he sat down next to you on a long > flight...Is it worth it to try to convince him he is wrong? Is it worth it > to furitivly post a counter blog? How do you deal with the Schiros/Stix of > the world? How much of what he says do you find yourself agreeing with, even > if you dont like the way he says it, and wish he wherent so racist? Where do > you specifically disagree? Is his understanding of debate so undeveloped? > Strip out the racism and how much does it sound like your framework > blocks?How much is he verbalizing what you have either thought or have "been > sure that other people are saying"? > > Perhaps the relative silence of the policy debate community compared to the > parli community comes from a variety of reasons, but ill suggest two. 1) We > have had fantastic opportunities to discuss the theory of social justice and > difference and diversity and multiculturalism, but in practice this segment > of the academy has largely seen itself sheltered from the diversity battles > that have gone in the rest of the academy. Since there are very few black > women with the requisite experience to direct a policy debate team there are > not really black women in the candidate pool for college debate jobs. The > requisite experience component keeps white men in the position of power > because they are the dominant demographic amongst competitors and directors. > White men can look at the coaching pool and be like hmm i am pretty sure if > i stick with this i have a good chance of getting a job. That chance becomes > less and less once you think of other identities. Thus our desire for > expertise have insulated us from hiring decisions that are often parts o > university policy and mechanisms to ensure the diversity of the > professorship.Debate avoids this because it requires expertise that does not > draw from as diverse a pool as most other university jobs draw from. This by > the way has direct effects on the demographics of participants as well as > coaches. 2) There is something painful about seeing white supremacists > inhabit the argumentative space on which those of you who defend traditional > debate practices have staked the future of the game. The fairness of the > topic line drawn in the sand is stixs main argument and for many people its > their main argument too...and it kinda stings when the best press your side > of that debate has is a crazy white supremacist. > > My response would be do you know what an impact turn is mr stix(of course > you do im sure schiros has told you all about them)? And My Second question > would be tell me what you know about mau mau and we will go from there... > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 12:36 PM, matt stannard > wrote: > >> The attack on Towson (and Kansas, and the debate community, and debate >> judges) by the racist Stix has been re-posted at another racist website, >> libertyforum.com. The article is followed by a comment from a poster who >> answers by saying that "academia has been hijacked by Marxist Jews and it >> being used to push their agenda of destroying Western civilization through >> feminism, homosexuality, and racial lies." >> >> This demonstrates a certain unity and global racism among people who think >> this way. Anti-semitism and anti-black racism have often been presented as >> polar/ideological opposites, but obviously they are part of the same overall >> spectrum. >> >> This presents an opportunity for those who find one of those two forms of >> racism to be more acceptable than the other to re-think their positions. I >> know too many otherwise moderate people, including many in the debate >> community, who laugh off one or the other. We need to remember that these >> are people who, if they could get away with it (and they often do) would do >> serious violence to people who are different from them. >> >> mjs >> >> ------------------------------ >> Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get >> started. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080709/07854bd6/attachment.htm From asymonds Wed Jul 9 22:44:20 2008 From: asymonds (Adam Symonds) Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:44:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ADI 2008 - It's not too late! Message-ID: <4b7997ff0807092044hda978eeua92a93b0bbc5560e@mail.gmail.com> Hey all, The Arizona Debate Institute is still open for students to register at a discounted rate until July 15th. We're rapidly approaching new heights in participation at the institute this summer. Consider joining our great staff, hard-working fellows, and beautiful climate in Tempe. Information on the institute can be found at http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/adi.htm. We're also on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7679821194. Best, Adam Symonds Co-Director ADI Director of Forensics Arizona State University From stefan.bauschard Thu Jul 10 11:55:56 2008 From: stefan.bauschard (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:55:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2008 camp argument list updated Message-ID: <524839830807100955u376395e0j5aabaabfaf74a17d@mail.gmail.com> http://www.planetdebate.com/cxguide/cxguide_blogs.asp?mode=2&Blog_Id=132&pm=comment&blogjump=132&i=x If you have anything to add, let me know. Camps missing at the moment: Miami MSU Northwestern -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/89884e40/attachment.htm From EricMorris Thu Jul 10 12:05:14 2008 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:05:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c) In-Reply-To: <25fd497f0807091800u204d61a9ua1412158f7b9b3f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <25fd497f0807091800u204d61a9ua1412158f7b9b3f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E14C@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I would be surprised if the community gravitated toward an interpretation that explicitly and intentionally mooted the term "at least". I think nearly any interpretation would be preferred ahead of intentionally mooting a term. Instead, I think it is more likely that the list at the end would be seen as modifying the reduction in agricultural support (reduce agricultural support for ...... corn), with the "at least" part meaning get rid of domestic subsidies for corn and maybe some other agricultural support for corn. Even if you CAN read the "at least" as altering the crop list (instead of just the subsidies part), that interpretation would be hard to sustain relative to one which preserves the crop list as voted upon. Ermo p.s. But, I agree about the (a) because the farm bill list is like 25 items, most of which are much smaller than the heavily subsidized crops. From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of James Lyle Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:00 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c) It's amazing that there has been ZERO discussion of the resolutions since the topic meeting. So, here's a late appeal for one of the "1" resolutions. Although I think "a" is the best area since the 29 commodities listed under Title 1 scare me a little, I think the need for "1" is clear. Originally I thought the 2nd set were better but have changed my mind. Here's why: If you read the resolutions, you will see that the independent clause (which holds the subject and primary verb) is "usfg substantially reduce Ag support." The dependent clause, which modifies this statement is either "by eliminating all/nearly all" (close-ended qualifer) or "by eliminating at least" (open-ended qualifier). If this read is accurate then an aff that reduces an explicit topic commodity AND another form of ag support is topical. For instance, under 2c an aff that reduces corn and fishery subsidies is topical because both actions are "subs redux of ag support" and the "at least" phrase justifies the fish action even though it isn't listed. The solution to this problem would be a topicality interpretation that says ignore "at least" and go by the explicit verbage of the resolution. If this is the accepted interpretation, then an aff that included export subsidies and/or market access barriers would not be topical. While the ability to counterplan out of the "topic-mandated extra-topicality" (or the above identified approach to T) solves the concern a Neg team may have with the resolution, the Aff needs to be guaranteed export subsidies and/or market access barriers (especially since the best forms of topic creativity probably lie in the mechanism area of the rez as opposed to the crop portion). Anyhow, that's my read. Jim Lyle Clarion University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/b1444acd/attachment.htm From dylan.keenan Thu Jul 10 13:12:00 2008 From: dylan.keenan (Dylan Keenan) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:12:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c) In-Reply-To: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E14C@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> References: <25fd497f0807091800u204d61a9ua1412158f7b9b3f0@mail.gmail.com> <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E14C@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: I think this is an interesting objection. Given that we should, as a community, do everything in our power to make people read big stick affirmatives at the center of the topic that link to everything, I think we should take it seriously. Here's why I think it is grammatically wrong. Consider two possible resolutions: 1) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat. 2) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the domestic subsidies for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat. The first one is the resolution (2a) that is listed by the topic committee. The second one is the same resolution with the comma after "subsidies" deleted. I think they mean very different things. In my mind Jim is interpreting 1) like in a way that is actually fitting of 2). What is the difference? Well, 2) only says the aff has to reduce agricultural support, and says that reduction in support for agricultural has to at least include substantial cuts in subsidies for a list of crops. However, 1) says that the aff has to reduce its agricultural support for a set of listed crops and that reduction for the listed crops, at least has to include a dramatic reduction in domestic subsidies. Basically, I think Ermo is right but thinking about it in comparative terms helps. The comma is relevant, and if you take it out you can see why the resolution doesn't allow "topic-mandated extratopicality". At a minimum I think there are two VIABLE readings of the resolution. One which treates "agricultural support... for biofuels, cAFOs, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat" as the object and asks the affirmative to reduce that, including at least an elimination of subsidies. The other is the interpretation is the one Jim suggests. I'm no grammar expert but that's my read. -Dylan On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Morris, Eric R < EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote: > I would be surprised if the community gravitated toward an interpretation > that explicitly and intentionally mooted the term "at least". I think nearly > any interpretation would be preferred ahead of intentionally mooting a term. > > > > Instead, I think it is more likely that the list at the end would be seen > as modifying the reduction in agricultural support (reduce agricultural > support for ?? corn), with the "at least" part meaning get rid of domestic > subsidies for corn and maybe some other agricultural support for corn. > > > > Even if you CAN read the "at least" as altering the crop list (instead of > just the subsidies part), that interpretation would be hard to sustain > relative to one which preserves the crop list as voted upon. > > > > Ermo > > > > p.s. But, I agree about the (a) because the farm bill list is like 25 > items, most of which are much smaller than the heavily subsidized crops. > > > > *From:* edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto: > edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] *On Behalf Of *James Lyle > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:00 PM > *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com > *Subject:* [eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c) > > > > It's amazing that there has been ZERO discussion of the resolutions since > the topic meeting. So, here's a late appeal for one of the "1" resolutions. > Although I think "a" is the best area since the 29 commodities listed under > Title 1 scare me a little, I think the need for "1" is clear. > > Originally I thought the 2nd set were better but have changed my mind. > Here's why: > > If you read the resolutions, you will see that the independent clause > (which holds the subject and primary verb) is "usfg substantially reduce Ag > support." The dependent clause, which modifies this statement is either "by > eliminating all/nearly all" (close-ended qualifer) or "by eliminating at > least" (open-ended qualifier). If this read is accurate then an aff that > reduces an explicit topic commodity AND another form of ag support is > topical. For instance, under 2c an aff that reduces corn and fishery > subsidies is topical because both actions are "subs redux of ag support" and > the "at least" phrase justifies the fish action even though it isn't > listed. The solution to this problem would be a topicality interpretation > that says ignore "at least" and go by the explicit verbage of the > resolution. If this is the accepted interpretation, then an aff that > included export subsidies and/or market access barriers would not be > topical. While the ability to counterplan out of the "topic-mandated > extra-topicality" (or the above identified approach to T) solves the concern > a Neg team may have with the resolution, the Aff needs to be guaranteed > export subsidies and/or market access barriers (especially since the best > forms of topic creativity probably lie in the mechanism area of the rez as > opposed to the crop portion). > > Anyhow, that's my read. > > Jim Lyle > Clarion University > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/651272d7/attachment.htm From jrlyle Thu Jul 10 13:40:47 2008 From: jrlyle (James Lyle) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:40:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c) In-Reply-To: References: <25fd497f0807091800u204d61a9ua1412158f7b9b3f0@mail.gmail.com> <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E14C@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: <25fd497f0807101140g343b2f5aw9bf1fe84e6c38bbd@mail.gmail.com> Dylan's post makes sense to me (and is why I initially thought 2 was better). I managed to miss the comma in my re-readings (guess the other 10 got in the way). If the Dylan/Ermo interpretation is what people are selling then I'm probably buying. But, I am concerned that people may advance the other interpretation, or comparable interpretations, that ultimately work to force market access barriers and export subsidies out of the topic. I guess it's just real easy to get caught up in the qualifying portions of the resolution(s) and end up with interesting distortions. On 7/10/08, Dylan Keenan wrote: > > > I think this is an interesting objection. Given that we should, as a > community, do everything in our power to make people read big stick > affirmatives at the center of the topic that link to everything, I think we > should take it seriously. > > Here's why I think it is grammatically wrong. Consider two possible > resolutions: > > 1) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should > substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly > all of the domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding > Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or > wheat. > > 2) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should > substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly > all of the domestic subsidies for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding > Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or > wheat. > > The first one is the resolution (2a) that is listed by the topic committee. > The second one is the same resolution with the comma after "subsidies" > deleted. > > I think they mean very different things. > > In my mind Jim is interpreting 1) like in a way that is actually fitting of > 2). > > What is the difference? > > Well, 2) only says the aff has to reduce agricultural support, and says > that reduction in support for agricultural has to at least include > substantial cuts in subsidies for a list of crops. > > However, 1) says that the aff has to reduce its agricultural support for a > set of listed crops and that reduction for the listed crops, at least has to > include a dramatic reduction in domestic subsidies. > > Basically, I think Ermo is right but thinking about it in comparative terms > helps. The comma is relevant, and if you take it out you can see why the > resolution doesn't allow "topic-mandated extratopicality". > > At a minimum I think there are two VIABLE readings of the resolution. One > which treates "agricultural support... for biofuels, cAFOs, corn, cotton, > dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat" as the object and asks > the affirmative to reduce that, including at least an elimination of > subsidies. > > The other is the interpretation is the one Jim suggests. I'm no grammar > expert but that's my read. > > -Dylan > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Morris, Eric R < > EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote: > >> I would be surprised if the community gravitated toward an >> interpretation that explicitly and intentionally mooted the term "at least". >> I think nearly any interpretation would be preferred ahead of intentionally >> mooting a term. >> >> >> >> Instead, I think it is more likely that the list at the end would be seen >> as modifying the reduction in agricultural support (reduce agricultural >> support for ?? corn), with the "at least" part meaning get rid of domestic >> subsidies for corn and maybe some other agricultural support for corn. >> >> >> >> Even if you CAN read the "at least" as altering the crop list (instead of >> just the subsidies part), that interpretation would be hard to sustain >> relative to one which preserves the crop list as voted upon. >> >> >> >> Ermo >> >> >> >> p.s. But, I agree about the (a) because the farm bill list is like 25 >> items, most of which are much smaller than the heavily subsidized crops. >> >> >> >> *From:* edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto: >> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] *On Behalf Of *James Lyle >> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:00 PM >> *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com >> *Subject:* [eDebate] vote for 1 (a,b, or c) >> >> >> >> It's amazing that there has been ZERO discussion of the resolutions since >> the topic meeting. So, here's a late appeal for one of the "1" resolutions. >> Although I think "a" is the best area since the 29 commodities listed under >> Title 1 scare me a little, I think the need for "1" is clear. >> >> Originally I thought the 2nd set were better but have changed my mind. >> Here's why: >> >> If you read the resolutions, you will see that the independent clause >> (which holds the subject and primary verb) is "usfg substantially reduce Ag >> support." The dependent clause, which modifies this statement is either "by >> eliminating all/nearly all" (close-ended qualifer) or "by eliminating at >> least" (open-ended qualifier). If this read is accurate then an aff that >> reduces an explicit topic commodity AND another form of ag support is >> topical. For instance, under 2c an aff that reduces corn and fishery >> subsidies is topical because both actions are "subs redux of ag support" and >> the "at least" phrase justifies the fish action even though it isn't >> listed. The solution to this problem would be a topicality interpretation >> that says ignore "at least" and go by the explicit verbage of the >> resolution. If this is the accepted interpretation, then an aff that >> included export subsidies and/or market access barriers would not be >> topical. While the ability to counterplan out of the "topic-mandated >> extra-topicality" (or the above identified approach to T) solves the concern >> a Neg team may have with the resolution, the Aff needs to be guaranteed >> export subsidies and/or market access barriers (especially since the best >> forms of topic creativity probably lie in the mechanism area of the rez as >> opposed to the crop portion). >> >> Anyhow, that's my read. >> >> Jim Lyle >> Clarion University >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/cc38ed6b/attachment.htm From davismk13 Thu Jul 10 14:01:48 2008 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:01:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Don't be afraid of commodity one crops Message-ID: <9a7f6f740807101201s7395a6aeqd9daaa6b63c00661@mail.gmail.com> Both Jim and Ermo indicated that the list of 29 commodity one crops scared them. We had a long discussion at the topic meeting and I came away that I am much more afraid of COFU and fisheries that I am of any additional crops. Your generic counterplans, politics DAs (some of the specific politics links for these crops are really good) and many of the PICS will still work against the smaller crops. Plus some of these crops are very interesting. I would encourage everyone to take a closer look at these crops before dismissing them outright. Some of them might not be affs, but I have not been able to find one yet that I would not be willing to go negative against. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From Jacob.Thompson Thu Jul 10 15:04:50 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:04:50 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c Message-ID: I was happy to see Jim Lyle's post and hope that it will generate some discussion of possible resolutions and voting. However, I must note that I disagree with Jim's initial reading of the proposed resolutions (and think, based on his last post that he's already backed away from this reading). 1) Jim already admits that the plan under rez 2c to reduce ethanol subs AND to reduce fisheries subsidies would not be a strategic aff choice. The neg eliminates any benefit to eliminating fisheries subs by just counterplanning out of that portion of the plan. 2) I don't pretend to be a semanticist, but... Ermo and Dylan probably are... they've effectively addressed these concerns in their 2 previous posts. Second and more importantly, in terms of available topic literature, it should be obvious that this is one of the most affirmatively biased topic areas in recent history. When the topic paper noted (to paraphrase) 'advocates for reducing subsidies range from Libertarians to liberals like Oxfam International' they weren't kidding. There are very few people/groups outside of the farm lobby and a few agricultural economists who believe that subsidies should not be cut. We as a community should be careful about granting the aff maximum "solvency mechanism" flexibility, especially in a world where most people believe that ending most major forms of agricultural support is a fabulous idea. The best case arguments that the neg would have against cutting subsidies are solvency based--i.e. no EU/Japanese reciprocation, US Tariffs overwhelm solvency, you have to cut subsidies and tariffs simultaneously, etc. These arguments would be gutted by a resolution that allowed the aff to reduce almost all forms of USFG agricultural support. Additionally: It seems that restricting the aff to purely domestic subsidy cuts keeps this a "domestic" topic. A vote for topic 1 multiplies potential affs by (at least) three. Allowing affs to address market access barriers makes consult CPs (which a lot of people seem to find illegit or at least "bad for debate") a lot more likely to be run. If my aff were reduce market access barriers to Brazillian sugar-ethanol, the ultra-hot "consult Brazil CP" (which I have actually heard read in a few debates) would rear it's ugly head. just my 2-cents Jake Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/70e7be50/attachment.htm From EricMorris Thu Jul 10 15:07:24 2008 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:07:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Don't be afraid of commodity one crops In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740807101201s7395a6aeqd9daaa6b63c00661@mail.gmail.com> References: <9a7f6f740807101201s7395a6aeqd9daaa6b63c00661@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E1A9@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Perhaps fear is not the right word. Certainly, generics can keep the negative in the game. I am concerned we'll end up in rounds with shallow generics instead of deep case debates. That means relying on generics instead of good case defense. Any case will be researched if teams are winning with it. If there are enough of them, the research on the major cases will suffer accordingly. Although I think CAFO's and fisheries might not link to the same generics as other parts of the topic, I do have the impression that both are large areas that could lead to deep case debates. I think there will be a fair number of cases in both areas if they are included in the topic, with a smaller percentage of CAFO teams defending the implications of a topical plan than fisheries teams. I think while either of them is a big debate, the topic is smaller and more predictable than with a much longer list. If you think that's incorrect, please tell me why before we vote. Ermo p.s. Glad we are talking about this, regardless of agreement! -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Mike Davis Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:02 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Don't be afraid of commodity one crops Both Jim and Ermo indicated that the list of 29 commodity one crops scared them. We had a long discussion at the topic meeting and I came away that I am much more afraid of COFU and fisheries that I am of any additional crops. Your generic counterplans, politics DAs (some of the specific politics links for these crops are really good) and many of the PICS will still work against the smaller crops. Plus some of these crops are very interesting. I would encourage everyone to take a closer look at these crops before dismissing them outright. Some of them might not be affs, but I have not been able to find one yet that I would not be willing to go negative against. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jbhdb8 Thu Jul 10 15:11:30 2008 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:11:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The problem is that many things that are not considered subsidies (like RPS) would confound the ability of any affirmative to solve if not included. Good resolutions must include the removal of subsidies PLUS other forms of agricultural support that do the same things as subsidies but technically are not subsidies. In addition, the PIC out of half the affirmative does limit the negatives net benefits (at least the generic ones) because the CP also would eat most of those...In other words, there is still a strategic value to forcing that cp. Ian Asturbury On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM, wrote: > > I was happy to see Jim Lyle's post and hope that it will generate some > discussion of possible resolutions and voting. However, I must note that I > disagree with Jim's initial reading of the proposed resolutions (and think, > based on his last post that he's already backed away from this reading). > > 1) Jim already admits that the plan under rez 2c to reduce ethanol subs AND > to reduce fisheries subsidies would not be a strategic aff choice. The neg > eliminates any benefit to eliminating fisheries subs by just counterplanning > out of that portion of the plan. > > 2) I don't pretend to be a semanticist, but... Ermo and Dylan probably > are... they've effectively addressed these concerns in their 2 previous > posts. > > Second and more importantly, in terms of available topic literature, it > should be obvious that this is one of the most affirmatively biased topic > areas in recent history. When the topic paper noted (to paraphrase) > 'advocates for reducing subsidies range from Libertarians to liberals like > Oxfam International' they weren't kidding. There are very few people/groups > outside of the farm lobby and a few agricultural economists who believe that > subsidies should not be cut. > > We as a community should be careful about granting the aff maximum > "solvency mechanism" flexibility, especially in a world where most people > believe that ending most major forms of agricultural support is a fabulous > idea. The best case arguments that the neg would have against cutting > subsidies are solvency based--i.e. no EU/Japanese reciprocation, US Tariffs > overwhelm solvency, you have to cut subsidies and tariffs simultaneously, > etc. These arguments would be gutted by a resolution that allowed the aff > to reduce almost all forms of USFG agricultural support. > > Additionally: > > It seems that restricting the aff to purely domestic subsidy cuts keeps > this a "domestic" topic. > > A vote for topic 1 multiplies potential affs by (at least) three. > > Allowing affs to address market access barriers makes consult CPs (which a > lot of people seem to find illegit or at least "bad for debate") a lot more > likely to be run. If my aff were reduce market access barriers to > Brazillian sugar-ethanol, the ultra-hot "consult Brazil CP" (which I have > actually heard read in a few debates) would rear it's ugly head. > > just my 2-cents > > > Jake > > Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. > Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > Assistant Professor In Residence > Greenspun College of Urban Affairs > Department of Communication Studies > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 > Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 > office (702) 895-3474 > fax (702) 895-4805 > cell (702) 809-9670 > > Rebel Debate on the web: > www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/65871f93/attachment.htm From EricMorris Thu Jul 10 15:19:36 2008 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:19:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E1AD@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I agree with Jake's conclusion but not all of his reasons. I worry that I will persuade him back to 1abc by explaining why I agree with him... I think affirmatives can access any solvency mechanism available under 1abc with 2abc. The "at least" seems to allow mechanisms beyond just subsidy cuts to avoid extra topicality problems. The primary differences seem to be: 1. With 2abc, the affirmative cannot avoid subsidy cuts for the purposes of disad links. With 1abc, they can run cases with other mechanisms and leave the subsidies alone. 2. With 2abc, the affirmative can theoretically do mechanisms beyond what 1abc would allow. However, since the subsidy cut would also have to be in there, it should be possible for the negative to PIC out of anything they didn't want to talk about and push the debate back to the subsidy part. Thus, 2abc seems to combine more affirmative flexibility with more negative predictability. Since I'm not a fan of hard-wiring solvency problems into the topic (and since a lot of cards use the word 'subsidy' to speak about subsidies but also other mechanisms), I like letting the affirmative do what they need to solve. I'm not convinced the literature balance against subsidies will translate into a topic balance favoring affirmatives. I think there are tons of effects of subsidies which are decried by those opposing subsidies but which can easily be turned by negatives. Plus, a lot of that literature is not particular to all the types of subsidies so much as the general concept. It may not give affirmatives great offense against PICs. Ermo From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:05 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c I was happy to see Jim Lyle's post and hope that it will generate some discussion of possible resolutions and voting. However, I must note that I disagree with Jim's initial reading of the proposed resolutions (and think, based on his last post that he's already backed away from this reading). 1) Jim already admits that the plan under rez 2c to reduce ethanol subs AND to reduce fisheries subsidies would not be a strategic aff choice. The neg eliminates any benefit to eliminating fisheries subs by just counterplanning out of that portion of the plan. 2) I don't pretend to be a semanticist, but... Ermo and Dylan probably are... they've effectively addressed these concerns in their 2 previous posts. Second and more importantly, in terms of available topic literature, it should be obvious that this is one of the most affirmatively biased topic areas in recent history. When the topic paper noted (to paraphrase) 'advocates for reducing subsidies range from Libertarians to liberals like Oxfam International' they weren't kidding. There are very few people/groups outside of the farm lobby and a few agricultural economists who believe that subsidies should not be cut. We as a community should be careful about granting the aff maximum "solvency mechanism" flexibility, especially in a world where most people believe that ending most major forms of agricultural support is a fabulous idea. The best case arguments that the neg would have against cutting subsidies are solvency based--i.e. no EU/Japanese reciprocation, US Tariffs overwhelm solvency, you have to cut subsidies and tariffs simultaneously, etc. These arguments would be gutted by a resolution that allowed the aff to reduce almost all forms of USFG agricultural support. Additionally: It seems that restricting the aff to purely domestic subsidy cuts keeps this a "domestic" topic. A vote for topic 1 multiplies potential affs by (at least) three. Allowing affs to address market access barriers makes consult CPs (which a lot of people seem to find illegit or at least "bad for debate") a lot more likely to be run. If my aff were reduce market access barriers to Brazillian sugar-ethanol, the ultra-hot "consult Brazil CP" (which I have actually heard read in a few debates) would rear it's ugly head. just my 2-cents Jake Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/5c258f36/attachment.htm From cramhelwich Thu Jul 10 15:31:03 2008 From: cramhelwich (David Cram Helwich) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:31:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52ace93c0807101331g6a9f2494ve7c2ab627c827b4c@mail.gmail.com> Aff bias? Right now, I disagree, pretty strongly. The aff harms lit is good, but affirming is likely to be pretty hard. Couple of observations: 1. Politics DA links are brutal and pretty unidirectional. ConAgra can outlobby Oxfam. This will force affs to go tiny on mech/subsidy, which may not work b/c there are pretty good links to things like oil seeds, or to go big to outweigh the DA. I'm fine with either. 2. Solvency lit is limited--there are not that many articles that we have found so far that make a good case for a defensible 'post subsidy' world. This is true for the 7 commodity crops we have researched so far, and we are not exactly slouches. 3. There is plenty of lit on the far-ish left saying lifting subsidies is bad for policy-friendly reasons. 4. K links are also pretty brutal. The link turn of 'we're pro-poor people' will work for about three rounds before it is swamped by incrementalism/reformism bad cards that are mech-specific. Aff flex, please. On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:04 PM, wrote: > > I was happy to see Jim Lyle's post and hope that it will generate some > discussion of possible resolutions and voting. However, I must note that I > disagree with Jim's initial reading of the proposed resolutions (and think, > based on his last post that he's already backed away from this reading). > > 1) Jim already admits that the plan under rez 2c to reduce ethanol subs AND > to reduce fisheries subsidies would not be a strategic aff choice. The neg > eliminates any benefit to eliminating fisheries subs by just counterplanning > out of that portion of the plan. > > 2) I don't pretend to be a semanticist, but... Ermo and Dylan probably > are... they've effectively addressed these concerns in their 2 previous > posts. > > Second and more importantly, in terms of available topic literature, it > should be obvious that this is one of the most affirmatively biased topic > areas in recent history. When the topic paper noted (to paraphrase) > 'advocates for reducing subsidies range from Libertarians to liberals like > Oxfam International' they weren't kidding. There are very few people/groups > outside of the farm lobby and a few agricultural economists who believe that > subsidies should not be cut. > > We as a community should be careful about granting the aff maximum > "solvency mechanism" flexibility, especially in a world where most people > believe that ending most major forms of agricultural support is a fabulous > idea. The best case arguments that the neg would have against cutting > subsidies are solvency based--i.e. no EU/Japanese reciprocation, US Tariffs > overwhelm solvency, you have to cut subsidies and tariffs simultaneously, > etc. These arguments would be gutted by a resolution that allowed the aff > to reduce almost all forms of USFG agricultural support. > > Additionally: > > It seems that restricting the aff to purely domestic subsidy cuts keeps > this a "domestic" topic. > > A vote for topic 1 multiplies potential affs by (at least) three. > > Allowing affs to address market access barriers makes consult CPs (which a > lot of people seem to find illegit or at least "bad for debate") a lot more > likely to be run. If my aff were reduce market access barriers to > Brazillian sugar-ethanol, the ultra-hot "consult Brazil CP" (which I have > actually heard read in a few debates) would rear it's ugly head. > > just my 2-cents > > > Jake > > Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. > Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > Assistant Professor In Residence > Greenspun College of Urban Affairs > Department of Communication Studies > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 > Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 > office (702) 895-3474 > fax (702) 895-4805 > cell (702) 809-9670 > > Rebel Debate on the web: > www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/62b98545/attachment.htm From kkuswa Thu Jul 10 15:51:13 2008 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:51:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c In-Reply-To: <52ace93c0807101331g6a9f2494ve7c2ab627c827b4c@mail.gmail.com> References: <52ace93c0807101331g6a9f2494ve7c2ab627c827b4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB8440480441D@castor.richmond.edu> The degrees of aff flex are so minor within the narrow range of choices that it seems like, once again, we're asked to select from among the same shades of pomegranate. The discussion is good, but still muted...probably because the main choices have already been made. We basically know the topic already with a few minute differences. As DCH put it well, we still have to defend a "post-subsidy world." Multiplying the "number of affs" by a certain number is a misnomer when they are versions of the same essential type of advocacy. Looking forward to the "revealing" of the topic. Kevin From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of David Cram Helwich Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 4:31 PM To: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c Aff bias? Right now, I disagree, pretty strongly. The aff harms lit is good, but affirming is likely to be pretty hard. Couple of observations: 1. Politics DA links are brutal and pretty unidirectional. ConAgra can outlobby Oxfam. This will force affs to go tiny on mech/subsidy, which may not work b/c there are pretty good links to things like oil seeds, or to go big to outweigh the DA. I'm fine with either. 2. Solvency lit is limited--there are not that many articles that we have found so far that make a good case for a defensible 'post subsidy' world. This is true for the 7 commodity crops we have researched so far, and we are not exactly slouches. 3. There is plenty of lit on the far-ish left saying lifting subsidies is bad for policy-friendly reasons. 4. K links are also pretty brutal. The link turn of 'we're pro-poor people' will work for about three rounds before it is swamped by incrementalism/reformism bad cards that are mech-specific. Aff flex, please. On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:04 PM, wrote: I was happy to see Jim Lyle's post and hope that it will generate some discussion of possible resolutions and voting. However, I must note that I disagree with Jim's initial reading of the proposed resolutions (and think, based on his last post that he's already backed away from this reading). 1) Jim already admits that the plan under rez 2c to reduce ethanol subs AND to reduce fisheries subsidies would not be a strategic aff choice. The neg eliminates any benefit to eliminating fisheries subs by just counterplanning out of that portion of the plan. 2) I don't pretend to be a semanticist, but... Ermo and Dylan probably are... they've effectively addressed these concerns in their 2 previous posts. Second and more importantly, in terms of available topic literature, it should be obvious that this is one of the most affirmatively biased topic areas in recent history. When the topic paper noted (to paraphrase) 'advocates for reducing subsidies range from Libertarians to liberals like Oxfam International' they weren't kidding. There are very few people/groups outside of the farm lobby and a few agricultural economists who believe that subsidies should not be cut. We as a community should be careful about granting the aff maximum "solvency mechanism" flexibility, especially in a world where most people believe that ending most major forms of agricultural support is a fabulous idea. The best case arguments that the neg would have against cutting subsidies are solvency based--i.e. no EU/Japanese reciprocation, US Tariffs overwhelm solvency, you have to cut subsidies and tariffs simultaneously, etc. These arguments would be gutted by a resolution that allowed the aff to reduce almost all forms of USFG agricultural support. Additionally: It seems that restricting the aff to purely domestic subsidy cuts keeps this a "domestic" topic. A vote for topic 1 multiplies potential affs by (at least) three. Allowing affs to address market access barriers makes consult CPs (which a lot of people seem to find illegit or at least "bad for debate") a lot more likely to be run. If my aff were reduce market access barriers to Brazillian sugar-ethanol, the ultra-hot "consult Brazil CP" (which I have actually heard read in a few debates) would rear it's ugly head. just my 2-cents Jake Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/a10cb2f7/attachment.htm From davismk13 Thu Jul 10 16:58:26 2008 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:58:26 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Don't be afraid of commodity one crops In-Reply-To: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E1A9@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> References: <9a7f6f740807101201s7395a6aeqd9daaa6b63c00661@mail.gmail.com> <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E1A9@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: <9a7f6f740807101458g7d6a563eud10453b974148dd6@mail.gmail.com> I guess predictability is not the same for me as the ability to prepare on a team where we don't have many card cutters. I know that on the neg we will have all of our subsidies argument. For me fisheries and CAFOs are like two more topics. If I had a huge team of experienced card cutters I wouldn't worry about debating three different topics, but experience last year proved to me that we need to have a coherent negative core set of arguments. I think the commodity crops does that. I hear the argument about good deep case debate every year, but it usually seems like the generics rule the day regardless of the topic. I would prefer the subsidies generic ground rather than process counterplans. I guess for me it is the quality of of the generic debates that matter. My guess is that you will see a lot more consult or XO debates if we are debating a topic where people have to prepare for subsidies and two completely different animal affs than you would under a subsidies only topic. The worst option is the one that includes both commodity crops and CAFOs and fisheries. Mike On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Morris, Eric R wrote: > Perhaps fear is not the right word. Certainly, generics can keep the > negative in the game. I am concerned we'll end up in rounds with shallow > generics instead of deep case debates. That means relying on generics > instead of good case defense. Any case will be researched if teams are > winning with it. If there are enough of them, the research on the major > cases will suffer accordingly. > > Although I think CAFO's and fisheries might not link to the same > generics as other parts of the topic, I do have the impression that both > are large areas that could lead to deep case debates. I think there will > be a fair number of cases in both areas if they are included in the > topic, with a smaller percentage of CAFO teams defending the > implications of a topical plan than fisheries teams. > > I think while either of them is a big debate, the topic is smaller and > more predictable than with a much longer list. If you think that's > incorrect, please tell me why before we vote. > > Ermo > > p.s. Glad we are talking about this, regardless of agreement! > > -----Original Message----- > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com > [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Mike Davis > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:02 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Don't be afraid of commodity one crops > > Both Jim and Ermo indicated that the list of 29 commodity one crops > scared them. We had a long discussion at the topic meeting and I came > away that I am much more afraid of COFU and fisheries that I am of any > additional crops. Your generic counterplans, politics DAs (some of the > specific politics links for these crops are really good) and many of > the PICS will still work against the smaller crops. Plus some of these > crops are very interesting. > > I would encourage everyone to take a closer look at these crops before > dismissing them outright. Some of them might not be affs, but I have > not been able to find one yet that I would not be willing to go > negative against. > > -- > Dr. Michael Davis > Director of Debate/Assistant Professor > James Madison University > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From Jacob.Thompson Thu Jul 10 17:44:54 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:44:54 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c In-Reply-To: <52ace93c0807101331g6a9f2494ve7c2ab627c827b4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I think that D-Cram is both right and wrong... When was the last time that we debated a topic that pretty much every group across the political spectrum (from the far left to libertatrians) agreed that the rez was a good idea? This is an aff-biased topic... Even if there isn't much defense of a "post subsidy world" by aff solvency authors, there certainly is a ton of folks saying "let's get rid of subsidies." Anything that Bush, Libertarians, Oxfam International and Vandana Shiva all agree on is definitionally aff biased. 1) yes the politics links will be awesome, but the link turns aren't oxfam, they're blue dog dems, fiscal discipline republicans, enviro lobbies, etc. Let's be honest the farm lobby/conagra is strong, but most people hate subsidies--I think that the link/link turn debates on politics will be robust if affs are smart and creative. 2) The K links are good, the critical aff literature is good too. K link turns may sometimes lose to incrementalism/reformism args, but I hope (when my teams are aff anyway) that it takes them more than 3 rounds to start to those 2NC link args (4 or 5?). 3) I ain't too proud--can you send me some cites for those devistating far-ish lefties who love subsidies? Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate "David Cram Helwich" 07/10/2008 01:31 PM To Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu cc edebate at ndtceda.com Subject Re: [eDebate] vote for rez 2 a,b, or c Aff bias? Right now, I disagree, pretty strongly. The aff harms lit is good, but affirming is likely to be pretty hard. Couple of observations: 1. Politics DA links are brutal and pretty unidirectional. ConAgra can outlobby Oxfam. This will force affs to go tiny on mech/subsidy, which may not work b/c there are pretty good links to things like oil seeds, or to go big to outweigh the DA. I'm fine with either. 2. Solvency lit is limited--there are not that many articles that we have found so far that make a good case for a defensible 'post subsidy' world. This is true for the 7 commodity crops we have researched so far, and we are not exactly slouches. 3. There is plenty of lit on the far-ish left saying lifting subsidies is bad for policy-friendly reasons. 4. K links are also pretty brutal. The link turn of 'we're pro-poor people' will work for about three rounds before it is swamped by incrementalism/reformism bad cards that are mech-specific. Aff flex, please. On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 3:04 PM, wrote: I was happy to see Jim Lyle's post and hope that it will generate some discussion of possible resolutions and voting. However, I must note that I disagree with Jim's initial reading of the proposed resolutions (and think, based on his last post that he's already backed away from this reading). 1) Jim already admits that the plan under rez 2c to reduce ethanol subs AND to reduce fisheries subsidies would not be a strategic aff choice. The neg eliminates any benefit to eliminating fisheries subs by just counterplanning out of that portion of the plan. 2) I don't pretend to be a semanticist, but... Ermo and Dylan probably are... they've effectively addressed these concerns in their 2 previous posts. Second and more importantly, in terms of available topic literature, it should be obvious that this is one of the most affirmatively biased topic areas in recent history. When the topic paper noted (to paraphrase) 'advocates for reducing subsidies range from Libertarians to liberals like Oxfam International' they weren't kidding. There are very few people/groups outside of the farm lobby and a few agricultural economists who believe that subsidies should not be cut. We as a community should be careful about granting the aff maximum "solvency mechanism" flexibility, especially in a world where most people believe that ending most major forms of agricultural support is a fabulous idea. The best case arguments that the neg would have against cutting subsidies are solvency based--i.e. no EU/Japanese reciprocation, US Tariffs overwhelm solvency, you have to cut subsidies and tariffs simultaneously, etc. These arguments would be gutted by a resolution that allowed the aff to reduce almost all forms of USFG agricultural support. Additionally: It seems that restricting the aff to purely domestic subsidy cuts keeps this a "domestic" topic. A vote for topic 1 multiplies potential affs by (at least) three. Allowing affs to address market access barriers makes consult CPs (which a lot of people seem to find illegit or at least "bad for debate") a lot more likely to be run. If my aff were reduce market access barriers to Brazillian sugar-ethanol, the ultra-hot "consult Brazil CP" (which I have actually heard read in a few debates) would rear it's ugly head. just my 2-cents Jake Dr. Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/39f5d9f1/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu Jul 10 20:03:27 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:03:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Ag Topic-you reap what you sow. Message-ID: <1215738207.4876b15f81d16@webmail.grandecom.net> Sorry, somebody had to be the first to use the pun. LOL I kept my mouth shut because I was attempting to be nice. But, it is pretty obvious that the Topic COmmittee has succeeded, regardless of the resolution selected, to hamstringing affirmatives. I don't think adding in CAFO's or not will matter too much. The resolutions virtually dictate the affirmative plan texts, regardless of which one is chosen. This is going to be another suck year of PIC debates and politics. Scott Elliott p.s. Ag as a concept was good. But the restrictive nature of the resolution sucks. From stannardmatt Thu Jul 10 20:34:36 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:34:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Cynthia McKinney on Shared Sacrifice internet radio Message-ID: We are excited to announce that former Congresswoman and current Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney will be our guest this Saturday, July 12, on Shared Sacrifice. McKinney served as a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2003, and from 2005 to 2007, representing Georgia's 4th Congressional District. She left the Democratic Party in September 2007, joining the Green Party in October 2007. During the second half of our show, we will be joined by Cathy Connoly, a progressive Democrat running for Wyoming's state House District 13. Our guests for the July 19 edition of the show will be the members and coaches of the Towson State University Debate Team. Our show takes place from Noon to 2:00 PM mountain time. You can find us at www.blogtalkradio.com/Shared_Sacrifice. If you can't listen to the show live, you can download it from the site. Our call-in number is (347) 327-9615. matt stannard co-producer _________________________________________________________________ Making the world a better place one message at a time. http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080710/c41062f2/attachment.htm From dave Fri Jul 11 08:41:01 2008 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:41:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re.: Don't be afraid of commodity one crops Message-ID: I think the fear of the commodities covered by Title I (which is not nearly as long as some have represented) is misplaced: 1) Most of the crops are exactly the same as those listed explicitly in the "short list" alternative wording. The only crops that have been added: pulse crops, oilseeds, barley, sorghum, honey, mohair. These crops, as part of the current farm bill and commodity literature, have much more in common, including solvency mechanisms, bodies of relevant literature, and contemporary context, than ethanol, fisheries and CAFO, which access very large and very different bodies of literature. I think Mike Davis hit it on the head by arguing that it will be easier to research and strategize the additional Title I crops than the other topics. 2) Almost all the crops unique to Title I can be grouped into categories of crops which share the same bodies of literature, advantages, and disadvantages, because they are discussed as a category in the literature and rarely individually. For example, oilseeds (peanuts/other), pulse crops (peas/chickpeas/lentils), rice (short/long), etc. The fact that Title I lists both large and small chickpeas doesn't mean that the aff will be able to exploit those distinctions. Negative strategies will only have to target a group of crops, even if the Aff were to focus on one (it's also worth pointing out that some of these sub-crops are implicitly included in the short list, such as rice). The only exceptions to the grouping of these commodities in the literature are honey and mohair. Researching two more commodities isn't a big deal, and I would argue that these two in particular have some of the most interesting (and controversial) literature, aff and neg, on the topic. They're also the only subsidies which have been repealed previously for periods of time, so they have empirical discussions of their effectiveness. 3) The discussions of limits I have encountered so far focus only on the number of commodities. However, Title I also provides a limit on the mechanism for support by limiting the aff to ending direct payments or marketing loan assistance. This may provide a check against extremely creative interpretations of what constitutes a subsidy or a market barrier. I think this aspect of the resolution could have a much greater impact on my research burden than the number of commodities. Explicitly limiting the resolution to target the types of support provided in the farm bill ensures a predictable body of current evidence for both sides. For these reasons, if I were to fear any wording for being unlimiting, it would be the deceptively short list in option a. There are lots of really creative, interesting affs in the Title I commodities, you only have to take a look into the literature to find them. Kenny McCaffrey Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080711/c4d63af1/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Fri Jul 11 09:38:11 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:38:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807110738g707f1bbbpe442fe2dc0a14e27@mail.gmail.com> So when i woke up this morning and my phone was dead and i was 15 minutes late getting to my car and it had been towed and then after a 2 plus mile walk home i found out it was going to cost me $250 to get it out of the impound lot, i was thinking...well it can only become a better day from here...then i read about chickpeas and lentils and mohair...and while it made me hungry and dedicated(even if i have to walk) to go to the afro Caribbean vegetarian place for lunch..it also made me sad for the debate community...like why are a bunch of really smart people, many of whom have a decent amount of public money to spend on taking other smart people around to discuss stuff with more smart people, making the stuff they spend public resources discussing the finer points of chickpea and mohair policy. This is not a plea for a specific topic any more than it is a discussion of who was better in caberet joel grey or johnny depp(for the record it matters more if johnny depp was never in caberet than it does if chick peas are included or excluded from the topic) this is a question about how the debate community utilizes the often public resources it receives to craft an increasingly meaningless kind of political agency which offers very little opportunity for meaningful real world application. It is not a question of whether we should engage in debate about policy, but at what level we define policy and to what ends the definition is best suited. We have chosen a random point of specificity on the policy making spectrum and decided that things that are broader than that point are not policy making, and we will inevitably create a discursive regime which assigns that random point as the line for meaningful democratic discourse...We could get more specific...we all should know that from any real policy work we have done...but we could also craft what we discuss as policy in a way which provides more meaningful space for political agency that connects to the real world..stuff people care about, and is a pressing social question of our times, but instead we shy away from those debates, and use the finer points of mohair and chickpea policy to rob the soul from meaningful questions like how do we use our political agency to change the structure in which government and big agro business have colluded in order to create a global food crisis. Here is a framework question for choosing what you debate about. Is what you debate about worth the investment that society puts into it. Like if the state of kansas spent 500,000 training 30 people to know both sides of the chickpea debate without expecting any application of that knowledge to actual chickpea policy, would this be a expenditure of funds you thought prudent? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080711/9963e9d3/attachment.htm From EricMorris Fri Jul 11 09:59:21 2008 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:59:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0807110738g707f1bbbpe442fe2dc0a14e27@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0807110738g707f1bbbpe442fe2dc0a14e27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E267@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> This is a curious argument to me. It would seem to be exceptionally conservative, in that it would limit debate to thoroughly mainstream political ideas. Think about the Republican opposition to public financing of elections - the argument is that I should not have to pay for a campaign on the other side to publicize ideas that I oppose. But now, instead of those ideas being fairly mundane differences of the best path to achieve a mutual goal, the ideas are revolutionary. In a country where large numbers reject any affirmative action with teeth (while quoting Martin Luther King to justify color blindness), would there really be majority support for training which used a racially conscious aesthetic as a primary educational tool? I think public support levels would be higher for training 30 kids to know both sides of an important public policy issue (Ag subsidies, I would not single out chickpeas) than for revolutionary activist training. This doesn't mean I'm saying such training should not occur, etc. - more that the framework invoked in this post seems surprisingly conservative in its implications, given who is advancing it. Ermo From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Andy Ellis Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:38 AM To: edebate Subject: [eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair Here is a framework question for choosing what you debate about. Is what you debate about worth the investment that society puts into it. Like if the state of kansas spent 500,000 training 30 people to know both sides of the chickpea debate without expecting any application of that knowledge to actual chickpea policy, would this be a expenditure of funds you thought prudent? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080711/49a68b1f/attachment.htm From hallbrad Fri Jul 11 10:46:41 2008 From: hallbrad (Brad Hall) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:46:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair In-Reply-To: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E267@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> References: <9368bc9b0807110738g707f1bbbpe442fe2dc0a14e27@mail.gmail.com> <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EF6E267@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: As someone who has (at least temporarily) left debate to do public policy-related research, I think Andy overlooks the benefits of the *process* of policy debate and its connection to his call for "political agency in the real world." Ross and others have made this point many times, but it is worth briefly reiterating: switch sides public policy debate enables activism by teaching a research and decision making process that is applicable outside of the insulated debate community. While debates do not directly change public policy (after all, Mohammed Ali Hammadi still roams the streets of Beirut), the skills of debate teach debaters how to help with "activist" causes once they leave debate. For example, policy debaters are taught the skills of researching a topic both quickly (finding one or two politics cards in 3 minutes) and in depth (consider that hundreds of high school debaters around the country are currently attempting to exhaust the debate over global warming and alternative energy). Debaters learn a number of other useful skills, from word economy to prioritization of the best arguments. But most importantly, the process of reflecting on this research and considering both sides of a public policy issue teaches the participants of debate a decision making process that is applicable to the rest of their life. Many, many traditional policy debaters have taken these skills and translated them into work at think tanks, law firms, universities, corporations, journalism, and other sectors. NDT Champion Larry Tribe has produced groundbreaking societal change through the law just to cite one example. Glenn Greenwald is one of the most popular progressive bloggers whose research acumen is obvious. Real change has been produced by these individuals (and many others), and it continues to be. The real question should be: how do alternative models of debate promote any of these skills/process, or if they don't (since they often base their existence on a criticism of these aspects of policy debate), what do they offer to activism outside of debate? It is somewhat noble to claim that the structures of debate are changed by alternative models (though this is often not the case), but unless you expect the actual channels of power like Congress to be similarly changed, what impact does non-traditional non-policy debate have on the "real world"? To return to the thrust of Andy's original post, there are few activities I would rather see public money be spent on than training high school and college students in traditional, switch sides policy debate. Brad P.S. I would discourage you from consuming mohair. On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Morris, Eric R < EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote: > This is a curious argument to me. It would seem to be exceptionally > conservative, in that it would limit debate to thoroughly mainstream > political ideas. > > > > Think about the Republican opposition to public financing of elections ? > the argument is that I should not have to pay for a campaign on the other > side to publicize ideas that I oppose. But now, instead of those ideas being > fairly mundane differences of the best path to achieve a mutual goal, the > ideas are revolutionary. In a country where large numbers reject any > affirmative action with teeth (while quoting Martin Luther King to justify > color blindness), would there really be majority support for training which > used a racially conscious aesthetic as a primary educational tool? > > > > I think public support levels would be higher for training 30 kids to know > both sides of an important public policy issue (Ag subsidies, I would not > single out chickpeas) than for revolutionary activist training. > > > > This doesn't mean I'm saying such training should not occur, etc. ? more > that the framework invoked in this post seems surprisingly conservative in > its implications, given who is advancing it. > > > > Ermo > > > > *From:* edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto: > edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] *On Behalf Of *Andy Ellis > *Sent:* Friday, July 11, 2008 9:38 AM > *To:* edebate > *Subject:* [eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair > > > > Here is a framework question for choosing what you debate about. Is what > you debate about worth the investment that society puts into it. Like if the > state of kansas spent 500,000 training 30 people to know both sides of the > chickpea debate without expecting any application of that knowledge to > actual chickpea policy, would this be a expenditure of funds you thought > prudent? > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Brad Hall hallbrad at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080711/778fb282/attachment.htm From webb767 Fri Jul 11 11:25:56 2008 From: webb767 (Clay Webb) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:25:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! Message-ID: You are at the NDT. It is your senior year. Debating a team from wake forest. They pull out......cut large chickpeas.......you lose on a 3-0, 5-0, 7-0, 75-0. Don't tell me it can't be done. They extradited one terrorist. 1 GUY......you can widdle the case down to nothing....but you won't have a link to a disad . Not hating on wake....bravo...... Your generics won't link.....why....because no one gives a shit about Lebanon Terrorist guy or large chickpeas....except for the one guy who will write the internal links for the aff advantage...and anyone who writes the aff will have the advantage of knowing you have to crutch on politics. If your generics do link...you are reading a K....and the topic doesn't matter......don't get angry....its true.....Missouri State WW Legal topic.....Missouri State MM all topics....the res does not matter if you just want to get to the zero point of the holocaust. K ground should not be part of the discussion. There is always K ground. To be sure....some of you want to put....this...in the topic: (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. (2) 2009 CROP YEAR.?For purposes of the 2009 crop year, the target prices for covered commodities shall be as follows: (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. You could group some of them....but then again....if they did just read the 1 evil guy aff you could just read generic "arab states" links for your Israel Disad.... right? I'm all for aff flexibility....but this borders on insanity. Also, some are arguing to prefer Lentils, Chickpeas, Sorghum, etc. over CAFO and fish. I will not make a long winded technical appeal. C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, or any oilseed designated by the Secretary. crambe....there may be more....I don't really care because I think you get the point. in exchange for Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheries Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheris have bigger lit bases. More neg links, more aff options......fewer surprises in important rounds, and we don't have to talk about Lentils. I go to missouri state....so typically....appeals to education don't matter much to me....but seriously....Lentils and Chickpeas??? LOL not even just chickpeas but large chickpeas and small chickpeas. And even if you pull off the lentils aff....imagine the negative pics out of one of these. Types of Lentils Brown/Spanish Pardina French Green/Puy (Dark speckled blue-green) Green (Most common variety) Black/Beluga Yellow/Tan Lentils (Red inside) Red Chief (Decorticated yellow lentils) Eston Green (Small green) Richlea (Medium green) Laird (Large green) Petite Golden (Decorticated lentils) Masoor (Brown-skinned lentils which are red inside) Pigeon Peas Channa Dal Mung Lentils Petite Crimson/Red (Decorticated masoor lentils) Chana (Kernel of chickpeas) Urad (A type of bean) White/Ivory (Peeled Urad beans) Garlic Lentils (Genetically altered) Macachiados (Big Mexican yellow lentils) CP remove support for all lentils except for Eston Green Lentils. Net Benefit: Eston Green Lentils are a keystone species....they are key to hegemony....what if the Eston Green Lentil harvest stagnates or even shrinks? We might face a new period of conflict. North against south, Petite Golden against Spanish Pardina. These countries with their billions of people and there hundreds of lentils......don't matter much but its still enough to outweigh your stupid advantage. Could you find a disad.....maybe...maybe not. Could it outweigh whatever stupid advantage the Lentil aff had....probably....because what would the advantage be. This illustrates two points. (1) Adding all this refuse creates limitless potential for race to the bottom shit that is completely irrelevant.....DO YOU WANT TO JUDGE THIS???? (2) All of this begs the question, what is the point of including something in the topic that isn't worth debating. DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS???? Considering all this....Fish, Sugar, and Factory farms are breath of fresh air. Res 2A or 1A....preferably res 2A for reasons other people have already discussed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080711/c56c15c8/attachment.htm From jtedebate Fri Jul 11 12:04:23 2008 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <627326.59042.qm@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think this overlooks topic specific K ground...yes, the K will always be around, but discussion over critical literature germain to the topic is important to (well-round education, people). Admittedly, this year's topic might not have alot of topic specific K lit. But to categorically dismiss discussion of the K and the topic only guarantees broadly generic "state bad" type kritiks. Small farmers, poverty, environmental securitization & management....policymaking good? try environmental pragmatism...I've always felt the kritiks specific to the topic area are usually better than the generics Clay Webb wrote: You are at the NDT. It is your senior year. Debating a team from wake forest. They pull out......cut large chickpeas.......you lose on a 3-0, 5-0, 7-0, 75-0. Don't tell me it can't be done. They extradited one terrorist. 1 GUY......you can widdle the case down to nothing....but you won't have a link to a disad . Not hating on wake....bravo...... Your generics won't link.....why....because no one gives a shit about Lebanon Terrorist guy or large chickpeas....except for the one guy who will write the internal links for the aff advantage...and anyone who writes the aff will have the advantage of knowing you have to crutch on politics. If your generics do link...you are reading a K....and the topic doesn't matter......don't get angry....its true.....Missouri State WW Legal topic.....Missouri State MM all topics....the res does not matter if you just want to get to the zero point of the holocaust. K ground should not be part of the discussion. There is always K ground. To be sure....some of you want to put....this...in the topic: (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. (2) 2009 CROP YEAR.?For purposes of the 2009 crop year, the target prices for covered commodities shall be as follows: (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. You could group some of them....but then again....if they did just read the 1 evil guy aff you could just read generic "arab states" links for your Israel Disad.... right? I'm all for aff flexibility....but this borders on insanity. Also, some are arguing to prefer Lentils, Chickpeas, Sorghum, etc. over CAFO and fish. I will not make a long winded technical appeal. C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, or any oilseed designated by the Secretary. crambe....there may be more....I don't really care because I think you get the point. in exchange for Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheries Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheris have bigger lit bases. More neg links, more aff options......fewer surprises in important rounds, and we don't have to talk about Lentils. I go to missouri state....so typically....appeals to education don't matter much to me....but seriously....Lentils and Chickpeas??? LOL not even just chickpeas but large chickpeas and small chickpeas. And even if you pull off the lentils aff....imagine the negative pics out of one of these. Types of Lentils Brown/Spanish Pardina French Green/Puy (Dark speckled blue-green) Green (Most common variety) Black/Beluga Yellow/Tan Lentils (Red inside) Red Chief (Decorticated yellow lentils) Eston Green (Small green) Richlea (Medium green) Laird (Large green) Petite Golden (Decorticated lentils) Masoor (Brown-skinned lentils which are red inside) Pigeon Peas Channa Dal Mung Lentils Petite Crimson/Red (Decorticated masoor lentils) Chana (Kernel of chickpeas) Urad (A type of bean) White/Ivory (Peeled Urad beans) Garlic Lentils (Genetically altered) Macachiados (Big Mexican yellow lentils) CP remove support for all lentils except for Eston Green Lentils. Net Benefit: Eston Green Lentils are a keystone species....they are key to hegemony....what if the Eston Green Lentil harvest stagnates or even shrinks? We might face a new period of conflict. North against south, Petite Golden against Spanish Pardina. These countries with their billions of people and there hundreds of lentils......don't matter much but its still enough to outweigh your stupid advantage. Could you find a disad.....maybe...maybe not. Could it outweigh whatever stupid advantage the Lentil aff had....probably....because what would the advantage be. This illustrates two points. (1) Adding all this refuse creates limitless potential for race to the bottom shit that is completely irrelevant.....DO YOU WANT TO JUDGE THIS???? (2) All of this begs the question, what is the point of including something in the topic that isn't worth debating. DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS???? Considering all this....Fish, Sugar, and Factory farms are breath of fresh air. Res 2A or 1A....preferably res 2A for reasons other people have already discussed. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080711/fb919b6c/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson Fri Jul 11 12:33:39 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:33:39 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] clay webb's post Message-ID: this may be the first time in history that ANYONE has ever described "fish" and "factory farms" as "a breath of fresh air" As someone who used to reside in Iowa (where they call the smell from factory farms "the smell of money") and Kansas, I can assure you there is nothing fresh about them :) Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080711/13e96fc6/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman Fri Jul 11 15:04:24 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:04:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CONFERENCES Message-ID: A few days of voting remain. While the topic is a central concern, we have our second opportunity to radically alter the nature of CEDA: the creation of self-selected conferences to replace the current regional structure. The amendment narrowly failed last year, but I am hopeful that it will pass this time. I am writing to ask you vote YES on the amendment. I know that making this change will be difficult for many, but I am hopeful that the fear of the unknown will not cause too many people to vote against the proposal. To me, there are three main reasons to support the proposal. I want to mention those and answer a few potential objections. I also am hopeful that this email will be followed by comments of others, both for and against. FIRST: moving to conferences is essential if new programs are going to be recruited in any significant number. Yes, I know a few new programs will add each year, but we can increase the likelihood that programs will return to CEDA/NDT if we can offer a space for their team. One of the easiest means to create a space is to encourage like-minded programs to band together in a conference. The proposal will give them voice on the executive council, trophies for their success, and the ability to re-engage in our activity on their own terms. Some schools may create closed conferences with conference member only tournaments. This would ensure the debates mimic the style and substance of their choosing. Some schools will create geographically narrow conferences to limit the need to travel a great distance for equitable competition. Some schools may join for the prestige of aligning with similar institutions in an academic pursuit. In all cases, the entire community benefits from the addition of new schools. Many of these programs will inevitably enlarge their participation beyond the conference after a short period of time. SECOND: moving to conferences provides more equitable end-of-the-year evaluations. One of CEDA?s largest expenses is the annual outlay for trophies. We currently recognize the top three schools in each region that earn the most points (outside of the top 10). Our present system measures the success of programs based solely on geographic considerations. No other educational program at any university engages in such an antiquated system. Universities create peer institutions based on size, mission, resources, goals, and a host of other factors. Geography is the least relevant consideration when selecting peer institutions. Yet, CEDA demands that it is the only consideration. We should divide ourselves according to our own interests. For some schools, they will self-select into conferences based on pedagogical interests. Others will select based on size of university. Still others based on competitive interests. Some may base their decision on additional factors. The point is clear: we should distribute our annual sweepstakes awards based on criteria that best suits each individual program, not the universally-imposed criteria of geography that ignores the realities of the diversity of our programs. FINALLY: moving to conferences will improve the functioning of the executive council. I am a strong believer that many (perhaps most) of our institutional members do not care about the governance of the organization. They care strongly about the topic process, but not much else. Some, however, care a great deal. Our business meetings, though, require the active participation of all regions, even those that are populated by programs with very low interest. Moving to conferences will enable schools to opt out of organizational governance: conferences that routinely miss Executive Council meetings will lose their voting privileges. Those conferences will retain all other benefits of membership (topic voting, awards, etc), but no longer will hold up meetings because of missed quorums due to their absence. There are many reasons why some programs may opt to oppose the proposal. Please, share your reasons. We can only make the proposal stronger if we know the weaknesses. One major objection involves the difficulty in switching. Many schools may fear there is no place for them to go. But, all schools will have an option: the proposal creates a permanent ?Independent? conference for all schools. Even if a small number of conferences were created initially, all schools would be in a conference. It is impossible to be left out. Deciding how to form a conference will be challenging. Should you align with schools with similar competitive interests? Similar educational goals? Similar budget and resources? Stay in your region? Schools that are members of your university?s athletic conference? To be clear, I?m not sure who we would align with if the proposal passes. Yet, imagine the opportunity to really decide who you measure your team against. CEDA already guarantees that some type of measuring will occur. The only question is whether or not the current formula, based exclusively on geography, is the best measure of what each of our programs is attempting to do. Of course, some people may want to go to a conference, but they may find they are not wanted. Certainly, this could happen. Yet, the exact opposite is happening today: schools are trapped in a system that compares their success against other program based solely on geography, and they have no way out. My feeling is that it is better to allow people to self-select their own conference (with the possibility of excluding some), than to force people into an arrangement that does not best suit their needs. In conclusion, let me ask those who support regions a simple question: what organizational and/or institutional values are provided by regions? I'm hard pressed to think of any that would not also be provided by self-selected conferences. Thank you for considering the proposal. I look forward to reading your replies. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080711/8df15ce9/attachment.htm From davismk13 Fri Jul 11 23:17:11 2008 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:17:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a7f6f740807112117n314d9b95he85376109e9c2225@mail.gmail.com> I am really confused. Is the neg going to have lots of pics or are they going to have no shot of winning? Also you say "more aff options......fewer surprises in important rounds" It seems if the aff has more options there are more chances for surprises. And guess what someone is going to PIC out of a single corn or sugar grower or a single CAFO that does things a little differently (I have found several of these already). These counterplans are coming regardless of the list. The part of these resolutions that limits out the one bad guy aff is you have to remove all or nearly all of a single crop. Not just one type of lentil or chickpea. You will be able to win a politics link to any of the commodity one crops. The crackpots on the negs side that support subsidies to these crops are better than most of the aff authors. Mike On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Clay Webb wrote: > You are at the NDT. It is your senior year. Debating a team from wake > forest. They pull out......cut large chickpeas.......you lose on a 3-0, 5-0, > 7-0, 75-0. Don't tell me it can't be done. They extradited one terrorist. 1 > GUY......you can widdle the case down to nothing....but you won't have a > link to a disad . Not hating on wake....bravo...... Your generics won't > link.....why....because no one gives a shit about Lebanon Terrorist guy or > large chickpeas....except for the one guy who will write the internal links > for the aff advantage...and anyone who writes the aff will have the > advantage of knowing you have to crutch on politics. If your generics do > link...you are reading a K....and the topic doesn't matter......don't get > angry....its true.....Missouri State WW Legal topic.....Missouri State MM > all topics....the res does not matter if you just want to get to the zero > point of the holocaust. > > K ground should not be part of the discussion. There is always K ground. > > To be sure....some of you want to put....this...in the topic: > > (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. > (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. > (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. > (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. > (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. > (2) 2009 CROP YEAR.?For purposes of the 2009 crop year, > the target prices for covered commodities shall be as follows: > (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. > (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. > (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. > (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. > (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. > (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. > (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. > (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. > (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. > > > You could group some of them....but then again....if they did just read the > 1 evil guy aff you could just read generic "arab states" links for your > Israel Disad.... right? I'm all for aff flexibility....but this borders on > insanity. > > Also, some are arguing to prefer Lentils, Chickpeas, Sorghum, etc. over CAFO > and fish. I will not make a long winded technical appeal. > > C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. > (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. > (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. > (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. > (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. > > sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, > mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, or any oilseed designated > by the Secretary. > > crambe....there may be more....I don't really care because I think you get > the point. > > in exchange for > > Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheries > > Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheris have bigger lit bases. More neg links, more aff > options......fewer surprises in important rounds, and we don't have to talk > about Lentils. > > I go to missouri state....so typically....appeals to education don't matter > much to me....but seriously....Lentils and Chickpeas??? LOL not even just > chickpeas but large chickpeas and small chickpeas. And even if you pull > off the lentils aff....imagine the negative pics out of one of these. > > Types of Lentils > > Brown/Spanish Pardina > French Green/Puy (Dark speckled blue-green) > Green (Most common variety) > Black/Beluga > Yellow/Tan Lentils (Red inside) > Red Chief (Decorticated yellow lentils) > Eston Green (Small green) > Richlea (Medium green) > Laird (Large green) > Petite Golden (Decorticated lentils) > Masoor (Brown-skinned lentils which are red inside) > Pigeon Peas > Channa Dal > Mung Lentils > Petite Crimson/Red (Decorticated masoor lentils) > Chana (Kernel of chickpeas) > Urad (A type of bean) > White/Ivory (Peeled Urad beans) > Garlic Lentils (Genetically altered) > Macachiados (Big Mexican yellow lentils) > > CP remove support for all lentils except for Eston Green Lentils. Net > Benefit: Eston Green Lentils are a keystone species....they are key to > hegemony....what if the Eston Green Lentil harvest stagnates or even > shrinks? We might face a new period of conflict. North against south, Petite > Golden against Spanish Pardina. These countries with their billions of > people and there hundreds of lentils......don't matter much but its still > enough to outweigh your stupid advantage. > > Could you find a disad.....maybe...maybe not. Could it outweigh whatever > stupid advantage the Lentil aff had....probably....because what would the > advantage be. This illustrates two points. (1) Adding all this refuse > creates limitless potential for race to the bottom shit that is completely > irrelevant.....DO YOU WANT TO JUDGE THIS???? (2) All of this begs the > question, what is the point of including something in the topic that isn't > worth debating. DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS???? > > Considering all this....Fish, Sugar, and Factory farms are breath of fresh > air. > > Res 2A or 1A....preferably res 2A for reasons other people have already > discussed. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From bdelo77 Sat Jul 12 01:32:37 2008 From: bdelo77 (Brian DeLong) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:32:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! Message-ID: <48785005.6060602@gmail.com> As a preface, I just want to say that I have nothing but love for Clay and the Mo-state crew. Congrats on an astounding NDT. I have done little to no research on any of the resolutions. For specifics Mike Davis's post should suffice. Clay and Al Hammadi: To be fair this "who gives a damn about Lebanon" argument sounds very much like a 2NR defensive "you don't solve your advantages" claim. "ONE GUY!?" Yes, one guy. Wake made the claim that this terrorist, who has been walking the streets of Lebanon for years, is /THE /critical internal link to American resolve in their Global war on terrorism. Come on, that's just silly. As persuasive as Gannon's visual imagery of bodies being thrown on the tarmac was - do these advantages sound overwhelmingly persuasive to you? Do you need evidence to pick apart their solvency claim that one action is enough to revamp the overall perception of America and its GWOT? If it is true that all we have to do is send a message every once in a while that the terrorists can't win, then what about: Our resolve in Iraq? Our willingness to torture those terrorists that we catch? Afghanistan much? And donde esta Osama? I find the notion that future "terrorists" would throw down their plans of attack, and wave the white flag after hearing reports that the US transported Al Hammadi to Guantanamo Bay, astoundingly hilarious. A recent AP poll of future "terrorists" actually returned with a 90% response rate of "Al-Hammadi who?" "No generics!" Everybody Run! That's not a fair assessment of the plan. It substantially increased foreign assistance to Lebanon. Here's a strategy that oozes GWOT resolve: CP - Airlift US Marines into Lebanon and take Al Hammadi, and his little dog too, from Lebanon without giving them a dime. NB = Increasing 200 million dollars to Lebanon is bad. CP - Give Lebanon the money, and ask Lebanon nicely for Al Hammadi. NB - US-Lebanon relations. Pressure vs. Engagement? CP - We already gave Lebanon 250+ million dollars - tell them to give us Al Hammadi or we won't pay them all the money. Or threaten to halt any see future foreign assistance or US engagement. NB - You never pass legislation that allocates money to Lebanon. Politics would be your crutch. Some may take offense to your describing politics in such a feeble manor. You say crutch, I say rocket launcher. Jokes aside, as weak as the funding net benefits may be, the internal to GWOT resolve may be even weaker. It's a debate to be had. These strategies could have been flushed out in August when the topic came out. They effectively move the debate away from Al Hammadi and towards the central question of whether it's a good idea to increase foreign assistance to Lebanon. These strategies would have been strategic while also provided avid space for good debate and clash. Next years topic - Tiny affirmative that claim big advantages often have problems accessing their advantages. Affirmatives that provide themselves insignificant ground to defend will most likely die by the massively awful generic arguments that deal with the political issue of reducing ag support. Biz con, elections, politics, states, courts, etc. "(1) Adding all this refuse creates limitless potential for race to the bottom shit that is completely irrelevant.....DO YOU WANT TO JUDGE THIS????" I know little to nothing about lentils other than it's a major food staple for South East Asians. I'm ready and willing to learn about the topic. Debaters always seem to find a way to make these debates interesting. I can just imagine the Yellow/Tan vs. Black/Beluga lentils debate. One causes heart disease but is a cancer preventative, and is key to hegemony, while the other is delicious, has a lot of fiber, and solves warming. If these cards exist I want to hear them. (2) All of this begs the question, what is the point of including something in the topic that isn't worth debating. DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS???? "Isn't worth debating." All this discussion of food is making me hungry. This statement just begs the question of what the advantages to such a weird aff will be. I find it difficult to imagine too many solvency advocates that differentiate between different types of Oats with the added advocacy of reducing agricultural support for one or the other. In the event that someone goes through the trouble and wants to ban support for the the Al-Hammadi-Oat, instead of the GWOT-Oat, because that GWOT-Oat uses less pesticides, I will find it pretty astounding that you don't have pesticides defense/offense, and you're not prepared to go all in on the political ramifications of reducing support for Ag in the middle of an election year. Regardless of how awful some of the arguments in the neg toolbox may be, you still have something to say. If debate is hard research harder. Besides, in your near infinite negative prep time between now and GSU you may develop a plethora of ridiculously smart, but generic arguments that you can carry in your satchel for those "in case of emergency new aff" situations. Break glass at your own risk. DeLo From bamadebate Sat Jul 12 06:08:23 2008 From: bamadebate (ed lee) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! Message-ID: <817019.38768.qm@web62013.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I am having a little difficulty understanding why we should include all the other Title 1 crops that are not listed. Clay's concern about new AFFs resignates with me. More importantly, I think the trade of fish, sugar, cafos for mohair, lentil, and barley is a terrible one pedagogically. We are moving from a rich and very deep research base to one that seems very shallow. Factory farming and fishing and just just far more important politically, culturally, and environmentally. The opposition to fish and cafos is that they expand the literature base and makes life harder on the neg. We exist in a era of debate were our constructions of what is theoritically legitimate advocacy for neg is limitless. CPs and K alts have made is extremely difficult to be AFF. Diversifying the areas that the AFF gets to play in is one way to compensate for this. The areas should not be limitless. Clay's post identifies a couple of DAs to that. I am also concerned about how the smaller crops interact with one another to compromise the Negs ability to generate a unique link to their DA. If I cut chickpeas there seems to be a political incentive to ratchet up payments for another pulse crop as political cover. This interaction could also play out with long and short rice. There are probably other areas. If our goal is to maximize AFFs possibility of winning competitive debates were they read new affs, I think the addition of smaller Title 1 crops will do that. However, if we want to incentivize the AFF to explore a richer literature base and have te Neg continously advance our curriculum by doing specific research in those areas than it seems limted diversification of the areas is a better option. For those concerned about Negative's competitive success the best way to guarantee that is via a stable mechanism. A stable mechanism gives the Neg an opportunity to construct a set of core generics (CP + NB) that has wider applicibility. I am much more concerned about the resolutions that give the AFF 3 options for mechanisms than I am about the areas the AFF gets to play in. The mechanism determines the guality of the AFFs link turns in relationship to the link. The mechanism determines whether may counterplan is competitive. The mechanism determines whether Clay will have a unique DA to the new aff in the semis of the NDT next year. If you are truly concerned about the neg then give them a stable mechanism - force the the AFF to cut subsides. Stable mechanism good for NEG Diversified areas good for AFF Vote 2a peace, edlee ----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Davis To: Clay Webb Cc: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 12:17:11 AM Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! I am really confused. Is the neg going to have lots of pics or are they going to have no shot of winning? Also you say "more aff options......fewer surprises in important rounds" It seems if the aff has more options there are more chances for surprises. And guess what someone is going to PIC out of a single corn or sugar grower or a single CAFO that does things a little differently (I have found several of these already). These counterplans are coming regardless of the list. The part of these resolutions that limits out the one bad guy aff is you have to remove all or nearly all of a single crop. Not just one type of lentil or chickpea. You will be able to win a politics link to any of the commodity one crops. The crackpots on the negs side that support subsidies to these crops are better than most of the aff authors. Mike On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Clay Webb wrote: > You are at the NDT. It is your senior year. Debating a team from wake > forest. They pull out......cut large chickpeas.......you lose on a 3-0, 5-0, > 7-0, 75-0. Don't tell me it can't be done. They extradited one terrorist. 1 > GUY......you can widdle the case down to nothing....but you won't have a > link to a disad . Not hating on wake....bravo...... Your generics won't > link.....why....because no one gives a shit about Lebanon Terrorist guy or > large chickpeas....except for the one guy who will write the internal links > for the aff advantage...and anyone who writes the aff will have the > advantage of knowing you have to crutch on politics. If your generics do > link...you are reading a K....and the topic doesn't matter......don't get > angry....its true.....Missouri State WW Legal topic.....Missouri State MM > all topics....the res does not matter if you just want to get to the zero > point of the holocaust. > > K ground should not be part of the discussion. There is always K ground. > > To be sure....some of you want to put....this...in the topic: > > (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. > (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. > (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. > (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. > (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. > (2) 2009 CROP YEAR.?For purposes of the 2009 crop year, > the target prices for covered commodities shall be as follows: > (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. > (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. > (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. > (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. > (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. > (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. > (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. > (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. > (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. > > > You could group some of them....but then again....if they did just read the > 1 evil guy aff you could just read generic "arab states" links for your > Israel Disad.... right? I'm all for aff flexibility....but this borders on > insanity. > > Also, some are arguing to prefer Lentils, Chickpeas, Sorghum, etc. over CAFO > and fish. I will not make a long winded technical appeal. > > C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. > (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. > (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. > (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. > (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. > > sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, > mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, or any oilseed designated > by the Secretary. > > crambe....there may be more....I don't really care because I think you get > the point. > > in exchange for > > Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheries > > Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheris have bigger lit bases. More neg links, more aff > options......fewer surprises in important rounds, and we don't have to talk > about Lentils. > > I go to missouri state....so typically....appeals to education don't matter > much to me....but seriously....Lentils and Chickpeas??? LOL not even just > chickpeas but large chickpeas and small chickpeas. And even if you pull > off the lentils aff....imagine the negative pics out of one of these. > > Types of Lentils > > Brown/Spanish Pardina > French Green/Puy (Dark speckled blue-green) > Green (Most common variety) > Black/Beluga > Yellow/Tan Lentils (Red inside) > Red Chief (Decorticated yellow lentils) > Eston Green (Small green) > Richlea (Medium green) > Laird (Large green) > Petite Golden (Decorticated lentils) > Masoor (Brown-skinned lentils which are red inside) > Pigeon Peas > Channa Dal > Mung Lentils > Petite Crimson/Red (Decorticated masoor lentils) > Chana (Kernel of chickpeas) > Urad (A type of bean) > White/Ivory (Peeled Urad beans) > Garlic Lentils (Genetically altered) > Macachiados (Big Mexican yellow lentils) > > CP remove support for all lentils except for Eston Green Lentils. Net > Benefit: Eston Green Lentils are a keystone species....they are key to > hegemony....what if the Eston Green Lentil harvest stagnates or even > shrinks? We might face a new period of conflict. North against south, Petite > Golden against Spanish Pardina. These countries with their billions of > people and there hundreds of lentils......don't matter much but its still > enough to outweigh your stupid advantage. > > Could you find a disad.....maybe...maybe not. Could it outweigh whatever > stupid advantage the Lentil aff had....probably....because what would the > advantage be. This illustrates two points. (1) Adding all this refuse > creates limitless potential for race to the bottom shit that is completely > irrelevant.....DO YOU WANT TO JUDGE THIS???? (2) All of this begs the > question, what is the point of including something in the topic that isn't > worth debating. DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS???? > > Considering all this....Fish, Sugar, and Factory farms are breath of fresh > air. > > Res 2A or 1A....preferably res 2A for reasons other people have already > discussed. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080712/65e50521/attachment.htm From jrlyle Sat Jul 12 08:24:21 2008 From: jrlyle (James Lyle) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:24:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What is the mechanism? Message-ID: <25fd497f0807120624h20638e4cj764585bdebe39ca9@mail.gmail.com> Despite conceding the no link to my initial concern with the 2nd set of resolutions, the impact (the loss of export subsidies and market access barriers) seems to still exist. Based on the posts made over the past few days it is clear that there is a pretty wide split over how to interpret the 2nd set. Do they allow the AFF to reduce more than domestic subsidies or not? My read is that they do. My efforts to follow the topic meeting discussions led me to believe that the topic committee was offering a resolution that would allow for bigger affs but make sure the aff got rid of domestic subsidies at a minimum. I also think the wording reads that way; "substantially reduce agricultural support" is still the primary verb in the resolution, and the "at least..." is still an open-ended qualifier to that. We'll know what the crops are under the 2nd set, but this difference of opinion about what the mechanisms are is pretty severe in my book. So, as of now, I'm still in the 1 camp because I think these mechanisms are important for the AFF to have. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080712/eb3bd890/attachment.htm From kel1773 Sat Jul 12 11:08:50 2008 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:08:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Interpretation of 2nd set of resolutions Ans Lyle Message-ID: Jim Lyle says: Despite conceding the no link to my initial concern with the 2nd set of resolutions, the impact (the loss of export subsidies and market access barriers) seems to still exist. Based on the posts made over the past few days it is clear that there is a pretty wide split over how to interpret the 2nd set. Do they allow the AFF to reduce more than domestic subsidies or not? My read is that they do. My efforts to follow the topic meeting discussions led me to believe that the topic committee was offering a resolution that would allow for bigger affs but make sure the aff got rid of domestic subsidies at a minimum. If anyone cares about the topic committee discussion on this--perhaps you should since we have been accused of writing your aff plans for you--we specifically sought to write resolutions that allows the aff to do more than just end domestic subsidies. The second set of resolutions just require that eliminating domestic subsidies is AT LEAST one of the actions taken by the affirmative to guarantee predictable neg ground. But apparently in doing so we tubbed the aff's chances to write a plan text or solve. I have no idea why because those who make this claim provide zero explanation to support their charge. Kelly Kelly M. Young, Ph.D.Director of Forensics/Assistant ProfessorCommunication DepartmentWayne State University585 Manoogian HallDetroit, MI 48201(313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080712/9b36e74f/attachment.htm From gacggc Sat Jul 12 12:27:53 2008 From: gacggc (David Glass) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:27:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] topic wordings Message-ID: <8371758b0807121027n68b7c695vcfed6de946a167ac@mail.gmail.com> sorry if this has already been pointed out, but anyway: While resolutions 2, 2b and 2c are worded that the USFG should reduce ITS agricultural support... eliminating ITS subsidies, the first set of resolutions are worded that the USFG should reduce ITS agricultural support through the elimination of all or nearly all domestic support... There is no "ITS" in the second phrase; given that the second phrase requires all or nearly all domestic support to be removed, it is really not clear that the first ITS covers everything else (which is recognized by the wordings in the second set of resolutions). Also the wording of the first set requires the elimination of all or nearly all "domestic support, export barriers and/or market access barriers"... meaning that you would need to do both domestic support & export barriers... and then would have a choice as to and/or market access barriers. In contrast, the second set of resolutions make it quite clear that the federal government needs to reduce ITS agricultural support, at least including subsidies. So for a topicality reasons, it seems that the second set of resolutions are superior to the first... David Glass -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080712/e3ff5347/attachment.htm From ragarner Sat Jul 12 14:05:19 2008 From: ragarner (Richard A. Garner) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:05:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17bee7eb0807121205t469e3e09xa0ab6dfd835e5b10@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Clay Webb wrote: > Don't tell me it can't be done. They extradited one terrorist. 1 > GUY......you can widdle the case down to nothing....but you won't have a > link to a disad . Not hating on wake....bravo...... Your generics won't > link.....why....because no one gives a shit about Lebanon Terrorist guy or > large chickpeas.... > Does this mean everyone doesn't carry extra copies of this card around in their backpacks? =) Link: Dead or Alive *Shapiro*, Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, *2002 * [Michael J., ""Wanted, Dead or Alive," *Theory & Event* 5:4, project muse] *"Wanted, Dead or Alive"* 5:4 | (c) 2002 Michael J. Shapiro [Contents] [Search] [Muse] *What kind of State is that which is able to nip terrorism in the bud and eliminate it...? Does it not have to equip itself with its own terrorism and in doing so simply generalize terror at all levels? What is the real price for such security and are we all seriously dreaming about this?* Jean Baudrillard[1] Introduction: "I don't like this movie" (a remark by a U.S. Marine during the Vietnam War, reported in Michael Herr's Dispatches) 1. A body falling through the air from over 90 stories up; a doomed worker, hopelessly waiving a white flag from a window near the top; the two towers imploding with thousands still trapped inside! It was like a disaster movie without a touch of redemption. I wanted to see it as the worst film I has ever seen. But it happened, and, to borrow one of Don DeLillo's expressions, it was like "an aberration in the heartland of the real." And now perhaps the worst is yet to come. 2. *When George Dubya initially reacted to the events of September 11, he appeared to be hankering for a "Wild West" solution. He wanted to -- here I use the venerable yet paradoxical phrase* -- *"bring to justice"* *Osama Bin Laden.* Of course, as Richard Slotkin has pointed out, *in one of our dominant collective imaginaries, we are a "gunfighter nation."* *Pointing to Western films as the genre within which the territorial extension of Euro American national culture (the westward moving frontier of violence) has been mythologized and legitimated throughout the twentieth century, Slotkin dismisses the more pacific, contractual models of the evolution of American nationhood.*[2] 3. Certainly the imagery has found its way into popular as well as official culture. When I heard Bush's remark, I thought of an episode of the HBO production, The Sopranos. Tony Soprano's Uncle Junior says to his head hit man, who is thirsting for violent revenge against some of Tony's overly exuberant minions, "Take it easy, we're not making a Western here." And, while pondering the western scenario that the President (and Junior) evoked, I recalled the revenge-happy antics that emerged throughout the U.S. in America's Centennial Year, right after General Custer and his cavalry regiment were wiped out by Crazy Horse and his Sioux warriors. Evan Connell's remarks, in his account of the events *following the Battle of Little Big Horn*, fit our current situation: Reaction throughout *the country was no different in 1876 than it is today upon receipt of similar news: shock, followed by disbelief, fury, and a slavering appetite for revenge.*[3] 4. In the1876 episode, "volunteers popped up like daisies in April" (in "of all places," Sioux City and in Salt Lake City, Springfield Illinois, and throughout several states, including Arkansas, Nevada, Tennessee, and Texas), egged on by a revenge-lusting media. Among the more incendiary statements in the press was an editorial in the Chicago Tribune: "In every case where an inoffensive citizen is slain, let 100 of these red brutes feel the power of a rope properly adjusted under their chins." And in an articulation reminiscent of President Bush's, "a group of schoolboys [in Custer's birthplace of New Rumsley, Ohio] took an oath -- 'each with his right hand upraised over a McGuffey First Reader' -- to kill Sitting Bull on sight."[4] 5. Connell notes that "a few reflective people could be heard among those of letter writers, volunteers, and schoolboys in knickers, but not many."[5] *At least in this respect, the current situation is not as grim. More than a few "self-reflective people" can be heard.* *But* *at the level of official decision-making, and in mainstream media, revenge, strategy and logistics monopolize the agenda.* *Although, unlike the situation in 1876, the prime adversaries are not easy to locate, and although, as the Secretary of Defense put it, Afghanistan lacks "high value targets," the U. S., U. K. and some others are proceeding* (as I write)* with a military assault on Afghanistan, having decided that they must punish the country within which the alleged mastermind resides.* 6. *So perhaps, as regards the present war fervor, we are making a western.*At the same time, we appear to be making a modern film as well as a classic, a global version of Wim Wenders's The End of Violence (1997). The Wenders film presents a Los Angeles that is a prey to a secret FBI project to surveil and ultimately eliminate street crime, through the use of a network of cameras monitored by a NASA-trained surveillance expert. The surveillance expert is, himself, under surveillance, through the collaboration of a suborned Central American woman (a victim of government violence), who cleans his office, has an affair with him, and reports on those of his activities that may risk exposing the FBI's top secret project. Leaving aside the complications of a plot that weaves together lives within and outside of Los Angeles, the film narrative makes it evident that the only way comprehensively to eliminate violence "as we know it," is to perpetrate an even more insidious and pervasive violence. 7. *In the present case, we are looking at much more territorially extended project to end -- in this case -- terroristic violence* (as we know it). People die in Wenders's film. *The bodies that are to be eliminated are those connected directly or indirectly* (e.g. a film producer of state-of-the-art violent thrillers in the case of the latter) *to "crime."* *In the current Bush/Blair scenario, the count of the bodies-that-count will doubtless climb, as, increasingly, the activities of surveillance and punishment produce more tangentially connected but nevertheless dangerous bodies.* *To treat the rationale for what can perhaps be best described as sovereign violence (enacted to end violence),* *we must ponder the new biopolitics of global governance.* *Back in 1876, the biopolitics providing the context for the post Little Big Horn revenge scenario was already in place, having emerged from the Euro American nation building project. An American ethnogenesis had already largely disqualified the political eligibility of Native American nations. Whether lamented as a "vanishing race" or abjured as impediments to a commercial model of land use, the "savage" bodies were either dangers to be eliminated or problems for the Euro American "Indian policy." In contrast,* *the main contemporary biopolitical conceits are post nation building ones. They reflect a genealogy of security problematics.* *Inasmuch as the process of ending terroristic violence is at an early stage, I want to make some observations about the biopolitics of* *the new forms of sovereignty-as-enactment as the "allied forces" determine which bodies are to be targeted.* _____________________________________ p.s. Let's also say, for the record, that a) my recollections of said affirmative are, errr, hazy at best, but b) I did in fact watch it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080712/7123bd55/attachment.htm From blackdebateguy Sat Jul 12 14:28:02 2008 From: blackdebateguy (Douglas Dennis) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:28:02 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Jason (JK) Newton or Ben Durham Message-ID: Anyone know where either of these guys are? Help a brother out. Backchannel if you can... DD From richardgarner Sat Jul 12 14:29:50 2008 From: richardgarner (Richard A. Garner) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:29:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! In-Reply-To: <817019.38768.qm@web62013.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <817019.38768.qm@web62013.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0807121229re617605o52c04d9c1c673e96@mail.gmail.com> I think Ed is correct. Let that be known generally. In particular I think that CAFOs and fisheries are, as Ed argues, particularly important to include in the topic. I have less of an opinion on the stable mechanism question, but between major crops, biofuels, fisheries, and animal raising we have covered, even if in a technically and maybe cumbersomely worded way, all the major areas of food politics today. But, the stable mechanism solves concerns about aff. proliferation if you know in your break round at CEDA or the NDT that your "disadvantages" and "counter plans" based on cutting subsididies will be there, like always, ready, waiting. And including the other core ethical and political questions concerning what we eat - which is probably the most important thing we do - in the topic seems like, er, a good idea. Also, it will guarantee that debates this year will not be boring. Fun is an important, underpresented voting issue that should be included along with fairness, education, and jurisdiction. RG On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 6:08 AM, ed lee wrote: > I am having a little difficulty understanding why we should include all the > other Title 1 crops that are not listed. Clay's concern about new AFFs > resignates with me. > > More importantly, I think the trade of fish, sugar, cafos for mohair, > lentil, and barley is a terrible one pedagogically. We are moving from a > rich and very deep research base to one that seems very shallow. Factory > farming and fishing and just just far more important politically, > culturally, and environmentally. > > The opposition to fish and cafos is that they expand the literature base > and makes life harder on the neg. We exist in a era of debate were our > constructions of what is theoritically legitimate advocacy for neg is > limitless. CPs and K alts have made is extremely difficult to be AFF. > Diversifying the areas that the AFF gets to play in is one way to compensate > for this. > > The areas should not be limitless. Clay's post identifies a couple of DAs > to that. I am also concerned about how the smaller crops interact with one > another to compromise the Negs ability to generate a unique link to their > DA. If I cut chickpeas there seems to be a political incentive to ratchet > up payments for another pulse crop as political cover. This interaction > could also play out with long and short rice. There are probably other > areas. If our goal is to maximize AFFs possibility of winning competitive > debates were they read new affs, I think the addition of smaller Title 1 > crops will do that. However, if we want to incentivize the AFF to explore a > richer literature base and have te Neg continously advance our curriculum by > doing specific research in those areas than it seems limted diversification > of the areas is a better option. > > For those concerned about Negative's competitive success the best way to > guarantee that is via a stable mechanism. A stable mechanism gives the Neg > an opportunity to construct a set of core generics (CP + NB) that has wider > applicibility. I am much more concerned about the resolutions that give the > AFF 3 options for mechanisms than I am about the areas the AFF gets to play > in. The mechanism determines the guality of the AFFs link turns in > relationship to the link. The mechanism determines whether may counterplan > is competitive. The mechanism determines whether Clay will have a unique DA > to the new aff in the semis of the NDT next year. If you are truly > concerned about the neg then give them a stable mechanism - force the the > AFF to cut subsides. > > Stable mechanism good for NEG > Diversified areas good for AFF > Vote 2a > > peace, > edlee > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mike Davis > To: Clay Webb > Cc: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 12:17:11 AM > Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! > > I am really confused. Is the neg going to have lots of pics or are > they going to have no shot of winning? > > Also you say "more aff options......fewer surprises in important > rounds" It seems if the aff has more options there are more chances > for surprises. > > And guess what someone is going to PIC out of a single corn or sugar > grower or a single CAFO that does things a little differently (I have > found several of these already). These counterplans are coming > regardless of the list. > > The part of these resolutions that limits out the one bad guy aff is > you have to remove all or nearly all of a single crop. Not just one > type of lentil or chickpea. You will be able to win a politics link to > any of the commodity one crops. The crackpots on the negs side that > support subsidies to these crops are better than most of the aff > authors. > > Mike > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Clay Webb wrote: > > You are at the NDT. It is your senior year. Debating a team from wake > > forest. They pull out......cut large chickpeas.......you lose on a 3-0, > 5-0, > > 7-0, 75-0. Don't tell me it can't be done. They extradited one terrorist. > 1 > > GUY......you can widdle the case down to nothing....but you won't have a > > link to a disad . Not hating on wake....bravo...... Your generics won't > > link.....why....because no one gives a shit about Lebanon Terrorist guy > or > > large chickpeas....except for the one guy who will write the internal > links > > for the aff advantage...and anyone who writes the aff will have the > > advantage of knowing you have to crutch on politics. If your generics do > > link...you are reading a K....and the topic doesn't matter......don't get > > angry....its true.....Missouri State WW Legal topic.....Missouri State MM > > all topics....the res does not matter if you just want to get to the zero > > point of the holocaust. > > > > K ground should not be part of the discussion. There is always K ground. > > > > To be sure....some of you want to put....this...in the topic: > > > > (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. > > (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. > > (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. > > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. > > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. > > (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. > > (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > > (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > > (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. > > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. > > (2) 2009 CROP YEAR.?For purposes of the 2009 crop year, > > the target prices for covered commodities shall be as follows: > > (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. > > (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. > > (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. > > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. > > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. > > (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. > > (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > > (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. > > (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. > > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. > > (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. > > (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. > > (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. > > (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. > > > > > > You could group some of them....but then again....if they did just read > the > > 1 evil guy aff you could just read generic "arab states" links for your > > Israel Disad.... right? I'm all for aff flexibility....but this borders > on > > insanity. > > > > Also, some are arguing to prefer Lentils, Chickpeas, Sorghum, etc. over > CAFO > > and fish. I will not make a long winded technical appeal. > > > > C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. > > (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. > > (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. > > (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. > > (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. > > (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. > > (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. > > (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. > > > > sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, > > mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, or any oilseed designated > > by the Secretary. > > > > crambe....there may be more....I don't really care because I think you > get > > the point. > > > > in exchange for > > > > Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheries > > > > Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheris have bigger lit bases. More neg links, more > aff > > options......fewer surprises in important rounds, and we don't have to > talk > > about Lentils. > > > > I go to missouri state....so typically....appeals to education don't > matter > > much to me....but seriously....Lentils and Chickpeas??? LOL not even just > > chickpeas but large chickpeas and small chickpeas. And even if you pull > > off the lentils aff....imagine the negative pics out of one of these. > > > > Types of Lentils > > > > Brown/Spanish Pardina > > French Green/Puy (Dark speckled blue-green) > > Green (Most common variety) > > Black/Beluga > > Yellow/Tan Lentils (Red inside) > > Red Chief (Decorticated yellow lentils) > > Eston Green (Small green) > > Richlea (Medium green) > > Laird (Large green) > > Petite Golden (Decorticated lentils) > > Masoor (Brown-skinned lentils which are red inside) > > Pigeon Peas > > Channa Dal > > Mung Lentils > > Petite Crimson/Red (Decorticated masoor lentils) > > Chana (Kernel of chickpeas) > > Urad (A type of bean) > > White/Ivory (Peeled Urad beans) > > Garlic Lentils (Genetically altered) > > Macachiados (Big Mexican yellow lentils) > > > > CP remove support for all lentils except for Eston Green Lentils. Net > > Benefit: Eston Green Lentils are a keystone species....they are key to > > hegemony....what if the Eston Green Lentil harvest stagnates or even > > shrinks? We might face a new period of conflict. North against south, > Petite > > Golden against Spanish Pardina. These countries with their billions of > > people and there hundreds of lentils......don't matter much but its still > > enough to outweigh your stupid advantage. > > > > Could you find a disad.....maybe...maybe not. Could it outweigh whatever > > stupid advantage the Lentil aff had....probably....because what would the > > advantage be. This illustrates two points. (1) Adding all this refuse > > creates limitless potential for race to the bottom shit that is > completely > > irrelevant.....DO YOU WANT TO JUDGE THIS???? (2) All of this begs the > > question, what is the point of including something in the topic that > isn't > > worth debating. DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS???? > > > > Considering all this....Fish, Sugar, and Factory farms are breath of > fresh > > air. > > > > Res 2A or 1A....preferably res 2A for reasons other people have already > > discussed. > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > -- > Dr. Michael Davis > Director of Debate/Assistant Professor > James Madison University > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080712/267d9b7b/attachment.htm From scottelliott Sat Jul 12 18:04:13 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:04:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. Message-ID: <1215903853.4879386dde80b@webmail.grandecom.net> Look, 95% of you colleges debaters and I guess 98% of the college debate coaches have not, cannot, will not, and will never, make it to semifinals of the NDT. Sorry to be the one to break it to all of you, but it is true. To think that a lot of people would make a decision on which topic is best based on some hypothetical that over 90% of you will NEVER experience, seems to me to be ludicrious at best, and sadly delusional at worst. I thnk there will be a "rapeseed" aff with Kritikal feminist language advantages broken by Emory's top team in Quarters at the NDT, I don't think I will worry about it when I vote. Scott Elliott p.s. apologies to Emory for letting the cat out of the bag. From acasey3 Sat Jul 12 21:36:50 2008 From: acasey3 (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:36:50 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. Message-ID: <1907857.1215916610799.JavaMail.acasey3@ucok.edu> Emory + Kritikal + feminist language advantage = really? premises doubtful. -AC ----------------------------------------- **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. From bamadebate Sun Jul 13 09:32:11 2008 From: bamadebate (ed lee) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:32:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. Message-ID: <141248.32219.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> I actually agree with Scott. My post is also (I would say primarily) concerned about the educational value of the topic. Our squad is large and diverse. I am also concerned about our novices who walk into a debate about one of the minor Title 1 crops and its relationship to some geopolitical future event that we have not discussed because they are still learning the mechanics of a debate. I am also concerned about the debater who attends 4 tournaments a year. I would like those debates to be about salient political issues. I am more concerned about what knowledge and research we incentivize. I think it is better for our squad room discussions to focus on ethical, political and environmental ramifications of US subsidization and consumption of fisheries, ethanol, and cafos than mohair, sorghum and chickpeas. We will spend an entire year discussing these issues. I really do think it would be a travesty for us to exclude these issues when there are other ways to protect the negs ability to prepare for debates - which seems to be the only reason we would exclude them. e ----- Original Message ---- From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:04:13 PM Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. Look, 95% of you colleges debaters and I guess 98% of the college debate coaches have not, cannot, will not, and will never, make it to semifinals of the NDT. Sorry to be the one to break it to all of you, but it is true. To think that a lot of people would make a decision on which topic is best based on some hypothetical that over 90% of you will NEVER experience, seems to me to be ludicrious at best, and sadly delusional at worst. I thnk there will be a "rapeseed" aff with Kritikal feminist language advantages broken by Emory's top team in Quarters at the NDT, I don't think I will worry about it when I vote. Scott Elliott p.s. apologies to Emory for letting the cat out of the bag. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080713/17f9b0c0/attachment.htm From kkuswa Sun Jul 13 09:33:06 2008 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:33:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. References: <141248.32219.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84402D90B6B@castor.richmond.edu> On-point, Ed! To those of you saying "there is still aff flex," that is not the argument...the argument is what type? The education "we incentivize" in Ed's words should outweigh predictions of ground that are impossible to substantiate. That's why the proof for the narrow band we have selected is in the pudding/words of the resolution, not one person's speculations about fair ground in an edebate post. Sure, we can hope that we discuss agriculture instead of federal spending, but it will be harder to do so given this focus. kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of ed lee Sent: Sun 7/13/2008 10:32 AM To: scottelliott at grandecom.net; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. I actually agree with Scott. My post is also (I would say primarily) concerned about the educational value of the topic. Our squad is large and diverse. I am also concerned about our novices who walk into a debate about one of the minor Title 1 crops and its relationship to some geopolitical future event that we have not discussed because they are still learning the mechanics of a debate. I am also concerned about the debater who attends 4 tournaments a year. I would like those debates to be about salient political issues. I am more concerned about what knowledge and research we incentivize. I think it is better for our squad room discussions to focus on ethical, political and environmental ramifications of US subsidization and consumption of fisheries, ethanol, and cafos than mohair, sorghum and chickpeas. We will spend an entire year discussing these issues. I really do think it would be a travesty for us to exclude these issues when there are other ways to protect the negs ability to prepare for debates - which seems to be the only reason we would exclude them. e ----- Original Message ---- From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:04:13 PM Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. Look, 95% of you colleges debaters and I guess 98% of the college debate coaches have not, cannot, will not, and will never, make it to semifinals of the NDT. Sorry to be the one to break it to all of you, but it is true. To think that a lot of people would make a decision on which topic is best based on some hypothetical that over 90% of you will NEVER experience, seems to me to be ludicrious at best, and sadly delusional at worst. I thnk there will be a "rapeseed" aff with Kritikal feminist language advantages broken by Emory's top team in Quarters at the NDT, I don't think I will worry about it when I vote. Scott Elliott p.s. apologies to Emory for letting the cat out of the bag. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From andy.edebate Sun Jul 13 10:49:10 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:49:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Join the YOURS Cause on facebook Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807130849w518ff033q69d5b4d90f3213ab@mail.gmail.com> Hello we have launched a causes page on face book, we need people to join( we arent asking for money ;)) just join and help us get our numbers up. You can find the causes page here http://apps.facebook.com/causes/101523?m=6336c&recruiter_id=930127 thanks Andy Ellis Managing Director Youth organizing urban Revitalization Systems-YOURS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080713/cb6ebe6e/attachment.htm From EricMorris Sun Jul 13 14:05:08 2008 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:05:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. References: <141248.32219.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84402D90B6B@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6C3F@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I agree with those suggesting the 1A/2A resolutions. Our debaters, collectively, strongly prefer that set of lists for a variety of reasons, including the increased proximity between most topical affirmatives and the major issues set out in the topic paper, the relative size of the subsidies (which suggests more factors in play with a decision to remove) between the major crops and the minor ones, and the ineffectiveness of the "all or nearly all" ground barrier on small subsidies. I believe that some (not all) of our debaters think the affirmative ground under CAFO's provides an opportunity for some, not all, critical affirmatives to stay closer to the resolution. I also think that exposure to this literature base helps debaters grapple with one the most important choices we make, regardless of what conclusions they individually draw. A single round should not decide a topic, but it can provide a representative anecdote for a position expressed by many debaters - that each sector included in the topic be well considered for its impact on ground balance, in terms of new cases, etc. Clay had similar concerns about Afghanistan last year - well founded, given the litany of uniqueness problems which plagued negative strategy all year. Uniqueness was the problem in the particular round, as well. Counterplans reducing the case to near zero would have been redundant; the issue was the non-uniqueness of Baudrillard disads, aid disads, or the turn we went for. The best way to handle uniqueness is to have some evidence distinguishing the plan from what's coming in the SQ, and being able to predict the plan increases the odds that such evidence will be cut. Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments) ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Kuswa, Kevin Sent: Sun 7/13/08 9:33 AM To: ed lee; scottelliott at grandecom.net; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. On-point, Ed! To those of you saying "there is still aff flex," that is not the argument...the argument is what type? The education "we incentivize" in Ed's words should outweigh predictions of ground that are impossible to substantiate. That's why the proof for the narrow band we have selected is in the pudding/words of the resolution, not one person's speculations about fair ground in an edebate post. Sure, we can hope that we discuss agriculture instead of federal spending, but it will be harder to do so given this focus. kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of ed lee Sent: Sun 7/13/2008 10:32 AM To: scottelliott at grandecom.net; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. I actually agree with Scott. My post is also (I would say primarily) concerned about the educational value of the topic. Our squad is large and diverse. I am also concerned about our novices who walk into a debate about one of the minor Title 1 crops and its relationship to some geopolitical future event that we have not discussed because they are still learning the mechanics of a debate. I am also concerned about the debater who attends 4 tournaments a year. I would like those debates to be about salient political issues. I am more concerned about what knowledge and research we incentivize. I think it is better for our squad room discussions to focus on ethical, political and environmental ramifications of US subsidization and consumption of fisheries, ethanol, and cafos than mohair, sorghum and chickpeas. We will spend an entire year discussing these issues. I really do think it would be a travesty for us to exclude these issues when there are other ways to protect the negs ability to prepare for debates - which seems to be the only reason we would exclude them. e ----- Original Message ---- From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:04:13 PM Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. Look, 95% of you colleges debaters and I guess 98% of the college debate coaches have not, cannot, will not, and will never, make it to semifinals of the NDT. Sorry to be the one to break it to all of you, but it is true. To think that a lot of people would make a decision on which topic is best based on some hypothetical that over 90% of you will NEVER experience, seems to me to be ludicrious at best, and sadly delusional at worst. I thnk there will be a "rapeseed" aff with Kritikal feminist language advantages broken by Emory's top team in Quarters at the NDT, I don't think I will worry about it when I vote. Scott Elliott p.s. apologies to Emory for letting the cat out of the bag. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080713/2b4b4bc8/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Mon Jul 14 04:03:18 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:03:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ducks Over Lentils (D.O.L) Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807140203n4d837f5ud59679d337d8bb23@mail.gmail.com> Let me make a last minute appeal for those of you who like the lentils resolution to support a write in candidate. an oldie but goody r: the usfg should implement and/or enact a policy that increases prosecution of sexual violence amongst one or more of the following duck breed Muscovy Rouen Cayuga Mallard Pekin while this is the less elegant of the two duck rape resolutions, it seems to be a better write in candidate than the actualy elegent alternative duck rape resolution...dont say i never compromise... really though the Rouen is far more interesting than at least 10 of the lentil varieties... here is a real appeal the half of the community who could care less what you choose because they are gonna do what they like any way would be more likely to be topical on ducks than on lentils.... now i know that ceda has not built in a write in function...but yall smart... figure it out... Ducks over Lentils -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080714/09ec8335/attachment.htm From greg.thomas Mon Jul 14 10:41:46 2008 From: greg.thomas (Greg Thomas) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:41:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Communication Instructor (Coaching Opportunity) at Methodist University in NC Message-ID: For the past few years, I have been the Debate Coach at Methodist University in Fayetteville, NC. I am moving on for other pastures this coming year, and as such Methodist is looking to fill my position. While the advertisement for the position that appears below does not specifically mention being the Debate Coach, that is something that is available if the candidate who gets the job wants it. Methodist University is a great school with many unique advantages. Additionally, the President of the university has a personal interest in the success of the Debate Team, and that can be very helpful at times. Below is the job advertisement. If you have any questions about the job, contact Dr. Watt (listed in the ad). If you have any questions about the team or the school, feel free to drop me a line. Greg Thomas -----text of job advertisement appears below---------------------------- The Department of Communication seeks a new speech communication instructor for a one-year appointment for 2008-09. A master's degree with at least 18 semester hours in speech communication or related field is required; a Ph.D. is preferred. Successful candidate should be able to teach public speaking, oral communication, and speech communication courses. Depending on background, candidate may teach argumentation/debate and persuasion. Review of the applicant files begins immediately and continues until the position is filled. Methodist University, in harmony with its tradition, takes seriously its role in the ethical and moral development of its students. Methodist University is an equal opportunity employer. Members of populations traditionally under-represented in higher education are encouraged to apply. Email, FAX (910) 630-7679, or send a letter of application, graduate transcripts, curriculum vitae, and names of three references with current email addresses to Dr. Willis M. Watt, Methodist University, 5400 Ramsey Street, Fayetteville, NC 28311-1498 or wmwatt at methodist.edu. For additional information call 910-630-7191. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080714/a4f5b3be/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue Jul 15 00:01:15 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:01:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] todays offering Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807142201l1e92c7bagf62c74d4bb8e512@mail.gmail.com> Some very cool organizations train high school students to use professional quality studio technology and techniques to produce broadcast quality media.Often times in areas where students wouldnt otherwise have these resources, programs discuss the necessity of bringing unheard youth voices into the mainstream. While very cool and definitly helpful for the students involved, because of the exclusive nature of being a mainstream media maker it is perhaps likely that 1 out of 25 students will be able to translate that skill into a career as a mainstream media maker. Perhaps 3 more of that 25 will get jobs in the industry but ultimatly not ones that allow them to exert control over the media as it effects the world. The other 22 will have a valuble experience but for the most part will not actualize the media making goal of the activity. Consider in the alternative a world where less money is spent on equipment and more students participate. Instead of aiming to make media that effects the mainstream, the focus is on using tools commonly avaialble to everybody, handicams and computers, and the colective power of the students to produce media for internet and local dvd distribution.While sharing a goal of bringing unheard youth voices into the world, the mainstream is less significant of a focus, not that its not a coordinate in the questions youth attempt to answer through media, but a more tangible goal of teaching folks the skills they need to use video to build support for an achievable local goal is thought to be a better training tool, for continued use of the skills to connect to real world change. If 25 students participated its likely that maybe 10 of them would have a job that utilized media,perhaps working with a community organization or a school, but probably likey that 20 of them would use the skills they had learned in work that they did toward some productive end tied to the mission of the training they had. Program A probably is less likely to engage in real world politics than program b. Program B is probably more likely to effect the mainstream media as a result of local success than program A is by a direct approach to the mainstream. Program B is more likely to teach skills that apply to day to day life Whereas Program A teaches skills that are useful in process(often when people from program a realize the futility of its mission and the anachronistic nature of its focus and go to program b) but very infrequently toward the stated goal of program a pedagogical design. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080715/6fbf8051/attachment.htm From mharris02 Tue Jul 15 01:18:56 2008 From: mharris02 (Martin Harris) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:18:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Mmm Lentils, Chikpeas, and Mohair Message-ID: <451372279EE24E4992ED27B99AC5577304A8808A@EXVS1.drury.edu> I will play for a little bit. The parli and ld boards have been slow for awhile, and this kind of intrigues me from many sides. Brad- I am confused about the particular point you make at this particular time. Don't get me wrong, I think some that engage what are called alternative models of debate throw the baby out with the bath water (one day I might post my activist rant), but I read Andy's latest post as MOSTLY trying to suggest a particular leaning for a particular set of topics. An attempt to argue for a switch sides policy topic that has meaning and draw and that focuses on important salient issues of our time instead of tangential ag policy. Hence, if you are right, would those switch sides skills not also be honed in a world of CAFO debates instead of Mohair debates? For whatever reason, I think I have seen a lot of compromise potential coming from Andy over the last year or so. Why the standard framework block to THIS proposal/request (please excuse the overgeneralization, I hope you get my point)? Andy - I thought about engaging your analogy head on, and then I decided to say forgot it and just do the translation. I have a couple problems with your analogy. First it assumes there are TWO worlds. You ignore Parli (at least 3 forms), IEs, NFA-LD, and other public speaking/forensics organizations. I don't think this is all that surprising. Most people in NDT/CEDA do (except Eddie, I apologize for not having engaged you sooner. I should do that sometime soon). No worries, we are happy with or without you all, but it does make your criticism kind of narcissistic. It also seems self imploding (you rely on that which you criticize). I am interested in one thing if you are serious about desiring issues that could be more engaging to a broad audience. I don't want to essentialize, but the NFA topic revolved around US foreign policy to the greater horn of Africa in the area of public health, economic development, and human rights protections. While it is foreign policy and domestic policy, you couldn't garner any interest amongst your debaters to argue about African studies? Why is it that Towson wouldn't play in NFA, or at NFA, or judge at NFA in the ld division? I respect if you were trying to explore the ie world and connect with that part of the squad. Seriously, that is respectful, and far more than I have been able to do at Drury. I respect ies, but I don't like doing them anymore than I like English. Just not my thing. It just seems to illuminate sincerity on compromise on your part, although I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I will leave it there for now because I don't want to cloud the issue too much from jump street. If you, or any other people that share your believes, would like to entertain various "project" goal/paths/whatever ,since it is summer, I will play for awhile. I am interested in exploring honest ways to forge coalitions to work for a better/more diverse debate community. I suspect, given my history with CEDA/NDT, that this conversation won't go very far, but I thought I would at least throw something out there and fish for awhile. Martin Harris Systems Engineer - Desktop Architecture Drury University-Technology Services And Assistant Director of Drury Debate and Forensics (I think that is something like my secondary title, whatever it is I do with DU Debate) Office: 417-873-7848 Fax: 417-873-7835 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080715/19a414c5/attachment.htm From bdelo77 Tue Jul 15 02:23:21 2008 From: bdelo77 (Brian DeLong) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:23:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] todays offering In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0807142201l1e92c7bagf62c74d4bb8e512@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0807142201l1e92c7bagf62c74d4bb8e512@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <487C5069.3090205@gmail.com> I think this discussion is most likely too late since the topic has already been written. Without a workable resolution that includes "local activism" as a mechanism for change it's difficult to debate this out clearly. Local activism for agricultural support? Not all of us live in green zones. 1. Global-local issue. You are asking a national organization with its members to determine what is effective for local strategies? How would D Heidt have any clue as to what I need to do to rally public support for local Wyoming policy change? Your gatekeeper arguments about the hegemonic nature of this organization seems to double turn with your suggestion that we should have judges and debaters from vastly different world situations determine what strategies are best for their local communities. There is an inherent problem with a lack of shared knowledge of the social situation of the Wyoming's, Fullerton's, Berkeley's, ASU's , NYU's etc. Your program analogy also assumes that students are taught local problems from agent's that are dissolved within their local situations. The best teachers of your film class will know how to meet the needs of their local students by having direct experience. This includes the use of local research methods. You want me judging a round where I decide the best strategies for constructing a local activism project that includes spray painting as means for reaching a mass audience? I know jack about the issue. I can only assume that your response will be that debate provides an avenue where debaters can contribute experiences and information about their localities so that the curriculum can have adequate ground to evaluate a proposed action. Ha, this is where evidence and research is introduced. I may not be an expert on the practices of political activism in Cheyenne, Wyoming but I can confidently say that I am much more of an expert on the issue than you are. 21 years of lived experience and engagement with the "old-west" community provides me with a lot more data on the subject than you're carrying in your (mental) box . I can only assume that your analogy is supposed to be implemented in debate, somehow, someway. The world that I envision will have every debate team use their local resources, including experiences, to produce and advocate some type of local activism . Research limits seems to devastate your analogy. My teams will have to research activism strategies for every policy debate location in the country? Really? Each squad will be able to take advantage of interviews, film, and evidence derived from local "organic intellectuals" that other squads don't have access to. I shouldn't have to explain the limits of the internet and other media. My team would be able to amass a massive amount of material from those non-tek savy ranchers that your team would have limited ability to respond to. Strategic teams would learn how to manipulate this system to their advantage. If old Seth "Pinto" Ellsworth stood up and offered a method for establishing a sweet organic farming program for the 8,500 residents of Rawlins, Wyoming this guy is going to wax the floor with you. CX would have to be extended well beyond 3 minutes for you to even grasp the Rawlinian situation. I mean Big Nose George is just the icing on the cake of this town. http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WY-BigNose.html George Parrot, also known as George Francis Warden, George Manuse, George Curry, and Big Nose George, is infamous not only for being hanged as an outlaw , but also for being the only man in American history who became a pair of shoes after his death. Global-local is also devastating to your do it on the "cheap" argument. Cheap as compared to what? Without shared knowledge of what resources localities have to mobilize for local change, the judge or "teacher" will most likely steer the students in the wrong direction. 2. Debate as it is currently practiced does not equate with your "professional quality tek" vs. "non-professional tek" distinction. What "professional" tek in debate are you referring to? Research? While a great many debaters have gone on to engage with politics and the law, a great many others have excelled in other areas. I have yet to realize the futility of debate's ability to provide a lot of skill that translate into pedagogical power. Pedagogical benefits of today's debate have been flushed out by people far more articulate on the issue than I. However, you're certainly not winning a 100% takeout between national level policy and the ability for a debater to take the lessons learned in their experiences in debate and apply them to local activism. With that said, I find it highly unlikely that if a student is trained in professional quality studio technology that they would not be able to get media jobs at local venues. Andy Ellis wrote: > Some very cool organizations train high school students to use > professional quality studio technology and techniques to produce > broadcast quality media.Often times in areas where students wouldnt > otherwise have these resources, programs discuss the necessity of > bringing unheard youth voices into the mainstream. While very cool and > definitly helpful for the students involved, because of the exclusive > nature of being a mainstream media maker it is perhaps likely that 1 > out of 25 students will be able to translate that skill into a career > as a mainstream media maker. Perhaps 3 more of that 25 will get jobs > in the industry but ultimatly not ones that allow them to exert > control over the media as it effects the world. The other 22 will have > a valuble experience but for the most part will not actualize the > media making goal of the activity. > > Consider in the alternative a world where less money is spent on > equipment and more students participate. Instead of aiming to make > media that effects the mainstream, the focus is on using tools > commonly avaialble to everybody, handicams and computers, and the > colective power of the students to produce media for internet and > local dvd distribution.While sharing a goal of bringing unheard youth > voices into the world, the mainstream is less significant of a focus, > not that its not a coordinate in the questions youth attempt to answer > through media, but a more tangible goal of teaching folks the skills > they need to use video to build support for an achievable local goal > is thought to be a better training tool, for continued use of the > skills to connect to real world change. If 25 students participated > its likely that maybe 10 of them would have a job that utilized > media,perhaps working with a community organization or a school, but > probably likey that 20 of them would use the skills they had learned > in work that they did toward some productive end tied to the mission > of the training they had. > > Program A probably is less likely to engage in real world politics > than program b. > Program B is probably more likely to effect the mainstream media as a > result of local success than program A is by a direct approach to the > mainstream. > Program B is more likely to teach skills that apply to day to day life > Whereas Program A teaches skills that are useful in process(often when > people from program a realize the futility of its mission and the > anachronistic nature of its focus and go to program b) but very > infrequently toward the stated goal of program a pedagogical design. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From greg.thomas Tue Jul 15 05:43:31 2008 From: greg.thomas (Greg Thomas) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:43:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Communication Instructor (Coaching Opportunity) at Methodist University in NC Message-ID: For the past few years, I have been the Debate Coach at Methodist University in Fayetteville, NC. I am moving on for other pastures this coming year, and as such Methodist is looking to fill my position. While the advertisement for the position that appears below does not specifically mention being the Debate Coach, that is something that is available if the candidate who gets the job wants it. Methodist University is a great school with many unique advantages. Additionally, the President of the university has a personal interest in the success of the Debate Team, and that can be very helpful at times. Below is the job advertisement. If you have any questions about the job, contact Dr. Watt (listed in the ad). If you have any questions about the team or the school, feel free to drop me a line. Greg Thomas -----text of job advertisement appears below---------------------------- The Department of Communication seeks a new speech communication instructor for a one-year appointment for 2008-09. A master's degree with at least 18 semester hours in speech communication or related field is required; a Ph.D. is preferred. Successful candidate should be able to teach public speaking, oral communication, and speech communication courses. Depending on background, candidate may teach argumentation/debate and persuasion. Review of the applicant files begins immediately and continues until the position is filled. Methodist University, in harmony with its tradition, takes seriously its role in the ethical and moral development of its students. Methodist University is an equal opportunity employer. Members of populations traditionally under-represented in higher education are encouraged to apply. Email, FAX (910) 630-7679, or send a letter of application, graduate transcripts, curriculum vitae, and names of three references with current email addresses to Dr. Willis M. Watt, Methodist University, 5400 Ramsey Street, Fayetteville, NC 28311-1498 or wmwatt at methodist.edu. For additional information call 910-630-7191. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080715/b6568655/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Tue Jul 15 08:23:03 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:23:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] todays offering In-Reply-To: <487C5069.3090205@gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0807142201l1e92c7bagf62c74d4bb8e512@mail.gmail.com> <487C5069.3090205@gmail.com> Message-ID: Big Nose George. Damn, thanks DeLo... Here's his skull and the shoes he became: http://www.outwestnewspaper.com/GRAPHICS/bigshoes.jpg > Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:23:21 -0400> To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com> From: bdelo77 at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [eDebate] todays offering> > I think this discussion is most likely too late since the topic has > already been written. Without a workable resolution that includes > "local activism" as a mechanism for change it's difficult to debate this > out clearly. Local activism for agricultural support? Not all of us > live in green zones. > > 1. Global-local issue. You are asking a national organization with its > members to determine what is effective for local strategies? How would > D Heidt have any clue as to what I need to do to rally public support > for local Wyoming policy change? Your gatekeeper arguments about the > hegemonic nature of this organization seems to double turn with your > suggestion that we should have judges and debaters from vastly different > world situations determine what strategies are best for their local > communities. There is an inherent problem with a lack of shared > knowledge of the social situation of the Wyoming's, Fullerton's, > Berkeley's, ASU's , NYU's etc. > > Your program analogy also assumes that students are taught local > problems from agent's that are dissolved within their local situations. > The best teachers of your film class will know how to meet the needs of > their local students by having direct experience. This includes the use > of local research methods. You want me judging a round where I decide > the best strategies for constructing a local activism project that > includes spray painting as means for reaching a mass audience? I know > jack about the issue.> > I can only assume that your response will be that debate provides an > avenue where debaters can contribute experiences and information about > their localities so that the curriculum can have adequate ground to > evaluate a proposed action. Ha, this is where evidence and research is > introduced. I may not be an expert on the practices of political > activism in Cheyenne, Wyoming but I can confidently say that I am much > more of an expert on the issue than you are. 21 years of lived > experience and engagement with the "old-west" community provides me with > a lot more data on the subject than you're carrying in your (mental) box > . I can only assume that your analogy is supposed to be implemented in > debate, somehow, someway. The world that I envision will have every > debate team use their local resources, including experiences, to produce > and advocate some type of local activism . Research limits seems to > devastate your analogy. My teams will have to research activism > strategies for every policy debate location in the country? Really? > Each squad will be able to take advantage of interviews, film, and > evidence derived from local "organic intellectuals" that other squads > don't have access to. I shouldn't have to explain the limits of the > internet and other media. My team would be able to amass a massive > amount of material from those non-tek savy ranchers that your team would > have limited ability to respond to. Strategic teams would learn how to > manipulate this system to their advantage. If old Seth "Pinto" > Ellsworth stood up and offered a method for establishing a sweet organic > farming program for the 8,500 residents of Rawlins, Wyoming this guy is > going to wax the floor with you. CX would have to be extended well > beyond 3 minutes for you to even grasp the Rawlinian situation. I mean > Big Nose George is just the icing on the cake of this town. > http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WY-BigNose.html> George Parrot, also known as George Francis Warden, George Manuse, > George Curry, and Big Nose George, is infamous not only for being hanged > as an outlaw > , but also > for being the only man in American history who became a pair of shoes > after his death.> > Global-local is also devastating to your do it on the "cheap" argument. > Cheap as compared to what? Without shared knowledge of what resources > localities have to mobilize for local change, the judge or "teacher" > will most likely steer the students in the wrong direction. > > 2. Debate as it is currently practiced does not equate with your > "professional quality tek" vs. "non-professional tek" distinction. What > "professional" tek in debate are you referring to? Research? While a > great many debaters have gone on to engage with politics and the law, a > great many others have excelled in other areas. I have yet to realize > the futility of debate's ability to provide a lot of skill that > translate into pedagogical power. Pedagogical benefits of today's > debate have been flushed out by people far more articulate on the issue > than I. However, you're certainly not winning a 100% takeout between > national level policy and the ability for a debater to take the lessons > learned in their experiences in debate and apply them to local > activism. With that said, I find it highly unlikely that if a student > is trained in professional quality studio technology that they would not > be able to get media jobs at local venues. > > > > > Andy Ellis wrote:> > Some very cool organizations train high school students to use > > professional quality studio technology and techniques to produce > > broadcast quality media.Often times in areas where students wouldnt > > otherwise have these resources, programs discuss the necessity of > > bringing unheard youth voices into the mainstream. While very cool and > > definitly helpful for the students involved, because of the exclusive > > nature of being a mainstream media maker it is perhaps likely that 1 > > out of 25 students will be able to translate that skill into a career > > as a mainstream media maker. Perhaps 3 more of that 25 will get jobs > > in the industry but ultimatly not ones that allow them to exert > > control over the media as it effects the world. The other 22 will have > > a valuble experience but for the most part will not actualize the > > media making goal of the activity.> >> > Consider in the alternative a world where less money is spent on > > equipment and more students participate. Instead of aiming to make > > media that effects the mainstream, the focus is on using tools > > commonly avaialble to everybody, handicams and computers, and the > > colective power of the students to produce media for internet and > > local dvd distribution.While sharing a goal of bringing unheard youth > > voices into the world, the mainstream is less significant of a focus, > > not that its not a coordinate in the questions youth attempt to answer > > through media, but a more tangible goal of teaching folks the skills > > they need to use video to build support for an achievable local goal > > is thought to be a better training tool, for continued use of the > > skills to connect to real world change. If 25 students participated > > its likely that maybe 10 of them would have a job that utilized > > media,perhaps working with a community organization or a school, but > > probably likey that 20 of them would use the skills they had learned > > in work that they did toward some productive end tied to the mission > > of the training they had.> >> > Program A probably is less likely to engage in real world politics > > than program b.> > Program B is probably more likely to effect the mainstream media as a > > result of local success than program A is by a direct approach to the > > mainstream.> > Program B is more likely to teach skills that apply to day to day life > > Whereas Program A teaches skills that are useful in process(often when > > people from program a realize the futility of its mission and the > > anachronistic nature of its focus and go to program b) but very > > infrequently toward the stated goal of program a pedagogical design.> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> >> > _______________________________________________> > eDebate mailing list> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate> > _______________________________________________> eDebate mailing list> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080715/36a7016e/attachment.htm From louiedebate Tue Jul 15 13:59:14 2008 From: louiedebate (Louie Petit) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:59:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Semis/Elims as a Resolution Message-ID: further research is definitely needed before we rule out using the NDT semis or other elim rounds at the NDT as means to choose or not choose a resolution. The debates that happen at the NDT are pretty good and might be able to offer some insight to how research is conducted. Matt Schissler, Eric Lanning and myself (Louie Petit) were able to do some fast research and found this pdf in a quick google search. Although Schissler insisted on us not using google scholar, Lanning and I used google scholar tanyway. Whitman debaters, what are you going to do. performance_In_debate/policy/research.pdf I am sure you there will be disagreements once you read the article, but that happens peace, Louie, Schissler, and Lanning _________________________________________________________________ The i?m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080715/b4d63ff5/attachment.htm From louiedebate Tue Jul 15 14:01:56 2008 From: louiedebate (Louie Petit) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:01:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Semis/Elims as a Resolution- retry Message-ID: Maybe this link will get you there, i know it looks weird, but whatever http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU Peace, Schissler, Louie, and Lanning _________________________________________________________________ The i?m Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_ChangeWorld -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080715/c6c58121/attachment.htm From jbruschke Tue Jul 15 15:17:46 2008 From: jbruschke (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:17:46 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Pepperdine Message-ID: Name:Pepperdine Ray Buchanan Invitational Starts:10/17/2008 Ends:10/19/2008 Hosted by: Pepperdine Contact: Sarah Stone Watt Address: 24255 PCH, Malibu CA 90263 Phone: 310-506-6804 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From alfred.snider Wed Jul 16 07:23:57 2008 From: alfred.snider (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:23:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Registration for WUDC in Ireland Message-ID: <487DE85D.9070000@uvm.edu> Spots are going to go fast. You will need to act immediately when registration opens to snag a spot in this amazing tournament. August 1 2008 at 2 PM Ireland time registration opens. You need to be online ready to rock when it opens. You do not need details, only your school and number of teams and judges. Website is http://www.corkworlds2009.com/ Let's get some American teams there. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From jeffrey.jarman Wed Jul 16 08:17:45 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:17:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Final CEDA Voting reminder Message-ID: All ballots are due by midnight tonight. In order to vote you must register AND receive authorization. If you wait until the last minute to register, you'll find that you won't be authorized to vote in time. Please, register and vote early. If you have trouble with the website (or if you need the registration code), please let me know. Jeff From akbiotech Wed Jul 16 09:23:17 2008 From: akbiotech (Art Kyriazis) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:23:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Wording In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <487E0455.6070107@comcast.net> Re: Topic Wording To the extent that the topic focuses on US support for biofuels and/or crop subsidies, it may not be enough to affect the economics that are driving the diversion of crops to biofuels and to foreign buyers. According to the Wall Street Journal yesterday, July 15, 2008, describing the activities of CEO John Johnson of CHS, Inc., a global grain consortium that competes with Archer Daniels Midland Inc, Cargill Inc and Bunge Ltd, Mr. Johnson stated as follows; "we don't sit here and make decisions about who gets grain," says Mr. Johnson, 59 years old, a former feed salesman who grew up on a cattle ranch in Bowman, North Dakota. "The market determines who gets the product, when and at what price." /id./ at p. B1. The problem with the topic as worded may be that so long as petroleum prices are this high, and world food shortages continue along with world fertilizer and world seed shortages, the sales price for U.S. food crops will continue to be higher if they are sold to the biofuels industry or if they are sold abroad. These trends are so strongly embedded in the microeconomic and macroeconomic pricing structures of the agribusiness economy at present that it may be difficult for any affirmative topical plan under these resolutions to effect a real difference in the economics sufficient to divert any food grains or price relief to americans. Eliminating subsidies not to grow is certainly a step in the right direction, but it may not be enought. The one thought I've had on this that might work would be a U.S. immediate embargo on tobacco cultivation in the United States, effective immediately, combined with a subsidy program to grow wheat, not corn, in place of tobacco. This would have two effects, one would be saving people from smoking deaths, the other flooding the marking with wheat and thus having beneficial effects of lowering food grain prices sufficiently that the above economic picture might finally be rectified. It would be good if the topic wording allowed something as drastic as all this. --Dr. Arthur Kyriazis, molecular biologist, former debate coach, FSS, 2007-2008 edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com wrote: > Send eDebate mailing list submissions to > edebate at www.ndtceda.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: topic wordings (David Glass) > 2. Re: No Lentils...Please!!! (Richard A. Garner) > 3. Jason (JK) Newton or Ben Durham (Douglas Dennis) > 4. Re: No Lentils...Please!!! (Richard A. Garner) > 5. Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. > (scottelliott at grandecom.net) > 6. Re: Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. > (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) > 7. Re: Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. (ed lee) > 8. Re: Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. (Kuswa, Kevin) > 9. Join the YOURS Cause on facebook (Andy Ellis) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:27:53 -0400 > From: "David Glass" > Subject: Re: [eDebate] topic wordings > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <8371758b0807121027n68b7c695vcfed6de946a167ac at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > sorry if this has already been pointed out, but anyway: > > While resolutions 2, 2b and 2c are worded that the USFG should reduce ITS > agricultural support... eliminating ITS subsidies, the > > first set of resolutions are worded that the USFG should reduce ITS > agricultural support through the elimination of all or nearly all domestic > support... > > There is no "ITS" in the second phrase; given that the second phrase > requires all or nearly all domestic support to be removed, it is really not > clear that the first ITS covers everything else (which is recognized by the > wordings in the second set of resolutions). > > Also the wording of the first set requires the elimination of all or nearly > all "domestic support, export barriers and/or market access barriers"... > meaning that you would need to do both domestic support & export barriers... > and then would have a choice as to and/or market access barriers. In > contrast, the second set of resolutions make it quite clear that the federal > government needs to reduce ITS agricultural support, at least including > subsidies. > > So for a topicality reasons, it seems that the second set of resolutions are > superior to the first... > > David Glass > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080712/e3ff5347/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:05:19 -0500 > From: "Richard A. Garner" > Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! > To: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <17bee7eb0807121205t469e3e09xa0ab6dfd835e5b10 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Clay Webb wrote: > > >> Don't tell me it can't be done. They extradited one terrorist. 1 >> GUY......you can widdle the case down to nothing....but you won't have a >> link to a disad . Not hating on wake....bravo...... Your generics won't >> link.....why....because no one gives a shit about Lebanon Terrorist guy or >> large chickpeas.... >> >> > > Does this mean everyone doesn't carry extra copies of this card around in > their backpacks? =) > > Link: Dead or Alive > > > *Shapiro*, Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii, *2002 > * [Michael J., ""Wanted, Dead or Alive," *Theory & Event* 5:4, project muse] > > *"Wanted, Dead or Alive"* > > 5:4 | (c) 2002 Michael J. Shapiro [Contents] [Search] [Muse] > > *What kind of State is that which is able to nip terrorism in the bud and > eliminate it...? Does it not have to equip itself with its own terrorism and > in doing so simply generalize terror at all levels? What is the real price > for such security and are we all seriously dreaming about this?* > > Jean Baudrillard[1] > > Introduction: "I don't like this movie" (a remark by a U.S. Marine during > the Vietnam War, reported in Michael Herr's Dispatches) > > 1. A body falling through the air from over 90 stories up; a doomed worker, > hopelessly waiving a white flag from a window near the top; the two towers > imploding with thousands still trapped inside! It was like a disaster movie > without a touch of redemption. I wanted to see it as the worst film I has > ever seen. But it happened, and, to borrow one of Don DeLillo's expressions, > it was like "an aberration in the heartland of the real." And now perhaps > the worst is yet to come. > > 2. *When George Dubya initially reacted to the events of September 11, he > appeared to be hankering for a "Wild West" solution. He wanted to -- here I > use the venerable yet paradoxical phrase* -- *"bring to justice"* *Osama Bin > Laden.* Of course, as Richard Slotkin has pointed out, *in one of our > dominant collective imaginaries, we are a "gunfighter nation."* *Pointing to > Western films as the genre within which the territorial extension of Euro > American national culture (the westward moving frontier of violence) has > been mythologized and legitimated throughout the twentieth century, Slotkin > dismisses the more pacific, contractual models of the evolution of American > nationhood.*[2] > > 3. Certainly the imagery has found its way into popular as well as official > culture. When I heard Bush's remark, I thought of an episode of the HBO > production, The Sopranos. Tony Soprano's Uncle Junior says to his head hit > man, who is thirsting for violent revenge against some of Tony's overly > exuberant minions, "Take it easy, we're not making a Western here." And, > while pondering the western scenario that the President (and Junior) evoked, > I recalled the revenge-happy antics that emerged throughout the U.S. in > America's Centennial Year, right after General Custer and his cavalry > regiment were wiped out by Crazy Horse and his Sioux warriors. Evan > Connell's remarks, in his account of the events *following the Battle of > Little Big Horn*, fit our current situation: > > Reaction throughout *the country was no different in 1876 than it is today > upon receipt of similar news: shock, followed by disbelief, fury, and a > slavering appetite for revenge.*[3] > > 4. In the1876 episode, "volunteers popped up like daisies in April" (in "of > all places," Sioux City and in Salt Lake City, Springfield Illinois, and > throughout several states, including Arkansas, Nevada, Tennessee, and > Texas), egged on by a revenge-lusting media. Among the more incendiary > statements in the press was an editorial in the Chicago Tribune: "In every > case where an inoffensive citizen is slain, let 100 of these red brutes feel > the power of a rope properly adjusted under their chins." And in an > articulation reminiscent of President Bush's, "a group of schoolboys [in > Custer's birthplace of New Rumsley, Ohio] took an oath -- 'each with his > right hand upraised over a McGuffey First Reader' -- to kill Sitting Bull on > sight."[4] > > 5. Connell notes that "a few reflective people could be heard among those of > letter writers, volunteers, and schoolboys in knickers, but not many."[5] *At > least in this respect, the current situation is not as grim. More than a few > "self-reflective people" can be heard.* *But* *at the level of official > decision-making, and in mainstream media, revenge, strategy and logistics > monopolize the agenda.* *Although, unlike the situation in 1876, the prime > adversaries are not easy to locate, and although, as the Secretary of > Defense put it, Afghanistan lacks "high value targets," the U. S., U. K. and > some others are proceeding* (as I write)* with a military assault on > Afghanistan, having decided that they must punish the country within which > the alleged mastermind resides.* > > 6. *So perhaps, as regards the present war fervor, we are making a > western.*At the same time, we appear to be making a modern film as > well as a classic, > a global version of Wim Wenders's The End of Violence (1997). The Wenders > film presents a Los Angeles that is a prey to a secret FBI project to > surveil and ultimately eliminate street crime, through the use of a network > of cameras monitored by a NASA-trained surveillance expert. The surveillance > expert is, himself, under surveillance, through the collaboration of a > suborned Central American woman (a victim of government violence), who > cleans his office, has an affair with him, and reports on those of his > activities that may risk exposing the FBI's top secret project. Leaving > aside the complications of a plot that weaves together lives within and > outside of Los Angeles, the film narrative makes it evident that the only > way comprehensively to eliminate violence "as we know it," is to perpetrate > an even more insidious and pervasive violence. > > 7. *In the present case, we are looking at much more territorially extended > project to end -- in this case -- terroristic violence* (as we know it). > People die in Wenders's film. *The bodies that are to be eliminated are > those connected directly or indirectly* (e.g. a film producer of > state-of-the-art violent thrillers in the case of the latter) *to "crime."* > *In the current Bush/Blair scenario, the count of the bodies-that-count will > doubtless climb, as, increasingly, the activities of surveillance and > punishment produce more tangentially connected but nevertheless dangerous > bodies.* *To treat the rationale for what can perhaps be best described as > sovereign violence (enacted to end violence),* *we must ponder the new > biopolitics of global governance.* *Back in 1876, the biopolitics providing > the context for the post Little Big Horn revenge scenario was already in > place, having emerged from the Euro American nation building project. An > American ethnogenesis had already largely disqualified the political > eligibility of Native American nations. Whether lamented as a "vanishing > race" or abjured as impediments to a commercial model of land use, the > "savage" bodies were either dangers to be eliminated or problems for the > Euro American "Indian policy." In contrast,* *the main contemporary > biopolitical conceits are post nation building ones. They reflect a > genealogy of security problematics.* *Inasmuch as the process of ending > terroristic violence is at an early stage, I want to make some observations > about the biopolitics of* *the new forms of sovereignty-as-enactment as the > "allied forces" determine which bodies are to be targeted.* > > _____________________________________ > > p.s. Let's also say, for the record, that a) my recollections of said > affirmative are, errr, hazy at best, but b) I did in fact watch it. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080712/7123bd55/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:28:02 -0700 > From: Douglas Dennis > Subject: [eDebate] Jason (JK) Newton or Ben Durham > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" > > Anyone know where either of these guys are? > > Help a brother out. Backchannel if you can... > > DD > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:29:50 -0500 > From: "Richard A. Garner" > Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! > To: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <17bee7eb0807121229re617605o52c04d9c1c673e96 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > I think Ed is correct. Let that be known generally. > > In particular I think that CAFOs and fisheries are, as Ed argues, > particularly important to include in the topic. I have less of an opinion on > the stable mechanism question, but between major crops, biofuels, fisheries, > and animal raising we have covered, even if in a technically and maybe > cumbersomely worded way, all the major areas of food politics today. > > But, the stable mechanism solves concerns about aff. proliferation if you > know in your break round at CEDA or the NDT that your "disadvantages" and > "counter plans" based on cutting subsididies will be there, like always, > ready, waiting. And including the other core ethical and political questions > concerning what we eat - which is probably the most important thing we do - > in the topic seems like, er, a good idea. > > Also, it will guarantee that debates this year will not be boring. Fun is an > important, underpresented voting issue that should be included along with > fairness, education, and jurisdiction. > > RG > > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 6:08 AM, ed lee wrote: > > >> I am having a little difficulty understanding why we should include all the >> other Title 1 crops that are not listed. Clay's concern about new AFFs >> resignates with me. >> >> More importantly, I think the trade of fish, sugar, cafos for mohair, >> lentil, and barley is a terrible one pedagogically. We are moving from a >> rich and very deep research base to one that seems very shallow. Factory >> farming and fishing and just just far more important politically, >> culturally, and environmentally. >> >> The opposition to fish and cafos is that they expand the literature base >> and makes life harder on the neg. We exist in a era of debate were our >> constructions of what is theoritically legitimate advocacy for neg is >> limitless. CPs and K alts have made is extremely difficult to be AFF. >> Diversifying the areas that the AFF gets to play in is one way to compensate >> for this. >> >> The areas should not be limitless. Clay's post identifies a couple of DAs >> to that. I am also concerned about how the smaller crops interact with one >> another to compromise the Negs ability to generate a unique link to their >> DA. If I cut chickpeas there seems to be a political incentive to ratchet >> up payments for another pulse crop as political cover. This interaction >> could also play out with long and short rice. There are probably other >> areas. If our goal is to maximize AFFs possibility of winning competitive >> debates were they read new affs, I think the addition of smaller Title 1 >> crops will do that. However, if we want to incentivize the AFF to explore a >> richer literature base and have te Neg continously advance our curriculum by >> doing specific research in those areas than it seems limted diversification >> of the areas is a better option. >> >> For those concerned about Negative's competitive success the best way to >> guarantee that is via a stable mechanism. A stable mechanism gives the Neg >> an opportunity to construct a set of core generics (CP + NB) that has wider >> applicibility. I am much more concerned about the resolutions that give the >> AFF 3 options for mechanisms than I am about the areas the AFF gets to play >> in. The mechanism determines the guality of the AFFs link turns in >> relationship to the link. The mechanism determines whether may counterplan >> is competitive. The mechanism determines whether Clay will have a unique DA >> to the new aff in the semis of the NDT next year. If you are truly >> concerned about the neg then give them a stable mechanism - force the the >> AFF to cut subsides. >> >> Stable mechanism good for NEG >> Diversified areas good for AFF >> Vote 2a >> >> peace, >> edlee >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Mike Davis >> To: Clay Webb >> Cc: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 12:17:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Lentils...Please!!! >> >> I am really confused. Is the neg going to have lots of pics or are >> they going to have no shot of winning? >> >> Also you say "more aff options......fewer surprises in important >> rounds" It seems if the aff has more options there are more chances >> for surprises. >> >> And guess what someone is going to PIC out of a single corn or sugar >> grower or a single CAFO that does things a little differently (I have >> found several of these already). These counterplans are coming >> regardless of the list. >> >> The part of these resolutions that limits out the one bad guy aff is >> you have to remove all or nearly all of a single crop. Not just one >> type of lentil or chickpea. You will be able to win a politics link to >> any of the commodity one crops. The crackpots on the negs side that >> support subsidies to these crops are better than most of the aff >> authors. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Clay Webb wrote: >> >>> You are at the NDT. It is your senior year. Debating a team from wake >>> forest. They pull out......cut large chickpeas.......you lose on a 3-0, >>> >> 5-0, >> >>> 7-0, 75-0. Don't tell me it can't be done. They extradited one terrorist. >>> >> 1 >> >>> GUY......you can widdle the case down to nothing....but you won't have a >>> link to a disad . Not hating on wake....bravo...... Your generics won't >>> link.....why....because no one gives a shit about Lebanon Terrorist guy >>> >> or >> >>> large chickpeas....except for the one guy who will write the internal >>> >> links >> >>> for the aff advantage...and anyone who writes the aff will have the >>> advantage of knowing you have to crutch on politics. If your generics do >>> link...you are reading a K....and the topic doesn't matter......don't get >>> angry....its true.....Missouri State WW Legal topic.....Missouri State MM >>> all topics....the res does not matter if you just want to get to the zero >>> point of the holocaust. >>> >>> K ground should not be part of the discussion. There is always K ground. >>> >>> To be sure....some of you want to put....this...in the topic: >>> >>> (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. >>> (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. >>> (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. >>> (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. >>> (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. >>> (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. >>> (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. >>> (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. >>> (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. >>> (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. >>> (2) 2009 CROP YEAR.?For purposes of the 2009 crop year, >>> the target prices for covered commodities shall be as follows: >>> (A) Wheat, $3.92 per bushel. >>> (B) Corn, $2.63 per bushel. >>> (C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. >>> (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. >>> (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. >>> (F) Upland cotton, $0.7125 per pound. >>> (G) Long grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. >>> (H) Medium grain rice, $10.50 per hundredweight. >>> (I) Soybeans, $5.80 per bushel. >>> (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. >>> (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. >>> (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. >>> (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. >>> (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. >>> >>> >>> You could group some of them....but then again....if they did just read >>> >> the >> >>> 1 evil guy aff you could just read generic "arab states" links for your >>> Israel Disad.... right? I'm all for aff flexibility....but this borders >>> >> on >> >>> insanity. >>> >>> Also, some are arguing to prefer Lentils, Chickpeas, Sorghum, etc. over >>> >> CAFO >> >>> and fish. I will not make a long winded technical appeal. >>> >>> C) Grain sorghum, $2.57 per bushel. >>> (D) Barley, $2.24 per bushel. >>> (E) Oats, $1.44 per bushel. >>> (J) Other oilseeds, $10.10 per hundredweight. >>> (K) Dry peas, $8.32 per hundredweight. >>> (L) Lentils, $12.81 per hundredweight. >>> (M) Small chickpeas, $10.36 per hundredweight. >>> (N) Large chickpeas, $12.81 per hundredweight. >>> >>> sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, >>> mustard seed, crambe, sesame seed, or any oilseed designated >>> by the Secretary. >>> >>> crambe....there may be more....I don't really care because I think you >>> >> get >> >>> the point. >>> >>> in exchange for >>> >>> Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheries >>> >>> Sugar, CAFOs, and Fisheris have bigger lit bases. More neg links, more >>> >> aff >> >>> options......fewer surprises in important rounds, and we don't have to >>> >> talk >> >>> about Lentils. >>> >>> I go to missouri state....so typically....appeals to education don't >>> >> matter >> >>> much to me....but seriously....Lentils and Chickpeas??? LOL not even just >>> chickpeas but large chickpeas and small chickpeas. And even if you pull >>> off the lentils aff....imagine the negative pics out of one of these. >>> >>> Types of Lentils >>> >>> Brown/Spanish Pardina >>> French Green/Puy (Dark speckled blue-green) >>> Green (Most common variety) >>> Black/Beluga >>> Yellow/Tan Lentils (Red inside) >>> Red Chief (Decorticated yellow lentils) >>> Eston Green (Small green) >>> Richlea (Medium green) >>> Laird (Large green) >>> Petite Golden (Decorticated lentils) >>> Masoor (Brown-skinned lentils which are red inside) >>> Pigeon Peas >>> Channa Dal >>> Mung Lentils >>> Petite Crimson/Red (Decorticated masoor lentils) >>> Chana (Kernel of chickpeas) >>> Urad (A type of bean) >>> White/Ivory (Peeled Urad beans) >>> Garlic Lentils (Genetically altered) >>> Macachiados (Big Mexican yellow lentils) >>> >>> CP remove support for all lentils except for Eston Green Lentils. Net >>> Benefit: Eston Green Lentils are a keystone species....they are key to >>> hegemony....what if the Eston Green Lentil harvest stagnates or even >>> shrinks? We might face a new period of conflict. North against south, >>> >> Petite >> >>> Golden against Spanish Pardina. These countries with their billions of >>> people and there hundreds of lentils......don't matter much but its still >>> enough to outweigh your stupid advantage. >>> >>> Could you find a disad.....maybe...maybe not. Could it outweigh whatever >>> stupid advantage the Lentil aff had....probably....because what would the >>> advantage be. This illustrates two points. (1) Adding all this refuse >>> creates limitless potential for race to the bottom shit that is >>> >> completely >> >>> irrelevant.....DO YOU WANT TO JUDGE THIS???? (2) All of this begs the >>> question, what is the point of including something in the topic that >>> >> isn't >> >>> worth debating. DO YOU WANT TO READ THIS???? >>> >>> Considering all this....Fish, Sugar, and Factory farms are breath of >>> >> fresh >> >>> air. >>> >>> Res 2A or 1A....preferably res 2A for reasons other people have already >>> discussed. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Dr. Michael Davis >> Director of Debate/Assistant Professor >> James Madison University >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080712/267d9b7b/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:04:13 -0500 > From: scottelliott at grandecom.net > Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: <1215903853.4879386dde80b at webmail.grandecom.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > Look, 95% of you colleges debaters and I guess 98% of the college debate coaches > have not, cannot, will not, and will never, make it to semifinals of the NDT. > Sorry to be the one to break it to all of you, but it is true. To think that a > lot of people would make a decision on which topic is best based on some > hypothetical that over 90% of you will NEVER experience, seems to me to be > ludicrious at best, and sadly delusional at worst. I thnk there will be a > "rapeseed" aff with Kritikal feminist language advantages broken by Emory's top > team in Quarters at the NDT, I don't think I will worry about it when I vote. > > Scott Elliott > > p.s. > > apologies to Emory for letting the cat out of the bag. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:36:50 -0500 (CDT) > From: Andrew Michael-Don Casey > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: <1907857.1215916610799.JavaMail.acasey3 at ucok.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Emory + Kritikal + feminist language advantage = really? > > premises doubtful. > > -AC > ----------------------------------------- > **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may > contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any > unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 07:32:11 -0700 (PDT) > From: ed lee > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. > To: scottelliott at grandecom.net, edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: <141248.32219.qm at web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I actually agree with Scott. My post is also (I would say primarily) concerned about the educational value of the topic. Our squad is large and diverse. I am also concerned about our novices who walk into a debate about one of the minor Title 1 crops and its relationship to some geopolitical future event that we have not discussed because they are still learning the mechanics of a debate. I am also concerned about the debater who attends 4 tournaments a year. I would like those debates to be about salient political issues. > > I am more concerned about what knowledge and research we incentivize. I think it is better for our squad room discussions to focus on ethical, political and environmental ramifications of US subsidization and consumption of fisheries, ethanol, and cafos than mohair, sorghum and chickpeas. We will spend an entire year discussing these issues. I really do think it would be a travesty for us to exclude these issues when there are other ways to protect the negs ability to prepare for debates - which seems to be the only reason we would exclude them. > > e > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:04:13 PM > Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. > > > Look, 95% of you colleges debaters and I guess 98% of the college debate coaches > have not, cannot, will not, and will never, make it to semifinals of the NDT. > Sorry to be the one to break it to all of you, but it is true. To think that a > lot of people would make a decision on which topic is best based on some > hypothetical that over 90% of you will NEVER experience, seems to me to be > ludicrious at best, and sadly delusional at worst. I thnk there will be a > "rapeseed" aff with Kritikal feminist language advantages broken by Emory's top > team in Quarters at the NDT, I don't think I will worry about it when I vote. > > Scott Elliott > > p.s. > > apologies to Emory for letting the cat out of the bag. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080713/17f9b0c0/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:33:06 -0400 > From: "Kuswa, Kevin" > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. > To: "ed lee" , , > > Message-ID: > <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84402D90B6B at castor.richmond.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On-point, Ed! > > To those of you saying "there is still aff flex," that is not the argument...the argument is what type? > > The education "we incentivize" in Ed's words should outweigh predictions of ground that are impossible to substantiate. That's why the proof for the narrow band we have selected is in the pudding/words of the resolution, not one person's speculations about fair ground in an edebate post. > > Sure, we can hope that we discuss agriculture instead of federal spending, but it will be harder to do so given this focus. > > kevin > > ________________________________ > > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of ed lee > Sent: Sun 7/13/2008 10:32 AM > To: scottelliott at grandecom.net; edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. > > > I actually agree with Scott. My post is also (I would say primarily) concerned about the educational value of the topic. Our squad is large and diverse. I am also concerned about our novices who walk into a debate about one of the minor Title 1 crops and its relationship to some geopolitical future event that we have not discussed because they are still learning the mechanics of a debate. I am also concerned about the debater who attends 4 tournaments a year. I would like those debates to be about salient political issues. > > I am more concerned about what knowledge and research we incentivize. I think it is better for our squad room discussions to focus on ethical, political and environmental ramifications of US subsidization and consumption of fisheries, ethanol, and cafos than mohair, sorghum and chickpeas. We will spend an entire year discussing these issues. I really do think it would be a travesty for us to exclude these issues when there are other ways to protect the negs ability to prepare for debates - which seems to be the only reason we would exclude them. > > e > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:04:13 PM > Subject: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid. > > > Look, 95% of you colleges debaters and I guess 98% of the college debate coaches > have not, cannot, will not, and will never, make it to semifinals of the NDT. > Sorry to be the one to break it to all of you, but it is true. To think that a > lot of people would make a decision on which topic is best based on some > hypothetical that over 90% of you will NEVER experience, seems to me to be > ludicrious at best, and sadly delusional at worst. I thnk there will be a > "rapeseed" aff with Kritikal feminist language advantages broken by Emory's top > team in Quarters at the NDT, I don't think I will worry about it when I vote. > > Scott Elliott > > p.s. > > apologies to Emory for letting the cat out of the bag. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:49:10 -0400 > From: "Andy Ellis" > Subject: [eDebate] Join the YOURS Cause on facebook > To: edebate > Message-ID: > <9368bc9b0807130849w518ff033q69d5b4d90f3213ab at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hello > we have launched a causes page on face book, we need people to join( we > arent asking for money ;)) just join and help us get our numbers up. > > You can find the causes page here > http://apps.facebook.com/causes/101523?m=6336c&recruiter_id=930127 > > thanks > > Andy Ellis > Managing Director > Youth organizing urban Revitalization Systems-YOURS > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080713/cb6ebe6e/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > End of eDebate Digest, Vol 34, Issue 10 > *************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: akbiotech.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 397 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080716/d3986148/attachment.vcf From andy.edebate Wed Jul 16 13:21:11 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:21:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Afghanistan is to obama as viet nam is to johnson Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807161121w5641a99bo3fa150989cc984ba@mail.gmail.com> By 2010 Obama will have mostly ended the us presence in iraq but the troops wont go home they will go to afghanistan and by 2012 a beleaguered obama will not seek reelection because hillary is running an anti war campaign against him in the primaries and highlighting how he was unable to handle what even he thought was the real war. This will occur after he has used the momentum from his iraq withdrawal to work with hillary to get health care put in place. But it wont matter because afghanistan wiill take in millions of dollars and munitions and send back car bombs and flag draped coffins Meanwhile obama willl deal with his iran problem and his taliban problem by combining them, and exporting talibinizaton to eastern iran as a means of destabilizing iran, that wont cause any problems in world oil markets...i promise, plus it wont put any pressure on any one else in the middle east, i also promise. The economy will continue to tank And meanwhile in fantasy land we will pretend that nation sized regional travel schedules and continent sized national travel schedules are sustainable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080716/d2540fc5/attachment.htm From paulj567 Wed Jul 16 13:29:24 2008 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Afghanistan is to obama as viet nam is to johnson In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0807161121w5641a99bo3fa150989cc984ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <842891.98397.qm@web53503.mail.re2.yahoo.com> you are Rush Limbaugh's wet dream. --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Andy Ellis wrote: > From: Andy Ellis > Subject: [eDebate] Afghanistan is to obama as viet nam is to johnson > To: "edebate" > Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 1:21 PM > By 2010 Obama will have mostly ended the us presence in iraq > > but the troops wont go home > > they will go to afghanistan > > and by 2012 a beleaguered obama will not seek reelection > because hillary is > running an anti war campaign against him in the primaries > and highlighting > how he was unable to handle what even he thought was the > real war. > > This will occur after he has used the momentum from his > iraq withdrawal to > work with hillary to get health care put in place. > > But it wont matter because afghanistan wiill take in > millions of dollars and > munitions and send back car bombs and flag draped coffins > > Meanwhile obama willl deal with his iran problem and his > taliban problem by > combining them, and exporting talibinizaton to eastern iran > as a means of > destabilizing iran, that wont cause any problems in world > oil markets...i > promise, plus it wont put any pressure on any one else in > the middle east, i > also promise. > > The economy will continue to tank > > And meanwhile in fantasy land we will pretend that nation > sized regional > travel schedules and continent sized national travel > schedules are > sustainable._______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From andy.edebate Wed Jul 16 13:36:23 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:36:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Afghanistan is to obama as viet nam is to johnson In-Reply-To: <842891.98397.qm@web53503.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <9368bc9b0807161121w5641a99bo3fa150989cc984ba@mail.gmail.com> <842891.98397.qm@web53503.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807161136o6224c324uc403fe658c6593ca@mail.gmail.com> Thats what i hope for. And i Certaiinly dont think mccain will do any better,but if obama is right that we are distracting from the real war, what does he plan to do when he fights the real war. All joking aside, perhaps amongst what i imagine is a group of supporters who can detail what he is going to do in order to deal with what he asks for? what is the afghanistan plan and what likely hood does it have of working.. On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > you are Rush Limbaugh's wet dream. > > > > > --- On Wed, 7/16/08, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > From: Andy Ellis > > Subject: [eDebate] Afghanistan is to obama as viet nam is to johnson > > To: "edebate" > > Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 1:21 PM > > By 2010 Obama will have mostly ended the us presence in iraq > > > > but the troops wont go home > > > > they will go to afghanistan > > > > and by 2012 a beleaguered obama will not seek reelection > > because hillary is > > running an anti war campaign against him in the primaries > > and highlighting > > how he was unable to handle what even he thought was the > > real war. > > > > This will occur after he has used the momentum from his > > iraq withdrawal to > > work with hillary to get health care put in place. > > > > But it wont matter because afghanistan wiill take in > > millions of dollars and > > munitions and send back car bombs and flag draped coffins > > > > Meanwhile obama willl deal with his iran problem and his > > taliban problem by > > combining them, and exporting talibinizaton to eastern iran > > as a means of > > destabilizing iran, that wont cause any problems in world > > oil markets...i > > promise, plus it wont put any pressure on any one else in > > the middle east, i > > also promise. > > > > The economy will continue to tank > > > > And meanwhile in fantasy land we will pretend that nation > > sized regional > > travel schedules and continent sized national travel > > schedules are > > sustainable._______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080716/c13e2322/attachment.htm From stables Wed Jul 16 16:02:00 2008 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:02:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA newsletter - Call for announcements, news and tournament schedule Message-ID: <030801c8e787$310a50e0$931ef2a0$@edu> Greetings all. I hope you are enjoying a safe and healthy and summer. The impending topic announcement (the deadline for voting is almost here) reminds us all that the new season is almost upon us. In order to make the transition to a new year easier, CEDA has decided to produce a beginning of the year e-newsletter that will contain news, job announcements, updates on CEDA rules and policies and a comprehensive (and regionally organized) tournament calendar. To make this newsletter work we need your contributions. Please email me if you have any items that you would like included, such as: - Announcements about new faculty or staff for the 08-09 season - Upcoming job announcements - Call for papers - Graduate school information for 09-10 - Other matters of professional interest to our community And don't forget to check Dave Steinberg's incredibly helpful tournament calendar at If your tournament isn't listed there, but you still intend to host and earn CEDA points you should let us know ASAP. Even if a tournament is tentatively planned, we still want to list it so folks can consider their plans. We will make specific notations for any tournament that isn't 100% finalized (i.e., hotel contract not signed, date could move, etc.), but we still want to have all options listed. In our current economic climate and with skyrocketing travel costs we all need to do what we can to streamline our travel planning. Dave has done a tremendous volunteer service with this calendar and now we all need to work together to make our organizational calendar as comprehensive as possible. Thanks. Let me know if you have any questions. The e-newsletter will be produced in a few weeks and will be linked with content on the new CEDA site http://www.cedadebate.org/ Gordon CEDA 1st VP Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080716/d46532e3/attachment.htm From blain Thu Jul 17 10:27:56 2008 From: blain (Lain, Brian) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:27:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Desperately Seeking Matt Farmer Message-ID: Please get back to me. -Brian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080717/80528111/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Thu Jul 17 11:29:00 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 12:29:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Baltimore College Debate Cooperative Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807170929u10c9e299na7e91d9c22b41bc6@mail.gmail.com> Hello This is to those of you attending,working, helping, or with questions about the Baltimore college debate cooperative. I will be traveling to make sure you have all your lab leaders today, i will be back tomorrow, if you need anything call me at 240-285-0843 The online coop will be up and running by Saturday morning The camp starts Sunday Looking Forward to working with all of you to build cooperative resources which prepare you for the season and directly contribute to the educational opportunities offered the Youth of Baltimore and Beyond. Andy Ellis Managing Director Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems 822 W. 36th Street Baltimore MD 240-285-0843 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080717/bccc12e0/attachment.htm From jane.munksgaard Thu Jul 17 17:01:29 2008 From: jane.munksgaard (Jane Munksgaard) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:01:29 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Webpage with debate scholarship info? Message-ID: Hey all! Does anyone know if there's a webpage with comprehensive info about college programs and scholarships? I'm about to lead a women in debate/increasing participation elective and thought it would be handy. Thanks for any quick replies. -- Jane Munksgaard Ph.D. Student and Teaching Assistant University of Georgia-Athens From jeffrey.jarman Fri Jul 18 13:44:13 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:44:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Voting Results Message-ID: <5FEA8ECE-45E7-4C74-BDD3-5546AE45E305@wichita.edu> A full break down of the results is available at www.cedadebate.org Short version: resolution 2A wins. Amendment 1 & 2 pass. Amendment 3 fails. Jeff From malgorthewarrior Fri Jul 18 15:26:13 2008 From: malgorthewarrior (M G) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:26:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why did we vote against conferences? Message-ID: This was such a great idea, and with everyone speaking for it at the summer meeting, and no one speaking against it on edebate, i figured it would pass. Could others please discuss their rationale for rejecting this proposal? We always seem to be such a talkative bunch to be so quiet about this. malgor _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080718/54db0529/attachment.htm From bratt Fri Jul 18 20:56:58 2008 From: bratt (bratt at capitol-debate.com) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:56:58 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] High School Coaching Position in Maryland Message-ID: <20080718185658.8cce6020757326d78a2cd7ce56dd3822.0983b4cc79.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Perfect for someone moving to D.C. next year or living in the area already that wants to supplement their income. Our nonprofit, Capitol Debate, has partnered with the Howard County, Maryland school system (between Baltimore and DC) in starting debate teams in all 13 high schools in their county. To date, we have started 4 new programs over the last 2 years. As the kids gain experience, they become part of our county National Travel Team. Last year, we travelled 16 kids nationally and plan to travel 24 kids nationally in 2008-2009. We are searching for a coach for our national team for next year. General responsibilities for the part time position include: 1. Meet with the Students once a week 2. Work with students over the week researching and cutting files 3. Manage the squads research before tournaments 4. Oversee strategy for the National Team 5. Travel to and coach teams at National Tournaments This is ideal for someone moving out to the DC area who needs coaching work to supplement income. If you are interested,please email me a letter of interest detailing your background in debate and coaching and your interest level in the job. My email is bratt at capitol-debate.com. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 443 538 4992. Thank you, Ronald Bratt Founder Capitol Debate http://www.capitol-debate.com bratt at capitol-debate.com 443 538 4992 From delliott Sat Jul 19 15:08:19 2008 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:08:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why did we vote against conferences? Message-ID: <4882036302000093000175BB@mymail.kckcc.edu> Tried sending a reply yesterday--dont think I was successful. I am as astonished as Malgor is. I should have posted early and often on my belief in "JED". "JED" is a concept that if any changes come up that are agreed upon by "JED" as a good idea, they automatically be put in place. "JED" is an acronym for Jarman, Elliott (me not Scott), and Davis (Mike). I mean come on--all 3 of us thought this was a good idea. When we agree it should be automatic. But beyond that I think part of Jeff's rationale was proven in the voting. Part of Jeff's rationale was that a good portion of the community may not really care about the "business" of the organization. Many maybe only care about the topic, the rules relating to competition, etc. But when all members can hamstring business by not having representation at business meetings for a majority of the Regions, it means those who dont really care about the running of the organization, can actually hold it up. Our current structure makes this likely. To prove Jeff's point: 35% of the organizational members didnt even care enough to vote. Only 65% voted, and while the majority of those agreed it a good idea, it failed to reach super majority needed by 2 stinkin votes for the 2nd time. It is a shame. BUt we cannot allow this vote to impede progress. As President, and I think the VP's are on board, we plan to authorize the Exec Sec to utilize his constitutional authority to present a plan for regional re-alignment. The organization did at least have the foresight to see this problem and put in a measure to solve it. It just is too bad the Exec Sec has to take on this burden as opposed to the membership being willing to shoulder the load by creating conferences. But we must forge ahead. Some regions are too small. Others are likely too large. We plan to solve those inequities and hopefully prevent our business meetings from being held up by Regions who do not participate. Thanks for reading. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President >>> M G 07/18/08 3:26 PM >>> This was such a great idea, and with everyone speaking for it at the summer meeting, and no one speaking against it on edebate, i figured it would pass. Could others please discuss their rationale for rejecting this proposal? We always seem to be such a talkative bunch to be so quiet about this. malgor _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008 From delliott Mon Jul 21 03:18:38 2008 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:18:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Failure of Conferences Proposal--a redux Message-ID: <4884000E0200009300017621@mymail.kckcc.edu> To paraphrase Robert Fulghum, ?All I really need to know about computer mediated communication, I learned on edebate?. I wanted to take a moment (between umpiring softball tournaments, having a family vacation, and researching the HS and College Topic) to take a second shot at posting my thoughts on conferences, the failed proposal, and the organizational leadership. Since my post the other day, responding to Malcolm, 2 people I consider friends and highly respect helped me view my email through their eyes. Edebate is indeed a horrible medium at times, and all computer mediated communication comes with risks of misinterpretation. Am I frustrated that the conference proposal failed? Obviously. But the two emails I received made me realize that my frustration is just as much aimed at where we can be more effective leaders as it is at the failure of the amendment. I wont publicly name these 2 friends here. They chose private communication and I respect that. One I have known since my first college tournament and if they are anything, it's passionate about this activity. But I want to thank them for helping me hopefully remember to see things through different eyes. If we, I, can be anything, I hope it's reflexive. So let me answer some concerns the tenor of my email may have raised: First, my opinion about the conference proposal was not meant to chastise either those who voted no or those choosing not to vote. It's primary focus was to share frustration. As much as I want to disagree with Jeff about some not caring about the business of the organization?I want to think everyone cares as deeply as I do?I do have to admit that when 35% do not vote at all, they perhaps see no value in voting. Perhaps part of our organizational mission should be to provide more value. Part of our job should be to encourage voting. I will try and embrace that. As for those who voted no, I will admit I was initially against conferences. But I heard the debate play out for an hour at NCA in Chicago. I came away convinced it was a good idea. There was very little opposition, more devil's advocate playing. Then the proposal failed. We re-hashed the ideas. Upon the encouragement of myself and Gordon Stables, the proposal was resubmitted this summer. This time, no real debate at the business meeting. Some who claimed initial opposition came forward in support. Again it failed. Part of my frustration was what Malcolm conveyed. We are so talkative, yet so few counter arguments were made. It was thought by many of us leaving Dallas, it would pass this time. But when it didn't, frustration mounted. But now, one of my good friends helped illuminate some opposing reasons. Some of them had not been conveyed before. I certainly understand why those in opposition choose not to use edebate, ceda-l, etc. But I hope through honest, back-channel means if necessary, we can come to an understanding. The reasons elucidated were enlightening to me. It gives us common ground to start from. It changes how I see the proposal and how the organization should operate. Without this person taking the time and having the courage to email me, in their own admission with trepidation, we may have no common starting point. Second, I hope the joking reference to ?JED? was not seen as a Presidential Seal in code, uncovering the ?elite? or ?out? members of the ?cabal?. If you know my relationship with Jarman, we worked together, he served as a mentor for me, and I think he is one of the best coaches in the country. But we often disagree on issues. A lot. In the end we both work hard, I think, to make the organization better. But we disagree a lot. If you are familiar with the archives, you can see where Mike Davis and I have butted heads in the past. Mike has quickly become one of my favorite people in the activity. But he too will often quip at business meetings, that if him and I agree, it is scary. So my references to them agreeing with me,?out? the Knights Templar. But to put some humor in an otherwise frustrated post. It really was shocking the 3 of us would agree and yet it could not get a super majority to agree as well. But it was definitely meant in a joking manner. Third, my statement about agreeing with Jeff that many may not care about the business of the organization, was not intended to suggest that those voting ?no? did not care. It was a saddened admittance on my part that Jeff may be right and some folks don't care and choose not to vote. Again, perhaps we need to give them more to vote for. But as one of my friends pointed out, those voting ?no? probably care deeply and have valuable reasons they chose to vote no. Those reasons give me starting points again for common ground between the belief of some of the leadership that the system is broken, business meetings fail to make quorums, and we get stalled, and those who voted no who believe the system would become worse, that the SQ serves their needs, that we failed in the proposal by putting too much burden on the membership, that it was too punitive in nature, etc. We now have a place to work from. I sincerely hope that others who voted no can share their concerns with someone in the leadership. Fourth, I agree that checks and balances are a good thing. I believe that we should not be able to move too quickly when revamping constitutions. I would like to have seen this proposal go forward. It failed. Now we have to work with what we have. And I do believe that everyone who voted no, did so for a reason and probably one that directly impacted them, their institution, or their Region. I have no reason to think otherwise. So yea, I believe they cared about the running of the organization. Please do not misinterpret my feelings that when meetings are under-represented, that I think all those not in attendance do not care. There are plenty of reasons not to attend the meetings. Families, finances, travel fatigue, etc. But I am smart enough to know a lot of those folks still care. I guess that is why it is our job to figure out how to make things better, and perhaps more accessible. Again, we have a place to work from. Finally, I indicated in my email that we would begin working with the Executive Secretary to use his authority under the Constitution to present proposals aimed at revamping the Regional structure. I honestly believe that for the purpose of effectively running business meetings, that there does need to be some work done here. However, I do not think this is a decision that should be left solely to the Exec Secretary or the Executive Council. While you did elect us, our roles in this matter should be formative. In the end, suggestions, movement, and final decisions should have the consultation of those directly effected. It would be irresponsible for us to assume to know what is in the best interest of every program. For some schools, perhaps being in a huge Region is what helps them justify funding. For others, perhaps a smaller Region is best. We need to find out. And in the meantime we need to do our job and figure out how to make meetings effectively run with what we have, and perhaps go even farther in increasing accessibility. In conclusion, I hope that people can begin to feel more comfortable in sharing their thoughts with the leadership, even if in private if understandably fearing the nature of computer mediated communication. But edebate and ceda-l serve valuable purposes too. They demand of leadership a clarity of purpose, a willingness to be open about our intentions, and the wisdom to know that in the most frustrating moments, there will be common ground from which we can start to do a better job. Sometimes we just need our friends to remind us! Humbly, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics?KCKCC CEDA President From kel1773 Mon Jul 21 10:44:26 2008 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:44:26 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Failure of Conferences Proposal--a redux Message-ID: Greetings to all, Just a couple thoughts before I head off to work. First, Darren, you're probably overreacting to the percentage of non-votes. 65% is a pretty good percentage given that we have non-participating members, the vote occurs during the summer, etc. Not sure how you could "encourage" more voting participation unless you make voting compulsory, which probably no one favors. Seriously, 23 votes went against the conferences proposal and these oppositional votes were a complete surprise given that two business meetings have occurred without any significant arguments against the proposal. This surprise factor of the results is really the problem. The more significant problem is the complete lack of communication on rather important issues affecting this organization. Folks don't want to use EDEBATE or CEDA-L to express their opinions. That's fine. Little of constructive value seems to come from this venue. However, there are several other options to voice concerns/opinion. For instance, tell your representative. If your representative is a schmuck, send your opinions to someone you trust and ask them to voice them anonymously. Or send them to the CEDA officers. Just let your opinions be heard so that the leadership can make necessary changes. What is rather frustrating is that perhaps the only issue that most of us agree on is that CEDA regional representation is busted. However, when there is an alternative to that structure offered, it's rejected without meaningful discussion. I really don't understand what people have to fear in making their arguments known, but this lack of trust/fear/whatever is apparently the more significant problem rather than non-voting. Kelly Kelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/01e81820/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior Mon Jul 21 12:01:22 2008 From: malgorthewarrior (M G) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:01:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] so what were the reasons? Message-ID: Chief- You can certainly maintain the confidence of those who e-mailed you their concerns about conferences...but at least give us an idea of what those concerns were. malgor _________________________________________________________________ Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/1d69ba43/attachment.htm From debate.gsu Mon Jul 21 13:25:19 2008 From: debate.gsu (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:25:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite Message-ID: It is now available on the Bruschke site (www.debateresults.com) and our own site ( http://www.gsudebate.org/events_at_gsu/the_gsu_national_college_de.html). Please note that we've made some major changes, including the tournament hotel. We expect this year's tournament to be a substantial improvement over previous years, especially regarding the case list and the speed of elims. We hope to see all of you in Atlanta. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/4fa0fa44/attachment.htm From mardigras23 Mon Jul 21 19:11:21 2008 From: mardigras23 (Aaron Kall) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:11:21 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment Message-ID: ?JUDGING REQUIREMENTS. Schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every team, regardless of division. If you have two teams, for example, you will need to provide 10 total rounds of judging. If this requirement is going to create a serious financial hardship for your team, please contact Joe Bellon (joe.bellon at gmail.com) so we can discuss possible alternatives.? this e-mail is not directed specifically at the gsu tournament, which i have always enjoyed. i'm especially happy with the new tournament hotel. the gsu tournament just happens to be the first major tournament of the college season and it appears they've decided to increase their judging requirements. i think this is a bad idea in general and think a dialogue on this idea and judge preferences in general needs to be started. so, hopefully this e-mail will facilitate this process. i think it's generally a bad idea for our community to start increasing the size judging commitments and i hope other tournaments won't consider doing the same thing. unless someone is being paid specifically to judge, four out of eight rounds seems to be an appropriate judging commitment . i know directors and the like aren't going to be eager to judge a fifth debate, so this new policy will likely only add to increased tournament costs. considering recent increases in travel costs associated with oil prices, luggage, etc., it seems like this is possibly the worst time to further increase tournament costs/fees in this way. There are obviously many reasons, but in my opinion (after talking with many tab directors) the greatest reason college tournaments are constantly short on judging is because several teams are providing the requisite amount of judging, but not providing the requisite amount of ?mutually preferred judging?. Tournaments routinely lose dozens of rounds of committed judging because several judges can be placed in few or zero rounds. This problem gets exacerbated when a team fulfills their judging commitment with a non-mutually preferred judge and this same judge hires his or her other half commitment out to another team so they can also fulfill their judging commitment. A new policy of increasing the size of judging commitments doesn?t really get at the root of this problem. It basically punishes everyone to make up for the rounds lost from teams that don?t bring enough mutually preferred judges. One potential way to deal with this problem- If schools don?t end up providing the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at tournaments, they should pay the tournament the appropriate hired judging fee. The tournament can in turn use this money to hire local mutually preferred judges and/or pay other mutually preferred judges at the tournament who have extra rounds available and want to judge additional rounds for money. If this type of system is viewed as unfair or too elitist (certainly reasonable concerns), I think we have to re-examine the whole concept of mutually preferred judging. If the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging can?t be provided by asking teams to provide half judging commitments, we should re-evaluate the system of mutual judging. If this year it?s 5/8 round judging commitments, 6/8, 7/8, or 8/8 won?t be that far off in the distance. At the NDT last year, we had to provide 24 rounds of judging for only one team. I?m generally in favor of some type of mutual preference judging system, but not if the only way to achieve it is through increased judging commitments and fees. I would personally rather get an A- or a B instead of an A+ judge, as opposed to subjecting the entire tournament to increased judging commitments/fees. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/8c23904e/attachment.htm From davismk13 Mon Jul 21 19:51:16 2008 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:51:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9a7f6f740807211751r4f284be1gdb6f6ed961619975@mail.gmail.com> I know that there are caselist related reasons for increasing the commitment as well, but I will say a couple of things from inside the tab room: 1. We have talked about the idea of charging people whose judges cannot be placed, but there are a ton of problems with that. A lot of it is luck of the draw so I may be able to get a person in four or five debates one year because the matchups happen to work out and then the next year they don't judge at all. Also, it seems to punish particular schools and judges. New judges (and anyone who hires them) will be unfairly punished as will those not associate with national level programs. It is amazing to see how people preference changes over the course of one year when they move to a big program. Finally, there are not very many judges for hire. Joe is generous with hired judging money and if there were more people to hire he would hire them. 2. Their is a weird phenomenon at GSU because it is the first tournament of the year. The judging pool gets compressed. Everyone tends to agree who the top judges are, but more importantly everyone seems to agree who the bottom judges are. Last year the bottom 3 categories were the same for about 70% of the teams. The first two years we only gave 6s and 7s to teams that were out of the tournament. We lost over 100 rounds of judging under that system. We tweaked the system a little the last two years to allow 8s once teams are out (one of my own teams got a strike later year) and giving a very limited number of 6s and 7s (not more than one per team and not in a break round). Now we lose about 60 rounds from judges we are unable to place. We still have to beg for judging every year. Some people always give some never do. It is unfair that those who are generous have to accept the burden for everyone. The people who give these rounds complain about being asked every year and a bunch of people still complain about their judging. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I know that five rounds will help this problem. I am certainly open to other solutions. 3. It is not a question of A+ versus B judges. I wish it was. It is a problem of not having enough judges in the first five categories. I am all for changing the system of preference. I think that we have too many categories and the solution I use at regional tournaments is ABC with no strikes. I like it because it preferences mutuality instead of preference. This means new judges get some exposure. Now I think if we adopted this at the GSU tournament not as many people might come. I appreciate the start of this conversation and I admit I wish I could give everyone four rounds per tournament and have them only judge every other elim. I think it is more humane, but the community would have to drastically change their approach to mutual preference for this to happen (and keep more people in the activity to have enough judges). Mike On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Aaron Kall wrote: > ________________________________ > > "JUDGING REQUIREMENTS. Schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every > team, regardless of division. If you have two teams, for example, you will > need to provide 10 total rounds of judging. If this requirement is going to > create a serious financial hardship for your team, please contact Joe Bellon > (joe.bellon at gmail.com) so we can discuss possible alternatives." > > this e-mail is not directed specifically at the gsu tournament, which i > have always enjoyed. i'm especially happy with the new tournament hotel. > the gsu tournament just happens to be the first major tournament of the > college season and it appears they've decided to increase their judging > requirements. i think this is a bad idea in general and think a dialogue on > this idea and judge preferences in general needs to be started. so, > hopefully this e-mail will facilitate this process. > > i think it's generally a bad idea for our community to start increasing the > size judging commitments and i hope other tournaments won't consider doing > the same thing. unless someone is being paid specifically to judge, four > out of eight rounds seems to be an appropriate judging commitment . i know > directors and the like aren't going to be eager to judge a fifth debate, so > this new policy will likely only add to increased tournament costs. > considering recent increases in travel costs associated with oil prices, > luggage, etc., it seems like this is possibly the worst time to further > increase tournament costs/fees in this way. > > There are obviously many reasons, but in my opinion (after talking with many > tab directors) the greatest reason college tournaments are constantly short > on judging is because several teams are providing the requisite amount of > judging, but not providing the requisite amount of "mutually preferred > judging". Tournaments routinely lose dozens of rounds of committed judging > because several judges can be placed in few or zero rounds. This problem > gets exacerbated when a team fulfills their judging commitment with a > non-mutually preferred judge and this same judge hires his or her other half > commitment out to another team so they can also fulfill their judging > commitment. A new policy of increasing the size of judging commitments > doesn't really get at the root of this problem. It basically punishes > everyone to make up for the rounds lost from teams that don't bring enough > mutually preferred judges. > > One potential way to deal with this problem- If schools don't end up > providing the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at tournaments, > they should pay the tournament the appropriate hired judging fee. The > tournament can in turn use this money to hire local mutually preferred > judges and/or pay other mutually preferred judges at the tournament who have > extra rounds available and want to judge additional rounds for money. > > If this type of system is viewed as unfair or too elitist (certainly > reasonable concerns), I think we have to re-examine the whole concept of > mutually preferred judging. If the requisite amount of mutually preferred > judging can't be provided by asking teams to provide half judging > commitments, we should re-evaluate the system of mutual judging. If this > year it's 5/8 round judging commitments, 6/8, 7/8, or 8/8 won't be that far > off in the distance. At the NDT last year, we had to provide 24 rounds of > judging for only one team. I'm generally in favor of some type of mutual > preference judging system, but not if the only way to achieve it is through > increased judging commitments and fees. I would personally rather get an A- > or a B instead of an A+ judge, as opposed to subjecting the entire > tournament to increased judging commitments/fees. > > Aaron > > ________________________________ > With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on the > go. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From hallbrad Mon Jul 21 19:52:55 2008 From: hallbrad (Brad Hall) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:52:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the highly preferred judges would actually judge (or increase their commitments beyond 1-2 debates), many of the problems would be solved. This is not a new problem (it was discussed around the Shirley last year I believe), but I think this post misdiagnoses the problem. Perhaps the better solution is an NDT-style requirement that everyone at a tournament judge 3-4 debates. It may seem easy to propose a purely financial solution, but as anyone who regularly runs a college tournament can tell you, there are not dozens of rounds of highly preferred judging who are only waiting on a financial incentive to judge more debates. Brad On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Aaron Kall wrote: > ------------------------------ > > "JUDGING REQUIREMENTS. Schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every > team, regardless of division. If you have two teams, for example, you will > need to provide 10 total rounds of judging. If this requirement is going > to create a serious financial hardship for your team, please contact Joe > Bellon (joe.bellon at gmail.com) so we can discuss possible alternatives." > > this e-mail is not directed specifically at the gsu tournament, which i > have always enjoyed. i'm especially happy with the new tournament hotel. > the gsu tournament just happens to be the first major tournament of the > college season and it appears they've decided to increase their judging > requirements. i think this is a bad idea in general and think a dialogue on > this idea and judge preferences in general needs to be started. so, > hopefully this e-mail will facilitate this process. > > i think it's generally a bad idea for our community to start increasing the > size judging commitments and i hope other tournaments won't consider doing > the same thing. unless someone is being paid specifically to judge, four > out of eight rounds seems to be an appropriate judging commitment . i know > directors and the like aren't going to be eager to judge a fifth debate, so > this new policy will likely only add to increased tournament costs. > considering recent increases in travel costs associated with oil prices, > luggage, etc., it seems like this is possibly the worst time to further > increase tournament costs/fees in this way. > > There are obviously many reasons, but in my opinion (after talking with > many tab directors) the greatest reason college tournaments are constantly > short on judging is because several teams are providing the requisite amount > of judging, but not providing the requisite amount of "mutually preferred > judging". Tournaments routinely lose dozens of rounds of committed > judging because several judges can be placed in few or zero rounds. This > problem gets exacerbated when a team fulfills their judging commitment with > a non-mutually preferred judge and this same judge hires his or her other > half commitment out to another team so they can also fulfill their judging > commitment. A new policy of increasing the size of judging commitments > doesn't really get at the root of this problem. It basically punishes > everyone to make up for the rounds lost from teams that don't bring enough > mutually preferred judges. > > One potential way to deal with this problem- If schools don't end up > providing the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at tournaments, > they should pay the tournament the appropriate hired judging fee. The > tournament can in turn use this money to hire local mutually preferred > judges and/or pay other mutually preferred judges at the tournament who have > extra rounds available and want to judge additional rounds for money. > > If this type of system is viewed as unfair or too elitist (certainly > reasonable concerns), I think we have to re-examine the whole concept of > mutually preferred judging. If the requisite amount of mutually preferred > judging can't be provided by asking teams to provide half judging > commitments, we should re-evaluate the system of mutual judging. If this > year it's 5/8 round judging commitments, 6/8, 7/8, or 8/8 won't be that far > off in the distance. At the NDT last year, we had to provide 24 rounds of > judging for only one team. I'm generally in favor of some type of mutual > preference judging system, but not if the only way to achieve it is through > increased judging commitments and fees. I would personally rather get an > A- or a B instead of an A+ judge, as opposed to subjecting the entire > tournament to increased judging commitments/fees. > > Aaron > > ------------------------------ > With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on > the go. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Brad Hall hallbrad at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/3600aae2/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard Mon Jul 21 19:53:04 2008 From: stefan.bauschard (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:53:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <524839830807211753o77060ff9ub0f6e907fa234454@mail.gmail.com> Just a few comments on a couple of specifics: > One potential way to deal with this problem- If schools don't end up providing the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at tournaments, they should pay the tournament the appropriate hired judging fee. The tournament can in turn use this money to hire local mutually preferred judges and/or pay other mutually preferred judges at the tournament who have extra rounds available and want to judge additional rounds for money. This is somewhat difficult to do in practice. It is unclear what it means to not provide "the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at tournaments." It is easy if a judge is struck by (nearly) every team in the tournament, but what if the person has an 8 round commitment and fits in 1 debate as a mutual one and 5 debates as a mutual 7 or 8? Is the school simply required to pay for two debates you really couldn't get the judge into, or the other 1-5 that hopefully you really won't have to use him or her in? Also, this makes it difficult to run a tournament -- if you look hard in every single debate it is sometimes possible to fit people in somewhere, but this takes an incredible amount of time. The 5 round solution may not get at the root of the problem since many of the additional rounds may very well be hired out to people who are not very highly preferred, but it seems like it will help the situation *some* -- as long as the tournament doesn't subsequently increase the strength of the preference system, more "preferred" judging will be available because there will be more rounds in the lower number categories and because at least some more highly preferred (if not most highly preferred) will end up judging some more debates. It seems unlikely that all 80-100 extra rounds @ GSU will be hired out to people who are not preferred. Is it worth it? I don't have a strong opinion. It make sense from a tab room director's standpoint because many people are unhappy if they don't get the judging they want/expect. It would certainly help if more preferred judges judged more debates, but this is easier said than done. Many of these people -- already judge a ton of debates, including ones that are difficult and time consuming to decide -- judge most of the debates on Monday -- have judged a trillion debates over their respective careers -- have other at-tournament responsibilities No easy solutions. 5 rounds could help some. Is it worth it? Dunno. On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Aaron Kall wrote: > ------------------------------ > > "JUDGING REQUIREMENTS. Schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every > team, regardless of division. If you have two teams, for example, you will > need to provide 10 total rounds of judging. If this requirement is going > to create a serious financial hardship for your team, please contact Joe > Bellon (joe.bellon at gmail.com) so we can discuss possible alternatives." > > this e-mail is not directed specifically at the gsu tournament, which i > have always enjoyed. i'm especially happy with the new tournament hotel. > the gsu tournament just happens to be the first major tournament of the > college season and it appears they've decided to increase their judging > requirements. i think this is a bad idea in general and think a dialogue on > this idea and judge preferences in general needs to be started. so, > hopefully this e-mail will facilitate this process. > > i think it's generally a bad idea for our community to start increasing the > size judging commitments and i hope other tournaments won't consider doing > the same thing. unless someone is being paid specifically to judge, four > out of eight rounds seems to be an appropriate judging commitment . i know > directors and the like aren't going to be eager to judge a fifth debate, so > this new policy will likely only add to increased tournament costs. > considering recent increases in travel costs associated with oil prices, > luggage, etc., it seems like this is possibly the worst time to further > increase tournament costs/fees in this way. > > There are obviously many reasons, but in my opinion (after talking with > many tab directors) the greatest reason college tournaments are constantly > short on judging is because several teams are providing the requisite amount > of judging, but not providing the requisite amount of "mutually preferred > judging". Tournaments routinely lose dozens of rounds of committed > judging because several judges can be placed in few or zero rounds. This > problem gets exacerbated when a team fulfills their judging commitment with > a non-mutually preferred judge and this same judge hires his or her other > half commitment out to another team so they can also fulfill their judging > commitment. A new policy of increasing the size of judging commitments > doesn't really get at the root of this problem. It basically punishes > everyone to make up for the rounds lost from teams that don't bring enough > mutually preferred judges. > > One potential way to deal with this problem- If schools don't end up > providing the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at tournaments, > they should pay the tournament the appropriate hired judging fee. The > tournament can in turn use this money to hire local mutually preferred > judges and/or pay other mutually preferred judges at the tournament who have > extra rounds available and want to judge additional rounds for money. > > If this type of system is viewed as unfair or too elitist (certainly > reasonable concerns), I think we have to re-examine the whole concept of > mutually preferred judging. If the requisite amount of mutually preferred > judging can't be provided by asking teams to provide half judging > commitments, we should re-evaluate the system of mutual judging. If this > year it's 5/8 round judging commitments, 6/8, 7/8, or 8/8 won't be that far > off in the distance. At the NDT last year, we had to provide 24 rounds of > judging for only one team. I'm generally in favor of some type of mutual > preference judging system, but not if the only way to achieve it is through > increased judging commitments and fees. I would personally rather get an > A- or a B instead of an A+ judge, as opposed to subjecting the entire > tournament to increased judging commitments/fees. > > Aaron > > ------------------------------ > With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on > the go. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/5b763111/attachment.htm From debate.gsu Mon Jul 21 20:04:48 2008 From: debate.gsu (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:04:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike's post does a good job reflecting our thinking. Let me just add a couple of points. I respect Aaron's concern, but I disagree with his conclusions. This is a decision we made after several years of complaints filed by teams and coaches attending our tournament. Our desire has always been to create a tournament that serves as many of the interests of our competitors as possible, while still creating a high-quality competitive environment. One of the most frequent complaints we have heard regards the difficulty of creating highly preferred matchups between judges and teams, especially in late prelim rounds. Over the years, we have tried many different tactics to solve this problem. Almost every year this tournament has been in existence, we have spent money hiring quality local judges to supplement the pool. Every single year Mike and I have spent time begging folks for extra rounds of judging, whether during registration or on the second day of prelims. Many of you have been generous enough to provide extra judging, compensated or not. For the past several years, Mike has gone through the entire pool by hand, holding back a group of highly preferred judges until the second day of prelims so we might have a better chance of mutual preference on the second day. All of this has not been enough. Although we are proud of the work we have done to improve the mutuality of judging at our tournament, we continue to hear complaints, and we continue to find ourselves in bad positions in rounds seven and eight. There have been many discussions about the reasons for this, and Mike has a much better knowledge of the statistics on this than I do. The point is that there is a problem and, given current community preferences and constraints, this is the best solution we can come up with. Let me stress one part of the invite that has not received enough discussion so far: if your financial situation prevents you from sending all the teams you want AND all the judges you need, contact me. We are reasonable humans, and we want as many teams as possible to be able to attend the tournament. Every year, we waive or reduce fees for programs in trouble. We will work to find a solution to your problems. Finally, allow me to second Mike's call for better solutions to this problem. We want to be creative, and we want to solve the problem without putting an additional resource burden on everyone. Many of the changes we have made this year have been designed to reduce overall costs. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Aaron Kall wrote: > ------------------------------ > > "JUDGING REQUIREMENTS. Schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every > team, regardless of division. If you have two teams, for example, you will > need to provide 10 total rounds of judging. If this requirement is going > to create a serious financial hardship for your team, please contact Joe > Bellon (joe.bellon at gmail.com) so we can discuss possible alternatives." > > this e-mail is not directed specifically at the gsu tournament, which i > have always enjoyed. i'm especially happy with the new tournament hotel. > the gsu tournament just happens to be the first major tournament of the > college season and it appears they've decided to increase their judging > requirements. i think this is a bad idea in general and think a dialogue on > this idea and judge preferences in general needs to be started. so, > hopefully this e-mail will facilitate this process. > > i think it's generally a bad idea for our community to start increasing the > size judging commitments and i hope other tournaments won't consider doing > the same thing. unless someone is being paid specifically to judge, four > out of eight rounds seems to be an appropriate judging commitment . i know > directors and the like aren't going to be eager to judge a fifth debate, so > this new policy will likely only add to increased tournament costs. > considering recent increases in travel costs associated with oil prices, > luggage, etc., it seems like this is possibly the worst time to further > increase tournament costs/fees in this way. > > There are obviously many reasons, but in my opinion (after talking with > many tab directors) the greatest reason college tournaments are constantly > short on judging is because several teams are providing the requisite amount > of judging, but not providing the requisite amount of "mutually preferred > judging". Tournaments routinely lose dozens of rounds of committed > judging because several judges can be placed in few or zero rounds. This > problem gets exacerbated when a team fulfills their judging commitment with > a non-mutually preferred judge and this same judge hires his or her other > half commitment out to another team so they can also fulfill their judging > commitment. A new policy of increasing the size of judging commitments > doesn't really get at the root of this problem. It basically punishes > everyone to make up for the rounds lost from teams that don't bring enough > mutually preferred judges. > > One potential way to deal with this problem- If schools don't end up > providing the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at tournaments, > they should pay the tournament the appropriate hired judging fee. The > tournament can in turn use this money to hire local mutually preferred > judges and/or pay other mutually preferred judges at the tournament who have > extra rounds available and want to judge additional rounds for money. > > If this type of system is viewed as unfair or too elitist (certainly > reasonable concerns), I think we have to re-examine the whole concept of > mutually preferred judging. If the requisite amount of mutually preferred > judging can't be provided by asking teams to provide half judging > commitments, we should re-evaluate the system of mutual judging. If this > year it's 5/8 round judging commitments, 6/8, 7/8, or 8/8 won't be that far > off in the distance. At the NDT last year, we had to provide 24 rounds of > judging for only one team. I'm generally in favor of some type of mutual > preference judging system, but not if the only way to achieve it is through > increased judging commitments and fees. I would personally rather get an > A- or a B instead of an A+ judge, as opposed to subjecting the entire > tournament to increased judging commitments/fees. > > Aaron > > ------------------------------ > With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on > the go. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/06faba95/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard Mon Jul 21 20:08:38 2008 From: stefan.bauschard (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:08:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740807211751r4f284be1gdb6f6ed961619975@mail.gmail.com> References: <9a7f6f740807211751r4f284be1gdb6f6ed961619975@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <524839830807211808p22370005w9b841b4679e1af28@mail.gmail.com> >I use at regional tournaments is ABC with no strikes. I like it because it preferences mutuality instead of preference. This means new judges get some exposure. Now I think if we adopted this at the GSU tournament not as many people might come. This is really the only solution I don't like at all. It is only psychological (33% of the pool is not A judging for any team) and it is harmful (it collapses preference -- within A there is A1, A2, A3 and in many debates there will be A1,A3 "mutual preferences", essentially creating 1/3 judging in multiple debates in a 9 category system). Systems with higher number categories better protect mutuality because they can provide A2/A2 or A3/A3. It *appears* to lower preference but it doesn't because you can get those A3 judges (your 3s) or your B6 judges (your 6s!) all the time in the ABC system. When running a tournament, I'd rather have the ability to try to give teams an A1/A1 or an A2/A2 in a break round rather than end up given teams an A1/A3.- Show quoted text - On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Mike Davis wrote: > I know that there are caselist related reasons for increasing the > commitment as well, but I will say a couple of things from inside the > tab room: > > 1. We have talked about the idea of charging people whose judges > cannot be placed, but there are a ton of problems with that. A lot of > it is luck of the draw so I may be able to get a person in four or > five debates one year because the matchups happen to work out and then > the next year they don't judge at all. Also, it seems to punish > particular schools and judges. New judges (and anyone who hires them) > will be unfairly punished as will those not associate with national > level programs. It is amazing to see how people preference changes > over the course of one year when they move to a big program. Finally, > there are not very many judges for hire. Joe is generous with hired > judging money and if there were more people to hire he would hire > them. > 2. Their is a weird phenomenon at GSU because it is the first > tournament of the year. The judging pool gets compressed. Everyone > tends to agree who the top judges are, but more importantly everyone > seems to agree who the bottom judges are. Last year the bottom 3 > categories were the same for about 70% of the teams. The first two > years we only gave 6s and 7s to teams that were out of the tournament. > We lost over 100 rounds of judging under that system. We tweaked the > system a little the last two years to allow 8s once teams are out (one > of my own teams got a strike later year) and giving a very limited > number of 6s and 7s (not more than one per team and not in a break > round). Now we lose about 60 rounds from judges we are unable to > place. We still have to beg for judging every year. Some people always > give some never do. It is unfair that those who are generous have to > accept the burden for everyone. The people who give these rounds > complain about being asked every year and a bunch of people still > complain about their judging. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I > know that five rounds will help this problem. I am certainly open to > other solutions. > 3. It is not a question of A+ versus B judges. I wish it was. It is a > problem of not having enough judges in the first five categories. I am > all for changing the system of preference. I think that we have too > many categories and the solution I use at regional tournaments is ABC > with no strikes. I like it because it preferences mutuality instead of > preference. This means new judges get some exposure. Now I think if we > adopted this at the GSU tournament not as many people might come. > > I appreciate the start of this conversation and I admit I wish I could > give everyone four rounds per tournament and have them only judge > every other elim. I think it is more humane, but the community would > have to drastically change their approach to mutual preference for > this to happen (and keep more people in the activity to have enough > judges). > > Mike > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Aaron Kall > wrote: > > ________________________________ > > > > "JUDGING REQUIREMENTS. Schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every > > team, regardless of division. If you have two teams, for example, you > will > > need to provide 10 total rounds of judging. If this requirement is going > to > > create a serious financial hardship for your team, please contact Joe > Bellon > > (joe.bellon at gmail.com) so we can discuss possible alternatives." > > > > this e-mail is not directed specifically at the gsu tournament, which i > > have always enjoyed. i'm especially happy with the new tournament hotel. > > the gsu tournament just happens to be the first major tournament of the > > college season and it appears they've decided to increase their judging > > requirements. i think this is a bad idea in general and think a dialogue > on > > this idea and judge preferences in general needs to be started. so, > > hopefully this e-mail will facilitate this process. > > > > i think it's generally a bad idea for our community to start increasing > the > > size judging commitments and i hope other tournaments won't consider > doing > > the same thing. unless someone is being paid specifically to judge, four > > out of eight rounds seems to be an appropriate judging commitment . i > know > > directors and the like aren't going to be eager to judge a fifth debate, > so > > this new policy will likely only add to increased tournament costs. > > considering recent increases in travel costs associated with oil prices, > > luggage, etc., it seems like this is possibly the worst time to further > > increase tournament costs/fees in this way. > > > > There are obviously many reasons, but in my opinion (after talking with > many > > tab directors) the greatest reason college tournaments are constantly > short > > on judging is because several teams are providing the requisite amount of > > judging, but not providing the requisite amount of "mutually preferred > > judging". Tournaments routinely lose dozens of rounds of committed > judging > > because several judges can be placed in few or zero rounds. This problem > > gets exacerbated when a team fulfills their judging commitment with a > > non-mutually preferred judge and this same judge hires his or her other > half > > commitment out to another team so they can also fulfill their judging > > commitment. A new policy of increasing the size of judging commitments > > doesn't really get at the root of this problem. It basically punishes > > everyone to make up for the rounds lost from teams that don't bring > enough > > mutually preferred judges. > > > > One potential way to deal with this problem- If schools don't end up > > providing the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at > tournaments, > > they should pay the tournament the appropriate hired judging fee. The > > tournament can in turn use this money to hire local mutually preferred > > judges and/or pay other mutually preferred judges at the tournament who > have > > extra rounds available and want to judge additional rounds for money. > > > > If this type of system is viewed as unfair or too elitist (certainly > > reasonable concerns), I think we have to re-examine the whole concept of > > mutually preferred judging. If the requisite amount of mutually > preferred > > judging can't be provided by asking teams to provide half judging > > commitments, we should re-evaluate the system of mutual judging. If this > > year it's 5/8 round judging commitments, 6/8, 7/8, or 8/8 won't be that > far > > off in the distance. At the NDT last year, we had to provide 24 rounds > of > > judging for only one team. I'm generally in favor of some type of mutual > > preference judging system, but not if the only way to achieve it is > through > > increased judging commitments and fees. I would personally rather get an > A- > > or a B instead of an A+ judge, as opposed to subjecting the entire > > tournament to increased judging commitments/fees. > > > > Aaron > > > > ________________________________ > > With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on > the > > go. > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > -- > Dr. Michael Davis > Director of Debate/Assistant Professor > James Madison University > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/23cb6e2c/attachment.htm From aaron.olney Mon Jul 21 20:59:38 2008 From: aaron.olney (Aaron Olney) Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:59:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU College Tournament Invite- Increased Judging Commitment In-Reply-To: <524839830807211808p22370005w9b841b4679e1af28@mail.gmail.com> References: <9a7f6f740807211751r4f284be1gdb6f6ed961619975@mail.gmail.com> <524839830807211808p22370005w9b841b4679e1af28@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6b016c190807211859r6d75f3a9s9f0cfb433ba54755@mail.gmail.com> Get rid of it all together. MPJ is both exclusionary and bad for education and not helpful for debaters in the long run. How often do you get to pick the person interviewing you for a job? What happened to adapting to your surroundings? Sure there is some of that going on, but with no MPJ, people would learn to adapt a lot more. So what if the Harvards, Northwesterns, Emory's get upset in an early out round occasionally. It makes for good drama and good stories and makes this activity more exciting. Bad judging, good judging... who is to decide which is which. Sometimes luck plays into it, but that is true with life. Lets play for real and get rid of it all together. On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Stefan Bauschard < stefan.bauschard at gmail.com> wrote: > >I use at regional tournaments is ABC > with no strikes. I like it because it preferences mutuality instead of > preference. This means new judges get some exposure. Now I think if we > adopted this at the GSU tournament not as many people might come. > > This is really the only solution I don't like at all. It is only > psychological (33% of the pool is not A judging for any team) and it is > harmful (it collapses preference -- within A there is A1, A2, A3 and in many > debates there will be A1,A3 "mutual preferences", essentially creating 1/3 > judging in multiple debates in a 9 category system). > > Systems with higher number categories better protect mutuality because they > can provide A2/A2 or A3/A3. It *appears* to lower preference but it doesn't > because you can get those A3 judges (your 3s) or your B6 judges (your 6s!) > all the time in the ABC system. > > When running a tournament, I'd rather have the ability to try to give teams > an A1/A1 or an A2/A2 in a break round rather than end up given teams an > A1/A3. - Show quoted text - > > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Mike Davis wrote: > >> I know that there are caselist related reasons for increasing the >> commitment as well, but I will say a couple of things from inside the >> tab room: >> >> 1. We have talked about the idea of charging people whose judges >> cannot be placed, but there are a ton of problems with that. A lot of >> it is luck of the draw so I may be able to get a person in four or >> five debates one year because the matchups happen to work out and then >> the next year they don't judge at all. Also, it seems to punish >> particular schools and judges. New judges (and anyone who hires them) >> will be unfairly punished as will those not associate with national >> level programs. It is amazing to see how people preference changes >> over the course of one year when they move to a big program. Finally, >> there are not very many judges for hire. Joe is generous with hired >> judging money and if there were more people to hire he would hire >> them. >> 2. Their is a weird phenomenon at GSU because it is the first >> tournament of the year. The judging pool gets compressed. Everyone >> tends to agree who the top judges are, but more importantly everyone >> seems to agree who the bottom judges are. Last year the bottom 3 >> categories were the same for about 70% of the teams. The first two >> years we only gave 6s and 7s to teams that were out of the tournament. >> We lost over 100 rounds of judging under that system. We tweaked the >> system a little the last two years to allow 8s once teams are out (one >> of my own teams got a strike later year) and giving a very limited >> number of 6s and 7s (not more than one per team and not in a break >> round). Now we lose about 60 rounds from judges we are unable to >> place. We still have to beg for judging every year. Some people always >> give some never do. It is unfair that those who are generous have to >> accept the burden for everyone. The people who give these rounds >> complain about being asked every year and a bunch of people still >> complain about their judging. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I >> know that five rounds will help this problem. I am certainly open to >> other solutions. >> 3. It is not a question of A+ versus B judges. I wish it was. It is a >> problem of not having enough judges in the first five categories. I am >> all for changing the system of preference. I think that we have too >> many categories and the solution I use at regional tournaments is ABC >> with no strikes. I like it because it preferences mutuality instead of >> preference. This means new judges get some exposure. Now I think if we >> adopted this at the GSU tournament not as many people might come. >> >> I appreciate the start of this conversation and I admit I wish I could >> give everyone four rounds per tournament and have them only judge >> every other elim. I think it is more humane, but the community would >> have to drastically change their approach to mutual preference for >> this to happen (and keep more people in the activity to have enough >> judges). >> >> Mike >> >> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Aaron Kall >> wrote: >> > ________________________________ >> > >> > "JUDGING REQUIREMENTS. Schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for >> every >> > team, regardless of division. If you have two teams, for example, you >> will >> > need to provide 10 total rounds of judging. If this requirement is >> going to >> > create a serious financial hardship for your team, please contact Joe >> Bellon >> > (joe.bellon at gmail.com) so we can discuss possible alternatives." >> > >> > this e-mail is not directed specifically at the gsu tournament, which i >> > have always enjoyed. i'm especially happy with the new tournament >> hotel. >> > the gsu tournament just happens to be the first major tournament of the >> > college season and it appears they've decided to increase their judging >> > requirements. i think this is a bad idea in general and think a >> dialogue on >> > this idea and judge preferences in general needs to be started. so, >> > hopefully this e-mail will facilitate this process. >> > >> > i think it's generally a bad idea for our community to start increasing >> the >> > size judging commitments and i hope other tournaments won't consider >> doing >> > the same thing. unless someone is being paid specifically to judge, >> four >> > out of eight rounds seems to be an appropriate judging commitment . i >> know >> > directors and the like aren't going to be eager to judge a fifth debate, >> so >> > this new policy will likely only add to increased tournament costs. >> > considering recent increases in travel costs associated with oil prices, >> > luggage, etc., it seems like this is possibly the worst time to further >> > increase tournament costs/fees in this way. >> > >> > There are obviously many reasons, but in my opinion (after talking with >> many >> > tab directors) the greatest reason college tournaments are constantly >> short >> > on judging is because several teams are providing the requisite amount >> of >> > judging, but not providing the requisite amount of "mutually preferred >> > judging". Tournaments routinely lose dozens of rounds of committed >> judging >> > because several judges can be placed in few or zero rounds. This >> problem >> > gets exacerbated when a team fulfills their judging commitment with a >> > non-mutually preferred judge and this same judge hires his or her other >> half >> > commitment out to another team so they can also fulfill their judging >> > commitment. A new policy of increasing the size of judging commitments >> > doesn't really get at the root of this problem. It basically punishes >> > everyone to make up for the rounds lost from teams that don't bring >> enough >> > mutually preferred judges. >> > >> > One potential way to deal with this problem- If schools don't end up >> > providing the requisite amount of mutually preferred judging at >> tournaments, >> > they should pay the tournament the appropriate hired judging fee. The >> > tournament can in turn use this money to hire local mutually preferred >> > judges and/or pay other mutually preferred judges at the tournament who >> have >> > extra rounds available and want to judge additional rounds for money. >> > >> > If this type of system is viewed as unfair or too elitist (certainly >> > reasonable concerns), I think we have to re-examine the whole concept of >> > mutually preferred judging. If the requisite amount of mutually >> preferred >> > judging can't be provided by asking teams to provide half judging >> > commitments, we should re-evaluate the system of mutual judging. If >> this >> > year it's 5/8 round judging commitments, 6/8, 7/8, or 8/8 won't be that >> far >> > off in the distance. At the NDT last year, we had to provide 24 rounds >> of >> > judging for only one team. I'm generally in favor of some type of >> mutual >> > preference judging system, but not if the only way to achieve it is >> through >> > increased judging commitments and fees. I would personally rather get >> an A- >> > or a B instead of an A+ judge, as opposed to subjecting the entire >> > tournament to increased judging commitments/fees. >> > >> > Aaron >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. Connect on >> the >> > go. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > eDebate mailing list >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Michael Davis >> Director of Debate/Assistant Professor >> James Madison University >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > > -- > Stefan Bauschard > > President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com > Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools > Debate Coach, Harvard Debate > > (c) 781-775-0433 > (fx) 617-588-0283 > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080721/ba5bca17/attachment.htm From rwgallow Tue Jul 22 04:24:32 2008 From: rwgallow (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:24:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thought Experiment: Two Tub Limit Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30D3A7A53@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> What if, instead of saying that "schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every team..." a tournament invitation instead said..."EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS. Teams are prohibited from bringing more than 2 tubs of evidence to contest rounds." I mention this because the market may essentially be forcing such a system upon us anyway. With airlines cracking down on extra baggage and the high costs of travel than AK mentions, the burden of carrying extra tubs may force innovative solutions to our heavy packing needs. So my query is: what would you do, either as a squad or a coach, if a tournament your team HAD to attend (for whatever reason that means to you) banned the carrying of more than two tubs. Some initial ideas: *Rich Edwards wrote an article in the Rostrum a few years back on the idea of a team using one tub, a laptop, and a printer. Is the technology currently available to essentially "print as you go?" I heard rumor that the MSU squad essentially debated under this system the first day at Texas, without tubs, printing as they went. Is this feasible, partially feasible, or utterly utopian? I ask those with more tech experience and the debaters who debate in an era where file printing/card printing in rounds is common. *Jim Hanson has apparently claimed that we are only a few years away from tubs being obsolete. What do he and others think about moving to two tubs? *Would this encourage the carrying of a "third laptop" so teams could share evidence with the other team? I've heard this as a possible tech solution--teams bring a third laptop and evidence the other team needs to read that was read off the computer could be flash drived to the third computer for the other team/judge to read. *Could there be an "evidence room" in each building for squads to stash the "squad copy" of certain backfiles? In other words, instead of every team from a large squad carrying their "backfile check" answers could an evidence storage room for the team copy be put in a building and teams get one "time out" to go raid the evidence storehouse. Likely infeasible, but a thought. *Would this encourage or discourage negative disclosure of arguments that might require a heavy printing burden? Would teams be tempted to run certain arguments in a gambit that "they don't have answers to this printed?" *Is it feasible that tournaments could supply some back-up printers in case of emergency? *Would teams become less reliant on evidence and more reliant upon analytics? Would judges be amenable to the transition? My guess is that the "tech solutions" are more likely. Two last thoughts: One answer to the thought experiment is to essentially cheat and re-define tub to mean "bankers box" or something huge that isn't a tub. Hoping people play by the rules in responses to encourage a discussion as to how squads could rely on technological solutions and/or less evidence to bring to tournaments. Second, this is not a serious proposal for tournaments to move to, but rather a question about what would happen if the market essentially forces a system upon us like this. More curious about what would occur if we were forced as a community to consider a world with substantially less tubs. Just designed as a thought experiment to see what would happen in a world with less tubs. Ryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/18e2d574/attachment.htm From anabaptist Tue Jul 22 09:18:02 2008 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 9:18:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fantasy Football Message-ID: <20080722141802.WRIZ29060.ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net@webmail-relay.alltel.net> The 2008 Debate Fantasy Football League is accepting new team managers. If you want in, just e-mail me and I'll send you the login info. The league is on Yahoo. Donald Bryson From veronica_m_barreto Tue Jul 22 09:22:19 2008 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Guevara) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:22:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Thought Experiment: Two Tub Limit In-Reply-To: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30D3A7A53@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30D3A7A53@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Message-ID: Denver University, a small program with a small budget but big talent, has done this for at least 4 or 5 years. They did it to reduce costs associated with printing and copying. They carry all their files on their laptop, they carry a printer and some paper. They carry a copy of the 1AC and plan text and I think these days they have most of their major 1NC shells ready to go to. It's feasible, but they have gotten resistance from competitors. Some have even made arguments about how Denver's tech is elitist. Often times, those shells being read against them off of a laptop. They are incredibly vulnerable to technical difficulties and the solution to that may be to have back ups that could keep rounds running a little behind schedule. The folks who have debated and coached for Denver probably have better insights into the process. To deal with equity claims, they've tried a number of set ups. I remember judging a Denver team at Texas a few years ago and they brought a third laptop that which was a very barebones system for their opponents to access anything they wanted. There were definitely glitches like the power cord shorted if it moved, but it worked. Now they hand over their jump drives to whomever asks, which functionally gives their opponent access to every single one of their files which can all be downloaded during the course of a debate. They shrug it off and take it in stride but they do get some static. So it's not ideal but I think it would be much more workable when the contraints of taking multiple tubs hits those with perhaps more influence than a smaller program. Plus one laptop or one printer going out would be less of a hassle if more people also used that system. I do have to say that travelling is really tough on a printer and I don't know how many programs could afford disposable printers. I know Jim Hanson has an awesome database set up for Whitman's files. Weber digitized its files two years ago. We carry one tub or less (sometimes a backpack) with what we need but we still roll with the confidence to deal with a backfile check because we have our warming, dedev files etc on a jump drive and each team and coach carry one. We also fly the great greyhound of the skies, Southwest airlines, every time it's even possible because they have no extra fees. The more drastic change that may occur as market forces push debate to evolve could be a diminished emphasis on the national circuit, most of which happens in my old backyard of D6. Cross country airfares are unspeakable. I run the numbers on every major national tournament whether it's on our schedule or not at least once a month in the off season. Ga State travel is up over $1200 from last year per team and that's just the airfare and hotel to say nothing of the rising costs to feed folks, the new judging requirement which we'll meet but it means we sell less judging which in turn we use to pay registration, and the banquet fees which makes that registration tab very hefty (believe me our budget does not have our debaters eating ANY meal for $25/head), then there's car rental and gas for that car, etc. This is after Joe and Mike have done everything they could to be conscientious and deal with operating costs as best they can. Some of the numbers I ran are just obscene and those numbers don't include the best or cushiest itineraries and they certainly do not include tournament hotels, which are categorically struck from consideration. We treat teams who don't/can't attend the big shin digs as pariahs or as if their programs just aren't serious about competing or they diminish that teams' accomplishments because they're running from competition. Teams without exposure get seeded lower for prelim debates, their speaker points are affected because they have less exposure to the judging pool. We'd love to have every prebid applicant in the country in D9 or D2 or D1 and often. Instead the West exports its best debaters to compete out East because it's minimally necessary to be considered competitive and they wouldn't be our best debaters if they didn't. But if the number of tournaments that created those opportunities increased and diversified in geography we would either all equally share the burden of travel or we could each compete within our geographic proximity with maybe 1 national fall tournament, 1 national spring tournament, CEDA and the NDT -- now that's utopian! :) (or for some folks a dystopia, I guess) I heart D6 & West Coast Love to all. Veronica M. Guevara Weber State University Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:24:32 -0500From: rwgallow at samford.eduTo: edebate at ndtceda.comSubject: [eDebate] Thought Experiment: Two Tub Limit What if, instead of saying that "schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every team..." a tournament invitation instead said..."EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS. Teams are prohibited from bringing more than 2 tubs of evidence to contest rounds."I mention this because the market may essentially be forcing such a system upon us anyway. With airlines cracking down on extra baggage and the high costs of travel than AK mentions, the burden of carrying extra tubs may force innovative solutions to our heavy packing needs. So my query is: what would you do, either as a squad or a coach, if a tournament your team HAD to attend (for whatever reason that means to you) banned the carrying of more than two tubs. Some initial ideas:*Rich Edwards wrote an article in the Rostrum a few years back on the idea of a team using one tub, a laptop, and a printer. Is the technology currently available to essentially "print as you go?" I heard rumor that the MSU squad essentially debated under this system the first day at Texas, without tubs, printing as they went. Is this feasible, partially feasible, or utterly utopian? I ask those with more tech experience and the debaters who debate in an era where file printing/card printing in rounds is common.*Jim Hanson has apparently claimed that we are only a few years away from tubs being obsolete. What do he and others think about moving to two tubs?*Would this encourage the carrying of a "third laptop" so teams could share evidence with the other team? I've heard this as a possible tech solution--teams bring a third laptop and evidence the other team needs to read that was read off the computer could be flash drived to the third computer for the other team/judge to read.*Could there be an "evidence room" in each building for squads to stash the "squad copy" of certain backfiles? In other words, instead of every team from a large squad carrying their "backfile check" answers could an evidence storage room for the team copy be put in a building and teams get one "time out" to go raid the evidence storehouse. Likely infeasible, but a thought.*Would this encourage or discourage negative disclosure of arguments that might require a heavy printing burden? Would teams be tempted to run certain arguments in a gambit that "they don't have answers to this printed?"*Is it feasible that tournaments could supply some back-up printers in case of emergency?*Would teams become less reliant on evidence and more reliant upon analytics? Would judges be amenable to the transition? My guess is that the "tech solutions" are more likely.Two last thoughts:One answer to the thought experiment is to essentially cheat and re-define tub to mean "bankers box" or something huge that isn't a tub. Hoping people play by the rules in responses to encourage a discussion as to how squads could rely on technological solutions and/or less evidence to bring to tournaments. Second, this is not a serious proposal for tournaments to move to, but rather a question about what would happen if the market essentially forces a system upon us like this. More curious about what would occur if we were forced as a community to consider a world with substantially less tubs.Just designed as a thought experiment to see what would happen in a world with less tubs.Ryan _________________________________________________________________ Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/af427160/attachment.htm From don1299 Tue Jul 22 09:27:29 2008 From: don1299 (Donny Peters) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:27:29 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Fantasy Football In-Reply-To: <20080722141802.WRIZ29060.ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net@webmail-relay.alltel.net> References: <20080722141802.WRIZ29060.ispmxmta06-srv.windstream.net@webmail-relay.alltel.net> Message-ID: Donald, I'd like in Donny Peters > From: anabaptist at alltel.net > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:18:02 -0500 > Subject: [eDebate] Fantasy Football > > The 2008 Debate Fantasy Football League is accepting new team managers. If you want in, just e-mail me and I'll send you the login info. The league is on Yahoo. > > > Donald Bryson > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/601994f9/attachment.htm From repkowil Tue Jul 22 09:46:44 2008 From: repkowil (William J Repko) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:46:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Quick reaction on two tub experiment Message-ID: ...busy at debate camp, but wanted to quickly chime-in . 1. Kudos to Ryan -- airline developments are going to hit our debate community like a ton of bricks. We tend to "steal good ideas" from one another in a very ad-hoc, slow way. If there's a silver bullet that can cut-down costs, please share. ... if this discussion helps formulate one, then it's more-than worth it. 2. Not to place a sour note on Ryan's post (it's important and I am a fan), but I wanted to react to the portion of his email that spoke to an episode involving the MSU team. Specifically, I caution folks against citing MSU as a model of "a team that did just fine without tubs". Background: a) Were all 29 of MSU's tubs temporarily lost in transit to Austin ?.. Yes b) Was MSU able to "get by" ?... ...umm...sorta... c) Why doesn't this provide concrete proof that the community could operate w/o tubs or solely with electronic resources ?... First -- It's taxing in many little ways. printers only go so fast; printers enjoy jamming and breaking; the office supply center opens at 8am (not 7am when cartridge # 5 runs out); opponents can only disclose so much (in the status quo); teams worry about many contingencies -- so too much pre-round time is spent printing instead of coaching /prepping. I would go so far as to say that the first day of UT-A -- while enjoyably challenging in a sick sort of way -- would be a very bad blueprint for professional sanity. It may have been the most trying day of my debate life and I am positive the other MSU coaches and students would echo that sentiment. Needing to print or "produce" a file before everyone would drive a lot of either towards hyper-generics or from the activity altogether. Second -- I'm not sure we could have done it all on Day two or three. 4 *pre-sets* made things feasible.... When things are not pre-set, then every debate without tubs becomes that way you feel when you dashing to print off that preposterous request right before an elim round. Third-- Having a larger team was an asset -- more teammates to borrow from... more people to aid with printing ,etc. Truth be told, I don't think it's a very workable adjustment under the current set of norms. *If* the community is forced by the market to go "tubless", then we may need to consider adding the following items to the discussion: a) Do we need to add considerably more prep time into the debate itself ?.. This might be used for printing ev, jumping ev to the opponent, finding the paper file that stored in the "common ev room", etc. This could have the positive externality of allowing debaters (not coaches) to research wildly-untrue arguments during the debate -- tempering the concern that many have about new Affs, silly hyper-generics, etc. b) In an era of Aff bias, should we re-visit the norm of neg disclosure ?.. This would be a huge adjustment -- fraught with problems. But, it would hedge against team A trying to manipulate the fact that Team B is "unlikely to have a paper copy of X".... ... More generally, I encourage people to view the "tub-crunch" as an opportunity -- not just a burden. It could constitute an opportunity to improve certain things about the activity -- but only to the extent that the community can agree on what our activity should look like, which we often cannot. Back to cap-and-trade, Will From micksouders Tue Jul 22 10:49:12 2008 From: micksouders (Michael Souders) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:49:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Two Tubs and Tech in Debates Message-ID: <899735480807220849x29e5da4xe7a25e300c028a19@mail.gmail.com> I appreciate Galloway's idea and it's the kind of ideas that are needed in an age of increasing costs. I don't agree with it, however. I thought Repko had a lot of great points on the subject. I know the old "tech" divide argument is a hackneyed and that at some point tub organization and the ability to use them effectively is a sort of technology in and of themselves, but I think it's important to realize that relying on computers creates an escalating technological arms race that is a lot more expensive than the current arms race. For example, our debaters here at KU are constantly telling me how I should get an Apple, they're so fast, they're so awesome, they're so intuitive, blah blah blah. Problem: I can't AFFORD an Apple. Moreover, I can't afford a very fast computer with a lot RAM that handle large files with the requisite picture images in it (from scanned books). And I have a job, of sorts. Here are the troubling sets of equations: Faster computer = more expensive computers = more effective evidence access = less prep time (pre-round and in-round) + fewer time consuming, confusing, upsetting, round ruining crashes + expectations that opponents will have similar access = upward pressure to spend or fall behind. The exact same situation is true of printers: Faster printer = more expensive printer = more expensive cartridges = more effective evidence access, etc. More financially advantaged individual debaters and squads will be able to replace malfunctioning equipment much faster and without the concern that will prevent them from paying rent or travelling to tournaments down the road. Non-unique, you say? Tech exists in the status quo? True. But most laptops are a back-up now. Most squads still print their files and think that most debaters agree that paper file organization is still handier than laptops. This isn't scientific, of course, but I think I've seen an actual decrease in reliance on laptops for flowing and for reading evidence in the past couple of years. And although some pre-round rushing exists now, it's usually for one file or a couple of pages or something?not whole strategies or backfiles. It's still easier for most people to pull a dozens pages of cards and stack them in a vague order and choose them by sight when speaking than doing that by computer. Most people can simply visually scan material faster that way. Because paper is the still the ruling practice, the problems of the tech divide are limited. But creating a rule would eliminate the status quo customs and enforce a need for technology and make sure that a lot of the old, poor quality laptops that many debaters still rely on as a back up either become front-line weapons (leaving their owners hopelessly outgunned) or that the debaters and squads have to invest far more in updated technology, if you'll suffer the war metaphors. I tend to think these costs will quickly outstrip the airline travel costs. Lastly, this already true, but it would magnify existing background privileges. Those persons from privileged backgrounds are much more likely to be already familiar with advanced laptop applications. This sounds ridiculous but it's true: there is using MS-Word and there is *USING*MS-Word to it's full potential. Other add-on organization software and such things are much more likely to familiar to those who economic status has made technological education a much higher priority and more attainable possibility in their home communities. Ultimately, despite the privilege that pervades the debate community currently, one of the nice things is that is accessible to everyone. Maybe I am just being pessimistic but I would prefer that the community act to limit increasing the material barriers to not just participation, but *effective* participation. There are, of course, exceptions and some might argue that debate is about educating people. But call me a Luddite, but I think debate is about educating people in argument and political awareness, not in how to use a laptop. And if laptop reliance is barrier to *effective* participation then we are missing out educating the some of the people that we are supposed to be targeting in the first place. There are many practical arguments against the decreased tub, increased laptop requirement. In defense of Jim's prediction regarding the extinction of tubs, it might simply happen as process of advancing debate customs and practices. Some teams may even choose laptops as a cheaper way of dealing with material costs. Some teams already have mastery of technological materials and are already free to exploit that mastery. But maybe the Heideggerian in me wants to believe there will always be a place for the old ways, craft, and customs of tub-based debate, for those that want it. And the egalitarian in me wants debate to remain free and open whatever material resource choices work best for each team and each squad in the community. *FYI-I'm not a total Luddite. It's true that I don't have cable, but that's just so I can announce that fact in a superior tone every once in a while. I also watch a lot of culturally advanced PBS shows. And I may own many leather bound books. But here's a serious example: I think debaters should be able to use wireless to access server backfiles and/or cut cards DURING debates, if need be. Why? Because it makes better debate. At the risk of being struck by lightning as a I say this, I get annoyed when teams lose to bad,backwards DAs because they didn't have the U card that is factually true and the first hit on GoogleNews, especially when I'm looking at the card as I judge the debate while the affirmative simply has to go to its doom. This isn't entirely consistent with what I've said above, but nobody is entirely consistent. Scott Harris has told me support of this practice makes me entirely unethical, but then again, he watches *cable.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/f417bfe0/attachment.htm From bk2nocal Tue Jul 22 11:06:41 2008 From: bk2nocal (Sue Peterson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:06:41 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Thought Experiment to Working Group - Anyone want to help me look at possible solutions? Message-ID: <417507f50807220906s603d106fpd2a9215c0e57f76d@mail.gmail.com> I think Veronica's final "dystopian" idea is the default for MOST schools as is. There are the top 20-25 or so programs in the nation that make the national run of tournaments every year, but the rest of us try to get their better teams to a "national" tournament or two each year and then deal with the region for the rest of it. I agree that if you have a very good team, this becomes a negative experience in certain areas because those regional tournaments do not have a meaningful caliber of competition for those teams because the other teams that good in the region may have the resources to get out to the national tournaments on a regular schedule. I thank Greg Achten and Gordon Stables and Jon Bruschke for making sure that California continues to have "national" level competition within driving distance. And although some of you may be disappointed with the schedule change for the swing tournaments, if Jon and Gordon would have decided to just give these tournaments away to some other district in the hopes of regaining their holidays with family and friends instead, it is mid-level programs in California who would have suffered. So, I am thankful they took the time and effort to find a way to make it work with their schedules but keep the tournaments in California. The Berkeley tournament brings teams in that we would never otherwise see not traveling nationally, and again, we don't have to fly. But, not every region has tournaments of these caliber and they HAVE to fly to get to even a few national tournaments each year. So, what is the answer? Well, one of them might be to begin to think on a larger scale than we currently do for tournaments. I know that Gordon brought this up at the summer meeting and I've been mulling it over in my head for a while as well. Maybe we need to stop thinking of just our own teams and start thinking on a more regional scale for travel. If our regions were to get together and start booking "group travel" would we save any money? I know that sometimes the busses between So Cal and Nor Cal would be cheaper than individual vans would have been (and the sleep instead of driving was GLORIOUS!). I know there are organizations like Student Travel Agency (STA) who does mainly international student travel, but may be helpful domestically? There is also Groople (perhaps not the only one - just the one I'm familiar with) where you can get special group discounts for over 10 people traveling. I definitely don't know at this point, but if we could book group travel on airlines by combining squads - rent busses at tournaments instead of individual mini/12 pass vans, etc. would it save us money? I think this is one thing that the CEDA organization is dedicated to figuring out for our national tournaments in the future, but it is something that I think many of us could start talking about in our own regions (regional reps - here is a possible topic of discussion) and tournament directors might think about checking into for their tournaments (maybe providing some local bus company names for those wanting to check on bus options), etc. I am willing to take the lead on this particular issue as a "working group" in CEDA if there are others who would be willing to help me out, perhaps we can put together a "white paper" or something with ideas and choices available to squads. Anyone else out there willing to get involved? My thoughts are to brainstorm different options - maybe check what sports teams, etc. at our Universities are doing to deal with this, explore the internet options like Groople, etc. and then assign out a person to each type of travel to do cost estimations - so at what point does it become cheaper to travel by air versus car/bus (considering luggage costs, etc.)? How many people do you need to get different group discounts? I think this would be valuable information for everyone in debate and even more valuable to those who might be making an entrance into debate as a new program in these tough travel cost times. On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Veronica Guevara < veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com> wrote: > Denver University, a small program with a small budget but big talent, has > done this for at least 4 or 5 years. They did it to reduce costs associated > with printing and copying. They carry all their files on their laptop, they > carry a printer and some paper. They carry a copy of the 1AC and plan text > and I think these days they have most of their major 1NC shells ready to go > to. It's feasible, but they have gotten resistance from competitors. Some > have even made arguments about how Denver's tech is elitist. Often times, > those shells being read against them off of a laptop. They are incredibly > vulnerable to technical difficulties and the solution to that may be to have > back ups that could keep rounds running a little behind schedule. The folks > who have debated and coached for Denver probably have better insights into > the process. > > To deal with equity claims, they've tried a number of set ups. I remember > judging a Denver team at Texas a few years ago and they brought a third > laptop that which was a very barebones system for their opponents to access > anything they wanted. There were definitely glitches like the power cord > shorted if it moved, but it worked. Now they hand over their jump drives to > whomever asks, which functionally gives their opponent access to every > single one of their files which can all be downloaded during the course of a > debate. They shrug it off and take it in stride but they do get some > static. So it's not ideal but I think it would be much more workable when > the contraints of taking multiple tubs hits those with perhaps more > influence than a smaller program. Plus one laptop or one printer going out > would be less of a hassle if more people also used that system. I do have > to say that travelling is really tough on a printer and I don't know how > many programs could afford disposable printers. > > I know Jim Hanson has an awesome database set up for Whitman's files. > Weber digitized its files two years ago. We carry one tub or less (sometimes > a backpack) with what we need but we still roll with the confidence to deal > with a backfile check because we have our warming, dedev files etc on a jump > drive and each team and coach carry one. We also fly the great greyhound of > the skies, Southwest airlines, every time it's even possible because they > have no extra fees. > > The more drastic change that may occur as market forces push debate to > evolve could be a diminished emphasis on the national circuit, most of which > happens in my old backyard of D6. Cross country airfares are unspeakable. > I run the numbers on every major national tournament whether it's on our > schedule or not at least once a month in the off season. Ga State travel is > up over $1200 from last year per team and that's just the airfare and hotel > to say nothing of the rising costs to feed folks, the new judging > requirement which we'll meet but it means we sell less judging which in turn > we use to pay registration, and the banquet fees which makes > that registration tab very hefty (believe me our budget does not have our > debaters eating ANY meal for $25/head), then there's car rental and gas for > that car, etc. This is after Joe and Mike have done everything they could to > be conscientious and deal with operating costs as best they can. Some of > the numbers I ran are just obscene and those numbers don't include the best > or cushiest itineraries and they certainly do not include tournament hotels, > which are categorically struck from consideration. > > We treat teams who don't/can't attend the big shin digs as pariahs or as if > their programs just aren't serious about competing or they diminish that > teams' accomplishments because they're running from competition. Teams > without exposure get seeded lower for prelim debates, their speaker points > are affected because they have less exposure to the judging pool. We'd love > to have every prebid applicant in the country in D9 or D2 or D1 and often. > Instead the West exports its best debaters to compete out East because it's > minimally necessary to be considered competitive and they wouldn't be our > best debaters if they didn't. But if the number of tournaments that created > those opportunities increased and diversified in geography we would either > all equally share the burden of travel or we could each compete within our > geographic proximity with maybe 1 national fall tournament, 1 national > spring tournament, CEDA and the NDT -- now that's utopian! :) (or for some > folks a dystopia, I guess) > > I heart D6 & West Coast Love to all. > > > > *Veronica M. Guevara* > ** > *Weber State University* > *Department of Communication* > *1605 University Circle* > *Ogden, UT 84408* > ** > ** > > > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:24:32 -0500 > From: rwgallow at samford.edu > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Thought Experiment: Two Tub Limit > > > > What if, instead of saying that "schools must supply 5 rounds of judging > for every team..." a tournament invitation instead said..."EVIDENCE > REQUIREMENTS. Teams are prohibited from bringing more than 2 tubs of > evidence to contest rounds." > > I mention this because the market may essentially be forcing such a system > upon us anyway. With airlines cracking down on extra baggage and the high > costs of travel than AK mentions, the burden of carrying extra tubs may > force innovative solutions to our heavy packing needs. > > So my query is: what would you do, either as a squad or a coach, if a > tournament your team HAD to attend (for whatever reason that means to you) > banned the carrying of more than two tubs. Some initial ideas: > > *Rich Edwards wrote an article in the Rostrum a few years back on the idea > of a team using one tub, a laptop, and a printer. Is the technology > currently available to essentially "print as you go?" I heard rumor that > the MSU squad essentially debated under this system the first day at Texas, > without tubs, printing as they went. Is this feasible, partially feasible, > or utterly utopian? I ask those with more tech experience and the debaters > who debate in an era where file printing/card printing in rounds is common. > > *Jim Hanson has apparently claimed that we are only a few years away from > tubs being obsolete. What do he and others think about moving to two tubs? > > *Would this encourage the carrying of a "third laptop" so teams could share > evidence with the other team? I've heard this as a possible tech > solution--teams bring a third laptop and evidence the other team needs to > read that was read off the computer could be flash drived to the third > computer for the other team/judge to read. > > *Could there be an "evidence room" in each building for squads to stash the > "squad copy" of certain backfiles? In other words, instead of every team > from a large squad carrying their "backfile check" answers could an evidence > storage room for the team copy be put in a building and teams get one "time > out" to go raid the evidence storehouse. Likely infeasible, but a thought. > > *Would this encourage or discourage negative disclosure of arguments that > might require a heavy printing burden? Would teams be tempted to run > certain arguments in a gambit that "they don't have answers to this > printed?" > > *Is it feasible that tournaments could supply some back-up printers in case > of emergency? > > *Would teams become less reliant on evidence and more reliant upon > analytics? Would judges be amenable to the transition? My guess is that > the "tech solutions" are more likely. > > Two last thoughts: > > One answer to the thought experiment is to essentially cheat and re-define > tub to mean "bankers box" or something huge that isn't a tub. Hoping people > play by the rules in responses to encourage a discussion as to how squads > could rely on technological solutions and/or less evidence to bring to > tournaments. > > Second, this is not a serious proposal for tournaments to move to, but > rather a question about what would happen if the market essentially forces a > system upon us like this. More curious about what would occur if we were > forced as a community to consider a world with substantially less tubs. > > Just designed as a thought experiment to see what would happen in a world > with less tubs. > > Ryan > > ------------------------------ > Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. Help protect > your kids. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Sue Peterson, Director of Speech and Debate at CSU Chico sepeterson at csuchico.edu 530-898-4771 "To repeat what others have said, requires education; to challenge it, requires brains." -- Mary Pettibone Poole, 1938 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/3d8d149e/attachment.htm From paulj567 Tue Jul 22 11:18:57 2008 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:18:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Quick reaction on two tub experiment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <172475.51484.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Funny this comes up now, it was the topic of conversation between the Miami staff for an hour long drive to a Reds game. In other news, the Miami staff is extremely lame. BUT I think the tub crunch issue is a helpful spot at which to articulate the collision that is occurring in contemporary debate- one that finds the arc of ultra-competitiveness clashing with the arc of financial and institutional concerns. We have never before been able to produce so much evidence because of the "digital turn" in debate. However, travel costs are skyrocketing as never before with no end in sight (airlines are poorly run, oil prices are high, we don't have the necessary travel infrastructure developed for reasonable alternatives, like regional rail). Simply put, cost overruns with new baggage policies and rising ticket prices will prove disastrous. This is also not an issue that only affects small schools- bigger squads have bigger costs, and when the economy contracts everyone's funding is, by and large, less secure. The real different in effect is geographic- schools that can drive to more tournaments, by and large, feel this squeeze less than a squad that has to fly everywhere. Could the digital revolution provide the answer? Numbers need to be crunched. Specifically, how much in terms of printer, paper, and computer costs does a team incur going almost digital? Are the savings radical? When you consider each team travels with probable a minimum of 3 tubs in the status quo, with escalating costs for each, will printing expenses for a squad of three teams exceed the costs of luggage? American for example charges a total of 40 dollars for two bags- if this squad has two teams, one with say, 3 tubs and one with 4, you're looking at an additional 135 dollars. A whole ream of paper costs what, 30 bucks? Pick up a standard brother printer and assume since you're going totally digital you'll need several cartridges. thats prolly about 135 there, with cartridges and paper together. Right now, thats kind of a wash. Also carts- will we still need those? One idea is to just have everyone toss into a general fund for the schools that host tournaments to just purchase carts. If you figure out room moves and have a competent tournament staff on site carting could get it done. I'm more confident office supply prices will remain steady while luggage prices and fees will rapidly escalate as the airlines feel the burn. Going completely digital doesn't necessarily provide the answer even then though, because you know what files you HAVE to have. So people will still bring some tubs, and pay for some luggage. I would love for someone with more hands on experience procuring supplies and doing the numbers on printers etc. to come up with some more exact numbers. Whats the real solution? I agree with Will's "more prep" suggestion (indeed, its one we also brainstormed the other day independently). I think the counterbalance is fewer rounds that last longer, completely necessary when you consider how four rounds already usually takes us well into the evening. This is one area in which the clash between competition and economics is revealed- no one wants fewer debates because they provide a worse measure of how good a team is and introduce more statistical variance and luck into the equation. In general the community privileges competition and the resulting argument quality that develops as a result of debate. This is no surprise. People enjoy winning. People like to be pushed. Suggestions for measures to make debate a little less competitive fall prey to several arguments A) A hobbesian dilemma- if everyone else is working all the time, you too must also, otherwise your elim day stay will be nasty, poor, brutish and short B) The digital genie is out of the analog bottle- now that we can research all the time anywhere, its going to happen. Debate now has much more and quality on site work than it did in the past. The ethos of competitiveness that underlines are community can be seen in the travel schedules- many teams privilege large national tournaments with the best competition and center their season around those tournaments, round robins, first round opportunities etc. Combine the thirst for victory with easily available Internet Tubes for extensive research opportunities and we have, in some senses, a perfect storm in our community pushing us ever closer to professionalization. Therefore we don't want to do ANYTHING that cuts down on our argument quality and our chance of success. We invest our entire days and college careers and professional careers into this activity. Fewer tubs, more printers, less rounds, fewer national tournaments all DIRECTLY threaten to water down the competititiveness which we have recently obtained at an unprecedented level. There is a reason it was so good to be Aff back in the day- a dumb aff could not as easily be immediately destroyed with one competent researcher and a WiFi connection. I've made comments to people in the past about how I think debate isn't quite social enough but I'm willing to admit: it won't ever be as social as it was, and thats ok! But we still have to do something to make travel more affordable. If we dont want to cut down on our argument quality, I think there is one solution. Make divisions. Bring back a sense of pride and community and belonging at a more local level to refuse the Prisoner's Dilemma that makes most regional touraments less competitive. All it takes is one team deciding that the regional that weekend is less appealing than another tournament farther away to evacuate that regional tournament. We could on any given weekend have 3 or 4 highly competitive good tournaments instead of one really good one. So here's an admittedly immodest proposal, but one that, at first blush, I think holds a lot of appeal: Cut down on major national tournaments. Maybe only two in the first semester instead of the 4 we have now? Turn other major national tournaments into "super regionals" and get together various consortiums, or divisions that will agree to all travel to the same tournaments. So instead of the GSU and Gonzaga sort of split along with UNI on the first couple weeks of the season, you could do maybe 4 tournaments: One out West One at GSU One in the Midwest One on the upper east coast. Figuring out where to site these tournaments to maximize drivability would seem imperative. So then maybe a couple weekends later you have the first national tournament. The regional tournaments were places for teams to get a feel, get some debates in. A couple weekends later do another regional. Then finish the semester up with another national. If its financially doable to keep our current travel schedule, I'm for it. I think its great. There are opportunities for regional travel that some teams take advantage of, and more should. But if the current nationally focused travel schedule becomes a financial burden for too many squads, we should think about a national scale down and an emphasis on regionalism to cut costs. The competitive expense will, I think, be less than everyone anticipates. Look at the D3 tournament every year- that thing is savage. Imagine a few larger scale tournaments like that that included first round candidates. Northeast tournaments with Towson, Dartmouth, Harvard, Mary Washington, Richmond, NY schools, Rochester, Vermont and many other teams from those districts. Midwest tournaments with throwdowns between Iowa, MSU, Kansas, NU, UNI, Conc, Minny, Auggie, Kstate, Emporia, and many more. Great Western competitiions between Gonzaga, Berkeley, Chico, Fullerton, UNLV, ASU, USC etc. What does everyone think? PJ --- On Tue, 7/22/08, William J Repko wrote: > From: William J Repko > Subject: [eDebate] Quick reaction on two tub experiment > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 9:46 AM > ...busy at debate camp, but wanted to quickly chime-in . > > 1. Kudos to Ryan -- airline developments are going to hit > our debate > community like a ton of bricks. We tend to "steal good > ideas" from one > another in a very ad-hoc, slow way. > > If there's a silver bullet that can cut-down costs, > please share. > > ... if this discussion helps formulate one, then it's > more-than worth it. > > 2. Not to place a sour note on Ryan's post (it's > important and I am a fan), > but I wanted to react to the portion of his email that > spoke to an episode > involving the MSU team. Specifically, I caution folks > against citing MSU as > a model of "a team that did just fine without > tubs". > > Background: > > a) Were all 29 of MSU's tubs temporarily lost in > transit to Austin ?.. > > Yes > > b) Was MSU able to "get by" ?... > > ...umm...sorta... > > c) Why doesn't this provide concrete proof that the > community could operate > w/o tubs or solely with electronic resources ?... > > First -- It's taxing in many little ways. > > printers only go so fast; printers enjoy jamming and > breaking; the office > supply center opens at 8am (not 7am when cartridge # 5 runs > out); opponents > can only disclose so much (in the status quo); teams worry > about many > contingencies -- so too much pre-round time is spent > printing instead of > coaching /prepping. > > I would go so far as to say that the first day of UT-A -- > while enjoyably > challenging in a sick sort of way -- would be a very bad > blueprint for > professional sanity. It may have been the most trying day > of my debate life > and I am positive the other MSU coaches and students would > echo that > sentiment. Needing to print or "produce" a file > before everyone would drive > a lot of either towards hyper-generics or from the activity > altogether. > > Second -- I'm not sure we could have done it all on Day > two or three. > > 4 *pre-sets* made things feasible.... When things are not > pre-set, then > every debate without tubs becomes that way you feel when > you dashing to > print off that preposterous request right before an elim > round. > > Third-- Having a larger team was an asset -- more teammates > to borrow > from... more people to aid with printing ,etc. > > > Truth be told, I don't think it's a very workable > adjustment under the > current set of norms. > > *If* the community is forced by the market to go > "tubless", then we may need > to consider adding the following items to the discussion: > > a) Do we need to add considerably more prep time into the > debate itself ?.. > This might be used for printing ev, jumping ev to the > opponent, finding the > paper file that stored in the "common ev room", > etc. > > This could have the positive externality of allowing > debaters (not coaches) > to research wildly-untrue arguments during the debate -- > tempering the > concern that many have about new Affs, silly > hyper-generics, etc. > > b) In an era of Aff bias, should we re-visit the norm of > neg disclosure ?.. > > This would be a huge adjustment -- fraught with problems. > But, it would > hedge against team A trying to manipulate the fact that > Team B is "unlikely > to have a paper copy of X".... > > ... More generally, I encourage people to view the > "tub-crunch" as an > opportunity -- not just a burden. It could constitute an > opportunity to > improve certain things about the activity -- but only to > the extent that the > community can agree on what our activity should look like, > which we often > cannot. > > Back to cap-and-trade, > > Will > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From uwgdebate Tue Jul 22 11:56:02 2008 From: uwgdebate (michael hester) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:56:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Travel issues Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70807220956l73f3b991y3618d1c574dfb6a@mail.gmail.com> 1) De-emphasizing national circuit travel is already underway and i like it. as the director of a tournament that could potentially be affected, i STILL like it. West Coast teams choosing Gonzaga over GSU, Midwest teams choosing Miami over UWG, the growth of the Texas two-step as an alternative to the West Coast swing. ALL of these are good. this isn't the 1970's. the establishment of edebate, the Wiki, and in general the web that is world wide, means that we can reduce national travel w/o an equivalent reduction in knowledge of what arguments are being run by teams everywhere. (more robust regional travel also facilitates the growth of new/young debate programs in those regions). 2) Less Tubs Good, Top Down Regulations Bad. i'm not in favor of tournament requirements on how much ev my teams can bring. the SQ is proving that teams that are efficient with their ev can be successful. i prefer modeling over command&control regulations. 3) Tuna, aka Dr. Snider, aka "Video Killed the Radio Star", showed the way to another solution years ago: Video-Conferencing of Debates. Distance education is already the rage within higher ed. it's only a matter of time before someone in upper administration asks the debate team why they need tens of thousands of dollars to travel when courses are taught over the web. especially when teams start asking for more money for "third laptops" in their budget requests. as a proponent of the unique advantages of face-to-face communication (and swank hotels), i'm not recommending this as a substitute for SQ travel. but someone will soon. hester On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Veronica Guevara < veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com> wrote: > Denver University, a small program with a small budget but big talent, has > done this for at least 4 or 5 years. They did it to reduce costs associated > with printing and copying. They carry all their files on their laptop, they > carry a printer and some paper. They carry a copy of the 1AC and plan text > and I think these days they have most of their major 1NC shells ready to go > to. It's feasible, but they have gotten resistance from competitors. Some > have even made arguments about how Denver's tech is elitist. Often times, > those shells being read against them off of a laptop. They are incredibly > vulnerable to technical difficulties and the solution to that may be to have > back ups that could keep rounds running a little behind schedule. The folks > who have debated and coached for Denver probably have better insights into > the process. > > To deal with equity claims, they've tried a number of set ups. I remember > judging a Denver team at Texas a few years ago and they brought a third > laptop that which was a very barebones system for their opponents to access > anything they wanted. There were definitely glitches like the power cord > shorted if it moved, but it worked. Now they hand over their jump drives to > whomever asks, which functionally gives their opponent access to every > single one of their files which can all be downloaded during the course of a > debate. They shrug it off and take it in stride but they do get some > static. So it's not ideal but I think it would be much more workable when > the contraints of taking multiple tubs hits those with perhaps more > influence than a smaller program. Plus one laptop or one printer going out > would be less of a hassle if more people also used that system. I do have > to say that travelling is really tough on a printer and I don't know how > many programs could afford disposable printers. > > I know Jim Hanson has an awesome database set up for Whitman's files. > Weber digitized its files two years ago. We carry one tub or less (sometimes > a backpack) with what we need but we still roll with the confidence to deal > with a backfile check because we have our warming, dedev files etc on a jump > drive and each team and coach carry one. We also fly the great greyhound of > the skies, Southwest airlines, every time it's even possible because they > have no extra fees. > > The more drastic change that may occur as market forces push debate to > evolve could be a diminished emphasis on the national circuit, most of which > happens in my old backyard of D6. Cross country airfares are unspeakable. > I run the numbers on every major national tournament whether it's on our > schedule or not at least once a month in the off season. Ga State travel is > up over $1200 from last year per team and that's just the airfare and hotel > to say nothing of the rising costs to feed folks, the new judging > requirement which we'll meet but it means we sell less judging which in turn > we use to pay registration, and the banquet fees which makes > that registration tab very hefty (believe me our budget does not have our > debaters eating ANY meal for $25/head), then there's car rental and gas for > that car, etc. This is after Joe and Mike have done everything they could to > be conscientious and deal with operating costs as best they can. Some of > the numbers I ran are just obscene and those numbers don't include the best > or cushiest itineraries and they certainly do not include tournament hotels, > which are categorically struck from consideration. > > We treat teams who don't/can't attend the big shin digs as pariahs or as if > their programs just aren't serious about competing or they diminish that > teams' accomplishments because they're running from competition. Teams > without exposure get seeded lower for prelim debates, their speaker points > are affected because they have less exposure to the judging pool. We'd love > to have every prebid applicant in the country in D9 or D2 or D1 and often. > Instead the West exports its best debaters to compete out East because it's > minimally necessary to be considered competitive and they wouldn't be our > best debaters if they didn't. But if the number of tournaments that created > those opportunities increased and diversified in geography we would either > all equally share the burden of travel or we could each compete within our > geographic proximity with maybe 1 national fall tournament, 1 national > spring tournament, CEDA and the NDT -- now that's utopian! :) (or for some > folks a dystopia, I guess) > > I heart D6 & West Coast Love to all. > > > > *Veronica M. Guevara* > ** > *Weber State University* > *Department of Communication* > *1605 University Circle* > *Ogden, UT 84408* > ** > ** > > > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:24:32 -0500 > From: rwgallow at samford.edu > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Thought Experiment: Two Tub Limit > > > > What if, instead of saying that "schools must supply 5 rounds of judging > for every team..." a tournament invitation instead said..."EVIDENCE > REQUIREMENTS. Teams are prohibited from bringing more than 2 tubs of > evidence to contest rounds." > > I mention this because the market may essentially be forcing such a system > upon us anyway. With airlines cracking down on extra baggage and the high > costs of travel than AK mentions, the burden of carrying extra tubs may > force innovative solutions to our heavy packing needs. > > So my query is: what would you do, either as a squad or a coach, if a > tournament your team HAD to attend (for whatever reason that means to you) > banned the carrying of more than two tubs. Some initial ideas: > > *Rich Edwards wrote an article in the Rostrum a few years back on the idea > of a team using one tub, a laptop, and a printer. Is the technology > currently available to essentially "print as you go?" I heard rumor that > the MSU squad essentially debated under this system the first day at Texas, > without tubs, printing as they went. Is this feasible, partially feasible, > or utterly utopian? I ask those with more tech experience and the debaters > who debate in an era where file printing/card printing in rounds is common. > > *Jim Hanson has apparently claimed that we are only a few years away from > tubs being obsolete. What do he and others think about moving to two tubs? > > *Would this encourage the carrying of a "third laptop" so teams could share > evidence with the other team? I've heard this as a possible tech > solution--teams bring a third laptop and evidence the other team needs to > read that was read off the computer could be flash drived to the third > computer for the other team/judge to read. > > *Could there be an "evidence room" in each building for squads to stash the > "squad copy" of certain backfiles? In other words, instead of every team > from a large squad carrying their "backfile check" answers could an evidence > storage room for the team copy be put in a building and teams get one "time > out" to go raid the evidence storehouse. Likely infeasible, but a thought. > > *Would this encourage or discourage negative disclosure of arguments that > might require a heavy printing burden? Would teams be tempted to run > certain arguments in a gambit that "they don't have answers to this > printed?" > > *Is it feasible that tournaments could supply some back-up printers in case > of emergency? > > *Would teams become less reliant on evidence and more reliant upon > analytics? Would judges be amenable to the transition? My guess is that > the "tech solutions" are more likely. > > Two last thoughts: > > One answer to the thought experiment is to essentially cheat and re-define > tub to mean "bankers box" or something huge that isn't a tub. Hoping people > play by the rules in responses to encourage a discussion as to how squads > could rely on technological solutions and/or less evidence to bring to > tournaments. > > Second, this is not a serious proposal for tournaments to move to, but > rather a question about what would happen if the market essentially forces a > system upon us like this. More curious about what would occur if we were > forced as a community to consider a world with substantially less tubs. > > Just designed as a thought experiment to see what would happen in a world > with less tubs. > > Ryan > > ------------------------------ > Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. Help protect > your kids. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/bcfef529/attachment.htm From hansonjb Tue Jul 22 11:54:35 2008 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:54:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Quick reaction on two tub experiment References: <172475.51484.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8F042199D5CE4544A871F3AD9C567A71@JimHansonPC> I have been working on a paperless debating system for several years and it unfortunately keeps getting delayed. we did do a bunch of tests of it in april and may and it is getting closer but it is not quite there. the basics of it: --each debater has a laptop connected to another laptop (used to share evidence with the other team). --you organize and read your evidence on your laptop and when you finish reading a position (a document), you press a key and it transfers the document to the other laptop --of course, all files are electronic (although, if you wanted, you could have some files be paper, eg ones you use frequently) the problems: --organizing the files so that they can be easily updated for the whole team when new research comes in --the macro for the key and its wireless connectivity needs to be bulletproofed; that is what is stalled right now --organizing the files when preparing for the speeches--windows does not make organizing open files easy (we are using taskbar shuffle which is insufficient) --various and sundry other items cost issues: --the files are standard word documents (you can ocr files and make them text documents) --you do not need expensive hardware; windows xp and 512mb ram will do you fine --the extra laptop can be an old duster --new, quite decent laptops can be got for $500 to $600 these days--compare to the costs of traveling tubs/printing/larger rental vehicle costs over a 2 to 3 year period of owning that laptop tech backup issues during the round --yep, you'll need to have extension cords, surge protectors, backup plans for failure, etc. if I could get our tech services to finish the macro and I could get a program that will organize the open files and then if I can get time to test this out, in my opinion, we will be ready to go in 2009. my team may not agree with that assessment :) but that's my view. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------------------------------------------- From: "Paul Johnson" Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:18 AM To: ; "William J Repko" Subject: Re: [eDebate] Quick reaction on two tub experiment Funny this comes up now, it was the topic of conversation between the Miami staff for an hour long drive to a Reds game. In other news, the Miami staff is extremely lame. BUT I think the tub crunch issue is a helpful spot at which to articulate the collision that is occurring in contemporary debate- one that finds the arc of ultra-competitiveness clashing with the arc of financial and institutional concerns. We have never before been able to produce so much evidence because of the "digital turn" in debate. However, travel costs are skyrocketing as never before with no end in sight (airlines are poorly run, oil prices are high, we don't have the necessary travel infrastructure developed for reasonable alternatives, like regional rail). Simply put, cost overruns with new baggage policies and rising ticket prices will prove disastrous. This is also not an issue that only affects small schools- bigger squads have bigger costs, and when the economy contracts everyone's funding is, by and large, less secure. The real different in effect is geographic- schools that can drive to more tournaments, by and large, feel this squeeze less than a squad that has to fly everywhere. Could the digital revolution provide the answer? Numbers need to be crunched. Specifically, how much in terms of printer, paper, and computer costs does a team incur going almost digital? Are the savings radical? When you consider each team travels with probable a minimum of 3 tubs in the status quo, with escalating costs for each, will printing expenses for a squad of three teams exceed the costs of luggage? American for example charges a total of 40 dollars for two bags- if this squad has two teams, one with say, 3 tubs and one with 4, you're looking at an additional 135 dollars. A whole ream of paper costs what, 30 bucks? Pick up a standard brother printer and assume since you're going totally digital you'll need several cartridges. thats prolly about 135 there, with cartridges and paper together. Right now, thats kind of a wash. Also carts- will we still need those? One idea is to just have everyone toss into a general fund for the schools that host tournaments to just purchase carts. If you figure out room moves and have a competent tournament staff on site carting could get it done. I'm more confident office supply prices will remain steady while luggage prices and fees will rapidly escalate as the airlines feel the burn. Going completely digital doesn't necessarily provide the answer even then though, because you know what files you HAVE to have. So people will still bring some tubs, and pay for some luggage. I would love for someone with more hands on experience procuring supplies and doing the numbers on printers etc. to come up with some more exact numbers. Whats the real solution? I agree with Will's "more prep" suggestion (indeed, its one we also brainstormed the other day independently). I think the counterbalance is fewer rounds that last longer, completely necessary when you consider how four rounds already usually takes us well into the evening. This is one area in which the clash between competition and economics is revealed- no one wants fewer debates because they provide a worse measure of how good a team is and introduce more statistical variance and luck into the equation. In general the community privileges competition and the resulting argument quality that develops as a result of debate. This is no surprise. People enjoy winning. People like to be pushed. Suggestions for measures to make debate a little less competitive fall prey to several arguments A) A hobbesian dilemma- if everyone else is working all the time, you too must also, otherwise your elim day stay will be nasty, poor, brutish and short B) The digital genie is out of the analog bottle- now that we can research all the time anywhere, its going to happen. Debate now has much more and quality on site work than it did in the past. The ethos of competitiveness that underlines are community can be seen in the travel schedules- many teams privilege large national tournaments with the best competition and center their season around those tournaments, round robins, first round opportunities etc. Combine the thirst for victory with easily available Internet Tubes for extensive research opportunities and we have, in some senses, a perfect storm in our community pushing us ever closer to professionalization. Therefore we don't want to do ANYTHING that cuts down on our argument quality and our chance of success. We invest our entire days and college careers and professional careers into this activity. Fewer tubs, more printers, less rounds, fewer national tournaments all DIRECTLY threaten to water down the competititiveness which we have recently obtained at an unprecedented level. There is a reason it was so good to be Aff back in the day- a dumb aff could not as easily be immediately destroyed with one competent researcher and a WiFi connection. I've made comments to people in the past about how I think debate isn't quite social enough but I'm willing to admit: it won't ever be as social as it was, and thats ok! But we still have to do something to make travel more affordable. If we dont want to cut down on our argument quality, I think there is one solution. Make divisions. Bring back a sense of pride and community and belonging at a more local level to refuse the Prisoner's Dilemma that makes most regional touraments less competitive. All it takes is one team deciding that the regional that weekend is less appealing than another tournament farther away to evacuate that regional tournament. We could on any given weekend have 3 or 4 highly competitive good tournaments instead of one really good one. So here's an admittedly immodest proposal, but one that, at first blush, I think holds a lot of appeal: Cut down on major national tournaments. Maybe only two in the first semester instead of the 4 we have now? Turn other major national tournaments into "super regionals" and get together various consortiums, or divisions that will agree to all travel to the same tournaments. So instead of the GSU and Gonzaga sort of split along with UNI on the first couple weeks of the season, you could do maybe 4 tournaments: One out West One at GSU One in the Midwest One on the upper east coast. Figuring out where to site these tournaments to maximize drivability would seem imperative. So then maybe a couple weekends later you have the first national tournament. The regional tournaments were places for teams to get a feel, get some debates in. A couple weekends later do another regional. Then finish the semester up with another national. If its financially doable to keep our current travel schedule, I'm for it. I think its great. There are opportunities for regional travel that some teams take advantage of, and more should. But if the current nationally focused travel schedule becomes a financial burden for too many squads, we should think about a national scale down and an emphasis on regionalism to cut costs. The competitive expense will, I think, be less than everyone anticipates. Look at the D3 tournament every year- that thing is savage. Imagine a few larger scale tournaments like that that included first round candidates. Northeast tournaments with Towson, Dartmouth, Harvard, Mary Washington, Richmond, NY schools, Rochester, Vermont and many other teams from those districts. Midwest tournaments with throwdowns between Iowa, MSU, Kansas, NU, UNI, Conc, Minny, Auggie, Kstate, Emporia, and many more. Great Western competitiions between Gonzaga, Berkeley, Chico, Fullerton, UNLV, ASU, USC etc. What does everyone think? PJ --- On Tue, 7/22/08, William J Repko wrote: > From: William J Repko > Subject: [eDebate] Quick reaction on two tub experiment > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 9:46 AM > ...busy at debate camp, but wanted to quickly chime-in . > > 1. Kudos to Ryan -- airline developments are going to hit > our debate > community like a ton of bricks. We tend to "steal good > ideas" from one > another in a very ad-hoc, slow way. > > If there's a silver bullet that can cut-down costs, > please share. > > ... if this discussion helps formulate one, then it's > more-than worth it. > > 2. Not to place a sour note on Ryan's post (it's > important and I am a fan), > but I wanted to react to the portion of his email that > spoke to an episode > involving the MSU team. Specifically, I caution folks > against citing MSU as > a model of "a team that did just fine without > tubs". > > Background: > > a) Were all 29 of MSU's tubs temporarily lost in > transit to Austin ?.. > > Yes > > b) Was MSU able to "get by" ?... > > ...umm...sorta... > > c) Why doesn't this provide concrete proof that the > community could operate > w/o tubs or solely with electronic resources ?... > > First -- It's taxing in many little ways. > > printers only go so fast; printers enjoy jamming and > breaking; the office > supply center opens at 8am (not 7am when cartridge # 5 runs > out); opponents > can only disclose so much (in the status quo); teams worry > about many > contingencies -- so too much pre-round time is spent > printing instead of > coaching /prepping. > > I would go so far as to say that the first day of UT-A -- > while enjoyably > challenging in a sick sort of way -- would be a very bad > blueprint for > professional sanity. It may have been the most trying day > of my debate life > and I am positive the other MSU coaches and students would > echo that > sentiment. Needing to print or "produce" a file > before everyone would drive > a lot of either towards hyper-generics or from the activity > altogether. > > Second -- I'm not sure we could have done it all on Day > two or three. > > 4 *pre-sets* made things feasible.... When things are not > pre-set, then > every debate without tubs becomes that way you feel when > you dashing to > print off that preposterous request right before an elim > round. > > Third-- Having a larger team was an asset -- more teammates > to borrow > from... more people to aid with printing ,etc. > > > Truth be told, I don't think it's a very workable > adjustment under the > current set of norms. > > *If* the community is forced by the market to go > "tubless", then we may need > to consider adding the following items to the discussion: > > a) Do we need to add considerably more prep time into the > debate itself ?.. > This might be used for printing ev, jumping ev to the > opponent, finding the > paper file that stored in the "common ev room", > etc. > > This could have the positive externality of allowing > debaters (not coaches) > to research wildly-untrue arguments during the debate -- > tempering the > concern that many have about new Affs, silly > hyper-generics, etc. > > b) In an era of Aff bias, should we re-visit the norm of > neg disclosure ?.. > > This would be a huge adjustment -- fraught with problems. > But, it would > hedge against team A trying to manipulate the fact that > Team B is "unlikely > to have a paper copy of X".... > > ... More generally, I encourage people to view the > "tub-crunch" as an > opportunity -- not just a burden. It could constitute an > opportunity to > improve certain things about the activity -- but only to > the extent that the > community can agree on what our activity should look like, > which we often > cannot. > > Back to cap-and-trade, > > Will > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From james.maritato Tue Jul 22 13:57:59 2008 From: james.maritato (James Maritato) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:57:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Technology, Tubs and Other Such Fun Message-ID: Well it seems I now have to break my summerlong commitment not to post on edebate because we are having a discussion of technology. Veronica describes Denver's use of jumpdrives as part of their way to manage equity in rounds and I feel the need to chime in here to say that those USB drives are likely the BEST solution for debate programs. Implementations of wireless, databases, etc. are all excess, contribute to higher costs to run rounds, increase hardware overhead, and take far longer to develop than technology that already exists. A few arguments for jumpdrives: 1. You will be extremely hard pressed to find any piece of technology that is more portable or universally accepted across computing platforms than a USB jump drive. You don't even need to pack it in a bag, or your carry-on. It fits in your pocket. 2. Jumpdrives are resilient. I know MANY of you on this list who have done unthinkable things to your jumpdrives (washed them, dropped them in beer, let a debate partner chew on them, dropped them in the toilet, etc. etc.) The complete lack of moving parts in a jump drive basically guarantee that if you let it dry out it will still work. 3. If you need a laptop to access some wifi based network for evidence sharing, you ALREADY HAVE everything you need to read files from a jumpdrive in front of you. 4. If you are concerned about not having to jump files between computers, bring in the extra laptop some have already mentioned and plug each team's jump drive into it. Poof -- same centralized evidence sharing technology, no networking. 5. Most college IT departments will hammer you if you set up rogue wireless LANS -- even if they don't connect to the campus network. This is because..... 6. The more wireless traffic you create, the shittier the service gets regardless of what LAN you are associated to. The 2.4 Ghz band has 11 channels. Too much wireless traffic = packet collision, signal loss, and congestion. 7. Jump drives are cheap cheap cheap. I challenge you to find a wifi/database based set up that costs as much (or less) to setup, use, and maintain - both in terms of time and money. 8. So-called "netbooks" that simply run Operating Systems like Ubuntu or Linux are now on the market for less than $400, as are Net tablets. If you are really that hung up on having another computer for the sake of equity you can easily acquire one of these machines on ebay for even less. They don't run Windows, but they do have PDF capability and local copies of Google Docs and Spreadsheets installed. Put your jump drive in, load up your files, and read them right off a tablet you can hand to the other team. The reality is, 99% of debaters do not need today's top of the line hardware to debate. You can get cheap hardware that will do the job just fine. Whether that's the same machine you play Unreal Tournament on at home is a completely different situation. 9. Building materials and design affect WiFi coverage. WiFi drifts down, not up, and is stopped by all sorts of things (concrete, thick plaster, certain metals create a "Faraday Cage" effect that traps the signal in drop ceilings). Someone on your debate team had better spend some time doing coverage mapping before the tournament so you know where there is WiFi and where there isn't. Now, a few questions for all of you: 1. Who are the teams with the magical ability to produce everything they do in OCR? We at Marist are not fortunate enough to have an army of people who can do this with our backfiles, or who can consistently do it (without fixing plenty of spelling errors created by crappy OCR software!) on a reasonable timetable. How are you making this happen? What magical piece of technology can I requisition that will cost me less than $5000 that will do this with books and not barf over the bends in the book spine? 2. How do you account for the amount of time that needs to be invested in a browser based solution that will work across all browsers and follow update practices by major OS developers? I am not trying to nay-say Jim Hanson's idea, but I can only see something like this working in a world where there is an active development team in place to correct bugs/issues, etc. that will arise when Internet Explorer 7 Service Pack 1B (or whatever) comes out and alters some functionality of the software. Web browsers, even within platform, are notoriously non-compliant to HTML and W3C standards. 3. Who will provide the on-site tech support for students attempting to access these wifi based solutions? Would each tournament director need to work with their Information Technology department (that at many unis wants to bill the requesting department or program) to make sure all ran correctly on the technical side of things? Will each tournament director need to build in some sort of redundant network such that if the evidence sharing network dies they have a fall back? Who funds and maintains that? 4. Why does answering any of these questions make sense in a world where we already have a cheap and effective way of moving files? Implement Jim Hansonesque genius in the long term -- and use the jumpdrives in the short term folks. Jimbo -actually has a degree in this crap -has been the network administrator of an Urgent Care Clinic for over ten years -bills out heavily for this kind of knowledge -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/24ad8692/attachment.htm From akbiotech Tue Jul 22 14:17:17 2008 From: akbiotech (Art Kyriazis) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:17:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] One Solution to Tubs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4886323D.104@comcast.net> Re: One Solution to Tubs By Dr. Arthur Kyriazis, M.S.E. Molecular Biologist, Consultant, debate coach/judge for more than thirty years. Looking to go Paperless? Try a little Schumpeterian Destructive Innovation... Here's a startup by one of my Harvard schoolmates which will take all your paper and convert it into data automatically: http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/07/20/is_paper_piling_up_send_it_off_to_pixily/ Is paper piling up? Send it off to Pixily Netflix-style start-up scans, digitizes, and, if needed, shreds your files Email |Print |Single Page | Text size ? + By Scott Kirsner July 20, 2008 Before 1998, when Netflix Inc. began operations, the idea that your mailbox might somehow compete with the neighborhood video store was inconceivable. This week, a newly launched Waltham company will try to convince consumers and small-business owners that the mailbox can render the filing cabinet obsolete. Like Netflix, Pixily has bright, durable envelopes. The difference is that instead of sending DVDs, you send Pixily a stack of documents you'd like digitized. Pixily scans the documents for you, makes the text searchable online, and then either returns the documents to you by mail or shreds them and recycles the paper. A plan that allows you to send in one envelope a month (envelopes can contain up to 50 items) costs $14.95 per month. Will it fly? Pixily, with its sprightly name, is onto something big. Who doesn't have a desk cluttered with papers that can't be thrown away, but might never be glanced at again? Shipping them off for scanning and storage eliminates the job of figuring out where to file them, solves the problem of limited space in a file cabinet, and yet makes them more accessible than they'd ever be in a manila folder - just perform a Google-style search to locate that old credit card bill you're looking for. But to make Pixily a household word, the company's founders will need to crack the riddle that faces every entrepreneurial venture: How do you generate awareness and acquire customers without spending yourself into oblivion? Pixily's founders, led by its chief executive, Prasad Thammineni, have built complex Web systems for companies like Fidelity Investments, Sun Microsystems , and IBM . They left their consulting lives behind last July to begin working on Pixily, forgoing salaries to try to get the idea off the ground. Big companies, Thammineni says, spend about $5 billion annually on document storage and archiving, but there isn't a solution targeted to small businesses, home office workers, and individuals. In February, they started a test of the service with about 200 users. Here's how it works. On Monday, I sent a package containing six sheets to Pixily, using a bright green Tyvek envelope the start-up had provided. I didn't need to add postage, and the envelope had already been coded with my customer ID, so Pixily knew who had sent it. On Tuesday afternoon, e-mail from the company let me know my documents were available online. When I logged in, I saw images of the documents I'd sent in, which included a hotel receipt, a page of typed notes, and a printed-out PowerPoint slide. All the text had become searchable - except for the handwritten stuff - and I could give the documents labels (like "travel receipts") to organize and categorize them.Continued... Page 2 of 2 -- I could choose to share one of the documents via e-mail, download it in PDF form, or print it out again. On Wednesday, the originals were back in my mailbox, along with a new envelope for future use. (Users can also upload already-digitized documents from their hard drives to Pixily for archiving.) Thammineni says the company has lots of thoughts on what to do next. Pixily eventually plans to offer higher-end pricing plans that encourage users to send entire file cabinets of documents, so they can "go paperless." They'll set up direct relationships with your bank or wireless company, and pull e-statements automatically into your Pixily account each month. The two big costs of the business are postage (between $2.50 and $3.00 each time a full envelope travels to and from Pixily) and labor, since humans must feed the documents into a scanner and then package them for return. But Pixily's founders say they've built a decent profit margin into the company's monthly fees, which range from $14.95 for one envelope and 3,000 pages of online storage to $59.95 for four envelopes a month and 12,000 pages of storage. For now, scanning takes place at Pixily's Waltham office. But as it grows, the company, which has six employees, may have to add scanning centers around the country, similar to Netflix's DVD distribution depots. Pixily has economized by building the entire website atop Amazon.com 's Web services infrastructure, which allows a company to rent servers and storage space as needed. "That gives us the flexibility to add more servers based on our demand, as traffic increases, instead of paying for them at the outset," says chief technology officer Vikram Kumar. Though Pixily has had a few conversations with venture capitalists over the past year, it hasn't raised any venture capital. One possible reason: A key challenge will be finding a marketing strategy that clicks with customers, and none of the founders have marketing backgrounds. Rob Go, a principal at Boston-based Spark Capital, has met with the company and tried the service. "I really liked the consumer value proposition," Go says. But "there's an activation energy that you need, because there are such high hurdles to trusting a company to handle your documents." How much is it going to cost to acquire these customers? Netflix, for example, pays about $30 for every customer it acquires, and that figure is down from as high as $47. An interesting experiment would be for Pixily to distribute a first trial envelope free at Staples or Office Depot , to see if that wins loyal, long-term subscribers. With the investors Pixily has made pitches to choosing to stay on the sidelines, it's up to the company to figure out how to generate momentum on its own, without a multimillion-dollar marketing budget or a well-paid marketing exec. For now, they'll be spending frugally to pay for ads on Google and trying to get free press coverage. "Our plan is to show traction in the market, and understand the cost of acquiring customers," Thammineni says. Then, they may make a second try at raising venture capital. No one ever said it was easy to start a revolution in the mailbox. /Scott Kirsner can be reached at kirsner at pobox.com ./ ? Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: akbiotech.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 397 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/aefd2998/attachment.vcf From hansonjb Tue Jul 22 14:25:09 2008 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:25:09 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Technology, Tubs and Other Such Fun References: Message-ID: <5F9557B9C85142AB996D5ABBD146A4A8@whitman.edu> some quick answers--I'm running a debate camp so don't have a lot of time: 1. usb's are fine--the main issue is that debaters want the files during the speeches just like when they give the evidence to the other team when they read them. constantly handing the usb back and forth isn't so good for that. 2. the ocr--two $100-$150 epson scanners and ms office 2003 and you are set to go; your team shares the scanners. the ocr in office 2003 is actually quite good--yes, a few books/articles with weird/small fonts aren't going to scan; a few books on the edges won't work so well. but the vast majority will and yes you do have to make minor edits after you scan it in. for those of you starting out, it appears like a daunting task and it will seem slower at first. once you start doing it, you'll see the many, many benefits of doing it. 3. the system I'm working on relies on ad-hoc networks and so browser changes won't affect it. office vba changes will; possibly windows xp to vista to windows 7 will change it. I don't know about the interference with other networks in the area--I don't think it would interfere and as I remember I've discussed this with our tech people but I guess I need to know more on that. jimbo--maybe you can tell me if ad-hocs would interfere with a school's network. the other way is to have the laptops use a special type of ethernet cord (which we have used; it works but the cables are kind of messy). 4. tech support for students/coaches at tournaments. that is a definite issue. usb's are easier on that although there are still going to be tech issues. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: James Maritato Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:57 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Technology, Tubs and Other Such Fun Well it seems I now have to break my summerlong commitment not to post on edebate because we are having a discussion of technology. Veronica describes Denver's use of jumpdrives as part of their way to manage equity in rounds and I feel the need to chime in here to say that those USB drives are likely the BEST solution for debate programs. Implementations of wireless, databases, etc. are all excess, contribute to higher costs to run rounds, increase hardware overhead, and take far longer to develop than technology that already exists. A few arguments for jumpdrives: 1. You will be extremely hard pressed to find any piece of technology that is more portable or universally accepted across computing platforms than a USB jump drive. You don't even need to pack it in a bag, or your carry-on. It fits in your pocket. 2. Jumpdrives are resilient. I know MANY of you on this list who have done unthinkable things to your jumpdrives (washed them, dropped them in beer, let a debate partner chew on them, dropped them in the toilet, etc. etc.) The complete lack of moving parts in a jump drive basically guarantee that if you let it dry out it will still work. 3. If you need a laptop to access some wifi based network for evidence sharing, you ALREADY HAVE everything you need to read files from a jumpdrive in front of you. 4. If you are concerned about not having to jump files between computers, bring in the extra laptop some have already mentioned and plug each team's jump drive into it. Poof -- same centralized evidence sharing technology, no networking. 5. Most college IT departments will hammer you if you set up rogue wireless LANS -- even if they don't connect to the campus network. This is because..... 6. The more wireless traffic you create, the shittier the service gets regardless of what LAN you are associated to. The 2.4 Ghz band has 11 channels. Too much wireless traffic = packet collision, signal loss, and congestion. 7. Jump drives are cheap cheap cheap. I challenge you to find a wifi/database based set up that costs as much (or less) to setup, use, and maintain - both in terms of time and money. 8. So-called "netbooks" that simply run Operating Systems like Ubuntu or Linux are now on the market for less than $400, as are Net tablets. If you are really that hung up on having another computer for the sake of equity you can easily acquire one of these machines on ebay for even less. They don't run Windows, but they do have PDF capability and local copies of Google Docs and Spreadsheets installed. Put your jump drive in, load up your files, and read them right off a tablet you can hand to the other team. The reality is, 99% of debaters do not need today's top of the line hardware to debate. You can get cheap hardware that will do the job just fine. Whether that's the same machine you play Unreal Tournament on at home is a completely different situation. 9. Building materials and design affect WiFi coverage. WiFi drifts down, not up, and is stopped by all sorts of things (concrete, thick plaster, certain metals create a "Faraday Cage" effect that traps the signal in drop ceilings). Someone on your debate team had better spend some time doing coverage mapping before the tournament so you know where there is WiFi and where there isn't. Now, a few questions for all of you: 1. Who are the teams with the magical ability to produce everything they do in OCR? We at Marist are not fortunate enough to have an army of people who can do this with our backfiles, or who can consistently do it (without fixing plenty of spelling errors created by crappy OCR software!) on a reasonable timetable. How are you making this happen? What magical piece of technology can I requisition that will cost me less than $5000 that will do this with books and not barf over the bends in the book spine? 2. How do you account for the amount of time that needs to be invested in a browser based solution that will work across all browsers and follow update practices by major OS developers? I am not trying to nay-say Jim Hanson's idea, but I can only see something like this working in a world where there is an active development team in place to correct bugs/issues, etc. that will arise when Internet Explorer 7 Service Pack 1B (or whatever) comes out and alters some functionality of the software. Web browsers, even within platform, are notoriously non-compliant to HTML and W3C standards. 3. Who will provide the on-site tech support for students attempting to access these wifi based solutions? Would each tournament director need to work with their Information Technology department (that at many unis wants to bill the requesting department or program) to make sure all ran correctly on the technical side of things? Will each tournament director need to build in some sort of redundant network such that if the evidence sharing network dies they have a fall back? Who funds and maintains that? 4. Why does answering any of these questions make sense in a world where we already have a cheap and effective way of moving files? Implement Jim Hansonesque genius in the long term -- and use the jumpdrives in the short term folks. Jimbo -actually has a degree in this crap -has been the network administrator of an Urgent Care Clinic for over ten years -bills out heavily for this kind of knowledge -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/0e2a9c63/attachment.htm From james.maritato Tue Jul 22 15:13:06 2008 From: james.maritato (James Maritato) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:13:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Response to Jim Hanson - Technology Tubs, etc. Message-ID: Jim, I get the merits of the organizational/presentation elements of the software you're working on - so no intended disrespect on what I expect will be a pretty cool end result :-). In regards to ad-hoc traffic, I think it's difficult to make the determination about how Ad-Hoc traffic will create disruption without the context of the site in mind. Granted, at Whitman, the awesome power of institutionally funded Cisco routers probably handle this issue just fine -- but what about those random round robins that happen in hotels where the wireless network is literally running off a series of daisy chained linksys routers and repeaters - or any of the others that I've taken the liberty to log in to with the default user name and password available on the manufacturer's webpage? I don't think the concept is bad inherently, but I think the problem here is not knowing where the system will be used. The system can be designed and work at Whitman, but such a system can't necessarily account for the WiFi infrastructure at other locations. At Marist, for instance, our WiFi tends to range from awesome to abysmal, dependent on your location in buildings and the location of other equipment. A few years ago I did a home networking install for a client and set up each of the household computers with wireless access to print and file servers for family photos, music, movies, etc. About a year later the client called me and told me that within the last week everything stopped working -- print jobs would fail, WiFi access points would disappear, etc. It took me a while to figure out what had changed. The client had gone out and replaced all of her telephones in the house with brand new cordless 2.4 GHz Panasonic phones. Each time the phones would poll their base station, the wireless router would become flooded with traffic and subsequently reset. Now I recognize this story is decontextual from debate, or colleges, and involves home-user intended hardware -- but the moral of the story I learned from a week of tracking down the problem was that WiFi is still unpredictable. The Wireless N standard, for instance, is not even a standard -- it's a proposed standard upon which different manufacturers have added their own functionality. The same can be said for many of the early 802.11 G cards still circulating in laptops that have never had their firmware upgraded. The big problem here is that it takes several years for these standards to actually become standardized, by which time the industry has moved on to developing a new standard. So again, I understand why debaters would want an organizational system that's easy to use and share with others -- but I'm not inherently sure why that system should be WiFi based via AdHoc networks. At that point, you're also asking me to take down my firewalls and give you intimate access to my machine (and if you are running any version of Windows with enough savvy I can have everything on your hard drive). Each of our machines must be running in both client and server mode (because your set up describes no intermediary server), etc. I'm not saying this sort of set up doesn't work in a standardized environment - but at a debate tournament you are likely to run into any of the following things: 1. Operating Systems: Microsoft Windows - in at least 5 Varieties -- XP Home Service packs 1-3, XP Professional Service Packs 1-3, Vista (Home, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate), Vista SP1 (Home, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate), Windows 2000 (in some cases) SP 1-4. Mind you, each of these talks to its fellow brethren in different ways, especially when setting up AdHoc networks. Each also has different capabilities for shared folder functionality, etc. (ie. Windows Home versions come with Simple File Sharing enabled, while Professional does not offer the option. Vista Home is incapable of accepting or creating too many connections as its networking stack has been crippled to force business users to pay for the more expensive version, etc.) Now also add in the Mac users and the random Linux debater. 2. Varying levels of firewall settings and third-party security software. In a collegiate environment, IT loads standard builds that have been tested for compatibility. Firewall settings are maintained from centralized locations, or provided through hardware solutions. Just because we are all running Windows does not mean someone in the debate isn't also running ZoneAlarm or some other firewall program that is going to block that AdHoc connection. 3. Varying levels of user competence. This is self explanatory. 4. Malware. At the point that there's an Ad-Hoc connection established between two windows computers it is very easy for malware designed to jump between machines via Windows File Sharing to make the leap. There is no intermediary router - just a few machines connected in a one-to-many fashion. Ad-Hoc networks are like running around in Siberia with no clothes on. You only establish them with other clients whose security you trust. 5. Collision. Ad-Hoc networks are notorious for packet collision because all of the nodes on the network are actively competing with one another for access to the network medium (in this case, the 802.11 band). This is why wireless access points and routers are important -- they manage the flow of packets to eliminate collision. Thus Ad-Hoc networks are spottier, slower, and less reliable than other WiFi configurations. Given all these issues, I am still left hard pressed to understand how dealing with this issues in a debate round could be any faster than passing a jump drive. Jim, I am not suggesting you change your project, but if the big benefit here is loading the content pre-round and having it organized, why couldn't this be done through a Java application (which would be platform independent) that loaded the content from jumpdrives or DVD-R before the round? What is more inconvenient -- passing the jumpdrive before the judge arrives, or trying to configure Ad-Hoc connections between four different computers while determining why this Dell laptop won't talk to that HP laptop because their drivers are old and don't conform to standards, or trying to figure out why we each need to connect to each other one at a time to move the files? Doesn't this take just as long as passing the jump drive, but create even more convolution for someone who lacks the technical savvy? Again, no disrespect towards your efforts, I just sort of feel like this discussion of technology might over emphasize the need for "big tech" when some of these problems can be solved in the short term. The lack of WiFi based debate software shouldn't be a reason for people to continue trying to travel all those tubs. There are workarounds available. And thanks for the OCR tips -- I've been using this set up with our business class HP Scanner/Printer/Fax, but I have been sadly disappointed with its ability to OCR without the extra time taken to proofread and fix what the computer simply can't read (for instance - debater markup in books!) :-) Jimbo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/147acbea/attachment.htm From mmangus Tue Jul 22 15:16:06 2008 From: mmangus (Michael Mangus) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:16:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Technology, Tubs and Other Such Fun In-Reply-To: <5F9557B9C85142AB996D5ABBD146A4A8@whitman.edu> References: <5F9557B9C85142AB996D5ABBD146A4A8@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <76690070-0EFB-4F77-9F85-91E691B405DB@gmail.com> This is purely a technical aside, but I'm skeptical of any system which requires a VBA to work. The F/OSS supporters among us - surely there are at least a few - won't have an easy time with a VBA-based system. OpenOffice is great, but last I checked its VBA support was dicey at best. If you don't care about the free software hippies, then remember that VBA support was dropped from Office 2008 for OS X in favor of AppleScript (any of you who have templates that depend on Word macros are about to find this out the hard way if you haven't already). They've promised to put it back in with a later update. Until then - and probably even after then - the growing Mac community will be forced to stay with the trash heap of Office for Mac 04. I'm also concerned about opening up my computer's firewall to strange laptops. Call me paranoid, but I would want a very detailed description of how the ad-hoc network system works before I'd be willing to participate. Using the "standard Word document" format even scares me a little given the ".docx" interoperability nightmare (which is likely to only get worse - anyone keeping up w/ the OOXML/ISO debacle?). Every consumer OS (*nix, BSD, Solaris, OS X, XP, etc) can read rich- text/html files stored on a FAT-formatted disk (e.g. your flash drive) without any 3rd party software or version/update troubles. I'm not saying we should produce our files in vi or something, but the community should not bind its technological fate to the whims of Microsoft. michael mangus pitt '10 On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Jim Hanson wrote: > some quick answers--I'm running a debate camp so don't have a lot of > time: > > 1. usb's are fine--the main issue is that debaters want the files > during the speeches just like when they give the evidence to the > other team when they read them. constantly handing the usb back and > forth isn't so good for that. > > 2. the ocr--two $100-$150 epson scanners and ms office 2003 and you > are set to go; your team shares the scanners. the ocr in office 2003 > is actually quite good--yes, a few books/articles with weird/small > fonts aren't going to scan; a few books on the edges won't work so > well. but the vast majority will and yes you do have to make minor > edits after you scan it in. for those of you starting out, it > appears like a daunting task and it will seem slower at first. once > you start doing it, you'll see the many, many benefits of doing it. > > 3. the system I'm working on relies on ad-hoc networks and so > browser changes won't affect it. office vba changes will; possibly > windows xp to vista to windows 7 will change it. I don't know about > the interference with other networks in the area--I don't think it > would interfere and as I remember I've discussed this with our tech > people but I guess I need to know more on that. jimbo--maybe you can > tell me if ad-hocs would interfere with a school's network. the > other way is to have the laptops use a special type of ethernet cord > (which we have used; it works but the cables are kind of messy). > > 4. tech support for students/coaches at tournaments. that is a > definite issue. usb's are easier on that although there are still > going to be tech issues. > > jim :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > From: James Maritato > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:57 AM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Technology, Tubs and Other Such Fun > > Well it seems I now have to break my summerlong commitment not to > post on edebate because we are having a discussion of technology. > > Veronica describes Denver's use of jumpdrives as part of their way > to manage equity in rounds and I feel the need to chime in here to > say that those USB drives are likely the BEST solution for debate > programs. Implementations of wireless, databases, etc. are all > excess, contribute to higher costs to run rounds, increase hardware > overhead, and take far longer to develop than technology that > already exists. > > > A few arguments for jumpdrives: > > 1. You will be extremely hard pressed to find any piece of > technology that is more portable or universally accepted across > computing platforms than a USB jump drive. You don't even need to > pack it in a bag, or your carry-on. It fits in your pocket. > 2. Jumpdrives are resilient. I know MANY of you on this list who > have done unthinkable things to your jumpdrives (washed them, > dropped them in beer, let a debate partner chew on them, dropped > them in the toilet, etc. etc.) The complete lack of moving parts in > a jump drive basically guarantee that if you let it dry out it will > still work. > 3. If you need a laptop to access some wifi based network for > evidence sharing, you ALREADY HAVE everything you need to read files > from a jumpdrive in front of you. > 4. If you are concerned about not having to jump files between > computers, bring in the extra laptop some have already mentioned and > plug each team's jump drive into it. Poof -- same centralized > evidence sharing technology, no networking. > 5. Most college IT departments will hammer you if you set up rogue > wireless LANS -- even if they don't connect to the campus network. > This is because..... > 6. The more wireless traffic you create, the shittier the service > gets regardless of what LAN you are associated to. The 2.4 Ghz band > has 11 channels. Too much wireless traffic = packet collision, > signal loss, and congestion. > 7. Jump drives are cheap cheap cheap. I challenge you to find a > wifi/database based set up that costs as much (or less) to setup, > use, and maintain - both in terms of time and money. > 8. So-called "netbooks" that simply run Operating Systems like > Ubuntu or Linux are now on the market for less than $400, as are Net > tablets. If you are really that hung up on having another computer > for the sake of equity you can easily acquire one of these machines > on ebay for even less. They don't run Windows, but they do have PDF > capability and local copies of Google Docs and Spreadsheets > installed. Put your jump drive in, load up your files, and read > them right off a tablet you can hand to the other team. The reality > is, 99% of debaters do not need today's top of the line hardware to > debate. You can get cheap hardware that will do the job just fine. > Whether that's the same machine you play Unreal Tournament on at > home is a completely different situation. > 9. Building materials and design affect WiFi coverage. WiFi drifts > down, not up, and is stopped by all sorts of things (concrete, thick > plaster, certain metals create a "Faraday Cage" effect that traps > the signal in drop ceilings). Someone on your debate team had > better spend some time doing coverage mapping before the tournament > so you know where there is WiFi and where there isn't. > > > Now, a few questions for all of you: > > 1. Who are the teams with the magical ability to produce everything > they do in OCR? We at Marist are not fortunate enough to have an > army of people who can do this with our backfiles, or who can > consistently do it (without fixing plenty of spelling errors created > by crappy OCR software!) on a reasonable timetable. How are you > making this happen? What magical piece of technology can I > requisition that will cost me less than $5000 that will do this with > books and not barf over the bends in the book spine? > 2. How do you account for the amount of time that needs to be > invested in a browser based solution that will work across all > browsers and follow update practices by major OS developers? I am > not trying to nay-say Jim Hanson's idea, but I can only see > something like this working in a world where there is an active > development team in place to correct bugs/issues, etc. that will > arise when Internet Explorer 7 Service Pack 1B (or whatever) comes > out and alters some functionality of the software. Web browsers, > even within platform, are notoriously non-compliant to HTML and W3C > standards. > 3. Who will provide the on-site tech support for students > attempting to access these wifi based solutions? Would each > tournament director need to work with their Information Technology > department (that at many unis wants to bill the requesting > department or program) to make sure all ran correctly on the > technical side of things? Will each tournament director need to > build in some sort of redundant network such that if the evidence > sharing network dies they have a fall back? Who funds and maintains > that? > 4. Why does answering any of these questions make sense in a world > where we already have a cheap and effective way of moving files? > > Implement Jim Hansonesque genius in the long term -- and use the > jumpdrives in the short term folks. > > > Jimbo > -actually has a degree in this crap > -has been the network administrator of an Urgent Care Clinic for > over ten years > -bills out heavily for this kind of knowledge > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/44d0277a/attachment.htm From james.maritato Tue Jul 22 15:47:14 2008 From: james.maritato (James Maritato) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:47:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ah, There You Are Random Linux Debater! Message-ID: :-) I agree with much of what Mike Mangus says here. There are a lot of OpenOffice users (several on my team) who simply do not get Visual Basic functionality because they don't want to pay the premium price for it. Jimbo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/332a4e39/attachment.htm From hansonjb Tue Jul 22 16:01:12 2008 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:01:12 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Response to Jim Hanson - Technology Tubs, etc. References: Message-ID: <31B026DDA49649D098C644F56D6A7310@whitman.edu> all legit issues. this area is not my expertise; I have discussed these issues generally with our tech people and will further including going through what you have written here. the one part I will respond to is the passing of the files and setting up a system to deal with that. our debaters have been very adamant that they want the files to be passed during the speech in a way that approximates how paper files gets passed currently. the files they put together for a speech get created during prep time--a tough, time crunched period, something that cannot happen before the round starts (only the 1ac and 1nc could do that and even the 1nc would be somewhat in doubt). so any solution that followed along these lines would need to be able to share these files after they got prepared and pretty much immediately after they got presented during a speech. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: James Maritato Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:13 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Response to Jim Hanson - Technology Tubs, etc. Jim, I get the merits of the organizational/presentation elements of the software you're working on - so no intended disrespect on what I expect will be a pretty cool end result :-). In regards to ad-hoc traffic, I think it's difficult to make the determination about how Ad-Hoc traffic will create disruption without the context of the site in mind. Granted, at Whitman, the awesome power of institutionally funded Cisco routers probably handle this issue just fine -- but what about those random round robins that happen in hotels where the wireless network is literally running off a series of daisy chained linksys routers and repeaters - or any of the others that I've taken the liberty to log in to with the default user name and password available on the manufacturer's webpage? I don't think the concept is bad inherently, but I think the problem here is not knowing where the system will be used. The system can be designed and work at Whitman, but such a system can't necessarily account for the WiFi infrastructure at other locations. At Marist, for instance, our WiFi tends to range from awesome to abysmal, dependent on your location in buildings and the location of other equipment. A few years ago I did a home networking install for a client and set up each of the household computers with wireless access to print and file servers for family photos, music, movies, etc. About a year later the client called me and told me that within the last week everything stopped working -- print jobs would fail, WiFi access points would disappear, etc. It took me a while to figure out what had changed. The client had gone out and replaced all of her telephones in the house with brand new cordless 2.4 GHz Panasonic phones. Each time the phones would poll their base station, the wireless router would become flooded with traffic and subsequently reset. Now I recognize this story is decontextual from debate, or colleges, and involves home-user intended hardware -- but the moral of the story I learned from a week of tracking down the problem was that WiFi is still unpredictable. The Wireless N standard, for instance, is not even a standard -- it's a proposed standard upon which different manufacturers have added their own functionality. The same can be said for many of the early 802.11 G cards still circulating in laptops that have never had their firmware upgraded. The big problem here is that it takes several years for these standards to actually become standardized, by which time the industry has moved on to developing a new standard. So again, I understand why debaters would want an organizational system that's easy to use and share with others -- but I'm not inherently sure why that system should be WiFi based via AdHoc networks. At that point, you're also asking me to take down my firewalls and give you intimate access to my machine (and if you are running any version of Windows with enough savvy I can have everything on your hard drive). Each of our machines must be running in both client and server mode (because your set up describes no intermediary server), etc. I'm not saying this sort of set up doesn't work in a standardized environment - but at a debate tournament you are likely to run into any of the following things: 1. Operating Systems: Microsoft Windows - in at least 5 Varieties -- XP Home Service packs 1-3, XP Professional Service Packs 1-3, Vista (Home, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate), Vista SP1 (Home, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate), Windows 2000 (in some cases) SP 1-4. Mind you, each of these talks to its fellow brethren in different ways, especially when setting up AdHoc networks. Each also has different capabilities for shared folder functionality, etc. (ie. Windows Home versions come with Simple File Sharing enabled, while Professional does not offer the option. Vista Home is incapable of accepting or creating too many connections as its networking stack has been crippled to force business users to pay for the more expensive version, etc.) Now also add in the Mac users and the random Linux debater. 2. Varying levels of firewall settings and third-party security software. In a collegiate environment, IT loads standard builds that have been tested for compatibility. Firewall settings are maintained from centralized locations, or provided through hardware solutions. Just because we are all running Windows does not mean someone in the debate isn't also running ZoneAlarm or some other firewall program that is going to block that AdHoc connection. 3. Varying levels of user competence. This is self explanatory. 4. Malware. At the point that there's an Ad-Hoc connection established between two windows computers it is very easy for malware designed to jump between machines via Windows File Sharing to make the leap. There is no intermediary router - just a few machines connected in a one-to-many fashion. Ad-Hoc networks are like running around in Siberia with no clothes on. You only establish them with other clients whose security you trust. 5. Collision. Ad-Hoc networks are notorious for packet collision because all of the nodes on the network are actively competing with one another for access to the network medium (in this case, the 802.11 band). This is why wireless access points and routers are important -- they manage the flow of packets to eliminate collision. Thus Ad-Hoc networks are spottier, slower, and less reliable than other WiFi configurations. Given all these issues, I am still left hard pressed to understand how dealing with this issues in a debate round could be any faster than passing a jump drive. Jim, I am not suggesting you change your project, but if the big benefit here is loading the content pre-round and having it organized, why couldn't this be done through a Java application (which would be platform independent) that loaded the content from jumpdrives or DVD-R before the round? What is more inconvenient -- passing the jumpdrive before the judge arrives, or trying to configure Ad-Hoc connections between four different computers while determining why this Dell laptop won't talk to that HP laptop because their drivers are old and don't conform to standards, or trying to figure out why we each need to connect to each other one at a time to move the files? Doesn't this take just as long as passing the jump drive, but create even more convolution for someone who lacks the technical savvy? Again, no disrespect towards your efforts, I just sort of feel like this discussion of technology might over emphasize the need for "big tech" when some of these problems can be solved in the short term. The lack of WiFi based debate software shouldn't be a reason for people to continue trying to travel all those tubs. There are workarounds available. And thanks for the OCR tips -- I've been using this set up with our business class HP Scanner/Printer/Fax, but I have been sadly disappointed with its ability to OCR without the extra time taken to proofread and fix what the computer simply can't read (for instance - debater markup in books!) :-) Jimbo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080722/2e4f6419/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Wed Jul 23 09:51:46 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:51:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Work Being Done at Baltimore College Debate Cooperative Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807230751j1b98cbf2obb7b13fac0973b0f@mail.gmail.com> So far we have these files done Da Black Papers(Burch) Food Prices DA and answers(Stannard) Primativism (Risko) Anthro (Schatz) CAFO's Aff (Stannard) CAFO's Neg (Stannard) This is still being worked on in wave 1 Stephen Davis/Beth Skinner The Pink Aesthetic Becoming Black Anti "Community" Framewor/k Weak Messianism BioDiesel Rapture Disad Some Brand of Nihilism Matt Stannard/Les Philips Managerialism K Marxism Politics Ruralism CAFO's and Food Prices Updates Andy Ellis/Daryl Burch The 3rd world Black Rage Aff/FW Black Subsidies Pic Racial Contract Prisons Aff/Neg Genelogy of Cotton Online-John Rief Framework - general framework answers and compiling debate articles to upload to sharepoint. Hemp Good Friere (crafted based on the topic with agriculture links) Population (both a generic backfile and specific arguments for both sides of the rez) Trade - mostly the protectionism good/bad debate with Europe, Asia, and WTO scenarios A kritik yet to be named A discourse kritik (probably along the lines of anthro) If you would like to join us or see the work we are doing you can join the online coop and get the files for $150 at http://www.theyoursstore.com/product.sc?categoryId=3&productId=31 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080723/ba4d7bb7/attachment.htm From aaron.olney Wed Jul 23 13:05:16 2008 From: aaron.olney (Aaron Olney) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:05:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Response to Jim Hanson - Technology Tubs, etc. In-Reply-To: <31B026DDA49649D098C644F56D6A7310@whitman.edu> References: <31B026DDA49649D098C644F56D6A7310@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <6b016c190807231105v39816f02s7505e1fadde60657@mail.gmail.com> If everyone just slowed the heck down, there would be no need for file sharing. On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Jim Hanson wrote: > all legit issues. this area is not my expertise; I have discussed these > issues generally with our tech people and will further including going > through what you have written here. > > the one part I will respond to is the passing of the files and setting up a > system to deal with that. our debaters have been very adamant that they want > the files to be passed during the speech in a way that approximates how > paper files gets passed currently. the files they put together for a speech > get created during prep time--a tough, time crunched period, something that > cannot happen before the round starts (only the 1ac and 1nc could do that > and even the 1nc would be somewhat in doubt). so any solution that followed > along these lines would need to be able to share these files after they got > prepared and pretty much immediately after they got presented during a > speech. > > jim :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > *From:* James Maritato > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:13 PM > *To:* edebate at ndtceda.com > *Subject:* [eDebate] Response to Jim Hanson - Technology Tubs, etc. > > Jim, > I get the merits of the organizational/presentation elements of the > software you're working on - so no intended disrespect on what I expect will > be a pretty cool end result :-). > > In regards to ad-hoc traffic, I think it's difficult to make the > determination about how Ad-Hoc traffic will create disruption without the > context of the site in mind. Granted, at Whitman, the awesome power of > institutionally funded Cisco routers probably handle this issue just fine -- > but what about those random round robins that happen in hotels where the > wireless network is literally running off a series of daisy chained linksys > routers and repeaters - or any of the others that I've taken the liberty to > log in to with the default user name and password available on the > manufacturer's webpage? I don't think the concept is bad inherently, but I > think the problem here is not knowing where the system will be used. The > system can be designed and work at Whitman, but such a system can't > necessarily account for the WiFi infrastructure at other locations. At > Marist, for instance, our WiFi tends to range from awesome to abysmal, > dependent on your location in buildings and the location of other equipment. > > A few years ago I did a home networking install for a client and set up > each of the household computers with wireless access to print and file > servers for family photos, music, movies, etc. About a year later the > client called me and told me that within the last week everything stopped > working -- print jobs would fail, WiFi access points would disappear, etc. > It took me a while to figure out what had changed. The client had gone out > and replaced all of her telephones in the house with brand new cordless 2.4 > GHz Panasonic phones. Each time the phones would poll their base station, > the wireless router would become flooded with traffic and subsequently > reset. > > Now I recognize this story is decontextual from debate, or colleges, and > involves home-user intended hardware -- but the moral of the story I learned > from a week of tracking down the problem was that WiFi is still > unpredictable. The Wireless N standard, for instance, is not even a > standard -- it's a proposed standard upon which different manufacturers have > added their own functionality. The same can be said for many of the early > 802.11 G cards still circulating in laptops that have never had their > firmware upgraded. The big problem here is that it takes several years for > these standards to actually become standardized, by which time the industry > has moved on to developing a new standard. > > So again, I understand why debaters would want an organizational system > that's easy to use and share with others -- but I'm not inherently sure why > that system should be WiFi based via AdHoc networks. At that point, you're > also asking me to take down my firewalls and give you intimate access to my > machine (and if you are running any version of Windows with enough savvy I > can have everything on your hard drive). Each of our machines must be > running in both client and server mode (because your set up describes no > intermediary server), etc. I'm not saying this sort of set up doesn't work > in a standardized environment - but at a debate tournament you are likely to > run into any of the following things: > > 1. Operating Systems: Microsoft Windows - in at least 5 Varieties -- XP > Home Service packs 1-3, XP Professional Service Packs 1-3, Vista (Home, Home > Premium, Business, Ultimate), Vista SP1 (Home, Home Premium, Business, > Ultimate), Windows 2000 (in some cases) SP 1-4. Mind you, each of these > talks to its fellow brethren in different ways, especially when setting up > AdHoc networks. Each also has different capabilities for shared folder > functionality, etc. (ie. Windows Home versions come with Simple File > Sharing enabled, while Professional does not offer the option. Vista Home > is incapable of accepting or creating too many connections as its networking > stack has been crippled to force business users to pay for the more > expensive version, etc.) Now also add in the Mac users and the random Linux > debater. > > 2. Varying levels of firewall settings and third-party security software. > In a collegiate environment, IT loads standard builds that have been tested > for compatibility. Firewall settings are maintained from centralized > locations, or provided through hardware solutions. Just because we are all > running Windows does not mean someone in the debate isn't also running > ZoneAlarm or some other firewall program that is going to block that AdHoc > connection. > > 3. Varying levels of user competence. This is self explanatory. > > 4. Malware. At the point that there's an Ad-Hoc connection established > between two windows computers it is very easy for malware designed to jump > between machines via Windows File Sharing to make the leap. There is no > intermediary router - just a few machines connected in a one-to-many > fashion. Ad-Hoc networks are like running around in Siberia with no clothes > on. You only establish them with other clients whose security you trust. > > 5. Collision. Ad-Hoc networks are notorious for packet collision because > all of the nodes on the network are actively competing with one another for > access to the network medium (in this case, the 802.11 band). This is why > wireless access points and routers are important -- they manage the flow of > packets to eliminate collision. Thus Ad-Hoc networks are spottier, slower, > and less reliable than other WiFi configurations. > > Given all these issues, I am still left hard pressed to understand how > dealing with this issues in a debate round could be any faster than passing > a jump drive. Jim, I am not suggesting you change your project, but if the > big benefit here is loading the content pre-round and having it organized, > why couldn't this be done through a Java application (which would be > platform independent) that loaded the content from jumpdrives or DVD-R > before the round? What is more inconvenient -- passing the jumpdrive before > the judge arrives, or trying to configure Ad-Hoc connections between four > different computers while determining why this Dell laptop won't talk to > that HP laptop because their drivers are old and don't conform to standards, > or trying to figure out why we each need to connect to each other one at a > time to move the files? Doesn't this take just as long as passing the jump > drive, but create even more convolution for someone who lacks the technical > savvy? > > Again, no disrespect towards your efforts, I just sort of feel like this > discussion of technology might over emphasize the need for "big tech" when > some of these problems can be solved in the short term. The lack of WiFi > based debate software shouldn't be a reason for people to continue trying to > travel all those tubs. There are workarounds available. > > And thanks for the OCR tips -- I've been using this set up with our > business class HP Scanner/Printer/Fax, but I have been sadly disappointed > with its ability to OCR without the extra time taken to proofread and fix > what the computer simply can't read (for instance - debater markup in > books!) :-) > > Jimbo > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080723/849c363f/attachment.htm From veronica_m_barreto Wed Jul 23 13:28:01 2008 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Guevara) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:28:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Travel issues In-Reply-To: <2e0f7ba70807220956l73f3b991y3618d1c574dfb6a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2e0f7ba70807220956l73f3b991y3618d1c574dfb6a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry this response is a bit late. I'm a lot slower about edebate, which I guess is a good thing :) My question I guess is not whether teams are making the choices to forego more of the national tournaments for closer competition...most pretty much have to. The concern is whether community competitive expectations are following the necessity. When folks sit down to review prebid or second round applicants, will they consider that rising travel costs and continued resource constraints means that teams have to seek out competition closer to home, at tournaments where competition may be more moderate and the pool is smaller? How does a finals appearance at a regional tournament match up with a doubles appearance at a major? I know there are many formulas We already know that it's possible to get a prebid going to less than 5 tournaments as long as those tournaments are majors (no problem with that), but could a team excel and outperform their competition at 10 mid major/local tournaments and still reliably get a second round? Do prebid-likely teams perceptually run a gamble going to mid-major tournaments ("nothing to gain, but everything to lose")? As long as I have been in debate, there have always been perceived minimums for national travel for teams who wanted to be considered amongst certain competitive tiers, whatever those goals may be. Have the expectations really caught up to the realities of travel? I hope so. Veronica M. Guevara Weber State University Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:56:02 -0400From: uwgdebate at gmail.comTo: veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.comSubject: Re: Travel issuesCC: rwgallow at samford.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com 1) De-emphasizing national circuit travel is already underway and i like it. as the director of a tournament that could potentially be affected, i STILL like it. West Coast teams choosing Gonzaga over GSU, Midwest teams choosing Miami over UWG, the growth of the Texas two-step as an alternative to the West Coast swing. ALL of these are good. this isn't the 1970's. the establishment of edebate, the Wiki, and in general the web that is world wide, means that we can reduce national travel w/o an equivalent reduction in knowledge of what arguments are being run by teams everywhere. (more robust regional travel also facilitates the growth of new/young debate programs in those regions). 2) Less Tubs Good, Top Down Regulations Bad. i'm not in favor of tournament requirements on how much ev my teams can bring. the SQ is proving that teams that are efficient with their ev can be successful. i prefer modeling over command&control regulations. 3) Tuna, aka Dr. Snider, aka "Video Killed the Radio Star", showed the way to another solution years ago: Video-Conferencing of Debates. Distance education is already the rage within higher ed. it's only a matter of time before someone in upper administration asks the debate team why they need tens of thousands of dollars to travel when courses are taught over the web. especially when teams start asking for more money for "third laptops" in their budget requests. as a proponent of the unique advantages of face-to-face communication (and swank hotels), i'm not recommending this as a substitute for SQ travel. but someone will soon. hester On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Veronica Guevara wrote: Denver University, a small program with a small budget but big talent, has done this for at least 4 or 5 years. They did it to reduce costs associated with printing and copying. They carry all their files on their laptop, they carry a printer and some paper. They carry a copy of the 1AC and plan text and I think these days they have most of their major 1NC shells ready to go to. It's feasible, but they have gotten resistance from competitors. Some have even made arguments about how Denver's tech is elitist. Often times, those shells being read against them off of a laptop. They are incredibly vulnerable to technical difficulties and the solution to that may be to have back ups that could keep rounds running a little behind schedule. The folks who have debated and coached for Denver probably have better insights into the process. To deal with equity claims, they've tried a number of set ups. I remember judging a Denver team at Texas a few years ago and they brought a third laptop that which was a very barebones system for their opponents to access anything they wanted. There were definitely glitches like the power cord shorted if it moved, but it worked. Now they hand over their jump drives to whomever asks, which functionally gives their opponent access to every single one of their files which can all be downloaded during the course of a debate. They shrug it off and take it in stride but they do get some static. So it's not ideal but I think it would be much more workable when the contraints of taking multiple tubs hits those with perhaps more influence than a smaller program. Plus one laptop or one printer going out would be less of a hassle if more people also used that system. I do have to say that travelling is really tough on a printer and I don't know how many programs could afford disposable printers. I know Jim Hanson has an awesome database set up for Whitman's files. Weber digitized its files two years ago. We carry one tub or less (sometimes a backpack) with what we need but we still roll with the confidence to deal with a backfile check because we have our warming, dedev files etc on a jump drive and each team and coach carry one. We also fly the great greyhound of the skies, Southwest airlines, every time it's even possible because they have no extra fees. The more drastic change that may occur as market forces push debate to evolve could be a diminished emphasis on the national circuit, most of which happens in my old backyard of D6. Cross country airfares are unspeakable. I run the numbers on every major national tournament whether it's on our schedule or not at least once a month in the off season. Ga State travel is up over $1200 from last year per team and that's just the airfare and hotel to say nothing of the rising costs to feed folks, the new judging requirement which we'll meet but it means we sell less judging which in turn we use to pay registration, and the banquet fees which makes that registration tab very hefty (believe me our budget does not have our debaters eating ANY meal for $25/head), then there's car rental and gas for that car, etc. This is after Joe and Mike have done everything they could to be conscientious and deal with operating costs as best they can. Some of the numbers I ran are just obscene and those numbers don't include the best or cushiest itineraries and they certainly do not include tournament hotels, which are categorically struck from consideration. We treat teams who don't/can't attend the big shin digs as pariahs or as if their programs just aren't serious about competing or they diminish that teams' accomplishments because they're running from competition. Teams without exposure get seeded lower for prelim debates, their speaker points are affected because they have less exposure to the judging pool. We'd love to have every prebid applicant in the country in D9 or D2 or D1 and often. Instead the West exports its best debaters to compete out East because it's minimally necessary to be considered competitive and they wouldn't be our best debaters if they didn't. But if the number of tournaments that created those opportunities increased and diversified in geography we would either all equally share the burden of travel or we could each compete within our geographic proximity with maybe 1 national fall tournament, 1 national spring tournament, CEDA and the NDT -- now that's utopian! :) (or for some folks a dystopia, I guess) I heart D6 & West Coast Love to all. Veronica M. Guevara Weber State University Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:24:32 -0500From: rwgallow at samford.eduTo: edebate at ndtceda.comSubject: [eDebate] Thought Experiment: Two Tub Limit What if, instead of saying that "schools must supply 5 rounds of judging for every team..." a tournament invitation instead said..."EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS. Teams are prohibited from bringing more than 2 tubs of evidence to contest rounds."I mention this because the market may essentially be forcing such a system upon us anyway. With airlines cracking down on extra baggage and the high costs of travel than AK mentions, the burden of carrying extra tubs may force innovative solutions to our heavy packing needs. So my query is: what would you do, either as a squad or a coach, if a tournament your team HAD to attend (for whatever reason that means to you) banned the carrying of more than two tubs. Some initial ideas:*Rich Edwards wrote an article in the Rostrum a few years back on the idea of a team using one tub, a laptop, and a printer. Is the technology currently available to essentially "print as you go?" I heard rumor that the MSU squad essentially debated under this system the first day at Texas, without tubs, printing as they went. Is this feasible, partially feasible, or utterly utopian? I ask those with more tech experience and the debaters who debate in an era where file printing/card printing in rounds is common.*Jim Hanson has apparently claimed that we are only a few years away from tubs being obsolete. What do he and others think about moving to two tubs?*Would this encourage the carrying of a "third laptop" so teams could share evidence with the other team? I've heard this as a possible tech solution--teams bring a third laptop and evidence the other team needs to read that was read off the computer could be flash drived to the third computer for the other team/judge to read.*Could there be an "evidence room" in each building for squads to stash the "squad copy" of certain backfiles? In other words, instead of every team from a large squad carrying their "backfile check" answers could an evidence storage room for the team copy be put in a building and teams get one "time out" to go raid the evidence storehouse. Likely infeasible, but a thought.*Would this encourage or discourage negative disclosure of arguments that might require a heavy printing burden? Would teams be tempted to run certain arguments in a gambit that "they don't have answers to this printed?"*Is it feasible that tournaments could supply some back-up printers in case of emergency?*Would teams become less reliant on evidence and more reliant upon analytics? Would judges be amenable to the transition? My guess is that the "tech solutions" are more likely.Two last thoughts:One answer to the thought experiment is to essentially cheat and re-define tub to mean "bankers box" or something huge that isn't a tub. Hoping people play by the rules in responses to encourage a discussion as to how squads could rely on technological solutions and/or less evidence to bring to tournaments. Second, this is not a serious proposal for tournaments to move to, but rather a question about what would happen if the market essentially forces a system upon us like this. More curious about what would occur if we were forced as a community to consider a world with substantially less tubs.Just designed as a thought experiment to see what would happen in a world with less tubs.Ryan Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. Help protect your kids._______________________________________________eDebate mailing listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080723/ac34932f/attachment.htm From logan.martin Thu Jul 24 20:47:12 2008 From: logan.martin (Logan Martin) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:47:12 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless/Print-as-you-go debate Message-ID: I thought I'd chime in on this question, because, as Veronica acknowledged, Denver has had significant experience debating in all or many of the circumstances contemplated by Mr. Galloway's 'thought experiment' and might have some insights that would be useful to other programs/directors considering making changes in their polices with respect to evidence management and travel. As far as I know, we've had more experience than anyone at debating on a paperless and/or print-as-you-go system for a whole season. I'm open to be corrected if we weren't *the* first and I'm obviously not claiming that we were the first to ever think of reading a card or two off of a computer, but I'm relatively sure we broke some new ground, so consider this some considerably less speculative information on the question. Before getting into that, I want to provide the link to post by the former head coach at DU, Zach Westerfield, on how he managed to maintain an impressive national travel schedule on a budget of around $10k. http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2006-April/066490.html For those who don't know me, which is plenty of people, I'm sure, I debated for DU for 4 years (though I wasn't traveling during one of them because I was studying abroad.) I was on the team the first year that DU went all (or primarily) digital with our files for production, traveling, and competing. OUR STORY: At the beginning of the 05-06 season (China Topic), the decision was made to switch all of our evidence production and storage over to laptops. Because DU requires that all students own laptops, the initial 'access barrier' described by a few folks on this list was not an issue. Even so, given the cost of a laptop that would meet the less-demanding-than-you-would-think requirements we put on it, and considering that one could be used over the course of a four-year debate career if properly maintained (as was my experience), and considering how much more we spent the previous year in copy costs and expenses, I really don't think this is a substantial problem. The factors which led us to make the switch were not purely financial. Logistically, we simply could not move multiple teams with multiple tubs across the country when University regulations allowed us only one driver (our coach) and therefore one van. In very simple, tangible terms, the switch to laptops was essential to increasing participation on our squad. On that note, though, when we did have fewer teams to take to the tournament, switching to laptops meant we saved rental money because we could rent cars instead of vans, which were cheaper generally and could get better mileage. Being (one of) the first teams to do this, we didn't have the luxury of an 'incubation' period in which to perfect all of the hardware/software we'd be using to make it possible, nor did we have a 'transition' period in which to phase out the use of paper files over the course of a couple of seasons. We made a lot of changes, experimented back and forth with different options, got a mixed reception from judges/competitors, and had to find what worked for us by trial and error. We still haven't settled on a system and have had to lean on paper more than we originally planned. But for us, the considerations weren't hypothetical, they were real, and in the big picture, problems were pretty minimal. Our first tournament of the year on the China topic was Georgia State. At that point, we were REALLY green with the use of computers and had to deal with a lot of problems in sharing evidence with opponents, flowing, and reading off the laptop all in the same speech. When we FIRST started, we had printed the 1ac plan text, and everything else we didn't provide unless requested. We hadn't yet given sufficient thought at this point to the issue of evidence sharing in round, and so we would give our laptops w/ all cards on them to opponents after each speech during their prep time. To be reciprocal, we didn't take any cards until after a speech of our opponents, but, regardless, the whole business was pretty messy. It was at this tournament that my partner (Justin Eckstein) and I first heard a formal "reading evidence off of laptops is unfair" argument. The round in which it was deployed was pretty terrible on all sides, ours certainly included. We made arguments about this set-up being the only way we could participate in debate, to which they suggested that regional travel was a sufficient alternative (in the parlance of a debate round it "solved the majority of the impact.") At the time I took this argument rather personally, and, to a great extent, I still do. "If you can't make the round sufficiently convenient for us, go home" has always seemed to me to run counter to the values of a community which claims to care about inclusion and expanded participation. The critic that round did not share these sentiments, and in addition to voting against us explained that he just didn't see why our participation at national tournaments was an impact, remarking that "maybe [we] *should* just do regional debate." I can't and don't hold his evaluation of the arguments made in a round against him (or anyone), but I do think his rather insensitive remark pointed to a deeper issue with respect to the 'transition' to a more technology-centered debate. We can have discussions for hours upon hours, patting ourselves on the back for identifying different practical difficulties to paperless debate and how they may or may not be overcome, but fundamentally such discussions will never be too productive if they fail to acknowledge the need for a 'mindset-shift' shift among debaters/coaches/critics with what they'll consider 'tolerable' with regard to evidence access in a round. At any rate, during our first season our general feeling was that reciprocity should have governed fairness issues, and we were painfully aware of other team's concerns that we received an unfair advantage by debating/flowing/timing off of computers while they debated off of paper. Over the course of the season we did everything we could to try to address this. We began to print more and more evidence, carrying an expando with our 1ac and most of our 1nc shells with us to increase our opponent's access to files, and we would jump speeches and whole files regularly to opponents with laptops during a round so that they could use them to prepare. We later started carrying a third laptop with us, which Veronica correctly describes as an old junker, and by late in the season we could jump any cards we were going to read before each speech and gave them to opponents. We pretty much relied on the scouts' honor of opponents not to read ahead of where we were in any given speech, and I have no way of knowing how many people complied, but at that point we didn't feel like we had a better option. This approach did not, however, completely clear up all problems. Opponents often complained in or out of round that it still wasn't fair if they weren't able to view multiple cards simultaneously, or shuffle them around during prep time, or, in short, have the exact same flexibility that paper files afford. During one important round we were even (falsely) accused of jumping a different 1nc than the one we were actually reading in a round. I feel like I understand the perspective of those who think that the competitiveness/fairness/education of a round is diminished by the reduction in evidence access caused by debating paperless, but I still think such concerns are overstated. Is a paperless round going to 'feel' a bit different? Yes. Does it affect the quality of speeches given by debaters in a round? Probably. Does it necessarily diminish that quality? I sure don't think so. It's different, but it really seems like the benefits of increased participation/decreased costs substantially offset any potential deficits in this sense. As I mentioned above, however, for us this was not an abstract issue or a thought experiment, and win or lose we had to make a change if we wanted to keep playing. ROUND 2: The next season I was involved with traveling/debating at DU was this last one, 2007-2008 on the Middle East Topic. For better or for worse, my partner and I that year decided to purchase a printer (our money, not the team's) and travel with it, opting to print all of our speeches before giving them even if we'd assemble them beforehand for our own use on the laptop. This substantially reduced issues with competitor/judge complaints, although it did occasionally result in one ironic consequence. Previously, when we didn't print anything during/before a round, judges were generally lenient with us regarding preptime when we needed to jump files to the other team, and occasionally between ourselves. However, once we were printing files, something that judges are more familiar with, this lenience disappeared. I'm conflicted on what's "fair" in this respect, but I think everyone could benefit on some more clearly established guidelines one way or another on this issue if the print-as-you-go model becomes more widely adopted. I would anticipate that this might take more quickly than a completely paperless model of debate, since it's kind of a stepping stone between that and the old fashioned way. To comment on some practical stuff: 1. We made a LOT of improvements with how we used software by my senior year. We modified a version of Naveen Ramachandrappa's Word template to produce files, which made organization substantially easier, both in pre-round prep and in cutting files. (Ramachandrappa's template, with a detailed tutorial, can be found here http://www.uga.edu/~spc/debate/research_guide/). Our original approach was pretty boneheaded in hindsight; we didn't even have a basic grasp of styles vs. fonts. Often in copy-pasting files between our own computers the format of text would change dramatically, we'd lost our formatting and stuff could go pretty haywire. Using a consistent template for all of our debate stuff eliminated this problem and a dozen others. 2. It was way cheaper, and way less hassle. Even accounting for the fact that Tyler and I were not the most organized folks on the debate scene and were often printing the same few cards over and over again and again, our total paper usage wasn't even close to what it would have been if we'd been on all paper/tubs all year. I wasn't keeping track of how much we actually printed to give a very fair number, but here's a ROUGH hypothetical breakdown to illustrate the neighborhood we were in terms of printing: Start with the unrealistic assumption that we printed every card for every round fresh, including the 1ac each aff round. A REALLY HIGH estimate, from my experience, for paper per round is about 50-70 pages (2 constructives at around 25-35 pages each. Rebuttals may have a few more pages, but that's captured in the estimate. Seriously, though, I don't think we EVER printed this many pages, and those who judged us could probably vouch that we were at least as quick as the next team. Still, for those hot shots who are just light-years faster than your average bear, these numbers ought to be pretty useful.) Take that total; multiply it by 9 rounds per tournament (estimated for 6-8 prelims and one or two break rounds averaged out throughout a season. For those who are going deep every week this number's obviously a bit low, but by definition that's not a majority of debate teams across the country.) Then multiply by 12 tournaments per year. That's 60 x 9 x 12 = 6,480 pages. I'm guestimating here?but if you just took that mass of paper and didn't have to worry about dividing/filing it, I think it'd fit in one tub. Maybe two. High school camps put out evidence sets bigger than this. It's certainly not 5 or 6 tubs worth. Moreover, in practice, you're not carrying around even the full set of 6,500 pages to every tournament all year. In our experience, I know we didn't print anything NEAR this amount of paper over the course of the season. Maybe half of it. But my point is that with pretty inflated numbers, even under the absolute most inefficient conditions the print-as-you-go model for debate still massively cuts down on paper consumption. As for hassle, by the end of the last season we had one cardboard box in which to carry all of our paper. One. It was smaller than a tub. We could carry it on a plane. File management logistics, evidence moving and storage, etc. were for all intents and purposes a non-issue. 3. Reliability?Could be improved. Never in itself cost us a round, though. I really only remember my computer going out on me during one round, triples at CEDA, and we had judges who gave me the opportunity to reboot, which was unsuccessful, so I spoke from Tyler's computer and used his flow. Ideal? Obviously not. But not too terribly different from spilling water on a paper flow and having to use a partner's or other similar little in-round mishaps. I don't know what a "round ruining crash" would look like, but if it's defined as a computer failure but-for-which one would have won the round and because-of-which one had no hope of doing the same, we never had one. 4. Debating?There are a few issues we haven't fully worked out yet. The 2ac is the hardest speech to give if assembling your materials on a laptop. I became waaay better at it over the course of the year with a lot of practice, though. I found that it helped tremendously to create/organize files differently than I would if I were going to print them. A 1000 page file with a 10 page index is next to useless in physical form, but on a laptop, it means I only have to have one document open and I can more quickly click from frontline to frontline to copy into my 2ac paper to make a speech. Other than that, with most other speaker positions for most average teams there isn't a terrible loss of prep time compared to having everything on paper, especially with a little bit of practice. Even if there was, I still feel that whatever the minute loss is in terms of competitiveness/education/speech quality is outweighed by gains in convenience/efficiency/expanded participation. For us personally, it was the difference between little to no travel and a lot of national travel. Moreover, with tech advances and more widespread acceptance in the community, I would predict that these issues could easily be reduced to nil over the next few years. One other significant issue that we never completely addressed was the hassle of updating card underlining and highlighting in and after the heat of a round. While it wasn't TOO difficult to underline cards down before/during rounds, integrating this underlining back into the original file was often a chore. And we haven't yet discovered an easy tech equivalent to highlighting in multiple colors. Other side note: I'd say it was more often than not that our opponents had at least one laptop. They weren't using them as extensively as we were, most of the time, but teams who went in without ANY computer seemed to be the exception and not the rule. All in all, we finished the season having substantially scaled back the extent to which we were dependent on tech in rounds, but still were able to enjoy enormous benefits of decreased cost/aggravation associated with debating on an all-paper file system. As a few more technical hurdles get worked out, and unless we see some kind of miraculous influx of budget money (and even then it might be hard to go back), I suspect we'll continue to move away from paper-based systems and towards increasingly digital participation. ** SOME RESPONSES Mick raises a couple of concerns which I wanted to address. My initial inclination was to respond to his post in its entirety, because his fears of increased tech reliance leading to some kind of dramatic stratification seem pretty overstated. On second thought, though, many of those concerns were directed at the theoretical possibility that teams be required to use laptop-based/print-as-you-go models for debate (or, actually, just that they cut down their tub use to 2). Since I read the hypothetical as more of a tool to spur thinking than a serious proposal, I will simply trust the good judgment of any debate director not to avoid making the switch out of fears that more advantaged teams will see them doing it and start doing it better. In any real context, a sensible piece of advice seems to be this: If there's some technology or strategy that larger teams can use that smaller teams can't that gives them a competitive advantage, they're probably already using it. True, Mick responds to the "uniqueness" of this point in his post, but only by suggesting that a requirement that all debaters rely on laptops would give it uniqueness, and I am not super-interested in the nuts and bolts of such a hypothetical anyways. One or two remarks seem like they maybe go beyond that, however: MS: Lastly, this already true, but it would magnify existing background privileges. Those persons from privileged backgrounds are much more likely to be already familiar with advanced laptop applications. This sounds ridiculous but it's true: there is using MS-Word and there is *USING*MS-Word to it's full potential. Other add-on organization software and such things are much more likely to familiar to those who economic status has made technological education a much higher priority and more attainable possibility in their home communities. Ultimately, despite the privilege that pervades the debate community currently, one of the nice things is that is accessible to everyone. Maybe I am just being pessimistic but I would prefer that the community act to limit increasing the material barriers to not just participation, but *effective* participation. There are, of course, exceptions and some might argue that debate is about educating people. But call me a Luddite, but I think debate is about educating people in argument and political awareness, not in how to use a laptop. And if laptop reliance is barrier to *effective* participation then we are missing out educating the some of the people that we are supposed to be targeting in the first place. LM: We greatly enhanced our use of MS Word, Excel, and a handful of other programs over the years through trial and error. We had to learn how to do it. The education was free and a lot of it came from other debate teams like the UGA site mentioned above. For us, learning to use computers to cut cards/read off of isn't much different at all from learning to cut cards using lexis/other databases. Moreover, people from privileged backgrounds can take advantage of enhanced technology to improve their debating skills and evidence access already. This is at least in part proven by the many larger teams who have expansive digital networks/organization systems just to manage/back up their paper files. And, as you acknowledge elsewhere, teams aren't sticking with paper file systems because of some kind of egalitarian sensibility, they're doing so because they feel it maximizes their competitive edge. Heideggerian ruminations aside, debating with a 'laptop reliant' system allowed us to compete nationally on a shoestring budget. We've done so now for three seasons. We qualified to the NDT in each and broke at CEDA nats during 2. I think that qualifies as *effective* participation, but would invite anyone to tell me otherwise. Given the dramatically rising costs of travel and strains on team budgets over the last few years, I don't know how it could so easily be said that debate is 'accessible to everyone' simply in virtue of people reading their speeches off of paper instead of LCD screens and choose to carry thousands of pages around with them instead of printing only what they need when they need it. If the idea is to limit increasing material barriers to participation, maybe the community should explore being a bit more tolerant of teams who are forced to go electronic to compete. And really, do you honestly believe there is a dichotomy between learning argument and political awareness and learning to use a laptop? Couldn't this argument just as easily apply to teams who do any kind of research on a computer, not just those who read from them during rounds? A near as I can tell, neither I nor anyone else on our team has yet been successful in getting my laptop to do our arguing or learning for us. ** FINAL THOUGHTS Anyhow, for anyone else interested in increasing their use of laptops for debate and cutting down on the use of paper files, feel free to drop me a line. I don't have anywhere near the technical expertise of several others who have posted in the last few weeks, but I have had practical experience debating this way for a few years, and might be able to help. Thanks to whoever read this whole thing. All the best, Logan Martin University of Denver Class of 2008 P.S. Heidegger was a Nazi. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080724/193b3373/attachment.htm From micksouders Thu Jul 24 21:16:57 2008 From: micksouders (Michael Souders) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:16:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Travel issues Message-ID: <899735480807241916l9477586tf87832812fa90ea8@mail.gmail.com> Veronica, While increased consideration of regional tournaments would be helpful, it is already the case that a successful regional tournament record can earn you a second round bid. Consider just this year. Kansas State MZ went 2-6 at Harvard and 3-5 at Wake Forest, did not attend any of the other major tournaments, but displayed local dominance and had solid performances at regional/mid-major tournaments (UTD/UNT). They demonstrated that local dominance and regional success can turn into a respectable performance at the NDT as well. I thnk this a good example because although K-State attended a couple of major national tournaments, it seems to me that their bid was earned on the strength of the district and regional performances and good prelim record. Emporia FT attended only a two very large tournament (Texas and Wake) and earned a total of a 7-9 record there. However, they consistently reached and won elimination rounds at the district level (UCO, KCKCC, Baylor) and regional level (UTD, UNT, UNLV) tournaments. Again, from an outsider's perspective I would consider success at the local/regional level was the key to qualification. It seems to me that the formula for a second round if you attend most national tournaments it to go 4-4 at all of them?or at least all but one. But sorting yourself out from the others applicants who go 4-4 requires that you beat the teams you are supposed to beat?i.e., that district teams that either do not travel to the national circuit or that consistently do not reach the 4-4 mark. This means 4-4 caliber must go local because these occur in the local and regional tournaments. Maybe once or twice a prelim, but more importantly in the paneled second, third, or fourth elim, you will face another 4-4 caliber team and you need to beat them. Beat several 4-4 teams you will obtain wins against other applicants and likely against those who will qualify via districts. If you cannot travel much national circuit tournaments, you need to regularly beat those teams that do go to national circuit and do go 4-4 there. Demonstrate your regional status is not a result of lack of quality but for others reasons (unknown to the evaluators). What's nice is that the new Brushke systems allow you to quickly compare teams against other second-round applicants and against those already qualified. Get some quality wins at home and your applications will stand out. Bolster that with a substantially above .500 record and you probably have yourself an NDT, no national travel needed. My GUESS is that voters consider these factors: 1. Prelim record (as a baseline) 2. Record against other 2nd Round applicants. 3. Record against qualifiers. 4. Record at national tournaments. 5. Local/regional dominance (5-6 prelim wins, 2+ elim wins, etc). The order might be wrong, but I don't think the factors are wrong. (Perhaps a voter could speak to this?) Obviously, without the travel you cannot get #4, but 2 and 3 will check reluctance if you do well at them. Of course, my ideas present a problem. What if no one in your district travels to the national circuit and therefore you cannot get wins against those persons going 4-4 at national circuit tournaments? This is unlikely, but it might happen. To some extent, if the voters are deprived of criteria then they can hardly be blamed for ignoring such teams. But it's not all done with or futile. In this case, regional tournaments (I mean octofinal, partial octofinal size tournaments?I'm thinking of Gonzaga, UNT, UTD) are huge. Most 4-4 teams cannot avoid attending them?they need wins to pad their own possible applications since they know a district bid is not guaranteed. Heck, many don't even know they are 4-4 caliber until after the swing season anyway. And, of course, you can always beat those teams in your own district who will qualify through districts. In that case, you have wins against NDT qualifiers. So I think there are effective ways no what your situation. But it should come as n- surprise that if you are entirely trapped at the district circuit level (in my three tier district, regional, national conception?a system of convenience only) your opportunities decline. You must prepare and seize the ones you do get. And if all else fails; if you debate no teams from outside your district, your district top teams don't come to local tournaments, you cannot get to regional tournaments, etc?you still have an option: beat your competition at your district qualifier. Mick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080724/9369d26e/attachment.htm From aaron.olney Thu Jul 24 21:55:40 2008 From: aaron.olney (Aaron Olney) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:55:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Travel issues In-Reply-To: <899735480807241916l9477586tf87832812fa90ea8@mail.gmail.com> References: <899735480807241916l9477586tf87832812fa90ea8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6b016c190807241955m7833cc0ele621997d199a99be@mail.gmail.com> This is assuming that NDT is the goal. NDT to most schools shouldn't be the goal and why NDT is the goal is beyond me. NDT is exclusionary and if we all had the FUCK the NDT attitude that was apparent premerge, none of this dialogue would even be in effect. NDT was almost dead and should have died off long ago, but CEDA saved them. We all need to have that FUCK the NDT attitude again. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Michael Souders wrote: > Veronica, > > While increased consideration of regional tournaments would be helpful, it > is already the case that a successful regional tournament record can earn > you a second round bid. Consider just this year. Kansas State MZ went > 2-6 at Harvard and 3-5 at Wake Forest, did not attend any of the other major > tournaments, but displayed local dominance and had solid performances at > regional/mid-major tournaments (UTD/UNT). They demonstrated that local > dominance and regional success can turn into a respectable performance at > the NDT as well. I thnk this a good example because although K-State > attended a couple of major national tournaments, it seems to me that their > bid was earned on the strength of the district and regional performances and > good prelim record. Emporia FT attended only a two very large tournament > (Texas and Wake) and earned a total of a 7-9 record there. However, they > consistently reached and won elimination rounds at the district level (UCO, > KCKCC, Baylor) and regional level (UTD, UNT, UNLV) tournaments. Again, > from an outsider's perspective I would consider success at the > local/regional level was the key to qualification. > > It seems to me that the formula for a second round if you attend most > national tournaments it to go 4-4 at all of them?or at least all but one. > But sorting yourself out from the others applicants who go 4-4 requires > that you beat the teams you are supposed to beat?i.e., that district teams > that either do not travel to the national circuit or that consistently do > not reach the 4-4 mark. This means 4-4 caliber must go local because > these occur in the local and regional tournaments. Maybe once or twice a > prelim, but more importantly in the paneled second, third, or fourth elim, > you will face another 4-4 caliber team and you need to beat them. Beat > several 4-4 teams you will obtain wins against other applicants and likely > against those who will qualify via districts. > > If you cannot travel much national circuit tournaments, you need to > regularly beat those teams that do go to national circuit and do go 4-4 > there. Demonstrate your regional status is not a result of lack of > quality but for others reasons (unknown to the evaluators). What's nice > is that the new Brushke systems allow you to quickly compare teams against > other second-round applicants and against those already qualified. Get > some quality wins at home and your applications will stand out. Bolster > that with a substantially above .500 record and you probably have yourself > an NDT, no national travel needed. My GUESS is that voters consider these > factors: > > 1. Prelim record (as a baseline) > > 2. Record against other 2nd Round applicants. > > 3. Record against qualifiers. > > 4. Record at national tournaments. > > 5. Local/regional dominance (5-6 prelim wins, 2+ elim wins, etc). > > The order might be wrong, but I don't think the factors are wrong. (Perhaps > a voter could speak to this?) Obviously, without the travel you cannot > get #4, but 2 and 3 will check reluctance if you do well at them. > > Of course, my ideas present a problem. What if no one in your district > travels to the national circuit and therefore you cannot get wins against > those persons going 4-4 at national circuit tournaments? This is > unlikely, but it might happen. To some extent, if the voters are deprived > of criteria then they can hardly be blamed for ignoring such teams. But > it's not all done with or futile. In this case, regional tournaments (I > mean octofinal, partial octofinal size tournaments?I'm thinking of Gonzaga, > UNT, UTD) are huge. Most 4-4 teams cannot avoid attending them?they need > wins to pad their own possible applications since they know a district bid > is not guaranteed. Heck, many don't even know they are 4-4 caliber until > after the swing season anyway. And, of course, you can always beat those > teams in your own district who will qualify through districts. In that > case, you have wins against NDT qualifiers. So I think there are > effective ways no what your situation. But it should come as n- surprise > that if you are entirely trapped at the district circuit level (in my three > tier district, regional, national conception?a system of convenience only) > your opportunities decline. You must prepare and seize the ones you > do get. And if all else fails; if you debate no teams from outside your > district, your district top teams don't come to local tournaments, you > cannot get to regional tournaments, etc?you still have an option: beat your > competition at your district qualifier. > > Mick > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080724/4a2ab10f/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson Fri Jul 25 00:31:02 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:31:02 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Work in Vegas next summer Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080724/5127d60e/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Fri Jul 25 01:46:46 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:46:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Work in Vegas next summer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807242346q7c0ba754r10ac50f07fe92917@mail.gmail.com> Sir, I think we have the copyright on the name rebel debate institute.... On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 1:31 AM, wrote: > In summer 2009, UNLV will host the first annual "Rebel Debate Institute." > We're looking for top notch college debaters and coaches to be a part of our > camp staff. > > Please contact me if you're interested. We plan (tentatively) on hosting 3 > sessions all starting on July 5, 2009. There will be a 2 week session > ending on 7/18, a 3 week session ending on 7/25, and a 4 week "scholars" > session ending on August 1 (things still have to be finalzed with the dorm > folks--these dates are our "ideal" but are subject to some possible small > changes) > > The scholars session of the camp may be a bit different that other ones > you've heard of or worked with. It will be an "application based" lab open > to the top 10 or 15-ish applicants only. I plan on being the "constant" lab > leader (with the possibility of one additional "constant" lab leader), and > will attempt to find 4 big names that will seriously draw students to work > with me in one week increments. > > Right now I estimate that I'm looking for about 10 staff members for the 2 > and 3 week sessions... > > Criterion for selection include, but are not limited to (in no particular > order): > > 1) are you smart/credible/good coach or debater > 2) are you responsible--showing up to lab after an all night poker and > drinking binge is not recommended > 3) can you help bring in students to attend (name recognition, a loyal > following, fan club, etc.) > 4) are you easy to get along with, and will be a good co-worker > 5) are you hard working and ready to produce a load of high quality ev > 6) are you a good teacher > > Obviously one of the most tricky parts of hosting the camp our first year > is that expected attendance will be tough to guage at first, so I will > probably only make ABSOLUTE promises to the top 5 or 7 folks who contact me > (initially)... The details related to pay, who works which sessions, etc can > be worked out with me individually. > > If you're interested please contact me. > Jake > > Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. > Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > Assistant Professor In Residence > Greenspun College of Urban Affairs > Department of Communication Studies > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 > Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 > office (702) 895-3474 > fax (702) 895-4805 > cell (702) 809-9670 > > Rebel Debate on the web: > www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080725/71e3f4f1/attachment.htm From micksouders Fri Jul 25 03:04:25 2008 From: micksouders (Michael Souders) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:04:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Travel issues In-Reply-To: <6b016c190807241955m7833cc0ele621997d199a99be@mail.gmail.com> References: <899735480807241916l9477586tf87832812fa90ea8@mail.gmail.com> <6b016c190807241955m7833cc0ele621997d199a99be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <899735480807250104l1961f2fbq9a43d2af4fca8fbf@mail.gmail.com> Mr. A. Olney, You, sir, are now my new favorite Olney. Yes, Veronica's post was assuming the NDT is a goal for teams. Perhaps not THE goal for every team, but a goal for many nonetheless. It is quite astute of you to have picked up on the context of the thread. A tribute, one might even say, to those who have particpated in your clearly superior education. You are very honest, too. Few people, especially in debate, will admit to what is "beyond" the limits of their knowledge. Why people like the NDT is apparently beyond the limits of yours. Well said. But I'll admit I am a bit skeptical of your claim that you know what "We all need to have" regarding attitude. Perhaps it's because you think the NDT is elitist--or exclusionary, as you say. It's true, the schools I personally qualified with, Seattle U. and Eastern New Mexico University ARE pretty elite (especially ENMU) and this year's list of schools reads like a series of yuppy Ivy League wannabes: Emporia State, Weber State, Wyoming, Central Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Idaho State, West Georgia, Wayne State, UT-Dallas, San Francisco State, North Texas, Missouri State, elite after elite after elite. I especially despise that Springfield, Missouri elitism. It is truly the worst sort of snobbery. But it doesn't have to be this way! Perhaps we find a way to create a world where both a moderate size tournament--which is limited in final participations, like the World Cup, but is the end of a universal qualification system--can co-exist with a fully open national championship tournament. Perhaps, and I admit I may be a dreamer here, we can make the goals of openness and community celebration in one tournament exist simultaneously with those craving a sense of achievement in reaching a national championship tournament--one where qualification itself is a reward and participation an experience. Just maybe, we could make so that you could try to qualify for one without sacrificing the opporunity to participate in the other. But no! Surely in such a world one would destroy the other in matter of just a few years--participation would not remain robust in both, stylistics differences would not be accomodated to different degrees in both. Instead, I would predict, in less than a decade of these two living side by side--perhaps only a week apart!--one would a eliminate the other or so homogenize the other so the the national champion in one would mirror the national champion in the other. And lo, in this winners Towson and Wake Forest, we can see that it has come to pass. Same old, same old. Well, we all have to wake up from such dreams right? On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Aaron Olney wrote: > > This is assuming that NDT is the goal. NDT to most schools shouldn't be > the goal and why NDT is the goal is beyond me. NDT is exclusionary and if > we all had the FUCK the NDT attitude that was apparent premerge, none of > this dialogue would even be in effect. > > NDT was almost dead and should have died off long ago, but CEDA saved > them. We all need to have that FUCK the NDT attitude again. > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Michael Souders > wrote: > >> Veronica, >> >> While increased consideration of regional tournaments would be helpful, it >> is already the case that a successful regional tournament record can earn >> you a second round bid. Consider just this year. Kansas State MZ went >> 2-6 at Harvard and 3-5 at Wake Forest, did not attend any of the other major >> tournaments, but displayed local dominance and had solid performances at >> regional/mid-major tournaments (UTD/UNT). They demonstrated that local >> dominance and regional success can turn into a respectable performance at >> the NDT as well. I thnk this a good example because although K-State >> attended a couple of major national tournaments, it seems to me that their >> bid was earned on the strength of the district and regional performances and >> good prelim record. Emporia FT attended only a two very large >> tournament (Texas and Wake) and earned a total of a 7-9 record there. However, >> they consistently reached and won elimination rounds at the district level >> (UCO, KCKCC, Baylor) and regional level (UTD, UNT, UNLV) tournaments. Again, >> from an outsider's perspective I would consider success at the >> local/regional level was the key to qualification. >> >> It seems to me that the formula for a second round if you attend most >> national tournaments it to go 4-4 at all of them?or at least all but one. >> But sorting yourself out from the others applicants who go 4-4 requires >> that you beat the teams you are supposed to beat?i.e., that district teams >> that either do not travel to the national circuit or that consistently do >> not reach the 4-4 mark. This means 4-4 caliber must go local because >> these occur in the local and regional tournaments. Maybe once or twice a >> prelim, but more importantly in the paneled second, third, or fourth elim, >> you will face another 4-4 caliber team and you need to beat them. Beat >> several 4-4 teams you will obtain wins against other applicants and likely >> against those who will qualify via districts. >> >> If you cannot travel much national circuit tournaments, you need to >> regularly beat those teams that do go to national circuit and do go 4-4 >> there. Demonstrate your regional status is not a result of lack of >> quality but for others reasons (unknown to the evaluators). What's nice >> is that the new Brushke systems allow you to quickly compare teams against >> other second-round applicants and against those already qualified. Get >> some quality wins at home and your applications will stand out. Bolster >> that with a substantially above .500 record and you probably have yourself >> an NDT, no national travel needed. My GUESS is that voters consider >> these factors: >> >> 1. Prelim record (as a baseline) >> >> 2. Record against other 2nd Round applicants. >> >> 3. Record against qualifiers. >> >> 4. Record at national tournaments. >> >> 5. Local/regional dominance (5-6 prelim wins, 2+ elim wins, etc). >> >> The order might be wrong, but I don't think the factors are >> wrong. (Perhaps a voter could speak to this?) Obviously, without the >> travel you cannot get #4, but 2 and 3 will check reluctance if you do well >> at them. >> >> Of course, my ideas present a problem. What if no one in your district >> travels to the national circuit and therefore you cannot get wins against >> those persons going 4-4 at national circuit tournaments? This is >> unlikely, but it might happen. To some extent, if the voters are >> deprived of criteria then they can hardly be blamed for ignoring such teams. >> But it's not all done with or futile. In this case, regional tournaments >> (I mean octofinal, partial octofinal size tournaments?I'm thinking of >> Gonzaga, UNT, UTD) are huge. Most 4-4 teams cannot avoid attending >> them?they need wins to pad their own possible applications since they know a >> district bid is not guaranteed. Heck, many don't even know they are 4-4 >> caliber until after the swing season anyway. And, of course, you can >> always beat those teams in your own district who will qualify through >> districts. In that case, you have wins against NDT qualifiers. So I >> think there are effective ways no what your situation. But it should >> come as n- surprise that if you are entirely trapped at the district circuit >> level (in my three tier district, regional, national conception?a system of >> convenience only) your opportunities decline. You must prepare and seize >> the ones you do get. And if all else fails; if you debate no teams from >> outside your district, your district top teams don't come to local >> tournaments, you cannot get to regional tournaments, etc?you still have an >> option: beat your competition at your district qualifier. >> >> Mick >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080725/add1c192/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Fri Jul 25 03:05:21 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 04:05:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807250105t6a3b7992n3674fe7baca021f6@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080725/0334ac75/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: prisons bcdc.doc Type: application/msword Size: 64512 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080725/0334ac75/attachment.doc From scottelliott Fri Jul 25 08:03:37 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 08:03:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Funny elections article In-Reply-To: <5765BA2FD2F2904D968889FA62C213A10CEE9289@fnfsflexch1.corp.fnfs.net> References: <5765BA2FD2F2904D968889FA62C213A10CEE9289@fnfsflexch1.corp.fnfs.net> Message-ID: <1216991017.4889cf299f33b@webmail.grandecom.net> Sarcasm at its best, from the London TImes: And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness. The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow. When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: ?Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?? In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites. Background Obama fears the Blair effect as tour continues The Europhiles are not the future, Mr Obama The Bugle - Barack Obama is coming to Europe! Our leaders go after some Obama magic And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world. He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world. And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more. >From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it. And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light. And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares. >From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered ?Hosanna? and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet. In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace. As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites. And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over. The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for. And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again. Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it. And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times. Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length. But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him. And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets. Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not. On the Seventh Day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One. And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: ?Yes, We Can.? From stables Fri Jul 25 12:40:26 2008 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:40:26 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Last call for materials for CEDA newsletter Message-ID: <00db01c8ee7d$85da5460$918efd20$@edu> Following up on my earlier note, I am close to finalizing the content for the inaugural CEDA e-newsletter. This will contain a variety of material related to the new season. I would ask that our members please take a moment and send me any of the following items: - Information about your college tournaments - If you are hosting, we need to know before the season starts. If you have already adding it to debateresults or Dave Steinberg's calendar - great. If you haven't published any material and you intend on hosting, please let me know . - New coaching announcements - Who has joined your staff in the last few months? - Upcoming calls/announcements - Will you be advertising a new job? Having graduate assistantships available? Do you have a new public program that you would to let people know about? Let me know if you have any questions. Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080725/70fb735d/attachment.htm From jbruschke Fri Jul 25 13:12:40 2008 From: jbruschke (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:12:40 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Santa Rosa Junior Co Message-ID: <7F6CBECF07954C9D89846D67FAE6AA0C@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Enter tournament name here. Starts:10/10/2008 Ends:10/12/2008 Hosted by: Santa Rosa Junior Co Contact: Address: 1501 Medocino Ave., Santa Rosa, CA, 95401 Phone: 707-838-2028 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JR Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Open Parli with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice Parli with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From jbruschke Fri Jul 25 14:12:42 2008 From: jbruschke (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:12:42 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Northern Iowa (Univ.) Message-ID: <60E662EABC81482784E247EA62C65D75@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:UNI Ulrich Season Opener Starts:9/20/2008 Ends:9/22/2008 Hosted by: Northern Iowa (Univ.) Contact: Cate Palczewski Address: Phone: 319-273-2714 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From malgorthewarrior Sun Jul 27 20:36:09 2008 From: malgorthewarrior (M G) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 20:36:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Cold this be? Message-ID: The most aff biased topic ever? How about post merger? _________________________________________________________________ Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety. http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_family_safety_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080727/58270bce/attachment.htm From scottelliott Sun Jul 27 21:22:02 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:22:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Cold this be? Message-ID: <1217211722.488d2d4ae7967@webmail.grandecom.net> You should take a chill pill for a moment, take adeep breath then ask yourself: Can the Affirmative really solve for thier harms? and can a counter-plan beat back the aff harms? We've been laughing at some of the preliminary Aff cases. Debate 101--any affirmative can claim big harms, but can thier topical plan solve? Scott Elliott From kel1773 Sun Jul 27 22:01:25 2008 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:01:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Could this be? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "The most aff biased topic ever? How about post merger?" Seriously, MG, do you believe that the NDT Illuminati would allow such a thing? really?!?!?! Only if we had CEDA back, man that would fix this all!! Sorry, be right back, my NDT decoder ring is buzzing... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080727/18b82cc1/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior Mon Jul 28 01:59:29 2008 From: malgorthewarrior (M G) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 01:59:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Could this be? Message-ID: I wasn't implying NDT or CEDA had anything to do with this. Other than case D that elliot points out (so many neg rounds are won on impact defense and no solvency......) there is no good defense of subsidies. will the neg survive bc of cps and Ks...yes. does that mean that this topic isn't incredibly biased toward the aff....no. maybe i'm missing the magical web site that talks about how awesome subsidies are. but when the socialists think subsidies are bad....something's up. malgor _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080728/2a6feb07/attachment.htm From EricMorris Mon Jul 28 12:02:11 2008 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:02:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NCA 2008 - Registration Reminder Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EFBBA55@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I also used the NCA All Academic system to remind people - BUT, just in case. NCA this year is REQUIRING early registration by August 6 (a week from Wednesday) for all convention presentations. If you are not registered by that date, which includes payment, they will remove you from the final convention book. This is a new enforcement mechanism, and while it's not one that I would have chosen, I would hate to see anyone excluded because of forgetting the deadline. Thus, this is a reminder. The letter NCA sent me (and presumptive other presenters) says that, if you use a paper copy to register, they want it by August 1 to process it. That's this Thursday! If you choose to register online, you just go to www.natcom.org/members. I just did this - it took maybe 2 minutes. They ask that you don't wait until the last moment, so to avoid a last minute rush that crashes their system and risks leaving people out. In my case, the greater danger would be forgetting - so, I encourage you to do it today instead! If you are scheduled to present but aren't planning/able to register by August 6, please backchannel me. It's not clear whether or not we'll be notified in any other way by NCA. Although I doubt that we'll be able to do anything to protect panels from depleting, I am sure the CEDA leadership would like to know where we stand, in case there are any options to be explored... Dr. Eric Morris Assistant Prof. of Communication Director of Forensics Missouri State University 901 S National Ave, CRA 375 Springfield, MO 65897 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080728/b78485b6/attachment.htm From scottelliott Mon Jul 28 12:02:31 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:02:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Could this be? Message-ID: <1217264551.488dfba79df52@webmail.grandecom.net> What else do negatives win debates on? Disads, c-plans, solvency turns, and K's. Am I missing something? You are about to cut Ag subsidies during a presidential election year--no negative ground? You have a resolution that forces affirmatives to cut nearly all subsidies of one or more major crops/animals--no PIC ground? You are going to run a plan that causes a short term spike in the price of a commodity on the global commodities exchange, no disad ground? You are about to unleash the forces of free-market economics on a global scale, openning more markets around the world to U.S. goods and services--no K ground? I think I would choose negative if I were in outrounds and I knew what case the affirmative was about to run, regardless of the topic. But let us assume that you are right and Affirmatives win 80% of their rounds this year-doubtful given the disclosure requirements. I think it would be great. Why? Because maybe, just maybe (my hope abounds)people will do a little RESEARCH on the topic areas before they vote. Ten minutes of research on the Ag topic will tell you that the only reason why Ag subsidies exist in their current form is to create political pay-offs and localized pork for Iowa Senators. This was no hidden secret. Go back and look at the topic paper--very lean on the negative side of the debate topic proposed. Your concern should have been raised three months ago when we we looking at potential resolutions. Or, better yet, some real research during the resolution drafting meetings. J--CHrist, I watched 30 plus debate coaches and senior level debaters in a room doing supposed research on the topic a month ago. Did no one bother to say, "Hey, wait a minute--there ain't no negative ground?" Wait a minute, what were YOU doing? Weren't you there at the topic committe meeting? Maybe, here is a novel idea, we should have criteria to evaluate whether a topic area or resolution is a good one. I will volunteer the first standard: equalized ground for debate. There is a reason why most people would never choose the following resolution: "Resolved: human enslavement is morally wrong." Sure, you can debate it, but there is a slight affirmative skew in the topic literature. It could be worse--we could be debating Russia. As a community that voted for the topic area, we get what we deserve every year. Scott From jbruschke Mon Jul 28 13:27:25 2008 From: jbruschke (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:27:25 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Kings College Message-ID: Name:Connelly-Garvey Debate Tourament Starts:9/19/2008 Ends:9/21/2008 Hosted by: Kings College Contact: Mike Berry Address: Department of Theatre and Speech, King's College, Wilkes Barre PA 18711 Phone: 570.208.5900 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From u.hrair Mon Jul 28 19:59:29 2008 From: u.hrair (Calum Matheson) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:59:29 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Could this be? Message-ID: Scott Elliott says: "It could be worse--we could be debating Russia." There are not enough 7.62 bullets and shallow graves to bring cold justice to those who share this sentiment, unfortunately. Calum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080728/d88de70d/attachment.htm From stables Mon Jul 28 23:37:15 2008 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:37:15 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Ag - Topic Committee Resources available Message-ID: <009001c8f134$c7ffe990$57ffbcb0$@edu> Greetings all. As the first effort to migrate this CEDA Topic.com to the new CEDA website, we have organized all of the research produced in the process of writing this topic. In the next few months, the cedatopic.com site will be merged with the new CEDA site. The 09-10 topic process will all be conducted on the new site at topic.cedadebate.org/ Right now you can start using the new site and review the agricultural research and analysis directly at topic.cedadebate.org/ag_research Enjoy and let us know if you have any questions. Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080728/6c5c8b09/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior Tue Jul 29 01:04:04 2008 From: malgorthewarrior (M G) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 01:04:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Oh Scott Elliot Message-ID: You're so cute with your little edebate posts. Always mixing up the pot. Adding a little flare to an otherwise boring summer. I would respond to your banter but it is only useful as entertainment. It is lacking appeal in terms of argument. back to the trade...errrrr....ag topic. PS- I must say that I agree with Calum. Debating about the empire is awesome. It only pales in comparison to health care because, as a fat man with an unhealthy lifestyle (you know what i'm talking about), health care is very important to me. malgor _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080729/70c607a9/attachment.htm From jmarty Tue Jul 29 11:53:34 2008 From: jmarty (Jillian A. Marty) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:53:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Job opportunity in New York City Message-ID: <1217350414.488f4b0ec4cda@mail-www.oit.umass.edu> Hi, My summer debate job is seeking a debate teacher for the fall. It involves teaching two to three debate classes a week to middle and high schoolers in New York City. If you know of anyone that is in New York City and is looking for a debate job in the fall, please put them in contact with me. Also, if you have any questions about the job please feel free to backchannel me. Here are some details. Pay is commensurable with experience. The kids are excellent! They are all honor students who want to learn the art of debate and the school is located in Queens. Hope to hear from you soon, Jillian From matt_gerber27 Tue Jul 29 12:09:17 2008 From: matt_gerber27 (Matt Gerber) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:09:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Tournament January 24-26, 2009 Message-ID: Hey folks, we hope you choose to save on travel costs and support the Baylor tournament....see you in January on our traditional weekend! Dear Colleagues: The debaters and coaches at Baylor University cordially invite you to attend the Glenn R. Capp Debates, to be held in the heart of Texas on the banks of the beautiful Brazos and just minutes from the Western White House, from Saturday, January 24th-Monday, January 26th, 2009. The 2009 Capp Debates will 7 preliminary rounds clearing to an appropriate number of elimination rounds using the cross-examination format (9-3-6) in two divisions, Open Debate and Junior Varsity Debate. If there is sufficient interest we will host a novice division. Any team is eligible for the Open Division. Novice and JV contestants must meet the CEDA eligibility rules. We will debate the 2008-2009 CEDA/NDT Agricultural subsidies topic. Hospitality: We aim to be hospitable, as always. The tournament hotel provides an excellent continental breakfast. We will provide lunch on Saturday and Sunday. We will provide an Asian food buffet for dinner on Sunday, and we will continue the Sunday evening awards ceremony as we have done in the past. Judging: Each school is expected to provide one judge (4 rounds of commitment) per entered debate team. All judges are required to stay for the octafinal round and/or one round beyond the time their last team is eliminated. If you cannot judge or have a special request, notify us in advance and we will attempt to cover your commitment at a rate of $100.00 per team. The tournament will employ the standard ?mutal preference judging? (MPJ), and the tab room will likely again be run by Dr. Rich Edwards of Baylor University. Hotel: We expect that the tournament hotel will be the newly renovated Clarion right across from the campus, we will let everyone know as soon as we get a block rate and cutoff dates. Elimination Rounds: Will be held at the beautiful Baylor Student Union building. We feel that debating in these very nice rooms at the Union will add to your tournament experience, and avoid the discomfort and limited space of the hotel. Anyone who has attended the tournament the last couple of years will attest to how cool these elim rooms are. Transportation: Waco is easily reached from I-35, or by flying into Dallas or Austin. The Dallas Fort Worth Airport, Dallas Love Field, and the Austin Bergrstrom Airport are each about a one and one half hour drive from Waco. Each of those airports is served by all of the major rental car companies. You may also fly directly into Waco on American Eagle. If you do continue to Waco, you should secure a rental van well in advance. If you are flying into Waco and staying at the Clarion, they have a shuttle that can pick you up from the airport and have asked that you simply call a day or two before you arrive. Awards: We will break to an appropriate number of elims. We will recognize those qualifying for elimination rounds and top speakers in each division. All Elimination rounds will be held on Monday at the Baylor Student Union building. Our awards are very, very nice. Debater of the Year: Once again, the Capp Forum will recognize an outstanding person on the national or district debate circuit as Debater of the Year. Last year?s recipient was Matt Coleman of Wichita State University. Fees: Entry fees are $90.00 per debate team. This will partially defray tournament expenses. Please make checks payable to the Glenn R. Capp Debate Forum. Pairing Assumptions: Pending entries and Rich Edward?s input, rounds 1-4 will be preset. After that, even rounds will be paired high-low within brackets and odd rounds will be paired high-high. For elimination rounds we will not break brackets. We will also not use any form of side equalization. Registration: Will occur at the tournament hotel on Friday January 23rd, 2009 from 6:00-9:00 p.m. Sincerely, Dr. Matt Gerber- Director of Debate & Asst. Professor Dr. Scott Varda- Assistant Director of Debate & Asst. Professor Nick Denissen- Graduate Assistant Coach Amy Foster- Baylor Law School, Assistant Coach Dustin Greenwalt- Graduate Assistant Coach Reynolds Patterson- Graduate Assistant Coach Ryan Smith- Graduate Assistant Coach Zack Wagner- Graduate Assistant Coach Mike Weitz- Graduate Assistant Coach The Glenn R. Capp Debate Forum _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger2_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080729/9845800d/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Tue Jul 29 13:01:52 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:01:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] racist attacks on me and others Message-ID: This arrived in my inbox today: From: William Myers (oldbrompton at hotmail.com) Sent: Tue 7/29/08 6:15 PM To: stannardmatt at hotmail.com Hey there, asshole. Nicholas Stix has a wonderful piece at VDARE.com documenting your attempts to harrass, intimidate, and silence him. http://www.vdare.com/stix/080728_debate.htmGood luck with that, you totalitarian prick.Nigger-lovers such as yourself should be ashamed. Your day is coming, rest assured. William MyersIrvine, CA FYI, Stix mentions me and several others in this piece: http://www.vdare.com/stix/080728_debate.htm _________________________________________________________________ Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now! http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080729/ef65374f/attachment.htm From akbiotech Tue Jul 29 13:44:27 2008 From: akbiotech (Art Kyriazis) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:44:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Availability to Serve as Hired Judge for Kings College Connelly-Garvey Tournament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <488F650B.501@comcast.net> Dear edebate friends/ceda friends: I am available to serve as a hired judge for the Kings College Connelly-Garvey Tournament September 19-21 2008. I am based just outside of Philadelphia. I have relatives and friends in Wilkes-Barre to stay with and that I'd like to see, and I have judged at this tournament in the past. I do not require any transportation or housing consequently. If you do have expenses available, the gas mileage from my home in philadelphia door to door to kings college is about 70 miles each way, which should be reimbursed at the rate of about 50 cents a mile, or $35 each way @ at current gas prices ($70 total), plus the $30 per round fee. I can judge into elims. Am attaching my judging philosophy FYI. Please contact me by email or by cell phone if you require assistance. --art kyriazis cell phone 215-300-5108 Message: 3 Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:27:25 -0700 From: Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Kings College To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Name:Connelly-Garvey Debate Tourament Starts:9/19/2008 Ends:9/21/2008 Hosted by: Kings College Contact: Mike Berry Address: Department of Theatre and Speech, King's College, Wilkes Barre PA 18711 Phone: 570.208.5900 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JUDGING PHILOSOPHY OF ART KYRIAZIS.doc Type: application/x-unknown Size: 27136 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080729/f1bb5190/attachment.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: akbiotech.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 397 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080729/f1bb5190/attachment.vcf From oguevara Tue Jul 29 18:00:24 2008 From: oguevara (omar guevara) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:00:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] racist attacks on me and others In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well. Ain't that special. Always nice to read a threat to your life via a cowardly email. There is this weird hyper-conservative underbelly to California politics...and I'm not talking about my loyal Republican friends in Bakersfield or San Diego. But in any event Matt, if you need to go roll up on these folks in Cali... ...Ogden is on the way....:) OG PS: The line in the original Vdare article about "how long until Spanish is spoken by Hispanic debaters" is deeply ironic...and incredibly funny! PSS: Happy new debate season to all!! Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu "I am the stone that the builder refused..." From: stannardmatt at hotmail.comTo: edebate at ndtceda.comDate: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:01:52 -0600Subject: [eDebate] racist attacks on me and others This arrived in my inbox today:From: William Myers (oldbrompton at hotmail.com) Sent: Tue 7/29/08 6:15 PM To: stannardmatt at hotmail.com Hey there, asshole. Nicholas Stix has a wonderful piece at VDARE.com documenting your attempts to harrass, intimidate, and silence him. http://www.vdare.com/stix/080728_debate.htmGood luck with that, you totalitarian prick.Nigger-lovers such as yourself should be ashamed. Your day is coming, rest assured. William MyersIrvine, CA FYI, Stix mentions me and several others in this piece:http://www.vdare.com/stix/080728_debate.htm Time for vacation? WIN what you need. Enter Now! _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mobile_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080729/635a1790/attachment.htm From sethellsworth Tue Jul 29 20:02:00 2008 From: sethellsworth (Seth T. Ellsworth) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:02:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50 dollars a bag Message-ID: <412d08cb0807291802n5e2c1547q6009baf6df4e22e4@mail.gmail.com> I always hated Delta, but somethings going to have to give soon with the airlines: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/business/30bags.html?ex=1375070400&en=de95b0280ea07840&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Also, Matt Stannard is kind of totalitarian. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080729/9e5b28eb/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard Tue Jul 29 22:07:06 2008 From: stefan.bauschard (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:07:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50 dollars a bag In-Reply-To: <412d08cb0807291802n5e2c1547q6009baf6df4e22e4@mail.gmail.com> References: <412d08cb0807291802n5e2c1547q6009baf6df4e22e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <524839830807292007j2a3210f1v2c4a92efdcf97da3@mail.gmail.com> The whole situation plainly stinks, but it is hard to put a lot of blame on Delta. Airlines don't have very high profit margins and have (almost) no capital. Their fuel bills have increased by billions. Some may go bankrupt. I like to fly, so hopefully Congress will bail them out, but it's not a great situation. I'm convinced that algae won't power them any time in the near future. A mere act of criticism directed at the airlines won't solve our problems. The thing is that we are going to have to pay more to fly our tubs from tourney to tourney. We haven't yet found any fanciful way to debate off of our computers, and debating off these reams of paper is a lot of what we are. That may change, but it isn't going to change in 08-09 or 09-10. So we really need to find ways to pay our luggage costs. This may involve trade-offs that we don't like, but most everyone makes those sort of trade-offs now. For example, we are a two car family. Research estimates that means we spend another 4K a year on gas. Have you been to a grocery store lately? We are easily dropping another 2K there. So, some stuff gets cut out -- fewer trips to farther away places, less dining out, working extra, etc. If we want to keep doing things that consume a lot of energy (I do), we have to find ways to increase revenue, our energy more efficiently (even if efficiency means sacrifice -- like driving 55 instead of 70), or cut-back in other areas that while trying to avoid fundamentally altering what we do. Some ideas: The old swings...Yes, there is a CA swing and a TX two step in college. There used to be another -- Wake/Gtown and then Wake/Pitt over Thanksgiving break (the "swing" worked when NCA was not scheduled the weekend before Thanksgiving). In high school there used to be GBN and GBS on consecutive weekends. This wore people down to a degree and they missed Thanksgiving, but you can't have everything. (I would suffer through two tournaments of a strikes-only judge placement system :)). Or the Glenbrooks could switch to mid-October and Greenhill and St. Mark's could run back-to-back over the break (St. Mark's has the whole Thanksgiving week off!). We'd only have to go to Dallas once and I'm sure Tim could swing a great deal at the Westin if we were going to be there for a week. This would save me at least $1500 in transportation costs. Swing tournaments are normally hard to do without missing school, but maybe people could try to come up with more ideas as to where they could work...GA State/Emory? I realize this a very radical change that can not happen for 08-09...but there is 09-10. And yes, debating GHill/St. Mark's back-to-back would be unpleasant in some ways, but I'd rather do that than cut one out entirely or leave a second team that may deserve to go at home. Judging...AK mentioned taking some lower prefs....maybe judging extra debates to lower tournament admin costs and, consequently, entry fees. Some already sell extra judging to tournaments. Regional tournaments...strengthening regional circuits is easier said than done. It's hard to get people to agree as to what tournament to make "the regional tournament," circuit tournament preparation, stress, and other responsibilities can make it difficult to simply rejuvenate regional circuits. It's hard to say what could be done to rejuvenate regional debate. The NDCA has tried by letting any tournament count toward qualification, but there isn't yet anywhere close to the maximum # of teams trying to enter the NDCA tournament to have that impact (BTW, the NDCA tournament is a great tournament -- it is very well run and you should go). While the NDCA does not yet have that kind of "rep" that is needed to make regional tournaments grow, the TOC does. JW and the advisory board could, for example, consider designating 10 tournaments that don't currently have bids as "automatic TOC qualifiers" -- 10 tournaments in different regions in the country. Spread out the weekends. There would be a strong "regional" tournament almost everywhere. Start with states that have no TOC tournaments (like NJ). It wouldn't undermine the "quality" of the TOC. It may add ten teams that are very good, good, or even just "pretty good." There would be 10 better regional tournaments that would allow every team to cut the flying costs of one national circuit tournament because they would still get a very strong (even if not an "as strong") national tournament at a fraction of the cost. Sponsorship..Airlines have no money. They aren't going to sponsor us. But look at the topics we are debating.....Oil companies have money (and could use some good PR). Biofuels start-ups have massive subsidy checks written to them (and also have some PR issues). My soon-to-be brother in-law just started with a new solar energy company in Mass. Ever here of T. Boone Pickens? He has billions and he lives in TX where he is trying to build a lot of windmills and where there are a lot of debate tournaments. Tell them what we are debating -- maybe they'll sponsor a tournament. Full tournament sponsorship largely offsets luggage costs. Take a break and have a public debate in the middle of the tournament. Yeah, I'd rather get down to the business of "our way" of debating, but some sacrifice may be in order. Anyhow, I'm sure other airlines will follow Delta. This is getting expensive. Last year I bought 30 tickets for my high school team. Between higher ticket prices and luggage costs I'm probably paying another $150/student/trip. That's another 4500. Hotel prices are increasing quickly. Then there is some gas. It's probably another $6,000 that "I ain't got." Anyhow, I think we need some more aggressive efforts to be more efficient, boost revenue, and to cut costs in ways that do not harm the community at-large. Anyone else? On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Seth T. Ellsworth wrote: > I always hated Delta, but somethings going to have to give soon with the > airlines: > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/business/30bags.html?ex=1375070400&en=de95b0280ea07840&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink > > Also, > Matt Stannard is kind of totalitarian. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080729/bf0c24e8/attachment.htm From lexdevil Wed Jul 30 00:22:58 2008 From: lexdevil (lexy green) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:22:58 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Luggage Fee Tips Message-ID: <410-22008733052258468@mindspring.com> 1. The Delta $50 fee for the second bag sounds terrible, but it is only slightly worse than the fees other airlines (United, Americam, etc.) are charging. Most are now charging $15 for the first bag and $25 for the second bag. Delta charges nothing for the first bag and $50 for the second. It sucks, but it is really only 25% more than the others (not 100%). 2. Southwest still gives 2 bags free. 3. MOST IMPORTANT TIP OF ALL: If you are elite on United, everyone on your PNR (that's up to 9 total) gets 2 bags free. Other airlines (American, Delta, etc.) exempt their elites from the bag fees. I do not know if they exempt other passengers on the same PNR. If they do, you can put 6 on a single PNR on American. Not certain about the others. As far as #3 is concerned, please do not trumpet this to the airlines. It's a loophole you could drive a truck (or at least a few teams' tubs) through and it would be a real shame if they changed the rules. Lexy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080729/ff75fe4e/attachment.htm From jbruschke Wed Jul 30 03:39:29 2008 From: jbruschke (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:39:29 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Whitman College Message-ID: <969F72EE9B5C44C49C5A36111F889832@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:WNPT-Whitman November Policy Tournament Starts:11/22/2008 Ends:11/23/2008 Hosted by: Whitman College Contact: Jim Hanson Address: Phone: 509-527-5499 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Junior with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From jbruschke Wed Jul 30 03:42:01 2008 From: jbruschke (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:42:01 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Whitman College Message-ID: Name:NW CEDA Champs Starts:2/28/2009 Ends:3/2/2009 Hosted by: Whitman College Contact: Jim Hanson Address: Phone: 509-527-5499 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From hansonjb Wed Jul 30 03:31:23 2008 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:31:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] sta-xl plus 2.0 Message-ID: <4FE39D08F2F64223B5A21440ED2E34BE@whitman.edu> Danny Cantrell, a fantastic programmer and tab director at many parli tournaments, and I have been working on the new version of STA-XL Plus over the past 7 months. This new version is a _major_ advance and I'm really excited about how easy it is to use, how much great data it provides (high tech cumes, round by round results for warm rooms and posting to net benefits, etc.), and how its many, many refinements address the multitude of tabbing situations he, i, and users have dealt with (eg breaking brackets but not when that forces teams to debate in a partials round when they would otherwise have received a bye; improving bruschke import; etc.). you can read details about the program's features and our work at: http://www.debatecooperative.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1335 in late august/early september--we will be doing final beta testing and then in mid-september, the new version will be released for the first tournaments of the year. if you are interested in doing some beta testing, feel free to contact me. the current version is located at: http://www.dannycantrell.net/sta/index.php jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From hansonjb Wed Jul 30 03:57:22 2008 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:57:22 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs: be GOLDEN 10 Message-ID: <3551D504C31C46DEB003DD56944B0C74@whitman.edu> we invite schools to submit a GOLDEN 10 team and judge bid to participate at the nw ceda championship. schools must be at least 700 miles from whitman college. (you submit after the wake forest tournament) --$600 is given to each of these teams/judges --no fees; you just debate and judge --free food (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) provided --free shuttle (pasco or walla walla airport) provided throughout the tournament --student and coach's party --all rounds occur in one, nice building--it is well setup --the tournament occurs feb 28-mar 2, 2009--the weekend after almost all districts; perfect as a nationals warmup or for teams trying to get a second round bid --great competition especially with this new golden 10 opportunity submissions accepted shortly after the wake forest tournament. jim hanson, glenn frappier, and derek buescher evaluate quality of teams and judges. 10 chosen. announcements occur in december, giving you lots of planning time. invitation with full details at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54nwceda2009.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From stannardmatt Thu Jul 31 12:28:18 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:28:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Libertarian and Socialist Candidates on Shared Sacrifice Message-ID: Listen at: www.blogtalkradio.com/Shared_Sacrifice "Shared Sacrifice," a weekly progressive internet radio program, continues its series of interviews with the movers and shakers of progressive, Democratic, alternative, and third-party politics. Our guest this Saturday, August 2 is Wayne Allyn Root, Vice Presidential Candidate for the Libertarian Party. And our guest the following Saturday, August 9, is Socialist Party Presidential Candidate Brian Moore. We have become the hottest alternative political podcast in the nation, interviewing people like Cynthia McKinney, Jeff Key, Damon Linker, Rosa Clemente, and the 2008 national intercollegiate debate champions from Towson State, as well as a number of national and local progressive candidates, activists, and gadflies. Not bad for a couple of humble, wide-eyed upstarts from the Rocky Mountains. What can you do to help Shared Sacrifice continue its ascent to the top of progressive politics and internet radio? -LISTEN! Listen live, from noon to 2PM mountain time, every Saturday. -DOWNLOAD! Download our show any time. -PROMOTE! Tell other like-minded folks about our show. If we get enough listeners and hits, the Blog Talk Radio network will offer us prime time status and lots of additional promotion. -CALL IN! Call our show with questions and comments for our guests. -BLOG ABOUT US! Write about our show on your blog. Link to the show on your blog. We will reciprocate by promoting your blog on the show! -FIND US MORE GUESTS! Do you know any activists, authors, or candidates that would make good guests for the show? Have them email us at gary at sharedsacrifice.us. _________________________________________________________________ Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now! http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080731/821e9767/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Thu Jul 31 13:08:45 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:08:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] BCD Coop Tournament Pairings rd 1-3 Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807311108x52b3b40cq85bcd6d77815d202@mail.gmail.com> We have begun our 7 round camp tournament with some high quality debates and some high quality judging,ruralism,race,rage,rhizomes, and cafos abound, Competiors hail from Morgan State, Towson,West Conn,CCBC,West Virginia, Coppin State,East LA CC, and binghamton. Judges are judging, debaters are debating and local high school students are learning...here are the pairings so far Rd1 AFF Neg Duane Valaria Rahul Ebone Stephen Davis Li106 Dayvon/Matheno Adam/Andrea Neil Berch Mc205 Amit/Megan Hong-Mei/Nicole Nader Li310 Robbie/Sarah Jesus/Mikey Daryl Burch Li210 Mike/Schuyler Vicente/Iggie Les Li100 Andrew/Ben Ben/Deverick Beth Li008 Rd 2 Aff Neg Adam/Andrea Amit/Megan Daryl Burch Li310 Ben/Deverick Schuyler/Mike Nader Li100 Hong Mei/Nicole Dayvon/Matheno Les MC-205 Camera Mikey Jesus Dwayne/Velaria Neil Berch Li106 Rahoul/Ebone Robbie/Sarah S.Godbey Li210 Vicente.Iggie Andrew/Ben S.Davis Li008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080731/62a7a6e7/attachment.htm From truth.harbinger Thu Jul 31 14:28:35 2008 From: truth.harbinger (Brian Balls) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:28:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] BCD/Towson Racism SHOCKING story Message-ID: You must read this www.baltimoresun.com/Towson_Debate080108 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080731/9058f3d1/attachment.htm From nicholas.brady89 Thu Jul 31 14:59:52 2008 From: nicholas.brady89 (nicholas brady) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:59:52 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up Message-ID: May i first begin this by saying to Mr. Stennard, I am truly sorry for what happened to you. I wish this internet jackasses would stop using the n-word to brand ppl when i know damn well that they would never say that your face. I have experienced this same thing many a times, but seeing that made me think of all the times i've been called a nigger on the internet. I've been called that word on the internet more times than i have fingers and toes, but the sad part of all this is not the fact that i was called a nigger -- i mean i'm black, its a sad reality that this is is how a good portion of this nation sees me and i've gotten to the point where it doesn't hurt me much -- but rather that the site that i have been called nigger the most was on cross-x.com. Now I understand that the website is full of immature, debating losers, but honestly i want to use that as a jumping off point. Even though I'm sure the community is mad to have a "white supremacist" critiquing it, but honestly is the article very much different from what you say every single round that you hit a critical team? Sure some teams attempt to "out-left" or counter-critique their way through performance arguments, but the grand majority of this community could quite frankly use that article as a piece of evidence in one of their "louisville" blocks. When i was running project arguments every round i heard the same things while they were prepping: "get out the louisville file" even though my argument was drastically different from the louisville case and they would go through the same "stick to the topic" "fairness over education" "limits is the best standard" "predictability key to good ground" "bpo is best framework" kind of arguments that are very common in these kind of rounds. I do believe that once we get past this white supremacist writing style, his ad hominem attacks on these black debaters, and the like we can find the exact same type of arguments as his foundation. I think the reason why the debate community feels repulsed by this article and is attempting to sweep it under the rug is because you have read this article, have literally seen ur arguments in this article like a mirror, and feel repulsed more at yourself than anything else. It is a common reaction when you are having a type of metaphysical correspondence with your own inner "racism" and instead of actually dealing with yourself, you attempt to destroy that which is making you have such an awakening. If a person looks in the mirror everyday and is repulsed by their image they would much rather throw out the mirror than work on themselves. When i read this article i shrugged my shoulders because honestly I'm used to hearing his argumentation -- its nothing more than what you have given to all performance teams. Now let me take a bit of a radical stance and this is when i am sure ppl will begin to hate what i am saying. This Vdare article -- to a limited degree -- hit a nail on the head. Now don't get me wrong, he pulled out a sludgehammer to hit a small nail and destroyed much of the land around him -- but still he did hit a nail. The nail I think is that these project affs are a form of ethnic whining -- and I say this as a person who has run them and honestly believed in them. I will first highlight this point: PROJECT ARGUMENTS WERE AN EFFECTIVE, MEANINGUL, AND ULTIMATELY SUCESSFUL TOOL. So please no backlash from project runners who think i'm some conservative debater speaking -- i truly believe that like the Black Power movement and Civil Rights movement, project critiques played an important part in progressing this community. But what startled me recently was that while I was judging at the Baltimore Urban Debate League -- a 99 percent Black/Latino debate league -- people were running project affirmatives accusing other black ppl of being white supremacist? That made me freeze. I understand the line of argumentation -- Black ppl can be white supremacist too. But literally the negative never ran topicality, never ran framework, never ran a defense of fiat -- they ran Empire. But the affirmative in the 2ac got up and read these blocks saying "topicality is bad", "fiat is white supremacist", etc. Project critiques have gotten to the point in this community where they are just as generically bad and unspecific as a politics da and normativity - wtf? Thats because we have gotten to the point where project critiques are "non-unique" -- they are horrifically generic attacks on a community that is not all-together exclusive. Project critiques were supposed to open a space for minority and poor debaters and guess what? It has. Good job, pat on the back, round of applause for everyone! So what now? Well, I will leave that up to the debaters and coaches to decide. All I will say is that i "Vdare" you all to stand up for progress within the debate community. People who are devoted to the project of racial, class, and gender equality within this activity need to realize that the time for whining about racial dominance of white debaters and demanding ballots for some cause that is so splintered and unspecific that it is utterly idiotic to say this is a "movement" has come to an end. At the same time it is time for this larger community to understand that this: yes, this community is going to change a WHOLE lot and we need to stop making the same damn canned answers about predictability this and fiat that. This vdare article only shows what these canned, framework answers always were: a kneejerk reaction to a revolution of diversity happening in this stale, white, middle-class, male community. As lil wayne would say: "this is history in the making, now shut the fuck up and let me make it". This community is changing for the better and we all need to stand up from our stagnant feuds of style -- old guard versus new guard, black versus white, critical versus policy -- and keep on moving for the sake of progress. -Nick Leader of a Crunk Revolution -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080731/0bf54db6/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu Jul 31 15:20:39 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:20:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I appreciate your post, Nick, and pledge absolute solidarity with you. I think there IS a difference between those who would, in the context of debate, argue against topic abandonment and for a policy framework, and Stix's VDare crap. Stix might have made a few points vaguely resembling "framework" arguments (which I suppose could be quoted, EXTREMELY out of context, to make a framework argument--though nobody better ever do so in front of me), but his overall thesis is: (a) blacks are unfairly privileged (!), (b) the judges who voted for Towson cheated, and (c) Towson's title is a sign of the white guilt and intellectual decline of the university system. Those three arguments are the core of his attack. He is ignorant of the nuances of framework debates, and the only reason he's even paying attention to the debate community is that a couple of African-Americans had the audacity to win a national title. NOBODY in the college debate community is making the arguments Stix is making, and I am afraid that the effort to conflate Stix with the pro-policy side of the debate community risks both divisiveness and a charge of opportunism (that I am not making towards you, to be clear). While I am disturbed that many in the college debate community are reluctant to publicly declare their solidarity with Towson, I remain convinced that people can make limits-based arguments in the context of debate without getting stuck with the underlying ideology advanced by Stix. That doesn't mean that Towson and others can answer back with arguments about the ideological links between framework arguments and identity-based marginalization. It just means that the two are not intrinsically connected in a social and political sense: progressive-minded people of all identity groups can and do debate these issues out from multiple sides. As someone who has coached both sides of this and voted for both sides of this as a judge, the differences between "policy debate good" and "African-Americans winning a title using nontraditional arguments bad" is perfectly clear to me. Thanks again. It means a lot. matt stannard Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:59:52 -0400From: nicholas.brady89 at gmail.comTo: edebate at ndtceda.comSubject: [eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up May i first begin this by saying to Mr. Stennard, I am truly sorry for what happened to you. I wish this internet jackasses would stop using the n-word to brand ppl when i know damn well that they would never say that your face. I have experienced this same thing many a times, but seeing that made me think of all the times i've been called a nigger on the internet. I've been called that word on the internet more times than i have fingers and toes, but the sad part of all this is not the fact that i was called a nigger -- i mean i'm black, its a sad reality that this is is how a good portion of this nation sees me and i've gotten to the point where it doesn't hurt me much -- but rather that the site that i have been called nigger the most was on cross-x.com. Now I understand that the website is full of immature, debating losers, but honestly i want to use that as a jumping off point. Even though I'm sure the community is mad to have a "white supremacist" critiquing it, but honestly is the article very much different from what you say every single round that you hit a critical team? Sure some teams attempt to "out-left" or counter-critique their way through performance arguments, but the grand majority of this community could quite frankly use that article as a piece of evidence in one of their "louisville" blocks. When i was running project arguments every round i heard the same things while they were prepping: "get out the louisville file" even though my argument was drastically different from the louisville case and they would go through the same "stick to the topic" "fairness over education" "limits is the best standard" "predictability key to good ground" "bpo is best framework" kind of arguments that are very common in these kind of rounds. I do believe that once we get past this white supremacist writing style, his ad hominem attacks on these black debaters, and the like we can find the exact same type of arguments as his foundation. I think the reason why the debate community feels repulsed by this article and is attempting to sweep it under the rug is because you have read this article, have literally seen ur arguments in this article like a mirror, and feel repulsed more at yourself than anything else. It is a common reaction when you are having a type of metaphysical correspondence with your own inner "racism" and instead of actually dealing with yourself, you attempt to destroy that which is making you have such an awakening. If a person looks in the mirror everyday and is repulsed by their image they would much rather throw out the mirror than work on themselves. When i read this article i shrugged my shoulders because honestly I'm used to hearing his argumentation -- its nothing more than what you have given to all performance teams.Now let me take a bit of a radical stance and this is when i am sure ppl will begin to hate what i am saying. This Vdare article -- to a limited degree -- hit a nail on the head. Now don't get me wrong, he pulled out a sludgehammer to hit a small nail and destroyed much of the land around him -- but still he did hit a nail. The nail I think is that these project affs are a form of ethnic whining -- and I say this as a person who has run them and honestly believed in them. I will first highlight this point: PROJECT ARGUMENTS WERE AN EFFECTIVE, MEANINGUL, AND ULTIMATELY SUCESSFUL TOOL. So please no backlash from project runners who think i'm some conservative debater speaking -- i truly believe that like the Black Power movement and Civil Rights movement, project critiques played an important part in progressing this community. But what startled me recently was that while I was judging at the Baltimore Urban Debate League -- a 99 percent Black/Latino debate league -- people were running project affirmatives accusing other black ppl of being white supremacist? That made me freeze. I understand the line of argumentation -- Black ppl can be white supremacist too. But literally the negative never ran topicality, never ran framework, never ran a defense of fiat -- they ran Empire. But the affirmative in the 2ac got up and read these blocks saying "topicality is bad", "fiat is white supremacist", etc. Project critiques have gotten to the point in this community where they are just as generically bad and unspecific as a politics da and normativity - wtf? Thats because we have gotten to the point where project critiques are "non-unique" -- they are horrifically generic attacks on a community that is not all-together exclusive. Project critiques were supposed to open a space for minority and poor debaters and guess what? It has. Good job, pat on the back, round of applause for everyone!So what now?Well, I will leave that up to the debaters and coaches to decide. All I will say is that i "Vdare" you all to stand up for progress within the debate community. People who are devoted to the project of racial, class, and gender equality within this activity need to realize that the time for whining about racial dominance of white debaters and demanding ballots for some cause that is so splintered and unspecific that it is utterly idiotic to say this is a "movement" has come to an end. At the same time it is time for this larger community to understand that this: yes, this community is going to change a WHOLE lot and we need to stop making the same damn canned answers about predictability this and fiat that. This vdare article only shows what these canned, framework answers always were: a kneejerk reaction to a revolution of diversity happening in this stale, white, middle-class, male community. As lil wayne would say: "this is history in the making, now shut the fuck up and let me make it". This community is changing for the better and we all need to stand up from our stagnant feuds of style -- old guard versus new guard, black versus white, critical versus policy -- and keep on moving for the sake of progress.-NickLeader of a Crunk Revolution _________________________________________________________________ Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080731/46505f7b/attachment.htm From nicholas.brady89 Thu Jul 31 15:32:06 2008 From: nicholas.brady89 (nicholas brady) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you, that is a very good point. But on that, I have heard many (clearly not urself) in this community that have had these exact same arguments behind the reasons why they write these blocks. I remember i first learned about louisville at debate camp when a group of all white debaters were pledging their hatred for performance and because of my true ignornace of the activity and specifically this line of argument at the time (i had never heard of a critique before then) I became their "black co-signer". >From there we as a camp made blocks against lousisville and other performance arguments with this to-a-degree-racist ideology behind everything we were writing and researching. I remain very sensitive to this line of argument because I have heard much of this community -- at least when it first started -- say they hated the fact that debaters were essentially winning because they were black. One of the points on the block that I wrote myself at this point -- I am ashamed to say, but I will say for the point of putting it out there -- was 5. I am a Black man, and I demand the ballot to promote the progress of myself. When i showed this to my white colleagues they all laughed but now looking back it wasn't very funny at all. I have run project critiques and ppl's blocks have said "Give me the ballot because I am a poor white man" or something like that. So again, I think a pretty considerable portion of this community actually have this Vdare-ideology at the center of their strategies. This is just my personal bias coming through, it may or may not be true. On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:20 PM, matt stannard wrote: > I appreciate your post, Nick, and pledge absolute solidarity with you. > > I think there IS a difference between those who would, in the context of > debate, argue against topic abandonment and for a policy framework, and > Stix's VDare crap. Stix might have made a few points vaguely resembling > "framework" arguments (which I suppose could be quoted, EXTREMELY out of > context, to make a framework argument--though nobody better ever do so in > front of me), but his overall thesis is: (a) blacks are unfairly privileged > (!), (b) the judges who voted for Towson cheated, and (c) Towson's title is > a sign of the white guilt and intellectual decline of the university > system. Those three arguments are the core of his attack. He is ignorant > of the nuances of framework debates, and the only reason he's even paying > attention to the debate community is that a couple of African-Americans had > the audacity to win a national title. > > NOBODY in the college debate community is making the arguments Stix is > making, and I am afraid that the effort to conflate Stix with the pro-policy > side of the debate community risks both divisiveness and a charge of > opportunism (that I am not making towards you, to be clear). > > While I am disturbed that many in the college debate community are > reluctant to publicly declare their solidarity with Towson, I remain > convinced that people can make limits-based arguments in the context of > debate without getting stuck with the underlying ideology advanced by Stix. > That doesn't mean that Towson and others can answer back with arguments > about the ideological links between framework arguments and identity-based > marginalization. It just means that the two are not intrinsically connected > in a social and political sense: progressive-minded people of all identity > groups can and do debate these issues out from multiple sides. As someone > who has coached both sides of this and voted for both sides of this as a > judge, the differences between "policy debate good" and "African-Americans > winning a title using nontraditional arguments bad" is perfectly clear to > me. > > Thanks again. It means a lot. > > matt stannard > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:59:52 -0400 > From: nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up > > > > May i first begin this by saying to Mr. Stennard, I am truly sorry for what > happened to you. I wish this internet jackasses would stop using the n-word > to brand ppl when i know damn well that they would never say that your face. > I have experienced this same thing many a times, but seeing that made me > think of all the times i've been called a nigger on the internet. I've been > called that word on the internet more times than i have fingers and toes, > but the sad part of all this is not the fact that i was called a nigger -- i > mean i'm black, its a sad reality that this is is how a good portion of this > nation sees me and i've gotten to the point where it doesn't hurt me much -- > but rather that the site that i have been called nigger the most was on > cross-x.com. Now I understand that the website is full of immature, > debating losers, but honestly i want to use that as a jumping off point. > Even though I'm sure the community is mad to have a "white supremacist" > critiquing it, but honestly is the article very much different from what you > say every single round that you hit a critical team? Sure some teams attempt > to "out-left" or counter-critique their way through performance arguments, > but the grand majority of this community could quite frankly use that > article as a piece of evidence in one of their "louisville" blocks. When i > was running project arguments every round i heard the same things while they > were prepping: "get out the louisville file" even though my argument was > drastically different from the louisville case and they would go through the > same "stick to the topic" "fairness over education" "limits is the best > standard" "predictability key to good ground" "bpo is best framework" kind > of arguments that are very common in these kind of rounds. I do believe that > once we get past this white supremacist writing style, his ad hominem > attacks on these black debaters, and the like we can find the exact same > type of arguments as his foundation. I think the reason why the debate > community feels repulsed by this article and is attempting to sweep it under > the rug is because you have read this article, have literally seen ur > arguments in this article like a mirror, and feel repulsed more at yourself > than anything else. It is a common reaction when you are having a type of > metaphysical correspondence with your own inner "racism" and instead of > actually dealing with yourself, you attempt to destroy that which is making > you have such an awakening. If a person looks in the mirror everyday and is > repulsed by their image they would much rather throw out the mirror than > work on themselves. When i read this article i shrugged my shoulders because > honestly I'm used to hearing his argumentation -- its nothing more than what > you have given to all performance teams. > > Now let me take a bit of a radical stance and this is when i am sure ppl > will begin to hate what i am saying. This Vdare article -- to a limited > degree -- hit a nail on the head. Now don't get me wrong, he pulled out a > sludgehammer to hit a small nail and destroyed much of the land around him > -- but still he did hit a nail. The nail I think is that these project affs > are a form of ethnic whining -- and I say this as a person who has run them > and honestly believed in them. I will first highlight this point: PROJECT > ARGUMENTS WERE AN EFFECTIVE, MEANINGUL, AND ULTIMATELY SUCESSFUL TOOL. So > please no backlash from project runners who think i'm some conservative > debater speaking -- i truly believe that like the Black Power movement and > Civil Rights movement, project critiques played an important part in > progressing this community. But what startled me recently was that while I > was judging at the Baltimore Urban Debate League -- a 99 percent > Black/Latino debate league -- people were running project affirmatives > accusing other black ppl of being white supremacist? That made me freeze. I > understand the line of argumentation -- Black ppl can be white supremacist > too. But literally the negative never ran topicality, never ran framework, > never ran a defense of fiat -- they ran Empire. But the affirmative in the > 2ac got up and read these blocks saying "topicality is bad", "fiat is white > supremacist", etc. Project critiques have gotten to the point in this > community where they are just as generically bad and unspecific as a > politics da and normativity - wtf? Thats because we have gotten to the point > where project critiques are "non-unique" -- they are horrifically generic > attacks on a community that is not all-together exclusive. Project critiques > were supposed to open a space for minority and poor debaters and guess what? > It has. Good job, pat on the back, round of applause for everyone! > > So what now? > > Well, I will leave that up to the debaters and coaches to decide. All I > will say is that i "Vdare" you all to stand up for progress within the > debate community. People who are devoted to the project of racial, class, > and gender equality within this activity need to realize that the time for > whining about racial dominance of white debaters and demanding ballots for > some cause that is so splintered and unspecific that it is utterly idiotic > to say this is a "movement" has come to an end. At the same time it is time > for this larger community to understand that this: yes, this community is > going to change a WHOLE lot and we need to stop making the same damn canned > answers about predictability this and fiat that. This vdare article only > shows what these canned, framework answers always were: a kneejerk reaction > to a revolution of diversity happening in this stale, white, middle-class, > male community. As lil wayne would say: "this is history in the making, now > shut the fuck up and let me make it". This community is changing for the > better and we all need to stand up from our stagnant feuds of style -- old > guard versus new guard, black versus white, critical versus policy -- and > keep on moving for the sake of progress. > > -Nick > Leader of a Crunk Revolution > > > ------------------------------ > Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger. Get > started. > -- Nicholas Brady BSU Community Service Chair Youth Commissioner to the Mayor representing the 4th District Founder of the Alpha Wolf Party "This history in the making Now shut up and let me make it" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080731/c11c3c34/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Thu Jul 31 19:37:15 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:37:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Files Produced at BCD coop Message-ID: <9368bc9b0807311737p73886830g1cec904dc4bf713@mail.gmail.com> Indexes and all that jazz will be coming soon but these are the titles of the arguments produced during a great two weeks Plagerism Good Barndt Framework Anarcho Primitivism K Freire Ag policy K Managerialism K Anthro Neg File Black Rage Args Traditional Policy Debate Good CAFO's Aff Starter Set CAFOS NEGATIVE STARTER SET Capitalism K of "Race" EU DA Marxism Backfile Food Spikes Geneology of Cotton Aff Materialism K Prison Farms Aff Ruralism 1AC Rhizomes-Becoming Pink Rhizomes Framework Negritude stupid undergrounds Theory File -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080731/6603874d/attachment.htm From sethellsworth Thu Jul 31 21:41:21 2008 From: sethellsworth (Seth T. Ellsworth) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:41:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50 dollars a bag In-Reply-To: References: <412d08cb0807291802n5e2c1547q6009baf6df4e22e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <412d08cb0807311941s4aaa35aekaf089e63c6c1229b@mail.gmail.com> Jason Jarvis just replyed to me, but this was clearly for the whole list. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jason Jarvis Date: Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 7:57 PM Subject: RE: [eDebate] Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50 dollars a bag To: "Seth T. Ellsworth" I know this is really off focus for the list....but can anyone give me insight into why American based airlines are so abysmally bad? And I don't mean "high oil prices".....In the past 5 years I have travelled to more than 15 countries and flown all kinds of airlines from cheap budget airlines (Air Asia) to the gold standard of airlines (Singapore Air)....ALL of them have given me service that is equal to or better than what we get in America. In fact, the US is the country that I dread travelling to the most. Between airline service and the UTTER NONSENSE that is US security regulations and immigration its always a pointless hassle (and no, I don't think Homeland Security has actually made you more secure by harassing and confusing you at every possible opportunity). Why are US airlines so screwed up? The checked baggage thing is just another example, but the problems predate the spike in fuel prices. Anyone got any info, links, etc? ...back to lurking.... Jason L. Jarvis Assistant Dean and Lecturer, Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and Management http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:02:00 -0600 From: sethellsworth at gmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50 dollars a bag I always hated Delta, but somethings going to have to give soon with the airlines: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/business/30bags.html?ex=1375070400&en=de95b0280ea07840&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Also, Matt Stannard is kind of totalitarian. ------------------------------ Time for vacation? WIN what you need. Enter Now! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080731/df356866/attachment.htm From kel1773 Thu Jul 31 22:12:40 2008 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:12:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50 dollars a bag Message-ID: NPR provides some insight... National Public Radio (NPR) June 17, 2008 Tuesday SHOW: Morning Edition 11:00-12:00 PM Foreign Airlines Prosper While U.S. Carriers Struggle ANCHORS: STEVE INSKEEP LENGTH: 701 words STEVE INSKEEP, host: Airlines in the United States may be struggling; airlines overseas are not. Germany's Lufthansa posted record profits last year. British Airways says its yearly profits more than doubled. And so to try to understand why this is kind of a tale of two industries, we've invited in David Field. He's U.S. editor of Airline Business magazine, a regular guest here. David, good morning. Mr. DAVID FIELD (Airline Business Magazine): Good morning. INSKEEP: How could it be that American airlines are struggling, charging extra for baggage, complaining about fuel costs, and overseas airlines are making big profits? Mr. FIELD: Overseas airlines, particularly European airlines, are not exposed at home to the low-cost competition. They don't face a Southwest at home. That's because they don't fly very much at home. Lufthansa is 75, 80 percent overseas, long distance. British Airways the same. And if you do see a British Airways flight on a local route, it's probably a franchise carrier rather than BA itself. INSKEEP: Does this mean that when fuel costs go up, if you're British Airways it's much easier for you to just jack up fares to customers? Mr. FIELD: In Europe in particular it's easier to impose fuel surcharges. It's not easier to raise fares, but you can do it. And also when fuel prices go up, they pay less than U.S. carriers pay. U.S. carriers pay in dollars, and dollars cost so little buy that you have to pay more per gallon of fuel. INSKEEP: Oh, let's make sure we understand this. Oil is bought and sold in dollars. Mr. FIELD: Right. INSKEEP: And so U.S. carriers get the full impact of this. But if British Airways is buying in pounds or the airlines are buying in euros, those are much stronger currencies right now. Mr. FIELD: Exactly. Exactly. INSKEEP: Now, let's talk about one consequence of this. U.S. carriers are not adding routes to China, which must be one of the hottest destinations right now, because they say can't afford it. Mr. FIELD: In the last two or three years there was a very fiercely fought competition for new routes to be given out by the D.O.T. One of the airlines that won one of the routes, U.S. Airways, says it can't afford to start up next year. The $60 million in annual fuel costs that U.S. Airways had estimated, it's gone up to $90 million. INSKEEP: Does that mean that U.S. Airlines can't compete on the international routes with their international competitors? Mr. FIELD: In a lot of cases it does mean that, that they have to rely on home traffic simply as a matter of habit. INSKEEP: And there seem to be more and more overseas carriers trying to make a name for themselves. I think of Emirates Airways out of Dubai or Qatar Airways out of Qatar. Mr. FIELD: Or Ediat(ph), which is a relatively new five-year-old airline from the Gulf states doing incredibly well, having established the Gulf states as a transfer point for long distance international travelers. INSKEEP: Are there East Asian airlines jumping ahead as well? Mr. FIELD: Certainly there are East Asian airlines that are doing awfully well, such as Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines - probably the greatest airline in the world. And they're doing well because they have a homeland base that enjoys premium service and is willing to pay premium dollar. INSKEEP: What do you mean premium service for the East Asian airlines? Mr. FIELD: People who sit in first class and business class and who will pay $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 and $8,000 for a lot of personal space, a lie-down flat bad, and incredibly high levels of people waiting on you. And you don't see that in U.S. airlines. INSKEEP: Can I just ask, is it possible, given the regulatory situation, for someday there to be an Emirates Air flight that I would take from Washington to Houston, say? Mr. FIELD: Wouldn't that be nice? But right now, no, that's pretty much impossible. Local traffic rights, or cabitage, are very strictly limited. You cannot fly locally and pick up and drop off passengers. And until you see foreign ownership of or foreign investment in U.S. airlines, I don't think you'll see anything like that. INSKEEP: David Field of Airline Business magazine. Thanks for coming by. Mr. FIELD: It's my pleasure. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080731/44f21fdb/attachment.htm