[eDebate] Topic Wording

Art Kyriazis akbiotech
Wed Jul 16 09:23:17 CDT 2008


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" <gacggc at gmail.com>
> 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" <ragarner at buffalo.edu>
> 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 <webb767 at gmail.com> 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 <blackdebateguy at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] Jason (JK) Newton or Ben Durham
> To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Message-ID: <BLU111-DAV70435F626D6DB09F8571DD0930 at phx.gbl>
> 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" <richardgarner at gmail.com>
> 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 <bamadebate at yahoo.com> 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 <davismk13 at gmail.com>
>> To: Clay Webb <webb767 at gmail.com>
>> 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 <webb767 at gmail.com> 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 <acasey3 at ucok.edu>
> 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 <bamadebate at yahoo.com>
> 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" <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" <kkuswa at richmond.edu>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Voting on a topic based on NDT elims is stupid.
> To: "ed lee" <bamadebate at yahoo.com>, <scottelliott at grandecom.net>,
> 	<edebate at ndtceda.com>
> 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" <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" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] Join the YOURS Cause on facebook
> To: edebate <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
> 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 



More information about the Mailman mailing list