From privethedge at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  1 07:40:10 2008
From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 05:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50
	dollars a bag
In-Reply-To: <BLU131-W155F829E9F8A9D91934083A57F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <710408.20693.qm@web50906.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi, For a good overview of the issues facing the industry, and some ideas on how to fix the industry - read Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel is Broke and How to Fix It. It's written by two air transportation researchers at GMU - and is an extremely comprehensive overview of the system and what's wrong.

H.

"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by??its collision with error." John S. Mill ?Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live."Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman: "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!"
 

--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Kelly Young <kel1773 at msn.com> wrote:
From: Kelly Young <kel1773 at msn.com>
Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50 dollars a bag
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 11:12 PM




#yiv862736845 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv862736845 {
FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;}









NPR provides some insight...

National Public Radio (NPR)
June 17, 2008 Tuesday

SHOW: Morning Edition  11:00-12:00 PM 

Foreign Airlines Prosper While U.S. Carriers Struggle


ANCHORS: STEVE INSKEEP


LENGTH: 701  words


STEVE INSKEEP, host:
Airlines in the United States may be struggling; airlines
overseas are not. Germany's Lufthansa posted record profits last year.
British Airways says its yearly profits more than doubled. And so to
try to understand why this is kind of a tale of two industries, we've
invited in David Field. He's U.S. editor of Airline Business magazine, a regular guest here.
David, good morning. 
Mr. DAVID FIELD (Airline Business Magazine): Good morning.
INSKEEP: How could it be that American airlines are struggling, charging extra for baggage, complaining about fuel costs, and overseas airlines are making big profits?
Mr. FIELD: Overseas airlines, particularly European airlines,
are not exposed at home to the low-cost competition. They don't face a
Southwest at home. That's because they don't fly very much at home.
Lufthansa is 75, 80 percent overseas, long distance. British Airways
the same. And if you do see a British Airways flight on a local route,
it's probably a franchise carrier rather than BA itself.
INSKEEP: Does this mean that when fuel
costs go up, if you're British Airways it's much easier for you to just
jack up fares to customers?
Mr. FIELD: In Europe in particular it's
easier to impose fuel surcharges. It's not easier to raise fares, but
you can do it. And also when fuel prices go up, they pay less than U.S.
carriers pay. U.S. carriers pay in dollars, and dollars cost so little buy that you have to pay more per gallon of fuel.
INSKEEP: Oh, let's make sure we understand this. Oil is bought and sold in dollars.
Mr. FIELD: Right.
INSKEEP: And so U.S. carriers get the full impact of this. But if British Airways is buying in pounds or the airlines are buying in euros, those are much stronger currencies right now.
Mr. FIELD: Exactly. Exactly.
INSKEEP: Now, let's talk about one consequence of this. U.S. carriers are not adding routes to China, which must be one of the hottest destinations right now, because they say can't afford it.
Mr. FIELD: In the last two or three
years there was a very fiercely fought competition for new routes to be
given out by the D.O.T. One of the airlines
that won one of the routes, U.S. Airways, says it can't afford to start
up next year. The $60 million in annual fuel costs that U.S. Airways
had estimated, it's gone up to $90 million.
INSKEEP: Does that mean that U.S. Airlines can't compete on the international routes with their international competitors?
Mr. FIELD: In a lot of cases it does mean that, that they have to rely on home traffic simply as a matter of habit.
INSKEEP: And there seem to be more and more overseas carriers trying to make a name for themselves. I think of Emirates Airways out of Dubai or Qatar Airways out of Qatar.
Mr. FIELD: Or Ediat(ph), which is a relatively new five-year-old airline
from the Gulf states doing incredibly well, having established the Gulf
states as a transfer point for long distance international travelers.
INSKEEP: Are there East Asian airlines jumping ahead as well?
Mr. FIELD: Certainly there are East Asian airlines that are doing awfully well, such as Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines - probably the greatest airline
in the world. And they're doing well because they have a homeland base
that enjoys premium service and is willing to pay premium dollar.
INSKEEP: What do you mean premium service for the East Asian airlines?
Mr. FIELD: People who sit in first class
and business class and who will pay $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 and
$8,000 for a lot of personal space, a lie-down flat bad, and incredibly
high levels of people waiting on you. And you don't see that in U.S. airlines.
INSKEEP: Can I just ask, is it possible,
given the regulatory situation, for someday there to be an Emirates Air
flight that I would take from Washington to Houston, say?
Mr. FIELD: Wouldn't that be nice? But
right now, no, that's pretty much impossible. Local traffic rights, or
cabitage, are very strictly limited. You cannot fly locally and pick up
and drop off passengers. And until you see foreign ownership of or foreign investment in U.S. airlines, I don't think you'll see anything like that.
INSKEEP: David Field of Airline Business magazine. Thanks for coming by.
Mr. FIELD: It's my pleasure.

 
_______________________________________________
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/20080801/ad3d7738/attachment.htm 

From paulj567 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  1 08:11:29 2008
From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 06:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Food for Thought
Message-ID: <437267.78689.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/black_swans_1.php


      

From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com  Fri Aug  1 10:06:36 2008
From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:06:36 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50
	dollars a bag
In-Reply-To: <710408.20693.qm@web50906.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <BLU131-W155F829E9F8A9D91934083A57F0@phx.gbl>
	<710408.20693.qm@web50906.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <524839830808010806u736bbdbbjbd856572e70e6ea2@mail.gmail.com>

August 1, 2008, 8:50 am

*Starting Today, No More Free Water on US Air*

Posted by Nikki Waller

*Journal reporter Stephanie Chen on changes coming to US Air's domestic
flights today.*

*Charging for checked luggage and legroom* isn't enough for some carriers ?
starting today, coach passengers flying aboard US Airways Inc. must pay for
a drink of water.

This morning, US Airways began charging fliers $2 for bottled water and
sodas and $1 for teas and coffees. First class members, trans-Atlantic
passengers and a select group of others are exempt from the extra fees.

Brietbart 8/1

[image:
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2008/8/1/080801113457.uw1d6g1c/CPS.NDW56.010808133400.photo00.quicklook.default-245x146.jpg]
[image: http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif]
View larger image<http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080801113457.uw1d6g1c&show_article=1&image=large>
[image: http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif]

[image: http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif]Dubai carrier
Emirates said its new superjumbo, which boasts features such as showers and
luxury suites, took to the skies on Friday, becoming only the second airline
to fly the world's biggest plane.

The A380, which can seat 853 passengers, took off for its inaugural flight
bound for New York, the first of 58 ordered in a 18.8-billion-dollar
(12-billion-euro) deal with the European plane manufacturer.

The government-owned airline, the fastest growing in the Middle East, is
already the largest single client of the A380, which has been beset by
delays. The first plane had been scheduled for delivery in October 2007.

Singapore Airlines last year became the first carrier in the world to fly
the superjumbo.


On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Duane Hyland <privethedge at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi, For a good overview of the issues facing the industry, and some ideas
> on how to fix the industry - read Terminal Chaos: Why U.S. Air Travel is
> Broke and How to Fix It. It's written by two air transportation researchers
> at GMU - and is an extremely comprehensive overview of the system and what's
> wrong.
>
> H.
>
> "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson"
> "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of
> the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that
> person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the
> opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error
> for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the
> clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by  its
> collision with error." John S. Mill
>  Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek:
> "Neither did we need him to live."
> Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman:
> "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!"
>
>
> --- On *Thu, 7/31/08, Kelly Young <kel1773 at msn.com>* wrote:
>
> From: Kelly Young <kel1773 at msn.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Delta Raising fee for 2nd checked bag to 50 dollars
> a bag
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 11:12 PM
>
>
>     NPR provides some insight...
>
> National Public Radio (NPR)
>
> June 17, 2008 Tuesday
>  SHOW: Morning Edition 11:00-12:00 PM
> Foreign Airlines Prosper While U.S. Carriers Struggle
>
> ANCHORS: STEVE INSKEEP
>
> LENGTH: 701 words
>
> STEVE INSKEEP, host:
>
> Airlines in the United States may be struggling; airlines overseas are
> not. Germany's Lufthansa posted record profits last year. British Airways
> says its yearly profits more than doubled. And so to try to understand why
> this is kind of a tale of two industries, we've invited in David Field. He's
> U.S. editor of Airline Business magazine, a regular guest here.
>
> David, good morning.
>
> Mr. DAVID FIELD (Airline Business Magazine): Good morning.
>
> INSKEEP: How could it be that American airlines are struggling, charging
> extra for baggage, complaining about fuel costs, and overseas airlines are
> making big profits?
>
> Mr. FIELD: Overseas airlines, particularly European airlines, are not
> exposed at home to the low-cost competition. They don't face a Southwest at
> home. That's because they don't fly very much at home. Lufthansa is 75, 80
> percent overseas, long distance. British Airways the same. And if you do see
> a British Airways flight on a local route, it's probably a franchise
> carrier rather than BA itself.
>
> INSKEEP: Does this mean that when fuel costs go up, if you're British
> Airways it's much easier for you to just jack up fares to customers?
>
> Mr. FIELD: In Europe in particular it's easier to impose fuel surcharges.
> It's not easier to raise fares, but you can do it. And also when fuel prices
> go up, they pay less than U.S. carriers pay. U.S. carriers pay in dollars,
> and dollars cost so little buy that you have to pay more per gallon of fuel.
>
> INSKEEP: Oh, let's make sure we understand this. Oil is bought and sold in
> dollars.
>
> Mr. FIELD: Right.
>
> INSKEEP: And so U.S. carriers get the full impact of this. But if British
> Airways is buying in pounds or the airlines are buying in euros, those are
> much stronger currencies right now.
>
> Mr. FIELD: Exactly. Exactly.
>
> INSKEEP: Now, let's talk about one consequence of this. U.S. carriers are
> not adding routes to China, which must be one of the hottest destinations
> right now, because they say can't afford it.
>
> Mr. FIELD: In the last two or three years there was a very fiercely fought
> competition for new routes to be given out by the D.O.T. One of the
> airlines that won one of the routes, U.S. Airways, says it can't afford to
> start up next year. The $60 million in annual fuel costs that U.S. Airways
> had estimated, it's gone up to $90 million.
>
> INSKEEP: Does that mean that U.S. Airlines can't compete on the
> international routes with their international competitors?
>
> Mr. FIELD: In a lot of cases it does mean that, that they have to rely on
> home traffic simply as a matter of habit.
>
> INSKEEP: And there seem to be more and more overseas carriers trying to
> make a name for themselves. I think of Emirates Airways out of Dubai or
> Qatar Airways out of Qatar.
>
> Mr. FIELD: Or Ediat(ph), which is a relatively new five-year-old airlinefrom the Gulf states doing incredibly well, having established the Gulf
> states as a transfer point for long distance international travelers.
>
> INSKEEP: Are there East Asian airlines jumping ahead as well?
>
> Mr. FIELD: Certainly there are East Asian airlines that are doing awfully
> well, such as Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines - probably the greatest
> airline in the world. And they're doing well because they have a homeland
> base that enjoys premium service and is willing to pay premium dollar.
>
> INSKEEP: What do you mean premium service for the East Asian airlines?
>
> Mr. FIELD: People who sit in first class and business class and who will
> pay $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 and $8,000 for a lot of personal space, a
> lie-down flat bad, and incredibly high levels of people waiting on you. And
> you don't see that in U.S. airlines.
>
> INSKEEP: Can I just ask, is it possible, given the regulatory situation,
> for someday there to be an Emirates Air flight that I would take from
> Washington to Houston, say?
>
> Mr. FIELD: Wouldn't that be nice? But right now, no, that's pretty much
> impossible. Local traffic rights, or cabitage, are very strictly limited.
> You cannot fly locally and pick up and drop off passengers. And until you
> see foreign ownership of or foreign investment in U.S. airlines, I don't
> think you'll see anything like that.
>
> INSKEEP: David Field of Airline Business magazine. Thanks for coming by.
>
> Mr. FIELD: It's my pleasure.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Stefan Bauschard

President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
Debate Coach, Harvard Debate

(c) 781-775-0433
(fx) 617-588-0283
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080801/3db06437/attachment.htm 

From sykesjason at charter.net  Fri Aug  1 10:17:13 2008
From: sykesjason at charter.net (Jason Sykes)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:17:13 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Grapevine Classic Open
Message-ID: <002d01c8f3e9$acf6bcc0$6501a8c0@jason>

The Grapevine Classic (Sept. 5-6)  is now open to accept entries at www.joyoftournaments.com. 

Grapevine is a TOC bid in quarters of CX, semis of LD, finals of Congress, and finals of PFD.

Those interested in being hired to judge should contact sykesjason at charter.net ASAP.

Thanks!
jason 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080801/1f4cd3cc/attachment.htm 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Fri Aug  1 12:54:34 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:54:34 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] BCD Coop Rounds the third...through Sixth
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808011054g78c328cdi430f85571d36d420@mail.gmail.com>

Rd3

AFF                                NEG

Dwayve/Valeria             Robbie/Sarah            Anderspok       Li008

Ben/Deverick                 Nicole/Hong-Mei       Shawntia        Li100

Vicente/Iggie                Rahul Ebony                Neil Berch
Li210

Adam/Andrea              Jesus/mikey                  Les
Li106

Mike/schuyler             Amit/Meghan                S.Godbey       Li310
Andrew/Ben                 Dayvon/Matheno       Nader              Mc205


Rd4: *7:00 PM*

Dayvon/Matheno        Dwayve/Valeria             Lawrence  Li008

Robbie/Sarah              Ben/Deverick                 Burch  Li100

Hong-Mei/Nicole     Vicente/Iggie                      Beth    Mc205

Rahul/Ebone              Andrea                             S.Godbey Li210

Jesus/Mikey                 Mike/Schulyer               Evelin  Li106

Amit/Meghan              Andrew                             Shawntia Li 310

AFF                               Neg

Ben/Deverick             Dayvon Matheno        Shauntrice            Li100

Mike/Schuyler           Duane/Velaria            Stephen Davis       Li008

Robbie/Sarah            Hong Mei/Nicole        Neil Berch
Li310

Vicente/Iggie            Amit/Meaghan            Beth
                  Li106

Rahul/Ebone            Andrew/Ben                  Cami
Li210



Rd6 1:30 Start time

Mike/schuyler             Ben/Deverick                   Les
Li100

Dwayne/Valeria          Dayvon Matheno             Burch              Li210

Andrew                          Ebone
Cami
Li310

Vicente                         Hong Mei
Shauntrice
Li008

Amit/Meghan              Jesus/Mikey                       Iman
Li106
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080801/4b7783df/attachment.htm 

From malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com  Fri Aug  1 13:00:40 2008
From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:00:40 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up
Message-ID: <BAY105-W12EFB4C4AF704F9AB98EE2CE7F0@phx.gbl>


"(b) the judges who voted for Towson cheated, and (c) Towson's title is
a sign of the white guilt and intellectual decline of the university
system. Those three arguments are the core of his attack"

I have heard these arguments made numerous times by people in the community.  Just because it happens through back channel, or snickering in the hallways, or rooting for a team to lose because they run an argument that is non-traditional and flies in the face of policy debate, doesn't mean it's not happening.

I get shit all the time for voting for Towson all 3 times I judged them.  It's funny too because I vote against K teams way more often than I vote for them (Garrett Abelkop wins on framework in front of me like it's his job....well i guess it is his job)

Keep in mind:

Judge preferencing is a way to express these sentiments-I guarantee you that many judges in this community are labeled "repeat offenders" when they vote for K or, especially, for non traditional teams.  Preference and good judge have become equivalents-at least in name-we think the best judges are the ones who are most preferred.  Indeed oftentimes this is true.  But striking a judge or moving them down because they vote for some crazy leftist argument is in the eyes of many another way of saying that judge is wrong, or a bad judge, because they don't cast aside an argument on face.

In this sense, openness of judging (and by openness I mean the willingness of a judge to evaluate any argument) can sometimes cause them to be viewed as poor-quality judges, because they don't have an ideological straight jacket (Hester has often refered to this as argument-generative versus argument-restrictive judging).  

Also don't forget that large parts of this community DO think that non-traditional affirmatives are cheating, their rationale being that debate has a constrained, objective way it should be evaluated and deviations should be excluded.  So, in the eyes of lots of debaters, the judges who voted for Towson were cheating, because they were voting for cheaters.  

We should question a point when large and influential segments of our activity devalue open-mindedness and acceptance of argument, and prefer to place bias in the back of the room.  It's quite stupid since their original complaint is that teams that run 'project' or non-traditional affirmatives are too biased toward their movements.  

In keeping with that thought though, this is not just a problem the 'right' has toward the 'left.'  Leftist teams are just as bad in many regards-a judge that votes against them in favor of an argument like framework or leftist Ks bad is disregarded as too policy friendly.  

Sometimes in debate radical leftism is proven a better option, sometimes it's proven to be detrimental to the activity.  Too many people just swarm to one side or the other.  My favorite teams were always those that could roll anyway they chose.

malgor





_________________________________________________________________
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080801/2179d295/attachment.htm 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Fri Aug  1 16:09:45 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:09:45 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] BCDCoop Final Round
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808011409j6975aae4jc6ee3acd990aae10@mail.gmail.com>

 Mike   Stark         VS          Dayvon Love/Matheno  Frazier-Bey
Judges
Daryl Burch, Stephen Davis,Shauntrice Martin, Les Phillips , Nader Haddad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080801/eecf9f5d/attachment.htm 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Fri Aug  1 16:31:24 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:31:24 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Speakers at BCD Coop
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808011431j62e9ccc5v59d162dbf8f8a5e1@mail.gmail.com>

1.       Mike Stark (WVU)

2.       Dayvon Love (Towson)

3.       Hong Mei Pang (Towson)

4.       Deverick Murray (Towson)

5.       Matheno Frazier Bey (Towson)

6.       Ben Crossan (Binghamton)

7.       Andrew Novick (WVU)

8.       Amit Patel (WVU)

9.       Dwayne Jackson (Morgan State)

10.   Nicole Cheatom(Coppin State)

11.   Valarea Jones (Towson )

12.   Megan Coffman (WVU)

13.   Vicente Roseales (East LA)

14.   Schuyler Ingram (WVU)
15.   Mike Padillia (East LA)

We would also like to than the Particpants from Richmond, West Connecticut,
Kansas State, CCBC, and Baltimore City High School Students who particpated
in labs , the tournament, and other parts of the camp but had to leave early
due to travel arrangements
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080801/57624bb8/attachment.htm 

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Fri Aug  1 17:54:21 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:54:21 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Diablo Valley College
Message-ID: <5C397B4900F942E79B86D273A1CADB41@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:DVC Twohy Invitational
Starts:10/24/2008
Ends:10/26/2008
Hosted by: Diablo Valley College
Contact: Becky Opsata
Address: 321 Golf Club Rd. Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone: 818-357-8423
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Open Parli with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified
Novice Parli with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Fri Aug  1 17:54:25 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:54:25 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Diablo Valley College
Message-ID: <0361CDA4DDE042D98DD7FCA02358D543@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:DVC Twohy Invitational
Starts:10/24/2008
Ends:10/26/2008
Hosted by: Diablo Valley College
Contact: Becky Opsata
Address: 321 Golf Club Rd. Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Phone: 818-357-8423
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Open Parli with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified
Novice Parli with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Fri Aug  1 20:33:51 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 18:33:51 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Clarion University
Message-ID: <2029F04D7EDD47C39BB18A45D8E8A3DD@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:Clarion University "Autumn Leaf" Debate Tour here.
Starts:9/26/2008
Ends:9/28/2008
Hosted by: Clarion University
Contact: Jim Lyle
Address: 840 Wood St, Clarion
Phone: 814-393-2476
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From jrlyle at gmail.com  Fri Aug  1 20:38:34 2008
From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 20:38:34 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Clarion University Tournament
Message-ID: <25fd497f0808011838r31f6c6e8h5bad1986a3552057@mail.gmail.com>

I'll post a more formal invite in the near future but want to get the basics
out for people and have attached it below.  The only thing worth taking note
of right now is the hotel info.  Although our rate is good as long as rooms
are open, our block is good until 8-28.  If you are coming, or think you
might, reserve rooms and overbook.  As our tournament ends, the local Autumn
Leaf Festival begins and rooms that are available may become harder to get
as the tournament gets closer.

Jim Lyle

2nd Annual Clarion University "Autumn Leaf" Debate Tournament



Friday thru Sunday, September 26-28



2 rounds, 4 rounds, elims

Lunch provided on both Sat/Sun.

Hotel will provide breakfast.



Tournament hotel - Comfort Inn ? cut-off date for rooms is Aug 28, $65/night
- 129 Dolby St., Clarion, PA 16214, (814) 226-5230.  Note: rooms are
available after the 28th at the same rate but the block reverts back to
general public availability.  While this may seem to be of marginal
importance given the normal frequency of travelers to Clarion, the Autumn
Leaf Festival begins on the 28th and this will make it much harder to get
rooms after the block closes.



We will seek CEDA and ADA sanctioning.



Fees ? We'd like to say that we don't have to raise our fees at all, and if
we are able to garner some outside support for the tournament then maybe we
won't but for now we are planning on the following: $25.00 per person and a
$10.00 fee for each team entered.  If fees are an issue, please contact us
and we will do our best to help with constraints.



Tab room ? Our tab room will be headed up by Mike Davis of JMU.



Hybrids ? Are allowed and can clear to the elims



Judging ? 1 judge is required for every 2 teams.



Banquet ? Last year we were able to provide a Saturday evening banquet due
to support from the University President.  It is our goal to be able to
again provide a banquet.



Traveling trophies for division champions.



Tentative Schedule



Friday, September 26**

11:00 Registration (at hotel)

3:30   Round 1

5:45   Round 2



Saturday, September 27

8:30   Round 3

10:45 Round 4

Lunch

2:00  Round 5

4:30  Round 6



Sunday, September 28

1st elim

Elims Continue

Lunch available
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080801/9601c384/attachment.htm 

From paulj567 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  2 08:46:28 2008
From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 06:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up
In-Reply-To: <BAY105-W12EFB4C4AF704F9AB98EE2CE7F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <889458.40705.qm@web53503.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

its all arguments outweighing other arguments. there are biased judges on both sides, but at the end of the day there is a core of judges always willing to decide what one team said had a bigger impact than what the other team said- "racism has a bigger impact than teams not defending the topic" is almost always the decision calclulus, and by and large when a team properly defends the educational benefits of forcing a defense of the topic (and especially impacts them not just INTERNALLY within the terms of debate, but also EXTERNALLY in a way that accesses the radical teams impact).

Debaters take for granted that debate itself is good, without A) outlining why that is and B) generating a link to the critical practices of project teams (ie if debate is about that then it neutralizes the ability to switch sides).

Less tautology is good. Debate is not just good for its own sake. Debaters should explain to judges why debate is good and why the other team is advancing a model of debate that either would end debate as such, or evacuate it of its critical pedagogical potential. This would by and large eviscerate so called "project teams". 

But people will read the same old framework blocks, impacting everything in fairness and education, doing little to explain what exactly those words mean.

What Towson or Louisville does isn't really all that radical. Its to win a link to a racism DA, and then winning that the racism DA outweighs everything else. Does everyone understand how absolutely un-radical the idea that the scourge of racism is more important than making sure you know what plans someone can write? This is literally what happens in a ton of these debates. "You are complicit with racism". "Yes but, if we're concerned about that, we won't talk about the topic". I'm willing to bet on  a lot of judges continuing to vote on that noise, because well, its just not that crazy. Its not that these teams are necessarily RIGHT, but debaters allow the debate to be about that. Links, people. A debate coach of some repute often said "Its ALL. ABOUT. THE LINK."

Whispers in hallways. Silent cheers. Shaudenfruede. As Mark Jackson would say "You're better than that, debate community. You're better than that." 


pj





--- On Fri, 8/1/08, M G <malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com> wrote:

> From: M G <malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [eDebate] I Vdare the Community to truly stand up
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 1:00 PM
> "(b) the judges who voted for Towson cheated, and (c)
> Towson's title is
> a sign of the white guilt and intellectual decline of the
> university
> system. Those three arguments are the core of his
> attack"
> 
> I have heard these arguments made numerous times by people
> in the community.  Just because it happens through back
> channel, or snickering in the hallways, or rooting for a
> team to lose because they run an argument that is
> non-traditional and flies in the face of policy debate,
> doesn't mean it's not happening.
> 
> I get shit all the time for voting for Towson all 3 times I
> judged them.  It's funny too because I vote against K
> teams way more often than I vote for them (Garrett Abelkop
> wins on framework in front of me like it's his
> job....well i guess it is his job)
> 
> Keep in mind:
> 
> Judge preferencing is a way to express these sentiments-I
> guarantee you that many judges in this community are labeled
> "repeat offenders" when they vote for K or,
> especially, for non traditional teams.  Preference and good
> judge have become equivalents-at least in name-we think the
> best judges are the ones who are most preferred.  Indeed
> oftentimes this is true.  But striking a judge or moving
> them down because they vote for some crazy leftist argument
> is in the eyes of many another way of saying that judge is
> wrong, or a bad judge, because they don't cast aside an
> argument on face.
> 
> In this sense, openness of judging (and by openness I mean
> the willingness of a judge to evaluate any argument) can
> sometimes cause them to be viewed as poor-quality judges,
> because they don't have an ideological straight jacket
> (Hester has often refered to this as argument-generative
> versus argument-restrictive judging).  
> 
> Also don't forget that large parts of this community DO
> think that non-traditional affirmatives are cheating, their
> rationale being that debate has a constrained, objective way
> it should be evaluated and deviations should be excluded. 
> So, in the eyes of lots of debaters, the judges who voted
> for Towson were cheating, because they were voting for
> cheaters.  
> 
> We should question a point when large and influential
> segments of our activity devalue open-mindedness and
> acceptance of argument, and prefer to place bias in the back
> of the room.  It's quite stupid since their original
> complaint is that teams that run 'project' or
> non-traditional affirmatives are too biased toward their
> movements.  
> 
> In keeping with that thought though, this is not just a
> problem the 'right' has toward the 'left.' 
> Leftist teams are just as bad in many regards-a judge that
> votes against them in favor of an argument like framework or
> leftist Ks bad is disregarded as too policy friendly.  
> 
> Sometimes in debate radical leftism is proven a better
> option, sometimes it's proven to be detrimental to the
> activity.  Too many people just swarm to one side or the
> other.  My favorite teams were always those that could roll
> anyway they chose.
> 
> malgor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows
> Live Messenger.
> http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_072008_______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


      

From baltimoredebate at gmail.com  Sat Aug  2 15:14:47 2008
From: baltimoredebate at gmail.com (Adam Jackson)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 16:14:47 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] THE FIGHT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...CEDA 2008...SHANERA
	REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
Message-ID: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>

Before you scroll down to see the video...allow me give you some light  
pre-text...

First lets set the stage...

CEDA Nationals 2008...

Quarterfinals...

Fort Hays HS (Chris Spurlock and Avery Henry) (NEG) vs. Towson CL  
(Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper) (AFF)...

Before the round even began there was of course the strike sheet which  
had:

Brent Saidon
Omar Guevara
Shanera Reid
Mike Hester
Toni Neilson

Towson CL struck Saidon because he was on Fort Hays squad before, and  
Fort Hays struck Reid because it was "strategic" for them to do so  
because she had voted them down before, with their coach, Bill  
Shanahan, defending their decision.

In the 1AC Deven reads the Revolutionary Aesthetic in conjunction with  
an argument that said the act of striking Shanera was an act that  
"protected white privilege" in the debate community because there are  
very few black women in the debate community that actually get to  
judge out-rounds at national tournaments, and their voices are  
effectively silenced when they are struck from panels.

The 1NC (given by Chris Spurlock) which was a dense, theoretical  
"Doubling" argument, and evades responding to why they struck Shanera.  
The first CX question by Cooper was "Why didn't you speak to the  
exclusion of Shanera in this round?", with Spurlock evading the  
question once again. Cooper asks the question once more, and he says  
that "they didn't think it was strategic".

During the rebuttals, this becomes the focal point of the debate and  
Fort Hays loses on a 2-1 decision, with Hester and Neilson picking up  
Towson, and Guevara sitting out.

The RFD is given by the judging panel, and an argument breaks out  
between Neilson and Guevara on whether the argument about Shanera was  
"pre-text" or not.

Omar walks out in frustation...and afterwards....the video speaks for  
itself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPt8UVU7bXs

ENJOY!

From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu  Sat Aug  2 16:35:02 2008
From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 16:35:02 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] THE FIGHT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...CEDA
	2008...SHANERAREID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
References: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6C68@blue.EDUBEAR.NET>

I have so many responses to this post that I'm not sure where to begin. As someone who was not directly a party to this melee - nor even in the room for most of it, I will say it created one of the most harassing workplace environments that I've personally experienced, and your reposting of it has effectively derailed what had been shaping up to be a pleasant afternoon with my family. I'm sure they join me in thanking you for that. 

 

I think I will just focus on your message "sign off", which ended with the word ENJOY. The fact that you feel an altercation which could have been career threatening to several of the parties involved is just public spectacle to be "enjoyed" sickens me. It's the same sort of thinking which forced the friends of Steve Irwin to acquire and destroy the video of his last few moments before it became part of the latest Faces of Death movie. 

 

The controversy didn't surprise me much, having watched the round go down. Once you start down the path of making rounds into public inquisitions about whether prior actions (or prior identities) of the debaters are acceptable, it's hard to say where it ends. It's pretty easy to imagine a far worse ending, given how hurtful the entire encounter was for many of the people directly involved. 

 

It seems disturbing that you even want to revisit that hurt, much less revel in it and invite others to join your party. But, if you take your talents to the paparazzi (particularly the subset who try to run celebs off the road so they can get pictures of their reactions), you could make more money. 

 

Keep on rockin' in the free world, Adam....

 
Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
(O) 417-836-7636
(H) 417-865-6866
(C) 417-496-7141
AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna
GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments)

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Adam Jackson
Sent: Sat 8/2/08 3:14 PM
To: eDebate
Subject: [eDebate] THE FIGHT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...CEDA 2008...SHANERAREID VS. BILL SHANAHAN



Before you scroll down to see the video...allow me give you some light 
pre-text...

First lets set the stage...

CEDA Nationals 2008...

Quarterfinals...

Fort Hays HS (Chris Spurlock and Avery Henry) (NEG) vs. Towson CL 
(Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper) (AFF)...

Before the round even began there was of course the strike sheet which 
had:

Brent Saidon
Omar Guevara
Shanera Reid
Mike Hester
Toni Neilson

Towson CL struck Saidon because he was on Fort Hays squad before, and 
Fort Hays struck Reid because it was "strategic" for them to do so 
because she had voted them down before, with their coach, Bill 
Shanahan, defending their decision.

In the 1AC Deven reads the Revolutionary Aesthetic in conjunction with 
an argument that said the act of striking Shanera was an act that 
"protected white privilege" in the debate community because there are 
very few black women in the debate community that actually get to 
judge out-rounds at national tournaments, and their voices are 
effectively silenced when they are struck from panels.

The 1NC (given by Chris Spurlock) which was a dense, theoretical 
"Doubling" argument, and evades responding to why they struck Shanera. 
The first CX question by Cooper was "Why didn't you speak to the 
exclusion of Shanera in this round?", with Spurlock evading the 
question once again. Cooper asks the question once more, and he says 
that "they didn't think it was strategic".

During the rebuttals, this becomes the focal point of the debate and 
Fort Hays loses on a 2-1 decision, with Hester and Neilson picking up 
Towson, and Guevara sitting out.

The RFD is given by the judging panel, and an argument breaks out 
between Neilson and Guevara on whether the argument about Shanera was 
"pre-text" or not.

Omar walks out in frustation...and afterwards....the video speaks for 
itself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPt8UVU7bXs

ENJOY!
_______________________________________________
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/20080802/9de37623/attachment.htm 

From hansonjb at whitman.edu  Sat Aug  2 16:39:24 2008
From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 14:39:24 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] THE FIGHT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...CEDA
	2008...SHANERAREID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
References: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A87CF11D5E8B4FA389D58771E08EF9FC@whitman.edu>

resolved: the end(s) of debate. ?

jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Adam Jackson" <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 1:14 PM
To: "eDebate" <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Subject: [eDebate] THE FIGHT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...CEDA 
2008...SHANERAREID VS. BILL SHANAHAN

Before you scroll down to see the video...allow me give you some light
pre-text...

First lets set the stage...

CEDA Nationals 2008...

Quarterfinals...

Fort Hays HS (Chris Spurlock and Avery Henry) (NEG) vs. Towson CL
(Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper) (AFF)...

Before the round even began there was of course the strike sheet which
had:

Brent Saidon
Omar Guevara
Shanera Reid
Mike Hester
Toni Neilson

Towson CL struck Saidon because he was on Fort Hays squad before, and
Fort Hays struck Reid because it was "strategic" for them to do so
because she had voted them down before, with their coach, Bill
Shanahan, defending their decision.

In the 1AC Deven reads the Revolutionary Aesthetic in conjunction with
an argument that said the act of striking Shanera was an act that
"protected white privilege" in the debate community because there are
very few black women in the debate community that actually get to
judge out-rounds at national tournaments, and their voices are
effectively silenced when they are struck from panels.

The 1NC (given by Chris Spurlock) which was a dense, theoretical
"Doubling" argument, and evades responding to why they struck Shanera.
The first CX question by Cooper was "Why didn't you speak to the
exclusion of Shanera in this round?", with Spurlock evading the
question once again. Cooper asks the question once more, and he says
that "they didn't think it was strategic".

During the rebuttals, this becomes the focal point of the debate and
Fort Hays loses on a 2-1 decision, with Hester and Neilson picking up
Towson, and Guevara sitting out.

The RFD is given by the judging panel, and an argument breaks out
between Neilson and Guevara on whether the argument about Shanera was
"pre-text" or not.

Omar walks out in frustation...and afterwards....the video speaks for
itself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPt8UVU7bXs

ENJOY!
_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate 


From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Sat Aug  2 16:59:02 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:59:02 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] THE FIGHT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...CEDA
	2008...SHANERAREID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
In-Reply-To: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6C68@blue.EDUBEAR.NET>
References: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
	<1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6C68@blue.EDUBEAR.NET>
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808021459m64271965t72397cfca877b502@mail.gmail.com>

boo hoo your day was ruined....i guess for you a white veil of silence
should cloak the choices bill made to litteraly show his ass and
assualt ml. if he loses his job it was his choice not any one elses.

On 8/2/08, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote:
> I have so many responses to this post that I'm not sure where to begin. As
> someone who was not directly a party to this melee - nor even in the room
> for most of it, I will say it created one of the most harassing workplace
> environments that I've personally experienced, and your reposting of it has
> effectively derailed what had been shaping up to be a pleasant afternoon
> with my family. I'm sure they join me in thanking you for that.
>
>
>
> I think I will just focus on your message "sign off", which ended with the
> word ENJOY. The fact that you feel an altercation which could have been
> career threatening to several of the parties involved is just public
> spectacle to be "enjoyed" sickens me. It's the same sort of thinking which
> forced the friends of Steve Irwin to acquire and destroy the video of his
> last few moments before it became part of the latest Faces of Death movie.
>
>
>
> The controversy didn't surprise me much, having watched the round go down.
> Once you start down the path of making rounds into public inquisitions about
> whether prior actions (or prior identities) of the debaters are acceptable,
> it's hard to say where it ends. It's pretty easy to imagine a far worse
> ending, given how hurtful the entire encounter was for many of the people
> directly involved.
>
>
>
> It seems disturbing that you even want to revisit that hurt, much less revel
> in it and invite others to join your party. But, if you take your talents to
> the paparazzi (particularly the subset who try to run celebs off the road so
> they can get pictures of their reactions), you could make more money.
>
>
>
> Keep on rockin' in the free world, Adam....
>
>
> Dr. Eric Morris
> Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
> Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
> Missouri State University
> Springfield, MO 65897
> (O) 417-836-7636
> (H) 417-865-6866
> (C) 417-496-7141
> AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna
> GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments)
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Adam Jackson
> Sent: Sat 8/2/08 3:14 PM
> To: eDebate
> Subject: [eDebate] THE FIGHT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...CEDA
> 2008...SHANERAREID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
>
>
>
> Before you scroll down to see the video...allow me give you some light
> pre-text...
>
> First lets set the stage...
>
> CEDA Nationals 2008...
>
> Quarterfinals...
>
> Fort Hays HS (Chris Spurlock and Avery Henry) (NEG) vs. Towson CL
> (Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper) (AFF)...
>
> Before the round even began there was of course the strike sheet which
> had:
>
> Brent Saidon
> Omar Guevara
> Shanera Reid
> Mike Hester
> Toni Neilson
>
> Towson CL struck Saidon because he was on Fort Hays squad before, and
> Fort Hays struck Reid because it was "strategic" for them to do so
> because she had voted them down before, with their coach, Bill
> Shanahan, defending their decision.
>
> In the 1AC Deven reads the Revolutionary Aesthetic in conjunction with
> an argument that said the act of striking Shanera was an act that
> "protected white privilege" in the debate community because there are
> very few black women in the debate community that actually get to
> judge out-rounds at national tournaments, and their voices are
> effectively silenced when they are struck from panels.
>
> The 1NC (given by Chris Spurlock) which was a dense, theoretical
> "Doubling" argument, and evades responding to why they struck Shanera.
> The first CX question by Cooper was "Why didn't you speak to the
> exclusion of Shanera in this round?", with Spurlock evading the
> question once again. Cooper asks the question once more, and he says
> that "they didn't think it was strategic".
>
> During the rebuttals, this becomes the focal point of the debate and
> Fort Hays loses on a 2-1 decision, with Hester and Neilson picking up
> Towson, and Guevara sitting out.
>
> The RFD is given by the judging panel, and an argument breaks out
> between Neilson and Guevara on whether the argument about Shanera was
> "pre-text" or not.
>
> Omar walks out in frustation...and afterwards....the video speaks for
> itself...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPt8UVU7bXs
>
> ENJOY!
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>

From baltimoredebate at gmail.com  Sat Aug  2 16:59:05 2008
From: baltimoredebate at gmail.com (Adam Jackson)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:59:05 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] "Sickening" Huh?
Message-ID: <6524F25A-8323-4888-8472-D0DFF7432028@gmail.com>

"I think I will just focus on your message ?sign off?, which ended  
with the word ENJOY. The fact that you feel an altercation which could  
have been career threatening to several of the parties involved is  
just public spectacle to be ?enjoyed? sickens me."

"SICKENS" you huh? You know what SICKENS me Eric? A community that  
revels in the fact that its true form will never actually be brought  
to the forefront. When you come from when I come from...when you lose  
at Districts because of "Mexican terrorists" attacking the US...when  
you lose to the top seed JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE THE TOP SEED...when you  
see Bill Shanahan's balls....when you have hold your partner,  
teammates coaches and colleagues in tears....THATS when you can I'll  
care about what "SICKENS" you.



"Once you start down the path of making rounds into public  
inquisitions about whether prior actions (or prior identities) of the  
debaters are acceptable, it?s hard to say where it ends. It?s pretty  
easy to imagine a far worse ending, given how hurtful the entire  
encounter was for many of the people directly involved."

Who are you talking to? SHOWING YOUR ASS AND TESTICLES TO A DEBATE  
COACH IS UNACCEPTABLE....PERIOD. Why is it so hard to say where it  
ends? Seems pretty easy to me....HERE! I've talked to just about  
everyone "involved" (hell, I WAS INVOLVED), and they all thought that  
what Shanahan did was totally unacceptable....PERIOD. Don't debate it  
Eric...he's WRONG.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080802/ec152d5a/attachment.htm 

From christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com  Sat Aug  2 17:03:39 2008
From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com (Christopher Thomas)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:03:39 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] THE FIGHT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...CEDA
	2008...SHANERAREID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
Message-ID: <2d622bfb0808021503u5e72f96ak60f631638cd6f1ab@mail.gmail.com>

I don't normally post on edebate but I felt compelled to say one thing;I
find it incredibly childish and rude to make backhanded statements
concerning the two Fort Hays debaters, in particular Chris, like you did
I Could care less if you wanted to post the video or your opinions on
actions of coaches. but the manner and tone in which you did so seems to
speak to your character.

Post all you want, but if you have problems with the Fort Hays gentlemen but
an adult about it and discuss it with them. not in a public forum.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080802/cba61597/attachment.htm 

From gonza310 at msu.edu  Sat Aug  2 17:09:53 2008
From: gonza310 at msu.edu (Joshua Gonzalez)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 18:09:53 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] "Sickening" Huh?
In-Reply-To: <6524F25A-8323-4888-8472-D0DFF7432028@gmail.com>
References: <6524F25A-8323-4888-8472-D0DFF7432028@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <011501c8f4ec$7e5332a0$7901a8c0@Josh700m>

A proposal for the edebate community:
 
Maybe, just maybe, we might not turn this into a pissing contest about
argument styles, etc., and just take a moment and a brief chat about what
levels of decorum we might like to encourage in debate rounds.
 
Or y'all can just yell at each other for a while like usually happens...
 
J. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080802/9543f6f8/attachment.htm 

From christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com  Sat Aug  2 17:10:14 2008
From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com (Christopher Thomas)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:10:14 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] That includes KU
Message-ID: <2d622bfb0808021510k67d2e413gcf2aeb35ab528dab@mail.gmail.com>

And after reading your second post, I would say the same goes for Nate and
Chris.Jump all over me, call me some other name, fine- I dont expect
anything less- but if you have a problem then discuss it with those four
people.

now i am done.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080802/c9e37d61/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Sat Aug  2 17:21:42 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:21:42 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] 2008 Showdown
Message-ID: <1217715702.4894ddf69941f@webmail.grandecom.net>


This sad (worse than I heard) episode is the logical conclusion of a few things:
I am shocked charges were not brought against SHanahan for battery.

1) Issues that happen before a round starts being brought into the round as a
voting issue;

2) Topicality not being a voting issue

3) People using debate as a forum of personal advocacy rather than an exercise
of research and argumentation about policy issues.

4) No enforcebale standards of conduct within this organization.

It is what it is. It will only get worse in the coming years.

Scott Elliott



From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu  Sat Aug  2 17:22:46 2008
From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 17:22:46 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] "Sickening" Huh?
References: <6524F25A-8323-4888-8472-D0DFF7432028@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6C6C@blue.EDUBEAR.NET>

Sorry, I was just speaking from my subjectivity, which is apparently either unacceptable to you or at least nothing you care about. I'll probably keeping speaking from my subjectivity, though. 
 
I certainly was not defending his actions, although that would have make it easier for you, since you've been busy writing front lines for that. 
 
Even if you think there should be a serious public discussion about the round in question, I'm confused about why presenting it as a spectacle to be enjoyed is a productive way to frame it. It doesn't sound from your second post that you actually found it enjoyable....
 
Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
(O) 417-836-7636
(H) 417-865-6866
(C) 417-496-7141
AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna
GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments)

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Adam Jackson
Sent: Sat 8/2/08 4:59 PM
To: eDebate
Subject: [eDebate] "Sickening" Huh?


"I think I will just focus on your message "sign off", which ended with the word ENJOY. The fact that you feel an altercation which could have been career threatening to several of the parties involved is just public spectacle to be "enjoyed" sickens me." 


"SICKENS" you huh? You know what SICKENS me Eric? A community that revels in the fact that its true form will never actually be brought to the forefront. When you come from when I come from...when you lose at Districts because of "Mexican terrorists" attacking the US...when you lose to the top seed JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE THE TOP SEED...when you see Bill Shanahan's balls....when you have hold your partner, teammates coaches and colleagues in tears....THATS when you can I'll care about what "SICKENS" you. 





"Once you start down the path of making rounds into public inquisitions about whether prior actions (or prior identities) of the debaters are acceptable, it's hard to say where it ends. It's pretty easy to imagine a far worse ending, given how hurtful the entire encounter was for many of the people directly involved."


Who are you talking to? SHOWING YOUR ASS AND TESTICLES TO A DEBATE COACH IS UNACCEPTABLE....PERIOD. Why is it so hard to say where it ends? Seems pretty easy to me....HERE! I've talked to just about everyone "involved" (hell, I WAS INVOLVED), and they all thought that what Shanahan did was totally unacceptable....PERIOD. Don't debate it Eric...he's WRONG.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080802/7f54072f/attachment.htm 

From mardigras23 at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  2 18:32:13 2008
From: mardigras23 at hotmail.com (Aaron Kall)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 23:32:13 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] hired judging needed for michigan debate institutes
	tournament
Message-ID: <BAY132-W14C89EE858B3FFC9612D78BA7E0@phx.gbl>

the Michigan Debate Institutes is in need of hired judges for our
upcoming tournament on Wednesday, August 6 and Thursday, August 7.  We may be able to
provide housing to a limited number of judges coming from out of town.



if interested in judging, please e-mail me at akall at umich.edu as soon as possible.



thanks,



aaron

michigan debate
_________________________________________________________________
Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080802/772d0b03/attachment.htm 

From drmosbornesq at gmail.com  Sat Aug  2 19:00:46 2008
From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:00:46 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] "Sickening" Huh?
In-Reply-To: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6C6C@blue.EDUBEAR.NET>
References: <6524F25A-8323-4888-8472-D0DFF7432028@gmail.com>
	<1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6C6C@blue.EDUBEAR.NET>
Message-ID: <39c09a80808021700p4c34603fl117d87a4b7ae5acc@mail.gmail.com>

lol pwned


On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu
> wrote:

>  Sorry, I was just speaking from my subjectivity, which is apparently
> either unacceptable to you or at least nothing you care about. I'll probably
> keeping speaking from my subjectivity, though.
>
> I certainly was not defending his actions, although that would have make it
> easier for you, since you've been busy writing front lines for that.
>
> Even if you think there should be a serious public discussion about the
> round in question, I'm confused about why presenting it as a spectacle to be
> enjoyed is a productive way to frame it. It doesn't sound from your second
> post that you actually found it enjoyable....
>
>  Dr. Eric Morris
> Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
> Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
> Missouri State University
> Springfield, MO 65897
> (O) 417-836-7636
> (H) 417-865-6866
> (C) 417-496-7141
> AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna
>  GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com <GMAIL%3Aermocito at gmail.com> (please use for
> large attachments)
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Adam Jackson
> *Sent:* Sat 8/2/08 4:59 PM
> *To:* eDebate
> *Subject:* [eDebate] "Sickening" Huh?
>
> "I think I will just focus on your message "sign off", which ended with the
> word ENJOY. The fact that you feel an altercation which could have been
> career threatening to several of the parties involved is just public
> spectacle to be "enjoyed" sickens me."
> "SICKENS" you huh? You know what SICKENS me Eric? A community that revels
> in the fact that its true form will never actually be brought to the
> forefront. When you come from when I come from...when you lose at Districts
> because of "Mexican terrorists" attacking the US...when you lose to the top
> seed JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE THE TOP SEED...when you see Bill Shanahan's
> balls....when you have hold your partner, teammates coaches and colleagues
> in tears....THATS when you can I'll care about what "SICKENS" you.
>
>
>
> "Once you start down the path of making rounds into public inquisitions
> about whether prior actions (or prior identities) of the debaters are
> acceptable, it's hard to say where it ends. It's pretty easy to imagine a
> far worse ending, given how hurtful the entire encounter was for many of the
> people directly involved."
>
> Who are you talking to? SHOWING YOUR ASS AND TESTICLES TO A DEBATE COACH IS
> UNACCEPTABLE....PERIOD. Why is it so hard to say where it ends? Seems pretty
> easy to me....HERE! I've talked to just about everyone "involved" (hell, I
> WAS INVOLVED), and they all thought that what Shanahan did was totally
> unacceptable....PERIOD. Don't debate it Eric...he's WRONG.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080802/325964b2/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Sat Aug  2 19:13:05 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 20:13:05 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Dear Shanara,
Message-ID: <4894BFA4.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Dear Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley,
 
I feel like your pain, anger and alienation and most importantly the real issue, you courageously chose to illuminate is about to get lost in the fervor to take sides, posture, condemn, and attack.  As the third terminally-degree active African American director in CEDA-NDT (all apologies to Will, Ed, James, Shawntia, and several other coaches I haven't named without Phd's), I share your pain.  I remember in 1996, at the 50th NDT, when I sat hoping and praying that I would be allowed to judge the Final Round.  I remember the excitement when I told my friends Jon and Shawn that I was not going to drink, get some rest and offer my name for the final card.  I also remember the utter, utter devastation I felt when one team removed my name from that card.  But worse than that, was the devastation a prominent coach dropped on me when he said, "well, you wanted to earn it didn't, you?"  Like Matsuda said in discussing reparations, the lack of acknowledgment of an injury is worse than the injury could ever be.  I should want to earn it?
 
Not only did I want to earn it, I had earned it.  I had become the only active Black NDT director (perhaps the first, not knowing if Larry Moss directed a college program and not knowing how many HBCU's ever joined the NDT with Phd directors) at the time.  I was certainly the only African American Phd in Communication or anything else judging debates.  My teams annually qualified for the NDT, many using creative and innovative race arguments (about the topic) that were mostly theories and concepts developed by me.  I was gainfully employed in the summer at one of the most prestigious camps.  I had judged many a big debate.  Yeah, I thought I was qualified.  I was one of only 3% of Black faculty on my campus and the only Black director of the some 145 NDT participants.  It was 1996, over thirty years since the Civil Rights Movement, and there hadn't been a black judge in the finals of the NDT.  Yeah, I had earned it.  It's laughable that this community puts student comfort, code for competitive success, ahead of earned qualifications that should at least partially determine who judges debates.  Yeah, I had earned it.  And so have you.
 
But as you have learned, "qualifications" in this activity are fleeting and extremely subjective.  And who determines your qualifications are often hard to discern and even harder to get folks to take accountability for.  Coaches say they let their students make those "qualifications" calls, but during competition against Louisville's arguments about the preference system, students were quick to defer authority back to their coaches.  So after being "struck", the only power I had was to share my frustrations with my friends and catch up on those beers that I missed during quarters, semi's, and finals.  I wept that night and I decided to quit debate for the first of a hundred times, feeling that I was wasting my time trying to get a room full of whites to learn something beyond competition about who I was and why my issues should be just as important to them, because they were OUR issues, like increasing Black participation in the NDT.  The only recourse I felt that I had was to complain, whine, and weep to my friends or quit.  But I stayed.  I stayed and chose to stop caring about judging.  It was the easiest way to ease the pain and a way for me to unravel the hypocrisy of it all.
 
Now I know you likely won't quit, you certainly won't whine, and you probably won't cry, you are much stronger than I.  Although I do have my doubts about the tears, when you are alone or with your most intimate loved ones.  But the irony of this incident is amazing: I assisted in creating a new vehicle or tool that assisted you in expressing your frustrations about judging.  And those tools could never have been created without ideas brought forward by bill shannahan.  Ironic, huh?  You choose not to complain and whine quietly to friends, but attempt to productively channel your feelings into a procedural debate argument, no different than the subjective nature of education, predictability, or fair ground, and guess what? The amount of time spent by this community on the very, very important question of how objective and fair is our judge selection process, and how hidden biases exist within them, gets lost because bill first, and the community second, gets so caught up in how you respond to the hurt and pain being struck imposed on you, then ignore the real problem to blame you as the victim.  bill saw his debater's pain and his own as more important than yours, and that's too bad.  What bill doesn't see is that his rationalizations for his actions by couching them in the competitive framework don't sound much different than "go do parly" or "you can learn our style," or my personal favorite, "adaption good for education."  The "right" to strike judges to protect student participant comfort at all cost, treated as an absolute right in the face of the educational value of productive levels of discomfort, like having the amazingly educational and unique experience of being judged by Tria, Shanara, Tiffany, Jennifer Harris, Liz, or Tonia (just to name a few), could have avoided the entirety of the conflict.
 
But now, you are thrown in as part of the problem, not part of the solution, Shanara.  Why?  Because you didn't respond to your unique frustrations--as a highly successful NDT/CEDA debater, then graduate assistant, and now the second Black female Phd, following Janice Moss (someone many of you likely don't even know)--the way OTHERS feel you should.  Ironically, most don't offer a method or vehicle for doing so, just condemn you for finding your own vehicle, because it's inconvienent, inappropriate or disrespectful to them.  So the debate becomes about how you didn't, not "why" and what's lost is the real issue.  
 
So as a first year assistant professor and director of debate at Pittsburgh, when you were struck from a quarter-final debate between two schools who you considered "allies" and "conscious" of your plight, I understand why you went there.  And while I understand why bill responded the way he did, I can't stand in solidarity with him for his actions.  But I can and will with you.  I will stand with you and Towson today, tomorrow, and the next day for attempting to speak on your feelings of alienation and frustration.  Why?  
 
Because the community will say they stand with you all day long outside of the competitive framework, but once inside of it, your issues become invisible.  Why?  Because there isn't an effective place to resolve your issues, now is there?  The competition and it's norms and conventions have been left in large part to the debate round itself, and to a lesser degree to the free market of tournament operation.  So, in spite of the fact that those who condemn Towson's decision to make the argument, and by association, condemn Shanara, to the same gravity that they condemn bill for his outburst, I won't.  Their decision to spend more time rhetorically talking about the decision to run the argument as the "cause" for this incident, only demonstrates what is privileged here.  Civil intolerance is okay, but speaking out on the real problems in the community, especially if they threaten the sanctity and purity of competition, is morally reprehensible.  It reminds me of Tipper Gore and her efforts to stop out bad rap: she got rid of political rap and left gangsterism and materialism to flourish.  Don't hear much from the PMRC these days, now do you?
 
I say to those folks with criticism for Shanara and Towson: stop criticizing them and fix the real problem.  Take the competitive and procedural decisions out of solely the students hands via a system that has been created to destroy diversity of perspectives, and give back some real teeth to educators and other participants who often have just as much, if not more of a vested interest in the system than students.  Stop blaming the victim, spending one's time analyzing how she or he should address the inequities "appropriately", stop diverting people's understandable emotional responses to these sensitive issues, and give them some real help in fixing them.  
 
I will say this Shanara, I hope Adam and Andy talked to you about publishing this video.  I hope that you are cool with it because you, moreso than anyone else has the most to lose.  You are an assistant professor, and even if bill is too, the likelihood that this can be used to hurt your job evaluation moreso than him is a certainy.  But I'm sure you know this because you are Black living in America.  I suspect you saw all of the newest data on the CNN series.  
 
Chris Rock once said in a comedy skit about another man beating his wife, "I can't condone this behavior, but I understand" testifying and signifying to the unique, difficult, but educational and rewarding challenges of living with an in-your-face, take-no-mess Black woman,  Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, just letting you know that,  "I, Dr. Ede Warner, Jr., definitely understand".
 
With love,
 
Doc
 
 
Ethical Means of Challenging Invisibility
 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080802/2436cd23/attachment.htm 

From sjsnider at ksu.edu  Sat Aug  2 19:57:21 2008
From: sjsnider at ksu.edu (Sarah Jane Green)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:57:21 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] THE FIGHT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR...CEDA
	2008...SHANERA REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
In-Reply-To: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
References: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c575a7b30808021757l1c360870nf3195ddfce4eb3f2@mail.gmail.com>

Funniest part is that whomever posted this video on youtube can't even spell
Shanara's name correctly............I mean, don't you think Shanahan is
harder to spell than Shanara?

Sarah

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>wrote:

> Before you scroll down to see the video...allow me give you some light
> pre-text...
>
> First lets set the stage...
>
> CEDA Nationals 2008...
>
> Quarterfinals...
>
> Fort Hays HS (Chris Spurlock and Avery Henry) (NEG) vs. Towson CL
> (Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper) (AFF)...
>
> Before the round even began there was of course the strike sheet which
> had:
>
> Brent Saidon
> Omar Guevara
> Shanera Reid
> Mike Hester
> Toni Neilson
>
> Towson CL struck Saidon because he was on Fort Hays squad before, and
> Fort Hays struck Reid because it was "strategic" for them to do so
> because she had voted them down before, with their coach, Bill
> Shanahan, defending their decision.
>
> In the 1AC Deven reads the Revolutionary Aesthetic in conjunction with
> an argument that said the act of striking Shanera was an act that
> "protected white privilege" in the debate community because there are
> very few black women in the debate community that actually get to
> judge out-rounds at national tournaments, and their voices are
> effectively silenced when they are struck from panels.
>
> The 1NC (given by Chris Spurlock) which was a dense, theoretical
> "Doubling" argument, and evades responding to why they struck Shanera.
> The first CX question by Cooper was "Why didn't you speak to the
> exclusion of Shanera in this round?", with Spurlock evading the
> question once again. Cooper asks the question once more, and he says
> that "they didn't think it was strategic".
>
> During the rebuttals, this becomes the focal point of the debate and
> Fort Hays loses on a 2-1 decision, with Hester and Neilson picking up
> Towson, and Guevara sitting out.
>
> The RFD is given by the judging panel, and an argument breaks out
> between Neilson and Guevara on whether the argument about Shanera was
> "pre-text" or not.
>
> Omar walks out in frustation...and afterwards....the video speaks for
> itself...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPt8UVU7bXs
>
> ENJOY!
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080802/393d43ad/attachment.htm 

From leaderdb8 at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  2 22:19:12 2008
From: leaderdb8 at hotmail.com (Paul Leader)
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 21:19:12 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] well said Dr Warner
Message-ID: <BAY116-W3340FA62F6C7CC0C1C2760EA790@phx.gbl>


"It's laughable that this community puts student comfort, code for
competitive success, ahead of earned qualifications that should at
least partially determine who judges debates."  Ede Warner

"...stop criticizing them and fix the real problem.  Take the competitive
and procedural decisions out of solely the students hands via a system
that has been created to destroy diversity of perspectives, and give
back some real teeth to educators and other participants who often have
just as much, if not more of a vested interest in the system than
students. "   Ede Warner

WELL SAID, Dr. Warner
Your Friend,
Paul Leader

_________________________________________________________________
Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are.  Start here.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home_082008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080802/66ffe3d5/attachment.htm 

From debatekorea at hotmail.com  Sun Aug  3 00:09:31 2008
From: debatekorea at hotmail.com (Jason Jarvis)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 01:09:31 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] CEDA 2008...SHANARA REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
In-Reply-To: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
References: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BLU112-W36E95FF3902713BDA6C785AE790@phx.gbl>



Some things should never be placed on YouTube.  

I shudder to think what ANY administrator would think after watching this video....much less someone with control over funding or the jobs of Shanara, Bill or whose teams participated in this competition.

Good luck to all of you who need to listen to the pain of others and who truly ought to heed ML's admonishment about building bridges.  

I honestly don't think posting this video will cause any change, but it could very well get Shanara and/or Bill fired.  



Jason L. Jarvis



Assistant Dean and Lecturer,

Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and Management

http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/





_________________________________________________________________
Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are.  Start here.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home_082008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080803/bf0d7dfb/attachment.htm 

From beth.skinner at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 01:15:46 2008
From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 02:15:46 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] CEDA 2008...SHANARA REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
In-Reply-To: <BLU112-W36E95FF3902713BDA6C785AE790@phx.gbl>
References: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
	<BLU112-W36E95FF3902713BDA6C785AE790@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4550c7380808022315u4ecca0bel939fec45bb792952@mail.gmail.com>

What is the idea that people should take away from such criticism?
It's ok for this incident to have happened but just not for it to be
published and discussed?  So long as there isn't documentary evidence
then the community can plausibly deny such things happen?  No one has
a comment on the acceptability of a bottle of scotch sitting on the
CEDA final round judge's table?  No one would have a problem showing
their administrators tapes of their own debaters swearing,
threatening, joking about genocide, etc.?  I hope and believe that a
change such exposure brings is that people recognize their
accountability for decisions they make and behavior they enact in
public environments.

Anyone who watches the video with an iota of attention can see who is
aggressing in this confrontation.  Is it the purpose or just the
effect of recent criticisms that lump both parties together to chill
the behavior of those who stand up for students in the face of such
abuse?  I am proud of the arguments Dayvon and Deven made in the round
and I am proud of Shanara's passion, strength and character.  I'm not
shuddering at all.  Beth



On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Jason Jarvis <debatekorea at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some things should never be placed on YouTube.
>
> I shudder to think what ANY administrator would think after watching this
> video....much less someone with control over funding or the jobs of Shanara,
> Bill or whose teams participated in this competition.
>
> Good luck to all of you who need to listen to the pain of others and who
> truly ought to heed ML's admonishment about building bridges.
>
> I honestly don't think posting this video will cause any change, but it
> could very well get Shanara and/or Bill fired.
>
>
>
> Jason L. Jarvis
>
> Assistant Dean and Lecturer,
> Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and Management
> http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are. Start here.
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Sun Aug  3 03:33:23 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 03:33:23 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] when teachers take over the asylum
Message-ID: <BLU141-W35FA3B0E93B3233B156F1BD8790@phx.gbl>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPt8UVU7bXs


first, let's all admit, this what real arguments look like. these are
the visceral emotions underlying all decorum and always
threatening to overstep the bounds of propriety. there's no rule strict enough to
prevent this type of outburst which would not also risk extinguishing the fire in
the activity's belly. some will argue (i among them, usually)
that decorum is crucial: when two participants approach physical violence, it
violates the norms required to keep the 'competitive
backdrop' intact. yet we shouldn't forget that argument is war, no matter how
fancily dressed, and that far from being dead, debate is still a place of conflicting passions.

...

i disagree with dr. warner's solution to "fix the real problem":
"[t]ake the competitive and procedural decisions out of solely the
students hands via a system that has been created to destroy diversity
of perspectives, and give back some real teeth to educators and other
participants who often have just as much, if not more of a vested
interest in the system than students"
(http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075472.html).



funny, my initial reaction after watching a video like this is the
opposite one: it isn't time to start distrusting students; it's time to
start distrusting *teachers*. in fact, what's lost in the symbolic exchange
between hardcore gamers and radical truth-sayers is the student
perspective - those for whom debate is neither a contact sport nor an activist
struggle, but something which might actually be fun to do.



my criticism of shanahan would be nietzschean: where he invokes a care
for the activity, i discern the vicarious desire to live through his students. isn't there something sickening in this over-protective
attitude, ready to step in at a moment's notice and fight his debaters'
battles for them? when did educators forget that this activity is made for
those who actually debate?

one can't help seeing in all this a vicious fight between parents over whose kid should've made the cheerleading team. so you got struck - it has nothing to do with how qualified you are, and it isn't a reflection on you as a person; it just means that some debate team isn't positive they can squeeze a ballot out of you. so you got called full-of-shit - it's no reason to indecently expose yourself, among other cheap theatrics.



this isn't a petri dish for you to grow enlightened human beings in (and
here i'm definitely not talking about shanahan, who is the best of
teachers precisely when he does not set the best of examples), nor is it a
stage for you to steal whenever your students pause for breath (...ok,
that one's intended for shanahan). teachers aren't owed a ticket to the dance; you had your shot and now you're workaday *assistants* - nothing more glamorous.


what "vested interest in the system" do you have, dr. warner, other
than your students' education? what could "giv[ing]" back some real
teeth to educators" mean exactly? does that video really argue for trusting one's elders - as a judge and a coach, both full adults employed by universities, almost come to blows over *a debate round*?



in my opinion, teacher's teeth are sharp enough. you should be
humbled by the immaturity displayed by your colleagues, who were loud-mouthed, possessive, self-possessed, pathetic, and violent. my reply to warner is freireian: be careful you're not legitimating one hierarchy (teacher-over-student) to fight others. teachers already have
all the say their little hearts desire, but this round shows to me that the activity would do well to grant them only the trust they earn, as they seem quite willing to tear the baby of debate to shreds in the course of their dispute over parental rights.



one instance, however, where educators might consider using their
infallible teacherly wisdom is the following: should a student wish to strike a
judge because of a professed 'discomfort', you might advise them that one
of the most beneficial aspects of the activity you love is it's way of
taking participants out of their comfort zone. debating in front of a judge
that's voted you down in the past... this is where one has to reach deep
down, pull up something extra, and perhaps, surprise oneself. in this
sense, we might say the problem with shanahan's defense of competition is it's still not
competitive enough. a true love of the game welcomes a diversity of
challenges.

...


one final point about 'self-referential' kritiks. personally i feel the
ballot is a fine way to call out counter-competitive practices, and i include in the realm of such practices all of
the following: fabricating cards, grossly violating the topic of
discussion, interrupting or badgering your opponents, not disclosing one's case, not publishing one's evidence
online under a public license, striking judges on ideological grounds, and so
forth. i wouldn't have a problem with awarding a double-loss for the antics displayed by both sides in this fiasco, for instance.

many will argue, especially after adultish incidents like these, that once we allow kritiks of this sort in, the
very structure of debate will be up for debate, and you all will be
doomed to more rounds like the one youtubed above. i don't
disagree, but my response is 'non-unique & turn': the fact that
there's already rounds like the one above speaks to the need to
revitalize the structure of debate through kritiks of this sort. if you don't want to see the next white asshole get his nuts kicked in, these grievances will need a formal outlet, one minimally balanced by equal speech-times and a basic sense of decorum. conventions of civility aren't the result of rules written by teachers who know best; they're forged round-by-round.

so don't shut up. keep talking it out. either something good will
come of it or it won't, but if solutions are stumbled upon, they'll have nothing to do with a top-down imposition of stricter rules or even with 'building bridges' - they'll come from a rich history of conflict that carves out a new terrain
for argumentative battle. my gamble is that this new terrain
will be reflexive, enjoyable, and with any luck, civil.
_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080803/1fa74969/attachment.htm 

From richardgarner at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 13:02:37 2008
From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 13:02:37 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Chicago Temp. Housing Emergency
Message-ID: <17bee7eb0808031102n4fea5cc8u5d7255b7cad02e36@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: J. Reed <jvreedmore at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Subject: chicago- temp. housing emergency
To: "Richard A. Garner" <richardgarner at gmail.com>

JV Reed asked me to post this request to eDebate, in hopes that some one can
help him out...

--------

Hi all,
I am teaching at the Chicago UDL camp and will be in chicago from today -
the 3rd - until the 17th.  I had arranged for a sublet, but it fell through
at the last minute and has left me in a pickle...If anyone there could put
me up for a few days I can hopefully find another sublet or find others to
stay with to spread out the burden.

thanks,

J.V. Reed
jvreedmore at gmail.com
(646) 286-3734
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080803/9331172a/attachment.htm 

From debatekorea at hotmail.com  Sun Aug  3 16:17:48 2008
From: debatekorea at hotmail.com (Jason Jarvis)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:17:48 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] CEDA 2008...SHANARA REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
In-Reply-To: <4550c7380808022315u4ecca0bel939fec45bb792952@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
	<BLU112-W36E95FF3902713BDA6C785AE790@phx.gbl> 
	<4550c7380808022315u4ecca0bel939fec45bb792952@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <BLU112-W5077F528B39E225C615A7CAE790@phx.gbl>







Things I didn't say:

-Bill was right to behave the way he did (he appeared to be a raving jerk)
-Shanara was wrong to be upset (I think Ede's comments were very insightful and educational on this point)
-Both people are equally "to blame" 
-The arguments the Towson debaters made were inappropriate.
-People should not be held accountable for their actions

My concern (perhaps unfounded) is that either or both people could lose their jobs.  Why?  Because I don't think that in an activity that is supposed to teach persuasion and rhetoric (and use those tools to reach greater degrees of understanding), administrators would be particularly impressed by two coaches who went head to head with profanity laced tirades.  It is hardly implausible to think that any university would want to be represented in that way. 

The argument I made, that I think you didn't answer is this: no one in
that video, other than James and (perhaps) ML looks very professional. 
It portrays both the participants (Bill and Shanara) as crazed lunatics
and makes policy debate look fairly bad. 

Ede's comments on the potential danger to Shanara, imho, were probably spot on.  If Shanara ok'd this video being posted, then so be it, but I don't feel its inappropriate to ask if there are unintended consequences that may result from the video.   Internet background checks are now pretty common for employers.

Oh, and Andy, its nonsense to suggest that because I think ML was right that people ought to build bridges to one another that I am a racist.  What building bridges means for whites and blacks is undoubtedly DIFFERENT due to the legacy of racism, socio-economic location and power relations, etc.  However, at the end of the day, if white people who want to change find no partners in black America that can educate them, or in some way, shape or form help us make the necessary transitions, then there really isn't  much hope for race relations.   I found Ede's comments, for example, to be very educational as I mentioned above.  It appeared to me that he was trying to build bridges by talking about his experiences.  

Good luck.  At some point I'll send ya'll a postcard from Beijing.


Jason L. Jarvis



Assistant Dean and Lecturer,

Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and Management

http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/



> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 02:15:46 -0400
> From: beth.skinner at gmail.com
> To: debatekorea at hotmail.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] CEDA 2008...SHANARA REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
> CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> 
> What is the idea that people should take away from such criticism?
> It's ok for this incident to have happened but just not for it to be
> published and discussed?  So long as there isn't documentary evidence
> then the community can plausibly deny such things happen?  No one has
> a comment on the acceptability of a bottle of scotch sitting on the
> CEDA final round judge's table?  No one would have a problem showing
> their administrators tapes of their own debaters swearing,
> threatening, joking about genocide, etc.?  I hope and believe that a
> change such exposure brings is that people recognize their
> accountability for decisions they make and behavior they enact in
> public environments.
> 
> Anyone who watches the video with an iota of attention can see who is
> aggressing in this confrontation.  Is it the purpose or just the
> effect of recent criticisms that lump both parties together to chill
> the behavior of those who stand up for students in the face of such
> abuse?  I am proud of the arguments Dayvon and Deven made in the round
> and I am proud of Shanara's passion, strength and character.  I'm not
> shuddering at all.  Beth
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Jason Jarvis <debatekorea at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Some things should never be placed on YouTube.
> >
> > I shudder to think what ANY administrator would think after watching this
> > video....much less someone with control over funding or the jobs of Shanara,
> > Bill or whose teams participated in this competition.
> >
> > Good luck to all of you who need to listen to the pain of others and who
> > truly ought to heed ML's admonishment about building bridges.
> >
> > I honestly don't think posting this video will cause any change, but it
> > could very well get Shanara and/or Bill fired.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jason L. Jarvis
> >
> > Assistant Dean and Lecturer,
> > Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and Management
> > http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are. Start here.
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080803/70640738/attachment.htm 

From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu  Sun Aug  3 16:58:54 2008
From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:58:54 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Beth Skinner and scotch
Message-ID: <OFCCED15FD.71038F02-ON8825749A.0078BFAA-8825749A.0078BFAF@unlv.edu>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080803/defada3a/attachment.htm 

From greg.thomas at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 17:00:53 2008
From: greg.thomas at gmail.com (Greg Thomas)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:00:53 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] CEDA 2008...SHANARA REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
In-Reply-To: <BLU112-W5077F528B39E225C615A7CAE790@phx.gbl>
References: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
	<BLU112-W36E95FF3902713BDA6C785AE790@phx.gbl>
	<4550c7380808022315u4ecca0bel939fec45bb792952@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU112-W5077F528B39E225C615A7CAE790@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ab7f34f60808031500s5f33e6d8u78e4bf31d02477f6@mail.gmail.com>

I don't really know the people involved, and I don't have a stake in the
particular arguments being made, but I do have this question.  If you (in
any job) do something in a public place (or more specifically, if you are an
educator and do something in front of students in a public place) that
could.would get you fired if your boss/administrator were to see it, don't
you deserve to be fired?

I completely agree that if the students were negatively affected by that
firing, then that would be a negative effect of that educators actions, but
even in that instance isn't the person who acted foolish to blame for that
result, not the person who brought it to light?  And, for that matter (again
not knowing the people involved), might not those students be better off in
the long run not being put in those situations?

Greg Thomas

On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Jason Jarvis <debatekorea at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Things I didn't say:
>
> -Bill was right to behave the way he did (he appeared to be a raving jerk)
> -Shanara was wrong to be upset (I think Ede's comments were very insightful
> and educational on this point)
> -Both people are equally "to blame"
> -The arguments the Towson debaters made were inappropriate.
> -People should not be held accountable for their actions
>
> My concern (perhaps unfounded) is that either or both people could lose
> their jobs.  Why?  Because I don't think that in an activity that is
> supposed to teach persuasion and rhetoric (and use those tools to reach
> greater degrees of understanding), administrators would be particularly
> impressed by two coaches who went head to head with profanity laced
> tirades.  It is hardly implausible to think that any university would want
> to be represented in that way.
>
> The argument I made, that I think you didn't answer is this: no one in that
> video, other than James and (perhaps) ML looks very professional.  It
> portrays both the participants (Bill and Shanara) as crazed lunatics and
> makes policy debate look fairly bad.
>
> Ede's comments on the potential danger to Shanara, imho, were probably spot
> on.  If Shanara ok'd this video being posted, then so be it, but I don't
> feel its inappropriate to ask if there are unintended consequences that may
> result from the video.   Internet background checks are now pretty common
> for employers.
>
> Oh, and Andy, its nonsense to suggest that because I think ML was right
> that people ought to build bridges to one another that I am a racist.  What
> building bridges means for whites and blacks is undoubtedly DIFFERENT due to
> the legacy of racism, socio-economic location and power relations, etc.
> However, at the end of the day, if white people who want to change find no
> partners in black America that can educate them, or in some way, shape or
> form help us make the necessary transitions, then there really isn't  much
> hope for race relations.   I found Ede's comments, for example, to be very
> educational as I mentioned above.  It appeared to me that he was trying to
> build bridges by talking about his experiences.
>
> Good luck.  At some point I'll send ya'll a postcard from Beijing.
>
>
> Jason L. Jarvis
>
> Assistant Dean and Lecturer,
> Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and Management
>
> http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/
>
>
> > Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 02:15:46 -0400
> > From: beth.skinner at gmail.com
> > To: debatekorea at hotmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [eDebate] CEDA 2008...SHANARA REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
> > CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
>
> >
> > What is the idea that people should take away from such criticism?
> > It's ok for this incident to have happened but just not for it to be
> > published and discussed? So long as there isn't documentary evidence
> > then the community can plausibly deny such things happen? No one has
> > a comment on the acceptability of a bottle of scotch sitting on the
> > CEDA final round judge's table? No one would have a problem showing
> > their administrators tapes of their own debaters swearing,
> > threatening, joking about genocide, etc.? I hope and believe that a
> > change such exposure brings is that people recognize their
> > accountability for decisions they make and behavior they enact in
> > public environments.
> >
> > Anyone who watches the video with an iota of attention can see who is
> > aggressing in this confrontation. Is it the purpose or just the
> > effect of recent criticisms that lump both parties together to chill
> > the behavior of those who stand up for students in the face of such
> > abuse? I am proud of the arguments Dayvon and Deven made in the round
> > and I am proud of Shanara's passion, strength and character. I'm not
> > shuddering at all. Beth
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Jason Jarvis <debatekorea at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some things should never be placed on YouTube.
> > >
> > > I shudder to think what ANY administrator would think after watching
> this
> > > video....much less someone with control over funding or the jobs of
> Shanara,
> > > Bill or whose teams participated in this competition.
> > >
> > > Good luck to all of you who need to listen to the pain of others and
> who
> > > truly ought to heed ML's admonishment about building bridges.
> > >
> > > I honestly don't think posting this video will cause any change, but it
> > > could very well get Shanara and/or Bill fired.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jason L. Jarvis
> > >
> > > Assistant Dean and Lecturer,
> > > Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and
> Management
> > > http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are. Start
> here.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > eDebate mailing list
> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> > >
>
> ------------------------------
> Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. Share
> now!<http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080803/bd454638/attachment.htm 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 17:28:30 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:28:30 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] CEDA 2008...SHANARA REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
In-Reply-To: <ab7f34f60808031500s5f33e6d8u78e4bf31d02477f6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E6BB6A2-B9F2-401D-BE56-183A0357639D@gmail.com>
	<BLU112-W36E95FF3902713BDA6C785AE790@phx.gbl>
	<4550c7380808022315u4ecca0bel939fec45bb792952@mail.gmail.com>
	<BLU112-W5077F528B39E225C615A7CAE790@phx.gbl>
	<ab7f34f60808031500s5f33e6d8u78e4bf31d02477f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808031528o6e543b1am1a821e29c5ea1e73@mail.gmail.com>

so alot of peole dont endorse sanction or otherwise agree with bills
actions...either those are platitudes to assuage the impact or its
time for ceda or the community to do something about it.

i dont work at ft hays so i am not in a positin to decide if bill
should continue to be employed, but i am a member of ceda and have an
elected role and will exlore the options available within th
constitution to bar a dangerous man from interacting with studnts
inways that provide clear risks to debate and the organization

if such solutions  do not provide fruitful outcomes i would encourage
each of you who have expressed outrage and suggested that bill not be
employed to pursue the course of action you feel approiate to bring
about an outcome which is in the best interes of the whole of the
activity.

i am no longer employed by towson university but am in charge of a
program which sees college debat as a means of empowerment for urban
youth and will do everything in my power to ensure those students have
the opportunity to pursue a debate education in a space without
risking the kind of violent hostility frquently displayed by bill.

andy ellis

On 8/3/08, Greg Thomas <greg.thomas at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't really know the people involved, and I don't have a stake in the
> particular arguments being made, but I do have this question.  If you (in
> any job) do something in a public place (or more specifically, if you are an
> educator and do something in front of students in a public place) that
> could.would get you fired if your boss/administrator were to see it, don't
> you deserve to be fired?
>
> I completely agree that if the students were negatively affected by that
> firing, then that would be a negative effect of that educators actions, but
> even in that instance isn't the person who acted foolish to blame for that
> result, not the person who brought it to light?  And, for that matter (again
> not knowing the people involved), might not those students be better off in
> the long run not being put in those situations?
>
> Greg Thomas
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Jason Jarvis <debatekorea at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Things I didn't say:
>>
>> -Bill was right to behave the way he did (he appeared to be a raving jerk)
>> -Shanara was wrong to be upset (I think Ede's comments were very
>> insightful
>> and educational on this point)
>> -Both people are equally "to blame"
>> -The arguments the Towson debaters made were inappropriate.
>> -People should not be held accountable for their actions
>>
>> My concern (perhaps unfounded) is that either or both people could lose
>> their jobs.  Why?  Because I don't think that in an activity that is
>> supposed to teach persuasion and rhetoric (and use those tools to reach
>> greater degrees of understanding), administrators would be particularly
>> impressed by two coaches who went head to head with profanity laced
>> tirades.  It is hardly implausible to think that any university would want
>> to be represented in that way.
>>
>> The argument I made, that I think you didn't answer is this: no one in
>> that
>> video, other than James and (perhaps) ML looks very professional.  It
>> portrays both the participants (Bill and Shanara) as crazed lunatics and
>> makes policy debate look fairly bad.
>>
>> Ede's comments on the potential danger to Shanara, imho, were probably
>> spot
>> on.  If Shanara ok'd this video being posted, then so be it, but I don't
>> feel its inappropriate to ask if there are unintended consequences that
>> may
>> result from the video.   Internet background checks are now pretty common
>> for employers.
>>
>> Oh, and Andy, its nonsense to suggest that because I think ML was right
>> that people ought to build bridges to one another that I am a racist.
>> What
>> building bridges means for whites and blacks is undoubtedly DIFFERENT due
>> to
>> the legacy of racism, socio-economic location and power relations, etc.
>> However, at the end of the day, if white people who want to change find no
>> partners in black America that can educate them, or in some way, shape or
>> form help us make the necessary transitions, then there really isn't  much
>> hope for race relations.   I found Ede's comments, for example, to be very
>> educational as I mentioned above.  It appeared to me that he was trying to
>> build bridges by talking about his experiences.
>>
>> Good luck.  At some point I'll send ya'll a postcard from Beijing.
>>
>>
>> Jason L. Jarvis
>>
>> Assistant Dean and Lecturer,
>> Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and
>> Management
>>
>> http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/
>>
>>
>> > Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 02:15:46 -0400
>> > From: beth.skinner at gmail.com
>> > To: debatekorea at hotmail.com
>> > Subject: Re: [eDebate] CEDA 2008...SHANARA REID VS. BILL SHANAHAN
>> > CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>
>> >
>> > What is the idea that people should take away from such criticism?
>> > It's ok for this incident to have happened but just not for it to be
>> > published and discussed? So long as there isn't documentary evidence
>> > then the community can plausibly deny such things happen? No one has
>> > a comment on the acceptability of a bottle of scotch sitting on the
>> > CEDA final round judge's table? No one would have a problem showing
>> > their administrators tapes of their own debaters swearing,
>> > threatening, joking about genocide, etc.? I hope and believe that a
>> > change such exposure brings is that people recognize their
>> > accountability for decisions they make and behavior they enact in
>> > public environments.
>> >
>> > Anyone who watches the video with an iota of attention can see who is
>> > aggressing in this confrontation. Is it the purpose or just the
>> > effect of recent criticisms that lump both parties together to chill
>> > the behavior of those who stand up for students in the face of such
>> > abuse? I am proud of the arguments Dayvon and Deven made in the round
>> > and I am proud of Shanara's passion, strength and character. I'm not
>> > shuddering at all. Beth
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Jason Jarvis <debatekorea at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Some things should never be placed on YouTube.
>> > >
>> > > I shudder to think what ANY administrator would think after watching
>> this
>> > > video....much less someone with control over funding or the jobs of
>> Shanara,
>> > > Bill or whose teams participated in this competition.
>> > >
>> > > Good luck to all of you who need to listen to the pain of others and
>> who
>> > > truly ought to heed ML's admonishment about building bridges.
>> > >
>> > > I honestly don't think posting this video will cause any change, but
>> > > it
>> > > could very well get Shanara and/or Bill fired.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Jason L. Jarvis
>> > >
>> > > Assistant Dean and Lecturer,
>> > > Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and
>> Management
>> > > http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are. Start
>> here.
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > eDebate mailing list
>> > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>> > >
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. Share
>> now!<http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>
>

From baltimoredebate at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 17:45:39 2008
From: baltimoredebate at gmail.com (Adam Jackson)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 18:45:39 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Watch the entire Quarters debate and see for yourself
Message-ID: <659C8BAF-52DE-4BB9-A42B-20E90C071546@gmail.com>

Earlier someone said that I was characterizing the debaters at Fort  
Hays in a bad light...so I encourage them to watch the debate (in its  
entirety) here on Google Video and to decide for themselves:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=567966331243825646&hl=en

Side note: Like I said before, the RFD was cut short because Omar  
Guevara and Toni got into an argument about whether the Shanara  
argument was "pre-text" or not. Omar has declined to be shown in the  
video, but Toni and Hester's RFD can still be seen.

From christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 17:58:58 2008
From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com (Christopher Thomas)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 17:58:58 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Watch the entire Quarters debate and see for yourself
Message-ID: <2d622bfb0808031558r445896c1k734ed132f881a250@mail.gmail.com>

Look sweetheart you seem to be not understanding my argument.Be an adult.
If you are attempting to be above those you find disrespectful, racist or in
the wrong then be an adult and discuss it with them. Making back handed,
childish, judgmental statements concerning Chris or Avery showcases your
inability to be a mature individual.

I am not defending their actions or anyone's action IN the video. I am only
arguing that if you have a problem specifically with Avery and Chris- then
you email, text message, message, call or god forbid have a face to face
conversation with them and discuss these issues. I don't think either of
them would reject this.

This goes for Nate and Chris too. So even if you think a video speaks for
itself you made the same backhanded comment about them. Which I'd like to
add, I would love for you to find a time in their prelim round OR final
round which those two individuals were as rude, disrespectful or immature as
you are acting now toward Devon or Deyvon( I think thats how you spell it, i
may be wrong).

For someone who wishes to make change in this community, like yourself dear,
I would hope you could find better ways than segregating nate, avery and
both Chris'. I would even push for you to have a discussion outside of a
google video and get to know them.

no one seems to be defending those four debaters. I will.
I would hope other people would agree with my argument over  debaters
attacking other debaters in a public forum. god damn people, if i wanted
that I would check Cross-x.com out and listen to high school debaters.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080803/85745a9f/attachment.htm 

From baltimoredebate at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 20:24:30 2008
From: baltimoredebate at gmail.com (Adam Jackson)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:24:30 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Who are you talking to?
Message-ID: <2956D495-9A0C-4122-8549-C2607EFF0BB2@gmail.com>

1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".

2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had  
any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate  
that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we  
have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)

3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't  
sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the  
only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that  
everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather  
than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what  
actually happened.

4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make  
those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying  
problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored  
clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather  
cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.

5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage  
seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be  
the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't  
try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who  
doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about  
face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it  
instead of ignoring the obvious.

From christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 21:16:10 2008
From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com (Christopher Thomas)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:16:10 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] It's Pointless isn't it?
Message-ID: <2d622bfb0808031916l4db9211ch4d14d69f0470c7fe@mail.gmail.com>

I was attempting to type up what would look like a normal response to your
posting replying to my argument.But I realized that if all you will do is
not attempt to understand my argument but instead reply with a militant
choice of words and tone then it seems hopeless to ever have discussions
like these.

So sure. you win, congrats. If thats what you wanted.
I never disagreed or agreed with actions of people but instead suggested
acting like an adult instead of an immature child, which your post seems to
prove.

woowho. you won an edebate argument. Good luck changing the community we are
apart of when all you have seem to done to me is exclude my
argument/viewpoint and ideas.

Love,
Christopher Scott Thomas the First.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080803/fad62775/attachment.htm 

From kade.olsen at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 22:46:20 2008
From: kade.olsen at gmail.com (Kade Olsen)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:46:20 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Quarters of the Ceda
Message-ID: <38c34f90808032046m3fdcd426p769d44fe76b5a754@mail.gmail.com>

People should not disclose another teams strikes.  It usually is a Judge
the other team would like to keep prefering but having that person informed
they were "struck" makes things Very Very Messed up.  Can people imagine if
they had to explain why they struck every single judge?  I tend to think a
lot of shit can be talked about in a debate round.  Who you strike SHOULD
NOT be one.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080803/3f8370da/attachment.htm 

From jpzompe at ilstu.edu  Sun Aug  3 23:28:29 2008
From: jpzompe at ilstu.edu (Zompetti, Joseph Perry)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 23:28:29 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Quarters of the Ceda
References: <38c34f90808032046m3fdcd426p769d44fe76b5a754@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FAE190886CF76F43A5C1AA46820680F503456E12@cisssrv03.ad.ilstu.edu>

Actually, as long as the community continues to believe that MPJ is a good idea, I think teams should be able to defend who they prefer and who they strike.  This is, after all, an activity based on advocacy.  Folks should be prepared to defend their choices.
 
 
Joseph Zompetti

Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D.
Associate Professor & Director of Forensics
School of Communication
Illinois State University
Campus Box 4480
Normal, IL  61790-4480
office: (309) 438-3277
e-mail:  jpzompe at ilstu.edu
 
Everything you can imagine is real.
--Pablo Picasso

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Kade Olsen
Sent: Sun 8/3/2008 10:46 PM
To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] Quarters of the Ceda


People should not disclose another teams strikes.  It usually is a Judge  the other team would like to keep prefering but having that person informed they were "struck" makes things Very Very Messed up.  Can people imagine if they had to explain why they struck every single judge?  I tend to think a lot of shit can be talked about in a debate round.  Who you strike SHOULD NOT be one.


From jbhdb8 at gmail.com  Sun Aug  3 23:52:53 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 00:52:53 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Peace - Seriously
Message-ID: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I am decloaking both because like twenty people have asked me to and also
because I feel some friends are really involved in a mess here - I dont want
this to be about me at all...I just want to say a few things:

First, good people do bad things sometimes.  I have friends who are
homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent
altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other
people.  As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often
wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake
and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people
make terrible choices.  What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves
to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones.  I mean
we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also
have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best
selves.  And that good people do bad things.  Lets also be honest NOBODY was
acting at their best in that room from what I saw.

Second, part of what I believe Eric was trying to say was that the personal
turn in debate has an odd ability to make people take things personally in
ways that defy propriety.  He wasnt saying that it was GOOD that things like
that happened he was saying it was a predictable outcome.  One thing we need
to ask is if we could predict that more things like this might be a
predictable outcome of the personal turn in debate.  Before poo pooing this
I would suggest that a) in the instance on tape Fort Hayes likely thought
that the choice was anonymous b) that they could very well REALLY respect
Shanara and just have thought in this instance she would not be the best
judge for that particular round and then BOOM the whole round becomes about
that personal private choice and the accusation might not have met the
actual reason...next thing you know the whole year is over...and on that
very argument.....People have gotten in fist fights for much dumber
reasons.

Third, while I think I get why Ede said what he said...I have always felt it
was great when I got struck....because the worst thing I could imagine was
being someones deciding judge at nationals, which they worked for sometimes
for four whole years, when they did not want me deciding that round.  I
totally get what Ede is saying too, not from his or Shanara's
perspectives....But I do get this.

Finally, I wanted to say something before you totally throw Bill Shanahan or
anyone else in this discussion to the wolves (Shanara is an awesome fierce
person and intellect, the Towson guys are awesome, Andy is one of my fave
people in the activity etc).  Very few people have EVER made me as mad as
Bill.....There are times when I was certain Bill and I were going to break
down the whole building we were arguing in.  We virtually agree on nothing
but baseball....He can be a total asshole (so can I obviously) and have
terrible moments.  But, as much as I hate to say it sometimes, debate is a
better place with him and the Towson guys and Shanara and Ede and everyone
else in it.

Should he have done what he did....Of course not....There are lots of things
I think Bill should not have done over the years.....He is a very rough and
tumble strong intellect from a tough neigborhood with a crazy temper....But
he also is a caring coach and a great Dad and cares about people if he wants
to admit it or not.  He will probably hate me again for saying any of
this...But try to remember debate coaches live a really odd life....the
stress is fantastic sometimes. I often think back in horror on some of my
post round altercations in my younger coaching life.....but I think we all
try to grow and get better.  None of us should be in the business of trying
to ruin other peoples lives or livelihoods.

On the traditionalists side we really need to try to "build some bridges"
with our performative/personal friends.......On the performative/personal
side maybe some people should realize that asking for a professional
response to deeply personal attacks or seeming attacks might be asking for
more than some people have.  Maybe I am wrong about this....I frequently am
wrong...but this business is hard enough for all of us without trying to
literally go after each other this way....At least I hope we can all try to
care enough about people despite themselves or ourselves to try to have some
peace?

Ok, back to silencio,

Josh






On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>wrote:

> 1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".
>
> 2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had
> any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate
> that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we
> have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)
>
> 3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't
> sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the
> only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that
> everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather
> than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what
> actually happened.
>
> 4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make
> those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying
> problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored
> clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather
> cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.
>
> 5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage
> seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be
> the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't
> try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who
> doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about
> face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it
> instead of ignoring the obvious.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080804/141dc85e/attachment.htm 

From mardigras23 at hotmail.com  Sun Aug  3 23:55:37 2008
From: mardigras23 at hotmail.com (Aaron Kall)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 04:55:37 +0000
Subject: [eDebate]  Quarters of the Ceda
Message-ID: <BAY132-W56554B5E7EF3AD9F061182BA780@phx.gbl>

as kade mentioned, having a debate in a round over who struck who from a strike card is not appropriate and ultimately non-verifiable.

take this hypothetical example-

Team A accuses Team B of striking a particular judge and says Team B should lose because of this for whatever reason.  Team B says "No, we didn't strike that judge- you have no evidence we did and you can't prove we did."

There is obviously no way team A can be proven inside the round who Team B struck and the judges would have no way of determining it.  No tab room would/should ever publicly disclose strike information, so there would be no way to ever resolve this debate.  Also, many teams probably aren't even aware who was on their card/struck from their card, as coaches sometimes make these decisions without the input of debaters.

Finally, just because a judge doesn't end up on a panel doesn't mean they were struck.  If both teams strike the same judge, the tab room chooses the three judge panel out of the remaining four judges at random, as there obviously can't be an even numbered panel.

aaron

_________________________________________________________________
Get more from your digital life.  Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/c5f25560/attachment.htm 

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Mon Aug  4 00:19:41 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 22:19:41 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Nevada Las Vegas
Message-ID: <7505F2BB8867453DB5D49BF72C872BBD@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:Las Vegas Classic ROUND ROBIN tournament
Starts:10/1/2008
Ends:10/2/2008
Hosted by: Nevada Las Vegas 
Contact: Jacob Thompson
Address: 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4052
Phone: 702-809-9670
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False
Divisions Offered: 
open policy with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Mon Aug  4 00:29:09 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 22:29:09 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Nevada Las Vegas
Message-ID: <8027D2AE95FF44B4A4D73F309ACE7A5C@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:Las Vegas Classic INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENT
Starts:10/4/2008
Ends:10/6/2008
Hosted by: Nevada Las Vegas 
Contact: Jacob Thompson
Address: 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4052
Phone: 702-809-9670
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False
Divisions Offered: 
open policy with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles
JV policy with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
novice policy with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Mon Aug  4 02:43:29 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 00:43:29 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Kansas City Kansas C
Message-ID: <52AA2026698C4F50BC61268CCC658C80@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:KCKCC Blue Devil Debates
Starts:10/10/2008
Ends:10/12/2008
Hosted by: Kansas City Kansas C
Contact: Darren Elliott
Address: 
Phone: 913-288-7295
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Junior Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos
Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 09:16:19 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:16:19 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Appropriate versus Verifiable
In-Reply-To: <BAY132-W56554B5E7EF3AD9F061182BA780@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY132-W56554B5E7EF3AD9F061182BA780@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <4896D6C2.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

these two claims are not the same: appropriateness and verifiable.  It is easily verifiable in the same way old evidence challenges were verifiable.  Aaron's "inside/outside" round is and has always been artificial.  With the advent of the internet and text messaging, there is no longer a separation of the two.  But even when I debated, if you made an ethics challenge that a card was out of context, judges often went to get a copy of the article or a different version of the card to resolve the dispute.  Corn-dog's decision to tape record a debate, then play it back to resolve a claim of how much evidence was read was no more "inside" the round than going to the tab room to identify whether a team struck a judge.  If a team makes the claim they struck a judge, it's easy to verify.
 
You can ask the tab room and they can verify it.  The "absolute privilege" to protect confidentiality at all costs in all instances is simply a community comfort, not grounded in any real justification.  Like other rights or privileges, one must balance it against competing community issues.  Taking concrete and meaningful actions to address the large gender and racial disparities in who judges debates seems like a decent community claim, even if it is uncomfortable to some.
 
As far as appropriate, perhaps in an ideal world it shouldn't be appropriate to bring the judge selection but it is.  It is appropriate to bring judging concerns into debates because there is no other forum to address such concerns in a meaningful way.  The system gives absolute power to teams to decide who judges debates in ways no other activity does.  There isn't even a mechanism in place to address judging problems or issues.  Every collegiate athletic competition has some sort of sanctioning process for umpires, referees, officials, even in cases like non-conference games where the home team can pick the officials.  

Your appropriateness claim could be made Aaron of all procedural arguments, which suggest how the debate occur.  These have become subjective issues left to the debaters for resolution, and who gets to judge is no different.  As long as the community prefers to delegate all procedure making to the debaters, you then open Pandora's box.
 
The question should more likely be: is there a more productive way to have these debates?  I'm not sure I know the answer, but Aaron is again blaming Towson for making the argument in the hopes it will "go away" by communtiy censure, instead of making any honest effort to address solutions to the problems created by the system, in this case absolute reliance on MPJ.
>>> 

From: Aaron Kall <mardigras23 at hotmail.com>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 12:56 AM
Subject: [eDebate]  Quarters of the Ceda
as kade mentioned, having a debate in a round over who struck who from a strike card is not appropriate and ultimately non-verifiable.

take this hypothetical example-

Team A accuses Team B of striking a particular judge and says Team B should lose because of this for whatever reason.  Team B says "No, we didn't strike that judge- you have no evidence we did and you can't prove we did."

There is obviously no way team A can be proven inside the round who Team B struck and the judges would have no way of determining it.  No tab room would/should ever publicly disclose strike information, so there would be no way to ever resolve this debate.  Also, many teams probably aren't even aware who was on their card/struck from their card, as coaches sometimes make these decisions without the input of debaters.

Finally, just because a judge doesn't end up on a panel doesn't mean they were struck.  If both teams strike the same judge, the tab room chooses the three judge panel out of the remaining four judges at random, as there obviously can't be an even numbered panel.

aaron

Get more from your digital life. Find out how. ( http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008 )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/136d9216/attachment.htm 

From gacggc at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 10:27:24 2008
From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:27:24 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] In Round vs Out of the Round,
	and Verification as a norm
Message-ID: <8371758b0808040827x7cc28a3v180a487cfd270120@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Aaron,

It does seem that once topicality is no longer deemed a legitimate limiter
to a debate on the aff, and/or that direct competition with the plan is no
longer a legitimate limitation on the neg,
then there is no logical stopping point as to what can be discussed, or
happen, in a debate round.

This has been pointed out  for years, as offense for fiat theory, and as an
example of the "slippery slope" that happens when such theory is abandoned
for alternate forms that fall outside this ideology.

As just one, rather trivial example, a debater could be called out for being
a Red Sox fan, and arguments could be made as to why this constitutes
grounds for rejection, even if no sign or reference to the Red Sox was made
in the debate. As for concepts like "verifiability" ....   in a debate
system where people are willing to argue that everything is up for debate,
even the call for verifiability - as in "do we really know person X is a Red
Sox" fan - could be shrugged off as being unnecessary.   How much
verifiability is really required in a world where our government just makes
things up?  A person could be simply labelled a Red Sox fan, just to make a
point about the Red Sox,  or to make a point about the government, and then
voted down.    Really, the call for "evidence" as being necessary seems
almost quaint in a world where non rational forms, expressive forms, or
simple negation in the form of silence, are deemed allowable.

As for the idea of "appropriateness", how shocking is it that an individual
moons someone in an environment where people take their clothes off as an
argument? Or that a coach engages in discussions with judges during a
debate, when the judges' impartiality or "responsibilities" are deemed
appropriate discussion points for a debate?

All of these slippery slope arguments were made previously.  It is  just
sort of a point of curiosity at this juncture to see if and where people
will finally see they've simply constructed true and utter anarchy, and that
this is not actually a good thing, where no meaningful interaction or
exchange is feasible;  what will be the final step?  We've already had
physical violence initiated in debate rounds - in the form of pies.  And
even that was found to be amusing and defensible by some.  How about when
the pie is deleted, and there is only the plate?  How about when the plate
is then tied to an incendiary device?

Look at that youtube video and tell me that violence was not a strong
possibility at that moment.  If there is no distinction between what happens
in a round and outside of the round, why couldn't that same behavior be
reconstituted in a debate, as an example of how people were hurt emotionally
by that moment.  And why couldnt escalation occur?

Either people want to have actual debate, or they do not.  But once you are
willing to vote for these alternatives, under a framework that says
structural norms are not relevant, good luck finding a limit.

It seems quite clear that tournament directors and debate organizations need
to start enforcing norms.  Norms of behavior in and out of a round,
including what sort of forms are appropriate for discussion.   As has also
been said before, this is no different than any other activity or sporting
event, where such norms are enforced.   That really is the only
alternative...  people keep rejecting it as "silencing", and then the slope
keeps getting steeper as to the sort of things they want to say and do and
not be "silenced" from saying and doing.

David


David Glass
Asst, Harvard debate


On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>
>  these two claims are not the same: appropriateness and verifiable.  It is
> easily verifiable in the same way old evidence challenges were verifiable.
> Aaron's "inside/outside" round is and has always been artificial.  With the
> advent of the internet and text messaging, there is no longer a separation
> of the two.  But even when I debated, if you made an ethics challenge that a
> card was out of context, judges often went to get a copy of the article or a
> different version of the card to resolve the dispute.  Corn-dog's decision
> to tape record a debate, then play it back to resolve a claim of how much
> evidence was read was no more "inside" the round than going to the tab room
> to identify whether a team struck a judge.  If a team makes the claim they
> struck a judge, it's easy to verify.
>
> You can ask the tab room and they can verify it.  The "absolute privilege"
> to protect confidentiality at all costs in all instances is simply a
> community comfort, not grounded in any real justification.  Like other
> rights or privileges, one must balance it against competing community
> issues.  Taking concrete and meaningful actions to address the large gender
> and racial disparities in who judges debates seems like a decent community
> claim, even if it is uncomfortable to some.
>
> As far as appropriate, perhaps in an ideal world it shouldn't be
> appropriate to bring the judge selection but it is.  It is appropriate to
> bring judging concerns into debates because there is no other forum to
> address such concerns in a meaningful way.  The system gives absolute power
> to teams to decide who judges debates in ways no other activity does.  There
> isn't even a mechanism in place to address judging problems or issues.
> Every collegiate athletic competition has some sort of sanctioning process
> for umpires, referees, officials, even in cases like non-conference games
> where the home team can pick the officials.
>
> Your appropriateness claim could be made Aaron of all procedural arguments,
> which suggest how the debate occur.  These have become subjective issues
> left to the debaters for resolution, and who gets to judge is no different.
> As long as the community prefers to delegate all procedure making to the
> debaters, you then open Pandora's box.
>
> The question should more likely be: is there a more productive way to have
> these debates?  I'm not sure I know the answer, but Aaron is again blaming
> Towson for making the argument in the hopes it will "go away" by communtiy
> censure, instead of making any honest effort to address solutions to the
> problems created by the system, in this case absolute reliance on MPJ.
>
> >>>
>   *From: * Aaron Kall <mardigras23 at hotmail.com> *To:* <edebate at ndtceda.com
> > *Date: * 8/4/2008 12:56 AM *Subject: * [eDebate]  Quarters of the Ceda as
> kade mentioned, having a debate in a round over who struck who from a strike
> card is not appropriate and ultimately non-verifiable.
>
> take this hypothetical example-
>
> Team A accuses Team B of striking a particular judge and says Team B should
> lose because of this for whatever reason.  Team B says "No, we didn't strike
> that judge- you have no evidence we did and you can't prove we did."
>
> There is obviously no way team A can be proven inside the round who Team B
> struck and the judges would have no way of determining it.  No tab room
> would/should ever publicly disclose strike information, so there would be no
> way to ever resolve this debate.  Also, many teams probably aren't even
> aware who was on their card/struck from their card, as coaches sometimes
> make these decisions without the input of debaters.
>
> Finally, just because a judge doesn't end up on a panel doesn't mean they
> were struck.  If both teams strike the same judge, the tab room chooses the
> three judge panel out of the remaining four judges at random, as there
> obviously can't be an even numbered panel.
>
> aaron
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Get more from your digital life. Find out how.<http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080804/d695f67a/attachment.htm 

From alfred.snider at uvm.edu  Mon Aug  4 10:56:18 2008
From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider)
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 11:56:18 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] WDI research pack indexes part 1
Message-ID: <489726A2.5020907@uvm.edu>

You may download and inspect the indexes from the WDI first wave 
evidence set.

http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wdi2008collegepolicyindexes1.pdf

This is for information purposes only. We do not sell or vend the WDI 
evidence set because it belongs to those who produced it.

I will have another batch in a day or so.

Things are going well and the work is intense. Congrats to all.

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 ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 11:00:21 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:00:21 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4896EF22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Dear Peacemakers (Josh, M.L., Ermo, Christopher Thomas, Scott Elliott, and anyone else who wants us to "build bridges"),
 
First and foremost.  I care about each and everyone one of you, even if I don't know some of you.  I care about you because you care about something I love passionately, policy debate.
 
Second, pain sucks.  I don't wish it on anybody and I certainly try to avoid it in my personal life most of the time, even though I choose to inflict it on others from time to time, sometimes intentionally, and other times lacking intent.  I recognize there exists some level of contradiction and hypocrisy in that choice, and I pray for resolution of that dilemma.
 
Third, the "fight" didn't bother me much at all.  In fact, much like a lot of the other violence around me that I enjoy without apology: football, boxing, hardcore political rap like old NWA and Ice Cube, the Real World on MTV and Celebreality on VHI, Shawn Whelan's version of basketball, rough sex, I'll stop there.  My cultural reality is what I saw exists in many of the worlds I live in, and I could appreciate and enjoy watching bill and Shanara scrap as part of that cultural upbringing.  I live in a culture that has fights like this, we kiss and make up and move on, no worse for the wear.
 
Fourth, had their fight occurred in the Birmingham basement where MLK, Rosa, Abernathy, and others "fought" over how to execute the bus boycott strategy, in private and not on camera, it would never have bothered me at all.  But in the quarter-finals of our professional National tournament, that is akin to MLK having the fight during his Sunday service.  Aaron's right: appropriateness is the issue.
 
Fifth, my concern with the bridge builders is that the call for coalition building sounds one sided to me.  I keep hearing the need to "rethink" the inappropriate choice (making the decision to discuss the strike) with little discussion of what should happen on the other side (how to FIX the problem of racial and gender exclusion).  Even in ML's eloquence, I heard more discussion of Towson's strategic choice than I heard of what everyone else should do to fix the problem: that Shanara's culture difference likely led, at least in part, to reasons she made the Ft. Hays debaters uncomfortable.  Even if that difference was a decision to give lower points last time.  This one sided approach to building bridges bothers me a lot more than the altercation, which frankly, I at many levels respected on both sides for different reasons.  
 
Sixth, using "white standards" of what is appropriate (which I might add are driving the entirety of the discussion about this incident), it is easy to make the claim that all of this is Shanara's fault.  After Towson made the choice to argue that striking her was an act that protects white privilege (which it was), and won the debate, she baited bill by calling him out for how he was reacting to the decision.  She could have sat back with her victory, let him vent, and Towson could have gone to semi's.  But she didn't.
 
Seventh, and perhaps this is where the Black angst comes from (not saying that Andy or Beth and other Whites of good conscience don't share in this angst but this angst is a result of common shared experiences that I choose to define as Black), the reason this escalated in terms of tenor and tone is a feeling of powerlessness and betrayal by Shanara and Towson, and a similar feeling from Ft. Hays.  How could Shanara and Towson feel that way, given they made the argument and won the debate?  It's easy.  For them, bill and Ft. Hays represent a very public and private group of individuals that make very, very public statements, both inside and outside of debate, that they are in solidarity with the goal of Black participation in debate.  No one can question bill shanahan's overt support, both as a judge and a loyal follower regarding these issues.  Listen to Deven's cry in the background as the chaos exploded, he is astounded that bill doens't see that the argument in this debate is no different than the argument bill repeatedly voted for when made by Liz and Tonia in 2004.  And Deven is absolutely correct, there was little, if any, difference, other than the argument was being made against Ft. Hays instead of against someone else with bill judging or watching.
 
I suspect Shanara's callout was because she expected an apology and for bill to immediately see the hypocrisy.  Knowing bill, I suspect he would have gotten there, but in the moment he too wasn't in a good place.  From his perspective, he sees himself as a loyal soldier to the cause, and even if he did misstep, probably believes that this should have been handled outside of the competitive framework, as coalition partners and all.  I have seen this time and again, this rhetoric of coalitions without an appropriate structure to hammer out the details of what it means to be in a partnership or coalition. Truthfully, this is usually done in the context of a competitive debate, with strategic aims (and that includes Louisville, Towson, and anyone else who attempts to win with coalition and identity politics in debates).  What isn't done is meeting outside the competition to create ethical rules of engagement of what coalition debates look like.  Often Louisville debaters felt their coalitions where not what their opponents felt they were, so once in competition, both sides ended frustrated with how they engaged one another.  That level of mis-communication was heightened in this particular debate.
 
Eight, I don't want bill to lose his job, or anyone else.  I want him to learn.  He has to learn that the balance between competition and being done with a cause is a tenuous and difficult one to walk.  He has to learn that Blacks will likely perceive that his white privilege extends to his rationalizations for the decision to strike a Black judge.  Towson has to learn that the debate was won in part on strategic surprise.  Had Ft. Hays known about what the debate would be about, they likely could have prepared better answers.  New affirmatives and surprises produce competitive bitterness in an activity that creates it's primary foundation around competition, and this debate was no different.  Shanara probably needs to recognize that the competitive moment, wasn't a realistic moment for critical reflection by bill and Ft. Hays about what happened.  And the decision to make the debate about her pain can't ignore that bill has pain produced from this moment too. His disrespect of Towson and her after the debate was a product at least in part of him feeling disrespected too.  I have lost enjoyment for many a Louisville debate because the opponent is incapable of showing respect.  I ultimately learned that I was asking too much of a culture that simply allows these behaviors to exist.  Both sides of this are a reflection of personal politics being a part of debate.
 
Ninth, and this is to those deeply bothered by the way things are, like most everyone should.  Live in the moment, not the romanticized past, or a unrealistic future.  Don't wish for all of this to simply go away, or pick a side and wish they go away or be condemned.  It's difficult living in a multicultural society where similar people think and act differently.  Recognize that there are problems on all sides but with critical thought and effort, they can be addressed.  Listen to the other and try and understand what is being said and felt.  If you are the other, make sure that you go beyond your issues to engage the fears and concerns of making changes solely to accommodate your issues.  In other words, we are a smart community that can construct a great policy debate community that embodies many of the issues people are discussing, advocating, protesting, etc.  We have the power to fix and overcome the issues.  I'm sure during the bus boycott, no one in the beginning saw an equitable resolution, no one certainly saw major Civil Rights legislation.  If there is political will to move forward productively, then people can.  Personally, the journey has brought constant self-reflection and thought about how to make policy debate the best activity on the planet, because I personally believe it is the most important activity on the planet, and the passion shown that day by all, only verifies that for me.
 
Tenth, I offer the challenge that the community has put forth for Louisville many times.  Think honestly and reflectly about what the ideal world of policy debate is for you.  And if it is some product of the past, then critically examine that past.  Were there criticisms by yourself or others at that time?  How do you engage those criticisms?  That honest reflection and willingness to engage instead of leaving is what can address these issues.
 
With love,
 
Ede
 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
To:"Adam Jackson" <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>
CC:eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>, <christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 12:53 AM
Subject: [eDebate] Peace - Seriously
Hello,
 
I am decloaking both because like twenty people have asked me to and also because I feel some friends are really involved in a mess here - I dont want this to be about me at all...I just want to say a few things:
 
First, good people do bad things sometimes.  I have friends who are homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other people.  As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people make terrible choices.  What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones.  I mean we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best selves.  And that good people do bad things.  Lets also be honest NOBODY was acting at their best in that room from what I saw.
 
Second, part of what I believe Eric was trying to say was that the personal turn in debate has an odd ability to make people take things personally in ways that defy propriety.  He wasnt saying that it was GOOD that things like that happened he was saying it was a predictable outcome.  One thing we need to ask is if we could predict that more things like this might be a predictable outcome of the personal turn in debate.  Before poo pooing this I would suggest that a) in the instance on tape Fort Hayes likely thought that the choice was anonymous b) that they could very well REALLY respect Shanara and just have thought in this instance she would not be the best judge for that particular round and then BOOM the whole round becomes about that personal private choice and the accusation might not have met the actual reason...next thing you know the whole year is over...and on that very argument.....People have gotten in fist fights for much dumber reasons.  
 
Third, while I think I get why Ede said what he said...I have always felt it was great when I got struck....because the worst thing I could imagine was being someones deciding judge at nationals, which they worked for sometimes for four whole years, when they did not want me deciding that round.  I totally get what Ede is saying too, not from his or Shanara's perspectives....But I do get this.  
 
Finally, I wanted to say something before you totally throw Bill Shanahan or anyone else in this discussion to the wolves (Shanara is an awesome fierce person and intellect, the Towson guys are awesome, Andy is one of my fave people in the activity etc).  Very few people have EVER made me as mad as Bill.....There are times when I was certain Bill and I were going to break down the whole building we were arguing in.  We virtually agree on nothing but baseball....He can be a total asshole (so can I obviously) and have terrible moments.  But, as much as I hate to say it sometimes, debate is a better place with him and the Towson guys and Shanara and Ede and everyone else in it.  
 
Should he have done what he did....Of course not....There are lots of things I think Bill should not have done over the years.....He is a very rough and tumble strong intellect from a tough neigborhood with a crazy temper....But he also is a caring coach and a great Dad and cares about people if he wants to admit it or not.  He will probably hate me again for saying any of this...But try to remember debate coaches live a really odd life....the stress is fantastic sometimes. I often think back in horror on some of my post round altercations in my younger coaching life.....but I think we all try to grow and get better.  None of us should be in the business of trying to ruin other peoples lives or livelihoods.
 
On the traditionalists side we really need to try to "build some bridges" with our performative/personal friends.......On the performative/personal side maybe some people should realize that asking for a professional response to deeply personal attacks or seeming attacks might be asking for more than some people have.  Maybe I am wrong about this....I frequently am wrong...but this business is hard enough for all of us without trying to literally go after each other this way....At least I hope we can all try to care enough about people despite themselves or ourselves to try to have some peace?
 
Ok, back to silencio,
 
Josh
 
 
 
 

 
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com> wrote:


1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".

2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had
any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate
that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we
have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)

3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't
sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the
only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that
everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather
than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what
actually happened.

4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make
those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying
problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored
clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather
cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.

5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage
seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be
the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't
try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who
doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about
face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it
instead of ignoring the obvious.
_______________________________________________
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/20080804/da6ee684/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 11:09:50 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:09:50 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] In Round vs Out of the Round,
	and Verification as	a norm
In-Reply-To: <8371758b0808040827x7cc28a3v180a487cfd270120@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8371758b0808040827x7cc28a3v180a487cfd270120@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4896F15C.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

If explanations of human nature and the world could only be simplified to community consensus on plan limits.  Given the condition of the world and human behavior outside of debate, the certainty that debate is affected by that world (technolgoical and social changes being the most obvious), as well as the obviously simplification of the challenges facing contemporary debate being reduced solely to limits on the affirmative, I guess we will put this post in the "good old days" revisionist category.
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
To:"Aaron Kall" <mardigras23 at hotmail.com>, <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
CC:Kade Olsen <kade.olsen at gmail.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 11:29 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] In Round vs Out of the Round,and Verification as a norm

Hi Aaron,
 
It does seem that once topicality is no longer deemed a legitimate limiter to a debate on the aff, and/or that direct competition with the plan is no longer a legitimate limitation on the neg,
then there is no logical stopping point as to what can be discussed, or happen, in a debate round.
 
This has been pointed out  for years, as offense for fiat theory, and as an example of the "slippery slope" that happens when such theory is abandoned for alternate forms that fall outside this ideology.
 
As just one, rather trivial example, a debater could be called out for being a Red Sox fan, and arguments could be made as to why this constitutes grounds for rejection, even if no sign or reference to the Red Sox was made in the debate. As for concepts like "verifiability" ....   in a debate system where people are willing to argue that everything is up for debate, even the call for verifiability - as in "do we really know person X is a Red Sox" fan - could be shrugged off as being unnecessary.   How much verifiability is really required in a world where our government just makes things up?  A person could be simply labelled a Red Sox fan, just to make a point about the Red Sox,  or to make a point about the government, and then voted down.    Really, the call for "evidence" as being necessary seems almost quaint in a world where non rational forms, expressive forms, or simple negation in the form of silence, are deemed allowable.
 
As for the idea of "appropriateness", how shocking is it that an individual moons someone in an environment where people take their clothes off as an argument? Or that a coach engages in discussions with judges during a debate, when the judges' impartiality or "responsibilities" are deemed appropriate discussion points for a debate?
 
All of these slippery slope arguments were made previously.  It is  just sort of a point of curiosity at this juncture to see if and where people will finally see they've simply constructed true and utter anarchy, and that this is not actually a good thing, where no meaningful interaction or exchange is feasible;  what will be the final step?  We've already had physical violence initiated in debate rounds - in the form of pies.  And even that was found to be amusing and defensible by some.  How about when the pie is deleted, and there is only the plate?  How about when the plate is then tied to an incendiary device?  
 
Look at that youtube video and tell me that violence was not a strong possibility at that moment.  If there is no distinction between what happens in a round and outside of the round, why couldn't that same behavior be reconstituted in a debate, as an example of how people were hurt emotionally by that moment.  And why couldnt escalation occur?  
 
Either people want to have actual debate, or they do not.  But once you are willing to vote for these alternatives, under a framework that says structural norms are not relevant, good luck finding a limit.
 
It seems quite clear that tournament directors and debate organizations need to start enforcing norms.  Norms of behavior in and out of a round, including what sort of forms are appropriate for discussion.   As has also been said before, this is no different than any other activity or sporting event, where such norms are enforced.   That really is the only alternative...  people keep rejecting it as "silencing", and then the slope keeps getting steeper as to the sort of things they want to say and do and not be "silenced" from saying and doing.   
 
David
 
 
David Glass 
Asst, Harvard debate

 
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: 

these two claims are not the same: appropriateness and verifiable.  It is easily verifiable in the same way old evidence challenges were verifiable.  Aaron's "inside/outside" round is and has always been artificial.  With the advent of the internet and text messaging, there is no longer a separation of the two.  But even when I debated, if you made an ethics challenge that a card was out of context, judges often went to get a copy of the article or a different version of the card to resolve the dispute.  Corn-dog's decision to tape record a debate, then play it back to resolve a claim of how much evidence was read was no more "inside" the round than going to the tab room to identify whether a team struck a judge.  If a team makes the claim they struck a judge, it's easy to verify.
 
You can ask the tab room and they can verify it.  The "absolute privilege" to protect confidentiality at all costs in all instances is simply a community comfort, not grounded in any real justification.  Like other rights or privileges, one must balance it against competing community issues.  Taking concrete and meaningful actions to address the large gender and racial disparities in who judges debates seems like a decent community claim, even if it is uncomfortable to some.
 
As far as appropriate, perhaps in an ideal world it shouldn't be appropriate to bring the judge selection but it is.  It is appropriate to bring judging concerns into debates because there is no other forum to address such concerns in a meaningful way.  The system gives absolute power to teams to decide who judges debates in ways no other activity does.  There isn't even a mechanism in place to address judging problems or issues.  Every collegiate athletic competition has some sort of sanctioning process for umpires, referees, officials, even in cases like non-conference games where the home team can pick the officials.  

Your appropriateness claim could be made Aaron of all procedural arguments, which suggest how the debate occur.  These have become subjective issues left to the debaters for resolution, and who gets to judge is no different.  As long as the community prefers to delegate all procedure making to the debaters, you then open Pandora's box.
 
The question should more likely be: is there a more productive way to have these debates?  I'm not sure I know the answer, but Aaron is again blaming Towson for making the argument in the hopes it will "go away" by communtiy censure, instead of making any honest effort to address solutions to the problems created by the system, in this case absolute reliance on MPJ.
 
>>> 

From: Aaron Kall <mardigras23 at hotmail.com>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 12:56 AM
Subject: [eDebate]  Quarters of the Ceda
as kade mentioned, having a debate in a round over who struck who from a strike card is not appropriate and ultimately non-verifiable.

take this hypothetical example-

Team A accuses Team B of striking a particular judge and says Team B should lose because of this for whatever reason.  Team B says "No, we didn't strike that judge- you have no evidence we did and you can't prove we did."

There is obviously no way team A can be proven inside the round who Team B struck and the judges would have no way of determining it.  No tab room would/should ever publicly disclose strike information, so there would be no way to ever resolve this debate.  Also, many teams probably aren't even aware who was on their card/struck from their card, as coaches sometimes make these decisions without the input of debaters.

Finally, just because a judge doesn't end up on a panel doesn't mean they were struck.  If both teams strike the same judge, the tab room chooses the three judge panel out of the remaining four judges at random, as there obviously can't be an even numbered panel.

aaron
 

Get more from your digital life. Find out how. ( http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008 )

_______________________________________________
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/20080804/ef841e22/attachment.htm 

From gacggc at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 11:27:47 2008
From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:27:47 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <4896EF22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
References: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896EF22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <8371758b0808040927r45d6641dv688d85433085128b@mail.gmail.com>

Once the theoretical framework is deemed to be tyrannical and up for
examination in any context (race, religion, gender, age, ideology,
philosophy), by any method (rational argument, voice metaphor, expressive,
acts, violence, torture), at any time (within speech time, outside speech
time), with any standards (evidence, no evidence, no materials, guns,
missiles), by any persons (debaters, non-debaters, judges, people actively
influencing judges)  then there is no bridge-building, because nothing
exists any more on either shore of the river.

What is it that we are trying to save?  How can you make policy debate good
and open and equal when at the end of the process there is no more policy
debate?  What activity are you trying to save?

David


David J. Glass, M.D.
Asst, Harvard Debate

On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>
>  Dear Peacemakers (Josh, M.L., Ermo, Christopher Thomas, Scott Elliott,
> and anyone else who wants us to "build bridges"),
>
> First and foremost.  I care about each and everyone one of you, even if I
> don't know some of you.  I care about you because you care about something I
> love passionately, policy debate.
>
> Second, pain sucks.  I don't wish it on anybody and I certainly try to
> avoid it in my personal life most of the time, even though I choose to
> inflict it on others from time to time, sometimes intentionally, and other
> times lacking intent.  I recognize there exists some level of contradiction
> and hypocrisy in that choice, and I pray for resolution of that dilemma.
>
> Third, the "fight" didn't bother me much at all.  In fact, much like a lot
> of the other violence around me that I enjoy without apology: football,
> boxing, hardcore political rap like old NWA and Ice Cube, the Real World on
> MTV and Celebreality on VHI, Shawn Whelan's version of basketball, rough
> sex, I'll stop there.  My cultural reality is what I saw exists in many of
> the worlds I live in, and I could appreciate and enjoy watching bill and
> Shanara scrap as part of that cultural upbringing.  I live in a culture that
> has fights like this, we kiss and make up and move on, no worse for the
> wear.
>
> Fourth, had their fight occurred in the Birmingham basement where MLK,
> Rosa, Abernathy, and others "fought" over how to execute the bus boycott
> strategy, in private and not on camera, it would never have bothered me at
> all.  But in the quarter-finals of our professional National tournament,
> that is akin to MLK having the fight during his Sunday service.  Aaron's
> right: appropriateness is the issue.
>
> Fifth, my concern with the bridge builders is that the call for coalition
> building sounds one sided to me.  I keep hearing the need to "rethink" the
> inappropriate choice (making the decision to discuss the strike) with little
> discussion of what should happen on the other side (how to FIX the problem
> of racial and gender exclusion).  Even in ML's eloquence, I heard more
> discussion of Towson's strategic choice than I heard of what everyone else
> should do to fix the problem: that Shanara's culture difference likely led,
> at least in part, to reasons she made the Ft. Hays debaters uncomfortable.
> Even if that difference was a decision to give lower points last time.  This
> one sided approach to building bridges bothers me a lot more than the
> altercation, which frankly, I at many levels respected on both sides for
> different reasons.
>
> Sixth, using "white standards" of what is appropriate (which I might add
> are driving the entirety of the discussion about this incident), it is easy
> to make the claim that all of this is Shanara's fault.  After Towson made
> the choice to argue that striking her was an act that protects white
> privilege (which it was), and won the debate, she baited bill by calling him
> out for how he was reacting to the decision.  She could have sat back with
> her victory, let him vent, and Towson could have gone to semi's.  But
> she didn't.
>
> Seventh, and perhaps this is where the Black angst comes from (not saying
> that Andy or Beth and other Whites of good conscience don't share in this
> angst but this angst is a result of common shared experiences that I choose
> to define as Black), the reason this escalated in terms of tenor and tone is
> a feeling of powerlessness and betrayal by Shanara and Towson, and a similar
> feeling from Ft. Hays.  How could Shanara and Towson feel that way, given
> they made the argument and won the debate?  It's easy.  For them, bill and
> Ft. Hays represent a very public and private group of individuals that make
> very, very public statements, both inside and outside of debate, that they
> are in solidarity with the goal of Black participation in debate.  No one
> can question bill shanahan's overt support, both as a judge and a loyal
> follower regarding these issues.  Listen to Deven's cry in the background as
> the chaos exploded, he is astounded that bill doens't see that the argument
> in this debate is no different than the argument bill repeatedly voted for
> when made by Liz and Tonia in 2004.  And Deven is absolutely correct, there
> was little, if any, difference, other than the argument was being made
> against Ft. Hays instead of against someone else with bill judging or
> watching.
>
> I suspect Shanara's callout was because she expected an apology and for
> bill to immediately see the hypocrisy.  Knowing bill, I suspect he would
> have gotten there, but in the moment he too wasn't in a good place.  From
> his perspective, he sees himself as a loyal soldier to the cause, and even
> if he did misstep, probably believes that this should have been handled
> outside of the competitive framework, as coalition partners and all.  I have
> seen this time and again, this rhetoric of coalitions without an appropriate
> structure to hammer out the details of what it means to be in a partnership
> or coalition. Truthfully, this is usually done in the context of a
> competitive debate, with strategic aims (and that includes Louisville,
> Towson, and anyone else who attempts to win with coalition and identity
> politics in debates).  What isn't done is meeting outside the competition to
> create ethical rules of engagement of what coalition debates look like.
> Often Louisville debaters felt their coalitions where not what their
> opponents felt they were, so once in competition, both sides ended
> frustrated with how they engaged one another.  That level of
> mis-communication was heightened in this particular debate.
>
> Eight, I don't want bill to lose his job, or anyone else.  I want him to
> learn.  He has to learn that the balance between competition and being done
> with a cause is a tenuous and difficult one to walk.  He has to learn that
> Blacks will likely perceive that his white privilege extends to his
> rationalizations for the decision to strike a Black judge.  Towson has to
> learn that the debate was won in part on strategic surprise.  Had Ft. Hays
> known about what the debate would be about, they likely could have prepared
> better answers.  New affirmatives and surprises produce competitive
> bitterness in an activity that creates it's primary foundation around
> competition, and this debate was no different.  Shanara probably needs to
> recognize that the competitive moment, wasn't a realistic moment for
> critical reflection by bill and Ft. Hays about what happened.  And the
> decision to make the debate about her pain can't ignore that bill has pain
> produced from this moment too. His disrespect of Towson and her after the
> debate was a product at least in part of him feeling disrespected too.  I
> have lost enjoyment for many a Louisville debate because the opponent is
> incapable of showing respect.  I ultimately learned that I was asking too
> much of a culture that simply allows these behaviors to exist.  Both sides
> of this are a reflection of personal politics being a part of debate.
>
> Ninth, and this is to those deeply bothered by the way things are, like
> most everyone should.  Live in the moment, not the romanticized past, or a
> unrealistic future.  Don't wish for all of this to simply go away, or pick a
> side and wish they go away or be condemned.  It's difficult living in a
> multicultural society where similar people think and act differently.
> Recognize that there are problems on all sides but with critical thought and
> effort, they can be addressed.  Listen to the other and try and understand
> what is being said and felt.  If you are the other, make sure that you go
> beyond your issues to engage the fears and concerns of making changes solely
> to accommodate your issues.  In other words, we are a smart community that
> can construct a great policy debate community that embodies many of the
> issues people are discussing, advocating, protesting, etc.  We have the
> power to fix and overcome the issues.  I'm sure during the bus boycott, no
> one in the beginning saw an equitable resolution, no one certainly saw major
> Civil Rights legislation.  If there is political will to move forward
> productively, then people can.  Personally, the journey has brought constant
> self-reflection and thought about how to make policy debate the best
> activity on the planet, because I personally believe it is the most
> important activity on the planet, and the passion shown that day by all,
> only verifies that for me.
>
> Tenth, I offer the challenge that the community has put forth for
> Louisville many times.  Think honestly and reflectly about what the ideal
> world of policy debate is for you.  And if it is some product of the past,
> then critically examine that past.  Were there criticisms by yourself or
> others at that time?  How do you engage those criticisms?  That honest
> reflection and willingness to engage instead of leaving is what can address
> these issues.
>
> With love,
>
> Ede
>
>
> Ede Warner, Jr.
> Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
> University of Louisville
> 308E Strickler Hall
> 502-852-3522
> ewarner at louisville.edu
> http://uofldebate.com/
>
> >>>
>   *From: * Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> *To:* "Adam Jackson" <
> baltimoredebate at gmail.com> *CC:* eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>, <
> christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com> *Date: * 8/4/2008 12:53 AM *Subject: * [eDebate]
> Peace - Seriously Hello,
>
> I am decloaking both because like twenty people have asked me to and also
> because I feel some friends are really involved in a mess here - I dont want
> this to be about me at all...I just want to say a few things:
>
> First, good people do bad things sometimes.  I have friends who are
> homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent
> altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other
> people.  As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often
> wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake
> and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people
> make terrible choices.  What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves
> to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones.  I mean
> we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also
> have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best
> selves.  And that good people do bad things.  Lets also be honest NOBODY was
> acting at their best in that room from what I saw.
>
> Second, part of what I believe Eric was trying to say was that the personal
> turn in debate has an odd ability to make people take things personally in
> ways that defy propriety.  He wasnt saying that it was GOOD that things like
> that happened he was saying it was a predictable outcome.  One thing we need
> to ask is if we could predict that more things like this might be a
> predictable outcome of the personal turn in debate.  Before poo pooing this
> I would suggest that a) in the instance on tape Fort Hayes likely thought
> that the choice was anonymous b) that they could very well REALLY respect
> Shanara and just have thought in this instance she would not be the best
> judge for that particular round and then BOOM the whole round becomes about
> that personal private choice and the accusation might not have met the
> actual reason...next thing you know the whole year is over...and on that
> very argument.....People have gotten in fist fights for much dumber
> reasons.
>
> Third, while I think I get why Ede said what he said...I have always felt
> it was great when I got struck....because the worst thing I could imagine
> was being someones deciding judge at nationals, which they worked for
> sometimes for four whole years, when they did not want me deciding that
> round.  I totally get what Ede is saying too, not from his or Shanara's
> perspectives....But I do get this.
>
> Finally, I wanted to say something before you totally throw Bill Shanahan
> or anyone else in this discussion to the wolves (Shanara is an awesome
> fierce person and intellect, the Towson guys are awesome, Andy is one of my
> fave people in the activity etc).  Very few people have EVER made me as mad
> as Bill.....There are times when I was certain Bill and I were going to
> break down the whole building we were arguing in.  We virtually agree on
> nothing but baseball....He can be a total asshole (so can I obviously) and
> have terrible moments.  But, as much as I hate to say it sometimes, debate
> is a better place with him and the Towson guys and Shanara and Ede and
> everyone else in it.
>
> Should he have done what he did....Of course not....There are lots of
> things I think Bill should not have done over the years.....He is a very
> rough and tumble strong intellect from a tough neigborhood with a crazy
> temper....But he also is a caring coach and a great Dad and cares about
> people if he wants to admit it or not.  He will probably hate me again for
> saying any of this...But try to remember debate coaches live a really odd
> life....the stress is fantastic sometimes. I often think back in horror on
> some of my post round altercations in my younger coaching life.....but I
> think we all try to grow and get better.  None of us should be in the
> business of trying to ruin other peoples lives or livelihoods.
>
> On the traditionalists side we really need to try to "build some bridges"
> with our performative/personal friends.......On the performative/personal
> side maybe some people should realize that asking for a professional
> response to deeply personal attacks or seeming attacks might be asking for
> more than some people have.  Maybe I am wrong about this....I frequently am
> wrong...but this business is hard enough for all of us without trying to
> literally go after each other this way....At least I hope we can all try to
> care enough about people despite themselves or ourselves to try to have some
> peace?
>
> Ok, back to silencio,
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".
>>
>> 2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had
>> any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate
>> that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we
>> have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)
>>
>> 3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't
>> sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the
>> only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that
>> everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather
>> than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what
>> actually happened.
>>
>> 4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make
>> those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying
>> problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored
>> clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather
>> cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.
>>
>> 5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage
>> seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be
>> the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't
>> try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who
>> doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about
>> face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it
>> instead of ignoring the obvious.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20080804/a405f814/attachment.htm 

From basaindon at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  4 11:38:24 2008
From: basaindon at yahoo.com (Brent Saindon)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] In Round vs Out of the Round,
	and Verification as a norm
In-Reply-To: <8371758b0808040827x7cc28a3v180a487cfd270120@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <283447.57799.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

I believe Mr. Glass chimed in with this comment:

"Look at that youtube video and tell me that violence was not a strong possibility at that moment."

Having close ties to both parties, having been in the room, and knowing a bit about their interpersonal interactions with people on a regular basis, I can assure you that physical violence was NOT a strong possibility at that moment. That perception comes as much from the decision of others in the room to physically impose themselves between the two arguing parties (toward what end and motivated by what, you would have to ask the intervening parties). Both Bill and Shanara are direct, though sometimes brash, communicators, and obviously have a lot of passion. That quality is quite virtuous at times (you always know where you stand with them -- they are not interpersonally duplicitous), but can also be uncomfortable for the argumentatively frail. They are clearly both angry, but I do not sense, in either watching the video or in talking to both parties afterward, that either one of them feel that they are in any physical danger. Both are pretty strong
 minded people and capable of handling themselves; I doubt they need the protection of others then, or the supposed protection of others now.

This is not to comment on the perceived fault, appropriateness, etc. of the conflict. I find it interesting that we are having a public hearing on the issue, yet neither of the main parties in the video are at the forefront of the conversation. In fact, I believe neither of them are subscribers to e-debate. It makes it very easy to use footage of their conflict in the service of one's own agenda, whether that be the institutional remedies for interpersonal conflict, or to resurrect the hackneyed discussions about the so-called "performative" turn in debate (a label that does not do justice to the immense amount of argument innovation that has occurred over the last several years).

BTW, while not really taking a stance on the issue, the concern about out-of-round verification is a problem that is particularly acute in so-called "fiat" or "policy" debate. Remember, we use textual evidence of events that are supposedly occurring in the world, usually in places we don't live, have never visited, and know nothing about, except what we read and see on television. This verification problem fueled some of the really old kritiks in the early and mid 1990s, or so I have been told. However, one of the unfortunate side effects of debate is that it is a playpen for the young, and as a result, we tend to have a short institutional memory. If you can't talk about what happens outside of the room in probabilistic terms (Bush will probably invade Iran; the other team probably struck the judge we MOST wanted to keep), then really, what do we have to talk about. What you want is selective verifiability, but as a practical matter, a difficult thing
 to justify.

Another aside: it is interesting that while a few felt the need to condemn making this video public (perhaps the justified fear that they too one day, in their worst moments as people, might be subjected to prolonged public scrutiny), nobody has discussed the strategic moment of its introduction: 3 months later, on the eve of a new debate season; this smells like a coming discussion in debate rounds. Whatever hurt was felt at that time, these are not new wounds. However, if this is a coming debate strategy, then things are about to get a lot more personal over the next several months, so you might as well get ready. As much as I would love to believe that it is an innocent gesture of opening public discussion, it is interesting to me that those closely involved with posting the video see the guilt and innocence that it displays as so clear cut that it does not really merit much discussion.

Nearly everything is strategic. Adam: that also includes Towson's decision to strike me (as much as you might insist to the contrary). I do not blame you for your strategy; it seems quite reasonable (I'm sympathetic, but not without some degree of reservation concerning the arguments at hand -- not unlike the vast majority of people that judge you). But, you do me insult and disservice by suggesting your decision to strike me is done through my allegiances, not your strategy. I may be close to Bill, but to be honest, I don't know the FHSU debaters at all (couldn't even tell you which one is which). Shanara, to my understanding, is also very close with many of you, and from my conversations with her, particularly Mr. Cooper. Yet, I also would never question her integrity when judging any of you. I have not attended FHSU in many years, and the strategy they deployed I have almost no familiarity with. You paint me as an ideologue with allegiances that will
 inevitably and unfairly cloud my judgment, while suggesting that Shanara is completely capable of overcoming hers. It is nice that you respect her and give her credit (respect that very much deserves), but it pains me to say that you do not give me much. I feel like I deserve a little more.

Finally, I'm very saddened that, given that everything else is online (and some I suspect without the consent of the involved parties), we do not get to have the clip of Omar. I respect Omar's decision, and it seems inline with what little I know of his personality. But besides the fact that it is Omar's dissension that ignites the anger of both parties involved initially (though it gets off the track real fast), there were also some interesting elements of that discussion that had nothing to do with pre-text, that make the emotional charge of the scene more clear, and that blur some of the boundaries of guilt and innocence with regard to building an inclusive community.

Now back the regularly scheduled programming of calculated judgment and the grinding of old axes...

Brent Saindon

--- On Mon, 8/4/08, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:
From: David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] In Round vs Out of the Round, and Verification as a norm
To: "Aaron Kall" <mardigras23 at hotmail.com>, edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Cc: "Kade Olsen" <kade.olsen at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, August 4, 2008, 11:27 AM


Hi Aaron,
?
It does seem?that once topicality is no longer deemed a legitimate limiter to a debate on the aff, and/or that direct competition with the plan is no longer a legitimate limitation on the neg,
then there is no logical stopping point as to what can be discussed, or happen, in?a debate round.
?
This has been pointed out? for years, as offense for fiat theory, and as an example of the "slippery slope" that happens when such theory is abandoned for alternate forms that fall outside this ideology.

?
As just one, rather trivial example,?a debater could be called out for being a Red Sox fan, and arguments could be made as to why this constitutes grounds for rejection, even if no sign or?reference to the Red Sox was made in the debate. As for?concepts like "verifiability" ....? ?in a debate system where people are willing to argue that everything is up for debate, even the call for verifiability - as in "do we really know person X is a Red Sox" fan -?could be shrugged off as being unnecessary.?? How much verifiability is really required in a world where our government just makes things up? ?A person could be simply labelled a Red Sox fan, just to make a point about the Red Sox,? or to make a point about the government, and then voted down.??? Really, the call for "evidence" as being necessary seems almost quaint in a world where non rational forms, expressive forms, or simple negation in the form of silence, are deemed allowable.

?
As for the idea of "appropriateness", how shocking is it that an individual moons someone in an environment where people take their clothes off as an argument? Or that a coach engages in discussions with judges during a debate, when the judges' impartiality or "responsibilities" are deemed appropriate discussion points for a debate?

?
All of these slippery slope arguments were made previously.??It is ?just sort of a point of curiosity at this juncture to see if and where people will finally see they've simply constructed true and utter anarchy, and that this is not actually a good thing, where no meaningful interaction or exchange is feasible;? what will be the final step?? We've already had physical violence initiated in debate rounds - in the form of pies.? And even that was found to be amusing and defensible by some.? How about when the pie is deleted, and there is only the plate?? How about when the plate is then tied to an incendiary device?? 

?
Look at that youtube video and tell me that violence was not a strong possibility at that moment.? If there is no distinction between what happens in a round and outside of the round, why couldn't that same behavior be reconstituted in a debate, as an example of how people were hurt emotionally by that moment.? And why couldnt escalation occur?? 

?
Either people want to have actual debate, or they do not.? But once you are willing to vote for these alternatives, under a framework that says structural norms are not relevant, good luck finding a limit.
?
It seems quite clear that tournament directors and debate organizations need to start enforcing norms.? Norms of behavior in and out of a round, including what sort of forms are appropriate for discussion.?? As has also been said before, this is no different than any other activity or sporting event, where such norms are enforced.?? That really is the only alternative...? people keep rejecting it as "silencing", and then the slope keeps getting steeper as to the sort of things they want to say and do and not be "silenced" from saying and doing.?? 

?
David
?
?
David Glass 
Asst, Harvard debate

?
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:


these two claims are not the same: appropriateness and verifiable.? It is easily verifiable in the same way old evidence challenges were verifiable.? Aaron's "inside/outside" round is and has always been artificial.? With the advent of the internet and text messaging, there is no longer a separation of the two.? But even when I debated, if you made an ethics challenge that a card was out of context, judges often went to get a copy of the article or a different version of the card to resolve the dispute.? Corn-dog's decision to tape record?a debate, then play it back to resolve a claim of how much evidence was read was no more "inside" the round than going to the tab room to identify whether a team struck a judge.? If a team makes the claim they struck a judge, it's easy to verify.

?
You can ask the tab room and they can verify it.? The "absolute privilege" to protect confidentiality at all costs in all instances is simply a community comfort, not grounded in any real justification.? Like other rights or privileges, one must balance it against competing community issues.? Taking concrete and meaningful actions to address the large gender and racial disparities in who judges debates seems like a decent community claim, even if it is uncomfortable to some.

?
As far as appropriate, perhaps in an ideal world it shouldn't be appropriate to bring the judge selection but it is.? It is appropriate to bring judging concerns into debates because there is no other forum to address such concerns in a meaningful way.? The system gives absolute power to teams to decide who judges debates in ways no other activity does.? There isn't even a mechanism in place to address judging problems or issues.? Every collegiate athletic competition has some sort of sanctioning process for umpires, referees, officials, even in cases like non-conference games where the home team can pick the officials.? 


Your appropriateness claim could be made Aaron of all procedural arguments, which suggest how the debate occur.? These have become subjective issues left to the debaters for resolution, and who gets to judge is no different.? As long as the community prefers to delegate all procedure making to the debaters, you then open Pandora's box.

?
The question should more likely be: is there a more productive way to have these debates?? I'm not sure I know the answer, but Aaron is again blaming Towson for making the argument in the hopes it will "go away" by communtiy censure, instead of making any honest effort to address solutions to the problems created by the system, in this case absolute reliance on MPJ.

?
>>> 




From: 
Aaron Kall <mardigras23 at hotmail.com>

To:
<edebate at ndtceda.com>

Date: 
8/4/2008 12:56 AM

Subject: 
[eDebate]? Quarters of the Ceda
as kade mentioned, having a debate in a round over who struck who from a strike card is not appropriate and ultimately non-verifiable.

take this hypothetical example-

Team A accuses Team B of striking a particular judge and says Team B should lose because of this for whatever reason.? Team B says "No, we didn't strike that judge- you have no evidence we did and you can't prove we did."


There is obviously no way team A can be proven inside the round who Team B struck and the judges would have no way of determining it.? No tab room would/should ever publicly disclose strike information, so there would be no way to ever resolve this debate.? Also, many teams probably aren't even aware who was on their card/struck from their card, as coaches sometimes make these decisions without the input of debaters.


Finally, just because a judge doesn't end up on a panel doesn't mean they were struck.? If both teams strike the same judge, the tab room chooses the three judge panel out of the remaining four judges at random, as there obviously can't be an even numbered panel.


aaron
?


Get more from your digital life. Find out how.
_______________________________________________

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/20080804/f6963bac/attachment.htm 

From jbhdb8 at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 11:43:12 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:43:12 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <8371758b0808040927r45d6641dv688d85433085128b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896EF22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808040927r45d6641dv688d85433085128b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f6ec14bb0808040943l585af24ft85e1e57f19825c86@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

Gotham city had laws but they had failed to stop criminals for taking over
the city.....out of the darkness a single man with high technology
(nietzsche, heidigger, zizek) begins to attempt justice but in a way that
exposes the limits/failure of the laws....This single crusader, both
introduces in the minds of people the concept of anarchy and tries to
maintain some "rules."  A new form of crusader arises but he/she is an
engine of chaos introducing all to go even farther enjoining the city
to "introduce a little anarchy."

In several confrontations...the original crusader is forced to confront his
own "rules" in order to survive and protect justice.  The city yearns and
longs to go back to the more perfect old days in the form of a blonde haired
blue eyed District Attorney but the Joker knows that Batman changed
everything and that there is "no going back now"

Oddly enough, the two crusaders engage in many instances of real violence,
when before there were many lines even professionals wouldnt cross.

Who is Gotham's true hero......

Josh

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:27 PM, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Once the theoretical framework is deemed to be tyrannical and up for
> examination in any context (race, religion, gender, age, ideology,
> philosophy), by any method (rational argument, voice metaphor, expressive,
> acts, violence, torture), at any time (within speech time, outside speech
> time), with any standards (evidence, no evidence, no materials, guns,
> missiles), by any persons (debaters, non-debaters, judges, people actively
> influencing judges)  then there is no bridge-building, because nothing
> exists any more on either shore of the river.
>
> What is it that we are trying to save?  How can you make policy debate good
> and open and equal when at the end of the process there is no more policy
> debate?  What activity are you trying to save?
>
> David
>
>
> David J. Glass, M.D.
> Asst, Harvard Debate
>
>   On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  Dear Peacemakers (Josh, M.L., Ermo, Christopher Thomas, Scott Elliott,
>> and anyone else who wants us to "build bridges"),
>>
>> First and foremost.  I care about each and everyone one of you, even if I
>> don't know some of you.  I care about you because you care about something I
>> love passionately, policy debate.
>>
>> Second, pain sucks.  I don't wish it on anybody and I certainly try to
>> avoid it in my personal life most of the time, even though I choose to
>> inflict it on others from time to time, sometimes intentionally, and other
>> times lacking intent.  I recognize there exists some level of contradiction
>> and hypocrisy in that choice, and I pray for resolution of that dilemma.
>>
>> Third, the "fight" didn't bother me much at all.  In fact, much like a lot
>> of the other violence around me that I enjoy without apology: football,
>> boxing, hardcore political rap like old NWA and Ice Cube, the Real World on
>> MTV and Celebreality on VHI, Shawn Whelan's version of basketball, rough
>> sex, I'll stop there.  My cultural reality is what I saw exists in many of
>> the worlds I live in, and I could appreciate and enjoy watching bill and
>> Shanara scrap as part of that cultural upbringing.  I live in a culture that
>> has fights like this, we kiss and make up and move on, no worse for the
>> wear.
>>
>> Fourth, had their fight occurred in the Birmingham basement where MLK,
>> Rosa, Abernathy, and others "fought" over how to execute the bus boycott
>> strategy, in private and not on camera, it would never have bothered me at
>> all.  But in the quarter-finals of our professional National tournament,
>> that is akin to MLK having the fight during his Sunday service.  Aaron's
>> right: appropriateness is the issue.
>>
>> Fifth, my concern with the bridge builders is that the call for coalition
>> building sounds one sided to me.  I keep hearing the need to "rethink" the
>> inappropriate choice (making the decision to discuss the strike) with little
>> discussion of what should happen on the other side (how to FIX the problem
>> of racial and gender exclusion).  Even in ML's eloquence, I heard more
>> discussion of Towson's strategic choice than I heard of what everyone else
>> should do to fix the problem: that Shanara's culture difference likely led,
>> at least in part, to reasons she made the Ft. Hays debaters uncomfortable.
>> Even if that difference was a decision to give lower points last time.  This
>> one sided approach to building bridges bothers me a lot more than the
>> altercation, which frankly, I at many levels respected on both sides for
>> different reasons.
>>
>> Sixth, using "white standards" of what is appropriate (which I might add
>> are driving the entirety of the discussion about this incident), it is easy
>> to make the claim that all of this is Shanara's fault.  After Towson made
>> the choice to argue that striking her was an act that protects white
>> privilege (which it was), and won the debate, she baited bill by calling him
>> out for how he was reacting to the decision.  She could have sat back with
>> her victory, let him vent, and Towson could have gone to semi's.  But
>> she didn't.
>>
>> Seventh, and perhaps this is where the Black angst comes from (not saying
>> that Andy or Beth and other Whites of good conscience don't share in this
>> angst but this angst is a result of common shared experiences that I choose
>> to define as Black), the reason this escalated in terms of tenor and tone is
>> a feeling of powerlessness and betrayal by Shanara and Towson, and a similar
>> feeling from Ft. Hays.  How could Shanara and Towson feel that way, given
>> they made the argument and won the debate?  It's easy.  For them, bill and
>> Ft. Hays represent a very public and private group of individuals that make
>> very, very public statements, both inside and outside of debate, that they
>> are in solidarity with the goal of Black participation in debate.  No one
>> can question bill shanahan's overt support, both as a judge and a loyal
>> follower regarding these issues.  Listen to Deven's cry in the background as
>> the chaos exploded, he is astounded that bill doens't see that the argument
>> in this debate is no different than the argument bill repeatedly voted for
>> when made by Liz and Tonia in 2004.  And Deven is absolutely correct, there
>> was little, if any, difference, other than the argument was being made
>> against Ft. Hays instead of against someone else with bill judging or
>> watching.
>>
>> I suspect Shanara's callout was because she expected an apology and for
>> bill to immediately see the hypocrisy.  Knowing bill, I suspect he would
>> have gotten there, but in the moment he too wasn't in a good place.  From
>> his perspective, he sees himself as a loyal soldier to the cause, and even
>> if he did misstep, probably believes that this should have been handled
>> outside of the competitive framework, as coalition partners and all.  I have
>> seen this time and again, this rhetoric of coalitions without an appropriate
>> structure to hammer out the details of what it means to be in a partnership
>> or coalition. Truthfully, this is usually done in the context of a
>> competitive debate, with strategic aims (and that includes Louisville,
>> Towson, and anyone else who attempts to win with coalition and identity
>> politics in debates).  What isn't done is meeting outside the competition to
>> create ethical rules of engagement of what coalition debates look like.
>> Often Louisville debaters felt their coalitions where not what their
>> opponents felt they were, so once in competition, both sides ended
>> frustrated with how they engaged one another.  That level of
>> mis-communication was heightened in this particular debate.
>>
>> Eight, I don't want bill to lose his job, or anyone else.  I want him to
>> learn.  He has to learn that the balance between competition and being done
>> with a cause is a tenuous and difficult one to walk.  He has to learn that
>> Blacks will likely perceive that his white privilege extends to his
>> rationalizations for the decision to strike a Black judge.  Towson has to
>> learn that the debate was won in part on strategic surprise.  Had Ft. Hays
>> known about what the debate would be about, they likely could have prepared
>> better answers.  New affirmatives and surprises produce competitive
>> bitterness in an activity that creates it's primary foundation around
>> competition, and this debate was no different.  Shanara probably needs to
>> recognize that the competitive moment, wasn't a realistic moment for
>> critical reflection by bill and Ft. Hays about what happened.  And the
>> decision to make the debate about her pain can't ignore that bill has pain
>> produced from this moment too. His disrespect of Towson and her after the
>> debate was a product at least in part of him feeling disrespected too.  I
>> have lost enjoyment for many a Louisville debate because the opponent is
>> incapable of showing respect.  I ultimately learned that I was asking too
>> much of a culture that simply allows these behaviors to exist.  Both sides
>> of this are a reflection of personal politics being a part of debate.
>>
>> Ninth, and this is to those deeply bothered by the way things are, like
>> most everyone should.  Live in the moment, not the romanticized past, or a
>> unrealistic future.  Don't wish for all of this to simply go away, or pick a
>> side and wish they go away or be condemned.  It's difficult living in a
>> multicultural society where similar people think and act differently.
>> Recognize that there are problems on all sides but with critical thought and
>> effort, they can be addressed.  Listen to the other and try and understand
>> what is being said and felt.  If you are the other, make sure that you go
>> beyond your issues to engage the fears and concerns of making changes solely
>> to accommodate your issues.  In other words, we are a smart community that
>> can construct a great policy debate community that embodies many of the
>> issues people are discussing, advocating, protesting, etc.  We have the
>> power to fix and overcome the issues.  I'm sure during the bus boycott, no
>> one in the beginning saw an equitable resolution, no one certainly saw major
>> Civil Rights legislation.  If there is political will to move forward
>> productively, then people can.  Personally, the journey has brought constant
>> self-reflection and thought about how to make policy debate the best
>> activity on the planet, because I personally believe it is the most
>> important activity on the planet, and the passion shown that day by all,
>> only verifies that for me.
>>
>> Tenth, I offer the challenge that the community has put forth for
>> Louisville many times.  Think honestly and reflectly about what the ideal
>> world of policy debate is for you.  And if it is some product of the past,
>> then critically examine that past.  Were there criticisms by yourself or
>> others at that time?  How do you engage those criticisms?  That honest
>> reflection and willingness to engage instead of leaving is what can address
>> these issues.
>>
>> With love,
>>
>> Ede
>>
>>
>> Ede Warner, Jr.
>> Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
>> University of Louisville
>> 308E Strickler Hall
>> 502-852-3522
>> ewarner at louisville.edu
>> http://uofldebate.com/
>>
>> >>>
>>   *From: * Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> *To:* "Adam Jackson" <
>> baltimoredebate at gmail.com> *CC:* eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>, <
>> christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com> *Date: * 8/4/2008 12:53 AM *Subject:
>> * [eDebate] Peace - Seriously Hello,
>>
>> I am decloaking both because like twenty people have asked me to and also
>> because I feel some friends are really involved in a mess here - I dont want
>> this to be about me at all...I just want to say a few things:
>>
>> First, good people do bad things sometimes.  I have friends who are
>> homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent
>> altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other
>> people.  As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often
>> wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake
>> and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people
>> make terrible choices.  What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves
>> to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones.  I mean
>> we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also
>> have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best
>> selves.  And that good people do bad things.  Lets also be honest NOBODY was
>> acting at their best in that room from what I saw.
>>
>> Second, part of what I believe Eric was trying to say was that the
>> personal turn in debate has an odd ability to make people take things
>> personally in ways that defy propriety.  He wasnt saying that it was GOOD
>> that things like that happened he was saying it was a predictable outcome.
>> One thing we need to ask is if we could predict that more things like this
>> might be a predictable outcome of the personal turn in debate.  Before poo
>> pooing this I would suggest that a) in the instance on tape Fort Hayes
>> likely thought that the choice was anonymous b) that they could very well
>> REALLY respect Shanara and just have thought in this instance she would not
>> be the best judge for that particular round and then BOOM the whole round
>> becomes about that personal private choice and the accusation might not have
>> met the actual reason...next thing you know the whole year is over...and on
>> that very argument.....People have gotten in fist fights for much dumber
>> reasons.
>>
>> Third, while I think I get why Ede said what he said...I have always felt
>> it was great when I got struck....because the worst thing I could imagine
>> was being someones deciding judge at nationals, which they worked for
>> sometimes for four whole years, when they did not want me deciding that
>> round.  I totally get what Ede is saying too, not from his or Shanara's
>> perspectives....But I do get this.
>>
>> Finally, I wanted to say something before you totally throw Bill Shanahan
>> or anyone else in this discussion to the wolves (Shanara is an awesome
>> fierce person and intellect, the Towson guys are awesome, Andy is one of my
>> fave people in the activity etc).  Very few people have EVER made me as mad
>> as Bill.....There are times when I was certain Bill and I were going to
>> break down the whole building we were arguing in.  We virtually agree on
>> nothing but baseball....He can be a total asshole (so can I obviously) and
>> have terrible moments.  But, as much as I hate to say it sometimes, debate
>> is a better place with him and the Towson guys and Shanara and Ede and
>> everyone else in it.
>>
>> Should he have done what he did....Of course not....There are lots of
>> things I think Bill should not have done over the years.....He is a very
>> rough and tumble strong intellect from a tough neigborhood with a crazy
>> temper....But he also is a caring coach and a great Dad and cares about
>> people if he wants to admit it or not.  He will probably hate me again for
>> saying any of this...But try to remember debate coaches live a really odd
>> life....the stress is fantastic sometimes. I often think back in horror on
>> some of my post round altercations in my younger coaching life.....but I
>> think we all try to grow and get better.  None of us should be in the
>> business of trying to ruin other peoples lives or livelihoods.
>>
>> On the traditionalists side we really need to try to "build some bridges"
>> with our performative/personal friends.......On the performative/personal
>> side maybe some people should realize that asking for a professional
>> response to deeply personal attacks or seeming attacks might be asking for
>> more than some people have.  Maybe I am wrong about this....I frequently am
>> wrong...but this business is hard enough for all of us without trying to
>> literally go after each other this way....At least I hope we can all try to
>> care enough about people despite themselves or ourselves to try to have some
>> peace?
>>
>> Ok, back to silencio,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".
>>>
>>> 2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had
>>> any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate
>>> that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we
>>> have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)
>>>
>>> 3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't
>>> sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the
>>> only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that
>>> everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather
>>> than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what
>>> actually happened.
>>>
>>> 4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make
>>> those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying
>>> problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored
>>> clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather
>>> cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.
>>>
>>> 5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage
>>> seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be
>>> the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't
>>> try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who
>>> doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about
>>> face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it
>>> instead of ignoring the obvious.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20080804/5348a364/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 11:44:12 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:44:12 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <8371758b0808040927r45d6641dv688d85433085128b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896EF22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808040927r45d6641dv688d85433085128b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4896F969.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

David,
 
Don't know who you are, but I certainly know that you don't know who I am.  Your broad suggestions run counter to most of what I believe about what policy debate should be.  I don't just talk the talk the talk, I spend most of my time working actively to transform the nature of competitive policy debate into something that more closely resembles the world I policy debate that I believe in.  
 
In my mind, the acts of protest challenging the nature of contemporary have little resemblance to the ultimate compromise or evolution that I think needs to occur in policy debate, in the same way that sitting down in a whites only restaurant or a bus boycott resembles the Civil Rights legislation.  They are related certainly, but the advent of one doesn't dictate what the other will ultimately look like.
 
Your ability to equate the growing acts of protest/lashout/backlash in policy debate with what the policy debate world can become limits your ability to assist in that transformation.  I've been told you are a very, very smart man who I should respect.  Is it impossible for you to respect me also as someone who might have the best interest of policy debate at heart, just as you do, only separated by a difference of opinion on how to create that world, in large part created by a different set of lived experiences?
 
I'm currently finishing a pair of books, one entitled, An Ethical War of Words: Transforming the Argument Culture which argues that Deborah Tannen's conclusion in her book from a decade ago, Stopping America's War of Words: Ending the Argument Culture, where she suggests we need less debate in society and more cooperation.  I argue that we need more ethical debate in society.  My conclusions are drawn primarily from the evidence described in set of experiences in the NDT/CEDA community over the last twenty years.  I'm also writing a companion textbook entitled, Ethical Argumentation and Debate which outlines a system for policy debate.
 
Our debaters this fall will debate the topic while assessing whether certain types of styles and strategies are "ethical" in the debating of those topical positions.  
 
Just wondering, outside of complaining and romanticizing for a long gone past that wasn't nearly as perfect as you suggest, what are you doing to save the world of debate you describe?
 
With love,
 
Ede

 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
To:eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
CC:Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>, "Ede Warner" <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Date: 8/4/2008 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
 
 
Once the theoretical framework is deemed to be tyrannical and up for examination in any context (race, religion, gender, age, ideology, philosophy), by any method (rational argument, voice metaphor, expressive, acts, violence, torture), at any time (within speech time, outside speech time), with any standards (evidence, no evidence, no materials, guns, missiles), by any persons (debaters, non-debaters, judges, people actively influencing judges)  then there is no bridge-building, because nothing exists any more on either shore of the river.
 
What is it that we are trying to save?  How can you make policy debate good and open and equal when at the end of the process there is no more policy debate?  What activity are you trying to save?
 
David
 
 
David J. Glass, M.D.
Asst, Harvard Debate
 
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: 

Dear Peacemakers (Josh, M.L., Ermo, Christopher Thomas, Scott Elliott, and anyone else who wants us to "build bridges"),
 
First and foremost.  I care about each and everyone one of you, even if I don't know some of you.  I care about you because you care about something I love passionately, policy debate.
 
Second, pain sucks.  I don't wish it on anybody and I certainly try to avoid it in my personal life most of the time, even though I choose to inflict it on others from time to time, sometimes intentionally, and other times lacking intent.  I recognize there exists some level of contradiction and hypocrisy in that choice, and I pray for resolution of that dilemma.
 
Third, the "fight" didn't bother me much at all.  In fact, much like a lot of the other violence around me that I enjoy without apology: football, boxing, hardcore political rap like old NWA and Ice Cube, the Real World on MTV and Celebreality on VHI, Shawn Whelan's version of basketball, rough sex, I'll stop there.  My cultural reality is what I saw exists in many of the worlds I live in, and I could appreciate and enjoy watching bill and Shanara scrap as part of that cultural upbringing.  I live in a culture that has fights like this, we kiss and make up and move on, no worse for the wear.
 
Fourth, had their fight occurred in the Birmingham basement where MLK, Rosa, Abernathy, and others "fought" over how to execute the bus boycott strategy, in private and not on camera, it would never have bothered me at all.  But in the quarter-finals of our professional National tournament, that is akin to MLK having the fight during his Sunday service.  Aaron's right: appropriateness is the issue.
 
Fifth, my concern with the bridge builders is that the call for coalition building sounds one sided to me.  I keep hearing the need to "rethink" the inappropriate choice (making the decision to discuss the strike) with little discussion of what should happen on the other side (how to FIX the problem of racial and gender exclusion).  Even in ML's eloquence, I heard more discussion of Towson's strategic choice than I heard of what everyone else should do to fix the problem: that Shanara's culture difference likely led, at least in part, to reasons she made the Ft. Hays debaters uncomfortable.  Even if that difference was a decision to give lower points last time.  This one sided approach to building bridges bothers me a lot more than the altercation, which frankly, I at many levels respected on both sides for different reasons.  
 
Sixth, using "white standards" of what is appropriate (which I might add are driving the entirety of the discussion about this incident), it is easy to make the claim that all of this is Shanara's fault.  After Towson made the choice to argue that striking her was an act that protects white privilege (which it was), and won the debate, she baited bill by calling him out for how he was reacting to the decision.  She could have sat back with her victory, let him vent, and Towson could have gone to semi's.  But she didn't.
 
Seventh, and perhaps this is where the Black angst comes from (not saying that Andy or Beth and other Whites of good conscience don't share in this angst but this angst is a result of common shared experiences that I choose to define as Black), the reason this escalated in terms of tenor and tone is a feeling of powerlessness and betrayal by Shanara and Towson, and a similar feeling from Ft. Hays.  How could Shanara and Towson feel that way, given they made the argument and won the debate?  It's easy.  For them, bill and Ft. Hays represent a very public and private group of individuals that make very, very public statements, both inside and outside of debate, that they are in solidarity with the goal of Black participation in debate.  No one can question bill shanahan's overt support, both as a judge and a loyal follower regarding these issues.  Listen to Deven's cry in the background as the chaos exploded, he is astounded that bill doens't see that the argument in this debate is no different than the argument bill repeatedly voted for when made by Liz and Tonia in 2004.  And Deven is absolutely correct, there was little, if any, difference, other than the argument was being made against Ft. Hays instead of against someone else with bill judging or watching.
 
I suspect Shanara's callout was because she expected an apology and for bill to immediately see the hypocrisy.  Knowing bill, I suspect he would have gotten there, but in the moment he too wasn't in a good place.  From his perspective, he sees himself as a loyal soldier to the cause, and even if he did misstep, probably believes that this should have been handled outside of the competitive framework, as coalition partners and all.  I have seen this time and again, this rhetoric of coalitions without an appropriate structure to hammer out the details of what it means to be in a partnership or coalition. Truthfully, this is usually done in the context of a competitive debate, with strategic aims (and that includes Louisville, Towson, and anyone else who attempts to win with coalition and identity politics in debates).  What isn't done is meeting outside the competition to create ethical rules of engagement of what coalition debates look like.  Often Louisville debaters felt their coalitions where not what their opponents felt they were, so once in competition, both sides ended frustrated with how they engaged one another.  That level of mis-communication was heightened in this particular debate.
 
Eight, I don't want bill to lose his job, or anyone else.  I want him to learn.  He has to learn that the balance between competition and being done with a cause is a tenuous and difficult one to walk.  He has to learn that Blacks will likely perceive that his white privilege extends to his rationalizations for the decision to strike a Black judge.  Towson has to learn that the debate was won in part on strategic surprise.  Had Ft. Hays known about what the debate would be about, they likely could have prepared better answers.  New affirmatives and surprises produce competitive bitterness in an activity that creates it's primary foundation around competition, and this debate was no different.  Shanara probably needs to recognize that the competitive moment, wasn't a realistic moment for critical reflection by bill and Ft. Hays about what happened.  And the decision to make the debate about her pain can't ignore that bill has pain produced from this moment too. His disrespect of Towson and her after the debate was a product at least in part of him feeling disrespected too.  I have lost enjoyment for many a Louisville debate because the opponent is incapable of showing respect.  I ultimately learned that I was asking too much of a culture that simply allows these behaviors to exist.  Both sides of this are a reflection of personal politics being a part of debate.
 
Ninth, and this is to those deeply bothered by the way things are, like most everyone should.  Live in the moment, not the romanticized past, or a unrealistic future.  Don't wish for all of this to simply go away, or pick a side and wish they go away or be condemned.  It's difficult living in a multicultural society where similar people think and act differently.  Recognize that there are problems on all sides but with critical thought and effort, they can be addressed.  Listen to the other and try and understand what is being said and felt.  If you are the other, make sure that you go beyond your issues to engage the fears and concerns of making changes solely to accommodate your issues.  In other words, we are a smart community that can construct a great policy debate community that embodies many of the issues people are discussing, advocating, protesting, etc.  We have the power to fix and overcome the issues.  I'm sure during the bus boycott, no one in the beginning saw an equitable resolution, no one certainly saw major Civil Rights legislation.  If there is political will to move forward productively, then people can.  Personally, the journey has brought constant self-reflection and thought about how to make policy debate the best activity on the planet, because I personally believe it is the most important activity on the planet, and the passion shown that day by all, only verifies that for me.
 
Tenth, I offer the challenge that the community has put forth for Louisville many times.  Think honestly and reflectly about what the ideal world of policy debate is for you.  And if it is some product of the past, then critically examine that past.  Were there criticisms by yourself or others at that time?  How do you engage those criticisms?  That honest reflection and willingness to engage instead of leaving is what can address these issues.
 
With love,
 
Ede
 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
To:"Adam Jackson" <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>
CC:eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>, <christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 12:53 AM
Subject: [eDebate] Peace - Seriously
Hello,
 
I am decloaking both because like twenty people have asked me to and also because I feel some friends are really involved in a mess here - I dont want this to be about me at all...I just want to say a few things:
 
First, good people do bad things sometimes.  I have friends who are homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other people.  As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people make terrible choices.  What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones.  I mean we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best selves.  And that good people do bad things.  Lets also be honest NOBODY was acting at their best in that room from what I saw.
 
Second, part of what I believe Eric was trying to say was that the personal turn in debate has an odd ability to make people take things personally in ways that defy propriety.  He wasnt saying that it was GOOD that things like that happened he was saying it was a predictable outcome.  One thing we need to ask is if we could predict that more things like this might be a predictable outcome of the personal turn in debate.  Before poo pooing this I would suggest that a) in the instance on tape Fort Hayes likely thought that the choice was anonymous b) that they could very well REALLY respect Shanara and just have thought in this instance she would not be the best judge for that particular round and then BOOM the whole round becomes about that personal private choice and the accusation might not have met the actual reason...next thing you know the whole year is over...and on that very argument.....People have gotten in fist fights for much dumber reasons.  
 
Third, while I think I get why Ede said what he said...I have always felt it was great when I got struck....because the worst thing I could imagine was being someones deciding judge at nationals, which they worked for sometimes for four whole years, when they did not want me deciding that round.  I totally get what Ede is saying too, not from his or Shanara's perspectives....But I do get this.  
 
Finally, I wanted to say something before you totally throw Bill Shanahan or anyone else in this discussion to the wolves (Shanara is an awesome fierce person and intellect, the Towson guys are awesome, Andy is one of my fave people in the activity etc).  Very few people have EVER made me as mad as Bill.....There are times when I was certain Bill and I were going to break down the whole building we were arguing in.  We virtually agree on nothing but baseball....He can be a total asshole (so can I obviously) and have terrible moments.  But, as much as I hate to say it sometimes, debate is a better place with him and the Towson guys and Shanara and Ede and everyone else in it.  
 
Should he have done what he did....Of course not....There are lots of things I think Bill should not have done over the years.....He is a very rough and tumble strong intellect from a tough neigborhood with a crazy temper....But he also is a caring coach and a great Dad and cares about people if he wants to admit it or not.  He will probably hate me again for saying any of this...But try to remember debate coaches live a really odd life....the stress is fantastic sometimes. I often think back in horror on some of my post round altercations in my younger coaching life.....but I think we all try to grow and get better.  None of us should be in the business of trying to ruin other peoples lives or livelihoods.
 
On the traditionalists side we really need to try to "build some bridges" with our performative/personal friends.......On the performative/personal side maybe some people should realize that asking for a professional response to deeply personal attacks or seeming attacks might be asking for more than some people have.  Maybe I am wrong about this....I frequently am wrong...but this business is hard enough for all of us without trying to literally go after each other this way....At least I hope we can all try to care enough about people despite themselves or ourselves to try to have some peace?
 
Ok, back to silencio,
 
Josh
 
 
 
 

 
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com> wrote:


1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".

2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had
any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate
that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we
have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)

3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't
sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the
only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that
everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather
than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what
actually happened.

4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make
those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying
problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored
clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather
cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.

5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage
seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be
the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't
try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who
doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about
face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it
instead of ignoring the obvious.
_______________________________________________
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/20080804/3b58b467/attachment.htm 

From gacggc at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 12:14:56 2008
From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:14:56 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <4896F969.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
References: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896EF22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808040927r45d6641dv688d85433085128b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896F969.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <8371758b0808041014m514003f3k3663870e1040981d@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ede,

There was no disrespect in my post, nor was there any implication that I
know you, since
we indeed have never met.

Indeed it is because I don't know you that I was asking the question I
asked... because it seems contraditory to me to on the one hand marginalize
calls for a return to plan-centrism as "revisionist" and then on the other
hand say you love policy debate.   It was because this double-pronged
approach confused me that I was asking you what it is that you are labelling
"policy debate" that you love and want to protect.

That isn't disrespectful... it certainly wasn't meant to be.

As for what I do and what I've done, I'm not really comfortable laying all
that out...  because it just comes off as chest-beating... and actions in
that context speak louder than words...

Finally, it does seem worth pointing out that with all the "axes being
ground" as someone else put it, in the year or so that I've been making
these points about the need for a theoretical framework that could make
distinctions between acts deemed "ethical" or "acceptable" and those deemed
over the line, nobody... truly, nobody... has offered a framework that
excludes the seeming unacceptable behavior, but allows the alternative
forms...    That seems to be a problem worth pointing out.  So being called
revisionist or unhelpful when trying to simply protect this thing everyone
seems to want to protect is.... uhm...  confusing...


David

Davd J. Glass, M.D.
Asst, Harvard Debate

On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>
>  David,
>
> Don't know who you are, but I certainly know that you don't know who I am.
> Your broad suggestions run counter to most of what I believe about what
> policy debate should be.  I don't just talk the talk the talk, I spend most
> of my time working actively to transform the nature of competitive policy
> debate into something that more closely resembles the world I policy debate
> that I believe in.
>
> In my mind, the acts of protest challenging the nature of contemporary have
> little resemblance to the ultimate compromise or evolution that I think
> needs to occur in policy debate, in the same way that sitting down in a
> whites only restaurant or a bus boycott resembles the Civil Rights
> legislation.  They are related certainly, but the advent of one doesn't
> dictate what the other will ultimately look like.
>
> Your ability to equate the growing acts of protest/lashout/backlash in
> policy debate with what the policy debate world can become limits your
> ability to assist in that transformation.  I've been told you are a very,
> very smart man who I should respect.  Is it impossible for you to respect me
> also as someone who might have the best interest of policy debate at heart,
> just as you do, only separated by a difference of opinion on how to create
> that world, in large part created by a different set of lived experiences?
>
> I'm currently finishing a pair of books, one entitled, *An Ethical War of
> Words: Transforming the Argument Culture* which argues that Deborah
> Tannen's conclusion in her book from a decade ago, *Stopping America's War
> of Words: Ending the Argument Culture*, where she suggests we need less
> debate in society and more cooperation.  I argue that we need more ethical
> debate in society.  My conclusions are drawn primarily from the evidence
> described in set of experiences in the NDT/CEDA community over the last
> twenty years.  I'm also writing a companion textbook entitled, *Ethical
> Argumentation and Debate* which outlines a system for policy debate.
>
> Our debaters this fall will debate the topic while assessing whether
> certain types of styles and strategies are "ethical" in the debating of
> those topical positions.
>
> Just wondering, outside of complaining and romanticizing for a long gone
> past that wasn't nearly as perfect as you suggest, what are you doing to
> save the world of debate you describe?
>
> With love,
>
> Ede
>
>
>
> Ede Warner, Jr.
> Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
> University of Louisville
> 308E Strickler Hall
> 502-852-3522
> ewarner at louisville.edu
> http://uofldebate.com/
>
> >>>
>   *From: * "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com> *To:* eDebate <
> edebate at www.ndtceda.com> *CC:* Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>, "Ede Warner" <
> e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu> *Date: * 8/4/2008 12:28 PM *Subject: * Re:
> [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
>
> Once the theoretical framework is deemed to be tyrannical and up for
> examination in any context (race, religion, gender, age, ideology,
> philosophy), by any method (rational argument, voice metaphor, expressive,
> acts, violence, torture), at any time (within speech time, outside speech
> time), with any standards (evidence, no evidence, no materials, guns,
> missiles), by any persons (debaters, non-debaters, judges, people actively
> influencing judges)  then there is no bridge-building, because nothing
> exists any more on either shore of the river.
>
> What is it that we are trying to save?  How can you make policy debate good
> and open and equal when at the end of the process there is no more policy
> debate?  What activity are you trying to save?
>
> David
>
>
> David J. Glass, M.D.
> Asst, Harvard Debate
>
> On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  Dear Peacemakers (Josh, M.L., Ermo, Christopher Thomas, Scott Elliott,
>> and anyone else who wants us to "build bridges"),
>>
>> First and foremost.  I care about each and everyone one of you, even if I
>> don't know some of you.  I care about you because you care about something I
>> love passionately, policy debate.
>>
>> Second, pain sucks.  I don't wish it on anybody and I certainly try to
>> avoid it in my personal life most of the time, even though I choose to
>> inflict it on others from time to time, sometimes intentionally, and other
>> times lacking intent.  I recognize there exists some level of contradiction
>> and hypocrisy in that choice, and I pray for resolution of that dilemma.
>>
>> Third, the "fight" didn't bother me much at all.  In fact, much like a lot
>> of the other violence around me that I enjoy without apology: football,
>> boxing, hardcore political rap like old NWA and Ice Cube, the Real World on
>> MTV and Celebreality on VHI, Shawn Whelan's version of basketball, rough
>> sex, I'll stop there.  My cultural reality is what I saw exists in many of
>> the worlds I live in, and I could appreciate and enjoy watching bill and
>> Shanara scrap as part of that cultural upbringing.  I live in a culture that
>> has fights like this, we kiss and make up and move on, no worse for the
>> wear.
>>
>> Fourth, had their fight occurred in the Birmingham basement where MLK,
>> Rosa, Abernathy, and others "fought" over how to execute the bus boycott
>> strategy, in private and not on camera, it would never have bothered me at
>> all.  But in the quarter-finals of our professional National tournament,
>> that is akin to MLK having the fight during his Sunday service.  Aaron's
>> right: appropriateness is the issue.
>>
>> Fifth, my concern with the bridge builders is that the call for coalition
>> building sounds one sided to me.  I keep hearing the need to "rethink" the
>> inappropriate choice (making the decision to discuss the strike) with little
>> discussion of what should happen on the other side (how to FIX the problem
>> of racial and gender exclusion).  Even in ML's eloquence, I heard more
>> discussion of Towson's strategic choice than I heard of what everyone else
>> should do to fix the problem: that Shanara's culture difference likely led,
>> at least in part, to reasons she made the Ft. Hays debaters uncomfortable.
>> Even if that difference was a decision to give lower points last time.  This
>> one sided approach to building bridges bothers me a lot more than the
>> altercation, which frankly, I at many levels respected on both sides for
>> different reasons.
>>
>> Sixth, using "white standards" of what is appropriate (which I might add
>> are driving the entirety of the discussion about this incident), it is easy
>> to make the claim that all of this is Shanara's fault.  After Towson made
>> the choice to argue that striking her was an act that protects white
>> privilege (which it was), and won the debate, she baited bill by calling him
>> out for how he was reacting to the decision.  She could have sat back with
>> her victory, let him vent, and Towson could have gone to semi's.  But
>> she didn't.
>>
>> Seventh, and perhaps this is where the Black angst comes from (not saying
>> that Andy or Beth and other Whites of good conscience don't share in this
>> angst but this angst is a result of common shared experiences that I choose
>> to define as Black), the reason this escalated in terms of tenor and tone is
>> a feeling of powerlessness and betrayal by Shanara and Towson, and a similar
>> feeling from Ft. Hays.  How could Shanara and Towson feel that way, given
>> they made the argument and won the debate?  It's easy.  For them, bill and
>> Ft. Hays represent a very public and private group of individuals that make
>> very, very public statements, both inside and outside of debate, that they
>> are in solidarity with the goal of Black participation in debate.  No one
>> can question bill shanahan's overt support, both as a judge and a loyal
>> follower regarding these issues.  Listen to Deven's cry in the background as
>> the chaos exploded, he is astounded that bill doens't see that the argument
>> in this debate is no different than the argument bill repeatedly voted for
>> when made by Liz and Tonia in 2004.  And Deven is absolutely correct, there
>> was little, if any, difference, other than the argument was being made
>> against Ft. Hays instead of against someone else with bill judging or
>> watching.
>>
>> I suspect Shanara's callout was because she expected an apology and for
>> bill to immediately see the hypocrisy.  Knowing bill, I suspect he would
>> have gotten there, but in the moment he too wasn't in a good place.  From
>> his perspective, he sees himself as a loyal soldier to the cause, and even
>> if he did misstep, probably believes that this should have been handled
>> outside of the competitive framework, as coalition partners and all.  I have
>> seen this time and again, this rhetoric of coalitions without an appropriate
>> structure to hammer out the details of what it means to be in a partnership
>> or coalition. Truthfully, this is usually done in the context of a
>> competitive debate, with strategic aims (and that includes Louisville,
>> Towson, and anyone else who attempts to win with coalition and identity
>> politics in debates).  What isn't done is meeting outside the competition to
>> create ethical rules of engagement of what coalition debates look like.
>> Often Louisville debaters felt their coalitions where not what their
>> opponents felt they were, so once in competition, both sides ended
>> frustrated with how they engaged one another.  That level of
>> mis-communication was heightened in this particular debate.
>>
>> Eight, I don't want bill to lose his job, or anyone else.  I want him to
>> learn.  He has to learn that the balance between competition and being done
>> with a cause is a tenuous and difficult one to walk.  He has to learn that
>> Blacks will likely perceive that his white privilege extends to his
>> rationalizations for the decision to strike a Black judge.  Towson has to
>> learn that the debate was won in part on strategic surprise.  Had Ft. Hays
>> known about what the debate would be about, they likely could have prepared
>> better answers.  New affirmatives and surprises produce competitive
>> bitterness in an activity that creates it's primary foundation around
>> competition, and this debate was no different.  Shanara probably needs to
>> recognize that the competitive moment, wasn't a realistic moment for
>> critical reflection by bill and Ft. Hays about what happened.  And the
>> decision to make the debate about her pain can't ignore that bill has pain
>> produced from this moment too. His disrespect of Towson and her after the
>> debate was a product at least in part of him feeling disrespected too.  I
>> have lost enjoyment for many a Louisville debate because the opponent is
>> incapable of showing respect.  I ultimately learned that I was asking too
>> much of a culture that simply allows these behaviors to exist.  Both sides
>> of this are a reflection of personal politics being a part of debate.
>>
>> Ninth, and this is to those deeply bothered by the way things are, like
>> most everyone should.  Live in the moment, not the romanticized past, or a
>> unrealistic future.  Don't wish for all of this to simply go away, or pick a
>> side and wish they go away or be condemned.  It's difficult living in a
>> multicultural society where similar people think and act differently.
>> Recognize that there are problems on all sides but with critical thought and
>> effort, they can be addressed.  Listen to the other and try and understand
>> what is being said and felt.  If you are the other, make sure that you go
>> beyond your issues to engage the fears and concerns of making changes solely
>> to accommodate your issues.  In other words, we are a smart community that
>> can construct a great policy debate community that embodies many of the
>> issues people are discussing, advocating, protesting, etc.  We have the
>> power to fix and overcome the issues.  I'm sure during the bus boycott, no
>> one in the beginning saw an equitable resolution, no one certainly saw major
>> Civil Rights legislation.  If there is political will to move forward
>> productively, then people can.  Personally, the journey has brought constant
>> self-reflection and thought about how to make policy debate the best
>> activity on the planet, because I personally believe it is the most
>> important activity on the planet, and the passion shown that day by all,
>> only verifies that for me.
>>
>> Tenth, I offer the challenge that the community has put forth for
>> Louisville many times.  Think honestly and reflectly about what the ideal
>> world of policy debate is for you.  And if it is some product of the past,
>> then critically examine that past.  Were there criticisms by yourself or
>> others at that time?  How do you engage those criticisms?  That honest
>> reflection and willingness to engage instead of leaving is what can address
>> these issues.
>>
>> With love,
>>
>> Ede
>>
>>
>> Ede Warner, Jr.
>> Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
>> University of Louisville
>> 308E Strickler Hall
>> 502-852-3522
>> ewarner at louisville.edu
>> http://uofldebate.com/
>>
>> >>>
>>   *From: * Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> *To:* "Adam Jackson" <
>> baltimoredebate at gmail.com> *CC:* eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>, <
>> christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com> *Date: * 8/4/2008 12:53 AM *Subject:
>> * [eDebate] Peace - Seriously Hello,
>>
>> I am decloaking both because like twenty people have asked me to and also
>> because I feel some friends are really involved in a mess here - I dont want
>> this to be about me at all...I just want to say a few things:
>>
>> First, good people do bad things sometimes.  I have friends who are
>> homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent
>> altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other
>> people.  As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often
>> wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake
>> and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people
>> make terrible choices.  What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves
>> to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones.  I mean
>> we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also
>> have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best
>> selves.  And that good people do bad things.  Lets also be honest NOBODY was
>> acting at their best in that room from what I saw.
>>
>> Second, part of what I believe Eric was trying to say was that the
>> personal turn in debate has an odd ability to make people take things
>> personally in ways that defy propriety.  He wasnt saying that it was GOOD
>> that things like that happened he was saying it was a predictable outcome.
>> One thing we need to ask is if we could predict that more things like this
>> might be a predictable outcome of the personal turn in debate.  Before poo
>> pooing this I would suggest that a) in the instance on tape Fort Hayes
>> likely thought that the choice was anonymous b) that they could very well
>> REALLY respect Shanara and just have thought in this instance she would not
>> be the best judge for that particular round and then BOOM the whole round
>> becomes about that personal private choice and the accusation might not have
>> met the actual reason...next thing you know the whole year is over...and on
>> that very argument.....People have gotten in fist fights for much dumber
>> reasons.
>>
>> Third, while I think I get why Ede said what he said...I have always felt
>> it was great when I got struck....because the worst thing I could imagine
>> was being someones deciding judge at nationals, which they worked for
>> sometimes for four whole years, when they did not want me deciding that
>> round.  I totally get what Ede is saying too, not from his or Shanara's
>> perspectives....But I do get this.
>>
>> Finally, I wanted to say something before you totally throw Bill Shanahan
>> or anyone else in this discussion to the wolves (Shanara is an awesome
>> fierce person and intellect, the Towson guys are awesome, Andy is one of my
>> fave people in the activity etc).  Very few people have EVER made me as mad
>> as Bill.....There are times when I was certain Bill and I were going to
>> break down the whole building we were arguing in.  We virtually agree on
>> nothing but baseball....He can be a total asshole (so can I obviously) and
>> have terrible moments.  But, as much as I hate to say it sometimes, debate
>> is a better place with him and the Towson guys and Shanara and Ede and
>> everyone else in it.
>>
>> Should he have done what he did....Of course not....There are lots of
>> things I think Bill should not have done over the years.....He is a very
>> rough and tumble strong intellect from a tough neigborhood with a crazy
>> temper....But he also is a caring coach and a great Dad and cares about
>> people if he wants to admit it or not.  He will probably hate me again for
>> saying any of this...But try to remember debate coaches live a really odd
>> life....the stress is fantastic sometimes. I often think back in horror on
>> some of my post round altercations in my younger coaching life.....but I
>> think we all try to grow and get better.  None of us should be in the
>> business of trying to ruin other peoples lives or livelihoods.
>>
>> On the traditionalists side we really need to try to "build some bridges"
>> with our performative/personal friends.......On the performative/personal
>> side maybe some people should realize that asking for a professional
>> response to deeply personal attacks or seeming attacks might be asking for
>> more than some people have.  Maybe I am wrong about this....I frequently am
>> wrong...but this business is hard enough for all of us without trying to
>> literally go after each other this way....At least I hope we can all try to
>> care enough about people despite themselves or ourselves to try to have some
>> peace?
>>
>> Ok, back to silencio,
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".
>>>
>>> 2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had
>>> any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate
>>> that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we
>>> have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)
>>>
>>> 3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't
>>> sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the
>>> only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that
>>> everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather
>>> than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what
>>> actually happened.
>>>
>>> 4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make
>>> those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying
>>> problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored
>>> clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather
>>> cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.
>>>
>>> 5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage
>>> seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be
>>> the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't
>>> try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who
>>> doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about
>>> face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it
>>> instead of ignoring the obvious.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20080804/0904bfba/attachment.htm 

From oguevara at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  4 12:32:23 2008
From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:32:23 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] T, I am sorry
In-Reply-To: <283447.57799.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <8371758b0808040827x7cc28a3v180a487cfd270120@mail.gmail.com>
	<283447.57799.qm@web65510.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BAY117-W41D9FE18C102B9004BB916D3780@phx.gbl>


T.
 
I want to apologize to you for my behavior for in the post-round in the quarter finals round at CEDA.
 
I wanted to approach you in person at GDI and chat with you, but Glen made me judge a whole bunch of debates and then Doug made me have a few drinks with him at the bar...so when i saw you outside on the cell phone I did not think it was the right time and place for an apology.
 
But it is now.
 
I hope you know that I in no way wanted my comments to hurt you. And if my behavior has somehow been interpreted as contributing to the events on that horrible video, I apologize to everyone. I hope folks who have a long memory know that I tried do the right thing then (and probably failed), just as I am trying to do the right thing now (hopefully with some success).
 
My best T.
 
OG
 
 





Omar G Guevara II
Director of Forensics
Department of Communication
College of Arts & Humanities
Weber State University
Ogden, Utah
 

801.626.6220 (Office)
801.668.6910 (Cell)
 
Oguevara at hotmail.com
Oguevara at weber.edu
 


"I am the stone that the builder refused..."  


Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:38:24 -0700From: basaindon at yahoo.comTo: edebate at www.ndtceda.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] In Round vs Out of the Round, and Verification as a norm



I believe Mr. Glass chimed in with this comment:"Look at that youtube video and tell me that violence was not a strong possibility at that moment."Having close ties to both parties, having been in the room, and knowing a bit about their interpersonal interactions with people on a regular basis, I can assure you that physical violence was NOT a strong possibility at that moment. That perception comes as much from the decision of others in the room to physically impose themselves between the two arguing parties (toward what end and motivated by what, you would have to ask the intervening parties). Both Bill and Shanara are direct, though sometimes brash, communicators, and obviously have a lot of passion. That quality is quite virtuous at times (you always know where you stand with them -- they are not interpersonally duplicitous), but can also be uncomfortable for the argumentatively frail. They are clearly both angry, but I do not sense, in either watching the video or in talking to both parties afterward, that either one of them feel that they are in any physical danger. Both are pretty strong minded people and capable of handling themselves; I doubt they need the protection of others then, or the supposed protection of others now.This is not to comment on the perceived fault, appropriateness, etc. of the conflict. I find it interesting that we are having a public hearing on the issue, yet neither of the main parties in the video are at the forefront of the conversation. In fact, I believe neither of them are subscribers to e-debate. It makes it very easy to use footage of their conflict in the service of one's own agenda, whether that be the institutional remedies for interpersonal conflict, or to resurrect the hackneyed discussions about the so-called "performative" turn in debate (a label that does not do justice to the immense amount of argument innovation that has occurred over the last several years).BTW, while not really taking a stance on the issue, the concern about out-of-round verification is a problem that is particularly acute in so-called "fiat" or "policy" debate. Remember, we use textual evidence of events that are supposedly occurring in the world, usually in places we don't live, have never visited, and know nothing about, except what we read and see on television. This verification problem fueled some of the really old kritiks in the early and mid 1990s, or so I have been told. However, one of the unfortunate side effects of debate is that it is a playpen for the young, and as a result, we tend to have a short institutional memory. If you can't talk about what happens outside of the room in probabilistic terms (Bush will probably invade Iran; the other team probably struck the judge we MOST wanted to keep), then really, what do we have to talk about. What you want is selective verifiability, but as a practical matter, a difficult thing to justify.Another aside: it is interesting that while a few felt the need to condemn making this video public (perhaps the justified fear that they too one day, in their worst moments as people, might be subjected to prolonged public scrutiny), nobody has discussed the strategic moment of its introduction: 3 months later, on the eve of a new debate season; this smells like a coming discussion in debate rounds. Whatever hurt was felt at that time, these are not new wounds. However, if this is a coming debate strategy, then things are about to get a lot more personal over the next several months, so you might as well get ready. As much as I would love to believe that it is an innocent gesture of opening public discussion, it is interesting to me that those closely involved with posting the video see the guilt and innocence that it displays as so clear cut that it does not really merit much discussion.Nearly everything is strategic. Adam: that also includes Towson's decision to strike me (as much as you might insist to the contrary). I do not blame you for your strategy; it seems quite reasonable (I'm sympathetic, but not without some degree of reservation concerning the arguments at hand -- not unlike the vast majority of people that judge you). But, you do me insult and disservice by suggesting your decision to strike me is done through my allegiances, not your strategy. I may be close to Bill, but to be honest, I don't know the FHSU debaters at all (couldn't even tell you which one is which). Shanara, to my understanding, is also very close with many of you, and from my conversations with her, particularly Mr. Cooper. Yet, I also would never question her integrity when judging any of you. I have not attended FHSU in many years, and the strategy they deployed I have almost no familiarity with. You paint me as an ideologue with allegiances that will inevitably and unfairly cloud my judgment, while suggesting that Shanara is completely capable of overcoming hers. It is nice that you respect her and give her credit (respect that very much deserves), but it pains me to say that you do not give me much. I feel like I deserve a little more.Finally, I'm very saddened that, given that everything else is online (and some I suspect without the consent of the involved parties), we do not get to have the clip of Omar. I respect Omar's decision, and it seems inline with what little I know of his personality. But besides the fact that it is Omar's dissension that ignites the anger of both parties involved initially (though it gets off the track real fast), there were also some interesting elements of that discussion that had nothing to do with pre-text, that make the emotional charge of the scene more clear, and that blur some of the boundaries of guilt and innocence with regard to building an inclusive community.Now back the regularly scheduled programming of calculated judgment and the grinding of old axes...Brent Saindon--- On Mon, 8/4/08, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:
From: David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com>Subject: Re: [eDebate] In Round vs Out of the Round, and Verification as a normTo: "Aaron Kall" <mardigras23 at hotmail.com>, edebate at www.ndtceda.comCc: "Kade Olsen" <kade.olsen at gmail.com>Date: Monday, August 4, 2008, 11:27 AM

Hi Aaron,
 
It does seem that once topicality is no longer deemed a legitimate limiter to a debate on the aff, and/or that direct competition with the plan is no longer a legitimate limitation on the neg,
then there is no logical stopping point as to what can be discussed, or happen, in a debate round.
 
This has been pointed out  for years, as offense for fiat theory, and as an example of the "slippery slope" that happens when such theory is abandoned for alternate forms that fall outside this ideology.
 
As just one, rather trivial example, a debater could be called out for being a Red Sox fan, and arguments could be made as to why this constitutes grounds for rejection, even if no sign or reference to the Red Sox was made in the debate. As for concepts like "verifiability" ....   in a debate system where people are willing to argue that everything is up for debate, even the call for verifiability - as in "do we really know person X is a Red Sox" fan - could be shrugged off as being unnecessary.   How much verifiability is really required in a world where our government just makes things up?  A person could be simply labelled a Red Sox fan, just to make a point about the Red Sox,  or to make a point about the government, and then voted down.    Really, the call for "evidence" as being necessary seems almost quaint in a world where non rational forms, expressive forms, or simple negation in the form of silence, are deemed allowable.
 
As for the idea of "appropriateness", how shocking is it that an individual moons someone in an environment where people take their clothes off as an argument? Or that a coach engages in discussions with judges during a debate, when the judges' impartiality or "responsibilities" are deemed appropriate discussion points for a debate?
 
All of these slippery slope arguments were made previously.  It is  just sort of a point of curiosity at this juncture to see if and where people will finally see they've simply constructed true and utter anarchy, and that this is not actually a good thing, where no meaningful interaction or exchange is feasible;  what will be the final step?  We've already had physical violence initiated in debate rounds - in the form of pies.  And even that was found to be amusing and defensible by some.  How about when the pie is deleted, and there is only the plate?  How about when the plate is then tied to an incendiary device?  
 
Look at that youtube video and tell me that violence was not a strong possibility at that moment.  If there is no distinction between what happens in a round and outside of the round, why couldn't that same behavior be reconstituted in a debate, as an example of how people were hurt emotionally by that moment.  And why couldnt escalation occur?  
 
Either people want to have actual debate, or they do not.  But once you are willing to vote for these alternatives, under a framework that says structural norms are not relevant, good luck finding a limit.
 
It seems quite clear that tournament directors and debate organizations need to start enforcing norms.  Norms of behavior in and out of a round, including what sort of forms are appropriate for discussion.   As has also been said before, this is no different than any other activity or sporting event, where such norms are enforced.   That really is the only alternative...  people keep rejecting it as "silencing", and then the slope keeps getting steeper as to the sort of things they want to say and do and not be "silenced" from saying and doing.   
 
David
 
 
David Glass 
Asst, Harvard debate
 
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: 


these two claims are not the same: appropriateness and verifiable.  It is easily verifiable in the same way old evidence challenges were verifiable.  Aaron's "inside/outside" round is and has always been artificial.  With the advent of the internet and text messaging, there is no longer a separation of the two.  But even when I debated, if you made an ethics challenge that a card was out of context, judges often went to get a copy of the article or a different version of the card to resolve the dispute.  Corn-dog's decision to tape record a debate, then play it back to resolve a claim of how much evidence was read was no more "inside" the round than going to the tab room to identify whether a team struck a judge.  If a team makes the claim they struck a judge, it's easy to verify.
 
You can ask the tab room and they can verify it.  The "absolute privilege" to protect confidentiality at all costs in all instances is simply a community comfort, not grounded in any real justification.  Like other rights or privileges, one must balance it against competing community issues.  Taking concrete and meaningful actions to address the large gender and racial disparities in who judges debates seems like a decent community claim, even if it is uncomfortable to some.
 
As far as appropriate, perhaps in an ideal world it shouldn't be appropriate to bring the judge selection but it is.  It is appropriate to bring judging concerns into debates because there is no other forum to address such concerns in a meaningful way.  The system gives absolute power to teams to decide who judges debates in ways no other activity does.  There isn't even a mechanism in place to address judging problems or issues.  Every collegiate athletic competition has some sort of sanctioning process for umpires, referees, officials, even in cases like non-conference games where the home team can pick the officials.  
Your appropriateness claim could be made Aaron of all procedural arguments, which suggest how the debate occur.  These have become subjective issues left to the debaters for resolution, and who gets to judge is no different.  As long as the community prefers to delegate all procedure making to the debaters, you then open Pandora's box.
 
The question should more likely be: is there a more productive way to have these debates?  I'm not sure I know the answer, but Aaron is again blaming Towson for making the argument in the hopes it will "go away" by communtiy censure, instead of making any honest effort to address solutions to the problems created by the system, in this case absolute reliance on MPJ. 
>>> 




From: 
Aaron Kall <mardigras23 at hotmail.com>

To:
<edebate at ndtceda.com>

Date: 
8/4/2008 12:56 AM

Subject: 
[eDebate]  Quarters of the Ceda
as kade mentioned, having a debate in a round over who struck who from a strike card is not appropriate and ultimately non-verifiable.take this hypothetical example-Team A accuses Team B of striking a particular judge and says Team B should lose because of this for whatever reason.  Team B says "No, we didn't strike that judge- you have no evidence we did and you can't prove we did."There is obviously no way team A can be proven inside the round who Team B struck and the judges would have no way of determining it.  No tab room would/should ever publicly disclose strike information, so there would be no way to ever resolve this debate.  Also, many teams probably aren't even aware who was on their card/struck from their card, as coaches sometimes make these decisions without the input of debaters.Finally, just because a judge doesn't end up on a panel doesn't mean they were struck.  If both teams strike the same judge, the tab room chooses the three judge panel out of the remaining four judges at random, as there obviously can't be an even numbered panel.aaron 

Get more from your digital life. Find out how._______________________________________________eDebate mailing listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate_______________________________________________eDebate mailing listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/e5039cd0/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Mon Aug  4 12:32:48 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:32:48 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace
Message-ID: <1217871168.48973d402eaab@webmail.grandecom.net>

Couple quick responses to several people.

To David Glass--there is a committee drafting an enforceable code of
professional responsibility. How do I know this? I just finished a rough draft
and it is being reviewed by the committee. Ironically, Ede Warner and I are
working together in the working group.


To Ede-I am probably not in the "bridge building" camp. I still think CEDA and
NDT should split. Recall Marcus Garvey, Elijiah Mohammed and many within the
Black (African American) movement have argued that the overall system of white
America is so corrupt, the only choice is separation and voluntary exclusion.
It is 50 years since MLK, and according to you the system is still just as
bankrupt as it was during Jim Crow. Perhaps burning the bridges is not such a
bad idea.

Now, before anyone takes me out of context, let me put it on the record. I think
Ede overclaims his position concerning racism in debate. I think he is flat
wrong about the barriers being based on racism within the community. I think
the barriers are socio-economics at the secondary education level. For evidence
I give you the section in the documentary "Resolved" in which the California
state champions high school debate program is cut because of the No Child Left
Behind Act. They were good debaters, but it was their school adminstrators that
killed their program--not some what racist cabal at the TOC or CEDA.

But, if we take Ede's and others (Towson) rhetoric at face value, I think a
stronger case can be made for burning bridges than for trying to increase
inclusion. I am still suprised that no one has counter-planned in rounds to
create an HBCU policy debate organization. Because then we would get to the
core reason why so many minority students don't debate--it is because they
cannot afford to do it in college and they can't afford to do it in high
school--and their schools can't afford to fund their programs.

There are thousands of white students who also cannot compete. But it is a
matter of economics rather than a matter of some Klan conspiracy.


Scott
(Spreading love as always)






From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 12:39:10 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:39:10 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <8371758b0808041014m514003f3k3663870e1040981d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896EF22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808040927r45d6641dv688d85433085128b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896F969.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808041014m514003f3k3663870e1040981d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4897064B.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

I embrace a vision of policy debate that starts with a purpose, not a tool or method like a "plan."  My vision of policy debate lays in what I would like to see it do. The definition I will use next week in our fall retreat is as follows: 
1)      What is the nature of policy debate?  A formal human communication process used to empower all people to influence institutional courses of action in a democratic society through the two steps of policy creation and policy implementation.
Mari Matsuda in her discussion of reparations in a 1987 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, talks about Black double-consciousness as it relates to Black history and the US constitution.  While the execution of the document over the years was overtly and covertly oppressive to Blacks (3/5's compromise as just one example; Constitution used in upholding slavery and segregation), many Black writers and leaders held an inspirational vision of the Constitution that could support reparations.  In other words, while the ways the Constitution was being interpreted and executed by those in power couldn't support the notion of reparations, there was a Black inspired reading of the same document that could.  She uses DuBois theory of dual or double consciousness.
 
My vision of policy debate is similar.  Do I think the way we've executed plan based topical policy debate thus far achieves the vision of my definition above?  No.  Do I think we can create a type of plan based topical policy debate that does?  Most definitely!  If you hold me to the standard of having to advocate for the most contemporary version of plan based policy debate OR what is being described as the "debate anarchy" of today, I'm not in either camp.  I believe there exists a compromise position that better gets at the goals of plan based topical policy debate but considers some of the issues/concerns that has created the impetus for the protesting/backlash/more extreme performative acts.  And if everyone agrees to the political will needed, a compromise can be found.  I believe that a simple notion of ethics or rules as a sole justification to "go back to the good old days" is not in the spirit of that compromise.  
And in your quest, Louisville did in fact, offer an attempt at a solution, the mission statements, which was soundly rejected for even consideration as an option.  It had an ethical challenge to true to keep debates focused.  But that just means it didn't address all of the concerns and/or enough people didn't feel there is enough justification to consider change.  We will do what we have consistently done in the last ten years: listen to the concerns of the community, stated and otherwise, try to address them while keeping our concerns about the community in mind, and produce a product for the community's consideration, making the arguments we feel we need to make to move forward as a community.
 
I would be welcome to discuss with you further our approach and what I see as possibilities for an empowering for all vision of policy debate.
 
Thanks for engaging - Ede
 
.
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 
>>> 

From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
To:"Ede Warner" <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>, edebate <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 01:15 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
 
Hi Ede,
 
There was no disrespect in my post, nor was there any implication that I know you, since
we indeed have never met.
 
Indeed it is because I don't know you that I was asking the question I asked... because it seems contraditory to me to on the one hand marginalize calls for a return to plan-centrism as "revisionist" and then on the other hand say you love policy debate.   It was because this double-pronged approach confused me that I was asking you what it is that you are labelling "policy debate" that you love and want to protect.  
 
That isn't disrespectful... it certainly wasn't meant to be.
 
As for what I do and what I've done, I'm not really comfortable laying all that out...  because it just comes off as chest-beating... and actions in that context speak louder than words...
 
Finally, it does seem worth pointing out that with all the "axes being ground" as someone else put it, in the year or so that I've been making these points about the need for a theoretical framework that could make distinctions between acts deemed "ethical" or "acceptable" and those deemed over the line, nobody... truly, nobody... has offered a framework that excludes the seeming unacceptable behavior, but allows the alternative forms...    That seems to be a problem worth pointing out.  So being called revisionist or unhelpful when trying to simply protect this thing everyone seems to want to protect is.... uhm...  confusing...  
 
 
David
 
Davd J. Glass, M.D.
Asst, Harvard Debate
 
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: 

David,
 
Don't know who you are, but I certainly know that you don't know who I am.  Your broad suggestions run counter to most of what I believe about what policy debate should be.  I don't just talk the talk the talk, I spend most of my time working actively to transform the nature of competitive policy debate into something that more closely resembles the world I policy debate that I believe in.  
 
In my mind, the acts of protest challenging the nature of contemporary have little resemblance to the ultimate compromise or evolution that I think needs to occur in policy debate, in the same way that sitting down in a whites only restaurant or a bus boycott resembles the Civil Rights legislation.  They are related certainly, but the advent of one doesn't dictate what the other will ultimately look like.
 
Your ability to equate the growing acts of protest/lashout/backlash in policy debate with what the policy debate world can become limits your ability to assist in that transformation.  I've been told you are a very, very smart man who I should respect.  Is it impossible for you to respect me also as someone who might have the best interest of policy debate at heart, just as you do, only separated by a difference of opinion on how to create that world, in large part created by a different set of lived experiences?
 
I'm currently finishing a pair of books, one entitled, An Ethical War of Words: Transforming the Argument Culture which argues that Deborah Tannen's conclusion in her book from a decade ago, Stopping America's War of Words: Ending the Argument Culture, where she suggests we need less debate in society and more cooperation.  I argue that we need more ethical debate in society.  My conclusions are drawn primarily from the evidence described in set of experiences in the NDT/CEDA community over the last twenty years.  I'm also writing a companion textbook entitled, Ethical Argumentation and Debate which outlines a system for policy debate.
 
Our debaters this fall will debate the topic while assessing whether certain types of styles and strategies are "ethical" in the debating of those topical positions.  
 
Just wondering, outside of complaining and romanticizing for a long gone past that wasn't nearly as perfect as you suggest, what are you doing to save the world of debate you describe?
 

With love,
 
Ede

 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
To:eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
CC:Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>, "Ede Warner" <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Date: 8/4/2008 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
 

 
Once the theoretical framework is deemed to be tyrannical and up for examination in any context (race, religion, gender, age, ideology, philosophy), by any method (rational argument, voice metaphor, expressive, acts, violence, torture), at any time (within speech time, outside speech time), with any standards (evidence, no evidence, no materials, guns, missiles), by any persons (debaters, non-debaters, judges, people actively influencing judges)  then there is no bridge-building, because nothing exists any more on either shore of the river.
 
What is it that we are trying to save?  How can you make policy debate good and open and equal when at the end of the process there is no more policy debate?  What activity are you trying to save?
 
David
 
 
David J. Glass, M.D.
Asst, Harvard Debate
 
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: 

Dear Peacemakers (Josh, M.L., Ermo, Christopher Thomas, Scott Elliott, and anyone else who wants us to "build bridges"),
 
First and foremost.  I care about each and everyone one of you, even if I don't know some of you.  I care about you because you care about something I love passionately, policy debate.
 
Second, pain sucks.  I don't wish it on anybody and I certainly try to avoid it in my personal life most of the time, even though I choose to inflict it on others from time to time, sometimes intentionally, and other times lacking intent.  I recognize there exists some level of contradiction and hypocrisy in that choice, and I pray for resolution of that dilemma.
 
Third, the "fight" didn't bother me much at all.  In fact, much like a lot of the other violence around me that I enjoy without apology: football, boxing, hardcore political rap like old NWA and Ice Cube, the Real World on MTV and Celebreality on VHI, Shawn Whelan's version of basketball, rough sex, I'll stop there.  My cultural reality is what I saw exists in many of the worlds I live in, and I could appreciate and enjoy watching bill and Shanara scrap as part of that cultural upbringing.  I live in a culture that has fights like this, we kiss and make up and move on, no worse for the wear.
 
Fourth, had their fight occurred in the Birmingham basement where MLK, Rosa, Abernathy, and others "fought" over how to execute the bus boycott strategy, in private and not on camera, it would never have bothered me at all.  But in the quarter-finals of our professional National tournament, that is akin to MLK having the fight during his Sunday service.  Aaron's right: appropriateness is the issue.
 
Fifth, my concern with the bridge builders is that the call for coalition building sounds one sided to me.  I keep hearing the need to "rethink" the inappropriate choice (making the decision to discuss the strike) with little discussion of what should happen on the other side (how to FIX the problem of racial and gender exclusion).  Even in ML's eloquence, I heard more discussion of Towson's strategic choice than I heard of what everyone else should do to fix the problem: that Shanara's culture difference likely led, at least in part, to reasons she made the Ft. Hays debaters uncomfortable.  Even if that difference was a decision to give lower points last time.  This one sided approach to building bridges bothers me a lot more than the altercation, which frankly, I at many levels respected on both sides for different reasons.  
 
Sixth, using "white standards" of what is appropriate (which I might add are driving the entirety of the discussion about this incident), it is easy to make the claim that all of this is Shanara's fault.  After Towson made the choice to argue that striking her was an act that protects white privilege (which it was), and won the debate, she baited bill by calling him out for how he was reacting to the decision.  She could have sat back with her victory, let him vent, and Towson could have gone to semi's.  But she didn't.
 
Seventh, and perhaps this is where the Black angst comes from (not saying that Andy or Beth and other Whites of good conscience don't share in this angst but this angst is a result of common shared experiences that I choose to define as Black), the reason this escalated in terms of tenor and tone is a feeling of powerlessness and betrayal by Shanara and Towson, and a similar feeling from Ft. Hays.  How could Shanara and Towson feel that way, given they made the argument and won the debate?  It's easy.  For them, bill and Ft. Hays represent a very public and private group of individuals that make very, very public statements, both inside and outside of debate, that they are in solidarity with the goal of Black participation in debate.  No one can question bill shanahan's overt support, both as a judge and a loyal follower regarding these issues.  Listen to Deven's cry in the background as the chaos exploded, he is astounded that bill doens't see that the argument in this debate is no different than the argument bill repeatedly voted for when made by Liz and Tonia in 2004.  And Deven is absolutely correct, there was little, if any, difference, other than the argument was being made against Ft. Hays instead of against someone else with bill judging or watching.
 
I suspect Shanara's callout was because she expected an apology and for bill to immediately see the hypocrisy.  Knowing bill, I suspect he would have gotten there, but in the moment he too wasn't in a good place.  From his perspective, he sees himself as a loyal soldier to the cause, and even if he did misstep, probably believes that this should have been handled outside of the competitive framework, as coalition partners and all.  I have seen this time and again, this rhetoric of coalitions without an appropriate structure to hammer out the details of what it means to be in a partnership or coalition. Truthfully, this is usually done in the context of a competitive debate, with strategic aims (and that includes Louisville, Towson, and anyone else who attempts to win with coalition and identity politics in debates).  What isn't done is meeting outside the competition to create ethical rules of engagement of what coalition debates look like.  Often Louisville debaters felt their coalitions where not what their opponents felt they were, so once in competition, both sides ended frustrated with how they engaged one another.  That level of mis-communication was heightened in this particular debate.
 
Eight, I don't want bill to lose his job, or anyone else.  I want him to learn.  He has to learn that the balance between competition and being done with a cause is a tenuous and difficult one to walk.  He has to learn that Blacks will likely perceive that his white privilege extends to his rationalizations for the decision to strike a Black judge.  Towson has to learn that the debate was won in part on strategic surprise.  Had Ft. Hays known about what the debate would be about, they likely could have prepared better answers.  New affirmatives and surprises produce competitive bitterness in an activity that creates it's primary foundation around competition, and this debate was no different.  Shanara probably needs to recognize that the competitive moment, wasn't a realistic moment for critical reflection by bill and Ft. Hays about what happened.  And the decision to make the debate about her pain can't ignore that bill has pain produced from this moment too. His disrespect of Towson and her after the debate was a product at least in part of him feeling disrespected too.  I have lost enjoyment for many a Louisville debate because the opponent is incapable of showing respect.  I ultimately learned that I was asking too much of a culture that simply allows these behaviors to exist.  Both sides of this are a reflection of personal politics being a part of debate.
 
Ninth, and this is to those deeply bothered by the way things are, like most everyone should.  Live in the moment, not the romanticized past, or a unrealistic future.  Don't wish for all of this to simply go away, or pick a side and wish they go away or be condemned.  It's difficult living in a multicultural society where similar people think and act differently.  Recognize that there are problems on all sides but with critical thought and effort, they can be addressed.  Listen to the other and try and understand what is being said and felt.  If you are the other, make sure that you go beyond your issues to engage the fears and concerns of making changes solely to accommodate your issues.  In other words, we are a smart community that can construct a great policy debate community that embodies many of the issues people are discussing, advocating, protesting, etc.  We have the power to fix and overcome the issues.  I'm sure during the bus boycott, no one in the beginning saw an equitable resolution, no one certainly saw major Civil Rights legislation.  If there is political will to move forward productively, then people can.  Personally, the journey has brought constant self-reflection and thought about how to make policy debate the best activity on the planet, because I personally believe it is the most important activity on the planet, and the passion shown that day by all, only verifies that for me.
 
Tenth, I offer the challenge that the community has put forth for Louisville many times.  Think honestly and reflectly about what the ideal world of policy debate is for you.  And if it is some product of the past, then critically examine that past.  Were there criticisms by yourself or others at that time?  How do you engage those criticisms?  That honest reflection and willingness to engage instead of leaving is what can address these issues.
 
With love,
 
Ede
 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
To:"Adam Jackson" <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>
CC:eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>, <christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 12:53 AM
Subject: [eDebate] Peace - Seriously
Hello,
 
I am decloaking both because like twenty people have asked me to and also because I feel some friends are really involved in a mess here - I dont want this to be about me at all...I just want to say a few things:
 
First, good people do bad things sometimes.  I have friends who are homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other people.  As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people make terrible choices.  What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones.  I mean we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best selves.  And that good people do bad things.  Lets also be honest NOBODY was acting at their best in that room from what I saw.
 
Second, part of what I believe Eric was trying to say was that the personal turn in debate has an odd ability to make people take things personally in ways that defy propriety.  He wasnt saying that it was GOOD that things like that happened he was saying it was a predictable outcome.  One thing we need to ask is if we could predict that more things like this might be a predictable outcome of the personal turn in debate.  Before poo pooing this I would suggest that a) in the instance on tape Fort Hayes likely thought that the choice was anonymous b) that they could very well REALLY respect Shanara and just have thought in this instance she would not be the best judge for that particular round and then BOOM the whole round becomes about that personal private choice and the accusation might not have met the actual reason...next thing you know the whole year is over...and on that very argument.....People have gotten in fist fights for much dumber reasons.  
 
Third, while I think I get why Ede said what he said...I have always felt it was great when I got struck....because the worst thing I could imagine was being someones deciding judge at nationals, which they worked for sometimes for four whole years, when they did not want me deciding that round.  I totally get what Ede is saying too, not from his or Shanara's perspectives....But I do get this.  
 
Finally, I wanted to say something before you totally throw Bill Shanahan or anyone else in this discussion to the wolves (Shanara is an awesome fierce person and intellect, the Towson guys are awesome, Andy is one of my fave people in the activity etc).  Very few people have EVER made me as mad as Bill.....There are times when I was certain Bill and I were going to break down the whole building we were arguing in.  We virtually agree on nothing but baseball....He can be a total asshole (so can I obviously) and have terrible moments.  But, as much as I hate to say it sometimes, debate is a better place with him and the Towson guys and Shanara and Ede and everyone else in it.  
 
Should he have done what he did....Of course not....There are lots of things I think Bill should not have done over the years.....He is a very rough and tumble strong intellect from a tough neigborhood with a crazy temper....But he also is a caring coach and a great Dad and cares about people if he wants to admit it or not.  He will probably hate me again for saying any of this...But try to remember debate coaches live a really odd life....the stress is fantastic sometimes. I often think back in horror on some of my post round altercations in my younger coaching life.....but I think we all try to grow and get better.  None of us should be in the business of trying to ruin other peoples lives or livelihoods.
 
On the traditionalists side we really need to try to "build some bridges" with our performative/personal friends.......On the performative/personal side maybe some people should realize that asking for a professional response to deeply personal attacks or seeming attacks might be asking for more than some people have.  Maybe I am wrong about this....I frequently am wrong...but this business is hard enough for all of us without trying to literally go after each other this way....At least I hope we can all try to care enough about people despite themselves or ourselves to try to have some peace?
 
Ok, back to silencio,
 
Josh
 
 
 
 

 
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com> wrote:


1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".

2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had
any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate
that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we
have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)

3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't
sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the
only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that
everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather
than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what
actually happened.

4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make
those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying
problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored
clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather
cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.

5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage
seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be
the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't
try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who
doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about
face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it
instead of ignoring the obvious.
_______________________________________________
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/20080804/f4533bb0/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 12:57:53 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:57:53 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <1217871168.48973d402eaab@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217871168.48973d402eaab@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <48970AB0.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

To Scott aka the apparent king of mischaracterization,
 
It's not all race, it's not all gender, it's not all socio-economics.  It's a combination of all three, and many other factors that create the America and world we live in, including the debate community. But I understand why you need to position me as something else.  You need to discredit me I guess?  But our arguments today at Louisville provide the ability to discuss all of those and many more.
 
What do you mean by "my position?"  Towson made these arguments, not me?  What exactly are you talking about? Because I attempt to discuss and engage what Towson and Shanara did at Ceda Nationals, does not mean that those are now "my strategies."  But that conflation is the only way you can continue to attempt to discredit me, so "do you Scott."
 
Today's edebate discussions relate to strike cards, ethics, plans and personal responsibility for behavior.  Those are the links, i.e. the issues I've been discussing.  The only context of race I've discussed is the racial differences in implications for some of these actions and efforts to describe past actions that may be insightful to the discussion.  But given your insistence in separating them, I suspect you don't see that or that is the debate I "overclaim".  
 
Have you watched the CNN series?  How do you think this evidence impacts CEDA/NDT debate?  Or do you think about it? 
 
Let me get this straight Scott...Your position is that CEDA should separate from the NDT for socio-economic reasons that include the elitist nature of the NDT.  Yet if Louisville and Louisiana-Lafayette organized such a move, your new complaint would be Louisville's bad for their take on race, replacing elitism as your new evil that we need to rid the world of.  So what is in it for us to join your cause Scott, more belittlement from you?  You're right, you are not the building bridges guy.  We'll pass...Let's try again when you can come a little closer to an accurate representation of Louisville's thoughts, ideas and arguments...
 
Love,
 
Ede
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 01:33 PM
Subject: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace
Couple quick responses to several people.

To David Glass--there is a committee drafting an enforceable code of
professional responsibility. How do I know this? I just finished a rough draft
and it is being reviewed by the committee. Ironically, Ede Warner and I are
working together in the working group.


To Ede-I am probably not in the "bridge building" camp. I still think CEDA and
NDT should split. Recall Marcus Garvey, Elijiah Mohammed and many within the
Black (African American) movement have argued that the overall system of white
America is so corrupt, the only choice is separation and voluntary exclusion.
It is 50 years since MLK, and according to you the system is still just as
bankrupt as it was during Jim Crow. Perhaps burning the bridges is not such a
bad idea.

Now, before anyone takes me out of context, let me put it on the record. I think
Ede overclaims his position concerning racism in debate. I think he is flat
wrong about the barriers being based on racism within the community. I think
the barriers are socio-economics at the secondary education level. For evidence
I give you the section in the documentary "Resolved" in which the California
state champions high school debate program is cut because of the No Child Left
Behind Act. They were good debaters, but it was their school adminstrators that
killed their program--not some what racist cabal at the TOC or CEDA.

But, if we take Ede's and others (Towson) rhetoric at face value, I think a
stronger case can be made for burning bridges than for trying to increase
inclusion. I am still suprised that no one has counter-planned in rounds to
create an HBCU policy debate organization. Because then we would get to the
core reason why so many minority students don't debate--it is because they
cannot afford to do it in college and they can't afford to do it in high
school--and their schools can't afford to fund their programs.

There are thousands of white students who also cannot compete. But it is a
matter of economics rather than a matter of some Klan conspiracy.


Scott
(Spreading love as always)





_______________________________________________
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/20080804/c766645f/attachment.htm 

From gacggc at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 13:02:53 2008
From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:02:53 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <4897064B.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
References: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896EF22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808040927r45d6641dv688d85433085128b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896F969.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808041014m514003f3k3663870e1040981d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4897064B.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <8371758b0808041102o62464f40qb71225a7fe9e3f99@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, great, but just pointing out that since your vision includes the
statement:
"Do I think we can create a type of plan based topical policy debate that
does?  Most definitely!"  and since you place yourself outside of the
"debate anarchy" camp, it really is not clear  why you were labelling the
plan-centrist post earlier today as "revisionist"
or that returns to such a centrism are "unhelpful".  Your vision is
inclusive
of plan-centrism.

my agenda in these discussions is really consistently about establishing
workable
frameworks... and making sure the debate round is a place that allows for
discussion based on the 1ac, which is itself bounded by the resolution...
 that's really all I want to do;  if you or others can then use those
frameworks to
further racial equality, or any other social end, fantastic.  my focus
though is just
on the procedural, because it seems quite clear that if the procedural norms
are lost,
then tautologically what is left is the absence of norms, which defines the
term anarchy .
and we are seeing more such examples of this anarchy cropping up in the
activity...  so it is
clear that these concerns are not misplaced.

That video was appalling.

david

David Glass, M.D.
Asst, Harvard Debate


On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>
> I embrace a vision of policy debate that starts with a purpose, not a tool
> or method like a "plan."  My vision of policy debate lays in what I would
> like to see it do. The definition I will use next week in our fall retreat
> is as follows:
>
> 1)      What is the nature of policy debate?  A formal human communication
> process used to empower all people to influence institutional courses of
> action in a democratic society through the two steps of policy creation and
> policy implementation.
> Mari Matsuda in her discussion of reparations in a 1987 Harvard Civil
> Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, talks about Black double-consciousness as
> it relates to Black history and the US constitution.  While the execution of
> the document over the years was overtly and covertly oppressive to Blacks
> (3/5's compromise as just one example; Constitution used in upholding
> slavery and segregation), many Black writers and leaders held an
> inspirational vision of the Constitution that could support reparations.  In
> other words, while the ways the Constitution was being interpreted and
> executed by those in power couldn't support the notion of reparations, there
> was a Black inspired reading of the same document that could.  She uses
> DuBois theory of dual or double consciousness.
>
> My vision of policy debate is similar.  Do I think the way we've executed
> plan based topical policy debate thus far achieves the vision of my
> definition above?  No.  Do I think we can create a type of plan based
> topical policy debate that does?  Most definitely!  If you hold me to the
> standard of having to advocate for the most contemporary version of plan
> based policy debate OR what is being described as the "debate anarchy" of
> today, I'm not in either camp.  I believe there exists a compromise position
> that better gets at the goals of plan based topical policy debate but
> considers some of the issues/concerns that has created the impetus for the
> protesting/backlash/more extreme performative acts.  And if everyone agrees
> to the political will needed, a compromise can be found.  I believe that a
> simple notion of ethics or rules as a sole justification to "go back to the
> good old days" is not in the spirit of that compromise.
>
> And in your quest, Louisville did in fact, offer an attempt at a solution,
> the mission statements, which was soundly rejected for even consideration as
> an option.  It had an ethical challenge to true to keep debates focused.
> But that just means it didn't address all of the concerns and/or enough
> people didn't feel there is enough justification to consider change.  We
> will do what we have consistently done in the last ten years: listen to the
> concerns of the community, stated and otherwise, try to address them while
> keeping our concerns about the community in mind, and produce a product for
> the community's consideration, making the arguments we feel we need to make
> to move forward as a community.
>
> I would be welcome to discuss with you further our approach and what I see
> as possibilities for an empowering for all vision of policy debate.
>
> Thanks for engaging - Ede
>
> .
>
> Ede Warner, Jr.
> Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
> University of Louisville
> 308E Strickler Hall
> 502-852-3522
> ewarner at louisville.edu
> http://uofldebate.com/
> >>>
>   *From: * "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com> *To:* "Ede Warner" <
> e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>, edebate <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> *Date: * 8/4/2008
> 01:15 PM
>  *Subject: * Re: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
>
> Hi Ede,
>
> There was no disrespect in my post, nor was there any implication that I
> know you, since
> we indeed have never met.
>
> Indeed it is because I don't know you that I was asking the question I
> asked... because it seems contraditory to me to on the one hand marginalize
> calls for a return to plan-centrism as "revisionist" and then on the other
> hand say you love policy debate.   It was because this double-pronged
> approach confused me that I was asking you what it is that you are labelling
> "policy debate" that you love and want to protect.
>
> That isn't disrespectful... it certainly wasn't meant to be.
>
> As for what I do and what I've done, I'm not really comfortable laying all
> that out...  because it just comes off as chest-beating... and actions in
> that context speak louder than words...
>
> Finally, it does seem worth pointing out that with all the "axes being
> ground" as someone else put it, in the year or so that I've been making
> these points about the need for a theoretical framework that could make
> distinctions between acts deemed "ethical" or "acceptable" and those deemed
> over the line, nobody... truly, nobody... has offered a framework that
> excludes the seeming unacceptable behavior, but allows the alternative
> forms...    That seems to be a problem worth pointing out.  So being called
> revisionist or unhelpful when trying to simply protect this thing everyone
> seems to want to protect is.... uhm...  confusing...
>
>
> David
>
> Davd J. Glass, M.D.
> Asst, Harvard Debate
>
> On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  David,
>>
>> Don't know who you are, but I certainly know that you don't know who I
>> am.  Your broad suggestions run counter to most of what I believe about what
>> policy debate should be.  I don't just talk the talk the talk, I spend most
>> of my time working actively to transform the nature of competitive policy
>> debate into something that more closely resembles the world I policy debate
>> that I believe in.
>>
>> In my mind, the acts of protest challenging the nature of contemporary
>> have little resemblance to the ultimate compromise or evolution that I think
>> needs to occur in policy debate, in the same way that sitting down in a
>> whites only restaurant or a bus boycott resembles the Civil Rights
>> legislation.  They are related certainly, but the advent of one doesn't
>> dictate what the other will ultimately look like.
>>
>> Your ability to equate the growing acts of protest/lashout/backlash in
>> policy debate with what the policy debate world can become limits your
>> ability to assist in that transformation.  I've been told you are a very,
>> very smart man who I should respect.  Is it impossible for you to respect me
>> also as someone who might have the best interest of policy debate at heart,
>> just as you do, only separated by a difference of opinion on how to create
>> that world, in large part created by a different set of lived experiences?
>>
>> I'm currently finishing a pair of books, one entitled, *An Ethical War of
>> Words: Transforming the Argument Culture* which argues that Deborah
>> Tannen's conclusion in her book from a decade ago, *Stopping America's
>> War of Words: Ending the Argument Culture*, where she suggests we need
>> less debate in society and more cooperation.  I argue that we need more
>> ethical debate in society.  My conclusions are drawn primarily from the
>> evidence described in set of experiences in the NDT/CEDA community over the
>> last twenty years.  I'm also writing a companion textbook entitled, *Ethical
>> Argumentation and Debate* which outlines a system for policy debate.
>>
>> Our debaters this fall will debate the topic while assessing whether
>> certain types of styles and strategies are "ethical" in the debating of
>> those topical positions.
>>
>> Just wondering, outside of complaining and romanticizing for a long gone
>> past that wasn't nearly as perfect as you suggest, what are you doing to
>> save the world of debate you describe?
>>
>> With love,
>>
>> Ede
>>
>>
>>
>> Ede Warner, Jr.
>> Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
>> University of Louisville
>> 308E Strickler Hall
>> 502-852-3522
>> ewarner at louisville.edu
>> http://uofldebate.com/
>>
>> >>>
>>   *From: * "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com> *To:* eDebate <
>> edebate at www.ndtceda.com> *CC:* Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>, "Ede Warner" <
>> e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu> *Date: * 8/4/2008 12:28 PM *Subject: * Re:
>> [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
>>
>> Once the theoretical framework is deemed to be tyrannical and up for
>> examination in any context (race, religion, gender, age, ideology,
>> philosophy), by any method (rational argument, voice metaphor, expressive,
>> acts, violence, torture), at any time (within speech time, outside speech
>> time), with any standards (evidence, no evidence, no materials, guns,
>> missiles), by any persons (debaters, non-debaters, judges, people actively
>> influencing judges)  then there is no bridge-building, because nothing
>> exists any more on either shore of the river.
>>
>> What is it that we are trying to save?  How can you make policy debate
>> good and open and equal when at the end of the process there is no more
>> policy debate?  What activity are you trying to save?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> David J. Glass, M.D.
>> Asst, Harvard Debate
>>
>> On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Dear Peacemakers (Josh, M.L., Ermo, Christopher Thomas, Scott Elliott,
>>> and anyone else who wants us to "build bridges"),
>>>
>>> First and foremost.  I care about each and everyone one of you, even if I
>>> don't know some of you.  I care about you because you care about something I
>>> love passionately, policy debate.
>>>
>>> Second, pain sucks.  I don't wish it on anybody and I certainly try to
>>> avoid it in my personal life most of the time, even though I choose to
>>> inflict it on others from time to time, sometimes intentionally, and other
>>> times lacking intent.  I recognize there exists some level of contradiction
>>> and hypocrisy in that choice, and I pray for resolution of that dilemma.
>>>
>>> Third, the "fight" didn't bother me much at all.  In fact, much like a
>>> lot of the other violence around me that I enjoy without apology: football,
>>> boxing, hardcore political rap like old NWA and Ice Cube, the Real World on
>>> MTV and Celebreality on VHI, Shawn Whelan's version of basketball, rough
>>> sex, I'll stop there.  My cultural reality is what I saw exists in many of
>>> the worlds I live in, and I could appreciate and enjoy watching bill and
>>> Shanara scrap as part of that cultural upbringing.  I live in a culture that
>>> has fights like this, we kiss and make up and move on, no worse for the
>>> wear.
>>>
>>> Fourth, had their fight occurred in the Birmingham basement where MLK,
>>> Rosa, Abernathy, and others "fought" over how to execute the bus boycott
>>> strategy, in private and not on camera, it would never have bothered me at
>>> all.  But in the quarter-finals of our professional National tournament,
>>> that is akin to MLK having the fight during his Sunday service.  Aaron's
>>> right: appropriateness is the issue.
>>>
>>> Fifth, my concern with the bridge builders is that the call for coalition
>>> building sounds one sided to me.  I keep hearing the need to "rethink" the
>>> inappropriate choice (making the decision to discuss the strike) with little
>>> discussion of what should happen on the other side (how to FIX the problem
>>> of racial and gender exclusion).  Even in ML's eloquence, I heard more
>>> discussion of Towson's strategic choice than I heard of what everyone else
>>> should do to fix the problem: that Shanara's culture difference likely led,
>>> at least in part, to reasons she made the Ft. Hays debaters uncomfortable.
>>> Even if that difference was a decision to give lower points last time.  This
>>> one sided approach to building bridges bothers me a lot more than the
>>> altercation, which frankly, I at many levels respected on both sides for
>>> different reasons.
>>>
>>> Sixth, using "white standards" of what is appropriate (which I might add
>>> are driving the entirety of the discussion about this incident), it is easy
>>> to make the claim that all of this is Shanara's fault.  After Towson made
>>> the choice to argue that striking her was an act that protects white
>>> privilege (which it was), and won the debate, she baited bill by calling him
>>> out for how he was reacting to the decision.  She could have sat back with
>>> her victory, let him vent, and Towson could have gone to semi's.  But
>>> she didn't.
>>>
>>> Seventh, and perhaps this is where the Black angst comes from (not saying
>>> that Andy or Beth and other Whites of good conscience don't share in this
>>> angst but this angst is a result of common shared experiences that I choose
>>> to define as Black), the reason this escalated in terms of tenor and tone is
>>> a feeling of powerlessness and betrayal by Shanara and Towson, and a similar
>>> feeling from Ft. Hays.  How could Shanara and Towson feel that way, given
>>> they made the argument and won the debate?  It's easy.  For them, bill and
>>> Ft. Hays represent a very public and private group of individuals that make
>>> very, very public statements, both inside and outside of debate, that they
>>> are in solidarity with the goal of Black participation in debate.  No one
>>> can question bill shanahan's overt support, both as a judge and a loyal
>>> follower regarding these issues.  Listen to Deven's cry in the background as
>>> the chaos exploded, he is astounded that bill doens't see that the argument
>>> in this debate is no different than the argument bill repeatedly voted for
>>> when made by Liz and Tonia in 2004.  And Deven is absolutely correct, there
>>> was little, if any, difference, other than the argument was being made
>>> against Ft. Hays instead of against someone else with bill judging or
>>> watching.
>>>
>>> I suspect Shanara's callout was because she expected an apology and for
>>> bill to immediately see the hypocrisy.  Knowing bill, I suspect he would
>>> have gotten there, but in the moment he too wasn't in a good place.  From
>>> his perspective, he sees himself as a loyal soldier to the cause, and even
>>> if he did misstep, probably believes that this should have been handled
>>> outside of the competitive framework, as coalition partners and all.  I have
>>> seen this time and again, this rhetoric of coalitions without an appropriate
>>> structure to hammer out the details of what it means to be in a partnership
>>> or coalition. Truthfully, this is usually done in the context of a
>>> competitive debate, with strategic aims (and that includes Louisville,
>>> Towson, and anyone else who attempts to win with coalition and identity
>>> politics in debates).  What isn't done is meeting outside the competition to
>>> create ethical rules of engagement of what coalition debates look like.
>>> Often Louisville debaters felt their coalitions where not what their
>>> opponents felt they were, so once in competition, both sides ended
>>> frustrated with how they engaged one another.  That level of
>>> mis-communication was heightened in this particular debate.
>>>
>>> Eight, I don't want bill to lose his job, or anyone else.  I want him to
>>> learn.  He has to learn that the balance between competition and being done
>>> with a cause is a tenuous and difficult one to walk.  He has to learn that
>>> Blacks will likely perceive that his white privilege extends to his
>>> rationalizations for the decision to strike a Black judge.  Towson has to
>>> learn that the debate was won in part on strategic surprise.  Had Ft. Hays
>>> known about what the debate would be about, they likely could have prepared
>>> better answers.  New affirmatives and surprises produce competitive
>>> bitterness in an activity that creates it's primary foundation around
>>> competition, and this debate was no different.  Shanara probably needs to
>>> recognize that the competitive moment, wasn't a realistic moment for
>>> critical reflection by bill and Ft. Hays about what happened.  And the
>>> decision to make the debate about her pain can't ignore that bill has pain
>>> produced from this moment too. His disrespect of Towson and her after the
>>> debate was a product at least in part of him feeling disrespected too.  I
>>> have lost enjoyment for many a Louisville debate because the opponent is
>>> incapable of showing respect.  I ultimately learned that I was asking too
>>> much of a culture that simply allows these behaviors to exist.  Both sides
>>> of this are a reflection of personal politics being a part of debate.
>>>
>>> Ninth, and this is to those deeply bothered by the way things are, like
>>> most everyone should.  Live in the moment, not the romanticized past, or a
>>> unrealistic future.  Don't wish for all of this to simply go away, or pick a
>>> side and wish they go away or be condemned.  It's difficult living in a
>>> multicultural society where similar people think and act differently.
>>> Recognize that there are problems on all sides but with critical thought and
>>> effort, they can be addressed.  Listen to the other and try and understand
>>> what is being said and felt.  If you are the other, make sure that you go
>>> beyond your issues to engage the fears and concerns of making changes solely
>>> to accommodate your issues.  In other words, we are a smart community that
>>> can construct a great policy debate community that embodies many of the
>>> issues people are discussing, advocating, protesting, etc.  We have the
>>> power to fix and overcome the issues.  I'm sure during the bus boycott, no
>>> one in the beginning saw an equitable resolution, no one certainly saw major
>>> Civil Rights legislation.  If there is political will to move forward
>>> productively, then people can.  Personally, the journey has brought constant
>>> self-reflection and thought about how to make policy debate the best
>>> activity on the planet, because I personally believe it is the most
>>> important activity on the planet, and the passion shown that day by all,
>>> only verifies that for me.
>>>
>>> Tenth, I offer the challenge that the community has put forth for
>>> Louisville many times.  Think honestly and reflectly about what the ideal
>>> world of policy debate is for you.  And if it is some product of the past,
>>> then critically examine that past.  Were there criticisms by yourself or
>>> others at that time?  How do you engage those criticisms?  That honest
>>> reflection and willingness to engage instead of leaving is what can address
>>> these issues.
>>>
>>> With love,
>>>
>>> Ede
>>>
>>>
>>> Ede Warner, Jr.
>>> Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
>>> University of Louisville
>>> 308E Strickler Hall
>>> 502-852-3522
>>> ewarner at louisville.edu
>>> http://uofldebate.com/
>>>
>>> >>>
>>>   *From: * Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> *To:* "Adam Jackson" <
>>> baltimoredebate at gmail.com> *CC:* eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>, <
>>> christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com> *Date: * 8/4/2008 12:53 AM *Subject:
>>> * [eDebate] Peace - Seriously Hello,
>>>
>>> I am decloaking both because like twenty people have asked me to and also
>>> because I feel some friends are really involved in a mess here - I dont want
>>> this to be about me at all...I just want to say a few things:
>>>
>>> First, good people do bad things sometimes.  I have friends who are
>>> homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent
>>> altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other
>>> people.  As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often
>>> wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake
>>> and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people
>>> make terrible choices.  What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves
>>> to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones.  I mean
>>> we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also
>>> have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best
>>> selves.  And that good people do bad things.  Lets also be honest NOBODY was
>>> acting at their best in that room from what I saw.
>>>
>>> Second, part of what I believe Eric was trying to say was that the
>>> personal turn in debate has an odd ability to make people take things
>>> personally in ways that defy propriety.  He wasnt saying that it was GOOD
>>> that things like that happened he was saying it was a predictable outcome.
>>> One thing we need to ask is if we could predict that more things like this
>>> might be a predictable outcome of the personal turn in debate.  Before poo
>>> pooing this I would suggest that a) in the instance on tape Fort Hayes
>>> likely thought that the choice was anonymous b) that they could very well
>>> REALLY respect Shanara and just have thought in this instance she would not
>>> be the best judge for that particular round and then BOOM the whole round
>>> becomes about that personal private choice and the accusation might not have
>>> met the actual reason...next thing you know the whole year is over...and on
>>> that very argument.....People have gotten in fist fights for much dumber
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> Third, while I think I get why Ede said what he said...I have always felt
>>> it was great when I got struck....because the worst thing I could imagine
>>> was being someones deciding judge at nationals, which they worked for
>>> sometimes for four whole years, when they did not want me deciding that
>>> round.  I totally get what Ede is saying too, not from his or Shanara's
>>> perspectives....But I do get this.
>>>
>>> Finally, I wanted to say something before you totally throw Bill Shanahan
>>> or anyone else in this discussion to the wolves (Shanara is an awesome
>>> fierce person and intellect, the Towson guys are awesome, Andy is one of my
>>> fave people in the activity etc).  Very few people have EVER made me as mad
>>> as Bill.....There are times when I was certain Bill and I were going to
>>> break down the whole building we were arguing in.  We virtually agree on
>>> nothing but baseball....He can be a total asshole (so can I obviously) and
>>> have terrible moments.  But, as much as I hate to say it sometimes, debate
>>> is a better place with him and the Towson guys and Shanara and Ede and
>>> everyone else in it.
>>>
>>> Should he have done what he did....Of course not....There are lots of
>>> things I think Bill should not have done over the years.....He is a very
>>> rough and tumble strong intellect from a tough neigborhood with a crazy
>>> temper....But he also is a caring coach and a great Dad and cares about
>>> people if he wants to admit it or not.  He will probably hate me again for
>>> saying any of this...But try to remember debate coaches live a really odd
>>> life....the stress is fantastic sometimes. I often think back in horror on
>>> some of my post round altercations in my younger coaching life.....but I
>>> think we all try to grow and get better.  None of us should be in the
>>> business of trying to ruin other peoples lives or livelihoods.
>>>
>>> On the traditionalists side we really need to try to "build some bridges"
>>> with our performative/personal friends.......On the performative/personal
>>> side maybe some people should realize that asking for a professional
>>> response to deeply personal attacks or seeming attacks might be asking for
>>> more than some people have.  Maybe I am wrong about this....I frequently am
>>> wrong...but this business is hard enough for all of us without trying to
>>> literally go after each other this way....At least I hope we can all try to
>>> care enough about people despite themselves or ourselves to try to have some
>>> peace?
>>>
>>> Ok, back to silencio,
>>>
>>> Josh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".
>>>>
>>>> 2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had
>>>> any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate
>>>> that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we
>>>> have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)
>>>>
>>>> 3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't
>>>> sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the
>>>> only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that
>>>> everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather
>>>> than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what
>>>> actually happened.
>>>>
>>>> 4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make
>>>> those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying
>>>> problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored
>>>> clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather
>>>> cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.
>>>>
>>>> 5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage
>>>> seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be
>>>> the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't
>>>> try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who
>>>> doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about
>>>> face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it
>>>> instead of ignoring the obvious.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20080804/e3efbb4a/attachment.htm 

From brentonculpepper at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 13:09:26 2008
From: brentonculpepper at gmail.com (Brent Culpepper)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 13:09:26 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] On Fidelity and the Debate Community
Message-ID: <9831d3d30808041109v2ff9a7abp9d16fdcec805ce58@mail.gmail.com>

We were not present during the quarters of CEDA and only have the limited
context of this discussion on edebate and the video itself from which to
draw conclusions. That being said, we feel like there is one very real
underlying issue that has gotten lost in this discussion. One of the best
parts about the debate community is that, theoretically, we should be able
to have a passionate, heated discussion about whatever we believe but
afterwards be able to go have a drink with someone whom we viscerally
disagree. The idea that almost all the commentary following this episode has
largely centered around blame induced personal attacks is disturbing.
Ironically, the argument that is typically made against framework is
exclusion, but it is no different here where instead of engaging an
identified problem of whether or not strikes are legitimate argumentative
ground, this discussion has chosen to vilify a person who has devoted much
of their life to this community. A person who quite frankly ushered in a
style of debate that makes the quarters of CEDA (debate round, not
post-round) possible.

Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable or
inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the
community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel
and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for.
Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this
conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community
finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is
the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence
in the community.

We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just one
moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very
radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family.

Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein

P.S.  The authors do not consent to this being used as evidence to beat
policy debaters.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/9d836a50/attachment.htm 

From gacggc at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 13:31:25 2008
From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:31:25 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] On Fidelity and the Debate Community
In-Reply-To: <9831d3d30808041109v2ff9a7abp9d16fdcec805ce58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9831d3d30808041109v2ff9a7abp9d16fdcec805ce58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8371758b0808041131i31c1b64bx28c37163901f2bee@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Brent, Hi Mike,


Actually I'm not sure I agree with you on this one...

Adam Jackson and Andy Ellis seem to have taken a principled stand, letting
people know there
are consequences to behavior and actions.

This seems to be an important lesson for people to learn.

Obviously this has nothing to do with my views as to what is acceptable
WITHIN a debate round.  I don't think this should be an in-round argument.
But do you not think people should be held accountable for
their actions, just in everyday life, and especially in professional
contexts?

Again, this has nothing to do with debate arguments.  This has to do with
how we treat each other, period.

It would be quite ironic if this guy Adam were encouraged to speak
forcefully within a debate round as an example of a "protest" or a
"movement" but then was discouraged or chilled from speaking out in "real
life" when confronted with something he felt to be reprehensible.   I mean
seriously, there is a dfference between a "passionate" and "heated"
discussion, and what happened. And how can you endorse actual protest or
social action, but chill people from speaking out in actual situations, when
confronted in such a way?  This is why we have laws against harrassment, and
other workplace norms.  People need to learn to control themselves, and
behave respectfully to each other.

Okay, this is my last email of the day... work needs to get done...

Best regards,
David


On 8/4/08, Brent Culpepper <brentonculpepper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   We were not present during the quarters of CEDA and only have the
> limited context of this discussion on edebate and the video itself from
> which to draw conclusions. That being said, we feel like there is one very
> real underlying issue that has gotten lost in this discussion. One of the
> best parts about the debate community is that, theoretically, we should be
> able to have a passionate, heated discussion about whatever we believe but
> afterwards be able to go have a drink with someone whom we viscerally
> disagree. The idea that almost all the commentary following this episode has
> largely centered around blame induced personal attacks is disturbing.
> Ironically, the argument that is typically made against framework is
> exclusion, but it is no different here where instead of engaging an
> identified problem of whether or not strikes are legitimate argumentative
> ground, this discussion has chosen to vilify a person who has devoted much
> of their life to this community. A person who quite frankly ushered in a
> style of debate that makes the quarters of CEDA (debate round, not
> post-round) possible.
>
> Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable or
> inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the
> community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel
> and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for.
> Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this
> conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community
> finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is
> the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence
> in the community.
>
> We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just one
> moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very
> radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family.
>
> Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein
>
> P.S.  The authors do not consent to this being used as evidence to beat
> policy debaters.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080804/9e3a0a33/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Mon Aug  4 13:31:48 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:31:48 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <48970AB0.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
References: <1217871168.48973d402eaab@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48970AB0.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <1217874708.48974b14a0e09@webmail.grandecom.net>

Ede,

Articulate a clear line of argument and perhaps someone can respond.

You give all these blandishments about the Civil Rights Movement, Pain,
suffering and the agony of being Black in a white man's debate world. I am just
pointing out thaat there are many within the Black movement who would conclude
that your fight for inclusion is all wrong. I am saying that your appeals to
"Justice", if in fact injustice does exist, will probably never be met, so why
keep fighting for inclusion? There are other alternatives that could easily be
explored if the same efforts to fight these racist (your charecterization)
organizations and norms could be used to create an atmosphere of inclusion via
the creation of a HBCU debate league, or a new form of policy debate that is
not focused on winning the NDT.

As far as separation from NDT, I posit the following: MPJ and strike cards are
an offshoot of NDT imported to CEDA from the merger. Back in the day,
1980's-1990's you got a panel of three and you got stuck unless you could show
some real overwhelming bias (that guy is dating one of the debaters, etc.). If
we would have had some randomized judging panels  at CEDA Nats instead of MPJ
and strikes-the whole Ft. Hays  Towson fiasco would have never taken place.
Randomized judging would insure that the minority and women that do particpate
in the judging get a shot at juding in out rounds. At
worst, Ft. Hays would have had a judge in the back of the room who would
normally vote for their arguments, but is probably more sympathetic to Towson's
project. They would have then sucked it up and went for a 2-1 decision. Do you
think the NDT will ever get rid of MPJ and strike cards? LOL

Am I the only one that heard rumors and innuendo about how CEDA Nationals was
not a true national championship-only the NDT matters. How more nigardly can
people treat African-Americans generally, and Towson specifically. Is THIS what
you want to be included in?


I am indiciting your entire project Ede. I don't think inclusion is the
solution. All of your attempts at inclusion are futile to the point of farce.

Ask yourself this: "I have been fighting this Quixotic fight for almost ten
years now. What have I accomplished?"

"Could all of that effort have been directed toward a better purpose, such as
creating a African-American or AfroCentric debate league at the collegiate
level?"

I think the answer is that you have not accomplished much, and frankly, CEDA and
NDT has not done much of ANYTHING either--African Amerians
participation overall is pretty much as low as it always has been within CEDA
NDT. I can count the number of African American coaches in CEDA/NDT on one hand
with a couple fingers missing. Other than the inclusion of a few rap songs,
debate is just as incomprehensible to the average person (white or black) as it
ever was. No increase in HBCU participation, or any other type of college with a
majority African-American population has entered policy debate. ZERO, NADA,
NOTHING. All we have right now are a few placings by minority students at the
NDT and Towson winning CEDA Nats. Anamolous, dare I say it, token, wins do not
make for a successful social movement for real change.

Maybe instead of castigating me for pointing out the reality of the situation
and offering a solution, you should seriously consider the alternative of
creating "a debate association of one's own."

I will volunteer to help draft your constitution and I will donate $200.00
toward the filing for Non-Profit Organization status. Here's a name: The
American American College Debate Assocation (AACDA).

The match is lit. Let's burn a bridge.

Scott


From greg.thomas at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 13:41:56 2008
From: greg.thomas at gmail.com (Greg Thomas)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:41:56 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] On Fidelity and the Debate Community
In-Reply-To: <9831d3d30808041109v2ff9a7abp9d16fdcec805ce58@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9831d3d30808041109v2ff9a7abp9d16fdcec805ce58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab7f34f60808041141w29ddfa5r3a81f281bbb54989@mail.gmail.com>

I am reading this, and I am really just not getting what you are saying
(although this is the part of this discussion I am interested in).  I was
not present at the round either, and thus I also have limited context in
which to draw conclusions about the video.  However, it seems your position
in your email is that debate is a family and that people should be forgiven
for their transgressions in a family.  At least, I think that is what you
are saying.

But parts of your email really bother me.  For instance:

(A)  You mention that a person is being vilified, even though that person
has devoted much of their life to the community.  Does a track record of
being a productive member of society excuse bad/inappropriate actions?

(B)  Also, you state "Who knows if what happened following the quarters of
CEDA was reasonable or inappropriate on either side".  Really?  I can't see
how anyone could not know that the actions in that video were unreasonable
and inappropriate no matter what the discussion was.

(C)  You state that it is "cruel and antithetical to anything this debate
community has ever stood for" to call for someone's termination.  Let's
assume that hiring/firing decisions are not the responsibility of the debate
community (because they aren't).  Would it be cruel and wrong to simply send
the link to the video to the offending persons department chair so that the
appropriate person could make that decision?  What if that link were sent
with no explanation/no slant/no nothing?

(D)  Finally, you mention that we should remember "actions about our
community have very radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of
their family".  1.  Do you think that level of consideration was being
exercised by the offending people in the video?  and 2.  If negative things
effects were to be had on that person's livelihood and/or family, is not the
offender in that situation the one who should bear the blame?

I don't plan to forward links or anything like that, that is not what I am
saying.  But at one of the schools I attended, there was a hazing
incident/scandal with our football team.  The logic in your email seems to
indicate that in a close knit situation like that, there should have been
understanding, and that the players who were doing the hazing should not
have been identified/their actions brought to light because (a) they were
valuable to the team and had a momentary lack of judgment and (b) because it
could have ruined their acadmic/athletic careers.  Is that right?

Greg Thomas

P.S.  Some synonyms for Fidelity:  Faithfulness; honesty; integrity; faith;
loyalty.  While loyalty "may" fit what you are sayi

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Brent Culpepper
<brentonculpepper at gmail.com>wrote:

> We were not present during the quarters of CEDA and only have the limited
> context of this discussion on edebate and the video itself from which to
> draw conclusions. That being said, we feel like there is one very real
> underlying issue that has gotten lost in this discussion. One of the best
> parts about the debate community is that, theoretically, we should be able
> to have a passionate, heated discussion about whatever we believe but
> afterwards be able to go have a drink with someone whom we viscerally
> disagree. The idea that almost all the commentary following this episode has
> largely centered around blame induced personal attacks is disturbing.
> Ironically, the argument that is typically made against framework is
> exclusion, but it is no different here where instead of engaging an
> identified problem of whether or not strikes are legitimate argumentative
> ground, this discussion has chosen to vilify a person who has devoted much
> of their life to this community. A person who quite frankly ushered in a
> style of debate that makes the quarters of CEDA (debate round, not
> post-round) possible.
>
> Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable or
> inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the
> community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel
> and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for.
> Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this
> conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community
> finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is
> the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence
> in the community.
>
> We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just one
> moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very
> radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family.
>
> Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein
>
> P.S.  The authors do not consent to this being used as evidence to beat
> policy debaters.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080804/4b4c7c71/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 13:41:44 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:41:44 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Transforming our argument culture
In-Reply-To: <8371758b0808041102o62464f40qb71225a7fe9e3f99@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f6ec14bb0808032152x735e1df5vb3a4bcab0999a951@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896EF22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808040927r45d6641dv688d85433085128b@mail.gmail.com>
	<4896F969.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808041014m514003f3k3663870e1040981d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4897064B.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<8371758b0808041102o62464f40qb71225a7fe9e3f99@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <489714F5.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Dr. Glass aka David (wanted to show you more respect in this post),
 
Because the fundamental ethical flaw in policy debate that created the impetus for what we do and what others do is how topical minority issues are evaluated in the current framework of policy debate.  They are deemed non-strategic and consequently are discarded.  If a 1AC has a plan to reduce American support to save Carribean sugar farmers from economic devastation because they can't economically compete, the negative's politics disadvantage that risks nuclear war from the political capital needed during an election year that assures some weapons treaty won't get signed is not an ethical of the 1AC claim.  The debate is shifted away from the 1AC issue towards a more universal issue.  The 1AC isn't even worth running.  The same is true of a counterplan.  We can rid ourselves from a discussion of the impact of American subsidies on foreign farms by using a different agent to focus on state's rights or congressional political capital. These are all direct descendants of the turn to tournament debate and more specialized judging in the late 1950's.
 
These are the weaknesses in contemporary plan based debate frameworks that must be addressed.  Strategic can't translate into most universal and greatest risk.  If so, there is no in-depth debate about the topic.  The starting point of the topic is merely a ruse to get to the larger, more strategic impacts.  Most negative strategies are couched in cooption of the issue, not a true debating of the issue in question.  This same extremely problematic issue created the impetus for the kritik, the performance, etc. The problem has been replicated in the advent of critical and performative debate.  Racism or sexism outweighs the topic is no different than nuclear war outweighing the needs of the sugar farmers, now doesn't it?  
 
All of this must be addressed before we can declare our world of policy debate to be a legitimate exercise in discussing a variety of contemporary policies.  Right now, we are a backfile activity that is overwhelmingly predictable.  That's not the spirit over policy debate over different controversies.  Each year should be wholly different, not partially so.  
Until your vision addresses the fundamental issue, for me it's retrograde and a move back to a past that ignores a serious problem for policy debate in a multicultural society. 
 
Even your separation of the issue: a framework for policy debate as separate from racial equality, etc., misunderstands the nature of the problem.
 
Your not controlling uniqueness, we currently don't have a policy debate framework that truly debates the policies we vote for.  We debate backfiles and generic impacts using those smaller issues as links.  That's where the ethical transformation needs to start.  
 
P.S. - American democracy operates the exact same way.  You can only win voting majorities on larger and broad universal issues, leaving minority issues as non-strategic and consequently ignored.
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
To:"Ede Warner" <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
CC:edebate <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 02:18 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
 
Ok, great, but just pointing out that since your vision includes the statement: 
"Do I think we can create a type of plan based topical policy debate that does?  Most definitely!"  and since you place yourself outside of the "debate anarchy" camp, it really is not clear  why you were labelling the plan-centrist post earlier today as "revisionist"
or that returns to such a centrism are "unhelpful".  Your vision is inclusive
of plan-centrism.
 
my agenda in these discussions is really consistently about establishing workable
frameworks... and making sure the debate round is a place that allows for discussion based on the 1ac, which is itself bounded by the resolution...   that's really all I want to do;  if you or others can then use those frameworks to 
further racial equality, or any other social end, fantastic.  my focus though is just
on the procedural, because it seems quite clear that if the procedural norms are lost,
then tautologically what is left is the absence of norms, which defines the term anarchy .
and we are seeing more such examples of this anarchy cropping up in the activity...  so it is
clear that these concerns are not misplaced.
 
That video was appalling.
 
david
 
David Glass, M.D.
Asst, Harvard Debate

 
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: 

I embrace a vision of policy debate that starts with a purpose, not a tool or method like a "plan."  My vision of policy debate lays in what I would like to see it do. The definition I will use next week in our fall retreat is as follows: 
1)      What is the nature of policy debate?  A formal human communication process used to empower all people to influence institutional courses of action in a democratic society through the two steps of policy creation and policy implementation.
Mari Matsuda in her discussion of reparations in a 1987 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, talks about Black double-consciousness as it relates to Black history and the US constitution.  While the execution of the document over the years was overtly and covertly oppressive to Blacks (3/5's compromise as just one example; Constitution used in upholding slavery and segregation), many Black writers and leaders held an inspirational vision of the Constitution that could support reparations.  In other words, while the ways the Constitution was being interpreted and executed by those in power couldn't support the notion of reparations, there was a Black inspired reading of the same document that could.  She uses DuBois theory of dual or double consciousness.
 
My vision of policy debate is similar.  Do I think the way we've executed plan based topical policy debate thus far achieves the vision of my definition above?  No.  Do I think we can create a type of plan based topical policy debate that does?  Most definitely!  If you hold me to the standard of having to advocate for the most contemporary version of plan based policy debate OR what is being described as the "debate anarchy" of today, I'm not in either camp.  I believe there exists a compromise position that better gets at the goals of plan based topical policy debate but considers some of the issues/concerns that has created the impetus for the protesting/backlash/more extreme performative acts.  And if everyone agrees to the political will needed, a compromise can be found.  I believe that a simple notion of ethics or rules as a sole justification to "go back to the good old days" is not in the spirit of that compromise.  
 
And in your quest, Louisville did in fact, offer an attempt at a solution, the mission statements, which was soundly rejected for even consideration as an option.  It had an ethical challenge to true to keep debates focused.  But that just means it didn't address all of the concerns and/or enough people didn't feel there is enough justification to consider change.  We will do what we have consistently done in the last ten years: listen to the concerns of the community, stated and otherwise, try to address them while keeping our concerns about the community in mind, and produce a product for the community's consideration, making the arguments we feel we need to make to move forward as a community.
 
I would be welcome to discuss with you further our approach and what I see as possibilities for an empowering for all vision of policy debate.
 
Thanks for engaging - Ede
 

.
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 
>>> 

From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
To:"Ede Warner" <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>, edebate <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 01:15 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
 

Hi Ede,
 
There was no disrespect in my post, nor was there any implication that I know you, since
we indeed have never met.
 
Indeed it is because I don't know you that I was asking the question I asked... because it seems contraditory to me to on the one hand marginalize calls for a return to plan-centrism as "revisionist" and then on the other hand say you love policy debate.   It was because this double-pronged approach confused me that I was asking you what it is that you are labelling "policy debate" that you love and want to protect.  
 
That isn't disrespectful... it certainly wasn't meant to be.
 
As for what I do and what I've done, I'm not really comfortable laying all that out...  because it just comes off as chest-beating... and actions in that context speak louder than words...
 
Finally, it does seem worth pointing out that with all the "axes being ground" as someone else put it, in the year or so that I've been making these points about the need for a theoretical framework that could make distinctions between acts deemed "ethical" or "acceptable" and those deemed over the line, nobody... truly, nobody... has offered a framework that excludes the seeming unacceptable behavior, but allows the alternative forms...    That seems to be a problem worth pointing out.  So being called revisionist or unhelpful when trying to simply protect this thing everyone seems to want to protect is.... uhm...  confusing...  
 
 
David
 
Davd J. Glass, M.D.
Asst, Harvard Debate
 
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: 

David,
 
Don't know who you are, but I certainly know that you don't know who I am.  Your broad suggestions run counter to most of what I believe about what policy debate should be.  I don't just talk the talk the talk, I spend most of my time working actively to transform the nature of competitive policy debate into something that more closely resembles the world I policy debate that I believe in.  
 
In my mind, the acts of protest challenging the nature of contemporary have little resemblance to the ultimate compromise or evolution that I think needs to occur in policy debate, in the same way that sitting down in a whites only restaurant or a bus boycott resembles the Civil Rights legislation.  They are related certainly, but the advent of one doesn't dictate what the other will ultimately look like.
 
Your ability to equate the growing acts of protest/lashout/backlash in policy debate with what the policy debate world can become limits your ability to assist in that transformation.  I've been told you are a very, very smart man who I should respect.  Is it impossible for you to respect me also as someone who might have the best interest of policy debate at heart, just as you do, only separated by a difference of opinion on how to create that world, in large part created by a different set of lived experiences?
 
I'm currently finishing a pair of books, one entitled, An Ethical War of Words: Transforming the Argument Culture which argues that Deborah Tannen's conclusion in her book from a decade ago, Stopping America's War of Words: Ending the Argument Culture, where she suggests we need less debate in society and more cooperation.  I argue that we need more ethical debate in society.  My conclusions are drawn primarily from the evidence described in set of experiences in the NDT/CEDA community over the last twenty years.  I'm also writing a companion textbook entitled, Ethical Argumentation and Debate which outlines a system for policy debate.
 
Our debaters this fall will debate the topic while assessing whether certain types of styles and strategies are "ethical" in the debating of those topical positions.  
 
Just wondering, outside of complaining and romanticizing for a long gone past that wasn't nearly as perfect as you suggest, what are you doing to save the world of debate you describe?
 
With love,
 
Ede

 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
To:eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
CC:Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>, "Ede Warner" <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Date: 8/4/2008 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
 
 
Once the theoretical framework is deemed to be tyrannical and up for examination in any context (race, religion, gender, age, ideology, philosophy), by any method (rational argument, voice metaphor, expressive, acts, violence, torture), at any time (within speech time, outside speech time), with any standards (evidence, no evidence, no materials, guns, missiles), by any persons (debaters, non-debaters, judges, people actively influencing judges)  then there is no bridge-building, because nothing exists any more on either shore of the river.
 
What is it that we are trying to save?  How can you make policy debate good and open and equal when at the end of the process there is no more policy debate?  What activity are you trying to save?
 
David
 
 
David J. Glass, M.D.
Asst, Harvard Debate
 
On 8/4/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote: 

Dear Peacemakers (Josh, M.L., Ermo, Christopher Thomas, Scott Elliott, and anyone else who wants us to "build bridges"),
 
First and foremost.  I care about each and everyone one of you, even if I don't know some of you.  I care about you because you care about something I love passionately, policy debate.
 
Second, pain sucks.  I don't wish it on anybody and I certainly try to avoid it in my personal life most of the time, even though I choose to inflict it on others from time to time, sometimes intentionally, and other times lacking intent.  I recognize there exists some level of contradiction and hypocrisy in that choice, and I pray for resolution of that dilemma.
 
Third, the "fight" didn't bother me much at all.  In fact, much like a lot of the other violence around me that I enjoy without apology: football, boxing, hardcore political rap like old NWA and Ice Cube, the Real World on MTV and Celebreality on VHI, Shawn Whelan's version of basketball, rough sex, I'll stop there.  My cultural reality is what I saw exists in many of the worlds I live in, and I could appreciate and enjoy watching bill and Shanara scrap as part of that cultural upbringing.  I live in a culture that has fights like this, we kiss and make up and move on, no worse for the wear.
 
Fourth, had their fight occurred in the Birmingham basement where MLK, Rosa, Abernathy, and others "fought" over how to execute the bus boycott strategy, in private and not on camera, it would never have bothered me at all.  But in the quarter-finals of our professional National tournament, that is akin to MLK having the fight during his Sunday service.  Aaron's right: appropriateness is the issue.
 
Fifth, my concern with the bridge builders is that the call for coalition building sounds one sided to me.  I keep hearing the need to "rethink" the inappropriate choice (making the decision to discuss the strike) with little discussion of what should happen on the other side (how to FIX the problem of racial and gender exclusion).  Even in ML's eloquence, I heard more discussion of Towson's strategic choice than I heard of what everyone else should do to fix the problem: that Shanara's culture difference likely led, at least in part, to reasons she made the Ft. Hays debaters uncomfortable.  Even if that difference was a decision to give lower points last time.  This one sided approach to building bridges bothers me a lot more than the altercation, which frankly, I at many levels respected on both sides for different reasons.  
 
Sixth, using "white standards" of what is appropriate (which I might add are driving the entirety of the discussion about this incident), it is easy to make the claim that all of this is Shanara's fault.  After Towson made the choice to argue that striking her was an act that protects white privilege (which it was), and won the debate, she baited bill by calling him out for how he was reacting to the decision.  She could have sat back with her victory, let him vent, and Towson could have gone to semi's.  But she didn't.
 
Seventh, and perhaps this is where the Black angst comes from (not saying that Andy or Beth and other Whites of good conscience don't share in this angst but this angst is a result of common shared experiences that I choose to define as Black), the reason this escalated in terms of tenor and tone is a feeling of powerlessness and betrayal by Shanara and Towson, and a similar feeling from Ft. Hays.  How could Shanara and Towson feel that way, given they made the argument and won the debate?  It's easy.  For them, bill and Ft. Hays represent a very public and private group of individuals that make very, very public statements, both inside and outside of debate, that they are in solidarity with the goal of Black participation in debate.  No one can question bill shanahan's overt support, both as a judge and a loyal follower regarding these issues.  Listen to Deven's cry in the background as the chaos exploded, he is astounded that bill doens't see that the argument in this debate is no different than the argument bill repeatedly voted for when made by Liz and Tonia in 2004.  And Deven is absolutely correct, there was little, if any, difference, other than the argument was being made against Ft. Hays instead of against someone else with bill judging or watching.
 
I suspect Shanara's callout was because she expected an apology and for bill to immediately see the hypocrisy.  Knowing bill, I suspect he would have gotten there, but in the moment he too wasn't in a good place.  From his perspective, he sees himself as a loyal soldier to the cause, and even if he did misstep, probably believes that this should have been handled outside of the competitive framework, as coalition partners and all.  I have seen this time and again, this rhetoric of coalitions without an appropriate structure to hammer out the details of what it means to be in a partnership or coalition. Truthfully, this is usually done in the context of a competitive debate, with strategic aims (and that includes Louisville, Towson, and anyone else who attempts to win with coalition and identity politics in debates).  What isn't done is meeting outside the competition to create ethical rules of engagement of what coalition debates look like.  Often Louisville debaters felt their coalitions where not what their opponents felt they were, so once in competition, both sides ended frustrated with how they engaged one another.  That level of mis-communication was heightened in this particular debate.
 
Eight, I don't want bill to lose his job, or anyone else.  I want him to learn.  He has to learn that the balance between competition and being done with a cause is a tenuous and difficult one to walk.  He has to learn that Blacks will likely perceive that his white privilege extends to his rationalizations for the decision to strike a Black judge.  Towson has to learn that the debate was won in part on strategic surprise.  Had Ft. Hays known about what the debate would be about, they likely could have prepared better answers.  New affirmatives and surprises produce competitive bitterness in an activity that creates it's primary foundation around competition, and this debate was no different.  Shanara probably needs to recognize that the competitive moment, wasn't a realistic moment for critical reflection by bill and Ft. Hays about what happened.  And the decision to make the debate about her pain can't ignore that bill has pain produced from this moment too. His disrespect of Towson and her after the debate was a product at least in part of him feeling disrespected too.  I have lost enjoyment for many a Louisville debate because the opponent is incapable of showing respect.  I ultimately learned that I was asking too much of a culture that simply allows these behaviors to exist.  Both sides of this are a reflection of personal politics being a part of debate.
 
Ninth, and this is to those deeply bothered by the way things are, like most everyone should.  Live in the moment, not the romanticized past, or a unrealistic future.  Don't wish for all of this to simply go away, or pick a side and wish they go away or be condemned.  It's difficult living in a multicultural society where similar people think and act differently.  Recognize that there are problems on all sides but with critical thought and effort, they can be addressed.  Listen to the other and try and understand what is being said and felt.  If you are the other, make sure that you go beyond your issues to engage the fears and concerns of making changes solely to accommodate your issues.  In other words, we are a smart community that can construct a great policy debate community that embodies many of the issues people are discussing, advocating, protesting, etc.  We have the power to fix and overcome the issues.  I'm sure during the bus boycott, no one in the beginning saw an equitable resolution, no one certainly saw major Civil Rights legislation.  If there is political will to move forward productively, then people can.  Personally, the journey has brought constant self-reflection and thought about how to make policy debate the best activity on the planet, because I personally believe it is the most important activity on the planet, and the passion shown that day by all, only verifies that for me.
 
Tenth, I offer the challenge that the community has put forth for Louisville many times.  Think honestly and reflectly about what the ideal world of policy debate is for you.  And if it is some product of the past, then critically examine that past.  Were there criticisms by yourself or others at that time?  How do you engage those criticisms?  That honest reflection and willingness to engage instead of leaving is what can address these issues.
 
With love,
 
Ede
 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
To:"Adam Jackson" <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>
CC:eDebate <edebate at www.ndtceda.com>, <christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 12:53 AM
Subject: [eDebate] Peace - Seriously
Hello,
 
I am decloaking both because like twenty people have asked me to and also because I feel some friends are really involved in a mess here - I dont want this to be about me at all...I just want to say a few things:
 
First, good people do bad things sometimes.  I have friends who are homeless, friends who have done the worst drugs, friends who got in violent altercations and hurt other people, people who have been hurt badly by other people.  As some of you might know, I have a temper myself......I often wonder if there are people in prison right now who made one terrible mistake and every other thing they ever did was good....Its a hard world....people make terrible choices.  What we should do sometimes is find it in ourselves to care about all the people we encounter not just the perfect ones.  I mean we should certainly not excuse the terrible things people do...but we also have to consider that all of us have, at times, been less than our best selves.  And that good people do bad things.  Lets also be honest NOBODY was acting at their best in that room from what I saw.
 
Second, part of what I believe Eric was trying to say was that the personal turn in debate has an odd ability to make people take things personally in ways that defy propriety.  He wasnt saying that it was GOOD that things like that happened he was saying it was a predictable outcome.  One thing we need to ask is if we could predict that more things like this might be a predictable outcome of the personal turn in debate.  Before poo pooing this I would suggest that a) in the instance on tape Fort Hayes likely thought that the choice was anonymous b) that they could very well REALLY respect Shanara and just have thought in this instance she would not be the best judge for that particular round and then BOOM the whole round becomes about that personal private choice and the accusation might not have met the actual reason...next thing you know the whole year is over...and on that very argument.....People have gotten in fist fights for much dumber reasons.  
 
Third, while I think I get why Ede said what he said...I have always felt it was great when I got struck....because the worst thing I could imagine was being someones deciding judge at nationals, which they worked for sometimes for four whole years, when they did not want me deciding that round.  I totally get what Ede is saying too, not from his or Shanara's perspectives....But I do get this.  
 
Finally, I wanted to say something before you totally throw Bill Shanahan or anyone else in this discussion to the wolves (Shanara is an awesome fierce person and intellect, the Towson guys are awesome, Andy is one of my fave people in the activity etc).  Very few people have EVER made me as mad as Bill.....There are times when I was certain Bill and I were going to break down the whole building we were arguing in.  We virtually agree on nothing but baseball....He can be a total asshole (so can I obviously) and have terrible moments.  But, as much as I hate to say it sometimes, debate is a better place with him and the Towson guys and Shanara and Ede and everyone else in it.  
 
Should he have done what he did....Of course not....There are lots of things I think Bill should not have done over the years.....He is a very rough and tumble strong intellect from a tough neigborhood with a crazy temper....But he also is a caring coach and a great Dad and cares about people if he wants to admit it or not.  He will probably hate me again for saying any of this...But try to remember debate coaches live a really odd life....the stress is fantastic sometimes. I often think back in horror on some of my post round altercations in my younger coaching life.....but I think we all try to grow and get better.  None of us should be in the business of trying to ruin other peoples lives or livelihoods.
 
On the traditionalists side we really need to try to "build some bridges" with our performative/personal friends.......On the performative/personal side maybe some people should realize that asking for a professional response to deeply personal attacks or seeming attacks might be asking for more than some people have.  Maybe I am wrong about this....I frequently am wrong...but this business is hard enough for all of us without trying to literally go after each other this way....At least I hope we can all try to care enough about people despite themselves or ourselves to try to have some peace?
 
Ok, back to silencio,
 
Josh
 
 
 
 

 
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Adam Jackson <baltimoredebate at gmail.com> wrote:


1. I'm not your fucking "dear" or "sweetheart".

2. No one's making backhanded statements at anyone. I never said I had
any problems with Chris or Avery, there were arguments in that debate
that they decided to ignore and it illustrated the problems that we
have in this debate community (did you even listen to Hester's RFD?)

3. You're not my parent, guardian, friend or acquaintance, so don't
sit at your computer screen, commanding me to do anything. I am the
only person who actually had the footage, and it was important that
everyone else actually saw what went down so we can discuss it, rather
than let rumors circle and allowing people to make shit up about what
actually happened.

4. I am not "attacking" anyone, Bill, Chris and Avery decided to make
those arguments and they defended their decision. The underlying
problem is that we don't like it when we see that raw uncensored
clusterfuckery that is our debate community, and that we would rather
cloak it and ignore rather than discuss it.

5. Be an adult? What about Shanahan? Everyone discussing this footage
seems to be ignoring his actions. He MOONED EVERYBODY. He should be
the first on the list for the "Be an Adult about It" discussion. Don't
try to talk down to me like I'm a first year novice debater who
doesn't know what the fuck I'm talking about. You want to talk about
face-to-face interactions, why don't you come to me and speak on it
instead of ignoring the obvious.
_______________________________________________
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/20080804/5ea4821b/attachment.htm 

From aaron.olney at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 13:55:26 2008
From: aaron.olney at gmail.com (Aaron Olney)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:55:26 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] On Fidelity and the Debate Community
In-Reply-To: <ab7f34f60808041141w29ddfa5r3a81f281bbb54989@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9831d3d30808041109v2ff9a7abp9d16fdcec805ce58@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab7f34f60808041141w29ddfa5r3a81f281bbb54989@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6b016c190808041155s1acab253qf9c4da829f4f0202@mail.gmail.com>

Forget about the individuals that were involved.  If an adminstartor from
one of YOUR schools was to see this, I would think he/she would have second
thoughts about the value of this activity and the money it cost to send kids
to these tournaments.  With the economy hurting and budgets of every kind in
every sector being cut, people can not afford bad publicity for their non
revenue generating activities.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Greg Thomas <greg.thomas at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am reading this, and I am really just not getting what you are saying
> (although this is the part of this discussion I am interested in).  I was
> not present at the round either, and thus I also have limited context in
> which to draw conclusions about the video.  However, it seems your position
> in your email is that debate is a family and that people should be forgiven
> for their transgressions in a family.  At least, I think that is what you
> are saying.
>
> But parts of your email really bother me.  For instance:
>
> (A)  You mention that a person is being vilified, even though that person
> has devoted much of their life to the community.  Does a track record of
> being a productive member of society excuse bad/inappropriate actions?
>
> (B)  Also, you state "Who knows if what happened following the quarters of
> CEDA was reasonable or inappropriate on either side".  Really?  I can't see
> how anyone could not know that the actions in that video were unreasonable
> and inappropriate no matter what the discussion was.
>
> (C)  You state that it is "cruel and antithetical to anything this debate
> community has ever stood for" to call for someone's termination.  Let's
> assume that hiring/firing decisions are not the responsibility of the debate
> community (because they aren't).  Would it be cruel and wrong to simply send
> the link to the video to the offending persons department chair so that the
> appropriate person could make that decision?  What if that link were sent
> with no explanation/no slant/no nothing?
>
> (D)  Finally, you mention that we should remember "actions about our
> community have very radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of
> their family".  1.  Do you think that level of consideration was being
> exercised by the offending people in the video?  and 2.  If negative things
> effects were to be had on that person's livelihood and/or family, is not the
> offender in that situation the one who should bear the blame?
>
> I don't plan to forward links or anything like that, that is not what I am
> saying.  But at one of the schools I attended, there was a hazing
> incident/scandal with our football team.  The logic in your email seems to
> indicate that in a close knit situation like that, there should have been
> understanding, and that the players who were doing the hazing should not
> have been identified/their actions brought to light because (a) they were
> valuable to the team and had a momentary lack of judgment and (b) because it
> could have ruined their acadmic/athletic careers.  Is that right?
>
> Greg Thomas
>
> P.S.  Some synonyms for Fidelity:  Faithfulness; honesty; integrity; faith;
> loyalty.  While loyalty "may" fit what you are sayi
>
>   On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Brent Culpepper <
> brentonculpepper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>    We were not present during the quarters of CEDA and only have the
>> limited context of this discussion on edebate and the video itself from
>> which to draw conclusions. That being said, we feel like there is one very
>> real underlying issue that has gotten lost in this discussion. One of the
>> best parts about the debate community is that, theoretically, we should be
>> able to have a passionate, heated discussion about whatever we believe but
>> afterwards be able to go have a drink with someone whom we viscerally
>> disagree. The idea that almost all the commentary following this episode has
>> largely centered around blame induced personal attacks is disturbing.
>> Ironically, the argument that is typically made against framework is
>> exclusion, but it is no different here where instead of engaging an
>> identified problem of whether or not strikes are legitimate argumentative
>> ground, this discussion has chosen to vilify a person who has devoted much
>> of their life to this community. A person who quite frankly ushered in a
>> style of debate that makes the quarters of CEDA (debate round, not
>> post-round) possible.
>>
>> Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable
>> or inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the
>> community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel
>> and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for.
>> Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this
>> conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community
>> finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is
>> the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence
>> in the community.
>>
>> We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just one
>> moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very
>> radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family.
>>
>> Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein
>>
>> P.S.  The authors do not consent to this being used as evidence to beat
>> policy debaters.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20080804/4b348c08/attachment.htm 

From jbhdb8 at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 14:01:48 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:01:48 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] On Fidelity and the Debate Community
In-Reply-To: <ab7f34f60808041141w29ddfa5r3a81f281bbb54989@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9831d3d30808041109v2ff9a7abp9d16fdcec805ce58@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab7f34f60808041141w29ddfa5r3a81f281bbb54989@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f6ec14bb0808041201g640ecb68p2f76c94e7cd4cd4c@mail.gmail.com>

When I was in college I had a roommate who had just been released from
prison on drug charges...Part of his release was based on his desire to get
an education and to improve his life.  Very often he would sit in our dorm
room and read his homework all day.....He took all day because it took him
about 4 hours to read a chapter because his reading level was not very
high.  Despite this, he would study and study and study and try and try and
he was actually making passing grades in all his classes.

Toward the end of the semester, he got caught in a three way marijuana
deal...since he had already been to prison twice on drugs he was put away as
a three-time loser (20 to life).

Did he sell drugs...yes....should there be consequences to what he did in a
moment of bad judgement....probably.....Do I still feel terrible every
single day that this happened....yes.

Empathy is a good place to start for most things.  Not saying what Bill did
was right....Just saying I empathize and hope that everything good he has
ever done isnt washed away in one moment of bad judgement.

I also have empathy for Shanara, the Towson guys, and everyone else
involved.  It was one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen in a
debate round.

....Or you survive long enough to see yourself become the villian,

Josh

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Greg Thomas <greg.thomas at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am reading this, and I am really just not getting what you are saying
> (although this is the part of this discussion I am interested in).  I was
> not present at the round either, and thus I also have limited context in
> which to draw conclusions about the video.  However, it seems your position
> in your email is that debate is a family and that people should be forgiven
> for their transgressions in a family.  At least, I think that is what you
> are saying.
>
> But parts of your email really bother me.  For instance:
>
> (A)  You mention that a person is being vilified, even though that person
> has devoted much of their life to the community.  Does a track record of
> being a productive member of society excuse bad/inappropriate actions?
>
> (B)  Also, you state "Who knows if what happened following the quarters of
> CEDA was reasonable or inappropriate on either side".  Really?  I can't see
> how anyone could not know that the actions in that video were unreasonable
> and inappropriate no matter what the discussion was.
>
> (C)  You state that it is "cruel and antithetical to anything this debate
> community has ever stood for" to call for someone's termination.  Let's
> assume that hiring/firing decisions are not the responsibility of the debate
> community (because they aren't).  Would it be cruel and wrong to simply send
> the link to the video to the offending persons department chair so that the
> appropriate person could make that decision?  What if that link were sent
> with no explanation/no slant/no nothing?
>
> (D)  Finally, you mention that we should remember "actions about our
> community have very radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of
> their family".  1.  Do you think that level of consideration was being
> exercised by the offending people in the video?  and 2.  If negative things
> effects were to be had on that person's livelihood and/or family, is not the
> offender in that situation the one who should bear the blame?
>
> I don't plan to forward links or anything like that, that is not what I am
> saying.  But at one of the schools I attended, there was a hazing
> incident/scandal with our football team.  The logic in your email seems to
> indicate that in a close knit situation like that, there should have been
> understanding, and that the players who were doing the hazing should not
> have been identified/their actions brought to light because (a) they were
> valuable to the team and had a momentary lack of judgment and (b) because it
> could have ruined their acadmic/athletic careers.  Is that right?
>
> Greg Thomas
>
> P.S.  Some synonyms for Fidelity:  Faithfulness; honesty; integrity; faith;
> loyalty.  While loyalty "may" fit what you are sayi
>
>   On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Brent Culpepper <
> brentonculpepper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>    We were not present during the quarters of CEDA and only have the
>> limited context of this discussion on edebate and the video itself from
>> which to draw conclusions. That being said, we feel like there is one very
>> real underlying issue that has gotten lost in this discussion. One of the
>> best parts about the debate community is that, theoretically, we should be
>> able to have a passionate, heated discussion about whatever we believe but
>> afterwards be able to go have a drink with someone whom we viscerally
>> disagree. The idea that almost all the commentary following this episode has
>> largely centered around blame induced personal attacks is disturbing.
>> Ironically, the argument that is typically made against framework is
>> exclusion, but it is no different here where instead of engaging an
>> identified problem of whether or not strikes are legitimate argumentative
>> ground, this discussion has chosen to vilify a person who has devoted much
>> of their life to this community. A person who quite frankly ushered in a
>> style of debate that makes the quarters of CEDA (debate round, not
>> post-round) possible.
>>
>> Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable
>> or inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the
>> community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel
>> and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for.
>> Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this
>> conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community
>> finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is
>> the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence
>> in the community.
>>
>> We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just one
>> moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very
>> radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family.
>>
>> Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein
>>
>> P.S.  The authors do not consent to this being used as evidence to beat
>> policy debaters.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20080804/91fadfbf/attachment.htm 

From greg.thomas at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 14:02:06 2008
From: greg.thomas at gmail.com (Greg Thomas)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:02:06 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] On Fidelity and the Debate Community
In-Reply-To: <6b016c190808041155s1acab253qf9c4da829f4f0202@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9831d3d30808041109v2ff9a7abp9d16fdcec805ce58@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab7f34f60808041141w29ddfa5r3a81f281bbb54989@mail.gmail.com>
	<6b016c190808041155s1acab253qf9c4da829f4f0202@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab7f34f60808041202v481c0fe0r128dee692d199f7@mail.gmail.com>

If my school cut 5 bucks, we would not have any money.  Bur seriously, my
administrators would fire me on the spot and find someone more responsible
to replace me.  Hopefully, most would do the same.

And the question is:  why would they be so mad?  Because they are LOSING
money to send STUDENTS into situations like this were the offenders are PAID
employees of the UNIVERSITY.  Yeah, I can see why they would be mad, and I
would't blame them one bit.  If the only way we can keep debate programs
open is to hide what goes on at tournaments, then doesn't that say something
bigger about our activity.  If a problem exists, should we hide it.  My
guess is (and maybe I am wrong here) that a lot of people would not want
this kind of thing brought out into the open because it might cause
administrators to scrutinize and examine some of the other commonly accepted
practices at our tournaments.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Aaron Olney <aaron.olney at gmail.com> wrote:

> Forget about the individuals that were involved.  If an adminstartor from
> one of YOUR schools was to see this, I would think he/she would have second
> thoughts about the value of this activity and the money it cost to send kids
> to these tournaments.  With the economy hurting and budgets of every kind in
> every sector being cut, people can not afford bad publicity for their non
> revenue generating activities.
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Greg Thomas <greg.thomas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am reading this, and I am really just not getting what you are saying
>> (although this is the part of this discussion I am interested in).  I was
>> not present at the round either, and thus I also have limited context in
>> which to draw conclusions about the video.  However, it seems your position
>> in your email is that debate is a family and that people should be forgiven
>> for their transgressions in a family.  At least, I think that is what you
>> are saying.
>>
>> But parts of your email really bother me.  For instance:
>>
>> (A)  You mention that a person is being vilified, even though that person
>> has devoted much of their life to the community.  Does a track record of
>> being a productive member of society excuse bad/inappropriate actions?
>>
>> (B)  Also, you state "Who knows if what happened following the quarters of
>> CEDA was reasonable or inappropriate on either side".  Really?  I can't see
>> how anyone could not know that the actions in that video were unreasonable
>> and inappropriate no matter what the discussion was.
>>
>> (C)  You state that it is "cruel and antithetical to anything this debate
>> community has ever stood for" to call for someone's termination.  Let's
>> assume that hiring/firing decisions are not the responsibility of the debate
>> community (because they aren't).  Would it be cruel and wrong to simply send
>> the link to the video to the offending persons department chair so that the
>> appropriate person could make that decision?  What if that link were sent
>> with no explanation/no slant/no nothing?
>>
>> (D)  Finally, you mention that we should remember "actions about our
>> community have very radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of
>> their family".  1.  Do you think that level of consideration was being
>> exercised by the offending people in the video?  and 2.  If negative things
>> effects were to be had on that person's livelihood and/or family, is not the
>> offender in that situation the one who should bear the blame?
>>
>> I don't plan to forward links or anything like that, that is not what I am
>> saying.  But at one of the schools I attended, there was a hazing
>> incident/scandal with our football team.  The logic in your email seems to
>> indicate that in a close knit situation like that, there should have been
>> understanding, and that the players who were doing the hazing should not
>> have been identified/their actions brought to light because (a) they were
>> valuable to the team and had a momentary lack of judgment and (b) because it
>> could have ruined their acadmic/athletic careers.  Is that right?
>>
>> Greg Thomas
>>
>> P.S.  Some synonyms for Fidelity:  Faithfulness; honesty; integrity;
>> faith; loyalty.  While loyalty "may" fit what you are sayi
>>
>>   On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Brent Culpepper <
>> brentonculpepper at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>    We were not present during the quarters of CEDA and only have the
>>> limited context of this discussion on edebate and the video itself from
>>> which to draw conclusions. That being said, we feel like there is one very
>>> real underlying issue that has gotten lost in this discussion. One of the
>>> best parts about the debate community is that, theoretically, we should be
>>> able to have a passionate, heated discussion about whatever we believe but
>>> afterwards be able to go have a drink with someone whom we viscerally
>>> disagree. The idea that almost all the commentary following this episode has
>>> largely centered around blame induced personal attacks is disturbing.
>>> Ironically, the argument that is typically made against framework is
>>> exclusion, but it is no different here where instead of engaging an
>>> identified problem of whether or not strikes are legitimate argumentative
>>> ground, this discussion has chosen to vilify a person who has devoted much
>>> of their life to this community. A person who quite frankly ushered in a
>>> style of debate that makes the quarters of CEDA (debate round, not
>>> post-round) possible.
>>>
>>> Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable
>>> or inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the
>>> community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel
>>> and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for.
>>> Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this
>>> conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community
>>> finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is
>>> the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence
>>> in the community.
>>>
>>> We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just
>>> one moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very
>>> radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family.
>>>
>>> Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein
>>>
>>> P.S.  The authors do not consent to this being used as evidence to beat
>>> policy debaters.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20080804/505f1129/attachment.htm 

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  4 14:09:45 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:09:45 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace, No Moon
Message-ID: <BLU141-W450676B61D09323608D2F9D8780@phx.gbl>


david glass writes (http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075503.html),

"I've been making 
these points about the need for a theoretical framework that could make

distinctions between acts deemed "ethical" or "acceptable" and those deemed
over the line,

nobody... truly, nobody... has offered a framework that
excludes the seeming unacceptable

behavior, but allows the alternative
forms...    That seems to be a problem worth pointing out."



well, before propelling ourselves headlong down the slippery slope of dangerous 'slippery

slope'-analogies, it might serve the discussion to return to the round itself.



towson neither called their opponents racist nor 'personalized' the debate. they disagreed

with a decision taken by the opposing team and did so in a professional way using a formal

debate argument. the 2a.c. says, "this isn't a question of their sincerity or their intentions;

this is a question of their methodology" (28m:15s).



to me this puts a sizable fly in your soup, dr. glass -- namely, this round is a poor example

of what happens when theoretical frameworks are abandoned for standard-less lala-debate

for the obvious reason that the towson team presents a fair and reasonable framework with

a clear and consistent anti-racist standard. they asked, how can you strike a black judge in a

predominantly white pool and still claim to be promoting racial inclusiveness?



now i think we can agree that there's lots of better answers to this question than those which

were given by the fort hays team during the round in question. nevertheless, the question is
a legitimate one, regardless of whether you find it persuasive, and you've failed to show how

this necessarily results in slippage.



glass: "a debater could be called out for being
a Red Sox fan"



...and they could easily respond back with 'i'm not a red sox fan', or with 'that's irrelevant'.



an important part of the traditional framework (i think you'd agree) is non-interventionism. this
means that a debater could argue 'vote for us because the sky is blue' along with a hundred

other blips. if dropped, these are supposed to function as round-winning arguments.  somehow
this permissiveness hasn't spelled the destruction of the activity. so what's special about reflexive
kritiks? in fact (and here's the fat turn), reflexive kritiks offer debaters a theoretical framework
for propagating the very codes of civility required. [see card in post-script.]



i agree wholeheartedly that the regrettable spectacle was inappropriate and potentially violent. it'd
be a huge mistake, however, to punish students for the sins of their teachers, or to start censoring
in-round content alongside censuring after-round misbehavior. and the notion that trends such as
lax enforcement of topicality causes anarchy like this is as patently ludicrous as the leap from pies
to incendiary devices (http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075495.html).


with all due respect, you're comparing apples to assholes.





_



p.s.





Our opponents' briefs are covered under traditional copyright and are
not available on the web. The example of Linux software proves that
Internet access to everyone's work and protection under public licenses
are two indispensable components of distributed networks. Formal
incentives systems, such as ballots, must discourage hoarding and
consistently remind debaters to share, otherwise collaborative projects
will fail. Your ballot sets down the rules of the road.





Jae Yun Moon. Doctoral candidate in Information Systems at New York
University. & Lee Sproull. Stern School Professor of Business at
NYU. 2000. ('Essence of Distributed Work: The Case of the Linux
Kernel'. First Monday. Volume 5; Number 11. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_11/moon/index.html.)





Others have written about lessons from Linux for commercial software
development projects (e.g., Raymond, 1999). Here we consider how
factors important in the Linux case might apply more generally to
distributed work in and across organizations (also see Markus, Manville
and Agres, 2000). It might seem odd to derive lessons for formal
organizations from a self-organizing volunteer activity. After all, the
employment contract should ensure that people will fulfill their role
obligations and act in the best interest of the organization. Yet,
particularly in distributed work, employees must go beyond the letter
of their job description to exhibit qualities found in the Linux
developers: initiative, persistence, activism. We suggest that the
enabling conditions for Linux (the Internet and open source) usefully
support these conditions. We then consider how factors emphasized in
each of the three versions of the Linux story (great man and task
structure, incentives for contributors, and communities of practice)
can facilitate organizational distributed work.





Clearly easy access to the Internet or its equivalent is a necessary
precondition for the kind of distributed work represented by Linux.
Developers used the Internet both for easy access to work products (to
upload and download files) and for easy communication with other
developers (to ask and answer questions, have discussions, and share
community lore). Both capabilities are surely important. And they are
simple. It is noteworthy that, despite the technical prowess of Linux
developers, they relied upon only the simplest and oldest of Internet
tools: file transfer, e-mail distribution lists, and Usenet discussion
groups. Even with today's wider variety of more sophisticated Web-based
tools, Linux developers continue to rely on these tools for
coordinating their efforts. These tools are simple; they are available
worldwide; they are reliable.





The organizational equivalent of copyleft is a second precondition for
the kind of distributed work represented by Linux. Both the formal and
informal reward and incentive systems must reward sharing and
discourage hoarding (See Constant, Kiesler and Sproull, 1996, and
Orlikowski, 1992, for discussions of incentives for information sharing
in organizations). Moreover work products should be transparently
accessible so that anyone can use and build upon good features and
anyone can find and fix problems. We do not underestimate the
difficulty of creating the equivalent of copyleft for organizational
work products. Failing to do so, however, can hobble distributed work.
{...}





Finally, Linux developers were members of and supported by vigorous
electronic communities of practice. Creating and sustaining such
communities can importantly contribute to distributed work. Electronic
communities require both (simple) computer tools and social tools. We
discussed computer tools under enabling conditions, above. The social
tools include differentiated roles and norms. It is not enough to
enable electronic communication among people working on a distributed
project. In a project of any size people must understand and take on
differentiated electronic roles. These roles, with their corresponding
obligations and responsibilities, should be explicitly designated and
understood by all. Indeed, one category of community norms is the
expectations associated with role behaviors. More generally, norms are
the "rules of the road" for the particular electronic community.
Because distributed projects cannot rely upon the tacit reinforcements
that occur in face-to-face communications, persistent explicit
reminders of norms are necessary in the electronic context (See Sproull
and Patterson, 2000 for more on this topic).



_



http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1132096&postcount=176
http://stuartgeiger.com/ossdebate/index.php?title=Punishment

_________________________________________________________________
Get more from your digital life.  Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/009b979b/attachment.htm 

From greg.thomas at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 14:11:30 2008
From: greg.thomas at gmail.com (Greg Thomas)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:11:30 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] On Fidelity and the Debate Community
In-Reply-To: <f6ec14bb0808041201g640ecb68p2f76c94e7cd4cd4c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9831d3d30808041109v2ff9a7abp9d16fdcec805ce58@mail.gmail.com>
	<ab7f34f60808041141w29ddfa5r3a81f281bbb54989@mail.gmail.com>
	<f6ec14bb0808041201g640ecb68p2f76c94e7cd4cd4c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ab7f34f60808041211x1c20d2d4l5fc949dd3bf7e619@mail.gmail.com>

OK, I wasn't speaking as to who I was talking about specifically, but I do
want to comment on one statement here (and it could apply to anyone):

You state: "Just saying I empathize and hope that everything good he has
ever done isnt washed away in one moment of bad judgement."

Exactly my point.  I am not saying anyone should/shouldn't be fired, its not
my place to make that call.  However, the question is is it right to hide
information (or as some people have been doing even going so far as to
condemn someone for bringing information to light) to avoid that information
getting to those people whose job it is to make that call?

Your drug selling friend made his choice and a court made a decision.
Tragic, yes.  But would you blame the cops who arrested him (or do you think
they shouldn't have arrested him) because the courts would send him to jail?

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:

> When I was in college I had a roommate who had just been released from
> prison on drug charges...Part of his release was based on his desire to get
> an education and to improve his life.  Very often he would sit in our dorm
> room and read his homework all day.....He took all day because it took him
> about 4 hours to read a chapter because his reading level was not very
> high.  Despite this, he would study and study and study and try and try and
> he was actually making passing grades in all his classes.
>
> Toward the end of the semester, he got caught in a three way marijuana
> deal...since he had already been to prison twice on drugs he was put away as
> a three-time loser (20 to life).
>
> Did he sell drugs...yes....should there be consequences to what he did in a
> moment of bad judgement....probably.....Do I still feel terrible every
> single day that this happened....yes.
>
> Empathy is a good place to start for most things.  Not saying what Bill did
> was right....Just saying I empathize and hope that everything good he has
> ever done isnt washed away in one moment of bad judgement.
>
> I also have empathy for Shanara, the Towson guys, and everyone else
> involved.  It was one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen in a
> debate round.
>
> ....Or you survive long enough to see yourself become the villian,
>
> Josh
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Greg Thomas <greg.thomas at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am reading this, and I am really just not getting what you are saying
>> (although this is the part of this discussion I am interested in).  I was
>> not present at the round either, and thus I also have limited context in
>> which to draw conclusions about the video.  However, it seems your position
>> in your email is that debate is a family and that people should be forgiven
>> for their transgressions in a family.  At least, I think that is what you
>> are saying.
>>
>> But parts of your email really bother me.  For instance:
>>
>> (A)  You mention that a person is being vilified, even though that person
>> has devoted much of their life to the community.  Does a track record of
>> being a productive member of society excuse bad/inappropriate actions?
>>
>> (B)  Also, you state "Who knows if what happened following the quarters of
>> CEDA was reasonable or inappropriate on either side".  Really?  I can't see
>> how anyone could not know that the actions in that video were unreasonable
>> and inappropriate no matter what the discussion was.
>>
>> (C)  You state that it is "cruel and antithetical to anything this debate
>> community has ever stood for" to call for someone's termination.  Let's
>> assume that hiring/firing decisions are not the responsibility of the debate
>> community (because they aren't).  Would it be cruel and wrong to simply send
>> the link to the video to the offending persons department chair so that the
>> appropriate person could make that decision?  What if that link were sent
>> with no explanation/no slant/no nothing?
>>
>> (D)  Finally, you mention that we should remember "actions about our
>> community have very radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of
>> their family".  1.  Do you think that level of consideration was being
>> exercised by the offending people in the video?  and 2.  If negative things
>> effects were to be had on that person's livelihood and/or family, is not the
>> offender in that situation the one who should bear the blame?
>>
>> I don't plan to forward links or anything like that, that is not what I am
>> saying.  But at one of the schools I attended, there was a hazing
>> incident/scandal with our football team.  The logic in your email seems to
>> indicate that in a close knit situation like that, there should have been
>> understanding, and that the players who were doing the hazing should not
>> have been identified/their actions brought to light because (a) they were
>> valuable to the team and had a momentary lack of judgment and (b) because it
>> could have ruined their acadmic/athletic careers.  Is that right?
>>
>> Greg Thomas
>>
>> P.S.  Some synonyms for Fidelity:  Faithfulness; honesty; integrity;
>> faith; loyalty.  While loyalty "may" fit what you are sayi
>>
>>   On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Brent Culpepper <
>> brentonculpepper at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>    We were not present during the quarters of CEDA and only have the
>>> limited context of this discussion on edebate and the video itself from
>>> which to draw conclusions. That being said, we feel like there is one very
>>> real underlying issue that has gotten lost in this discussion. One of the
>>> best parts about the debate community is that, theoretically, we should be
>>> able to have a passionate, heated discussion about whatever we believe but
>>> afterwards be able to go have a drink with someone whom we viscerally
>>> disagree. The idea that almost all the commentary following this episode has
>>> largely centered around blame induced personal attacks is disturbing.
>>> Ironically, the argument that is typically made against framework is
>>> exclusion, but it is no different here where instead of engaging an
>>> identified problem of whether or not strikes are legitimate argumentative
>>> ground, this discussion has chosen to vilify a person who has devoted much
>>> of their life to this community. A person who quite frankly ushered in a
>>> style of debate that makes the quarters of CEDA (debate round, not
>>> post-round) possible.
>>>
>>> Who knows if what happened following the quarters of CEDA was reasonable
>>> or inappropriate on either side, but POSTING that we should encourage the
>>> community to write to universities seeking someone's termination is cruel
>>> and antithetical to anything this debate community has ever stood for.
>>> Moreover, the idea that someone would garner enjoyment or thrill from this
>>> conflict is disheartening. Given some of the behavior the debate community
>>> finds acceptable or at a minimum forgivable, we find it strange that this is
>>> the instance that starts the battle cries for the end to someone's presence
>>> in the community.
>>>
>>> We encourage everyone to put down your arguments about debate for just
>>> one moment and realize that, at times, actions about our community have very
>>> radical effects on someone's livelihood and that of their family.
>>>
>>> Brent Culpepper & Michael Greenstein
>>>
>>> P.S.  The authors do not consent to this being used as evidence to beat
>>> policy debaters.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20080804/787464f3/attachment.htm 

From yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 14:15:42 2008
From: yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh at gmail.com (Pirate McPirateFace)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:15:42 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Scott Elliot
Message-ID: <fb3f461c0808041215p62ea549h2f8d8724c1fd7566@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMdqFiuaHe8&NR=1

Guess which one he is?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/81d965b8/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 15:00:36 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:00:36 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <1217874708.48974b14a0e09@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217871168.48973d402eaab@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48970AB0.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<1217874708.48974b14a0e09@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <48972772.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Race issues, in particular black-white problems, have been the thorn in American society since the nation's inception.  Ten years is a drop in the bucket and not close to what I expect to spend on these issues.
I have chosen to take my life experiences and search for solutions to race problems that are address issues so much broader than that. The possibility of finding solutions to a variety of problems, not just that of race, is both exciting and challenging.
Thanks for your realism, but it is usually clouded by some agenda.  It smells like you are trying to get rid of me.  I don't inherently believe in segregation or assimilation as long term objectives.  I believe in working through differences until we achieve true integration or some better form of pluralism than we have, and while that requires some segregation and assimilation to get there, it's not my long term plan.
Your measuring sticks for your assessments of my influence and impact on this community are narrow and ignore quite a bit.
Given you spend most of your time speaking to me in insulting tones, the likelihood of me trusting that you have my best interest at heart is less than zero.


>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:Ede Warner <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
CC:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 02:48 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace
Ede,

Articulate a clear line of argument and perhaps someone can respond.

You give all these blandishments about the Civil Rights Movement, Pain,
suffering and the agony of being Black in a white man's debate world. I am just
pointing out thaat there are many within the Black movement who would conclude
that your fight for inclusion is all wrong. I am saying that your appeals to
"Justice", if in fact injustice does exist, will probably never be met, so why
keep fighting for inclusion? There are other alternatives that could easily be
explored if the same efforts to fight these racist (your charecterization)
organizations and norms could be used to create an atmosphere of inclusion via
the creation of a HBCU debate league, or a new form of policy debate that is
not focused on winning the NDT.

As far as separation from NDT, I posit the following: MPJ and strike cards are
an offshoot of NDT imported to CEDA from the merger. Back in the day,
1980's-1990's you got a panel of three and you got stuck unless you could show
some real overwhelming bias (that guy is dating one of the debaters, etc.). If
we would have had some randomized judging panels  at CEDA Nats instead of MPJ
and strikes-the whole Ft. Hays  Towson fiasco would have never taken place.
Randomized judging would insure that the minority and women that do particpate
in the judging get a shot at juding in out rounds. At
worst, Ft. Hays would have had a judge in the back of the room who would
normally vote for their arguments, but is probably more sympathetic to Towson's
project. They would have then sucked it up and went for a 2-1 decision. Do you
think the NDT will ever get rid of MPJ and strike cards? LOL

Am I the only one that heard rumors and innuendo about how CEDA Nationals was
not a true national championship-only the NDT matters. How more nigardly can
people treat African-Americans generally, and Towson specifically. Is THIS what
you want to be included in?


I am indiciting your entire project Ede. I don't think inclusion is the
solution. All of your attempts at inclusion are futile to the point of farce.

Ask yourself this: "I have been fighting this Quixotic fight for almost ten
years now. What have I accomplished?"

"Could all of that effort have been directed toward a better purpose, such as
creating a African-American or AfroCentric debate league at the collegiate
level?"

I think the answer is that you have not accomplished much, and frankly, CEDA and
NDT has not done much of ANYTHING either--African Amerians
participation overall is pretty much as low as it always has been within CEDA
NDT. I can count the number of African American coaches in CEDA/NDT on one hand
with a couple fingers missing. Other than the inclusion of a few rap songs,
debate is just as incomprehensible to the average person (white or black) as it
ever was. No increase in HBCU participation, or any other type of college with a
majority African-American population has entered policy debate. ZERO, NADA,
NOTHING. All we have right now are a few placings by minority students at the
NDT and Towson winning CEDA Nats. Anamolous, dare I say it, token, wins do not
make for a successful social movement for real change.

Maybe instead of castigating me for pointing out the reality of the situation
and offering a solution, you should seriously consider the alternative of
creating "a debate association of one's own."

I will volunteer to help draft your constitution and I will donate $200.00
toward the filing for Non-Profit Organization status. Here's a name: The
American American College Debate Assocation (AACDA).

The match is lit. Let's burn a bridge.

Scott


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/5c6b64b2/attachment.htm 

From dylan.keenan at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 15:36:05 2008
From: dylan.keenan at gmail.com (Dylan Keenan)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 16:36:05 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <48972772.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
References: <1217871168.48973d402eaab@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48970AB0.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<1217874708.48974b14a0e09@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48972772.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <db49cab0808041336j442baf3aibdda3ff21b726d58@mail.gmail.com>

This post displays a disturbing lack of numeracy. Likelihood cannot be less
than zero, at least according to any understanding of the concept I have
ever encountered in statistics or math.

More broadly I believe this reflects the preference in modern debate for
vague criticism divorced from material and more specifically scientific
understanding of the world.

Perhaps the truly important for discussion is "No Math, No Society, No
Peace"

-dylan

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:

>
>    - Race issues, in particular black-white problems, have been the thorn
>    in American society since the nation's inception.  Ten years is a drop in
>    the bucket and not close to what I expect to spend on these issues.
>    - I have chosen to take my life experiences and search for solutions to
>    race problems that are address issues so much broader than that. The
>    possibility of finding solutions to a variety of problems, not just that of
>    race, is both exciting and challenging.
>    - Thanks for your realism, but it is usually clouded by some agenda.
>    It smells like you are trying to get rid of me.  I don't inherently believe
>    in segregation or assimilation as long term objectives.  I believe in
>    working through differences until we achieve true integration or some better
>    form of pluralism than we have, and while that requires some segregation and
>    assimilation to get there, it's not my long term plan.
>    - Your measuring sticks for your assessments of my influence and impact
>    on this community are narrow and ignore quite a bit.
>    - Given you spend most of your time speaking to me in insulting tones,
>    the likelihood of me trusting that you have my best interest at heart is
>    less than zero.
>
>
>
> >>>
>   *From: * <scottelliott at grandecom.net> *To:* Ede Warner <
> e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu> *CC:* <edebate at ndtceda.com> *Date: * 8/4/2008
> 02:48 PM *Subject: * Re: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace
> Ede,
>
> Articulate a clear line of argument and perhaps someone can respond.
>
> You give all these blandishments about the Civil Rights Movement, Pain,
> suffering and the agony of being Black in a white man's debate world. I am
> just
> pointing out thaat there are many within the Black movement who would
> conclude
> that your fight for inclusion is all wrong. I am saying that your appeals
> to
> "Justice", if in fact injustice does exist, will probably never be met, so
> why
> keep fighting for inclusion? There are other alternatives that could easily
> be
> explored if the same efforts to fight these racist (your charecterization)
> organizations and norms could be used to create an atmosphere of inclusion
> via
> the creation of a HBCU debate league, or a new form of policy debate that
> is
> not focused on winning the NDT.
>
> As far as separation from NDT, I posit the following: MPJ and strike cards
> are
> an offshoot of NDT imported to CEDA from the merger. Back in the day,
> 1980's-1990's you got a panel of three and you got stuck unless you could
> show
> some real overwhelming bias (that guy is dating one of the debaters, etc.).
> If
> we would have had some randomized judging panels  at CEDA Nats instead of
> MPJ
> and strikes-the whole Ft. Hays  Towson fiasco would have never taken place.
> Randomized judging would insure that the minority and women that do
> particpate
> in the judging get a shot at juding in out rounds. At
> worst, Ft. Hays would have had a judge in the back of the room who would
> normally vote for their arguments, but is probably more sympathetic to
> Towson's
> project. They would have then sucked it up and went for a 2-1 decision. Do
> you
> think the NDT will ever get rid of MPJ and strike cards? LOL
>
> Am I the only one that heard rumors and innuendo about how CEDA Nationals
> was
> not a true national championship-only the NDT matters. How more nigardly
> can
> people treat African-Americans generally, and Towson specifically. Is THIS
> what
> you want to be included in?
>
>
> I am indiciting your entire project Ede. I don't think inclusion is the
> solution. All of your attempts at inclusion are futile to the point of
> farce.
>
> Ask yourself this: "I have been fighting this Quixotic fight for almost ten
> years now. What have I accomplished?"
>
> "Could all of that effort have been directed toward a better purpose, such
> as
> creating a African-American or AfroCentric debate league at the collegiate
> level?"
>
> I think the answer is that you have not accomplished much, and frankly,
> CEDA and
> NDT has not done much of ANYTHING either--African Amerians
> participation overall is pretty much as low as it always has been within
> CEDA
> NDT. I can count the number of African American coaches in CEDA/NDT on one
> hand
> with a couple fingers missing. Other than the inclusion of a few rap songs,
> debate is just as incomprehensible to the average person (white or black)
> as it
> ever was. No increase in HBCU participation, or any other type of college
> with a
> majority African-American population has entered policy debate. ZERO, NADA,
> NOTHING. All we have right now are a few placings by minority students at
> the
> NDT and Towson winning CEDA Nats. Anamolous, dare I say it, token, wins do
> not
> make for a successful social movement for real change.
>
> Maybe instead of castigating me for pointing out the reality of the
> situation
> and offering a solution, you should seriously consider the alternative of
> creating "a debate association of one's own."
>
> I will volunteer to help draft your constitution and I will donate $200.00
> toward the filing for Non-Profit Organization status. Here's a name: The
> American American College Debate Assocation (AACDA).
>
> The match is lit. Let's burn a bridge.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080804/2cbcc5fa/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Mon Aug  4 16:32:59 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:32:59 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace
Message-ID: <1217885579.4897758b9a2b0@webmail.grandecom.net>

Ede,

I meant "African-American Debate Association" in the previous post.

In response to your  "hidden agenda" argument:

I don't have a hidden agenda. I have been open about my agenda(s) concerning
CEDA and debate in generally. In fact, I am probably too open for most people.
But, it is what it is. If my tone sounds insulting, it is because, as usual, I
am plain spoken and blunt in my assessments. I don't try to couch my responses
and criticisms in niceties. No sense of white guilt is here to prevent me from
saying what I think needs to be said. I obviously don't worry about
popularity--even less now that I have a new puppy.

It is not an attempt to get rid of you. I am just pointing out that I don't
think you are nearly as successful in your efforts as you think you are. Sure,
you have made about a hundred white people feel guilty. But, if the overall
goal of your project is to increase Black participation in the activity called
"policy debate," I think the evidence of overall failure is evident. One or two
examples does not make for a real social reform. It is akin to a person saying,
"some of my best friends are black." What are we going to do, say, "well
Louisville made it to the NDT and Towson won CEDA Nats, see, we have Black
particpation!" Is this real change, or a few scraps thrown?


Name ONE reform the NDT has made that has led to an increase in minority or
women's particpation. Name ONE! Its been a decade. I kinda feel guilty about
doing this, but didn't MLK write a book or essay called "Why we can't wait."
Maybe it is time to say African-American students can't wait for the lip
service of CEDA and NDT and a few token wins.

I think you have pretty much wasted your efforts. I think there are alternatives
to reforming the NDT and CEDA on these issues. I think that the merger between
CEDA and NDT has created certain competitive norms and inequities that make
CEDA beyond reform on this particular issue. All the time you spend trying to
make a few debate coaches and program directors feel guilty could be better
spent creating an organization that will actually implement those goals you
espouse. All the time you spend on e-debate and at Wake could be better spent
at Temple, Howard and Southern Universities creating a debate organization on
YOUR terms.

It is not a matter of "trust." It is a matter of someone showing you an
alternative clearly exists and that your proposal(s) actions for reform suck.

Scott Elliott



From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Mon Aug  4 16:43:53 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:43:53 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace-addendum
Message-ID: <1217886233.489778193af7c@webmail.grandecom.net>

By way of openness of agenda(s):

I also believe the standard social movement theory of coercive
persuasion---threat appeals as a necessary part of movements for social change.
As it stands now, Ede, your movement has no credible threat appeal. Mere appeals
to Justice did not lead to passage of the Civil Rights Act. It was the growing
sense that there was going to be blood in the streets if something did not
change that led to those reforms. Your current efforts have no real negative
outcome for maintaining the status quo other than some sense of guilt.

Perhaps the threat that all African American debaters/program directors leave
the organization and create their own could provide the necessary balance
between calls for justice and pragmatic organizational politics. The
embarrassment of having two debate organizations be identified as so racist
that African Americans would choose to walk away and create their own
organization would be a huge public relations disaster--and, therefore a
credible threat appeal.

I just lit a torch....who wants to throw it?

Scott



From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 17:00:21 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:00:21 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <1217885579.4897758b9a2b0@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217885579.4897758b9a2b0@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <48974382.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Mr. "I got all the evidence, you got none" aka Scott,
 
Let's see what happens when we make a few concessions. 
 
Ede's reform movement bad:  Let's start with the obvious as proven by what is said to Louisville all the time when discussions of purpose as well as bill's claim to couch the social change discussion during the outburst. What academic college debate privileges over all else:  a game of strategy to produce competitive success.
 
Scott's position - Evidence of Louisville creating social change - Absolutely zero. I'll concede that.
 
Evidence of winning debates from 2000 - 2005 (when we stopped debating these arguments in the name of Black participation. - A NDT and CEDA quarterfinal finish, a bunch of elimination round qualifications at national and regional NDT and CEDA tournaments, and a wagon of speaker awards in eight years. Until 2005, when we shifted and broadened the strategy, an overall squad winning record.
 
Scott says about that competitive success, "token crumbs that only further prove a lack of social change."
 
Ede says, 1) "if winning is the name of the game, we've had about the same levels of success at Louisville as I had coaching the old way, so what difference does it make?"  2) I was able to take our competitive success from winning and turn it into jobs and scholarships and assistants for folks that would NEVER have gotten these opportunities in CEDA/NDT?  Is that tokenism too?  What about the Fullerton, Long Beach, and Towson competitive success that in some part was based on the earlier actions of Louisville.  3) If the entire activity is based on competitive success, why would we ever be given wins?  Our students have for years complained that we are given high points and losses, isn't that also an effective way to assuage guilt?; 4) When are wins legitimate?  Only when they are done the way everyone else does them?  Then that means all the wins received after speed was introduced are token wins too, huh?  At somepoint, every innovation starts with token wins, right?  When do they become legit?
 
Now to the lack of social change arguments:  The lack of reforms are part of the criticism since both organizations CEDA/NDT lack the institutional structure to adopt the reforms by deferring too much power to the actual competition and being driven more by competitive equity in their decision making than by other priorities.  
 
Just wondering by comparison, how Scott's teams have performed over the last decade doing it the "right" way?  Or are all of wins a product of "white guilt"?  And if they are, does that make our success more or less important?  If you say less important, by what standard are you using, social change?

Scott's Your reform: a new league.  If the black directors leave, that would be 5 of 119, NDT/CEDA would be forced to rethink?  Not sure why, but if you say so. Hey Scott, do you leave to join our new Black only league and how does that work?  Since the HBCU's got rid of their debate programs when they realized that whites would no longer engage them in persuasive audience debates in lieu of tournament debates, what type of league should this be?  
 
You keep working on getting those other four black directors to roll with you...I'll take my chances with our token success and my inspirational vision that I can move towards real social change.  Good luck Mr. Evidence.
 
As usual, you find innovative and creative ways to waste my time,
 
 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 05:33 PM
Subject: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace
Ede,

I meant "African-American Debate Association" in the previous post.

In response to your  "hidden agenda" argument:

I don't have a hidden agenda. I have been open about my agenda(s) concerning
CEDA and debate in generally. In fact, I am probably too open for most people.
But, it is what it is. If my tone sounds insulting, it is because, as usual, I
am plain spoken and blunt in my assessments. I don't try to couch my responses
and criticisms in niceties. No sense of white guilt is here to prevent me from
saying what I think needs to be said. I obviously don't worry about
popularity--even less now that I have a new puppy.

It is not an attempt to get rid of you. I am just pointing out that I don't
think you are nearly as successful in your efforts as you think you are. Sure,
you have made about a hundred white people feel guilty. But, if the overall
goal of your project is to increase Black participation in the activity called
"policy debate," I think the evidence of overall failure is evident. One or two
examples does not make for a real social reform. It is akin to a person saying,
"some of my best friends are black." What are we going to do, say, "well
Louisville made it to the NDT and Towson won CEDA Nats, see, we have Black
particpation!" Is this real change, or a few scraps thrown?


Name ONE reform the NDT has made that has led to an increase in minority or
women's particpation. Name ONE! Its been a decade. I kinda feel guilty about
doing this, but didn't MLK write a book or essay called "Why we can't wait."
Maybe it is time to say African-American students can't wait for the lip
service of CEDA and NDT and a few token wins.

I think you have pretty much wasted your efforts. I think there are alternatives
to reforming the NDT and CEDA on these issues. I think that the merger between
CEDA and NDT has created certain competitive norms and inequities that make
CEDA beyond reform on this particular issue. All the time you spend trying to
make a few debate coaches and program directors feel guilty could be better
spent creating an organization that will actually implement those goals you
espouse. All the time you spend on e-debate and at Wake could be better spent
at Temple, Howard and Southern Universities creating a debate organization on
YOUR terms.

It is not a matter of "trust." It is a matter of someone showing you an
alternative clearly exists and that your proposal(s) actions for reform suck.

Scott Elliott


_______________________________________________
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/20080804/def8e683/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 17:02:53 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:02:53 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace-addendum
In-Reply-To: <1217886233.489778193af7c@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217886233.489778193af7c@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <4897441A.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

If everyone suffers from white guilt and gives us token wins, why is it so hard to get them to make social change?  Especially in a community that privileges competition over most other values?

>>> 
From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 05:44 PM
Subject: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace-addendum
By way of openness of agenda(s):

I also believe the standard social movement theory of coercive
persuasion---threat appeals as a necessary part of movements for social change.
As it stands now, Ede, your movement has no credible threat appeal. Mere appeals
to Justice did not lead to passage of the Civil Rights Act. It was the growing
sense that there was going to be blood in the streets if something did not
change that led to those reforms. Your current efforts have no real negative
outcome for maintaining the status quo other than some sense of guilt.

Perhaps the threat that all African American debaters/program directors leave
the organization and create their own could provide the necessary balance
between calls for justice and pragmatic organizational politics. The
embarrassment of having two debate organizations be identified as so racist
that African Americans would choose to walk away and create their own
organization would be a huge public relations disaster--and, therefore a
credible threat appeal.

I just lit a torch....who wants to throw it?

Scott


_______________________________________________
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/20080804/944ab0ba/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Mon Aug  4 17:19:21 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:19:21 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <48974382.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
References: <1217885579.4897758b9a2b0@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48974382.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <1217888361.4897806977f2f@webmail.grandecom.net>

Sorry Ede, but I really do dismiss competitive success  as a measure of a social
movement's success. Why? Because you can argue anything and get wins and speaker
points. Just look at a normal varsity round and we now see that anything can win
a round and get speaker points. By the way, I do think high point loses are
examples of peopple trying to overcome their guilt. "My heart bleeds for you,
you get a 30, but you still lose. I feel better now."

You ask, why do we not achieve social change? I have some very quick, but very
pointed answers for you:

(1) White privlege really does exist in debate. Those who hold the power don't
want to give it up. You have no credible threat, so why should they change?

(2) There really is not a problem. All you are doing is making arguments in
rounds and winning debates. Even winning tournaments. But those are merely
arguments in debates and wins at a game called tournament debate. This is not a
real social movement for real change.

(3) There really is a problem, but you have not isolated the real propblem,
which IO told you this morning--the economic realities drive minority
particpation--not the culture of debate. In fact, it is the openness of this
culture that allows you to even present your arguments for evaluation.


My measure of your sucess is quite simple. When I use the term "your project" I
am referring to the overall project that orgianlly started with the concept of
more Blacks need to particpate in college policy debate.:

(1) Has your project led to a substantial increase in African-American student
particpation?

(2) Has your project led to a substantial increase in African-American coaches?

(3) Has your project led to more HCBU's or predominantly African-American
programs joining CEDA-NDT?

(4) Are more African Americans juding-prelims and elimination rounds at
tournaments.

The answer to all four is No, NO, NO and No. Unless we do a game with
percentages--we have gone from 3 Black coaches to a whole 5!


I think this is a valid standard to determine the success of a movement for
inclusion. I think the same key questions can be asked in terms of a movement
for gender equality. Your standards to evaluate success are so vague that they
amount to nothing more than If Ede feels warm and fuzzy about it, it must be a
success.


You blow my proposal off as a waste of time. Interesting considering how for ten
years, outside of a few debate rounds, your project has been blown off as a
waste of time. At least I am willing to discuss the issues at hand. Most, if
not all those who hold real power simply click onto the next item or hit delete
when they see your posts.

Scott


From hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com  Mon Aug  4 17:21:51 2008
From: hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com (vacuous vacuous)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:21:51 -0800
Subject: [eDebate] -
Message-ID: <454928E26A4.000008C5hardlyaaronhardy@inbox.com>

-

From hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com  Mon Aug  4 17:24:15 2008
From: hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com (vacuous vacuous)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 14:24:15 -0800
Subject: [eDebate] Scott Elliot: i have an idea
Message-ID: <454E8711CC0.000008CBhardlyaaronhardy@inbox.com>

Why not do all of us a favor,

leave NDTCEDA while shoving another sandwich in your mouth and create a debate organization that you can run the way you want...with no MPJ, no research, and no debaters...you can call it the NDAAD ( the National Debate Association for Asshole Dickfarms)



racist prick.
Love,
Adam Jackson-5

From leslynn at urbandebate.org  Mon Aug  4 17:52:13 2008
From: leslynn at urbandebate.org (Les Lynn)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:52:13 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Job Posting -- UDL Assistant Director for Programs
Message-ID: <d9d82b200808041552v9f45609t7cb47e1400ec2b23@mail.gmail.com>

The CDC will be hiring a full-time Assistant Director for Programs this
summer.  Please see the attached job posting, and please circulate it to
anyone you feel might be interested in the position. This person will work
on a small team to help the Chicago Public Schools administer the Chicago
Debate League. Qualifications for this position are most heavily "debate
programming," but they also include effective pedagogical and communications
skills, and some management and development abilities as well.  This person
will work in the CDC offices downtown full time, and will be compensated
based on their experience; the annual compensation can certainly exceed
$55,000.





* *

*Chicago** Debate Commission*

*Assistant Director for Programs*

*Job Description and Application Information*

* *



The Chicago Debate Commission (CDC) is searching for a qualified candidate
to work in its small but growing core staff, taking lead responsibility for
implementing the CDC's role in administering the programming of the Chicago
Debate League.  The Assistant Director for Programs will work full-time from
the CDC's downtown offices.





*Job Description*



The Assistant Director for Programs will primarily work to conduct a variety
of academic debate programs, but will also have some development and
administrative  responsibilities.  This position will work with all three
Conferences in the CDL, in addition to the Middle School League and the
Lincoln-Douglas events.

* *

*Programming:*



   - Conduct school and coach recruitment and retention efforts, including
   communications, presentations, flier distribution, calls with principals,
   site visits, and monitoring;
   - Prepare the curriculum for and conduct all trainings for coaches,
   students, and judges;
   - Provide on-going training, assistance, and support to all CDL Coaches
   through phone, email, and on-site 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 CDL;
   - Promote and effect high attendance at trainings, and track
   participation;
   - Conduct all necessary preparation work for all CDL Tournaments;
   - Administer CDL "A" and "AA" Tournaments;
   - Supervise Middle School Tournaments;
   - Monitor RCC and L-D Tournaments;
   - Facilitate and supervise the National Circuit participation of CDLschools;
   - Respond to requests and requirements of the Chicago Public Schools
   Office of High School Programs in the administration of the CDL; and
   - Direct the 2009 Chicago Debate Summer Institute.



*Development:*



   - Prepare regular articles for the Chicago Debate Commission's quarterly
   newsletter;
   - Help prepare and conduct the CDC's annual donor cultivation event;
   - Provide text for grant proposals;
   - Participate in presentations to current and prospective institutional
   partners or sponsors.

* *

*Administrative:  *



   - Collect and process data from all CDL Tournaments and training events;
   - Prepare periodic reports to schools and principals;
   - Recruit and manage volunteers effectively, and support the ED in
   managing part-time staff effectively;
   - Maintain the CDC public website, including a Coaches Corner and a
   Student Q. and A. blog;
   - Track and monitor student 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); and
   - Conduct regular meetings with the CDC Executive Director, the
Chicago Public
   Schools, and the CDC Board.

* *

* *

*Qualifications*

* *

   - B.A. or higher degree;
   - Extensive experience in current high school cross-examination policy
   debate;
   - Demonstrated ability to teach and train policy debate to all levels of
   debaters and coaches, from raw beginners to successful competitors on the
   National Circuit;
   - Passion for the urban debate mission and the educational justice
   objectives of the Chicago Debate League
   - 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";
   - Experience in urban education ? non-profit, administrative, or
   classroom ? is a plus;
   - Effective time management skills and ability to manage multiple
   projects and tasks simultaneously;
   - Strong interpersonal, communication and organizational skills.





*Additional Information*

* *

Compensation commensurate with experience, but can exceed $55,000.  Benefits
will be folded into a single overall compensation figure.



Candidates passing an initial screening will be interviewed by the staff and
Board of the Chicago Debate Commission and the Chicago Public Schools.



The Chicago Debate Commission is seeking a commitment of at least two years.




The Assistant Director of Programs position may begin August 1st, August 15
th, or September 1st, pending negotiation.



It is the policy of the Chicago Debate Commission 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:**



Les Lynn

Executive Director, CDC

332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 500

Chicago, IL   60604

(e) leslynn at urbandebate.org



Thank you for your interest.


-- 
Les Lynn
Executive Director, Chicago Debate Commission
Senior Program Consultant, NAUDL
(o) 312-427-8101
(c) 312-848-2271
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/2cba6a6b/attachment-0001.htm 

From ragarner at buffalo.edu  Mon Aug  4 17:57:30 2008
From: ragarner at buffalo.edu (Richard A. Garner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 17:57:30 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] an Gonzaga BS, please...
Message-ID: <17bee7eb0808041557v6a5c1ffewb0ee8c13e185e219@mail.gmail.com>

I had a question about some cards you read at the NDT. Backchannel me?
Ricky
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/808613b8/attachment.htm 

From mharris02 at drury.edu  Mon Aug  4 18:28:15 2008
From: mharris02 at drury.edu (Martin Harris)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:28:15 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace
Message-ID: <451372279EE24E4992ED27B99AC5577304A880C5@EXVS1.drury.edu>

   If you are sincere, then why are you still in CEDA? Why does Ede have
to throw the torch? Why does Ede have to start the league? Are YOU not
interested in diversity (black, brown, red, or green)? Are YOU not
interested in seeing more Blacks in forensics (notice I said forensics,
not "policy" debate)? Screw all the white guilt crap, and other you are
just keeping it real jive trash. What are YOU doing to help make change.
Look, I disagree with some of Towson's methods, and disagree with SOME
of louisville's analysis (recognizing BOTH are radically different). But
everytime  I am asked to help figure out an answer to their positions,
strategize against their methods, or prep against their teams, I START
with the same question. Is there something I have done that is different
and better. See, here is the real rub that I think is humorous and yet
tragically sad. I hear a lot of teams running coalition turns and cap
bad identity politics positions against Towson and yet I ain't seeing
the UQ for these args. For the Towson kills coalitions arg to have any
weight, there has to BE a coalition in the squo. If this exists, someone
PLEASE tell me where it is. Seriously. Cause the separatism thing
doesn't seem to work, the squo doesn't seem to work and the Fullerton,
Towson, Louisville, etc stuff doesn't seem to be working very quickily
beyond their programs.

 

   Oh yeah, and I think the piece you are looking for from MLK is Letter
from a Birmingham Jail. It is his argument to a couple of white
preachers on why the SCLC was demonstrating in Birmingham. The white
preachers argument being it was both unwise and untimely. Martin's FIRST
answer is because there  is injustice here. It is certainly NOT an
argument for separatism. A little lesson I teach my "parli" debaters.
Credibility of your argument is greatly enhanced when you source your
research. I think there is an article by MLK called something usually
makes you look like a Jimmy. Or, in the words of the fictional leader of
the Black Congressional Caucus to Josh Lyman on the WestWing "In the
mean time, please don't tell me how to be a leader of black men. You
look like an idiot."

 

Martin Harris

Systems Engineer - Desktop Architecture

Drury University-Technology Services

Office:  417-873-7848

Fax:  417-873-7835

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/7492ce32/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Mon Aug  4 18:50:18 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:50:18 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace-Ans. Harris
Message-ID: <1217893818.489795babecb3@webmail.grandecom.net>

Actually Martin, if YOU did your research, you would know that "Why we can't
wait" is a collection of essays. "Letter from Birmingham Jail" is only one of
them. So you can chew my Jimmie on that.

Why should Ede et al be the ones to act?

Because they are the one's claiming there is racism within debate. I just take
it to its logical conclusion from a different perspective.

Simply put, I don't believe there is racism in debate. I think there are
economic disparities within America's educational system and  generally that
prevents African American students from debating. I reject the whole aesthetic
barriers argument. My African American students think the claims of "aesthetic
barriers" to be demeaning--"oh you speak too fast fo' us Black folks." (by the
way I watched and enjyoed Towson's debates at CEDA Nats in the early elimiation
rounds, watched the Ft. Hays debate, but had to catch a flight before the
decsion was rendered).


How can you POSSIBLY say seperatism does not work. You have absolutely NO
SUPPRORT for this claim. It has not been tried. Has a Afrocentric debate
organization been created  for the purpose of increasing Black particpation in
college policy debate---NO!

But what we do know is that the current approach--presenting these arguments in
debate rounds for a few momentary successes has had ZERO impact on the real
numbers of minority particpants in debate. Noone can refute this fact Martin.
It sucks, but that is often the case when reality meets your theories of how
the world ought to be.


If you want evidence of how the "project" kills coalitions. I will give you the
biggest and most timely example---go back and look at the Towson Ft. Hays round
and aftermath in its Entirety. If you are willing to shit on your friends (in
this instance, Ft. Hays) for a tournament win, then your whole movement is
corrupt and is doomed to failure. If you have Shanahan alomost coming to blows
with people on an issue of "you are racist," I think you are not building
coalitions.

We do agree on one thing, this whole inclusion movement has become a farce.

Scott




From nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com  Mon Aug  4 20:16:16 2008
From: nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com (nicholas brady)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:16:16 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] An Outsiders Perspective on "No Justice, No Peace"
Message-ID: <a0369b190808041816y8a8db2fkb5a1b14a4cac3ed8@mail.gmail.com>

So I am not really involved in this argument between Mr. Elliot, Dr. Warner,
and (to a lesser extent) Adam but i thought i would chime in a bit of truth
to the discussion.

There is evidence for this whole seperatist league thing and it is in the
very history of our current CEDA champions. The Baltimore Urban Debate
League and other UDLs -- from what i can see -- is more responsible for
increasing minority participation than anything else. The reason why Dayvon
and others begun debating had nothing to do with Louisville and their
project -- they started debating long before they had any knowledge of this
whole shabangabang. I think its time we get to a heart of the matter and
stop doing this bickering that really helps out nothing.

The UDLs were created to give minority students a chance to open up their
argumentative wings and use this as an educational tool to increase reading
and comprehension. It was also made because we all know that there are
people that are simply made to debate but come from educational systems that
give no oppurtunities for debate, any kid from Baltimore -- Dayvon, Adam,
and myself included -- was in this situation before the BUDL. The BUDL was a
seperate -- and majority latino, black, and female league -- institution
from the majority white BCFL. Despite this seperatism of sorts it helped to
introduce and foster a love of debate for kids who would have otherwise
never had the oppurtunity.

Ask the CEDA champions about seperatist debate organizations and -- if they
are telling the truth -- they should tell u that it can be a potentially
liberating, highly educational training ground.

With that being said the BUDL has many, many different problems in its
organizations and the UDL system does need some reform. This is neither the
time nor the place for that, but i'm sure Dr. Warner can attest to the power
of UDLs too. I think beyond the posturing Dr. Warner and Mr. Elliot actually
agree with each other to a certain extent.

Despite his rude bluntness and incorrect usage, Mr. Elliot is bringing to
the table an idea that potentially can be used. I know for a fact that Andy
Ellis is suggesting reform to the CEDA districting to would create a
seperate league of sorts for UDL debaters and has been passionate about
helping to make teams in HBCUs. I think there is room for compromise between
the two of you. As much as both of you disdain bridge building -- Mr. Elliot
moreso than Dr. Warner -- I think there could be something great in the
suggestions of both of ur post.

Just my thoughts

-Nick
Leader of a Crunk Revolution
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/a2b0f86c/attachment.htm 

From mharris02 at drury.edu  Mon Aug  4 20:34:28 2008
From: mharris02 at drury.edu (Martin Harris)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:34:28 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]   No Justice, No Peace-Ans. Harris
Message-ID: <451372279EE24E4992ED27B99AC5577304A880C7@EXVS1.drury.edu>

   Oh yeah, and I forgot, learn to count. At CEDA alone I saw Ed Lee,
James Roland, Will Baker, Ede Warner, Shawntia Diggs, Phil Samuels, and
Shanara Reid. That is 7 black coaches that I saw not 5. Stop fucking
marginalizing people by leaving folks out. Or which one of those 7
doesn't count in your mind? If you don't know the extent of
participation then don't act like you do. This happens everytime people
talk about underrepresentation in debate. They underrepresent even more
by leaving folks  off the list. My list is the mere memories of an
addled old mind. Louisville has no others? Trinya doesn't travel with
Towson ever? Daryl Burch never travel anymore? The Baltimore kids told
me they saw him at a camp. I see Morgan State and Coppin State on the
Bmore cooperative list. I think those are both HBCU's. My list is
probably missing coaches, but I am not an active participant in NDT/CEDA
anymore, and I don't know exactly who travels. I certainly know it is at
least 7 not 5 though. Since, well you know, you wanted to get all
"accurate" with your Jimmy and all. 

 

   Don't worry, I will disappear again. I said my peace, and this
discussion has gotten me WAY passed my allowed to speak in to pissy
attitude range. 

 

 

Martin Harris

Systems Engineer - Desktop Architecture

Drury University-Technology Services

Office:  417-873-7848

Fax:  417-873-7835

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/fe86d9d9/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 21:14:34 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:14:34 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] An Outsiders Perspective on "No Justice, No	Peace"
In-Reply-To: <a0369b190808041816y8a8db2fkb5a1b14a4cac3ed8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a0369b190808041816y8a8db2fkb5a1b14a4cac3ed8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48977F16.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Creating separatist organizations to prepare minorities for living in a majority world is fine.  Using that however to run from institutional racism that exists in sites of power and privilege are not.  The UDL's are wonderful sites of inspiration, preparation and training for urban students.  They are not a replacement for challenging sites of dominant white power and privilege like national caliber interscholastic debate.
 
There is no replacement for being a minority in a majority-run democracy.  You can't run or hide from the inevitable impact this has on a minority's life.  There is no evidence that HBCU's have interest in a Black only organization.  There is monumental evidence that HBCU's left NDT debate when they couldn't have audience-oriented, persuasive policy debates with predominately white institutions.

>>> 

From: "nicholas brady" <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 09:16 PM
Subject: [eDebate] An Outsiders Perspective on "No Justice, No Peace"
So I am not really involved in this argument between Mr. Elliot, Dr. Warner, and (to a lesser extent) Adam but i thought i would chime in a bit of truth to the discussion. 

There is evidence for this whole seperatist league thing and it is in the very history of our current CEDA champions. The Baltimore Urban Debate League and other UDLs -- from what i can see -- is more responsible for increasing minority participation than anything else. The reason why Dayvon and others begun debating had nothing to do with Louisville and their project -- they started debating long before they had any knowledge of this whole shabangabang. I think its time we get to a heart of the matter and stop doing this bickering that really helps out nothing. 

The UDLs were created to give minority students a chance to open up their argumentative wings and use this as an educational tool to increase reading and comprehension. It was also made because we all know that there are people that are simply made to debate but come from educational systems that give no oppurtunities for debate, any kid from Baltimore -- Dayvon, Adam, and myself included -- was in this situation before the BUDL. The BUDL was a seperate -- and majority latino, black, and female league -- institution from the majority white BCFL. Despite this seperatism of sorts it helped to introduce and foster a love of debate for kids who would have otherwise never had the oppurtunity. 

Ask the CEDA champions about seperatist debate organizations and -- if they are telling the truth -- they should tell u that it can be a potentially liberating, highly educational training ground. 

With that being said the BUDL has many, many different problems in its organizations and the UDL system does need some reform. This is neither the time nor the place for that, but i'm sure Dr. Warner can attest to the power of UDLs too. I think beyond the posturing Dr. Warner and Mr. Elliot actually agree with each other to a certain extent. 

Despite his rude bluntness and incorrect usage, Mr. Elliot is bringing to the table an idea that potentially can be used. I know for a fact that Andy Ellis is suggesting reform to the CEDA districting to would create a seperate league of sorts for UDL debaters and has been passionate about helping to make teams in HBCUs. I think there is room for compromise between the two of you. As much as both of you disdain bridge building -- Mr. Elliot moreso than Dr. Warner -- I think there could be something great in the suggestions of both of ur post.

Just my thoughts

-Nick
Leader of a Crunk Revolution
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/6d5a623e/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Mon Aug  4 21:24:53 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:24:53 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] No Justice, No Peace
In-Reply-To: <1217888361.4897806977f2f@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217885579.4897758b9a2b0@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48974382.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<1217888361.4897806977f2f@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <48978181.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Your the type of guy that would have told Harriett Tubman that it's too risky to create that underground.
I'm the type of guy that would have said, "they can stay here."
 
Your the type of guy that believes patience is defined in the scope of a lifetime.
I'm the type of guy that understands social change may take hundreds of years.
 
Your the type of guy that uses narrow, self-serving definitions of success,
I'm the type of guy that ignores them.
 
Your the type of guy that believes you have a unique, privileged hold on objective truth,
I'm the type of guy smart enough to ignore those claims.
 
Your the type of guy that criticizes someone committed to a vision of change.
I'm the type of guy that waves as you stand still.
 
Your the type of guy that thinks if he screams loud enough that he is right, people will submit.
I'm the type of guy who knows when to engage in selective hearing loss.
 
Your the type of guy that never changes the world
I'm the type of guy that does.
 
You don't get it and you probably never will.  The objective truth you seek to prove, hasn't, doesn't, and will never exist.  I'm cool with my choices and the reasoning you deploy to justify that "you are right" and "I'm wrong" is steeped in a different set of lived experiences.  I see a vision that you can't, don't and probably never will, until it happens.  That drive exists until I see a different vision.  The evidence of my successes and failures works well enough to keep me, and several others pushing forward.
 
The alternatives you see, don't exist for me and people that look like me.  There is no where to run to, no where to hide from institutional forms of domination.  Creating a segregated league has challenges, difficulties, and doesn't replace the purpose of challenging predominately white institutions.  Figuring out how to better challenge those institutions is an important life lesson, not only for me but for my students.
 
You are right...I don't have to persuade you that I'm right.  Nor do I have to be persuaded by you.
 
Keep fighting your good fight Scott...
 
 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/ 

>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:Ede Warner <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
CC:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/4/2008 06:19 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate]  No Justice, No Peace
Sorry Ede, but I really do dismiss competitive success  as a measure of a social
movement's success. Why? Because you can argue anything and get wins and speaker
points. Just look at a normal varsity round and we now see that anything can win
a round and get speaker points. By the way, I do think high point loses are
examples of peopple trying to overcome their guilt. "My heart bleeds for you,
you get a 30, but you still lose. I feel better now."

You ask, why do we not achieve social change? I have some very quick, but very
pointed answers for you:

(1) White privlege really does exist in debate. Those who hold the power don't
want to give it up. You have no credible threat, so why should they change?

(2) There really is not a problem. All you are doing is making arguments in
rounds and winning debates. Even winning tournaments. But those are merely
arguments in debates and wins at a game called tournament debate. This is not a
real social movement for real change.

(3) There really is a problem, but you have not isolated the real propblem,
which IO told you this morning--the economic realities drive minority
particpation--not the culture of debate. In fact, it is the openness of this
culture that allows you to even present your arguments for evaluation.


My measure of your sucess is quite simple. When I use the term "your project" I
am referring to the overall project that orgianlly started with the concept of
more Blacks need to particpate in college policy debate.:

(1) Has your project led to a substantial increase in African-American student
particpation?

(2) Has your project led to a substantial increase in African-American coaches?

(3) Has your project led to more HCBU's or predominantly African-American
programs joining CEDA-NDT?

(4) Are more African Americans juding-prelims and elimination rounds at
tournaments.

The answer to all four is No, NO, NO and No. Unless we do a game with
percentages--we have gone from 3 Black coaches to a whole 5!


I think this is a valid standard to determine the success of a movement for
inclusion. I think the same key questions can be asked in terms of a movement
for gender equality. Your standards to evaluate success are so vague that they
amount to nothing more than If Ede feels warm and fuzzy about it, it must be a
success.


You blow my proposal off as a waste of time. Interesting considering how for ten
years, outside of a few debate rounds, your project has been blown off as a
waste of time. At least I am willing to discuss the issues at hand. Most, if
not all those who hold real power simply click onto the next item or hit delete
when they see your posts.

Scott


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/2711be27/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Mon Aug  4 22:17:55 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:17:55 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Wow. 7 African-American coaches. Victory!
Message-ID: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>

Wow Martin. There are 7 instead of 5 black coaches for an entire nation  (btw
that was Ede's count I was going off of. Isn't it sad that you can literally
name off the top of your head every black policy debate coach in the country?).

I guess you have won. Wow what a victory for a ten year project.

Amazing, at this rate, in 20 years there will be ten African American coaches by
the year 2028.  Full integration of CEDA/NDT will have been achieved. Seriously,
if all you are going to do is quiblle over 5 versus 7, I think you have already
conceded the larger issues. (I noticed you dropped the whole source citation 
of MLK issue pretty damn quick.)

I am still, at a loss as to why my proposal is a non-starter for many of you.
Another individual has pointed out, quite correctly, that UDL's have been
extremely successful. Why is that? In addition to a lot of dedication by a
large number of dedicated individuals and financial support (economics really
is the key issue folks)--I posit that it is because UDL's ARE seperate, that
they are successful. If UDL were thrust into varsity, TOC style debate,
students would bolt.

WHY can't UDL's be a model for college debate too? Why not expand the UDL
concept to HBCU's?

Careful Ede and Martin, you are about to have a series of logical mines blow up
in your faces. You can be more poetic, but the Turth is still painfully
obvious.

Scott




From malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  4 23:13:57 2008
From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 23:13:57 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] can someone explain?
Message-ID: <BAY105-W3448353C5434AF82DDA9ECCE7B0@phx.gbl>


Quick question about the ARGUMENT being run in quarters.  A lot of people have mentioned MPJ as the culprit in excluding women and minorities from judging (Ede am I correct in saying that's PART of your stance?).  Now Towson clearly doesn't agree with this, as they used their strike card all day.  So, given Towson's position on MPJ, what was so wrong about the fort striking who they did?  She did proclaim that she gave them 27s and that they "sucked" at debate.  It seems that they would be fools to put that judge on the panel.  

If your arg is MPJ bad then no need to explain, I get your explanation.  But if both teams are endorsing MPJ than how can you pin exclusion on a team put in that situation?  

malgor



_________________________________________________________________
Got Game? Win Prizes in the Windows Live Hotmail Mobile Summer Games Trivia Contest
http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergames?ocid=TXT_TAGHM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080804/9267a5d1/attachment.htm 

From jmarty at comm.umass.edu  Tue Aug  5 00:04:24 2008
From: jmarty at comm.umass.edu (Jillian A. Marty)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 01:04:24 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Wow. 7 African-American coaches. Victory!
In-Reply-To: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>

I really don?t like to post on edebate. I find that these debates are
ridiculous, a major waste of time, and I find that people have way too much time
on there hands so that when I post this comment by the time I wake up tomorrow
there will be at least three responses to this email. I prefer to have these
discussions in person. However, since this is not the case,  I feel that I must
respond to what you have just said.  For a person that states one must have
valid evidence, Scott your claims are unfounded! Students in the various UDLs
have success  because of the hard work and dedication they put into debate just
like other high school students in the United States. It is not because they are
separate from the ?White Majority? that they are successful. Many of the UDLs do
not solely serve minority students. There are several UDLs that have a large
number of students in the non-minority category and these students participate
in both ?traditional? and ?performance? style of debate. In addition, some UDLs
are so successful that they have ?integrated? with the ?White Majority? and have
continued to kick ass in debate. This means that UDLs logically wouldn?t be able
to be the college model because we don?t just serve minority students we serve
students in urban areas. Now on to your statement about why not bring UDL to
HBCU. Let me break down UDL for you. It stands for urban debate league. No where
in the acroyonm does it state the "black debate league". Further more to assume
that all UDL debaters are black not only shows how little you know about UDLs it
also shows how little you know about the demographics of an urban area.
Urban is not a synonym for minority it describes a dense populated metropolis
area, where people from all walks of life live. Second,  if you were to do a
little research, many many UDL students have beaten ?TOC style debaters? in ?TOC
style of debate?. I will not disclose the names of those students that have done
so because I have not asked their permission to use their names in this email.
But, I can tell you that one of those debates happened this year at one of the
New York State Qualifiers, where several teams from the NYUDL beat TOC
qualifiers. In addition, there have been many successes at the NFL and CFL
levels where UDL utilizing TOC style debate have been in late elimination rounds
at these tournaments.  Also, there have been several UDL alums that have made it
to the NDT using ?traditional debate?. So you see Scott the UDLs do have success
at ?TOC style debate?. Third, do all the UDL alums a favor and don?t talk about
us or our debate leagues. Don?t talk about how we can?t be ?good? at ?TOC
debate?. Don?t talk about how UDLs are an example of how minorities should form
their own separate debate league. And finally don?t talk about the success of
UDLs is soley based on financial support. You have no clue what you are talking.
You don?t know any of us and our stories.

That is it for me. Hopefully I will not have to respond again, and please know
that if you do respond I won?t be responding thru the internet I will respond
when I see you--- at a tournament perhaps maybe at big Bronx, NY States,
Lexington or at Harvard?places where you can see our UDL students debate TOC
style.  Until then, just KEEP UDLS OUT YOUR MOUTH AND WE BE COOL.

I wish you the best,
Jillian

***********************************
Jillian A. Marty
Department of Communication
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
E-32A Machmer Hall
Office Hours:M 11:15-12:15,
T& Th 11:45- 12:45


Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net:

> Wow Martin. There are 7 instead of 5 black coaches for an entire nation  (btw
> that was Ede's count I was going off of. Isn't it sad that you can literally
> name off the top of your head every black policy debate coach in the
> country?).
>
> I guess you have won. Wow what a victory for a ten year project.
>
> Amazing, at this rate, in 20 years there will be ten African American coaches
> by
> the year 2028.  Full integration of CEDA/NDT will have been achieved.
> Seriously,
> if all you are going to do is quiblle over 5 versus 7, I think you have
> already
> conceded the larger issues. (I noticed you dropped the whole source citation
> of MLK issue pretty damn quick.)
>
> I am still, at a loss as to why my proposal is a non-starter for many of you.
> Another individual has pointed out, quite correctly, that UDL's have been
> extremely successful. Why is that? In addition to a lot of dedication by a
> large number of dedicated individuals and financial support (economics really
> is the key issue folks)--I posit that it is because UDL's ARE seperate, that
> they are successful. If UDL were thrust into varsity, TOC style debate,
> students would bolt.
>
> WHY can't UDL's be a model for college debate too? Why not expand the UDL
> concept to HBCU's?
>
> Careful Ede and Martin, you are about to have a series of logical mines blow
> up
> in your faces. You can be more poetic, but the Turth is still painfully
> obvious.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>


From nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 00:49:25 2008
From: nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com (nicholas brady)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 01:49:25 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] An Outsiders Perspective on "No Justice, No Peace"
In-Reply-To: <48977F16.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
References: <a0369b190808041816y8a8db2fkb5a1b14a4cac3ed8@mail.gmail.com>
	<48977F16.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <a0369b190808042249w7cefe336t73f4326e55d96f28@mail.gmail.com>

I probably have brought in something potentially dangerous into the
argument. In the latter part of my post, I was saying a compromise would be
to either construct an outside organization and -- in much the same way UDLs
do -- train ur debaters in this kind of environment while still
"integrating" them into the larger debate community structure. Or you can
redraw district maps to create a District X as some members are pushing for
so we can have a majority UDL-school district (by UDL schools, i mean teams
that have a lot of students from UDLs or participate in coaching in UDLs).
Me bringing UDLs into this is not to be used as evidence to create a wholly
separatist institution, but as a means to compromise. I think its useful to
not only have separate institutions but also force integration into larger
society. I think this is much the same way our society works and how this
greater Black Freedom struggle has unveiled itself in the larger society.

Honestly the point of my post was really to help ya'll see that maybe there
is compromise that can actually help out all parties. In much the same way
that many schools participate in the ADA, you can have a seperate
institution that allows for a different form of policy debate (but still is
policy debate) that can act as a training ground and more importantly
perhaps a testing ground for a new evolution in debate. Honestly I see
revolutionary possibilities in some sort of seperate institution: a
district, a region, a league, or w/e. As Stokeley Carmichael would say, you
have to separate until your strong enough to actually force the majority
society to integrate. There actually is not as much difference between
integration and seperation as you might think.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:

>  Creating separatist organizations to prepare minorities for living in a
> majority world is fine.  Using that however to run from institutional racism
> that exists in sites of power and privilege are not.  The UDL's are
> wonderful sites of inspiration, preparation and training for urban
> students.  They are not a replacement for challenging sites of dominant
> white power and privilege like national caliber interscholastic debate.
>
> There is no replacement for being a minority in a majority-run democracy.
> You can't run or hide from the inevitable impact this has on a minority's
> life.  There is no evidence that HBCU's have interest in a Black only
> organization.  There is monumental evidence that HBCU's left NDT debate when
> they couldn't have audience-oriented, persuasive policy debates with
> predominately white institutions.
>
> >>>
>   *From: * "nicholas brady" <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com> *To:* <
> edebate at ndtceda.com> *Date: * 8/4/2008 09:16 PM *Subject: * [eDebate] An
> Outsiders Perspective on "No Justice, No Peace"
> So I am not really involved in this argument between Mr. Elliot, Dr.
> Warner, and (to a lesser extent) Adam but i thought i would chime in a bit
> of truth to the discussion.
>
> There is evidence for this whole seperatist league thing and it is in the
> very history of our current CEDA champions. The Baltimore Urban Debate
> League and other UDLs -- from what i can see -- is more responsible for
> increasing minority participation than anything else. The reason why Dayvon
> and others begun debating had nothing to do with Louisville and their
> project -- they started debating long before they had any knowledge of this
> whole shabangabang. I think its time we get to a heart of the matter and
> stop doing this bickering that really helps out nothing.
>
> The UDLs were created to give minority students a chance to open up their
> argumentative wings and use this as an educational tool to increase reading
> and comprehension. It was also made because we all know that there are
> people that are simply made to debate but come from educational systems that
> give no oppurtunities for debate, any kid from Baltimore -- Dayvon, Adam,
> and myself included -- was in this situation before the BUDL. The BUDL was a
> seperate -- and majority latino, black, and female league -- institution
> from the majority white BCFL. Despite this seperatism of sorts it helped to
> introduce and foster a love of debate for kids who would have otherwise
> never had the oppurtunity.
>
> Ask the CEDA champions about seperatist debate organizations and -- if they
> are telling the truth -- they should tell u that it can be a potentially
> liberating, highly educational training ground.
>
> With that being said the BUDL has many, many different problems in its
> organizations and the UDL system does need some reform. This is neither the
> time nor the place for that, but i'm sure Dr. Warner can attest to the power
> of UDLs too. I think beyond the posturing Dr. Warner and Mr. Elliot actually
> agree with each other to a certain extent.
>
> Despite his rude bluntness and incorrect usage, Mr. Elliot is bringing to
> the table an idea that potentially can be used. I know for a fact that Andy
> Ellis is suggesting reform to the CEDA districting to would create a
> seperate league of sorts for UDL debaters and has been passionate about
> helping to make teams in HBCUs. I think there is room for compromise between
> the two of you. As much as both of you disdain bridge building -- Mr. Elliot
> moreso than Dr. Warner -- I think there could be something great in the
> suggestions of both of ur post.
>
> Just my thoughts
>
> -Nick
> Leader of a Crunk Revolution
>



-- 
Nicholas Brady
BSU Community Service Chair
Youth Commissioner to the Mayor representing the 4th District
Founder of the Alpha Wolf Party
"This history in the making
Now shut up and let me make it"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/4156e50e/attachment.htm 

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  5 04:51:55 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 04:51:55 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  can someone explain?
Message-ID: <BLU141-W18B6BD6B2F7D1D96425212D87B0@phx.gbl>


http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075538.html

_

it's true that it's as contradictory for fort hays to run an anti-competitive
alternative while defending their strike as a 'strategic' decision as it is for
towson to strike judges while calling out the strikes of another team as
'exclusionary' - unless there's some relevant distinctions we're missing.
several defenses potentially dissolve both apparent contradictions...

towson might first make a distinction between appropriate strikes and
inappropriate ones. they could do this by citing an uncontested squad
affiliation (fort hays' coach actually coached the judge at issue) as an
appropriate strike when compared to striking a judge where no such
affiliation is present.

malgor: "So, given Towson's position on MPJ, what was so wrong about
the fort striking who they did?"

this hinges on what you characterize towson's position as. if they say
strikes are inappropriate as such, yet continue the practice, then there
is nothing uniquely inappropriate about fort hays' strike of reid-brinkley.
however, if they say some strikes are appropriate and some are not,
and one of the criteria for distinguishing between the two is whether
a strike hinders diversity, then fort hays could be held accountable for
their strike on those grounds.

after watching the round, i'd characterize towson's position as closer
to this second stance. they continually emphasize that anti-racism is a
positive task - it's not enough to say 'i'm not racist' or 'we didn't strike
her because she's black'. you're also responsible for the opportunities
you've eliminated.

m: "She did proclaim that she gave them 27s and that they "sucked" at
debate. It seems that they would be fools to put that judge on the
panel."

now, let's be very precise here. she said they did poorly *in that round*.
she did not say 'they suck (as debaters)'. she said 'they sucked (in that
round)'. when a judge gives you a 27, you can say, 'ok, i never want to
debate in front of her again', or you can say, 'ok, let's do better in front
of her next time'. considering the relatively small number of qualified
judges, the former seems more foolish to me: you're likely to argue in
front of a particular judge again, so you might as well begin as soon as
possible the campaign to convince them you don't suck. but even if you
disagree with that assessment, it is fort hays which claimed that other
values can trump purely strategic ones. there are forum-preserving or
forum-enriching values which keep the competitive backdrop intact and
give significance to wins. fabricating evidence might prove strategic, for
example, but it also undermines the structure of fair competition. so too
with striking a black judge. it might prove strategic in the short run, but
in the long run, it might hurt the game. who wants to pick up ballots in
an all-white boy's club?

_________________________________________________________________
Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/34fe3dce/attachment.htm 

From privethedge at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  5 04:58:41 2008
From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 02:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Wow. 7 African-American coaches. Victory!
In-Reply-To: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <497099.52786.qm@web50905.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

If UDL were thrust into varsity, TOC style debate,
students would bolt. >>
?
Scott, I'm not sure how much high school judging you do - but this isn't true. I've judged several UDL teams over the years at varsity level, TOC qualifying tournaments...Most have been more than up to the task of taking on traditional teams - they didn't run out of the room, they made their arguments and strived for?a win, and they won more often than not....Don't over generalize!
?
H.











"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson"
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by??its collision with error." John S. Mill
?Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live."
Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman: "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!"


--- On Mon, 8/4/08, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:

From: scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
Subject: [eDebate] Wow. 7 African-American coaches. Victory!
To: mharris02 at drury.edu
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Date: Monday, August 4, 2008, 11:17 PM

Wow Martin. There are 7 instead of 5 black coaches for an entire nation  (btw
that was Ede's count I was going off of. Isn't it sad that you can
literally
name off the top of your head every black policy debate coach in the country?).

I guess you have won. Wow what a victory for a ten year project.

Amazing, at this rate, in 20 years there will be ten African American coaches
by
the year 2028.  Full integration of CEDA/NDT will have been achieved.
Seriously,
if all you are going to do is quiblle over 5 versus 7, I think you have already
conceded the larger issues. (I noticed you dropped the whole source citation 
of MLK issue pretty damn quick.)

I am still, at a loss as to why my proposal is a non-starter for many of you.
Another individual has pointed out, quite correctly, that UDL's have been
extremely successful. Why is that? In addition to a lot of dedication by a
large number of dedicated individuals and financial support (economics really
is the key issue folks)--I posit that it is because UDL's ARE seperate,
that
they are successful. If UDL were thrust into varsity, TOC style debate,
students would bolt.

WHY can't UDL's be a model for college debate too? Why not expand the
UDL
concept to HBCU's?

Careful Ede and Martin, you are about to have a series of logical mines blow up
in your faces. You can be more poetic, but the Turth is still painfully
obvious.

Scott



_______________________________________________
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/20080805/da7ea917/attachment.htm 

From gacggc at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 08:42:40 2008
From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:42:40 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] can someone explain?
In-Reply-To: <BLU141-W18B6BD6B2F7D1D96425212D87B0@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU141-W18B6BD6B2F7D1D96425212D87B0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <8371758b0808050642s2fc38809x25875751f111fbff@mail.gmail.com>

hi kevin,

really you don't help the "bigger project" with these arguments.  who in
their
right mind would NOT strike a judge who went out of her way to tell them
they sucked.

your precision in what she actually said does not change the impression she
gave to fort hays.

really... any and all of us would have struck that judge... it has nothing
to do
with wanting to debate in an all white club... and conflating the issues
hurts and does not help anti-racism.

oh and I wasn't there, but her behavior in that video, and the reported
behavior by her...
sitting behind thd judges during that round...  does not make that judge
look
very rational.   I'd strike her just based on what I've seen directly of her
behavior.
we do need to be able to judge individuals as individuals.  to behave that
way
even after towson won the debate makes her seem deeply deeply mean-spirited.

david


On 8/5/08, Kevin Sanchez <let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075538.html
>
> _
>
> it's true that it's as contradictory for fort hays to run an
> anti-competitive
> alternative while defending their strike as a 'strategic' decision as it is
> for
> towson to strike judges while calling out the strikes of another team as
> 'exclusionary' - unless there's some relevant distinctions we're missing.
> several defenses potentially dissolve both apparent contradictions...
>
> towson might first make a distinction between appropriate strikes and
> inappropriate ones. they could do this by citing an uncontested squad
> affiliation (fort hays' coach actually coached the judge at issue) as an
> appropriate strike when compared to striking a judge where no such
> affiliation is present.
>
> malgor: "So, given Towson's position on MPJ, what was so wrong about
> the fort striking who they did?"
>
> this hinges on what you characterize towson's position as. if they say
> strikes are inappropriate as such, yet continue the practice, then there
> is nothing uniquely inappropriate about fort hays' strike of reid-brinkley.
> however, if they say some strikes are appropriate and some are not,
> and one of the criteria for distinguishing between the two is whether
> a strike hinders diversity, then fort hays could be held accountable for
> their strike on those grounds.
>
> after watching the round, i'd characterize towson's position as closer
> to this second stance. they continually emphasize that anti-racism is a
> positive task - it's not enough to say 'i'm not racist' or 'we didn't
> strike
> her because she's black'. you're also responsible for the opportunities
> you've eliminated.
>
> m: "She did proclaim that she gave them 27s and that they "sucked" at
> debate. It seems that they would be fools to put that judge on the panel."
>
> now, let's be very precise here. she said they did poorly *in that round*.
> she did not say 'they suck (as debaters)'. she said 'they sucked (in that
> round)'. when a judge gives you a 27, you can say, 'ok, i never want to
> debate in front of her again', or you can say, 'ok, let's do better in
> front
> of her next time'. considering the relatively small number of qualified
> judges, the former seems more foolish to me: you're likely to argue in
> front of a particular judge again, so you might as well begin as soon as
> possible the campaign to convince them you don't suck. but even if you
> disagree with that assessment, it is fort hays which claimed that other
> values can trump purely strategic ones. there are forum-preserving or
> forum-enriching values which keep the competitive backdrop intact and
> give significance to wins. fabricating evidence might prove strategic, for
> example, but it also undermines the structure of fair competition. so too
> with striking a black judge. it might prove strategic in the short run, but
> in the long run, it might hurt the game. who wants to pick up ballots in
> an all-white boy's club?
>
> ------------------------------
> Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
> See how Windows(R) fits your life<http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080805/de04d464/attachment.htm 

From michael.dickerson at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 09:14:38 2008
From: michael.dickerson at gmail.com (Michael Dickerson)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:14:38 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] can someone explain?
Message-ID: <6ee02be20808050714h3f97b5cflbe8112f54076c697@mail.gmail.com>

Dr Glass,

You completely ignored Kevin's post explaining the distinctions being drawn
(quite well, I might add) by the Towson debaters during the actual round.
You say:

really... any and all of us would have struck that judge... it has nothing
to do with wanting to debate in an all white club... and conflating the
issues
hurts and does not help anti-racism.

Go watch the 1AC cross-x.  They never said fort hays struck her because
she's black; they said fort hays struck her which proves they are not
credible in their claims to be allied with Towson and to seek real diversity
by promoting black participation on judging panels.

This is not a judgment on anyone in this argument, but a clarification.  I
have nothing but respect for Dr. Glass, and so I'd like to see him at least
arguing with the correct position rather than some intention-inferring witch
hunt that never actually happened.

Mike Dickerson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/47ca5e53/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Tue Aug  5 09:15:15 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 09:15:15 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Wow. 7 African-American coaches. Victory!
In-Reply-To: <1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
Message-ID: <1217945715.4898607399886@webmail.grandecom.net>

Thank you for undermining the positions taken by Louisville and Towson.
Apparently, there is no need to change debate styles and practices to conform
to a Black Aesthetic. With proper funding and support, there are plenty of
African-American debaters that can compete successfully. You arguments only
refute the claims being made by college teams that there are exclusionary
practices within college policy debate that are somehow inherently racist. I
have always contended that they are not. I think it is lack of resources that
prevents African Americans from competing. That is why I think the whole
movement to try to change policy debate is a waste of time. More time should be
spent woking on recruting and developing minority programs.


Scott





Quoting "Jillian A. Marty" <jmarty at comm.umass.edu>:

> I really don?t like to post on edebate. I find that these debates are
> ridiculous, a major waste of time, and I find that people have way too much
> time
> on there hands so that when I post this comment by the time I wake up
> tomorrow
> there will be at least three responses to this email. I prefer to have these
> discussions in person. However, since this is not the case,  I feel that I
> must
> respond to what you have just said.  For a person that states one must have
> valid evidence, Scott your claims are unfounded! Students in the various UDLs
> have success  because of the hard work and dedication they put into debate
> just
> like other high school students in the United States. It is not because they
> are
> separate from the ?White Majority? that they are successful. Many of the UDLs
> do
> not solely serve minority students. There are several UDLs that have a large
> number of students in the non-minority category and these students
> participate
> in both ?traditional? and ?performance? style of debate. In addition, some
> UDLs
> are so successful that they have ?integrated? with the ?White Majority? and
> have
> continued to kick ass in debate. This means that UDLs logically wouldn?t be
> able
> to be the college model because we don?t just serve minority students we
> serve
> students in urban areas. Now on to your statement about why not bring UDL to
> HBCU. Let me break down UDL for you. It stands for urban debate league. No
> where
> in the acroyonm does it state the "black debate league". Further more to
> assume
> that all UDL debaters are black not only shows how little you know about UDLs
> it
> also shows how little you know about the demographics of an urban area.
> Urban is not a synonym for minority it describes a dense populated metropolis
> area, where people from all walks of life live. Second,  if you were to do a
> little research, many many UDL students have beaten ?TOC style debaters? in
> ?TOC
> style of debate?. I will not disclose the names of those students that have
> done
> so because I have not asked their permission to use their names in this
> email.
> But, I can tell you that one of those debates happened this year at one of
> the
> New York State Qualifiers, where several teams from the NYUDL beat TOC
> qualifiers. In addition, there have been many successes at the NFL and CFL
> levels where UDL utilizing TOC style debate have been in late elimination
> rounds
> at these tournaments.  Also, there have been several UDL alums that have made
> it
> to the NDT using ?traditional debate?. So you see Scott the UDLs do have
> success
> at ?TOC style debate?. Third, do all the UDL alums a favor and don?t talk
> about
> us or our debate leagues. Don?t talk about how we can?t be ?good? at ?TOC
> debate?. Don?t talk about how UDLs are an example of how minorities should
> form
> their own separate debate league. And finally don?t talk about the success of
> UDLs is soley based on financial support. You have no clue what you are
> talking.
> You don?t know any of us and our stories.
>
> That is it for me. Hopefully I will not have to respond again, and please
> know
> that if you do respond I won?t be responding thru the internet I will respond
> when I see you--- at a tournament perhaps maybe at big Bronx, NY States,
> Lexington or at Harvard?places where you can see our UDL students debate TOC
> style.  Until then, just KEEP UDLS OUT YOUR MOUTH AND WE BE COOL.
>
> I wish you the best,
> Jillian
>
> ***********************************
> Jillian A. Marty
> Department of Communication
> University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> E-32A Machmer Hall
> Office Hours:M 11:15-12:15,
> T& Th 11:45- 12:45
>
>
> Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net:
>
> > Wow Martin. There are 7 instead of 5 black coaches for an entire nation
> (btw
> > that was Ede's count I was going off of. Isn't it sad that you can
> literally
> > name off the top of your head every black policy debate coach in the
> > country?).
> >
> > I guess you have won. Wow what a victory for a ten year project.
> >
> > Amazing, at this rate, in 20 years there will be ten African American
> coaches
> > by
> > the year 2028.  Full integration of CEDA/NDT will have been achieved.
> > Seriously,
> > if all you are going to do is quiblle over 5 versus 7, I think you have
> > already
> > conceded the larger issues. (I noticed you dropped the whole source
> citation
> > of MLK issue pretty damn quick.)
> >
> > I am still, at a loss as to why my proposal is a non-starter for many of
> you.
> > Another individual has pointed out, quite correctly, that UDL's have been
> > extremely successful. Why is that? In addition to a lot of dedication by a
> > large number of dedicated individuals and financial support (economics
> really
> > is the key issue folks)--I posit that it is because UDL's ARE seperate,
> that
> > they are successful. If UDL were thrust into varsity, TOC style debate,
> > students would bolt.
> >
> > WHY can't UDL's be a model for college debate too? Why not expand the UDL
> > concept to HBCU's?
> >
> > Careful Ede and Martin, you are about to have a series of logical mines
> blow
> > up
> > in your faces. You can be more poetic, but the Turth is still painfully
> > obvious.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>





From gacggc at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 09:31:21 2008
From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:31:21 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] can someone explain?
In-Reply-To: <6ee02be20808050714h3f97b5cflbe8112f54076c697@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6ee02be20808050714h3f97b5cflbe8112f54076c697@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8371758b0808050731x4ac071d4w5ae9703dc96bc16d@mail.gmail.com>

hi Mike,

Thanks...   I wasn't characterizing the arguments in the round; I was
responding to this paragraph of Kevin's (especially the last
line, which I've underlined):

"now, let's be very precise here. she said they did poorly *in that round*.
she did not say 'they suck (as debaters)'. she said 'they sucked (in that
round)'. when a judge gives you a 27, you can say, 'ok, i never want to
debate in front of her again', or you can say, 'ok, let's do better in front
of her next time'. considering the relatively small number of qualified
judges, the former seems more foolish to me: you're likely to argue in
front of a particular judge again, so you might as well begin as soon as
possible the campaign to convince them you don't suck. but even if you
disagree with that assessment, it is fort hays which claimed that other
values can trump purely strategic ones. there are forum-preserving or
forum-enriching values which keep the competitive backdrop intact and
give significance to wins. fabricating evidence might prove strategic, for
example, but it also undermines the structure of fair competition. so too
with striking a black judge. *it might prove strategic in the short run, but
in the long run, it might hurt the game. who wants to pick up ballots in
an all-white boy's club?"*

(end of quote)

I was simply expressing the opinion that it hurts an anti-racism project
to argue that you are hurting diversity even by excluding a judge
who has gone out of her way to tell you she has a negative opinion of you.

that's not a very controversial stance... and it is not a judgement on any
of the
arguments made in the debate (obviously i was not there and cannot comment;
and
obviously I get that Fort Hays' particular args put them in a poor position
to
respond adequately)

best regards,
david



On 8/5/08, Michael Dickerson <michael.dickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dr Glass,
>
> You completely ignored Kevin's post explaining the distinctions being drawn
> (quite well, I might add) by the Towson debaters during the actual round.
> You say:
>
> really... any and all of us would have struck that judge... it has nothing
> to do with wanting to debate in an all white club... and conflating the
> issues
> hurts and does not help anti-racism.
>
> Go watch the 1AC cross-x.  They never said fort hays struck her because
> she's black; they said fort hays struck her which proves they are not
> credible in their claims to be allied with Towson and to seek real diversity
> by promoting black participation on judging panels.
>
> This is not a judgment on anyone in this argument, but a clarification.  I
> have nothing but respect for Dr. Glass, and so I'd like to see him at least
> arguing with the correct position rather than some intention-inferring witch
> hunt that never actually happened.
>
> Mike Dickerson
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080805/0b75e306/attachment.htm 

From hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com  Tue Aug  5 10:16:55 2008
From: hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com (vacuous vacuous)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:16:55 -0800
Subject: [eDebate] Elliot, Scott
Message-ID: <4E26021813C.000001D5hardlyaaronhardy@inbox.com>

scott-
this is an official petition.

do all of your unfortunately located debaters a favor and quit while they can still get a new coach or transfer.

You are an assbag of epic proportions, and your recommendations to the black debate community are as senseless as the idea of fornicating with you.


dear community-

Im sure we would miss him about as much as jack stroube.

love,
adam jackson-5

____________________________________________________________
GET FREE 5GB EMAIL - Check out spam free email with many cool features!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Tue Aug  5 10:17:17 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 10:17:17 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] UDL's and college debate-check the facts.
In-Reply-To: <1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
Message-ID: <1217949437.48986efd66fb5@webmail.grandecom.net>

Things in think everyone agrees on:

1) Policy debate is great. It teaches research argumentation, etc.
2) Policy debate in college currently does not serve minority populations at a
level it should.
3) We should make an effort to increase minority participation in college policy
debate.

Now for disagreements:


>From the National UDL website 9http://www.urbandebate.org/debatehistory.shtml):

"In ten years, 33,000 students have competed in UDLs from urban school districts
with approximately 87% minority and 78% low-income student populations."

I think if you claim that UDL's are not geared primarily toward minority
students, you are being disingeuous at best. Sure, it may be open to all
students, but the original goal in Detroit and Atlanta, where UDL's started, was
to target inner city schools with almost 100% African-American populations.  So,
we "ain't cool" on this point.

As far as being able to compete on an equal footing. That is fine with me. This,
of course, undermines the entire argument/movement set up by Dr. Warner. He
can't have it both ways. He can't say Africa-American students cannot compete
under the current paradigm of policy debate, while, at the same time, arguing
that African-American students are hugely successful in policy debate. I have
actually listened to the arguments made by his debaters (sometimes voting for
them, sometimes against in rounds). So, I speak from actual experience.

My argument is that if what some people say is true--that there is a culture of
exclusion within college policy debate that prevents an increase in
African-American participation (his project, not mine), then their solutions
are misguided and that there are other, better ways to solve the problem. I do
no think there is any real hope of changing the culture of college policy
debate. The results of their project, to me, bear this out.

I think the problem is purely economic/resource driven--which your conclusions
concerning UDL success seem to easily prove for me. Thus, rather than debating
about the nature of how to debate in college debate rounds, to garner a few
wins, more effort and resources should be spent on developing more debate
programs.

And, before you say, "put your money where your mouth is," I will give you three
quick points to show that I am sincere:

1) I came back to Louisiana, in part, because policy debate had died out
completely at the college level and almost completely at the high school level.
We have restarted collge policy debate at a University that has not seen policy
debate in over twenty years. We started with ZERO teams last year. We will have
between 8 to 12 teams--college policy teams-this year. We have been making
outreach to rural and urban high schools to restart policy debate at the high
school level. One of the requirements of team members is to work with an area
school to promote debate at the high school level. We are talking about an
entire state, with at least four major urban centers, in which policy debate
has virtually dies out. It will take decades to bring it back. (BTW, a UDL in
New Orleans and Baton Rouge should be made a top priority by the NUDL)

2) We started a high school debate camp this summer in Louisiana that was open
to all students and as cheap as possible. We even had students from inner-City
New Orleans schools stay at my house and others' homes for free for the
duration of the camp. Why, because my wife and I want to see debate flourish in
Louisiana.

3)I have offered to pay to incorporate a non-profit organization with the
primary goal of recruiting more college programs that serve minority student
populations.

Why people think this is some strange idea is beyond me. Recall, CEDA started
with only four or five coaches telling the NDT to go to hell. In its heyday, it
had over 300 member institutions. Why can't we do the same for HBCU's and other
institutions that service primarily minority students?

I think the UDL example is valid and can be exported to the college level. How
so?  Regardless of your arguments to the contrary, UDL's target primarily
minority dominated inner city schools. The UDL statistics bear this out. An 87%
minority student population rate for any program rates as a program targeted
to improve the education of minority students. The orginal UDL's were seperate.
They created spaces by hosting UDL only tournaments. This created, and continues
to create, competitive space for students.

You are quite correct that now many UDL debaters go toe to toe and win against
suburban and private school programs.

Why not create a version of UDL's at the college level. There are literally
hundreds of HBCU's and other colleges that have a large minorty student
population that do not participate in policy debate

It would be a better dedication of time, effort, and resources than the current
hollow appeals to change the aesthetics of policy debate.

Scott


From aaron.olney at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 10:18:39 2008
From: aaron.olney at gmail.com (Aaron Olney)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:18:39 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Wow. 7 African-American coaches. Victory!
In-Reply-To: <1217945715.4898607399886@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
	<1217945715.4898607399886@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <6b016c190808050818i35a92381k1c316dc20533f4ed@mail.gmail.com>

Scott has no clue and will always make the arguments flow his way.  There is
no compromise on his part and compromise is what this community needs.  At
this point, just stop listening to him and eventually (hopefully) he will go
away.   People like him that are unwilling to compromise are the main
problem, but it's even scarier when they disguise their rhetoric as
"helpful" to the issue at large.

I'm sure he will have a clever way to "turn" my brief comments.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:15 AM, <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:

> Thank you for undermining the positions taken by Louisville and Towson.
> Apparently, there is no need to change debate styles and practices to
> conform
> to a Black Aesthetic. With proper funding and support, there are plenty of
> African-American debaters that can compete successfully. You arguments only
> refute the claims being made by college teams that there are exclusionary
> practices within college policy debate that are somehow inherently racist.
> I
> have always contended that they are not. I think it is lack of resources
> that
> prevents African Americans from competing. That is why I think the whole
> movement to try to change policy debate is a waste of time. More time
> should be
> spent woking on recruting and developing minority programs.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting "Jillian A. Marty" <jmarty at comm.umass.edu>:
>
> > I really don't like to post on edebate. I find that these debates are
> > ridiculous, a major waste of time, and I find that people have way too
> much
> > time
> > on there hands so that when I post this comment by the time I wake up
> > tomorrow
> > there will be at least three responses to this email. I prefer to have
> these
> > discussions in person. However, since this is not the case,  I feel that
> I
> > must
> > respond to what you have just said.  For a person that states one must
> have
> > valid evidence, Scott your claims are unfounded! Students in the various
> UDLs
> > have success  because of the hard work and dedication they put into
> debate
> > just
> > like other high school students in the United States. It is not because
> they
> > are
> > separate from the "White Majority" that they are successful. Many of the
> UDLs
> > do
> > not solely serve minority students. There are several UDLs that have a
> large
> > number of students in the non-minority category and these students
> > participate
> > in both "traditional" and "performance" style of debate. In addition,
> some
> > UDLs
> > are so successful that they have "integrated" with the "White Majority"
> and
> > have
> > continued to kick ass in debate. This means that UDLs logically wouldn't
> be
> > able
> > to be the college model because we don't just serve minority students we
> > serve
> > students in urban areas. Now on to your statement about why not bring UDL
> to
> > HBCU. Let me break down UDL for you. It stands for urban debate league.
> No
> > where
> > in the acroyonm does it state the "black debate league". Further more to
> > assume
> > that all UDL debaters are black not only shows how little you know about
> UDLs
> > it
> > also shows how little you know about the demographics of an urban area.
> > Urban is not a synonym for minority it describes a dense populated
> metropolis
> > area, where people from all walks of life live. Second,  if you were to
> do a
> > little research, many many UDL students have beaten "TOC style debaters"
> in
> > "TOC
> > style of debate". I will not disclose the names of those students that
> have
> > done
> > so because I have not asked their permission to use their names in this
> > email.
> > But, I can tell you that one of those debates happened this year at one
> of
> > the
> > New York State Qualifiers, where several teams from the NYUDL beat TOC
> > qualifiers. In addition, there have been many successes at the NFL and
> CFL
> > levels where UDL utilizing TOC style debate have been in late elimination
> > rounds
> > at these tournaments.  Also, there have been several UDL alums that have
> made
> > it
> > to the NDT using "traditional debate". So you see Scott the UDLs do have
> > success
> > at "TOC style debate". Third, do all the UDL alums a favor and don't talk
> > about
> > us or our debate leagues. Don't talk about how we can't be "good" at "TOC
> > debate". Don't talk about how UDLs are an example of how minorities
> should
> > form
> > their own separate debate league. And finally don't talk about the
> success of
> > UDLs is soley based on financial support. You have no clue what you are
> > talking.
> > You don't know any of us and our stories.
> >
> > That is it for me. Hopefully I will not have to respond again, and please
> > know
> > that if you do respond I won't be responding thru the internet I will
> respond
> > when I see you--- at a tournament perhaps maybe at big Bronx, NY States,
> > Lexington or at Harvard?places where you can see our UDL students debate
> TOC
> > style.  Until then, just KEEP UDLS OUT YOUR MOUTH AND WE BE COOL.
> >
> > I wish you the best,
> > Jillian
> >
> > ***********************************
> > Jillian A. Marty
> > Department of Communication
> > University of Massachusetts, Amherst
> > E-32A Machmer Hall
> > Office Hours:M 11:15-12:15,
> > T& Th 11:45- 12:45
> >
> >
> > Quoting scottelliott at grandecom.net:
> >
> > > Wow Martin. There are 7 instead of 5 black coaches for an entire nation
> > (btw
> > > that was Ede's count I was going off of. Isn't it sad that you can
> > literally
> > > name off the top of your head every black policy debate coach in the
> > > country?).
> > >
> > > I guess you have won. Wow what a victory for a ten year project.
> > >
> > > Amazing, at this rate, in 20 years there will be ten African American
> > coaches
> > > by
> > > the year 2028.  Full integration of CEDA/NDT will have been achieved.
> > > Seriously,
> > > if all you are going to do is quiblle over 5 versus 7, I think you have
> > > already
> > > conceded the larger issues. (I noticed you dropped the whole source
> > citation
> > > of MLK issue pretty damn quick.)
> > >
> > > I am still, at a loss as to why my proposal is a non-starter for many
> of
> > you.
> > > Another individual has pointed out, quite correctly, that UDL's have
> been
> > > extremely successful. Why is that? In addition to a lot of dedication
> by a
> > > large number of dedicated individuals and financial support (economics
> > really
> > > is the key issue folks)--I posit that it is because UDL's ARE seperate,
> > that
> > > they are successful. If UDL were thrust into varsity, TOC style debate,
> > > students would bolt.
> > >
> > > WHY can't UDL's be a model for college debate too? Why not expand the
> UDL
> > > concept to HBCU's?
> > >
> > > Careful Ede and Martin, you are about to have a series of logical mines
> > blow
> > > up
> > > in your faces. You can be more poetic, but the Turth is still painfully
> > > obvious.
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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/20080805/f11ca836/attachment.htm 

From beth.skinner at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 10:51:18 2008
From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:51:18 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] can someone explain?
In-Reply-To: <8371758b0808050731x4ac071d4w5ae9703dc96bc16d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6ee02be20808050714h3f97b5cflbe8112f54076c697@mail.gmail.com>
	<8371758b0808050731x4ac071d4w5ae9703dc96bc16d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4550c7380808050851u3aae2889ue98f13f4364b363c@mail.gmail.com>

Some of the MPJ posts start from very different assumptions about how
we relate to judges.  If you strike everyone who ever gave you a 27 or
a loss or had a negative opinion of you then you'd be out of judges
pretty quick.  Maybe that's not true of people who come into college
debate and the MPJ world already at the top of the game but it is true
of most college debaters.  Sometimes you aren't great - sometimes you
might even actually suck.  Sometimes a bad judge will vote for you no
matter what.  The point is, do you respect the judge as a judge (as a
person who will evaluate fairly and who can teach you how to do
better) to trust them with evaluating you again.  I don't know
anything about the particular Fort Hays round that Shanara previously
judged and so I can't say whether I would have made a different
choice.  I believe, however, that you ought to be able to explain why
you make your choices.

I don't think MPJ is evil though it does have some drawbacks.  In some
ways it functions as the creation of self-determined communities
within the larger tournament world.  A sort of middle ground between
total segregation and total integration of communities of interest.
You don't get to pick your opponents (which is good) but at large
tournaments at least you do get to pick your judges and have some
control over the kind of evaluation and education you get.  The people
who see only one kind of debate (technical policy, critical, identity,
dense philosophical) are specialists and highly admired within their
community of interest.  The people who see lots of kinds of debates
are a special breed because they've established trust/skill/reputation
across these communities.  I think that takes some doing and I admire
it.  The bottom line, though, is that getting to pick your company is
a privilege and the exercise of any privilege is open to critique.
Beth



On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Glass <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> hi Mike,
>
> Thanks...   I wasn't characterizing the arguments in the round; I was
> responding to this paragraph of Kevin's (especially the last
> line, which I've underlined):
>
> "now, let's be very precise here. she said they did poorly *in that round*.
> she did not say 'they suck (as debaters)'. she said 'they sucked (in that
> round)'. when a judge gives you a 27, you can say, 'ok, i never want to
> debate in front of her again', or you can say, 'ok, let's do better in front
> of her next time'. considering the relatively small number of qualified
> judges, the former seems more foolish to me: you're likely to argue in
> front of a particular judge again, so you might as well begin as soon as
> possible the campaign to convince them you don't suck. but even if you
> disagree with that assessment, it is fort hays which claimed that other
> values can trump purely strategic ones. there are forum-preserving or
> forum-enriching values which keep the competitive backdrop intact and
> give significance to wins. fabricating evidence might prove strategic, for
> example, but it also undermines the structure of fair competition. so too
> with striking a black judge. it might prove strategic in the short run, but
> in the long run, it might hurt the game. who wants to pick up ballots in
> an all-white boy's club?"
>
> (end of quote)
>
> I was simply expressing the opinion that it hurts an anti-racism project
> to argue that you are hurting diversity even by excluding a judge
> who has gone out of her way to tell you she has a negative opinion of you.
>
> that's not a very controversial stance... and it is not a judgement on any
> of the
> arguments made in the debate (obviously i was not there and cannot comment;
> and
> obviously I get that Fort Hays' particular args put them in a poor position
> to
> respond adequately)
>
> best regards,
> david
>
>
>
> On 8/5/08, Michael Dickerson <michael.dickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dr Glass,
>>
>> You completely ignored Kevin's post explaining the distinctions being
>> drawn (quite well, I might add) by the Towson debaters during the actual
>> round.  You say:
>>
>> really... any and all of us would have struck that judge... it has nothing
>> to do with wanting to debate in an all white club... and conflating the
>> issues
>> hurts and does not help anti-racism.
>>
>> Go watch the 1AC cross-x.  They never said fort hays struck her because
>> she's black; they said fort hays struck her which proves they are not
>> credible in their claims to be allied with Towson and to seek real diversity
>> by promoting black participation on judging panels.
>>
>> This is not a judgment on anyone in this argument, but a clarification.  I
>> have nothing but respect for Dr. Glass, and so I'd like to see him at least
>> arguing with the correct position rather than some intention-inferring witch
>> hunt that never actually happened.
>>
>> Mike Dickerson
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 ewarner at louisville.edu  Tue Aug  5 11:02:50 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:02:50 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] UDL's and college debate-check the facts.
In-Reply-To: <1217949437.48986efd66fb5@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
	<1217949437.48986efd66fb5@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <48984137.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Scott's position is based on paternalistic thinking and argument mischaracterization.  This is great because it gives me ample opportunity to really clarify our real beliefs today, not back in 2004, which is the time warp Scott is stuck in.
 
1)  Louisville's version of this criticism doesn't start with the assumption that policy debate is great because it teaches research and argumentation, it is more nuanced.  He simplistically ignores the problem of debating topical minority issues and how they aren't strategic in the game.  He ignores this because he can't answer it nor does he think it is important.
 
2) He then mischaracterizes Louisville as saying exclusionary practices means Blacks can't compete.  Our argument has never been that exclusionary practices mean Black can't compete, but rather they don't want to.  If my issues are never strategic in the game, why would I want to play?   The impact of exclusionary practices is that they make policy debate bad for everyone because it's not relevant to how American society needs to operate. It is surely possible that a Louisville team here or there made the argument but that has never been what we have taught here. Bigger than that, exclusionary debate practices limit the breadth and depth of our attempts at policy making so we make bad decisions.  Like in the "Great Debaters", the audience at Harvard (USC in real life) would likely have never thought differently about civil disobedience if Harvard hadn't decided to have interracial debates   America, and the debate community, is comprised of a collection of special interest and minorities.  Policy debate needs to be a place where they can strategically advance and debate issues important to them.  That place has yet to be created in policy debate, in large part, because we were all taught a set of norms and procedures in the evaluation process that dehumanize minority issues (impacts), making them non-strategic in the game.
 
3) Scott ignores the factual evidence as to what motivated HBCU's to create and disband policy debate.  He engages their feelings and thoughts about as well as he engages mine.
 
4) Scott's socio-economic justifications for low Black participation are racist, ignoring the growing Black middle class their low rates of participation.  His generalization fails to account for their lack of participation.  Of course, our explanation does.
 
5) Scott's world view is simple and truthfully, not far from what many in this activity believe:  policy debate is great as it is and Blacks NEED it.  He is the one stereotyping that Blacks can't compete, not us.  And he believes that giving them their own space to shut them up is best.  His position is paternalistic at best and just outright racist at worse.
 
6) Scott, if you go create the HBCU debate league if you can, I'll donate a $200 check if you can get if off the ground.  
Scott, I do very much appreciate the opportunity to give others the chance to think about these issues and how to make this a stronger community.  Thanks for your ignorance...
 
Keep firing big fella...
>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:"Jillian A. Marty" <jmarty at comm.umass.edu>
CC:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/5/2008 11:17 AM
Subject: [eDebate] UDL's and college debate-check the facts.
Things in think everyone agrees on:

1) Policy debate is great. It teaches research argumentation, etc.
2) Policy debate in college currently does not serve minority populations at a
level it should.
3) We should make an effort to increase minority participation in college policy
debate.

Now for disagreements:


>From the National UDL website 9http://www.urbandebate.org/debatehistory.shtml):

"In ten years, 33,000 students have competed in UDLs from urban school districts
with approximately 87% minority and 78% low-income student populations."

I think if you claim that UDL's are not geared primarily toward minority
students, you are being disingeuous at best. Sure, it may be open to all
students, but the original goal in Detroit and Atlanta, where UDL's started, was
to target inner city schools with almost 100% African-American populations.  So,
we "ain't cool" on this point.

As far as being able to compete on an equal footing. That is fine with me. This,
of course, undermines the entire argument/movement set up by Dr. Warner. He
can't have it both ways. He can't say Africa-American students cannot compete
under the current paradigm of policy debate, while, at the same time, arguing
that African-American students are hugely successful in policy debate. I have
actually listened to the arguments made by his debaters (sometimes voting for
them, sometimes against in rounds). So, I speak from actual experience.

My argument is that if what some people say is true--that there is a culture of
exclusion within college policy debate that prevents an increase in
African-American participation (his project, not mine), then their solutions
are misguided and that there are other, better ways to solve the problem. I do
no think there is any real hope of changing the culture of college policy
debate. The results of their project, to me, bear this out.

I think the problem is purely economic/resource driven--which your conclusions
concerning UDL success seem to easily prove for me. Thus, rather than debating
about the nature of how to debate in college debate rounds, to garner a few
wins, more effort and resources should be spent on developing more debate
programs.

And, before you say, "put your money where your mouth is," I will give you three
quick points to show that I am sincere:

1) I came back to Louisiana, in part, because policy debate had died out
completely at the college level and almost completely at the high school level.
We have restarted collge policy debate at a University that has not seen policy
debate in over twenty years. We started with ZERO teams last year. We will have
between 8 to 12 teams--college policy teams-this year. We have been making
outreach to rural and urban high schools to restart policy debate at the high
school level. One of the requirements of team members is to work with an area
school to promote debate at the high school level. We are talking about an
entire state, with at least four major urban centers, in which policy debate
has virtually dies out. It will take decades to bring it back. (BTW, a UDL in
New Orleans and Baton Rouge should be made a top priority by the NUDL)

2) We started a high school debate camp this summer in Louisiana that was open
to all students and as cheap as possible. We even had students from inner-City
New Orleans schools stay at my house and others' homes for free for the
duration of the camp. Why, because my wife and I want to see debate flourish in
Louisiana.

3)I have offered to pay to incorporate a non-profit organization with the
primary goal of recruiting more college programs that serve minority student
populations.

Why people think this is some strange idea is beyond me. Recall, CEDA started
with only four or five coaches telling the NDT to go to hell. In its heyday, it
had over 300 member institutions. Why can't we do the same for HBCU's and other
institutions that service primarily minority students?

I think the UDL example is valid and can be exported to the college level. How
so?  Regardless of your arguments to the contrary, UDL's target primarily
minority dominated inner city schools. The UDL statistics bear this out. An 87%
minority student population rate for any program rates as a program targeted
to improve the education of minority students. The orginal UDL's were seperate.
They created spaces by hosting UDL only tournaments. This created, and continues
to create, competitive space for students.

You are quite correct that now many UDL debaters go toe to toe and win against
suburban and private school programs.

Why not create a version of UDL's at the college level. There are literally
hundreds of HBCU's and other colleges that have a large minorty student
population that do not participate in policy debate

It would be a better dedication of time, effort, and resources than the current
hollow appeals to change the aesthetics of policy debate.

Scott

_______________________________________________
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/20080805/9656e7dd/attachment.htm 

From vikeenan at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 11:37:54 2008
From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:37:54 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] UDL's and college debate-check the facts.
Message-ID: <a30b6d940808050937g148197d8ie831bcadf940b28c@mail.gmail.com>

just a few other additions:

"Why not create a version of UDL's at the college level. There are literally

hundreds of HBCU's and OTHER COLLEGES* that have a large minorty student
population that do not participate in policy debate

It would be a better dedication of time, effort, and resources than the
current
hollow appeals to change the aesthetics of policy debate."
[* caps mine]

Will Baker, Andy Ellis, and I find this a unique proposal and will get right
on it . . . oh wait.

Why can't we do both at the same time?

And since we're on the "fact check" thread:
The stated purpose of the initiatives in the 80's in Atlanta and Detroit was
NOT "increase African American participation in debate".  In Atlanta it had
a lot more to do with conflict resolution and improving academic
achievement.  College debate coaches always think UDL's are about debate as
an end - they are not.  Given that probably 90% of teachers who coach UDL's
don't come from debate backgrounds, they see this as a means to an end, and
that end has little to do with our "debate community".

Additionally, the "UDL Movement" as funded by the Open Society in the late
90's (and the model that most of us are generally referring to, which was
based on the Atlanta program), had it's initial pilot program in NYC.  The
NYUDL began with 10 schools throughout the five boroughs in 1997.  Some
facts about NYC public schools:  15 % White, 35+ % "Black", 35+% "Hispamic,
Non-White, 14% Asian Descent.  So, since about 65% of the targeted
"district" isn't African American, and this is the pilot program, Jillian is
correct that UDL's were not in fact founded to assist primarily the
African-American student population.

Additionally, the date for students in UDL's based on race is problematic
because most metrics allow students to check only one racial identity
category.  This was a frequent issue back when I was a teacher and we filled
out "data" for students - many students are of mixed ancestory, and the data
makes them choose.  I personally had a number of students of both Hispanic
and African American backgrounds who chose based on how they were
"perceived" by the world - and this tended to err on the side of "Black".
Additionally, many students would make a distinction between
"African-American" descent and "Caribbean American" descent - the later
really representing an immigrant community and different set of linguistic,
legal, and socio-economic realities.

So when Jillian asks that we stop misrepresenting UDL's, she is correct.
The INTENT of these programs has often been mischaracterized, and the data
we use in our justifications is often flawed, so why don't we go with the
program directives say?  I'm not trying to add disagreement to the
discussion, but at some point we need to be able to accept corrections to
the basis of our conclusions to move forward.  Part of that process is
recognizing when we may be operating with an incomplete understanding of the
information, and that sometimes we can be wrong, and that sometimes there
are multiple approaches to a problem. (Seriously, does no one else think
"perm" is the most real world response we have?)

Finally, if would be refreshing for a change if the traditional policy
community didn't assume that the issue is "minorities need debate".  The
reality is that it goes both ways.  If you REALLY believe this is all
role-play of policy making, if your REALLY believe this is some kind of
educational simulation where we prepare future "leaders" and participants in
democracy, then perhaps, just perhaps, the "community" that we interact with
should be representative of the people of that system.  Just a thought.

-VIK
(token white middle class female coach of the Coalition)

-- 
Vik Keenan
Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY
Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges
212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/e6f20dd2/attachment.htm 

From alfred.snider at uvm.edu  Tue Aug  5 11:46:19 2008
From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:46:19 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] WDI indexes part 2
Message-ID: <489883DB.4070208@uvm.edu>

Now available at

http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wdi2008collegepolicyindexes2.pdf

Best wishes,

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 gordonm at pitt.edu  Tue Aug  5 12:16:14 2008
From: gordonm at pitt.edu (Mitchell, Gordon Roger)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:16:14 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Batson challenges
Message-ID: <C9563A8511C9BB488B41E541ACC749F98372D75E29@PITT-EXCH-07.univ.pitt.edu>

It is an imperfect yet heuristically rich analogy - the elim strike card is intercollegiate debate's version of voir dire, the process by which prospective jurors are vetted prior to being seated for trials.

Generally in voir dire, counsel can strike an unlimited number of prospective jurors "for cause" - for example if a would-be juror has a financial conflict of interest in the case or expresses clear bias during screening.

But counsel also has recourse to a limited number of "peremptory strikes," where prospective jurors can be dismissed in voir dire without justification. In the landmark case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky

Mining the analogy, one might say that Towson issued a "Batson challenge" during the 2008 CEDA quarterfinal round, objecting to Ft. Hays' use of its peremptory strike. Was the strike "neutral" or not? This became the focus of several cross-examinations, and indeed weighed heavily in several judge decisions.

If we look ahead to a world where elim strikes are regularly folded into contest rounds as potential voting issues, some perspective might be gained by surveying the reforms and arguments developed in the wake of Batson to institutionalize evaluation criteria for legitimate use of peremptory challenges in voir dire:

http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/spr96tex/juryper.html

In the other direction, the fate of peremptory challenges, and indeed the workability of the entire Batson test apparatus, are live discussion topics in many circles beyond academic debate. Given the number of talented and influential jurists this community has produced, I would not be surprised if several current debaters and coaches go on to legal careers where they play a role in shaping the trajectory of voir dire jurisprudence (especially those folks interested in civil rights litigation). Given this, I would be curious to hear those discussing the CEDA quarters round share their views about the wisdom of the Batson precedent, whether peremptory challenges should be abolished, and how voir dire might be improved.

Best,

Gordon

* * *

Gordon R. Mitchell
Associate Professor of Communication
Director, William Pitt Debating Union
Deputy Director, Ridgway Center for Security Studies
University of Pittsburgh
CL 1117, 4200 Fifth Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
Phone: (412) 624-8531
Fax: (412) 624-1878
http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/
http://www.securitysweepblog.org

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Tue Aug  5 12:31:46 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:31:46 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] UDL's and college debate-check the facts.
In-Reply-To: <48984137.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
	<1217949437.48986efd66fb5@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48984137.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <1217957506.48988e821a449@webmail.grandecom.net>



As usual, Ede you are  wrong on several fronts. I think the ignorance is on your
part.

The Louisville project, circa 2008 was put to me this way 1) Policy Debate is
too fast and too technical (I heard it four times this year alone) and 2) What
have YOU done to increase minority participation in policy debate? These are
the claims made by your teams as the key issues in college policy debate.

1) On the first issue, speed and technique. The evidence from UDL's refutes
this. If enough resources are put into minority debate programs, then students
can compete on those pesky technical topics and at a pretty fast clip. My
African American students seem to be able to handle the complexities of the job
and don't go home crying about the Klan of speedy speakers.

2) The more important point, what have YOU done to increase minority
particpation in policy debate at the college level. (I'll stand by my record any
day of the week.) I say if you create it, they will join. My program is a good
examle. From zero policy teams to ten teams. From zero African American
students to five in just one year, in rural Lousiana.  Again, what have YOU
done to increase minority
particpation in policy debate at the college level? This is the question your
teams pose to other teams around the country for at least eight years now. I
simply turn the mirror back at you and ask, what is your project doing to
actually create real advancements in the numbers of minorities particpating. I
say your strategy(s) of debating about debate is a failure.

You claim the reason why minority students do not participate is because the
topics are not germane to their lives. This is not me being paternalistic Ede,
this is straight up saying you are flat wrong. The past three topics and this
Ag topic have huge areas of research about the African-American expereince in
America and in the World.

I think your teams last year missed out on huge opportunities to
show how America's historic racism permeates our international relations. You
missed a huge teaching opportunity. I believe
your Project impoverished them and denied them a deeper analysis of race issues
in America and in the World. No Paternalism here.  The
current agriculture topic has a huge area regarding racial politics. Seriously,
the entire history of U.S. Agriculture is bound up in racism (e.g. slavery). I
just finished reading an article on how German POW's were used in the South to
maintain
cotton harvests during WWII, and to keep Black sharecroppers poor. Over 1
million African children will starve to death this year because the United
States has a cotton subsidies policy that benefits almost 100% white upper
class farmers. If you cannot convice minority students of the signficiance, and
relevance of these issues to your African American students--that is YOUR
failure, not a failure of the Topic. Your Project's focus on how debate is done
ignores the real issues of race the permeate just about every policy topic we
have. Can you not find an issue regarding race and racism inherent in a
Universal health care topic?

You say the debate practics and topics make it where African American students
do not WANT to compete. First, I say not true. I say it is because they cannot
afford to compete. The UDLs prove this and my own program proves it. If you
build a program and fund it, they will come. Second, I say it is your failure
to show how these issues effect their lives, not the topics. Third, not
everyone wants to play water polo. I don't like Halo III. Just because many
students do not want to debate does not mean that policy debate is racist.

You say debate dehumanizes the Black expereince because it wieghs impacts. I
think that you have not taught your students how to make good arguments then. I
would vote for a racism impact with a deontology D-rule and, in fact, I have
voted for it. The same with Justice impacts. Learn to take out a nuclear war
impact--its really not that hard. Policy debate does not exclude.
But it does force people to defend their arguments.

You say the reason why HBCU's left policy debate was because the norms of policy
debate changed. The only HBCU I know persoanlly was the Southern University CEDA
program. It stopped because of budget cuts. I think that there has been almost
zero push (Andy Ellis and a few are doing some work) by the policy debate
community to bring HBCU's back to policy debate. I think that if time were
spent recruiting and building new programs, instead of debating about debate,
real cahnges would be made. Ask yourself-which has a better chance of increasing
minority particpation in college polic debate--talking about how debate is
unfair within debates, or going out and creating a new policy program at an
HBCU?

On the other hand, if your claim is true that HBCU's left because of a culture
of exclusion, then you end up back at the orginal discussion point--namely,
your attempts to change the culture of policy debate have been a failure. It
has NOT increased Black participation in this activity to any significant
degree. And, therefore, it may be time to create an alternative organization
that will serve the needs of these underrrepresented students. From either
perspective your Project is not advancing your cause.

You claim that my argument about economics is racist and it ignores the Black
middle class. No. Not true. I think middle income students across the board
cannot afford to debate. I also think that a large percentage of the middle
class Black students you are referring to go to colleges and Universities that
do not have programs. So, what is racist about saying the resources (Directors,
coaches, and travel funds) do not exist for these students to participate? Your
ignorance of economics is distressing.

Your last point is that I am stereotyping Black students. Dude, you are the one
promoting, via your teams, that Black students cannot or will not compete
because college policy debate is too technical and debaters speak too fast. My
African American, and African-descent, debaters are insulted by YOUR
stereotyping of Black students as not being able to handle the complexities of
United States Public Policy. They are insulted by your insinuation that unless
the topic deals with which is better East Coast or West Coast hip hop, Black
students won't participate. We find issues of relevance to students personal
lives in every topic. Its called research.

Maybe you should check out what your teams are saying and arguing as part of
your project. Because the only stereotyping going on is within your Project. I
always like the racism charge when it is thrown because it usually gets people
off on the track of "I am not racist, some of my best friends........" I think
you should check yourself Ede, see what racial stereotyping you are engaged in,
if it matters. I believe your focus on debating about debate, rather than the
racial issues inherent within these topics is hurting your students  and is not
really advancing your overall cause.

Scott

p.s.

Give me at least another year to get the state of Louisiana back on track with
policy debate, and I will take your $200 and show you that I can do in just a
few years, what you have failed to do in a decade. It seems, however, that you
would be the best person for the job. You would have the best chance of
reaching out to HBCU's and minority dominated Universities. But, when someone
tries to give you power, real power for real change, you always run away from
it.




From aaron.olney at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 12:40:18 2008
From: aaron.olney at gmail.com (Aaron Olney)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:40:18 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] UDL's and college debate-check the facts.
In-Reply-To: <1217957506.48988e821a449@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
	<1217949437.48986efd66fb5@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48984137.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<1217957506.48988e821a449@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <6b016c190808051040y6b75c4daqf84639da4388d08b@mail.gmail.com>

Scott reminds me of the rich white kid who "has black friends".

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 1:31 PM, <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:

>
>
> As usual, Ede you are  wrong on several fronts. I think the ignorance is on
> your
> part.
>
> The Louisville project, circa 2008 was put to me this way 1) Policy Debate
> is
> too fast and too technical (I heard it four times this year alone) and 2)
> What
> have YOU done to increase minority participation in policy debate? These
> are
> the claims made by your teams as the key issues in college policy debate.
>
> 1) On the first issue, speed and technique. The evidence from UDL's refutes
> this. If enough resources are put into minority debate programs, then
> students
> can compete on those pesky technical topics and at a pretty fast clip. My
> African American students seem to be able to handle the complexities of the
> job
> and don't go home crying about the Klan of speedy speakers.
>
> 2) The more important point, what have YOU done to increase minority
> particpation in policy debate at the college level. (I'll stand by my
> record any
> day of the week.) I say if you create it, they will join. My program is a
> good
> examle. From zero policy teams to ten teams. From zero African American
> students to five in just one year, in rural Lousiana.  Again, what have YOU
> done to increase minority
> particpation in policy debate at the college level? This is the question
> your
> teams pose to other teams around the country for at least eight years now.
> I
> simply turn the mirror back at you and ask, what is your project doing to
> actually create real advancements in the numbers of minorities
> particpating. I
> say your strategy(s) of debating about debate is a failure.
>
> You claim the reason why minority students do not participate is because
> the
> topics are not germane to their lives. This is not me being paternalistic
> Ede,
> this is straight up saying you are flat wrong. The past three topics and
> this
> Ag topic have huge areas of research about the African-American expereince
> in
> America and in the World.
>
> I think your teams last year missed out on huge opportunities to
> show how America's historic racism permeates our international relations.
> You
> missed a huge teaching opportunity. I believe
> your Project impoverished them and denied them a deeper analysis of race
> issues
> in America and in the World. No Paternalism here.  The
> current agriculture topic has a huge area regarding racial politics.
> Seriously,
> the entire history of U.S. Agriculture is bound up in racism (e.g.
> slavery). I
> just finished reading an article on how German POW's were used in the South
> to
> maintain
> cotton harvests during WWII, and to keep Black sharecroppers poor. Over 1
> million African children will starve to death this year because the United
> States has a cotton subsidies policy that benefits almost 100% white upper
> class farmers. If you cannot convice minority students of the signficiance,
> and
> relevance of these issues to your African American students--that is YOUR
> failure, not a failure of the Topic. Your Project's focus on how debate is
> done
> ignores the real issues of race the permeate just about every policy topic
> we
> have. Can you not find an issue regarding race and racism inherent in a
> Universal health care topic?
>
> You say the debate practics and topics make it where African American
> students
> do not WANT to compete. First, I say not true. I say it is because they
> cannot
> afford to compete. The UDLs prove this and my own program proves it. If you
> build a program and fund it, they will come. Second, I say it is your
> failure
> to show how these issues effect their lives, not the topics. Third, not
> everyone wants to play water polo. I don't like Halo III. Just because many
> students do not want to debate does not mean that policy debate is racist.
>
> You say debate dehumanizes the Black expereince because it wieghs impacts.
> I
> think that you have not taught your students how to make good arguments
> then. I
> would vote for a racism impact with a deontology D-rule and, in fact, I
> have
> voted for it. The same with Justice impacts. Learn to take out a nuclear
> war
> impact--its really not that hard. Policy debate does not exclude.
> But it does force people to defend their arguments.
>
> You say the reason why HBCU's left policy debate was because the norms of
> policy
> debate changed. The only HBCU I know persoanlly was the Southern University
> CEDA
> program. It stopped because of budget cuts. I think that there has been
> almost
> zero push (Andy Ellis and a few are doing some work) by the policy debate
> community to bring HBCU's back to policy debate. I think that if time were
> spent recruiting and building new programs, instead of debating about
> debate,
> real cahnges would be made. Ask yourself-which has a better chance of
> increasing
> minority particpation in college polic debate--talking about how debate is
> unfair within debates, or going out and creating a new policy program at an
> HBCU?
>
> On the other hand, if your claim is true that HBCU's left because of a
> culture
> of exclusion, then you end up back at the orginal discussion point--namely,
> your attempts to change the culture of policy debate have been a failure.
> It
> has NOT increased Black participation in this activity to any significant
> degree. And, therefore, it may be time to create an alternative
> organization
> that will serve the needs of these underrrepresented students. From either
> perspective your Project is not advancing your cause.
>
> You claim that my argument about economics is racist and it ignores the
> Black
> middle class. No. Not true. I think middle income students across the board
> cannot afford to debate. I also think that a large percentage of the middle
> class Black students you are referring to go to colleges and Universities
> that
> do not have programs. So, what is racist about saying the resources
> (Directors,
> coaches, and travel funds) do not exist for these students to participate?
> Your
> ignorance of economics is distressing.
>
> Your last point is that I am stereotyping Black students. Dude, you are the
> one
> promoting, via your teams, that Black students cannot or will not compete
> because college policy debate is too technical and debaters speak too fast.
> My
> African American, and African-descent, debaters are insulted by YOUR
> stereotyping of Black students as not being able to handle the complexities
> of
> United States Public Policy. They are insulted by your insinuation that
> unless
> the topic deals with which is better East Coast or West Coast hip hop,
> Black
> students won't participate. We find issues of relevance to students
> personal
> lives in every topic. Its called research.
>
> Maybe you should check out what your teams are saying and arguing as part
> of
> your project. Because the only stereotyping going on is within your
> Project. I
> always like the racism charge when it is thrown because it usually gets
> people
> off on the track of "I am not racist, some of my best friends........" I
> think
> you should check yourself Ede, see what racial stereotyping you are engaged
> in,
> if it matters. I believe your focus on debating about debate, rather than
> the
> racial issues inherent within these topics is hurting your students  and is
> not
> really advancing your overall cause.
>
> Scott
>
> p.s.
>
> Give me at least another year to get the state of Louisiana back on track
> with
> policy debate, and I will take your $200 and show you that I can do in just
> a
> few years, what you have failed to do in a decade. It seems, however, that
> you
> would be the best person for the job. You would have the best chance of
> reaching out to HBCU's and minority dominated Universities. But, when
> someone
> tries to give you power, real power for real change, you always run away
> from
> it.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080805/b1ebe99e/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Tue Aug  5 13:11:34 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:11:34 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] UDL's and college debate-check the facts.
In-Reply-To: <1217957506.48988e821a449@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
	<1217949437.48986efd66fb5@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48984137.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<1217957506.48988e821a449@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <48985F5D.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

You win.  I went to only one tournament last year, I have no idea what our students were saying, and you clearly know more about increasing Black/minority/Louisiana participation than I do.  All the middle class Black folks go to schools without debate teams and our teams missed out on opportunities to debate the topic.  I will be traveling this year and I will be responsible for what our debaters do this year.  I'm looking forward to debating your teams. I am also looking forward to making you the lone exception of being the one person in the current NDT/CEDA community that we will strike this season.  You are just too insightful for my students and we can never reach your level of Black consciousness...Stay Black my brother!

>>> 
From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:Ede Warner <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
CC:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/5/2008 01:32 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] UDL's and college debate-check the facts.


As usual, Ede you are  wrong on several fronts. I think the ignorance is on your
part.

The Louisville project, circa 2008 was put to me this way 1) Policy Debate is
too fast and too technical (I heard it four times this year alone) and 2) What
have YOU done to increase minority participation in policy debate? These are
the claims made by your teams as the key issues in college policy debate.

1) On the first issue, speed and technique. The evidence from UDL's refutes
this. If enough resources are put into minority debate programs, then students
can compete on those pesky technical topics and at a pretty fast clip. My
African American students seem to be able to handle the complexities of the job
and don't go home crying about the Klan of speedy speakers.

2) The more important point, what have YOU done to increase minority
particpation in policy debate at the college level. (I'll stand by my record any
day of the week.) I say if you create it, they will join. My program is a good
examle. From zero policy teams to ten teams. From zero African American
students to five in just one year, in rural Lousiana.  Again, what have YOU
done to increase minority
particpation in policy debate at the college level? This is the question your
teams pose to other teams around the country for at least eight years now. I
simply turn the mirror back at you and ask, what is your project doing to
actually create real advancements in the numbers of minorities particpating. I
say your strategy(s) of debating about debate is a failure.

You claim the reason why minority students do not participate is because the
topics are not germane to their lives. This is not me being paternalistic Ede,
this is straight up saying you are flat wrong. The past three topics and this
Ag topic have huge areas of research about the African-American expereince in
America and in the World.

I think your teams last year missed out on huge opportunities to
show how America's historic racism permeates our international relations. You
missed a huge teaching opportunity. I believe
your Project impoverished them and denied them a deeper analysis of race issues
in America and in the World. No Paternalism here.  The
current agriculture topic has a huge area regarding racial politics. Seriously,
the entire history of U.S. Agriculture is bound up in racism (e.g. slavery). I
just finished reading an article on how German POW's were used in the South to
maintain
cotton harvests during WWII, and to keep Black sharecroppers poor. Over 1
million African children will starve to death this year because the United
States has a cotton subsidies policy that benefits almost 100% white upper
class farmers. If you cannot convice minority students of the signficiance, and
relevance of these issues to your African American students--that is YOUR
failure, not a failure of the Topic. Your Project's focus on how debate is done
ignores the real issues of race the permeate just about every policy topic we
have. Can you not find an issue regarding race and racism inherent in a
Universal health care topic?

You say the debate practics and topics make it where African American students
do not WANT to compete. First, I say not true. I say it is because they cannot
afford to compete. The UDLs prove this and my own program proves it. If you
build a program and fund it, they will come. Second, I say it is your failure
to show how these issues effect their lives, not the topics. Third, not
everyone wants to play water polo. I don't like Halo III. Just because many
students do not want to debate does not mean that policy debate is racist.

You say debate dehumanizes the Black expereince because it wieghs impacts. I
think that you have not taught your students how to make good arguments then. I
would vote for a racism impact with a deontology D-rule and, in fact, I have
voted for it. The same with Justice impacts. Learn to take out a nuclear war
impact--its really not that hard. Policy debate does not exclude.
But it does force people to defend their arguments.

You say the reason why HBCU's left policy debate was because the norms of policy
debate changed. The only HBCU I know persoanlly was the Southern University CEDA
program. It stopped because of budget cuts. I think that there has been almost
zero push (Andy Ellis and a few are doing some work) by the policy debate
community to bring HBCU's back to policy debate. I think that if time were
spent recruiting and building new programs, instead of debating about debate,
real cahnges would be made. Ask yourself-which has a better chance of increasing
minority particpation in college polic debate--talking about how debate is
unfair within debates, or going out and creating a new policy program at an
HBCU?

On the other hand, if your claim is true that HBCU's left because of a culture
of exclusion, then you end up back at the orginal discussion point--namely,
your attempts to change the culture of policy debate have been a failure. It
has NOT increased Black participation in this activity to any significant
degree. And, therefore, it may be time to create an alternative organization
that will serve the needs of these underrrepresented students. From either
perspective your Project is not advancing your cause.

You claim that my argument about economics is racist and it ignores the Black
middle class. No. Not true. I think middle income students across the board
cannot afford to debate. I also think that a large percentage of the middle
class Black students you are referring to go to colleges and Universities that
do not have programs. So, what is racist about saying the resources (Directors,
coaches, and travel funds) do not exist for these students to participate? Your
ignorance of economics is distressing.

Your last point is that I am stereotyping Black students. Dude, you are the one
promoting, via your teams, that Black students cannot or will not compete
because college policy debate is too technical and debaters speak too fast. My
African American, and African-descent, debaters are insulted by YOUR
stereotyping of Black students as not being able to handle the complexities of
United States Public Policy. They are insulted by your insinuation that unless
the topic deals with which is better East Coast or West Coast hip hop, Black
students won't participate. We find issues of relevance to students personal
lives in every topic. Its called research.

Maybe you should check out what your teams are saying and arguing as part of
your project. Because the only stereotyping going on is within your Project. I
always like the racism charge when it is thrown because it usually gets people
off on the track of "I am not racist, some of my best friends........" I think
you should check yourself Ede, see what racial stereotyping you are engaged in,
if it matters. I believe your focus on debating about debate, rather than the
racial issues inherent within these topics is hurting your students  and is not
really advancing your overall cause.

Scott

p.s.

Give me at least another year to get the state of Louisiana back on track with
policy debate, and I will take your $200 and show you that I can do in just a
few years, what you have failed to do in a decade. It seems, however, that you
would be the best person for the job. You would have the best chance of
reaching out to HBCU's and minority dominated Universities. But, when someone
tries to give you power, real power for real change, you always run away from
it.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/639b44a7/attachment.htm 

From hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com  Tue Aug  5 13:22:13 2008
From: hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com (vacuous vacuous)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:22:13 -0800
Subject: [eDebate] Scotty Elliot
Message-ID: <4FC42F022D4.000003BDhardlyaaronhardy@inbox.com>

Scott Elliot: I'll show you ede. you cant do anything to help these kids, all of yours are uncivilized hip-hop gangbangers. 10 years and nothing. Next year, I'm gonna rescue all the black kids and take em and put em up on this BIG farm in Louisiana where they need to be...researching and switch-side debating genetic engineering. nappy headed hoes reading my growth good disads turning themselves into something.  

love
adam jackson-5

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Tue Aug  5 13:30:32 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:30:32 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Striking judges because they disagree on issues.
In-Reply-To: <48985F5D.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
	<1217949437.48986efd66fb5@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48984137.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<1217957506.48988e821a449@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48985F5D.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <1217961032.48989c4889ecb@webmail.grandecom.net>

Thank you for striking me from judging your teams.
I feel honored to be a trendsetter.
You should always strike those that actually engage you.
You should always keep those around you that pat you on the head, smile and
dismiss you.
Heaven forbid your students hear a different perspective on the issues of racism
and diversity in policy debate.
I would not want your students exposed to a counter-veiling view of their
Project, or give them any cause to doubt you.
Three cheers for diversity, Ede.
What a standard you have established.






From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  5 13:40:15 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:40:15 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  can someone explain?
Message-ID: <BLU141-W384D85B664659C145AF474D87B0@phx.gbl>


http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075543.html
_

glass: "any and all of us would have struck that judge."

then my only response is, be able to defend your strikes better than the
fort hays team did in that particular round. i didn't say there's no possible
defense for having struck her; i say 'common practice' isn't much of one.

glass: "her behavior in that video, and the reported
behavior by her...
sitting behind thd judges during that round...  does not make that judge
look very rational."

of course that behavior had yet to occur at the time of the strike, and
occurred in response to the strike and its aftermath, but here's where
i see a big problem with what you've written...

if you say, 'we as a debate team felt uncomfortable with her as a judge
because we're not sure *we* are good enough to pick up ballots from
her', that is, 'we doubt *our* ability to win her over' - that's one thing.

but if you say, 'we as a debate team felt uncomfortable with her as a
judge because we're not sure *she* is able to rationally adjudicate the
round', that is, 'we doubt *her* abilities to give us a fair hearing' - that's
something else.

your position, dr. glass, seems closer to the second proposition and, to
me, it's much more vulnerable to reflexive kritiks of white privilege. 

the question becomes, do you think she gave the fort hays team 27s
more because of the quality of their speech-acts - what *they* did - or
more because of her own irrevocable bias - who *she* is as a critic?

if you believe it's what they did (their 'sucking') that resulted in the 27s,
then you probably also believe there's things they could do to alter that
result in the future - adaptation is possible (though, again, they might
argue that having to adapt in out-rounds hurts their odds of advancing
farther in the tournament).

shanahan acts like he's got hold of the winning argument the moment
reid-brinkley says 'they sucked'. i disagree. if ken strange had said 'they
sucked', most of us wouldn't have taken this as any indication that he's
incapable of judging them fairly in the future. if ken strange had given
them 27s, i bet they wouldn't have professed discomfort. that's because
we respect ken strange as a judge; we know he's able to rise above his
own biases. if he says 'you all sucked', whatever else we might permit
ourselves to feel about this remark, we don't assume it to be irrational:
we assume it had must've had something to do with the way the debate
went down. why a different standard for shanara reid-brinkley?

...

and you know what? since you only seem to respond when i write
something that's slightly less defensible (e.g., you dropped this post:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075517.html),
i'll happily write something slightly less defensible to give you fodder to
snippet and lampoon...

HAD fort said, 'we voted against her because she's black', i may've had
more respect for their stance. they could've said, 'look, we're not black;
we're two indie kids and we read eureopean literature written mostly by
white guys, so we think we'd have a better shot with a white judge. we
are hockey players, not basketball players, and we don't expect a black
person to suddenly go crazy for our sport. juries are selected on racial
and demographic grounds everyday -- this is nothing new and nothing
objectionable'.

BUT what 'feeling uncomfortable' sounds like code-language for, however,
is something that's far more insulting: 'we voted against her because she's
irrational'. that hurts. i for one would rather openly be called black than
subtly called a loon.

...

in any case, we can agree there's a contradiction inherent in fort hays'
position: if they truly didn't care solely about winning, they should not
have passed up the opportunity to debate in front of a judge who knows
the post-structuralist/post-colonial literature and who has a deep well of
personal experience to share. the 2a.c. analysis coming out of towson is
brilliant here, and you can watch it sans spectacle:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=567966331243825646
-- at 27m:31s. 

really, in a lot of ways the ph.d throw-down was the least interesting
aspect of this round.

_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/d72f539a/attachment.htm 

From akbiotech at comcast.net  Tue Aug  5 13:54:02 2008
From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Art Kyriazis)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:54:02 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Judging Philosophy of Art Kyriazis
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1217437207.2042.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
References: <mailman.1.1217437207.2042.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <4898A1CA.50904@comcast.net>

Dear Folks:

This attachment was severed when I wrote to indicate I was available to 
serve as an unaffiliated judge generally this year and also specifically 
available as a hired judge for the Kings College Connelly-Garvey 
tournament in Wilkes-Barre, PA September 19-21, 2008 this fall. This is 
my judging philosophy:

*_JUDGING PHILOSOPHY OF ART KYRIAZIS_*

Evidence cards may be sought after the round. I will weigh the evidence 
and the quality of it pretty heavily in resolving clash. If you attack 
methodologies and explain why a card, source or study is either 
defective or doesn?t apply, that may win.

Have a 10% hearing loss in my left ear due to a dozen ear operations as 
a kid and two as an adult, so you should be *LOUD* when you debate in 
front of me.

I flow the round. Fast is good, incomprehensible is not. Once upon a 
time, CEDA was supposed to be slower than NDT and NDT faster than CEDA. 
I can flow fast. I can even flow very fast. I can?t flow 
incomprehensible. Please signpost number and organize your speech. If I 
have to do it for you you?re making extra work for me.

I believe in justice as fairness, and thus I will be fair. The process 
should be fair, not just the result. Also subscribe to gaming models of 
debate. If you argue some other criterion of justness, I can be 
persuaded. In short, how I vote is up for debate. If you don?t debate 
it, I will by default vote as a policy debate judge, affirmative 
advantages v. negative disads etc. If you drop arguments, you lose them. 
If you fail to extend arguments, you lose them. I flow extensions and 
drops pretty carefully.

Kritiks, conditionals, counterplans, meta-languages, skepticism, 
stoicism, utilitarianism, /credo ut intelligam, intelligo ut credam, 
cogito ergo sum, /negation, universals, Derrida, Foucault, 
deconstructionism, Rawls, relativism, absolutism, feminist, racist, 
civil rights theories are all welcome.

Cross-ex is underused and I listen to it. Admissions in cross-ex may be 
binding. Cross-ex is also good for undermining or attacking evidence.

Unless the teams are tournament anonymous, please write your names and 
your schools on the board and the side you are defending. Also, someone 
please write the exact wording of the resolution on the blackboard. 
Topicality arguments should be argued well?a lexical or contextual 
definition followed by some reasoned argument could win. A short sketchy 
argument probably will not win.

Rebuttals are probably the most important part of the debate for me. 
Highlight your winning arguments. Extend your winners and signpost them. 
Argue your winning arguments in order of best to worst. Don?t worry 
about jumping around the flow. Finish back on your best, winning 
argument and with some kind of rhetorical flourish. Tell me the 
compelling reason for voting for your side in the round at the end of 
the last rebuttal.

Be nice and pleasant to one another during the round. Rudeness and/or 
un-pleasantries are uncalled for in academic debate.

--Art Kyriazis, judging philosophy


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: akbiotech.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 397 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/6f270a95/attachment.vcf 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Tue Aug  5 13:58:02 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:58:02 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Re: Striking judges because they disagree on issues.
References: <1217906275.4897c6633f145@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<1217912664.4897df5857575@mail-www.oit.umass.edu>
	<1217949437.48986efd66fb5@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48984137.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<1217957506.48988e821a449@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48985F5D.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<1217961032.48989c4889ecb@webmail.grandecom.net>
	<48986996.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <48986A41.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>



>>> 
From: Ede Warner
To:scottelliott at grandecom.net 
Date: 8/5/2008 02:55 PM
Subject: Re: Striking judges because they disagree on issues.
We love to hear different "informed" views.
We love to hear those willing to think "critically" about what we've said.
We love showing critical thinkers the same level of respect to reflect on their views.
We love to learn, grow, and develop with people that are willing to exchange ideas, not just push the same ones down our throats because they are incapable of personal self-reflection.
 
Bottom line: we just can't do any of those things with you.  So why try?
 
Feel some solace, you're not alone.  You're just unwilling to shut up which makes you the easy and obvious target.
 
BTW, your perspectives aren't new or innovative, we hear them all the time, but in substantially more respectful tones.  So we'll engage your ideas elsewhere, with others at least willing to show some level of respect.  
 
Here is an idea for the marketing of your new league:
 
Master Scott's HBCU league - coming to a plantation near you soon!!!!!
You can go get all the middle class blacks that live on campuses without debate teams and have them transfer to the HBCU's.  
 
But what will we do with those pesky middle class African Americans on the campuses of Northwestern, Dartmouth, Emory and West Georgia, Fullerton, and Louisville?  Such an anomaly: Middle class Blacks on campuses with debate teams.  
 
We could shoot them, or send them away in rocket ships with that crazy Space Trader Derek Bell.  Or wait, we could start a second league with them.  The Scott Elliott "You don't really exist" debate league.  Tonia and Liz could be the first officers with their middle class backgrounds and all.  They should be able to recruit more socioeconomically privileged Blacks to disappear into the Scott Elliott Black Bermuda Triangle.  
 
Yeah, you have the right amount of smarts, leadership, empathy, and critical thought to start an HBCU league.  You really are a trendsetter!  Sign me up!
>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:Ede Warner <e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
CC:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/5/2008 02:30 PM
Subject: Striking judges because they disagree on issues.
Thank you for striking me from judging your teams.
I feel honored to be a trendsetter.
You should always strike those that actually engage you.
You should always keep those around you that pat you on the head, smile and
dismiss you.
Heaven forbid your students hear a different perspective on the issues of racism
and diversity in policy debate.
I would not want your students exposed to a counter-veiling view of their
Project, or give them any cause to doubt you.
Three cheers for diversity, Ede.
What a standard you have established.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/220828e1/attachment.htm 

From akbiotech at comcast.net  Tue Aug  5 14:19:50 2008
From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Art Kyriazis)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:19:50 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Video of Conduct of Coach Shanahan
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1217782804.25135.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
References: <mailman.1.1217782804.25135.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <4898A7D6.9060806@comcast.net>

August 5, 2008

Dear Folks:

It was with some disheartenment that I read the recent round of posts 
and watched the actual youtube video of Coach Shanahan actually having a 
temper tantrum, disrobing and nearly striking a woman in full view of 
nearly a hundred onlookers during a debate round.   I probably won't 
make any friends by what I'm about to say, but I feel compelled to 
express my point of view.

In keep with my general debate judging and coaching philosophy, and I 
excerpt it here:

"Be nice and pleasant to one another during the round.  Rudeness and/or 
un-pleasantries are uncalled for in academic debate."

Obviously, the video shows something less than this.  I was frankly 
shocked by what I saw.  Have the proprieties and niceties of academic 
debate descended so far so soon?

In addition to the foregoing, I guess I would have to add that in 
addition to appearing to be very much out of his mind during the video, 
Coach Shanahan was barefoot, poorly dressed, poorly kempt, had at least 
several months growth of beard, very long uncombed hair and appeared 
very much like a person who was living on a street or a homeless 
individual.   The very last thing he looked like was a responsible 
teacher, coach or person that I would entrust the care of children or 
the teaching of students to.

I am the parent of three children, and I have been teaching and 
instructing for a long time, and I have a strong feeling that it is 
essential that a professional coach or teacher has a responsibility to 
keep his hair and beard (even if they are long) properly and neatly 
combed and cut; to be properly dressed, meaning to wear long pants and a 
blazer or jacket during a round, keep his shirt tucked into his pants, 
and wear a tie if needed; and to observe a code of dress and of conduct 
that is higher than that what we expect of students and debaters. 

In short I believe teachers and coaches should set a higher standard of 
dress and of conduct than we would expect of our students.  Coaches and 
teachers in debate are examples for students to follow.  If you are 
going to dress badly, then conduct yourself well; if you are going to 
dress well, then conduct yourself well.

What we have with Shanahan, is somewhat who is dressed like a homeless 
person and acting like a madman.  How this is in any regard proper 
conduct for a coach is beyond me.  Perhaps he is brilliant.  Perhaps he 
has won many trophies over the years.  But what is shown here on the 
video is bizarre and inexcusable.

Finally, and most pertinently, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on 
the issue of racially motivated use of either (1) challenges for cause 
or (2) peremptory challenges, to remove jurors on account of race, 
particularly in the case of prosecutors seeking to remove african 
american jurors in criminal trials (they are considered more likely to 
acquit and less likely to deliver the death penalty).  In each and every 
case, the Supreme Court has rule that this practice is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

Consequently, what are we to make of a peremptory challenge of a debate 
judge based upon or motivated by race?

The answer is, it is a violation of the person's civil rights, to the 
extent that the individual so removed has either a liberty or property 
interest at stake in the proceedings, which in this case, she evidently 
does.  Nor does there have to be state action involved for her to make a 
case here, c.f. Runyon v. McCrary, ______ U.S. _____ (1976)  (purely 
private white only segregated schools in the south could be sued under 
civil rights laws even though no state action and no federal funding).

Consequently, I would have to conclude that there is actually a civil 
rights action here, and anywhere else, where an african american coach 
is excluded from a judging panel by means of a peremptory challenge. 

The presumption has to be /de facto/ that the exclusion is racially 
challenged, and at trial the burden is on the excluding party to show 
that the exclusion was not racially motivated. 

Applied here, at trial Coach Shanahan would have to demonstrate by a 
preponderance of the evidence that his exclusion was not racially 
motivated.     

It would be wise for CEDA to adopt a policy that no African-American 
judge can be excused from a judging panel by means of a peremptory 
challenge where they are the only African-American judge on the panel.  
Similar rules should be adopted protecting other protected groups as 
well if CEDA deems appropriate.  It should be noted that the law is 
quite liberal in California in this regard and the Unruh Act is quite 
extensive as is the Federal ADA with regards to persons with disabilities. 

It is not, as coach Shanahan claims, about winning.  It's about 
learning, and about learning to be inclusive, not exclusive.  My late 
mother spent thirty five years teaching in the Philadelphia School 
District primarily african american youth helping many of them to very 
fine professional careers and if there is one lesson she taught me in 
this life, it was to treat all persons equally and respect the content 
of a person's character and to ignore the color of their skin.  I am 
embarrassed for CEDA and for academic debate by this video and I hope 
sincerely that corrective action is taken.

--Dr. Arthur Kyriazis, M.S.E.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: akbiotech.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 397 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/9cbfc6c9/attachment.vcf 

From proudsavage at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 15:03:03 2008
From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:03:03 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] striking scott elliot
Message-ID: <9b5963440808051303j2ed1a841ua4518583166fadba@mail.gmail.com>

by some terrible coincidence a team of mine once had to debate in front of
this miscreant (i blame Andy Ellis, but i blame him for most things) and
after voting them down he said to me "this was the best postmodern debate
I've ever seen" this i found particularly interesting considering the fact
that the strategy they were deploying   was very specifically a critique of
postmodernism... see scott sometimes people strike you because you are just
fucking stupid... this is different from the fort/towson conversation....
hope that cleared some things up for you but i severely doubt it will
because as i said before you are a mentally deficient racist and should
prolly be put out to  rhetorical pasture where  you can play and dig  and
enjoy the sun beating down on your pasty pig face with the rest of the
relics of dead era.


 Towson didn't k competition, the fort did. you cant admit that you made a
strategic decision to strike a judge and then spend the debate critiquing
competition.  the video is especially telling of this problematic if you
watch avery's face while chris makes this round losing concession in cross
ex. fort lost cuz towson pointed out the case turn that anyone could have
pointed out, the race conversation was probably more important to have than
the case turn conversation and it gave towson some O on the "we're down with
black people" flow but i believe getting the fort to admit they struck
someone "strategically" would have been all that a decent team needed to
pown them. if you dont believe me watch averys little heart break in cross
ex when this happens.

i have no real stake in this debate, i mean,  i know who i agree with and
who i dont, i know what i think and while this debate(the edebate fight) has
informed many of my opinions, at the end of the day i think engaging this
debate from where i sit is prolly not as worthwhile as other things i could
be doing.

to recap:

scott elliots a biggoted moron,
chris and avery should have thought about answering that question better
and Towson CL did what any smart debaters would have done in that
position... they won.


dont reply or backchannel me, ill prolly say mean shit to you as im
particularly busy and therefore grumpy at the moment and please dont take
any of this shit personally(avery and chris you know i love you). oh except
for scott-- i dont love you and you should feel free to take all the mean
shit that everyone seems to be saying about you personally... its true, ur a
dumb racist...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/92fb706e/attachment.htm 

From hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com  Tue Aug  5 15:10:18 2008
From: hardlyaaronhardy at inbox.com (vacuous vacuous)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:10:18 -0800
Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Arthur Kyriazis, M.S.E.
Message-ID: <50B5C21B100.000004FEhardlyaaronhardy@inbox.com>


the douchington express just rolled in

heads up, not everyone wants to dress and shave like you assbag.

"if my kids saw shanahan they might figure out that not everyone dresses like bourgeois suburban yuppie assbags"

what are you going to take shanahan to court over MPJ? if judges suck or are biased, teams should be able to strike them.

you come uncover your eyes now, i doubt shanahan hides in your closet at night. tool.

____________________________________________________________
GET FREE 5GB EMAIL - Check out spam free email with many cool features!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/email to find out more!

From paulj567 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  5 15:22:22 2008
From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] can someone explain?
In-Reply-To: <4550c7380808050851u3aae2889ue98f13f4364b363c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <957526.9814.qm@web53509.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

actually, given point inflation, you could strike everyone who gave you a 27 and still have a pretty big pool.

especially at CEDA.



--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Beth Skinner <beth.skinner at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Beth Skinner <beth.skinner at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] can someone explain?
> To: "David Glass" <gacggc at gmail.com>
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com, "Michael Dickerson" <michael.dickerson at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 10:51 AM
> Some of the MPJ posts start from very different assumptions
> about how
> we relate to judges.  If you strike everyone who ever gave
> you a 27 or
> a loss or had a negative opinion of you then you'd be
> out of judges
> pretty quick.  Maybe that's not true of people who come
> into college
> debate and the MPJ world already at the top of the game but
> it is true
> of most college debaters.  Sometimes you aren't great -
> sometimes you
> might even actually suck.  Sometimes a bad judge will vote
> for you no
> matter what.  The point is, do you respect the judge as a
> judge (as a
> person who will evaluate fairly and who can teach you how
> to do
> better) to trust them with evaluating you again.  I
> don't know
> anything about the particular Fort Hays round that Shanara
> previously
> judged and so I can't say whether I would have made a
> different
> choice.  I believe, however, that you ought to be able to
> explain why
> you make your choices.
> 
> I don't think MPJ is evil though it does have some
> drawbacks.  In some
> ways it functions as the creation of self-determined
> communities
> within the larger tournament world.  A sort of middle
> ground between
> total segregation and total integration of communities of
> interest.
> You don't get to pick your opponents (which is good)
> but at large
> tournaments at least you do get to pick your judges and
> have some
> control over the kind of evaluation and education you get. 
> The people
> who see only one kind of debate (technical policy,
> critical, identity,
> dense philosophical) are specialists and highly admired
> within their
> community of interest.  The people who see lots of kinds of
> debates
> are a special breed because they've established
> trust/skill/reputation
> across these communities.  I think that takes some doing
> and I admire
> it.  The bottom line, though, is that getting to pick your
> company is
> a privilege and the exercise of any privilege is open to
> critique.
> Beth
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Glass
> <gacggc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > hi Mike,
> >
> > Thanks...   I wasn't characterizing the arguments
> in the round; I was
> > responding to this paragraph of Kevin's
> (especially the last
> > line, which I've underlined):
> >
> > "now, let's be very precise here. she said
> they did poorly *in that round*.
> > she did not say 'they suck (as debaters)'. she
> said 'they sucked (in that
> > round)'. when a judge gives you a 27, you can say,
> 'ok, i never want to
> > debate in front of her again', or you can say,
> 'ok, let's do better in front
> > of her next time'. considering the relatively
> small number of qualified
> > judges, the former seems more foolish to me:
> you're likely to argue in
> > front of a particular judge again, so you might as
> well begin as soon as
> > possible the campaign to convince them you don't
> suck. but even if you
> > disagree with that assessment, it is fort hays which
> claimed that other
> > values can trump purely strategic ones. there are
> forum-preserving or
> > forum-enriching values which keep the competitive
> backdrop intact and
> > give significance to wins. fabricating evidence might
> prove strategic, for
> > example, but it also undermines the structure of fair
> competition. so too
> > with striking a black judge. it might prove strategic
> in the short run, but
> > in the long run, it might hurt the game. who wants to
> pick up ballots in
> > an all-white boy's club?"
> >
> > (end of quote)
> >
> > I was simply expressing the opinion that it hurts an
> anti-racism project
> > to argue that you are hurting diversity even by
> excluding a judge
> > who has gone out of her way to tell you she has a
> negative opinion of you.
> >
> > that's not a very controversial stance... and it
> is not a judgement on any
> > of the
> > arguments made in the debate (obviously i was not
> there and cannot comment;
> > and
> > obviously I get that Fort Hays' particular args
> put them in a poor position
> > to
> > respond adequately)
> >
> > best regards,
> > david
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/5/08, Michael Dickerson
> <michael.dickerson at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dr Glass,
> >>
> >> You completely ignored Kevin's post explaining
> the distinctions being
> >> drawn (quite well, I might add) by the Towson
> debaters during the actual
> >> round.  You say:
> >>
> >> really... any and all of us would have struck that
> judge... it has nothing
> >> to do with wanting to debate in an all white
> club... and conflating the
> >> issues
> >> hurts and does not help anti-racism.
> >>
> >> Go watch the 1AC cross-x.  They never said fort
> hays struck her because
> >> she's black; they said fort hays struck her
> which proves they are not
> >> credible in their claims to be allied with Towson
> and to seek real diversity
> >> by promoting black participation on judging
> panels.
> >>
> >> This is not a judgment on anyone in this argument,
> but a clarification.  I
> >> have nothing but respect for Dr. Glass, and so
> I'd like to see him at least
> >> arguing with the correct position rather than some
> intention-inferring witch
> >> hunt that never actually happened.
> >>
> >> Mike Dickerson
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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


      

From MWBRYANT at aol.com  Tue Aug  5 15:27:37 2008
From: MWBRYANT at aol.com (MWBRYANT at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:27:37 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] Fwd:  Video of Conduct of Coach Shanahan
Message-ID: <bdc.31bc793b.35ca11b9@aol.com>







In a message dated 8/5/2008 3:23:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
akbiotech at comcast.net writes:

In  addition to the foregoing, I guess I would have to add that in 
addition  to appearing to be very much out of his mind during the video, 
Coach  Shanahan was barefoot, poorly dressed, poorly kempt, had at least  
several months growth of beard, very long uncombed hair and appeared  
very much like a person who was living on a street or a homeless  
individual.   The very last thing he looked like was a  responsible 
teacher, coach or person that I would entrust the care  
______________________________________________________________________
 
Are you for real?
 
I'm not defending any action on that video (on either party), but the  notion 
that additional blame needs to be focused on Shanahan for the way he  dresses 
is, simply, ridiculous.
 
Shanahan has looked that way for as long as anyone can  remember. I can 
pretty much guarantee that he was dressed in that  manner when he interviewed for 
the position at Fort Hayes. Shanahan has  always gone barefoot. 
 
Your standard was not adhered to by anyone on that video (CEDA executives  
included) and is open to so many angles of kritik that the mind boggles at  
which one to launch first.
 
Your concerns about the behavior displayed on the video are justified.  Your 
criticisms of his appearance opens a window to your own worldview that I  
don't think many will find very substantive or appealing.
 
 
Bear
Louisville, KY



 
____________________________________
 Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? _Read reviews 
on AOL  Autos_ 
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017) .





**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? 
Read reviews on AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/92e3ed45/attachment.htm 

From jcthomas at ksu.edu  Tue Aug  5 16:03:34 2008
From: jcthomas at ksu.edu (jcthomas at ksu.edu)
Date: Tue,  5 Aug 2008 16:03:34 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] For the record, I am not "vacuous vacuous"
Message-ID: <1217970214.4898c026788bc@webmail.ksu.edu>

The last time someone posted to edebate using an anonymous email account
with the word "vacuous" in the name, a few people told me that they
assumed it was me.

For the record, although I may most certainly be vacuous, I do not
use the name "vacuous" as an alias.

When it comes to (e)debate, I have taken a seat in the grandstand
of philosophical detachment to fall asleep observing the cannibals
doing their death dance.

Love,

James Thomas

From akbiotech at comcast.net  Tue Aug  5 17:14:08 2008
From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Art Kyriazis)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:14:08 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Available to Judge Clarion University Tournament
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1217955603.25783.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
References: <mailman.1.1217955603.25783.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <4898D0B0.7030508@comcast.net>

Dear Folks:

I'm available to judge at the Clarion University PA tournament.  I'm 
based outside of Phila.  the drive is @ 310 miles each way for me, which 
is about 6-7 hours each way.  I'd need to drive all day thurday and much 
of sunday or monday plus i'd require full reimbursement in advance for 
housing thursday, friday, saturday and possibly sunday (preferably you 
pay with your credit card).  I have no objection to sharing rooms to 
save money or to being housed. 

i'd want to be paid for judging fees for all the rounds, plus mileage 
(310 miles x 2 x 50 cents per mile = $310) plus an hourly fee for travel 
each way (7 hours x $30 x 2 = $420).  Alternatively, I could fly to 
Pittsburgh, rent and drive to Clarion or you could pick me up from the 
airport in pittsburgh.  the airfare varies but usually only US air flies 
the route, and its usually around $300 or more roundtrip unless i book 
in advance.  the tournament looks like six rounds plus at least one elim 
= 7 x $30 = $210.

finally, if you're coming through philly you could pick me up.  i'd 
still want to be paid for travel time as well as judging time and 
lodgings.  just email me and we can work out details.

--art kyriazis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: akbiotech.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 397 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/8a733cc2/attachment.vcf 

From sethellsworth at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 17:44:57 2008
From: sethellsworth at gmail.com (Seth T. Ellsworth)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:44:57 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Judging
Message-ID: <412d08cb0808051544k790d6f5eoadfd0d05cf015602@mail.gmail.com>

In the spirit of art kyriazis i will be available to judge at any
tournament you want for the reasonable price of 1500 dollars a
tournament. That includes mileage, a travel fee, a social fee_ and an
overcharge. I also will wear a blazer so i dont upset your high
standards.

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Tue Aug  5 17:51:32 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:51:32 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] To Stephen
Message-ID: <1217976692.4898d97445444@webmail.grandecom.net>



----- Forwarded message from scottelliott at grandecom.net -----
Stephen,

Your team lost because their methodology got turned. It was a pretty damn good
turn too- the argument was not that you did not have the perfect affirmative,
but trying to sell the perfect affirmative as a form of advertisement was
bad--even if it was satirical.  The more I thought about that round, the more I
am convinced I made the right decision. So, really, get over it. I have been
cordial to you before and after the round--even when you were a temper tantrum
baby about losing a 5-0 to 5-0 round. But, you can be what you want, which is a
pompous asshole.

Your rant about Towson was and is way off the mark. I thought Towson won the
round against the Fort. I watched the round. Ask anyone who spoke to me during
and after the round. I thought the round was going to be a 3-0 for Towson after
the cross ex of the 1NC.  So, I am not sure what you are talking about. I
thought it was a brilliant strategy against a team that was going to run
position on competitveness. My debater and I laughed as we left the round to
catch our plane back home. We thought the round was exceedingly clear--for
Towson. I even congratulated some of the Towson folks. Don't try to misconstrue
my arguments with Ede as some indictment of Towson's performace at CEDA Nats. I
watched them in two outrounds, before we left. Thought they won both pretty
decisively. You can label me all you want for other things, but on this one you
are being your typical arrogant self---cock sure but knowing nothing.

That being said, I think debates like these are a logical conclusion of several
norms that have spread in the community. Why this is "racist," I do not
understand. When debates become personal indictments of the students and their
coaches pre-round actions, you have debates devolve into fist fights and
rage--similar to the rage you espouse in your posts.

Why telling Ede and others that merely debating about debate does not solve the
real issue(s) of diversity in debate is racist, I do not know.

I have not seen much of a contribution from you. I have no respect for you
either. So, in the end, get over it and climb back into you nihlist hole..

Love always,

Scott



----- End forwarded message -----





From scottyp431 at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 17:54:52 2008
From: scottyp431 at gmail.com (Scott Phillips)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:54:52 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Available to Judge Clarion University Tournament
Message-ID: <12a4de8d0808051554m32c8adddl4f20415d0d612b00@mail.gmail.com>

PUDDY: Let's finish this up.

JERRY: Did you two break up?

PUDDY: (While punching up numbers on a calculator) That chick's whacked.
We're history. (Back to the transaction) I just left out a couple of things:

rust-proofing..

JERRY: "Rust-proofing"?

PUDDY: (Reading off what he's adding up on the calculator) Transport charge,
storage surcharge, *additional* *overcharge*, finder's fee

JERRY: "Finder's fee"? It was on the lot!

PUDDY: Yeah, that's right. (Continues reading off) Floor mats, keys..

JERRY: 'Keys"?!

PUDDY: How ya gonna start it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/5213d0e5/attachment.htm 

From MWBRYANT at aol.com  Tue Aug  5 18:14:08 2008
From: MWBRYANT at aol.com (MWBRYANT at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:14:08 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] reply to bryant
Message-ID: <bd0.34e7fe5c.35ca38c0@aol.com>

Dr. K,
 
I'm sure you don't know me, though I am very aware of most of the people  you 
refer to as examples. I coached NDT, CEDA and parli for over 20 years and  
qualified 25 teams to the NDT.
 
I understand your "real-world" analysis of how professionals should look. I  
am required to wear a tie daily as the Department Chair in an urban university 
 setting and I actually teach classes on how students need to act and behave 
in  professional interviews.
 
But, in the 20+ years I was a part of college debate, I never wore ties or  
blazers. Not as a competitor or as a coach. That was one of the things that  
attracted me most to NDT policy debate - no matter what one looked like, one's  
arguments were the focus of any evaluation. If we had been judged on the 
quality  of our suits, I would never have even had the opportunity to win a debate  
scholarship to a small eastern Kentucky university and be the first member of 
my  family to ever graduate college.
 
Many of the students I coached during my career were also from poor  
families. If they had been forced to adopt your standard for debate appearance,  many 
of them would've also been denied the opportunity to compete in college  
debate. I remain convinced that debaters should dress comfortably, and in a  manner 
they can afford. My job was to help them develop arguments, not  appearances.
 
Some of your examples leave me shaking my head - Tuna and John Meany, for  
example. A fact I bet you don't know: Both Tuna and I have hired Bill Shanahan  
in the past to work with our debaters. We both knew that while it was always a 
 challenge to co-exist with someone so capable of scrutinizing the ethics of  
every decision, Bill was capable of accomplishing far more with  debaters 
than anyone known for their dapper trendy clothing. Bill put on no  pretenses - 
he showed up for his hiring interview dressed virtually the same as  you saw on 
the video. His sample lecture shocked a group of young Mormons by  drawing 
semantic equivalencies between GOD and DOG. He mesmerized a campus by  refusing 
to wear shoes, despite the sub-zero winter weather of northern  Utah. The real 
irony is that Bill was the first coach to have debaters  run race kritiks of 
debate norms.  
 
And you have obviously missed some periods of John and Tuna's sartorial  
evolution. 'Nuff said there.
 
Look, if you don't know Bill, you are likely to think he looks strange. I  
understand. But that's just part of Bill's approach to life. He pushes  EVERYONE 
to question their assumptions. Bill and I did not get always get  along, but 
focusing on his appearance seems to be, simply put, shallow. Have you  noticed 
how not a single person in the video (CEDA Execs included) met your  
appearance standards? I think you simply may have to accept the fact that there  are 
different community appearance norms in college policy debate than  there are 
on the high school circuit.
 
One last thing I need to say: I am very troubled by what I saw on the  video. 
Like others, I wish I could've seen the entire video. I think that  
understanding of the conflict that immediately preceded the current video would  
provide a fuller context of understanding. Still, there is no excuse  for what took 
place. 
 
And, to be absolutely honest, I felt personal guilt as I watched that  video. 
Seven years away from debate allows me the perspective to understand that  
many of my own actions as a coach were indefensible. I recognize that a lot  of 
what I thought I was doing to defend my debaters from the various forms  of 
unfairness
of institutional debate simply helped establish a groundwork for the  norm of 
uncivility that seems to currently prevail. I feel like shouting out  props 
to the Towson posse for exposing just how bad behavior has  become. I know I 
need to apologize to my own students, associates and colleagues  for allowing my 
own belligerence to make their experience with  debate less civil than it 
needed to me. Particularly to Steve Clemmons and  Doug Dennis, I expressly want 
to apologize for actions I now believe were  rooted in racism. Maybe others 
were even worse than I was, but that doesn't  negate that I feel ashamed for the 
part I played. 
My sincere hope is that the debate community can learn from the current  
experience and learn to act as if there was always a camera pointed at them. If  
this could possibly happen in a way that doesn't sacrifice people's careers, I  
think it is possible that some real progress might transpire. 
 
In any event, these issues are too significant to be linked to shallow  
concerns over appearance.
 
Back to work,
 
Bear
Louisville, KY
 
 
 
In a message dated 8/5/2008 5:55:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
akbiotech at comcast.net writes:

Dear  Bear:

Well, I am for real.  I was an attorney for fifteen years  and I've 
worked in private industry the last ten years and I teach  business 
school on an adjunct basis, and my students dress well because  they want 
to work in business.  I do so accordingly because I need to  set an 
example for them.  In the high school and college debate  leagues around 
philly and locally here we dress quite well.  I was a  prep school debate 
coach last year and I can assure you that last year and  this year at 
PCFL and interac league matches many coaches wore ties, and  the vast 
majority blazers.  All the years I organized urban debate  for the 
Philadelphia Bar Ass'n, I always wore a tie, unless we were down  to the 
last round of policy debate and it was finals and we had like five  
judges, I might then loosen my tie.  My supervising dean at my prep  
school wore a tie and jacket each and every day and this year he's  
working at an even better prep school in new york.  Upwardly mobile  
people dress the part.

I went to prep school.  I wore a tie  every day for six years.  I believe 
in a dress code.  And,  incidentally, so do many charter schools, urban 
debate leagues and urban  reform movements, as well as faith based 
movements.   They all  believe in dress codes.  Dress codes at the high 
school level are  very successful in reducing the incidence of crime 
especially in urban  areas, and I'm certain I could get a cite on this if 
I spent more time on  the  issue. 

And yes, I believe educators including debate coaches  should dress well 
and act well and act as role models for their students.  

Certainly Dean Kathleen Hall Jameison of the Annenberg School believed  
this, John Meany believes this, and Tuna Snider, who is as bearded and  
hippieish as they come, has never made a fool of himself in the manner  
that Mr. Shanahan did in this video; to the contrary, Mr. Snider  
conducts himself in a very professional and rigidly academic manner, and  
has through his many years of fine academic experience has EARNED the  
right to dress any damn way he well pleases. 

Charlie Garvin  harvard 74, NDT Champion, had really long hair, but he 
was a Rhodes  Scholar, but when I saw him years later at the harvard 
centennial in 1992,  he cut off all that hair and had a suit on.  In 
fact, of the more  than 400 people at that centennial, not one single 
person had long hair or  a long beard akin to Shanahan, and we had many 
many professors and law  professors.  Larry Tribe has a smallish beard, 
but I can assure you  from having spent time speaking with him that he is 
a rather quiet, low  key person. 

On the video, Shanahan appears to both act and appear like  a lunatic 
with a rage problem about to strike a defenseless woman.   Since she's 
african-american, it also appears to amount to a hate  crime.  I could go 
on to list the number of chargeable offenses, but  that would be 
pointless. The video simply appears to place Shanahan in the  worst 
possible light.

Let's talk about Plato's cave and  epistemology for a second.  Is reality 
the world of appearances or is  there something other than what we see 
and hear?  Are you contending  that there is some essence or form to 
Shanahan other than what we see and  hear?  If so, what is it?  Is there 
a Shanahan-form that I am  supposed to epistomologize and accept as real, 
as opposed to what I see  and hear on videotape?  If so, is it any less 
crazy or weird than  what the Shanahan-appearance is?

In my simple  Quine--Reichenbach-Popper-Kant epistemology, things are 
what they appear  to be.  If I see evidence of RNAi, there is RNAi.  If I 
see  evidence of craziness because a man hasn't shaven for a long time, 
doesn't  wear footwear and dresses like a bum, and then acts out 
accordingly for  eight long, painful minutes on youtube, available 
nationally, well, then,  into Plato's cave he goes, he is what he appears 
to be.  I'm not  about to theorize /a priori/ that there is a good 
Shanahan, like there is  god or mathematics.  That's just not necessary 
to my ontology or  epistemology.  I believe in god, I believe in 
mathematics, I believe  that all cretans are liars (and that Epimenides 
was a clever fellow) but I  don't have to believe anything more than what 
I see or hear about  Shanahan.

If there is an inner essence-Shanahan that you contend exists  that we 
should be arguing is the real Shanahan, please, please, please  explain 
it to me.  From what I read on the posts, the  Shanahan-appearance on the 
youtube isn't the only one with anger problems;  at least once of the 
posts indicates that Shanahan has had anger problems  for a long, long 
time and has problems with anger management.    People with those 
problems generally tend to have serotonin re-uptake  issues (see science 
magazine and elsewhere) and would do better on  SSRIs.  He should see a 
shrink and get some meds, and some anger  management counseling, and stop 
giving debate a bad name with such rants  on youtube.  He may have 
underlying depressive issues as well  contributing to his anger and lack 
of grooming.

Sorry to paint it  like a shrink, but that's what I see and hear.

I like to see normal  people coaching my kids.  My oldes kid is a 
straight A+ student in  9th grade.  She's already a hell of a debater and 
a terrific lacrosse  player.  If you think I'm turning her over to some 
nut job who looks  like rasputin, you're crazy.  I want her to be with 
sports coaches  and debate coaches who look and act professional and are 
moderate in their  dispositions.

I think what you're missing here is the parent's point of  view.  There's 
no way I'm shelling out 50 thousand bucks for some  professor who looks 
like Shanahan or acts like Shanahan.  And be a  fundraiser too? 

You may not appreciate this, but I'm middle of the  road joe.  I like 
golf, the seashore, watching the ballgame, and I  don't decide which 
candidate to vote for until the debates are actually  over.   To me, the 
guy appears a little bizarre.  If you  want to make a kritik argument 
about my worldview, go at it. but I would  point out that Max Weber, a 
long time ago, in Politics as a Vocation,  pointed out the virtues of 
professors avoiding entanglement in  politics.  Of course, at that time, 
the professors of Germany were  entangled in right wing nationalist 
militarist politics, and today the  university is entangled in left wing 
politics, but is not the message of  Prof. Weber still to be listened to 
today?

--art  kyriazis


MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated  8/5/2008 3:23:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
>  akbiotech at comcast.net writes:
>
> In  addition to the  foregoing, I guess I would have to add that in 
> addition to   appearing to be very much out of his mind during the video, 
> Coach  Shanahan  was barefoot, poorly dressed, poorly kempt, had at least  
> several months  growth of beard, very long uncombed hair and  appeared 
> very much like a  person who was living on a street or  a homeless 
> individual.    The very last thing he looked  like was a responsible 
> teacher, coach or  person that I would  entrust the care 
>  ______________________________________________________________________
>   
> Are you for real?
>  
> I'm not defending any action  on that video (on either party), but the  
notion 
> that additional  blame needs to be focused on Shanahan for the way he  
dresses 
>  is, simply, ridiculous.
>  
> Shanahan has looked that way  for as long as anyone can remember.  I can 
> pretty much guarantee  that he was dressed in that manner when he  
interviewed for 
> the  position at Fort Hayes. Shanahan has always gone  barefoot.  
>  
> Your standard was not adhered to by anyone on that  video (CEDA executives  
> included) and is open to so many angles  of kritik that the mind boggles at 
which 
>  one to launch  first.
>  
> Your concerns about the behavior displayed on  the video are justified. 
Your  
> criticisms of his appearance  opens a window to your own worldview that I 
don't 
>  think many  will find very substantive or appealing.
>  
>  
>  Bear
> Louisville, KY
>
>
>
>  **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your 
budget?  
> Read reviews on AOL Autos.      
>  
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017  )
>
>    







**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? 
Read reviews on AOL Autos.      
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/27b92228/attachment.htm 

From carrolltondebate at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 19:05:23 2008
From: carrolltondebate at gmail.com (Joseph Carver)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:05:23 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Available to Judge Clarion University Tournament
In-Reply-To: <4898D0B0.7030508@comcast.net>
References: <mailman.1.1217955603.25783.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
	<4898D0B0.7030508@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <dd6539040808051705o4204b5e2k6874802973c99f6d@mail.gmail.com>

Counter offer:

You drive the Kyriasakamistakis mobile to Ann Arbor tonight and I will give
you fifteen buck a round to judge my camp tourney debates. You can ever
dress like it's a funeral

JC

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Art Kyriazis <akbiotech at comcast.net> wrote:

> Dear Folks:
>
> I'm available to judge at the Clarion University PA tournament.  I'm based
> outside of Phila.  the drive is @ 310 miles each way for me, which is about
> 6-7 hours each way.  I'd need to drive all day thurday and much of sunday or
> monday plus i'd require full reimbursement in advance for housing thursday,
> friday, saturday and possibly sunday (preferably you pay with your credit
> card).  I have no objection to sharing rooms to save money or to being
> housed.
> i'd want to be paid for judging fees for all the rounds, plus mileage (310
> miles x 2 x 50 cents per mile = $310) plus an hourly fee for travel each way
> (7 hours x $30 x 2 = $420).  Alternatively, I could fly to Pittsburgh, rent
> and drive to Clarion or you could pick me up from the airport in pittsburgh.
>  the airfare varies but usually only US air flies the route, and its usually
> around $300 or more roundtrip unless i book in advance.  the tournament
> looks like six rounds plus at least one elim = 7 x $30 = $210.
>
> finally, if you're coming through philly you could pick me up.  i'd still
> want to be paid for travel time as well as judging time and lodgings.  just
> email me and we can work out details.
>
> --art kyriazis
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080805/16561d97/attachment.htm 

From privethedge at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  5 20:10:17 2008
From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] reply to bryant
In-Reply-To: <bd0.34e7fe5c.35ca38c0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <223712.5254.qm@web50911.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

You know.. I've been thinking about this video....at first I was..well..outraged to see a debate professional conducting themselves in that matter (however, I understood the dress thing - what you wear doesn't matter - it's what you say) - but then I thought "what if, at the second each of us had done something shameful, something rash, something that wasn't thought through, someone had a video camera and captured it for posterity.."
?
There's two ways to look at it: The capture of that act would brand us as irrational idiots for life, or the capture of that incident would just represent a single moment in time in our lives and we shouldn't be judged soley on the incident.
?
I hope that the community takes the second approach with the professors in question. Holding sins against people is easy, forgiving sins is tough work - but maybe the world would be better if we forgave..while making the people recognize that the behavior wasn't acceptable.....
?
Just a thought....I know that all of us have minutes in our life, I know I do, that we'd love everyone to take the second approach to..










"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson"
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by??its collision with error." John S. Mill
?Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live."
Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman: "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!"


--- On Tue, 8/5/08, MWBRYANT at aol.com <MWBRYANT at aol.com> wrote:

From: MWBRYANT at aol.com <MWBRYANT at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] reply to bryant
To: akbiotech at comcast.net
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 7:14 PM



Dr. K,
?
I'm sure you don't know me, though I am very aware of most of the people you refer to as examples. I coached NDT, CEDA and parli for over 20 years and qualified 25 teams to the NDT.
?
I understand your "real-world" analysis of how professionals should look. I am required to wear a tie daily as the Department Chair in an urban university setting and I actually teach classes on how students need to act and behave in professional interviews.
?
But, in the 20+ years I was a part of college debate, I never wore ties or blazers. Not as a competitor or as a coach. That was one of the things that attracted me most to NDT policy debate - no matter what one looked like, one's arguments were the focus of any evaluation. If we had been judged on the quality of our suits, I would never have even had the opportunity to win a debate scholarship to a small eastern Kentucky university and be the first member of my family to ever graduate college.
?
Many of the students I coached during my career were also from poor families. If they had been forced to adopt your standard for debate appearance, many of them would've also been denied the opportunity to compete in college debate. I remain convinced that debaters should dress comfortably, and in a manner they can afford.?My job was to help them develop arguments, not appearances.
?
Some of your examples leave me shaking my head - Tuna and John Meany, for example. A fact I bet you don't know: Both Tuna and I have hired Bill Shanahan in the past to work with our debaters. We both knew that while it was always a challenge to co-exist with someone so capable of scrutinizing the ethics of every decision, Bill was capable of accomplishing far more with debaters?than anyone known for their dapper trendy clothing. Bill put on no pretenses - he showed up for his hiring interview dressed virtually the same as you saw on the video. His sample lecture shocked a group of young Mormons by drawing semantic equivalencies between GOD and DOG. He mesmerized a campus by refusing to wear shoes, despite?the sub-zero winter weather of northern Utah.?The real irony is that Bill was the first?coach to have debaters run race kritiks of debate norms. ?
?
And you have obviously missed some periods of John and Tuna's sartorial evolution. 'Nuff said there.
?
Look, if you don't know Bill, you are likely to think he looks strange. I understand. But that's just part of Bill's?approach to life. He pushes EVERYONE to question their assumptions.?Bill and I did not get always get along, but focusing on his appearance seems to be, simply put, shallow. Have you noticed how not a single person in the video (CEDA Execs included) met your appearance standards? I think you simply may have to accept the fact that there are?different community appearance norms in college policy debate than there are on the high school circuit.
?
One last thing I need to say: I am very troubled by what I saw on the video. Like others, I wish I could've seen the entire video. I think that understanding of the conflict that immediately preceded the current video would provide a fuller context of understanding. Still, there is no excuse for?what took place. 
?
And, to be absolutely honest, I felt personal guilt as I watched that video. Seven years away from debate allows me the perspective to understand that many of my own actions as a coach?were indefensible. I recognize that a lot of what I thought I was doing to defend my debaters from the?various forms of unfairness
of institutional?debate simply helped establish a groundwork for the norm of uncivility that seems to currently prevail. I feel like shouting out props to the Towson posse for exposing just how bad?behavior?has become. I know I need to apologize to my own students, associates and colleagues for allowing my own belligerence to?make their experience with debate?less civil than it needed to me. Particularly to Steve Clemmons and Doug Dennis, I expressly want to apologize?for actions I now believe were rooted in racism. Maybe others were even worse than I was, but that doesn't negate that I feel ashamed for the part I played. 
My sincere hope is that the debate community can learn from the current experience and learn to act as if there was always a camera pointed at them. If this could possibly happen in a way that doesn't sacrifice people's careers, I think it is possible that some real progress might transpire.?
?
In any event, these issues are too significant to be linked to shallow concerns over appearance.
?
Back to work,
?
Bear
Louisville, KY
?
?

In a message dated 8/5/2008 5:55:02 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, akbiotech at comcast.net writes:
Dear Bear:

Well, I am for real.? I was an attorney for fifteen years and I've 
worked in private industry the last ten years and I teach business 
school on an adjunct basis, and my students dress well because they want 
to work in business.? I do so accordingly because I need to set an 
example for them.? In the high school and college debate leagues around 
philly and locally here we dress quite well.? I was a prep school debate 
coach last year and I can assure you that last year and this year at 
PCFL and interac league matches many coaches wore ties, and the vast 
majority blazers.? All the years I organized urban debate for the 
Philadelphia Bar Ass'n, I always wore a tie, unless we were down to the 
last round of policy debate and it was finals and we had like five 
judges, I might then loosen my tie.? My supervising dean at my prep 
school wore a tie and jacket each and every day and this year he's 
working at an even better prep school in new york.? Upwardly mobile 
people dress the part.

I went to prep school.? I wore a tie every day for six years.? I believe 
in a dress code.? And, incidentally, so do many charter schools, urban 
debate leagues and urban reform movements, as well as faith based 
movements.?? They all believe in dress codes.? Dress codes at the high 
school level are very successful in reducing the incidence of crime 
especially in urban areas, and I'm certain I could get a cite on this if 
I spent more time on the? issue. 

And yes, I believe educators including debate coaches should dress well 
and act well and act as role models for their students. 

Certainly Dean Kathleen Hall Jameison of the Annenberg School believed 
this, John Meany believes this, and Tuna Snider, who is as bearded and 
hippieish as they come, has never made a fool of himself in the manner 
that Mr. Shanahan did in this video; to the contrary, Mr. Snider 
conducts himself in a very professional and rigidly academic manner, and 
has through his many years of fine academic experience has EARNED the 
right to dress any damn way he well pleases. 

Charlie Garvin harvard 74, NDT Champion, had really long hair, but he 
was a Rhodes Scholar, but when I saw him years later at the harvard 
centennial in 1992, he cut off all that hair and had a suit on.? In 
fact, of the more than 400 people at that centennial, not one single 
person had long hair or a long beard akin to Shanahan, and we had many 
many professors and law professors.? Larry Tribe has a smallish beard, 
but I can assure you from having spent time speaking with him that he is 
a rather quiet, low key person. 

On the video, Shanahan appears to both act and appear like a lunatic 
with a rage problem about to strike a defenseless woman.? Since she's 
african-american, it also appears to amount to a hate crime.? I could go 
on to list the number of chargeable offenses, but that would be 
pointless. The video simply appears to place Shanahan in the worst 
possible light.

Let's talk about Plato's cave and epistemology for a second.? Is reality 
the world of appearances or is there something other than what we see 
and hear?? Are you contending that there is some essence or form to 
Shanahan other than what we see and hear?? If so, what is it?? Is there 
a Shanahan-form that I am supposed to epistomologize and accept as real, 
as opposed to what I see and hear on videotape?? If so, is it any less 
crazy or weird than what the Shanahan-appearance is?

In my simple Quine--Reichenbach-Popper-Kant epistemology, things are 
what they appear to be.? If I see evidence of RNAi, there is RNAi.? If I 
see evidence of craziness because a man hasn't shaven for a long time, 
doesn't wear footwear and dresses like a bum, and then acts out 
accordingly for eight long, painful minutes on youtube, available 
nationally, well, then, into Plato's cave he goes, he is what he appears 
to be.? I'm not about to theorize /a priori/ that there is a good 
Shanahan, like there is god or mathematics.? That's just not necessary 
to my ontology or epistemology.? I believe in god, I believe in 
mathematics, I believe that all cretans are liars (and that Epimenides 
was a clever fellow) but I don't have to believe anything more than what 
I see or hear about Shanahan.

If there is an inner essence-Shanahan that you contend exists that we 
should be arguing is the real Shanahan, please, please, please explain 
it to me.? From what I read on the posts, the Shanahan-appearance on the 
youtube isn't the only one with anger problems; at least once of the 
posts indicates that Shanahan has had anger problems for a long, long 
time and has problems with anger management.?? People with those 
problems generally tend to have serotonin re-uptake issues (see science 
magazine and elsewhere) and would do better on SSRIs.? He should see a 
shrink and get some meds, and some anger management counseling, and stop 
giving debate a bad name with such rants on youtube.? He may have 
underlying depressive issues as well contributing to his anger and lack 
of grooming.

Sorry to paint it like a shrink, but that's what I see and hear.

I like to see normal people coaching my kids.? My oldes kid is a 
straight A+ student in 9th grade.? She's already a hell of a debater and 
a terrific lacrosse player.? If you think I'm turning her over to some 
nut job who looks like rasputin, you're crazy.? I want her to be with 
sports coaches and debate coaches who look and act professional and are 
moderate in their dispositions.

I think what you're missing here is the parent's point of view.? There's 
no way I'm shelling out 50 thousand bucks for some professor who looks 
like Shanahan or acts like Shanahan.? And be a fundraiser too? 

You may not appreciate this, but I'm middle of the road joe.? I like 
golf, the seashore, watching the ballgame, and I don't decide which 
candidate to vote for until the debates are actually over.?? To me, the 
guy appears a little bizarre.? If you want to make a kritik argument 
about my worldview, go at it. but I would point out that Max Weber, a 
long time ago, in Politics as a Vocation, pointed out the virtues of 
professors avoiding entanglement in politics.? Of course, at that time, 
the professors of Germany were entangled in right wing nationalist 
militarist politics, and today the university is entangled in left wing 
politics, but is not the message of Prof. Weber still to be listened to 
today?

--art kyriazis


MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/5/2008 3:23:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,? 
> akbiotech at comcast.net writes:
>
> In? addition to the foregoing, I guess I would have to add that in 
> addition to? appearing to be very much out of his mind during the video, 
> Coach Shanahan? was barefoot, poorly dressed, poorly kempt, had at least 
> several months? growth of beard, very long uncombed hair and appeared 
> very much like a? person who was living on a street or a homeless 
> individual.? ? The very last thing he looked like was a responsible 
> teacher, coach or? person that I would entrust the care 
> ______________________________________________________________________
>? 
> Are you for real?
>? 
> I'm not defending any action on that video (on either party), but the? notion 
> that additional blame needs to be focused on Shanahan for the way he? dresses 
> is, simply, ridiculous.
>? 
> Shanahan has looked that way for as long as anyone can remember.? I can 
> pretty much guarantee that he was dressed in that manner when he? interviewed for 
> the position at Fort Hayes. Shanahan has always gone? barefoot. 
>? 
> Your standard was not adhered to by anyone on that video (CEDA executives? 
> included) and is open to so many angles of kritik that the mind boggles at which 
>? one to launch first.
>? 
> Your concerns about the behavior displayed on the video are justified. Your? 
> criticisms of his appearance opens a window to your own worldview that I don't 
>? think many will find very substantive or appealing.
>? 
>? 
> Bear
> Louisville, KY
>
>
>
> **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? 
> Read reviews on AOL Autos.? ? ? 
> (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
>
>?? 








Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos._______________________________________________
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/20080805/66887a1c/attachment.htm 

From akbiotech at comcast.net  Tue Aug  5 20:14:46 2008
From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Art Kyriazis)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:14:46 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] reply to Carver
In-Reply-To: <dd6539040808051705o4204b5e2k6874802973c99f6d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.1.1217955603.25783.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>	
	<4898D0B0.7030508@comcast.net>
	<dd6539040808051705o4204b5e2k6874802973c99f6d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4898FB06.6050005@comcast.net>

Note to Mr. Carver:

as Groucho Marx once remarked, I wouldn't want to join a club that would 
have me as a member.  obviously mr. carver thinks the ceda website is 
some kind of place for posting jokes instead of a serious debate 
website.  I posted a very serious note about my availability to judge at 
two, and only two, tournaments, those being  Kings College and Clarion.  
I specifically emailed the Michigan people that I was unavailable for 
their judging needs due to distance, vacation plans and the 
un-economical nature of bringing in a hired judge all the way from the 
east coast.  I suggested they hire Patrick Rose, Esquire, a former 
Harvard debater, a very highly skilled trial and appellate attorney and 
policy debate judge who teaches appellate advocacy, moot court and civil 
procedure at Thomas Cooley School of Law.

i've been doing this policy debate stuff now more than thirty-five 
years.   I had a pleasant year last year coaching high school debate.  
Guess they're more respectful down there.

I don't expect your immediate respect.  I know I have to earn it.  But I 
take this stuff seriously and I will always flow your rounds and give 
you a fair decision. 

And being serious, there's casual, there's really casual, and then 
there's Shanahan. 

Here's a story.  I remember going to the Grammies and the Sony 
afterparty in New York City with my clients and their friends Tommie 
Morello and Rage Against the Machine about twelve years ago, and even 
rock stars dress in black tuxedo Armani, shirt buttoned, no tie, their 
women dress in slinky designer dresses, and the rap stars dress in 
expensive ski jackets and very expensive sunglasses.  And Armani is a 
designer, not a kritik. 

Now Rage Against Machine is as radical left as you can get.  Their 
website was actually ordered pulled down by the Bush administration 
after 9/11 because it was too radical.  They have spent almost twenty 
years championing the cause of Mumia Abu Jamal's freedom, which in 
Philly is VERY controversial.  And yet they had the courage to come to 
this town and say out loud they wanted the man to be free, even though 
the cops guarding them wanted to kill them for saying it. 

Now I submit, that takes real courage.  Not like hiding behind a 
computer and mocking someone's name.  That is a cowardly and stupid act, 
by contrast.

So, Carver, when are YOU going to do something as brave as Tommie 
Morello and Rage Against Machine?  When are you going to stand up for 
your rights, to quote Bob Marley?  What have you done lately to 
challenge the status quo, if you're so radical?

I mean, there's a dress code and a conduct code even among rock stars.  
You'd think debaters, who truly wish to be rock stars, would have them 
too.  Rock stars dress a certain way and conduct themselves a certain 
ethical way, at least the good ones like Rage and Bono do.  And Tommie 
Morello is really a humble guy. 

--Art Kyriazis


Carver wrote:
> Counter offer:
>
> You drive the Kyriasakamistakis mobile to Ann Arbor tonight and I will give
> you fifteen buck a round to judge my camp tourney debates. You can ever
> dress like it's a funeral
>
> JC
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Art Kyriazis <akbiotech at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: akbiotech.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 397 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/17b4af69/attachment.vcf 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 20:29:40 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:29:40 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] reply to Carver
In-Reply-To: <4898FB06.6050005@comcast.net>
References: <mailman.1.1217955603.25783.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
	<4898D0B0.7030508@comcast.net>
	<dd6539040808051705o4204b5e2k6874802973c99f6d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4898FB06.6050005@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808051829w23d04963w555fa3d2253b6b27@mail.gmail.com>

While your RATM story is actually kinda of interesting, even if tangential,
the point is you are asking a rate for tournament pay that is while maybe
fair compensation for your time, a ridiculous level for this community. I
really wish thats what the pay scale here looked like, i do, but its not,
and unless you can Tommie or Zach to ante up the kinda dough that it would
require to pay those kinda rates i think people are going to mock you a
little when you suggest that a weekend worth of your judging is worth an
appalingly high percentage of their salaries...i mean really, i made 6k for
coaching the ceda national champion last year, not as a bonus, but like that
was my take home for the year...that may not be normal, but most people are
just not gonna pay you what you are asking when a recent grad will do it for
200 bucks some floor space and some taco bell...maybe thats your point and
if you have a means to increase the rates to the level of which you speak i
am all ears, but other wise you just sound kinda insane....

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Art Kyriazis <akbiotech at comcast.net> wrote:

> Note to Mr. Carver:
>
> as Groucho Marx once remarked, I wouldn't want to join a club that would
> have me as a member.  obviously mr. carver thinks the ceda website is some
> kind of place for posting jokes instead of a serious debate website.  I
> posted a very serious note about my availability to judge at two, and only
> two, tournaments, those being  Kings College and Clarion.  I specifically
> emailed the Michigan people that I was unavailable for their judging needs
> due to distance, vacation plans and the un-economical nature of bringing in
> a hired judge all the way from the east coast.  I suggested they hire
> Patrick Rose, Esquire, a former Harvard debater, a very highly skilled trial
> and appellate attorney and policy debate judge who teaches appellate
> advocacy, moot court and civil procedure at Thomas Cooley School of Law.
>
> i've been doing this policy debate stuff now more than thirty-five years.
> I had a pleasant year last year coaching high school debate.  Guess they're
> more respectful down there.
>
> I don't expect your immediate respect.  I know I have to earn it.  But I
> take this stuff seriously and I will always flow your rounds and give you a
> fair decision.
> And being serious, there's casual, there's really casual, and then there's
> Shanahan.
> Here's a story.  I remember going to the Grammies and the Sony afterparty
> in New York City with my clients and their friends Tommie Morello and Rage
> Against the Machine about twelve years ago, and even rock stars dress in
> black tuxedo Armani, shirt buttoned, no tie, their women dress in slinky
> designer dresses, and the rap stars dress in expensive ski jackets and very
> expensive sunglasses.  And Armani is a designer, not a kritik.
> Now Rage Against Machine is as radical left as you can get.  Their website
> was actually ordered pulled down by the Bush administration after 9/11
> because it was too radical.  They have spent almost twenty years championing
> the cause of Mumia Abu Jamal's freedom, which in Philly is VERY
> controversial.  And yet they had the courage to come to this town and say
> out loud they wanted the man to be free, even though the cops guarding them
> wanted to kill them for saying it.
> Now I submit, that takes real courage.  Not like hiding behind a computer
> and mocking someone's name.  That is a cowardly and stupid act, by contrast.
>
> So, Carver, when are YOU going to do something as brave as Tommie Morello
> and Rage Against Machine?  When are you going to stand up for your rights,
> to quote Bob Marley?  What have you done lately to challenge the status quo,
> if you're so radical?
>
> I mean, there's a dress code and a conduct code even among rock stars.
>  You'd think debaters, who truly wish to be rock stars, would have them too.
>  Rock stars dress a certain way and conduct themselves a certain ethical
> way, at least the good ones like Rage and Bono do.  And Tommie Morello is
> really a humble guy.
> --Art Kyriazis
>
>
> Carver wrote:
>
>> Counter offer:
>>
>> You drive the Kyriasakamistakis mobile to Ann Arbor tonight and I will
>> give
>> you fifteen buck a round to judge my camp tourney debates. You can ever
>> dress like it's a funeral
>>
>> JC
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Art Kyriazis <akbiotech at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080805/734d2268/attachment.htm 

From les_phillips98 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  5 20:37:07 2008
From: les_phillips98 at yahoo.com (Les Phillips)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Bravery [ans Kyriazis]
In-Reply-To: <4898FB06.6050005@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <792638.1537.qm@web90405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I have known Bill Shanahan for more than twenty-five years.  His bravery is extraordinary.  He has demonstrated it at every stage of his career. and has taken risks that anyone else would shrink from.  He is also one of the most phenomenally honest people in forensics -- actually, one of the most honest people I've ever met.  He teaches intellectual integrity, and he lives it.  Also, he can reconsider his positions and admit error.  Bill and I have had profound, fundamental disagreements over the years, but I have never doubted his sincerity or authenticity (pace Trilling).  There isn't time or space, here, to get into his enormous contributions to the activity.  

I don't know enough about the quarters round at CEDA to know whether Bill was right or wrong in that situation; but I know who Bill is.

As for attire in the activity:  Mr. Kyriazis, quite simply, the college debate community evolved far away from your standard many years ago, and that is simply that.  Professor Shanahan [forgive me, Bill -- *Dr.* Shanahan] would, of course, be happy to defend your right to wear what you wish to tournaments.

Les Phillips




--- On Tue, 8/5/08, Art Kyriazis <akbiotech at comcast.net> wrote:

> From: Art Kyriazis <akbiotech at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] reply to Carver
> To: "Joseph Carver" <carrolltondebate at gmail.com>
> Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 9:14 PM
> Note to Mr. Carver:
> 
> as Groucho Marx once remarked, I wouldn't want to join
> a club that would 
> have me as a member.  obviously mr. carver thinks the ceda
> website is 
> some kind of place for posting jokes instead of a serious
> debate 
> website.  I posted a very serious note about my
> availability to judge at 
> two, and only two, tournaments, those being  Kings College
> and Clarion.  
> I specifically emailed the Michigan people that I was
> unavailable for 
> their judging needs due to distance, vacation plans and the
> 
> un-economical nature of bringing in a hired judge all the
> way from the 
> east coast.  I suggested they hire Patrick Rose, Esquire, a
> former 
> Harvard debater, a very highly skilled trial and appellate
> attorney and 
> policy debate judge who teaches appellate advocacy, moot
> court and civil 
> procedure at Thomas Cooley School of Law.
> 
> i've been doing this policy debate stuff now more than
> thirty-five 
> years.   I had a pleasant year last year coaching high
> school debate.  
> Guess they're more respectful down there.
> 
> I don't expect your immediate respect.  I know I have
> to earn it.  But I 
> take this stuff seriously and I will always flow your
> rounds and give 
> you a fair decision. 
> 
> And being serious, there's casual, there's really
> casual, and then 
> there's Shanahan. 
> 
> Here's a story.  I remember going to the Grammies and
> the Sony 
> afterparty in New York City with my clients and their
> friends Tommie 
> Morello and Rage Against the Machine about twelve years
> ago, and even 
> rock stars dress in black tuxedo Armani, shirt buttoned, no
> tie, their 
> women dress in slinky designer dresses, and the rap stars
> dress in 
> expensive ski jackets and very expensive sunglasses.  And
> Armani is a 
> designer, not a kritik. 
> 
> Now Rage Against Machine is as radical left as you can get.
>  Their 
> website was actually ordered pulled down by the Bush
> administration 
> after 9/11 because it was too radical.  They have spent
> almost twenty 
> years championing the cause of Mumia Abu Jamal's
> freedom, which in 
> Philly is VERY controversial.  And yet they had the courage
> to come to 
> this town and say out loud they wanted the man to be free,
> even though 
> the cops guarding them wanted to kill them for saying it. 
> 
> Now I submit, that takes real courage.  Not like hiding
> behind a 
> computer and mocking someone's name.  That is a
> cowardly and stupid act, 
> by contrast.
> 
> So, Carver, when are YOU going to do something as brave as
> Tommie 
> Morello and Rage Against Machine?  When are you going to
> stand up for 
> your rights, to quote Bob Marley?  What have you done
> lately to 
> challenge the status quo, if you're so radical?
> 
> I mean, there's a dress code and a conduct code even
> among rock stars.  
> You'd think debaters, who truly wish to be rock stars,
> would have them 
> too.  Rock stars dress a certain way and conduct themselves
> a certain 
> ethical way, at least the good ones like Rage and Bono do. 
> And Tommie 
> Morello is really a humble guy. 
> 
> --Art Kyriazis
> 
> 
> Carver wrote:
> > Counter offer:
> >
> > You drive the Kyriasakamistakis mobile to Ann Arbor
> tonight and I will give
> > you fifteen buck a round to judge my camp tourney
> debates. You can ever
> > dress like it's a funeral
> >
> > JC
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Art Kyriazis
> <akbiotech at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


      

From sethellsworth at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 20:48:03 2008
From: sethellsworth at gmail.com (Seth T. Ellsworth)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:48:03 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Reply to carver
Message-ID: <412d08cb0808051848m185fc460v4db707266109c662@mail.gmail.com>

All name dropping aside carver, you still owe me like two hundred
bucks from like three years ago. at this point i would even take a
public apology to edebate. Like i couldnt pay rent for a month and you
couldnt even sac up and tell me you couldnt pay me. So apologize.

From bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  5 21:46:45 2008
From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Man.....all these convos are getting...hmmm SHITTY
Message-ID: <803973.83606.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

A lot of you are really cowardice and hide behind the online network of edebate, which would be called "internet gangstas" in "black talk." I think all these conversations may have some validity but why not come together in person and discuss them because some of these personal attacks are just ridiculous and if were done in person, one may get their ass whipped. A lot of you talk about what you DO, but some of you in actuality play lip service to these things or create a facade that you do something. Saying that you got some black people on your team isn't an excuse for the whole structural norms of exclusion or alienation that alot of black people who aren't on the Louisville squad feel walking around at tournaments. Most of you fuckers do not even speak when spoken to or bother to say shit like "hi" when you clearly know who someone is in the community, and you claim to be a damn family. Additionally, the white gaze that alot of us feel when we debate in our style makes
 us feel inferior at times, at least me, and it even hurts harder when blacks that claim to be with you are downing you in subtle ways or give a facade of unity. That shit really erks me....i may be venting right now but i really  dont give a fuck !  My black rage has been something i have kept silent since i was a sophmore at Louisvillle, feeling like  i was under a   dictatorial  gaze that could snatch my scholarship in a second if i and others if we didnt obey. 

Some of the judges in this activity claim to be "DOWN" but they be some of the same monfos that pass you in a hall way not acknowledging your existance or care about how you are doing. I also hate when we have to stike people like Greta Stahl or Nikki Barnes because debate shouldn't be a place that we fear that others will be precieved to not have ground to debate us,which is BULLSHIT..if debate gives you so many fucking critical thinking skills go to your damn Africana or black studies department and ask them about ways to answer arguments we make, but i guess that shit is too hard HUH?  i wish these judges would be willing to hear shit we have to say without us being scared of their theortical disposition....and quite soon it may come to the point where we are going to roll some of you for the word choices you make in your judging philosophies to exclude what we do. I need to go back to ADI now....Peace


       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080805/0e431ef9/attachment.htm 

From carrolltondebate at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 21:53:32 2008
From: carrolltondebate at gmail.com (Joseph Carver)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:53:32 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Reply to carver
In-Reply-To: <412d08cb0808051848m185fc460v4db707266109c662@mail.gmail.com>
References: <412d08cb0808051848m185fc460v4db707266109c662@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dd6539040808051953t28d9663em111a45d00c690bd2@mail.gmail.com>

I think  it is spelled "sack" and,as you  may recall, it was not me that
owed you. That said two hundred(  that is what you said,right?) is more than
I would charge to apologize to anyone so sorry. Square? 200 a month for
rent? Man I need to move

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 9:48 PM, Seth T. Ellsworth
<sethellsworth at gmail.com>wrote:

> All name dropping aside carver, you still owe me like two hundred
> bucks from like three years ago. at this point i would even take a
> public apology to edebate. Like i couldnt pay rent for a month and you
> couldnt even sac up and tell me you couldnt pay me. So apologize.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080805/910ae164/attachment.htm 

From lacyjp at wfu.edu  Tue Aug  5 22:11:06 2008
From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy)
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 23:11:06 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Available to Judge Clarion University Tournament
In-Reply-To: <4898D0B0.7030508@comcast.net>
References: <mailman.1.1217955603.25783.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
	<4898D0B0.7030508@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <4899164A.8080004@wfu.edu>

Honestly, this post made me laugh...But, then I thought about it.

I think this post highlights the reality where we live.

Many highly qualified judges are "excluded" from the activity because we 
cannot pay them what their time is worth.

Art's numbers seem absurd at first glance. Honestly, they aren't 
unreasonable to any professional. Do the math.

Thirty dollars an hour equates to a decent job. Not a dream job. Not 
enough to justify four days of travel, especially if you are taking time 
off from work & family.

Most of our tournaments require judges that work at a far lower than the 
real market rate for a weekend of travel & true intellectual engagement.

Alumni judges show up when they have the opportunity, most at a monetary 
loss.

We should celebrate those people. They put in the hard hours to educate 
our debaters in real competition. They do a fantastic job, with little 
financial reward. Far less financial reward than their time is really 
worth. 

Debate funding puts us in a difficult circumstance:

Good judging is, in reality, worth more than any of us are capable of 
paying.

Many alums cannot afford the luxury of judging for "free." (Given the 
time, travel and work expectations.)

I really do hope for a day when we can pay debate alums what it costs 
them to travel & judge at a debate tournament. Their input into the 
development of good debate can be and has been astronomical.

Until then, we rely on dedicated volunteers to judge debates.

(Yes, that definitely applies to *all* you coaches, assistants, grad 
assistants, and everyone else who shows up to judge a tournament who 
could be making 'bank' in the private sector. Compare your pay to the 
fairly reasonable 30 bucks an hour...)

You "volunteer" judges and your passion for debate have built 
generations of great debaters.

Good coaches help, but good judges help more. In all honesty, I think 
debaters learn more from judges than just about anyone else in the activity.

The reality is that most debates teams can't afford to pay people what 
they're worth: A competent professional capable of judging a debate 
round could make a good deal more in similar circumstances.

Until we can reimburse volunteers what they are really worth, we'll 
continue to depend on "volunteers" and their love for debate.

--JP

ps -- For you volunteer judges: Be sure to incorporate your hourly 
travel time, time off work, carbon offsets, gas money, housing costs, 
food allocation, plus entertainment and so on into your tax return. I 
hope I'm not belittling what it takes to get to a debate tournament. If 
it really does cost you more than a grand to judge at a debate 
tournament, you should at least be able to write it off...
 


Art Kyriazis wrote:
> Dear Folks:
>
> I'm available to judge at the Clarion University PA tournament.  I'm 
> based outside of Phila.  the drive is @ 310 miles each way for me, 
> which is about 6-7 hours each way.  I'd need to drive all day thurday 
> and much of sunday or monday plus i'd require full reimbursement in 
> advance for housing thursday, friday, saturday and possibly sunday 
> (preferably you pay with your credit card).  I have no objection to 
> sharing rooms to save money or to being housed.
> i'd want to be paid for judging fees for all the rounds, plus mileage 
> (310 miles x 2 x 50 cents per mile = $310) plus an hourly fee for 
> travel each way (7 hours x $30 x 2 = $420).  Alternatively, I could 
> fly to Pittsburgh, rent and drive to Clarion or you could pick me up 
> from the airport in pittsburgh.  the airfare varies but usually only 
> US air flies the route, and its usually around $300 or more roundtrip 
> unless i book in advance.  the tournament looks like six rounds plus 
> at least one elim = 7 x $30 = $210.
>
> finally, if you're coming through philly you could pick me up.  i'd 
> still want to be paid for travel time as well as judging time and 
> lodgings.  just email me and we can work out details.
>
> --art kyriazis
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


From drmosbornesq at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 23:49:57 2008
From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 00:49:57 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] towson
Message-ID: <39c09a80808052149n48488f60k604d2de1bac5a665@mail.gmail.com>

[x] tl;dr



In the semifinals of CEDA I lost to Towson on a 3-0. During my 2AR I made a
comment about research trying to warrant why policy focus was better than
other in-round stuff. I heard from a few people that I came off as being
exclusionary when that wasn't my intention. The day before the NDT I
contacted Andy Ellis (who I have known for a few years, before I started
college debate, at least) and asked if his debaters felt the same way and he
said yes and recommended an apology. I went to their room but they were
gone. Luckily, I ran into them after taking team pics. The Towson squad and
maybe some non-Towson people (I don't really know their team that well so I
didn't recognize many people) were sitting at a table in the banquet room so
I figured it was a good chance to talk to them. I largely kept my plan
secret so I was alone. While the CEDA debate can be seen on youtube, I
wasn't wearing a wire so my apology will forever be up for debate (more on
this later).



I told them I was sorry for coming off like a jack-ass in the semis and that
I didn't mean what I heard people thought I said. I wasn't really of the
opinion that I did in fact say that Kansas belonged in the semis instead of
Towson, but I did not and do not want any image I gained as a racist to
survive longer than it needed to, regardless of how I feel/felt about
Towson's argument and debaters. I also have some experience being told that
I don't belong at a tournament ? when I qualified to the TOC my senior year
of high school, my partner and I as well as Travis Cram (of UW spark fame)
and Becca Fisher were told that we did not "belong" at the TOC on
cross-x.com by sour kids from Manchester Essex. We were the first kids to
qualify from Wyoming in history as far as I know, and it showed (I think
both teams had a total of 3 wins) but the last thing we needed was reading
beforehand that some entitled circuit punks didn't want us at their
tournament.



I took the fall. I admitted to choosing my words poorly, and told them I
didn't mean to exclude them and that I didn't dislike them as people or
anything. Nobody said much to me (at this stage I didn't expect much ? they
hadn't really brought the issue up initially so much as I heard through the
grapevine that I needed to say something) but everything seemed alright. I
even joked about how uncomfortable I was in my dress clothes.



Round 7 of the NDT I am paired neg against Towson. I am 4-2 and had never
previously broken at the NDT (in fact 4 was my new high score in NDT wins!)
so winning this debate was huge to me because I didn't really want to break
new in round 8 just to clear for the first time. Pre-round disclosure seemed
pretty standard, and we obviously had something more to say this time given
the emotional pit I fell into after losing at CEDA (at that point I was
pretty positive that Towson had just ended my best tournament ever) so
everybody just prep'd their stuff. Ermo even asked me what I planned to do
if they brought up the "CEDA thing" but I told him there was no CEDA thing
because I had already ironed it out.



The top of the 1AC was a few minutes about how I am a white supremacist. It
wasn't "your argument is racist" or "framework is racist" or anything like
that so much as Martin Osborn is a racist, and to Martin Osborn, Towson is
just a bunch of "n*ggers." It ended by incriminating my 'condescending and
paternalistic' apology.



I go basically bonkers inside my head but I was confident that we would win
and mainly was focusing on that, instead of getting tilted against a project
team (a chronic problem of mine). 1NC didn't address the claims. 2AC brought
it up again and had a rowdy cx with Clay about white supremacy, etc. At the
bottom of the 2NC I told a quick version of the story I've typed above. The
following cx is unquestionably the most ridiculous I have ever acted in a
debate, and basically started with a question about CEDA and ended with a
big string of me yelling mean shit about how the Towson debaters were lying,
etc. Somewhere in the middle somebody else from Towson who I don't know is
brought in from the audience to help 'prove' how racist/fake my apology was.
There was apparently too much contestation over the question so the 1AR
"kicked" the "argument." I end up going for hollow hope/Agamben (lol I know
whatever) but I do mention that you can't really kick out of slander.



I debate them again in doubles but the issue isn't brought up.



I run into them in the airport after the NDT and talk to Dayvon briefly
about how I think it was fucked up that they waited until we debated to
inform me that my apology was insufficient. I am told in many words that I
"don't get it." I don't remember but I am pretty sure they didn't apologize
to me for any misunderstandings they may have been party to. I then ran into
Deven in the bookstore (I know, right, it's like a movie or something) and
brought up a similar issue ? his reason for not telling me is that he was
"just too mad" to say anything at the time. Either way, I didn't really plan
on ever seeing/talking to/being friends with these people anymore so these
conversations didn't get much else established. I also had significantly
less motivation to patch this hole than I did before the NDT began.



***



I am not coming to Shanahan's defense. If anything, he was the biggest
catalyst in creating an atmosphere that was downright intimidating to debate
in (I basically scratched the idea of going for T after hearing the speech
about building bridges) and it's possible that my strategy and results would
have differed otherwise. Shanahan also had some *choice words* for Clay and
I after we beat his team in the prelims so we were on unusually bad terms.



For the record I am also not saying I got fucked in the semis. I respect all
three judges (all of whom judged me a week later at the NDT, two of which
were on the doubles panel) and have enough other blown debates to think
about.



The idea that debate isn't at some point competitive is pretty strange to
me. A large part of why debate rounds become intense, awkward, and loud is
because nobody wants to lose. I have always taken solace in the competitive
aspects of this activity and honestly find it intriguing that aside from a
select few, I consider myself on good terms with almost everybody I ever
debated. Greenstein and somebody else posted that they like the idea of
having a throwdown and then drinking afterwards with their opponent. I like
that idea, too, and I don't even drink.



After round 7 at the NDT I was angrier than I had probably ever been about a
debate round. I felt genuinely betrayed by Towson and seriously questioned
my decision to apologize to them. I figured out long before CEDA semis that
debaters like to win and did things that helped them to win and suddenly my
attempt to mend fences seemed almost inappropriate given the competitive
environment (despite being advised to do so by the team's coach, some
onlookers, and maybe a tiny bit by my conscience although I did feel that
what I said at CEDA was 100% misinterpreted by anybody who I'd need to
apologize to).



A public statement would have been SO much better in preempting the "ozzy is
racist" argument in the event we debated again but that wasn't even a part
of my motivation (although it was my initial plan, Russell convinced me that
the political appearance of such a post would probably overwhelm any
meaningful content or goal). On the other hand, my private conversation was
unverifiable and largely secret because I didn't care if other people knew
about it.



Did Towson read that extra part of the 1AC to preempt my deployment of "BTW
judges I said I'm sorry so I'm not racist" or were they trying to convince
the judges that what I had "said" at CEDA was so egregious I should lose
this debate, too? Was it planned to include the person in the audience in cx
or was he just watching his team?



I can think of a lot of competitive reasons why Towson would have waited
until we debated to reveal their opinion of my apology. The likelihood that
this was just a public service announcement seemed and seems pretty low but
I can't claim to know exactly why they'd choose to start the debate there.
For me, listening to a passionate diatribe about how much of a white
supremacist I am would have been a lot different after the CEDA debate,
after the CEDA tournament, before the NDT, or after my apology. I feel that
I would have had more of an opportunity to have a true conversation
unconstrained by time limits and my desire to not kiss my NDT and debate
career goodbye so I could rectify a situation I consider incidental. Instead
I found out during the 1AC when I was pre-flowing, and thinking about the
2NR, and wondering which aff I'd break if I lost, and whether Julian would
vote for T, and ?



Above and beyond the commitment to their goals that I'm sure Towson always
displays in round, there was something else at work during that debate round
and to pretend there aren't strategic elements to Towson's decision to wait
would require a level of naivety I am not comfortable granting to anybody
whose intelligence I respect. The reason depersonalization was introduced in
debate (as I understand) was so people would be forced to debate the merits
of U.S. engagement with communist China back before even Ben Warner was
born. I don't know if total depersonalization is the best model for debate
but it certainly removes the option of turning your opponent into a true,
real-life enemy based on something they said (including all those somethings
you think they said). Discussing deeply personal beliefs and tendencies as a
means to tackle difficult structural issues is one thing ? legitimizing ad
hominem attacks as a means of keeping hostility-based arguments afloat is
quite another.



While there may be some shock value to forcing people into this conversation
during a debate round, it certainly doesn't seem to generate much positive
social change in the way of creating relationships between people who
misunderstand each other. I can't speak for anybody else but my single
attempt to make peace with one of the many debaters who looked at me like I
sold out my ethnicity by going for topicality worked out about as poorly as
I can reasonably envision (but maybe only because I have never seen my own
ass). From this experience springs my conclusion that if somebody genuinely
wants to address racism and other systemic problems within and with the
debate community, a debate round might not be the best place. The
conversation cannot and will not revolve solely around the non-competitive
goal of one or both teams. Far more likely is that the team who loses feels
like they have been swindled and an honest discussion never actually takes
place.



I've come pretty close to making this post a lot of times, although it
almost never is written out with this amount of restraint. It angers me that
Adam Jackson-5, Deven, and others behave as if Towson (and their supporters)
have been "face to face" on the issue instead of relying on "rumors"
regarding racism in debate when I feel like I attempted the former in
response to the latter and basically got burned. If transparency is
important to this conversation, it seemed pretty irresponsible of me to not
make this post at some point.



Ozzy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/635f0843/attachment.htm 

From proudsavage at gmail.com  Tue Aug  5 23:57:46 2008
From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 00:57:46 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] To assface
Message-ID: <9b5963440808052157h64411a32v5666eab0e86d39aa@mail.gmail.com>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

i could go into a whole lot about why you are wrong here but i dont really
care about you that much and it seems engaging you only ever makes it worse.


please know that i dont care about that round and even the Missouri state
debaters that won know they preffed you as a five for a reason,  i honestly
believe everyone in that round tuned out your decision to avoid catching the
stupid as it flew from your bigoted face.

if you dont know why suggesting the "negroes" get their own  league is
racist than fuck, there is nothing Ede or Jackie or anybody can say that
might make you any less of  an asshole.

im not a nihilist you might know that if you were literate enough to know
that the arg you watched Bard run was specifically its opposite. again, did
i mention that i think you are stupid?
 im serious this time, dont fuckin reply to me or talk to me, or back
channel me or try and friend me on facebook(why you did that i cant
understand) i am intolerant of the intolerant and you sir are a common and
classless bigot masquerading as bridge builder...  go back to raping pigs
and leave this community alone, judging from the number of back channels i
got thanking me for saying what needed to be said  they don't like you
either.

post script---

i feel sorry for the debaters that have to work under this idiot and i think
one of the best lessons we can gain from this whole debacle is that those
kids are not Scott, just as Towson  CL is not  Andy,  the Fort  is not
Shanahan (sic), and it goes without saying that my debaters are not
responsible for my antics. as these discussions get heated it is important
to keep in mind that we coaches are there to assist our debaters and not to
play out our hatred for one another through their argumentative practice.
this activity is theirs and no matter how much we all sit around fighting
with one another, ultimately the direction this activity takes is their
decision   to make and we can resist them and end up a relic or try to hang
on and do whatever we can to help them do with it as they see fit.






On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:29 PM, <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> Your team lost because their methodology got turned. It was a pretty damn
> good
> turn too- the argument was not that you did not have the perfect
> affirmative,
> but trying to sell the perfect affirmative as a form of advertisement was
> bad--even if it was satirical.  The more I thought about that round, the
> more I
> am convinced I made the right decision. So, really, get over it. I have
> been
> cordial to you before and after the round--even when you a temper tantrum
> baby
> about losing a 5-0 to 5-0 round. But, you can be what you want, which is a
> pompous asshole.
>
> Your rant about Towson was and is way off the mark. I thought Towson won
> the
> round against the Fort. I watched the round. Ask anyone who spoke to me
> during
> and after the round. I thought the round was going to be a 3-0 for Towson
> after
> the cross ex of the 1NC.  So, I am not sure what you are talking about. I
> thought it was a brilliant strategy against a team that was going to run
> position on competitveness. My debater and I laughed as we left the round
> to
> catch our plane back home. We thought the round was exceedingly clear--for
> Towson. I even congratulated some of the Towson folks. Don't try to
> misconstrue
> my arguments with Ede as some indictment of Towson's performace at CEDA
> Nats. I
> watched them in two outrounds, before we left. Thought they won both pretty
> decisively. You can label me all you want for other things, but on this one
> you
> are being your typical arrogant self.
>
> That being said, I think debates like these are a logical conclusion of
> several
> norms that have spread in the community. Why this is "racist," I do not
> understand. When debates become personal indictments of the students and
> their
> coaches pre-round actions, you have debates devolve into fist fights and
> rage--similar to the rage you espose in your posts.
>
> Why telling Ede and others that merely debating about debate does not solve
> the
> real issue(s) of diversity in debate is racist, I do not know.
>
> I have not seen much of a contribution from you. I have no respect for you
> either. So, in the end, get over it and climb back into you nihlist hole..
>
> Love always,
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>


-- 
Stephen M. Davis
Head Debate Coach
Bard College
proudsavage at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/fde5f49f/attachment.htm 

From gacggc at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 00:22:05 2008
From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:22:05 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] That time again to update judge philosophies
Message-ID: <8371758b0808052222k49d48d5bxf89b0bc655d09f05@mail.gmail.com>

Since the debate season is apparently already starting, now would be a
good time to update your judge philosophy here:

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Wed Aug  6 01:24:30 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 02:24:30 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Take it to the streets!
In-Reply-To: <803973.83606.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <803973.83606.qm@web65413.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <48990B22.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Deven says:  "and it even hurts harder when blacks that claim to be with you are downing you in subtle ways or give a facade of unity. That shit really erks me....i may be venting right now but i really  dont give a fuck !  My black rage has been something i have kept silent since i was a sophmore at Louisvillle, feeling like  i was under a  
dictatorial  gaze that could snatch my scholarship in a second if i and others if we didnt obey."


Dear Deven, 

Yep...the ignorance of your post demonstrates to the debate world why you were kept on a short lease... 

Let's be clear:  It wasn't just a gaze, you were on "lock-down" because you are an angry, immature, selfish, little boy who cares about two things: Deven and Deven winning.  Your own peers, colleagues, friends at Louisville (and I use that term loosely, you did go through five partners in less than six months), told you to shut up a whole lot more than I ever did, "even if" they don't like me either.  Don't forget, I remember Mr. "I Love Traditional Debate" Deven who scoffed at what Louisville did when the NDT weekend started in 2004, but by the quarters at the end of the weekend B-more Boy was jumping at the bit to sign up!...And then you win a championship and don't have the decency and respect of your elders to acknowledge my role in your success, praising everyone at Louisville except me, because you are bitter that you chose to leave just because I changed the strategy, putting yourself in dire financial need.  Amazing, I should have left your pathetic, selfish behind in Baltimore...You think you are grown now, ready to show out for the debate folks who love protest, anarchy and anti-establishment talk...There hasn't been one Black civil rights leader that ran a "do what you want" camp for good reason...Traitors and toy soldiers like you.  And stop lying, no one snatched your scholarship, you quit.  You quit because you couldn't do or say anything you wanted in a debate.  I'm happy you found a place that you could...I'm even happier it wasn't Louisville! 

Now, as for "facade's of unity," let's clear that up too:  I was showing you dumb butt compassion and empathy because it was in the greater interest of Black folks to do so, in spite of your unwavering commitment to a winning strategy at all cost, and with you're lack of regard about what was in the long term best interest of Black folks in this community. You right now are using what should be a productive educational moment about race in this community to "vent" your personal beefs, with no regard for Shanara, your team, your coaches, or the rest of this community of decent folks.  Not surprising though.  And by the way, bill shannahan didn't just vote for Liz and Tonia on "those arguments," he voted for you too, many times.  It's called balance and objectivity, something you seem to lack any of. 

All of this anger and hatred because I wouldn't let y'all run around and call people racist all the time, and vent your anger in undisciplined ways, and somehow you think that means I'm not down?  Down with what, the racist idiot movement?  You are dumber than you look, sound, and write.  Even as you disrespect that I created the foundation for every bit of the theory you use to win your championship, I stayed publicly above your insults and bad mouthing of me all over the place.  You are no more than a parrot, lacking an original thought, especially with regards to debate strategy.  We both know that.  

Now I let you disrespect me once publicly and I should have checked it then, but like DMX, I chose to "turn my back on you"  out of respect for your championship and the struggles you legitimately went through to get there.  But not this time, no more cheeks to turn.  I don't like you and a burden was lifted from my shoulders when you and your hate mixed with self-absorption  left my program.  There is a word for people like you and it doesn't end with an empowering "a". 

I told you many things, tried to give you valuable life lessons, most of which you ignored.  One of which was I told you that you never go part-way with this.  If you are going to be a real soldier, go all the way.  Now, you want to selectively air dirty laundry? Naw partner, I'm not having it!  You see, you are just simple-minded enough to think that I'm the only one with something to lose here, and you seem to think that I'm afraid like one of those "internet" gangstas you speak of.  But I'm willing to go all the way:  mutually assured career destruction and the whole nine...Why?  Cuz' I'm a true believer in what I'm doing and I know my purpose on this earth...And not you, your anger, your pettiness, or you're unwillingness to let by-gones be by-gones can hurt me.  So we can do this now online, or at Georgia State face to face, or wherever since the student thinks he is ready for the teacher.  Let's see who is really the coward...Here's a topic to get you started... 

Resolved:  Doc Warner should be terminated as Director of Debate for the dictatorial way he treated Deven and the other debaters in 2005.  

You are affirmative, so let's go.  Come on...my job against your future.  Those are decent stakes since you don't have anything to lose, at least not now, and I have a career and a family at stake.  Given I have all of these totalitarian skeletons that you appear ready to unleash, you should be the odds on favorite.  Let's see who can destroy who more publicly...After you get me fired and I destroy your educational career, we can call each other's prospective job interviews and send dirt, you know like negative recommendation letters.  We can make the destruction of each other an obsession until both are in ruins!  You know, some War of the Roses stuff...You might as well go for it all since you want to play with Pandora's box.  Let's see if you fare better than your boyz that already tried to have me fired...Where are they now?  Flunked out? Waiting tables?  

You have so much too learn about what a gangsta really is... 

Your move ingrate, 

Doc 

P.S. - Hey, Deven's opponents, feel free to use any part of this in debates this fall. There will be so much more coming shortly.
 Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
ewarner at louisville.edu 
http://uofldebate.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/54155715/attachment.htm 

From bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 03:31:03 2008
From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 01:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] WOW YOUR INTERESTING...DR. WARNER
Message-ID: <111301.24303.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

  LOL 
..Dude please as if you didn?t care about winning at all
coming back from tournaments when we would go 0 or 2 or 3 out of  8
you?d be pissed at us and throw rants about how we were lacking, but yet it was a problem in coaching. And your right I was immature, selfish, and angry and we all can work on our imperfections but I see your name calling doesn?t change much...how about let those past people say it for themselves but oh
their not on the team anymore nor graduated from the program cause they were kicked off or quit
.And your just WRONG about the partner situation because in all 2 years at Louisville I debate with  JOHN, SHAUNTRICE,PAUL, and STEPHINE
..Don?t think that?s 5 in 6 months..You know why I didn?t give you credit because none of the people on your team came to watch any of our out rounds, which was suppose to be a norm on the team to watch black people if they break
and yea I could have thanked you for the morning that you came in and told the team to
 choose between YOUR wife or Paul and I

or do you forget we were put off the team right then and there when the team would decide..
and we were called back and for the sake of not having a prorated scholarship I came back, or could I thank you for the constant picking at me because I wasn?t changing fast enough for you, or I could have thanked you for pushing me to have to quit, making the environment uncomfortable with the constant cussing out we?d get. 
  I guess calling the UDLs a plantation was in the best interest of the community too huh? And By the way bill only voted for us once out of the 4 times he judged us if you want to check debateresults. You didn?t create the arguments I used
you advocated them
I?m sure bell hooks, Tim Wise, Charles Mills, Shelton K. Hill (thanks for the Hill article by the way) others created those args that you no longer felt were useful
Original thought? Yea ok as if the strategy we used to win CEDA wasn?t an original thought
I guess MPJ is an original thought that is really working for Louisville
.and there is quite a few words for you but I won?t call names like certain ?grown ups?
  Sir I never said you should be terminated, you said that
..you always want to take stuff to the extreme without dialogue
I won?t debate that cause that?s what you base your life around is debating so I won?t give you that pleasure. But I see you would enjoy trying to destroy someone in public with all your vindictiveness.  You destroyed my educational career enough with your facade of family at Louisville, and sir the other may be in other situations but I wasn?t going let you be the one impediment to my potential success. I don?t care what you have at stake
I don?t want to come in between your family and job
.but damn I see the level that your on man
.guess you had that bottled up for a while LOL
  WOW opponents can use this in debates? Cool
whatever that means 
  I?m not even going to engage you anymore because I?d be participating in what I critiqued
You have a great long lived life SIR
..
  
       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/117ad2c7/attachment.htm 

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Wed Aug  6 03:59:58 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 03:59:58 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  Take it to the streets!
Message-ID: <BLU141-W134A373E58C9D3C38F70E0D87A0@phx.gbl>


http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075586.html

_

ede warner writes,
"There is a word for people like you and it doesn't end with an empowering 'a'."

that's beyond the pale. you're openly calling a former student a nigger and you
have the gall to demand that he show you respect. anyone who can talk to a
student like that doesn't deserve one iota of respect, much less a teaching job.
i don't know about dictatorial, but you're certainly a dick.

"Hey, Deven's opponents, feel free to use any part of this in debates this fall."

use WHAT? are you seriously suggesting that cooper's opponents should
refer to him with the same racial slur you just did? should they call him an
"ingrate" as well? ...have you lost every shred of decency?

"So we can do this now online ...".

no, he's under no obligation to respond to you because your post isn't worthy
of response. it negates itself, since you're "using what should be a productive
educational moment" to settle personal beefs. keep your filthy mouth shut.

_

(how many people i used to respect are going to debase everything they
claim to stand for this week? is it naive to hold those who've been around
longer to a higher standard, to expect them to set an example? am i subtly
relying on old notions of 'child' and 'adult' which clearly have no relevance
anymore? ...it's difficult for me to blame students for 'venting' - especially
when they freely admit that's what they may be doing - so long as teachers
act like this. we are witnessing gross violations of the role of educators in
this community, and it's truly disheartening.)
_________________________________________________________________
Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/2f0979eb/attachment.htm 

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Wed Aug  6 06:19:48 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 06:19:48 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] racial microaggression & affirmative anti-racism
Message-ID: <BLU141-W457A6B6081A62890100C1AD87A0@phx.gbl>













http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075580.html

wanted to show some solidarity with cooper's post so that the sentiments
expressed therein aren't passed over as mere 'venting'.

he mentions "structural norms of exclusion or alienation that alot of black
people... feel walking around at
tournaments," as when many participants
don't "bother to say... 'hi'", adding "the
white gaze that alot of us feel when
we debate in our style makes
us feel inferior at times, at least me...".

it might prove helpful to understand such experiences in the context of what
critical race theorists call 'racial microaggression'. here's a law review on the
subject which i hope everyone concerned would take some time to read:

http://www.mediafire.com/?efinm0g4dli
davis, peggy c. 'law as microaggression'. the yale law journal. 98.8 (1989):
1559-1577. (thanks to nathan everson for filling my request so promptly.)

racial microaggressions are subtle insults (verbal, nonverbal, and/or visual)
directed toward people of color, often automatically or unconsciously. the
psychiatrist who first coined the term - chester pierce - wrote in 1974: "one
must not look for the gross and obvious. The subtle, cumulative miniassault
is the substance of today's racism."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_200001/ai_n8894484

davis characterizes racial microaggression as "stunning, automatic acts of
disregard that stem from unconscious attitudes of white superiority and
constitute a verification of black inferiority" (1577).

in the first section of the article, she quotes charles lawrence's seminal essay
which discusses these 'unconscious attitudes of white superiority' at length:

Americans share a common historical and cultural heritage in which racism has
played and still plays a dominant role. Because of this shared experience, we
also inevitably share many ideas, attitudes, and beliefs that attach significance
to an individual's race and induce negative feelings and opinions about nonwhites.
To the extent that this cultural belief system has influenced all of us, we are all
racists. At the same time, most of us are unaware of our racism. We do not
recognize the ways in which our cultural experience has influenced our beliefs
about race or the occasions on which those beliefs affect our actions. In other
words, a large part of the behavior that produces racial discrimination is influenced
by unconscious racial motivation.

-- http://www.mediafire.com/?iyeafyltkd4
lawrence III, charles r. 'the id, the ego, and equal protection: reckoning with
unconscious racism'. stanford law review 39.2 (1987): 317-388, 322.

this 'we are all racists'-idea is easily misinterpreted, and it's telling that the
first response to towson and others who adopt anti-racist projects tends to
be one of immediate denial: 'but i'm not racist' - or as shanahan says after
the c.e.d.a. quarterfinals, "we didn't strike her because she's black".

davis writes that "anti-black attitudes persist in a climate of denial". she cites
research which suggests that contemporary racism expresses itself in ways
that 'protect and perpetuate a nonprejudiced, nondiscriminating self-image':
"anti-black feelings may be masked to the extent that they are displayed only
when there is a nonracial factor that can be used to rationalize them" (1565).

let's briefly return to the dispute between shanahan and reid-brinkley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPt8UVU7bXs

"i have great respect [for shanara]. i mean, there's no way that you make it on
the strike sheet if we're not ranking you highly", says shanahan (5:12s).

she then replies, "yeah you're right, and you still struck me". after a little
bombastic posturing, he explains: "the reason why is because the debaters
felt uncomfortable after the last debate."

she asks, "right, and why did they feel uncomfortable?"
he answers, "because of the points."

given the previous analysis, we might see 'the points' as a "nonracial factor
that can be used to rationalize [anti-black feelings]" - but that's a bit rough
and hasty.

it's rough because 'feelings' are typically understood as conscious, and if
these attitudes really are unconscious, then they're probably also unfelt.

it's hasty because we can almost never substantiate intent here... AND
THAT'S THE TOWSON TEAM'S ULTIMATE POINT: we can't investigate the
souls of those on the fort hays squad. all we can look to are actions. so the
question is absolutely not, are you racist at an unconscious level? that's not
decidable. the question is, are you sufficiently anti-racist in your methods?

recall that the dispute between reid-brinkley and shanahan began because
of an alleged racial microaggression:

"your anger is bullshit ... you fucking look at this kid while he's sitting on the
table shaking his head..." (:5s).

it's the look - what cooper called "the white gaze" - that's the subject of
criticism here. the anger may or may not be there (bill says he's happy),
but the look is also an act, as potentially hurtful as not saying hi, making
a racist joke, or striking a black woman from the judging pool.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5390665162595544147

- that's the c.e.d.a. final round. by my visual guess, there's not a single black
judge on the panel. i find myself agreeing that this is a lost opportunity, one
that the fort hays team is partially responsible for. they're responsible not
because they're consciously racist. i believe them when they say they didn't
strike shanara because she's black. but this defense completely misses the
point: if they sought to 'double' towson's goal of black inclusion, they have to
answer for why they excluded her, because that decision had consequences,
irrespective of their intentions.

gordon mitchell compares towson's argument to a batson challenge:

http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075554.html

really, however, if it were a typical batson challenge, then fort hays'
initial defense would've worked:

The defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial
group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove
from the venire [jury pool] members of the defendant's race. The defendant
may also rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection
practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.
Finally, the defendant must show that such facts and any other relevant
circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges
to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the
defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come
forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky

the argument wasn't that they excluded her from the judging pool on account
of her race, but that they failed to include her on account of her race; it's a call
for affirmative action - a positive ethical obligation to resist white privilege. 

here's an article i found that applies affirmative action precedents to the
selection of jurors: 

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:qGFlYRzXloAJ:www.columbialawreview.org/pdf/Wilkenfeld-Web.pdf

not sure where that stands legally, but the question participants should ask
themselves is, does debate as a forum have an interest in promoting racially
diverse judging pools? if so, are debaters' strikes susceptible to criticism on
that basis?

_

here's some more supporting literature for those interested:
http://www.augsburg.edu/education/edc210/troiano_2007.html
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:FB9gYejKnO8J:psy6129.alliant.wikispaces.net/space/showimage/Constantine%2B%26%2BSue%2B2007.pdf
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:cZAtYDZOJOoJ:www.sps.cmich.edu/train/download/microaggressions.pdf
_________________________________________________________________
Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/4d8c9102/attachment.htm 

From debate.gsu at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 08:39:00 2008
From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:39:00 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] GSU Hotel Reminder
Message-ID: <e06af37d0808060639xde50a91pe2e1b907534d7542@mail.gmail.com>

I know school hasn't even started for most of us, so I concede that this
reminder is a bit premature. However, I've just received the first of my
traditional panicked phone calls from the person managing our block of
reservations at the Marriott. If you have an idea how many rooms you're
going to need, please try to make reservations soon.

On a side note, I know that some of you have made it a tradition to stay in
hotels other than the tournament hotel in the past -- in large part due to
cost concerns. I know that it is possible for you to find cheaper housing in
Atlanta, but I would like you to consider staying at the tournament hotel
this year. We've made a serious effort to reduce housing costs (free
parking! free parking!), and it's really hard to find a hotel that won't
charge us an arm and a leg for elim space if we can't sell out the block.

Thanks for a moment of your time.

Dr. Joe Bellon
Director of Debate
Georgia State University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/47123408/attachment.htm 

From smurfdaddy2010 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 08:53:03 2008
From: smurfdaddy2010 at gmail.com (James Doe)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:53:03 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Some Questions
Message-ID: <a6362bb0808060653m5e039df8j449ee972a95a3c6@mail.gmail.com>

Questions:



Kevin,



First, very insightful. I am liking a lot of what you have to say. I do have
one question. Is it not sufficient reasoning for ft hays to strike someone
if that judge gave them 27s? That team had a decent amount of success last
year. A 27 is pretty bad. Like it or not, points are inflated. If I saw a
judge who had given my kids a 27 on a strike sheet, They would be the first
to go. You do mention this, I just want some clarification on where you
stand. If in the CX one of the fort debaters says. "She gave us 27s" Is that
necessarily proof of some veiled racism?



Deven,



You get very passionate when you debate. That is great. But, you seem to
understand, or at least acknowledge, that it makes some of your opponents
uncomfortable. After debates, they may feel like you really don't like them.
They may feel like you don't want to talk to them. If one of your opponents
refuses to run anything but Topicality when they debate you, would you still
want to talk to them? If they approach you in the hallway and offer a kind
hello, will you do the same? Can you two be friends? This may seem really
odd, and I am sorry for that. But you make arguments that address the way
that debaters interact with each other outside of the debate round. Some of
your charges are pretty heavy. So the question is. If Topicality is used to
protect the structural norms that exclude you, and one of your opponents
refuses to read anything but topicality, are you willing to put that fact
aside outside of debates so that that debater and you can get along?



To all of you discussing how and under what conditions we should or should
not create different debate leagues,



Do these new debate leagues exclude debaters who want to talk at 100 mph and
read politics disads? Is it ever ok to read a politics disad at 100 mph?
Yes, politics disads are dumb. But, some people have FUN reading them.
Debate can be powerful. Debate can also be FUN. Is there a place for fun in
these new organizations?



Despite all that has happened, is the current NDTCEDA format really that
bad? Towson won Nationals. Then they did pretty well at the NDT. Fullerton
has had a lot of success of the years. So has Louisville. Even if debaters
debate some way during some debates, and another way in other debates, if a
balance can be struck that allows everyone to participate, why do we have to
split up CEDA and NDT. Yes there are problems. Yes there is a place for
arguments like Towson. But debaters will prepare, arguments will evolve,
debates will happen, and debaters will learn something in the process. Do we
really need to separate people based on what kind of arguments they run?



PS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/02e8bc9c/attachment.htm 

From debate.gsu at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 09:16:59 2008
From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:16:59 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Updated GSU Hotel Reservation Link
Message-ID: <e06af37d0808060716l279d2667w4644dfb3e913069c@mail.gmail.com>

It looks like the original link the Marriott gave us isn't working. They
have supplied a new one. It is:

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/ATLNE?groupCode=gdugdua&app=resvlink&fromDate=9/19/08&toDate=9/23/08

I have updated this link on our web site (what you get sent to from
debateresults.com, also). You might want to re-load that page if you've been
to it recently before trying to access the reservation link that way.

Let me know if you're having any trouble reserving rooms.

Thanks,
Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/ae863947/attachment.htm 

From gacggc at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 09:19:34 2008
From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:19:34 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Professional Conduct
Message-ID: <8371758b0808060719q57ad64a6v17562fde7b58402d@mail.gmail.com>

Though quite new to college debate, after having spent >30 years
coaching high school, it does seem necessary to urge everyone to
remember some things... but to say in advance that these are
observations anyone could make, and do not come from any particular
place of privilege:



1)  Educators have a particular professional responsibility to their
students... actually to all students.


2) Teaching does not end at the classroom door; everything you do and
say can be held up to contextualize your teaching, both negatively and
positively.


3) Professionals are asked to adhere to codes of conduct.  This may in
many instances require them to subjugate feelings and to alter
behavior to be in compliance with this code.  These required norms
have evolved for the protection of the subjects of  each profession,
but now clearly also exist to protect the professionals as well.


4)  This is an open forum, as is college debate itself.  What goes on
here and at tournaments does not happen in some closed-away place.  In
particular edebate is archived and searchable, and people can, will
and should be held accountable for what they write here.  This goes
for students as well as teachers - and since students will live longer
past their writings here, they risk being held accountable longer for
things which in prior times would have been unsearchable and
unknowable.


Before you post, you are urged to take a few steps away from your
computer, and consider the multiple contexts that exist in which your
behavior can and will be judged, including by people outside of the
debate culture, who have their own standards and contexts.

From bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 10:04:20 2008
From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:04:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] To James Doe
Message-ID: <66059.24856.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

  You get very passionate when you debate. That is great. But, you seem to 
 understand, or at least acknowledge, that it makes some of your opponents 
 uncomfortable. After debates, they may feel like you really don't like them. 
 They may feel like you don't want to talk to them. If one of your opponents 
 refuses to run anything but Topicality when they debate you, would you still 
 want to talk to them? If they approach you in the hallway and offer a kind 
 hello, will you do the same? Can you two be friends? This may seem really 
 odd, and I am sorry for that. But you make arguments that address the way 
 that debaters interact with each other outside of the debate round. Some of 
 your charges are pretty heavy. So the question is. If Topicality is used to 
 protect the structural norms that exclude you, and one of your opponents 
 refuses to read anything but topicality, are you willing to put that fact 
 aside outside of debates so that that debater and you can get along?
   
  Although I don?t like when people just run T on us
we can def be friends with them later on
.there are quite a few people here at ADI that it would seem as though I wouldn?t want to engage if the argument was true that I didn?t want to be-friend people who run those things on us. If they were to speak I would def speak back
it wouldn?t be any hard feelings unless it was like the situation Martin Osborne expressed where he felt Kansas BJ deserved to be in our place at CEDA because they were policy focus
I see he says that happened to him but it is no excuse that both of his apologies were insufficient
he never says I APOLOGIZE or IM SORRY
but kept making clarifications of what he was saying
.and in a sense I?m glad his feelings were hurt because it lets him feel the hurt that we feel after a lot of debate where we get fucked over. It was kind of a punk move to say it in the 2ar where we couldn?t respond. But overall if he sincere about his apology then maybe I would
 believe him but I just don?t
.
  
       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/becfa16b/attachment.htm 

From bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 10:04:30 2008
From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] To James Doe
Message-ID: <610850.3293.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

  You get very passionate when you debate. That is great. But, you seem to 
 understand, or at least acknowledge, that it makes some of your opponents 
 uncomfortable. After debates, they may feel like you really don't like them. 
 They may feel like you don't want to talk to them. If one of your opponents 
 refuses to run anything but Topicality when they debate you, would you still 
 want to talk to them? If they approach you in the hallway and offer a kind 
 hello, will you do the same? Can you two be friends? This may seem really 
 odd, and I am sorry for that. But you make arguments that address the way 
 that debaters interact with each other outside of the debate round. Some of 
 your charges are pretty heavy. So the question is. If Topicality is used to 
 protect the structural norms that exclude you, and one of your opponents 
 refuses to read anything but topicality, are you willing to put that fact 
 aside outside of debates so that that debater and you can get along?
   
  Although I don?t like when people just run T on us
we can def be friends with them later on
.there are quite a few people here at ADI that it would seem as though I wouldn?t want to engage if the argument was true that I didn?t want to be-friend people who run those things on us. If they were to speak I would def speak back
it wouldn?t be any hard feelings unless it was like the situation Martin Osborne expressed where he felt Kansas BJ deserved to be in our place at CEDA because they were policy focus
I see he says that happened to him but it is no excuse that both of his apologies were insufficient
he never says I APOLOGIZE or IM SORRY
but kept making clarifications of what he was saying
.and in a sense I?m glad his feelings were hurt because it lets him feel the hurt that we feel after a lot of debate where we get fucked over. It was kind of a punk move to say it in the 2ar where we couldn?t respond. But overall if he sincere about his apology then maybe I would
 believe him but I just don?t
.
  
       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/ec37f667/attachment.htm 

From acasey3 at ucok.edu  Wed Aug  6 10:33:31 2008
From: acasey3 at ucok.edu (Andrew Michael-Don Casey)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:33:31 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Public Thanks
Message-ID: <4890304.1218036811532.JavaMail.acasey3@ucok.edu>

Don't mean to interrupt the chaos...in all fairness im almost getting a 
slight chuckle out of some of this. which is just what i need after the 
last week.

But, I'd like to thank everyone who sent support to my family and I 
during our difficult time. After 5 days of ICU and 1 day pediatric care 
at Integris Baptist Hospital my son Keegan was officially discharged 
from the hospital yesterday around noon. We are incredibly relieved to 
finally be home and have keegan back to almost 100%. The intubation 
period wore him out but In the next few days he should be back to his 
regular self.


once again thanks to everyone who called, sent texts, flowers, or 
emails. It is much appreciated!

-AC


-----------------------------------------
**CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may
contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information.  Any
unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.

From drmosbornesq at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 10:51:23 2008
From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:51:23 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] To James Doe
In-Reply-To: <66059.24856.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <66059.24856.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <39c09a80808060851x45366779o7c92df8ac8026c62@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not sure how much of this post is directed at me (obviously I can
construe a reason why almost all of it is directed at me, and not just James
Doe) so I'll just discuss the parts with my name in them.

I never went for T against Towson so I'm going to assume that this
'situation' comes only from the KU comment. I seriously encourage anybody to
look up the video on youtube - search for <ermocito> and find the CEDA semis
video. If you don't want to watch the whole thing, I believe the comment in
question is made around 1:38:50 but if not I am not misleading anybody I
just have a piss-poor memory. If you interpret what I said there as "KU
deserves to be in semis, not you" then I'm actually surprised that whatever
patchwork of words I threw together in an attempt to apologize couldn't be
translated into an "I'm sorry." I do not remember my exact words at all
during my apology so I suppose I can't confirm 100% that I said the words
"I'm sorry" but my whole purpose in finding them was to apologize (I can
verify that to some extent with the gchat I had with Andy Ellis and an email
exchange with Jason Russell if anybody is interested) both for the
misunderstanding as well as any exclusion they felt as a result.

I wasn't glad that your feelings were hurt, and there is quite a bit more
debate about what I said in semis than there is regarding your comments
round 7 of the NDT. If part of your strategy is to hurt the feelings of
anybody who tries to apologize (so I/they can see what it's like - since
obviously I had no clue) then this community is in for a wild ride.

If you were just "too angry" to let me know what was going on at the time, I
can't really refute or resent that. Maybe it was just really good (or in my
case really bad) timing that you somehow found the words before our debate
in California. At the same time, it at least looks like a "punk move" of you
to accuse the debate community, myself included, of being afraid to uproot
racism when the only discussion-time I got was three debate rounds. Although
the initial comment was in the 2AR, it was not impossible for you to respond
to it. Had we never debated again, I don't honestly believe you would have
ever filled me in (certainly not to my face, which you at least pretend to
value). You didn't need to seek me out or anything to set me straight,
either, since I came to you (twice if you count the post-NDT,
post-competitive considerations airport encounter). I can't make you believe
the apologies I made a few months ago, and it's obviously within your rights
to question my sincerity. Regardless, I am not saying it a third time.

ozzy



On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Deven <bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> You get very passionate when you debate. That is great. But, you seem to
> understand, or at least acknowledge, that it makes some of your opponents
> uncomfortable. After debates, they may feel like you really don't like
> them.
> They may feel like you don't want to talk to them. If one of your opponents
>
> refuses to run anything but Topicality when they debate you, would you
> still
> want to talk to them? If they approach you in the hallway and offer a kind
> hello, will you do the same? Can you two be friends? This may seem really
> odd, and I am sorry for that. But you make arguments that address the way
> that debaters interact with each other outside of the debate round. Some of
>
> your charges are pretty heavy. So the question is. If Topicality is used to
>
> protect the structural norms that exclude you, and one of your opponents
> refuses to read anything but topicality, are you willing to put that fact
> aside outside of debates so that that debater and you can get along?
>
> Although I don't like when people just run T on us?we can def be friends
> with them later on?.there are quite a few people here at ADI that it would
> seem as though I wouldn't want to engage if the argument was true that I
> didn't want to be-friend people who run those things on us. If they were to
> speak I would def speak back?it wouldn't be any hard feelings unless it was
> like the situation Martin Osborne expressed where he felt Kansas BJ deserved
> to be in our place at CEDA because they were policy focus?I see he says that
> happened to him but it is no excuse that both of his apologies were
> insufficient?he never says I APOLOGIZE or IM SORRY?but kept making
> clarifications of what he was saying?.and in a sense I'm glad his feelings
> were hurt because it lets him feel the hurt that we feel after a lot of
> debate where we get fucked over. It was kind of a punk move to say it in the
> 2ar where we couldn't respond. But overall if he sincere about his apology
> then maybe I would believe him but I just don't?.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080806/1232b6d1/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Wed Aug  6 10:58:10 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:58:10 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] The 1NC
In-Reply-To: <111301.24303.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <111301.24303.qm@web65416.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <48999197.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

The times we live in...sound bites taken out of context to justify any
point we want to make.  And a good traditional debater is trained to
make as many mini-arguments as they can in a short amount of time to
justify any claim they want to make.  And make no mistake, you Deven,
are very good at offering bits and pieces of stories to construct any
story you want to tell.  But instead of debating the "line by line"
let's engage these pieces of fact with a non-traditional 1NC of sorts. 

 
I begin my 1NC by asking a question: Have you ever seen the movie
"Conspiracy Theory" with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts?  Probably not, no
Black people in lead roles.  But there is this guy who is paranoid, I
mean really paranoid.  He always believes there are plots and people out
to get him and do him harm.  He is always taking extreme actions to stop
the plot that doesn't really exist.  People he knows generally choose to
blow off his crazy behind, but get this:  one day the conspiracy becomes
true.  And people are actually out to get him and all of his past
paranoid preparation serves him well in fighting off the threat.  
 
Well, that describes one of my personality traits, a flaw perhaps,
dunno.  I'm extremely paranoid.  A difference though between Mel Gibson
and I is that I tend to do incredibly extreme things on the front end
that create the conspiracy situation that I fear.  In other words,
people are out to get me because I do things that make people want to
get me.  Ironically, this paranoid creation started in about 1999, about
the same time I decided to radically shake up the debate community with
the first of several extreme decisions.  Even more ironically, you've
benefitted quite a bit from those decisions, even if you don't
acknowledge that you have.
 
So there is a lot of truth in some of your claims about who I am, an
extremist who doesn't always dialogue with students about the decisions
I make. Most of your claims however, are still devoid of context, like
conveniently ignoring the wholly disrespectful things that you or others
did that created some of my extreme moments that you critique, and now
discuss to show the world you are a victim of everyone:  the city of
Baltimore, the Baltimore UDL, the Louisville debate coach, the debate
community, I'm sure there are others.  You are really good at being
disrespectful.  You are also really good at telling stories in ways that
make you the victim.  Well, I'm not so sure you are good at it, as much
as I'm sure that guilt, perhaps white guilt in some cases, and extreme
levels of compassion by others allow people like you to let you get away
with it.  But it doesn't matter.  Back to my story...
 
Tria, that's my wife if you don't remember, always says that it takes
two to create conflict, and if only one is claimed to be at fault, you
probably haven't yet reached the truth.  After sixteen years, the fact
that we are still together is a miracle.  You think the squad room was
in chaos when you were here:  that's was the Barney show compared to
some of the dramatic extreme events that we've engaged one another with
in our home.  The lows have been really, really low, and the highs have
been, well, maniac.  Yet, we both stayed.  I'd like to say it's love,
but Tria has taught me such a greater understanding of my own reality. 
We stay simply, because we have similar levels of self-interest.  You
see Deven, as much as people like to deny it, shared self-interest is
the beginning, middle, and end of a coalition.  And given our big
similarities: our two children, our marriage, and a few other
similarities we share like our love for the humanization of Black
people, no one in this world has more of a similar self-interest to mine
in this world.  That's why I choose to trust her more than anyone in
this world.  Because I recognize that anyone else, at this moment in
time, has a more different self-interest than I do. Which her advice,
which will always be in the context of her self-interest,
 will almost
always benefit me because we have similar needs.  The person most like
you will likely give you the best, most honest, advice because they need
you to succeed for them.  I hope you one day find someone that can trust
enough due to similar levels of self-interest so they can give you
better advice than the choices you currently make.  Anyway...
 
When this all Louisville Project stuff started, I romanticized the
notion of a collective, I never really understood why or how collective
movements began, grew, sustained themselves, or died.  I thought I did,
but I was so naive and wrong.  You see, all that talk of us being a
"collective" in some noble sense of the word, was just an illusion and
the debate community knew that.  Did we debate a similar set of
arguments, dress in similar ways, and have a set of common experiences? 
Sure.  Did that mean we had identical or even highly similar levels of
self-interest?  Nope, not even close.
 
For example, the notion of "winning."  You are so correct that winning
drives me.  In fact, the entire Louisville project was created based on
the belief that I could win with it.  Yep, you nailed that one on the
head.  But again, context is important, there is a question of
uniqueness: I was winning a whole lot prior to the Louisville project. 
I was winning by taking white students, giving them my race arguments
that I had become very adept at creating within the constraints of the
policy framework, and adding their interest in other more traditional
debate strategies and arguments.  Before Liz and Tonia, Corey and RJ,
Jennifer and Ebony, and you with your multiple partners, I won with
Krsna and Dave Meyers, Dave Arnett and Jason Renzelmann, Jonathan
Westbrook and Michael Lee, and even Kate Charles and Kenda Cunningham. 
In fact, had I NOT created the radical team, Westbrook and Lee would
most certainly have competed for a national championship.  I won just as
much, if not more than I won with my predominately white teams doing
traditional debate as I did with my predominately Black teams doing it
differently.  So Deven, winning alone wasn't enough for me. 
 
Or was it?  I was convinced that contemporary debate trained students
to strategically avoid my race arguments and that if we could focus the
debate on just those race arguments, we could win even more.  I wanted
to win solely using my race arguments.  I knew that none of these
coaches could out-debate me on these arguments, nor were they interested
in doing so.  The rest of the game bored me, I no longer found it
interesting.  But these arguments spoke to me, my identity, my life from
long ago in Gary and Detroit.  And I could win with them too!  That
could keep me in debate, no doubt.So I went and found some students
interested in just talking about my race arguments: most of them just
happened to be Black.  But just as important, most of them were products
of middle class, two-parent backgrounds, who desired something more. 
That means they had home-training, they understood the value and
importance of some level of hierarchy and structure.  They also had an
activist yearning.  One last characteristic: most of them weren't
debaters or trained in academic debate or indoctrinated in the culture
of debate.  And that's important.
 
But a few things happened along the way:  the debate community didn't
just lie down and let us make our race arguments, and certainly didn't
let us win. Moreover, the primary bond of self-interest with my new
population of students wasn't solely a competitive one, as was my bond
been with past generations of mostly white debaters.  This new group
didn't come to debate just to win like I had, and like most of the
others I had coached in the past.  They had come to talk about race as
it relates to the debate topic, and winning was a secondary issue for
them.  Both events challenged my original belief about how competitively
successful this extreme idea should be.
 
But in the end, my interactions with several teams and judges, most
not
ably bill shannahan, but also Jon Bruschke, Melissa Wade, Adam
Symonds, James Roland, Toni Nielson, Will Baker to name just a few, I
began to create theory.  Ironically, theory building is a process that
required more than just me, as our debaters, even if not in the same
ways that traditional debaters were trained, how to ultimately figure
out how to make the theories work in the debates.  But that first
population of Louisville debaters, although sharing many of your
frustrations, were generally content with me and Tria at first, then
Daryl, then Tiffany, creating the theory and them figuring out how to
execute it.  It was a partnership based on self-interest that worked.
 
But while that first generation didn't create debate theory, their
perspective on the world certainly influenced it.  What I learned from
them was the limits to competition: when to stop competing, when to stop
trying to win at all cost, when other values became more important than
competitive success in a debate round.  You see, the debate community
could never have taught me that, because they had never been trained to
understand it.  Similar to the end of the Great Debaters, the
predominately white community simply didn't have a shared experience
comparable to the notion of not competing.  And the population of
students whose first priority was to advocate on behalf of race, taught
me that sometimes winning came at the cost of Black humanization, and in
those moments, it was time to stop trying to win.  
 
It was as these two things came together, our interactions with
supportive judges assisting our efforts to win differently, and a new
coalition of people based on the self-interest of wanting to have race
discussions, that we created a theory that could win.  And that's when
you showed up in 2004.
 
In the first generation of 2000, only 1 student was a UDL graduate, and
she had only 3 tournaments in her high school career.  However, the 2004
success changed all that.  Your incoming class was almost all UDL
students, with a couple of exceptions.  This population of students
having been trained in the UDL system totally had a very different value
system, regarding both race and winning.  Most came with a promise of a
style of winning debate that could also promise students access to the
growing racial alienation and frustration that was a by-product of that
success.  The strategy tapped into much of the frustration and
alienation that UDL students generally felt, and African American youth
felt.  The tools we were using to win were in M.L.'s words, creating
more distance from the rest of the community.  So a majority UDL
population of students won less, in a community becoming more
desensitized and distant from the method of winning, and all of that
hostility and frustration was brought home to our squad room.  And for
that, only I can take responsibility for those consequences.  It was
withing this context that your criticisms of me occurred.  And it was
within that context that they should be evaluated.
 
All of that "pre-text" said, we now have your 1AC on the table.  It
seems you have made the following claim: that you are unwilling to
debate the topic because you never said I should be terminated.  
 
Resolved:  Doc Warner should be terminated as Director of Debate for
the dictatorial way he treated Deven and the other debaters in 2005.
 
Kind of a critical aff I guess, unwilling to debate the topic and all. 
However, although you claim to be above the fray, unwilling to engage
the topic, you are just willing enough to just casually throw out there
a few additional insults:  that I intensely care about winning as much
as you do; I repeatedly mistreated you and the other students in 2005; I
take things too extremes without adequate dialogue; you have faults that
I didn't give you time to mature because I lack patience as a grown up
dealing with a child, and that I want to destroy you publicly.
 
What's missing here and it usually is when you engage in your version
of critical r
eflection, is what, if anything, did you do?  How ethically
did you act as these events unfolded and whether or not your actions
created, contributed, or worked to reduce the conflict?  
 
This is classic Deven-speak to avoid responsibility for his actions. 
Just because you don't directly call for my termination when you send
posts calling me a dictator and silencer of your voice, doesn't me that
isn't the affect of such a post, even if I'm a bit paranoid.  Son, there
are consequences to your actions, remember you initiated the very public
decision to call me names, just because you do it indirectly, doesn't
mean you haven't done it.  And when you make that decision to go public
with allegations that can possibly get me terminated and discredit me, I
go to war with you.  And that's where we are at, war.  
 
So get your plastic hat and gun Mr. Toy Soldier.  Cuz' remember, policy
debate teaches us that an allegation unanswered is an allegation
believed.  And I let this slide publicly once already, so this time it's
shoot to kill.  And a bunch of y'all been whispering and screaming these
white liberal "Warner's a dictator scare tactics" for quite a while. 
Guess what, when the folks that teach you to fight the power and resist
all authority get bored with their fiat fantasy: they will cut their
hair, stop smoking weed, put on a suit and get a job and accept
authority all over the place in their lives.  
 
You however, WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER have that privilege which is why
you should really think twice when following the "it's all about the
student doing whatever they want, whenever they want crowd."  People
training you that debate is about individual empowerment and say and do
whatever you want, that's white privilege talking, something you don't
have.  Without sending crazy emails on the listserv, your chances of
getting a job are about the same as a convicted white male felon.  That
CNN story was deep, wasn't it?   But keep believing you have the same
privilege as those who teach you to fight all authority in a search for
individual empowerment.  Jennifer used to call that a being set up on a
"boo-boo" mission.
 
I remember more than anything, a comment you once made in one of your
many moments of frustration: "all you tell us Doc is about taking
personal responsibility for our actions."  You were utterly, utterly
frustrated by my repetition of this apparently "conservative" political
statement.  I see you still don't get it.  You, as an over 20 year old
grown man, want to selectively imply that we have an adult-child
relationship at times, and then casually throw disrespect at someone in
ways that can get you fired, scholarship taken away, even killed,
whether directed at a man or boy.  Then you turn around and expect or
feel entitled to some sort of protection, as if that's unconditionally
my role, even now that I'm no longer your coach, in the name of a
mission statement.  Even as quick as you make verbal accusations that
could threaten my career, you attempt to just back off and act like I'm
the aggressor.  Who is telling you this is acceptable or smart behavior?
 Is this what debate trains you to believe?  In your words, WOW...
 
Yeah, I'm going after your ability to compete because that's the only
thing that matters to you.  It matters so much that I saw you commit
sickening acts of unethical behavior over and over again in your single
focused quest for competitive success.  While we both have competitive
urges, mine have limits and yours don't.  So the next time you try and
flip a coin so it lands on a predetermined side so you could be
affirmative, or the next time you sneak a peek at other people's files
before a debate to try and get the opponent's strategy, remember that I
was the one who used my totalitarian power to admonish you and tell you
these acts were over the line.  I'm blessed and thankful that some
people have crossed my life's path along the way that taught me how to
create some limits and context and purpose for those competitive
de
sires, something it's apparent you still haven't learned.  But guess
what, you've got a championship...but you might want to hold on tight,
'cuz if I have anything to say about it (and I will) a repeat is going
to be a real, real rocky road.
 
I got my pen out, ready to flow the 2AC...hope you got an add-on or
something.  How about some Tria swore at me stories or I play hardcore
rap in the van...I can't wait to add some context to those.  I got some
serious privilege stuff ready for the block...Time to spread out the
1AR!
 
Doc

>>> 

From: Deven <bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com>
To:<edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/6/2008 04:31 AM
Subject: [eDebate] WOW YOUR INTERESTING...DR. WARNER
LOL 
..Dude please as if you didn?t care about winning at all
coming
back from tournaments when we would go 0 or 2 or 3 out of  8
you?d be
pissed at us and throw rants about how we were lacking, but yet it was a
problem in coaching. And your right I was immature, selfish, and angry
and we all can work on our imperfections but I see your name calling
doesn?t change much...how about let those past people say it for
themselves but oh
their not on the team anymore nor graduated from the
program cause they were kicked off or quit
.And your just WRONG about
the partner situation because in all 2 years at Louisville I debate with
 JOHN, SHAUNTRICE,PAUL, and STEPHINE
..Don?t think that?s 5 in 6
months..You know why I didn?t give you credit because none of the people
on your team came to watch any of our out rounds, which was suppose to
be a norm on the team to watch black people if they break
and yea I
could have thanked you for the morning that you came in and told the
team to choose between YOUR wife or Paul and I

or do you forget we were
put off the team right then and there when the team would decide..
and
we were called back and for the sake of not having a prorated
scholarship I came back, or could I thank you for the constant picking
at me because I wasn?t changing fast enough for you, or I could have
thanked you for pushing me to have to quit, making the environment
uncomfortable with the constant cussing out we?d get. 
I guess calling the UDLs a plantation was in the best interest of the
community too huh? And By the way bill only voted for us once out of the
4 times he judged us if you want to check debateresults. You didn?t
create the arguments I used
you advocated them
I?m sure bell hooks, Tim
Wise, Charles Mills, Shelton K. Hill (thanks for the Hill article by the
way) others created those args that you no longer felt were
useful
Original thought? Yea ok as if the strategy we used to win
CEDA wasn?t an original thought
I guess MPJ is an original thought that
is really working for Louisville
.and there is quite a few words for you
but I won?t call names like certain ?grown ups?
Sir I never said you should be terminated, you said that
..you always
want to take stuff to the extreme without dialogue
I won?t debate that
cause that?s what you base your life around is debating so I won?t give
you that pleasure. But I see you would enjoy trying to destroy someone
in public with all your vindictiveness.  You destroyed my educational
career enough with your facade of family at Louisville, and sir the
other may be in other situations but I wasn?t going let you be the one
impediment to my potential success. I don?t care what you have at
stake
I don?t want to come in between your family and job
.but damn I
see the level that your on man
.guess you had that bottled up for a
while LOL
WOW opponents can use this in debates? Cool
whatever that means 
I?m not even going to engage you anymore because I?d be participating
in what I critiqued
You have a great long lived life SIR
..

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/7282725e/attachment.htm 

From bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 11:26:34 2008
From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 09:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] DR. WARNER
Message-ID: <968720.45086.qm@web65411.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

May God Bless you and your Family...Have a Great Day!

       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/3613cd33/attachment.htm 

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Wed Aug  6 11:27:22 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:27:22 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  Some Questions
Message-ID: <BLU141-W459D63230485395652C374D87A0@phx.gbl>


http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075591.html
_

thanks for your reply, and i'll respond from the bottom up.

james doe: "If in the CX one of the fort debaters says. "She gave us 27s"
Is that necessarily proof of some veiled racism?"

no, because almost nothing could prove veiled racism. that we live in an
era of unconscious racism is an uniqueness argument, and that racial
microaggressions abound is an impact argument. the link has nothing to
do with accusations of veiled racism; the link is striking a black judge, and
the internal link story is racial homogenizaiton of the judging pool, no
matter the intent.

doe: "If I saw a judge who had given my kids a 27 on a strike sheet, They
would be the first to go. You do mention this, I just want some clarification
on where you stand."

well, you're citing common practice. towson's argument is that sometimes
the typical way of doing things entrenches white privilege, and that race
consciousness is a necessary remedy. this means rethinking the normal,
business-as-usual practices of exclusion.

that said, i'm not sure where i stand, other than judges, coaches, and
other participants should be open to these arguments, should give them
fair weight, and understand them in some detail before reacting to them
in a knee-jerk manner. i hope i've at least demonstrated that 'we're not
racist' is non-responsive.

d: "Is it not sufficient reasoning for ft hays to strike someone
if that judge
gave them 27s?"

let's stipulate a fact i'm not convinced of, but that may help to clarify what's
at issue: let's stipulate that the striking of reid-brinkley increased fort hays'
odds of advancing farther in the tournament. now the question is clear-cut:
should fort hays have to shoulder the burden of decreased success in order
to keep a black judge in the pool?

to most competitors, the answer must seem like a no-brainer: they should
not be expected to take such a competitive hit. (and that's why towson and
others shouldn't let them get away with an argument like this, and should be
able to defend a reid-brinkley as a fair judge with no more risk of dropping
them than any other judge: there's no speaks in out-rounds, and unless they
contribute more to a showing of irrevocable bias than some vague feeling of
discomfort, all they have to do is do a better job to pick up her ballot, etc.)

but here we've reached the peculiar realm of social conventions. why not
clip cards, for example? it's difficult to enforce formally because it's difficult
to hear whether someone is reading all of the card if they're spreading at a
break-neck speed. yet not clipping cards may decrease one's chances of
competitive success.

ok, you say, 'but that's playing dirty'. and i'd agree. i believe the advice a
coach should give their debaters here is to simply ask, do you really want
to win that way? no one else may find out, but you'll know, and that may
leave you wondering whether you could've won without clipping. so, why
risk a hollow victory?

what i'm getting is this: how do we decide what's dirty and what's not? why
is clipping cards cheating but hoarding evidence not (cross-apply the debate
commons argument)? and how do we go about instituting new conventions,
so that things we thought legitimate yesterday are now discouraged and/or
prohibited?

i really don't want to single out fort hays here because that's scapegoating
a single team for what's effectively the debate consensus; the question i'd
hope more squads would ask themselves when striking judges is, do you
really want to be the team that makes the pool less diverse? do you really
want to win that way? why risk a hollow victory?

for example, had towson not won c.e.d.a., and lost on a close decision, we
might've been left to wonder whether a more ethnically diverse judging pool
would've led to a different result. ...and i wouldn't want the kansas team to
be left wondering that - not even for a second.

this is what i meant by forum-preserving practices. they may seem anti-
competitive at first, until you realize they're exactly the conventions which
give meaning to competition. and because we know that next to nothing will
change in this activity unless it affects the distribution of ballots, i've got no
problem with teams such as towson pressing their opponents on the issue. i
mean, if you run a squirrelly, non-topical case, then debaters have a tool to
deal with you called topicality. i'm only trying to help refine some new tools
that've already proven themselves effective.

...fair enough?

_________________________________________________________________
Get more from your digital life.  Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/c60139bb/attachment.htm 

From resolt2 at email.uky.edu  Wed Aug  6 12:13:39 2008
From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:13:39 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] 2008 HENRY CLAY INVITATION
Message-ID: <F5BC85B8534D524DB972D2B2731CA53F29CA704723@EX7FM01.ad.uky.edu>

Attached is the invitation to the 2008 Henry Clay tournament at the University of Kentucky.

It is also posted on debateresults.

Roger Solt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/458afb98/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2008 HENRY CLAY INVITATION updated
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 43520 bytes
Desc: 2008 HENRY CLAY INVITATION updated
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/458afb98/attachment.obj 

From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu  Wed Aug  6 12:23:21 2008
From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson)
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:23:21 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] MPJ - the root of all ...
References: <489879E7020000330002CDB9@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu>
	<489892F6020000330002CDD4@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu>
	<489997B9020000330002CE8E@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu>
Message-ID: <489997B9.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu>

I typically hesitate to enter any edebate discussions when the temperature rises but since one of the sub-texts of the discussion at least for some participants is that none of this would have happened were it not for MPJ, I'll try to offer a couple of perspectives based on my 22-year involvement with the tab room at CEDA Nats ( in that time observing tab room preference, judge ratings, pure random assignment, 5% strikes, 10% strikes, 20% strikes, 4-category pref, 9-category pref and now ordinal pref). 

While there are a number of topics with respect MPJ that deserve discussion, let me focus on the question most germane to the current argument - the propriety of making an in-round argument based on a strike card.  In the specific case, my quick take is that it was, in fact, justifiable given the advocacy of both teams in the round and the fact that the strike card is already a uniquely "public" act given that unlike the underlying pref sheet, both teams can presumably figure out who the other struck (except in cases where a team strikes no one or both teams strike the same person - scenarios that can be easily confirmed by the tab room).

But before I advocate opening Pandora's Box, let me change the scenario slightly and ask whether we would still consider the argument to be germane.  Let's imagine that the Fort had not, in fact, struck Shanara.  Knowing the positions that they were going to take in the round, they chose to not strike anybody.  Now it's the tab room policy that would drive the choice.  Just so everyone knows, the tab room has a specific policy as to how that choice would be made.  Two principles would be in operation.  The first is that the computer assigns each of the five judges to the strike card in a specific order where the first judge assigned is the one who is "most preferred - most mutual" and so on.  Given that fact, the tab room avoids ambiguity or argument by taking the last judge assigned off of the panel if the strike cards would result in a four-person panel.  But there's one exception that would be relevant here - if the last person listed is a woman or minority, the tab room would not unilaterally take them off the panel in order to be consistent with the tournament invite's stated goal of promoting diversity.

But let's change it slightly.  Let's imagine that the tab room did not have the final caveat about not taking women or minority judges off of the panel.  And let's imagine that Shanara was the 5th person listed (I have no idea where she was on the card).  In that case, we could imagine that in addition to critiquing tab room policy, the argument MIGHT have been that Shanara was listed last only because the Fort hadn't preferred her as highly as Towson so that the Fort was tacitly striking her by virtue of filling out the pref sheet in some particular way in the first place.  Would the content of their original pref sheet be germane, particularly since its content is not readily discoverable like the strike card would be?

Or let's go the next step.  Let's imagine that Shanara didn't even appear on the card (and that she wasn't assigned to another quarters debate).  Can Towson make the argument that the Fort is complicit in the fact that no African-Americans were on their panel since they could have filled out their pref sheet in such a way that they would have appeared.  And if that's germane to the argument, can we demand disclosure of the underlying pref sheet to attempt to resolve the argument.  Or, alternatively, can we make the tab room disclose the judges that appeared on all of the other cards to verify that she wasn't struck from some other debate.

What do we do with this Pandora's Box?

GARY


From ostertaglives at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 13:54:25 2008
From: ostertaglives at yahoo.com (Jay Hawk)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Frustrating and Saddening
Message-ID: <854242.65992.qm@web46409.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

As an alum with limited ability to actually spend time with the activity and people that I came to love with every fiber of my being, this board is increasingly becoming something very tragic.

The striking amount of disrespect, lack of civility, and simple bullshit is truly disturbing.  Do you understand that this is a public board, where all sorts of folks (alums, administrators, prospective debaters, etc) check-in on the activity?  These people are the key to the future of the activity as they are what provide financial support and future debaters.  Lose them, and you lose the forum.  And, IMO, the tone of these discussions is a quick way to lose these people.

You will find no person who loved college debate more than me.  I gave a huge chunk of my life to the activity as a debater, coach, and now as a alum.  Given the tone of these discussions, I would be very hesitant to encourage my son to do the activity right now, as it seems to losing the humor, love, and joy that made it transformative for me.

When, or if, you leave the activity you will value the bonds you have formed with your friends in debate far more than the success of any particular argument.  These bonds should transcend opinions on arguments, but are impossible to form if people insist on acting like pricks and taking themselves so seriously.

As an aside, who the fuck is Scott Elliot and why would anyone take someone serious who, non-ironically, had "JD" after their name in an email signature?



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/c63eadb8/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Wed Aug  6 14:34:19 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:34:19 -0500
Subject: [eDebate]  Frustrating and Saddening
Message-ID: <1218051259.4899fcbb704fb@webmail.grandecom.net>

To answer your question, Jay, I am just another person expressing an opinion
about policy debate. I don't sign my name with full qualifications, etc.,
because this is a list serve. Arguments should stand on their own. My claims,
whether you hate them, are just arguments. I do not try to make arguments from
authority. I think students claims have just as much validity on this list
serve. So, I just put my arguments out there and let the chips fall where they
may. If it kills you, you can always hit the delete button. Unlike a lot of
people though, I will stand by my claims. I don't hide under pseudonyms. And, I
think if you will look, most of the vitriol that you have been reading is not
from me, but from people who cannot form an argument. They would rather engage
in name-calling.

Peace,

Scott




From ostertaglives at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 14:41:04 2008
From: ostertaglives at yahoo.com (Jay Hawk)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:41:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Fair enough
Message-ID: <695001.87443.qm@web46410.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

My personal attack on Scott distracted from an otherwise heartfelt post and was inconsistent with the point I was trying to make.  As such, I regret making it.

I just hope that the community is not as hostile to each other as this board makes it seem from the outside.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/61d9cd86/attachment.htm 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 14:44:38 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:44:38 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] If its war you want...
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808061244h21dd96acjba333763b2cceaa6@mail.gmail.com>

Then so shall it be...

I'm not going to engage you in a debate about deven, deven will handle
himself, but just like with mel gibson some people are actually listening to
you, and the words you say about the UDLs as you attack deven  have meaning,
but they also betray how detached you are from what is actualy going on,  i
won't simply  defer to you and watch you do the kind of damage you did  with
the plantation metaphor .

So you like to ask people questions about meaningful black participation let
me ask you a few

What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the
workforce?
What are YOU doing to decrease meaningful black participation in the
prisons?
What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the
economy?
What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the
education system?

we have data from baltimore to back up what we are doing, and people working
on things that are far bigger than this conversation, and debate as VIK says
is a means to an end. An end you profess to care about but seem to think
will only occur through better policy debates. It won't . Debate can help
and be part of a process, but better debates that speak to topical minority
issues will only help so much, though they no doubt play a part of the
process.

also WHAT are YOU doing to increase black leadership in college debate? Have
you created new programs that are now headed by black folks? We are trying
and have asked for your help and advice, and invited you to attend our
college summer camp and our tournaments, but with one exception you do
nothing, so im gonna stop asking you and lead, and create opportunities for
those folks who may not fit your middle class standards of structure and
value.

Heres another question, What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black
particpation in the middle class you seem to admire so much?

so if you are gonna wage war on deven and towson and the UDLS then i am
ready, you have speant to long attacking people who won't respond to you,
and have declared your intention to hurt a person and a movement that
actually exists in the real world and you simply won't get to just do that.
I'm not attached to a team, I'm not scared, and im not gonna defer to the
played notions of change you have propagated and i have internalized for the
last several years.

You don't have to respond now i wont, i will be busy trying to make sure we
have the money to create the kind of jobs you point out rightly are not
currently available. So flail about all you like, when i have done my work i
will answer you.

Andy Ellis
Managing Director
Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/48ada147/attachment.htm 

From baltimoredebate at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 16:57:06 2008
From: baltimoredebate at gmail.com (Adam Jackson)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:57:06 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] YOU MOTHERFUCKIN' RIGHT
Message-ID: <722d7390808061457n3f378dbfl36fba603db31630c@mail.gmail.com>

Ede...
I've come a long way from the nerdy, quiet, conservative Baltimore kid you
knew to the man you know today. I've done a 180 turn in the way that I think
about life debate and people (with a little help from you).

Also, I think that everyone in the community (including myself) has an
immense amount of respect for the work you have done the past few years in
the DC, and you are (as DB describes) one of the best visionaries in debate.

However...

I (like Andy) will not allow you to disrespect my colleagues, my team and
(most importantly) my family through internet postings. Most of the time I
ignore what you say and move on with my day because I don't want to give you
the satisfaction of fucking up my mood. But the shit you've been saying
moves WAY beyond debate Ede...you're disrespecting us...and I'm not having
that shit.

If you're gonna spend your time and energy keeping someone who's supposed to
be you're student from achieving success because you're salty about never
winning a national championship when he was at your school, then there's no
reason for you to fuck with me or my family.

You can sit an PRETEND like you're the uber-revolutionary who's changing the
activity....when the reality his...you're just another coach who fell off,
and now Towson is at the forefront....and I know it hurts, but at this
point, I don't really give a fuck.

You are a grown ass man, if you want to build coalitions and help advance
the movement, then the next time you wanna post something to eDebate, stop,
think, and pick up the phone, and call us....otherwise....Fuck your rantings
and bitterness because I'm not taking this shit from someone who's supposed
to be my ally.

Cut this shit out Ede.

Side note: Whoever "vacuous vacuous" is....If I ever find out who you are,
and I see you at a tournament, I'm puttin' that ass to sleep. Not a
threat...a promise.

-The Real Adam J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/8e0025c8/attachment.htm 

From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu  Wed Aug  6 17:27:43 2008
From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:27:43 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] NCA 2008 - Registration Reminder - TODAY is the
	DEADLINE
References: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899EFBBA55@blue.EDUBEAR.NET>
Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6C7C@blue.EDUBEAR.NET>

Just a reminder to all that your NCA registration is due today. They will remove you from the program is you don't register by today. My reminder from last month is below, more detailed, and includes a link. Since the web archives will scrub the link, here it is actual and broken up:

www DOT natcom DOT org/members
 
www.natcom.org/members
 
Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
(O) 417-836-7636
(H) 417-865-6866
(C) 417-496-7141
AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna
GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments)

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Morris, Eric R
Sent: Mon 7/28/08 12:02 PM
To: edebate
Subject: [eDebate] NCA 2008 - Registration Reminder



I also used the NCA All Academic system to remind people - BUT, just in case.

 

NCA this year is REQUIRING early registration by August 6 (a week from Wednesday) for all convention presentations. If you are not registered by that date, which includes payment, they will remove you from the final convention book. This is a new enforcement mechanism, and while it's not one that I would have chosen, I would hate to see anyone excluded because of forgetting the deadline. Thus, this is a reminder. 

 

The letter NCA sent me (and presumptive other presenters) says that, if you use a paper copy to register, they want it by August 1 to process it. That's this Thursday!

 

If you choose to register online, you just go to www.natcom.org/members. I just did this - it took maybe 2 minutes. They ask that you don't wait until the last moment, so to avoid a last minute rush that crashes their system and risks leaving people out. In my case, the greater danger would be forgetting - so, I encourage you to do it today instead!

 

If you are scheduled to present but aren't planning/able to register by August 6, please backchannel me. It's not clear whether or not we'll be notified in any other way by NCA. Although I doubt that we'll be able to do anything to protect panels from depleting, I am sure the CEDA leadership would like to know where we stand, in case there are any options to be explored...

 

Dr. Eric Morris

Assistant Prof. of Communication

Director of Forensics

Missouri State University

901 S National Ave, CRA 375

Springfield, MO 65897

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/1446c2e8/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Wed Aug  6 17:38:55 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:38:55 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Are you serious?
In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0808061244h21dd96acjba333763b2cceaa6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9368bc9b0808061244h21dd96acjba333763b2cceaa6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4899EF82.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

No rest for the weary...
 
Let me get this straight:  you are coming at me like I started this?  Hostile email from the guy who claims he tried to get Deven to acknowledge my contributions to their success during the final round, only further demonstrating the lack of ethical boundaries and out of control behavior that I'm speaking of.  Now you want to run to his defense like I'm treating him unjustly?  You can't check him, but when he shows his figurative behind by randomly calling me out publicly, when I'm showing support for what they are doing, in spite of my concerns and misgivings, you want to challenge me for fighting back?  And then declare him a leader of some type of movement?  And you are suprised that I have legitimate concerns about whites attempting to raise these children...Are you serious?  Or is your issue that you are frustrated that you know I'm right and your decision to attach him to your movement puts the whole thing at serious risk?  No matter, we got plenty of body bags to go around...
 
Two weeks ago on America's Best Dance Crew, Lil Mama said that the "Boogie Bots" didn't get her excited.  Last week she apologized to them, not for what she said, but because she didn't say it to their face.  Andy, let me apologize for not clearly stating my position on policy debate training and it's relationship to UDL's and how all of it relates to the issue I am currently concerned with, the non-strategic nature of minority impacts in policy debate as this issue relates to increasing effective decision making in a multicultural society.   Give me a moment though, let's dispense with the irrelevant distractions you bring to the discussion because you are falling over your privilege trying to demonize me in an effort to restore some ethical and moral center for Deven. I'm still not sure why my words affect anyone other than him, but I'm sure at some point you'll tell me.
 
What I don't do for Black folks in the prison, economy, workforce, education system, middle class
I don't march.  I don't organize.  I don't protest.  I don't work at soup kitchens.  I don't teach debate in prisons.  I don't volunteer at a homeless shelter.  I don't do anything that I suspect Andy would respect as actively contributing to all of these causes.  Let's be clear:  I think all of these are noble, I just don't do them. I don't directly contribute to any questions in your list, save perhaps education.
What do I do for Black folks
I raise two Black boys.
I am a Black husband.
I am one of a small, minute percentage of Black professors in the nation. And one of only a handful that actually speak to issues of race on my job.
For fifteen years, I went to work daily in a predominately white work environment, in a predominately white city, in a predominately white city, in a predominately white state, in a predominately white country, in a predominately non-white world.
I recently had my job appointment moved from the predominately white Communication Department to Pan African Studies.
I recently entered our debate program into a teaching partnership with the Center for Social and Criminal Justice in the Black Community, where debate will develop and teach distance education programs for Pan-African Studies.
For seventeen years, I have researched and written arguments about the Black condition for use in a predominately white debate community.
For eight years, I have maintained a predominately Black debate team on a predominately white campus.  I have created a program with a net worth of almost $400,000 from an original scholarship and travel budget of less $50,000, with a disproportionate amount of those resources supporting Black students and staff.
>From those experiences in debate, I am in the process of writing books that challenge how we make decisions in American society, decisions that affect Black folks in all of the areas you discuss, whether you believe that these issues are connected.  But enough about who I am...
Plantation rhetoric
Two Black men, one an elder with a terminal degree, the other an undergraduate student, have a public discussion about personal responsibility and respect, after the younger calls out the elder. Then a white man jumps in and feels it is justified to not only enter the discussion but to condemn the elder, questioning the elder's commitment to Black people.
The same white man, ironically, who repeatedly has asked the Black man to participate/fund/support his "urban" outreach endeavors, which I have chosen to not do due to the lack of mutual respect in the relationship. You have supported this dictator rhetoric explicitly and implicitly, even calling me out on a conference panel we sat on, then you wonder why I won't support your initiatives.  Are you serious?
Two years ago, the Black man referred to UDL's as a plantation.  Although he is not affiliated with these programs in any way, somehow this is spun as damaging to the program. Ironically that rhetoric came in conjunction with on-going battles with most of the predominately white college debate community, even when before that he made a good faith effort to come participate at UDL events, only to be met with backlash and disrespect at most of these events. John Davis stood up and insulted me and my program for 45 minutes, and that was during his introduction! No one checked this behavior either.
A Black man creates a different program, using the attributes of collectivity found in the Civil Rights Movement and is called authoritarian throughout this community for those decisions simply because they deviate from the norm. As well as several other names.
Teaching Black students that they should always fight, they should always have autonomy, and that hierarchies are always bad, which is a growing part of debate's empowerment pedagogy, is dangerous for Black and other minority students who will reap disproportionate consequences if they engage in some of these behaviors at the same level white students do, like swearing rants in email posts. The consequences for such behavior is not the same.
Deven, Towson, and UDL's
1990 - Black debate coach writes his first Black argument on the topic.  For ten years, his predominately white teams debate his arguments about Black people.
2000- Black debate coach decides to recruit a predominately Black team.  Met with substantial community backlash when he decides to do this by not speaking fast in debates. Called dictator, totalitarian, for the first of many times.
2001- Predominately Black debate team begins a process of making a general criticism of the debate community as it relates to Black participation
2004- Predominately Black debate team achieves national success with it's general criticism.  Tremendous community backlash accompanies success.
2003-2005 - UDL's invite Black Director to speak at a variety of UDL events.  Often met with hostility and backlash by students, coaches alike. Certainly creates discussion, division at these events as some students and coaches get excited, others hate it.  One of these programs is the Baltimore UDL and Towson University.
2005 - Black Director criticizes UDLs as plantations, speaking specifically to the lack of equality between UDL and non-UDL debate opportunities. Also suggests that larger policy debate community treats UDL's as inferior and UDL officials must challenge those stereotypes.
2005 - Against the wishes of the team, Black Director abandons the general Blackness criticism of the community.  Met with backlash from team and some factions of the debate community.
2006 - Deven transfers to Towson.  He and partner begin to use the general criticism that Louisville abandons.
March 2008- Towson wins national championship with new and improved version of the general criticism.  Black director shows support for their accomplishments and defends them against the huge backlash they face.  Deven then criticizes Black director for how he operates program. Black director choses not to engage his criticism.
August 2008- Towson releases video of a heated altercation after debate.  Black director shows support.  Deven criticizes Black director again.  Black director responses.  White coach "calls" him out for hurting a person and a movement.
Why Policy Debate hurts Minorities, in particular urban youth (which includes UDLs):  Debate training makes minority impacts non-strategic; this requires an abandonment of minority identity (can't strategically address issues important to their identity) during participation; UDL's made up of mostly minorities; Policy Debate hurts UDL students.  And you call this minor because UDL's are doing non-debate things too? WOW!
White Racial Privilege: Let's be clear Andy, privilege operates differently for the two of us.  You confront yours by working tirelessly by creating outreach programs, etc.  I can respect those sacrifices and appreciate them.  But I face a very different set of challenges as a walk through my career.  If I run a program that is decentralized like most, then my program would look like everyone else.  My centralization to force confrontation with white privilege is no different than a white director's decentralization in an effort to "let students find themselves".  I confront my power and privilege with the sacrifices I make to create a program that directly addresses race, as opposed to others that decentralize with the hope that Blacks will show up and be supported in the decentralized system.  And the fact that you and most of the others in the community, haven't spent much time thinking about those differences, and in support and even encouraging my castigation means I got no love, and I haven't had any in a while.  Ironically, I agreed today to go to Kansas City for their Great Debate event in September and now I have to rethink that.  I don't want to come off as a hypocritic.  I'm really sensitive to putting my face in front of these activities if I fundamentally disagree with what is going on, and if my face legitimizes them.   
Finally, I don't care whether you answer me or not.  And the war was originally waged on Deven, not Towson or the UDL's, but if you see it differently, just let me know.  Like Deven, you initiated this, but best believe, I'm going to finish it!  
 
>>> 

From: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
To:eDebate <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/6/2008 03:52 PM
Subject: [eDebate] If its war you want...
Then so shall it be...

I'm not going to engage you in a debate about deven, deven will handle himself, but just like with mel gibson some people are actually listening to you, and the words you say about the UDLs as you attack deven  have meaning, but they also betray how detached you are from what is actualy going on,  i  won't simply  defer to you and watch you do the kind of damage you did  with the plantation metaphor .

So you like to ask people questions about meaningful black participation let me ask you a few

What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the workforce?
What are YOU doing to decrease meaningful black participation in the prisons?
What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the economy?
What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the education system?

we have data from baltimore to back up what we are doing, and people working on things that are far bigger than this conversation, and debate as VIK says is a means to an end. An end you profess to care about but seem to think will only occur through better policy debates. It won't . Debate can help and be part of a process, but better debates that speak to topical minority issues will only help so much, though they no doubt play a part of the process.

also WHAT are YOU doing to increase black leadership in college debate? Have you created new programs that are now headed by black folks? We are trying and have asked for your help and advice, and invited you to attend our college summer camp and our tournaments, but with one exception you do nothing, so im gonna stop asking you and lead, and create opportunities for those folks who may not fit your middle class standards of structure and value.

Heres another question, What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black particpation in the middle class you seem to admire so much? 

so if you are gonna wage war on deven and towson and the UDLS then i am ready, you have speant to long attacking people who won't respond to you, and have declared your intention to hurt a person and a movement that actually exists in the real world and you simply won't get to just do that. I'm not attached to a team, I'm not scared, and im not gonna defer to the played notions of change you have propagated and i have internalized for the last several years.

You don't have to respond now i wont, i will be busy trying to make sure we have the money to create the kind of jobs you point out rightly are not currently available. So flail about all you like, when i have done my work i will answer you.

Andy Ellis
Managing Director 
Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/9c4b9fd1/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Wed Aug  6 17:43:44 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:43:44 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] YOU MOTHERFUCKIN' RIGHT
In-Reply-To: <722d7390808061457n3f378dbfl36fba603db31630c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <722d7390808061457n3f378dbfl36fba603db31630c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4899F0A4.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

So why does he not have to respect me?  And how is this disrespect towards you or the team? Why aren't you checking his behavior?  Why is he allowed to rant on edebate about me?  I'm going to allow you to answer before I engage this, by phone, plane or train Adam.

>>> 
From: "Adam Jackson" <baltimoredebate at gmail.com>
To:<edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/6/2008 05:58 PM
Subject: [eDebate] YOU MOTHERFUCKIN' RIGHT
Ede...


I've come a long way from the nerdy, quiet, conservative Baltimore kid you knew to the man you know today. I've done a 180 turn in the way that I think about life debate and people (with a little help from you).

Also, I think that everyone in the community (including myself) has an immense amount of respect for the work you have done the past few years in the DC, and you are (as DB describes) one of the best visionaries in debate.

However...

I (like Andy) will not allow you to disrespect my colleagues, my team and (most importantly) my family through internet postings. Most of the time I ignore what you say and move on with my day because I don't want to give you the satisfaction of fucking up my mood. But the shit you've been saying moves WAY beyond debate Ede...you're disrespecting us...and I'm not having that shit.

If you're gonna spend your time and energy keeping someone who's supposed to be you're student from achieving success because you're salty about never winning a national championship when he was at your school, then there's no reason for you to fuck with me or my family.

You can sit an PRETEND like you're the uber-revolutionary who's changing the activity....when the reality his...you're just another coach who fell off, and now Towson is at the forefront....and I know it hurts, but at this point, I don't really give a fuck.

You are a grown ass man, if you want to build coalitions and help advance the movement, then the next time you wanna post something to eDebate, stop, think, and pick up the phone, and call us....otherwise....Fuck your rantings and bitterness because I'm not taking this shit from someone who's supposed to be my ally.

Cut this shit out Ede.

Side note: Whoever "vacuous vacuous" is....If I ever find out who you are, and I see you at a tournament, I'm puttin' that ass to sleep. Not a threat...a promise. 

-The Real Adam J.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/91cabdc4/attachment.htm 

From jtedebate at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 17:56:24 2008
From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] If its war you want...
In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0808061244h21dd96acjba333763b2cceaa6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <465931.21650.qm@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Do any of you seriously think this discussion is helping out meaning black participation in debate?  I'm not sure snide remarks and personal attacks between Andy, Ede, and Deven are productive.  Comparing accomplishements and deficits of your respective programs to one-up the others or damage the credibility of the others is both mean-spirited and counterproductive.  This is the opposite of a meaningful dialogue.  I'm not saying "can't we all ust get along," but all of you have worthwhile arguments and perspectives...how about sharing more of those and not childish antics?  There is definitely something to be learned in this issue...and it should be discussed on edebate and elsewhere, but productively.  This is not to say all parts of the discussion have been unproductive, but I hope a little introspection on part of the participants (including, but not limited to the 3 identified here) will rework this discuss productively.

Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote: Then so shall it be...

I'm not going to engage you in a debate about deven, deven will handle himself, but just like with mel gibson some people are actually listening to you, and the words you say about the UDLs as you attack deven  have meaning, but they also betray how detached you are from what is actualy going on,  i  won't simply  defer to you and watch you do the kind of damage you did  with the plantation metaphor .
 
So you like to ask people questions about meaningful black participation let me ask you a few

What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the workforce?
What are YOU doing to decrease meaningful black participation in the prisons?
 What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the economy?
What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the education system?

we have data from baltimore to back up what we are doing, and people working on things that are far bigger than this conversation, and debate as VIK says is a means to an end. An end you profess to care about but seem to think will only occur through better policy debates. It won't . Debate can help and be part of a process, but better debates that speak to topical minority issues will only help so much, though they no doubt play a part of the process.
 
also WHAT are YOU doing to increase black leadership in college debate? Have you created new programs that are now headed by black folks? We are trying and have asked for your help and advice, and invited you to attend our college summer camp and our tournaments, but with one exception you do nothing, so im gonna stop asking you and lead, and create opportunities for those folks who may not fit your middle class standards of structure and value.
 
Heres another question, What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black particpation in the middle class you seem to admire so much? 

so if you are gonna wage war on deven and towson and the UDLS then i am ready, you have speant to long attacking people who won't respond to you, and have declared your intention to hurt a person and a movement that actually exists in the real world and you simply won't get to just do that. I'm not attached to a team, I'm not scared, and im not gonna defer to the played notions of change you have propagated and i have internalized for the last several years.
 
You don't have to respond now i wont, i will be busy trying to make sure we have the money to create the kind of jobs you point out rightly are not currently available. So flail about all you like, when i have done my work i will answer you.
 
Andy Ellis
Managing Director 
Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems

 _______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


W. James Taylor ("JT")

Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University
       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/ebb9e901/attachment.htm 

From christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 18:45:36 2008
From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com (Christopher Thomas)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:45:36 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] you motherfuckin' right
Message-ID: <2d622bfb0808061645h9dedf4dte5dcf04660552604@mail.gmail.com>

"I (like Andy) will not allow you to disrespect my colleagues, my team and
(most importantly) my family through internet postings. "


Ironic isn't it, Adam.

"If I ever find out who you are, and I see you at a tournament, I'm puttin'
that ass to sleep. Not a threat...a promise."


how comforting and productive.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/4ccf4b9a/attachment.htm 

From jbhdb8 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 18:53:17 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:53:17 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] That "I" word
Message-ID: <f6ec14bb0808061653s569dec07y9e7a68ca8054d4e2@mail.gmail.com>

Have we really gotten to the point where a discussion about an inapropriate
judge reaction bordering on violence is spawning inappropriate edebate
reactions including threats of explicit violence?

Josh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/00cd0d66/attachment.htm 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 19:04:01 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:04:01 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] FWD: Uplift progression, not pettiness]
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808061704v1fe84c1y1666c545a2c6ac53@mail.gmail.com>

>From Shauntrice Martin




 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Uplift progression, not pettiness
From: Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, August 06, 2008 4:43 pm
To: andy at baltimorecollegedebate.org


--- On *Wed, 8/6/08, Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>* wrote:

From: Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw:
To: "Me" <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 7:36 PM



--- On *Wed, 8/6/08, Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>* wrote:

From: Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Subject:
To: "Me" <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 6:07 PM

The real question we have to ask ourselves is this: *as revolutionaries,
change-makers, and genuine organic intellectuals why do we decide to fight
in public among our common enemies?* El Hajj Malik El Shabazz talked about
this. What positive solutions and rebuilding can we gain from acting a fool?
Being uncouth and displaying a horrid lack of decorum neither promotes
change nor accomplishes liberation. I believed in the Louisville project
whole-heartedly during my two year tenure. Even when I was put off the team,
I still believe(d) the debate community was an inherently racist institution
set up to maintain status quo.



I have never posted on edebate and this will be the only time you see a post
from me. I was Deven's partner for the longest amount of time. He helped me
grow intellectually and spiritually. We were one of the most competitive
teams in Louisville's history (from the Liz/Tonia era to now). I'm not going
to let anyone talk crazy about someone who has been a brother to me. I could
spill all kinds of information of people trying to sleep with people, folks
threatening to slit throats, being sexually explicit in front of children,
and other true events?but they are all petty and irrelevant to the struggle.
I'm sure Kentucky , Wake, Northwestern, and all debate teams have their
internal issues?but people are dying in the streets while we type. Little
girls are homeless. 13 year old Black boys are being sent to adult prison
for 20 years--and in case you're thinking they're murderers and rapists,
they stole parked cars. Working class people are being evicted. Native
Americans are being forced to breathe in uranium dust and the USFG breaks
contracts with them all the time. Police in Dayton Ohio tased a blind Black
woman. People like me support their entire family on less than $30,000 a
year.  Those who do give a fuck about real issues need to quit bitching and
do something substantive (which involves you getting off edebate and off
your ass). Anybody who is willing to engage this nonsense is more
superfluous than a talking peanut M&M?it's kind of funny for 30 seconds and
then you need to move on with your life and take care of business. Besides
that, I'm positive that a student at the University of Louisville (former or
otherwise) has the right to confidentiality concerning certain happenings.
It's sad that someone in a position of authority would so grossly break that
confidentiality...but it is what it is.



Whatever gets aired about me personally doesn't matter. The I and I know Jah
go protect me, cah de rasta empress doh fear nuttin. What truly matters is
how we proceed from here. These fictitious and malicious divisions are
distractions (like Marx said) that allow  all the fucked-up conditions in
this society to thrive.



Jah Bless

Shauntrice L. Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/3e9640af/attachment.htm 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 19:18:09 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:18:09 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] what we are fighting for
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808061718n432a0e1vdb6c03156aa94537@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMQyQJAmUfQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/e7991a1a/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Wed Aug  6 19:35:44 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:35:44 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] FWD: Uplift progression, not pettiness]
In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0808061704v1fe84c1y1666c545a2c6ac53@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9368bc9b0808061704v1fe84c1y1666c545a2c6ac53@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <489A0AE2.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Ah Shauntrice...More of these attack posts...This one cloaked under the
veil of revolutionary rhetoric...even more amusing.
 
I'm wondering if you asked Deven that question about public fighting
when he chose to start this?  Or does uncouth and acting a fool only
operate in one direction?
 
Like I told Deven, don't go part way Shauntrice.  Your selectively
uplifting message is just that: partial.  Reality tv is all the rage
now...do spill your versions of my alleged indiscretions...That's the
difference between us: I have and will continue to take responsibility
for my choices: will you?
 
And by the way, the confidentiality applies to grades, not cheating in
debate.

>>> 

From: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
To:eDebate <eDebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/6/2008 08:04 PM
Subject: [eDebate] FWD: Uplift progression, not pettiness]
>From Shauntrice Martin






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Uplift progression, not pettiness
From: Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, August 06, 2008 4:43 pm
To: andy at baltimorecollegedebate.org 



--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
wrote:


From: Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Subject: Fw:
To: "Me" <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 7:36 PM




--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
wrote:


From: Shauntrice Martin <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Subject: 
To: "Me" <shauntricemartin at yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 6:07 PM



The real question we have to ask ourselves is this: as revolutionaries,
change-makers, and genuine organic intellectuals why do we decide to
fight in public among our common enemies? El Hajj Malik El Shabazz
talked about this. What positive solutions and rebuilding can we gain
from acting a fool? Being uncouth and displaying a horrid lack of
decorum neither promotes change nor accomplishes liberation. I believed
in the Louisville project whole-heartedly during my two year tenure.
Even when I was put off the team, I still believe(d) the debate
community was an inherently racist institution set up to maintain status
quo. 
 
I have never posted on edebate and this will be the only time you see a
post from me. I was Deven's partner for the longest amount of time. He
helped me grow intellectually and spiritually. We were one of the most
competitive teams in Louisville's history (from the Liz/Tonia era to
now). I'm not going to let anyone talk crazy about someone who has been
a brother to me. I could spill all kinds of information of people trying
to sleep with people, folks threatening to slit throats, being sexually
explicit in front of children, and other true events?but they are all
petty and irrelevant to the struggle. I'm sure Kentucky , Wake,
Northwestern, and all debate teams have their internal issues?but people
are dying in the streets while we type. Little girls are homeless. 13
year old Black boys are being sent to adult prison for 20 years--and in
case you're thinking they're murderers and rapists, they stole parked
cars. Working class people are being evicted. Native Americans are being
forced to breathe in uranium dust and the USFG breaks contracts with
them all the time. Police in Dayton Ohio tased a blind Black woman.
People like me support their entire family on less than $30,000 a year. 
Those who do give a fuck about real issues need to quit bitching and do
something substantive (which involves you getting off edebate and off
your ass). Anybody who is willing to engage this nonsense is more
superfluous than a talking peanut M&M?it's kind of funny for 30 seconds
and then you need to move on with your life and take care of business.
Besides that, I'm positive that a student at the University of
Louisville (former or otherwise) has the right to confidentiality
concerning certain happenings. It's sad that someone in a position of
authority would so grossly break that confidentia
lity...but it is what
it is. 
 
Whatever gets aired about me personally doesn't matter. The I and I
know Jah go protect me, cah de rasta empress doh fear nuttin. What truly
matters is how we proceed from here. These fictitious and malicious
divisions are distractions (like Marx said) that allow  all the
fucked-up conditions in this society to thrive. 
 
Jah Bless 
Shauntrice L. Martin







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/c5990cd6/attachment.htm 

From bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 19:41:44 2008
From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Confession and Guilt
Message-ID: <884520.86111.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

I don't understand why dr. warner thinks my original post was all about him because it wasn't.....i barely like to pay him or his coaching staff any mind...that one part about how i felt under his team was true for quite a few people...wasn't a lie..and i'm not playing the victim here i know who i was 3-4 years ago and that is the past. If dr.warner red the post to be about him hes sadly mistaken, he isnt the only black person/people in this community....but maybe that didnt dawn on him and he got so enraged to air alot of "dirty laundry" when i could air much more that all us students talked about...not giving fuck if it hurts dr. warner or not but for decency i wont air such things although he has no problem airing them about me...Sad........

       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/46fbdf31/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Wed Aug  6 19:47:39 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:47:39 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Confession and Guilt
In-Reply-To: <884520.86111.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <884520.86111.qm@web65404.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <489A0DAE.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Deven, you guys can air all the laundry you want!  Stop threatening me as in the words of Shauntrice, do something.  I'm going to give a best effort to spend next year trying to fix some of the problems that I intentionally and unintentionally created in this community and I'm out.  If your laundry can get rid of me, then I retire early...
 
The University did a complete review of my program, including all of these allegations, made some recommendations including firing my wife.  So if you got any left that mean something, do tell....If not, leave me alone and I will do the same.


>>> 

From: Deven <bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com>
To:<edebate at www.ndtceda.com>
Date: 8/6/2008 08:41 PM
Subject: [eDebate] Confession and Guilt
I don't understand why dr. warner thinks my original post was all about him because it wasn't.....i barely like to pay him or his coaching staff any mind...that one part about how i felt under his team was true for quite a few people...wasn't a lie..and i'm not playing the victim here i know who i was 3-4 years ago and that is the past. If dr.warner red the post to be about him hes sadly mistaken, he isnt the only black person/people in this community....but maybe that didnt dawn on him and he got so enraged to air alot of "dirty laundry" when i could air much more that all us students talked about...not giving fuck if it hurts dr. warner or not but for decency i wont air such things although he has no problem airing them about me...Sad........

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/bfbdb832/attachment.htm 

From bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 19:51:46 2008
From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Confession and Guilt
Message-ID: <7651.12678.qm@web65412.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

No.....were better than that...unlike you...

       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/2b82c63c/attachment.htm 

From matthewfarm at gmail.com  Wed Aug  6 21:17:19 2008
From: matthewfarm at gmail.com (matthew farmer)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 22:17:19 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Technology and debate
Message-ID: <d704dbad0808061917p3c282efcvcebf1d9d7780612b@mail.gmail.com>

I've been thinking about something for a while and I think that the
community should probably discuss it.  What are our standards/what should
they be for the use of the internet and other communication devices in
debate.  Can you cut cards during a debate, can you talk to people on im
even if it's not about debate, should debaters have their wifi on during a
debate at all?   Should debaters be able to access their deabte servers
during a debate, should that be the only thing that they can access?  If we
come to a consensus on the appropriate behavioral standards, how might we
enforce and verify them?  Even if it's not possible to fully enforce new
rules, should we enact them anyway in an effort to establish and codify a
community norm?

play nice...

farmer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/6617c00d/attachment.htm 

From lacyjp at wfu.edu  Wed Aug  6 21:46:42 2008
From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy)
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:46:42 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Technology and debate
In-Reply-To: <d704dbad0808061917p3c282efcvcebf1d9d7780612b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d704dbad0808061917p3c282efcvcebf1d9d7780612b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <489A6212.6030403@wfu.edu>


Basic rule: No outside assistance while you are debating. (Food & other 
sustenance exempted)

1. IM: No IM that gives you assistance. Not even a "Go fight win!" Best 
to stay off of chat to avoid appearance of impropriety.

2. Research during debates: Do it! If you can beat your opponents 
arguments with a few minutes of online research, more power to you. No 
rule stops you from running to the library, using the card catalog, 
buying a newspaper, reading a book you have in a backpack, or reading an 
article you have saved on your computer. I don't see a good place to 
draw this line other than "no research other than your own during a debate."

3. Home server access: Yes, as long as it doesn't violate the "Basic 
rule." If you can find cards in your off-site electronic backfiles, good 
for you. Just don't accept help from others telling you where to look. 
Don't use new files posted to your server after the debate has begun.

I really don't know how to enforce & verify these basic rules. I just 
think they're basic rules. If everyone complies, no problem. If problems 
arise then we can revisit the "Basic rule" & forbid people from internet 
access during debates. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Do people actually go outside the "No outside assistance" rule these 
days? If things escalate to the point where every team needs an 
"electronic coach" during debates, then we'll have a whole mess of 
problems to deal with. Best to leave the rule as it stands.

--JP

matthew farmer wrote:
> I've been thinking about something for a while and I think that the 
> community should probably discuss it.  What are our standards/what 
> should they be for the use of the internet and other communication 
> devices in debate.  Can you cut cards during a debate, can you talk to 
> people on im even if it's not about debate, should debaters have their 
> wifi on during a debate at all?   Should debaters be able to access 
> their deabte servers during a debate, should that be the only thing 
> that they can access?  If we come to a consensus on the appropriate 
> behavioral standards, how might we enforce and verify them?  Even if 
> it's not possible to fully enforce new rules, should we enact them 
> anyway in an effort to establish and codify a community norm?
>
> play nice...
>
> farmer
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


From jtedebate at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 22:03:55 2008
From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Technology and debate
In-Reply-To: <489A6212.6030403@wfu.edu>
Message-ID: <976564.63754.qm@web30007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

enforcement:  Some HS tournaments and judges tell the debater to disable their wireless cards.  
problem:  relies on judge policing...I don;t think we need this

No outside assistance:  I have no direct evidence that this has ever happened...but I know debaters and have know a few real shady coaches over the last decade...I would be shocked if it did not happen...NOTE:  don't even think of it!  Has anyone ever known of this to happen for sure?

In-Round research:  yes...can be good for small schools without the resources to chase down everyone in the country's new advance of crappy disad
problem:  marxism...privileges those debaters who can afford a laptop and/or squads    (the massive proliferation of laptops makes this not a serious as a few years ago, but still an issue)

Home servers:  People should be allowed access.  When Delta Charges $50 for the second bag, then how can we say NO--bring it in paper form or fill up your hard drive (plus)



JP Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote: 
Basic rule: No outside assistance while you are debating. (Food & other 
sustenance exempted)

1. IM: No IM that gives you assistance. Not even a "Go fight win!" Best 
to stay off of chat to avoid appearance of impropriety.

2. Research during debates: Do it! If you can beat your opponents 
arguments with a few minutes of online research, more power to you. No 
rule stops you from running to the library, using the card catalog, 
buying a newspaper, reading a book you have in a backpack, or reading an 
article you have saved on your computer. I don't see a good place to 
draw this line other than "no research other than your own during a debate."

3. Home server access: Yes, as long as it doesn't violate the "Basic 
rule." If you can find cards in your off-site electronic backfiles, good 
for you. Just don't accept help from others telling you where to look. 
Don't use new files posted to your server after the debate has begun.

I really don't know how to enforce & verify these basic rules. I just 
think they're basic rules. If everyone complies, no problem. If problems 
arise then we can revisit the "Basic rule" & forbid people from internet 
access during debates. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Do people actually go outside the "No outside assistance" rule these 
days? If things escalate to the point where every team needs an 
"electronic coach" during debates, then we'll have a whole mess of 
problems to deal with. Best to leave the rule as it stands.

--JP

matthew farmer wrote:
> I've been thinking about something for a while and I think that the 
> community should probably discuss it.  What are our standards/what 
> should they be for the use of the internet and other communication 
> devices in debate.  Can you cut cards during a debate, can you talk to 
> people on im even if it's not about debate, should debaters have their 
> wifi on during a debate at all?   Should debaters be able to access 
> their deabte servers during a debate, should that be the only thing 
> that they can access?  If we come to a consensus on the appropriate 
> behavioral standards, how might we enforce and verify them?  Even if 
> it's not possible to fully enforce new rules, should we enact them 
> anyway in an effort to establish and codify a community norm?
>
> play nice...
>
> farmer
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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



W. James Taylor ("JT")

Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University
       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/f6392417/attachment.htm 

From boonies96 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  6 22:33:09 2008
From: boonies96 at yahoo.com (Red Jones)
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 20:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] and the resolution as the boodocks presents
Message-ID: <1686.4312.qm@web59712.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqsDRQJesMI
that is all.


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080806/4ea9240a/attachment.htm 

From lacyjp at wfu.edu  Wed Aug  6 23:02:40 2008
From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy)
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 00:02:40 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Technology and debate
In-Reply-To: <489A6212.6030403@wfu.edu>
References: <d704dbad0808061917p3c282efcvcebf1d9d7780612b@mail.gmail.com>
	<489A6212.6030403@wfu.edu>
Message-ID: <489A73E0.1030805@wfu.edu>

Really?

I listed some "rules" in an off the cuff manner & there is almost no 
objection?

JT's Marxist argument is a strong one: Sometimes teams rely on what they 
see as holes in resource rich squads work. A surprise position gives 
them a leg up, even if its only a one trick affair. Are things really 
more fair if we let the resource rich (who may enjoy better internet & 
database access) exploit their advantage even more?

I honestly don't know if anyone has an answer to the "cheating" DA, 
other than the honor system.

I know no one wants to cheat to win, but what happens when competitive 
pressure really comes to bear?

I do *hope* we never enter the "electronic coach" age, but do we have 
any way to enforce these rules other than our own pride?

--JP



JP Lacy wrote:
> Basic rule: No outside assistance while you are debating. (Food & other 
> sustenance exempted)
>
> 1. IM: No IM that gives you assistance. Not even a "Go fight win!" Best 
> to stay off of chat to avoid appearance of impropriety.
>
> 2. Research during debates: Do it! If you can beat your opponents 
> arguments with a few minutes of online research, more power to you. No 
> rule stops you from running to the library, using the card catalog, 
> buying a newspaper, reading a book you have in a backpack, or reading an 
> article you have saved on your computer. I don't see a good place to 
> draw this line other than "no research other than your own during a debate."
>
> 3. Home server access: Yes, as long as it doesn't violate the "Basic 
> rule." If you can find cards in your off-site electronic backfiles, good 
> for you. Just don't accept help from others telling you where to look. 
> Don't use new files posted to your server after the debate has begun.
>
> I really don't know how to enforce & verify these basic rules. I just 
> think they're basic rules. If everyone complies, no problem. If problems 
> arise then we can revisit the "Basic rule" & forbid people from internet 
> access during debates. I hope it doesn't come to that.
>
> Do people actually go outside the "No outside assistance" rule these 
> days? If things escalate to the point where every team needs an 
> "electronic coach" during debates, then we'll have a whole mess of 
> problems to deal with. Best to leave the rule as it stands.
>
> --JP
>
> matthew farmer wrote:
>   
>> I've been thinking about something for a while and I think that the 
>> community should probably discuss it.  What are our standards/what 
>> should they be for the use of the internet and other communication 
>> devices in debate.  Can you cut cards during a debate, can you talk to 
>> people on im even if it's not about debate, should debaters have their 
>> wifi on during a debate at all?   Should debaters be able to access 
>> their deabte servers during a debate, should that be the only thing 
>> that they can access?  If we come to a consensus on the appropriate 
>> behavioral standards, how might we enforce and verify them?  Even if 
>> it's not possible to fully enforce new rules, should we enact them 
>> anyway in an effort to establish and codify a community norm?
>>
>> play nice...
>>
>> farmer
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 andy.edebate at gmail.com  Thu Aug  7 03:46:11 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 04:46:11 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] what we are fighting for
In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0808061718n432a0e1vdb6c03156aa94537@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9368bc9b0808061718n432a0e1vdb6c03156aa94537@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808070146n76d5333dpf61d4b1dce5e02ad@mail.gmail.com>

We made a mistake in this video, we put in a subtitle that indicated that
dayvon and deven where the first udl team to win a national collegiate
debate championship. This is mistaken, Jillian Marty and Edwin Owasu From
the university of vermont got one before Cooper and love. We apologize for
the mistake. i will edit the tape soon., thank you for those who i belive
are in true coalitions for pointing this out.

2008/8/6 Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMQyQJAmUfQ
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080807/c5b1491b/attachment.htm 

From privethedge at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  7 09:53:48 2008
From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 07:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Fair enough
In-Reply-To: <695001.87443.qm@web46410.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <278430.20085.qm@web50909.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi, Just a lot of talk, Jayhawk. I can't picture anyone in the community actually coming to blows or being violent - but they sure do talk a good game...the most I think they are capable of is perhaps damaging from furniture - but I havent' seen a fist fight in college debate since the GMU summer camp in '89, and that was a pretty short one at that.
?
H.










"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson"
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by??its collision with error." John S. Mill
?Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live."
Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman: "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!"


--- On Wed, 8/6/08, Jay Hawk <ostertaglives at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Jay Hawk <ostertaglives at yahoo.com>
Subject: [eDebate] Fair enough
To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 3:41 PM






My personal attack on Scott distracted from an otherwise heartfelt post and was inconsistent with the point I was trying to make.? As such, I regret making it.

I just hope that the community is not as hostile to each other as this board makes it seem from the outside.



_______________________________________________
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/20080807/f5b9125f/attachment.htm 

From jpzompe at ilstu.edu  Thu Aug  7 09:54:19 2008
From: jpzompe at ilstu.edu (Zompetti, Joseph)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:54:19 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Technology and debate
References: <d704dbad0808061917p3c282efcvcebf1d9d7780612b@mail.gmail.com>
	<489A6212.6030403@wfu.edu> <489A73E0.1030805@wfu.edu>
Message-ID: <FAE190886CF76F43A5C1AA46820680F503456E18@cisssrv03.ad.ilstu.edu>

I agree with JP.  This is a serious problem.  While I cannot prove it, I judged a debate last fall where a coach (who recently graduated) was watching a round with one of her teams.  Of course, I have no problem with that...in fact, I encourage it if folks have a round off.
 
However, during the debate, the coach was frantically texting on her cell phone while one of her debaters appeared to be checking their email or IM's or something.  Again, I can't prove it, but it looked suspicious.
 
The point -- whether it actually happened or not -- was that it COULD have happened very easily.  We really need to address this as a community.
 
 
Joseph Zompetti

Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D.
Associate Professor & Director of Forensics
School of Communication
Illinois State University
Campus Box 4480
Normal, IL  61790-4480
office: (309) 438-3277
e-mail:  jpzompe at ilstu.edu
 
Everything you can imagine is real.
--Pablo Picasso

________________________________

From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of JP Lacy
Sent: Wed 8/6/2008 11:02 PM
To: matthew farmer
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Technology and debate



Really?

I listed some "rules" in an off the cuff manner & there is almost no
objection?

JT's Marxist argument is a strong one: Sometimes teams rely on what they
see as holes in resource rich squads work. A surprise position gives
them a leg up, even if its only a one trick affair. Are things really
more fair if we let the resource rich (who may enjoy better internet &
database access) exploit their advantage even more?

I honestly don't know if anyone has an answer to the "cheating" DA,
other than the honor system.

I know no one wants to cheat to win, but what happens when competitive
pressure really comes to bear?

I do *hope* we never enter the "electronic coach" age, but do we have
any way to enforce these rules other than our own pride?

--JP



JP Lacy wrote:
> Basic rule: No outside assistance while you are debating. (Food & other
> sustenance exempted)
>
> 1. IM: No IM that gives you assistance. Not even a "Go fight win!" Best
> to stay off of chat to avoid appearance of impropriety.
>
> 2. Research during debates: Do it! If you can beat your opponents
> arguments with a few minutes of online research, more power to you. No
> rule stops you from running to the library, using the card catalog,
> buying a newspaper, reading a book you have in a backpack, or reading an
> article you have saved on your computer. I don't see a good place to
> draw this line other than "no research other than your own during a debate."
>
> 3. Home server access: Yes, as long as it doesn't violate the "Basic
> rule." If you can find cards in your off-site electronic backfiles, good
> for you. Just don't accept help from others telling you where to look.
> Don't use new files posted to your server after the debate has begun.
>
> I really don't know how to enforce & verify these basic rules. I just
> think they're basic rules. If everyone complies, no problem. If problems
> arise then we can revisit the "Basic rule" & forbid people from internet
> access during debates. I hope it doesn't come to that.
>
> Do people actually go outside the "No outside assistance" rule these
> days? If things escalate to the point where every team needs an
> "electronic coach" during debates, then we'll have a whole mess of
> problems to deal with. Best to leave the rule as it stands.
>
> --JP
>
> matthew farmer wrote:
>  
>> I've been thinking about something for a while and I think that the
>> community should probably discuss it.  What are our standards/what
>> should they be for the use of the internet and other communication
>> devices in debate.  Can you cut cards during a debate, can you talk to
>> people on im even if it's not about debate, should debaters have their
>> wifi on during a debate at all?   Should debaters be able to access
>> their deabte servers during a debate, should that be the only thing
>> that they can access?  If we come to a consensus on the appropriate
>> behavioral standards, how might we enforce and verify them?  Even if
>> it's not possible to fully enforce new rules, should we enact them
>> anyway in an effort to establish and codify a community norm?
>>
>> play nice...
>>
>> farmer
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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



From jbhdb8 at gmail.com  Thu Aug  7 09:59:09 2008
From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 10:59:09 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Technology and debate
In-Reply-To: <FAE190886CF76F43A5C1AA46820680F503456E18@cisssrv03.ad.ilstu.edu>
References: <d704dbad0808061917p3c282efcvcebf1d9d7780612b@mail.gmail.com>
	<489A6212.6030403@wfu.edu> <489A73E0.1030805@wfu.edu>
	<FAE190886CF76F43A5C1AA46820680F503456E18@cisssrv03.ad.ilstu.edu>
Message-ID: <f6ec14bb0808070759h354d30e4r5471cb2cf0dbe84d@mail.gmail.com>

Seems to me that a ton of this stuff is technologically inevitable.  I
think, for the most part, there is a community standard on coaches
intervening in rounds by any means, however, the prep time cards are
becoming inevitable,

Josh

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Zompetti, Joseph <jpzompe at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> I agree with JP.  This is a serious problem.  While I cannot prove it, I
> judged a debate last fall where a coach (who recently graduated) was
> watching a round with one of her teams.  Of course, I have no problem with
> that...in fact, I encourage it if folks have a round off.
>
> However, during the debate, the coach was frantically texting on her cell
> phone while one of her debaters appeared to be checking their email or IM's
> or something.  Again, I can't prove it, but it looked suspicious.
>
> The point -- whether it actually happened or not -- was that it COULD have
> happened very easily.  We really need to address this as a community.
>
>
> Joseph Zompetti
>
> Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor & Director of Forensics
> School of Communication
> Illinois State University
> Campus Box 4480
> Normal, IL  61790-4480
> office: (309) 438-3277
> e-mail:  jpzompe at ilstu.edu
>
> Everything you can imagine is real.
> --Pablo Picasso
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of JP Lacy
> Sent: Wed 8/6/2008 11:02 PM
> To: matthew farmer
> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Technology and debate
>
>
>
> Really?
>
> I listed some "rules" in an off the cuff manner & there is almost no
> objection?
>
> JT's Marxist argument is a strong one: Sometimes teams rely on what they
> see as holes in resource rich squads work. A surprise position gives
> them a leg up, even if its only a one trick affair. Are things really
> more fair if we let the resource rich (who may enjoy better internet &
> database access) exploit their advantage even more?
>
> I honestly don't know if anyone has an answer to the "cheating" DA,
> other than the honor system.
>
> I know no one wants to cheat to win, but what happens when competitive
> pressure really comes to bear?
>
> I do *hope* we never enter the "electronic coach" age, but do we have
> any way to enforce these rules other than our own pride?
>
> --JP
>
>
>
> JP Lacy wrote:
> > Basic rule: No outside assistance while you are debating. (Food & other
> > sustenance exempted)
> >
> > 1. IM: No IM that gives you assistance. Not even a "Go fight win!" Best
> > to stay off of chat to avoid appearance of impropriety.
> >
> > 2. Research during debates: Do it! If you can beat your opponents
> > arguments with a few minutes of online research, more power to you. No
> > rule stops you from running to the library, using the card catalog,
> > buying a newspaper, reading a book you have in a backpack, or reading an
> > article you have saved on your computer. I don't see a good place to
> > draw this line other than "no research other than your own during a
> debate."
> >
> > 3. Home server access: Yes, as long as it doesn't violate the "Basic
> > rule." If you can find cards in your off-site electronic backfiles, good
> > for you. Just don't accept help from others telling you where to look.
> > Don't use new files posted to your server after the debate has begun.
> >
> > I really don't know how to enforce & verify these basic rules. I just
> > think they're basic rules. If everyone complies, no problem. If problems
> > arise then we can revisit the "Basic rule" & forbid people from internet
> > access during debates. I hope it doesn't come to that.
> >
> > Do people actually go outside the "No outside assistance" rule these
> > days? If things escalate to the point where every team needs an
> > "electronic coach" during debates, then we'll have a whole mess of
> > problems to deal with. Best to leave the rule as it stands.
> >
> > --JP
> >
> > matthew farmer wrote:
> >
> >> I've been thinking about something for a while and I think that the
> >> community should probably discuss it.  What are our standards/what
> >> should they be for the use of the internet and other communication
> >> devices in debate.  Can you cut cards during a debate, can you talk to
> >> people on im even if it's not about debate, should debaters have their
> >> wifi on during a debate at all?   Should debaters be able to access
> >> their deabte servers during a debate, should that be the only thing
> >> that they can access?  If we come to a consensus on the appropriate
> >> behavioral standards, how might we enforce and verify them?  Even if
> >> it's not possible to fully enforce new rules, should we enact them
> >> anyway in an effort to establish and codify a community norm?
> >>
> >> play nice...
> >>
> >> farmer
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080807/58f7995c/attachment.htm 

From regedebate at gmail.com  Thu Aug  7 10:30:07 2008
From: regedebate at gmail.com (David Register)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:30:07 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] 2008 WDI Results & Thanks
Message-ID: <8f08f7f30808070830w5d29ef08m326169db3d46022f@mail.gmail.com>

The 2008 National College Policy Debate Workshop is over!  The weather was
great and the evidence set is outstanding.  Our Scholars did an amazing job.
Thank you to Brian Rubaie, Lauren Sabino, Dylan Quigley, and Nick Watts for
all of their hard work in making this year such a success.


In our camp tournament, the final round was won on a 3-0 decision:

[AFF] Zac Hartkopp (JCCC) & Derek Ziegler (K State) defeat [NEG] Ben Dabiri
(OU) & Jen Cox (OU)


Speaker awards (2 and 3 tied):

1.       Ashley Fortner (Richmond)

2.       Jen Cox (Oklahoma)

3.       Derek Ziegler (K State)

4.       Ben Dabiri (Oklahoma)


The videos from the final Scholars debate and from the final round will be
available soon.


See the indexes for the complete list of files produced:

http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wdi2008collegepolicyindexes1.pdf

http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wdi2008collegepolicyindexes2.pdf


Thank you to everyone who came, especially those novices from
Louisiana-Lafayette and Monmouth whose work ethics and brains should give
those programs a lot of hope for the future.


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/20080807/9f6bd0d4/attachment.htm 

From alfred.snider at uvm.edu  Thu Aug  7 11:21:22 2008
From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider)
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:21:22 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] WDI scholars debate video online
Message-ID: <489B2102.5020902@uvm.edu>

Featuring Lauren Sabino of Wake Forest and Brian Rubiae of Texas-Dallas 
on the affirmative, against Dylan Quigley of Kansas and Nick Watts of 
Oklahoma on the negative. The debate was about ending agricultural 
subsidies to CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations). Part 3 
contains comments from Kansas State's Justin Green. Negative win.


http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/debate-policy-wdi-scholars-debate-on.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 stevendamico at gmail.com  Thu Aug  7 12:43:03 2008
From: stevendamico at gmail.com (Steven D'Amico)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 13:43:03 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Jeff Pope
Message-ID: <f3ade5b10808071043l4b305121gf573ec057eda3b1f@mail.gmail.com>

I can't believe it, but it's true.

If someone is friends with him, can you forward this to him?

Steve D'Amico

Via the Garden State,
Home of the Danelectro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080807/52c7e1af/attachment.htm 

From ewarner at louisville.edu  Thu Aug  7 13:00:30 2008
From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:00:30 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Ethics, Love, Boondocks, and a New Day, part 1
References: <489A906902000007006ED1E2@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<489A95C402000007006ED1E6@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<489AE99F02000007006ED272@gwise.louisville.edu>
	<489AFFFE02000007006ED29B@gwise.louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <489AFFBE.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu>

Dear Community,
 
Hey, Red Jones, thanks for posting the Boondocks clip.  That was really funny, but if you are using that clip to analogize what we've gone through the last couple of days, then I offer a different episode, called the "Return of the King" http://video.aol.com/video-detail/boondocks-episode-9-the-return-of-the-king/300715428.  
 
I'm sure you remember it - where Martin Luther King, Jr. lives for forty years in a coma, instead of dying, returns in 2000 to find a very different world than the one we live in.  He gets discredited after 911 for not supporting the war, and his attempts at organizing leave him at a meeting in his name that is a party.  The one thing that remains true throughout is MLK's consistency as he engages the more nihilistic, self-serving, and wayward society removed from his Civil Rights struggle.  At one point to describe the future when Martin asks why did this happen, the young boondock character responds, "we were waiting for you."
 
Now I'm certainly no MLK, not trying to make that comparison, but I have used this forum to develop a relationship with this community.  My credibility, while perhaps tied in personal issues related to Shauntrice's list, is most certainly also tied to how I address and respond to such criticisms.  I made the decision a long time ago to make my life an open book for review on this listserv and that doesn't end just because someone makes that challenging by their choices.  I said two things about Deven's criticisms: they needed to be answered (while I suspect these criticisms aren't very impactful- those who know and care about me will dismiss them, those who don't like me will use them to further justify their dislike) and they need to be put in context.  
 
When I read Shauntrice's words, I had three immediate reactions: shock, sadness and anger.  For three years, this justifiably disgruntled group has vented their anger about me in various circles: to each other, administrators, on Facebook; in the debate community, and who knows where else.  None of these allegations have ever been brought to my attention so they were truly shocking.  I thought the dictator and silence voices arguments were the main ones given the what has brought to me from administrators.  I now realize that administrators, likely very concerned by them, didn't have anything close to sufficient evidence to move on them so they were never brought up to me face to face, but I now have a better understanding of some administrator decisions.  There isn't much context that can be brought to these innuendos and rumors as they exist right now in vague general form, I'm not even sure what one of them means.
 
Honestly, I had to take a moment ,  Her words hurt just enough to force me to reflect on what occurred.  Upon reflection, I figured Deven likely felt the same way when he read my accusations of him, as did perhaps Andy and Adam who both responded quickly and harshly.  I've understood for a while that people revealing things that you didn't expect them to say can have that paralyzing affect on a person, so those responses don't come as a surprise.  I thought about how Deven and I also likely suffer from a similar issue:  we spend a lot of our time, in our own way, building our credibility on edebate for what we do, in an effort to persuade an audience that we best understand how to create changes for that audience.  As much as people want to complain that edebate is dysfunctional and unproductive, we both know that edebate provides an important, almost unparalleled opportunity to express minority perspectives to large numbers of people in an instant.  And so we both utilized that forum strategically most of the time and unstrategically in others.  In fact, as you all know, I have been using this forum since the advent of the Louisville experiment, to defend, advocate, clarify, justify, and connect with the a group of people that I believe share one very important experience: the love of debate.  And although I joked earlier about "reality TV", the truth is that in many ways, that is what this forum has become for me, an attempt as I have evolved over the course of the last ten years in NDT and CEDA debate, to share my life with you so you could "see" the things I see.
 
Deven loves debate too, as demonstrated by the time and commitment he puts into it.  However, Deven chooses to engage edebate very rarely, usually as an act of protest to vent his frustrations with the community or with me, something I have certainly done more than a time or two, but obviously not the only reason I write and write and write.  So we are very different in that regard.  
 
Tiffany Dillard, the squad, and I have spent the better part of the last three years, trying to figure out how to address the community concerns, issues and problems of our general criticism of Black participation in policy debate, with varying degrees of success.  During that time frame, there wasn't much fanfare, nor much notoriety, and there certainly wasn't much competitive success for Louisville students.  That's the single biggest problem: when students are used as part of experiments, they are subject at any moment to utter failure or extreme levels of success, and those experiments can take a heavy, heavy, heavy emotional toll.  High risk, high reward I guess.  Perhaps this helps explain why my decision to stop using the strategy has created just as much backlash, as many tears and frustrations, as did the criticism itself did on the rest of the community.  
 
That day after the fall 2005 Kentucky tournament, when I announced we were walking away from the increasing Black participation strategy paralyzed the past and current members of the Louisville project at that time in ways that I could never have foreseen, understood, or predicted.  But for different reasons: Deven saw a competitive strategy that he made a college career decision based on that strategy being randomly and unfairly taken from him.  Shauntrice, a walk-on without debate experience, was a throwback to the original 2000 crew: she wanted to talk about Black humanization, nothing more, nothing less.  For both, the loss of the strategy paralyzed them.  Had I ran a program where students could do what they want, when they wanted, it wouldn't have been a problem.  In all likelihood, most would have kept doing the strategy and a few would have followed to new initiatives.  But of course, that wasn't what created the project nor how I expected to continue, so that wasn't an option for me, anymore than it was in 1999 when I made the change that in part ran off several traditional debaters.
 
In the beginning of the Boondocks episode on King, there is a paragraph on the screen: "I want young men and young women who are not alive today...to know and see that these new privileges and opportunities did not come without somebody suffering and sacrificing for them." - Dr. Martin Luther King.  And I hope it is remembered that the suffering and sacrifices made by those involved in an 8 year experiment produced new privileges and opportunities for many, many others.  I think it will.  It's really too bad that neither Deven (a championship) nor Shauntrice (a debate job) are able to see that their current successes are directly related to my sacrifices.  Shauntrice debated varsity her first year of debate, something that has likely never been done, at least not at the levels she competed and could never have been done at any school or at Louisville before 2000.  
 
Deven's options would have been extremely limited without Louisville, especially given the repeated refrain that the purpose of the UDL's isn't to get high school students who want to debate into college.  No one has given more scholarship money or a higher percentage to UDL students, not even close.  But their anger won't let them respect those privileges and realities, and that is too bad for two people so down with issues of confronting privilege.  And hence, that justifies their acts of lashing out, intimidation and violence against me.  And all of that is a direct result of my decision to change the direction of the program and I must assume all the responsibility for that and the consequences that grow from it.  And I do.  And I have empathy for them, even when they attack me publicly or privately.  And whether he sees it or not, my attack on him was an act of self-defense.
 
Immediately after such a powerful quote, comes a new screen with the words, "Whatever nigga."  In the episode, these words serve to illustrate the times we live in, with no time for respecting the past or sacrifices made by ancestors.  But for me, the quote reminds me that my decision to create almost a decade long experiment, produced suffering that sometimes I didn't sufficiently acknowledge or respect, too caught up in my own suffering and pain produced from the experiment.  I look back on my real transgressions--not the ones Shauntrice reveals, which again lack context and in one case, I literally don't even know what she is talking about--but the decision for example, not to get IRB approval back in 2000.  The rhetoric of the Louisville experiment instead of the project or MPOWER or any other name, might have reminded me that no matter how idealistic the collective became, at the end of the day, it was a scientific inquiry designed to challenge debate conventions.  No more, no less. "Whatever nigga."  And that was very unfair to true believers, whether believers in competition or believers in fighting for Black humanization.  So to that extent, I will always remain indebted to both Shauntrice, Deven and everyone of the almost 100 scholarshipped students that have represented my experiment in some form.  Thank you all for your sacrifice and dedication.
 
To objectively and critically answer Scott's arguments about effectiveness of our program, my experiment succeeded in some ways and failed in others.  It definitely succeeded in spurring critical thinking about who we really are as a community and perhaps to a much lesser extent even what we could potentially be.  And one should never apologize for creating critical introspection, that is always a good thing.  It had some material success and it certainly has created some small impetus for new methods and styles and UDL participation at higher levels in college.  Of course, Towson's success takes that to a whole other level.
 
The flip side however is also true: it had the affect of further dividing us, in large part by introducing new populations to competitive success through new arguments, theories and methods of debate.  And that was often ugly, divisive, and painful.  It didn't result in social change like structural reforms because there still isn't full agreement on what the problem is, and even less agreement on effective solutions.  Moreover, lives were hurt from the fluidity of all, and the inability to overcome several roadblocks along the way.  Can the strategies that have grown from the experiment win?  Certainly, as proven by Towson 2008.  Do those strategies come at a cost?  Just roll the tape or read the emails.
 
That said, it is still wholly unfair of this community to blame Towson or whoever else runs these strategies.  These were not developed as long term methods for changing debate, these are protest strategies designed to address structural problems in the place where they have to be addressed: the competitive framework as there IS NO OTHER PLACE.  That's what we created to address the procedures of the game: we say debate it out.  The strategies only work because no one fixes anything.  The strategies can go away overnight if the community is better equipped to self-diagnose and act on it's problems.  Should not a policy debate training ground, not have the ability to culturally evolve as needed to support changes in technology, social climate, etc?  That seems like an obvious deficiency in our structure that needs addressing.
 
Had the community helped more in finding solutions once we all could identify the problem, a lot of this could be avoided, and everyone must take some responsibility for that.  Now that said, perhaps there isn't an easy answer, so maybe that is why there hasn't been much movement.  And let's not hear, but there is always a grip or criticism that could be brought up next if these protest strategies are successful?  Yes, but that's the point: a strong democracy protects minority interests by substantively addressing them.  Good minority interests should win because majorities recognize the need for that protection to occur in well functioning democracy.  
 
But in our game, minority interests are evaporated in numerous ways.  So no, Towson, nor Deven should get the blame for this.  And the more competitive these strategies become, the more the community should look for both competitive and non-competitive measures to address these issues.  My decision to challenge Deven's credibility doesn't mean they aren't right about the arguments.  I just want him to be a little more respectful, that's all.  It would be nice if he were more appreciative, but baby steps I guess.  He still doesn't get it: professionally I am and have been his most loyal supporter, and that has little or nothing to do with how much you personally like someone.  Just don't disrespect me professionally and we'll be cool.
 
My biggest regret over the decade: that my students didn't learn enough about ethics from me, apparently from my lived and personal experiences, nor from my training in argument.  Whether they see it or not, there were clear and distinct differences in what we chose to reveal, how these things were connected to the arguments, and the type of rhetoric used to surround the arguments.  And that's the education that NDT/CEDA is missing: some ethical foundation that guides those choices.  Now perhaps that is easier said than done, but that's got to be our collective goal as we move forward.  
 
When this population of policy makers move into their positions of the world, whether as activists, corporate employers, or government officials, the common bond they take from this activity should be whether they agree about kritiks or policy frameworks, but whether or not they have a common methodology for making good policy decisions that respect and understand the challenges and responsibilities we face for those decisions when living in a multicultural society.  
 
The two factions must come together to produce a combined outcome that is superior to the different educational emphasis that currently exists.  And if you assume that policy decision making operates the same in a monoculture as in does in a multicultural society or you haven't thought much about it, then you are definitely one of the impediments to making a transformation for our activity into the 21st century.  Don't underestimate the question: how can we have policy debates about minority issues (aka how do we make minority impacts more strategic)?  Finding that answer is really, really, really, important to the value of this activity as it relates to the world we live in.  FYI - It's not easy or readily apparent.
 
I would like to speak more concretely to this debate notion of coalitions, but I will likely take a break.  Thanks for the phone call db, your voice is always welcome as we continue the struggle.  You still are the finest debate coach I've ever known...and that includes me, but keep an eye on Tiffany, she's on the come up...
 
With love for all the participants in this community,
 
Doc
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080807/9583a21a/attachment.htm 

From agswanlek at gmail.com  Thu Aug  7 13:43:24 2008
From: agswanlek at gmail.com (Aaron Swanlek)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:43:24 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Debate Good, Random narratives about racism bad.
Message-ID: <d1f8282c0808071143o1635e50cwc567403f4bffc39f@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, this is my second year in the game and i'm dumbstruck;

Not by the activity itself, i have one heck of a coach who has prepared me
to be competitive against the best. So what am i confused with you say,

The lack of discussion about A. The topic. and B. Tournament information or
C. Ways to make the game better


So i decided i thought of a good way to get information on whats going on in
the "Community" by signing up for edebate,  little did i know what i was
getting myself into.  Ad homs, swearing, and random narratives about who is
bigot a or b(by the way i'm half black, and i really don't know what kinda
racism y'all see)

As debaters we are looked at as respectful intellectuals who spend major
amounts of their free time preparing for the next tournament.  We give away
our summers and part of our social lives because we love to argue about
relevant information. Do you think things that go on Edebate just disappear?
When a nineteen year old from middle of no where Pa can call out "Grown Men"
who sound like they are 12 should give you a signal that this needs to stop.
All programs are going to have to spend more money to travel, something we
can all agree on, so if the allocators of resources just so happen to see
our "Forum" what do you think is going to happen. Debate won't die from the
plethora of new arguments teams put forward which deviate from the norm, or
this ideological divisiveness on  what is legitimate but rather the
immaturity of some of our smartest individuals.

You all may think your name calling, and threats go unnoticed, but trust me
they do.

I'm just writing this because A. I'm tired of looking through stupid posts
and B. I want everyone who is in this game to be successful in all of their
endeavors, so don't let your words on line be your Achilles heel.

:-) Yours Truly,
Aaron George Swanlek
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080807/453ac678/attachment.htm 

From akbiotech at comcast.net  Thu Aug  7 14:26:28 2008
From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Art Kyriazis)
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:26:28 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Brief followup on Shanahan Dress and Judging
	Remuneration
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1218042003.5492.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
References: <mailman.1.1218042003.5492.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <489B4C64.8050503@comcast.net>

Dear Folks:

Since posting yesterday, have had some exchanges via email with very 
respected coaches and peers in the community re: Shanahan and judging rates.

Let me amend my posts as follows;

1)  First, I have the utmost respect for all of the members of CEDA, NDT 
and the debate and coaching community. 

2)  It is VERY important that we ensure that all african american, 
female, disabled, transgendered, differently sexually oriented, and all 
other groups feel completely comfortable at all times, and that we 
create a workplace and academic environment in which all persons feel 
free to participate in academic debate freely and comfortably.  This is 
what we expect in our universities, and our workplaces, and this is what 
we should have in CEDA and NDT.

3)  I completely withdraw my comments on dress.  All of you and any of 
you can dress any which way you want.  

4)  It's been pointed out to me that anyone of us can have a bad hair 
day which happens to be caught on film, and furthermore that Prof. 
Shanahan is otherwise a very brilliant and dedicated educator.  
Consequently, I wish to retract my comments on Prof. Shanahan in their 
entirety, and wish only to say, (a) it is unfortunate that the incident 
occurred and (b) doubly unfortunate that incident made its way to film.  
I understand of Prof. Shanahan's brilliance, and perhaps everyone should 
get a mulligan even if it's caught on youtube. 

5)  I do agree with Prof. Mitchell that this does raise the precise 
analogous issue of /Batson v. Kentucky, /
476 U.S. 79 (1986), and that the use of MPJ to knock off the only and 
last African American judge off of a five judge or three judge panel is 
quite analogous to using peremptory challenges to intentional exclusion 
of black jurors from the venire pool.  I join in his learned analysis of 
analogizing the /Batson/ rationale to MPJ.  For myself, I would amend 
MPJ to prohibit the exclusion of the last African American from any 
debate judging panel in accord with /Batson/ as applied to debate. 

6)  On judging, my hope was to be available to serve as a judge 
non-affiliated at either the Clarion or Kings College tournament.  I do 
not wish to be paid more or less than the going market rate or to stake 
out any exorbitant or ridiculous demands. 

7)  the simple answer if you want me to work at the going rate is to 
hire me as an assistant traveling judge for the year and then you can 
have me at a flat salary.  That would be suitable for me since then I 
would be gaining an academic credential on my resume and the money would 
not be as important to me.  I emphasize again I am not motivated by 
money in any way.

7)  I have only the highest and greatest respect for all of you, and I 
especially respect your comment and feedback. 

--art kyriazis


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: akbiotech.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 397 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080807/6b4dd324/attachment.vcf 

From uwgdebate at gmail.com  Thu Aug  7 14:44:59 2008
From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:44:59 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Debate Good, Random narratives about racism bad.
In-Reply-To: <d1f8282c0808071143o1635e50cwc567403f4bffc39f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1f8282c0808071143o1635e50cwc567403f4bffc39f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70808071244r2c74adck5586c370051a79ef@mail.gmail.com>

i felt the need to respond to Aaron's implicit query (can we make this forum
work better?) in the context of responding to what has become a frequent
refrain, mainly the complaint that there are too  many dumbass posts here
and not enough "good stuff" (defined varyingly as 'tournament info' and/or
'debate args' and/or 'caselist info').

i am a member and regular contributor to or daily reader of the following
messageboard/listserv style forums:

*edebate
*Dawgvent (UGA sports)
*HawkSquawk (ATL's NBA team)
* pajiba (movie review site)
* UWG faculty/staff listserv
* Phi Mu sorority listserv (as faculty advisor, i manage the site)
* the Daily Kos
* GAVSV (Ga high school football messageboard)


sometimes when i read people's complaints about how our of control or
dysfunctional edebate is, i wonder participate in any other forums. in terms
of the number of goofy posts that seem off-topic or e-wars between various
forum all-stars, i can say without reservation that edebate has no more of
these than any other forum on which i participate. based on my observations
of e-forums, the following is SOP:

1) free forums (where you don't have to pay to post) are the worst at
producing dumbassery
2) forums which allow anonymous posting have a greater tendency for
escalation and dick-waving
3) ALL forums suffer from a proliferation of 'off-topic' comments


so, Aaron, while i sympathize with your general annoyance and no doubt would
agree with most of your assessments of which posts are the dumbest,
ultimately i must say:

1) quit whining. suck it up and deal with the reality of internet
communication.
2) you don't have to subscribe to edebate to read the posts. the archives
can be accessed by anyone. OR at least create a separate email account so
you don't have 10 messages from random edebate all-star filling your inbox
every 10 minutes because they found their soapbox and need to tell us all
how it's gonna be (boomp-boomp-boomp-ba-doomp-boomp- You're Gonna Give Your
Love To Me).
3) if you want to discuss the topic, post about the topic. if you have a
question about debate, post the question. there are a multitude of people
willing to help you (and despite me being kind of a dick right now, i'm one
of those people)

hester

p.s. - literally nothing that occurs on edebate is unique in terms of either
the absurdity of the arguments or the number of posts that no one really
cares about (and thus wonders, 'why the hell are they posting that here?').
YES, this is even true of other "academic" forums. we're not the only
university employees that say wildly stupid things or PUT OUR QUOTES IN CAPS
TO SHOW WE REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME. the notion that edebate is some anomaly
that is gonna get someone fired ignores the rest of the Academy and its
many, MANY, dysfunctions. on multiple occasions, i've been party to job
termination hearings, and have even had to rule on whether someone should be
fired for their email transgressions, so i'm not speaking as a debate coach
when i say this - i'm speaking as a bureaucrat (ugh). while not disagreeing
specifically with  the claim that some of the foolishness on here may rile
an administrator to the point of firing someone, i must say, most of the
fears expressed by many on here regarding edebate posts being used as a
justification for firing are gross miscalculations of how such decisions are
made. simply put, someone who has never had a run in with their
administration would not be fired for comments they make on a debate
messageboard, unless those comments were direct violations of federal/state
law (and maybe not even then); anyone that could get the boot for such
speech acts was already in hot water. finally, the rule is simple: if you
worry that YOUR school is different, then STFU and stop posting on here. i
promise you will never be canned for something someone else says (even if
it's about you) on an anonymous messageboard you don't visit. hell, even a
corrupt lackey like Gonzales (Albert, not Josh) would rule that as an
illegitimate job termination.



On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Aaron Swanlek <agswanlek at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, this is my second year in the game and i'm dumbstruck;
>
> Not by the activity itself, i have one heck of a coach who has prepared me
> to be competitive against the best. So what am i confused with you say,
>
> The lack of discussion about A. The topic. and B. Tournament information or
> C. Ways to make the game better
>
>
> So i decided i thought of a good way to get information on whats going on
> in the "Community" by signing up for edebate,  little did i know what i was
> getting myself into.  Ad homs, swearing, and random narratives about who is
> bigot a or b(by the way i'm half black, and i really don't know what kinda
> racism y'all see)
>
> As debaters we are looked at as respectful intellectuals who spend major
> amounts of their free time preparing for the next tournament.  We give away
> our summers and part of our social lives because we love to argue about
> relevant information. Do you think things that go on Edebate just disappear?
> When a nineteen year old from middle of no where Pa can call out "Grown Men"
> who sound like they are 12 should give you a signal that this needs to stop.
> All programs are going to have to spend more money to travel, something we
> can all agree on, so if the allocators of resources just so happen to see
> our "Forum" what do you think is going to happen. Debate won't die from the
> plethora of new arguments teams put forward which deviate from the norm, or
> this ideological divisiveness on  what is legitimate but rather the
> immaturity of some of our smartest individuals.
>
> You all may think your name calling, and threats go unnoticed, but trust me
> they do.
>
> I'm just writing this because A. I'm tired of looking through stupid posts
> and B. I want everyone who is in this game to be successful in all of their
> endeavors, so don't let your words on line be your Achilles heel.
>
> :-) Yours Truly,
> Aaron George Swanlek
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080807/03b686f0/attachment.htm 

From uwgdebate at gmail.com  Thu Aug  7 14:49:14 2008
From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester)
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:49:14 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Debate Good, Random narratives about racism bad.
In-Reply-To: <2e0f7ba70808071244r2c74adck5586c370051a79ef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d1f8282c0808071143o1635e50cwc567403f4bffc39f@mail.gmail.com>
	<2e0f7ba70808071244r2c74adck5586c370051a79ef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70808071249i6df8938cmf11075f349bc6c86@mail.gmail.com>

for clarity, Josh Gonzales is neither a "lackey," nor "corrupt."  at lest as
far as i know ;-)

hester
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080807/b8520af4/attachment.htm 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Fri Aug  8 12:45:37 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:45:37 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Coalitions, Conflicts, Power
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808081045x63b20234vae5d4129aef475e7@mail.gmail.com>

A new day indeed, and with no mention of body bags, perhaps there is a
possibility for peace after all...

Dr Warner's post today was good and made me remember why it is that despite
the difficulty of being in coalitions its worth it to try, even if somedays
there are battles about the shape, direction, and control, battles that are
on occassion so bitter and anger filled that those that hope for peace are
saddened and those that hope for conflict amongst the opposition are poised
like vultures to pick on the carcasses we leave, but to borrow a phrase from
shanahan...this is huge...we did this..

By we i don't mean towson, baltimore or the UDL's, but i mean all of those
students, scholars, educators, and youth workers who have worked tirelessly
over the last decade plus to build a new structure of debate in and out of
the rounds.

This without a doubt includes Dr. Warner and the Louisville project. Dr.
Warner's effect on the growth of a new debate entity sometimes is so obvious
to me, that i assume it is to everybody. Some of the effect has been in
obvious ways that he outlines, but some of it is in more subtle ways, that
perhaps he doesnt even know about. None of what has been discussd so far or
will be discussed is meant to diminsh the influence he and his work over the
years has had.

This does not mean there are not disagreements, about the past, present, and
future, without disagreement, even sharp disagreement at times a coalition
is really not a coalition, but merely a leader and some followers.

Ok lets talk about some issues.

In the last post i sent i out i asked Dr. Warner a series of questions.

"What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the
workforce?
What are YOU doing to decrease meaningful black participation in the
prisons?
What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the
economy?
What are YOU doing to increase meaningful black participation in the
education system? "
These questions where not to imply that Dr. Warner needed to be in the
streets marching or organizing, nor did they imply that he doesnt do enough
for black people, in fact i believe his answers to these questions probably
sells a little short the work that has been done at louisville, but none the
less he answered with.

"What I don't do for Black folks in the prison, economy, workforce,
education system, middle class
I don't march. I don't organize. I don't protest. I don't work at soup
kitchens. I don't teach debate in prisons. I don't volunteer at a homeless
shelter. I don't do anything that I suspect Andy would respect as actively
contributing to all of these causes. Let's be clear: I think all of these
are noble, I just don't do them. I don't directly contribute to any
questions in your list, save perhaps education."
At first i read this as he is missing the point, perhaps it was the tone of
the day, but upon rereading i found the following answer which indicates he
does get what i am hinting at.
"And you call this minor because UDL's are doing non-debate things too? "

So Dr. Warner gets that the UDL's do non debate things as well, but for
those of you who don't fully understand that let me provide you some
information.

The UDL movement uses debate in a variety of ways, first it is a competitive
league, people are on teams and they debate for trophies, but for those
students involved a host of other services are provided as well, services
that are often lacking for urban public school students. These include but
are not limited to:College Counciling,Scholarships, SAT
Preperation,International Exchanges, finacial management, youth employment,
internships, technology and job training, and in many instances college
continuation and completion assistance. These additional services are a
means of ensuring that some of the best potential policy makers and future
leaders in their community have not only the argument and advocacy skills
they need, but also the resources which are most often absent in urban
education.

The regan era rollback of great society and civil rights gains took the
provision of these services out of the hands of state and local governemnts
and through the creation of the tax exempt non profit outsourced them to
private organizations. This move cannont be understated, direct service
fufilment of civil rights intiatives are now seen not as an affirmative duty
of the state, but instead as the responsibility of those who care enough to
fund and support them.Luckily debate has enough appeal to those that fund
and support post regan civil rights work that the movement has succeeded
in helping thousands of students to receive educational and social services
that should be equally provided to all people living in America, but that
requires a constant struggle to make sure resources are in place.

In order for this to occur there must be students and educators willing to
partipate and other folks willing to support and fund these intiatives.
Thats no easy task, and the public debates we have as debate educators in
this forum have the potential to have drastic effects on both student and
educator particpation and outside funding and support. Volunteers who are
convinced that the UDL's are going in the wrong direction or are hurting
urban youth are less likely to particpate and that takes direct resources
out of the donation column and shifts things like judging and coaching into
the cost column. In an economy like ours, any additional cost associated
with running the debate part of programs shifts resources away from a debate
organizations ability to provide additional support services and has
a potentially serious effect on the bottom line. Not to say we shouldnt have
pedagogical discussions, but more to say in doing so we have an affiormative
responsibility to reflect on the material consequences those discussions can
potentially have.

Dr Warner talks about how he focused his team building on middle class black
students from two parent families, most of whom i assume had already
envisioned a college education as a key compoennt of their future and if
they where at louisville had already acted to fufill those life goals. I
know for a fact that while louisville may have focused there, Dr warner has
perosnally taken students not from such a background into his home, and in
to his program, so while i will argue with the middle class an exclusive
focus my argument is not with him as a person. But nonetheless he has
outlined a strategy and i have some disagreement with it. In Baltimore we
focus at least a signifigant part of our effort on students that the school
system and the larger society deem "at risk". These students may not strike
educators as the best person to be on the sterotypical debate team, after
all many of them have become disengaged from the educational process and
 express little interest in engaging in "productive" educational practices,
many such students may be from less intact family structures though many may
actually be from stable two parent families, that part is less relvant in
our efforts, than the fact that if something does not engage them we know
the effect they can have on themselves, their communities and their schools.
If a student has a hard time at school and the school has a hard time with
them the likelyhood that they will be incarcerated increases drasticly.
Incarceration destroys family structures, economic viability of individuals,
families and communities, and contributes to climate in which the broader
american public is willing to sanction draconian practices that roll some
communities back to a jim crow era or worse. Simply put if debate is a means
of training new leaders and policy makers we cannont afford to only engage
those that already accept the notions of structure and heirarchy that dr
warner points out.

Baltimore's efforts and other UDL's efforts in this regard have not solved
the problem of "at risk youth", not by any means, but they have effectivly
interupted the process of warehousing students in schools until they are
ready for the prisons and for at least a few students and families have
provided the spark necessary to engage students in less destructive and more
positive life choices. Its impossible to say how many students have been
diverted from the cradle to prison pipeline that the regan era created
in americas cities, but it is also impossible to say that debate is not one
of the forces that has put signifigant power against the sociatal notion
that these youth are expendable, imprisonable, and destined for a life in
the criminal urban underclass.

For some of the students, the notion of a free space, with less structure
and less rules than the typical militarized classroom or city block gives
them the ability to express them selves in a setting where the consequence
is not suspenison, expulsion, incareration, or death but often at worst a
ballot lost. For others it is the ability to speak on what ever issue they
want and have for at least the duration of the debate someone who is
compelled to listen to them. For others it is the "family" setting that a
debate community provides.Whatever the case(and different students feel
strongly about what it is that debate should be for them and what it needs
to be to them) urban debate at the high school level (and more recently at
the college level) despite some flaws, provides a space for students to
engage an educational process that has either pushed,kicked, or squeezed
them out in many classrooms.

A caveat here. Not all urban debaters are at risk students, many of them are
acdemic and educational superstars before entering the debate setting, all
too often the students in urban public school systems who are doing the
"right thing" are racialy and spacially coded as at risk, nothing could be
further from the truth. But given the social structures that exist in
america there are also students who are at serious risk and engaging them in
the debate process has always been a key goal of most UDL programs.
****
The above explanation still creates a debate/non-debate divide as it relates
to the questions i asked, let me for a minute close that divide and talk
about how what we know debate as as a college community also has direct
implications on the social forces i outlined in my intial questions. Hicks
and Greene point out how the education process intiated by debate is a means
of teaching people how to be citizens, they also rightly point out that such
a notion is problematic for several reasons. While not ignoring the
criticisms they level i want to focus on the intial claim. With
the rollbacks in social services and the deteriorating social conditions
that have followed a unique form of pathological nihilism has been ingrained
in the urban landscape, not only are urban public school students led to
believe that they have no power to make the changes necessary to revitalize
their communities, but they are activly disconnected from the political
life and tools often provided to those seen to be the next generation of
change makers. This nihilism is not unique to urban communities or to people
of color, all american youth are encouraged to accept the status quo and to
direct their efforts at materialistic self preservation, but for some the
impact is simply much higher.

Debate as we all know teaches advocacy skills which allow people to identify
problems and propose solutions, the combination of oration, research, and
argumentative engagement as has been proven time and time again link
directly to ones ability to function as a change agent. In the militarized
setting of american urban education draconian federal policies often make
such skills disapear in the process of ensuring the safety and effective
warehousing of students, after all if students are geared up and ready and
able to criticize the school or the city it often makes the educators and
adminsistartors who work in these schools answer for policies that theya re
simply the implementers and not the designers of, even teachers who are
fully supportive of these skills and these challeneges from students are put
into a situation where they are forced to deny students those skills because
if they effectivly utilized them in would highlight the crisis in a way
which would often carry with it severe fedeal and state sanctions. This is
not to state that federal law some how is policing the thoughst and some
NCLB police would come crashing through the schoolhouse door, no its much
more subtle than that. What does happen is dissent and argumenattion are
seeing as threatening and destabilizing to the school environment and often
times in settings where such skills have been denied the expression of
rage and frustration that students feel toward the school is counter
productive to the schools mission of trying to manage students. So debate
teaches students a means to effectivly engage these decison makers on
the larger societies terms.

All over the nation UDL students are using the skills that debate has taught
them to engage in real world advocacy efforts that effectivly challenge the
conditions in which they find themselves, in baltimore this year debaters
are negaged in amjor political effort to demand accountability from the city
council and the mayors office and to seek meaningful youth employment for
students who serve in roles as peer to peer mentors. Debate is not at the
center of this movement per se, but has been in alrge part in formulating
and identifying the arguments and strategies necessary to get the youth to
the bargining table. I would be remiss to say it has just worked like that
and that everything is great now, status quo interests are powerful things
and to amass the power to challenge those institutions takes time, skill,
setbacks, and effectivly constructed counter power. But the struggle is
under way and debaters are at the heart of it.

However Dr warner is right to point out that the predominant framework for
evaluation that currently exists for academic policy debate may not be
suitable to address such real world political battles because it operates
out of a globalized focus in which minority issues are relagted to well
minority issues. In baltimore one means for addressing this and shifting the
pedagogy of debate has involved the utilization of the in round innovations
that dr warner was a big part of creating. We have been engaged in a several
year process to challenge the framework of debates through debates and in
this process we have utilized some of the most effective college debaters on
these questions to foster just such a shift. This has taken the form of
hiring in one capacity or another many of the most successful debaters and
coaches in the country (many of whom have a direct connection to the
louisville program) to teach the students to craft a new pedgogy one
which allows them to utilize debate tools in order to shift the focus of
discussion away from the macro political global focused impacts to a
framework in which minority focused impacts have an equal ability to win
debates. In fact it is the very challenge to the rules that he stepped away
froma  few years ago that has helped the pedagogy here to shift toward one
in which students get to set the framework for evaluation and debate it out.
This process is not without its pitfalls, and mistakes, and its not done
yet, but at the various ummer camps that have kept udl graduates empoyed and
activly working in teaching all summer a debate has raged about what the
focus of pedgaogy and politics should be. Nick brady pointed out a few weeks
ago some of the problems that have come from this, but without a doubt the
shift over the last several years to utilize the greatest debate minds in
the nation on these questions have produced a level of interrogation and
questioning of status quo frameworks that will better prepare students for
the political battles they face as they aim to be leaders of this and other
cities.

Furthermore when i was helping get the middle school league off the ground
in this city we intially started the topics focused around national level
high school topics and often taught with a focus on global level policy
making and global level impacts, but over time based on studnet and educator
input we shifted topics to address things that allowed debates to be framed
around debates that addressed minorirty and localized impacts, policy
debates for examples about policing practices and education practices, where
global level impacts where possible to get to, but only by looking at it
through the perspective of local concerns. Its hard for example to shut out
minority impact calculations in favor of macro political concerns on a topic
that asks students to debate about wheter police surveileance cameras should
remain on baltimore street corners. There is no nuclear option in that
debate to silence a meaningful debate about how urban communities relate to
crime and vioelnce and drugs.

All of this is to say that at least some in the udl movement hear your
criticisms, and act to build institutions, not simply teams which address
them. But it is not to say that we never address issues of global
importance, because sometimes debating about baltimore and baltimore
xclsuivly recreates a pattern where baltimore students are expected to have
no conern for anything outside their neighborhood or their city. Its a
question of balance and one that is being worked on pretty extensivly by
debate professionals, students, and educators with a vast array of
experiences and perspectives.
***
Dr. Warner points out my white skin privilage and reasonably questions my
interrogation of what he does for black people.
"Let's be clear Andy, privilege operates differently for the two of us."

Indeed it does, and to often i fall over my uncomfortability with my
privilege to seek dr warners advice as a black leader in debate, while
ignoring black leaders in baltimore, or in the direct youth service provison
community, because after all i am a debater, the danger in the defferal to
his blackness is that i often put the burden on him to make decisons that
effect baltimore when he has no direct self interest or knowledge of the
climate here politicaly or socially, this is not to say such advice is not
and has not been valuble, but that to seek it puts an undo burden on him,
and other black debate leaders to speak to very real situations which i
should based on the nature of my work be able to speak to. I think many of
us especially those of us who have excitedly embraced the louisville project
fall into this trap, the irony of this of course being that those often most
concerned about white privilege and most sensitive to its implications make
the worst decisons because they believ that their privilege marks them so
much that they shift the burden of difficult decison making to black leaders
who they wish could be working on the projects they dont feel equipped to
work on.

Perhaps the ultimate marker of this privilege is not respecting someone
enough to disagree, and for the times i have fallen into that trap i
apologize.

One place where we disagree (and there are a lot) is about the centrality
one team can play in this process, while i think louisville can be an engine
of innovation and progress toward the common goals, i dont think that one
college debate team can effectivly shift debate enough to allow it to play a
signifigant part in the great struggle for humanization. This does mean i
dont think it has a role to play, it has played a remarkably huge role and
will under either dr warners or tiffanys or someone elses leadership
continueto do so, but it can hardly alone address the material and
structural changes that need to occur outside of the debate round to be able
to acheive its goals, and thus becomes teh necessity of coalitions.

The coalition with lousiville has been tough because it often requires white
youth workers to challenge the occasionaly sweeping claims of a prominent
black educator and privelege no doubt palys a part in that interaction, but
privilege cant become defferal because dr warner is only one man and between
his two sons his wife his team his scholarship and his community we cant
also ask him to take on our massive social infrastrucure projects. But it
hurts from this side of things to see the work you do outside of his
leadership and influence to be described as his especially when he is in one
sense so critical and in another so helpful.

Coalitions require shared interest, and with dr warner many of us have
shared interst, but thats only the starting point...once the shared interest
is established then there is a whole world of material and emotional work
that is needed, and i believe we all try at points to enagge that question,
sometimes effectivly other times not so much.

Just as much as i wont let Dr. Warner destroy deven, i also wont let our
disagreements derail what could be a useful coalition, because what we are
all collectivly fighting for is the realization of civil rights and a better
world.

***
White/Black

Its easy for Dr. Warner and i to get caught in a black white binary. I am a
white man who works in a predominatly black urban center, he is black man
who works and lives in a predominatly white campus and america, but this
discussion goes beyond that and we both know it. UDL's as jillian pointed
out are not per se about race, but also about place, and place is
encompassing of a variety of scoail locations channeled into one geographic
location, urban areas in america are often times a ignored forgotten about
and targeted space, they are different from cosmopolitan areas and rural
areas and suburban areas, race is a predominant factor because of the
stratification of life in america, and for many students and educators in
this environemnt it is an apriori issue, but below the surface is a much
bigger question that effects the worlds ability to assess localized minority
impacts. Our coalition if it survives is in my mind a way to transform
politics to provide resources and tools to those who are supposed to have
decisons made for and about them to make decisons for themselves, this
expands beyond the city beyond race and beyond class to provide a
fundemental challenge to the way democracy is supposed to work. I want
debate rounds that can be won or lost on an impact that effects a person and
a place, a village in mexico that has lost its corn and can change global
policy as a result should be able to effect poltical decison making as much
as a west virginia community that has a cafo in it just as much as a urban
center that has a civil war waging within its closed of militiarized
boundries, and only by forming a coalition of common interest can we get
there. Maybe thats possible around this conversation, yesterdays message
indicates it might be, maybe its not, wednesdays indicates it might not be,
but despite all else we will meet here sometimes in battle and sometimes in
agreement because a better world wouldnt just be a nice outcome but its an
absolute necessity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080808/f18f76ce/attachment.htm 

From timmonsa at greenhill.org  Fri Aug  8 13:40:46 2008
From: timmonsa at greenhill.org (Timmons, Aaron)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:40:46 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Greenhill School tournament - registration open and
	judges needed
Message-ID: <C4742EC42FB98948B47A652219AD8CBE61C6CEF1@ben.greenhill.org>

Greetings!



Two items of business (one LONG overdue)!



1st -  I am pleased to announce that Eric Forslund will be the new Associate Director of Debate at Greenhill School. Eric has a great debate mind and is a great guy. I am remiss for taking so long in welcoming him to Greenhill (and to Texas)!



2nd -  Registration is now open for this year's installment of the Greenhill Fall Classic at http://www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/greenhill/info.asp . Any folks in the college community wishing to judge should email me at timmonsa at greenhill.org<mailto:timmonsa at greenhill.org> . The tournament is September 13th - 15th ,  2008. We also need judges for our round robin on September 11th and 12th.



We pay very well and will house and feed you. For college Directors it is a great chance to get a jump on recruiting.



Have a great start to the college season! Please contact me with any questions about the RR or invitational.



Aaron Timmons


Aaron W. Timmons
Director of Debate
Greenhill School
4141 Spring Valley Road
Addison, Texas 75001

Direct Line - 972.628.5606
Fax - 972.628.6606
timmonsa at greenhill.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080808/ff33a244/attachment.htm 

From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com  Fri Aug  8 13:58:45 2008
From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:58:45 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] cheap printers
Message-ID: <524839830808081158x5953f09fh8d9c7846c46af7a7@mail.gmail.com>

I was in Staples today and they have many of the popular debate portable
printers for $99

Brother 2040
HP1006
Samsung 2150

Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080808/2fa840f6/attachment.htm 

From stannardmatt at hotmail.com  Fri Aug  8 14:19:06 2008
From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:19:06 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] home school debate question
Message-ID: <BAY101-W51DB167696E8B9EBC36C55D2740@phx.gbl>


It appears that the National Home School Debate League has become part of the National Christian Forensics Association.  
 
However, I have received inquiries about home school debate programs from both Christian and non-Christian home-schooling parents.  The latter don't seem to want to affiliate themselves with a Christian organization.
 
Where should I send the non-Christian parents for home school debate information?  The NCFA site appears to be very much geared exclusively towards Christians.  
 
If anyone could help me with this, I'd appreciate it.
 
matt stannard
_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080808/7a5567dc/attachment.htm 

From gregachten at berkeley.edu  Fri Aug  8 14:58:42 2008
From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] cheap printers
In-Reply-To: <524839830808081158x5953f09fh8d9c7846c46af7a7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <524839830808081158x5953f09fh8d9c7846c46af7a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <60532.165.124.116.36.1218225522.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu>

You can buy many of these printers in the Amazon.com marketplace for
around $65 including shipping and handling. You can also get toner for
these printers at around $30 per cartridge, or about half the cost at an
office supply store.

Greg

> I was in Staples today and they have many of the popular debate portable
> printers for $99
>
> Brother 2040
> HP1006
> Samsung 2150
>
> Stefan
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



From jregnier at gmail.com  Sat Aug  9 08:40:11 2008
From: jregnier at gmail.com (Jason Regnier)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 08:40:11 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] peremptory challenges and fort hays
Message-ID: <670f9a030808090640k4a5e99aew135a023fc0cf7602@mail.gmail.com>

Just to clarify things a little...

While the discussion of peremtory challenges is an interesting and important
one, it is also important that we not confuse what happened in that round as
equivalent to a peremptory challenge based upon race.  If you listen to what
Bill says in the video (and, crazy idea, if you were to actually talk to him
about it), they did not strike Shanara because she is black.  They struck
her because of the history that they had with her as a judge.  In the
previous debate she had not only voted against them, but done so with bad
points.  I don't know the details, but my understanding is that the
post-round left the Hays debaters unhappy.  The proof of this happens in the
video when Shanara shouts something like, "It's because they fucking suck."
Of course, I can't imagine that she would have said such words in that
post-round, but the fact that it comes out here with such virulence suggests
that maybe the Fort Hays debaters had reason to be uncomfortable.  And while
I cannot speak to the recent decisions made at Fort Hays, I can speak with
complete confidence as a former student of Bill's that there is *zero*
chance that they struck Shanara under the logic that since she is black she
would be more likely to vote for Towson.  I can also say that Shanara used
to be one of the Fort Hay's squad's favorite judges.  She gave support to us
and our arguments before it became popular to do so--even when we, too,
sucked.  I believe that the rounds that she judged us were a crucial
part of the early development of our confidence as debaters.  That is why we
prefed her.  And if the current debaters at Fort Hays began to feel the
opposite about her, then I can see why they would strike her from an
important elim.  I will not deny that the twisted dynamics of raced
interpersonal relationships play a major roll in all of the feelings that we
have within those relationships, but lets not confuse that with the type of
racism embodied in the peremptory challenge.

I won't argue that this answers the question as to whether there should be
an affirmative obligation to pref minority judges, but the Fort Hays strike
cannot be equated to a peremptory challenge because there was cause, even if
some might argue that this cause is outweighed by other concerns.

And for those of you who would string Bill up for committing battery on
ML...  When he pushed her arm, it was because her hand was at his throat.
I'm not saying that its right, but nor is it some unspeakable act of
violence.  He pushed her arm away from his throat.  Thats it.  He didn't
threaten her.  He didn't hit her.  If anything, the first act of physical
interaction in the entire tape is that initiated by ML.

Bill coached me for 5 years.  I would not be the person that I am today
without his presence in my life.  We had our battles, in large part because
we had very different styles of interpersonal communication.  I tend to be
quite and conflict-averse, which we all know is not Bill's style.  However,
one thing that I figured out over those years (and I think that anybody else
who considers Bill a dear friend would agree) is that he's a package deal.
The good comes with the bad, the productive with the destructive.  He
doesn't just violate the norms of politesse and decorum merely to get
attention or to be a dick.  The impulse that leads him to moon and shout at
somebody is the exact same impulse that compels him more than anybody who I
have ever met to be constantly concerned with the ethics of his actions.  I
don't know who Art Kyriazis is (other than a classist bigot), but the
suggestion that Bill was having a "tantrum" could not be further than the
truth.  I guarantee that if anybody had suggested a "peremptory challenge"
to Bill, he would have brought the same fury and passion to bear against it
as you saw him display against Shanara.  If its true that Bill's
communication style risks violence, it is no less true that politeness and
decorum risk allowing the unacceptable to continue unchallenged.  Bill
doesn't allow things to go unchallenged.  That's what makes some people so
uncomfortable around him.  They know very well that they engage in
unacceptable behavior, but nobody calls them out on it so it continues.
When you live around Bill you have to be prepared to defend those behaviors
or you'll hear about it.  This is also the impulse that has enabled every
contribution that Bill has made to the debate community and its
argumentation theories.  The debate community has a short institutional
memory, so it bears remembering that *all* critical debaters owe an
unpayable debt to Bill, without whom the face of debate would be radically
different.  Bill cares, not just about his own team, but about the entire
community, and that is why he is who he is.  It is why he constantly puts
himself out there while many of the rest of us feel all too comfortable
expressing silent indignation.

I have finally grown tired of my own complacent indignation at the appalling
treatment that this community has given to one of my dearest friends.  You
know, for years people have repeatedly tried to put me in the position of
defending Bill's actions, which I would, thinking that maybe if I just put
them in different words or in a different tone, then perhaps I could show
the thought behind them.  Over time I've come to realize that its not really
the actions that need explaining.  Its the ears that are not listening and
the minds that are not thinking.  No matter how I would interpret
or explain, people would always come back with the same attitude: "OMG!?!?!
That Shanahan is so CRAZY!!!! Did you hear about X? OMG!!!!!"  I suppose
maybe that means that I'm a bad explainer.  I don't know...

Jason Regnier
Fort Hays State Debate '98-'03
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/9e6293c8/attachment.htm 

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  9 09:39:54 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:39:54 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] take the towson challenge
Message-ID: <BLU141-W399C0CCF0948D3ECC87E7CD8770@phx.gbl>














http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075634.html

art kyriazis writes, "I do agree with Prof. Mitchell that this does raise the
precise analogous issue of /Batson v. Kentucky, / 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and
that the use of MPJ to knock off the only and last African American judge off
of a five judge or three judge panel is quite analogous to using peremptory
challenges to intentional exclusion of black jurors from the venire pool. I
join in his learned analysis of analogizing the /Batson/ rationale to MPJ.
For myself, I would amend MPJ to prohibit the exclusion of the last African
American from any debate judging panel in accord with /Batson/ as applied
to debate."

_

don't think i made my point on batson as clearly as possible last time
(http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075589.html),
so let me elaborate.

the analogy to batson helps understand why fort hays responded the way
they did, but it doesn't help us accurately understand towson's argument;
here's what the defense must demonstrate in a batson challenge:

The defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial

group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove

from the venire [jury pool] members of the defendant's race. The defendant

may also rely on the fact that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection

practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.

Finally, the defendant must show that such facts and any other relevant

circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges

to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race. Once the

defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come

forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batson_v._Kentucky

first note that fort hays came forward "with a neutral explanation" for their
strike: in-round, they claimed it was 'strategic' given a previous round that
reid-brinkley had judged them; after-round, we learned from shanahan the
deciding factor was low speaker-points. 'the points' is a neutral explanation,
and there's a sense that the fort hays squad thought this excuse sufficient.

{interestingly, however, once an initial case has been presented in an actual
batson challenge, it'd be an inadequate rebuttal to respond, "we didn't strike
her because she's black". in the words of justice powell:

Nor may the prosecutor rebut the defendant's case merely by denying that
he had a discriminatory motive or "affirm[ing] [his] good faith in making
individual selections." If these general assertions were accepted as rebutting
a defendant's prima facie case, the Equal Protection Clause "would be but a
vain and illusory requirement." The prosecutor therefore must articulate a
neutral explanation related to the particular case to be tried. The trial court
then will have the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.}

second note that towson never argued that reid-brinkley was struck "on
account of her race". they're not attempting to show anything "analogous
to using peremptory challenges to [the] intentional exclusion of black jurors".
and they repeatedly insist on this point: in the cross-ex of the 1a.c., avery
henry asks, "how can you make the claim that our strike sheet represents a
form of racism in a world where you don't know the reasons [...]? [...] in
a room full of tons of people, you're going to call us out, you want to call us
racist...".



deven cooper then interrupts, "we didn't call you racist. we said that you're

exclusionary for the act that you took, and your action has racist implications

- not that you yourself are racist."

-- 9:08s: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=567966331243825646

let's be clear: the batson decision doesn't hold that i as a black person have
a right to be tried by a jury with black people on it. no, it merely holds that i
have a right to be tried by a jury that's been vetted by non-discriminatory
criteria, i.e., in which no black jurors were dismissed solely because they're
black. juries are to be "indifferently chosen".

towson is saying that this remedy isn't enough. if you claim to care about
inclusion of racial minorities, then you can't just 'choose indifferently'. you
have to choose with a mind attentive of inclusion.

dayvon love puts it cogently in the 2a.c. (at 27:36s) - analysis that's worth
revisiting:

"the argument here is that if we recognize that there's a need for inclusion in
the activity, then we have to take specific actions to make sure that inclusion
happens. it was an opportunity for fort hays to be able to include her in the
discussion - to make this discussion more fruitful. [see post-script] this isn't
an argument about them being racist. this is an argument about a methodology
that they choose to pick to not include shanara in the discussion that is
necessary. and if they agree that inclusion is an important part in them being
able to effectively challenge these forms of domination, then that inclusion
was necessary. and what's interesting about it is that shanara is very well
versed in post-structuralist and post-colonial literature which is the vein of
literature they use and have used to debate against us, and [she] gave them
advice about how to make that postmodern and post-structural theory to be
able to relate to us, to be able to debate us. and so what she's asking for
and what the negative failed to do is to make that connection. this isn't a
question of their sincerity or a question of their intentions; this is a question
of their methodology, and their methodology was problematic in the way in
which they struck her."

in short, the professed neutrality of fort hays' methods *is the link*. it's an
example of where color-blindness falls short, since debate teams, having no
wish to racially discriminate and using procedures that are focused solely on
strategy, still back into judging panels bereft of black voices. color-blindness,
far from a weakness, is today white privilege's primary strength. without ever
having to put up a sign reading 'no blacks allowed', without ever having to even
think a racist thought, seemingly neutral institutions roll along while qualified
and dedicated black scholars are relegated to the role of spectators.

so again, take a peek at this note by joshua wilkenfeld:

http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/index.cfm?article_id=740

some of the same reasons that a diversity-enhancing system for selecting

jurors is in the government's interest are reasons that towson challenges

are in the forum's interest; some of the same reasons batson challenges

have proven inadequate in creating community-reflective juries are reasons

ensuring the m.p.j. system is free of intentional racism won't work either.

one assumes that this activity has a stake in being perceived as fair, in
expanding the analytic skill set brought to bear on judging rounds, and in
promoting cross-racial understanding; one also assumes that remedies
should be narrowly tailored to further these goals - whence the need for
towson challenges.

_

p.s., an excerpt from justice o'conor's opinion in grutter v. bollinger:

We have long recognized that, given the important purpose of public education
and the expansive freedoms of speech and thought associated with the university
environment, universities occupy a special niche in our constitutional tradition.
In announcing the principle of student body diversity as a compelling state
interest, Justice Powell invoked our cases recognizing a constitutional dimension,
grounded in the First Amendment, of educational autonomy: "The freedom of
a university to make its own judgments as to education includes the selection
of its student body." From this premise, Justice Powell reasoned that by claiming
"the right to select those students who will contribute the most to the 'robust
exchange of ideas,'" a university "seek[s] to achieve a goal that is of paramount
importance in the fulfillment of its mission." Our conclusion that the Law School
has a compelling interest in a diverse student body is informed by our view that
attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law School?s proper
institutional mission...

As part of its goal of "assembling a class that is both exceptionally academically
qualified and broadly diverse," the Law School seeks to "enroll a 'critical mass'
of minority students." ...the Law School's concept of critical mass is defined by
reference to the educational benefits that diversity is designed to produce.

These benefits are substantial. As the District Court emphasized, the Law
School's admissions policy promotes "cross-racial understanding," helps to
break down racial stereotypes, and "enables [students] to better understand
persons of different races." These benefits are "important and laudable," because
"classroom discussion is livelier, more spirited, and simply more enlightening
and interesting" when the students have "the greatest possible variety of
backgrounds."

-- http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZO.html


_

_________________________________________________________________
Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/c046c86d/attachment.htm 

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  9 09:55:43 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:55:43 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] peremptory challenges and fort hays
Message-ID: <BLU141-W1864A9606A6B58EA65159D8770@phx.gbl>


i unreservedly endorse everything jason regnier just wrote.

_

http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075642.html

_________________________________________________________________
Got Game? Win Prizes in the Windows Live Hotmail Mobile Summer Games Trivia Contest
http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergames?ocid=TXT_TAGHM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/dd5db28d/attachment.htm 

From oguevara at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  9 11:58:43 2008
From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:58:43 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] peremptory challenges and fort hays
In-Reply-To: <BLU141-W1864A9606A6B58EA65159D8770@phx.gbl>
References: <BLU141-W1864A9606A6B58EA65159D8770@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY117-W44F087B6108233FAA8B4B6D3770@phx.gbl>


I agree with Kevin, and applaud Jason for having the courage to post what some do not want to consider.
 
The part about being a "package deal" is particularly important.  Too many people forget that about Bill...
 
...and of course, forget that about themselves :)
 
OG





Omar G Guevara II
Director of Forensics
Department of Communication
College of Arts & Humanities
Weber State University
Ogden, Utah
 

801.626.6220 (Office)
801.668.6910 (Cell)
 
Oguevara at hotmail.com
Oguevara at weber.edu
 


"I am the stone that the builder refused..."  


From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.comTo: edebate at ndtceda.comDate: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 09:55:43 -0500Subject: Re: [eDebate] peremptory challenges and fort hays


i unreservedly endorse everything jason regnier just wrote._http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075642.html

Got Game? Win Prizes in the Windows Live Hotmail Mobile Summer Games Trivia Contest Find out how. 
_________________________________________________________________
Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are.  Start here.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home_082008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/be2b33f3/attachment.htm 

From kkuswa at richmond.edu  Sat Aug  9 14:28:55 2008
From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 15:28:55 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Mmm...microfascism:  No pu(n) for you
References: <9368bc9b0808081045x63b20234vae5d4129aef475e7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84402D90C4D@castor.richmond.edu>

Dictators are dictators, no matter how they are packaged (the aesthetics of studied dishevelment) or endorsed.  When dictators are accused of enacting their aims, they respond fascistically, confirming themselves as not brilliant, but afraid.  The fear is here, as the far right exposes their cheeks--cheeks yielding not openness, but a closed hole of Mussolini-colored excrement.  Minions, it?s carrion all the way down, and you no longer fit in the overhead.
 
kevin


From sean.mumper at gmail.com  Sat Aug  9 15:57:54 2008
From: sean.mumper at gmail.com (Sean Mumper)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 13:57:54 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Job Opening: Lynbrook High School seeks Policy Head Coach
	for 2008-2009 Year
Message-ID: <9f9d33380808091357w74f20ee3t4f8111c761bc90ab@mail.gmail.com>

 Hi all

Lynbrook High School in San Jose, CA, is looking for someone to fill the
Head Coaching position for policy debate. Currently, the team has a small
policy squad that could grow to include some novice teams. You would more
than likely not be working with more than four or five teams total.

Expectations: The Head Coach will need to live somewhere in the area, as
s/he will be expected to be able to attend one (maybe two) practice a week
at the school. We have an incredible bunch of parents that will drive you
to/from almost wherever, so if you are a bit outside the area it shouldn't
be a problem. The coach will need to attend most of the local/national
tournaments, performing coaching as well as chaperoning duties. Please dont
be detered if this sounds like a lot of work - the program is small and
we're not expecting to win TOC.

Compensation would be contingent upon availability and experience, but we're
looking to pay around 4-5k. We will help with expenses.

If you are interested in the position, please email me at
sean.mumper at gmail.com and we can set up something over the phone or via IM.
Also, do not hesitate to contact me with any questions/concerns.

Thanks,

Sean Mumper
Director of Forensics
Lynbrook High School
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/ff2b635e/attachment.htm 

From boonies96 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  9 17:18:50 2008
From: boonies96 at yahoo.com (Red Jones)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 15:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Russia has declared war ... shouldn't we be worried
Message-ID: <434293.81685.qm@web59704.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

So Russia has declared war on Georgia and yet no one seems to care. What the hell is going on?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10georgia.html?hp

Also this nytimes article is interesting in that it points out both Russia and Georgia are US allies making our position pretty precarious. Hmm I guees those Russia disads may be coming true ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10diplo.html?hp



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/8f448716/attachment.htm 

From boonies96 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  9 17:20:34 2008
From: boonies96 at yahoo.com (Red Jones)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 15:20:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Russia has declared war ... shouldn't we be worried
Message-ID: <167407.31691.qm@web59712.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

So Russia has declared war on Georgia and yet no one seems to care. What the hell is going on?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10georgia.html?hp

Also this nytimes article is interesting in that it points out both Russia and Georgia are US allies making our position pretty precarious. Hmm I guees those Russia disads may be coming true ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10diplo.html?hp


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/b737952e/attachment.htm 

From boonies96 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  9 17:21:25 2008
From: boonies96 at yahoo.com (Red Jones)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 15:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Russia has declared war ... shouldn't we be worried
Message-ID: <298306.54643.qm@web59709.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

sorry for the double post



----- Original Message ----
From: Red Jones <boonies96 at yahoo.com>
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2008 6:20:34 PM
Subject: [eDebate] Russia has declared war ... shouldn't we be worried


So Russia has declared war on Georgia and yet no one seems to care. What the hell is going on?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10georgia.html?hp

Also this nytimes article is interesting in that it points out both Russia and Georgia are US allies making our position pretty precarious. Hmm I guees those Russia disads may be coming true ....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10diplo.html?hp


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/4c13c1b2/attachment.htm 

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  9 17:40:55 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 17:40:55 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Mmm...microfascism: No pu(n) for you
Message-ID: <BLU141-W94C0295A55F4D5E71463BD8770@phx.gbl>


http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075646.html
_

kuswa, in my opinion, your unwillingness to name names also displays fear
- not brilliance.

i don't appreciate being back-handedly referred to as a 'minion', as i have
been outspokenly critical of shanahan's behavior. he may embrace himself
as an asshole, but that doesn't make him a 'dictator'. he's an impassioned
public speaker, an original thinker, and the best of teachers. ...whether or
not his "dishevelment" is "studied", i can't say; but i can say you're clothed
in the very arguments he helped thread. and if it's high time for a bath, who
among us isn't a bit dirty?

_
"Leftist organizations will not be the last to secrete microfascisms. It's too easy

to be antifascist on the molar level, and not even see the fascist inside you,

the fascist you yourself sustain and nourish and cherish with molecules both

personal and collective."
_________________________________________________________________
Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are.  Start here.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home_082008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/102f021a/attachment.htm 

From debatekorea at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  9 18:44:39 2008
From: debatekorea at hotmail.com (Jason Jarvis)
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:44:39 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] QatarDebate - Coaching Opportunities in Qatar
In-Reply-To: <140430.11140.qm@web58809.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <140430.11140.qm@web58809.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BLU112-W5802ED4D08DE00F57E9CDDAE770@phx.gbl>















    
            

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alex Just <alex at qatardebate. org>

Date: Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Subject: [AUDC] QatarDebate - Coaching Opportunities in Qatar
To: AUDC at yahoogroups. com


















    
            QATARDEBATE ? COACHING OPPORTUNITIES IN QATAR



BACKGROUND



QatarDebate is the National Debating Organisation for Qatar and a

member of the Qatar Foundation. QatarDebate was established in

September 2007 with the aim of developing, supporting and raising the

standard of open discussion and debate among students in Qatar and

across the Middle East, shaping the Global Citizens of today and the

intellectual leaders of tomorrow. The programme is overseen by an

Executive Director, Dr. Hayat Maarafi, and run by a Program Manager,

Mr. Alex Just.



In its first year, QatarDebate has run workshops on debate for over

1500 students and faculty at over 30 different educational

institutions across Qatar, within Education City and beyond.

QatarDebate administered the first ever Qatar-wide debate league

between schools and universities from February 2008, and ran National

Schools and National Universities debating competitions attended by

over 400 students in March 2008.



For more details about QatarDebate please refer to our website at 

www.qatardebate. org



UPCOMING OPPORTUNITIES



Over the course of the next academic year QatarDebate is seeking to

employ on a contract basis world-class debate trainers to help coach

debate in schools and universities across Qatar. Although the

QatarDebate format is a modified version of the World Schools/Australs

format anyone with debate coaching experience may apply.



We are now recruiting trainers for the following sessions:



* Workshop 1:	20th ? 29th September 2008	6 Coaches	Deadline: 1st

September 2008



* Workshop 2:	6th ? 14th December 2008	6 Coaches	Deadline: 1st

November 2008



* Workshop 3:	7th ? 17th January 2009		6 Coaches	Deadline: 1st

November 2008



*** Please note that except in exceptional circumstances you must be

available for the full duration of the workshop period ***



We promise to provide a unique experience for all our trainers who

will receive the following for assisting with our coaching programme:



* Economy Flights from your home country to Doha



* Accommodation in a 5-Star Hotel in Doha, with all food and internal

travel expenses covered



* USD$200 per coaching day (engagements will be between 7 and 10 days)



* A free trip to the spectacular Qatari desert and a chance to go

camel riding!



HOW TO APPLY



If you are interested in applying to become a QatarDebate trainer

please send your competitive debate/coaching CV and the workshops you

are available to coach at to hr [at] qatardebate. org by the deadlines

outlined above.



We will only be contacting successful applicants within 10 days of the

application deadline, though our HR Department will hold your CV on

file and we may invite you to work at QatarDebate workshops in the future.



If you have any further queries about QatarDebate please contact Alex

Just at alex [at] qatardebate. org  




      

    
    
	
	
	
	


	


	
	
	
	
	




      

    
    __._,_.___
    
    
              
          
            Messages in this topic           (1)
        
        
          
            Reply           (via web post)
          | 
        
          Start a new topic        
           
    
    
    
                Messages  
            |    Files  
            |    Photos  
            |    Links  
            |    Database  
            |    Polls  
            |    Members  
            |    Calendar  
      
    

                
              
    
    
    
    
      
       

      Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 

      Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional 


      
        Visit Your Group 
       |
      
        Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use       |
      
        Unsubscribe       
         
   

  
  
  
  
    
    


     


	    
	    
	      	      
		Visit Your Group	      
	     
	    	    	      
	    
	    	          
              
                      Y! Messenger 
Files to share? 
Send up to 1GB of 
files in an IM.                  
                    
                      Learn to live 
a full life with these 
healthy living 
groups on Yahoo!                  
                    
                      Yahoo! Groups 
w/ John McEnroe 
Join the All-Bran 
Day 10 Club.                  
          
	    
	   	  
	  .
	 		   

	
	__,_._,___
	
	 
	
	




	
	
	


      
_________________________________________________________________
Got Game? Win Prizes in the Windows Live Hotmail Mobile Summer Games Trivia Contest
http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergames?ocid=TXT_TAGHM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080809/091ea4b4/attachment.htm 

From andy.edebate at gmail.com  Sun Aug 10 10:28:38 2008
From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:28:38 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] no more edebating
Message-ID: <9368bc9b0808100828m5c0bbb1fy7f1d7f8628fbe41b@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,
After this post my days as a edebater are done, from this point forward i
will use this forum exclusivly for announcements, and occasional advocacy
for official ndt or ceda business.

Many of you know that i will not be working with Towson next year, it has
been an amazing time, and as a tiger alum i will always support the team,
but the margins of academic labor are an unsure and often unpredictable
place.

Starting monday i will work full time for YOURS (Youth Organizing Urban
Revitalization Systems) a Baltimore based non profit which has in the past
worked on a whole host of programs with Baltimore youth. For the short term
we will focus on two main programs, the YOURS Store a newly opened youth
business cooperative with both a storefront and a webstore, and Baltimore
College Debate, the program to build new college debate programs that  i
have been focusing on here in Baltimore for the last several years.

It has been fun, and while i am not per se leaving college debate, i will
after all be hosting 3-6 college debate tournaments, coaching students at
several schools, and running a comprehensive resource site on line, my focus
is not on debates about debate. It is on on providing material and
structural opportunities to expand debate, as an opportunity for youth
empowerment.

Now I did say after this post. Thus Here are some arguments

1. I watched the gas price discussion and the air line discussion and i
thought i would refer you back to a post i had written a while ago.
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2006-April/066678.html
It is my fundamental belief that those of us in urban areas like this one
must (3.00 a gallon gas = must) form local debate alternatives, we must
dedicate energy and resources to supporting the other schools in our city,
not just for our city or the other schools, but because if current trends
continue we will in order to compete we will need to have nearly zero cost
tournaments that we can attend without having to 1) rent cars and drive
them
hundreds of miles over the course of weekends 2) rent multiple hotel rooms
3) pay rising entry fees 4) all of the other expenses associated with
driving people hundreds of miles, the key thing we can do is run and
support
local tournaments, if there is a viable competitive local tournament
structure between philly and dc then it will be much easier to allow the
cities programs the ability to debate while getting their funding.

We must accept that if we are not willing to make structural changes no
amount of edebate discussion is going to sway that many people, and the
current trend is going to continue, and the real war will be on those
programs with less money and farther away from the cosmopolotion world of
the upper echelons of college debate. Localization especially in the areas
where the regions are weak, can quickly build a local travel circuit which
replaces the regional travel schedule that not only saves the team that
launches the program money and lets them have more debaters, but also allows
other teams from the local to grow.

Ok really thats it...One last thing some BCD Announcements

With the time i  normally spend edebating and thinking of the next great
strategy i will this week finish the following:
Invites and schedules for 08-09 bcd tournaments
Update, finish and announce the file set from the summer coop
Post the videos shot during our coop
Announce the membership program
Post the first wave of program assistance materials.

Thats not chest beating or listing how good i am, thats an explanation for
at least 7 people as to why i am writing this email if i have stuff to do ;)

And With that, Thanks its been fun.

Andy Ellis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080810/68a32d9f/attachment.htm 

From andreajterry at gmail.com  Sun Aug 10 12:14:15 2008
From: andreajterry at gmail.com (Andrea Terry)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Please connect with me :)
Message-ID: <17279559.6361218388455012.JavaMail.JBoss@neptune1.reunion.com>

Hi,

I looked for you on Reunion.com, but you weren't there. Please connect with me so we can keep in touch.
-Andrea

Do You Know Andrea?
YES - Connect with Andrea, and see who's searching for you
http://www.reunion.com/showInviteRegistration.do?uid=277784047
NO - I don't know Andrea
http://www.reunion.com/showInviteRegistration.do?unsub=true&uid=277784047&invitee=edebate at www.ndtceda.com

----------------------------

Reunion.com - Find Everyone from Your Past. 
You have received this e-mail because a Reunion.com Member sent an invitation to
this e-mail address. For assistance, please refer to our FAQ or Contact Us. http://help.reunion.com/selfhelp?lid=2
Our Address: 2118 Wilshire Blvd., Box 1008, Santa Monica, CA 90403-5784
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080810/47948a92/attachment.htm 

From andreajterry at gmail.com  Sun Aug 10 12:14:18 2008
From: andreajterry at gmail.com (Andrea Terry)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Please connect with me :)
Message-ID: <1226686.8211218388458411.JavaMail.JBoss@neptune1.reunion.com>

Hi,

I looked for you on Reunion.com, but you weren't there. Please connect with me so we can keep in touch.
-Andrea

Do You Know Andrea?
YES - Connect with Andrea, and see who's searching for you
http://www.reunion.com/showInviteRegistration.do?uid=277784047
NO - I don't know Andrea
http://www.reunion.com/showInviteRegistration.do?unsub=true&uid=277784047&invitee=edebate at ndtceda.com

----------------------------

Reunion.com - Find Everyone from Your Past. 
You have received this e-mail because a Reunion.com Member sent an invitation to
this e-mail address. For assistance, please refer to our FAQ or Contact Us. http://help.reunion.com/selfhelp?lid=2
Our Address: 2118 Wilshire Blvd., Box 1008, Santa Monica, CA 90403-5784
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080810/274df387/attachment.htm 

From u.hrair at gmail.com  Sun Aug 10 12:16:19 2008
From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:16:19 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Russia has declared war ... shouldn't we be worried
Message-ID: <a4fda780808101016x1a364835v228dac9eaa760e5@mail.gmail.com>

nah.  it's cool.  agriculture is way more important.  iowa could invade
indiana or something.  besides, researching an ongoing war would be, like,
sooooo hard.  there's like, no ground or whatever.  i mean, the community
has voted--russia is not timely or important.  democracy has spoken.

stupid democracy.

not bitter,
Calum Matheson
?????????? ???? ??????
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080810/d8053b84/attachment.htm 

From aubreysemple at gmail.com  Sun Aug 10 12:34:01 2008
From: aubreysemple at gmail.com (Aubrey Semple)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 10:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Please connect with me :)
Message-ID: <1708286.2051218389641635.JavaMail.JBoss@neptune4.reunion.com>

Hi,

I looked for you on Reunion.com, but you weren't there. Please connect with me so we can keep in touch.
-Aubrey

Do You Know Aubrey?
YES - Connect with Aubrey, and see who's searching for you
http://www.reunion.com/showInviteRegistration.do?uid=277792450
NO - I don't know Aubrey
http://www.reunion.com/showInviteRegistration.do?unsub=true&uid=277792450&invitee=edebate at www.ndtceda.com

----------------------------

Reunion.com - Find Everyone from Your Past. 
You have received this e-mail because a Reunion.com Member sent an invitation to
this e-mail address. For assistance, please refer to our FAQ or Contact Us. http://help.reunion.com/selfhelp?lid=2
Our Address: 2118 Wilshire Blvd., Box 1008, Santa Monica, CA 90403-5784
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080810/26a1aa4f/attachment.htm 

From dylan.keenan at gmail.com  Sun Aug 10 12:59:33 2008
From: dylan.keenan at gmail.com (Dylan Keenan)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:59:33 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Russia has declared war ... shouldn't we be worried
In-Reply-To: <a4fda780808101016x1a364835v228dac9eaa760e5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a4fda780808101016x1a364835v228dac9eaa760e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <db49cab0808101059y7780b889k80ec060a97c62fab@mail.gmail.com>

definitely - especially considering that this one is going to escalate just
like every other border conflict Russia has with neighboring states over the
past 15 years.

no seriously, it's not like the current impacts to food prices are any good.
if billions of people were remotely effected by agriculture then maybe we
could justify this travesty.

What were we thinking choosing a timely, scholarly, and consistent
literature base when we could have had stratfor cards on the latest FSU
clusterfuck that will be over in two weeks.

-dylan

On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Calum Matheson <u.hrair at gmail.com> wrote:

> nah.  it's cool.  agriculture is way more important.  iowa could invade
> indiana or something.  besides, researching an ongoing war would be, like,
> sooooo hard.  there's like, no ground or whatever.  i mean, the community
> has voted--russia is not timely or important.  democracy has spoken.
>
> stupid democracy.
>
> not bitter,
> Calum Matheson
> ?????????? ???? ??????
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080810/5f9e12f8/attachment.htm 

From u.hrair at gmail.com  Sun Aug 10 14:14:29 2008
From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson)
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:14:29 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Russia has declared war ... shouldn't we be worried
Message-ID: <a4fda780808101214k68f96bafq161131500d85bea1@mail.gmail.com>

that reveals a lot about your research skills.  i see why you'd be afraid of
a russia topic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080810/0220b9e8/attachment.htm 

From debate.gsu at gmail.com  Mon Aug 11 10:22:20 2008
From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:22:20 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Scanner recommendation?
Message-ID: <e06af37d0808110822n2912a91di50b07f8caec5fbb9@mail.gmail.com>

Looking for a reasonably priced, mac-compatible flatbed scanner that also
has a functioning sheet-feeder. Any recommendations?

Thanks,
Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080811/cb5b97a3/attachment.htm 

From scottelliott at grandecom.net  Mon Aug 11 13:48:30 2008
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:48:30 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
Message-ID: <1218480510.48a0897e85ff5@webmail.grandecom.net>

MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary process. Tournaments are
now requiring teams to provide "qualified judges." This is a serious problem
that means the difference, for my program, between travling four students and
travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a "qualified judge?"

I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not focusing on them as some
particular attack, but I have noticed a judging requirement to provide
"qualified judges." We want to go to these tournaments, but now I don't think we
can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the trend, and not
of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs away.) What is this code
word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able to fairly to the best of one's
ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by college students. Or, is this
a code word for people that follow popular trends within the policy debate
community?

I have been around this activity for almost thirty years. But I have a program
that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero teams to 8 or more teams
in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate students who have been
debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to travel to  more tournaments
and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think we can fulfill our judging
commitments. So, I  have students who have worked hard, went to camps, and
are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But we do not have enough
judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few thousand dollars sending a
graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some idea of what policy debate
is. But with no real tournament debating experience, does he count as a
"qualified judge?" I have been around the game for decades, but I have several
political points of view about debate that are very unpopular. Does that mean I
am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or their political views, does
that make them an unqualified judge?

Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or not? What about my
department chair-a full professor of communication, but no debate background.
What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical philosophy, but with no
policy debate experience? What about a professor of women's studies or African
American studies, but with no policy debate experience? Is policy debate going
to become so exclusionary that only those who debated for four years and high
school and four years in college are the only one's "qualified" to judge policy
debates?

If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up want to advance their
critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new manifestation of policy
debate exclusionary policies has more impact on whether students can
participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic choices. Why? Because if
we cannot cover our judging commitments because of these "qualified judges"
provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.

Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge? The tab room staff. Friends
of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a round by a judge four
years ago?

Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem for women and minority
participation as well as their points of view?

I think it does because the
people making the decisons are making the evaluation
of what constitutes a "qualified judge" based on their subjective
interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge in policy debate. My
sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and willingness to flow
debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness to accept anything
presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both are aesthetic trends that
should not be the basis for considering a judge's qualifications. Just because
a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles an hour cards of
Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified. It means that those
debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion, one must discern the
available means of persuasion based upon their target audience. The focus on
mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years of communication theory
on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to the speaker, rathern
than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a particular aesthetic, the
judgment of judge qualification will only further, if not exacerbate, current
exclusionary trends in this activity.

Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity. Just because your MPJ
system breaks down every now and then does not justify the exclusion of
otherwise educated human beings from judging, and worse, the exclusion of
student debaters because their programs cannot meet your arbritrary standards
of "qualified." There should be a clear standard for qualified judges that
creates minimum exclusionary practices.


Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to answer back a few
objections. First, why should I hire judges when there are plenty of graduate
students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer to do the work. The amount
i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the number of students I can
bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded programs. Second, where
are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they are not always available.
We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last year when I had four teams.
It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired judges.

I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The definition of a qualified judge
for college policy debate: the person holds a four year college degree or
higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates a very real hurdle for
new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new practices to crop up in
this activity.

Scott Elliott



From jeremyjbowers at gmail.com  Mon Aug 11 14:24:15 2008
From: jeremyjbowers at gmail.com (Jeremy Bowers)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:24:15 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
In-Reply-To: <1218480510.48a0897e85ff5@webmail.grandecom.net>
References: <1218480510.48a0897e85ff5@webmail.grandecom.net>
Message-ID: <1beb531d0808111224h5049c22fv93bf4d028f02ca2c@mail.gmail.com>

I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting our CEDA program
here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) -- and I don't
think anyone traveling with the team would be a "qualified" judge. In
fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While she's got a
cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college - and is an
honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be out on two
counts even by Scott's measures below (not "qualified" and not a
college graduate).

So, how can the community help support small programs like ours, or
big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire the most popular
judges or experienced grad students?

Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years. Good to see
many of the same names.

Jeremy Bowers
St. Petersburg, Fla.

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM,  <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary process. Tournaments are
> now requiring teams to provide "qualified judges." This is a serious problem
> that means the difference, for my program, between travling four students and
> travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a "qualified judge?"
>
> I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not focusing on them as some
> particular attack, but I have noticed a judging requirement to provide
> "qualified judges." We want to go to these tournaments, but now I don't think we
> can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the trend, and not
> of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs away.) What is this code
> word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able to fairly to the best of one's
> ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by college students. Or, is this
> a code word for people that follow popular trends within the policy debate
> community?
>
> I have been around this activity for almost thirty years. But I have a program
> that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero teams to 8 or more teams
> in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate students who have been
> debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to travel to  more tournaments
> and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think we can fulfill our judging
> commitments. So, I  have students who have worked hard, went to camps, and
> are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But we do not have enough
> judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few thousand dollars sending a
> graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some idea of what policy debate
> is. But with no real tournament debating experience, does he count as a
> "qualified judge?" I have been around the game for decades, but I have several
> political points of view about debate that are very unpopular. Does that mean I
> am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
> point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or their political views, does
> that make them an unqualified judge?
>
> Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or not? What about my
> department chair-a full professor of communication, but no debate background.
> What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical philosophy, but with no
> policy debate experience? What about a professor of women's studies or African
> American studies, but with no policy debate experience? Is policy debate going
> to become so exclusionary that only those who debated for four years and high
> school and four years in college are the only one's "qualified" to judge policy
> debates?
>
> If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up want to advance their
> critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new manifestation of policy
> debate exclusionary policies has more impact on whether students can
> participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic choices. Why? Because if
> we cannot cover our judging commitments because of these "qualified judges"
> provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>
> Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge? The tab room staff. Friends
> of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a round by a judge four
> years ago?
>
> Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem for women and minority
> participation as well as their points of view?
>
> I think it does because the
> people making the decisons are making the evaluation
> of what constitutes a "qualified judge" based on their subjective
> interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge in policy debate. My
> sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and willingness to flow
> debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness to accept anything
> presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both are aesthetic trends that
> should not be the basis for considering a judge's qualifications. Just because
> a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles an hour cards of
> Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified. It means that those
> debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion, one must discern the
> available means of persuasion based upon their target audience. The focus on
> mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years of communication theory
> on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to the speaker, rathern
> than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a particular aesthetic, the
> judgment of judge qualification will only further, if not exacerbate, current
> exclusionary trends in this activity.
>
> Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity. Just because your MPJ
> system breaks down every now and then does not justify the exclusion of
> otherwise educated human beings from judging, and worse, the exclusion of
> student debaters because their programs cannot meet your arbritrary standards
> of "qualified." There should be a clear standard for qualified judges that
> creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>
>
> Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to answer back a few
> objections. First, why should I hire judges when there are plenty of graduate
> students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer to do the work. The amount
> i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the number of students I can
> bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded programs. Second, where
> are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they are not always available.
> We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last year when I had four teams.
> It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired judges.
>
> I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The definition of a qualified judge
> for college policy debate: the person holds a four year college degree or
> higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates a very real hurdle for
> new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new practices to crop up in
> this activity.
>
> Scott Elliott
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>

From paulj567 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 11 15:37:32 2008
From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:37:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
In-Reply-To: <1beb531d0808111224h5049c22fv93bf4d028f02ca2c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

best solution is to institute an NDT style rule that everyone who comes with must judge a minimum number of debates. this prevents qualified judges from being in for only one or even zero debates while hiring out less highly preferred judges for the entirety of their committment.

i think this rule exists not because of smaller programs who bring less well known judges (we may grumble about the people we dont know, but at the end of the day i think we "get it"), but because of programs with qualified judges who judge less than they should. 

pj


--- On Mon, 8/11/08, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:24 PM
> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting
> our CEDA program
> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) --
> and I don't
> think anyone traveling with the team would be a
> "qualified" judge. In
> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While
> she's got a
> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college
> - and is an
> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be
> out on two
> counts even by Scott's measures below (not
> "qualified" and not a
> college graduate).
> 
> So, how can the community help support small programs like
> ours, or
> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire
> the most popular
> judges or experienced grad students?
> 
> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years.
> Good to see
> many of the same names.
> 
> Jeremy Bowers
> St. Petersburg, Fla.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM, 
> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> > MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary
> process. Tournaments are
> > now requiring teams to provide "qualified
> judges." This is a serious problem
> > that means the difference, for my program, between
> travling four students and
> > travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a
> "qualified judge?"
> >
> > I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not
> focusing on them as some
> > particular attack, but I have noticed a judging
> requirement to provide
> > "qualified judges." We want to go to these
> tournaments, but now I don't think we
> > can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the
> trend, and not
> > of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs
> away.) What is this code
> > word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able
> to fairly to the best of one's
> > ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by
> college students. Or, is this
> > a code word for people that follow popular trends
> within the policy debate
> > community?
> >
> > I have been around this activity for almost thirty
> years. But I have a program
> > that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero
> teams to 8 or more teams
> > in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate
> students who have been
> > debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to
> travel to  more tournaments
> > and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think
> we can fulfill our judging
> > commitments. So, I  have students who have worked
> hard, went to camps, and
> > are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But
> we do not have enough
> > judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few
> thousand dollars sending a
> > graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some
> idea of what policy debate
> > is. But with no real tournament debating experience,
> does he count as a
> > "qualified judge?" I have been around the
> game for decades, but I have several
> > political points of view about debate that are very
> unpopular. Does that mean I
> > am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am
> unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
> > point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or
> their political views, does
> > that make them an unqualified judge?
> >
> > Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or
> not? What about my
> > department chair-a full professor of communication,
> but no debate background.
> > What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical
> philosophy, but with no
> > policy debate experience? What about a professor of
> women's studies or African
> > American studies, but with no policy debate
> experience? Is policy debate going
> > to become so exclusionary that only those who debated
> for four years and high
> > school and four years in college are the only
> one's "qualified" to judge policy
> > debates?
> >
> > If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up
> want to advance their
> > critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new
> manifestation of policy
> > debate exclusionary policies has more impact on
> whether students can
> > participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic
> choices. Why? Because if
> > we cannot cover our judging commitments because of
> these "qualified judges"
> > provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
> >
> > Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge?
> The tab room staff. Friends
> > of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a
> round by a judge four
> > years ago?
> >
> > Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem
> for women and minority
> > participation as well as their points of view?
> >
> > I think it does because the
> > people making the decisons are making the evaluation
> > of what constitutes a "qualified judge"
> based on their subjective
> > interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge
> in policy debate. My
> > sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and
> willingness to flow
> > debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness
> to accept anything
> > presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both
> are aesthetic trends that
> > should not be the basis for considering a judge's
> qualifications. Just because
> > a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles
> an hour cards of
> > Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified.
> It means that those
> > debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion,
> one must discern the
> > available means of persuasion based upon their target
> audience. The focus on
> > mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years
> of communication theory
> > on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to
> the speaker, rathern
> > than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a
> particular aesthetic, the
> > judgment of judge qualification will only further, if
> not exacerbate, current
> > exclusionary trends in this activity.
> >
> > Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity.
> Just because your MPJ
> > system breaks down every now and then does not justify
> the exclusion of
> > otherwise educated human beings from judging, and
> worse, the exclusion of
> > student debaters because their programs cannot meet
> your arbritrary standards
> > of "qualified." There should be a clear
> standard for qualified judges that
> > creates minimum exclusionary practices.
> >
> >
> > Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to
> answer back a few
> > objections. First, why should I hire judges when there
> are plenty of graduate
> > students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer
> to do the work. The amount
> > i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the
> number of students I can
> > bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded
> programs. Second, where
> > are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they
> are not always available.
> > We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last
> year when I had four teams.
> > It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired
> judges.
> >
> > I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The
> definition of a qualified judge
> > for college policy debate: the person holds a four
> year college degree or
> > higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates
> a very real hurdle for
> > new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new
> practices to crop up in
> > this activity.
> >
> > Scott Elliott
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 davismk13 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 11 16:10:49 2008
From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:10:49 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
In-Reply-To: <317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <1beb531d0808111224h5049c22fv93bf4d028f02ca2c@mail.gmail.com>
	<317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9a7f6f740808111410s2fe0d401id2cfca4cc36f210b@mail.gmail.com>

We talked about this for GSU this year. The problem is what happens
when someone leaves themselves off the preference so that they don't
have to judge. As ti is we have people complaining that they have to
provide five rounds of judging. Imagine what would happen if the teams
that bring one team and three judges had to provide 12 rounds of
judging for one team.

Ideally, we would love it if people could judge as much as they can to
help everyone's preferences, but in a world where that doesn't happen
we have to find other ways to try to maximize judging.

And I would guess Paul is 100% right about the reason the rule exists.

Mike

p.s. Paul Johnson is the best judge in the country when it comes to
giving extra rounds to the tournament. At GSU the last three years we
have abused Paul's kindness, but he keeps coming back.



On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Paul Johnson <paulj567 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> best solution is to institute an NDT style rule that everyone who comes with must judge a minimum number of debates. this prevents qualified judges from being in for only one or even zero debates while hiring out less highly preferred judges for the entirety of their committment.
>
> i think this rule exists not because of smaller programs who bring less well known judges (we may grumble about the people we dont know, but at the end of the day i think we "get it"), but because of programs with qualified judges who judge less than they should.
>
> pj
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/11/08, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:24 PM
>> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting
>> our CEDA program
>> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) --
>> and I don't
>> think anyone traveling with the team would be a
>> "qualified" judge. In
>> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While
>> she's got a
>> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college
>> - and is an
>> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be
>> out on two
>> counts even by Scott's measures below (not
>> "qualified" and not a
>> college graduate).
>>
>> So, how can the community help support small programs like
>> ours, or
>> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire
>> the most popular
>> judges or experienced grad students?
>>
>> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years.
>> Good to see
>> many of the same names.
>>
>> Jeremy Bowers
>> St. Petersburg, Fla.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM,
>> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>> > MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary
>> process. Tournaments are
>> > now requiring teams to provide "qualified
>> judges." This is a serious problem
>> > that means the difference, for my program, between
>> travling four students and
>> > travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a
>> "qualified judge?"
>> >
>> > I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not
>> focusing on them as some
>> > particular attack, but I have noticed a judging
>> requirement to provide
>> > "qualified judges." We want to go to these
>> tournaments, but now I don't think we
>> > can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the
>> trend, and not
>> > of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs
>> away.) What is this code
>> > word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able
>> to fairly to the best of one's
>> > ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by
>> college students. Or, is this
>> > a code word for people that follow popular trends
>> within the policy debate
>> > community?
>> >
>> > I have been around this activity for almost thirty
>> years. But I have a program
>> > that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero
>> teams to 8 or more teams
>> > in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate
>> students who have been
>> > debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to
>> travel to  more tournaments
>> > and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think
>> we can fulfill our judging
>> > commitments. So, I  have students who have worked
>> hard, went to camps, and
>> > are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But
>> we do not have enough
>> > judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few
>> thousand dollars sending a
>> > graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some
>> idea of what policy debate
>> > is. But with no real tournament debating experience,
>> does he count as a
>> > "qualified judge?" I have been around the
>> game for decades, but I have several
>> > political points of view about debate that are very
>> unpopular. Does that mean I
>> > am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am
>> unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
>> > point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or
>> their political views, does
>> > that make them an unqualified judge?
>> >
>> > Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or
>> not? What about my
>> > department chair-a full professor of communication,
>> but no debate background.
>> > What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical
>> philosophy, but with no
>> > policy debate experience? What about a professor of
>> women's studies or African
>> > American studies, but with no policy debate
>> experience? Is policy debate going
>> > to become so exclusionary that only those who debated
>> for four years and high
>> > school and four years in college are the only
>> one's "qualified" to judge policy
>> > debates?
>> >
>> > If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up
>> want to advance their
>> > critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new
>> manifestation of policy
>> > debate exclusionary policies has more impact on
>> whether students can
>> > participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic
>> choices. Why? Because if
>> > we cannot cover our judging commitments because of
>> these "qualified judges"
>> > provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>> >
>> > Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge?
>> The tab room staff. Friends
>> > of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a
>> round by a judge four
>> > years ago?
>> >
>> > Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem
>> for women and minority
>> > participation as well as their points of view?
>> >
>> > I think it does because the
>> > people making the decisons are making the evaluation
>> > of what constitutes a "qualified judge"
>> based on their subjective
>> > interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge
>> in policy debate. My
>> > sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and
>> willingness to flow
>> > debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness
>> to accept anything
>> > presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both
>> are aesthetic trends that
>> > should not be the basis for considering a judge's
>> qualifications. Just because
>> > a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles
>> an hour cards of
>> > Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified.
>> It means that those
>> > debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion,
>> one must discern the
>> > available means of persuasion based upon their target
>> audience. The focus on
>> > mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years
>> of communication theory
>> > on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to
>> the speaker, rathern
>> > than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a
>> particular aesthetic, the
>> > judgment of judge qualification will only further, if
>> not exacerbate, current
>> > exclusionary trends in this activity.
>> >
>> > Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity.
>> Just because your MPJ
>> > system breaks down every now and then does not justify
>> the exclusion of
>> > otherwise educated human beings from judging, and
>> worse, the exclusion of
>> > student debaters because their programs cannot meet
>> your arbritrary standards
>> > of "qualified." There should be a clear
>> standard for qualified judges that
>> > creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>> >
>> >
>> > Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to
>> answer back a few
>> > objections. First, why should I hire judges when there
>> are plenty of graduate
>> > students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer
>> to do the work. The amount
>> > i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the
>> number of students I can
>> > bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded
>> programs. Second, where
>> > are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they
>> are not always available.
>> > We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last
>> year when I had four teams.
>> > It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired
>> judges.
>> >
>> > I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The
>> definition of a qualified judge
>> > for college policy debate: the person holds a four
>> year college degree or
>> > higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates
>> a very real hurdle for
>> > new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new
>> practices to crop up in
>> > this activity.
>> >
>> > Scott Elliott
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>



-- 
Dr. Michael Davis
Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
James Madison University

From davismk13 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 11 16:12:22 2008
From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:12:22 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
In-Reply-To: <317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <1beb531d0808111224h5049c22fv93bf4d028f02ca2c@mail.gmail.com>
	<317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9a7f6f740808111412r6889b6efr1eb5fdf871149160@mail.gmail.com>

We talked about this for GSU this year. The problem is what happens
when someone leaves themselves off the preference so that they don't
have to judge. As ti is we have people complaining that they have to
provide five rounds of judging. Imagine what would happen if the teams
that bring one team and three judges had to provide 12 rounds of
judging for one team.

Ideally, we would love it if people could judge as much as they can to
help everyone's preferences, but in a world where that doesn't happen
we have to find other ways to try to maximize judging.

And I would guess Paul is 100% right about the reason the rule exists.

Mike

p.s. Paul Johnson is the best judge in the country when it comes to
giving extra rounds to the tournament. At GSU the last three years we
have abused Paul's kindness, but he keeps coming back.



On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Paul Johnson <paulj567 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> best solution is to institute an NDT style rule that everyone who comes with must judge a minimum number of debates. this prevents qualified judges from being in for only one or even zero debates while hiring out less highly preferred judges for the entirety of their committment.
>
> i think this rule exists not because of smaller programs who bring less well known judges (we may grumble about the people we dont know, but at the end of the day i think we "get it"), but because of programs with qualified judges who judge less than they should.
>
> pj
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/11/08, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:24 PM
>> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting
>> our CEDA program
>> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) --
>> and I don't
>> think anyone traveling with the team would be a
>> "qualified" judge. In
>> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While
>> she's got a
>> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college
>> - and is an
>> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be
>> out on two
>> counts even by Scott's measures below (not
>> "qualified" and not a
>> college graduate).
>>
>> So, how can the community help support small programs like
>> ours, or
>> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire
>> the most popular
>> judges or experienced grad students?
>>
>> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years.
>> Good to see
>> many of the same names.
>>
>> Jeremy Bowers
>> St. Petersburg, Fla.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM,
>> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>> > MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary
>> process. Tournaments are
>> > now requiring teams to provide "qualified
>> judges." This is a serious problem
>> > that means the difference, for my program, between
>> travling four students and
>> > travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a
>> "qualified judge?"
>> >
>> > I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not
>> focusing on them as some
>> > particular attack, but I have noticed a judging
>> requirement to provide
>> > "qualified judges." We want to go to these
>> tournaments, but now I don't think we
>> > can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the
>> trend, and not
>> > of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs
>> away.) What is this code
>> > word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able
>> to fairly to the best of one's
>> > ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by
>> college students. Or, is this
>> > a code word for people that follow popular trends
>> within the policy debate
>> > community?
>> >
>> > I have been around this activity for almost thirty
>> years. But I have a program
>> > that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero
>> teams to 8 or more teams
>> > in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate
>> students who have been
>> > debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to
>> travel to  more tournaments
>> > and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think
>> we can fulfill our judging
>> > commitments. So, I  have students who have worked
>> hard, went to camps, and
>> > are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But
>> we do not have enough
>> > judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few
>> thousand dollars sending a
>> > graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some
>> idea of what policy debate
>> > is. But with no real tournament debating experience,
>> does he count as a
>> > "qualified judge?" I have been around the
>> game for decades, but I have several
>> > political points of view about debate that are very
>> unpopular. Does that mean I
>> > am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am
>> unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
>> > point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or
>> their political views, does
>> > that make them an unqualified judge?
>> >
>> > Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or
>> not? What about my
>> > department chair-a full professor of communication,
>> but no debate background.
>> > What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical
>> philosophy, but with no
>> > policy debate experience? What about a professor of
>> women's studies or African
>> > American studies, but with no policy debate
>> experience? Is policy debate going
>> > to become so exclusionary that only those who debated
>> for four years and high
>> > school and four years in college are the only
>> one's "qualified" to judge policy
>> > debates?
>> >
>> > If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up
>> want to advance their
>> > critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new
>> manifestation of policy
>> > debate exclusionary policies has more impact on
>> whether students can
>> > participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic
>> choices. Why? Because if
>> > we cannot cover our judging commitments because of
>> these "qualified judges"
>> > provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>> >
>> > Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge?
>> The tab room staff. Friends
>> > of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a
>> round by a judge four
>> > years ago?
>> >
>> > Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem
>> for women and minority
>> > participation as well as their points of view?
>> >
>> > I think it does because the
>> > people making the decisons are making the evaluation
>> > of what constitutes a "qualified judge"
>> based on their subjective
>> > interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge
>> in policy debate. My
>> > sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and
>> willingness to flow
>> > debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness
>> to accept anything
>> > presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both
>> are aesthetic trends that
>> > should not be the basis for considering a judge's
>> qualifications. Just because
>> > a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles
>> an hour cards of
>> > Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified.
>> It means that those
>> > debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion,
>> one must discern the
>> > available means of persuasion based upon their target
>> audience. The focus on
>> > mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years
>> of communication theory
>> > on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to
>> the speaker, rathern
>> > than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a
>> particular aesthetic, the
>> > judgment of judge qualification will only further, if
>> not exacerbate, current
>> > exclusionary trends in this activity.
>> >
>> > Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity.
>> Just because your MPJ
>> > system breaks down every now and then does not justify
>> the exclusion of
>> > otherwise educated human beings from judging, and
>> worse, the exclusion of
>> > student debaters because their programs cannot meet
>> your arbritrary standards
>> > of "qualified." There should be a clear
>> standard for qualified judges that
>> > creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>> >
>> >
>> > Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to
>> answer back a few
>> > objections. First, why should I hire judges when there
>> are plenty of graduate
>> > students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer
>> to do the work. The amount
>> > i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the
>> number of students I can
>> > bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded
>> programs. Second, where
>> > are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they
>> are not always available.
>> > We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last
>> year when I had four teams.
>> > It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired
>> judges.
>> >
>> > I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The
>> definition of a qualified judge
>> > for college policy debate: the person holds a four
>> year college degree or
>> > higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates
>> a very real hurdle for
>> > new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new
>> practices to crop up in
>> > this activity.
>> >
>> > Scott Elliott
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>



-- 
Dr. Michael Davis
Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
James Madison University

From davismk13 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 11 16:15:37 2008
From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:15:37 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
In-Reply-To: <317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <1beb531d0808111224h5049c22fv93bf4d028f02ca2c@mail.gmail.com>
	<317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9a7f6f740808111415o34bdc60fp97588ec074be7bbb@mail.gmail.com>

We talked about this for GSU this year. The problem is what happens
when someone leaves themselves off the preference so that they don't
have to judge. As ti is we have people complaining that they have to
provide five rounds of judging. Imagine what would happen if the teams
that bring one team and three judges had to provide 12 rounds of
judging for one team.

Ideally, we would love it if people could judge as much as they can to
help everyone's preferences, but in a world where that doesn't happen
we have to find other ways to try to maximize judging.

And I would guess Paul is 100% right about the reason the rule exists.

Mike

p.s. Paul Johnson is the best judge in the country when it comes to
giving extra rounds to the tournament. At GSU the last three years we
have abused Paul's kindness, but he keeps coming back.



On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Paul Johnson <paulj567 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> best solution is to institute an NDT style rule that everyone who comes with must judge a minimum number of debates. this prevents qualified judges from being in for only one or even zero debates while hiring out less highly preferred judges for the entirety of their committment.
>
> i think this rule exists not because of smaller programs who bring less well known judges (we may grumble about the people we dont know, but at the end of the day i think we "get it"), but because of programs with qualified judges who judge less than they should.
>
> pj
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/11/08, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:24 PM
>> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting
>> our CEDA program
>> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) --
>> and I don't
>> think anyone traveling with the team would be a
>> "qualified" judge. In
>> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While
>> she's got a
>> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college
>> - and is an
>> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be
>> out on two
>> counts even by Scott's measures below (not
>> "qualified" and not a
>> college graduate).
>>
>> So, how can the community help support small programs like
>> ours, or
>> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire
>> the most popular
>> judges or experienced grad students?
>>
>> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years.
>> Good to see
>> many of the same names.
>>
>> Jeremy Bowers
>> St. Petersburg, Fla.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM,
>> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>> > MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary
>> process. Tournaments are
>> > now requiring teams to provide "qualified
>> judges." This is a serious problem
>> > that means the difference, for my program, between
>> travling four students and
>> > travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a
>> "qualified judge?"
>> >
>> > I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not
>> focusing on them as some
>> > particular attack, but I have noticed a judging
>> requirement to provide
>> > "qualified judges." We want to go to these
>> tournaments, but now I don't think we
>> > can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the
>> trend, and not
>> > of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs
>> away.) What is this code
>> > word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able
>> to fairly to the best of one's
>> > ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by
>> college students. Or, is this
>> > a code word for people that follow popular trends
>> within the policy debate
>> > community?
>> >
>> > I have been around this activity for almost thirty
>> years. But I have a program
>> > that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero
>> teams to 8 or more teams
>> > in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate
>> students who have been
>> > debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to
>> travel to  more tournaments
>> > and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think
>> we can fulfill our judging
>> > commitments. So, I  have students who have worked
>> hard, went to camps, and
>> > are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But
>> we do not have enough
>> > judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few
>> thousand dollars sending a
>> > graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some
>> idea of what policy debate
>> > is. But with no real tournament debating experience,
>> does he count as a
>> > "qualified judge?" I have been around the
>> game for decades, but I have several
>> > political points of view about debate that are very
>> unpopular. Does that mean I
>> > am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am
>> unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
>> > point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or
>> their political views, does
>> > that make them an unqualified judge?
>> >
>> > Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or
>> not? What about my
>> > department chair-a full professor of communication,
>> but no debate background.
>> > What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical
>> philosophy, but with no
>> > policy debate experience? What about a professor of
>> women's studies or African
>> > American studies, but with no policy debate
>> experience? Is policy debate going
>> > to become so exclusionary that only those who debated
>> for four years and high
>> > school and four years in college are the only
>> one's "qualified" to judge policy
>> > debates?
>> >
>> > If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up
>> want to advance their
>> > critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new
>> manifestation of policy
>> > debate exclusionary policies has more impact on
>> whether students can
>> > participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic
>> choices. Why? Because if
>> > we cannot cover our judging commitments because of
>> these "qualified judges"
>> > provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>> >
>> > Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge?
>> The tab room staff. Friends
>> > of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a
>> round by a judge four
>> > years ago?
>> >
>> > Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem
>> for women and minority
>> > participation as well as their points of view?
>> >
>> > I think it does because the
>> > people making the decisons are making the evaluation
>> > of what constitutes a "qualified judge"
>> based on their subjective
>> > interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge
>> in policy debate. My
>> > sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and
>> willingness to flow
>> > debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness
>> to accept anything
>> > presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both
>> are aesthetic trends that
>> > should not be the basis for considering a judge's
>> qualifications. Just because
>> > a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles
>> an hour cards of
>> > Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified.
>> It means that those
>> > debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion,
>> one must discern the
>> > available means of persuasion based upon their target
>> audience. The focus on
>> > mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years
>> of communication theory
>> > on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to
>> the speaker, rathern
>> > than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a
>> particular aesthetic, the
>> > judgment of judge qualification will only further, if
>> not exacerbate, current
>> > exclusionary trends in this activity.
>> >
>> > Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity.
>> Just because your MPJ
>> > system breaks down every now and then does not justify
>> the exclusion of
>> > otherwise educated human beings from judging, and
>> worse, the exclusion of
>> > student debaters because their programs cannot meet
>> your arbritrary standards
>> > of "qualified." There should be a clear
>> standard for qualified judges that
>> > creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>> >
>> >
>> > Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to
>> answer back a few
>> > objections. First, why should I hire judges when there
>> are plenty of graduate
>> > students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer
>> to do the work. The amount
>> > i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the
>> number of students I can
>> > bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded
>> programs. Second, where
>> > are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they
>> are not always available.
>> > We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last
>> year when I had four teams.
>> > It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired
>> judges.
>> >
>> > I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The
>> definition of a qualified judge
>> > for college policy debate: the person holds a four
>> year college degree or
>> > higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates
>> a very real hurdle for
>> > new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new
>> practices to crop up in
>> > this activity.
>> >
>> > Scott Elliott
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>



-- 
Dr. Michael Davis
Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
James Madison University

From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu  Mon Aug 11 16:22:35 2008
From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:22:35 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
Message-ID: <OFBBCDD8E9.E79270AA-ON882574A2.00756C96-882574A2.00756C9C@unlv.edu>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080811/09334129/attachment.htm 

From davismk13 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 11 16:20:00 2008
From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:20:00 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
In-Reply-To: <317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <1beb531d0808111224h5049c22fv93bf4d028f02ca2c@mail.gmail.com>
	<317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <9a7f6f740808111420v4f51a346w1ea0204a00910af@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for the multiple posts. Gmail said it could not be sent and to
try again. I did. Sorry.

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Paul Johnson <paulj567 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> best solution is to institute an NDT style rule that everyone who comes with must judge a minimum number of debates. this prevents qualified judges from being in for only one or even zero debates while hiring out less highly preferred judges for the entirety of their committment.
>
> i think this rule exists not because of smaller programs who bring less well known judges (we may grumble about the people we dont know, but at the end of the day i think we "get it"), but because of programs with qualified judges who judge less than they should.
>
> pj
>
>
> --- On Mon, 8/11/08, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:24 PM
>> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting
>> our CEDA program
>> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) --
>> and I don't
>> think anyone traveling with the team would be a
>> "qualified" judge. In
>> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While
>> she's got a
>> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college
>> - and is an
>> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be
>> out on two
>> counts even by Scott's measures below (not
>> "qualified" and not a
>> college graduate).
>>
>> So, how can the community help support small programs like
>> ours, or
>> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire
>> the most popular
>> judges or experienced grad students?
>>
>> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years.
>> Good to see
>> many of the same names.
>>
>> Jeremy Bowers
>> St. Petersburg, Fla.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM,
>> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>> > MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary
>> process. Tournaments are
>> > now requiring teams to provide "qualified
>> judges." This is a serious problem
>> > that means the difference, for my program, between
>> travling four students and
>> > travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a
>> "qualified judge?"
>> >
>> > I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not
>> focusing on them as some
>> > particular attack, but I have noticed a judging
>> requirement to provide
>> > "qualified judges." We want to go to these
>> tournaments, but now I don't think we
>> > can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the
>> trend, and not
>> > of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs
>> away.) What is this code
>> > word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able
>> to fairly to the best of one's
>> > ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by
>> college students. Or, is this
>> > a code word for people that follow popular trends
>> within the policy debate
>> > community?
>> >
>> > I have been around this activity for almost thirty
>> years. But I have a program
>> > that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero
>> teams to 8 or more teams
>> > in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate
>> students who have been
>> > debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to
>> travel to  more tournaments
>> > and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think
>> we can fulfill our judging
>> > commitments. So, I  have students who have worked
>> hard, went to camps, and
>> > are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But
>> we do not have enough
>> > judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few
>> thousand dollars sending a
>> > graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some
>> idea of what policy debate
>> > is. But with no real tournament debating experience,
>> does he count as a
>> > "qualified judge?" I have been around the
>> game for decades, but I have several
>> > political points of view about debate that are very
>> unpopular. Does that mean I
>> > am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am
>> unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
>> > point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or
>> their political views, does
>> > that make them an unqualified judge?
>> >
>> > Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or
>> not? What about my
>> > department chair-a full professor of communication,
>> but no debate background.
>> > What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical
>> philosophy, but with no
>> > policy debate experience? What about a professor of
>> women's studies or African
>> > American studies, but with no policy debate
>> experience? Is policy debate going
>> > to become so exclusionary that only those who debated
>> for four years and high
>> > school and four years in college are the only
>> one's "qualified" to judge policy
>> > debates?
>> >
>> > If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up
>> want to advance their
>> > critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new
>> manifestation of policy
>> > debate exclusionary policies has more impact on
>> whether students can
>> > participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic
>> choices. Why? Because if
>> > we cannot cover our judging commitments because of
>> these "qualified judges"
>> > provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>> >
>> > Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge?
>> The tab room staff. Friends
>> > of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a
>> round by a judge four
>> > years ago?
>> >
>> > Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem
>> for women and minority
>> > participation as well as their points of view?
>> >
>> > I think it does because the
>> > people making the decisons are making the evaluation
>> > of what constitutes a "qualified judge"
>> based on their subjective
>> > interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge
>> in policy debate. My
>> > sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and
>> willingness to flow
>> > debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness
>> to accept anything
>> > presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both
>> are aesthetic trends that
>> > should not be the basis for considering a judge's
>> qualifications. Just because
>> > a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles
>> an hour cards of
>> > Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified.
>> It means that those
>> > debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion,
>> one must discern the
>> > available means of persuasion based upon their target
>> audience. The focus on
>> > mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years
>> of communication theory
>> > on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to
>> the speaker, rathern
>> > than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a
>> particular aesthetic, the
>> > judgment of judge qualification will only further, if
>> not exacerbate, current
>> > exclusionary trends in this activity.
>> >
>> > Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity.
>> Just because your MPJ
>> > system breaks down every now and then does not justify
>> the exclusion of
>> > otherwise educated human beings from judging, and
>> worse, the exclusion of
>> > student debaters because their programs cannot meet
>> your arbritrary standards
>> > of "qualified." There should be a clear
>> standard for qualified judges that
>> > creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>> >
>> >
>> > Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to
>> answer back a few
>> > objections. First, why should I hire judges when there
>> are plenty of graduate
>> > students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer
>> to do the work. The amount
>> > i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the
>> number of students I can
>> > bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded
>> programs. Second, where
>> > are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they
>> are not always available.
>> > We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last
>> year when I had four teams.
>> > It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired
>> judges.
>> >
>> > I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The
>> definition of a qualified judge
>> > for college policy debate: the person holds a four
>> year college degree or
>> > higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates
>> a very real hurdle for
>> > new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new
>> practices to crop up in
>> > this activity.
>> >
>> > Scott Elliott
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>



-- 
Dr. Michael Davis
Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
James Madison University

From jbruschke at fullerton.edu  Mon Aug 11 17:56:15 2008
From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:56:15 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Gonzaga
Message-ID: <6B207D3C2DCC48808DD59838D83557E7@AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Name:Gonzaga University - Jesuit Invitational Debates
Starts:9/13/2008
Ends:9/15/2008
Hosted by: Gonzaga
Contact: 
Address: 
Phone: 509-323-6663
On-line entry allowed: True
AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True
Divisions Offered: 
Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles
Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com
This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament.
If so, you will be notified by a separate email.

From debate.gsu at gmail.com  Mon Aug 11 18:42:37 2008
From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:42:37 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740808111420v4f51a346w1ea0204a00910af@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1beb531d0808111224h5049c22fv93bf4d028f02ca2c@mail.gmail.com>
	<317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<9a7f6f740808111420v4f51a346w1ea0204a00910af@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e06af37d0808111642j369b52e9i8e3064a48dcc1ff9@mail.gmail.com>

I have only two real things of substance to add to this discussion:

First, the word "qualified" does not appear in our invitation. We say, and I
quote: "we strongly encourage teams to bring judges whose reputation will
allow them to judge their entire commitment of rounds."

Second, we did not add this request because of some alleged "clash of
cultures" split in the pool. We did this because we were hoping to encourage
in-demand judges to actually judge debates. You will notice that there is no
punishment, no enforcement mechanism, not even a hint of some kind of
taxonomy for what constitutes a good judge. It's just a request.

-Joe

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Mike Davis <davismk13 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry for the multiple posts. Gmail said it could not be sent and to
> try again. I did. Sorry.
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Paul Johnson <paulj567 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > best solution is to institute an NDT style rule that everyone who comes
> with must judge a minimum number of debates. this prevents qualified judges
> from being in for only one or even zero debates while hiring out less highly
> preferred judges for the entirety of their committment.
> >
> > i think this rule exists not because of smaller programs who bring less
> well known judges (we may grumble about the people we dont know, but at the
> end of the day i think we "get it"), but because of programs with qualified
> judges who judge less than they should.
> >
> > pj
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 8/11/08, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
> >> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> >> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:24 PM
> >> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting
> >> our CEDA program
> >> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) --
> >> and I don't
> >> think anyone traveling with the team would be a
> >> "qualified" judge. In
> >> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While
> >> she's got a
> >> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college
> >> - and is an
> >> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be
> >> out on two
> >> counts even by Scott's measures below (not
> >> "qualified" and not a
> >> college graduate).
> >>
> >> So, how can the community help support small programs like
> >> ours, or
> >> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire
> >> the most popular
> >> judges or experienced grad students?
> >>
> >> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years.
> >> Good to see
> >> many of the same names.
> >>
> >> Jeremy Bowers
> >> St. Petersburg, Fla.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM,
> >> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
> >> > MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary
> >> process. Tournaments are
> >> > now requiring teams to provide "qualified
> >> judges." This is a serious problem
> >> > that means the difference, for my program, between
> >> travling four students and
> >> > travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a
> >> "qualified judge?"
> >> >
> >> > I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not
> >> focusing on them as some
> >> > particular attack, but I have noticed a judging
> >> requirement to provide
> >> > "qualified judges." We want to go to these
> >> tournaments, but now I don't think we
> >> > can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the
> >> trend, and not
> >> > of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs
> >> away.) What is this code
> >> > word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able
> >> to fairly to the best of one's
> >> > ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by
> >> college students. Or, is this
> >> > a code word for people that follow popular trends
> >> within the policy debate
> >> > community?
> >> >
> >> > I have been around this activity for almost thirty
> >> years. But I have a program
> >> > that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero
> >> teams to 8 or more teams
> >> > in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate
> >> students who have been
> >> > debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to
> >> travel to  more tournaments
> >> > and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think
> >> we can fulfill our judging
> >> > commitments. So, I  have students who have worked
> >> hard, went to camps, and
> >> > are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But
> >> we do not have enough
> >> > judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few
> >> thousand dollars sending a
> >> > graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some
> >> idea of what policy debate
> >> > is. But with no real tournament debating experience,
> >> does he count as a
> >> > "qualified judge?" I have been around the
> >> game for decades, but I have several
> >> > political points of view about debate that are very
> >> unpopular. Does that mean I
> >> > am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am
> >> unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
> >> > point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or
> >> their political views, does
> >> > that make them an unqualified judge?
> >> >
> >> > Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or
> >> not? What about my
> >> > department chair-a full professor of communication,
> >> but no debate background.
> >> > What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical
> >> philosophy, but with no
> >> > policy debate experience? What about a professor of
> >> women's studies or African
> >> > American studies, but with no policy debate
> >> experience? Is policy debate going
> >> > to become so exclusionary that only those who debated
> >> for four years and high
> >> > school and four years in college are the only
> >> one's "qualified" to judge policy
> >> > debates?
> >> >
> >> > If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up
> >> want to advance their
> >> > critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new
> >> manifestation of policy
> >> > debate exclusionary policies has more impact on
> >> whether students can
> >> > participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic
> >> choices. Why? Because if
> >> > we cannot cover our judging commitments because of
> >> these "qualified judges"
> >> > provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
> >> >
> >> > Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge?
> >> The tab room staff. Friends
> >> > of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a
> >> round by a judge four
> >> > years ago?
> >> >
> >> > Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem
> >> for women and minority
> >> > participation as well as their points of view?
> >> >
> >> > I think it does because the
> >> > people making the decisons are making the evaluation
> >> > of what constitutes a "qualified judge"
> >> based on their subjective
> >> > interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge
> >> in policy debate. My
> >> > sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and
> >> willingness to flow
> >> > debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness
> >> to accept anything
> >> > presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both
> >> are aesthetic trends that
> >> > should not be the basis for considering a judge's
> >> qualifications. Just because
> >> > a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles
> >> an hour cards of
> >> > Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified.
> >> It means that those
> >> > debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion,
> >> one must discern the
> >> > available means of persuasion based upon their target
> >> audience. The focus on
> >> > mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years
> >> of communication theory
> >> > on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to
> >> the speaker, rathern
> >> > than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a
> >> particular aesthetic, the
> >> > judgment of judge qualification will only further, if
> >> not exacerbate, current
> >> > exclusionary trends in this activity.
> >> >
> >> > Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity.
> >> Just because your MPJ
> >> > system breaks down every now and then does not justify
> >> the exclusion of
> >> > otherwise educated human beings from judging, and
> >> worse, the exclusion of
> >> > student debaters because their programs cannot meet
> >> your arbritrary standards
> >> > of "qualified." There should be a clear
> >> standard for qualified judges that
> >> > creates minimum exclusionary practices.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to
> >> answer back a few
> >> > objections. First, why should I hire judges when there
> >> are plenty of graduate
> >> > students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer
> >> to do the work. The amount
> >> > i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the
> >> number of students I can
> >> > bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded
> >> programs. Second, where
> >> > are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they
> >> are not always available.
> >> > We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last
> >> year when I had four teams.
> >> > It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired
> >> judges.
> >> >
> >> > I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The
> >> definition of a qualified judge
> >> > for college policy debate: the person holds a four
> >> year college degree or
> >> > higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates
> >> a very real hurdle for
> >> > new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new
> >> practices to crop up in
> >> > this activity.
> >> >
> >> > Scott Elliott
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Michael Davis
> Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
> James Madison University
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080811/e79c0618/attachment.htm 

From chairman.maurer at gmail.com  Mon Aug 11 22:05:19 2008
From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer)
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:05:19 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
In-Reply-To: <e06af37d0808111642j369b52e9i8e3064a48dcc1ff9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1beb531d0808111224h5049c22fv93bf4d028f02ca2c@mail.gmail.com>
	<317558.24780.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<9a7f6f740808111420v4f51a346w1ea0204a00910af@mail.gmail.com>
	<e06af37d0808111642j369b52e9i8e3064a48dcc1ff9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7fd76c680808112005taccb835u762fdb3332c24b02@mail.gmail.com>

How about this.  Every team attending the tournament must distribute
their respective judging commitments evenly between all of the judges
they bring.  How they distribute remainders is up to them.  So Mike's
example (3 judges, 1 team) two judges would judge one and a third
would judge two (Judge A = 1 round, judge B = 1 round, judge C = 2
rounds).  Seems to accomplish the same effect as Paul's suggestion of
the NDT-type rule and avoids Mike's point about unfair judging burdens
for schools with fewer teams.

A problem may be that this would create an incentive to hire judges.
As in, why wouldn't schools just hire-out all of their rounds (to an
"unqualified" judge) and then distribute what they had left among
their judges.  So a school with 3 judges and 5 teams would just hire
16 rounds to "unqualified" hired judges and then distribute 4 rounds
among 3 "qualified" judges, right?  I think this problem could be
alleviated by not allowing schools to hire judges in excess of the
highest commitment any of that school's judges.

So this would be against the rules:
3 teams (20 rounds)
Judge A = 1
Judge B = 1
Judge C = 2
Judge X (hired) = 8
Judge Y (hired) = 8

The hired judge round maximum, instead, would force this:
3 teams (20 rounds)
Judge A = 4
Judge B = 4
Judge C = 4  (so hired judge max is set at 4)
Judge X (hired) = 4
Judge Y (hired) = 4

or this:
3 teams (20 rounds)
Judge A = 5
Judge B = 5
Judge C = 5 (hired judge max is set to 5)
Judge X (hired) = 5

or, of course, this:
3 teams (20 rounds)
Judge A = 6
Judge B = 7
Judge C = 7

A lot of schools do this anyway.  I know JT and I always split the
rounds pretty evenly, I know that's what Wake used to do when I was
there ("Many hands makes light work").  Seems like it wouldn't be too
hard to implement.

Mandatory even distribution and a hired judge cap may alleviate some
of the issues with hi-commit, lo-pref judges that artificially inflate
the judging pool with unusable rounds.  There are probably a bunch of
problems with this that I haven't thought of yet so please point them
out if you see one.  I had just been kicking this idea around in my
heads since I saw discussion and thought I would  throw it out there.

Also, a couple of other comments about "unqualified" judges.  Someone
who show's up, is willing to make their best effort at thinking
through a debate and explain their thoughts about the debate
afterward, to me, is a qualified judge.   It takes a lot of guts on
the part of the people who don't really know what they're doing or
have been out of the game for awhile to step-in and try their best.
Some of us have been judging so long and so much we forget how scary
it was, even as a first-year judge who just graduated, to do it.  The
debate community as a whole holds these folks in very high regard (and
if not they should) and they should know that their efforts are
respected and that their courage is admired.  No one posting to this
thread is trying to take anything away from their efforts.

Thus, it seems easier to approach the problem of MPJ and lo-pref,
hi-commit judges from an angle that does not necessitate codification
of a term like "qualified" into some formal category (which I don't
think MPJ does; there's a difference between what one team prefers and
making some universal claim about who is good and bad at judging).  I
don't think anyone is attempting to undertake the latter. Rather we
are just trying to solve the LSAT-esque problem of a myriad of
different individual team preferences.

And, by the way, best of luck Jeremy!  USF seems like it would be a
great place to start a debate team, I hope everything works out.

Sam





On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:42 PM, Dr. Joe Bellon <debate.gsu at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have only two real things of substance to add to this discussion:
>
> First, the word "qualified" does not appear in our invitation. We say, and I
> quote: "we strongly encourage teams to bring judges whose reputation will
> allow them to judge their entire commitment of rounds."
>
> Second, we did not add this request because of some alleged "clash of
> cultures" split in the pool. We did this because we were hoping to encourage
> in-demand judges to actually judge debates. You will notice that there is no
> punishment, no enforcement mechanism, not even a hint of some kind of
> taxonomy for what constitutes a good judge. It's just a request.
>
> -Joe
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Mike Davis <davismk13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for the multiple posts. Gmail said it could not be sent and to
>> try again. I did. Sorry.
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Paul Johnson <paulj567 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > best solution is to institute an NDT style rule that everyone who comes
>> > with must judge a minimum number of debates. this prevents qualified judges
>> > from being in for only one or even zero debates while hiring out less highly
>> > preferred judges for the entirety of their committment.
>> >
>> > i think this rule exists not because of smaller programs who bring less
>> > well known judges (we may grumble about the people we dont know, but at the
>> > end of the day i think we "get it"), but because of programs with qualified
>> > judges who judge less than they should.
>> >
>> > pj
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Mon, 8/11/08, Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Jeremy Bowers <jeremyjbowers at gmail.com>
>> >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>> >> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> >> Date: Monday, August 11, 2008, 2:24 PM
>> >> I'd have to agree with Scott. We're just starting
>> >> our CEDA program
>> >> here at the University of South Florida (wish us luck!) --
>> >> and I don't
>> >> think anyone traveling with the team would be a
>> >> "qualified" judge. In
>> >> fact, my wife would likely be one of our judges. While
>> >> she's got a
>> >> cleaner flow than half the folks that judged me in college
>> >> - and is an
>> >> honest-to-god journalist at a real newspaper - she would be
>> >> out on two
>> >> counts even by Scott's measures below (not
>> >> "qualified" and not a
>> >> college graduate).
>> >>
>> >> So, how can the community help support small programs like
>> >> ours, or
>> >> big programs like Scott's that can't afford to hire
>> >> the most popular
>> >> judges or experienced grad students?
>> >>
>> >> Also, this is my first edebate post in probably 8 years.
>> >> Good to see
>> >> many of the same names.
>> >>
>> >> Jeremy Bowers
>> >> St. Petersburg, Fla.
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 2:48 PM,
>> >> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>> >> > MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary
>> >> process. Tournaments are
>> >> > now requiring teams to provide "qualified
>> >> judges." This is a serious problem
>> >> > that means the difference, for my program, between
>> >> travling four students and
>> >> > travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a
>> >> "qualified judge?"
>> >> >
>> >> > I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not
>> >> focusing on them as some
>> >> > particular attack, but I have noticed a judging
>> >> requirement to provide
>> >> > "qualified judges." We want to go to these
>> >> tournaments, but now I don't think we
>> >> > can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the
>> >> trend, and not
>> >> > of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs
>> >> away.) What is this code
>> >> > word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able
>> >> to fairly to the best of one's
>> >> > ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by
>> >> college students. Or, is this
>> >> > a code word for people that follow popular trends
>> >> within the policy debate
>> >> > community?
>> >> >
>> >> > I have been around this activity for almost thirty
>> >> years. But I have a program
>> >> > that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero
>> >> teams to 8 or more teams
>> >> > in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate
>> >> students who have been
>> >> > debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to
>> >> travel to  more tournaments
>> >> > and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think
>> >> we can fulfill our judging
>> >> > commitments. So, I  have students who have worked
>> >> hard, went to camps, and
>> >> > are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But
>> >> we do not have enough
>> >> > judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few
>> >> thousand dollars sending a
>> >> > graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some
>> >> idea of what policy debate
>> >> > is. But with no real tournament debating experience,
>> >> does he count as a
>> >> > "qualified judge?" I have been around the
>> >> game for decades, but I have several
>> >> > political points of view about debate that are very
>> >> unpopular. Does that mean I
>> >> > am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am
>> >> unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
>> >> > point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or
>> >> their political views, does
>> >> > that make them an unqualified judge?
>> >> >
>> >> > Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or
>> >> not? What about my
>> >> > department chair-a full professor of communication,
>> >> but no debate background.
>> >> > What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical
>> >> philosophy, but with no
>> >> > policy debate experience? What about a professor of
>> >> women's studies or African
>> >> > American studies, but with no policy debate
>> >> experience? Is policy debate going
>> >> > to become so exclusionary that only those who debated
>> >> for four years and high
>> >> > school and four years in college are the only
>> >> one's "qualified" to judge policy
>> >> > debates?
>> >> >
>> >> > If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up
>> >> want to advance their
>> >> > critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new
>> >> manifestation of policy
>> >> > debate exclusionary policies has more impact on
>> >> whether students can
>> >> > participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic
>> >> choices. Why? Because if
>> >> > we cannot cover our judging commitments because of
>> >> these "qualified judges"
>> >> > provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>> >> >
>> >> > Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge?
>> >> The tab room staff. Friends
>> >> > of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a
>> >> round by a judge four
>> >> > years ago?
>> >> >
>> >> > Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem
>> >> for women and minority
>> >> > participation as well as their points of view?
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it does because the
>> >> > people making the decisons are making the evaluation
>> >> > of what constitutes a "qualified judge"
>> >> based on their subjective
>> >> > interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge
>> >> in policy debate. My
>> >> > sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and
>> >> willingness to flow
>> >> > debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness
>> >> to accept anything
>> >> > presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both
>> >> are aesthetic trends that
>> >> > should not be the basis for considering a judge's
>> >> qualifications. Just because
>> >> > a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles
>> >> an hour cards of
>> >> > Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unqualified.
>> >> It means that those
>> >> > debaters have lost the first principle of persuasion,
>> >> one must discern the
>> >> > available means of persuasion based upon their target
>> >> audience. The focus on
>> >> > mpj and judge qualifications turns two thousand years
>> >> of communication theory
>> >> > on its head--having the audience be forced to adapt to
>> >> the speaker, rathern
>> >> > than vice versa. Given that debate is dominated by a
>> >> particular aesthetic, the
>> >> > judgment of judge qualification will only further, if
>> >> not exacerbate, current
>> >> > exclusionary trends in this activity.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nor should qualifications be based on MPJ popularity.
>> >> Just because your MPJ
>> >> > system breaks down every now and then does not justify
>> >> the exclusion of
>> >> > otherwise educated human beings from judging, and
>> >> worse, the exclusion of
>> >> > student debaters because their programs cannot meet
>> >> your arbritrary standards
>> >> > of "qualified." There should be a clear
>> >> standard for qualified judges that
>> >> > creates minimum exclusionary practices.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Many of you will say, hire judges. I think you need to
>> >> answer back a few
>> >> > objections. First, why should I hire judges when there
>> >> are plenty of graduate
>> >> > students, my faculty, or alumni that would volunteer
>> >> to do the work. The amount
>> >> > i spend on hired judges directly trades off with the
>> >> number of students I can
>> >> > bring to a tournament--further privileging well funded
>> >> programs. Second, where
>> >> > are these qualified judges for hire? I know that they
>> >> are not always available.
>> >> > We were in a jam at North texas and UT dallas last
>> >> year when I had four teams.
>> >> > It cost an arm and a leg to find and pay for  hired
>> >> judges.
>> >> >
>> >> > I have a solution for this disturbing trend. The
>> >> definition of a qualified judge
>> >> > for college policy debate: the person holds a four
>> >> year college degree or
>> >> > higher. But, as it stand now, this vague term creates
>> >> a very real hurdle for
>> >> > new programs and is one of the most exclusionary new
>> >> practices to crop up in
>> >> > this activity.
>> >> >
>> >> > Scott Elliott
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Michael Davis
>> Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
>> James Madison University
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>



-- 
Samuel A. Maurer
Director of Debate
Emporia State University

From mharris02 at drury.edu  Tue Aug 12 03:09:40 2008
From: mharris02 at drury.edu (Martin Harris)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:09:40 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
Message-ID: <451372279EE24E4992ED27B99AC5577304A880F7@EXVS1.drury.edu>

   I remember hearing a speech by Rev. Jackson when I was a youngen. I
believe the speech might have even been before his presidential
aspiration days. In it, he is talking about ethics and values. At one
point he speaks about a mother with 5 kids who can only afford 3 pork
chops. His question is whether she should conclude that she has two too
many children? Of course, the answer is no, she cuts the pork chops in
half and makes do because THAT is what you do. 

 

   Seems to me the debate community has decided it has too many teams.
Now, I realize you can make the "qualified" judges work harder. I mean,
the students all work damn hard and should expect nothing but the best
right. Problem is there just aren't enough pork chops to go around. Add
to that the students at home that get a professor (remember, some of
your colleagues get to go home and teach 4 classes and grade papers)
that has been forced to work an entire tournament weekend without break
and starts preparing less because the time they used to use at
tournaments for planning and grading or resting is now being taken up
because evidently if you don't get D. Heidt as a critic you were
shafted. 

 

Martin Harris

Systems Engineer - Desktop Architecture

Drury University-Technology Services

Office:  417-873-7848

Fax:  417-873-7835

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080812/5c474098/attachment.htm 

From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 12 09:37:20 2008
From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:37:20 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] yellow fever
Message-ID: <BLU141-W3106F561527BD70CD08A17D8700@phx.gbl>


http://www.kwch.com/Global/story.asp?S=8825090
http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/26863974.html

_________________________________________________________________
Got Game? Win Prizes in the Windows Live Hotmail Mobile Summer Games Trivia Contest
http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergames?ocid=TXT_TAGHM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080812/b07b6d28/attachment.htm 

From malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 12 17:45:18 2008
From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:45:18 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] yellow fever
Message-ID: <BAY105-W12E0B4E9D9BD3670274417CE700@phx.gbl>


Yaaaaaay!!!! chalk one up for the angry mob.  

I wonder if ellis et al had a similar conversation....

Sgt. Sisk:
Ladies and gentlemen, our suspect is not human. He is at home in the bush. Shoot to kill. Any questions? 



Mob Member:
Oh, yeah, yeah, I got a question there. When do we get to light our torches? 



Sgt. Sisk:
When it gets dark. 



Mob Member:
Ah, I see. Oh, hey, I got another question there. Suppose,
hypothetically, you know, a guy had already lit his torch. I mean, it'd
be cool if he could just keep it lit, huh? 


Sgt. Sisk:
Yes. 



Mob Member:
Oh, excellent. Excellent. 



Sgt. Sisk:
Now, if there are no more questions... 



Mob Member:
Oh, hey, hey, hey, I got another question. Hey, uh, if one part of the
mob gets separated from another part of the mob, shouldn't there be a
place that we can get together? Maybe a secret place the two mobs could
reunite, and we'd be a big mob again. 


Sgt. Sisk:
Stay with the mob. 



Mob Member:
Stay with the mob. All right. 



Sgt. Sisk:
Right. 



Mob Member:
Hey, hey, hey, I got another question. Hey, uh, doesn't this guy deserve a fair trial? 



Sgt. Sisk:
You - back of the mob! 



Mob Member:
"Back of the mob"? What? This is my spot! I came early! 



Sgt. Sisk:
Okay, *out* of the mob! 



Mob Member:
Ah, this mob blows.


and don't talk smack on the animal rob schneider is the greatest comic genius of our time!

malgor

_________________________________________________________________
Get Windows Live and get whatever you need, wherever you are.  Start here.
http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home_082008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080812/5ae9deb1/attachment.htm 

From jrlyle at gmail.com  Wed Aug 13 08:52:38 2008
From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:52:38 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Nearly All
Message-ID: <25fd497f0808130652k5f3c4aaat26cfbd793330ee84@mail.gmail.com>

I'm curious if people have any idea as to what they think AFF plans need to
say in regards to the question of "nearly all".  I guess more specifically
my question is how demanding people will be of plan texts versus a PIC that
jettisons farms from Iowa, or a specific farm, or a wee subsidy program
associated with soybeans.  Is it legit for the plan to say "nearly all 'X'"
and then explain the text as meaning that the AFF will defend getting rid of
all of X unless the neg runs a CP that PICs out of some location or tiny
program or so on.

Although there will be no solvency evidence that actually advocates these
CPs, we all know they're are coming.

Certainly anything is debatable, but I'm curious to know what the general
expectation may be and then work from there.

The above interpretation seems very reasonable to me unless the NEG has a
piece of evidence that actually says eliminate all wheat subsidies with the
exception of "Y."

Jim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080813/c714e8f7/attachment.htm 

From akbiotech at comcast.net  Wed Aug 13 11:47:28 2008
From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Art Kyriazis)
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:47:28 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] practicing to be a "qualified" judge - the wonders of
	technology
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1218560404.30691.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
References: <mailman.1.1218560404.30691.edebate@www.ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <48A31020.5090207@comcast.net>

to all the friendly folks of ndtceda:

perhaps one thing being overlooked in the debate over "qualified judges" 
is how easy it is to practice to become a qualified judge using the 
technology now available on the web.   For example, Prof. Snider and 
others have posted live debate rounds and speeches on video on the web, 
so it's very easy to just watch the round and practice flowing it and 
practice understanding it.  If you can't flow it the first time due to 
speed, incomprehensibility, or not understanding the generic arguments, 
you just run it again. 

It's not too different from golf.  I usually go out to the driving range 
and hit a couple of buckets of balls the day before I play nine or 18 
holes.  It's called practicing.  With videotape debate rounds, you can 
practice flowing a round before you actually show up for a round.   
Experienced judges might even consider it if they wanted to know what 
arguments might be around for a given topic.

in my view, if a grad student that has never even judged a round, has 
taken the time to review all of the pertinent web materials from the 
CEDA/NDT websites, from debate central, has taken the time to flow a 
round from video tape and get it right, has been properly prepared by a 
knowledgeable coach for judging, and has some acquaintance with the 
agriculturual issues/arguments that might come up during the round, then 
that individual is a "qualified judge" for preliminary rounds. 

it's better to let some new judges judge.  this policy field is enough 
of a meta activity that we need new blood constantly to refresh the 
judging pool. 

It might well be that MPJ might strike them in an octofinal round, but 
even there you have three judges, and heck, by then the newbie has 
judged six or seven rounds, they're actually experienced.

--art kyriazis



edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com wrote:
> Send eDebate mailing list submissions to
> 	edebate at www.ndtceda.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>       (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
>    2. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Jeremy Bowers)
>    3. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Paul Johnson)
>    4. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Mike Davis)
>    5. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Mike Davis)
>    6. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Mike Davis)
>    7. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
>       (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu)
>    8. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Mike Davis)
>    9. Tournament invitation hosted by Gonzaga (jbruschke at fullerton.edu)
>   10. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Dr. Joe Bellon)
>   11. Re: "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Samuel Maurer)
>   12. "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing (Martin Harris)
>   13. yellow fever (Kevin Sanchez)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:48:30 -0500
> From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
> Subject: [eDebate] "Qualified judges" requirements disturbing
> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> Message-ID: <1218480510.48a0897e85ff5 at webmail.grandecom.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> MPJ has morphed into a insidious and more exclusionary process. Tournaments are
> now requiring teams to provide "qualified judges." This is a serious problem
> that means the difference, for my program, between travling four students and
> travling twenty students this year.  What counts as a "qualified judge?"
>
> I have been looking at the GSU and UNLV invites. Not focusing on them as some
> particular attack, but I have noticed a judging requirement to provide
> "qualified judges." We want to go to these tournaments, but now I don't think we
> can. (Let me be clear, this is a criticism of the trend, and not
> of specific programs or people, so put your ad homs away.) What is this code
> word? Does this mean "qualified," as in able to fairly to the best of one's
> ability to listen and evaluate arguments made by college students. Or, is this
> a code word for people that follow popular trends within the policy debate
> community?
>
> I have been around this activity for almost thirty years. But I have a program
> that is less than a year old. We have gone from zero teams to 8 or more teams
> in just one year. I don't have a set of graduate students who have been
> debating and coaching for ten years. So, I want to travel to  more tournaments
> and travel a lot of teams. However, I don't think we can fulfill our judging
> commitments. So, I  have students who have worked hard, went to camps, and
> are practicing. We have the funds to travel them. But we do not have enough
> judges to judge for our program. I spent  a few thousand dollars sending a
> graduate student to ADI, just so he would have some idea of what policy debate
> is. But with no real tournament debating experience, does he count as a
> "qualified judge?" I have been around the game for decades, but I have several
> political points of view about debate that are very unpopular. Does that mean I
> am unqualified? Many of you may say yes, I am unqualified (LOL. Which proves the
> point I am making.) If you don't like someone, or their political views, does
> that make them an unqualified judge?
>
> Does a graduate student count as a qualified judge or not? What about my
> department chair-a full professor of communication, but no debate background.
> What about my Dean--a full professor of analytical philosophy, but with no
> policy debate experience? What about a professor of women's studies or African
> American studies, but with no policy debate experience? Is policy debate going
> to become so exclusionary that only those who debated for four years and high
> school and four years in college are the only one's "qualified" to judge policy
> debates?
>
> If Ede and other critics of how this game is set up want to advance their
> critique of MPJ,and policy debate in general, this new manifestation of policy
> debate exclusionary policies has more impact on whether students can
> participate in debate than MPJ or any other aesthetic choices. Why? Because if
> we cannot cover our judging commitments because of these "qualified judges"
> provisions, our students do not travel to tournaments.
>
> Who gets to determine the qualifications of a judge? The tab room staff. Friends
> of the tabroom? People who think they got screwed in a round by a judge four
> years ago?
>
> Doesn't this create a self-perpetuating problem for women and minority
> participation as well as their points of view?
>
> I think it does because the
> people making the decisons are making the evaluation
> of what constitutes a "qualified judge" based on their subjective
> interpretations of what constitutes a qualfied judge in policy debate. My
> sneaking suspiscion is that this means the ability and willingness to flow
> debates at a million miles an hour and a willingness to accept anything
> presented in a round as a legitimate argument. Both are aesthetic trends that
> should not be the basis for considering a judge's qualifications. Just because
> a buntch of geeky guys love to spew at a million miles an hour cards of
> Hiedegger does not mean that a judge is unquali