From andy.edebate Thu May 1 12:04:13 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 13:04:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Reparations Message-ID: <9368bc9b0805011004g24742756g3da12f834ba2ac1b@mail.gmail.com> So here is a question to think about. If most people when discussing them think reparations are "a good idea" in principal, why doesnt the political climate foster a discussion even close to supportive of building the political and epistemic power to implement them? Instead while we say they are a good idea we live in a political climate which is activley rolling back the results of the long civil rights movement that form the set of social institutions closest to reparative justice, america has ever come. I suspect that there are a lot more questions and objections people have than they are willing to admit, or at least they know some of the arguments "other people will make", the debates that we are too sensitive to bring up, or perhaps many think but they just dont have to confront because they can use technologies of evasion in order to ignore the framing of the question... But, if this good idea is ever to gain political legs people must begin the process of researching understanding and knowing the arguments, if you think reparations are a good idea, but are pretty sure they are not politicaly viable then you need to do the work to connect the good idea part to the ability to persuade and convince people, if you don't think its a good idea(which i suspect is the case for many folks) then it makes a good debate. We talk about open and contentious debates about race as if they where somehow argumentativly below us, and make bad debates, but if the public will for reparative justice is to grow in america, it has to answer white backlash, has to negotiate the oppression olympics, and has to overcome the unspoken heard of reverse racism, we can ignore the fact that these debates are real and need to have more people from all spectrums willing to interpret and advance them, on campuses , in public debates, in your community, and amongst friends and family. If you are worried that it won't be debated at any level beyond the agent, you may have a good concern...but we must ask why...what does it say about the way we carry ourselves, etchicaly and scholarly to say that we will resort to the fringe arguments like we where cnn focusing on reverend wright or flag lapel pins? What if you don't want to have to win your war impact against a racism argument? why not? it seems to allow the debate that most people try to avoid, the aff is likely to be bhind on the link but lets have a year of debates where we evaluate these things on equivalent playing fileds, and aff that has a risk of solving significant harm of racism on a policy level versus the damage to the dominant system that might cause on a policy level, not on a tangential discourse level, but a head to head policy question about what priorities should drive political strategy and what frameworks we use to evaulte risk and harm? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080501/1a1a3260/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 Thu May 1 15:26:43 2008 From: jwpatt00 (Patterson, J W) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:26:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] TOC Message-ID: I have heard through the Grapevine that several of you will be in Lexington this week-end for the TOC. If so. I hope you will do the following: First, permit your name to go in the judge pool for one or two sounds. If so you can designate the day and the rounds. Your high school colleagues will be very happy to see you in the back of the room. If you are willing,please e-mail me with a copy to Dave Hingstman. Second, drop by the Lexington Suite of the Radisson Hotel Friday--through Monday evenings for refreshments. I HOPE YOU ESPECIALLY WILL COME BY ON SUNDAY EVENING TO SOCIALIZE WITH YOUR HIGH SCHOOL COLLEAGUES. JW From bmoreboi325 Thu May 1 16:01:27 2008 From: bmoreboi325 (Deven) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 14:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] RECORDED DEBATES AT NDT Message-ID: <809785.46543.qm@web65406.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Hi has anyone recorded the doubles round between towson and Mo state at the NDT --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080501/12d5a39f/attachment.htm From epanetta Thu May 1 20:29:50 2008 From: epanetta (Ed Panetta) Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 21:29:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] University of Georgia Debate Coach Message-ID: <000301c8abf4$0446d520$6401a8c0@panettahome> Casey Harrigan recently accepted the position of Debate Coach at the University of Georgia. In addition to his coaching duties, Casey will be a member of the faculty in the Department of Speech Communication. The Bulldogs are looking forward to working with their new coach in 08-09. From crb012000 Fri May 2 00:51:24 2008 From: crb012000 (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 00:51:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DEBATERS CHOICE AWARDS Message-ID: Yes, they're back. Soon I'll post the ballot for this season. Watch for it on eDebate. Chris Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/new/ "If you believe everything you read, you better not read." -- Japanese Proverb From Joshua.A.Kernoff Fri May 2 08:50:23 2008 From: Joshua.A.Kernoff (Joshua A. Kernoff) Date: 02 May 2008 09:50:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DFU Hockey: The Final Update Message-ID: <130881467@newvixen.Dartmouth.EDU> DFU Hockey has finished its record-setting hockey season. For those interested in the final updates, you can catch the action at: http://dfu-hockey.blogspot.com/ I will point out, score-board alone, at least we fared better than the Aves (http://scores.espn.go.com/nhl/clubhouse?team=det) From EricMorris Fri May 2 10:53:11 2008 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:53:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DFU Hockey: The Final Update References: <130881467@newvixen.Dartmouth.EDU> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6B52@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I think the scoreboard alone is an adequate comparative assessment. For what I've heard, Misery Business would clock the Red Wings in a pickup game. I hope that theory could be tested as entertainment between the periods of a NHL playoff game this year. Make it so. Particularly impressive was DFU's ability to hold their composure in front of a hostile pro-Misery Business arena. It's almost like getting a win over the Raiders a long time ago when they were good! Will the league rules allow you to keep the trophy even after certain BALCO allegations come to light? If not, I shall be needing some hush money...I hear Dartmouth has some wealthy alums.... 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 ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Joshua A. Kernoff Sent: Fri 5/2/08 8:50 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] DFU Hockey: The Final Update DFU Hockey has finished its record-setting hockey season. For those interested in the final updates, you can catch the action at: http://dfu-hockey.blogspot.com/ I will point out, score-board alone, at least we fared better than the Aves (http://scores.espn.go.com/nhl/clubhouse?team=det) _______________________________________________ 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/20080502/41956a3f/attachment.htm From bratt Fri May 2 13:18:40 2008 From: bratt (bratt at capitol-debate.com) Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 11:18:40 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] High School Coaching Position for National Travel Team in Maryland Message-ID: <20080502111840.8cce6020757326d78a2cd7ce56dd3822.182b6fc206.wbe@email.secureserver.net> 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 currently searching for a head coach for our national team for next year. The job can range from part-time to potential full time position. General responsibilities for part time position include: 1. Meet with the Students at least 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 We are looking for someone with experience successfully coaching high school students on the national level. Experience working as a lab leader during the summer a plus. Of course, this is ideal for someone moving out to the DC area who needs coaching work to supplement income. But we are considering making this closer to a full time position for the right candidate. Additional responsibilites for the full time position would include working with novices, teaching middle school debate and administrative work for the nonprofit. Reliable Transportation is a must! If you are interested in these opportunities, please email me a letter of interest detailing your background in debate and coaching and your interest level in the job. A resume would be helpful also. My email is bratt at capitol-debate.com. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 443 538 4992. I will also be at the Tournament of Champions Sunday Afternoon and most of Monday if you would like to speak. Thank you, Ronald Bratt Founder Capitol Debate http://www.capitol-debate.com bratt at capitol-debate.com 443 538 4992 From mardigras23 Sun May 4 19:34:06 2008 From: mardigras23 (Aaron Kall) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 00:34:06 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] 2008 TOC Octafinals Judges Message-ID: 2008 TOC Octafinals Judges- 10:30 AM approx. start time (following banquet) Currently scheduled to judge Octafinals: Berthiaume Bricker Clark Culpepper Fitzmier Greenstein Hall Hamraie Harrigan Heidt, D. Heidt, J Herndon Jennings Keenan Lee Lingel Matheson Morales Murray Olsen Paul Phillips Quinn Repko Octafinals Standby Judges: Abelkop Antonucci Blank Burshteyn Carver Chung Eyzaguirre Forslund Hardy Hill Hoe Johnson, Blake Jones Lai Mahoney Marks Murillo Polin Silber Tarloff Turner Warden Aaron Kall _________________________________________________________________ Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1. http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080505/dc945ff9/attachment.htm From regedebate Mon May 5 08:32:53 2008 From: regedebate (David Register) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 09:32:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] WDI Scholars Program 2008 Message-ID: <8f08f7f30805050632s40dbaf51k67eeb79048e00ab2@mail.gmail.com> WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE National College Policy Debate Workshop July 24 ? August 7, 2008 University of Vermont SCHOLARS After sorting through a very strong pool of applicants, we are proud to announce the 2008 WDI Scholars! Thank you to all who applied and made this a difficult decision. Brian Rubaie (Texas ? Dallas) We are glad to welcome Brian back for a second year with us. Brian is one of the finest young debate minds in the activity, and has an outstanding work ethic. After closing out his high school career at Shawnee Mission East with a win at the state tournament in Kansas, Brian entered UT-D with a passion for competition. This passion has begun to pay dividends, and this year Brian cleared at numerous national tournaments and made it to the octafinals of CEDA. Nick Watts (Oklahoma) As part of the next generation of great OU debaters, Nick has shown success early in his college career. This year, as only a sophomore, Nick advanced to elimination rounds at both CEDA and the NDT. Nick can execute a variety of types of arguments in debates, but in particular has a knack for the art of debating Topicality. Nick is on the precipice of great success in this activity, and we are happy to be able to work with him this summer. Lauren Sabino (Wake Forest) Like many Wake debaters before her, Lauren exudes versatility. With experience at all speaker positions, Lauren knows the game from many angles. She is adept at researching all argument types and then executing in debates. Lauren's versatility paid off this year. She cleared at West Georgia and both halves of the Texas Two Step, won the Liberty tournament, advanced to quarters at the University of Texas, and qualified for and nearly cleared at the NDT. Dylan Quigley (Kansas) If you do not know "the professor", you should know that the nickname is not just a result of his appearance. Dylan's love for teaching is only matched by his love for learning. We are excited to welcome this rising star from the Kansas squad. Dylan brings a well-rounded debate resume to the table, with expertise in both policy and critical arguments as well as the line-by-line precision you would expect from any top KU debater. THE PLACE TO BE Join us this summer on the beautiful campus of the University of Vermont in Burlington. UVM (Universitatis virdis Montis or University of the Green Mountains) is nestled between the Green Mountains and Lake Champlain in upper New England. This is one of the greatest places imaginable in the summer. The temperature in July and August tends to hover in the 70's, and is usually accompanied by sunshine and a cool breeze. Lush greens and vibrant colors punctuate the spectacular views of the lake and the mountains from the campus. Access WDI attendees stay on campus, and have access to a variety of campus services. This summer, the cost includes computer lab access, scanning, printing, and photocopying. Attendees also have access to UVM library services, including a host of electronic databases such as Lexis-Nexis, Project Muse, and JSTOR. Emphasis on Skills Why wait to start debating? All WDI attendees this summer receive a pre-camp evidence set at the beginning of camp. This evidence will be prepared in a coordinated effort between scholars and faculty, and will be the basis of numerous practice debates early in the institute. Plus, you can see this evidence on display as the scholars open the institute with the first webcast debate on the 2008-2009 topic. The WDI provides face time with some of the finest coaches and debaters in the country. Attendees will participate in small argument groups with faculty and scholars; ensuring hands-on training in evidence production, in-round execution, and debate theory. Look for our full schedule coming soon! Dates: One Week Session: July 24 ? Aug 1, 2008 Two Week Session: July 24 ? Aug 7, 2008 First day is arrival day: check-in between 5 - 7 pm Last day is departure day: leave between 9 - 11 am Now there are two different ways to attend the National College Policy Debate Workshop. WDI One Week Session ? Arrive on Thursday, July 24 and spend an intense week working on debate skills, research, elective classes and theory in small sessions with faculty members. WDI Full Session (Two Weeks) ? Experience the above program and then in the last week focus on research project and skill sessions using daily practice debates. The full package will prepare you to succeed in the upcoming year. FACULTY Jackie Massey, Director of Debate, University of Oklahoma Began the debate program at the University of Oklahoma, and within five years his team won CEDA Nationals and appeared in the semifinals of the NDT. Coached teams to the elimination rounds of CEDA and the NDT at every school where he has worked. His specialties include breaking down resolutions to reveal underlying grounds for argument, creation of new frameworks for debate decision-making, getting conservative judges to vote for radical strategies, making debate relevant to a multicultural world, and gaining advantages over top teams through innovation. Jackie is one of the best teachers in the game. He utilizes a holistic approach; teaching research, argument, and delivery technique simultaneously. The results speak for themselves. Sarah Green, Assistant Director of Debate, Kansas State University Reached the elimination rounds of CEDA and the NDT as a debater for Vermont. Part of the first team in history comprised of two debaters with no high school experience to advance to the elimination rounds of the NDT. Named the Eastern United States Debater of the year in 2000. Coached the University of Rochester when they won national championships in the NDT and CEDA Sweepstakes. Directed the District of Columbia Urban Debate League during its formation, and led it to strength and security. Now the Assistant Director of Debate at Kansas State University, Sarah has been instrumental in the rise of the Wildcats who finished fifth this year in the overall NDT rankings. In addition to being a fantastic skills trainer, Sarah is adept in breaking down and researching topics. Her instincts in this regard are invaluable in the summer, and will ensure excellent topic lectures and a highly relevant pre-camp evidence set. Justin Green, Director of Debate, Kansas State University Where do you start with Justin Green? For almost two decades Justin has brought debate success to everywhere he's been. As a Wake Forest debater, Justin won the Kentucky Round Robin, UMKC, and North Carolina. He cleared at every major national tournament. As Director of Debate at Georgetown, he coached teams who advanced at numerous national tournaments and the NDT. Now Director of Debate at Kansas State University, Justin has helped to usher in a new era of K State dominance. His teams see success at all levels, and the respect Justin has in the debate world is visible in the caliber of coaches who surround him. Justin's specialties include developing winning negative strategies, teaching debate theory, and training debaters to see the big picture. Scott Herndon, Assistant Director of Debate, University of Texas ? Dallas If you haven't had a decision after a debate rendered by Scott, you should get your pref sheets in order. A true flow expert, Scott is one of the best around at breaking down complicated rounds and elevating the game of all involved with on-point advice about what could have been done. After successful years coaching at Kansas State, Scott moved to the Texas Metroplex to put the University of Texas-Dallas on the map. His success there has been visible, as his teams now qualify regularly for the NDT and clear often at national tournaments. We are excited to welcome Scott to the faculty this year, and feel that his talents in crafting winning arguments will guarantee a very successful WDI. David Register, Debate Coach, University of Vermont After a successful debate career at Emporia State, including numerous elimination round appearances at CEDA nationals and multiple qualifications for the NDT, David went on to coach and earn a Masters degree at the University of North Texas. Now in his second year coaching at the University of Vermont, David won the Top Judge award at the University of Nevada Las Vegas Tournament, and directed Vermont to the Northeast Program of the Year in 2007. David's specializes in critical arguments, teaching debate theory, and rebuttal execution. Alfred "Tuna" Snider, Director of Debate, University of Vermont; Director, World Debate Institute Reached the semifinal round at the NDT as a debater, coached two teams to semifinals at nationals, four teams in the quarterfinals. He has coached at Seton Hall, Boston College, Kansas, Wayne State, and for the last 25 years, Vermont. Dr. Snider has received every major award given to debate educators in the USA, including the Pelham Coach of the Year award, the Don Brownlee Service to Debate award, the Ziegelmueller Debate Achievement award, the Slappey Diversity in Debate award, the Douglas Dedication to Debate award and the Jacobsohn Service to Debate award. His work in promoting debate has also brought him awards from Emory University, the University of Utah, Cornell University, Binghamton University, the National Forensic League and the University of South Carolina. GET MORE INFORMATION Call: (800) 639-3210 or (802) 656-2085 Web: debate.uvm.edu/wdi ACADEMIC CREDIT OPTION You may enroll for academic credit; call 800-639-3210 or visit the website for more information. More information coming soon! 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/20080505/b2685f76/attachment.htm From jmgreen Mon May 5 12:35:15 2008 From: jmgreen (Justin Green) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 12:35:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kansas State Coaching Additions and Thanks Message-ID: <5a6e2a80805051035u7bc8e26dgf4f65cf05389cb5b@mail.gmail.com> The Wildcats are excited to welcome three new faces to Manhattan next year. Jeff Roberts will be an Assistant Director of Debate. We appreciated the pool of very qualified applicants. We look forward to Jeff's experience and strategy. His previous debaters had nothing but positive things to say about him and we are all excited about him coming to Manhattan. We also would like to publicly welcome graduate assistants: Halli Tripe (Baylor) - thank goodness, I don't think that KSU has ever defeated her..... and Natalie Pennington (Mo State) - who was already an honorary coach given the number of times she judged K-State the past year. We look forward to hearing her advice more often. And thank you - to Max Archer for the two years of hard work and selfless dedication to success. Max you are a big reason that KSU debate has had increasing success over the past two years. Your strategic presense will be missed; you always have a place as part of the KSU family. A quick plug: KSU will have 1-2 GTA spots for the 2009-10 year, if you are interested, please let anyone on our squad know. Sincerely, Justin Green, Megan Harlow, Sarah Snider, Dan Stout and KSU Debaters -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080505/54c11072/attachment.htm From jobs Mon May 5 14:01:38 2008 From: jobs (jobs at urbandebate.org) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 15:01:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Urban Debate League Director Job Posting Message-ID: <46505.192.168.1.70.1210014098.webmail@192.168.1.70> URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE DIRECTOR Job Description and Application Information The National Association for Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL) is working with local partners across the country to create new Urban Debate Leagues (UDLs) and to strengthen existing ones. A critical component of these efforts is to select a League Director for each local league. As such, the NAUDL and its partners -- local UDL advisory boards of directors -- are accepting applications for League Director positions in a series of cities: Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Memphis, St. Louis and Boston. Job Description These League Directors will be the principal programmatic and administrative agent of each UDL. They will be responsible for three main areas: The programmatic, developmental, and administrative work of the league. Programming: ? Undergo and effectively respond to advance and on-going training in the NAUDL Best Practices approach for UDL programmatic development and sustainability; ? Prepare the curriculum for and conduct all trainings for Coaches, Students, Judges, and volunteers in the relevant UDL; ? Provide on-going training, assistance, and support to local UDL Coaches through phone, email, and in-person meetings; ? Conduct approximately three site visits per week at local schools to provide support, modeling, and training to coaches and debaters; ? Complete reporting forms for all site visits, trainings, and tournaments; ? Build engagement, investment, and ownership of teachers, coaches, and school district administrators in the UDL; ? Promote and effect high attendance at trainings, and track participation; ? Establish operational procedures for UDL Tournaments, including for Announcements, Registration, Tab Room, Judge Table, the Awards Ceremony, etc.; and ? Direct the local UDL summer debate institute. Development: ? Identify, develop relationships with, and activate additional local stakeholders and strategic partner entities to expand the efficacy of the local UDL Advisory Board; ? Help coordinate local UDL events that cultivate local support, raise money, and recruit volunteers; ? Develop promotional materials and opportunities for the relevant UDL; and ? Submit letters, applications, grants, and reports to advance the Advisory Board?s fund-raising objectives. Administrative: ? Regularly report to the local UDL Advisory Board in both writing and orally, and meet regularly with the local UDL Advisory Board Chair by phone or in person; ? Regularly report to and work cooperatively with the local school district(s) on implementation, and regularly meet by phone or in-person with the school district administrator who supervises the UDL; ? Manage the local UDLs financial records, including of expenses, revenues, deposits, and withdrawals; and ? Track and monitor UDL performance, including the programmatic inputs (student participants, teacher involvement, contact/training hours, debate programming) and outputs (graduation rates, college matriculation, grade-point average, standardized test scores, attendance, and specific performance assessments). Qualifications ? B.A. or higher degree; ? Ownership of a vehicle and/or willingness to ride public transportation to high schools and other sites; ? Willingness to work evenings/weekends where necessary ? total working hours will be 40-50, but hours will not always be ?9 to 5?; ? Willingness and ability to be trained in the NAUDL?s Best Practices approach for UDLs and capacity for executing said approach; ? Experience in the non-profit sector, preferably in education; ? Experience in urban education ? non-profit, administrative, or classroom ? is a plus; ? Experience in current high school cross-examination policy debate is a significant plus; ? Capacity to negotiate effectively with diverse institutions and individuals ? e.g. urban school systems, local high school debate leadership, law firms and corporations, local UDL Advisory Board members, and universities; and ? Strong interpersonal, communication and organizational skills. Additional Information Compensation will vary by city, and will be commensurate with experience. Benefits will be folded into a single overall compensation figure. Candidates must currently live in, or be willing to relocate to, the UDL location for which they are applying. Candidates passing an initial screening will be interviewed by the relevant UDL Advisory Board with support from the NAUDL. It is the policy of the NAUDL and all of the UDL Advisory Boards to provide employment opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, creed, national origin, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, gender (sex) as required by law. Submit your c.v. and a cover letter, via email and U.S. Mail to: Anthony Jardina NAUDL 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60604 (e) jobs at urbandebate.org Please be sure to specify the city or cities for which you are applying for the League Director post: Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Memphis, St. Louis and/or Boston. Please do not phone regarding this position. Questions may be sent to: jobs at urbandebate.org. Thank you for your interest. From scottvarda Mon May 5 15:08:59 2008 From: scottvarda (scott varda) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 15:08:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kansas State Coaching Additions and Thanks Message-ID: The Bears are saddened by the departure of two of their best, but excited about their new positions at Kansas State. For the past four years, Halli has consistently been one of the hardest workers, if not THE hardest worker on Baylor's squad. Her commitment to excellence will surely be extended into graduate school and coaching. Jeff might be the most underrated coach and judge in the country. Every sweet Baylor has done regarding critical arguments had been enhanced by Jeff's efforts. If you like critical arguments, you simply MUST put him in the back of the room. I hope the folks in Manhattan know what a great deal they got with Jeff and Halli, the Bears are very proud of them. From mmk_savant Mon May 5 15:52:04 2008 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 13:52:04 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] she didn't get the Sokal memo either... Message-ID: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120995103004666569.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries ... Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_052008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080505/28eee23c/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn Mon May 5 18:33:56 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 18:33:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 'education for grownups' Message-ID: first up, here's a deleuzian critique of 'standpoint epistemology' (previously discussed in these two posts, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/074789.html , http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-April/074791.html ). _ levi bryant. professor of philosophy at collin college in frisco, texas. 2008. (difference and giveness: deleuze's transcendental empiricism and the ontology of immanence. p151-2.) _ If Deleuze's choice of terms point of view and perspectivism in particular contexts (notably Nietzsche and Philosophy) is regrettable, this is because of the subjectivist associations surrounding these terms. ... With respect to these connotations, perspective, point of view, or essence is treated as the internal domain of a subject independent of every other subject's point of view and unreachable by any other subject's point of view. Under this popular position - which is just another variant of the cult of the individual - matters quickly degenerate into unsupportable and incoherent moral assertions to the effect that "this is my point of view, that is yours," which are supposed to be democratic and tolerant but which in fact prove to be a form of mastery in which one no longer has to hear or engage with the alterity of the other. Moreover, this strategy fails to see that it is itself based on a universalist perspective that aims to transcend any particular point of view. The claim that we ought to be tolerant of the views of others is not simply one point of view, but a regulative principle governing all points of view. In the worst cases, theory is rejected altogether (since theory is supposed to only pertain to universals), and critical engagement degenerates into a banal sort of descriptivism or reporting of "personal experiences." In our opinion, this sort of subjectivism represents a variant of the constitutive ontological yearning for a lost plenitude, presence, or fullness which would like to deny difference and renounce alterity. Far from preserving tolerance and democracy, such views are predicated on the abolition of difference and alterity. Such a view is that of the beautiful soul in that it denies that holding any position involves the affirmation of some principles and the rejection of others. To be is affirm. To affirm is to select. To select is to exclude. _ next, here's a pragmatist critique (intended for "all kinds of policymakers") of 'the fact/value dichotomy'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTWKSb8ajXc _ notice, once we release the presupposition that if something is a value judgment, it can't possibly be stated as a fact (logical positivism), as well as the claim that value judgments are subjective (emotivism), then several traditional debate practices become problematic - namely, the possibility of 'non-intervention' and the privileging of 'cards'. the mutual entanglement of normative and descriptive predicates is also explored by frequently quoted 'kritik'-authors - for instance, judith butler, pierre schlag, and ernesto laclau. _ thoughts? _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_052008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080505/90b02b6b/attachment.htm From stevendamico Mon May 5 20:04:43 2008 From: stevendamico (Steven D'Amico) Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 21:04:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Make Money Doing Easy Research Message-ID: Do you want to make more money? Sure we all do. For a limited time only, you (a debater, debate coach or "other") on summer break, with spare time on your hands, can make $8 an hour researching phone numbers and addresses using basic internet tools. Work from home! Boring? Yes. Painfully so. Good money for easy work that can be done in front of the TV in the summer or while listening to your favorite rock band of choice? Damn straight. Backchannel for more details. I need this work done for one of my political campaigns. Looking for folks to get started ASAP... it's not a gig that will last more than a little while, unless I need more extended help. (A real possibility) I'm looking for several people. This is a perfect way for Asst. Coaches, with spare time before all the camps get started, to make some really easy fast cash. Steve D'Amico Spider Debate GW Colonial Ex-Patriot -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080505/c576b014/attachment.htm From johntheempire Tue May 6 11:51:59 2008 From: johntheempire (John Cook) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 11:51:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 'education for grownups' Message-ID: <5bfb770b0805060951p6dcb7bd6r93ae6da3b46a8167@mail.gmail.com> I'm sure my status as "grownup" will not be uncontested but here goes. To discuss this criticism of standpoint epistemology, it is important to understand Deleuze's understanding of how human agents come to make decisions. This understanding is heavily informed by Leibniz and Nietzsche and described by Deleuze in therms of the drives. Smith here puts it in a context I'm sure most of the community will appreciate: lust and smoking This is the source of Nietzsche's doctrine of perspectivism ("there are no facts, only interpretations"), but what is often overlooked is that, for Nietzsche, it is our drives that interpret the world, that are perspectival?and not our egos, not our conscious opinions. It is not so much that I have a different perspective on the world than you; it is rather that each of us has multiple perspectives on the world because of the multiplicity of our drives?drives that are often contradictory among themselves. "Within ourselves," Nietzsche writes, "we can be egoistic or altruistic, hard-hearted, magnanimous, just, lenient, insincere, can cause pain or give pleasure" (Parkes, pp. 291-292). We all contain such "a vast confusion of contradictory drives" (WP 259) that we are, as Nietzsche liked to say, multiplicities, and not unities. Moreover, these drives are in a constant struggle or combat with each other: my drive to smoke and get my nicotine rush is in combat with (but also coexistent with) my drive to quit. This is where Nietzsche first developed his concept of the will to power?at the level of the drives. "Every drive is a kind of lust to rule," he writes, "each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm" (WP 481). To be sure, we can combat the drives, fight against them?indeed, this is one of the most common themes in philosophy, the fight against the passions. In another passage from Daybreak (109), Nietzsche says that he can see only six fundamental methods we have at our disposal for combating the drives. For instance: if we want to fight our drive to smoke, we can avoid opportunities for its gratification (no longer hiding packs of cigarettes at home for when we run out), or we can implant regularity into the drive (having one cigarette every four hours so as to at least avoid smoking in between), or we can engender disgust with the drive, giving ourselves over to its wild and unrestrained gratification (say, smoking non-stop for a month) to the point where we become disgusted with it. And so on. But then Nietzsche asks: Who exactly is combating the drives in these various ways? His answer (given in a second aphorism taken from Daybreak) is this: The fact "that one desires to combat the vehemence of a drive at all, however, does not stand within our own power; nor does the choice of any particular method; nor does the success or failure of this method. What is clearly the case is that in this entire procedure our intellect is only the blind instrument of another drive which is a rival of the drive who vehemence is tormenting us?.While 'we' believe we are complaining about the vehemence of a drive, at bottom it is one drive which is complaining about the other; that is to say: for us to become aware that we are suffering from the vehemence [or violence] of a drive presupposes the existence of another equally vehement or even more vehement drive, and that a struggle is in prospect in which our intellect is going to have to take sides" (Daybreak 109). What we call thinking, willing, and feeling are all "merely a relation of these drives to each other" (BGE 36). Thus, what do I mean when I say "I am trying to stop smoking"?even though that same I is constantly going ahead and continuing to smoke? It simply means that my conscious intellect is taking sides and associating itself with a particular drive. It would make just as much sense to say, "Occasionally I feel this strange urge to stop smoking, but happily I have managed to combat that drive and pick up a cigarette whenever I want." Almost automatically, Nietzsche says, we take our predominant drive and for the moment turn it into the whole ego, placing all our weaker drives perspectivally farther away, as if those other drives weren't me but rather an it (hence Freud's idea of the "id," the "it"?it is clear he got this idea from Nietzsche). When we talk about the "I," we are simply indicating which drive, at the moment, is sovereign, strongest; "the feeling of the I is always strongest where the preponderance [?bergewicht] is," flickering from drive to drive. But the drives themselves remain largely unknown to what we sometimes call the conscious intellect. In a third aphorism from Daybreak, Nietzsche concludes, "However far a man may go in self-knowledge, nothing however can be more incomplete than his image of the totality of drives which constitute his being. He can scarcely name the cruder ones: their number and strength, their ebb and flood, their play and counterplay among one another?and above all the laws of their nutriment?remain unknown to him" (D 119). In other words, there is no struggle of reason against the drives; what we call "reason" is itself nothing more than a certain "system of relations between various passions" (WP 387), a certain ordering of the drives. [Daniel W. Smith, Parrehesia, "Deleuze and the Question of Desire: Toward an Immanent theory of Ethics"] This ordering of the drives then reflects not a cogent, stable personhood (agency, ego, subjectivity, whatever) but rather the imposition of a moral order that causes one to feel shame or fear in the face of a usurping of that hierarchal understanding of the established order of the drives. Human (ideological) conflict then can largely be explained by the attempt to reassert the relational understanding of those drives by the creation of a stable agent or ego who supposedly elects to order these drives in a particular way - deviants who devalue the family in favor of pleasure, terrorists who profane global ordered politics and the imagined Western innocence in the name of radical politics, and so on). I think, similarly to Kevin, that this has an interesting impact for how one makes decisions and threatens the foundation of the judge as simply that a "judge" of which arguments are more persuasive - in most paradigms, a line that largely means which team best describes the truth of a given issue, presents the "best" policy option, in short who more closely approximates the world. Perhaps instead of this "judging" of arguments, the Deleuzian criticism would posit an *evaluation *of arguments and teams not of whose arguments provide the most firm grasp on the world (allowing us to approximate and 'weigh' the best options as if our minds were scales of the imaginary worlds of our own agency or creation) but of whose arguments provide the most affirming mode of existence to "select" those positive paths or choices and let those which negate the beauty of life "fall out of themselves" or be excluded (not through our opposition to them but) of their own negativity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080506/532e6f1f/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 Tue May 6 13:00:05 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 (Jason Russell) Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 13:00:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NFL in Vegas Message-ID: Wondering who will be there. Frappier and I are there from the 16th to the 20th. Send me a backchannel. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080506/2534c763/attachment.htm From scottelliott Tue May 6 13:30:09 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 13:30:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NFL in Vegas Message-ID: <1210098609.4820a3b16603b@webmail.grandecom.net> High School Students + Las Vegas + Russell = A cold shudder From kkuswa Wed May 7 02:54:33 2008 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 03:54:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Meeting--hotel block expiring Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84402D90667@castor.richmond.edu> Hello, If you're coming to the ADA meeting in Richmond, you should make your hotel reservation asap. The block has already expired, but they will give it another day or so. Proposals have been submitted on the language of the ADA constitution, a novice progression standard, clearing up some of the theory guidelines, allowing MPJ in rounds 1 & 2 at nationals, and a few others. Come discuss and deliberate. Here's the information again from Katsulas: hotel number is: (804)672-7007 Mention the "UR Debate Meeting"--you can ask for Hadeel if there is a problem. hope to see you, kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of John Katsulas Sent: Mon 4/7/2008 9:43 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] ADA May business meeting annoucement The annual May business meeting of the American Debate Association will be held on Friday, May 16th in Richmond, Virginia and hosted by Kevin Kuswa. The meeting will begin promptly at 9:00 am and will be held in a room at the Best Western hotel. Items on the agenda for this year's meeting include the election of officers, the selection of a 2008 host for the ADA National Tournament, and proposals for changes to the Standing rules and/or the Constitution. According to the ADA Constitution, all proposed changes to the Standing Rules or the Constitution must be received by the ADA President no later than two weeks prior to the date of annual business meeting. Therefore, I would request that you send me electronic copy of any changes to the Rules or Constitution by Friday, May 2nd. Please e-mail your proposals to me at katsulas at bc.edu Motions received after the deadline may be considered only by a suspension of the rules. I will distribute copies of the proposals to the membership as quickly as possible. Please make your own hotel arrangements by calling The Best Western at 804-672-7007. The Best Western is offering a rate of $80.00 per night. The rooms block is under "University of Richmond Debate Meeting." The hotel is located at 7007 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA 2394. In addition to the meeting, the annual ADA golf adventure will occur on Thursday, May 15th sometime during the mid-morning, followed by dinner. Hackers are welcome to play. You will feel right at home. If you are interested in golf and/or dinner, please contact me. If anyone has questions or concerns, please give me a call at 617-552-4298 (office) or 978-766-5329 (cell). I hope to see everyone at the meeting! John Katsulas ADA President _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From sailorferrets Wed May 7 06:32:25 2008 From: sailorferrets (joe leeson-schatz) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 07:32:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Binghamton Coaching Additions Message-ID: After two and a half wonderful years with the Scu as our assistant coach, it's time for him to move on to bigger things as he becomes ABD next year. He will still travel with us on occassion but will no longer be available to coach as much as he did. As a result, we have two new coaching additions I'd like to announce... Guy Risko, NDT qualifier from Pitt, will be joining the Binghamton squad as an assistant coach starting in the fall. We're glad and excited to have him as he will be a great fit for the Binghamton team. and Andrea Passantino, Binghamton graduate, will also being coming on as an assistant coach for us as she continues at Binghamton to get her MA in a 3-2 program. We're happy that she's sticking around for another year before taking off for law school. Thanks to all else who applied, joe leeson-schatz director of debate at binghamton university campaigns coordinator of the binghamton/vestal vegan association From dylan.keenan Wed May 7 12:03:36 2008 From: dylan.keenan (Dylan Keenan) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 13:03:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Russia topic, part 2 Message-ID: So, I'm sure at this point that most people are set in their ways on topic voting but I figured I might try and make one last pitch about why we should not choose Russia. I'll say this in context a bit more below, but I would urge everyone to do some research on their own rather than just saying "Russia. Big impacts. Cool." The problems with Russia 1. Affirmative literature is not deep enough. I had several conversations at the TOC this weekend where there was at least some agreement that affirmative depth is lacking here. This isn't true for all proposals. For issues that have been around for a long time such as START III or CTR there is depth of literature but many of these issues are better accessed through arms control and even here the lit tends to be about existing programs and funding versus not funding. Things like peace keeping or interoperability have a few well developed articles written and many articles that use them as the passing conclusion of discussions about US-Russia relations in general. I think this needs to be the central overarching criteria for a topic. The common thread over the topics I've been involved in is that the more detailed the solvency literature in laying out proposals, how they are implemented, and defending them against viable alternatives, the better the topic becomes. This isn't really the sort of thing that I can prove by cutting cards but I would urge people who are at all on the fence to do an hour or two of research. You're choosing a topic. It is well worth your time to realize that Russia aff lit is lacking in development. This is important because when affirmatives solve with lots of evidence there is better clash on cases, more well developed negative strategies and an incentive to stick to the center of the topic. While the internal links from Russia to the big impacts are sort of intuitive it is pretty easy to get big credible internal links from the other topics to big impacts. We can, in fact, claim big impacts on any topic. What we can't do is make up solvency advocates meaning that has to be the main guiding factor in topic selection. Pre-empt: I am not saying Russia isn't "viable", whatever that word means. I am saying it is exponentially less developed than, say healthcare. And this is an area where degree matters. A LOT. There is a world of difference between having 10 good solvency articles and having hundreds, especially for the negative in having case specific solvency answers, but also for the affirmative when debating against counterplans. The Russia topic paper lays out lots of proposals which can all be readable affirmatives. Will they be as sweet as say the grand bargain aff or taking regime change off the table was this year. Definitely not, and mainly because of under-development. 2. While Russia literature is an inch deep on solvency it is also a mile long. For this, I will cut some cards for based on discussions I had this weekend. *US should modify re-employment of scientists to focus on non-proliferation and environmental problems* Luongo and Hoehn in '3 (Kenneth and William, Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, Arms Control Today, "Reform and Expansion of Cooperative Threat Reduction", June, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/luongohoehn_june03.asp) *A fundamental source of instability within the former Soviet WMD complexes is economic in nature*. Therefore, addressing the economic dimensions of threat reduction is essential. The downsizing of WMD production plants and related infrastructure will continue to displace thousands of scientists and workers skilled in the details of weapon design, manufacture, and maintenance. However, *the re-employment programs currently in place for weapon scientists, while essential, are not providing many career-changing opportunities* in any of the WMD complexes in the former Soviet Union. The two main strategies for the redirection of the scientists that have been pursued by governments?research-contracting and technology-driven commercialization and business development?are inadequate. New approaches and new attitudes are required to meet this challenge. The science-contracting approach remains an essential lifeline for many weapons scientists, but the duration of most projects does not exceed three years, and many of these scientists still maintain their weapons-related employment during that time. Indeed, a recent analysis by the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), which provides former Soviet weapons scientists with opportunities to redirect their talents to peaceful activities, has shown that many of the scientists working on its projects are not being converted completely from weapons work but are mostly being detoured temporarily.2 At the other end of the re-employment spectrum, government investments in commercialization have had some successes but yielded few real results, often because the projects have not adequately conformed to market needs. Creating successful commercial enterprises is difficult enough in Russia due to the systemic barriers to business creation. When the additional impediments posed by the Russian weapons complex are added, it becomes a daunting challenge. *Western governments must be willing to accept these realities and lower their expectations that commercialization in the WMD complexes will completely solve the problem of excess scientists. * Russia must also curtail its unrealistic economic expectations and recognize that systemic problems in that country impede commercial progress. *A more comprehensive, integrated, and effective strategy for addressing the re-employment of scientists across the WMD spectrum needs to be developed and implemented. A positive first step would be harnessing the experience and knowledge of the excess weapons scientists to solve real world problems in the areas of environmental remediation, energy technology development, life sciences, and nonproliferation. Such an approach would provide global benefits as well as a path to sustainable, peaceful career change for these scientists*. *They continue*... *Steps that Congress can take include*: * Supporting the amendment of current law to give permanent authority to the president to waive the annual certifications required for CTR programs and Freedom Support Act nonproliferation programs. The president requested this action in the fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress. * *Expanding and refocusing efforts designed to employ excess weapons scientists and specialists* peacefully and eliminate WMD complex infrastructure irreversibly. Excess weapons scientists and workers are a major root cause of the proliferation threat given their expertise and access to weapons and materials. *These efforts need more funding, greater flexibility, and new strategies* in order to provide the career-changing opportunities that can further reduce, if not eliminate, the threat these scientists and their facilities pose. *And stuff like this ---- increase cooperation to establish a framework for scientific research on arctic marine stuff* RAISE in '5 (Russian-American initiative for land-shelf environments, "Proceedings of a Workshop on Facilitating U.S. ? Russian Environmental Change Research in the Russian Arctic", http://arctic.bio.utk.edu/RAISE/RAISE_Workshop_Proceedings.doc) 3. Workshop participants concluded that it *would be helpful if U.S. entities such as the Arctic Research Commission and the Polar Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences would take a more active role in improving the prospects for bilateral research *in the Russian Arctic, while working with long-standing organizations such as the CRDF. *The possibility of a National Academy study committee, with Russian agencies and scientists participating, was also suggested as a positive mechanism to formally identify challenges and solutions that are needed to improve U.S. and Russian scientific cooperation in the Arctic*. Finally, many U.S. participants recognized that more effective contact with U.S. congressional representatives and staff by scientists about bilateral arctic research issues is needed. *A key objective should be to better educate higher levels of the U.S. government as to the scientific needs for improved bilateral arctic and global environmental change research* across national boundaries in the Arctic. 4. *U.S.** scientists need a better "road map" for success in Russian field research because the current lack of information is a significant impediment;* Russian collaborators could assist by obtaining policies in writing. Russian institutes can help in some instances, as well as more government-to-government agreements such as between U.S. organizations and the Russian Academy of Sciences and ROShydromet, with clear means of communication when local problems arise*. Higher-level agreements with the Ministry of Science and Technology, and Russian Navy interests and the highest levels of the U.S. government are probably required to enable routine sampling across the U.S. ? Russian EEZ and territorial boundaries for biogeochemical processes that are critical for assessing arctic environmental change*. Use of Russian-flag ships is clearly an advantage for marine sampling in the Russian EEZ, but the specific reasons for rejection of scientific sampling clearance requests are not otherwise often clear. *NOAA's RUSALCA program that has facilitated a modest marine sampling program in both U.S. and Russian waters over the past several years, is one of the few recent success stories for bilateral arctic marine research. The efforts of its agency personnel in negotiating agreements with Russian institutions to facilitate this shipboard research should be emulated by a larger cross-section of U.S. research funding agencies*. *Expanded coast guard cooperation on energy security = energy security for Russian LNG* Collins in '7 (Gabe, US Navy War College, Lecture Notes on Geoinformation and Catrography, "Northern Shield: US-Russia Maritime Energy Security Cooperation", Springer) Navy-navy cooperation is a critical component of maritime energy security. However*, port and critical facilities protection is typically a Coast Guard responsibility. Thus, we will first discuss the possibility of maritime energy security cooperation between the US Coast Guard and Russian Maritime Border Guards. Russia faces substantial security threats in the energy arena. Moscow grapples with an insurgency in Chechnya and general instability in the North Caucasus not far from its major Black Sea oil loading ports. It is conceivable that a non-state group wishing to harm Russia might consider attacking key energy export infrastructure*. Chechen terrorists have already demonstrated the capacity to strike deep into Russia. Notable attacks include the Beslan massacre in 2004, the 2002 Dubrovka theater hostage taking ("Nord-Ost"), and the 1996 raid on Budyonnovsk. Such an enemy might consider attacking major energy export facilities. Russian oil and gas infrastructure is spread over a wider geographical area and would be tougher to secure than facilities in countries whose main fields are centralized. *In additon, because Russia's core oil production base presently lies far from tanker loading terminals, the country must take a comprehensive approach to oil and gas supply security*. Russia must protect tankers at sea, secure loading terminals, and safeguard the production facilities and long pipelines that bring the oil to the seashore. Russian companies are moving to enhance onshore energy infrastructure security, as Gazprom and Transneft are both working to establish armed security detachments that would be responsible for protecting production, processing, storage, and transport infrastructure [17]. Yet there remains a need to secure the sea zones around key terminals, producing fields, and export routes in the near shore waters most easily reachable by terrorist actors. *Protecting key seaside energy infrastructure is an area where the US might share knowledge and experience and collaborate with Russia. The United States Coast Guard (USCG) has substantial experience protecting LNG and tanker loading facilities. In the wake of the 9-11 attacks, the USCG stepped up its port security operations and learned how to foster public/private partnerships, helping it secure some of the world's busiest energy ports, most notably the Port of Houston [18]. This experience can be shared with the Russian security services as they work to formulate the most effective facilities protection plans. USCG personnel would also have the opportunity to learn from their Russian counterparts, who bring their own unique operational experiences to the table. units have successfully protected Iraq's Persian Gulf oil export facilities for more than 3 years, developing a wealth of experience and combat tested techniques that could be usefully shared with Russian security forces.* The USCG's maritime security response teams (MSTs) and maritime safety and security teams (MSSTs) are trained to operate in high threat areas and deploy anywhere in the United States within 12 hours [19]. If the USCG helped create Russian Maritime Border Guard and FSB teams with similar capabilities, this would enhance oil and gas export security. *Maritime energy security cooperation can build on the precedent set by the 6-year old North Pacific Coast Guard Forum, which brings Japan, Russia, Korea, China, Canada,* and the US together to cooperate on regional maritime issues. Russia will hold the Forum's annually rotating presidency in 2007. This presents an ideal moment to begin discussions on bi and multi-lateral maritime energy security collaboration. Existing fisheries enforcement agreements between the US and the Russian Maritime Border Guards may provide a starting point for energy security cooperation in the North Pacific [20]. *Coast Guard to Coast Guard cooperation would ideally include oil spill contingency planning and preparation of mitigation measures, since several new energy producing areas and shipping routes lie in fragile Arctic ecosystems and other sensitive zones such as the Baltic Sea and Sakhalin Island. Fisheries are a rich Russian natural resource and a joint oil spill response plan benefits both nations. Along with an oil spill response plan, both parties might also consider establishing joint iceberg and tanker tracking centers in order to further boost maritime safety on the Arctic, Baltic, and Black Sea energy shipping lanes*. Now, having read that, try and cut some specific neg cards. Not a lot of good comparative literature I bet? Good answers to agent counterplans, to PICS? Good pic literature? The problems are manifold. Add to this the uniqueness complications resulting from small affs like this and you can see the issue. I would also point out that even if some of these affirmatives have OK lit (which they really don't) a few things are important: 1. I found this in 30 minutes and I tend to cut straightforward aff lit because I lack creativity. Imaging what experienced squirrel aff researchers with months will do. The results are too horrific to contemplate. 2. This is all lit for somewhat big proposals but still wouldn't have a credible link to pretty much anything other than supergenerics 3. Imaging someone finding a specific link to one especially vulnerable port or group of scientists, narrowing the plan and using this solvency. The problem is now that much worse 3. Global uniqueness. I think Bricker and others explore this issue pretty well but it is much less of a problem for ag and a problem NOT AT ALL for healthcare or arms control. Again if it is a problem, magnitude matters but lets not even have these debates if we can. 4. Negative ground. I have to say this discussion is a bit amusing. People have criticized me for saying politics links would make healthcare awesome but in the same breath mentioned red spread, one of the most clownish and absurd arguments in debate, as viable ground on a Russia topic. Calum seems convinced that internal politics or triangle disads are good ground on Russia even if they are generically bad. I see little evidence of this, but here's the important part. While the impacts to these arguments are good for Russia (if not for other countries) the internal links remain problematic. This is especially true vis-?-vis most affirmatives we will see. China or the Russian elites may be concerned about the over-arching trends in US-Russia ties but to establish coast-guard intel sharing or joint arctic environment research and claim that will tip the geostrategic triangle between Russia, the PRC and the US does not pass the laugh test. Negatives will struggle to establish a credible link against the litany of tiny affirmatives Russia will inevitably produce. I would hope as an alternative people choose healthcare. The depth of solvency and internal link literature is literally unparalleled. You can access pretty much every impact in debate, and if you think it is only economy, you clearly haven't read the topic paper. At the end of the day, the best topics are ones that comport closely with the literature and have literature which is incredibly rich and comparative. Healthcare fits the bill quite well. Russia, not so much. -Dylan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/bf2a0bbb/attachment.htm From u.hrair Wed May 7 14:38:14 2008 From: u.hrair (Calum Matheson) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 14:38:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: From my Northbrook Friend... Message-ID: To: Calum Matheson Re: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-May/075075.html [eDebate] Russia topic, part 2 Dylan Keenan dylan.keenan at gmail.com The environment Aff is not topical under the "security cooperation" wording, so I am disregarding it. Also, US-Russia environmental cooperation and the military role in environmental security are deep literatures - almost, but not quite, as deep as the ones I'm documenting here, so I think the other two Affs are sufficient prove my point. The research shown here took me 90 minutes. It was very taxing and made my brain work at high speed, which made me sad and tired. Anyone who votes against health care is voting against talking about my illness and must hate me. But... if my personal tragedy is not to be the focus of the community's discussion for the year, then I suppose I might be forced to think about Russia. So I did, and I found out that everything in this post about the two security cooperation Affs was incorrect. Since this proves a point I made about research-related laziness on edebate a little while ago, I decided to spend some quality time with google. None of the cites in here include the relevant generic arguments against: aid to Russia (CTR), security assistance, US-Russian military-to-military cooperation, or arms/tech transfer to the Russian security forces. None of it includes references to my "security cooperation generally" citations that you (Calum) posted to edebate. That's okay because neither does Dylan. Conceptual notes for the ISTC Aff: 1) This is a "defense conversion bad" case. Defense conversion is one of the core security cooperation activities undertaken by the US and Russia. It is not something I pulled from nowhere. See: http://www.iiss.org/publications/adelphi-papers/2005-adelphi-papers/ap-377-revitalising-us-russian-security AP 377: Revitalising US?Russian Security Cooperation: Practical Measures Richard Weitz Near-term results in the areas of formal arms control or ballistic missile defences are unlikely. The two governments should focus on improving and expanding their joint threat-reduction and non-proliferation programmes, enhancing their military-to-military dialogue regarding Central Asia and defence industrial cooperation, and deepening their anti-terrorist cooperation, both bilaterally and through NATO. Using more market incentives, expanding reciprocity and equal treatment, and limiting the adverse repercussions from disputes over Iran would facilitate progress. Title : From Confrontation to Cooperation Examining the Duality of U.S.-Russian Security Cooperation as the Fulcrum of U.S.-Russian Relations Descriptive Note : Strategy research project Corporate Author : ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA Personal Author(s) : Chance, Kenneth A. Handle / proxy Url : http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA434644 Contemporary Economic Policy Volume 16 Issue 4 Page 499-510, October 1998 To cite this article: MICHAEL V. ALEXEEV, RAYMOND C. SIKORRA (1998) COMPARING POST-COLD WAR MILITARY CONVERSION IN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA Contemporary Economic Policy 16 (4) , 499?510 doi:10.1111/j.1465-7287.1998.tb00537.x http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1998.tb00537.x Defense Conversion in the Former Soviet Union: The Influence of Culture on the Strategic Planning Process Lori A. Coakley and Linda M. Randall http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/10231/sedaitis.pdf#page=161 2) Dylan admits that CTR ground is good. "For issues that have been around for a long time such as START III or CTR there is depth of literature" This is a CTR case, which becomes obvious once you start reading about it: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/nsiad97218.htm Cooperative Threat Reduction: Review of DOD's June 1997 Report on Assistance Provided (Letter Report, 09/05/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-218) According to the State Department, through 1996 nearly $50 million\5 of CTR funding was provided to help support the ISTC in Russia, including the branch offices recently opened in Belarus and Kazakstan, and the STCU. Although not described in DOD's report, 130 of the 320 ISTC projects underway received $41.5 million in CTR funding. The types of projects involved include safely disposing of weapons-grade plutonium, improving nuclear power safety, destroying chemical weapons, and protecting the environment. Through 1996, the United States provided $8 million of CTR funding to support 72 of the 87 ongoing STCU projects." Then he says: "many of these issues are better accessed through arms control and even here the lit tends to be about existing programs and funding versus not funding." I don't even know where to begin with this. First, CTR is not part of our disarmament commitments. If it is, this demonstrates the impossibly broad nature of an arms control topic. Second, "funding vs. not funding" and defenses or attacks on "existing programs" is the definition of literature that compares the status quo to alternatives. For example, the Aff that he showed everyone shifts funding from existing commercial conversion to a focus on nonproliferation and energy (state sector) efforts. Therefore, all the stuff that defends funding commercial spin-off efforts is offense or CP ground. Obvi. Here is the relevant stuff I found on this case (45 minutes, internet only, no university access). For a full account of the beginnings of the ISTC, please refer to the book Moscow DMZ by Glenn Schweitzer, published by M. E. Sharpe in 1996. Sources: [1] "ISTC page," Los Alamos National Laboratory Web Site, http://www.lanl.gov/. [2] Glenn E. Schweitzer, Moscow DMZ (Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharp Inc., 1996), pp. 44, 84, 97, 103, 107. [3] Weapons of Mass Destruction: Reducing the Threat from the Former Soviet Union: An Update, US General Accounting Office document GAO/NSIAD-95-165, June 1995. [4] "ISTC Organization Structure," ISTC Web Site, http://www.istc.ru. [5] "Cooperative Science and Non-Proliferation: The ISTC/STCU Experiment," International Institute of Strategic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 6, August 2002. [6] "Joint Statement of the 14th Governing Board of the International Science and Technology Center," ISTC Web Site, http://www.istc.ru/istc/website.nsf/fm/z00GB14Statement, 5-6 November 1997. [7] "Activity Summary," ISTC Web Site, http://www.istc.ru. {Updated 10/9/02 CB} cns.miis.edu/pubs/inven/pdfs/istc.pdf The International Science and Technology Center (ISTC): Supporting of Nuclear Knowledge Progress through Ten Years International Cooperation (Information Review) L.. Tochenya International Science and Technology Center (ISTR), Moscow, Russia E-mail address of main author: tocheny at istc.ru http://www.iaea.org/km/cnkm/abstracts/tochenrussia.pdf AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER Redirecting Expertise in Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Former Soviet Union Office of International Affairs National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1996 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309056780 1. MORE THAN MONEY: SMALL TECHNOLOGY SPIN-OFFS OF THE WMD COMPLEX By Maria Douglass and Peter Falatyn (International Science & Technology Center, Moscow) http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/6350-1.cfm Sustainability of ISTC party funded projects A report by an independent expert Prof. Dr. Peter J. IDENBURG Professor emiritus, Management of Technology Delft University of Technology (NL) "This report has been prepared under contract with the ISTC and paid from funds provided by the European Commission. It's findings are solely those of its author(s) and do not engage the Parties of the ISTC or the ISTC Secretariat." http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/pdf/istc-sustainability_en.pdf ISTC OBJECTIVES AND ACHIEVEMENTS: AREAS OF POSSIBLE INTEGRATION WITH EURATOM RESEARCH ACTIVITIES M. Kroening, D. Gambier, L. Tocheny, J.I. Pradas-Poveda ? International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp5-euratom/docs/fisa2003_1_pradas_poveda_en.pdf Redirection of Former Weapons Scientists http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-pic/library/rfws-en.aspx PUBLIC SECTOR INCENTIVES FOR "HIGHER-VALUE-CHAIN" PRIVATE SECTOR COOPERATION IN RUSSIA'S CLOSED NUCLEAR CITIES Maria A. Douglass Senior Technology Implementation Manager International Science & Technology Center Moscow, Russian Federation http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt/downloads/cur2000/posters/pos065.pdf Science 3 April 1998: Vol. 280. no. 5360, p. 15 DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5360.15d Transition at Russian Physics Centers Alain Gerard Advancing International Cooperation on Bio-Initiatives in Russia and the CIS Findings and Report from the April 26?27, 2005 Conference http://www.centrovolta.it/landau/content/binary/REPORT_Bioinitiatives.pdf EC/RUSSIA: GO-AHEAD FOR ISTC BUT DELAY FOR NUCLEAR COOPERATION Publication: Europe Environment Date: Tuesday, November 30 1993 Summary: http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices/8323488-1.html Russian Nuclear Weapons Complex Workforce Downsizing Through Secure Retirement Rationalities and Proposals by Jean Pierre Contzen[1] and Maurizio Martellini[2] http://www.sgpproject.org/publications/Contzen&Martellini.html Fuel Cells Bulletin Volume 2004, Issue 3, March 2004, Pages 2-3 Russian breakthrough with SOFC system The first Russian power system based on a solid oxide fuel cell has been tested in the All-Russia Research Institute of Technical Physics, at the Russian Federal Nuclear Centre in Snezhinsk. The experimental system comprises a fuel cell, reformer and air pump developed and built by Russia's Ministry of Atomic Energy (Minatom). The testing program was aided by financial support from the International Science & Technical Centre (ISTC) within its fuel cell construction initiative. Nature 408, 398-399 (23 November 2000) | doi:10.1038/35044254 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6811/full/408398a0.htmlAnotherimportant source of funds is the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), established in 1992 by the European Union, Japan, Russia an Russia's prize fighter Quirin Schiermeier When Zhores Alferov won a share of this year's Nobel Prize for Physics, he restored pride to Russian science. But can he exploit his celebrity status to move research up the political agenda? Quirin Schiermeier investigates. ITSSD: Russia Can Secure Greatest Biotech Market Advances Following US, Not EU Innovation Model http://www.eurasiabio.org/media/news/itssd_russia_can_secure_greatest_biotech_market_advances_following_us_not_eu_innovation_model/ Copyright (c) 2008 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. PRINCETON, N.J., March 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a short article published today by the Washington Legal Foundation.... The article arose from Kogan's June 28, 2007 presentation at a symposium convened by the Vyatka State University, Kirov, Russia, as part of a longstanding joint Russian-US cooperative nonproliferation program overseen by the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC), Moscow, Russia. According to Bakulina and Kogan, "The [US] federal government['s]...transference of innovation from energy, space, and defense to that of the private sector, and...the American experience in innovation and intellectual property may be advantageous to use in Russia..." http://www.wlf.org/upload/03-21-08balukina.pdf Vol. 23 No. 14 March 21, 2008 HOW MARKET-BASED POLICIES COULD SPUR BIOTECHNOLOGY GROWTH IN RUSSIA by Yelena M. Bakulina and Lawrence A. Kogan1 Science 24 April 1998: Vol. 280. no. 5363, p. 513 DOI: 10.1126/science.280.5363.513a Prev | Table of Contents | Next News & Comment DEFENSE CONVERSION: U.S. Blacklists Russian Institutes Richard Stone The U.S. State Department has compiled a secret list of 20 Russian research institutes suspected of helping Iran's missile program, and it is restricting the flow of U.S. research funds to some of those institutes. The existence of the list, which was revealed last week by the newspaper USA Today, is raising concerns among some experts that it could undermine Western efforts to steer defense scientists in the former Soviet Union into peaceful research. http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/nsiad97218.htm Cooperative Threat Reduction: Review of DOD's June 1997 Report on Assistance Provided (Letter Report, 09/05/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-218) According to the State Department, through 1996 nearly $50 million\5 of CTR funding was provided to help support the ISTC in Russia, including the branch offices recently opened in Belarus and Kazakstan, and the STCU. Although not described in DOD's report, 130 of the 320 ISTC projects underway received $41.5 million in CTR funding. The types of projects involved include safely disposing of weapons-grade plutonium, improving nuclear power safety, destroying chemical weapons, and protecting the environment. Through 1996, the United States provided $8 million of CTR funding to support 72 of the 87 ongoing STCU projects. These projects cover such subjects as the Survival lessons in Russian defense conversion Bzhilianskaya, L.Yu. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE Volume 17, Issue 1, Spring 1998 Page(s):8 - 15 Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/44.663849 Summary:The period of Perestroika, beginning in the second half of the 1980s in the former Soviet Union, was the beginning of disarmament and defense conversion in the USSR. Most of the Soviet military capacity was concentrated in Russia, and the conversion of the defense industry became very complicated and painful. There are a number of definitions of the conversion process. In Russia, defense conversion was usually understood to be a full or partial transformation of a defense enterprise's capacity to civilian capacity. If one analyzes the USSR and Russian governments' policies on defense conversion during the past decade, it becomes evident that what was planned was substantially different from what was actually realized. In this article, I have paid attention to the outcome of the conversion process. Conversion changed the attitude of the world towards Russia. The image of a highly militarized society, which Russia has managed to preserve for decades, is becoming rather dim application of physics to medical technology, energy conversion, plasma sterilization, and information infrastructure. The Nuclear Weapons Complexes: Meeting the Conversion Challenge -- A Proposal for Expanded Action Report, Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council Author: Matthew Bunn, Senior Research Associate, Project on Managing the Atom http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2052/nuclear_weapons_complexes.html?breadcrumb=%2F The Coast Guard Aff: NOTE: This includes no searches on Russia and its border guards and border security policies Title : The U.S. Coast Guard's National Security Role in the Twenty First Century Descriptive Note : Final rept. Mar 1991-Jan 1992 Corporate Author : NAVAL WAR COLL NEWPORT RI CENTER FOR NAVAL WARFARE STUDIES Personal Author(s) : Stubbs, Bruce B. Handle / proxy Url : http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA266369 Abstract : This report addresses the Coast Guard's National security role in the next century by interviewing current and former policy & decision makers involved in the maritime aspects of national security. The report attempts to define the relationship between the Navy and the Coast Guard in the Post Cold War era when the requirements for the Coast Guard to act as Commanders of Maritime Defense Zones (MDZs) and to provide ASW capable cutters has been dramatically lessened. The author suggests the definition of national security needs to expand and that the Coast Guard provide increased support for US CINCS especially in security assistance and low order crisis response. The role of the US Coast Guard as the force manager/force provider for coastal patrol boats is also studied. The need for a viable national defense role for the Coast Guard is examined and the implications of a lack of a well-defined, needed role assessed. Coast Guard, Maritime defense zones, Patrol boats, Alien interdiction, Drug interdiction, Security assistance, Navy-Coast Guard relationship, Navy-Coast Guard Board Securing Tyrants or Fostering Reform? U.S. Internal Security Assistance to Repressive and Transitioning Regimes Security Assistance in the War on Terrorism Authors: Dino Roth; Mary Gilliam; Vic Mattes; NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV NORFOLK VA JOINTFORCES STAFF COLL http://www.stormingmedia.us/48/4851/A485124.html During a recent field trip to Washington, D.C., by students from the Joint Forces Staff College, virtually every briefer spoke on transformation in one context or another, from those at the National Security Council and The Joint Staff, to the speakers at the U.S. Coast Guard. http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG550/ http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27313578_ITM The United States Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater System: Creating opportunities for enhanced interoperability with America's friends and allies. (Feature Article). Publication: DISAM Journal Publication Date: 22-DEC-01 Author: Giddens, Gregory L. The Coast Guard is also a key player in the U.S. security assistance arena. Foreign military sales (FMS), including the transfer of excess defense articles, have long been an integral element of Coast Guard international engagement. Asset sales and transfers contribute directly to the Coast Guard's accomplishment of its own missions and helps achieve broader U.S. engagement goals, all the while helping our friends protect their maritime security and safety goals. Enhancing International Collaboration for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. and Richard Weitz, Ph.D. Backgrounder #2078 http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2078.cfm Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget, Recent Performance, and Related Challenges, GAO-08-494T, March 6, 2008 Maritime Security: Coast Guard Inspections Identify and Correct Facility Deficiencies, but More Analysis Needed of Program's Staffing, Practices, and Data, GAO-08-12, February 14, 2008 Moroney, Jennifer. "The Impact of US Security Cooperation Efforts on Military Change in Central Asia" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, Mar 05, 2005 . 2008-04-22 < http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p71330_index.html> http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/1/3/3/p71330_index.html Name: International Studies Association URL: http://www.isanet.org his paper will examine how US Government security cooperation programs and activities, executed by the Departments of Defense, State, and Homeland Security (i.e., US Coast Guard), are able to promote military institutional change in our partner countries. itle : Defense Security Cooperation: A Proven Access Enabler for Operational Commanders Descriptive Note : Research paper Corporate Author : NAVAL WAR COLL NEWPORT RI JOINT MILITARY OPERATIONS DEPT Personal Author(s) : Kiple, Brian R. Handle / proxy Url : http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA422830 Illustrative examples of security cooperation in new reach areas of the Horn of Africa, Central Asia, and the Asian Littorals will be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of security cooperation as an access enabler for operational commanders. As America enters the 21st Century, the requirement for overseas access will not abate; it will most likely increase in response to emerging threats associated with terrorism and global dysfunction. Combatant commanders will be reliant upon the goodwill of friendly and neutral nations for future access. Security cooperation provides the means to positively influence the willingness of foreign governments to permit access to their territory. Combatant commanders must capitalize on the access enabling power of security cooperation. Security Cooperation activities described in this paper include humanitarian demining in the country of Djibouti; peacekeeping exercises in Uzbekistan, known as CENTRAZBAT; the transfer of a U.S. Coast Guard Cutter to Azerbaijan The U.S. Navy's Role in Executing the Maritime CONOPS for U.S. Homeland Security/Defense Authors: Eric C. Young; NAVAL WAR COLL NEWPORT RI JOINT MILITARY OPERATIONS DEPT http://www.stormingmedia.us/35/3585/A358504.html The terrorist events of September 11, 2001, have necessitated a complete rethinking of U.S. Homeland Security and Defense (HLS/D). The Navy's role in Maritime HLS/D is to support the Coast Guard, however, the Coast Guard does not have the resources available to combat this problem alone. The Navy provides capability to perform the specified, implied, and essential tasks required to meet Maritime HLS/D objectives. The Navy and Coast Guard require a simple, effective, integrated CONOPS to accomplish maritime HLS/D. Security Cooperation and Non-State Threats: A Call for an Integrated Strategy Colonel Albert Zaccor U.S. Army Atlantic Council Senior Fellow Occasional Paper August 2005 http://www.acus.org/docs/0508-Security_Cooperation_NonState_Threats_Zaccor_Albert.pdf Realigning Coast Guard Enhanced Maritime Capabilities: A Lesson Learned - all 2 versions ? CSD Poulin - 2005 - strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil ... Enhanced Maritime Capabilities Command (CGEMCC) - as a more effective and efficient means for the Coast Guard to execute its homeland security responsibilities ... https://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil258.pdf A Military Strategy For Central Asia - all 4 versions ? JE Chicky - 2004 - carlisle-www.army.mil ... Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security with ... SOF, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), US ... DTRA, and the Defense Security Cooperation Agency would ... http://carlisle-www.army.mil/ssi/ksil/files/00068.doc 3. A Framework for Developing Niche Capabilities Using Security Cooperation: Case Study ofthe" ? B Sustainable - Building Sustainable And Effective Military Capabilities: A ?, 2004 - books.google.com ... Defense, Energy, Treasury, and Homeland Security provide ... informed decisions about security cooperation resource allocations. ... the Coast Guard (both of which are ... http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=amanFL46_KYC&oi=fnd&pg=PA149&dq=%22coast+guard%22+%22security+cooperation%22+homeland&ots=QUjPhquT_H&sig=3P_w58_ko55rLvnQq6k0unPPDyk February 17, 2005 Making the Sea Safer: A National Agenda for Maritime Security and Counterterrorism by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., and Alane Kochems Special Report #03 http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/sr03.cfm What Does Homeland Security Spending Buy? Veronique de Rugy American Enterprise Institute http://www.aei.org/docLib/20050401_wp107.pdf We conclude that a large portion of homeland security-spending decisions are made on a political basis rather than on a sound cost-benefit analysis, leading to the traditional public choice failures that plague government spending more generally. As a result, homeland security funding is likely to be misallocated, resulting in a less than optimal level of security in America. The war on energy: why the United States and the international community need cohesive energy infrastructure security policy. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=info:23TakUmDSv8J:scholar.google.com/&output=viewport Hous. J. Int'l L., 2006 29: 453 Annual Review of Environment and Resources Vol. 29: 421-469 (Volume publication date November 2004) (doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.29.062403.102238) First published online as a Review in Advance on August 16, 2004 ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE AND SECURITY Alexander E. Farrell,1 ? Hisham Zerriffi,2 and ? Hadi Dowlatabadi3? 1Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3050; email: afarrell at socrates.berkeley.edu 2Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213-3890; email: hisham at cmu.edu 3Sustainable Development Research Initiative, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z2; email: hadi at sdri.ubc.ca This review discusses how energy infrastructure and security are related, how this relationship differs from traditional energy security concepts, and what it may mean for private and policy decisions. Key concepts include redundancy, diversity, resilience, storage, decentralization, and interdependence. The concept of CIP is still relatively new and is likely to evolve over time, possibly away from a "guards, gates, and guns" defensive approach and toward a design approach that yields systems that are inherently harder to successfully attack. Such survivable systems may feature distributed intelligence, control, and operations. Critical Infrastructure Protection in Homeland Security: Defending a Networked Nation Medium: Hardcover Year of Publication: 2006 ISBN:0471786284 Author Ted G. Lewis Willard Price (2004) Reducing the Risk of Terror Events at Seaports1 Review of Policy Research 21 (3) , 329?349 doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00079.x http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00079.x The US Military and Civil Infrastructure Protection: Restrictions and Discretion under the Posse ? GD Grove - 1999 - ciaonet.org ... In the case of infrastructure protection, the federal government and military were early ... tion does not apply the Coast Guard, 50 members of the Reserve force ... http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/grg02/GrovePosseComitatus99.pdf June 16, 2003 Budgets and Threats: An Analysis of Strategic Priorities for Maritime Security by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Heritage Lecture #791 http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandSecurity/HL791.cfm DEFENDING AGAINST THE APOCALYPSE: THE LIMITS OF HOMELAND SECURITY M Barkun - POLICY, 2002 - irpp.org ... Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), augmented by the Customs Service, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, National Infrastructure Protection Center, and a ... http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/sep02/barkun.pdf Homeland Security Affairs - Volume I, Issue 2: Fall 2005 - Maritime Critical Infrastructure Protection: Multi-Agency Command and Control in an Asymmetric Environment http://www.hsaj.org/?article=1.2.3 The United States has faced military threats in its littoral before, and lessons from the past offer value in determining how to defend ports in the modern era. But these lessons must be considered in light of the new asymmetric terrorist threat. By Challenges in Critical Infrastructure Protection Final Report for the 2006/2007 Sam Nunn Security Program Critical Infrastructure Protection Exercise 2 November 2006 http://www.janosburg.net/publications/2006_SNSP_CIP_NSC_report_web.pdf But seriously, I bet that this is all that has ever been written by anyone that is relevant to those Affs, so I have now, on edebate, pretty much exhausted all the possibilities for the year in those areas. My research on single-payer care systems was much more interesting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/b28a0772/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 Wed May 7 15:06:04 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 15:06:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Russia/Keenan Message-ID: Isnt it awesome how everyone that has done 30 minutes worth of research on Russia can specify the depth of the solvency debates? I agree. It's not. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/5af9b038/attachment.htm From gonza310 Wed May 7 15:21:33 2008 From: gonza310 (Joshua Gonzalez) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 16:21:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Russia/Keenan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005601c8b07f$f1ba6940$6401a8c0@Josh700m> Here's my principle worry - everybody that has done 30 minutes of research has thrown up a bunch of cites indicating that X or Y defense cooperation program worked as well/not as well/better than expected. Where is the literature that increased defense cooperation is simply a bad idea? I get that there are opportunity cost claims (i.e., relations DAs, spending, whatever) and that there will always be News Max, but isn't this quite literally exemplary of the area topics that we are supposed to be avoiding? I'm increasingly concerned that everything I've seen so far points to questions of "how", rather than questions of "why?". My companion worry is the following, entirely predictable scenario: everybody says "debating russia would be fun - look at all those bombs, and look at all those links that our 'northbrook friend' has posted!" and then votes for the Russia topic. The topic committee meets, works their ass off, and then delivers a slate of totally decent list topics that call for very specific and evenly-grounded actions, and the obligatory "elegant" resolution. Fast forward to the even more predictable edebate discussion where we get incessant appeals to the horror-that-was-the-Europe-topic, a two or three day re-hash of "are small topics good or bad for small schools?", and eventually, victory by the bizarro China topic, where it's Russia rather than China, and the aff gets the engagement good ground this time around. Fast forward again to round seven at GSU, where I fall asleep, having watched my fourth consecutive uber-generic debate, as I attempt to decide exactly WWJD (What Would Japan Do?). Awesome indeed. Josh _____ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jason Russell Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:06 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Russia/Keenan Isnt it awesome how everyone that has done 30 minutes worth of research on Russia can specify the depth of the solvency debates? I agree. It's not. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/664a53d5/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Wed May 7 17:36:33 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 16:36:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2008 Laramie Scrimmage Invitation Message-ID: Dear Colleague: We?re pleased to invite you to the 2008 Laramie Scrimmage Policy Debate Tournament, taking place Saturday and Sunday, September 27-28, here at the University of Wyoming. THE TOURNAMENT IS ABSOLUTELY FREE. There are no entry fees. We only ask that teams cover their judging commitments and volunteer to judge 1-2 extra rounds. We will offer six rounds of NDT/CEDA debate on the 2008-2009 resolution, with appropriate elimination rounds, in as many divisions as entries warrant. We will recognize an appropriate number of individual speakers in each division of debate. We will do everything we can to maintain separate novice, JV and open divisions throughout the tournament, including doing a PARTIAL collapse if necessary and, without a doubt, holding breakout final rounds in each division. Details: Times will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes of preparation time per team. Open division is open to any and all competitors. Junior division is limited to competitors in their first two years of collegiate debate competition. Novice division will be defined, for the purposes of the tournament, as competitors in their first year of collegiate debate competition who did not compete in POLICY debate at any time in high school. One judge covers two debate teams. We ask all judges to volunteer to judge one or two rounds beyond their commitment, since entries are free of charge. Lodging: The tournament hotel is the Ramada Inn. They are offering a block rate of $69.00 per night, plus 10% tax, for double rooms. They have a free hot breakfast buffet every morning, and for Laramie, this rate is a steal. The block rate expires September 13. Their address is 2313 Soldier Springs Road, and their phone number is (307) 742-6611. Please make sure they know you are entering the UW Debate Tournament on Sept. 27-28 (since we are hosting a parli/ie tournament a week later and we don?t want to confuse the folks at the hotel). Please let Matt Stannard know if you have any problems securing reservations. Entering the tournament: Entries will soon be enabled on the debateresults.com site (aka the ?Bruschke Site?). We will post to edebate when the entries are enabled. Directions to Laramie, Hotel, Tournament, etc.: Maps and travel information will be sent to the directors and coaches of every team entering the tournament. Schedule: Saturday, Sept. 27: 9:00 AM Round One (all debates will take place in the Classroom Building at UW) 1:00 PM Round Two 4:00 PM Round Three 7:00 PM Round Four Sunday, Sept. 28: 9:00 AM Round Five 1:00 PM Round Six 4:00 PM First Elimination Round Announcement of Awards and Further Elimination Rounds to Follow _________________________________________________________________ Get Free (PRODUCT) RED? Emoticons, Winks and Display Pics. http://joinred.spaces.live.com?ocid=TXT_HMTG_prodredemoticons_052008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/a9440e57/attachment.htm From scottelliott Wed May 7 18:55:53 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 18:55:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] One last push for Genetic Engineering Message-ID: <1210204553.48224189e3a47@webmail.grandecom.net> If you have yet to vote, I encourage you to read the genetic engineering topic paper prior to your decision. The topic is exciting and provides ample room for teams to be creative on both sides. Scott Elliott From thescu Wed May 7 21:00:25 2008 From: thescu (James K. Stanescu) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 22:00:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] An appeal for those interested in decent critical debate to vote for ag subs. Message-ID: While we are making last minute appeals for votes, I wanted to send out one for the ag subs topic. This is going to focus on the critical ground that the agriculture topic would provide. Now many of you out there who hates critiques are wondering why they should care about K ground on a topic except to vote against topics that provide K ground. Well, this repeats some points made earlier by others, but people will run Ks regardless of the topic. What really you, if you dislike Ks, have a choice on is if you want a topic that will encourage more people to run affs that aren't topical, hell, not even germane. And also encourage more people to run the same old Ks that bore everyone (come on, do you really want to see/debate against another security K? Really?). For the rest of you I think that agriculture provides us with the chance to access many different kritiks, several of which are not easily or commonly accessed in other resolutions. I am going to focus on one I know something about, the issue of critical animal studies. Right now we are in an academic explosion of writings from a critical tradition dealing with animals. It's hip. Which for those of us who are in the humanities in the academy, knowing something about it will certainly be helpful. More than that, I would also contend it's important. There is a reason that so many major thinkers have spent time on the question of the animal, and with the problem of humanism. And at the same time that it is very hip, there is also something bizarrely eternal about this question (at least within a western tradition). You can read fragments from Heraclites making fun of Pythagoras about caring for animals. Spinoza too made fun of vegetarians, and Nietzsche was very conflicted on the issue of vegetarianism. I think the literature we have on critical animal studies is exactly the right type for good debates. It is deep without being impossibly so. I think someone dedicated can read most, if not all, of the major texts on the subject over the course of the year. More importantly, the literature is comparative. It answers and critiques itself. It allows people to generate offense, and for teams not interested in debating primarily about animals to have specific answers if they wish. Indeed, while not talked about specifically here, the literature base advocating anthropocentrism, specisism, and the like is huge. Putting together an offensive frontline or case neg would be relatively easy. However, the critical literature itself provides nuance and different strategies. What follows is by no means comprehensive. Many rather obvious works have been left out, and obscure, questionably useful texts have been included. What I wanted to do was sort of gesture to many of the critical possibilities in exploring the question of the animal, especially focusing on more recent (usually within the last five years) scholarship in critical animal studies. I also purposefully left out the rather large sources dealing with racism, colonialism, and indigenous rights/cosmologies. Not because it isn't there, indeed if there is interest I can generate a list for that, but because the reparations make it sort of useless. Sure, the agriculture topic can access those issues above, but the reparations topic probably does a better job. Debate can't be everything to everyone (though it might be anything to anyone), choices have to be made. I'm not going to insult anyone by trying to convince them that those issues are best dealt with on an agricultural topic. Still, I'd hope ag would still get your second choice. The lit overview. First, let's start with Derrida. The last lecture series in his life, Derrida spoke on "the question of the animal." The English translation of those lectures are due out at the beginning of June. However, a large excerpt of it has existed for a while, and can be read here. http://www.mediafire.com/?2a9xsxfhcbf Already a book-length treatment of Derrida's final lectures exist, done by Leonard Lawlor in his 2007 *This Is Not Sufficient. * Also, if you are interested in questions of theology, the topic of sacrifice found in these works, and in the Luke book mentioned below are quite interesting. * * Furthermore, Agamben has taken up the question of the animal. It is implicit his work on biopolitics done in the homo sacer series (and made explicit in the 2003 pamphlet length book by Magnus Fiskesj? The Thanksgiving Turkey Pardon, the Death of Teddy's Bear, and the Sovereign Exception of Guant?namo http://www.prickly-paradigm.com/paradigm11.pdf ), Agamben gives it a book length treatment in 2004 The Open: Man and Animal http://www.mediafire.com/?t0oyjz9mapl While already a deep literature exists on this book, one article in particular I'd like to highlight on Agamben's book is 2007 article by Matthew Calarco, "Jamming the Anthropological Machine" (a 2006 version can be read here http://www.faculty.sbc.edu/mcalarco/JAMMINGTHEANTHROPOLOGICALMACHINE.htm and thanks to Spurlock for being the first to show me this essay). A large part of The Open is dedicated to a reading of Heidegger on animals. (an interesting comparative look can be found in the 2008 article by Krzysztof Ziarek "After Humanism" http://www.mediafire.com/?eymyjnvujwq ). Heidegger addresses the issue of animals in many places, including Being and Time and his "Letter on Humanism". However, the almost the entirety of rather large book The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics is dedicated to thinking about the difference between humans and animals. A good article on this is Stuart Elden's 2006 "Heidegger's Animals" http://www.mediafire.com/?1t1jdvq10z4 ) The issue of the animal in the work of Derrida, Heidegger, Agamben, and Levinas (or did I forget to mention there is a rather large literature base about the issues of animals in the work of Levinas?) is the subject of Matthew Calarco's forthcoming in June book, Zoographies. Deleuze and Guattari are perhaps the first thinkers from the French scene to really make a stir about animals in American academia. Their work on becoming-animal, found in all four of their books written together, is also the back bone of several works on becoming-animal that exist. A wide variety of critical theorists are also dealt with in the literature base. The following is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather to provide just the basics for starting. Those interested in Nietzsche can check out the 2004 Acampora edited work, A Nietzschean Bestiary: Becoming Animal Beyond Docile and Brutal. Those interested in Walter Benjamin should check out Beatrice Hanssen's Walter Benjamin's Other History. Those into psychoanalysis (and other theorists) should check out Lippit's Electric Animal. Those interested in French Feminism like Irigaray and Cixous (as well as many other continental philosophers) should check out Calarco and Atterton's 2004 edited Animal Philosophy: Essential Readings in Continental Thought, it's very comprehensive. Donna Haraway has recently turned her attention towards our relationship with animals, particularly companion species. Her first work on this, her very short 2003 The Companion Species Manifesto, has been expanded in a very large and impressive 2007 When Species Meet http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?cz2cytbt3zd . It contains criticisms of both Derrida and Deleuze and Guattari, while at the same time being a very smart argument in its own right. Also, she does her best to answer the criticisms that Carol Adams brought against her first work in Adams' 2006 essay "An Animal Manifesto" http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1560652&postcount=1 Speaking of Adams, her work is the cornerstone of bringing a certain type of feminism and animal issues together. Her two most famous works on this regard is her 1999 A Sexual Politcs of Meat and her 2004 The Pornography of Meat. Her and other critical vegetarian feminist texts are meet well by Brian Luke's 2007 Brutal: Manhood and the Exploitation of Animals. While there are many works dealing with anarchism/Marxism and animal rights, one recent work deserves special mention. Bob Torres' 2007 Making A Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. This text is particularly good because not only does it advance it's own arguments, it also critiques both traditional anarchist/Marxist struggles and traditional animal rights struggles. -- James K. Stanescu Graduate Student Binghamton University Philosophy, Interpretation, and Culture http://pic.binghamton.edu Assistant Debate Coach "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will also be battlefields." -Tolstoy "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will also be battlefields." -Tolstoy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/39ab3f91/attachment.htm From rachelschy Wed May 7 21:33:20 2008 From: rachelschy (Rachel) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 19:33:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] LSAT Prep help! Message-ID: So I said to myself, I said, "Self, where can you find a lot of people who have probably already taken LSAT prep classes who could offer some insight and perhaps even discuss the merits and downfalls of various programs including, but not limited to, Kaplan, Testmasters, and Princeton Review? Who do you know that probably already bought the LSAT Superprep book and the Logic Games Bibles and can tell me of their utility?" And the answer was so simple. So if anyone here has any advice or experiences to share, I would really appreciate it. and yes, i might in fact defend pirates in the future. Rachel -- Got a little bit of soul, Got a little bit of rock n roll in my bones -Tea Leaf Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/ff621cd3/attachment.htm From rachelschy Wed May 7 21:33:20 2008 From: rachelschy (Rachel) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 19:33:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] LSAT Prep help! Message-ID: So I said to myself, I said, "Self, where can you find a lot of people who have probably already taken LSAT prep classes who could offer some insight and perhaps even discuss the merits and downfalls of various programs including, but not limited to, Kaplan, Testmasters, and Princeton Review? Who do you know that probably already bought the LSAT Superprep book and the Logic Games Bibles and can tell me of their utility?" And the answer was so simple. So if anyone here has any advice or experiences to share, I would really appreciate it. and yes, i might in fact defend pirates in the future. Rachel -- Got a little bit of soul, Got a little bit of rock n roll in my bones -Tea Leaf Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/ff621cd3/attachment-0001.htm From jasonlrussell1 Wed May 7 21:37:39 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 21:37:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzo/Russia Message-ID: Gonzo's arg about "getting bored" with consult Japan applies to every foreign policy topic and about 1/2 of all domestic topic aff's that affect foreign policy. For every consult CP, there is an equally annoying domestic actor CP. This is an arg for getting substantively better at debating consult and for JUDGES being more willing to reject the orthodoxy that says "if there's evidence for it, it must be theoretically legit". That said, this can't be a reason to reject all foreign policy topics. Gonzo wants to know what the central ground on the Russia topic is. It's been discussed before. The reason "bilateral" was in the topic proposal was because it would allow the neg large generic "approach" areas, like unilateralism or multilateralism, both highly defensible, dovetailing with the major generic approaches, and evidence in relation too net benefits and specifically to plans in the military area. So, no, there is no generic defense coop bad evidence (there is a large amount of specific literature that says each of the components of "security cooperation", the topic authors' term of choice, is bad, however), but there is evidence that says that bilateral cooperation is worse than unilateral action or multilateral coop in defense areas. This is the most cogent and defensible (and multidirectional) approach ground mentioned regarding ANY of the proposed topic areas. These large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide array of plan specific PICs and advantage CPs that present the neg with a diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff. Gonzo is going to fall asleep in round 7 of GSU anyway. He wont know if you ran consult Japan or Foucault. Dont believe the hype. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/07b5bc24/attachment.htm From u.hrair Wed May 7 22:27:23 2008 From: u.hrair (Calum Matheson) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 22:27:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Russia: Central Critical Ground Message-ID: I feel like the relevant arguments have been discussed at length. The central, critical ground in Russia is probably the Ural Mountains. Calum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080507/502d50e0/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior Thu May 8 00:42:42 2008 From: malgorthewarrior (M G) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 00:42:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzo/Russia Message-ID: None of Russell's comments answer Keenan's concern-that while there will be viable negative generics they won't be good enough to counteract the small corner of the topic affs, which will be encouraged by the broad nature of the topic and the low threshold for evidence (a problem Russell cites with consult). The generic multilateralism counterplan COULD be viable, assuming you can win it's competitive (something that is assumed left and right but i'm not so sure the do both counterplan woudn't solve depending on the resolution-'two offers' comes to mind. Regardless, let's assume it is competitive. This doesn't get us out of the depth of neg v aff argument that inevitably encourages smaller affs that the multilat counterplan won't have great solvency literature for. This is normally checked back by core topic ground that speaks to the purpose as well as mechanism. The multilat/unilat cp speaks to the mechanism for achieving cooperation, but the neg is still left out to dry in terms of good generic args about why security cooperation is bad. And while the election is a big complaint for health care as far as potential to radically change the topic....how is this not true for Russia? We are going to be talking about generic uniqueness debates (observation 4-cooperation now) that will already be terrible; if you add that the election will inevitably change the perception russia has of the united states and vice versa, there is potential for radical uniqueness problems for the aff or neg. Why is no one bothered by this? is security cooperation the only term of art that would be considered? it seems since we have the most predictable intellectual community EVER that will obviously vote for Russia, maybe we should start talking about a list v generic mechanism. if a list is the best way to ensure equitable solvency/disad/cp ground for the aff and neg (which I haven't really seen from anyone), it should be considered. I'm also not persuaded by Russell's assertion that 'large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide array of plan specific pics and advantage cps that present the neg with a diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff' given that it is just an assertion, a bold one at that, and really is just another way of saying "the negative will always have crap to say so don't worry about it." back to grand theft auto 4... "Gonzo wants to know what the central ground on the Russia topic is. It's been discussed before. The reason "bilateral" was in the topic proposal was because it would allow the neg large generic "approach" areas, like unilateralism or multilateralism, both highly defensible, dovetailing with the major generic approaches, and evidence in relation too net benefits and specifically to plans in the military area. So, no, there is no generic defense coop bad evidence (there is a large amount of specific literature that says each of the components of "security cooperation", the topic authors' term of choice, is bad, however), but there is evidence that says that bilateral cooperation is worse than unilateral action or multilateral coop in defense areas. This is the most cogent and defensible (and multidirectional) approach ground mentioned regarding ANY of the proposed topic areas. These large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide array of plan specific PICs and advantage CPs that present the neg with a diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff. " _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_052008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/16f2d59c/attachment.htm From Kelly.McDonald Thu May 8 01:14:11 2008 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 23:14:11 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] summer meeting hotel reservation reminder - cut off date is May 12. Message-ID: <573F49EC9809E84DBEA02A14BBEF37890320D277@EX05.asurite.ad.asu.edu> A quick reminder call for those who plan on attending the summer topic / business meetings in Dallas coming up in about 3 weeks. A quick note from our hosts at UDT: "The cut-off date for the block rate of $95/night is Monday, May 12. The website for making a reservations in the block is CEDA SUMMER MEETING (copy and paste the following link into a web browser):" http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/Book/cedasummer The CEDA Summer/Business Meetings will occur May 31st-June 2nd. The Topic Committee will meet from the afternoon of the 2nd to the 4th. Soon I will be putting out an agenda for the CEDA Meetings. Gordon Stables, as Topic Committee Chair, will make posts in regards to that agenda. If you have not done so, the process is very simple. Please don't delay. It is especially important if you are on the topic committee that you secure a room at the conference rate. The hotel is a Westin used for CEDA and the NDT as well as the Texas Two Step. The quality is excellent and we are getting a great value. Kelly Kelly M. McDonald, Ph.D. Assistant Professor The Hugh Downs School of Human Communication PO Box 871205 Tempe, AZ 85287-1205 Office: 474 Stauffer Hall Phone: (480) 965-2027 (direct) Fax: (480) 965-4291 Email: kelly.mcdonald at asu.edu From jasonlrussell1 Thu May 8 05:37:26 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 (Jason Russell) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 05:37:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Malgor/Russia Message-ID: There is plenty of lit comparing bilateral security coop to multilateral security coop or unilateral security. Calum posted some awhile back. There is more in the most recent reply to Dylan's impressive 30 minutes of research that undergirds your arguments. Security cooperation largely evades these "corner of the topic" type affs, as previously pointed out, by providing a narrow, but roomy enough portion of the lit. The requirement that the plan be bilateral filters many more. Many of the corner of the topic affs would be best done unilaterally. Finding a warrant for both Russian and US involvement is a strong enough barrier to the "unbeatable" affs you talk about. If not, put your money where your mouth is and produce one. For someone so long on his push for others to provide evidence, you've done not much but prattle on and scaremonger about the most well-researched of topics. The election isnt likely to affect any topic more than any other. It's incredibly unlikely any candidate does any of the topics' major mechanics before next April. The global UQ question is still to this day nonsense. The only evidence produced on this question was decimated within 3 minutes of its being posted. Again, put up or shut up. Security cooperation isnt the only term worthy of consideration; it is, however, the best produced so far. It's a definable budget category with a limited list of known mechanisms which have fallen into disrepair in the post-9-11 Iraq budget crunch. Im certain that the TC will remain committed to examining other viable options, including lists, in the run up to the final wording ballot. If you are trying to work some type of bayou reverse magic on the Russia topic by pre-declaring its victory, I would encourage you to stop. Putin frowns on the mystic arts. He will judo your ass. We've all seen the video (and if you haven't, check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdXwu2MXR_s). Consider that Contention 4 -- Putin will kill you. J P.S. What the hell does critical animal studies have to do with decreasing ag subsidies? Maybe Im missing something. The topic area is, as far as I can tell, not "Resolved: Ag...should we have it?". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/07d2dd57/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior Thu May 8 10:09:38 2008 From: malgorthewarrior (M G) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 10:09:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzo/Russia Message-ID: First off, Putin couldn't take me. He may be some kind of bad ass Russian, but i grew up on a swamp! MY BEST FRIEND WAS A SNAKE!! I'm not going to front like i've been posting evidence, and I also didn't read every article on the list of citations, but hey i'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a dec card or two in those articles. A quick question about bilateral-what makes an aff bilateral? Is an aff that just requires russia to accept and use US money/tech/human capital in a certain way bilateral? It just seems that if the aff can increase funding for bilateral programs (programs that just have the US and Russia spend money, and maybe share a few human resources) there will be very few affs the unilateral cp solves for. If you are solving problems in russia it just seems most affs will require bilateral coop which the cp doesn't solve. I'm not saying the cp isn't viable, just curious and could use an example to understand it better. On the global uniqueness question-the statement that the global uq question won't matter proves the disconnect between how we discuss things and how we debate things. The China topic is undeniable proof of this. We never pressured China over currency, or threatened to end trade over human rights the entire topic, but a substantial percentage of rounds were decided on pressure now/not now. Let's face it, some disads will rely on bilateral cooperation, some will rely on security cooperation. Either way in actual debate rounds the aff will inevitably swarm to the "cooperation now all your offense is non uq" trick. Maybe we'll get lucky and it won't happen until 2nd semester, like it did on China. But even if Russell is conceptually right in debate world it's proven to work the other way. _________________________________________________________________ Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1. http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/a6cff465/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior Thu May 8 10:09:39 2008 From: malgorthewarrior (M G) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 10:09:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzo/Russia Message-ID: First off, Putin couldn't take me. He may be some kind of bad ass Russian, but i grew up on a swamp! MY BEST FRIEND WAS A SNAKE!! I'm not going to front like i've been posting evidence, and I also didn't read every article on the list of citations, but hey i'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a dec card or two in those articles. A quick question about bilateral-what makes an aff bilateral? Is an aff that just requires russia to accept and use US money/tech/human capital in a certain way bilateral? It just seems that if the aff can increase funding for bilateral programs (programs that just have the US and Russia spend money, and maybe share a few human resources) there will be very few affs the unilateral cp solves for. If you are solving problems in russia it just seems most affs will require bilateral coop which the cp doesn't solve. I'm not saying the cp isn't viable, just curious and could use an example to understand it better. On the global uniqueness question-the statement that the global uq question won't matter proves the disconnect between how we discuss things and how we debate things. The China topic is undeniable proof of this. We never pressured China over currency, or threatened to end trade over human rights the entire topic, but a substantial percentage of rounds were decided on pressure now/not now. Let's face it, some disads will rely on bilateral cooperation, some will rely on security cooperation. Either way in actual debate rounds the aff will inevitably swarm to the "cooperation now all your offense is non uq" trick. Maybe we'll get lucky and it won't happen until 2nd semester, like it did on China. But even if Russell is conceptually right in debate world it's proven to work the other way. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_052008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/087ca6c6/attachment.htm From jtedebate Thu May 8 10:58:09 2008 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 08:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Gonzo/Russia In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <52466.34186.qm@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The issue of generics doesn't go far...That was the case this year! There were no good generics that applied to ALL the topic countries...much less the smaller cases. We all survived...there will always be small affs your generics don't solve--on every topic. I think a way to counteract the concerns of Keenan Et al is to have your generic strategies particular to the area...i.e., your generics covering Arms Control cases might not apply to Peacekeeping or Space cases...but again, that was the deal this year...While I agree it would be BEST if generics covered the broad base of cases, but we'll survive if not...Besides, the areas will check all the random listing of cases like LNG (not in an area proposed thus far?). I DO believe depth of Aff lit is a valid concern at some small level, but it is just a reason to pick the right areas: ie, Arms Control is super developed while Naval Coop might be more shallow (who knows-haven't read much there). UQ--"coop now" concerns me much more than generics...The issue on the China topic did suck...by 2nd semester, a few minutes of Affs were often "pressure now"..citing ridiculous examples that did not compare to the action of the Aff.--REASON? Because debaters bastardize most everything! The argument that "despite some coop now, Russia and the U.S. are headed for a space race, and space milz is a unique area of coop" SHOULD answers these concerns (ie, SQ coop is miniscule and doesn't really affect the overall level of coop)...but wiley debaters will just go for one-shot coop examples.... Negatives would/should argue that the plan's coop would be qualitative bigger than the small uq examples...i.e...debate it out Elections...these arguments would be true on any viable proposed topic...following this line of reasoning, AG would be jacked by the Farm Bill passing and/or candidates' specific takes on subsidies, Health Care has been discussed, etc. There is ALWAYS a potential for the UQ, etc. to change with an election! I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why Russia would be worse off than Ag or Health Care I agree that there should be a more discussion on list options and mechanisms Against "security coop": textually, having in the plan text is a proven liability that teams will ignore second semester to get out of dumb pics; it is not a budgetary category as far as I know, but a term of art that can come from the DOS, DOE, NASA, the FBI, etc....and evidence will contextually use this term of art...the "security" part is both somewhat meaningless in this sense and has baggage. If "bilateral coop" is used, not only does it satisfy calls for aff. flexibility, but can be limited by the directive action taken within the areas M G wrote: .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } None of Russell's comments answer Keenan's concern-that while there will be viable negative generics they won't be good enough to counteract the small corner of the topic affs, which will be encouraged by the broad nature of the topic and the low threshold for evidence (a problem Russell cites with consult). The generic multilateralism counterplan COULD be viable, assuming you can win it's competitive (something that is assumed left and right but i'm not so sure the do both counterplan woudn't solve depending on the resolution-'two offers' comes to mind. Regardless, let's assume it is competitive. This doesn't get us out of the depth of neg v aff argument that inevitably encourages smaller affs that the multilat counterplan won't have great solvency literature for. This is normally checked back by core topic ground that speaks to the purpose as well as mechanism. The multilat/unilat cp speaks to the mechanism for achieving cooperation, but the neg is still left out to dry in terms of good generic args about why security cooperation is bad. And while the election is a big complaint for health care as far as potential to radically change the topic....how is this not true for Russia? We are going to be talking about generic uniqueness debates (observation 4-cooperation now) that will already be terrible; if you add that the election will inevitably change the perception russia has of the united states and vice versa, there is potential for radical uniqueness problems for the aff or neg. Why is no one bothered by this? is security cooperation the only term of art that would be considered? it seems since we have the most predictable intellectual community EVER that will obviously vote for Russia, maybe we should start talking about a list v generic mechanism. if a list is the best way to ensure equitable solvency/disad/cp ground for the aff and neg (which I haven't really seen from anyone), it should be considered. I'm also not persuaded by Russell's assertion that 'large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide array of plan specific pics and advantage cps that present the neg with a diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff' given that it is just an assertion, a bold one at that, and really is just another way of saying "the negative will always have crap to say so don't worry about it." back to grand theft auto 4... "Gonzo wants to know what the central ground on the Russia topic is. It's been discussed before. The reason "bilateral" was in the topic proposal was because it would allow the neg large generic "approach" areas, like unilateralism or multilateralism, both highly defensible, dovetailing with the major generic approaches, and evidence in relation too net benefits and specifically to plans in the military area. So, no, there is no generic defense coop bad evidence (there is a large amount of specific literature that says each of the components of "security cooperation", the topic authors' term of choice, is bad, however), but there is evidence that says that bilateral cooperation is worse than unilateral action or multilateral coop in defense areas. This is the most cogent and defensible (and multidirectional) approach ground mentioned regarding ANY of the proposed topic areas. These large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide array of plan specific PICs and advantage CPs that present the neg with a diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff. " --------------------------------- Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. Start sharing._______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/34065219/attachment.htm From cramhelwich Thu May 8 11:13:47 2008 From: cramhelwich (David Cram Helwich) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 11:13:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzo/Russia In-Reply-To: <52466.34186.qm@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <52466.34186.qm@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <52ace93c0805080913i15edd333mc4639ba7f678fdba@mail.gmail.com> I disagree with one of JT's point-- Malgor, Dylan's and others' point is that a lack of unifying ground in the topic ensures that teams go uber-generic in crafting their fallback negative strategies. The mideast topic did not offer core, topic-specific negative ground. Realizing this, the Gophers' first two negative assignments were a Geographic Aesthetics K and Consult EU. Obviously, we have a really young squad that is still finding its research legs, but we still went for those arguments in a TON of debates, even some late in the season against new and/or corner affs. On the flip side, on the energy topic, Mac's first three neg files were an oil prices DA, a coal prices DA, and a natural gas prices DA. I think that most people would agree that it was easier to be negative on the energy topic. $.02 dch head gopher On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM, J T wrote: > The issue of generics doesn't go far...That was the case this year! There > were no good generics that applied to ALL the topic countries...much less > the smaller cases. We all survived...there will always be small affs your > generics don't solve--on every topic. I think a way to counteract the > concerns of Keenan Et al is to have your generic strategies particular to > the area...i.e., your generics covering Arms Control cases might not apply > to Peacekeeping or Space cases...but again, that was the deal this > year...While I agree it would be BEST if generics covered the broad base of > cases, but we'll survive if not...Besides, the areas will check all the > random listing of cases like LNG (not in an area proposed thus far?). I DO > believe depth of Aff lit is a valid concern at some small level, but it is > just a reason to pick the right areas: ie, Arms Control is super developed > while Naval Coop might be more shallow (who knows-haven't read much there). > > UQ--"coop now" concerns me much more than generics...The issue on the China > topic did suck...by 2nd semester, a few minutes of Affs were often "pressure > now"..citing ridiculous examples that did not compare to the action of the > Aff.--REASON? Because debaters bastardize most everything! The argument > that "despite some coop now, Russia and the U.S. are headed for a space > race, and space milz is a unique area of coop" SHOULD answers these concerns > (ie, SQ coop is miniscule and doesn't really affect the overall level of > coop)...but wiley debaters will just go for one-shot coop examples.... > Negatives would/should argue that the plan's coop would be qualitative > bigger than the small uq examples...i.e...debate it out > Elections...these arguments would be true on any viable proposed > topic...following this line of reasoning, AG would be jacked by the Farm > Bill passing and/or candidates' specific takes on subsidies, Health Care has > been discussed, etc. There is ALWAYS a potential for the UQ, etc. to change > with an election! I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why Russia > would be worse off than Ag or Health Care > > I agree that there should be a more discussion on list options and > mechanisms > > Against "security coop": textually, having in the plan text is a proven > liability that teams will ignore second semester to get out of dumb pics; > it is not a budgetary category as far as I know, but a term of art that can > come from the DOS, DOE, NASA, the FBI, etc....and evidence will contextually > use this term of art...the "security" part is both somewhat meaningless in > this sense and has baggage. If "bilateral coop" is used, not only does it > satisfy calls for aff. flexibility, but can be limited by the directive > action taken within the areas > > > *M G * wrote: > > None of Russell's comments answer Keenan's concern-that while there will be > viable negative generics they won't be good enough to counteract the small > corner of the topic affs, which will be encouraged by the broad nature of > the topic and the low threshold for evidence (a problem Russell cites with > consult). > > The generic multilateralism counterplan COULD be viable, assuming you can > win it's competitive (something that is assumed left and right but i'm not > so sure the do both counterplan woudn't solve depending on the > resolution-'two offers' comes to mind. Regardless, let's assume it is > competitive. This doesn't get us out of the depth of neg v aff argument > that inevitably encourages smaller affs that the multilat counterplan won't > have great solvency literature for. This is normally checked back by core > topic ground that speaks to the purpose as well as mechanism. The > multilat/unilat cp speaks to the mechanism for achieving cooperation, but > the neg is still left out to dry in terms of good generic args about why > security cooperation is bad. > > And while the election is a big complaint for health care as far as > potential to radically change the topic....how is this not true for Russia? > We are going to be talking about generic uniqueness debates (observation > 4-cooperation now) that will already be terrible; if you add that the > election will inevitably change the perception russia has of the united > states and vice versa, there is potential for radical uniqueness problems > for the aff or neg. Why is no one bothered by this? > > is security cooperation the only term of art that would be considered? it > seems since we have the most predictable intellectual community EVER that > will obviously vote for Russia, maybe we should start talking about a list v > generic mechanism. if a list is the best way to ensure equitable > solvency/disad/cp ground for the aff and neg (which I haven't really seen > from anyone), it should be considered. > > I'm also not persuaded by Russell's assertion that 'large, evidence based > areas are supplemented by a wide array of plan specific pics and advantage > cps that present the neg with a diverse array of approaches while failing to > entirely hamstring the aff' given that it is just an assertion, a bold one > at that, and really is just another way of saying "the negative will always > have crap to say so don't worry about it." > > back to grand theft auto 4... > > "Gonzo wants to know what the central ground on the Russia topic is. It's > been discussed before. The reason "bilateral" was in the topic proposal was > > because it would allow the neg large generic "approach" areas, like > unilateralism or multilateralism, both highly defensible, dovetailing with > the major generic approaches, and evidence in relation too net benefits and > > specifically to plans in the military area. So, no, there is no generic > defense coop bad evidence (there is a large amount of specific literature > that says each of the components of "security cooperation", the topic > authors' term of choice, is bad, however), but there is evidence that says > that bilateral cooperation is worse than unilateral action or multilateral > coop in defense areas. This is the most cogent and defensible (and > multidirectional) approach ground mentioned regarding ANY of the proposed > topic areas. These large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide > array of plan specific PICs and advantage CPs that present the neg with a > diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff. " > > > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. Start > sharing. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > JT > > Asst. Debate Coach > Emporia State University > > ------------------------------ > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it > now. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080508/a4710a1a/attachment.htm From dylan.keenan Thu May 8 11:15:36 2008 From: dylan.keenan (Dylan Keenan) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 12:15:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzo/Russia In-Reply-To: <52ace93c0805080913i15edd333mc4639ba7f678fdba@mail.gmail.com> References: <52466.34186.qm@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <52ace93c0805080913i15edd333mc4639ba7f678fdba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I think two important points have been missed: 1. This is a comparative question, not a yes/no question. Obviously Russia has some affirmatives, and some negative ground. My point, and I think that of others arguing against a Russia topic, is that the richness (depth) and manageability (breadth) of other topics is of much greater quality than with a Russia topic. I don't think anyone has refuted the fundamental issue which is the exponentially greater quantity of VERY SPECIFIC solvency literature on topics like healthcare and agriculture and arms control. I won't rehash the reasons specific literature makes a topic awesome but I think empirical evidence strongly leans that way looking not only at the past few topics, but affirmatives on each topic Jason says that my 30 minutes of research is unimpressive in revealing the depth of the topic. OK, how would you establish the depth? 2 hours? 3 days? 4 weeks? Do you have even a warrant to suggest that Russia is a better developed lit base than Ag or Health care? I didn't think so. 30 minutes by anyone can, however, reveal the breadth of the topic. Again, there are squirrel affs on any topic. I think small research by numerous people shows that Russia is more vulnerable to this. Calum throws out a giant list of articles many of which are questionably related even to Russia. This sort of proves my point. There is some lit on the coast guard doing security assistance generally, and some on CTR. Are there thousands of articles written on a proposal to send the coast guard to send the coast guard to northern Russian ports to secure LNG or to reemploy CTR scientists in different fields? VERY DOUBTFUL. In fact I doubt there are even a few dozen good neg solvency cards on any of those affirmatives. Now, take an issue like healthcare. How many articles, in fact how many books, are there discussing even individual aspects of single payer healthcare. Houndreds (and millions of articles). Does this make for better debate? Absolutely, and it in fact is the most important consideration making for better debate. Even if you take the most in depth Russia lit, like START III or CTR healthcare bludgeons it in quantity and quality. One last point about aff ground for the people reading. Calum and Jason seem to be basing the argument that Russia won't be unmanageably large for the negative on the idea that the topic will be limited to security cooperation. I question if this plays a limiting function. Like "Public health", "security" gets thrown around and attached to every question from environment, to disease to actual security issues. Involving the military for any of these affirmatives could make at least a feasible affirmative topicality claim. And, even if this is not the best T interp, people still have a good incentive to test it. Healthcare and ag greatly reduce this propensity. To me, the whole discussion seems like the discussion about the Bush tax cuts. First he proposes cuts to expire in 2010 in order to reduce the upfront cost and make it seem plausible. Once they are locked in, he suggests permanent tax cuts, again which look somewhat reasonable. But together the package is very problematic. Now we hear people saying we need "security cooperation", a sort of term of art to limit the topic. Once we vote for Russia people will immediately suggest expanding the topic as Gonzo pointed out and all the affirmatives on environment etc that I just cited come rushing back in. 1. Multilat/bilat/unilat!?!?! This is the neg ground Jason is suggesting. Hence forth I will call the Russia topic the "bilateral cooperation" topic because it sounds like we won't be debating Russia at all. Sounds like it WILL be generics with no specific evidence and questionable net benefits. I can't wait. "Well there's almost no risk of the NATO net benefit to the CP since it doesn't make sense for such a tiny aff, but the aff can't win much of a solvency deficit cause they only have one sort of bad card saying the aff has to happen bilaterally." This sounds thrilling. No seriously, people need to consider the lack of a good generic against small affirmatives based on security cooperation. Jason suggests we have generics to each area. That's a fine suggestion, but even here I question if it works. Let's take a lesson from last year's topic. The hardest cases to win generics against were Afghanistan and Lebanon. The reason is that the mechanisms (usually aid) was being given now, but more importantly, the difference between the plan and SQ was tiny because it didn't require a radical break. I think many Russia cooperation affs are not radical breaks. I'm not making this a global U argument either. My point is just about the credibility of small internal link to big stock generics like a triangle China DA or a NATO DA. BTW, what would these specific generics to each area be? I can say for sure if we choose healthcare with a mechanism of universal coverage that is a radical fundamental break with the SQ which means high quality links to Biz-Con, politics, Industry disadvantages (Auto, pharmaceutical, insurance), Military recruitment arguments, International modeling based arguments, Federalism, plus many many case specific PICS which almost everyone thinks are awesome, and are less likely to materialize on many Russia affirmatives. The only reason to vote for Russia is because the impacts are sweet. We are not voting for best impacts, we are voting for a topic. I think the China topic adequately revealed the danger of conflating the two. -Dylan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/d2eeaee1/attachment.htm From jtedebate Thu May 8 11:23:28 2008 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 09:23:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Gonzo/Russia In-Reply-To: <52ace93c0805080913i15edd333mc4639ba7f678fdba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <662212.77473.qm@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> which point does this disagree on...I said the same about the middle east topic...one where the only real "generic" was the K...people wen the K route, and others developed "generic" strategies within the specific countries...why is a grand unifying generic strategy necessarily good? I am certainly sympathetic to the small school issue, but if you didn't die out last year, you'll survive David Cram Helwich wrote: I disagree with one of JT's point-- Malgor, Dylan's and others' point is that a lack of unifying ground in the topic ensures that teams go uber-generic in crafting their fallback negative strategies. The mideast topic did not offer core, topic-specific negative ground. Realizing this, the Gophers' first two negative assignments were a Geographic Aesthetics K and Consult EU. Obviously, we have a really young squad that is still finding its research legs, but we still went for those arguments in a TON of debates, even some late in the season against new and/or corner affs. On the flip side, on the energy topic, Mac's first three neg files were an oil prices DA, a coal prices DA, and a natural gas prices DA. I think that most people would agree that it was easier to be negative on the energy topic. $.02 dch head gopher On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM, J T wrote: The issue of generics doesn't go far...That was the case this year! There were no good generics that applied to ALL the topic countries...much less the smaller cases. We all survived...there will always be small affs your generics don't solve--on every topic. I think a way to counteract the concerns of Keenan Et al is to have your generic strategies particular to the area...i.e., your generics covering Arms Control cases might not apply to Peacekeeping or Space cases...but again, that was the deal this year...While I agree it would be BEST if generics covered the broad base of cases, but we'll survive if not...Besides, the areas will check all the random listing of cases like LNG (not in an area proposed thus far?). I DO believe depth of Aff lit is a valid concern at some small level, but it is just a reason to pick the right areas: ie, Arms Control is super developed while Naval Coop might be more shallow (who knows-haven't read much there). UQ--"coop now" concerns me much more than generics...The issue on the China topic did suck...by 2nd semester, a few minutes of Affs were often "pressure now"..citing ridiculous examples that did not compare to the action of the Aff.--REASON? Because debaters bastardize most everything! The argument that "despite some coop now, Russia and the U.S. are headed for a space race, and space milz is a unique area of coop" SHOULD answers these concerns (ie, SQ coop is miniscule and doesn't really affect the overall level of coop)...but wiley debaters will just go for one-shot coop examples.... Negatives would/should argue that the plan's coop would be qualitative bigger than the small uq examples...i.e...debate it out Elections...these arguments would be true on any viable proposed topic...following this line of reasoning, AG would be jacked by the Farm Bill passing and/or candidates' specific takes on subsidies, Health Care has been discussed, etc. There is ALWAYS a potential for the UQ, etc. to change with an election! I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why Russia would be worse off than Ag or Health Care I agree that there should be a more discussion on list options and mechanisms Against "security coop": textually, having in the plan text is a proven liability that teams will ignore second semester to get out of dumb pics; it is not a budgetary category as far as I know, but a term of art that can come from the DOS, DOE, NASA, the FBI, etc....and evidence will contextually use this term of art...the "security" part is both somewhat meaningless in this sense and has baggage. If "bilateral coop" is used, not only does it satisfy calls for aff. flexibility, but can be limited by the directive action taken within the areas M G wrote: None of Russell's comments answer Keenan's concern-that while there will be viable negative generics they won't be good enough to counteract the small corner of the topic affs, which will be encouraged by the broad nature of the topic and the low threshold for evidence (a problem Russell cites with consult). The generic multilateralism counterplan COULD be viable, assuming you can win it's competitive (something that is assumed left and right but i'm not so sure the do both counterplan woudn't solve depending on the resolution-'two offers' comes to mind. Regardless, let's assume it is competitive. This doesn't get us out of the depth of neg v aff argument that inevitably encourages smaller affs that the multilat counterplan won't have great solvency literature for. This is normally checked back by core topic ground that speaks to the purpose as well as mechanism. The multilat/unilat cp speaks to the mechanism for achieving cooperation, but the neg is still left out to dry in terms of good generic args about why security cooperation is bad. And while the election is a big complaint for health care as far as potential to radically change the topic....how is this not true for Russia? We are going to be talking about generic uniqueness debates (observation 4-cooperation now) that will already be terrible; if you add that the election will inevitably change the perception russia has of the united states and vice versa, there is potential for radical uniqueness problems for the aff or neg. Why is no one bothered by this? is security cooperation the only term of art that would be considered? it seems since we have the most predictable intellectual community EVER that will obviously vote for Russia, maybe we should start talking about a list v generic mechanism. if a list is the best way to ensure equitable solvency/disad/cp ground for the aff and neg (which I haven't really seen from anyone), it should be considered. I'm also not persuaded by Russell's assertion that 'large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide array of plan specific pics and advantage cps that present the neg with a diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff' given that it is just an assertion, a bold one at that, and really is just another way of saying "the negative will always have crap to say so don't worry about it." back to grand theft auto 4... "Gonzo wants to know what the central ground on the Russia topic is. It's been discussed before. The reason "bilateral" was in the topic proposal was because it would allow the neg large generic "approach" areas, like unilateralism or multilateralism, both highly defensible, dovetailing with the major generic approaches, and evidence in relation too net benefits and specifically to plans in the military area. So, no, there is no generic defense coop bad evidence (there is a large amount of specific literature that says each of the components of "security cooperation", the topic authors' term of choice, is bad, however), but there is evidence that says that bilateral cooperation is worse than unilateral action or multilateral coop in defense areas. This is the most cogent and defensible (and multidirectional) approach ground mentioned regarding ANY of the proposed topic areas. These large, evidence based areas are supplemented by a wide array of plan specific PICs and advantage CPs that present the neg with a diverse array of approaches while failing to entirely hamstring the aff. " --------------------------------- Windows Live SkyDrive lets you share files with faraway friends. Start sharing._______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/a5827fd6/attachment.htm From blain Thu May 8 11:31:45 2008 From: blain (Brian Lain) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 11:31:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Welcomes Louie Petit Message-ID: <4822E4A1020000F00003A2ED@GWIA.unt.edu> Colleagues, It is my distinct pleasure to announce that North Texas will welcome Louie Petit as the new Assistant Director of Debate for next year. After a long and rigorous search, we are very excited that Louie will be joining us after completing his tenure at Missouri State University. Louie is a great coach whose accomplishments in D3 and nationally are worth applauding, and we look forward to having him in Denton next year. As an aside, if you are reading this and are still looking for graduate school, please get in contact with me, we have recently received additional funds for grad students to do debate at UNT. -Brian Assistant Professor of Communication Director of Debate University of North Texas Box 305268 Denton, TX, 76203 (o) 940-565-4534 (c) 940-453-2359 (fax) 940-565-3630 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Brian Lain.vcf Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/70297e0c/attachment.txt From dave Thu May 8 11:52:35 2008 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 12:52:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Unofficial Calendar #7 Message-ID: dates Tournament Divisions Contact Person email 09/19-09/21 King's College O,JV,N Mike Berry michaelberry at kings.edu 09/20-09/22 UNI Ulrich Season Opener O,JV,N Cate Palczewski palczewski at uni.edu 09/20-09/22 The Jesuit @ Gonzaga O Glen Frappier frappier at calvin.gonzaga.edu 09/20-09/22 Georgia State University O,JV,N Joe Bellon joe.bellon at gmail.com 09/26-09/27 Rochester O,JV,N 09/26-09/28 Golden Gate Season Opener SFSU O,JV,N Shawn Whalen swhalen at sfsu.edu 09/26-09/28 Clarion University Autumn Leaf Debates O,JV,N Jim Lyle jlyle at clarion.edu 09/27-09/28 Laramie Scrimage Matt Stannard stannardmatt at hotmail.com 09/27-09/29 Bear Shock @ either WSU or MoState, tba O,JV,N Eric Morris EricMorris at MissouriState.edu 09/30-10/01 Las Vegas Round Robin O Jake Thompson Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu 09/30-10/01 Kentucky Round Robin JW Patterson jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu 10/04-10/06 Las Vegas Classic O,JV,N Jake Thompson Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu 10/04-10/06 Henry Clay Debates JW Patterson jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu 10/10-10/12 Santa Rosa Junior College O,JV,N Mark Nelson mnelson at santarosa.edu 10/10-10/12 KCKCC Blue Devil Debates O,JV,N Darren Elliott delliott at kckcc.edu 10/11-10/13 Jay Weinberg Classic @ Richmond O,JV,N Kevin Kuswa kkuswa at richmond.edu 10/17-10/19 West Point Invitational O,JV,N Bill Skimmyhorn william.skimmyhorn at usma.edu 10/17-10/19 Vanderbilt O,JV,N ML Sandoz ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu 10/17-10/19 Pepperdine Ray Buchanan Invitational O,JV,N Sarah Stone Watt sarah.stonewatt at pepperdine.edu 10/18-10/20 Idaho State Open Debates Sarah Partlow Lefevre partsara at isu.edu 10/18-10/20 Emporia State University (Pflaum Debates) O,JV,N Samuel Maurer smaurer at emporia.edu 10/24-10/26 Diablo Valley College O,JV,N Becky Opsata BOpsata at dvc.edu 10/25-10/26 Western Connecticut O,JV,N, Wynn Gadkar-Wilcox wilcoxw at wcsu.edu 10/25-10/27 Wayne State Motor City Classic V,JV,N Kelly Young kelly.young at wayne.edu 10/31-11/02 Robert Barbera Invitational (CSUN) O,JV,N John Kephart III csundebate at gmail.com 11/01-11/03 Harvard 11/07-11/09 University of Central Oklahoma O,JV,N Eric Marlow emarlow at ucok.edu 11/07-11/09 University of the Pacific O,JV,N Marlin Bates mbates at pacific.edu 11/07-11/09 Liberty O,JV,N Mike Hall mphall at liberty.edu 11/14-11/16 Appalachian State Mountaineer Debates O,JV,N Kris Willis williskw at appstate.edu 11/15-11/17 Wake Forest O Ross Smith smithr at wfu.edu 11/22-11/23 Binghamton O,JV,N joe leeson-schatz sailorferrets at gmail.com 11/22-11/23 WNPT @ Whitman O Jim Hanson hansonjb at whitman.edu 01/06-01/08 University of North Texas O,JV,N Brian Lain blain at unt.edu 01/10-01/12 University of Texas at Dallas O,JV,N Chris Burk crb012000 at utdallas.edu 01/17-01/18 Val A. Browning Round Robin O Veronica Guevara veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com 01/23-01/25 US Naval Academy O,JV,N Danielle Verney O'Gorman daisy_verney at hotmail.com 01/31-02/01 Umass O,JV,N 02/06-02/08 Hurricane Debates @ University of Miami O,JV,N David Steinberg dave at miami.edu 02/14-02/15 Cornell JV,N,Rookie Sam Nelson Samnelson4 at aol.com 02/13-02/15 WFA @ ASU Derek Buescher dbuescher at ups.edu 02/21-02/23 Mardi Gras Policy @ UL-Lafayette Scott Elliott sme2607 at louisiana.edu 02/28-03/01 CEDA East/D8 Qualifier @ Baruch College O,JV,N Vik Keenan vikeenan at gmail.com 02/28-03/02 Northwest CEDA Champs O Jim Hanson hansonjb at whitman.edu 03/06-03/09 Novice and JV Nationals @ Towson JV,N Andy Ellis andy.edebate at gmail.com 03/14-03/16 NJDDT JV,N Terri Easley teasley3 at jcc.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/f70872fb/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Unofficial calendar 08-09 #5.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 38400 bytes Desc: Unofficial calendar 08-09 #5.xls Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/f70872fb/attachment.xls From EricMorris Thu May 8 11:57:49 2008 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 11:57:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Welcomes Louie Petit In-Reply-To: <4822E4A1020000F00003A2ED@GWIA.unt.edu> References: <4822E4A1020000F00003A2ED@GWIA.unt.edu> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EE1063B@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I want to congratulate Louie, and also North Texas, on this announcement. I think many close to our program understand how absolutely central Louie was to our squad in general, and in particular to Ozzy & Clay's runs at CEDA and NDT. We will miss him greatly - coaches of his caliber simply cannot be replaced. I am extremely confident he will continue to do an outstanding job. I also think he a fabulous example of how you don't have to be a 1st round debater to become an amazing coach - it just takes times, effort, a love of arguments, and a commitment to constantly improving your skills. I hope his success up to this point, and beyond, inspires others the way it has inspired me. Of course, I'm also concerned that, particularly with Kuntal returning, we might be losing more rounds to UNT. I do have a video of him jumping into a practice round that could be posted if I'm provoked.... Ermo MoState p.s. Hopefully, Louie won't take this job as a license to route for any sports team from the Dallas metro area. No such licenses are available. -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lain Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:32 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] UNT Welcomes Louie Petit Colleagues, It is my distinct pleasure to announce that North Texas will welcome Louie Petit as the new Assistant Director of Debate for next year. After a long and rigorous search, we are very excited that Louie will be joining us after completing his tenure at Missouri State University. Louie is a great coach whose accomplishments in D3 and nationally are worth applauding, and we look forward to having him in Denton next year. As an aside, if you are reading this and are still looking for graduate school, please get in contact with me, we have recently received additional funds for grad students to do debate at UNT. -Brian Assistant Professor of Communication Director of Debate University of North Texas Box 305268 Denton, TX, 76203 (o) 940-565-4534 (c) 940-453-2359 (fax) 940-565-3630 From EricMorris Thu May 8 11:59:00 2008 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 11:59:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Welcomes Louie Petit In-Reply-To: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EE1063B@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> References: <4822E4A1020000F00003A2ED@GWIA.unt.edu> <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EE1063B@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EE1063D@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Or root for any teams, in case he decides that would make more sense than planning routes for them. -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Eric R Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:58 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] UNT Welcomes Louie Petit I want to congratulate Louie, and also North Texas, on this announcement. I think many close to our program understand how absolutely central Louie was to our squad in general, and in particular to Ozzy & Clay's runs at CEDA and NDT. We will miss him greatly - coaches of his caliber simply cannot be replaced. I am extremely confident he will continue to do an outstanding job. I also think he a fabulous example of how you don't have to be a 1st round debater to become an amazing coach - it just takes times, effort, a love of arguments, and a commitment to constantly improving your skills. I hope his success up to this point, and beyond, inspires others the way it has inspired me. Of course, I'm also concerned that, particularly with Kuntal returning, we might be losing more rounds to UNT. I do have a video of him jumping into a practice round that could be posted if I'm provoked.... Ermo MoState p.s. Hopefully, Louie won't take this job as a license to route for any sports team from the Dallas metro area. No such licenses are available. -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lain Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:32 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] UNT Welcomes Louie Petit Colleagues, It is my distinct pleasure to announce that North Texas will welcome Louie Petit as the new Assistant Director of Debate for next year. After a long and rigorous search, we are very excited that Louie will be joining us after completing his tenure at Missouri State University. Louie is a great coach whose accomplishments in D3 and nationally are worth applauding, and we look forward to having him in Denton next year. As an aside, if you are reading this and are still looking for graduate school, please get in contact with me, we have recently received additional funds for grad students to do debate at UNT. -Brian Assistant Professor of Communication Director of Debate University of North Texas Box 305268 Denton, TX, 76203 (o) 940-565-4534 (c) 940-453-2359 (fax) 940-565-3630 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From delliott Thu May 8 12:41:29 2008 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 12:41:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzo/Russia Message-ID: <4822F4F9020000930001396B@mymail.kckcc.edu> And he bit him! >>> M G 05/08/08 10:09 AM >>> First off, Putin couldn't take me. He may be some kind of bad ass Russian, but i grew up on a swamp! MY BEST FRIEND WAS A SNAKE!! From thescu Thu May 8 12:43:51 2008 From: thescu (James K. Stanescu) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 13:43:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What does agricultural subsidies have to do with animals Message-ID: Jason Russell wrote: "P.S. What the hell does critical animal studies have to do with decreasing ag subsidies? Maybe Im missing something. The topic area is, as far as I can tell, not "Resolved: Ag...should we have it?"." The topic paper outlines the possibility of abolishing subsidies for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, which are basically what we call factory farms. This seems like a rather mainstream topical way to access critical animal studies literature. There are also other ways to access it, but CAFOs are just the most obvious. -Scu -- James K. Stanescu Graduate Student Binghamton University Philosophy, Interpretation, and Culture http://pic.binghamton.edu Assistant Debate Coach "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will also be battlefields." -Tolstoy "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will also be battlefields." -Tolstoy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/76534b09/attachment.htm From drmosbornesq Thu May 8 13:02:14 2008 From: drmosbornesq (bandana martin) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 11:02:14 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Welcomes Louie Petit In-Reply-To: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EE1063D@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> References: <4822E4A1020000F00003A2ED@GWIA.unt.edu> <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EE1063B@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EE1063D@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: <39c09a80805081102w1c4b1d8bn217437fd12db75e@mail.gmail.com> It's 2005 and Ben Warner is leaving SMS for a team who shared his contradictory penchant for both short cards and the impact turn. SMS was ecstatic but I suppose the moment could be called "bittersweet" if you included Kansas' opinion. It was the end of a promising career for [one] self-depreciating unattractive fat man but it was just the beginning of the career for another1. China was a large topic (made larger by you cheaters who wanted to just give shit to China ?). Louie is a large man. To a man with a brain like Ermo, that sort of parallel just couldn't be left unexplored. Six times out of seven, Ermo might be wrong to pay a man whose biggest debate accomplishment was batting the cycle in D3 coaching. But this time, he was right (and if anybody really wants to read his RFD, you can find it2). 700 page files with incomprehensible indexes, insanely indefensible impact mods, and so many spelling and grammatical errors that Bill Gates starts sending you courtesy emails about the nearest writing center aren't for everyone (except maybe Bricker ? and why they have some things in common I'll never understand). The first time Louie handed Kearney and I his Europe counterplan/disad/relations file/book report/beer checklist, we smiled and filed it BEHIND the wipeout answers. The first time Louie asked me why we weren't running it I had to lie and tell him Kearney was literate, and thus knew it was useless. SMS KO was in many ways a self-made success story. Sort of like the KC Royals are today. We needed someone who could understand what it means to marry a template, write more efficient files, let us re-cut all the good cites you find so we can take credit for them, and give advice to the truly un-coachable. As a bonus, Louie was also willing to wear a bandana in public. KO and Louie united around hatred for the courts topic, and love of the Rhyne 1958 evidence3. While our coalition held together pretty well for the first half of the season, duty called Kearney into the South China Sea, where today he keeps every one of you thankless bastards alive. It had been said that "the 2NR is the hardest speech in debate," but I always just figured Kearney sucked. It is at this moment that Louie stepped into a new role that he would play for another year and a half: the man cutting all of the case d. Squad meetings were streamlined. I took all of Kearney's amendment/legitimacy blocks and informed Louie his new job was to waste as much aff time as possible ? by cutting case cards I would/could never go for. Swallowing his pride (along with his fair share of alcohol) Louie embraced this task, helping me complete what I thought was my last semester in debate on a positive note (the words "I quit" coming out of Blake Moore's mouth as the van rolled up after CEDA). When my coaching staff asked me if I wanted to debate a fifth year, I told them to fuck themselves. Then they told me Louie would come back if I did. Louie is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. He's not a complicated man so you don't really even need to take the time to get to know him to understand this. I have always prided myself on the amount of debate work I did but I honestly have never been able to match Louie (perhaps because of my outright fear of anything called "80-hour energy" spray). Whatever he tells you after the fifth round of Irish car-bombs he just picked up the tab for (and I'm not talking about one time only), never believe the parts about how little he had to do with the best season in the history of Missouri State debate. Luckily, I have had great coaches the whole time I have been here and I am appreciative to all of them for how much they helped me, be it for one tournament or five long years. Louie is the perfect example of someone who loves debate, loves debaters, and puts his will do whatever it takes to be a better coach. He is also one of my best friends. I am lucky to have met him, and UNT has a lot to look forward to. Another redo? Martin Osborn ****** 1 http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-May/070908.html 2 http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/JudgesBallots2006final.htm 3 http://www.abanet.org/publiced/lawday/rhyne58.html On 5/8/08, Morris, Eric R wrote: > > Or root for any teams, in case he decides that would make more sense > than planning routes for them. > > -----Original Message----- > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com > [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Eric R > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:58 AM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] UNT Welcomes Louie Petit > > I want to congratulate Louie, and also North Texas, on this > announcement. I think many close to our program understand how > absolutely central Louie was to our squad in general, and in particular > to Ozzy & Clay's runs at CEDA and NDT. We will miss him greatly - > coaches of his caliber simply cannot be replaced. > > I am extremely confident he will continue to do an outstanding job. I > also think he a fabulous example of how you don't have to be a 1st round > debater to become an amazing coach - it just takes times, effort, a love > of arguments, and a commitment to constantly improving your skills. I > hope his success up to this point, and beyond, inspires others the way > it has inspired me. > > Of course, I'm also concerned that, particularly with Kuntal returning, > we might be losing more rounds to UNT. I do have a video of him jumping > into a practice round that could be posted if I'm provoked.... > > Ermo > MoState > > p.s. Hopefully, Louie won't take this job as a license to route for any > sports team from the Dallas metro area. No such licenses are available. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com > [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lain > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 11:32 AM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] UNT Welcomes Louie Petit > > Colleagues, > > It is my distinct pleasure to announce that North Texas will welcome > Louie Petit as the new Assistant Director of Debate for next year. > After a long and rigorous search, we are very excited that Louie will be > joining us after completing his tenure at Missouri State University. > Louie is a great coach whose accomplishments in D3 and nationally are > worth applauding, and we look forward to having him in Denton next year. > > As an aside, if you are reading this and are still looking for graduate > school, please get in contact with me, we have recently received > additional funds for grad students to do debate at UNT. > -Brian > > Assistant Professor of Communication > Director of Debate > University of North Texas > Box 305268 > Denton, TX, 76203 > (o) 940-565-4534 > (c) 940-453-2359 > (fax) 940-565-3630 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080508/40f17065/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu May 8 13:09:22 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 13:09:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] What does agricultural subsidies have to do with animals Message-ID: <1210270162.482341d2b3a94@webmail.grandecom.net> If issues of animal rights and animal studies is your bag, you are much, much more likely to get into a deeper debate on these issues on the genetic engineering topic then you would on debating agricultural subsidies. Example: Affirmative plans to ban the use of genetically engineered animals or hormone treatments on farms. Bans on certain genetic testing because they harm animal rights, etc. Also, just getting rid of a subsidy will not get rid of the factory farms. A simple "ban them" counter-plan seems like it would be a much better solvency mechanism than trying to stretch a reduction of subsidies sqaure peg into a "ban them all" round hole. As I have noted before, many of the hottest areas of the agriculture topic are subsumed by genetic engineering topic, and the solvency mechanisms are more straight forward than just an appeal to reduce Ag subsidies. Example: On the Ag topic, people could argue to reduce subsidies for genetically modified bt corn. On the genetic engineering topic, the affirmative could either reduce subsidies (weak solvency) or an outright ban (strong solvency). Scott Elliott From jwpatt00 Thu May 8 13:26:34 2008 From: jwpatt00 (Patterson, J W) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 14:26:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] TOC OFFICIAL RESULTS Message-ID: KENTUCKY TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS 2008 HIGHLIGHTS GREENHILL WINS POLICY FOR THE THIRD TIME: GREENHILL'S NICK ROGAN AND OLIVIA ROGAN TAKES POLICY'S TOP HONORS 2000-ASHER HAIG & JORDAN PIETZSCH COACHES: ALEX PRICHARD & AARON TIMMONS 2006- MATTHEW ANDREWS & STEPHEN POLLEY COACHES: AARON TIMMONS & JONATHAN PAUL 2008- NICK ROGAN & OLIVIA ROGAN COACHES: AARON TIMMONS & JONATHAN PAUL APPLE VALLEY'S CHRIS THEIS WINS LINCOLN DOUGLAS DIVISION STRATFORD ACADEMY'S WILLIAM KARLSON WINS TOP POLICY SPEAKER AWARD LOS ALTOS' DANIEL MOERNER NAMED LD TOP SPEAKER COLLEYVILLE'S JAMES HAMRAIE WINS THE JULIA BURKE AWARD NORTH ALLEGHENY'S NAZIH EL-KHATIB & CLAIRE KAIRYS TAKES PUBLIC FORUM NOVA'S BEN BERKMAN TAKES CONGRESS FIRST PLACE COLLEYVILLE'S DAVE HUSTON & GREENHILL'S AARON TIMMONS NAMED TO COACHES HALL OF FAME THE 37TH ANNUAL KENTUCKY TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS ENDED IN LEXINGTON ABOUT 2 AM ON TUESDAY WHEN TOC DIRECTOR JW PATTERSON PRESENTED GREENHILL'S NICK ROGAN AND OLIVIA ROGAN WITH THE FIRST PLACE POLICY TROPHY. THE RUNNER-UP TROPHY WAS AWARDED TO COLLEYVILLE HERITAGE'S EVAN DEFILIPPIS AND JAMES HAMRAIE. THE DECISION WAS 2-1 FOR GREENHILL. MUCH EARLIER IN THE EVENING, APPLE VALLEY'S CHRIS THEIS WAS DECLARED WINNER OVER KINKAID'S BECCA TRABER ON A 6-1 DECISION TO CLAIM THE LD CHAMPIONSHIP. IN THE LATE AFTERNOON, NORTH ALLEGHENY'S NAZIH EL-KHATIB & CLAIRE KAIRYS WAS AWARDED THE WIN TROPHY IN PUBLIC FORUM OVER COLLEGIATE'S JONATHAN YIP & CHARLES GIARDINA ON A 4-3 DECISION. IN THE MID AFTERNOON, NOVA'S BEN BERKMAN WAS DECLARED WINNER OF THE STUDENT CONGRESS TOP PRIZE. AT THE AWARDS BREAKFAST ON MONDAY MOURNING, COLLEYVILLE'S JAMES HAMRAIE WAS DECLARED WINNER OF THE JULIA BURKE AWARD FOR THE PERSON IN POLICY DEBATE WHO MOST CLOSELY UPHOLDS THE COMBINATION OF CHARACTERISTICS THAT JULIE DISPLAYED IN HER LOVE FOR THE ACTIVITY. THESE QUALITIES INCLUDE EXCELLENCE IN AND PASSION FOR DEBATE, A COMMITMENT TO HELPING OTHERS, LOVE AND RESPECT FOR THE POLICY DEBATE COMMUNITY, AND DEDICATION TO MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS DESPITE THE PRESSURES OF COMPETITION. IN ADDITION TO A PERPETUAL TROPHY AND A REPLICA, JAMES RECEIVED A $1000 COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIP AND A $1000 DONATION TO THE CHARITY OF HIS CHOICE. ALSO AT THE AWARDS BREAKFAST, COLLEYVILLE'S DAVID HUSTON & GREENHILL'S AARON TIMMONS WERE INDUCTED INTO THE COACHES HALL OF FAME. DIRECTOR PATTERSON SAID COACHES NAMED TO THE HALL OF FAME ARE SELECTED FROM THOSE WHOSE STUDENTS HAVE DISTINGUISHED THEMSELVES IN THE TOC AS WELL AS GIVING OF THEIR TIME AND ENERGIES IN HELPING MAINTAIN THE HIGH COMPETITIVE STANDARDS OF THE TOC. POLICY OCTA FINALS: Octafinals 1. Colleyville Heritage (Evan Defilippis and James Hamraie) (N) defeated Cathedral Prep (Mike Carlotti and Leo Hayes) (A) 2- Culpepper, Jennings*, Repko 2. Greenhill School (Nick Rogan and Olivia Rogan) (A) defeated Pace Academy (Jennifer Armstrong and Payton Lee) (N) 2-1 Bricker*, David Heidt, Olsen 3. Damien (Trevor Chenowith and Andres Gannon)(A) defeated Glenbrook North (Debbie Oh and Lucy Zhu) (N) 3-0 Fitzmeir, Keenan, Murray 4. Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School (Chase Burton and Melissa Leeworthy) (N) defeated Groves (Maya Bhardwaj and Sophia Goren) (A) 3-0 Forslund, Hamraie, Quinn 5. St. Mark's School of Dallas (Jordan Blumenthal and Alex Katz) (A) defeated Colleyville Heritage (Andrew Murray and Alex Nasr) (N) 3-0 Greenstein, Brad Hall, Harrigan 6. Bishop Guertin (Katryna Cadle and Chris Power) (N) defeated Greenhill School (Bryant Huang and Hayden Schottlaender) (A) 2-1 Jenny Heidt*, Lee, Morales 7. Chattahoochee (Matthew Foretich and Michael Lacy) (N) defeated The Meadows School (Bobby Kim and Jeremy Selesner) (A) 3-0 Polin, Phillips, Matheson 8. Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart (Dorothy Hector and Catalina Santos) (N) defeated Bronx High School of Science (Francisco Bencosme and Kristina Gunnarsdottir) (A) 3-0 Hardy, Herndon, Paul Quarterfinals 1. Colleyville Heritage DH (A) defeated Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart HS (N) 2-1 Kernoff, Manuel, Paul* 2. Greenhill School RR (A) defeated Chattahoochee FL (N) 2-1 Josh Clark,* Lundeen, Olsen 3. Damien CG (A) defated Bishop Guertin CP (N) 3-0 Carver, Herndon, Morales 4. St. Mark's School of Dallas BK (N) defeated Rowland Hall-St Mark's School BL (A) 3-0 Forslund, Hamraie, Repko Semifinals 1. Colleyville Heritage DH (N) defeated St. Mark's School of Dallas BK (A) 4-1 Eyzaguirre,* Forslund, Jennings, Polin, Repko 2. Greenhill School RR (N) defeated Damien CG (A) 3-0 Bricker, Carver, Iftime Finals Greenhill School RR (A) defeated Colleyville Heritage DH (N) 2-1 Hardy, Polin,* Warden TOP SPEAKERS-2008 TOC-POLICY 1. WILLIAM KARLSON-STRATFORD ACADEMY 2. CHASE BURTON-ROWLAND HALL 3. KATRYNA CADLE-BISHOP GUERTIN 4. DANIEL SHARP- THE KINKAID SCHOOL 5. EVAN MATTHEWS- WOODWARD ACADEMY 6. JAMES HAMRAIE- COLLEYVILLE HERITAGE 7. JORDAN BLUMENTHAL- ST. MARK'S SCHOOL 8. ROBIN GRAY- FULLERTON 9. MATTHEW FORETICH- CHATTAHOOCHEE 10. KRISTINA GUNNARSDOTTIR- BRONX SCIENCE 11. NICK ROGAN- GREENHILL 12. HILARY LEDWELL- LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL 13. SOPHIA GOREN- GROVES 14. RAJESH JEGADEESH- WESTMINSTER 15. ALEX KATZ- ST. MARK'S SCHOOL 16. RYAN BEIERMEISTER- THE KINKAID SCHOOL 17. SIMON METTLER- CHATTAHOOCHEE 18. ANSHU SATHIAN- WESTMINSTER 19. SEAN O'BRIEN- DALLAS JESUIT 20. ANDREW MURRAY- COLLEYVILLE HERITAGE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS OCTA FINALS: Hockaday, Joan Gass defeated Mount Vernon Rebar Niemi , 3-0. Clancy, Cruz, Timmons Los Altos, Daniel Moerner defeated Mountain View, Daniel Garber, 2-1. Kinkaid, Becca Traber defeated Valley Ross Brown , 2-1. Ketkar, *Evnen, Myers Apple Valley, Chris Theis defeated Strake Jesuit ,Todd Wiipfert 3-0. Craven, Vaughan, Hertzig. Elkins, Andrew Cockroft defeated Sacred Heart, Shadman Zaman , 2-1. Johnson, *Duby, Melin. Trinity Prep, Jake Nebel defeated Hockaday, Shivani Vohra , 2-1. Case, *Rose, Hess. Oak Mountain, Wade Houston defeated Analy, Chris Catterton 3-0. Mumper, Palmer, Cooper. Hockaday, Lindsay Dolan defeated Strake Jesuit ,David Donatti 2-1. Nelson, Wycoff, *Wright. QUATERFINALS: Hockaday, Joan Gass advanced over Hockaday ,Lindsay Dolan . Los Altos, Daniel Moerner defeated Oak Mountain ,Wade Houston ,2-1. Mangus, *McGrath, Nelson. Kinkaid, Becca Taber defeated Trinity Prep, Jake Nebel 3-0. Palmer, Weeks, Rose. Apple Valley, Chris Theis defeated Elkins , Andrew Cockroft, 2-1. *Evnen, Meyers, Bietz. SEMIFINALS: Apple Valley, Chris Theis defeated Hockaday, Joan Gass ,3-2. Melin, Rose, *Craven, *Vaughn, Scoggin. Kinkaid, Becca Taber defeated Los Altos ,Daniel Moerner, 4-1. Lawerence, *Evnen, McGrath, Meyers, Hogan. FINALS: Apple Valley, Chris Theis defeated Kinkaid,, Becca Taber 6-1. *Craven, Scoggin, Timmons, Castillo, Cruz, Nelson, McGinnis. TOP SPEAKERS- 2008 TOC- LD 1. Daniel Moerner- Los Altos 2. Becca Traber- Kinkaid 3. Joan Gass- Hockaday 4. Chris Theis- Apple Valley 5. Shadman Zaman- Sacred Heart 6. Jake Nebel- Trinity Prep 7. Danielle Smogard- Greenhill 8. Wade Houston- Oak Mountain 9. Ken Hershey- Scarsdale 10. Lindsay Dolan- Hockaday 11. John Scoggin- Blake 12. David Donatti- Strake Jesuit 13. Jason Zhou- Lexington 14. Paul Tyger- Strake Jesuit 15. Catherine Tarsney- St. Louis Park PUBLIC FORUM OCTA FINALS: North Allegheny, Nazih El-Khatib & Claire Kairys defeated Durham ,Josh Zoffer & Robert Kindman,3-0. Heimes, Rye, Schurevich Whitman, Aaron Schifrin & Alex Edelman defeated Ransom ,Austin Crider & Amanda Scherker, 2-1. Gregory, Ullman, *Robertson. Timber, Kaitlyn Westerberg & Dave Schneider defeated Whitman Ben Wolcott & Rachel Umans ,3-0. Welty, Heimes, Goldwater. North Allegheny Greg Voss & Vicky Lopez defeated Harker ,Kelsey Hilbrich & Kaavya Gowda. 2-1. Treybig,*Grauer, Hicks Montgomery, George Harwood & Rush Jones defeated Bronx, Lev Raslin & Rohan Jotwani ,2-1. Caperton, Clarke, *Peele Ransom, Jose Bengoched & Charles Barr defeated Harker, Raghav Aggarwal & Mohit Bansal ,3-0. Kugel, Gregg, Sukup Collegiate, Johnathan Yip defeated Manchester Essex ,Rob Longcor & James Pates, 3-0. Brundage, Wascher, Soong New Trier, Joey Glickman & Zach Collins defeated Chaparral ,Riley Roberts & Max Ullman ,2-1. *Cudabac, Conlon, Goodwin QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS North Allegheny KK (Con) defeated New Trier GC, 2-1. *Heimes, M Eskin, Bet Kugel, Chr Collegiate YG (Pro) defeated Whitman SE ,2-1. Peele, Jon *Schurevic Conlon, Er Timber WS (Pro) defeated Ransom BB ,2-1. Robertson, Brundage, *DiMichele North Allegheny VL (Con) defeated Montgomery HJ ,2-1. *Ullman, C Hicks, Bra Gregg, BA SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS North Allegheny KK Advances Over North Allegheny VL Collegiate YG (Pro) defeated Timber WS 4-1. Kugel, Chr Cavalier, McCoy, Mik *Grauer, M Brundage, FINAL ROUND RESULTS North Allegheny KK (Con) defeated Collegiate YG 4-3. Wunn, *Robertson *Cavalier, Schurevich, Peele, Soong, *Green STUDENT CONGRESS TOP LEGISLATORS CHAMPION- Ben Berkman- Nova RUNNER-UP- Kevin Eaton- Duncanville THIRD- Dominic Pody- Holy Ghost Prep FOURTH- Tommy Maranges- St. Thomas Aquinas FIFTH- Jordan Stone- Adlai Stevenson SIXTH- Brad Dlatt- Adlai Stevenson FINALIST- Christian Chauvet- St. Thomas Aquinas FINALIST- Reid Spitzer- Ridge FINALIST- Nate Blevins- Gilmour Academy FINALIST- Mitchell Blenden- University School NSU FINALIST- Alex Henderson- Charlotte Latin FINALIST- Tom Nally- Loyola The End, JW Patterson TOC Director and Founder From jasonlrussell1 Thu May 8 13:27:57 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 (Jason Russell) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 13:27:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Animals/Subsidies/Scott Message-ID: Just so we're clear: ban factory farms doesnt compete with ban subsidies to factory farms. Clearly solves better, clearly also plan plus. The CP would also, necessarily, ban subsidies. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/eada4436/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu May 8 13:57:36 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 13:57:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Animals/Subsidies/Scott Message-ID: <1210273056.48234d2098bca@webmail.grandecom.net> Yeah, Jason, it is extracompetitive. my larger point is that subsidies, increasing or decreasing, is a weak solvency mechanism regardless of the topic chosen. Once you begin researching the high school topic "energy incentives," you will begin to see what I mean. The Ag topic suffers from having a weak solvency mechanism when there are more direct ways to solve. So, even if the "ban it" counter-plan is subject to a perm, it does not deny that there are prima facia better ways to solve than simply increasing or decreasing subsidies. If we do choose the Ag topic, I'd like to see a better means of addressing Ag issues than just a focus on subsidies. Scott From malgorthewarrior Thu May 8 16:32:40 2008 From: malgorthewarrior (M G) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 16:32:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Congrats to Louie Message-ID: A great friend, judge, and coach. UNT will have a valuable coaching and teaching asset for years to come. I wish Louie and UNT all the best. malgor _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live for mobile, your contacts travel with you. http://www.windowslive.com/mobile/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_mobile_052008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/17ae3ba5/attachment.htm From delliott Thu May 8 17:11:56 2008 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 17:11:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Business--President's Call Message-ID: <20080508T171156Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> Greetings Debate Community! We are just a few short weeks away from the CEDA Summer/Business Meeting and the CEDA Topic Committee Meeting in Dallas. I hope you can join us in person or via the web. This email is to solicit some information, especially from thos planning to attend. Please reply and let me know if you would please: 1. If you are coming and who all is coming with you. UTD will be providing some amenities and this can help them and us prepare. 2. If you have Business items for the CEDA Business Mtg, please let me know those items. 3. If you are currently Chairing or serving on a Committee and prefer to be replaced, please let me know. If you want to remain a Committee Chair, please let me know that as well. If you would like to volunteer for committee work, I definitely would love to know that. 4. If you are currently a Regional Rep, please let me know. We need to update the website. I also need to know who to contact. If you are a Regional Rep and not attending, please let me know asap and let me know if you have a sub coming in your place for the EC meeting. 5. If you have a paper or presentation to make, I need to know that so we can set time aside for that panel presentation. We have found this a good way to help people secure funding for the meetings, since academic presentations will be made. We are currently setting the agenda. One issue I hope to explore in detail is the Conference Proposal that Jeff Jarman submitted to the membership last November. This would functionally eliminate all current "Regions" and replace our structure with self-selected Conferences. I expect this to be a healthy discussion at the meetings. If you have opinions, please share them with me or a representative if you cannot make the meeting. Looking forward to hearing from you and seeing many of you in Dallas! It's CEDA TIME!! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080508/1e081170/attachment.htm From drmosbornesq Thu May 8 17:35:44 2008 From: drmosbornesq (bandana martin) Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 15:35:44 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Congrats to Louie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c09a80805081535l564f3678pf74aa123f171d6e5@mail.gmail.com> First thing Malgor has said that I agree with in years ;) On 5/8/08, M G wrote: > > A great friend, judge, and coach. UNT will have a valuable coaching and > teaching asset for years to come. > > I wish Louie and UNT all the best. > > malgor > > > ------------------------------ > 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/20080508/0050d61e/attachment.htm From debate Fri May 9 09:45:18 2008 From: debate (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 09:45:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Debate at Oklahoma forever.... Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677ED8F1DC7ED@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Hello Community, Whenever I left vermont six years ago to care for my father I was not sure where my life was taking me. After arriving in Oklahoma and spending a year here, I was contacted about interest in starting a debate team at the University of Oklahoma. I remember when i graduated high school, I wanted to go to OU of course, since I was a Sooner fan for a long time. Jamelle Holloway, Billy Sims and Thomas Lott. The Boz and many others. In 1987 policy/two person NDT CEDA debate was cancelled at OU. In 2003 we started our program and received a substantial amount of help and support from the debate community in being able to partiicpate at a rather high degree of success. When I created my initial proposal at OU, I sold the program based upon participation and not success. My initial proposal had a vision of a 280K per year debate program. My proposal also included a desire to acquire endowments. There are many individuals who I need to thank that have played a critical role in our accomplishments. There are four that come to mind immmediately. Denise Davick, Sarah Steece, Blake Johnson and Conor Cleary. I also want to thank and congratulate Jason Russell and Brian Campbell, who both carry the same dreams and hopes for debate at the University of Oklahoma. We have had over 70 students travel and participate for OU over the past five years, all of you have played an important role in this accomplishement. For all of you in the debate community from Oklahoma, and who have always cherished the debate tradition that our state has been willing to offer, I am proud to announce that we have acquired a substantial amount of endowments that will ensure that for all high schoolers who have a desire to attend the University of Oklahoma, debate will be there waiting for them. For all those Conor Clearys who would have never debated in college because they were going to OU, debate or not, DEBATE WILL BE AT OU FOREVER. Peace, Massey $12.5 MILLION GIFT MADE TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA BY AUBREY K. MCCLENDON AND KATHLEEN B. MCCLENDON 5/8/08 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: OU Public Affairs, (405) 325-1701 NORMAN ? One of the largest gifts in University of Oklahoma history ? a $12.5 million commitment from Aubrey K. McClendon and his wife, Kathleen B. McClendon ? will fund various academic and athletics projects at OU, President David L. Boren announced today. The donation from the McClendons will benefit OU?s Honors College and the OU Debate Program, and it will also fund two new major athletic capital projects ? the OU Boathouse on the Oklahoma River just south of downtown Oklahoma City and a new housing facility east of the Gaylord Family ? Oklahoma Memorial Stadium in Norman for students and student-athletes. ?This gift from Aubrey and Katie McClendon is remarkable in its breadth and its depth,? Boren said. ?The contribution reaches across many areas of our University and in each area it makes an important and meaningful difference. The University of Oklahoma is deeply grateful to Aubrey and Katie and we look forward to getting under way on the following initiatives: ? $5.5 million to endow the OU Honors College, including support for Study Abroad Scholarships, the OU Debate Program and a new endowed chair in Energy Policy. The gift also will fund three new endowed chairs established as part of a new Institute focused on the historic and political roots of the American Constitution and our form of government. In recognition of this gift, the Honors College will be named for Aubrey?s parents, Joe C. McClendon (BBA ?51) and Carole Kerr McClendon (BA ?53). In addition, the OU Debate Program in the Honors College will be named for Shannon T. Self (BBA ?79), a longtime friend and colleague of Aubrey?s and a founding director of Chesapeake Energy Corporation. ? $5.0 million to support a new residential facility for students and student-athletes adjacent to the Gaylord Family ? Oklahoma Memorial Stadium. ? $2.0 million to help build the OU Boathouse on the Oklahoma River just south of downtown Oklahoma City. This gift, along with University funding, will help OU build a state-of-the-art boathouse facility for its new women?s varsity rowing team and for the men?s rowing club on Boathouse Row, just east of the Chesapeake Boathouse.? Aubrey K. McClendon remarked, ?Katie and I are pleased to be able to lend support to these various initiatives at the University of Oklahoma. We are very supportive of President Boren?s drive to continue improving OU both academically and athletically. I am especially excited about naming the Debate Program in honor of my good friend Shannon Self, a former OU debate team member and my most trusted business advisor for the past 25 years. In addition, my mother and father were both excellent students at OU, and I have always admired my father for working his way through OU with a beginning stake of only $5 and also taking time off twice from his schooling to serve his country in World War II and in the Korean War. My mother was active in several leadership organizations, most notably serving as President of Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority her senior year in 1952-53. I hope that future students at OU?s Honors College will aspire to live as successfully as my parents have ? I am very proud of them and grateful for their enormous influence on my life.? From dperkins Fri May 9 15:24:59 2008 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 16:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] D. Strauss Message-ID: Drop me a line, please. dp From stannardmatt Fri May 9 17:49:52 2008 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 16:49:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wyo Senate Candidate Rothfuss Interviewed on Shared Sacrifice Message-ID: On Saturday, May 10, from noon to 2:00 PM Mountain Time (2:00-4:00 PM Eastern), Christopher Rothfuss will appear on the third weekly installment of Shared Sacrifice, a new progressive internet blogradio program, for an extended, policy-oriented conversation. Rothfuss, a chemical engineer and former U.S. State Department adviser in the Offices of Science and Technology and Space and Advanced Technology (and a UW debater in the early 1990s), is a Democrat running against Republican Senator Mike Enzi (R. WY). Shared Sacrifice can be heard at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Shared_Sacrifice The show will be archived, but live callers are encouraged. _________________________________________________________________ Make Windows Vista more reliable and secure with Windows Vista Service Pack 1. http://www.windowsvista.com/SP1?WT.mc_id=hotmailvistasp1banner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080509/4f83f4f4/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman Sat May 10 16:56:04 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 16:56:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Topic Voting Message-ID: The ballots are due by midnight (central), Monday, May 12. I just sent a reminder with the password to login to all directors. If you did not receive the password, let me know. Jeff From adri.debate Sat May 10 19:52:12 2008 From: adri.debate (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 20:52:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Question regarding reparations topic in relation to the ballot Message-ID: <50704d760805101752x1eb2a4dfo90692c98a2ec2138@mail.gmail.com> Hi - Am I reading the topic committee's report correctly that a reparations topic would be limited to only the 2 circumstances designated in their report - i.e. transatlantic slavery and indigenous dispossession - as opposed to the numerous circumstances identified in the topic paper (there was a list inclusive of those 2, but named half a dozen others)? Or, are those other circumstances on the list still up for consideration in the event the topic were to be chosen? And if so, what about options beyond the list in the topic paper (the list was not exhaustive - the paper said it was just a sample of potential circumstances)? Just making sure I understand what I am ranking... Thanks, Adrienne -- Adrienne F. Brovero Debate Coach UMW Debate 540-654-2128 "Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive." -John F. Kennedy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080510/6a0272e4/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn Sun May 11 01:24:28 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 01:24:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 'education for grownups' Message-ID: in reply to, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-May/075070.html - which replied to, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-May/075068.html _ bryant's position differs slightly from smith's ...and in a way, i think, that's a step closer to deleuze's. all agree that perspective isn't reducible to the subjective: "a point of view is not something that belongs to a subject, but rather a subject belongs to, occupies, or is occupied by a point of view", in bryant's words (ibid, p152), or in smith's words, "it is our drives that interpret the world... - and not our egos, not our conscious opinions". their chief difference seems to me their use of the concept 'multiplicity'. for bryant (and deleuze) this refers not to diversities but structures. indeed, the term comes from mathematics and more commonly refers to 'manifold' (ibid., p267, footnote 2). for smith, on the other hand, this term is entirely informed by nietzsche's - almost opposite - usage (something akin to a chaotic flux of warring forces). deleuze reminds us continually (in difference and repetition), "multiplicity is no more multiple than one" (p191). in fact, bryant is harsh on those who overemphasize nietzsche's influence on deleuze, those who prioritize his texts on nietzsche in reading his solo work, and those who rely too heavily on 'active-versus-reactive forces'-analysis. consider this potentially misleading sentence from smith: "there is no struggle of reason against the drives; what we call 'reason' is itself nothing more than a certain 'system of relations between various passions'." technically true, though this hardly means we're free from the burden of grounding our ideas with sound reasons. perhaps this goes without saying, but we can't infer from the premise that there are no facts to the conclusion that all interpretations are equally merited. deleuze explicitly takes on this seeming paradox in his essay, 'to have done with judgment' (essays: critical and clinical, p134-5). "What disturbed us was that in renouncing judgment we had the impression of depriving ourselves of any means of distinguishing between existing beings, between modes of existence, as if everything were now of equal value. But is it not rather judgment that presupposes preexisting critera (higher values), criteria that preexist for all time (to the infinity of time), so that it can neither apprehend what is new in an existing being, nor even sense the creation of a mode of existence? Such a mode is created vitally, through combat, in the insomnia of sleep, and not without a certain cruelty toward itself: nothing of all this is the result of judgment. Judgment prevents the emergence of any new mode of existence. For the latter creates itself through its own forces, that is, through the forces it is able to harness, and is valid in and of itself inasmuch as it brings the new combination into existence. Herein, perhaps, lies the secret: to bring into existence and not judge. If it is so disgusting to judge, it is not because everything is of equal value, but on the contrary because what has value can be made or distinguished only by defying judgment. What expert judgment, in art, could ever bear on the work to come? It is not a question of judging other existing beings, but of sensing whether they agree or disagree with us, that is, whether they bring forces to us, or whether they return us to the miseries of war, to the poverty of the dream, to the rigors of organization." this seems where john cook ends up as well. deleuzian debate, then, becomes a matter of strengthening this argument-game to the point where it's vibrant enough to rigorously avoid these specific failures: 'the model of recognition', 'common sense', and 'good sense', as deleuze uses these terms. (for a good discussion of these features of 'the moral image of thought', see bryant: pages 80-91.) of course, no individual is sovereign, nor any author. there are many a deleuze, and they war with one another. but this by no means, however, should signal to us that 'anything goes'... http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1580554&postcount=474 _ p.s. to korcok. for a wonderful critique of the folk-concept 'fact', please refer to chapters 7 and 8 of alasdair macintyre's masterwork, after virtue. or review this snippet... http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1548487&postcount=454 _________________________________________________________________ Get Free (PRODUCT) RED? Emoticons, Winks and Display Pics. http://joinred.spaces.live.com?ocid=TXT_HMTG_prodredemoticons_052008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080511/cda9ed99/attachment.htm From johntheempire Sun May 11 17:44:25 2008 From: johntheempire (John Cook) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 17:44:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 'education for grownups' Message-ID: <5bfb770b0805111544jdda1322l9da149592c4925a1@mail.gmail.com> Setting aside Bryant's criticism of reading Deleuze with a focus on his Nietzschean influence (which I'm not familiar with and isn't really presented in Kevin's post), I will discuss this difference (no pun intended) on between these concepts of "Multiplicity". I wholly agree with Kevin's claim that while recognizing "reason is? nothing more than a certain 'system of relations between various passions'"(Smith), "this hardly means we're free from grounding our ideas with sounds reasons" (Mr. Sanchez). Smith's interpretation however does not conflate multiplicity in a way that would lead one to think "anything goes" or that there should not be a privileging of certain modes of existence. >From Smith: Now according to Deleuze, this immanent approach to the question of ethics was developed most fully, in the history of philosophy, by Spinoza and Nietzsche, whom Deleuze has often identified as his own philosophical precursors. Both Spinoza and Nietzsche?perhaps not surprisingly?were both maligned by their contemporaries not simply for being atheists, but even worse, for being "immoralists." A potent danger, in other words, was immediately seen to be lurking in Spinoza's *Ethics *and Nietzsche's *Genealogy of Morals*: without transcendence, without recourse to normative universals, we will all fall into the dark night of chaos, and ethics will be reduced to a pure "subjectivism" or "relativism." Both Spinoza and Nietzsche argued, each in his own way, that there are things one cannot do or think except on the condition of being weak, base, or enslaved, unless one harbors a vengeance or ressentiment against life (Nietzsche), unless one remains the slave of passive affections (Spinoza); and there are other things one cannot do or say except on the condition of being strong, noble, or free, unless one affirms life, unless one attains active affections.6 Deleuze calls this the method of "dramatization": actions and propositions are interpreted as so many sets of symptoms that express or "dramatize" the mode of existence of the speaker. "What is the mode of existence of the person who utters a given proposition?" asks Nietzsche, "What mode of existence is needed in order to be able to utter it? Rather than "judging" actions and thoughts by appealing to transcendent or universal values, one "evaluates" them by determining the mode of existence that serves as their principle. A pluralistic method of explanation by immanent modes of existence is in this way made to replace the recourse to transcendent values: in Spinoza and Nietzsche, the transcendent moral opposition (between Good and Evil) is replaced an immanent ethical difference (between noble and base modes of existence, in Nietzsche; or between passive and active affections, in Spinoza).In Spinoza, for instance, an individual will be considered "bad" (or servile, or weak, or foolish) who remains cut off from its power of acting, who remains in a state of slavery with regard to its passions. Conversely, a mode of existence will be considered to be "good" (or free, or rational, or strong) that exercises its capacity for being affected in such a way that its power of acting increases, to the point where it produces active affections and adequate ideas. For Deleuze, this is the point of convergence that unites Nietzsche and Spinoza in their search for an immanent ethics. Modes are no longer "judged" in terms of their degree of proximity to or distance from an external principle, but are "evaluated" in terms of the manner by which they "occupy" their existence: the intensity oftheir power, their "tenor" of life. It is always a question of knowing whether a mode of existence?however great or small it may be?is capable of deploying its capacities, of increasing its power of acting to the point where it can be said to go to the limit of what it "can do." The fundamental question of ethics is not "What must I do?" (which is the question of morality) but rather "What can I do, what am I capable of doing (which is the proper question of an ethics without morality). Given my degree of power, what are my capabilities and capacities? How can I come into active possession of my power? How can I go to the limit of what I "can do"? *** [Smith, Parrehesia, "Deleuze and the Question of Desire: Toward and Immanent Theory of Ethics"] Here, I think Smith gives us a hint of what a Deleuzian interpretation of debate may look like (or rather what the "Deleuzian paradigm" might do). By brining us to the question of what ethics *can* do, the question of capacity instead of the question of obligation, Smith effective returns us to the conclusion the Deleuze makes in the passage Kevin cited previously from 'To Have Done with Judgment' Maybe it's my mistake, but the lingering question I'm left with is how does this interact with the traditional model of judging the community has constructed (objectivity is prized above all else, violators are ideological "hacks"). To really address this interaction, it would do us well to (momentarily or partially) leave behind our preoccupation with standpoint epistemology as such and address "decision making" as it is experienced by those making decisions. Again, Smith addresses this in a way the community is sure to find familiar": Do I study or get drunk? What then is the act of deliberation? At the moment when I am torn between staying home and going out for a drink, the tissue of my soul is in a state of disequilibrium?oscillating between two complex perceptive poles (the perceptive pole of the tavern and the perceptive pole of the study), each of which is itself swarming with an infinity of minute perceptions and inclinations.. Here, the movement of the soul, as Leibniz says, more properly resembles a pendulum rather than a balance?and often a rather wildly swinging balance at that. The question of decision is: On which side will I "fold" my soul? With which minute inclinations and perceptions will I make a "decisive" fold? Arriving at a decision is a matter of "integrating" (to use a mathematical term) the minute perceptions and inclinations in a "distinguished" perception or a "remarkable" inclination. The error of the usual schema of judgment is that, in objectifying my two options?staying home or going out?as if they were weights in a balance, it presumes that they remain the same in front of me, and that the deliberating self likewise remains the same, simply assessing the two options in terms of some sort of decision procedure (whether in terms of my interest, or a calculus of probabilities, or an assessment of potential consequences). But this falsifies the nature of deliberation: if neither the options nor the self ever change, how could I ever arrive at a decision? The truth of the matter is that, during the entire time the deliberation is going on, the self is constantly changing, and is that, during the entire time the deliberation is going on, the self is constantly changing, and consequently is modifying the two feelings that are agitating it. What Leibniz (and Bergson, for that matter) calls a "free" act will be an act that effectuates the amplitude of my soul at a certain moment, the moment the act is undertaken. It is an act that integrates the small perceptions and small inclinations into a remarkable inclination, which then becomes an inclination of the soul. But this integration requires time: there is a psychic integration and a psychic time of integration. Thus, at 10:15 p.m. I have a vague urge to go to the tavern. Why do I not go? Because at that moment, it remains in the state of a minute inclination, a small perception, a swarm. The motivation is there, but if I still remain at home, working, I do not know the amplitude of my soul. Indeed, most of the time my actions do not correspond to the amplitude of my soul. "There is no reason," says Deleuze, "to subject all the actions we undertake to the criterion: Is it free or not? Freedom is only for certain acts. There are all sorts of acts that do not have to be confronted with the problems of freedom. They are done solely, one could say, to calm our disquietude: all our habitual and machinal acts. We will speak of freedom only when we pose the question of an act capable or not of filling the amplitude of the soul at a given moment." At 10:30 p.m., I finally say to myself, to hell with this paper, I'm going out drinking. Is that because the drive to go out has won out over the drive to stay home working? Even that simplifies the operation, since what came into play may have been other motives that remain largely unknown to us, such as (these are all examples given by Nietzsche in *Daybreak*): "the way we habitually expend our energy"; "or our indolence, which prefers to do what is easiest"; "or an excitation of our imagination brought about at the decisive moment by some immediate, very trivial event; or "quite incalculable physical influences"; or "some emotion or other [that] happens quite by chance to leap forth." [Ibid.] This turn to Leibeiz is a very helpful and familiar way to approach decision maker. I don't think I'm on a limb saying that in many decisions a judge may become multiple ? that is, feel the inclination (almost "irrationally) to sway or fold on a certain issue one way or the other. Various framework arguments or role of the ballot arguments which cavalierly dismiss the judge's multiple selves, treating them as neutral scales which objectively weigh two thoroughly exposed options largely miss the mark. Decision making is an infinitely constituted act. Here Kevin or others may criticize me for straying from the path marked (at least, explicitly) by the philosopher(s) being discussed; so be it. It would seem to me that while "not everything goes", to be a truly operative paradigm or method of evaluation, we should understand ? perhaps including an admission of a lack of understanding ? the innumerably small things which constitute even the minutest things in our life. Chance here is largely operative; how do you meet someone by chance? how do you happen to have good "luck" or bad "luck"? Given the time and patience, we can trace most of the variables which constitute human agency to moments of chance or unreasoned decisions. I participated in debate by a handwriting mistake made on my freshman high school class schedule. That seemingly innocuous and non-consequential mistake radically altered my life up to the present. The same is true for the people I have met, the numerous car accidents I *almost* have on a daily basis, and the terrible sense of style with which I dress myself in the morning. Extended to debate and judging, certainly I have heard more than a few RFDs include the phrase " X makes more sense to me". Let's take this as a test case. For something to make sense to someone, there has to be a level of comprehension or familiarity reached. Perhaps, this is the result of in round adaptation (a series of Russian analogies for Calum, angry, white male asides for Russell, etc) consciously made by the debater or something else entirely ? an unintentional explanation which grips the judge and makes a complex issue familiar and brings them to a conclusion in an indirect (if not "irrational") way. This explanative form of argument is largely hit or miss which perhaps illustrates the irrational way debaters "make sense" of their arguments to judges. When a "bad judge": "does not get our argument", there is more than silly angst at work but something that illustrates the irrational nature of decision making at work in the community at large. At core, debate is still a game of persuasion and even while it may hoist itself on laurels of objectivity and neutrality, there are always undercurrents of emotive responses to an argument and it will initially either "make sense" or not "make sense" to someone. This seems like an interesting if not useful way to think about debate and objectivity For the record, this post is heinously long and comes in the midst of finals. I think I may have "folded" my time allocation in a "un-grownup way" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080511/d6b241a3/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Sun May 11 18:24:23 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 19:24:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What does agricultural subsidies have to do with animals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0805111624y27fd5bcci327b42e3a75fe59f@mail.gmail.com> I don't care so much about ag subsidies with animals i have the perfect strategy for that case, but here is something interesting with animals...watch till the end http://youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM 2008/5/8 James K. Stanescu : > Jason Russell wrote: "P.S. What the hell does critical animal studies have > to do with decreasing > ag subsidies? Maybe Im missing something. The topic area is, as far as I > can > tell, not "Resolved: Ag...should we have it?"." > > The topic paper outlines the possibility of abolishing subsidies for > Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, which are basically what we call > factory farms. This seems like a rather mainstream topical way to access > critical animal studies literature. There are also other ways to access it, > but CAFOs are just the most obvious. > > -Scu > > > > -- > James K. Stanescu > Graduate Student > Binghamton University > Philosophy, Interpretation, and Culture > http://pic.binghamton.edu > > Assistant Debate Coach > > "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will also be battlefields." > -Tolstoy > > "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will also be battlefields." > -Tolstoy > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080511/02e00938/attachment.htm From stables Mon May 12 00:08:54 2008 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:08:54 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Question regarding reparations topic in relation to the ballot In-Reply-To: <50704d760805101752x1eb2a4dfo90692c98a2ec2138@mail.gmail.com> References: <50704d760805101752x1eb2a4dfo90692c98a2ec2138@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000701c8b3ee$46af2190$d40d64b0$@edu> Adrienne and all, Thanks for checking. The committee, in consultation with Andy, felt that the literature provided and independent research best supported the two sets of reparations mentioned on the controversy ballot. In other words, if reparations wins all of the wording work will center on only two those items (transatlantic slavery and indigenous dispossession). Thanks for asking. I hope everyone gets their votes in before tomorrow's deadline. Gordon Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee 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 From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Adrienne F. Brovero Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:52 PM To: edebate Subject: [eDebate] Question regarding reparations topic in relation to the ballot Hi - Am I reading the topic committee's report correctly that a reparations topic would be limited to only the 2 circumstances designated in their report - i.e. transatlantic slavery and indigenous dispossession - as opposed to the numerous circumstances identified in the topic paper (there was a list inclusive of those 2, but named half a dozen others)? Or, are those other circumstances on the list still up for consideration in the event the topic were to be chosen? And if so, what about options beyond the list in the topic paper (the list was not exhaustive - the paper said it was just a sample of potential circumstances)? Just making sure I understand what I am ranking... Thanks, Adrienne -- Adrienne F. Brovero Debate Coach UMW Debate 540-654-2128 "Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive." -John F. Kennedy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080511/979d6640/attachment.htm From kkuswa Mon May 12 10:09:53 2008 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:09:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 'education for grownups' References: <5bfb770b0805111544jdda1322l9da149592c4925a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84402D906B7@castor.richmond.edu> Deleuzian debate, when it comes time to spell out specifics, cannot simply be a question of capacity instead of obligation. Moreover, it probably is not about what ethics can do no matter what Smith says. Judgment is constrasted with judging for Deleuze (a great article), but debate may or may not be aligned with one of those concepts over the other. The questions here are about position, arrangement, rhizomatics, and the connections from these geologic/place nodes to the regime of signs (we know as): debate. In other words, these conversations have to go back to 10,000 BC. To map (a little) of the debate machine..... What if debate is machinic and can be expressed as a machine? Add Massey's calls to re-open the debate about debate and start with three positions from Greene's (1998) outline of another materialist rhetoric: 1. The position that representation is an obstacle miring the tug-of-war between the logic of influence and constitutive rhetoric. Greene (p38) contends: "The question that haunts rhetorical materialism is how to account for the representational politics of rhetorical practices." 2. The position that we should focus less on how rhetoric represents and more on how it arranges the terrain of a governing apparatus. Rhetoric is crucial to the organization of a governing apparatus: "(T)he ability to make visible a population in order that it might calibrate its own behavior is dependent on how rhetoric contributes to panopticism as a technology of power" (p31). The distribution of individuals along a norm proceeds through degrees of regulation enacted by a materialist rhetoric. And, 3. The position that the "hermeneutics of suspicion" (p38) can be replaced with "a form of cartography that does not reduce the materiality of rhetorical practices" to representational politics or interests that possess or do not possess power. The gesture to geography stresses not only the governing of populations (Bennet, 1990; Foucault, 1991), but also the territories occupied within, between and beyond governmentality. "One does not represent, one engenders and traverses" (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p364). Greene (1998, p27) challenges and extends this position by suggesting "that the idea of a governing institution allows the critic to map the effectivity of rhetorical practices in terms of their contribution to the act of government." Following Foucault and Deleuze from Althusser, though, Greene broadens the notion of governmentality to emphasize its connections to cartography and a materialist rhetoric "that marks how governing institutions represent, mobilize and regulate a population in order to judge their way of life" (p27). New matrices must map what such a rhetorical method is about. From Greene, elements contributing to the functioning of a governing apparatus include discourses, populations, institutions, and technologies. While comprehensive, the movement and the territory of these four elements require foregrounding in order to position a governing apparatus as one machine among many. It is the way elements (such as those of a governing apparatus) come together as a machinic assemblage that motivates a turn to machinic rhetoric. So, then, why machinic rhetoric? Why not stay within another materialist rhetoric and maps of a governing apparatus? The answer is that a machinic rhetoric can considers the range and reach of debate. A machinic rhetoric follows debate (the contemporary NDT/CEDA debate machine) as a momentary gathering of diverse elements (a plane of consistency) on a plane of organization. A regime of signs joins these two planes by allowing for the temporary stabilization of similar elements into a configuration. In turn, the configuration organizes surrounding elements. Hypothetically, if we were without regimes of signs (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987), an unorganized plane of consistency would mark debate as more abstract (the matters or functions of debating content and expression). An inconsistent plane of organization would mark debate as more concrete (the substances or forms of debate content and expression). These phrases and their distinctions are less important than the argument that a given machine sways between its abstract pole and its concrete pole by being articulated by a regime of signs. Such rhetoricity is a chorographic and machinic approach that focuses on how a specific configuration or regime of signs participates in the emergence and aftermath of a machine. How is rhetoric tied to a machine's residence and its residue? The machine is not a floating ideal waiting to be applied in a given setting. The machine occupies a position or environment-a place for maneuverability-and that position is not discrete prior to the arrival of the machine. The machine's place is not a container or a background or even a frame. The machine and its place are involved in mutual immanence--a symbiosis of cause and effect. The setting does not constitute the machine and the machine does not constitute the setting--these interactions are occurring simultaneously. Machinic rhetoric claims the advantages of not abandoning the constitutive turn (an answer to the logics of influence), not abandoning the critical turn (a theory of power as relational, productive, and capable of being exercised), and not abandoning the "focus on rhetoric as a technology of deliberation that allows a series of institutions to make judgments about the welfare of a population" (Greene, 1998, p38). Those advantages are starting points for a cartographic rhetoric of machines, machinery, and their machinations. Even the verb "machinate" (to design) blends chorography as practice, signaling a design, an invention, or even a plot. A machine marks a particular function--a function designed to exercise a certain energy, but also an applied force or organization that has no predetermined effect. A machine forms and connects itself so as to alter and transmit the magnitude and direction of an act. Whether a machine is a body, an organization, a squad(ron), a computer, an automobile, or even a lever, these things are all generative, transformational, diagrammatic, and machinic. How does rhetoric machine or machinate? How do machines participate in rhetorical effectivity? Rhetoric is not simply imported from outside the workings of the machine. Just as rhetoric has material effects, machines have rhetorical edges. Machinic rhetoric contends that a specific form of expression (rhetorical effect) appeals to several combined regimes of signs. A unitary regime of signs (even though such a regime would never stand alone) has four traits: generative, transformational, diagrammatic, and machinic--all four of which add explanatory value to the notion of a machinic rhetoric. The generative trait emerges from other regimes of signs, the transformational trait translates diverse regimes of signs into each other, the diagrammatic trait maps the unformed matters and functions of a regime of signs, and the machinic trait programs the regime of signs into concrete or tangible forms. Here is where it is instructive to contrast machinic rhetoric with an approach that would merely throw together an understanding of Deleuze and Guattari with a standard theory of rhetoric as a process of persuasion (Cook etc.). Bradford Vivian, in a foil called "The Threshold of the Self," provides a compelling map of the subject in Western thought, setting up a critique of the autonomous subject through the deployment of Foucault's arguments against a self-enclosed agency premised on Cartesian formulations: "the thinking subject seeks only to apprehend and confirm its identity, thus rendering it immune to the difference at play outside of itself" (Vivian, 2000, p305). Adding some of the theoretical contributions of Deleuze and Guattari, Vivian continues to attack the Cartesian subject with the notion of "becoming." Becoming, for Vivian, is the master trope arising out of the writings of Deleuze and Guattari that explains the complex process of self formation and the occupation of a multiplicity of subject positions. Similar to the critique of the subject and freedom offered by critical and constitutive rhetoricians, Vivian (2000, p307) sets up a split between the transcendental subject and the continuously emerging self: "In opposition to the stasis of the Cartesian subject as a seat of knowledge, we must assert the movement-the process-of becoming and the encounter with difference it creates." From the move that the self is always in flux, Vivian goes into the idea of the "fold." "Folding" and "doubling" are two phrases that Deleuze (1988) takes on to describe Foucault's theory of subjectivity. The motion of thought creates a fold between different exteriors, carving out an interior defined by a number of exterior borders. Instead of separating the thinking subject from the object of thought, the fold posits that the motion of thought is actually a "doubling in" or a "doubling over" of a particular arrangement outside of the thought but now simultaneous with the thought. The process of folding is an explanation for how the Self and the Other-the interior and the exterior-relate to one another. A lot of the explanation for "folding" and fragmented subjectivity is repetitive with all the arguments made about the constitution and generation of particular subjects, places, and motions. Vivian (2000, p311) contends, for instance, that there are many ways to "know one's self in the context of one's encounters with the outside" and that self-reflection and self-awareness are simply "efforts by which one comes to...create a folding in that multiplicity." What is intriguing in Vivian's work is his turn to rhetoric to explain the connection between the self and becoming, a turn that would seem to align his method with machinic rhetoric. Some of the questions being asked are certainly on target: "What role might rhetoric play in this re-imagining of subjectivity?....What conditions and forces enable the ongoing production of the self?" (Vivian, 2000, p304). These questions may be overly concerned with the production of subjectivity (as opposed to the production of places, motions, etc.), but they definitely pursue a fruitful angle-the same angle pursued by many using constitutive rhetoric and interpellation. Unlike most rhetoricians, however, Vivian is borrowing heavily from Deleuze and Guattari, so it may be the case that the complex interplay of machinic rhetoric will emerge from those questions surrounding subjectivity, rhetoric, and becoming. It is through the process of answering those questions, though, particularly when Vivian (2000, p311) equates the folding of the exterior and the interior to rhetoric, that a number of problems arise. The major problem, simply, is that Vivian tries to answer all of his provocative questions with an underdeveloped theory of rhetoric as a process of "self-persuasion." It is not necessarily that Vivian (2000, p314) makes rhetoric central to the production of various subject positions ("During its passage, the rhetorical self draws upon the materials of different subject positions to produce its ongoing aesthetic becoming"); rather, it is most disconcerting that Vivian opts out of an articulation between rhetoric and a machinic manifestation of competing and aligning regimes of signs. Instead of working through rhetoric as the movement of regimes of signs and what that means for machines and their effects, Vivian equates rhetoric with persuasion. Vivian's only attempt to defend his conception of persuasion against the claim that it assumes a preconstructed audience and speaker is to add self-persuasion to his theory. Self-persuasion, as explained by Vivian, is the attempt to persuade one's self to adopt a contingent version of a particular subject position at a given time. Vivian admits that persuasion is always implicated in power relations and the production of knowledge, but he ultimately ignores the fact that power relations and the processes of becoming may make persuasion a less than helpful term. Critical and constitutive rhetoric have shown persuasion to be problematic because of its assumptions that a speaker could decide how to persuade an audience and that an audience could choose whether or not to accept the speaker's message. How does Vivian avoid these assumptions? Would not the notion of self-persuasion simply replicate the flaws of a persuasion model in terms of subjectivity? Especially when Vivian defines persuasion as a selection of one of many lifestyles, he ushers in all of the critiques of autonomy and stasis he is trying to avoid by turning to Deleuze and Guattari. Vivian is in danger of closing down all the territory he opens up through an expression of becomings, foldings, and the historical contingency of the subject. Fortunately, machinic rhetoric is motivated by a refusal to reduce the process and the movement of machines and regimes of signs to persuasion. Rhetoric, most importantly, must revolve around the oscillation of more than just subjects or subjectivities, more than just the selection of an aesthetically persuasive life style, and more than just the "rhetorical composition of one's self" (Vivian, 2000, p314). Instead of relying on persuasion, the interactions of the four traits of a regime of signs (generative, transformative, diagrammatic, and machinic) offer a better way to address Vivian's questions about the role of rhetoric. Machinic rhetoric is not a mix of rhizomes and audiences, nor is machinic rhetoric a combination of the notion of "becoming-minor" with the notion of "self-persuasion" (Vivian, 2000, p317). Without traversing the terrain of constitutive, critical, and materialist rhetoric; the trappings of a theory of rhetoric centered on persuasion threaten to overcode the unique contributions of a regimes of signs and their machines. By "overcode," a certain understanding of the subject (in this case a rhetorical understanding that rests on the process of persuasion) codes or interprets the machine according to the ways the machine relates to subjectivity and fails to map the machine as generative in ways that are discursive and non-discursive. Vivian exemplifies this problem in his piece by importing a theory of rhetoric-as-persuasion into a project attempting to decenter the autonomous subject. Machinic rhetoric dodges the problems confronting Vivian's conception of rhetoric by mapping a specific machine through regimes of signs that are composed of, and constitute, more than a multiplicity of subject positions. Not only does rhetoric operate through a number of overlapping movements, rhetoric produces particular subjects, places, motions, and additional machines. A regime of signs is generative in the sense that it emerges from other regimes, mixing itself in substantive ways. The debate machine, arguably, emerges out of the layer of human language, the agora of oratory, the interplay between politics and the political, the practice of critical rational-debate (Habermas, STPS), the academic discipline of communication, the emergence of competition among educational institutions, etc. Being generative "shows how the various abstract regimes form concrete mixed semiotics, with what variants, how they combine, and which one is predominant" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, p139). Even though stasis and stagnation are distinct from becoming, the imagination of stasis in an abstract regime of signs is part of the generative process. Imagining the stasis of the figure of the orator, the frontier of human language, the repetition and folding of communication, or the abyss of silence between humans and animals, may allow a temporary intersection to create the arrival of the debate machine, an intersection that would have been lost without the isolation of concrete events in an abstract way. Similar to invention, the generative trait allows an abstraction (or isolation) of the concrete--how physicality and substance are formed from matter. Even though the regime of signs is concretely mixed, the semiotic elements (debate jargon, argumentation and clash, the notion of debate "theory") are distinct from the material elements (the campus, the van, the hotel, the podium). A meeting occurs here, tracing an intersection between expression and content-between rhetoric and machine. Secondly, a regime of signs is transformational. The high school novice transforms into the CSIS intern. The class schedule that says "forensics" transforms into the capacity to make the sounds of words at a hyper-rapid pace. The surge of the internet transforms into real time research and the unrelenting sacrifice to the divinities of information (Baudrillard, 1997) . The transformational trait suggests that diverse regimes can be merged into one another, either through an alignment of similar characters (the administrator and the case-hit author) or through an alignment of similar elements (urban policy and topicality). Putting math equations into a musical scale may approach this effect. As these regimes merge into each other they also transform into new adjacent and overlapping regimes. The distinctions between forms of content and forms of expression are less clear here, for the abstract is concretized in the process of fusion and mutation. Content can still be abstracted, but only from outside the transformative moment in an artificial (sociological) mode. Irony in a physics textbook or the atomic weight of iron in literary criticism may approach the constant clash and re-generation of regimes of signs. The NDT/CEDA debater as a link between the law and credentialism, the debate workshop as a link between training opportunities and capitalism, and the writing of blocks as a link between industrial manufacturing and scholarship all also point to a constant clash of regimes of signs within the debate machine. As opposed to the tracing inherent in the generative trait, transforming is more about mapping. Drawing territories and charting borders are marks of translation and transformation. The "particle-sign" surfaces as a trope of the transformation, "explaining how one abstract machine can be translated and transformed into another" (Deleuze and Guattari, 1987, p145). The hired gun, the bus driver, and the speaker point all serve as particle-signs in the debate machine's shifting regime of signs. Following the first two traits, a given regime of signs generates itself in a concrete mixture and transforms itself through contact with other regimes. Thirdly, a regime of signs is diagrammatic. Through the diagram, content (materiality) can no longer separate itself from expression (rhetoric), for both content and expression are unformed traits. In other words, content exists as matter--a matter that has not yet formed substance. During the arrival of the debate machine, the content would be the diverse interests and forces in support of a single topic, a two-person switch sides format, a separation of the win/loss from the points awarded to speakers, as well as the faculty resources and organizing that would go into the construction of a national debate association. In contrast to content or matter, expression exists as a function that has not yet formed itself semiotically. The production of evidence and the training of speakers combined with academic competition are the expressions of the debate machine. This process of diagramming consists in extracting "particles-signs" from regimes of signs, removing any formalized status from the particles-signs so that they are "unformed traits capable of combining with one another" (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p145). In a way, the diagrammatic trait occupies a position opposed to the generative trait. In the generative mode, abstractions are the consequence of a concrete combination of forms. The need for more universal and efficient means of education produced the debate machine. In the diagrammatic mode, by contrast, concrete combinations are the results of an abstract machine. The debate machine diagrams the figure of the drop-out as the heroic performer, the space of white (male) privilege as the normalized voice, and the regulation of the process by administrators and officials as circulation. The diagram, then, points to the general elements or principles in the regime of signs, carrying the regime to its highest level of abstraction. Of course the height of abstraction is also when the abstract becomes real because content and expression are one. Even though the diagram acts to isolate a particular regime of signs by differentiating matter from function, the matter and function cannot float away from one another--they are bound and thus real. The matter/function of an abstract machine describes the diagrammatic trait of a regime of signs because, in sum, the diagram removes the regime of signs from its territory and conceives of an abstract machine; debate without a campus, education without a topic, clash without a judge. So we have traces, maps, and diagrams--the generative involves tracing, the transformational involves mapping, and the diagrammatic involves abstracting (diagramming). The fourth trait of a regime of signs, the machinic component, involves programming. The debate machine programs subjects to perform the role of the critiquer, the 1AR, the scout, the judge, the coach, the timer, the 1NC; the debate machine programs colleges and universities to attach resources to academic programs that serve the needs of students outside the classroom, and the debate machine programs the academy to both value and limit the field and production of debate. The regime of signs "programs" in a pragmatic sense--writing a theater program or programming a computer. Being machinic "shows how abstract machines are effectuated in concrete assemblages" (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p146). These concrete assemblages, such as Greene's governing apparatus, give form to expression and provide content with substance. The expression of an urban debate league takes the form of educational opportunity. The content of efficiency and management becomes the substance of word economy and the line-by-line. As rhizomes, the machinic assemblages of regimes of signs are the front lines--these lines are territorialized or lodged within a particular content. Completing the circle, the machinic trait allows a unity to form that is capable of generating another regime of signs. The temporarily unified debate machine creates a teaching machine and an associated regime of signs constituting an extension of pedagogy. These regimes of signs are assumed to produce certain effects. Indeed, a machinic rhetoric argues that we must engage in the relationships between a machinic assemblage and regimes of signs. Deleuze & Guattari (1987, p148) expound: In short, there are no syntactically, semantically, or logically definable propositions that transcend or loom above statements....Regimes of signs are not based on language, and language alone does not constitute an abstract machine, whether structural or generative. The opposite is the case. It is language that is based on regimes of signs, and regimes of signs on abstract machines, diagrammatic functions, and machinic assemblages that go beyond any system of semiology, linguistics, or logic. There is no universal propositional logic, nor is there any grammaticality in itself, any more than there is signifier for itself. 'Behind' statements and semiotizations there are only machines, assemblages, and movements of deterritorialization that cut across the stratification of the various systems and elude both the coordinates of language and of existence. Within this frame, machinic rhetoric looks at how a machine solidifies out of regimes of signs. In a strange turn of phrase, machinic rhetoric is also rhetorical in that every abstract machine diagrams a rhetorical function and a rhetorical matter. In short, rhetoric constitutes machines (regimes of signs are machinic) and machines constitute rhetoric (machines diagram regimes of signs). Or, rhetoric forms a concrete machine (this post), and a machinic assemblage expresses a rhetoric (critical pedagogy). Again, "only one side of the assemblage has to do with enunciation or formalized expression; on its other side, inseparable form the first, it formalizes contents, it is a machinic assemblage or an assemblage of bodies" (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p140). These considerations are significant, yet these traits are the same ones that were all but lost by Vivian's conception of rhetoric as simply persuasion. In the instance of the debate machine, rhetoric helps to explain the ways in which debate contributes to (articulates) particular subjects, places, and modes of circulation. k ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of John Cook Sent: Sun 5/11/2008 6:44 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] 'education for grownups' Setting aside Bryant's criticism of reading Deleuze with a focus on his Nietzschean influence (which I'm not familiar with and isn't really presented in Kevin's post), I will discuss this difference (no pun intended) on between these concepts of "Multiplicity". I wholly agree with Kevin's claim that while recognizing "reason is... nothing more than a certain 'system of relations between various passions'"(Smith), "this hardly means we're free from grounding our ideas with sounds reasons" (Mr. Sanchez). Smith's interpretation however does not conflate multiplicity in a way that would lead one to think "anything goes" or that there should not be a privileging of certain modes of existence. >From Smith: Now according to Deleuze, this immanent approach to the question of ethics was developed most fully, in the history of philosophy, by Spinoza and Nietzsche, whom Deleuze has often identified as his own philosophical precursors. Both Spinoza and Nietzsche-perhaps not surprisingly-were both maligned by their contemporaries not simply for being atheists, but even worse, for being "immoralists." A potent danger, in other words, was immediately seen to be lurking in Spinoza's Ethics and Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals: without transcendence, without recourse to normative universals, we will all fall into the dark night of chaos, and ethics will be reduced to a pure "subjectivism" or "relativism." Both Spinoza and Nietzsche argued, each in his own way, that there are things one cannot do or think except on the condition of being weak, base, or enslaved, unless one harbors a vengeance or ressentiment against life (Nietzsche), unless one remains the slave of passive affections (Spinoza); and there are other things one cannot do or say except on the condition of being strong, noble, or free, unless one affirms life, unless one attains active affections.6 Deleuze calls this the method of "dramatization": actions and propositions are interpreted as so many sets of symptoms that express or "dramatize" the mode of existence of the speaker. "What is the mode of existence of the person who utters a given proposition?" asks Nietzsche, "What mode of existence is needed in order to be able to utter it? Rather than "judging" actions and thoughts by appealing to transcendent or universal values, one "evaluates" them by determining the mode of existence that serves as their principle. A pluralistic method of explanation by immanent modes of existence is in this way made to replace the recourse to transcendent values: in Spinoza and Nietzsche, the transcendent moral opposition (between Good and Evil) is replaced an immanent ethical difference (between noble and base modes of existence, in Nietzsche; or between passive and active affections, in Spinoza).In Spinoza, for instance, an individual will be considered "bad" (or servile, or weak, or foolish) who remains cut off from its power of acting, who remains in a state of slavery with regard to its passions. Conversely, a mode of existence will be considered to be "good" (or free, or rational, or strong) that exercises its capacity for being affected in such a way that its power of acting increases, to the point where it produces active affections and adequate ideas. For Deleuze, this is the point of convergence that unites Nietzsche and Spinoza in their search for an immanent ethics. Modes are no longer "judged" in terms of their degree of proximity to or distance from an external principle, but are "evaluated" in terms of the manner by which they "occupy" their existence: the intensity oftheir power, their "tenor" of life. It is always a question of knowing whether a mode of existence-however great or small it may be-is capable of deploying its capacities, of increasing its power of acting to the point where it can be said to go to the limit of what it "can do." The fundamental question of ethics is not "What must I do?" (which is the question of morality) but rather "What can I do, what am I capable of doing (which is the proper question of an ethics without morality). Given my degree of power, what are my capabilities and capacities? How can I come into active possession of my power? How can I go to the limit of what I "can do"? *** [Smith, Parrehesia, "Deleuze and the Question of Desire: Toward and Immanent Theory of Ethics"] Here, I think Smith gives us a hint of what a Deleuzian interpretation of debate may look like (or rather what the "Deleuzian paradigm" might do). By brining us to the question of what ethics can do, the question of capacity instead of the question of obligation, Smith effective returns us to the conclusion the Deleuze makes in the passage Kevin cited previously from 'To Have Done with Judgment' Maybe it's my mistake, but the lingering question I'm left with is how does this interact with the traditional model of judging the community has constructed (objectivity is prized above all else, violators are ideological "hacks"). To really address this interaction, it would do us well to (momentarily or partially) leave behind our preoccupation with standpoint epistemology as such and address "decision making" as it is experienced by those making decisions. Again, Smith addresses this in a way the community is sure to find familiar": Do I study or get drunk? What then is the act of deliberation? At the moment when I am torn between staying home and going out for a drink, the tissue of my soul is in a state of disequilibrium-oscillating between two complex perceptive poles (the perceptive pole of the tavern and the perceptive pole of the study), each of which is itself swarming with an infinity of minute perceptions and inclinations.. Here, the movement of the soul, as Leibniz says, more properly resembles a pendulum rather than a balance-and often a rather wildly swinging balance at that. The question of decision is: On which side will I "fold" my soul? With which minute inclinations and perceptions will I make a "decisive" fold? Arriving at a decision is a matter of "integrating" (to use a mathematical term) the minute perceptions and inclinations in a "distinguished" perception or a "remarkable" inclination. The error of the usual schema of judgment is that, in objectifying my two options-staying home or going out-as if they were weights in a balance, it presumes that they remain the same in front of me, and that the deliberating self likewise remains the same, simply assessing the two options in terms of some sort of decision procedure (whether in terms of my interest, or a calculus of probabilities, or an assessment of potential consequences). But this falsifies the nature of deliberation: if neither the options nor the self ever change, how could I ever arrive at a decision? The truth of the matter is that, during the entire time the deliberation is going on, the self is constantly changing, and is that, during the entire time the deliberation is going on, the self is constantly changing, and consequently is modifying the two feelings that are agitating it. What Leibniz (and Bergson, for that matter) calls a "free" act will be an act that effectuates the amplitude of my soul at a certain moment, the moment the act is undertaken. It is an act that integrates the small perceptions and small inclinations into a remarkable inclination, which then becomes an inclination of the soul. But this integration requires time: there is a psychic integration and a psychic time of integration. Thus, at 10:15 p.m. I have a vague urge to go to the tavern. Why do I not go? Because at that moment, it remains in the state of a minute inclination, a small perception, a swarm. The motivation is there, but if I still remain at home, working, I do not know the amplitude of my soul. Indeed, most of the time my actions do not correspond to the amplitude of my soul. "There is no reason," says Deleuze, "to subject all the actions we undertake to the criterion: Is it free or not? Freedom is only for certain acts. There are all sorts of acts that do not have to be confronted with the problems of freedom. They are done solely, one could say, to calm our disquietude: all our habitual and machinal acts. We will speak of freedom only when we pose the question of an act capable or not of filling the amplitude of the soul at a given moment." At 10:30 p.m., I finally say to myself, to hell with this paper, I'm going out drinking. Is that because the drive to go out has won out over the drive to stay home working? Even that simplifies the operation, since what came into play may have been other motives that remain largely unknown to us, such as (these are all examples given by Nietzsche in Daybreak): "the way we habitually expend our energy"; "or our indolence, which prefers to do what is easiest"; "or an excitation of our imagination brought about at the decisive moment by some immediate, very trivial event; or "quite incalculable physical influences"; or "some emotion or other [that] happens quite by chance to leap forth." [Ibid.] This turn to Leibeiz is a very helpful and familiar way to approach decision maker. I don't think I'm on a limb saying that in many decisions a judge may become multiple - that is, feel the inclination (almost "irrationally) to sway or fold on a certain issue one way or the other. Various framework arguments or role of the ballot arguments which cavalierly dismiss the judge's multiple selves, treating them as neutral scales which objectively weigh two thoroughly exposed options largely miss the mark. Decision making is an infinitely constituted act. Here Kevin or others may criticize me for straying from the path marked (at least, explicitly) by the philosopher(s) being discussed; so be it. It would seem to me that while "not everything goes", to be a truly operative paradigm or method of evaluation, we should understand - perhaps including an admission of a lack of understanding - the innumerably small things which constitute even the minutest things in our life. Chance here is largely operative; how do you meet someone by chance? how do you happen to have good "luck" or bad "luck"? Given the time and patience, we can trace most of the variables which constitute human agency to moments of chance or unreasoned decisions. I participated in debate by a handwriting mistake made on my freshman high school class schedule. That seemingly innocuous and non-consequential mistake radically altered my life up to the present. The same is true for the people I have met, the numerous car accidents I almost have on a daily basis, and the terrible sense of style with which I dress myself in the morning. Extended to debate and judging, certainly I have heard more than a few RFDs include the phrase " X makes more sense to me". Let's take this as a test case. For something to make sense to someone, there has to be a level of comprehension or familiarity reached. Perhaps, this is the result of in round adaptation (a series of Russian analogies for Calum, angry, white male asides for Russell, etc) consciously made by the debater or something else entirely - an unintentional explanation which grips the judge and makes a complex issue familiar and brings them to a conclusion in an indirect (if not "irrational") way. This explanative form of argument is largely hit or miss which perhaps illustrates the irrational way debaters "make sense" of their arguments to judges. When a "bad judge": "does not get our argument", there is more than silly angst at work but something that illustrates the irrational nature of decision making at work in the community at large. At core, debate is still a game of persuasion and even while it may hoist itself on laurels of objectivity and neutrality, there are always undercurrents of emotive responses to an argument and it will initially either "make sense" or not "make sense" to someone. This seems like an interesting if not useful way to think about debate and objectivity For the record, this post is heinously long and comes in the midst of finals. I think I may have "folded" my time allocation in a "un-grownup way" From noreply Mon May 12 11:16:30 2008 From: noreply (Brooks) Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 09:16:30 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Brooks sent you a message Message-ID: <48286d5e38f12_7d57..fdbf2c384273261e5@dv3.goodreads.com.tmail> edebate, Brooks added you as a friend on Goodreads. We need you to confirm that you are, in fact, friends with Brooks. To confirm this friend request, follow the below link: http://www.goodreads.com/friend/i?e=edebate at www.ndtceda.com&i=LTM2MDU5NDMzMjI6MzUz &n=edebate&utm_medium=email&utm_source=invite I'd like to connect with you on Goodreads so we can share book recommendations. - Brooks (bhlindsay at gmail.com) To opt-out of future invites to Goodreads please follow this link: http://www.goodreads.com/user/block_email?inviter_id=1156400&utm_medium=email&utm_source=invite This email was sent by request to edebate at www.ndtceda.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080512/352aefe7/attachment.htm From jrlyle Tue May 13 09:39:28 2008 From: jrlyle (James Lyle) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:39:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion University - Potential Opening for Assistant Message-ID: <25fd497f0805130739i34a4498eq7afd44852dc41cee@mail.gmail.com> Clarion will be looking to hire a person or two to fill some short-term, emergency teaching slots in Communication Studies for 2008-2009. Although the school is currently looking for people to fill slots on a part-time basis, there is enough to make a full-time position of teaching and serving as an assistant debate coach. If I can prove there are qualified/interested persons, the school would be willing to act on the full-time option. So, if you have at least a masters and are interested, let me know. I can give more details to interested parties. Jim Lyle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080513/43cc854e/attachment.html From jeffrey.jarman Tue May 13 11:45:02 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 11:45:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Area Announcement Message-ID: Hi Everyone: the winning controversy for 2008 ? 2009 is Agriculture. Agriculture won with 47 first place votes. A complete breakdown of voting is below. The topic committee will produce a slate of resolutions in early June. The final resolution will be announced on Friday, July 18. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING (first place votes only). 76 ballots cast. Agriculture: 26 Nonproliferation: 4 Genetic Engineering: 9 Health Care: 7 Labor: 2 Reparations: 9 Russia: 19 ** Labor was dropped and the 2 first place votes were transferred. SECOND ROUND Ag: 26 Nonprolif: 4 GE: 9 HC: 8 Rep: 10 Russ: 19 ** Nonproliferation was dropped and the 4 first place votes were transferred. THIRD ROUND Ag: 28 GE: 9 HC: 8 Rep: 10 Russ: 21 ** Health care was dropped and the 8 first place votes were transferred. FOURTH ROUND Ag: 33 GE: 9 Rep: 11 Russ: 23 ** Genetic engineering was dropped and the 9 first place votes were transferred. FIFTH ROUND Ag: 38 Rep: 13 Russ: 25 ** Reparations was dropped and the 13 first place votes were transferred. SIXTH ROUND Ag: 47 Russ: 29 Ag wins a majority, 47-29. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080513/fe66c139/attachment.htm From stables Tue May 13 12:29:07 2008 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 10:29:07 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Topic Process Update Message-ID: <006701c8b51e$d94456c0$8bcd0440$@edu> An update on the agriculture topic process is available at http://blog.cedatopic.com/ Thanks again to all of the authors who worked on this great collection of papers and congratulations to the Vanderbilt folks who authored the winning paper. Gordon Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee 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/20080513/2ea6777a/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer Tue May 13 15:36:49 2008 From: chairman.maurer (Samuel Maurer) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:36:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Plants v. Putin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7fd76c680805131336w5607af4dyd8b0086f8b913023@mail.gmail.com> well then... ...got those xylem cites??? On 4/23/08, Calum Matheson wrote: > > > I am preoccupied with topic wording research and work for the high school > team I assist, so I don't have enough time to write a lengthy response. I > think that Russell, Rubaie, etc. have done a good job of this. I would just > like to make a few short observations. > > 1. Do you know what xylem is? It is a type of transport tissue found > in vascular plants. The most familiar example is wood. It transports sap > by transpirational pull and root pressure. Would you like to learn more? > Vote for agriculture. > > Do you know what the "dead hand is?" It is an automated nuclear system > designed to destroy the world if Moscow is ever attacked. It would launch > special radio communication rockets with the phrase "God created the Earth > in seven days; Russia will destroy it in an hour." This would lock the > override codes in Soviet missiles, directing them to preprogrammed targets > around the world, wiping out the memory of humanity forever in a storm of > radioactive fire. Would you like to learn more? Vote for Russia. > > 2. In the 1983 made for TV movie "The Day After," Russia launches a > nuclear attack on Lawrence, Kansas. I believe that Kansas' opposition to > the Russia topic stems from an irrational fear of Russian glory inspired by > this movie. Please disregard everything that they have written, as their > residence in Kansas also explains their love of agriculture. Of course they > want to make us all talk about corn. > > 3. Dozens of consecutive posts have conceded an argument from my April > 5 post "Russia?Why We Fight." Here I claimed that no one hates Nazis more > than the Soviets did (I'm going to abandon the pretense of calling them > "Russians" from now on). They hate Nazis, and you hate them. By the > transitive property of equality, you love Nazis. I would write the rest of > this post in German for you, but the heroic sacrifices of the Red Army > guaranteed that I never needed to learn the language. > > The Russians are coming, Soldaten. Say hello to your Ostheer comrades in > hell. This one's for you, Marshal Zhukov. > > Calum > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From u.hrair Tue May 13 15:45:55 2008 From: u.hrair (Calum Matheson) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:45:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Plants v. Putin In-Reply-To: <7fd76c680805131336w5607af4dyd8b0086f8b913023@mail.gmail.com> References: <7fd76c680805131336w5607af4dyd8b0086f8b913023@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Nazi. On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Samuel Maurer wrote: > well then... > > ...got those xylem cites??? > > > On 4/23/08, Calum Matheson wrote: > > > > > > I am preoccupied with topic wording research and work for the high > school > > team I assist, so I don't have enough time to write a lengthy response. > I > > think that Russell, Rubaie, etc. have done a good job of this. I would > just > > like to make a few short observations. > > > > 1. Do you know what xylem is? It is a type of transport tissue > found > > in vascular plants. The most familiar example is wood. It transports > sap > > by transpirational pull and root pressure. Would you like to learn > more? > > Vote for agriculture. > > > > Do you know what the "dead hand is?" It is an automated nuclear system > > designed to destroy the world if Moscow is ever attacked. It would > launch > > special radio communication rockets with the phrase "God created the > Earth > > in seven days; Russia will destroy it in an hour." This would lock the > > override codes in Soviet missiles, directing them to preprogrammed > targets > > around the world, wiping out the memory of humanity forever in a storm > of > > radioactive fire. Would you like to learn more? Vote for Russia. > > > > 2. In the 1983 made for TV movie "The Day After," Russia launches > a > > nuclear attack on Lawrence, Kansas. I believe that Kansas' opposition > to > > the Russia topic stems from an irrational fear of Russian glory inspired > by > > this movie. Please disregard everything that they have written, as > their > > residence in Kansas also explains their love of agriculture. Of course > they > > want to make us all talk about corn. > > > > 3. Dozens of consecutive posts have conceded an argument from my > April > > 5 post "Russia?Why We Fight." Here I claimed that no one hates Nazis > more > > than the Soviets did (I'm going to abandon the pretense of calling them > > "Russians" from now on). They hate Nazis, and you hate them. By the > > transitive property of equality, you love Nazis. I would write the rest > of > > this post in German for you, but the heroic sacrifices of the Red Army > > guaranteed that I never needed to learn the language. > > > > The Russians are coming, Soldaten. Say hello to your Ostheer comrades > in > > hell. This one's for you, Marshal Zhukov. > > > > Calum > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > -- > Samuel A. Maurer > Director of Debate > Emporia State University > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080513/6bb9ea16/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer Tue May 13 16:28:22 2008 From: chairman.maurer (Samuel Maurer) Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 16:28:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Plants v. Putin In-Reply-To: References: <7fd76c680805131336w5607af4dyd8b0086f8b913023@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7fd76c680805131428n75bf95ccn76e71ef1d659b8f4@mail.gmail.com> der Kommunismus. On 5/13/08, Calum Matheson wrote: > Nazi. > > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Samuel Maurer > wrote: > > > well then... > > > > ...got those xylem cites??? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/23/08, Calum Matheson wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am preoccupied with topic wording research and work for the high > school > > > team I assist, so I don't have enough time to write a lengthy response. > I > > > think that Russell, Rubaie, etc. have done a good job of this. I would > just > > > like to make a few short observations. > > > > > > 1. Do you know what xylem is? It is a type of transport tissue > found > > > in vascular plants. The most familiar example is wood. It transports > sap > > > by transpirational pull and root pressure. Would you like to learn > more? > > > Vote for agriculture. > > > > > > Do you know what the "dead hand is?" It is an automated nuclear system > > > designed to destroy the world if Moscow is ever attacked. It would > launch > > > special radio communication rockets with the phrase "God created the > Earth > > > in seven days; Russia will destroy it in an hour." This would lock the > > > override codes in Soviet missiles, directing them to preprogrammed > targets > > > around the world, wiping out the memory of humanity forever in a storm > of > > > radioactive fire. Would you like to learn more? Vote for Russia. > > > > > > 2. In the 1983 made for TV movie "The Day After," Russia launches > a > > > nuclear attack on Lawrence, Kansas. I believe that Kansas' opposition > to > > > the Russia topic stems from an irrational fear of Russian glory inspired > by > > > this movie. Please disregard everything that they have written, as > their > > > residence in Kansas also explains their love of agriculture. Of course > they > > > want to make us all talk about corn. > > > > > > 3. Dozens of consecutive posts have conceded an argument from my > April > > > 5 post "Russia?Why We Fight." Here I claimed that no one hates Nazis > more > > > than the Soviets did (I'm going to abandon the pretense of calling them > > > "Russians" from now on). They hate Nazis, and you hate them. By the > > > transitive property of equality, you love Nazis. I would write the rest > of > > > this post in German for you, but the heroic sacrifices of the Red Army > > > guaranteed that I never needed to learn the language. > > > > > > The Russians are coming, Soldaten. Say hello to your Ostheer comrades > in > > > hell. This one's for you, Marshal Zhukov. > > > > > > Calum > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > eDebate mailing list > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > > > -- > > Samuel A. Maurer > > Director of Debate > > Emporia State University > > > > -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From jonathanrkarlin Wed May 14 00:33:16 2008 From: jonathanrkarlin (Jonathan Karlin) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 01:33:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Go Israel! Message-ID: <5d17a11f0805132233he20ea9g6652131a6c3838ec@mail.gmail.com> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin From Snowball Wed May 14 15:19:22 2008 From: Snowball (Snowball, David) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:19:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Director of Debate opening -- Augustana College Message-ID: <30BC77F3282FAF45A354C31742978F330AA23316@anar.augustana.edu> SPEECH COMMUNICATION - AUGUSTANA COLLEGE department of Speech Communication invites applications for a Visiting Assistant Professor/Director of Debate, one-year contract, to begin with the 2008-09 academic year. Substantial debate experience is required, M.A. minimum. The successful applicant will direct a nationally recognized NDT program and will teach introductory level courses. The director is expected to manage all aspects of a small but successful debate program: arrange travel and budgets, coach debaters, travel with teams, and recruit student debaters. The Director of Debate has a reduced teaching load of four courses over three trimesters. Augustana College is a selective, four-year, liberal arts institution of 2,500 students, most of whom live in residence halls on a wooded 115-acre campus. Rock Island, Illinois is one of the Quad-Cities of Illinois and Iowa, a diverse metropolitan area on the Mississippi River with 400,000 residents. Augustana College is an equal opportunity employer and actively encourages applications from women and persons of diverse ethnic backgrounds. We do not discriminate based on age, race, color, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability or creed. Details about Augustana, our expectation of the faculty, the selection process, and the Quad Cities are all available at the Faculty Search website; http://www.augustanafaculty.org . Send a letter of application, curriculum vitae, graduate transcripts, statement of teaching philosophy, and three letters of recommendation to : Search #131-08SPCM/Debate, C/O Jeff Abernathy, Dean of the College, Augustana College, 639 - 38th Street, Rock Island, IL 61201. Questions about this position should be directed to the Search Committee Chair, Sharon Varallo, at SharonVarallo at augustana.edu . Review of applications will begin immediately. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080514/7618d1fc/attachment.htm From doyle Wed May 14 15:51:12 2008 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 13:51:12 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Plants v. Putin Message-ID: <427A98872D32FD449F71C63D72C036590250A1DC@eve.campus.nwcc.edu> No way. Loeber was the Russia expert. Plants stayed on top of things like FOFA and Structural Adjustment. -- Doyle Srader Assistant Professor of Speech and Communication Northwest Christian College From asymonds Wed May 14 21:38:27 2008 From: asymonds (Adam Symonds) Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 19:38:27 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ADI Fellows Announcement Message-ID: <4b7997ff0805141938j6e32d06fi9178cfca7161cfe4@mail.gmail.com> We are pleased to announce the 2008 Arizona Debate Institute Fellows. We had an extremely competitive field of applicants and are excited by this year's group of fellows. This group of students includes 2008 CEDA Nationals and NDT Champions as well as numerous late elimination round participants from both national tournaments last year. In alphabetical order, the fellows are: Garret Abelkop (Michigan State University) Nick Bormann (Gonzaga University) Laura Boyle (University of Texas at Austin) Seungwon Chung (Wake Forest University) Deven Cooper (Towson University) Abe Corrigan (Gonzaga University ) Caitlin Gray (CSU Fullerton) Desiree Hooper (University of Texas at Austin) Danielle Jennings (Idaho State University) Kevin Kallmyer (Mary Washington ) Alex Lamballe (Wake Forest University) Meggie Mapes (Missouri State University) Beth Mendenhall (Kansas State University) Chris Spurlock (Fort Hays State University) Clare Velasquez (University of Southern California) If you are interested in attending this year's ADI, it is not too late to get the Early Bird Rate. The deadline for this lower fee is June 1st. For more information please visit our web site: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/adi.htm. We are also on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7679821194. Adam Symonds Co-Director Arizona Debate Institute From kel1773 Thu May 15 08:49:22 2008 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:49:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Farm Bill passes House, will pass Senate, veto-proof Message-ID: "Politically popular farm bill gets election-year boost" http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_9265881 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/20080515/7f2b588f/attachment.htm From jtedebate Thu May 15 09:44:05 2008 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 07:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] paging Sarah Hollbrook Message-ID: <232567.79051.qm@web30007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sarah--could you backchannel asap please...thanks JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080515/59cf6011/attachment.htm From bmoreboi325 Thu May 15 11:04:34 2008 From: bmoreboi325 (Deven) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] CEDA final round? Message-ID: <642515.10676.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> HELLO how do i get the physical file of the final round that i could upload? Anybody know? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080515/202b4497/attachment.htm From hansonjb Thu May 15 13:44:16 2008 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 11:44:16 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs: be GOLDEN 10 Message-ID: <29FEE203527E44E3962516AC7BF7FF68@whitman.edu> this year--we are inviting 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 frappier Thu May 15 15:10:39 2008 From: frappier (Frappier, Glen) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 13:10:39 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga Tournament - Date Changes - Message-ID: <36AE85DCADCA72409DD873C729D1AB970ED66735@gem.gonzaga.edu> Coaches and Debaters, We originally thought we would need to host our tournament on the third weekend of September. Turns out thats not the case and we would like to announce that we are returning to our traditional tournament dates. This years Jesuit will happen on Sept 13-15 (sat-mon). We expect (hope) that this change will also mean that Sarah Holbrook will return to serve as party coordinator and hospitality guru. Jason Russell and Sam Maurer will likely return to hang out in the hospitality suite and drink our beer. Details will be available soon on our website at www.gonzagadebate.com . I hope many of you choose to join us in Spokane for the beginning of the season. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Glen Glen Frappier Director of Forensics Senior Lecturer Communication Arts Department Gonzaga University From rrach Thu May 15 17:40:24 2008 From: rrach (rrach at juno.com) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 22:40:24 GMT Subject: [eDebate] Hiring NFL Vegas judge Message-ID: <20080515.174024.21348.4@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> 250 bucks to cover one judging obligation for CX debate. June 16-19. if you are going to be in the area and are interested, please backchannel. DEBATE EVENTS (Policy, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas) TIME SCHEDULE ?Subject to Change Monday, June 16th LOCATIONS: Foothill HS (Policy), Mannion Middle School (LD), Green Valley HS (PFD) Round 1 9am Round 2 11:30am Round 3 2pm Round 4 4pm Tuesday, June 17th LOCATIONS: Foothill HS (Policy), Mannion Middle School (LD), Green Valley HS (PFD) Round 5 8am Round 6 10am (Teams who win at least 8 prelims ballots will compete in Rounds 7/8) Round 7 2pm Round 8 4pm 7pm to 10pm THE SCHWAN PARTY AT THE HENDERSON PAVILION (Supplemental Re-registration at a booth near the Pavilion) Wednesday, June 18th LOCATIONS: All debates held at Foothill HS. Round 9 8am Round 10 11am Round 11 2pm Round 12 5pm Thursday, June 19th LOCATIONS: All debates held at Foothill HS. Round 13 8am (Policy/LD/PFD) Round 14 10am (LD/PFD) Round 14 11am (Policy) Round 15 12pm (LD/PFD) Round 16 1:30pm (LD/PFD-If Needed) Round 15 2pm (Policy) Round 16 5pm (Policy-If Needed) All Debate finals will be held at the COX Pavilion at UNLV on Friday, June 20th _____________________________________________________________ Keep your hair. Click for permanent solution to hair restoration http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nU6TKYCb8XlIbFK2SXqin6XcA0dF2Nh5QENGRbc4PJ4E14U/?count=1234567890 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080515/9a9ee11f/attachment.htm From rrach Thu May 15 17:41:09 2008 From: rrach (rrach at juno.com) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 22:41:09 GMT Subject: [eDebate] Hiring NFL Vegas judge Message-ID: <20080515.174109.21348.5@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> 250 bucks to cover one judging obligation for CX debate. June 16-19. if you are going to be in the area and are interested, please backchannel. schedule is below. Sincerely, Russell Rach Bellaire High School DEBATE EVENTS (Policy, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas) TIME SCHEDULE ?Subject to Change Monday, June 16th LOCATIONS: Foothill HS (Policy), Mannion Middle School (LD), Green Valley HS (PFD) Round 1 9am Round 2 11:30am Round 3 2pm Round 4 4pm Tuesday, June 17th LOCATIONS: Foothill HS (Policy), Mannion Middle School (LD), Green Valley HS (PFD) Round 5 8am Round 6 10am (Teams who win at least 8 prelims ballots will compete in Rounds 7/8) Round 7 2pm Round 8 4pm 7pm to 10pm THE SCHWAN PARTY AT THE HENDERSON PAVILION (Supplemental Re-registration at a booth near the Pavilion) Wednesday, June 18th LOCATIONS: All debates held at Foothill HS. Round 9 8am Round 10 11am Round 11 2pm Round 12 5pm Thursday, June 19th LOCATIONS: All debates held at Foothill HS. Round 13 8am (Policy/LD/PFD) Round 14 10am (LD/PFD) Round 14 11am (Policy) Round 15 12pm (LD/PFD) Round 16 1:30pm (LD/PFD-If Needed) Round 15 2pm (Policy) Round 16 5pm (Policy-If Needed) All Debate finals will be held at the COX Pavilion at UNLV on Friday, June 20th _____________________________________________________________ Click here for huge discounts on tradeshow supplies. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3m7g5kUeyqJ5XPijMNKazfTRPdVpEB5F2IDpvwrTpRBAREaE/?count=1234567890 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080515/1780888d/attachment.htm From rrach Thu May 15 18:13:24 2008 From: rrach (rrach at juno.com) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 23:13:24 GMT Subject: [eDebate] judges for CFL Nationals in Appleton Message-ID: <20080515.181324.21888.4@webmail01.vgs.untd.com> next weekend. 200 bucks for both Sat and Sunday policy rounds. we can provide lodging but not transportation. if you are interested, please backchannel. _____________________________________________________________ Click here for free information on how to become certified as a project management professional. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3oHL9Au2IKUbsIEKfNhVXynVeUSEaKhNXXhc8sP6j1nV136I/?count=1234567890 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080515/f6b7c99e/attachment.htm From big_tymer_777 Thu May 15 18:18:23 2008 From: big_tymer_777 (Eric Robinson) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 18:18:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Vegas Judging In-Reply-To: <20080515.174024.21348.4@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> References: <20080515.174024.21348.4@webmail05.vgs.untd.com> Message-ID: I know most people already have judging obligations locked down for Vegas but I thought I'd give it another shot, I'm willing to cover any rounds required. If you're interested get back with me. _________________________________________________________________ Get Free (PRODUCT) RED? Emoticons, Winks and Display Pics. http://joinred.spaces.live.com?ocid=TXT_HMTG_prodredemoticons_052008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080515/a49623c7/attachment.htm From thowarddebates Fri May 16 13:17:26 2008 From: thowarddebates (Thomas Howard) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 12:17:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NFL Judging OR DELETE Message-ID: Still looking for NFL judging, I will be happy to help cover your commitment in any way possible. I have transportation and lodging already taken care of. Thanks, Tom Howard ENMU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080516/85a094bd/attachment.htm From jbruschke Fri May 16 14:05:28 2008 From: jbruschke (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 12:05:28 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CSUF Assistant Coach position Message-ID: <21E1A1BE7ED80C4287FA47FD8B13A35C0CB2CE65@SFEXCH1.AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Three-Year Full Time Lecturer in Forensics Position The Department of Human Communication Studies at California State University, Fullerton invites applications for a Lecturer beginning in August 2008. The applicant's primary teaching area is in forensics education. Faculty members are expected to participate in faculty governance, serve on committees, assist in curriculum development, provide academic advisement, and engage in University/community service. Qualifications An earned master degree in communication studies is required. Minimum three years coaching experience in both debate and individual events required. Experience required in operating all phases of both high school and college forensics tournaments and in operating summer forensic institutes. Must have the ability to interact successfully within a multicultural environment, and work harmoniously with students, colleagues, and the community. Desirable secondary areas include argumentation and public speaking. . Rank & Salary This is a temporary, non tenure-track Lecturer position. The appointment may be renewed annually up to two additional years. Salary is commensurate with experience and qualifications. An excellent comprehensive benefits package is available, including health, vision, dental plans for employee/spouse/domestic partner/dependents; access to campus child-care, and a defined-benefit retirement through the state system, along with optional tax-sheltering opportunities. For a detailed description of benefits, go to http://hr.fullerton.edu/Benefits/CompareBenefits.aspx . Job Control Number 23533G-08-092 Application Procedures Send letter of application indicating areas of expertise, current curriculum vitae, evidence of teaching performance, including but not limited to student ratings of instruction, and at least three letters of recommendation to: John Reinard, Chair Department of Human Communication Studies California State University, Fullerton P.O. Box 6868 Fullerton, CA 92834-6868 Application Deadline Application review begins June 4, 2008, and continues until the position is filled. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080516/e64bcb53/attachment.htm From alfred.snider Sat May 17 03:06:07 2008 From: alfred.snider (Alfred Snider) Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 04:06:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Binghamton Celebrates Message-ID: <482E91EF.4000405@uvm.edu> Congrats! http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/binghamton-celebrates-being-usa-1-in.html -- 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 andy.edebate Sun May 18 10:25:24 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:25:24 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Baltimore College Debate Cooperative-Exciting Staff Addition Message-ID: <9368bc9b0805180825q50d9b5b2q9b80b7ad33544b9e@mail.gmail.com> Hello, I am excited to announce that Les Phillips of Newark Urban Debate will be joining the coop staff. Les is a downright debate coaching legend. He has been coaching at the highest levels of competition and success for over two decades. While a coach at Lexington High School in Massachusetts he coached 3 policy debate National Champions, an LD National Champion and countless TOC qualifying teams. He is an author of a major debate textbook, and in his current role in Newark he has coached teams to State and NFL District Championships. But his main job is curriculum development and teacher training for the Newark Middle School League. He will be bring his wide variety of skills and talents to Baltimore this summer and we are thrilled to have him here. He will be joining the following Staff Members Daryl Burch-Baltimore Urban Debate League- Daryl is the director of programs for the Baltimore Urban Debate League, before coming to the BUDL he coached College Debate at the University of Louisville where he pioneered new styles and new ways of looking at debate. He has coached teams to late outrounds at CEDA & the NDT as well as many highly successful high school debate teams. Stephen Davis-Bard College Everything you have ever heard about Stephen Davis* is true. This is a recap of the relevant portions of his story. There is a 92% chance that Stephen Davis is part bear. Stephan Davis was Bryan Singer's first choice to play Wolverine in the X-Men films. Insurance wouldn't cover anyone who actually had an adamantium skeleton, and so they got some Australian guy instead. You might call them puppets. You would be wrong. *Stephen Davis is the founder and head coach of the Bard College debate team. As a novice, he and his partner won Novice Nationals held at Towson University in 2004, rapping about ruralism and difference. Back then, neither Stephen nor difference had any "a's" in it. In just four years, Bard College has gone from having one debater with dreadlocks to a nationally-ranked program with the best-dressed debaters in elimination rounds at several national tournaments. Using innovative and nontraditional methods, his teams continue confusing their opponents and seducing their judges to victory. Shawntia Diggs-Towson University Shawntia Diggs debated for Forest Park High School & Towson University and was a highly successful debater engaging in a wide range of arguments and styles. As a coach she has coached the 2008 CEDA national champions, and several high school teams that compete on a high level on the national circuit. She also works extensively with Baltimore Urban Debate League to develop curriculum and best teaching practices. Andy Ellis-Towson University Andy Ellis debated at Towson University and has coached at Vermont,Long Beach, Marist,Vassar/Bard, Wyoming and Towson. He has coached a Novice National Champion and a CEDA National Champion and has worked with multiple out round competitors at the NDT. Andy also directs the BCDC and Baltimore College Debate and has worked closely with national UDL leadership in order to create college debate opportunities for urban students. James Maritato-Marist College "Jimbo" Maritato debated at Marist College and has coached at The University of Wyoming and is currently the Director of Debate at Marist College. In the 6 seasons that Jimbo has coached college debate he has coached 4 NDT qualifiers.In addition to his significant coaching track record Jimbo is also quite skilled with the computer and will contribute his significant talents to the smooth running of the technology processes at the Co-op. Beth Skinner-Towson University Beth Skinner debated for the University of Kansas and has coached at Missouri State, Wayne State and for the last decade Towson University. She has coached two CEDA National Champions as well as several NDT outround participants, and has worked closely with the Baltimore Urban Debate League to build a vibrant community of debate and public discourse in Baltimore. She has taught debate around the nation and around the world. Matt Stannard-University of Wyoming Matt Stannard has been coaching debate for fourteen years and has helped teams win eight national championships and national speaking titles, and over 50 individual tournament titles. He coached the 9th seeded team at the 2008 National Debate Tournament and the top speaker at the 2008 National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence. He was the recipient of the 2007 Coach of the Year at the Val Browning Round Robin at Weber State, and is currently a member of the national committee of the National Debate Tournament and the Cross Examination Debate Association, as well as an editorial board member for the National Parliamentary Debate Association's scholarly journal Parliamentary Debate. As a Lecturer in rhetorical theory, and a political activist, Matt writes and speaks on issues of socioeconomic class and political movements. He has taught at, or directed, summer debate workshops in Korea, Wyoming, Georgia, California, Utah, Maryland, and Vermont. Our Staff has 16 Individual National Championships between them. But who is counting, each member of the BCDC staff has contributed signifigantly to the growth of new programs, has defined a method of debate that fits their educational needs, and have a demonstrated history of success, commitment, and effective teaching. You can join us in Baltimore and work with this excellent staff for $500 for a two week institute. That includes your housing, an evidence set, and all the other benefits of a full on debate camp. Go to baltimorecollegedebate.org or contact me for more info. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080518/e6c19557/attachment.htm From smithr Mon May 19 15:53:26 2008 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 16:53:26 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Jobs for debaters and coaches Message-ID: <4831E8C6.8050409@wfu.edu> 27 jobs here. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5873 Activism anyone? -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From andy.edebate Mon May 19 19:28:28 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 20:28:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Baltimore dates for next year Message-ID: <9368bc9b0805191728t3408caddsee4b0a1caee97a61@mail.gmail.com> hello after a lot of organizational shuffling and some other stuff these are the dates of Baltimore College Debate tournaments next year. season opener 9/13-9/14 Frederick Douglass 11/1-11/2 Mid Atlantic Fall Champs 12/6-12/7 Harriett Tubman 2/14-2/15 (the intent of this is to provide a local opportunity the weekend of northwestern, if my guess on the date of nu is wrong we may revise) other BCD news coming very soon. Andy Ellis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080519/85724cae/attachment.htm From asymonds Mon May 19 21:01:36 2008 From: asymonds (Adam Symonds) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 19:01:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ADI Early Bird Deadline Message-ID: <4b7997ff0805191901h447616fanbb184e709d3df4aa@mail.gmail.com> Hey all, The deadline to secure the lower Early Bird rate at the ADI is quickly approaching. Sunday, June 1st is the registration deadline for the cheaper rate. This is 13 days from today. If you are considering attending the ADI, I would encourage you to register before then. Best, Adam Symonds Co-Director Arizona Debate Institute http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/adi.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 20 08:06:17 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:06:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] John Rief to Join Baltimore Coop Online Staff. Message-ID: <9368bc9b0805200606m55c53ecah44724b64cc1c65e3@mail.gmail.com> John Rief of the University of Pittsburgh will be working as an online lab leader for the Baltimore Summer Coop. John has been at the foundation of the success and growth of the wyoming coop, and was amongst a group of folks who put a D9 at risk on his shoulders. John isnt just a community minded builder, he was a highly successful debater reaching out rounds of nearly every major tournament, including the NDT. He is an argumentative innovator but can cut a mean china argument as well. If you would like to work from home but still in a summer camp lab, let me know. Starting June 1st the online coop will be open, before the end of the week there will be a preview, but for $150 or $500 for a team you can: * Get access to all evidence and instructional material from the BCDC. * Receive your own account and customizable page, you can track research, documents, your tasks, your calender, and other customizable features. * Get exclusive access to online discussion with coop participants and special guests. * Collaborate across the internet on arguments,research, and learning resources. * Participate in online written debates (webcam debates if we can get that going) * Have access all summer and season long * Use our search able evidence and research library (downloads are easy to, if you use ms word and ie 6.0 you can open documents straight from the online coop) The demo later this week will provide you more information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080520/0ae1086c/attachment.htm From katsulas Tue May 20 08:15:01 2008 From: katsulas (John Katsulas) Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:15:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Nationals date Message-ID: The ADA Nationals Tournament will be held on March 13-15, 2009 at Appalachian State University. The tentative schedule will be 2 rounds on Friday, 4 rounds on Saturday, and elimination rounds on Sunday. Please contact Kris Willis if you have any questions. John Katsulas From jeffrey.jarman Wed May 21 00:41:07 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 00:41:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Business Meeting Message-ID: Hi Everyone: CEDA will hold its summer meeting (and business meeting and topic meeting) in Dallas, TX later this month (Saturday, May 31). There are three amendments up for consideration. The full text and a proxy form are available online at http://www.cedadebate.org under the link for BUSINESS. A copy of the amendments is pasted below. If you have questions, please let me know. Remember, a YES vote is required at the business meeting in order to send an amendment to the full membership for a vote. Jeff AMENDMENT #1: ELIMINATE MEMBERSHIP CATEGORY Article III, Section 1. Cut sub-point B. The amendment would eliminate the membership category of ?affiliate.? Rationale: This section is functionally moot with the emerging programs fee reduction. Striking section B would clarify confusion and redundancy in the membership category. AMENDMENT #2: FINAL ROUND JUDGES Bylaw IX, Section 17. Add new section: ?F. If, by the close of registration, a region has not presented the Tournament Director with the name of a judge selected by their region for the final round panel, that region?s slot shall be replaced by a judge assigned using the tournament?s mutual preference system.? Rationale: There is a need for clarifying of the identification and selection of final round judges for the championship tournament. Increasingly, regions have difficulty identifying or are unsuccessful at providing a critic. The amendment is meant clarify procedures the tab room shall employ in seeking replacement judges. AMENDENT #3: CONFERENCES 1. ARTICLE VI. Replace entire with: Section 1. The Association is divided into conferences as specified in the Bylaws. Section 2. Each conference, with the approval of the Executive Council, shall have the right to determine its own name. 2. BYLAW II. Replace entire with: Current Conferences of the Association Section 1. A complete list of all active conferences shall be made available by the Executive Secretary. Each conference must be approved by a majority vote of the Executive Council. Each conference shall provide CEDA with a document detailing (1) the procedure for selecting and removing member institutions and (2) the procedure for selecting a conference chair. Section 2. An ?Independent? conference shall be permanently assigned as a name for a conference. Any member institution without a conference affiliation declared by September 1 of each year shall automatically be assigned to this conference. The chair of the Independent Conference shall be selected by a majority vote of the Executive Council. New member institutions shall be eligible to join a conference any time during their first year. Section 3. Any conference (excluding the Independent Conference) with fewer than 8 member institutions shall forfeit their voting privileges on the Executive Council. Any conference chair (or designee) missing two consecutive Executive Council meetings shall forfeit their voting privileges on the Executive Council. Voting privileges can be reinstated by a majority vote of the Executive Council. Section 4. Annual first place award will be given to any conference with at least 6 members. A second place award will be given to any conference with at least 10 members. A third place award will be given to any conference with at least 12 members. Section 5. Member institutions may switch conferences only during the time between the conclusion of the National Tournament and September 1. All changes must conform to the rules established by both conferences. Section 6. Following approval of a conference structure for the governance of the organization, the EC shall make such provisions as are necessary for the orderly transition from a regional to a conference structure to be completed by September 1, 2009. 3. ARTICLE V. Section 4. Cut sentence: ?The regions of The East, North Central, Rocky Mountain, Southern California and South Central shall elect their representatives in even numbered years.? 4. ARTICLE V. Section 5. Cut sentence: ?The Executive Council may authorize a special election to restore the staggering of terms for regional representatives.? 5. Replace all references to ?regional sweepstakes? with ?conference sweepstakes,? including: Article III. Section 1. D. 1. Bylaw VI. Section 9. 6. Replace all references to ?regional representative? with ?conference chair,? including: Article IV. Section 1. Article IV. Section 2. G. Article IV. Section 5. J. Article IV. Section 7. Article IV. Section 7. G-H. Article IV. Section 10. A. Article IV. Section 12. B. Article V. Section 1. Article V. Section 5. Article V. Section 5. E-F. Bylaw V. Section 8. 7. Replace all references to ?region? with ?conference,? including: Article IV. Section 7. B-E Article IV. Section 9. A. Article IV. Section 11. A. Article IV. Section 12. B. Article V. Section 1. Article V. Section 3. Article V. Section 4. Bylaw V. Section 8. Bylaw XII. Section 2. B. Bylaw XII. Section 7. Bylaw XIII. Section 1. Bylaw XIV. Section 3. Bylaw XV. Section 2. A. 8. Bylaw VI. Section 9. Replace last two sentences with: ?Also, any approved conference sweepstakes awards will be presented. If no awards are submitted by the conference chair, then they will be given to the top schools in the conference that did not receive one of the top ten national sweepstakes awards. The number of conference awards will be based on the formula outlined in Bylaw II. 9. Bylaw IX. Section 17. Replace entire section with: ?At least five judges should be used for the final round. The President should attempt to represent at least two-thirds of all approved conferences on the final round panel.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080521/6cb89ae2/attachment.htm From privethedge Wed May 21 11:17:41 2008 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:17:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] America Charging $15.00 For your First Bag Message-ID: <687347.38650.qm@web50901.mail.re2.yahoo.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080521/1d2dfcff/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Wed May 21 12:02:07 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:02:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Work in the Online Coop Message-ID: <9368bc9b0805211002k67de80emef004f07ecc3f236@mail.gmail.com> We are looking for coaches judges and scholars to contribute to the online cooperative. The online cooperative will be open all summer and will continue to grow during the season. Some material will go onto the public BCD site and will serve as resources available to all potential debaters and coaches around the country. Other parts of the content will stay exclusive to cooperative participants, and all content will become part of a starter set for new programs working with BCD. The work you contribute will expand the reach of debate and provide high quality community generated resources that form the building blocks of new and emerging debate programs.Your contribution can be scalable to the amount of time and energy you want to put into it, you can discuss with me whether you want to write one article or be online the full time. Below is a list of ways you can participate. * Online Lab Leader- Online lab leaders work full time coordinating and managing assignments, engaging discussions, and working on arguments. * Researcher- Researchers work on building the argument and topic knowledge libraries. * Argument Reviewers- Argument reviewers, read comment and make suggestions for arguments submitted by students. * Special Guest Blog and Chat Sessions- If you want to contribute but don't have time for the above options a great way to contribute is to write a special guest blog and have a real time internet based chat session with students. We will schedule you for a time announce it to all participants and you can do everything straight from any web enabled computer. * E-lectures- E lectures are lessons about a particular subject, you can use text, video, audio, or whatever other learning methods you choose, your e-lecture will go into our library and students can access it on demand. * Online Judge- Throughout the summer we will have online text and/or audio or video debates, we need judges who are willing to evaluate the debate and write or record decisions and comments. * Curriculum Designer- If you have particular skills designing debate curriculum you can work to build within our existing curriculum or can contribute one of your own * Discussion Leader- In our online discussion forums you can lead a discussion about debate theory practice or whatever else you like * Web Application Builder- If you have skills in the web design or application building department you can let us know and help us build more features for the public site and the coop sharepoint site. In addition to the defined jobs we will also happily accept the following contributions: * Files * Educational resources * Videos of instructional materials * Reading Lists * Theory Articles * Blog Posts * Citations * Argument Guides * Other content you think is useful We can't pay anybody right now. But we can barter with coop resources. If you are interested in any of these things contact me and we will set up parameters, or if you have another idea for an online service contact me. The work you put in will be part of a process of creating a resource base that will help new and emerging debate programs to have the basis they need to join our community. Thank you and please ask any questions you may have. Andy Ellis Baltimore College Debate A program of Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems (Y.O.U.R.S) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080521/b3f02654/attachment.htm From stables Wed May 21 14:20:27 2008 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:20:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Topic Process Update Message-ID: <016601c8bb77$ba101e60$2e305b20$@edu> As we approach the topic wording meetings, I invite the community to review our progress and add their perspectives. A full update is available at http://www.cedatopic.com/ and individual blog posts are available at http://blog.cedatopic.com/ for specific places to leave feedback. Thanks. Gordon Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee & 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/20080521/84329395/attachment.htm From mjjanas Wed May 21 18:23:54 2008 From: mjjanas (Janas, Michael) Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 18:23:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CIDD British Tour 2008 Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E309A557CC@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> The Committee for International Discussion and Debate of the National Communication Association Announces a tour of the United States by the British National Debating Team Approximate dates: late September to mid November, 2008 If you are interested in hosting the British debaters, please contact the tour director by no later than August 22nd! Trischa Goodnow Oregon State University tgoodnow at oregonstate.edu The fee for hosting the British team is $800.00. Hosts also provide, at minimum, lodging, meals, and local transportation. To place a bid to host the team, please send the following information: School or organization name: Contact name and address: (must include summer contact information) Telephone and email: (fall and summer) Desired dates-please include several dates, in your order of preference. Also include dates that are out of the question. Local airport: Other schools that might share the stop: Suggestions for prospective hosts... Include the debate in conjunction with special on-campus or community events Find other schools in the area who are also interested in hosting (each school will still pay the hosting fee-but there is a discount of $100 for every school who joins in. The big benefit it that it allows you to share hosting costs and makes scheduling easier and sites more attractive) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080521/1be7b294/attachment.htm From ML.Sandoz Fri May 23 13:28:44 2008 From: ML.Sandoz (Sandoz, M L) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:28:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Summer Meeting Message-ID: <1257.76.22.236.54.1211567324.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu> Does anyone have Westin reservations you plan to cancel? Looking for 2 rooms at the CEDA rate. ------------------------------------------------- Sandoz, M L Director of Debate Vanderbilt University Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu From joe_koehle Fri May 23 15:46:58 2008 From: joe_koehle (Joe Koehle) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:46:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Is anyone cool at CFL Nats? Message-ID: <590879.4685.qm@web50204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hit me back--Appleton is pretty much the h'caust. Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080523/73d631b3/attachment.htm From swhalen Fri May 23 17:25:00 2008 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:25:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Director of Forensics Opening at SF State Message-ID: <002b01c8bd23$d7845c60$6501a8c0@D4Y10K71> Hello everyone, I have been elected to chair our academic senate and as a result we have an opening for a temporary director of forensics. I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have about the job. I will continue to serve as the host for the Golden Gate Season Opener. The official ad is below. Shawn Whalen The official ad: The Communication Studies Department at San Francisco State University invites applications for a temporary Director of Forensics for the academic year 2008-09. The successful applicant's primary duties will be to coach a large CEDA Debate and AFA Individual Events Program, prepare and manage the budget for that program, and schedule and travel with students to regional and national tournaments. The Director of Forensics teaches three courses per semester, including COMM 368, "Workshop in Forensics." In addition to COMM 368, the successful applicant must be able to teach COMM 150, "Fundamental Oral Communication," COMM 351 "Public Speaking," COMM 365 "Argumentation & Debate," and/or COMM 362 "Oral Interpretation of Literature." Qualifications: Demonstrated experience coaching both policy debate and individual events; Demonstrated excellence in college/University teaching; Experience in scheduling travel and managing budgets; An earned M.A. degree in Communication Studies (required); Demonstrated ability to interact successfully within a multicultural environment and work harmoniously with students, colleagues and the community; Experience hosting forensics tournaments desired; Commercial Driving License eligible (Class B Driving License desired). Rank & Salary: This is a temporary, full-time lecturer position for Academic Year 2008-09. The salary will be negotiated commensurate with experience and qualifications. San Francisco State University, as part of the California State University system, provides generous health and retirement benefits, as well as domestic partner benefits. Application Procedures: Send letter of application describing a philosophy of forensics education and areas of expertise, current curriculum vitae, evidence of teaching effectiveness including, but not limited to, student ratings of instruction and peer observations of teaching, and at least three letters of recommendation to: Gerianne Merrigan, Chair Communication Studies Department San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Avenue San Francisco, CA 94132 Application Deadline: Application review begins June 01, 2008 and continues until the position is filled. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080523/62ffe0b6/attachment.htm From thowarddebates Fri May 23 20:42:32 2008 From: thowarddebates (Thomas Howard) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 19:42:32 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Critical Pedagogy Message-ID: If anyone has any resources for debate as critical pedagogy or experience using critical pedagogy in teaching/coaching, please contact me. I appreciate any help. Thanks, Tom Howard ENMU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080523/1a54a130/attachment.htm From kenrjohnson Sat May 24 10:24:07 2008 From: kenrjohnson (Ken Johnson) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 09:24:07 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] URDU 08-09 assistant coaches Message-ID: Its my pleasure to announce that Mike Girouard and Brady Fletcher will be joining the University of Rochester Debate Union next fall as assistant coaches. Thank you to everybody who inquired about assistant coaching opportunities at the U of R. All my best, Ken Johnson Director of Forensics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080524/13592729/attachment.htm From trevorwittke Sat May 24 15:16:05 2008 From: trevorwittke (Trevor Wittke) Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 13:16:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] HEMP AFF from the 2004 topic Message-ID: <322378.80739.qm@web36402.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, I was hoping to get some of the sources used for the hemp aff during the 2004 topic. I know West Point and several other schools ran variations of a hemp aff. I plan on using whatever info i can get on a hemp aff for this years Highschool topic. Thanks. From bwittwer Tue May 27 09:04:16 2008 From: bwittwer (Benjamin Wittwer) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:04:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Assistant Coach opportunity in NYC area Message-ID: <483BDB41.F495.0024.0@mail.edgemont.org> Edgemont High School is looking to hire an assistant debate coach for the 2008-2009 season. Edgemont is located in Scarsdale, NY, about 20 minutes north of New York City. The assistant coach would be expected to attend one meeting per week after school, assist with evidence production, and attend around 15 tournaments per year. We will strongly prefer applicants who are located in the greater New York City area. This position is ideal for an undergraduate or graduate student with debate experience. The compensation will be a stipend of $10,000-$12,000 for the debate season, commensurate with experience. There is no additional compensation for judging as that is factored into the stipend, however the team will cover all travel expenses including meals. Please contact Ben Wittwer with inquiries at bwittwer at mail.edgemont.org Ben Wittwer Benefits Asst., Edgemont UFSD Head Coach, Edgemont Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080527/c9b3b7e4/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 27 12:14:32 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 13:14:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Baltimore Debate Cooperative Message-ID: <9368bc9b0805271014k63be8d0em64452f45011aa0de@mail.gmail.com> Are you interested in a low cost high quality summer debate opportunity? If so the baltimore college debate cooperative is for you. The staff is set and students are starting to enroll Register now while dorm rooms are still avaialble. For $500 you get *2 weeks of housing * complete evidence set (all eveidence produced during the coop + all material produced online) * instructional materials * program development information * all year access to the online coop * opportunities to work with our excellent staff during the coop and during the rest of the summer * many more features described at www.baltimorecollegedebate.org Contact me or signup online http://www.baltimorecollegedebate.org/bcdc/Signup.html Andy Ellis Baltimore College Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080527/c5dd60fd/attachment.htm From davismk13 Tue May 27 15:00:38 2008 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:00:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Transportation in Dallas this weekend Message-ID: <9a7f6f740805271300p3d4bad74re69cbe3c4dac12@mail.gmail.com> Is anyone willing to help a couple of JMU people get from the airport (Love Field) to the hotel on Friday? Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From rachelschy Tue May 27 17:10:28 2008 From: rachelschy (Rachel) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:10:28 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Anyone need NFL's Judging? Message-ID: Myself and two other University of Redlands students are available if anyone still needs to hire. Coaching and judging available. Transportation and housing not necessary. Please backchannel me at rachelschy at gmail dot com. Rachel -- Got a little bit of soul, Got a little bit of rock n roll in my bones -Tea Leaf Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080527/2f67aabf/attachment.htm From alfred.snider Tue May 27 19:02:43 2008 From: alfred.snider (Alfred Snider) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:02:43 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! Message-ID: <483CA123.1080409@uvm.edu> For the third time I am asking for the disclosure of the various awards presented at CEDA Nationals, including All Americans, coaching awards, service awards, etc. The last time I asked I was told they would soon be at the website and as of now it says they "will be coming soon." How about now, before we all forget about last year? Not trying to be a pest, just trying to find out who won what. 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 regedebate Tue May 27 19:58:13 2008 From: regedebate (David Register) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:58:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 2008 WDI National College Policy Debate Workshop Message-ID: <8f08f7f30805271758w3ff184b8w65cbdbffa5565ba@mail.gmail.com> WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE National College Policy Debate Workshop July 24 ? August 7, 2008 University of Vermont Dates: One Week Session: July 24 ? Aug 1, 2008 Two Week Session: July 24 ? Aug 7, 2008 Preparations for the 2008 National College Policy Debate Workshop are well underway. We are all very excited about the quality of the experience we will be able to provide this summer, and want you to join us! We are also excited to confirm that Ruth Zisman, the recent Director of Debate for Bard College from 2004 to 2008, will be assisting with argument groups and practice debates during the workshop. Her expertise in critical arguments will be invaluable to those of you who want to sharpen your skills in that aspect of the game. Below are new details about our pre-camp evidence set, argument group dynamics, and practice debates. PRE-CAMP EVIDENCE On the first day of the institute after arrival day you will receive the pre-camp evidence file, including: -Two complete Affirmative cases with 1AC's, frontlines, and backup evidence. -Case hits against both Affirmative cases. -A series of critical arguments that cover common advantage areas. -A generic counterplan and disadvantage. -A comprehensive Topicality file, complete with critical arguments and answers. -A Negative critique with link, impact and alternative evidence. ARGUMENT GROUPS Choice We emphasize choice in argument group participation. You select an argument group each week based on pitches from faculty members. We guarantee diversity in this selection, whether your interests lie in the more traditional style of policy arguments, or in the critical or performance-based area. Hands-on training Argument groups are run by faculty members with assistance from the Scholars. Each week you will receive 20+ hours of time in argument groups with faculty; learning in-depth how to cut, organize, and execute your group's particular project. Technology This year the cost covers all the technology you will need to participate in the institute. Scanning, photocopying, database access, and computer lab time are all included. All attendees will have temporary net id's to configure their wireless technologies to the campus VPN, ensuring access to the network across the campus. PRACTICE DEBATES The pre-camp evidence set will allow you to have quality debates at the beginning of the institute. All one-week attendees are guaranteed at least 7 full practice debates, and all two-week attendees will participate in at least 15 full practice debates during the institute. WHAT'S HAPPENING IN BURLINGTON? Burlington is a wonderful place for pedestrians. The campus is just a few blocks from downtown, where you can find a variety of things to do to suit your entertainment and dining interests. To find out what's happening in the Queen City you should check the *Seven Days*. http://www.7dvt.com/ GET MORE INFORMATION Call: (800) 639-3210 or (802) 656-2085 Web: debate.uvm.edu/wdi Previous post: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-May/075063.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/20080527/a9ade22e/attachment.htm From davismk13 Tue May 27 21:18:20 2008 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 22:18:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Request for student input on the topic wording Message-ID: <9a7f6f740805271918g5448a2b5k2ceef2941aae2dfc@mail.gmail.com> >From Sean Lowry, National Student Rep Date: Tue 27 May 17:03:38 EDT 2008 From: "Sean Lowry" Add To Address Book | This is Spam Attention all debaters! My name is Sean Lowry and I am was elected your student representative to the topic committee at this past year's CEDA Nationals whether you knew it or not! I know everyone is busy enjoying their summer breaks, but I know a lot of debaters are looking forward to the upcoming debate season. As this year's national student representative to the CEDA topic committee, I want to open my ears to your input on the topic process! In less than a week I will be in Dallas, TX to help craft the exact wording for the agricultural topic resolution. Please join the facebook group 2008-09 CEDA Topic (Student Forum) and post your suggestions to me. I am trying to keep an ongoing discussion in the public eye on the student side of discussion and provide a voice for all of those who have concerns. AFF flex, neg ground, etc. are all game for discussion. If you have any problems joining the group send me a facebook message (Sean Lowry, JMU), but otherwise try to keep your comments to the board- after all this is a student community discussion! Thanks! -Sean Lowry -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From jeffrey.jarman Tue May 27 23:09:09 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:09:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! In-Reply-To: <483CA123.1080409@uvm.edu> References: <483CA123.1080409@uvm.edu> Message-ID: Most of the awards are available online at http://www.cedadebate.org/2008nationals/ ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Alfred Snider [alfred.snider at uvm.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:02 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! For the third time I am asking for the disclosure of the various awards presented at CEDA Nationals, including All Americans, coaching awards, service awards, etc. The last time I asked I was told they would soon be at the website and as of now it says they "will be coming soon." How about now, before we all forget about last year? Not trying to be a pest, just trying to find out who won what. 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 From swhalen Tue May 27 23:32:27 2008 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 21:32:27 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! In-Reply-To: References: <483CA123.1080409@uvm.edu> Message-ID: <2F6EA3FF-9B51-49CA-A250-53ADF749856E@sfsu.edu> It certainly is frustrating that a complete posting of the All- American Awards as well as the Brownlee, Galentine, etc. remains unavailable. Shawn On May 27, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Jeffrey Jarman wrote: > Most of the awards are available online at http://www.cedadebate.org/2008nationals/ > > > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate- > bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Alfred Snider [alfred.snider at uvm.edu > ] > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:02 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! > > For the third time I am asking for the disclosure of the various > awards > presented at CEDA Nationals, including All Americans, coaching awards, > service awards, etc. > > The last time I asked I was told they would soon be at the website and > as of now it says they "will be coming soon." > > How about now, before we all forget about last year? > > Not trying to be a pest, just trying to find out who won what. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From aaron.olney Wed May 28 08:24:50 2008 From: aaron.olney (Aaron Olney) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:24:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! In-Reply-To: <2F6EA3FF-9B51-49CA-A250-53ADF749856E@sfsu.edu> References: <483CA123.1080409@uvm.edu> <2F6EA3FF-9B51-49CA-A250-53ADF749856E@sfsu.edu> Message-ID: <6b016c190805280624o42cfaf80r125616c7a90029a6@mail.gmail.com> Shows what an incompetent President will do. On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Shawn Whalen wrote: > It certainly is frustrating that a complete posting of the All- > American Awards as well as the Brownlee, Galentine, etc. remains > unavailable. > > Shawn > > > > On May 27, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Jeffrey Jarman > wrote: > > > Most of the awards are available online at > http://www.cedadebate.org/2008nationals/ > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate- > > bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Alfred Snider [ > alfred.snider at uvm.edu > > ] > > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:02 PM > > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! > > > > For the third time I am asking for the disclosure of the various > > awards > > presented at CEDA Nationals, including All Americans, coaching awards, > > service awards, etc. > > > > The last time I asked I was told they would soon be at the website and > > as of now it says they "will be coming soon." > > > > How about now, before we all forget about last year? > > > > Not trying to be a pest, just trying to find out who won what. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20080528/cf5833ea/attachment.htm From swhalen Wed May 28 11:12:24 2008 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:12:24 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! In-Reply-To: <6b016c190805280624o42cfaf80r125616c7a90029a6@mail.gmail.com> References: <483CA123.1080409@uvm.edu> <2F6EA3FF-9B51-49CA-A250-53ADF749856E@sfsu.edu> <6b016c190805280624o42cfaf80r125616c7a90029a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001901c8c0dd$9e30e8d0$6401a8c0@D4Y10K71> My apologies to Jeff for not seeing the "awards" tab on the right of the page - my sincere thanks to those few who make the effort to catalogue our history and our students' achievements. Shawn _____ From: Aaron Olney [mailto:aaron.olney at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:25 AM To: Shawn Whalen Cc: Jeffrey Jarman; Alfred Snider; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! Shows what an incompetent President will do. On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Shawn Whalen wrote: It certainly is frustrating that a complete posting of the All- American Awards as well as the Brownlee, Galentine, etc. remains unavailable. Shawn On May 27, 2008, at 9:09 PM, Jeffrey Jarman wrote: > Most of the awards are available online at http://www.cedadebate.org/2008nationals/ > > > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate- > bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Alfred Snider [alfred.snider at uvm.edu > ] > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 7:02 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Awards -- please! > > For the third time I am asking for the disclosure of the various > awards > presented at CEDA Nationals, including All Americans, coaching awards, > service awards, etc. > > The last time I asked I was told they would soon be at the website and > as of now it says they "will be coming soon." > > How about now, before we all forget about last year? > > Not trying to be a pest, just trying to find out who won what. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080528/a22be531/attachment.htm From asymonds Wed May 28 13:04:10 2008 From: asymonds (Adam Symonds) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:04:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Final Reminder for ADI Early Bird Rate Message-ID: <4b7997ff0805281104x6eaec54ep6069e2be18d6e9d8@mail.gmail.com> The deadline to secure the Early Bird rate at the Arizona Debate Institute is this Sunday, June 1st. By registering before this date, students can attend the ADI for only $629. Groups of 4 or more students from the same school can attend for only $599 per student. Only a $50 deposit is necessary to confirm your registration and lock in these low rates. You can register online at http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/adi.htm. We're also on facebook at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7679821194. Hope to see you all in beautiful Tempe this summer. Adam Symonds Co-Director Arizona Debate Institute From scottelliott Wed May 28 19:01:52 2008 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 19:01:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Agenda? Message-ID: <1212019312.483df2707777b@webmail.grandecom.net> I don't care, but my wife and administrators would like to know that I am actually doing something of value this weekend. From gannse5 Thu May 29 01:25:31 2008 From: gannse5 (Seth Gannon) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 02:25:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] topic meeting logistics In-Reply-To: <1212019312.483df2707777b@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1212019312.483df2707777b@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <483E4C5B.6050505@wfu.edu> Anyone have a hotel room for the 3rd or the 4th or both that they are looking to split? The state of Texas will be seizing my property in Dallas after the 2nd. hit me back, seth From delliott Thu May 29 11:28:46 2008 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:28:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Agenda? Message-ID: <483E936E0200009300014EC0@mymail.kckcc.edu> Well are you? : ) I will have an agenda posted tonight. I wanted to make sure I had all officer reports/discussion items before posting one. chief >>> 05/28/08 7:01 PM >>> I don't care, but my wife and administrators would like to know that I am actually doing something of value this weekend. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From delliott Thu May 29 15:44:50 2008 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 15:44:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Official Agenda for CEDA Summer Mtg./Business Mtg. Message-ID: <20080529T154450Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> Greetings Debate Community! It is my pleasure to welcome you to Dallas this weekend for the annual CEDA Summer Meeting, and for the 1st time, official CEDA Business Meeting. I authored an amendment in November to make the Summer Mtg. a Business Meeting, and the membership voted to do just that. As such, many items will be up for discussion and spirited debate no doubt over the course of the weekend. On Monday morning the official Business Mtg. will take place. Following the results a ballot will be mailed out by the Executive Secretary. Please keep an eye out as you may only be familiar with voting on the Topic in the summer. The following agenda will serve as a working template. The summer meeting is designed to be fluid, conversational, and productive. I will work hard to see that happens. We have a talented group of people in the EC and I am positive the summer meeting will produce a wealth of great change for the organization! If you cannot join us in Dallas, the meetings will be streamed over the internet courtesy of UT Dallas. We are also working to videotape the meetings and upload them to the web. This way you can follow the action prior to the business portion on Monday. Assuming we can decide what to do with seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, this is the proposed agenda (subject to tweaking). See you in Dallas! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College CEDA President ---- CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION SUMMER MEETING AND BUSINESS MEETING MAY 31ST-JUNE 2ND, 2008 HOSTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS AGENDA SATURDAY, MAY 31ST Session 1: 9am-Noon I. Call to Order--President Darren Elliott Roll Call of Officers and Regional Reps--Executive Secretary Jeff Jarman Appointment of Recording Secretar(y/ies)--President Darren Elliott II. Request of Agenda Items to be Added to Working Days Agenda (Saturday/Sunday) III. Presentation of Bids by potential 2009 CEDA National Hosts A) Idaho State University?Sarah Partlow Lefevre B) University of Oklahoma?Jackie Massey C) Questions/Comments IV. Committee Reports A) Awards?Gordon Stable, USC B) Discrimination and Harassment? C) Tournament Site?Darren Elliott, KCKCC D) Professional Development?Sue Peterson, CSU Chico E) Program Development?Mike Davis, James Madison F) Public Relations?Kathryn Rubino, Army G) Research?Sue Peterson, CSU Chico H) Student Leadership? I) Topic?Gordon Stables, USC J) Regional Reps/Others?? V. Officer Reports A) Executive Secretary?Jeff Jarman, Wichita State University B) Treasurer?Kelly McDonald, Arizona State/ML Sandoz, Vanderbilt C) 2nd Vice President?Sue Peterson, CSU Chico D) 1st Vice President?Gordon Stables, USC E) President?Darren Elliott, Kansas City Kansas Community College Session 2: 1:30-5pm VI. Academic Paper Presentations (TBD) VII. Working Groups/Consideration of Action Items submitted under 1st Vice President?s Report?Gordon Stables, USC VIII. Working Groups/Consideration of Action Items submitted under President?s Report?Darren Elliott, KCKCC IX. Discussion of Amendments for Monday Business Meeting. X. Continue Working Groups/Open Discussion/Added Agenda Items SUNDAY, JUNE 1ST Session 3: 9am-Noon I. Call to Order/Roll Call?Darren Elliott, President/Jeff Jarman, Executive Sec. II. Executive Council Meeting to discuss an issue concerning a private matter relating to a non-elected official. Enter into Executive Session (all Officers and Regional Representatives or their designees) not to exceed 30 minutes. Possible action to follow. III. Continue Working Groups/Action Items as presented/Added Agenda Items. Session 4: 1:30-5pm I. Committee Reform Work A) Consideration of Committee elimination/revisal B) Committee Chair Appointments II. Open Discussion/Continue Working Groups MONDAY, JUNE 2nd 9am-Noon: CEDA BUSINESS MEETING I. Call to Order/Roll Call?Darren Elliott, President/Jeff Jarman, Executive Sec. II. Official CEDA Business Meeting as per Executive Secretary Agenda (Amendment Considerations/Voting, Hand out Officer Reports, Discussion) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080529/95d00059/attachment.htm From delliott Thu May 29 16:07:23 2008 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 16:07:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Summer Mtg Location Message-ID: <20080529T160723Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> The meetings will not be at the hotel. UTD has graciously secured great space on their campus for the meetings. Scott and/or Chris will be posting sometime today the location and directions to the campus bldg. Depending on traffic, drive time from the hotel to the campus usually is around 15 minutes. See you all in the Big D! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College CEDA President -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080529/e7651edd/attachment.htm From lexdevil Thu May 29 17:35:15 2008 From: lexdevil (lexy green) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 15:35:15 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] New Coach at College Prep Message-ID: <410-22008542922351515@mindspring.com> We're excited to announce that John Hines will be joining us as our Assistant Director of Forensics and head policy debate coach. Lexy Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080529/43ef1ea7/attachment.htm From crb012000 Thu May 29 19:45:44 2008 From: crb012000 (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 19:45:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Summer Meetings -- Host Information Message-ID: CEDA SUMMER MEETINGS 2008 HOST INFORMATION (hard copies of this information will be available at the Westin front desk) Host Hotel: Westin Park Central 12720 Merit Drive (near Interstate 635 and Coit Road) Dallas, Texas 75251 Phone: (972) 385-3000 Fax: (972) 991-4557 Event Contact at hotel: Sally Molloy Sally.Molloy at westin.com 972.385.3000 Ext. 6208 Host Institution: University of Texas at Dallas 800 West Campbell Road Richardson, Texas, 75080 Contact information for UTD DEBATE: Chris Burk Email: crb012000 at utdallas.edu Cell: (972) 536-3995 Scott Herndon Email: saherndon at gmail.com Cell: (214) 546-6614 Direction to UTD (from the Westin): Campus Map: http://www.utdallas.edu/pdf/campusmap.pdf (suitable for printing) Directions from Westin to UTD Campus: Exit Westin and go north on Merit Drive towards IH-635 frontage road Turn RIGHT to go west on IH-635 frontage road Turn LEFT at Coit Road (that?s the first intersection) Go north on Coit Road for approximately 3.8 miles Turn RIGHT onto Campbell Road Go west on Campbell Road for approximately TURN left at University Parkway and enter UTD campus (do NOT turn at Waterview Pkwy) Go north on University Parkway Proceed to ?Visitor Information? and security guard station on University Parkway Parking Information at UT DALLAS campus: Ask for a visitors parking permit at the Visitor Information station on University Pkwy (the guard will check your I.D.) Go forward on University Parkway until you reach Drive A Turn Left on ?Drive A? - the Activities Center (gym) should be visible on your left. Turn Left into Parking Lot immediately after the Activity Center. Park in any available ?green? parking space Be sure properly display your parking permit To Classroom from parking lot: Walk north towards Drive A. Walk across Drive A Enter ?ECSS? ? Engineering and Computer Science South Building Go into ?Texas Instruments Auditorium? (it should be immediately in front of you) ***NOTE*** On June 4th (last day) the room will shift to ECSS 2.201 instead of the TI Auditorium Campus Internet/Wireless Information: Internet in the TI Auditorium does not require a user name or password. Our web services people have set up a separate wireless network for the CEDA meetings. The network name is TI_AUD, it should be visible when you search for available networks. Internet access is available on campus when you are not in the TI auditorium, however you will need to log in with a guest account. UTD does enforce some security requirements on guest accounts. The instructions for configuring your wireless network settings can be found here: http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/how-to/. Click on your operating system and follow the instructions. UTD's computer help desk has agreed, graciously, to have a tech on call during the meetings to trouble shoot. User name for guests is: guest-CED08 Password is: xr0qm8jt Restaurant List On-Campus Options in Student Union Building Comet Caf? and Food Court Second Floor of Union near main eastside entrance Informal options, including sandwiches, salad bar, fountain drinks, etc. Summer Hours: 9am ? 2pm The Pub Located in northwest wing on second floor of the Union Offers burgers, fries, nachos, and similar basic grub Serves Starbucks coffee and soft drinks but no alcohol Near UT Dallas campus BBQ Sonny Bryan's Smokehouse 1251 W Campbell Rd, Richardson, TX (972) 664-9494 South side of Campbell, west of Coit Road Texas style BBQ FRENCH La Madeleine 1320 W Campbell Rd, Richardson, TX (972) 671-4887 Approx. 1 mile from campus. North side of Campbell road, West of Coit Chain restaurant offering soup, salads, sandwiches with a French spin MEXICAN and LATIN AMERICAN Mi Cocina Restaurant 1370 W Campbell Rd, Richardson, TX (972) 671-6426 Approx. 1 mile from campus. North side of Campbell road, West of Coit Cafe Brazil 200 Coit Rd # 112, Plano, TX (469) 229-9140 East side of Coit Road, north of Campbell Road and north of Pres. Bush toll highway. Approx. 1.3 miles from campus Great breakfast options and coffee. Also has a good lunch and dinner menu. Qdoba Mexican Grill 1930 N Coit Rd # 150, Richardson, TX (972) 231-6655 Southeast corner of Coit and Campbell intersection Big Burritos, similar to Chipotle CASUAL AMERICAN Texadelphia 1920 N Coit Rd # 241, Richardson, TX (972) 664-9998 Along Coit Road, just south of Campbell Road Offers good cheese-steaks and other sandwiches Chili's Grill & Bar 16623 Coit Rd, Dallas, TX (972) 818-7473 West side of Coit Road, just north of Campbell Road FAST FOOD Whataburger 1910 N Coit Rd, Richardson, TX (972) 231-2833 Along Coit Road, just south of Campbell Road Quiznos 2160 N Coit Rd # 144, Richardson, TX (972) 680-9994 East side of Coit Road, just north of Campbell Road Rice Boxx 2160 N Coit Rd # 154, Richardson, TX (972) 889-8588 East side of Coit Road, just north of Campbell Road Burger Street Cafe 2160 N Coit Rd, Richardson, TX (972) 238-7177 East side of Coit, north of Campbell Road. Opposite Chili?s. SEAFOOD Rockfish Seafood Grill 7639 Campbell Rd # 800, Dallas, TX (972) 267-8757 West side of Coit Road, just north of Campbell Road PIZZA and ITALIAN Carmine's Pizza & Restaurant 7615 Campbell Rd # 104, Dallas, TX (972) 248-8110 Northwest corner of Coit & Campbell intersection, between Rockfish and Chili?s ASIAN Pasand Indian Cuisine 1377 W Campbell Rd, Richardson, TX (972) 644-4447 Southeast corner of Coit and Campbell intersection, near Richardson Bike Mart. Approx. 1 mile from campus Good lunch buffet. Be sure to call for hours of operation Masala Wok 1310 W Campbell Rd # 110, Richardson, TX (972) 644-9000 North side of Campbell Road, behind La Madeleine and Mi Cocina Noodle Bar 16627 Coit Rd, Dallas, TX (972) 380-2754 West side of Coit Road, north of Campbell Road. Behind Chili?s. Restaurants between Westin and UT Dallas Campus MEXICAN Don Pepe's Rancho Mexican Grill 15615 Coit Rd # 250, Dallas, TX (972) 458-8001 Recommended! Moderately priced Tex-Mex. Great, friendly service. Slightly west of Coit Road, along Arapaho FAST FOOD Mc Donald's 105 S Coit Rd, Richardson, TX (972) 231-4313 Southeast corner of Coit & Beltline intersection Schlotzsky's Deli 400 N Coit Rd # 1901, Richardson, TX (972) 231-2088 - 1 review - 0.5 mi NW East Side of Coit, North of Beltline Road. Near Post Office. Good sandwiches, often better and more expensive than Subway Subway 600 N Coit Rd # 2055, Richardson, TX (972) 644-7827 East Side of Coit, North of Beltline Road. Near Post Office. Wendy's 14115 Coit Rd, Dallas, TX (972) 661-2475 West side of Coit, just north of Spring Valley Road Taco Bueno 14221 Coit Rd, Dallas, TX (972) 392-4730 - 0.8 mi SW West side of Coit, north of Spring Valley Road, South of Beltline Road THAI Thai Soon Restaurant 101 S Coit Rd # 401 (972) 234-6111 Amazing, Tiny Place. Mostly Vegitarian. Highly Recommended! East side of Coit, just south of Beltline Road. Near Starbucks and McDonalds INDIAN Madras Pavillion 101 S Coit Rd, Richardson, TX (972) 671-3672 Southeast corner of Coit & Beltline intersection, near Whole Foods Call ahead for hours of operation -- it varies South Indian. Completely Vegetarian. Casual. Good food, slow service. Other Restaurant Options India Palace Restaurant & Bar 12817 Preston Rd # 105, Dallas, TX (972) 392-0190 Excellent upscale Indian restaurant A few miles west of the hotel on IH-635, exit Preston, turn left, behind Chili?s AREA 1: Beltline Road in Addison, between Preston Road and Midway Road North of hotel to Beltline, then go approximately 4 miles west Many restaurants located along Beltline on western side this intersection Search on-line, call ahead, ask at Westin desk, or ask UTD people for exact directions Includes: Fogo De Chao Churrascaria - Brazilian-Style Steakhouse for serious carnivores Gloria's Restaurant & Bar ? Salvadoran & Tex-Mex, great drinks, recommended Chamberlain's Steak & Chop House ? American Style Steakhouse Chamberlain's Fish Market Grill May Dragon Chinese Restaurant and Bar Truluck's Seafood and Crab House Chow Thai Restaurant Thai Orchid Restaurant Mr Sushi Japanese Restaurant BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse Mercy Wine Bar ? very Dallas, upscale Queen of Sheba Restaurant (Ethiopian) Romano's Macaroni Grill TGI Friday's On the Border Mexican Grill & Cantina And many others AREA 2: Spring Valley Road and US-75 (Central Expressway). General vicinity of this intersection, Slightly north and east of the hotel Search on-line, call ahead, ask Westin desk, or ask UTD people for exact directions Includes: IHOP Bone Daddy?s House of Smoke (BBQ) El Chico Razzoo's Cajun Cafe Texas Land & Cattle Steak House Pappadeaux Seafood Kitchen Red Lobster Denny's Saltgrass Steak House Ask Chris or Scott if you have questions or need other recommendations Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/new/ From stables Fri May 30 06:31:00 2008 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 04:31:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Topic Selection Committee Update Message-ID: <001101c8c248$a3122b90$e93682b0$@edu> The CEDA topic blog, http://blog.cedatopic.com/ , has been updated with our schedule and agenda. The individual blog posts for each working group also now have updated reports from several individuals. As more work is submitted I will add it directly to the blog. In related CEDA news, Darren posted the full agenda and it contains several references to reports I will be making (Awards committee, '10 host for CEDA Nats, Topic Process, General VP comments, etc.). All of the details for those reports is available at http://blog.cedatopic.com/files/25068-23830/CEDA_1VP_Report_Summer_2008.pdf Thanks. 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/20080530/02a223d1/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Fri May 30 09:24:32 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:24:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Baltimore College Debate Coop News Message-ID: <9368bc9b0805300724l7061b4f1i8c6e92cefc2f19f7@mail.gmail.com> Some news from the Baltimore College Debate Coop 1. We have about ten spots left for residents-, if you are interested in coming we would love to have you, but you should act soon to make sure you have a room. 2. John Rief of the University of Pittsburgh will be joining us as an online lab leader, he will be a solid contributor to the research and discussion of the camp, and we are working on some high tech solutions to allow him to teleconference with those of us here in Baltimore.. 3. We have been arranging for a variety of online contributors that will produce arguments, learning and teaching material, and other useful resources all participants will receive, so far we have made agreements with Buddy Khan, Guy Risko, David Peterson, Steve D'Amico, Rashad Evans, Kevin Kuswa, Andy Casey,and several others with whom discussion is ongoing. As this list grows we will continue to update you. If you are interested in contributing we are looking for debaters or coaches who are interested in sharing their favorite argument. Ideally this would include a 25 page file, further suggested reading, teaching and learning content of your choosing, and any additional resources you think make the argument accessible to and deployable by new and emerging debate programs. If you are interested contact me. 4. Students will start the camp with access to all material produced online prior to july 20th, plus a "camp set" including 2-3 affirmatives, 2 disad counterplan combos, case arguments and disads, several kritiks, a basic t file a basic theory file, and a framework argument. During the two weeks of the coop we will use the already existing materials to get debates and research started then focus on helping students develop and focus on the arguments they want to build. The focus of the first week will be on building arguments, the focus of the second week will be on making sure students have answers and strategies against the likely arguments they will face. 5. The programming team is busily working on getting the online coop ready and running. Look out for it this weekend. 6. We will have a group of peer to peer educators and leaders. The contours of the group are coming together, these folks are experienced and successful debaters who will work with staff and students to provide mentoring and assistance. Look for an announcement of these folks later today or over the weekend. 7. All this for $500 Sign up now Andy Ellis Baltimore College Debate Cooperative -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080530/545d5f2c/attachment.htm From ruth.zisman Fri May 30 11:50:41 2008 From: ruth.zisman (Ruth Zisman) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:50:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bard College new Director and thanks Message-ID: I am incredibly excited to announce that Adam Rosen will be the new Director of Debate at Bard College. Adam is just finishing his PhD in Philosophy at the New School for Social Research in New York City and is excited to return to debate, having previously coached debate at the New School and at Bronx Science High School. We are all very happy to welcome Adam to Bard and back to District VIII. I'd also like to publicly thank Sherin Varghese for her amazing assistant coaching for the past two years (good luck in law school, Sherin!), Stephen Davis for his never-ending tireless coaching and crazy ideas, and all of the people that have supported Bard Debate for these first four years of its existence. Ruth Zisman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080530/8542368c/attachment.htm From aaron.olney Fri May 30 13:23:27 2008 From: aaron.olney (Aaron Olney) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:23:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bard College new Director and thanks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6b016c190805301123o6fafb955gb7579ef3a7434584@mail.gmail.com> OMG. I am not sure what criteria Bard used, but there surely must have been better candidates than this one. On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Ruth Zisman wrote: > I am incredibly excited to announce that Adam Rosen will be the new > Director of Debate at Bard College. Adam is just finishing his PhD in > Philosophy at the New School for Social Research in New York City and is > excited to return to debate, having previously coached debate at the New > School and at Bronx Science High School. We are all very happy to welcome > Adam to Bard and back to District VIII. > > I'd also like to publicly thank Sherin Varghese for her amazing assistant > coaching for the past two years (good luck in law school, Sherin!), Stephen > Davis for his never-ending tireless coaching and crazy ideas, and all of the > people that have supported Bard Debate for these first four years of its > existence. > > Ruth Zisman > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20080530/3b8e79c7/attachment.htm From asha.cherian Fri May 30 14:59:35 2008 From: asha.cherian (Asha Cherian) Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:59:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bard College new Director and thanks In-Reply-To: <6b016c190805301123o6fafb955gb7579ef3a7434584@mail.gmail.com> References: <6b016c190805301123o6fafb955gb7579ef3a7434584@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49b743b20805301259t756a54cfq5858383f5464b233@mail.gmail.com> Congrats to Adam on the new gig! I've known Adam for 5+ years and throughout this time, on top of being one of the most congenial and wryly witty people in Northeast Debate, he's consistently been among the most intellectually engaging, academically prolific and Philosophically literate kids I know. I'm excited with Ruth; Adam seems to be a great match for Bard. Best of luck to Adam and Bard in 08-09. Asha Cherian Fordham/ NYU Debate On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Aaron Olney wrote: > OMG. I am not sure what criteria Bard used, but there surely must have > been better candidates than this one. > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Ruth Zisman > wrote: > >> I am incredibly excited to announce that Adam Rosen will be the new >> Director of Debate at Bard College. Adam is just finishing his PhD in >> Philosophy at the New School for Social Research in New York City and is >> excited to return to debate, having previously coached debate at the New >> School and at Bronx Science High School. We are all very happy to welcome >> Adam to Bard and back to District VIII. >> >> I'd also like to publicly thank Sherin Varghese for her amazing assistant >> coaching for the past two years (good luck in law school, Sherin!), Stephen >> Davis for his never-ending tireless coaching and crazy ideas, and all of the >> people that have supported Bard Debate for these first four years of its >> existence. >> >> Ruth Zisman >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Asha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080530/2604f9c5/attachment.htm From delliott Sat May 31 05:09:16 2008 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 05:09:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Streaming Address for CEDA Summer/Bus/Topic Mtgs. Message-ID: <4840DD7C02000093000151B1@mymail.kckcc.edu> mms://streaming.utdallas.edu/live_high_quality That is the web address where you should be able to access all of the CEDA Summer Meeting/Business Meeting, and the Topic Mtgs. We begin at 9am today (Saturday). I sent an agenda to this list recently. You can catch all of the action, your Regional Reps and Officers hard at work, and stay in touch with the goings on of YOUR organization over the course of the weekend. Saturday and Sunday will be devoted to discussions, working groups, presentations, and preparation for Monday morning's Business Mtg. This morning's highlight: See the bids presented by your potential hosts of the 2009 CEDA Nationals. Hope you can join us. If in Dallas, directions and a meeting packet are available at the Westin Hotel Front Desk. Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From delliott Sat May 31 09:40:54 2008 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 09:40:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Summer Mtg Underway/CEDA 2009 Bids Message-ID: <48411D2602000093000151CB@mymail.kckcc.edu> We are underway with the summer meeting here in Dallas. Join us in the live stream. Sarah Partlow is currently presenting a bid for Idaho State to host CEDA Nationals in 2009. Jackie Massey will follow with a bid from the University of Oklahoma. chief From partsara Sat May 31 10:04:00 2008 From: partsara (partsara at isu.edu) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 09:04:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] bus charter information idaho Message-ID: Utah Trailways ?- www.utahtrailways.com - (801) 466-5001 - more ? Le Bus ?- www.lebus.com - (801) 975-0202 - more ? Greyhound Bus Lines ?- www.greyhound.com - (801) 355-9579 - more ? Diamond Limousine ?- www.diamond-limousine.com - (801) 263-9606 - 1 review ? All Resort Coach dba Lewis Stages ?- www.lewisstages.com - (801) 359-8677 - more ? Greyhound Package Xpress -?????????? www.shipgreyhound.com - (801) 355-9589 - more ? HOLIDAY MOTOR COACH LLC ?? 208-236-0005 2790 N Main St Pocatello, ID 83204 ? TETON STAGE LINES SCHOOL BUS D ??? 208-785-6620 475 W Highway 26 Blackfoot, ID 83221 28.0MI from Pocatello ? DIAMOND BACK TRANSPORT ??? 208-357-3396 1485 Elk Creek Dr Idaho Falls, ID 83404 44.7MI from Pocatello ? HOLIDAY MOTOR COACH LLC ?? 208-745-0005 Po Box 50400 50400 Idaho Falls, ID 83405 46.7MI from Pocatello ? TRAILWAYS EXPRESS ?????? 208-656-8824 Idaho Falls, ID 8340157.2MI from Pocatello -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080531/36e863f4/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Sat May 31 20:15:20 2008 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 21:15:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Help BCD fund an americorps employee Message-ID: <9368bc9b0805311815x245881c8p2fc504671bae407e@mail.gmail.com> https://www.fundable.com/groupactions/groupaction.2008-05-31.9845766113 Hello, As i prepare for the summer coop i wanted to take a moment to let the community know about some of the progress here in Baltimore. For the last two years Baltimore College Debate has oppoerated entirely out of my pocket and mostly off of my free labor. This summer we are entering into a partnership with a Baltimore area youth empowerment non profit, Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems (YOURS). BCD will run as a program of YOURS and will serve as the engine for building a college completion and success program that focuses on building multigenerational mentorship rekationships. While it still means that my labor is unpaid, the partnership allows BCD to work as an official tax empt non profit and will also provide a structure for us to develop the program within. We are looking to hire our first employee this fall, his job will be to serve as a peer-to-peer educator and campus organizer, he will go from campus to campus building interest and capacity for new and emerging programs. In addition to his work he will receive an Americorps stipend pluan an educational credit to help pay for his school in a time when work is a necessity. The likely candidate is a Baltimore City Public School and Baltimore Urban Debate League graduate, and a current college debater. The above link is an opportunity for you to help us employee a deserving student to do very meaningful work. We must raise $5000 by August in order to cover this position, we will match $2500 if we can get it raised off of here in the next month. For as little as $10 you can make sure own of our communities own is able to stay in school, as well as serve a powerful community organizing role which will pay off immensly for our community. Donations over $75 are tax deductable and will recive a donation letter. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Andy Ellis Baltimore College Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080531/b4493ac2/attachment.htm From alfred.snider Sat May 31 20:30:01 2008 From: alfred.snider (Alfred Snider) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:30:01 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Congrats Adam Rosen, not so to Aaron Olney Message-ID: <4841FB99.8000503@uvm.edu> One wonders at the message below. Do you know Adam? I have known him for a number of years and find him to be engaging, intellectual and a good critic. I am sure Adam had a good balance of debate and academic credentials. He isn't a $10,000 a year card cutter, but a professional educator. Finally, why would you care? Crawl back into your hole and think about how happy you are about your current situation, Mr. Olney. As my great debater Cleopatra Jones once said to me, "If you have nothing nice to say to me, please don't talk to me at all." Tuna Message: 1 Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:23:27 -0400 From: "Aaron Olney" Subject: Re: [eDebate] Bard College new Director and thanks To: "Ruth Zisman" Cc: Edebate Message-ID: <6b016c190805301123o6fafb955gb7579ef3a7434584 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" OMG. I am not sure what criteria Bard used, but there surely must have been better candidates than this one. On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Ruth Zisman wrote: > > I am incredibly excited to announce that Adam Rosen will be the new > > Director of Debate at Bard College. Adam is just finishing his PhD in > > Philosophy at the New School for Social Research in New York City and is > > excited to return to debate, having previously coached debate at the New > > School and at Bronx Science High School. We are all very happy to welcome > > Adam to Bard and back to District VIII. > > > > I'd also like to publicly thank Sherin Varghese for her amazing assistant > > coaching for the past two years (good luck in law school, Sherin!), Stephen > > Davis for his never-ending tireless coaching and crazy ideas, and all of the > > people that have supported Bard Debate for these first four years of its > > existence. > > > > Ruth Zisman > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > -------------- next part -------------- -- 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 alfred.snider Sat May 31 20:34:10 2008 From: alfred.snider (Alfred Snider) Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:34:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Official Agenda for CEDA Summer Mtg./Business Mtg. In-Reply-To: <20080529T154450Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> References: <20080529T154450Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <4841FC92.3070601@uvm.edu> HOW ABOUT A LIST OF ALL AMERICANS AND SPECIAL AWARDS FROM CEDA NATIONALS? I BELIEVE THIS IS MY FIFTH REQUEST FOR SUCH INFORMATION. You may not notice, but I do. I have a troop of google search robots scouing the internet for debate information. Usually there are a lot of stories about CEDA all americans and special awards spotlighting those who received them in local newspapers. Not this year. I think one reason why is the lack of publicity and the lack of a central URL to point people towards as an official record of who received what. This makes it hard for specific programs to publicize their student success, etc. Please post this information or else say it isn't important and I will stop bothering you. Tuna Darren Elliott wrote: > Greetings Debate Community! > It is my pleasure to welcome you to Dallas this weekend for the annual > CEDA Summer Meeting, and for the 1st time, official CEDA Business > Meeting. I authored an amendment in November to make the Summer Mtg. a > Business Meeting, and the membership voted to do just that. As such, > many items will be up for discussion and spirited debate no doubt over > the course of the weekend. On Monday morning the official Business > Mtg. will take place. Following the results a ballot will be mailed > out by the Executive Secretary. Please keep an eye out as you may only > be familiar with voting on the Topic in the summer. > The following agenda will serve as a working template. The summer > meeting is designed to be fluid, conversational, and productive. I > will work hard to see that happens. We have a talented group of people > in the EC and I am positive the summer meeting will produce a wealth > of great change for the organization! > If you cannot join us in Dallas, the meetings will be streamed over > the internet courtesy of UT Dallas. We are also working to videotape > the meetings and upload them to the web. This way you can follow the > action prior to the business portion on Monday. > Assuming we can decide what to do with seating the delegates from > Florida and Michigan, this is the proposed agenda (subject to tweaking). > See you in Dallas! > chief > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics > Kansas City Kansas Community College > CEDA President > ---- > > *_CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION_* > > *_ _* > > *SUMMER MEETING AND BUSINESS MEETING* > > *MAY 31^ST -JUNE 2^ND , 2008* > > * * > > *HOSTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS* > > * * > > *AGENDA* > > * * > > *_SATURDAY, MAY 31^ST _* > > *_ _* > > *_Session 1: 9am-Noon_* > > *_ _* > > I. Call to Order--President Darren Elliott > > Roll Call of Officers and Regional Reps--Executive Secretary Jeff Jarman > > Appointment of Recording Secretar(y/ies)--President Darren Elliott > > II. Request of Agenda Items to be Added to Working Days Agenda > (Saturday/Sunday) > > III. Presentation of Bids by potential 2009 CEDA National Hosts > > A) Idaho State University?Sarah Partlow Lefevre > > B) University of Oklahoma?Jackie Massey > > C) Questions/Comments > > IV. Committee Reports > > A) Awards?Gordon Stable, USC > > B) Discrimination and Harassment? > > C) Tournament Site?Darren Elliott, KCKCC > > D) Professional Development?Sue Peterson, CSU Chico > > E) Program Development?Mike Davis, James Madison > > F) Public Relations?Kathryn Rubino, Army > > G) Research?Sue Peterson, CSU Chico > > H) Student Leadership? > > I) Topic?Gordon Stables, USC > > J) Regional Reps/Others?? > > V. Officer Reports > > A) Executive Secretary?Jeff Jarman, Wichita State University > > B) Treasurer?Kelly McDonald, Arizona State/ML Sandoz, Vanderbilt > > C) 2^nd Vice President?Sue Peterson, CSU Chico > > D) 1^st Vice President?Gordon Stables, USC > > E) President?Darren Elliott, Kansas City Kansas Community College > > *_Session 2: 1:30-5pm_* > > *_ _* > > VI. Academic Paper Presentations > > (TBD) > > VII. Working Groups/Consideration of Action Items submitted under 1^st > Vice President?s Report?Gordon Stables, USC > > VIII. Working Groups/Consideration of Action Items submitted under > President?s > > Report?Darren Elliott, KCKCC > > IX. Discussion of Amendments for Monday Business Meeting. > > X. Continue Working Groups/Open Discussion/Added Agenda Items > > *_SUNDAY, JUNE 1^ST _* > > *_ _* > > *_Session 3: 9am-Noon_* > > I. Call to Order/Roll Call?Darren Elliott, President/Jeff Jarman, > Executive Sec. > > II. Executive Council Meeting to discuss an issue concerning a private > matter relating to a non-elected official. Enter into Executive > Session (all Officers and Regional Representatives or their designees) > not to exceed 30 minutes. Possible action to follow. > > III. Continue Working Groups/Action Items as presented/Added Agenda Items. > > *_Session 4: 1:30-5pm_* > > I. Committee Reform Work > > A) Consideration of Committee elimination/revisal > > B) Committee Chair Appointments > > II. Open Discussion/Continue Working Groups > > *_MONDAY, JUNE 2^nd _* > > *_ _* > > *_9am-Noon: CEDA BUSINESS MEETING_* > > *_ _* > > I. Call to Order/Roll Call?Darren Elliott, President/Jeff Jarman, > Executive Sec. > > *_ _* > > II. Official CEDA Business Meeting as per Executive Secretary Agenda > > (Amendment Considerations/Voting, Hand out Officer Reports, Discussion) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -- 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