From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 1 11:33:50 2008 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:33:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Tournament, Hotel, etc. Message-ID: Hey folks, just wanted to provide a quick update on the Baylor tournament. A few things: 1) The tournament hotel will once again be the Clarion (right across from campus). We have a block of 60 rooms reserved at the rate of $89.99. The number for the hotel is (254)757-2000, ask for the 'Baylor Debate' block. The block expires on December 31st. 2) The tournament will offer a JV division, but will unfortunately not be able to offer a Novice division due to lack of room space and lukewarm interest from the community. 3) There are no entry fees for the tournament....Yeah, ZERO entry fees. We look forward to hosting you in January... The Bears _________________________________________________________________ Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_access_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081201/dc8ba471/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Mon Dec 1 14:05:33 2008 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:05:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Looking for judging for the Texas Swing - Emory Message-ID: <194737.17602.qm@web62006.mail.re1.yahoo.com> We pay cash. We would be interested in 1 or 2 rounds if you have them. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081201/99f32bd9/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 14:24:10 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:24:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Partner needed for JCU Message-ID: If you are going to John Carroll and have an odd/extra debater please contact me. I have a very nice, earnest, debater who really would like to get some rounds in at the JCU tournament. I will pay the teams entry fee and cover their judging. Email me if you have someone, Thanks in advance, Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081201/7f9af771/attachment.htm From proudsavage at gmail.com Mon Dec 1 14:34:00 2008 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:34:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] some one from PITT or delete Message-ID: <9b5963440812011234h35de3277jde9b971e59b957bc@mail.gmail.com> hit me up got a site request -- Stephen M. Davis Towson University Debate Coach 412-480-2391 proudsavage at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081201/57917c7a/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Mon Dec 1 15:37:52 2008 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:37:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Space Opened at UNT for DeMougeot Tournament Message-ID: I just got additional rooms for the UNT college tournament. If you have regestered lately and got waitlisted, please make sure you are actually entered now. If you got turned away, please retry on the system. We are gonna do some new and great things this winter, we look forward to having everyone. -Brian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081201/1b58b3a5/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Mon Dec 1 15:52:01 2008 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:52:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Holiday Inn in Denton Block Filling up-- Call Quick Message-ID: Colleagues, If you have not already, please make your reservations at the Holiday Inn in Denton. If you call them it is 940-220-6407 for the direct Sales Line and online the booking code for our space is UDB. There is still space in the block, but it is filling up quickly. If you do encounter problems with the hotel, please don't hesitate to email me. Registration will be in the ballroom on Tuesday and we are planning an event at the hotel Thursday night. Best, -Brian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081201/cb8273e3/attachment.htm From gregachten at berkeley.edu Mon Dec 1 16:13:40 2008 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:13:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Cal Debate Tournament Information Message-ID: <1521.128.32.51.229.1228169620.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> Greetings, Our tournament is rapidly approaching and there are a couple of things I wanted to share with people. First, please make your hotel reservations as soon as possible. Our block does not expire until January 5, but it is relatively close to filling up. The hotel is the Oakland City Center Marriott. Keep in mind this is a different tournament hotel than years past, but it is the hotel we will use for the NDT and CEDA in 2010 so this will give you a chance to scope out the venue and more importantly give them a chance to figure out if they need to upgrade their wireless network for our group. I have managed to secure a tournament rate of $117 per night for up to 4 people per room.You can make reservations now by calling1-888-236-2427 and asking for the Cal National Debate Tournament rate. Wireless internet is free for all attendees, but there is charge of $26 per night for parking. Second, if you want to purchase a parking permit for use on campus on Saturday and Sunday, please let me know now, so that I can place the order with our parking office. The permits are $20 per car for the weekend. If you have any questions please let me know. Best, Greg From brian95882 at msn.com Mon Dec 1 16:36:58 2008 From: brian95882 at msn.com (brian schrader) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:36:58 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] DU Tournament Message-ID: The link on debateresults as well as the online entry function are enabled for the DU debate tournament. The invite will follow shortly. Brian Schrader DU Debate _________________________________________________________________ Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_safety_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081201/0aa4a16d/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Mon Dec 1 18:29:24 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:29:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Virginia swing Message-ID: We're looking forward to it and trying to prepare. Who is out there and entering teams but hasn't entered yet? --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081201/f7746358/attachment.htm From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Tue Dec 2 13:24:39 2008 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:24:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Need Judging For UNT and UTD Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCAC1EBF1@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> UTSA is looking for four rounds at UNT and four rounds at UT-D. We pay $30 per round, cash, on site. Skip Eno -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081202/2ff66864/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Dec 2 13:34:34 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:34:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Forward from Kenda Cunningham Message-ID: Hello everyone, I hope that all is well and that you all are enjoying debating about agricultural issues this year. It turns out that I now work at the International Food Policy Research Institute and spend my day researching many of the same things that all of you do. At this point, I am on a team for a new project sponsored by the Gates Foundation and we are looking for people to submit nominations. I thought that all of you who spend your free time researching, thinking about, and debating these issues may be interested; maybe it's a good opportunity to bridge your debate work and research/policymaking in the "real world". If you have any questions feel free to contact me directly (k.cunningham at cgiar.org). I am pleased to invite you to respond to, and share widely, a call for nominations for a new IFPRI initiative on "Millions Fed: Proven Successes in Agricultural Development." To submit a nomination or nominations, please visit www.ifpri.org/millionsfed. The Millions Fed project, supported by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, will document evidence on "what works" in agriculture?what sorts of policies, programs, and investments in pro-poor agricultural development have had a proven impact on hunger and food security. We invite nominations highlighting interventions that have had a significant impact on food security, including those that have empowered women and vulnerable groups to improve their livelihoods. Nominations may include, for example, research and extension programs that have improved on-farm yields and outputs for small-scale farmers; public investment programs that have helped food-insecure consumers meet their daily nutritional requirements and accumulate assets; community-led efforts that have conserved soil, water, forests, and biodiversity; or market-based interventions that have strengthened the ability of small-scale farmers and food-insecure consumers to gain access to production inputs, rural services, and agricultural commodities. Please submit your nominations by December 31, 2008. Nominated interventions will be reviewed by a panel of international experts and, if selected, highlighted in the Millions Fed global communications initiative. For more information on the selection criteria, nomination process, and the Millions Fed project in general, please see the attached flyer or visit www.ifpri.org/millionsfed. We encourage you to share this call for nominations with colleagues in your organization and networks. Please feel free to contact the IFPRI Millions Fed team at IFPRI-MillionsFed at cgiar.org if you have any questions or would like further information. With best regards, Kenda * * * * *Joachim's Signature:* Joachim von Braun Director General International Food Policy Research Institute 2033 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1002 (USA) Tel. 1-202-862-6496 Fax. 1-202-467-4439 Email: j.vonbraun at cgiar.org web: www.ifpri.org *Rajul's Signature:* *Rajul Pandya-Lorch (Ms.)* Chief of Staff, Director General's Office,* and* Head, 2020 Vision Initiative International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 2033 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006, USA Tel: 1-202-862-8185 Fax: 1-202-467-4439 EM: r.pandya-lorch at cgiar.org Web: www.ifpri.org/2020chinaconference/index.htm *David's Signature:* David J. Spielman Research Fellow International Food Policy Research Institute PO Box 5689 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia tel: +251.11.6172505 mbl: +251.911.414949 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081202/56c4c24b/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Nominations_Flyer[1].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 311476 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081202/56c4c24b/attachment.pdf From sarahtp73 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 2 19:46:52 2008 From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.com (Sarah Partlow) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:46:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Day Care For CEDA Nationals? Message-ID: <332007.97515.qm@web31606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Gordon - could you post this to CEDA-L? Hello everyone! As we are making arrangments for CEDA nationals, we would like to know if you are planning to bring your child and if you are interested in childcare. Please let me know as soon as possible so that we can make appropriate arrangements. Please include your name age, and any special needs. Thanks, Sarah PartlowLefevre Idaho State Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081202/95e7c22c/attachment.htm From Sarah.StoneWatt at pepperdine.edu Wed Dec 3 09:41:26 2008 From: Sarah.StoneWatt at pepperdine.edu (Stone Watt, Sarah E) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:41:26 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Job Message-ID: <65026351B33F41428D600F59706B3FCB032A7013@logan.pepperdine.ad.pepperdine.edu> JL Academy in city of Chino, California is seeking for experienced and dedicated debate coaches to instruct Elementary, Middle school, and High School debate club students. The class meets once a week for 2 hours with using NFL debate formats and IEs. The hourly pay will vary depending on one's experiences, but will start from $20 / hr.. If you can share your debate experiences and talents with the students, please contact Ms. Lee at (909-438-8132) or use e-mail to set up an interview. We also need a coach who can be in charge of building JL Academy's own debate curriculum to suit JL Academy students' needs and take care of all debate matters including arranging for upcoming tournaments. Thank you so much for your interest and consideration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081203/9cf57b1f/attachment.htm From kel1773 at msn.com Wed Dec 3 13:45:10 2008 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:45:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wayne State seeks 2 graduate assistant coaches for 2009 Message-ID: Just resubmitting our call-- Our department is asking that anyone interested apply online by December 15. We just need to get your basic information into our online system. If letters of apps, test scores, transcripts arrive after that date, that is fine. Please also let me know that you're applying. Wayne State University will have 2 openings for NDT-CEDA STYLE POLICY DEBATE graduate assistants for next year. The Department of Communication at Wayne State University has both MA and PhD programs in Communication Studies, Film Studies and Journalism. The assistantships are very generous and competitive. You will receive tuition waiver, monthly stipend, health and dental insurance (same insurance coverage as faculty--which is better than most universities), no teaching requirements (although you can in the summer for extra money), opportunities to earn extra money working at our debate institute and a potential monthly housing stipend. Learn more at: http://www.comm.wayne.edu/ and http://www.gradschool.wayne.edu/index.asp. Please be aware that our pool of applicants has become increasingly competitive and as a result, our academic standards are being pushed upwards. When contacting me, please indicate your current undergrad and grad GPAs, GRE scores (if taken) and scholarly interest. Please contact me at Kelly.young at wayne.edu, my office 313-577-2953 or see me or Ron Stevenson at tournaments for more information. Kelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081203/e06e3bd8/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Wed Dec 3 15:41:15 2008 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:41:15 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CSUF has 2 graduate assistantships Message-ID: The CSUF Speech and Debate has 2 graduate assistantships dedicated to forensics. As the rest of the economy suffers, state school enrollment is growing and since our funding comes from student fees, rather than the state budget, slow economic times are actually good news for us. We are committed to providing debate opportunites for everyone, and support a large squad as well as the Southern California Debate League. Applications are completed in two steps. First, apply to university. Here's the link: http://www.fullerton.edu/admissions/ProspectiveStudent/Application.asp Second, apply to the department (including the graduate assistantship): http://communications.fullerton.edu/graduate/hcs/mas_apply.html Please email me to let me know if you've applied so I can make sure your application is reviewed for forensics. If you have any questions, contact me or Toni Nielson (tnielson at fullerton.edu). We'd be happy to help you find out what you need to know! Hope to hear from you soon, Jon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081203/b2d2d5cd/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Wed Dec 3 16:45:35 2008 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:45:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 2009 Val Browning Attendees! Message-ID: (If this hard to read, please open the attachement) 2009 Val Browning Attendees Arizona State University (Tang & Tse) California State University @ Fullerton (Ramirez & Stambaugh) Columbia University (Awsare & Dentler) Gonzaga University (Kannellopoulos & Sydnor) Idaho State University (Jennings & Montreuil) University of Denver (Milavitz & Warner) University of Wyoming (Allen & Piechura) Weber State University (Adesanwo & Dawson) Whitman College (Janyk & Barnett) Thank you to all of those who showed interest! Happy Holidays to all and we?ll see you in Ogden on January 18th. Please enter your team at debate results. [If you need to be picked up at the airport, please email Richard @ rtews at weber.edu ] Our best, Omar & WSU Debate! 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 PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081203/62d575fb/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2009 Val Browning Attendees.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 26624 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081203/62d575fb/attachment.obj From odekirk.scott at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 17:22:22 2008 From: odekirk.scott at gmail.com (scott odekirk) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 16:22:22 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] I need to hire 10 rounds at USC and 8 at Fullerton... Message-ID: <724663690812031522ga082a96x6eb07d8558238f6e@mail.gmail.com> email me back if you are interested. Odekirk Idaho State debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081203/a0fe4ebf/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 18:40:14 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 19:40:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] bcd tournament this weekend canceled Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812031640w64d07f5s2a65bca7f4287d4f@mail.gmail.com> Due to lack of entries the bcd tournament this weekend is cancelled From mschnall at gmx.net Wed Dec 3 19:18:13 2008 From: mschnall at gmx.net (Matt Schnall) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:18:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Boston Debate League Message-ID: <4936E985.24254.CE2D2C7@mschnall.gmx.net> (Posted on behalf of Steve Stein) Seeking info for summer camps for UDL students. The Boston Debate League is planning to look into raising money so some of our students can attend summer debate camps. If there are any institute directors who are interested in working with our students, please email me at steve at bostondebate.org. Thanks Steve Stein Director, Boston Debate League From blackdebateguy at hotmail.com Thu Dec 4 02:21:57 2008 From: blackdebateguy at hotmail.com (Douglas Dennis) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:21:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Jordan Mills...or delete Message-ID: If you are Jordan or know how I can get in contact with him, let a brother know. Doug D From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Dec 4 04:07:26 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 02:07:26 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] congrats to the golden 6 Message-ID: welcome to nw ceda champs to these teams and judges, our golden 6: 1. southwestern--peck and fite with jordan mills as the judge. 2 and 3. wyoming--tony johnson and mike bausch, sam allen and jamie piechura; with judges matt stannard and chris crowe as judges. 4. sacramento state--Chantel Crane and David Rekow, with judge Theresa Perry. 5. michigan--edmund zagorin and maria liu with whit whitmore as judge. 6. suny-binghamton--Ben Crossan & Alan Ostrovsky to debate and Guy Risko as judge (numbers don't indicate rankings) jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081204/c5360a7c/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Dec 4 09:43:10 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:43:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking for a few rounds at Texas swing Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AE31@castor.richmond.edu> Looking for 2 rounds at each of the Texas Swing tournaments---$40 per round. contact me, Kevin From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Dec 4 10:12:18 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:12:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 1/2 black wallpaper: hackneyed rhetoric of "expert teams" Message-ID: perhaps, the bush administration has not precipitated a crisis in the ideological republican philosophies of neoconservatism and the free market but, rather, a crisis in the ability of academic experts to steer the ship of social engineering at the helm of a gynormous bureaucracy cut off from the everyday lives of the people it feeds off.enter 1/2 black wallpaper who, at this point, stands for the appointments of the new york yankee all stars of modern FDR new dealism, more than anything than tangible.his rhetorical manner spun through the mainstream media outlets is instilling "short-lived to be" confidence in the ability of our experts to avoid total mismanagement in their governing while fraud and corruption are being spawned in the intestines of the washington beltway to prime the economy with fake money a la savings and loans, junk bonds, foreign currencies, subprime mortgages, the lot.behind the guise of centrist rationality, the political personality of 1/2 black wallpaper is slowly fading into the thin air. we are assured that 1/2 black wallpaper will be the great decider after receiving a "variety" of viewpoints from a team of rival experts in every field. 1/2 black wallpaper will exercise the judgment that he put on display in the vote for FISA to create the greatest expert plans we have seen in the history of this young nation.fucking bullshit.towers open fire. unload ammunition of the foucault critique of the specific intellectual and the habermas critique of non-self-reflexive expertise. attack the bureaucrats smearing their own feces all over their faces.who is barack obama? not a muslim, not a terrorist, not a capitalist whore. he's the king of academic experts after a century and a half of positivist failure to make good on their scientific social utopianism. a policy debate community's wetdream. _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081204/aa6fdb37/attachment.htm From max.o.archer at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 11:14:21 2008 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:14:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Augustana College Viking Debates Invitation - Jan. 30-Feb. 1 2009 Message-ID: <1944fe1d0812040914m5461e362ubee6d1ab9e40349d@mail.gmail.com> 24 November 2008 Dear Community, The Augustana Debate Union and the Department of Communication Studies are pleased to invite you and your colleagues to attend the 2009 Viking Debates at Augustana College. This year's edition of the Viking Debates will be held on Friday, January 30, Saturday, January 31 and Sunday, February 1, 2009 in Rock Island, IL. The tournament will include three divisions of debate on the 2008-2009 CEDA/NDT topic, have six (6) high quality preliminary rounds in Open and clear to an appropriate number of elimination rounds in each division. All rounds will be held on the campus of Augustana College. We have every intention of making this tournament as comfortable and enjoyable as possible. Breakfast and lunch will provided on Saturday. We are committed to providing high quality competition, hospitality, awards and tournament administration. If there is anyway we can better accommodate you, please to not hesitate to let us know. Please accept our invitation and join us for a grand time of competitive debates. We look forward to hosting you in Rock Island. Sincerely, Max Archer, Director of Debate Augustana College (o) 309-794-7717 (c) 281-381-7328 maxarcher at augustana.edu REGISTRATION: We will accept entries for the tournament through Tuesday, January 27 at 5:00 pm CST. Entries may be made at at www.debateresults.com. If there are any entry problems, please contact Max Archer at maxarcher at augustana.edu or by phone at (309) 794-7717. Registration will take place in Old Main 19 on Friday, January 30 from 2:30-3:30pm. DIVISIONS: We plan to host three (3) divisions of debate this year. The open division is open to any undergraduate student with eligibility. The Junior Varsity and Novice divisions are open to anyone who meets the CEDA eligibility standards for junior or novice participation. In the event that there are an insufficient number of teams entered in a division, arrangements will be made by the Tournament Director and Tab Room staff to accommodate all participants. While it is unlikely, one or more teams from Augustana might compete at the tournament to ensure an even number of teams and to prevent a bye from being assigned. However, no Augustana team will compete in elimination rounds. Awards will be given in each division to elimination round participants and an appropriate number of recognized speakers. JUDGING: Each school should provide a qualified judge to cover your judging commitments. One(1) team requires three (3) rounds of judging, two (2) teams require six (6) rounds of judging. There will be few (if any) judges available for hire at the rate of $100/uncovered team, but you should let us know well in advance if you need to hire judges. Because extra judging is limited in the Quad Cities area, we would prefer your judges rather than take your money. Each judge is obligated to cover their school's commitment through the first elimination round, or one round beyond your team's elimination. All judges should enter their philosophy at www.debateresults.com prior to the beginning of the tournament. Each judge will assignment a win to one and only one team and a loss to one and only one team. The judge will also rank each debater 1 to 4 and rate each debater 0-30 using half points. Each judge will have a maximum of two hours and forty-five (2:45) minutes from the official start time of the debate to record a decision for that debate. A judged assigned by the tab room to a particular debate is responsible for the submission of a correctly completed ballot at the conclusion of that debate. Failure on the part of the judge to comply with these rules may result in a decision by the tab room staff and may also result in penalties being imposed upon the judge's school. FORMAT AND RULES: We will use the 9-3-6 format, with ten minutes preparation time per team. Rounds 1-2 will be preset. The rest will be powered. Debate teams consist of two persons two from the same school. Hybrid teams are acceptable, and may advance to elimination rounds. In the event of illness, a single debater may debate two (2) rounds alone but will not be allowed to advance to elimination debates. Unless the teams have met previously in the preliminary rounds, sides in elimination debates will be determined by coin flip or an agreement by both teams. The tournament will NOT break brackets in elimination rounds. TAB ROOM STAFF AND TOURNAMENT ADMINISTRATION: Justin Green of Kansas State University has agreed to direct the operations of the tabulation room. Mr. Green and the Tournament Director will resolve any tournament administration problems that arise. Current and former Augustana students will be available throughout the tournament to run ballots, give directions and generally provide any needed assistance. FEES: Entry fees are $85/team for all divisions. This includes trophies, tournament supply expenses, and hospitality. Checks should be made out to "Augustana College." HOUSING: We have reserved a block of rooms at the La Quinta Inn-Moline Airport. La Quinta has guaranteed a hotel block with doubles for $79/night and kings for $69/night. Reservations should be made by contacting the La Quinta Inn Central Reservation Center by phone at 1-866-527-1498. Identify yourself as part of the "Viking Debate" party, Confirmation Number 673GRSVGP . All final details pertaining to your stay should be coordinated directly with the Moline hotel staff, whom you may contact by phone at (309) 762-9008 . The block closes on January 16, 2009 ? please make reservations soon. All participants are strongly encouraged to stay at the tournament hotel. Pairings will be released at the tournament hotel and on campus. SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION: The tournament will follow the CEDA guidelines on sexual harassment and discrimination. 2009 Viking Debates TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Friday, January 30 2:30-3:30PM Registration, Old Main 19 4:30-7:00PM Round One 7:00-9:00PM Round Two Saturday, January 31 8:00AM Pairings released at hotel and on campus 9:00-11:00AM Round Three 11:00-1:00PM Round Four 1:00-2:00PM Lunch 2:00-4:00PM Round Five 4:30-6:30PM Round Six Sunday, February 1 8:00AM Pairings released at hotel and on campus 9:00-11:00AM First Elimination Debate 11:30AM Awards Assembly 12:00PM Elimination Debates Continue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081204/67bffdac/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Thu Dec 4 13:24:20 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:24:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] GA at Wyoming Message-ID: The University of Wyoming will have an opening for a graduate assistant coach specializing in NDT/CEDA debate, beginning in the Fall of 2009.The position pays your tuition, fees and health insurance, and provides a more-than-sufficient living stipend to complete an MA in Communication Studies or Journalism. There is currently no teaching requirement for debate GAs, but you can assist in a variety of teaching contexts (such as the Argumentation class and forensics practicum) if you want that on your vitae. We will also employ you at our high school and college summer institutes, as well as assist you in finding employment at other summer programs. Our department is cutting-edge and diverse; you can study rhetoric, media criticism, cultural and intercultural communication, comm. theory and science, public relations, broadcasting, and journalism, among others. The team practices a pluralistic and democratic philosophy of debate with a great deal of ideological and methodological diversity. We travel an extremely competitive national and regional schedule, and enjoy outstanding administrative, departmental, and alumni support. Our success rate for placing former Wyoming assistant coaches is simply incredible. We have placed Directors of Forensics at Pepperdine, Lousiana State, Marist College, and Regis, PhD candidates at Penn State and SIU, and assistant directors at the Greenhill School, Damien HS, and Weber State University. Finally, Laramie is an extremely cheap and friendly place to live, and you're moments away from some of the most beautiful mountain ranges and recreation areas in the country. If you are interested in the position, there are two things you should do: 1. Email me. I will answer any questions you have, and will also forward your contact information to Dr. Tracey Patton, our Director of Graduate Studies. 2. Check out the department and the grad school. The department's home page is: http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/COJO/. The department's graduate studies page is: http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/COJO/grad.asp Please contact me with any questions. Best of luck this season. Matt Stannard Director of Forensics University of Wyoming _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081204/67d9e578/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Dec 4 21:38:31 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:38:31 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Miami Message-ID: <70C8AD0E39B146F884B298116E01501E@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Miami Sanders Invitational Debate Tournament. Starts:1/9/2009 Ends:1/11/2009 Hosted by: Miami Contact: Marcy Halpin Address: 157d Bachelor Hall, Oxford OH 45056 Phone: 513-529-3050 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Junior Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Novice with 6 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 rrach at juno.com Fri Dec 5 03:18:27 2008 From: rrach at juno.com (rrach at juno.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:18:27 GMT Subject: [eDebate] ALL Texas HS Debate will become pass/ fail Message-ID: <20081205.031827.15461.0@webmail22.vgs.untd.com> Dear Texas Debate Community, The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is preparing to pass a rule shortly after Christmas universalizing GPA weighting schemes for Texas High Schools and incidentally making debate a pass-fail class in the state of Texas ( see attached copy of the Texas Register p. 50 and applicable Texas Administrative Code chapter 74 section 74.63(b).) I repeat ? as currently written ? this proposed administrative rule would make debate, classes pass/fail in all Texas public high schools. P.E. would also be pass fail. Fine art electives such as band and choir would be 4.0. Health and Comm. App. would be 4.0. pre-AP and Pre-IB classes would be 4.5. AP and IB classes will become 5.0. This system would be grandfathered in beginning with freshmen for August 2009. If I am misreading this rule or code, please advise. I hazard a guess that this may adversely effect some debate programs in the state. This is the rule proposal: Uniform Grade-Point Calculation for Admission to General Academic Teaching Institutions. Procedures for calculating the high school grade-point average for students seeking admission to a Texas general academic teaching institution shall be as follows: (1) Only official high school transcripts shall be accepted by the general academic teaching institution for evaluation and grade-point calculation. (2) A four-point scale shall be used in computing the Uniform Grade-Point Average (GPA) with the exception of paragraph (7) of this section. (3) No grade points shall be awarded for courses that do not result in credit awarded. (4) Grades from the following courses regardless of when taken, shall be used in calculating the Uniform Grade-Point Average: Courses including electives in Texas Administrative Code ?74.63(b)(1) -(6) and (8) -(11) of this title (relating to Recommended High School Program); all College Board Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses in all disciplines; high school career and technology courses aligned with university programs of study as determined by the GPA Advisory Committee established by ?5.10(c) of this chapter (relating to Implementation of Uniform Grade-Point Average Rules); and dual credit courses including career oriented courses in the Lower Division Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM). (5) Grades earned in local credit courses (Texas Education Code, ?28.002(f) shall not be included in the computation of the Uniform Grade-Point Average; and (6) Grades from out-of-state academic courses equivalent to those in paragraph (4) of this section shall be included in the computation of the Uniform Grade-Point Average if state credit toward the Recommended or Distinguished High School Program is awarded for them. (7) Courses shall be weighted in the following manner: (A) Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and Dual Credit courses set forth in paragraph (4) of this section shall be weighted equally with an additional weighting of 1.0 point in the calculation of the Uniform Grade-Point Average. (B) Pre-AP, Honors, and Pre-IB courses in paragraph (4) of this section that are natural precursors to AP and IB courses shall be weighted with an additional weighting of .50 if begun prior to May 1, 2013. I have included a long exact copy of the rule and a copy of the pertinent section of the Texas Administrative Code, as well as a short summary of the THECB's plans, and information where the board will receive public comment. I have highlighted the applicable language of the rule and the chapter. Comments on the new rules proposal may be submitted to Natalie Coffey, Senior Program Director, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711, or Natalie.coffey at thecb.state.tx.us. Russell Rach 12/5/08 Bellaire High School PROPOSED RULES November 28, 2008 33 TexReg 9641 TITLE 19. EDUCATION PART 1. TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD CHAPTER 5. RULES APPLYING TO PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES, HEALTH-RELATED INSTITUTIONS, AND/OR SELECTEDPUBLIC COLLEGES OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TEXAS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 19 TAC ??5.8 -5.10 The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board proposes new ??5.8 -5.10 concerning Uniform Grade Point Average Calculation. Specifically, the new ?5.8 concerning Uniform Grade Point Average Calculation will establish a standard method for computing a student?s high school grade point average. The method must be based on a four-point scale and give additional weight to more rigorous courses. The new ?5.9 concerning the Conversion Chart for the Uniform Grade point Average will establish the mathematical equivalences for the standard method for computing a student?s high school grade point average established by ?5.8. The new ?5.10 will establish the time-table for the implementation of ?5.8. Dr. Judith Loredo, Assistant Commissioner for P-16 Initiatives, has determined that for each year of the first five years the section is in effect, there will be slight fiscal implications to state or local government as a result of enforcing or administering the rules. The fiscal note to House Bill 3851, 80th Legislature Regular Session (2007) indicated that "given the complexity and variety of methods of calculating high school grade point average, it is assumed that school districts would likely incur some cost in conforming to an adopted methodology. Anticipated costs would include modification of local procedures and software." The rules are not, however, expected to affect any local economy. Dr. Loredo has also determined that for each year of the first five years the section is in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of administering the section will be increased student success and graduation from general academic teaching institutions. There is no effect on small businesses as noted, there are slight economic costs to entities required to comply with the section as proposed. There is no impact on local employment. Comments on the proposal may be submitted to Natalie Coffey, Senior Program Director, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711, or natalie.coffey at thecb.state.tx.us. Comments will be accepted for 30 days following publication of the proposal in the Texas Register. The new sections are proposed under the Texas Education Code, ?51.807, which requires the Coordinating Board to adopt rules establishing a standard method for computing a student?s high school grade point average. The new sections affect Texas Education Code, ?51.807. ?5.8. Uniform Grade-Point Calculation for Admission to General Academic Teaching Institutions. Procedures for calculating the high school grade-point average for students seeking admission to a Texas general academic teaching institution shall be as follows: (1) Only official high school transcripts shall be accepted by the general academic teaching institution for evaluation and grade-point calculation. (2) A four-point scale shall be used in computing the Uniform Grade-Point Average (GPA) with the exception of paragraph (7) of this section. (3) No grade points shall be awarded for courses that do not result in credit awarded. (4) Grades from the following courses regardless of when taken, shall be used in calculating the Uniform Grade-Point Average: Courses including electives in Texas Administrative Code ?74.63(b)(1) -(6) and (8) -(11) of this title (relating to Recommended High School Program); all College Board Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses in all disciplines; high school career and technology courses aligned with university programs of study as determined by the GPA Advisory Committee established by ?5.10(c) of this chapter (relating to Implementation of Uniform Grade-Point Average Rules); and dual credit courses including career oriented courses in the Lower Division Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM). (5) Grades earned in local credit courses (Texas Education Code, ?28.002(f) shall not be included in the computation of the Uniform Grade-Point Average; and (6) Grades from out-of-state academic courses equivalent to those in paragraph (4) of this section shall be included in the computation of the Uniform Grade-Point Average if state credit toward the Recommended or Distinguished High School Program is awarded for them. (7) Courses shall be weighted in the following manner: (A) Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), and Dual Credit courses set forth in paragraph (4) of this section shall be weighted equally with an additional weighting of 1.0 point in the calculation of the Uniform Grade-Point Average. (B) Pre-AP, Honors, and Pre-IB courses in paragraph (4) of this section that are natural precursors to AP and IB courses shall be weighted with an additional weighting of .50 if begun prior to May 1, 2013. (C) If begun on or after May 1, 2013, all Pre-AP and Honors courses will be expected to meet Laying the Foundation, or comparable standards. Pre-IB courses will be expected to be part of an approved IB program. In addition, continued weighting for Pre-AP, Honors, and Pre-IB courses will be reviewed by the GPA Advisory Committee established by ?5.10(c) of this chapter as appropriate. (8) The Uniform Grade-Point Average shall be computed for use by the general academic teaching institution: (A) By multiplying each grade (see paragraph (4) of this section) by the credits earned per course and totaling the products, and (B) The total of the products shall be divided by the total credits. (C) The result is to be calculated to no more than three decimal places, giving the official cumulative Uniform Grade-Point Average. ?5.9. Conversion Chart for Uniform Grade Point Average. The following conversion chart shall be used in the calculation of grade point averages pursuant to ?5.8 of this chapter (relating to Uniform Grade-Point Calculation for Admission to General Academic Teaching Institutions): Figure: 19 TAC ?5.9 ?5.10. Implementation of Uniform Grade-Point Average Rules. (a) The rules for calculation of the Uniform Grade-Point Average established under ?5.8 of this chapter (relating to Uniform Grade-Point Calculation for Admission to General Academic Teaching Institutions) shall apply to the calculation of such averages for all students who enter the ninth grade for the first time from May 1, 2009, onward. (b) The grade-point averages of students already in ninth grade or higher as of April 30, 2009, or before, shall be calculated on the same basis that would have applied to such students before the adoption of ?5.8 of this chapter. (c) The Coordinating Board will establish a 15-member Grade-Point Average (GPA) Advisory Committee according to ?1.6 of this title (relating to Advisory Committees), which will include representatives from public education, higher education and the workforce sectors, to oversee implementation of the GPA standards and to monitor the courses counted in the GPA calculation as curricula in high schools and universities change. Additionally, the GPA Advisory Committee will be responsible for ensuring institutional compliance with Coordinating Board rules e.g., ?4.85 of this title (relating to Dual Credit Requirements) which specify requirements for dual credit courses. The GPA Advisory Committee will advise the Board on each of the referenced areas so that appropriate action may be taken when necessary. (d) Public institutions of higher education offering dual credit courses will be required to monitor the rigor of the courses offered to high school students and adhere to rules and standards adopted by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency?s legal authority to adopt. Filedwiththe Office of the Secretary of State on November 17, 2008. TRD-200805951 Bill Franz General Counsel Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Proposed date of adoption: January 29, 2009 For further information, please call: (512) 427-6114 Chapter 74. Curriculum Requirements Subchapter F. Graduation Requirements, Beginning with School Year 2007-2008 Statutory Authority: The provisions of this Subchapter F issued under the Texas Education Code, ??7.102(c)(4), 28.002, and 28.025(a), unless otherwise noted. ?74.61. High School Graduation Requirements. (a) Graduates of each high school are awarded the same type of diploma. The academic achievement record (transcript), rather than the diploma, records individual accomplishments, achievements, and courses completed and displays appropriate graduation seals. (b) All credit for graduation must be earned no later than Grade 12. (c) A student entering Grade 9 in the 2007-2008 school year and thereafter shall enroll in the courses necessary to complete the curriculum requirements for the recommended high school program specified in ?74.63 of this title (relating to Recommended High School Program) or the advanced program specified in ?74.64 of this title (relating to Distinguished Achievement High School Program--Advanced High School Program) unless the student, the student's parent or other persons standing in parental relation to the student, and a school counselor or school administrator agree that the student should be permitted to take courses under the minimum high school program specified in ?74.62 of this title (relating to Minimum High School Program). High school courses successfully completed prior to Grade 9 and the 2007-2008 school year shall count toward graduation in the manner established in this chapter for credit in the year the course is successfully completed. (d) To receive a high school diploma, a student entering Grade 9 in the 2007-2008 school year and thereafter must complete the following: (1) in accordance with subsection (c) of this section, requirements of the minimum high school program specified in ?74.62, the recommended high school program specified in ?74.63, or the advanced program specified in ?74.64; and (2) testing requirements for graduation as specified in Chapter 101 of this title (relating to Assessment). (e) A maximum of three credits of reading (selected from Reading I, II, or III) may be offered by districts for state graduation elective credit for identified students under the following conditions. (1) The school district board of trustees shall adopt policies to identify students in need of additional reading instruction. (2) District procedures shall include assessment of individual student needs, ongoing evaluation of each student's progress, and monitoring of instructional activities to ensure that student needs are addressed. (f) An out-of-state or out-of-country transfer student (including foreign exchange students) or a transfer student from a Texas nonpublic school is eligible to receive a Texas diploma, but must complete all requirements of this section to satisfy state graduation requirements. Any course credit required in this section that is not completed by the student before he or she enrolls in a Texas school district may be satisfied through the provisions of ?74.23 of this title (relating to Correspondence Courses and Distance Learning) and ?74.24 of this title (relating to Credit by Examination) or by completing the course or courses according to the provisions of ?74.26 of this title (relating to Award of Credit). (g) Elective credits in all three graduation programs may be selected from the following: (1) the list of courses approved by the State Board of Education (SBOE) for Grades 9-12 as specified in ?74.1 of this title (relating to Essential Knowledge and Skills); (2) state-approved innovative courses as specified in ?74.27 of this chapter (relating to Innovative Courses and Programs); (3) Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC)--one to four credits; or (4) Driver Education--one-half credit. (h) College Board advanced placement and International Baccalaureate courses may be substituted for courses required in appropriate areas in all three high school graduation programs. College Board advanced placement and International Baccalaureate courses may be used as electives in all three high school graduation programs. Source: The provisions of this ?74.61 adopted to be effective September 1, 2005, 29 TexReg 9358; amended to be effective January 9, 2007, 32 TexReg 86; amended to be effective December 25, 2007, 32 TexReg 9624. ?74.62. Minimum High School Program. (a) Credits. A student must earn at least 22 credits to complete the Minimum High School Program. (b) Core Courses. A student must demonstrate proficiency in the following. (1) English language arts--four credits. The credits must consist of: (A) English I, II, and III (English I for Speakers of Other Languages and English II for Speakers of Other Languages may be substituted for English I and II only for immigrant students with limited English proficiency); and (B) Fourth credit of English, which may be satisfied by English IV, Research/Technical Writing, Creative/Imaginative Writing, Practical Writing Skills, Literary Genres, Business Communication, Journalism, or concurrent enrollment in a college English course. (2) Mathematics--three credits to include Algebra I and Geometry. (3) Science--two credits. The credits must consist of Biology and Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC). A student may substitute Chemistry or Physics for IPC and then must use the second of these two courses as the academic elective credit identified in subsection (b)(6) of this section. (4) Social studies--two and one-half credits. The credits must consist of World History Studies (one credit) or World Geography Studies (one credit), United States History Studies Since Reconstruction (one credit), and United States Government (one-half credit). (5) Economics, with emphasis on the free enterprise system and its benefits--one-half credit. The credit must consist of Economics with Emphasis on the Free Enterprise System and Its Benefits. (6) Academic elective--one credit. The credit must be selected from World History Studies, World Geography Studies, or any science course approved by the State Board of Education (SBOE) for science credit as found in Chapter 112 of this title (relating to Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science). If a student elects to replace IPC with either Chemistry or Physics as described in subsection (b)(3) of this section, the academic elective must be the other of these two science courses. (7) Physical education--one and one-half credits to include Foundations of Personal Fitness (one-half credit). (A) A student may not earn more than two credits in physical education toward state graduation requirements. (B) The school district board of trustees may allow a student to substitute certain physical activities for the required credits in physical education, including the Foundations of Personal Fitness. The substitutions must be based on the physical activity involved in drill team, marching band, and cheerleading during the fall semester; Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC); athletics; Dance I-IV; two- or three-credit career and technology work-based training courses, and off-campus physical education. (C) In accordance with local district policy, a school district may award up to two credits for physical education for appropriate private or commercially-sponsored physical activity programs conducted on or off campus. The district must apply to the commissioner of education for approval of such programs, which may be substituted for state graduation credit in physical education. Such approval may be granted under the following conditions: (i) Olympic-level participation and/or competition includes a minimum of 15 hours per week of highly intensive, professional, supervised training. The training facility, instructors, and the activities involved in the program must be certified by the superintendent to be of exceptional quality. Students qualifying and participating at this level may be dismissed from school one hour per day. Students dismissed may not miss any class other than physical education. (ii) Private or commercially-sponsored physical activities include those certified by the superintendent to be of high quality and well supervised by appropriately trained instructors. Student participation of at least five hours per week must be required. Students certified to participate at this level may not be dismissed from any part of the regular school day. (8) Health education--one-half credit, which may be satisfied by Health 1 or Advanced Health, or Health Science Technology--one credit, which may be satisfied by Introduction to Health Science Technology, Health Science Technology I, or Health Science Technology II. (9) Speech--one-half credit. The credit must consist of Communication Applications. (10) Technology applications--one credit, which may be satisfied by: (A) the following courses in Chapter 126 of this title (relating to Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Technology Applications): Computer Science I, Computer Science II, Desktop Publishing, Digital Graphics/Animation, Multimedia, Video Technology, Web Mastering, or Independent Study in Technology Applications; (B) the following courses in Chapter 120 of this title (relating to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Business Education): Business Computer Information Systems I or II, Business Computer Programming, Telecommunications and Networking, or Business Image Management and Multimedia; or (C) the following courses in Chapter 123 of this title (relating to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Technology Education/Industrial Technology Education): Computer Applications, Technology Systems (modular computer laboratory-based), Communications Graphics (modular computer laboratory-based), or Computer Multimedia and Animation Technology. (c) Elective Courses--five and one-half credits. The credits must be selected from the list of courses specified in ?74.61(g) of this title (relating to High School Graduation Requirements). Source: The provisions of this ?74.62 adopted to be effective September 1, 2005, 29 TexReg 9358. ?74.63. Recommended High School Program. (a) Credits. A student must earn at least 26 credits to complete the Recommended High School Program. (b) Core Courses. A student must demonstrate proficiency in the following: (1) English language arts--four credits. The credits must consist of English I, II, III, and IV (English I for Speakers of Other Languages and English II for Speakers of Other Languages may be substituted for English I and II only for immigrant students with limited English proficiency). (2) Mathematics--four credits. (A) The credits must consist of Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. After successful completion of Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II, a student may select the fourth required credit from any of the following courses, except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph: (i) Precalculus; (ii) Independent Study in Mathematics; (iii) Advanced Placement (AP) Statistics; (iv) AP Calculus AB; (v) AP Calculus BC; (vi) AP Computer Science; (vii) International Baccalaureate (IB) Mathematical Studies Subsidiary Level; (viii) IB Mathematical Methods Subsidiary Level; (ix) IB Mathematics Higher Level; (x) IB Advanced Mathematics Subsidiary Level; (xi) concurrent enrollment in college mathematics courses; and (xii) Mathematical Models with Applications. (B) If selected, Mathematical Models with Applications must be taken prior to Algebra II. (C) The SBOE may designate additional courses that meet the requirements of this paragraph. (3) Science--four credits. (A) One credit must be a biology credit (Biology, Advanced Placement (AP) Biology, or International Baccalaureate (IB) Biology). Students must choose two credits from the following areas. Not more than one credit may be chosen from each of the areas to satisfy this requirement. (i) Integrated Physics and Chemistry (IPC); (ii) Chemistry, AP Chemistry, or IB Chemistry; and (iii) Physics, Principles of Technology I, AP Physics, or IB Physics. (B) IPC cannot be taken as the final or fourth year of science, but must be taken before the senior year of high school. The fourth year of science may be selected from the laboratory-based courses listed in Chapter 112 of this title (relating to Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science), with the addition of Engineering and Earth and Space Science. (C) A student entering Grade 9 beginning with the 2012-2013 school year must take three science credits, at least one from each category, from the following areas: (i) Biology, AP Biology, or IB Biology; (ii) Chemistry, AP Chemistry, or IB Chemistry; and (iii) Physics, Principles of Technology I, AP Physics, or IB Physics. (D) The fourth year of science may be selected from the laboratory-based courses listed in Chapter 112 of this title (relating to Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science), with the addition of Engineering and Earth and Space Science. (E) The SBOE may designate additional courses that meet the requirements of this paragraph. (4) Social studies--three and one-half credits. The credits must consist of World History Studies (one credit), World Geography Studies (one credit), United States History Studies Since Reconstruction (one credit), and United States Government (one-half credit). (5) Economics, with emphasis on the free enterprise system and its benefits--one-half credit. The credit must consist of Economics with Emphasis on the Free Enterprise System and Its Benefits. (6) Languages other than English--two credits. The credits earned must be for any two levels in the same language. (7) Physical education--one and one-half credits to include Foundations of Personal Fitness (one-half credit). (A) A student may not earn more than two credits in physical education toward state graduation requirements. (B) The school district board of trustees may allow a student to substitute certain physical activities for the required credits in physical education, including the Foundations of Personal Fitness. The substitutions must be based on the physical activity involved in drill team, marching band, and cheerleading during the fall semester; Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC); athletics; Dance I-IV; and two- or three-credit career and technology work-based training courses. (C) In accordance with local district policy, a school district may award up to two credits for physical education for appropriate private or commercially-sponsored physical activity programs conducted on or off campus. The district must apply to the commissioner of education for approval of such programs, which may be substituted for state graduation credit in physical education. Such approval may be granted under the following conditions. (i) Olympic-level participation and/or competition includes a minimum of 15 hours per week of highly intensive, professional, supervised training. The training facility, instructors, and the activities involved in the program must be certified by the superintendent to be of exceptional quality. Students qualifying and participating at this level may be dismissed from school one hour per day. Students dismissed may not miss any class other than physical education. (ii) Private or commercially-sponsored physical activities include those certified by the superintendent to be of high quality and well supervised by appropriately trained instructors. Student participation of at least five hours per week must be required. Students certified to participate at this level may not be dismissed from any part of the regular school day. (8) Health education--one-half credit, which may satisfied by Health 1 or Advanced Health, or Health Science Technology--one credit, which may be satisfied by Introduction to Health Science Technology, Health Science Technology I, or Health Science Technology II. (9) Speech--one-half credit. The credit must consist of Communication Applications. (10) Technology applications--one credit, which may be satisfied by: (A) the following courses in Chapter 126 of this title (relating to Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Technology Applications): Computer Science I, Computer Science II, Desktop Publishing, Digital Graphics/Animation, Multimedia, Video Technology, Web Mastering, or Independent Study in Technology Applications, or state-approved technology applications innovative courses; (B) the following courses in Chapter 120 of this title (relating to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Business Education): Business Computer Information Systems I or II, Business Computer Programming, Telecommunications and Networking, or Business Image Management and Multimedia; (C) the following courses in Chapter 123 of this title (relating to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Technology Education/Industrial Technology Education): Computer Applications, Technology Systems (modular computer laboratory-based), Communications Graphics (modular computer laboratory-based), or Computer Multimedia and Animation Technology; or (D) the completion of three credits (for students participating in a coherent sequence of career and technology courses or who are enrolled in a Tech Prep high school plan of study) consisting of two or more state-approved career and technology courses in Chapters 119-125 and 127 of this title. Districts shall ensure that career and technology courses, including innovative courses, in a coherent sequence used to meet the technology applications credit are appropriate to collectively teach the knowledge and skills found in any of the approved courses listed in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this paragraph. Students pursuing the technology applications option described in this subparagraph must demonstrate proficiency in technology applications prior to the beginning of Grade 11. (11) Fine arts--one credit, which may be satisfied by any course in Chapter 117, Subchapter C, of this title (relating to Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Fine Arts). (c) Elective Courses--three and one-half credits. The credits may be selected from the list of courses specified in ?74.61(g) of this title (relating to High School Graduation Requirements). All students who wish to complete the Recommended High School Program are encouraged to study each of the four foundation curriculum areas (English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) every year in high school. (d) Substitutions. No substitutions are allowed in the Recommended High School Program, except as specified in this chapter. Source: The provisions of this ?74.63 adopted to be effective September 1, 2005, 29 TexReg 9358; amended to be effective January 9, 2007, 32 TexReg 86. http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/1674.PDF The Coordinating Board recently met to consider new rule proposals regarding a uniform GPA calculation as required by HB 3815. The Coordinating Board made every effort to be responsive to stakeholder concerns about the rules as originally published, and the new proposal should lay to rest many of the concerns raised. The new proposal is scheduled to be published in the Texas Register for public comment on November 29. The public comment period will end December 29 and the Board has tentatively planned to meet in early January to consider the proposal for final adoption. We will let you know when a specific date is set. Comments on the new rules proposal may be submitted to Natalie Coffey, Senior Program Director, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O. Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711, or Natalie.coffey at thecb.state.tx.us. Highlights: ? Course weights: o Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and Dual Credit courses shall be weighted equally with an additional weighting of 1.0 point in the calculation of the uniform GPA. o Pre-AP, Pre-IB, and honors courses shall be weighted equally with an additional weighting of .50 if begun prior to May 1, 2012. o If begun on or after May 1, 2013, all pre-AP and honors courses will be expected to meet Laying the Foundation, or comparable, standards. Pre-IB courses will be expected to be part of an approved IB program. o In addition, continued weighting of pre-AP, honors, and pre-IB courses will be reviewed by the GPA Advisory Committee, established by section 5.10 (c) of the rules. ? Implementation: o The GPA calculation will apply to all students who enter the ninth grade for the first time from May 1, 2009, onward. o The GPAs of students already in the ninth grade or higher as of April 30, 2009, or before, shall be calculated using the same basis that would have applied to such students before the adoption. o Public institutions of higher education offering dual credit courses will be required to monitor the rigor of the courses offered to high school students and adhere to the rules and standards adopted by the THECB. ? GPA Advisory Committee will: o Be composed of 15 members o Include representatives from public education, higher education, and the workforce sectors o Oversee implementation of the GPA standards and monitor the coursed counted in the GPA calculation o Be responsible for ensuring institutional compliance with Coordinating Board rules, specifically for high school career and technology courses aligned with university programs of study and dual credit courses. o Advise the Coordinating Board on each of the referenced areas so that appropriate action may be taken when necessary. Thanks, Natalie Coffey Senior Program Director P-16 Initiatives Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 1200 East Anderson Lane Austin, Texas 78752 natalie.coffey at thecb.state.tx.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081205/3f38f56a/attachment.htm From adri.debate at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 08:48:22 2008 From: adri.debate at gmail.com (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:48:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking to hire 3 rounds at Fullerton Message-ID: <50704d760812050648y4f2868f1tce7cfd4072e1b99b@mail.gmail.com> Hi - UMW is looking to hire 3 rounds of judging at the Fullerton tournament - cash, no food/housing. Be in touch if interested. -Adrienne -- Adrienne F. Brovero Debate Coach UMW Debate 540-654-2128 "Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive." -John F. Kennedy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081205/01c0f0f3/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Dec 5 09:18:56 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:18:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] december 8: invitation to the washington press club Message-ID: in a stunning turn of events, the IOC has decided to give marion jones back her medals. cheating will become the fundament of olympic games forever.http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid=%7B35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3%7DMr. Obama's Eligibility to be Aired Monday at the National Press ClubLast update: 3:18 p.m. EST Dec. 4, 2008QUEENSBURY, N.Y., Dec 04, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama's legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question - the meaning of the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.Robert Schulz will briefly discuss Mr. Obama's response to the publication of his Open Letter in the Chicago Tribune on Monday and Wednesday of this week. For the reasons given in the Open Letter, Schulz asked Mr. Obama to: (1) immediately authorize Hawaiian officials to provide a team of forensic scientists access to his original ("vault") birth certificate and (2) arrange for the delivery of other documents needed to conclusively establish Obama's citizenship status. Mr. Schulz will answer questions from the press."Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the President unless he or she is a 'natural born citizen,'" said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. "To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility."The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and the adverse consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the Office of the President as a usurper."Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution," said Schulz.www.WeThePeopleFoundation.orgSOURCE We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc. _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081205/572e3c30/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Dec 5 09:32:55 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:32:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] judicial watch: lady mcclinton ineligible for sec state Message-ID: http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-announces-hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-serve-secretary-sJudicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of StateContact:Press Office 202-646-5188Washington, DC -- December 2, 2008Ineligibility Clause of Constitution Prohibits Clinton AppointmentJudicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton."The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause."There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of Secretary of State and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton's confirmation. No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment. And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."Comments _________________________________________________________________ Suspicious message? There?s an alert for that. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081205/257b86f1/attachment.htm From ragarner at buffalo.edu Fri Dec 5 11:20:42 2008 From: ragarner at buffalo.edu (Richard A. Garner) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:20:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] december 8: invitation to the washington press club In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17bee7eb0812050920j611b045eo5b6f1046dc1e7d0d@mail.gmail.com> Also: Can Mulatto Illegal Alien Bastard Negro Be President?! http://wonkette.com/404677/can-mulatto-illegal-alien-bastard-negro-be-president On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Old Strega wrote: > in a stunning turn of events, the IOC has decided to give marion jones > back her medals. cheating will become the fundament of olympic games > forever. > > > http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid=%7B35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3%7D > > Mr. Obama's Eligibility to be Aired Monday at the National Press Club > > Last update: 3:18 p.m. EST Dec. 4, 2008 > QUEENSBURY, N.Y., Dec 04, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- On > Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will > conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. > The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo > Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama's legal eligibility to > hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize > the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer > questions from the press. > Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the > United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications > from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of > the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying > constitutional question - the meaning of the "natural born citizen" clause > of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama. > Robert Schulz will briefly discuss Mr. Obama's response to the publication > of his Open Letter in the Chicago Tribune on Monday and Wednesday of this > week. For the reasons given in the Open Letter, Schulz asked Mr. Obama to: > (1) immediately authorize Hawaiian officials to provide a team of forensic > scientists access to his original ("vault") birth certificate and (2) > arrange for the delivery of other documents needed to conclusively establish > Obama's citizenship status. Mr. Schulz will answer questions from the press. > "Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the > President unless he or she is a 'natural born citizen,'" said Bob Schulz, > Chairman of the Foundation. "To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to > release his original birth certificate or other documents that would > definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional > eligibility." > The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and > the adverse consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the > Office of the President as a usurper. > "Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. > Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of > Mr. Obama's eligibility, they would be committing treason to the > Constitution," said Schulz. > www.WeThePeopleFoundation.org > SOURCE We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education, Inc. > > ------------------------------ > Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. Get your Hotmail(R) account now. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081205/71c43557/attachment.htm From tpeters at jeffco.k12.co.us Fri Dec 5 13:33:55 2008 From: tpeters at jeffco.k12.co.us (Peters Tammie L.) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:33:55 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for information about writing in college Message-ID: <02806BDC91CA4848A5DF52FF55B94511067A60DF@EXCHANGE.jeffco.schools> This group has been kind enough to help me in the past. I was hoping I could impose on you yet again. I am a high school English teacher -- and I'm very confused. For the past 20+ years (since I was in high school), English classes focused on the teaching of literature and the writing about literature, as well as the writing of researched essays. However, that paradigm seems to be changing. We're being told that our job now is to teach kids how to read and comprehend a wide variety of sources: newspapers, technical reports, essays, various types of literature, etc. In addition to the change in reading focus, we've also been asked to change our focus in teaching writing. Instead of teaching students specific formats for writing (such as the ubiquitous 5-paragraph essay and the cited researched essay), we should be teaching students a general "love" of writing by letting them explore lots of different types of writing for many different audiences. Here is where my confusion sets in. 85% of our students at my school plan to attend college, either 2-year or 4-year. Thus, we have an obligation to prepare our students for college level writing. However, I feel we are getting mixed messages about what writing is required in college. Is having students (especially h.s. juniors and seniors) write personal narratives, personal opinion pieces, newspaper-type articles, and the like useful to prepare students for college writing expectations? Perhaps a broader question would be what do you think college freshmen should know about writing? Are there particular types of writing high school juniors and seniors should focus on? And what do you think some of the glaring weaknesses are of college freshmen writing? Don't forget: we are talking about students who will end up majoring in the entire spectrum of disciplines. Here's your chance to tell a high school teacher what she "should" be doing! :-) Thank you for your input, Tammie Peters -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081205/e24e1e04/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Fri Dec 5 21:32:59 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:32:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] help me contact these schools . . . Message-ID: if you are the director or know the director's email address--please email me. I need to know the director's first and last name and email address. this is for the ndt rankings. Drexel/Swarthmore East Los Angeles College Folsom Lake College Fordham University George Washington Houston (Univeristy of) Louisiana-Lafayette Modesto Junior College Monmouth University New School (The) Rutgers South Florida St. Pete Southern Methodist Univ. UCLA Wilkes University Wisconsin Oshkosh jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From hansonjb at whitman.edu Fri Dec 5 21:50:59 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 19:50:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] and more schools contact info i need Message-ID: <57729A1119854E96912DB11037EE0C01@whitman.edu> first and last name of director and email address needed: appalachian state augustana college (illinois) case western reserve denver university florida state university u massachusetts georgia state (joe bellon email not working) northwestern u. iowa (david's email not working) jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sat Dec 6 15:41:18 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:41:18 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] dec 10--tournament results need to be in to jon Message-ID: <40B3E217D3394AFE9B922863BC5F3A95@hansonjbPC> if you ran a tournament this fall--make sure you send the electronic data file for the tournament to jon bruschke by dec. 10 (this coming wednesday). I will be doing the ndt rankings next weekend. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081206/f39c409c/attachment.htm From neilsbutt at gmail.com Sat Dec 6 20:08:32 2008 From: neilsbutt at gmail.com (Neil Butt) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:08:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JCU Teams Clearing Message-ID: John Carroll University Austin J. Freeley Debates Teams Clearing (with records) Novice Boston College AF (Kenneth Aruda & Ryan Folio), 6 Boston College BF (Brendan Benedict & Chris Fegan), 4 Clarion University FF (Briana Fierst & Nichole Flick), 3 Clarion University MS (Tim Michaels & Ellen Stolarski), 5 Towson MN (Jean Michel Habineza & Kharim Ntambi), 4 JV Boston College BG (Daniel Berkowitz & Grant Gendron), 4 Clarion University CR (Jeff Ciak & Nathan Renaudin), 6 Miami DR (Ashley Devenport & Kirsten Rody), 4 Varsity Case Western MW (David Mattern & Andrew Wolf), 4 Miami HM (Andrew Hart & Matt Molinaro), 3 Miami JW (Mike Jensen & Drew Wallenstein), 5 Michigan University LZ (Maria Liu & Edmund Zagorin), 5 Michigan University SS (Bala Sekaran & Omega Skeean), 4 Wayne State Universi GK (Baldomero Gonzalez & Michelle Kesling, 4 Wayne State Universi JP (Mark Jarrett & Sydney Pasquinelli), 4 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081206/2a0acfab/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sat Dec 6 23:16:25 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:16:25 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] south florida state, fordham university Message-ID: <7B739FEDF3C64A689FCA8C4DC2A75CB3@whitman.edu> hi all thanks to everyone for their help. I now need just two schools--south florida state and fordham university. if you know the director/contact person and email address for these schools--please email me. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From antonucci23 at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 02:50:15 2008 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 03:50:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] important stroube rally Message-ID: <4a71966c0812070050k17f2c0bfp3ff8e7022534641c@mail.gmail.com> Mr. Garner's link essentially said it all, but the live action pictures add a little something, I think. http://wonkette.com/404760/massive-crowds-turn-out-to-protest-b-rock-nobamas-falsified-american-citizenship http://nebaru.blogspot.com/2008/12/dipshits-on-parade.html Can you spot him? He's there. -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081207/83e51562/attachment.htm From pinkballoon at hotmail.com Sun Dec 7 13:30:59 2008 From: pinkballoon at hotmail.com (Nicholas A. Thomas) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 14:30:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] David Horowitz *Opposes* Disqualification of Obama for Birth Certificate In-Reply-To: <4a71966c0812070050k17f2c0bfp3ff8e7022534641c@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a71966c0812070050k17f2c0bfp3ff8e7022534641c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/Read.aspx?guid=0715ec19-b29a-4251-bda8-ca0530f98478 "The continuing efforts of a fringe group of consrvatives [sic] to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president is embarrassing and destructive.... The Birth Certificate zealots are essentially arguing that 64 million voters should be disenfranchised because of a contested technicality as to whether Obama was born on U.S. soil." "What difference does it make to the future of this country whether Obama was born on US soil? Advocates of this destructive campaign will argue that the Constitutional principle regarding the qualifications for President trumps all others. But how viable will our Constitution be if 5 Supreme Court justices should decide to void 64 million ballots?" Nicholas A. Thomas, PhD Rhetoric (formerly a Policy Assistant Coach at CSU, Long Beach) Department of Communication Arts & Sciences, Instructor Pennsylvania State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081207/1b138b95/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Dec 7 20:08:54 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:08:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] strategic motivations for mumbai attack Message-ID: will obama's new neoconservative foreign policy regime receive a significant blow to their dubious afghanistan strategy before cat stevens plays his inauguration dinner ball? will pakistani troops in the afghan border regions be relocated to the indian border? how long will take it the mainstream media to "debate" the serious possibility of al-qaeda headquarters relocation to somalia or another safe haven?some good cards in this one but, just a reminder, stroube was right about the consequence of obama's afghanistan posturing for what stroube called the pakistan/india trigger. obama has tricked his supporters into believing into the possibility of transparency and government accountability without vigorous public debate. i have a feeling obama's idea of public debate about the use of strategic forces will resemble dubya's. manipulation of the mainstream media through content control by the corporate sponsors who bankrolled "anti-bush". the india/pakistan trigger was so obvious even stroube saw it coming but the obama camp is so stubborn about afghanistan they didn't even mention the possibility of negative consequences for india in their expert afghan plans. what a bunch of assholes set on fooling on the foreign policy illiterate. the illusion of transparency in lieu of actual public debate of major foreign policy issues will recuperate the tarnished image of the executive branch post-dick cheney and allow the new neoconservative administration to plunge into the next round of war experiments in the middle east despite glaring strategic flaws:http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081201_strategic_motivations_mumbai_attack/?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_campaign=none&utm_medium=emailIn 2001-2002, the Indo-Pakistani crisis played into American hands. In 2008, the new Indo-Pakistani crisis might play differently. The United States recently has demanded increased Pakistani cooperation along the Afghan border. Meanwhile, President-elect Barack Obama has stated his intention to focus on Afghanistan and pressure the Pakistanis.Therefore, one of Islamabad?s first responses to the new Indo-Pakistani crisis was to announce that if the Indians increased their forces along Pakistan?s eastern border, Pakistan would be forced to withdraw 100,000 troops from its western border with Afghanistan. In other words, threats from India would cause Pakistan to dramatically reduce its cooperation with the United States in the Afghan war. The Indian foreign minister is flying to the United States to meet with Obama; obviously, this matter will be discussed among others.We expect the United States to pressure India not to create a crisis, in order to avoid this outcome. As we have said, the problem is that it is unclear whether politically the Indians can afford restraint. At the very least, New Delhi must demand that the Pakistani government take steps to make the ISI and Pakistan?s other internal security apparatus more effective. Even if the Indians concede that there was no ISI involvement in the attack, they will argue that the ISI is incapable of stopping such attacks. They will demand a purge and reform of the ISI as a sign of Pakistani commitment. Barring that, New Delhi will move troops to the Indo-Pakistani frontier to intimidate Pakistan and placate Indian public opinion...The United States might well want to limit New Delhi?s response. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is on her way to India to discuss just this. But the politics of India?s situation make it unlikely that the Indians can do anything more than listen. It is more than simply a political issue for New Delhi; the Indians have no reason to believe that the Mumbai operation was one of a kind. Further operations like the Mumbai attack might well be planned. Unless the Pakistanis shift their posture inside Pakistan, India has no way of knowing whether other such attacks can be stymied. The Indians will be sympathetic to Washington?s plight in Afghanistan and the need to keep Pakistani troops at the Afghan border. But New Delhi will need something that the Americans ? and in fact the Pakistanis ? can?t deliver: a guarantee that there will be no more attacks like this one.The Indian government cannot chance inaction. It probably would fall if it did. Moreover, in the event of inactivity and another attack, Indian public opinion probably will swing to an uncontrollable extreme. If an attack takes place but India has moved toward crisis posture with Pakistan, at least no one can argue that the Indian government remained passive in the face of threats to national security. Therefore, India is likely to refuse American requests for restraint.It is possible that New Delhi will make a radical proposal to Rice, however. Given that the Pakistani government is incapable of exercising control in its own country, and given that Pakistan now represents a threat to both U.S. and Indian national security, the Indians might suggest a joint operation with the Americans against Pakistan.What that joint operation might entail is uncertain, but regardless, this is something that Rice would reject out of hand and that Obama would reject in January 2009. Pakistan has a huge population and nuclear weapons, and the last thing Bush or Obama wants is to practice nation-building in Pakistan. The Indians, of course, will anticipate this response. The truth is that New Delhi itself does not want to engage deep in Pakistan to strike at militant training camps and other Islamist sites. That would be a nightmare. But if Rice shows up with a request for Indian restraint and no concrete proposal ? or willingness to entertain a proposal ? for solving the Pakistani problem, India will be able to refuse on the grounds that the Americans are asking India to absorb a risk (more Mumbai-style attacks) without the United States? willingness to share in the risk...In the meantime, the Pakistanis certainly will withdraw forces from western Pakistan and deploy them in eastern Pakistan. That will mean that one leg of the Petraeus and Obama plans would collapse. Washington?s expectation of greater Pakistani cooperation along the Afghan border will disappear along with the troops. This will free the Taliban from whatever limits the Pakistani army had placed on it. The Taliban?s ability to fight would increase, while the motivation for any of the Taliban to enter talks ? as Afghan President Hamid Karzai has suggested ? would decline. U.S. forces, already stretched to the limit, would face an increasingly difficult situation, while pressure on al Qaeda in the tribal areas would decrease.Now, step back and consider the situation the Mumbai attackers have created. First, the Indian government faces an internal political crisis driving it toward a confrontation it didn?t plan on. Second, the minimum Pakistani response to a renewed Indo-Pakistani crisis will be withdrawing forces from western Pakistan, thereby strengthening the Taliban and securing al Qaeda. Third, sufficient pressure on Pakistan?s civilian government could cause it to collapse, opening the door to a military-Islamist government ? or it could see Pakistan collapse into chaos, giving Islamists security in various regions and an opportunity to reshape Pakistan. Finally, the United States? situation in Afghanistan has now become enormously more complex.By staging an attack the Indian government can?t ignore, the Mumbai attackers have set in motion an existential crisis for Pakistan. The reality of Pakistan cannot be transformed, trapped as the country is between the United States and India. Almost every evolution from this point forward benefits Islamists. Strategically, the attack on Mumbai was a precise blow struck to achieve uncertain but favorable political outcomes for the Islamists.Rice?s trip to India now become _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081207/1e98b163/attachment.htm From neilsbutt at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 20:56:35 2008 From: neilsbutt at gmail.com (Neil Butt) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:56:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JCU Results Message-ID: The results of the John Carroll University "Austin J. Freeley" Debates are attached as a pdf. Thanks to everyone who came! Neil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081207/3e097012/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JCU 2008 Results.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 51660 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081207/3e097012/attachment.pdf From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sun Dec 7 21:39:28 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 22:39:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JCU Results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks to the JCU crew for a great time, congrats to Miami Ohio and Boston College and thanks to Brent and Neil for the great hospitality and on-time goodness, Josh On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:56 PM, Neil Butt wrote: > The results of the John Carroll University "Austin J. Freeley" Debates are > attached as a pdf. > > Thanks to everyone who came! > > Neil > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081207/b7f498d5/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Sun Dec 7 22:01:48 2008 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 22:01:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Katie Gilkinson Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F558B21981@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> I was looking to get in contact with a former debater. Anyone know how to contact Katie Gilkinson? Her last name may have changed. Thanks, Jackie From hines.debate at gmail.com Mon Dec 8 15:13:27 2008 From: hines.debate at gmail.com (John Hines) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:13:27 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Available to judge at Cal Message-ID: Full commitment available. I'm local so no need for transportation or housing. John hines.debate at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081208/99243e33/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Dec 9 08:12:00 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:12:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] no way out 4 the usurper: tick tock tick tock Message-ID: it looks good for the obamatrons. the mainstream media is trivializing the cases.here's the problem from harvard law graduate vieira. interested parties should make this a not-intrinsic on the president's DA to make a joke out of the president and challenge the debate community to explain why factcheck only is good enough to determine eligibility.once any obama enacted law is prosecuted, any criminal can challenge the law on the grounds of its enactment by an ineligible president. the current jury-rigging will produce a more sophisticated, elaborate judicial strategy and, finally, one day the usurper will be required to produce his birth certificate for the third party examination to maintain the enforceability of laws he has signed or step down unless, of course, his goal is to destroy the political system which seems like a distinct possibility given his legal strategy. if you don't think relevant parties will sue, you're smoking crack in obamaland. not the entire article but vieira's got quals:(Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.)http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htmAssume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or only an obviously tainted inquiry takes place at the stage of counting the Electors? votes. Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have ?standing? to challenge Obama?s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama?s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign?such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama?s derisive terminology) they ?cling.?For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton ?assault-weapons ban? (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the Second Amendment), the defendant will undeniably have ?standing? to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original ?Bill which * * * passed the House of Representatives and the Senate? was never ?presented to the President of the United States?, and therefore could never ?become a Law,? inasmuch as the supposed ?President,? Barack Obama, being constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II, Section 1, 4]Plainly, a criminal trial arising under a supposed law of the United States is a ?Case? to which ?the judicial Power [of the United States] shall extend?; and the defense as well will raise a specific issue ?arising under th[e] Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States.? [Article III, Section 2, Clause 1] The defendant will be suffering serious ?injury in fact:? namely, a criminal indictment and a compulsory trial, with the possibility of a conviction, imprisonment, and, if the infraction is called a ?felony,? the forfeiture of many civil rights even after his release from incarceration. The prosecutor on one side and the defendant on the other will be adversaries espousing diametrically opposed and irreconcilable positions?so the ?Case? cannot be deemed in any way collusive. The purported statute?s invalidity by virtue of its legal nonexistence will be ?ripe? for decision, because the statute is the basis for the indictment, and its invalidity the foundation of the defense to the charge. And, unless and until the prosecutor importunes the court to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, the issue of the putative statute?s legal nonexistence and inapplicability to the defendant will be anything but moot.In addition, the entire matter certainly does not raise a nonjusticiable ?political question.? As Chief Justice John Marshall explained, ?[t]he province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive can never be made in this court.? [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803)] That definition excludes the hypothetical criminal case under consideration here:First, ?the rights of individuals? will most assuredly and palpably be involved: namely, the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. [Amendment V]Second, the question at issue will not be ?political,? in the sense that it asks ?how the executive, or executive officers perform duties in which they have a discretion.? Rather, the question will be whether Obama is or even could be ?the executive? at all. Self-evidently, Barack Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) can enjoy no ?discretion? to pretend to be the President if he is not even eligible for that office in the first place.Third, the question at issue will not have been ?by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive.? It is not for Obama (or anyone else in his position) unilaterally to determine that he is eligible for the Office of President, with everyone else in the country required to take his unsubstantiated word for it. ?[T]he constitution and laws? do not extend to an usurper a license to perpetuate his usurpation simply by denying?indeed, falsely denying?that he is such. And if Obama honestly believes that he can prove his eligibility to We the People?s reasonable satisfaction, the Constitution actually requires him to do so when challenged: For the President must ?take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.? [Article II, Section 3] ?Th[e] Constitution * * * shall be the supreme Law of the Land.? [Article VI, Clause 2] The Constitution declares that ?[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the Office of President.? [Article II, Section 1, Clause 4] And if the latter provision is to ?be faithfully executed? by Obama as ?President,? and the objective evidence necessary for that execution is in Obama?s own hands or subject to his control, then Obama, as the?President? whom he claims to be, must bring forth that evidence sine die in order to fulfill the very duty that he has taken an ?Oath or Affirmation? to ?faithfully execute.? [Article II, Section 1, Clause 7]Fourth, (as explained above) the Twelfth Amendment and the relevant Congressional statute purporting to implement it do not render the question closed (and therefore arguably ?political?)?unless Congress has actually performed a constitutionally sufficient inquiry, based upon all of the available evidence, that is at least as searching, thorough, and politically neutral as might be conducted in a proper court of law by actual adversaries.Fifth, notwithstanding whatever may have happened when the Electors? votes were counted, thereafter the political branches of the General Government have affirmatively committed this issue to the final determination of the courts. The hypothetical ?assault-weapons? statute was enacted by Congress and signed by Obama, with the intention that it be enforced through criminal prosecutions. The statute?s enforcement is actually before the court, at the insistence of the Legislative and Executive Branches. The statute?s constitutionality is being challenged by an individual directly injured through its application to him. ?It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.? [Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 178 (1803)] And if there is no true ?President?, because Obama is not ?eligible to the Office of President?, then the statute is not simply ?unconstitutional? but even is nonexistent, and the indictment an absolute nullity.Sixth, the question of whether Obama is ?eligible to the Office of President? is eminently within the jurisdiction, competence, experience, and workaday procedures of the judiciary to answer. Courts are thoroughly familiar with how to subpoena witnesses, compel the production of documents, establish the authenticity of documents through objective forensic analyses and the testimony of disinterested experts, and otherwise ascertain facts through application of the rules of evidence in adversarial litigation. Conversely, this is not what ordinary voters or Electors do, or are competent to do. And if it may be what the Constitution authorizes Congress to do in some circumstances, as hypothesized in this situation Congress has not done and will not do so to a constitutionally sufficient degree.Moreover, Congress cannot perform a simulacrum of this procedure by ?remov[ing Obama] from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.? [Article II, Section IV] For, if he is not ?eligible to the Office of President? at all, then Obama is not ?the President,? and therefore cannot be removed from an office that he does not, and cannot, even occupy?and has never occupied. In addition, even if ?Impeachment? of a plain usurper were constitutionally possible, Congress could not ?waive? its duty in that regard, do nothing, and collude with the pretender in order to enable him to continue his imposture indefinitely.Seventh, the defendant in this hypothetical criminal prosecution can invoke the Sixth Amendment: namely, ?In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor * * * .? Presumably, a properly represented defendant would subpoena Obama himself as the indispensable witness, requiring him to bring into court whatever records were in his possession or subject to his control that in any way evidenced, related to, or referred to the time, place, and circumstances of his birth, or to his citizenship, application for citizenship, renunciation of citizenship, or oath of allegiance in or to any country. This would include the original of his supposed Hawaiian birth certificate; every subsequent Hawaiian ?certification of live birth? or like document created by public authorities; every other ?birth certificate? or equivalent document whenever, wherever, and by whomever generated in the name of ?Barack Obama? or any of his several other names; every document submitted to an educational institution that contained information or representations concerning his place of birth or citizenship; and so on. In the interest of expediting the process, the custodians of records in Hawaii would also be subpoenaed to testify and to produce all relevant documents subject to their control. To be sure, Obama himself might invoke a privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment as the grounds for refusing to testify or to disgorge inculpatory papers. But custodians of public records in Hawaii or elsewhere throughout the United States have no such privilege. And no Hawaiian or other law of the States or the General Government purporting to make those records ?confidential? can frustrate the Sixth Amendment.So much for the legalities of the situation. Personally, I find this whole controversy?although it is of great constitutional significance?to be a monumental distraction from what is desperately needed for this country?s security. The problems now confronting America cannot be solved simply by ensconcing in the President?s chair one charismatic ?Leader? as opposed to another?be he Barack Obama or the Archangel Michael (neither of whom, absent a proper birth certificate, is ?eligible to the Office of President?). For the Leader Principle at the very top demands the Follower Principle all the way down to the bottom. And both are anathema and inimical to the Constitution of the United States?especially the latter, because a nation of self-governing individuals cannot be a nation of blind, bleating followers.Intoxication with the Leader Principle over many decades has led America, staggering and slipping on her own political vomit, to this sorry pass. Even more than the drinkers, though, the purveyors of the political liquor are now going to pay the price with an industrial-strength hangover. They have, as it were, ?bet the farm? on Obama?either oblivious to the problem that he may not be ?eligible to the Office of President? at all, or confident that they are so powerful (and the American people such dopes, dupes, and cowards) that nothing will be done even if the truth should come out. But no one is that powerful. So, however this case turns out, the Establishment will suffer a reverse from which it likely can never recover.If the courts finally do their duty, and Obama is exposed as an usurper, the legitimacy of the rest of the political system will be eviscerated (and the legitimacy of even the courts will be in doubt, because their intervention was so reluctant and tardy). Whereas, if the courts cover up the matter in case after case on spurious grounds, incarcerating one after another American on the trumped-up charges of an usurper?and they will have to keep up the pretense in case after case if the whole house of cards is not to collapse?the legitimacy of the entire political system will utterly evaporate. (To be sure, Obama?s Department of Justice could refrain from prosecuting anyone under new statutes; but then all of that legislation would become unenforceable.) In any case, the only institutions of government that will escape condemnation will be ?the Militia of the several States?, because they will still not be in existence (unless Americans show a great deal more enthusiasm for the idea of revitalizing the Militia than they have to date) and therefore cannot be discredited.What will be the necessary consequence of the exposure of America?s political system as illegitimate in its entirety?Power will replace law. As Mao Tse-tung opined, political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. And, with an usurper posing as ?President,? someday soon someone will prove that aphorism true here.One scenario will suffice: On some Monday not so far in the future, ?President? Obama meets with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to announce that ?Operation Sandblaster,? for a massive nuclear attack on Iran?s supposed ?weapons of mass destruction," will be launched on the coming Friday. The Joint Chiefs remonstrate, pointing out that such aggression will trigger retaliation by Russia and China, almost surely plunging the whole world into a thermonuclear World War III. ?President? Obama, however, is adamant, and instructs the Joint Chiefs to have the necessary orders for ?Sandblaster??or their resignations?on his desk by Wednesday morning. Knowing that, if they resign, ?President? Obama will simply appoint some unprincipled uniformed ?yes men? to carry out his plan, the Joint Chiefs immediately order covert break-ins around the country to obtain his original birth certificate and other material evidence relating to his ineligibility for the Office of President. With these documents in hand, on Wednesday morning, accompanied by a contingent of heavily armed Marines, the Joint Chiefs confront ?President? Obama with the evidence, arrest him as an usurper and all the Members of Congress as his co-conspirators, and appoint themselves a Military Commission to function as a ?caretaker government? during the ensuing ?national emergency.?So, at that point, because the courts did not act, and Congress did not act, and We the People did not act, the Praetorians will see fit to act. And even if the Military Commission eventually returns power to civilians, the precedent will be set in steel for ?the Latin American solution??government by junta. That, surely, would be ?change we can believe in??with a capital ?C.?Not likely? If not, why not? If one man can get away with usurping the Presidency of the United States, even as the rest of the General Government, the States, and the people look the other way while mouthing legalistic mumbo jumbo to rationalize their inaction, why cannot a few men?backed up by the Armed Forces?imagine themselves justified in overthrowing and supplanting him in order to forefend a national calamity? Why cannot the bitter weeds of the fall of the Roman Republic be transplanted from the banks of the Tiber to the shores of the Potomac when the conditions conducive to their growth appear? No patriot?no reasonable American of any political persuasion?may want this to happen. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.So, what now? The simple solution, if Barack Obama believes that he truly is ?eligible to the Office of President,? is for him to repair to Hawaii in a burst of publicity and make his original birth certificate available for examination by each and every unbiased forensic document analyst who cares to scrutinize it. And if, on the other hand, he already knows that he is ineligible, he should step aside gracefully. Now, before it is too late.He has no other choice, because events will give him none. When one walks in the cold shadow of Nemesis, hubris is not enough of a cloak.? 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081209/de10afe3/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Tue Dec 9 08:40:57 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:40:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] little white lies Message-ID: to return obliquely to the discussion of anti-racism in debate from a couple months back (http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075589.html , http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075643.html , http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/075864.html ), i'd like to add this recent exchange between slavoj zizek and cornel west: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KabYKzIoB4c at 8minutes and 12seconds, zizek posits the following hypothetical directly to west, "let us say that you are of another race. i as a white liberal (which i'm not, but...) say, 'oh i like blacks blahblahblah'. but then through some hint, you get my racism. literally, you see, i don't know, i'm not aware of beliefs which i practice in my acts. that's the side of ideological illusion...". you'll notice how this echoes the concepts of 'unconscious racism' and 'racial micro-aggression' developed by critical race theorists (see above links). it's in part due to this peculiar feature of ideological illusion that it's possible to have a society not only in which no one openly says 'i'm a racist', but in which no one *believes* themselves to be racist, while nevertheless racist practices continue. perhaps this is also a way to account for the brute fact that at the same time as american voters elected their first black president, they're also presiding over the most dramatic evisceration of african-american wealth in u.s. history. "When Hurricane Katrina hit, 133,000 families lost their homes and dispersed. When the subprime crisis is finished, about 3 million families will be displaced and lose their homes. This tsunami is almost 30 times larger than Katrina, but it is invisible because it happens one house at a time in neighborhoods across the country. It?s a silent and invisible storm, but the magnitude is utterly catastrophic. ...[C]lose to 20 percent of all African-American homeowners will lose their homes,which is not too surprising if you remember that 50 to 60 percent of all mortgages by African Americans in the last three years have been subprime loans." -- http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/15_minutes_with_martin_eakes/ see also, http://www.responsiblelending.org/pdfs/rr011-Unfair_Lending-0506.pdf http://www.faireconomy.org/files/pdf/StateOfDream_01_16_08_Web.pdf ...yet talk of reparations is still widely considered a non-starter in the political mainstream. crazy. _________________________________________________________________ Suspicious message? There?s an alert for that. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081209/008397f7/attachment.htm From bwittwer at mail.edgemont.org Tue Dec 9 09:51:45 2008 From: bwittwer at mail.edgemont.org (Benjamin Wittwer) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:51:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] no way out 4 the usurper: tick tock tick tock Message-ID: <493E4DBC.F495.0024.0@mail.edgemont.org> re: "vieira's got quals" Maybe. But the following (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38308-2005Apr8?language=printer) reveals that Vieira may also be an idiot. He suggests that Justice Anthony Kennedy "should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law." Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said." Gotta love the irony where he attacks Leninst principles and then quotes Stalin in the same breath. Harvard degree does not mean not crazy. Ben Wittwer Benefits Asst., Edgemont UFSD Head Coach, Edgemont Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081209/6eb40464/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Tue Dec 9 11:20:08 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:20:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Commonwealth Swing - Please enter Message-ID: <9a7f6f740812090920t1f17c3a6v9bbda1e06edad1ae@mail.gmail.com> Several teams that entered already have asked if we expect more entries. So we are asking that those teams that plan on attending enter a "tentative" list of team you will be bringing by Friday. Even if you only have estimates it would certainly help with the planning. Thanks! -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From gregachten at berkeley.edu Tue Dec 9 16:23:49 2008 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:23:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Need judging for USC Message-ID: <1167.128.32.51.229.1228861429.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> We pay in cash at the tournament. Let me know if you are interested. Greg From shahall at comcast.net Wed Dec 10 05:34:45 2008 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:34:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard High School Tournament Message-ID: <006301c95abb$4d0f43c0$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> The entry system for the 35th Annual Harvard National High School Speech and Debate Tournament is now enabled. You can log into the tournament site, www.harvard-debate.org, to create your account and enter your students. We look forward to seeing you in February! Sherry Hall and Dallas Perkins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081210/bb7d7f33/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Wed Dec 10 09:51:51 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:51:51 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] aspiring progressive writers please read Message-ID: http://theunderview.blogspot.com/2008/12/writers-editors-ad-sellers-wanted.html _________________________________________________________________ Suspicious message? There?s an alert for that. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081210/0a58552d/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Dec 11 14:11:03 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:11:03 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Johnson County Message-ID: <36CC13D72006455CA21C6B1F6EC1711F@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:National Junior Division Debate Tournament (NJDDT) Starts:3/14/2009 Ends:3/16/2009 Hosted by: Johnson County Contact: Terri Easley Address: 12345 College Blvd., Box 36, Overland Park KS 66210 Phone: 214-783-7953 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: JV with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Novice with 8 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 Thu Dec 11 14:59:43 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:59:43 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Wyoming Message-ID: Name:District 9 Qualifier at Denver University Starts:2/23/2009 Ends:2/24/2009 Hosted by: Wyoming Contact: Matt Stannard Address: Dept. 3904, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071-3904 Phone: 307-399-2315 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Qualifier with 6 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 scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Dec 11 22:46:50 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:46:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Leaked:Scott E's Draft 2nd VP Statement(s) Message-ID: <1229057210.4941ecbaee3e5@webmail.grandecom.net> FROM: Karl Rove, Fox News, Karl Rove & Associates, Political Consulting, P.C. TO: Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D. Director of Debate, UL-Lafayette RE: Regarding revisions to your 2nd Vice President CEDA Statement Dear Scott: Thank you for your ?contribution? to our ?Palin in ?12? fund. In gratitude, I have taken the time to make a few edits to your draft 2nd V.P. of CEDA nomination statement. Enclosed are our recommended statement (Att.1) and your original statement draft (Att.2) for comparison. We suggest you delete your original draft and purge your hard drive, as well as all e-mails regarding this. We kept the introduction. It was good. But we made a few changes. Using the current Obama ?delusional thinking wins, we can govern realistically after the election? model, we believe the following V.P. statement will appeal to the demographics of current CEDA members and should secure your election to the position. Just remember who your real friends are when you achieve the awesome power of the CEDA Presidency. Regards, Karl. Attachment1. Revised 2nd V.P. Statement of Scott M. Elliott Dear Directors of CEDA Programs: I remember 9-11. It is with heartfelt gratitude and an effusion of love and caring that I humbly accept this nomination for the 2nd Vice President of CEDA. I want to express my love for Jason Russell, Andy Ellis, Mike Davis, and Vic Keenan as we journey together to determine the future of this organization. All of my colleagues are qualified to be the Vice President, and eventual President of CEDA. I call them colleagues rather than opponents because; like the Great Spirit, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, and L. Ron Hubbard; I only see companions with differing opinions on this long vision quest of life. We have no enemies, just people who have not traveled down our path. One part of my life has been CEDA and debate in general. I began debating in CEDA in 1984. Did pretty well for a regional school with no real coach. I went on to coach at Florida State University. I am old enough to realize that, yes, Jeff Jarman really did defeat my team in the CEDA final round on a righteous decision; because I too now realize that CEDA is good in all respects. After obtaining my Ph.D. in Communication Theory and Research, I became the Director of Debate at Southeastern Louisiana University for six years. After earning tenure, I left academia to take a law fellowship at the University of Texas School of Law. I worked as an attorney for five years before returning to Louisiana in an effort to rebuild policy debate on both the collegiate and high school level. I have been involved in CEDA debate at one level or another for over twenty years. I believe that my background and qualifications at least match the qualifications of my fellow Vice Presidential Spirit Travelers. One of the areas in which I have been active has been a secret until now?I have been serving as a professional ?contrarian? for CEDA. Much like Snape?s relationship with Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series; Tuna Schnieder and I agreed more than a decade ago that CEDA needed a secret protector. That person would often have to bear the brunt of criticisms in order to serve his higher purpose, to provoke controversy. I have not taken the job lightly, though it has often caused me great pain and anguish. Many a tear has been shed in my service to CEDA as a Socratic gadfly. But, for the sake of the Community, I try to hide the pain. Once the controversy within CEDA was sparked, I would fade into the background while those within CEDA would explain to the members the righteousness of CEDA?s decisions. I think I succeeded by serving as a point of departure; by creating a demonic image of the Other; and solidifying support for CEDA during times of trouble. It is only through ostracization that a tribe can become one again. Now that the powers in charge (All Hail the NDT!) have decided to allow me to advance within CEDA, let me offer my real views of this Association of great people. I agree with Jason, Andy and Mike on all of their positions. I will agree with Vic, even if she does not put out a statement. In fact, her non-statement is perhaps the best statement of all?namely, that there are no real problems within CEDA. Nothing needs to be said. However, out of a deep sense of obligation towards my brothers, sisters, and transgenders in the debate community, I feel I should write some type of statement of how I feel because feelings count! And, while everything is perfect within CEDA, I want to be the 2nd V.P. nominee for change. My platform is ?hopeful and stable change.? My vision is for change that brings hope to all within the policy debate community. Hopefully, the change will change how people outside our family, our ?House of Reason,? see us. They will see us as we currently see ourselves--perfection misunderstood--but hopeful to change the misperceptions of others. That, my colleagues, is my hopeful vision for true change a change that reifies all that is good within us as well as our organization. I feel CEDA is awesome! I have hope that as we continue forward into the 21st Century, we can continue the expansion of policy debate. I hope that we can continue to serve as models of eloquence, intense policy and critical research, and professionalism throughout the academic world. It is obvious that American Exceptionalism, the notion that America has a special moral power and subsequent duty, is a farce. But I also know that there really is one true form of exceptionalism American policy debate. What we do is intellectually and morally superior to all other forms of debate. We just need to explain it to the unwashed masses a little better. I accept the challenge with the moral certainty of a President ready to win the War on Terrorism. Remember 9-11. We can win this PR War without violence. We can have Peace through Public Relations. PR solves all problems. Capitalism is bad. I have hope that one day CEDA Nationals can one day meet the standards of the NDT so that we can have the NDT first-seeds bless us with their presence at Nationals. I am audaciously hopeful that we can heal the wounds brought upon us by a cruel and unfair media. I think, if we all hope together, we can publicly relate to everyone, including school administrators. If we can do better public relations, we can heal all wounds. If we just market ourselves at little better, we will see CEDA continue to grow at the staggering levels it has achieved sense our glorious merger with the NDT. With love and hope for positive, yet stable, change, I humbly ask for your vote. Scott M. Elliott Attachment Two: Scott?s Original, unedited 2nd Vice Presidential Statement [Not for publication] Dear Directors of CEDA Programs: It is with great reluctance that I accept the nomination for Second Vice President of the Cross Examination Debate Association. At first I thought the nomination was a joke. But then I saw the slate of other nominees: Jason Russell, Andy Ellis, Mike Davis, and Vic Keenan. I realized that CEDA is obviously in a state of leadership crisis (or will be when one of these actually become President) and sometimes the membership has to choose the least bad option. Folks, I am that option. Sometimes in an election, we want to vote ?none of the above.? Well, I am none of the above. Unlike Jason Russell?s McCainesque attempt (i.e. too politically correct to create a winnable strategy), let me be the first to do some real negative campaigning. (This critique stuff is fun!) First, let?s look at qualifications ..Hey wait a fricking minute! CEDA has NO real qualifications to become 2nd Vice President. No, really. You could nominate your dog. Often, it could only do less damage. In lieu of an actual guideline or (heaven forbid!) a minimum standard, may I suggest the following minimum standard: that the 2nd Vice President must be a Director of Debate at an accredited college or university. CEDA is an Association of Directors of Debate and Debate Institutions. It is not merely a place for people who used to debate, or have nothing better to do. While this insurmountable and clearly racist entrance barrier does allow Jim Brey to create the University of Phoenix debate program in order to restart his CEDA political career, it also serves to bar some of my opponents from consideration. Andy Ellis is not a Director of Debate at any university or college. Jason Russell is merely a graduate student. On top of that, he is a graduate student at Oklahoma. If he were at Texas, I would not raise the issue. However, I?d hate to have to teleconference the CEDA business meetings from the Tulsa homeless shelter in two years. On the other hand, I?in true Louisiana fashion?meet the minimum standard. Contrary to popular belief, Louisiana really is a state and the University of Louisiana is a nationally accredited university. I really am allowed by government authorities to teach (infect/manipulate) the youth of Louisiana and allowed to direct a competitive CEDA debate program. It is both scary and hopeful at the same time. I am sure Jason sees this as a sign of hope that apparently anyone can get a job in debate. Just disregard the little things like a Ph.D. and J.D. in hand, and we are on equal footing. We are in a Pathological Period for Two Reasons: (1) Our membership is still horribly low; and (2) CEDA Public image is in tatters. Jason and Andy come to the warm and fuzzy conclusion(s) that ?CEDA has done an exceptional job since the merger? (Andy); ?I agree with Russell, I don't think debate is in trouble. I actually love what we do and am not afraid to take on anyone who disparages us. (Andy);? and ?CEDA is not on the ropes? (Jason). With all due respect to them and to the people that have tried for over a decade to pull us out of this debacle, I must for the first time openly and publicly call bullhockey. Jason?s and Andy?s delusional thinking on this issue is similar to Oklahoma?s belief that it really is better than Texas, and more deserving of a BCS National Championship match-up with Florida. It is the same type of delusional thinking that makes Oklahoma think it can actually beat University of Florida in the title game (nice pandering for votes, eh?!). It is this type of delusional thinking that allows James Madison and Emory University students to believe they are part of the Ivy League. It is this type of delusional thinking that makes Towson think it won a ?real? national debate championship (going for the NDT cross-over vote on this one!). All joking aside (except that Texas really does deserve to be in the BCS title game), CEDA has not done an exceptional job since the merger. Debaters do not understand this. You whippersnappers out there simply do not understand all the turmoil that CEDA has undergone since members of the NDT invoked a rather simple Jedi mind-trick on the weak minded CEDA hierarchy in the early 1990s. It is almost laughable now that we see it from hindsight and that nobody saw it coming?oh, wait, I saw it coming and was bitching about it all the way down to the CEDA vote on the merger. I will not rehash the history of CEDA?the glory days of Jack Howe, when Josh Hoe was a ?powerhouse? debater, when Greg Achten was a Speedo model, etc.?but I will relate to you a discussion I had with one of my sophomore debaters this semester. She asked me why do we have to travel a minimum TEN HOURS to get to a single CEDA tournament. That?s right, it takes us ten hours to make it to our closest tournament?in Dallas, Texas. When I told her the reality of CEDA, she was pissed-off. Here is the reality in 1990-1993, there were at least ten CEDA programs in Louisiana. Some years there were 12 programs within our state because Tulane and Xavier would field a team or two. When I was coaching at Southeastern Louisiana University, we could travel to six to eight tournaments per year within our own state. Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, La. won the CEDA National Sweepstakes Championship. My little program was ranked in the top twenty for a while. By the year 2006, there were ZERO CEDA or NDT programs in the State of Louisiana. Let me repeat that for the dense?that is a 100% decrease in CEDA membership. This is just one example of the larger problem and why I continue to complain about CEDA. It is not an overstatement to say that post-merger, CEDA lost 2/3 of its membership. The only organizations that have a business model similar to CEDA are GM, Chrysler, and Ford. Of course, Jason, Andy, the current CEDA hierarchy, and the NDT Illuminati will tell all of you that membership in CEDA is growing. They are correct. It is growing. Darren Elliott, Gordon Stables, Jeff Jarman, Sue Peterson, M.L. Sandoz, Dave Steinberg, (even Jason, Andy, Mike Davis and Vic Keenan) and the other members of this Association have worked their butts off (Darren still has some more junk in his trunk to work off) to stop the diminishment of our numbers post-merger. But, guess what? Ford Motor Company presented graphs to Congress this week showing there is an upsurge in Ford SUV sales. You and I will each be paying about $5,000 each of real money in order to support this form of accounting. If you lose 2/3 of your customer base over a 15-year period, any stabilization or new customer appears to be a huge upswing in sales. In other words, just because CEDA has gathered in 10 or 20 new programs over the past five years does not wipe out the loss of a hundred to two hundred programs that decided CEDA?s business model was no longer appropriate for their students and their programs. CEDA, and policy debate in general, has a horrible public relations problem. Personally, I blame it on the horrible debate topics that Mancuso forces on us every year at the CEDA topic meeting. I want to physically attend a CEDA Topic meeting to see how the NDT Sith Lords use their powers of mind control to craft exceedingly bad topics but I digress (Exhibit 1., ?eliminate at least nearly all subsidies ?). Others, however, may choose to blame factors such as directors of programs mooning the public; virtual and/or real violence in rounds; lack of decorum/civility in general; post-modernism; speed (both the drug and the delivery style); and no prayer in schools. Well, let me lay out the facts as I see them. It is flat out embarrassing to watch many debate rounds nowadays. Those of you that are Directors of Debate (not students, not graduate students, or former debaters but Directors of Debate, those who have to defend their budgets, their programs, and their careers) know exactly what I am talking about. I think we are extremely lucky that the worst thing that has made it into the popular press about our activity was a mooning incident. Regardless of what Jason thinks, many of the things that we allow to occur in debate rounds are simply indefensible. Should I detail the ones that I know of personally, or should I just be able to obtain a gentleperson?s agreement that this is true? Because, if not, I would love to see how these vague appeals for better public relations handle the reality/nightmare of a pointed series of questions from journalists, or worse, attorneys. Just ask the current CEDA administration how they felt dealing with one incident. [Deleted details and examples.] Many of my colleagues just do not seem to get it. We all agree that 99% of the behavior that we have within CEDA is defensible. I can and do defend speedy speaking. I can and do defend alternative interpretations of the resolution and alternative means of argumentation. However, there is no reason why the Association should have to defend behaviors that place students, programs and the Association at existential risk. Among other Debate Organizations?Nationally and Internationally--policy debate is viewed as an anachronism and childish at best, and a dangerous cancer to intellectual inquiry at worst. Look, when a Parli debate coach kicks our collective ass in a national Op-Ed, and we have no real response, we are defenseless. When Tuna Schnieder has to be our only defense of policy debate on the international level, I think we can all agree that policy debate?s public relations are in the toilet. Wrapping ourselves in our intellectual elitism, post-modern smugness, and insularity is not enough. I agree with Jason, Mike, and Andy that we need to do better public relations. But their vague appeals are reminiscent of Obama?s appeals for ?hope.? I think we all now see what happens when ?hope? meets reality. How?s that post-election ?Liberal Agenda? working out for all of you? Appeals to ?we need to do some public relations? are going to blow up in our collective faces when we realize, as any person who has actually studies public relations and crisis management already knows, that some things cannot be solved through a slick ad campaign. Some problems require pro-active changes. I am for change. We need change. I am for hope. In fact I am audaciously hopeful. Rather than some vague appeals, let me give you some concrete proposals that I will, as 2nd Vice President, strive to put onto the CEDA business agenda. I am not saying I will get them passed, I am saying I will put them out there for discussion and vote by the membership. If accepted, I will work as hard as I can to implement them. Some of these are ?pie in the sky? ideas. Some are going to tick a lot of you off because they are so good you wish you would have thought of them, or you hate the messenger (Sniff!): 1. We need a CEDA alumni newsletter. This would involve gathering news stories and updates regarding former members of CEDA, publishing it, and distributing it both to the media, member institutions and media outlets. This is a huge undertaking. But, guess what Jason, Andy, Mike, and the rest of the CEDA/NDT Hierarchy? This is what you REALLY do if you want to really do Public Relations. You see there is a real difference between policy debaters and kritik debaters. K debaters want to wave the magic wand of ?uh, we need to do better PR.? A policy debater says, ?we need to do better PR?Plan: Start Publishing a CEDA Alumni Newsletter.? Now, I know this idea is going to be stolen by everyone because it is just that damn brilliant so, go ahead. But, just remember---who?s your daddy? 2. We need a REAL CEDA Public Relations/Media Packet produced by a real Public Relations Firm. I am not talking about some Communication Professor who took a photoshop seminar and a PR class five years ago. We have plenty of alumni who actually do Public Relations. They share our vision of debate. Why not put them to work. Is my memory wrong, or is Linda Collier?s husband (sorry if I offend anybody) some head of a big Public Relation?s firm? Jesus, does it take a rocket scientist to come up with this stuff? Hoping for good PR does not work paying professionals to develop good PR does. 3. We need a REAL CEDA Institutional Recruiting Packet and a real outreach program. Just like our response to 9-11, we need ?boots on the ground.? Why? To steal institutions away from other forensics associations and to bring in new programs. See above. 4. We need a Real Minority Recruiting Program. I am sick and tired of programs using racism in debate as a means to win rounds, but having little to no real effect on minority participation rates. Your ?in round? advocacy does nothing and is a waste of time. If you would stop pontificating for a moment and actually had a policy-making thought, realistic solutions may be possible: a. More official involvement between CEDA and UDL. Why doesn?t CEDA sponsor, or somehow officially identify with a UDL Nationals? b. Discounts for entry fees for minority students? Why not? c. Buddy programs?if you are an established program and you convince a HBCU to attend a CEDA Tournament, you get a reduction in your fees or in your CEDA Membership. d. A minority recruiting program award by CEDA 1. One for recruiting the most underrepresented students to their first CEDA tournament; 2. One for recruiting the most new debate programs; 3. CEDA member program doing work with UDLs. 5. Pass and Enforce a Professional Responsibility Amendment. I have discussed this in the past already. I actually cordially worked with other members of this organization on this issue (No, really! I work well with others. It kinda freaked them out.). My reasons are on the record. But every other person running should stake out a clear position. Jason has. I appreciate that. Jason is wrong. 6. A study, a real and painful study, of the programs/schools that left CEDA to answer all the conjecture of why CEDA?s business model failed in the late 1990?s. 7. A serious re-recruitment effort to bring those programs that left CEDA, back to the organization. 8. Have only one CEDA Sanctioned ?National Championship? for JV and Novice Debate. National Championship proliferation risks Middle-East instability. 9. Pay me and Dallas Perkins to sit at a hotel pool bar for a weekend to come up with decent, debatable, policy resolutions that don?t suck. We don?t even have to be at the same hotel. I will transcribe the proposed resolutions from our cocktail napkins and forward them to Jarman. Can it be any worse than the topic committee cluster____ we get every year? We have hope, change and bourbon on our side? What does the current topic selection process have to offer---inclusion? 10. An annual Festivus Presidential Address to be teleconferenced and stored on Youtube. The address will allow the President of CEDA to state all of the failures and disappointments he has seen throughout the year, including the failure to act, or general incompetence, of his/her fellow CEDA Officers and coaches in the Organization. Humiliation is often overlooked as a great motivator. 11. Abolish the Association. Sometimes an organization needs to call it quits when it has either failed in its mission, or has lost its way. A case can be made that only through a revolution can we create evidenced-based debate that serves a larger intercollegiate community. Before you say this is impossible, folks, remember CEDA started from just three or four schools calling bullshit to the NDT. It grew to have hundreds of participating programs. It was the NDT that was dying from lack of membership pre-merger, not the other way around. Realistically, I think there is enough value in CEDA to rebuild. But, I think the discussion should be had and I think members of the policy debate community need to rededicate themselves to CEDA. If the members choose to do so, I will sadly, but dutifully, work to wind down the organization. 12. Secession from the NDT. Yeah, I said it. Get over it. How to do it? Simplistic and painful?like a battlefield arm amputation or Gordon Stables? presentations at CEDA Business Meetings: The Association votes for a return to semester long topics and/or non-policy topics. Why? Well, (a) these topics we have been getting just suck. The current topic has been virtually exhausted since the third tournament. I bet that if we voted right now to debate a different topic that Ag subsidies, 80% of the debaters, directors and coaches would vote for change. (b) I am not a participant in the death march to the NDT, but I am damn sure a victim of it. Regional debate is virtually extinct after the January swings. All anyone wants to do anymore is to prep for the NDT district tournament. For what purpose I do not know? Here?s a hint folks if you did not get a first round bid, or cannot secure a second round bid to the NDT, you are deluding yourself. You ain?t gonna win but you will get a little ashtray for your $5,000.00 per two person team in expenses (entry fees, travel costs, judges, etc do the math). Yet, program after program has decided that the NDT District means everything to the detriment of regional debate. I say, at what cost? It is impossible to field any novices in the Spring Semester anymore. There are not enough regional tournaments, and the topic is too advanced by Spring to allow for their entry. (c) Last time a split from NDT occurred, there was an incredible increase in evidence based debate participation. Based on the number of former CEDA coaches in Parly, and the evolution of Parly, I see a severence of the relationship as a potential boon for CEDA and a chance to bring former programs back into the fold. Well, that?s my perspective of the morass we are in. Those are my proposals for hopeful, and real change. If you don?t like it or me, don?t vote for me. Its not like being President of CEDA gets you any government contract kickbacks in Illinois. I do care about policy debate, I do love the activity and people that know me realize that I am a hard worker dedicated to solving problems. Sincerely, Scott Elliott. From dark_hallway15 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 12 00:26:55 2008 From: dark_hallway15 at yahoo.com (Isaac Peck) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:26:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Jim Schultz/West Georgia or Delete Message-ID: <500903.29507.qm@web37301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Can I get Jim Schultz or someone from West Georgia to backchannel me, I need a couple cites. ? crazybeliever @ yahoo.com ? Isaac -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081211/61e39d04/attachment.htm From rickydeck at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 03:12:41 2008 From: rickydeck at gmail.com (Ricky Deck) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:12:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern FW/Or anyone Else from the team Message-ID: <6ae7c1540812120112j1405c965wd7132c8ddb5f450@mail.gmail.com> I have a few cite requests. Please Email me whenever possible....Thanks Ricky Deck JMU Debate Rickydeck at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081212/225abbd0/attachment.htm From debbie.j.lai at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 12:22:34 2008 From: debbie.j.lai at gmail.com (Debbie Lai) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:22:34 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] 4 Rounds Available at USC Message-ID: <62211700812121022n747d77e0l742a1858478cbbc7@mail.gmail.com> Backchannel me if interested. Thanks! Debbie Lai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081212/0f711d78/attachment.htm From jaipaulrekhi at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 15:31:43 2008 From: jaipaulrekhi at gmail.com (Jaipaul Rekhi) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:31:43 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] 6 Rounds Available at Fullerton Message-ID: Email me if you need any. Jaipaul Rekhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081212/82b69392/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Fri Dec 12 15:42:52 2008 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:42:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] emory needs rds 4 texas swing Message-ID: <702130.88077.qm@web62008.mail.re1.yahoo.com> pay in cashat tournament. please let me know if you are interested. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081212/70af4b5a/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Fri Dec 12 18:45:35 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:45:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The 2AR: Vik Keenan's 2nd VP Candidate Statement Message-ID: Candidate Statement ? 2VP (Edebate/CEDA-L version) [Note: The only candidate who demonstrates knowledge of debate 101 ? it's advantageous to have the last word.] Clearly, we need more puppies in CEDA. If elected, Northeast region, I promise you puppies at Regionals/Districts this year. I promise all other Directors a general commitment to serve our community and try to improve our organization. If all you want is the attack-ads, skip to the bottom. The 2ndVP position is an opportunity to commit to steering the direction of CEDA over the next 5 years on the Executive Committee (2VP, 1VP, Pres, and two years as past President). Despite debate being an amazing experience and a unique educational opportunity with immeasurable benefits to its participants, our numbers are shrinking, our PR is limited, and our responsiveness is sometimes slow to the needs of our members. We need to change this. Our "institution" is what can improve. I am running for 2ndVP because I think I can contribute to improving how our organization serves the member institutions that we are here to support. There are a number of us doing exciting things with our programs related to social justice, public debate, education, etc, but we don't coordinate that knowledge. This means that much of that work is done alone, making it harder, and that much of that knowledge is lost. Finding ways to communicate, institutionalize, and expand what we are doing that works WITHOUT asking for excessive extra burdens on an already heavy workload would be one of my priorities as 2ndVP. I think there is a great deal of overlap in the field of nominees in what we are running for: program development, diversity in debate, a great national tournament, improving membership, expanding student and employment opportunities, and our general love of the activity. As it has been noted, it then becomes more important in this case to start discussing HOW we would approach the goals we want to achieve when so many of our objectives are in common. First, there are the simple implementations ? we lose good initiatives and good ideas all the time to simple forgetfulness or other prioritization. This is why we need to follow-through on the recently discussed ideas of creating an actual national position of Secretary and an official PR position with real support. I envision the Secretary position as giving us a more formal way to ensure that the ideas we discuss become the ideas we implement. It would create a regular mechanism of accountability as ideas are not simply brought-up and forgotten, but instead timelines and commitments are recorded in a way for public accountability. I envision the "Press" position as not simply being reactive, but being proactive in communicating our accomplishments and making us at the forefront of forensic leadership, and I recognize that this might require more "professional" assistance than we currently have. We don't need to apologize for who we are, but we do need to be able to articulate why what we are doing is good ? this is part of the fight. At most, these positions would require amending our governing documents, a process with which I have specific experience, and a record of follow-through, even when it is not necessarily my initiative. I would also seek to "update" past initiatives that I am aware of, such as simple alum networking using the database project from 2005, that have somehow been lost along the way. Second, program development and retention is already a priority for me. I have spent my entire career in debate in the process of creating new programs, first as a debater in a student created program, next as a volunteer in the first year of the NYUDL (and for 7 more years giving me ACTUAL experience on both working with diversity initiatives and why the UDLs should not be a tool of college debate), also as a coach at new high school in NYC, and currently as the Director at CUNY. I continue to coach in the N Y Coalition because of our specific commitment to new programs and new debaters, and have been excited by the debuts of Monmouth and Rutgers in the Northeast this semester. I applaud Mike's efforts on the Program Development Committee. I think he has identified several key steps on a national level that make the process of program development easier. However; I think that a great deal of the work actually occurs on the local level, and I think we need to re-envision the role of our local debate communities to assist in fostering new debate programs. I think on a national level CEDA needs to serve as a coordinator of these efforts. As we continue the current "redistricting" conversation, I think it is important to ask how our local representatives can bring back assistance to the programs that they are probably the most familiar with. I also think we need to begin targeting new program initiatives to create more local debate opportunities for programs like Scott's, who are geographically isolated. Our current program development relies on students or faculty creating a new program at their own instigation. Tied to the evolution of our PR efforts, we should ask how we can target specific institutions to support debate to both increase new programs and create more local debate opportunities for existing ones. I also think we need to focus more than we have on the flip side of the issue - program retention. We need to reexamine if the growing fiscal stability of CEDA as an organization would allow us to provide other kinds of support to programs in jeopardy. We need to identify the conditions at institutions that allow a program to survive past transitions in leadership. We need to coordinate our press efforts to incentivize supporting programs within academic institutions. We need to explore how we can overcome the trend of stagnant budgets in a world of increasing costs either by identifying ways to reduce costs, assisting in efforts to increase budgets, actively seeking out alternative models to stretch resources, or all of the above. I recognize that the issue of program development and retention does not have one single solution, and we need to be better at sharing the solutions we've come up with independently to assist each other. The issue of professional "standards" is also one facing our community. The current amendment for CEDA will be decided before any of us as candidates officially becomes 2VP. This could mean that we have no such governing document; it could mean we are charged with interpreting it as it stands [i.e.: In 2011 appointing members of the PRB]. If it does not pass, the result cannot be a choice to then ignore the conversation. First, our affiliate status with the AFA will tie us into their choices over the next year. We can take this opportunity to examine our relationship with the AFA, we can choose to be LEADERS in this effort, but we cannot pretend it will go away. It became very clear at NCA this year that this is a conversation occurring not about just us, but about all related forensics organizations. Secondly, we cannot hope to become an organization that better supports our coaches and colleagues as "professionals" without deciding what that means for us. And it has been clearly articulated that one of the factors at many institutions for program development or retention is providing the "professional" justification for those positions. This is also why I think a conversation about curriculum is good, but should not necessarily be a requirement. I do not think the role of our national body is to decide what debate is or should be ? that is not our mission as an association, nor our history (unlike the ADA, which takes further steps to identify the parameters of argument for its sanctioned tournaments). However; for individuals trying to begin or justify programs, having a place to start a "curriculum" conversation is useful. For coaches attempting demonstrate what debate can offer, and what specifically our kind of debate can offer, curriculum is the language of the department. I understand the pitfalls of curriculum guidelines that over-restrict approaches and content ? it was my greatest frustration as a high school teacher for eight years. But is just as frustrating to have nothing to start from, or no common language to convey why what you do is pedagogically beneficial. My hope is that in creating documents that are resources for coaches and instructors we do not limit what it means to "teach" debate, but instead finally articulate to amazing diversity of ideas we are able to explore through our activity. One of the "lost" initiatives of the past was documents to assist new coaches ? I envision "curriculum" being one such resource. Part of this support also means creating professional opportunities for our community ? building and keeping coaching positions; aligning expectations of instructor workloads; networking, researching, and publication opportunities for graduate students. While we have made some progress in the last few years about "announcing" opportunities, we still may not have made the transition to have all of these opportunities available to be viewed in the same place. More importantly, it has been noted that there is a decrease in submissions to our key academic journals, and there was discussion at NCA this year about "debate" and other graduate work as being seen in opposition to each other. How can we make opportunities for research more viable for this key demographic of our community, and how can we make debate a professional stepping stone rather than simply a way to waive tuition? This is why we need some form of curriculum documentation, more proactive press, and clearly articulated concepts of professionalism. If we as an organization do not sponsor and encourage the research which justifies what we do, how can we get more resources to expand what we do to more students, or at a minimum preserve it at institutions feeling the tightening of their budgets? These professional efforts do not mean that debate is not for the debaters ? it is simply a recognition that for the debaters to have debate they need support. I would also seek as 2VP to increase the student leadership role in CEDA, both by clarifying the Student Representative positions, and by exploring other ways to encourage student input in both our legislative and topic processes. For the past year the role of student representation has been one of my priorities, and as a Regional Rep I have held myself accountable for ensuring that our Student Rep position has taken advantage of that opportunity when possible [Business Meeting votes or proxy, Regional networking (electronic), Regional networking (competitive prep), etc]. If we want debate to be for the debaters, then its leadership should be too. Most people who know me know that I am primarily drawn to debate because it is an educational activity. But I was also initially drawn to its unique sense of community. You cannot have a debate without another side ? we need each other. Therefore, we need to support each other. I do not think the proposal to "sever" from the NDT necessarily serves this purpose in a time when cross-examination program numbers are shrinking across the country. [I'm not even going into the logistics ? but let's just assume the "membership" vote wouldn't pass it either]. I think instead we need to examine the conversation that Gordon Stables has dubbed "Merger 2.0" ? looking at how ALL of the national associations affect each other (because the ADA schedule has an impact on this as well). This is not about NDT versus CEDA versus ADA ? this is about active participation in leadership to help debate thrive. It is the basis of the conference this summer at Wake. We need to reengage the NDT on conversations about national scheduling and district qualification that affect program development and viable travel schedules. If the NDT passes the proposal for a new "tournament hosting committee", we need to be involved in the conversation, not ignoring it. Many of us are members of both, if not all three, institutions, and it is ridiculous that the only official cross-organization conversation that exists in the status quo is the Topic Meeting. I think I have demonstrated over the last 5 years not only a willingness to engage in that kind of cross-conversation (at ADA tournaments, at NDT committee meetings, and CEDA meetings, and at the topic meeting), but a dedication to being an active participant in trying to make change when our institutions have policies that are odds with each other. I would continue that kind of participation if elected to the 2nd VP position. Like many others, I have been in CEDA for as long as I have been in debate. I began debating the year before the "merger", and I graduated the year after. I started debating in college, which is why the development of novice debaters has always been an issue of great personal importance. This probably means I have the least "debate" experience of all of the candidates (it also means I get to call them all old, because Russell wanted humor AND mudslinging), but I think that my breadth of experiences in debate is a more important criteria. I have helped start a student based team on a campus; I have helped establish an administration started team across a University of multiple campuses. I have worked with universities with students with every academic advantage but no resources for debate, and I have worked to get fairly substantial resources available to students whose other academic resources are their only obstacle to success. I am currently the Regional Representative for the largest region (in terms of membership) in CEDA, and I have experience not only in coordinating different needs from different programs, but also in trying to bring together disparate points of view into civil discussion. My "coaching" job involves three different university systems, and my "day job" is in University administration, giving me familiarity with the very group we are often trying to persuade to increase resources. I have been able to observe what being not only 2ndVP, but 1stVP, and President means fairly closely over the last few years, and to learn from that process the benefits and limitations of those positions. At CEDA Nationals M L Sandoz asked if we were interested in building bridges, and I think my past participation in this community demonstrates not only that I am, but that I think it is necessary for us to survive. In the end, I think what distinguishes CEDA as an organization is not simply that it promotes debate, but that it recognizes there are multiple ways to give students the debate experience, and I am committed to listening to needs across debate demographics to best support our activity. I was asked at NCA why those of us who are not necessarily "academics" would want this position. It's a great deal of work, a large commitment, and it does not have the same "resume" benefits as it would to people who work for institutions of higher ed. The answer is simple: we love this activity. We think we can do better as an institution. We think we can help. My commitment to CEDA extends beyond this election, which I think is true of all of the candidates. I think the questions before those of you voting are straightforward: what do you what from this organization over the next 5 years, whose proposals will make the organization actively better, and who will be able to follow through on implementing their initiatives? My current position in my University would give me the flexibility to focus on such proposals and to see them through if you agree with my vision not only of what our organization is capable of, but of what debate is capable of. [Yes, I know this was long (more a block than a rebuttal) and there's a more condensed version for the newsletter, but I've thought a lot about what I would like for this organization, and you deserve to know the direction I plan to pursue if elected whether you vote for me or not. At least I'm aware of my faults.] *** Oh, and a few words about my opponents: I will admit the following things: Scott Elliott writes better topic papers than me, Mike Davis is a better bowler than me, Andy Ellis is a better revolutionary than me, and Jason Russell is probably funnier than me. That said, I'm not sure those are things that would make them a better 2VP than me. However; I will also add that Andy actually IS Sarah Palin, despite his Facebook assurances, and Mike Davis at least has the low-rent version of Jason Russell's barber. And true to the Louisiana educational system he represents, Scott can't spell (seriously, dude, my name has 3 letters and you got 1/3 of them wrong). Finally, I am not some kind of terrorist. I am simply a benevolent logistics dictator in a federation of institutions who, by clearly creating a model for the Balkans, turns the impact. Plus, you should reject Russell on his discourse, because it leads to a self-fulfilling-prophecy. [Disclaimer: Any accidental or intentional injury to soon-to-be-Dr. Russell is NOT the fault of said self-fulfilling-prophecy.] A ballot for me is a ballot to reject terror talk, Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, and bowling as criteria for leadership skills. A ballot for me is a ballot for more puppies in debate ? and who doesn't like a puppy? 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/20081212/7ab2a09d/attachment.htm From dbuescher at ups.edu Sat Dec 13 17:57:19 2008 From: dbuescher at ups.edu (Derek T Buescher) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 15:57:19 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] WFA/ASU/GCC Tournament February 13-15, 2009 Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Attached and pasted below is the invitation to the 2009 WFA tournament co-hosted this year with ASU and GCC. The tournament will include an IE swing as well as npda, policy and 4-team debate. Please join us. Two important notes: 1. hotel block closes soon. Please make reservations soon. Unlike previous years, competitions will be held on campus. You are not obligated to have hotel rooms to cover entries. 2. The invite is subject to minor changes in schedule and for items such as whom to make checks out to. We have been figuring the final details long distance. Changes should be minor. Questions--please contact me at dbuescher at ups.edu Derek Buescher WFA President/WSCA Speech Activities Coordinator Associate Professor and Director of Forensics University of Puget Sound _______________________________________ Western States Communication Association, Arizona State University, and Glendale Community College WFA Forensics Tournament Tempe, Arizona February 13-15, 2009 The Western Forensics Association, Arizona State University, and Glendale Community College are pleased to invite you to the Western States Communication Association Annual Forensic Tournament to be held in Tempe, Arizona February, 13-15, 2009. Many forensic directors attend the WSCA conference following the tournament and some even provide an opportunity for some of their students to do the same. This tournament is designed to provide excellent competition for your students as well as academic enrichment for yourself, other members of your forensic staff, and students. We hope you will be able to take advantage of this excellent opportunity. This year?s WSCA forensic tournament will be on the ASU campus and will contain the annual GCC Individual Events Swing tournament. The tournament hotel is a short distance from the Convention hotel in Mesa (approximately 8 miles). The location enables faculty and student integration between the tournament and the conference. We will continue to work with the WSCA Executive Council to enable you and your students opportunities to participate in both the tournament and the conference, including the undergraduate scholars conference. The 2009 Tournament will feature CEDA/NDT, NPDA style parliamentary, BP/4-team style debate and individual events. Tournament Hotel The tournament hotel is the Courtyard Marriot Tempe Downtown, 601 South Ash Avenue, Tempe, AZ, 85281, (480) 966-280. We have negotiated room rates for $99.00 per room (plus tax). You may wish to take advantage of the Millennium rates (less than the conference hotel) if you plan to stay in the area for the WSCA conference. Unlike past years, competition will not take place in the hotel. Thus you are not required to reserve rooms to cover your competition numbers. Each school is responsible to make their own reservations at the hotel. The reservation deadline is January 12, 2009. Our block of room will be released after this date and the rates will become more expensive. Individual reservations must be made by 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time on the cut off date. To make reservations, contact Marriott reservations at 1 (800) 321-2211 or (480) 966-2800. When making your reservations indicate you are with the ?Arizona State University Western States Forensics Tournament.? A valid major credit card or other satisfactory deposit must secure reservations. Entries The entry deadline is 5:00 p.m. Monday, February 9, 2009. Entries should be at www.forensicstournament.net under the WSCA Tournament. If you have difficulty making reservations please contact Derek Buescher at dbuescher at ups.edu. Any changes after Wednesday, February 11 should be e-mailed. Eligibility and Divisions Any regularly enrolled undergraduate college student may represent the school at which they are pursuing a degree. In individual events, students may participate in open division, but only those students with less than four semesters of collegiate competition in individual events may participate in junior division. Similarly, all debaters may compete in open division. Only those students with less than four full semesters of college debate experience may participate in junior division. Individual Events: The WSCA tournament follows the rules of the AFA NIET. Students may enter a maximum of three individual events per pattern, and only two if one of the events is extemp. Students with multiple entries in a pattern are responsible for getting to their competition rooms on time. The tabulation staff will make every effort to localize competition rooms, but this may be out of our control. It is the student?s responsibility to make it within the allotted time to their events. Pattern A: Extemp, Informative, CA, DI, POI, Poetry Pattern B: Impromptu, Persuasive, ADS, Prose, Duo Debate We will offer the standard NPDA and CEDA debate along with 4-team debate (also called World Universities Debate or British Parliamentary Debate). Only four total teams, designated at registration, may earn sweepstakes points. NPDA Debate will follow the rules of the National Parliamentary Debate Association. Four-team debate is contingent upon sufficient entries. Judges Finding qualified judges is frequently a problem at the WSCA tournament. We will gladly hire you if you can judge beyond your commitment. If you know of qualified individuals who would like to be hired, please have them contact the Speech Activities Coordinator, Derek Buescher at dbuescher at ups.edu. Each institution must provide at least one qualified judge. Judges must possess a BA or equivalent degree, or obtain Speech Activities Coordinator?s prior approval. One judge covers two debate teams and six IE slots. In the event the tournament is unable to provide judging to cover a school?s entries, the school may be required to withdraw students from competition. If you have a particular problem meeting your institution?s judging requirements contact the Speech Activities Coordinator. Fees We are trying to keep fees low, but hired judges are very expensive. We have lowered fees from last year, however campus facilities service requires an additional cleaning fee. For this reason, we have a facilities fee to cover this expense. Tournament 1 Fees (includes all debate and first IE Tournament) School fee $50.00 per school Facility fee $30.00 per school Debate entry fee $50.00 per team Individual event entry fee $ 7.00 per contestant per event Hired debate judges $100.00 per uncovered debate team (one judge covers two teams) Hired events judges $15.00 per uncovered IE slot (one judge covers 6 slots) Fees will be assessed as of 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 Please make checks payable to University of Puget Sound. Tournament 2 Fees: (Includes 2nd IE Tournament on Sunday) School Fee $20.00 IE Entry $7.00 per slot Hired Judge Fee $15.00 per uncovered slot (one judge covers 6 slots) Fees will be assessed as of 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2009 Please make checks payable to Glendale Community College Forensics. Awards Awards will be presented to finalists in all events. Sweepstakes awards will be presented for debate, individual events, and overall excellence. The second Individual Event tournament will not count toward sweepstakes. Sweepstakes awards will be based on the following point system: 1st place IE 9 points 2nd place IE 7 points 3rd place IE 4 points Finalists IE 2 points 4-team First Place 12 points 4-team Second Place 10 points 4-team Third Place 8 points 4-team Fourth Place 6 points Policy, or Parli debate First Place 20 points Policy, or Parli debate Second Place 16 points Policy, or Parli debate semi-finalist 10 points Policy, or Parli debate quarter-finalist 6 points Policy, or Parli debate octa-finalist 2 points Tournament Schedule Note?Debaters advancing past the second elimination debate in NPDA and BP and all CEDA debaters will not be able to compete Pattern A events during the second half of the IE swing tournament on Sunday. Any necessary refunds will be paid on Sunday. Friday, February 13, 2009 8:30 Parli, Worlds Round 1 10:30 Parli, Worlds Round 2 12:00 Lunch 12:30 Pattern A Round 1 2:15 Parli, Worlds Round 3 4:15 Pattern A Round 2 6:00 Parli, Worlds Round 4 Saturday, February 14, 2009 8:00 Policy Debate Round 1 8:00 Pattern B Round 1 9:45 Parli and Worlds Round 5 11:00 Policy Round 2 11:45 Pattern B Round 2 1:30 Parli and Worlds Round 6 2:30 Policy Round 3 3:15 IE Semis Pattern A/B 4:45 Parli and Worlds Elim 1 5:30 Policy Round 4 6:30 IE Finals Pattern A/B 7:15 Awards?IE Results and Speaker Awards Sunday, February 15, 2009 8:00 Policy Round 5, Topic Announce Parli and Worlds Elim 2 9:45 Pattern A Round 1 10:00 Parli and Worlds Elim 3 11:00 Policy Round 6 11:30 Pattern A Round 2 11:45 Parli and Worlds Elim 4, if necessary 1:30 Pattern B Round 1 2:30 Policy Elim 1 3:30 IE Elim 1 5:30 IE Elim 2 5:30 Policy Elim 2 7:00 IE Awards 8:30 Policy Elim 3 if necessary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081213/6f7ee3b8/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2009 WFA Tournament Invite General Information.doc Type: application/msword Size: 39936 bytes Desc: 2009 WFA Tournament Invite General Information.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081213/6f7ee3b8/attachment.doc From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Dec 14 13:05:48 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:05:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostro Message-ID: i'm so glad we have gotten past all the corruption of cheney-bush-rove. obama was so damn good on the stump when he did his "straight talk" routine i believed him. i didn't even consider for one second that he was a product of the crookedest political machine in the usa. didn't cross my mind because i wanted to believe. chief of staff and head of presidential campaign, those dudes are too far removed from obama to even possibly tarnish "straight talk". obama is black saint in a cesspool of white shit. rezko association, no problem. jarrett slumlord issue, no problem. rubin ponzi scheme, hallelujah. i've been addicted to hollywood since birth, it just comes natural getting absorbed into a story that romanticizes a gangster without thinking. because i'm 99% positive obama is nothing like any of the chicago people that surround him, i'm 100% positive he didn't forge his birth certificate. will the marion jones of politics eventually get indicted with the rest of his cronies? are they all non-chalant and careless gloating in their victory like rahmbo, the mossad king who just got busted on wiretap? right now, the sixth black president appears that he may be worse than the previous president who was the worst president in US history? rove's superior ability to cover dubya's tracks gives dubya the edge over cagliostro who will likely suffer an indictment with rezko whistling dixie and blago ready to talk and escape jail. plus, obama fostered rising expectations concerning "straight talk". he will crush the hopes of the youth and blacks because they trusted him. what a deutsche bag. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5332897.ecePressure grew on two of Barack Obama?s closest political aides yesterday as new details emerged of the ?pay-for-play? allegations against the Governor of his home state.Rahm Emanuel, the President-elect?s new Chief of Staff, and Jesse Jackson Jr, the co-chairman of his presidential campaign, both faced new revelations about their possible involvement in the scandal.Fox News Chicago reported that Mr Emanuel, a Chicago politician who won the Illinois Governor?s former congressional seat, may have been captured on FBI wire-taps discussing the fate of Mr Obama?s vacated US Senate seat with Rod Blagojevich.The TV station said Mr Emanuel had ?multiple conversations? with the Governor, who is accused of trying to ?sell? the open Senate seat for a Cabinet post or lucrative top foundation job. The report said the Governor was given a list of Senate candidates acceptable to Mr Obama. Because the FBI was secretly taping Mr Blagojevich in recent weeks, Mr Emanuel?s conversations may have been recorded, Fox News Chicago said.RELATED LINKSSpotlight now on the wife of BlagojevichObama denies link with scandal GovernorA scandal straight from the SopranosAny recordings of the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff speaking to Mr Blagojevich about Mr Obama?s former Senate seat would prove an acute embarrassment to the incoming Obama Administration, even if no illegal deals were discussed, and could even force Mr Emanuel?s resignation. Mr Obama has promised to release details of any contacts between his staff and the Governor?s office but told a news conference on Thursday that he was ?absolutely certain? that none of his aides was involved in any deal-making.Mr Emanuel skipped Mr Obama?s press conference, which he typically attends. Cornered by a Chicago Sun-Times reporter at a concert at his children?s school, he refused to comment.?I?m not going to say a word to you,? Mr Emanuel said. ?I?m going to do this with my children. Don?t do that. I?m a father. I have two kids. I?m not going to do it.?He was asked: ?Can?t you do both?? Mr Emanuel replied: ?I?m not as capable as you. I?m going to be a father. I?m allowed to be a father.?Mr Emanuel told an ABC News cameraman, whom he invited into his house to use the toilet yesterday, that he was receiving ?regular death threats? because his home address had been put on TV.Jesse Jackson Jr, the Congressman son of the famed civil rights leader, also faced new questions yesterday about his quest for Mr Obama?s vacated Senate seat.A group of ethnic Indian businessmen with ties to Mr Jackson and Mr Blagojevich reportedly held a lunch on October 31 and discussed raising $1 million for the Governor?s campaign to encourage him to pick Mr Jackson as Senator, the Chicago Tribune said.Raghuveer Nayak, a major Blagojevich donor who also has ties to the Jackson family, then co-sponsored a fund-raiser for the Governor on Saturday attended by Mr Blagojevich and Jesse Jackson Jr?s brother Jonathan, the newspaper said.Mr Nayak, a leader of Chicago?s Asian community, owns a string of surgery clinics and was once involved in a land deal with Jonathan Jackson.Mr Jackson Jr met Mr Blagojevich at 4pm on Monday to discuss his interest in the Senate seat. Mr Blagojevich was arrested at his home at 6am on Tuesday by prosecutors who said they were trying to thwart a ?political crime spree?. Jesse Jackson Jr is due to meet prosecutors next week, but has been told he is not a target of the investigation.He insisted yesterday that no one had offered the Governor money for the Senate seat on his behalf.?People know me. They know who I am. I?m confident that no one on my behalf made a single offer to anybody for anything. I would not accept the position if it were offered under those circumstances,? he said.Mr Blagojevich, meanwhile, went to work again yesterday without making any public comment despite the growing clamour for his resignation. Lisa Madigan, the Illinois Attorney-General, filed a motion with the state?s highest court asking the judges to declare the scandal-plagued Governor unfit to hold office. John Harris, Mr Blagojevich?s Chief of Staff, who was charged along with the Governor, last night stepped down from his job, adding to the pressure on his boss. _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081214/b116c93a/attachment.htm From pinkballoon at hotmail.com Sun Dec 14 16:01:07 2008 From: pinkballoon at hotmail.com (Nicholas A. Thomas) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:01:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostro In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually, Blagojevich was ferreted out by an anti-corruption bill Obama helped to pass. Blagojevich was rushing to get in donations before Obama's law took effect on January 1st, which is why he was so pushy and, thus, legally caught. That Emanuel was voice recorded on the tapes is no surprise: he said as much from the beginning (and was even rumored to be a whistle-blower to the FBI). Regardless, DOJ District Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said neither Emanuel nor Obama were targets in the investigation. If anything, it would be a surprise if the President-elect was *not* talking with the Governor about political strategy involving the best Democratic candidate to run in 2010. Getting death threats (something no one on the right has to deal with... unless they are getting attacked by people even *farther* to the right) is a scary thing; I'd hope you had some sympathy for people facing the violence of a heckler's veto. I guess I wanna know what you want me or others to take from your posts, Old Strega. Are you worried about the Constitution? Survey says no: you are still complaining about Obama after the Supreme Court refused to overturn the will of the people using evidence that was only going to confirm that Obama was a citizen anyway. Are you really worried about corruption? Survey says no: I don't seem to recall Enron, Bush's DOJ scandal, concerns about Halliburton or Blackwater ever bothering you this much--which matters at the very least because there was more than enough "guilt by association" in all those cases to satisfy your current thirst for it. Are you just raining on our parade while some Americans want to retake, rebuild, and reinvigorate their country? Maybe even by reclaiming any of the moral authority it supposedly had? Is it a bad thing for us to want something better for our nation? And to have trusted Obama to get us to something better when most all politicians seemed corrupt or evil? If Obama succeeds will you blame him just as much as you will rain down on him if he fails and our peoples do not prosper? I've read about you in history books, Old Strega. "Sic semper tyrannis," you once yelled. Another time you had a list "of 205... names made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." More recently I've heard you say "deficits don't matter," finding WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk," and more generally that people who "don't love America should leave it." You've always been there to save us from the good civil servants who might have done us well, just in case your one-in-a-million conspiracy theory was right that they would not have worked out. Here's a challenge--I expect it will be *really* tough. Can you tell me (or us) something *good* we should do for our country that is at once free of blame for others, free of any hint that other human beings are corrupt, but still significant enough that one would not be able to say of such a deed that it was "guilty by association" with such and such weak link so that it clearly represents a threat to or a corruption of America? Please don't give me a sarcastic answer--I really want to know what you think our best course is right now (aside from killing all the lawyers). Nicholas A. Thomas, PhD Rhetoric (formerly a Policy Assistant Coach at CSU, Long Beach) Department of Communication Arts & Sciences Pennsylvania State University nat129 at psu.edu From: Old Strega Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 2:05 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com ; Jay Reed Subject: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostro i'm so glad we have gotten past all the corruption of cheney-bush-rove. obama was so damn good on the stump when he did his "straight talk" routine i believed him. i didn't even consider for one second that he was a product of the crookedest political machine in the usa. didn't cross my mind because i wanted to believe. chief of staff and head of presidential campaign, those dudes are too far removed from obama to even possibly tarnish "straight talk". obama is black saint in a cesspool of white shit. rezko association, no problem. jarrett slumlord issue, no problem. rubin ponzi scheme, hallelujah. i've been addicted to hollywood since birth, it just comes natural getting absorbed into a story that romanticizes a gangster without thinking. because i'm 99% positive obama is nothing like any of the chicago people that surround him, i'm 100% positive he didn't forge his birth certificate. will the marion jones of politics eventually get indicted with the rest of his cronies? are they all non-chalant and careless gloating in their victory like rahmbo, the mossad king who just got busted on wiretap? right now, the sixth black president appears that he may be worse than the previous president who was the worst president in US history? rove's superior ability to cover dubya's tracks gives dubya the edge over cagliostro who will likely suffer an indictment with rezko whistling dixie and blago ready to talk and escape jail. plus, obama fostered rising expectations concerning "straight talk". he will crush the hopes of the youth and blacks because they trusted him. what a deutsche bag. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5332897.ece Pressure grew on two of Barack Obama?s closest political aides yesterday as new details emerged of the ?pay-for-play? allegations against the Governor of his home state. Rahm Emanuel, the President-elect?s new Chief of Staff, and Jesse Jackson Jr, the co-chairman of his presidential campaign, both faced new revelations about their possible involvement in the scandal. Fox News Chicago reported that Mr Emanuel, a Chicago politician who won the Illinois Governor?s former congressional seat, may have been captured on FBI wire-taps discussing the fate of Mr Obama?s vacated US Senate seat with Rod Blagojevich. The TV station said Mr Emanuel had ?multiple conversations? with the Governor, who is accused of trying to ?sell? the open Senate seat for a Cabinet post or lucrative top foundation job. The report said the Governor was given a list of Senate candidates acceptable to Mr Obama. Because the FBI was secretly taping Mr Blagojevich in recent weeks, Mr Emanuel?s conversations may have been recorded, Fox News Chicago said. RELATED LINKS a.. Spotlight now on the wife of Blagojevich a.. Obama denies link with scandal Governor a.. A scandal straight from the Sopranos Any recordings of the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff speaking to Mr Blagojevich about Mr Obama?s former Senate seat would prove an acute embarrassment to the incoming Obama Administration, even if no illegal deals were discussed, and could even force Mr Emanuel?s resignation. Mr Obama has promised to release details of any contacts between his staff and the Governor?s office but told a news conference on Thursday that he was ?absolutely certain? that none of his aides was involved in any deal-making. Mr Emanuel skipped Mr Obama?s press conference, which he typically attends. Cornered by a Chicago Sun-Times reporter at a concert at his children?s school, he refused to comment. ?I?m not going to say a word to you,? Mr Emanuel said. ?I?m going to do this with my children. Don?t do that. I?m a father. I have two kids. I?m not going to do it.? He was asked: ?Can?t you do both?? Mr Emanuel replied: ?I?m not as capable as you. I?m going to be a father. I?m allowed to be a father.? Mr Emanuel told an ABC News cameraman, whom he invited into his house to use the toilet yesterday, that he was receiving ?regular death threats? because his home address had been put on TV. Jesse Jackson Jr, the Congressman son of the famed civil rights leader, also faced new questions yesterday about his quest for Mr Obama?s vacated Senate seat. A group of ethnic Indian businessmen with ties to Mr Jackson and Mr Blagojevich reportedly held a lunch on October 31 and discussed raising $1 million for the Governor?s campaign to encourage him to pick Mr Jackson as Senator, the Chicago Tribune said. Raghuveer Nayak, a major Blagojevich donor who also has ties to the Jackson family, then co-sponsored a fund-raiser for the Governor on Saturday attended by Mr Blagojevich and Jesse Jackson Jr?s brother Jonathan, the newspaper said. Mr Nayak, a leader of Chicago?s Asian community, owns a string of surgery clinics and was once involved in a land deal with Jonathan Jackson. Mr Jackson Jr met Mr Blagojevich at 4pm on Monday to discuss his interest in the Senate seat. Mr Blagojevich was arrested at his home at 6am on Tuesday by prosecutors who said they were trying to thwart a ?political crime spree?. Jesse Jackson Jr is due to meet prosecutors next week, but has been told he is not a target of the investigation. He insisted yesterday that no one had offered the Governor money for the Senate seat on his behalf. ?People know me. They know who I am. I?m confident that no one on my behalf made a single offer to anybody for anything. I would not accept the position if it were offered under those circumstances,? he said. Mr Blagojevich, meanwhile, went to work again yesterday without making any public comment despite the growing clamour for his resignation. Lisa Madigan, the Illinois Attorney-General, filed a motion with the state?s highest court asking the judges to declare the scandal-plagued Governor unfit to hold office. John Harris, Mr Blagojevich?s Chief of Staff, who was charged along with the Governor, last night stepped down from his job, adding to the pressure on his boss. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. Get your Hotmail? account. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20081214/c6b80ffb/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 14 16:05:57 2008 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:05:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <562556.79951.qm@web53501.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Man you can't even start a good old fashioned flame war anymore Stroube. Sorry, I know my response disrupted your attempt at a late-modern critique of the military industrial complex. --- On Sun, 12/14/08, Old Strega wrote: > From: Old Strega > Subject: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostro > To: edebate at ndtceda.com, "Jay Reed" > Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 1:05 PM > i'm so glad we have gotten past all the corruption of > cheney-bush-rove. obama was so damn good on the stump > when he did his "straight talk" routine i believed > him. i didn't even consider for one second that he was > a product of the crookedest political machine in the usa. > didn't cross my mind because i wanted to believe. > chief of staff and head of presidential campaign, those > dudes are too far removed from obama to even possibly > tarnish "straight talk". obama is black saint in > a cesspool of white shit. rezko association, no problem. > jarrett slumlord issue, no problem. rubin ponzi scheme, > hallelujah. i've been addicted to hollywood since > birth, it just comes natural getting absorbed into a story > that romanticizes a gangster without thinking. because > i'm 99% positive obama is nothing like any of the > chicago people that surround him, i'm 100% positive he > didn't forge his birth certificate. will the marion > jones of politics eventually get indicted with the rest of > his cronies? are they all non-chalant and careless > gloating in their victory like rahmbo, the mossad king who > just got busted on wiretap? right now, the sixth black > president appears that he may be worse than the previous > president who was the worst president in US history? > rove's superior ability to cover dubya's tracks > gives dubya the edge over cagliostro who will likely suffer > an indictment with rezko whistling dixie and blago ready to > talk and escape jail. plus, obama fostered rising > expectations concerning "straight talk". he will > crush the hopes of the youth and blacks because they trusted > him. what a deutsche bag. > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5332897.ecePressure > grew on two of Barack Obama?s closest political aides > yesterday as new details emerged of the ?pay-for-play? > allegations against the Governor of his home state.Rahm > Emanuel, the President-elect?s new Chief of Staff, and > Jesse Jackson Jr, the co-chairman of his presidential > campaign, both faced new revelations about their possible > involvement in the scandal.Fox News Chicago reported that Mr > Emanuel, a Chicago politician who won the Illinois > Governor?s former congressional seat, may have been > captured on FBI wire-taps discussing the fate of Mr > Obama?s vacated US Senate seat with Rod Blagojevich.The TV > station said Mr Emanuel had ?multiple conversations? > with the Governor, who is accused of trying to ?sell? > the open Senate seat for a Cabinet post or lucrative top > foundation job. The report said the Governor was given a > list of Senate candidates acceptable to Mr Obama. Because > the FBI was secretly taping Mr Blagojevich in recent weeks, > Mr Emanuel?s conversations may have been recorded, Fox > News Chicago said.RELATED LINKSSpotlight now on the wife of > BlagojevichObama denies link with scandal GovernorA scandal > straight from the SopranosAny recordings of the newly > appointed White House Chief of Staff speaking to Mr > Blagojevich about Mr Obama?s former Senate seat would > prove an acute embarrassment to the incoming Obama > Administration, even if no illegal deals were discussed, and > could even force Mr Emanuel?s resignation. Mr Obama has > promised to release details of any contacts between his > staff and the Governor?s office but told a news conference > on Thursday that he was ?absolutely certain? that none > of his aides was involved in any deal-making.Mr Emanuel > skipped Mr Obama?s press conference, which he typically > attends. Cornered by a Chicago Sun-Times reporter at a > concert at his children?s school, he refused to > comment.?I?m not going to say a word to you,? Mr > Emanuel said. ?I?m going to do this with my children. > Don?t do that. I?m a father. I have two kids. I?m not > going to do it.?He was asked: ?Can?t you do both?? > Mr Emanuel replied: ?I?m not as capable as you. I?m > going to be a father. I?m allowed to be a father.?Mr > Emanuel told an ABC News cameraman, whom he invited into his > house to use the toilet yesterday, that he was receiving > ?regular death threats? because his home address had > been put on TV.Jesse Jackson Jr, the Congressman son of the > famed civil rights leader, also faced new questions > yesterday about his quest for Mr Obama?s vacated Senate > seat.A group of ethnic Indian businessmen with ties to Mr > Jackson and Mr Blagojevich reportedly held a lunch on > October 31 and discussed raising $1 million for the > Governor?s campaign to encourage him to pick Mr Jackson as > Senator, the Chicago Tribune said.Raghuveer Nayak, a major > Blagojevich donor who also has ties to the Jackson family, > then co-sponsored a fund-raiser for the Governor on Saturday > attended by Mr Blagojevich and Jesse Jackson Jr?s brother > Jonathan, the newspaper said.Mr Nayak, a leader of > Chicago?s Asian community, owns a string of surgery > clinics and was once involved in a land deal with Jonathan > Jackson.Mr Jackson Jr met Mr Blagojevich at 4pm on Monday to > discuss his interest in the Senate seat. Mr Blagojevich was > arrested at his home at 6am on Tuesday by prosecutors who > said they were trying to thwart a ?political crime > spree?. Jesse Jackson Jr is due to meet prosecutors next > week, but has been told he is not a target of the > investigation.He insisted yesterday that no one had offered > the Governor money for the Senate seat on his > behalf.?People know me. They know who I am. I?m > confident that no one on my behalf made a single offer to > anybody for anything. I would not accept the position if it > were offered under those circumstances,? he said.Mr > Blagojevich, meanwhile, went to work again yesterday without > making any public comment despite the growing clamour for > his resignation. Lisa Madigan, the Illinois > Attorney-General, filed a motion with the state?s highest > court asking the judges to declare the scandal-plagued > Governor unfit to hold office. John Harris, Mr > Blagojevich?s Chief of Staff, who was charged along with > the Governor, last night stepped down from his job, adding > to the pressure on his boss. > _________________________________________________________________ > Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. > http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008_______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From paulj567 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 14 16:06:31 2008 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:06:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostro In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <155224.1302.qm@web53504.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Man you can't even start a good old fashioned flame war anymore Stroube. Sorry, I know my response disrupted your attempt at a late-modern critique of the military industrial complex. --- On Sun, 12/14/08, Old Strega wrote: > From: Old Strega > Subject: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostro > To: edebate at ndtceda.com, "Jay Reed" > Date: Sunday, December 14, 2008, 1:05 PM > i'm so glad we have gotten past all the corruption of > cheney-bush-rove. obama was so damn good on the stump > when he did his "straight talk" routine i believed > him. i didn't even consider for one second that he was > a product of the crookedest political machine in the usa. > didn't cross my mind because i wanted to believe. > chief of staff and head of presidential campaign, those > dudes are too far removed from obama to even possibly > tarnish "straight talk". obama is black saint in > a cesspool of white shit. rezko association, no problem. > jarrett slumlord issue, no problem. rubin ponzi scheme, > hallelujah. i've been addicted to hollywood since > birth, it just comes natural getting absorbed into a story > that romanticizes a gangster without thinking. because > i'm 99% positive obama is nothing like any of the > chicago people that surround him, i'm 100% positive he > didn't forge his birth certificate. will the marion > jones of politics eventually get indicted with the rest of > his cronies? are they all non-chalant and careless > gloating in their victory like rahmbo, the mossad king who > just got busted on wiretap? right now, the sixth black > president appears that he may be worse than the previous > president who was the worst president in US history? > rove's superior ability to cover dubya's tracks > gives dubya the edge over cagliostro who will likely suffer > an indictment with rezko whistling dixie and blago ready to > talk and escape jail. plus, obama fostered rising > expectations concerning "straight talk". he will > crush the hopes of the youth and blacks because they trusted > him. what a deutsche bag. > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5332897.ecePressure > grew on two of Barack Obama?s closest political aides > yesterday as new details emerged of the ?pay-for-play? > allegations against the Governor of his home state.Rahm > Emanuel, the President-elect?s new Chief of Staff, and > Jesse Jackson Jr, the co-chairman of his presidential > campaign, both faced new revelations about their possible > involvement in the scandal.Fox News Chicago reported that Mr > Emanuel, a Chicago politician who won the Illinois > Governor?s former congressional seat, may have been > captured on FBI wire-taps discussing the fate of Mr > Obama?s vacated US Senate seat with Rod Blagojevich.The TV > station said Mr Emanuel had ?multiple conversations? > with the Governor, who is accused of trying to ?sell? > the open Senate seat for a Cabinet post or lucrative top > foundation job. The report said the Governor was given a > list of Senate candidates acceptable to Mr Obama. Because > the FBI was secretly taping Mr Blagojevich in recent weeks, > Mr Emanuel?s conversations may have been recorded, Fox > News Chicago said.RELATED LINKSSpotlight now on the wife of > BlagojevichObama denies link with scandal GovernorA scandal > straight from the SopranosAny recordings of the newly > appointed White House Chief of Staff speaking to Mr > Blagojevich about Mr Obama?s former Senate seat would > prove an acute embarrassment to the incoming Obama > Administration, even if no illegal deals were discussed, and > could even force Mr Emanuel?s resignation. Mr Obama has > promised to release details of any contacts between his > staff and the Governor?s office but told a news conference > on Thursday that he was ?absolutely certain? that none > of his aides was involved in any deal-making.Mr Emanuel > skipped Mr Obama?s press conference, which he typically > attends. Cornered by a Chicago Sun-Times reporter at a > concert at his children?s school, he refused to > comment.?I?m not going to say a word to you,? Mr > Emanuel said. ?I?m going to do this with my children. > Don?t do that. I?m a father. I have two kids. I?m not > going to do it.?He was asked: ?Can?t you do both?? > Mr Emanuel replied: ?I?m not as capable as you. I?m > going to be a father. I?m allowed to be a father.?Mr > Emanuel told an ABC News cameraman, whom he invited into his > house to use the toilet yesterday, that he was receiving > ?regular death threats? because his home address had > been put on TV.Jesse Jackson Jr, the Congressman son of the > famed civil rights leader, also faced new questions > yesterday about his quest for Mr Obama?s vacated Senate > seat.A group of ethnic Indian businessmen with ties to Mr > Jackson and Mr Blagojevich reportedly held a lunch on > October 31 and discussed raising $1 million for the > Governor?s campaign to encourage him to pick Mr Jackson as > Senator, the Chicago Tribune said.Raghuveer Nayak, a major > Blagojevich donor who also has ties to the Jackson family, > then co-sponsored a fund-raiser for the Governor on Saturday > attended by Mr Blagojevich and Jesse Jackson Jr?s brother > Jonathan, the newspaper said.Mr Nayak, a leader of > Chicago?s Asian community, owns a string of surgery > clinics and was once involved in a land deal with Jonathan > Jackson.Mr Jackson Jr met Mr Blagojevich at 4pm on Monday to > discuss his interest in the Senate seat. Mr Blagojevich was > arrested at his home at 6am on Tuesday by prosecutors who > said they were trying to thwart a ?political crime > spree?. Jesse Jackson Jr is due to meet prosecutors next > week, but has been told he is not a target of the > investigation.He insisted yesterday that no one had offered > the Governor money for the Senate seat on his > behalf.?People know me. They know who I am. I?m > confident that no one on my behalf made a single offer to > anybody for anything. I would not accept the position if it > were offered under those circumstances,? he said.Mr > Blagojevich, meanwhile, went to work again yesterday without > making any public comment despite the growing clamour for > his resignation. Lisa Madigan, the Illinois > Attorney-General, filed a motion with the state?s highest > court asking the judges to declare the scandal-plagued > Governor unfit to hold office. John Harris, Mr > Blagojevich?s Chief of Staff, who was charged along with > the Governor, last night stepped down from his job, adding > to the pressure on his boss. > _________________________________________________________________ > Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. > http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008_______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jaipaulrekhi at gmail.com Sun Dec 14 18:15:57 2008 From: jaipaulrekhi at gmail.com (Jaipaul Rekhi) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:15:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] 2 Rounds of Judging Available for Fullerton Message-ID: Let me know if you need them, Jaipaul Rekhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081214/c13e9f25/attachment.htm From jlachew1 at jhu.edu Sun Dec 14 20:21:30 2008 From: jlachew1 at jhu.edu (Joshua Lachewitz) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:21:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Blood Quantum Task Force Message-ID: <6f0fe8d30812141821i1e3d304bs2f5c21e190445f6a@mail.gmail.com> Hello all, I am trying to jump start an initiative that would help make productive changes to the manner in which Washington recognizes and confers benefits to Native Americans. This is an ongoing project that began as an assignment for a course I took here at Hopkins (Genocide as a Philosophical Problem). The motivation for the project came from a rather unsettling realization I had when reflecting on the blood quantum v. self-identification debate: some time in the future, a genocide scholar may remark that either rigid blood quantum levels or self-identification was the last tool used in the Native American genocide. (From my research, it appears that blood quantum puts culture at risk due to diminishing tribal membership, while self-identification allows for the possibility of a growing membership with little historical or cultural connection to the tribe.) While I have no idea whether or not I am posting on this the right way, I am hoping that anyone that feels so inclined will get back to me with files, sources, articles, etc. If you are interested in contributing a bit of time to the initiative, either email/GChat me (jlachew1 at jhu.edu or vaporizen at gmail.com) or check out my facebook group (Blood Quantum Task Force -- http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38845886307). Thanks, Joshua Lachewitz From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Dec 14 20:46:35 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:46:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] First Ever 2nd Vice Presidential Debates Message-ID: <494570AB020000930002191C@mymail.kckcc.edu> Friends, It is with great excitement I announce that for the first time in the collective memory of CEDA, that the candidates vying for the 2nd VP spot have agreed to "debate". Currently 4 of the 5 campaigns have agreed and while still waiting to hear from the 5th candidate, plans are underway for this new CEDA endeavor. I have offered to and am coordinating the effort with the candidates while also agreeing to moderate the debate(s). I am consulting with the candidates and we are working on format(s) and possibilities. As more details become available, I will make them known. In the meantime, you may want to wait to vote until after the candidates have had their say. While all have posted statements, the debates hope to focus on specific content, timelines, initiatives, etc. The ballot will be made available shortly, but over the course of the next month, while the ballot is available, these debates will take place. At one time or another I have had the opportunity to work with all of the candidates. I consider them all colleagues and friends. While they may not agree with each other on certain issues or approaches, and while the individual candidates and I may have disagreed from time to time, I can assure you that all of them have a commitment to debate, to CEDA, and moving us forward. I look forward to this opportunity for all of us! Look for more updates soon! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From rachelschy at gmail.com Sun Dec 14 21:15:01 2008 From: rachelschy at gmail.com (Rachel) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:15:01 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC and Fullerton Rounds available Message-ID: Email me if you need any. Rachel rachelschy at gmail dot com -- Got a little bit of soul, Got a little bit of rock n roll in my bones -Tea Leaf Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081214/337abf5d/attachment.htm From rachelschy at gmail.com Sun Dec 14 21:18:49 2008 From: rachelschy at gmail.com (Rachel) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:18:49 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC and Fullerton rounds available Message-ID: Email me if you need to hire for any. rachelschy at gmail dot com -- Got a little bit of soul, Got a little bit of rock n roll in my bones -Tea Leaf Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081214/ea8bb87c/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Dec 15 00:15:04 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:15:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostro In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: please, the thomas spin machine is dodging the issues:1) obama said noone in his camp talked to blagojevich about the senate seat. rambo did. not being the target of the investigation is not precluding the possibility of rahmbo's resignation and a credibility crisis for obama who misspoke like axelrod on chicago fox news. "embarrassment...even if no illegal deals were discussed, and could even force Mr. Emanuel's resignation". sorry but obama is a little too close to blagojevich for maintaining credibility on reinvigorating government. he was blagojevich's 2000 advisor for chrissakes and endorsed his candidacy numerous times back when he was just as crooked as he is tody. obama is run of the mill corruption. emanuel is still in a heap of shit and you have no answer.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5332897.ecePressure Any recordings of the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff speaking to Mr Blagojevich about Mr Obama?s former Senate seat would prove an acute embarrassment to the incoming Obama Administration, even if no illegal deals were discussed, and could even force Mr Emanuel?s resignation. Mr Obama has promised to release details of any contacts between his staff and the Governor?s office but told a news conference on Thursday that he was ?absolutely certain? that none of his aides was involved in any deal-making.Mr Emanuel skipped Mr Obama?s press conference, which he typically attends. Cornered by a Chicago Sun-Times reporter at a concert at his children?s school, he refused to comment.?I?m not going to say a word to you,? Mr Emanuel said. ?I?m going to do this with my children. Don?t do that. I?m a father. I have two kids. I?m not going to do it.?He was asked: ?Can?t you do both?? Mr Emanuel replied: ?I?m not as capable as you. I?m going to be a father. I?m allowed to be a father.?Mr Emanuel told an ABC News cameraman, whom he invited into his house to use the toilet yesterday, that he was receiving ?regular death threats? because his home address had been put on TV.2) faking opposition to corruption is the best disguise for making new corruption. the bush administration is basically done. the old corruption is over. time to focus on the new corruption and refuse to accept the cover of "straight talk" which was a campaign slogan trick. immanent critique forces the advocates of "straight talk" to walk the walk. you are a simpleton on tyranny. your insinuation that the democrats are inherently anti-tyranny and the republicans pro-tyranny is dangerous. FDR's court packing scheme was an attempted coup. at this point, the promotion of both parties of the executive branch at the expense of the constitution is making tyranny palatable to those susceptible to branding used in advertising tricking you into believing that one party is significantly different than the other. gates is the clark kent of the bush administration in iraq and now he's the superman of the obama administration in iraq. 3) obama is not off the hook. judicial watch asks the pertinent question. the idea that obama walked away from offers to sell his senate seat is not sufficient. obama should have reported the bribe, unless, of course, he's above the laws concerning bribes as you will contend if you dare reply. the moral high ground of refusing to get involved in the bribes is a straw man. http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-statement-blagojevich-arrest-shakes-obama-presidency-its-coreJudicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to the arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich:"There has been an air of lawlessness around Governor Blagojevich for some time and Judicial Watch applauds U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald for his actions."Blagojevich's corruption is no surprise, but its breadth and depravity is shocking. The alleged efforts to sell the Senate seat of Barack Obama are outrageous, but also seem to implicate many other powerful politicians and political players. Especially disturbing are the questions the scandal raises about Barack Obama and his close associates."This is a burgeoning crisis for Obama that should shake his presidency to its core."The criminal complaint filed today indicates that Obama and his team knew about Blagojevich's efforts to sell Obama's Senate seat. ("Tony" Rezko, Obama friend, fundraiser and real estate partner, is once again implicated in the corrupt activities exposed today.)"Did Obama report Blagojevich to investigators about any efforts to sell his Senate seat?"From: pinkballoon at hotmail.comTo: oldstrega at hotmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostroDate: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:01:07 -0500 Actually, Blagojevich was ferreted out by an anti-corruption bill Obama helped to pass. Blagojevich was rushing to get in donations before Obama's law took effect on January 1st, which is why he was so pushy and, thus, legally caught. That Emanuel was voice recorded on the tapes is no surprise: he said as much from the beginning (and was even rumored to be a whistle-blower to the FBI). Regardless, DOJ District Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said neither Emanuel nor Obama were targets in the investigation. If anything, it would be a surprise if the President-elect was *not* talking with the Governor about political strategy involving the best Democratic candidate to run in 2010. Getting death threats (something no one on the right has to deal with... unless they are getting attacked by people even *farther* to the right) is a scary thing; I'd hope you had some sympathy for people facing the violence of a heckler's veto. I guess I wanna know what you want me or others to take from your posts, Old Strega. Are you worried about the Constitution? Survey says no: you are still complaining about Obama after the Supreme Court refused to overturn the will of the people using evidence that was only going to confirm that Obama was a citizen anyway. Are you really worried about corruption? Survey says no: I don't seem to recall Enron, Bush's DOJ scandal, concerns about Halliburton or Blackwater ever bothering you this much--which matters at the very least because there was more than enough "guilt by association" in all those cases to satisfy your current thirst for it. Are you just raining on our parade while some Americans want to retake, rebuild, and reinvigorate their country? Maybe even by reclaiming any of the moral authority it supposedly had? Is it a bad thing for us to want something better for our nation? And to have trusted Obama to get us to something better when most all politicians seemed corrupt or evil? If Obama succeeds will you blame him just as much as you will rain down on him if he fails and our peoples do not prosper? I've read about you in history books, Old Strega. "Sic semper tyrannis," you once yelled. Another time you had a list "of 205... names made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party." More recently I've heard you say "deficits don't matter," finding WMDs in Iraq was a "slam dunk," and more generally that people who "don't love America should leave it." You've always been there to save us from the good civil servants who might have done us well, just in case your one-in-a-million conspiracy theory was right that they would not have worked out. Here's a challenge--I expect it will be *really* tough. Can you tell me (or us) something *good* we should do for our country that is at once free of blame for others, free of any hint that other human beings are corrupt, but still significant enough that one would not be able to say of such a deed that it was "guilty by association" with such and such weak link so that it clearly represents a threat to or a corruption of America? Please don't give me a sarcastic answer--I really want to know what you think our best course is right now (aside from killing all the lawyers). Nicholas A. Thomas, PhD Rhetoric(formerly a Policy Assistant Coach at CSU, Long Beach)Department of Communication Arts & SciencesPennsylvania State Universitynat129 at psu.edu From: Old Strega Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 2:05 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com ; Jay Reed Subject: [eDebate] nice start: chicago machine already crippling cagliostro i'm so glad we have gotten past all the corruption of cheney-bush-rove. obama was so damn good on the stump when he did his "straight talk" routine i believed him. i didn't even consider for one second that he was a product of the crookedest political machine in the usa. didn't cross my mind because i wanted to believe. chief of staff and head of presidential campaign, those dudes are too far removed from obama to even possibly tarnish "straight talk". obama is black saint in a cesspool of white shit. rezko association, no problem. jarrett slumlord issue, no problem. rubin ponzi scheme, hallelujah. i've been addicted to hollywood since birth, it just comes natural getting absorbed into a story that romanticizes a gangster without thinking. because i'm 99% positive obama is nothing like any of the chicago people that surround him, i'm 100% positive he didn't forge his birth certificate. will the marion jones of politics eventually get indicted with the rest of his cronies? are they all non-chalant and careless gloating in their victory like rahmbo, the mossad king who just got busted on wiretap? right now, the sixth black president appears that he may be worse than the previous president who was the worst president in US history? rove's superior ability to cover dubya's tracks gives dubya the edge over cagliostro who will likely suffer an indictment with rezko whistling dixie and blago ready to talk and escape jail. plus, obama fostered rising expectations concerning "straight talk". he will crush the hopes of the youth and blacks because they trusted him. what a deutsche bag. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5332897.ece Pressure grew on two of Barack Obama?s closest political aides yesterday as new details emerged of the ?pay-for-play? allegations against the Governor of his home state. Rahm Emanuel, the President-elect?s new Chief of Staff, and Jesse Jackson Jr, the co-chairman of his presidential campaign, both faced new revelations about their possible involvement in the scandal. Fox News Chicago reported that Mr Emanuel, a Chicago politician who won the Illinois Governor?s former congressional seat, may have been captured on FBI wire-taps discussing the fate of Mr Obama?s vacated US Senate seat with Rod Blagojevich. The TV station said Mr Emanuel had ?multiple conversations? with the Governor, who is accused of trying to ?sell? the open Senate seat for a Cabinet post or lucrative top foundation job. The report said the Governor was given a list of Senate candidates acceptable to Mr Obama. Because the FBI was secretly taping Mr Blagojevich in recent weeks, Mr Emanuel?s conversations may have been recorded, Fox News Chicago said. RELATED LINKS Spotlight now on the wife of Blagojevich Obama denies link with scandal Governor A scandal straight from the Sopranos Any recordings of the newly appointed White House Chief of Staff speaking to Mr Blagojevich about Mr Obama?s former Senate seat would prove an acute embarrassment to the incoming Obama Administration, even if no illegal deals were discussed, and could even force Mr Emanuel?s resignation. Mr Obama has promised to release details of any contacts between his staff and the Governor?s office but told a news conference on Thursday that he was ?absolutely certain? that none of his aides was involved in any deal-making. Mr Emanuel skipped Mr Obama?s press conference, which he typically attends. Cornered by a Chicago Sun-Times reporter at a concert at his children?s school, he refused to comment. ?I?m not going to say a word to you,? Mr Emanuel said. ?I?m going to do this with my children. Don?t do that. I?m a father. I have two kids. I?m not going to do it.? He was asked: ?Can?t you do both?? Mr Emanuel replied: ?I?m not as capable as you. I?m going to be a father. I?m allowed to be a father.? Mr Emanuel told an ABC News cameraman, whom he invited into his house to use the toilet yesterday, that he was receiving ?regular death threats? because his home address had been put on TV. Jesse Jackson Jr, the Congressman son of the famed civil rights leader, also faced new questions yesterday about his quest for Mr Obama?s vacated Senate seat. A group of ethnic Indian businessmen with ties to Mr Jackson and Mr Blagojevich reportedly held a lunch on October 31 and discussed raising $1 million for the Governor?s campaign to encourage him to pick Mr Jackson as Senator, the Chicago Tribune said. Raghuveer Nayak, a major Blagojevich donor who also has ties to the Jackson family, then co-sponsored a fund-raiser for the Governor on Saturday attended by Mr Blagojevich and Jesse Jackson Jr?s brother Jonathan, the newspaper said. Mr Nayak, a leader of Chicago?s Asian community, owns a string of surgery clinics and was once involved in a land deal with Jonathan Jackson. Mr Jackson Jr met Mr Blagojevich at 4pm on Monday to discuss his interest in the Senate seat. Mr Blagojevich was arrested at his home at 6am on Tuesday by prosecutors who said they were trying to thwart a ?political crime spree?. Jesse Jackson Jr is due to meet prosecutors next week, but has been told he is not a target of the investigation. He insisted yesterday that no one had offered the Governor money for the Senate seat on his behalf. ?People know me. They know who I am. I?m confident that no one on my behalf made a single offer to anybody for anything. I would not accept the position if it were offered under those circumstances,? he said. Mr Blagojevich, meanwhile, went to work again yesterday without making any public comment despite the growing clamour for his resignation. Lisa Madigan, the Illinois Attorney-General, filed a motion with the state?s highest court asking the judges to declare the scandal-plagued Governor unfit to hold office. John Harris, Mr Blagojevich?s Chief of Staff, who was charged along with the Governor, last night stepped down from his job, adding to the pressure on his boss. Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. Get your Hotmail? account. _______________________________________________eDebate mailing listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Suspicious message? There?s an alert for that. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad2_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081215/09e06838/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Dec 15 00:37:51 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:37:51 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ndt ranking report draft now posted Message-ID: please doublecheck it and report any errors to me at hansonjb at whitman.edu BY THURSDAY, DEC. 18, 9PM http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From sailorferrets at gmail.com Mon Dec 15 12:53:42 2008 From: sailorferrets at gmail.com (joe leeson-schatz) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:53:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rounds for hire at USC/Fullerton Message-ID: If anyone still needs to hire rounds at either USC or Fullerton let me know, I have someone who's interested in being hired and has transportation and housing covered. joe leeson-schatz director of debate at binghamton university campaigns coordinator of the binghamton/vestal vegan association From repkowil at msu.edu Mon Dec 15 14:09:48 2008 From: repkowil at msu.edu (William J Repko) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:09:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Frosh-Soph Nationals Invite Message-ID: 1. The invite is below. Informal discussions have indicated that our #'s will grow. Please join us in East Lansing. 2. Direct questions to Greta -- greta.stahl at gmail.com ---------------------------- Freshmen/Sophomore Nationals at Michigan State March 7-9, 2009 The MSU Debate team cordially invites you to attend the Freshmen/Sophomore Nationals at Michigan State. We are glad to host this in East Lansing for the second time, and hope that turnout will be as good ? or even better ? as last year. Based on feedback from previous participants, we have decided to keep the expanded entry pool that allows entry from students in both their first AND second year of college competition. This was the model that we used last year, and given our desire to keep entry numbers fairly high, we have decided to continue using this standard. The entry criteria are based not on students? academic standing, but on their number of years in college debate ? e.g., if a student is a junior, but is only in their first or second year of college competition, they may enter the tournament. Below you will find all the relevant information. Entries can be made via debateresults.com Lodging: The tournament will be hosted at the Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center on the MSU campus. They have guaranteed us a rate of $94 per night (+ tax). This includes the use of wireless internet. Parking is $5/night. Rooms are reserved under ?MSU Debate Team.? Reservations can be made until February 4th. We guestimated the amount of rooms we would need given information from last year. If you find the block to be full, please contact us and we will try and find some more rooms. Travel: We use a variety of different airports to travel to Lansing ? Lansing airport ? 15 minutes away from the campus, very convenient Flint airport ? 45 minutes away from the campus, small and convenient, serves Airtran airlines often at discounted rates Grand Rapids airport ? 1 hour away from the campus, small and convenient Detroit metro airport ? About 1 hr and 20 minutes away, definitely the least convenient option but frequently the cheapest since it serves most airlines, including Southwest Fees: Entry fees will be $50 per team plus $30 per person in attendance (debaters, judges, coaches, etc.). This will include the cost of breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, and dinner on Sunday. So, for example, if you were to bring 1 team and 1 judge (3 people), your bill would be $140 ($50 + (3 x $30)) Judge Preference: Judge preference categories will be determined based on the size of the pool. As we did last year, strike cards will be available at registration. Elimination Debates: We will clear to a partial octofinal (to be held on Sunday night) to accommodate all teams with a 4-3 or better record (up to the point where we reach a full octofinal). Preliminary Schedule: Friday, March 6th: Registration in the evening Saturday, March 7th: 8:00 Round 1 10:30 Round 2 1:00 Lunch 2:00 Round 3 5:00 Round 4 Sunday, March 8th: 8:00 Round 5 11:30 Round 6 (This will not be lag paired as we only have 7 rounds) 2:00 Lunch 3:00 Round 7 6:30 Partial octofinal 9:00 Banquet Monday, March 9th: 8:00 Quarterfinals 12:00 Semifinals 4:00 Finals From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Dec 15 15:06:47 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:06:47 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by CSU Sacramento Message-ID: <88F584788F934FCB95E828F097AF4129@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Western Novice & JV Nationals Starts:3/6/2009 Ends:3/8/2009 Hosted by: CSU Sacramento Contact: Kristen Hamilton Address: 6000 J Street, Sacramento Phone: 916.278.5489 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice Policy with 6 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 jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Dec 15 17:09:10 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:09:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Miami Ohio - $s for judging Message-ID: The University of Michigan needs judging for the Miami Ohio tournament in early January. We will pay someone in the Oxford area well per round. If you are in the Detroit area and interested we probably can get you there, provide lodging, some food, and a per round fee. Please feel free to contact me at jbhdb8 at umich.edu Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081215/bba1d857/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Dec 15 18:40:59 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:40:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] list of colleges--with contact and team info Message-ID: hi all check your school's information at: http://www.wcdebate.com/7others/list-of-policy-colleges.htm need to have the information updated? provided? have the director or an assistant coach contact me with: --first and last names of coaches --team web page address --information about the team --information about debate scholarships jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Dec 15 20:26:50 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:26:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] rambo feeling pressure to resign Message-ID: "straight talk" in action. the best part of the article is down below where baxter mentions that rezko maybe talking about the obama land deal. the chicago corruption scandal may spiral out of control. "Ominously for Obama, Antoin ?Tony? Rezko...has also been talking to investigators in an attempt to reduce a prison sentence following his conviction for fraud and bribery"...http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5337807.eceTHE bullish, foul-mouthed but effective Chicago arm-twister Rahm Emanuel has come under pressure to resign as Barack Obama?s chief of staff after it was revealed that he had been captured on court-approved wire-taps discussing the names of candidates for Obama?s Senate seat.Emanuel?s presence at the heart of the scandal threatens to roil the president-elect?s administration as a Chicago prosecutor builds his corruption case against Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor.Blagojevich has been accused of plotting to sell Obama?s Senate seat - which is in the governor?s gift - in return for financial and political favours.Republicans are salivating at the prospect of tying the president-elect to the notoriously corrupt Chicago machine in which he forged his career. Grover Norquist, an influential conservative tax reform lobbyist, said: ?If Obama wants to be squeaky clean, he is going to have to cut all his Chicago friends loose. His chief of staff has fingerprints on the murder weapon.?Emanuel ducked out of view last week, avoiding reporters? questions and complaining of harassment and ?death threats? as the news spread that he was the likely unnamed adviser cited by the FBI with whom the tainted Blagojevich hoped to bargain over the appointment.For the ?No Drama? Obama team, the spiralling controversy has been an alarming distraction in the midst of the US economic meltdown. Obama has yet to release a promised timeline of contacts between members of his transition team and the governor's office, while Emanuel is thought to be consulting lawyers.Ed Rendell, the outspoken governor of Pennsylvania, said the Obama team was bungling its response. ?The rule of thumb is: whatever you did, say it and get it over with and make it a one-day story as opposed to a three-day story,? he said.Private telephone discussions between Emanuel and John Harris, Blagojevich?s chief of staff, began as early as the weekend before the November 4 election, the Chicago Tribune revealed yesterday. Emanuel let it be known that Valerie Jarrett, an Obama adviser, Tammy Duckworth, a wounded Iraq war veteran, and two other candidates would be ?acceptable? to Obama.Emanuel had further talks with the governor?s office after the election, during which he added another name to the list. It does not appear that Emanuel engaged in any illegal horse-trading - Blagojevich complained at one stage that all the president-elect?s team was offering was ?appreciation?. ?F*** them,? the governor said.Jarrett, Obama?s first choice as senator, was swiftly named a senior White House adviser to Obama after Blagojevich complained, according to FBI transcripts, that he was not going to ?give f******? Jarrett the f****** Senate seat and I don?t get anything?.However, questions remain over what Emanuel said when and how much he know about the governor?s ?pay to play? scheme. He may have been fully aware of what Blagojevich was attempting. At one stage the governor told an aide that he wanted an unnamed ?president-elect adviser?, thought to be Emanuel, to help ?raise 10, 15m? for a charitable group, which the governor could head.Did Emanuel receive the news, and if so, how? Did he report his suspicion of illegal activity to the FBI or did he treat it just as a normal part of wheeler-dealing in the corrupt Windy City? And did he use the same four-letter language to discuss the succession in the same crude terms as Blagojevich?Obama once joked at a charity ?roast? that the notoriously crude Emanuel - who was elected to Congress in Blagojevich?s old seat - was rendered ?practically mute? when he lost his middle finger in an accident.?When you are Rahm Emanuel and you use the f-word all the time, it is supposed to be cute and amusing,? Norquist said. ?When the governor of Illinois gets caught, people say, ?Oh, he?s crazy?, and the proof that he is crazy is that he talks like Rahm Emanuel.?Obama faces a stark choice. Emanuel was his first apppointment as his chief of staff after the election. If he were to throw him out of the inner circle now with his reputation under siege, it would be a singular act of disloyalty before the transition team has even had a chance to take office.Emanuel has not yet resigned as a member of the House of Representatives for Illinois, although he has pledged to do so. Obama had to work hard to persuade Emanuel, who had his own independent power base in Congress and a semblance of normal family life with his young children, to join him in the most intensive, high-pressure job in the White House.However, the scandal is lapping at Obama?s own ankles. Blagojevich is a product of the entrenched graft and corruption that have characterised Chicago?s style of government since the days of Al Capone, the prohibition-era gangster.He is being investigated by Patrick Fitzgerald, 47, a fearless prosecutor who brought down Scooter Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney?s neoconservative adviser, and Conrad Black, the media baron.Fitzgerald is a much-resented figure among Obama?s advisers. David Axelrod, the Chicago mastermind behind Obama?s campaign, once complained: ?He goes after fleas and elephants with the same bazooka. At some point there is a line . . . where you begin criminalising politics in its most innocent form.?Obama is himself embroiled in a sub-plot of the scandal with uncomfortable connections to Blagojevich, even though the president-elect said last week that he was ?appalled? by the governor?s actions.As Fitzgerald widens his inquiry across Chicago, witnesses will be lining up to talk ? if only to save their own necks. Harris, who has been accused with his boss of planning to sell the Senate seat, resigned last Friday, prompting speculation that he intends to cooperate with federal investigators.Ominously for Obama, Antoin ?Tony? Rezko, the property dealer and fixer who helped him to buy his $1.65m house in Chicago by purchasing an adjacent plot on the same day, has also been talking to investigators in an attempt to reduce a prison sentence following his conviction for fraud and bribery. Rezko is expected to be a key witness in the corruption case against Blagojevich but he also knows more than anybody about the house purchase and other deals with Obama.When the house came on the market, the seller insisted that both plots were sold at the same time. But while Obama bought his part of the property for $300,000 under the asking price, it has emerged that Rezko?s wife not only paid the asking price for their slice of land ? $625,000 ? but that the extra piece of property may have been deliberately overvalued.A valuer who made an initial lower estimate, only to be overruled, is believed to be giving evidence to Fitzgerald?s team.Rezko also appears to have helped Blagojevich with his domestic affairs. Investigators have been trying to find out whether he charged the governor for $90,000 worth of improvements to the family room and deck of his house.The governor?s wife, Patti Blagojevich, a Lady Macbeth figure who may face charges herself for encouraging her husband to behave corruptly, received $47,000 in commission from a property deal involving Rezko.In a further disturbing connection, Rezko regularly supplied Blagojevich with a ?clout list? of names of people he thought the governor should appoint to state boards and jobs.Obama made use of Rezko?s clout list on at least one occasion, when he recommended that Eric Whitaker, an old Harvard friend and doctor, be hired as director of Illinois?s public health department.Whitaker, Obama said, ?had expressed an interest in that job. He did contact me, or Tony contacted me, and I gave him a glowing recommendation because I thought he was outstanding?.Fitzgerald made it clear that Obama is not a target of investigation. Emanuel is thought to be free from any threat of charges. But that will not be the end of the matter. _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081215/1494570e/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Tue Dec 16 00:43:20 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:43:20 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ndt rankings, draft 2.0 Message-ID: <2C17DD2C64B64DAB9D9E11A67E0251A1@whitman.edu> I've revised the rankings: -liberty points adjusted -cc teams rankings corrected (they were really messed up in 1.0) -top ten lists have points now -ucla's csun points now counted THURSDAY, DEC. 18, 9PM PCT IS THE DEADLINE FOR ANY CORRECTIONS jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Dec 16 10:03:43 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:03:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] fitz renews interest in obama-rezko land deal Message-ID: one card to lure your interest. the rest of the article is great and proves that obama may prove worse than dubya. right now, pre-election, with the scandals spiraling out of control, edge goes to dubya for having the intelligence to have rove cover all the tracks. obama is a worse cheater and in over his head. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83760Kenneth J. Conner told WND he was interviewed by investigators from Fitzgerald's office regarding the purchase of the Obama mansion and the adjacent vacant lot that Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased simultaneously. As WND reported last week, Connor filed a civil complaint in October with the Illinois Circuit Court in Cook County alleging he was fired by Mutual Bank of Harvey, Ill., because he objected to land appraisals submitted on behalf of the Rezkos and the Obamas, with the complicity of the bank.Connor previously confirmed to WND that he told the FBI, months ago, when he initially was fired, that the bank and the Rezkos were engaged in "fraud, bribes or kickbacks, use whatever term you want," to benefit the Obamas.Connor said his lawyer, Glenn R. Gaffney, also has been interviewed by the FBI about the Rezko-Obama deal within the past 10 days. _________________________________________________________________ You live life online. So we put Windows on the web. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081216/5a23074f/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 16 13:49:51 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:49:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] My First campaign ad Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812161149s7ce472c9q4a1fd5ca1a9e3f9d@mail.gmail.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wd8W_2_Ptg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081216/4d4b7170/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Tue Dec 16 14:37:16 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:37:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] My First campaign ad - the response Message-ID: The response ad is coming ... However; note Andy obviously doesn't understand his demographic. The majority of college students live in dorms, or housing with lease limitations. They CAN'T own puppies. Clearly, tournament based puppy solutions are the way to serve the most debaters. Vote for real policy solutions. Vote for Vik. 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/20081216/dd0c0d09/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 16 19:03:50 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:03:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] How well do you really know mike davis Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812161703o55ee420j4bec879876564185@mail.gmail.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTQtiPUjXdg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081216/f485a3af/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Tue Dec 16 19:13:23 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:13:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] How well do you really know mike davis In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0812161703o55ee420j4bec879876564185@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0812161703o55ee420j4bec879876564185@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't understand this one, but I'm sure you young people do. Here's a semi-serious question for all the candidates: It's 3 am, and the phone rings in the CEDA President's residence. It's the New York Times, or the Chronicle of Higher Education, or Rolling Stone, and they're calling to get your comment some awful thing that someone may have done at a CEDA tournament. Why should we as an organization want you to be the one to take that call? --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Ellis To: eDebate Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: [eDebate] How well do you really know mike davis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTQtiPUjXdg _______________________________________________ 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/20081216/fbbf7ab5/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Dec 17 00:04:16 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:04:16 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ndt rankings draft 3.0 Message-ID: <4F93544C9CDC4CB8A00B6C85252BD62D@whitman.edu> fixed for --columbia and new school now are shown as 2 different schools --unlv points adjusted from wake forest --kentucky rr included --johnson county cc points adjusted AGAIN THURSDAY 9PM PACIFIC COAST TIME IS THE LAST CHANCE TO NOTE INACCURACIES. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Dec 17 09:46:41 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:46:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] If you vote for Scott Elliott This Season... Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812170746p11ee529fs927ded08bd28ba78@mail.gmail.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMO3biKkVJw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081217/573c692d/attachment.htm From trond at umich.edu Wed Dec 17 12:10:45 2008 From: trond at umich.edu (Trond Erik Jacobsen) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:10:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] =?utf-8?q?Locating_Mr=2E_Steve_Clemmons=3F?= Message-ID: <01ce546288974ed92d49f0f2d8fedc30@umich.edu> Steve, please contact me ASAP. Anyone with his contact info please forward. Doug? Nick? Anyone? Apologies for the clutter; I tried other methods without success. Trond Jacobsen From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Dec 17 13:54:56 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:54:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Neil's Question Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812171154j229263e9ma9a564350c77e591@mail.gmail.com> Hello, Good question Neil Believe it or not i am conscious of the chilling effect my words can have on discourse on this list and in other places so i held off on answering this question both to give the other candidates a chance to speak, but also to put some thought into what it was Neil was asking. It is the most important question facing the next 2nd vice president and i feel confident that i can answer it. It of course depends on the situation, but my response would be in several parts:1) Gather information-What exactly is the times looking for, what specific information does the reporter want? How can i contact him and when is her deadline(in the first call unless i have already sought the consul of other stakeholders i will not comment) 2)Consult-I will seek advice from the ec, appropriate committees, and non debate experts who my administration will work to bring into the fold(more on that in a second) 3)I will issue a statement that recognizes appropriate responsibility, identifies the problem, and explains the course of action. Yes its formulaic, but it is what the times expects, VIK mentioned in her candidate statement that she had to answer why should a non academic want this job...This is a good question too, and it interacts with neil's in a very interesting way. The answer is that ceda IS NOT an academic institution, many of its stake holders are academics, but it itself is an organization, not wholly private not wholly public, but whatever it is it is not the academy. The New York Times does not operate on an academic schedule and neither should ceda. When hesitating to answer neil's question last night i got to thinking, what if the crisis occured during finals, would any of the candidates with academic jobs be able to put forth the time, focus and energy needed to steer the organization to the other side? If so what would suffer school? debate team? family? This is not to say that people working in universities should not do service for ceda, without their contribution the organization would be nothing, but that perhaps when we talk about change (russel your ad is coming) we need to think differently about who we want leading this organization. My day job does not involve classes grading office hours or faculty plennarys, i have loved all that stuff when i was in academic settings, what it does involve is leverging our non profit statsu to build an organization by finding the resources needed to sustain the vision the director and stake holders have for the organization. Today i am preparing executive level volunteer job descriptions and seeking pro bono accounting assistance to provide our memebers, i will post these to a variety of resources such as idealist.com, volunteer match, the united way, and grassroots.org, later today i will meet with a videographer who is interested in teaching the youth we work with to make effective videos, and when i get back from the break i will have meetings with city officials and educators to try to plan our summer program. None of this involves the sticky question of fundraising yet all of it contributes invaluble services to our organization because it makes services we could never afford available to us through the incentives in tax law. The person who eventualy leads ceda needs to know how to talk to department heads and debaters, but also business leaders, civic leaders, and service providers, they need to have the innovativeness to scrap together a team or an organization through tough times, and they need to have the resourcefulness to fiigure out what ceda can and cant do on its own and what to do when it needs help. I mentioned earlier that i would have a group of volunteers who where not current debate people....yes i would...I would work with ceda members to reach out to alumni who have moved beyond debate and try to get volunteer and pro bono work for the organization. One of the areas that i would focus on would be PR and Marketing. Key Chains are cute, I am CEDA is kinda cool(but a huge timebomb of liability when they get jammed or spoofed), but shouldnt we let people who do this for a living do this work on our behalf? They will do it faster and they will do it better (btw when it comes time to have key chains made i have a series of good programs that will do them for free, or very low charge) and Kathryn's time could be better speant doing what Kathryn does well as a debate leader. When Jarmen made the new ceda page he did an excellent job, learned a cool skill, and maybe got some academic value out of it...maybe...but what if we had submitted an application at grassroots.org and they had done it for free...Jarmen could spend more time coaching, teaching, and thinking about how to guide ceda...but we tend to make our officers do a bunch of different jobs...change may mean we have to focus on our first and second jobs again, but i think that will be better for the community and for all of us... I am rambling, which is kind of why i prefer youtube but i promise one of the groups of volunteers i would recruit if i got this job was a team of editors. Thanks and Russel You are on next... On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:13 PM, NEIL BERCH wrote: > I don't understand this one, but I'm sure you young people do. Here's a > semi-serious question for all the candidates: > It's 3 am, and the phone rings in the CEDA President's residence. It's the > New York Times, or the Chronicle of Higher Education, or Rolling Stone, and > they're calling to get your comment some awful thing that someone may have > done at a CEDA tournament. > > Why should we as an organization want you to be the one to take that call? > --Neil Berch > West Virginia University > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Andy Ellis > *To:* eDebate > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:03 PM > *Subject:* [eDebate] How well do you really know mike davis > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTQtiPUjXdg > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081217/24eaa409/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Wed Dec 17 14:00:42 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:00:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Neil's Question In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0812171154j229263e9ma9a564350c77e591@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0812171154j229263e9ma9a564350c77e591@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks to Andy for a thought-provoking answer. He should also be given a great deal of credit for taking on so directly what may be perceived to be the greatest weakness of his candidacy. We should all be so self-aware!--Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Ellis To: NEIL BERCH Cc: eDebate Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:54 PM Subject: Neil's Question Hello, Good question Neil Believe it or not i am conscious of the chilling effect my words can have on discourse on this list and in other places so i held off on answering this question both to give the other candidates a chance to speak, but also to put some thought into what it was Neil was asking. It is the most important question facing the next 2nd vice president and i feel confident that i can answer it. It of course depends on the situation, but my response would be in several parts:1) Gather information-What exactly is the times looking for, what specific information does the reporter want? How can i contact him and when is her deadline(in the first call unless i have already sought the consul of other stakeholders i will not comment) 2)Consult-I will seek advice from the ec, appropriate committees, and non debate experts who my administration will work to bring into the fold(more on that in a second) 3)I will issue a statement that recognizes appropriate responsibility, identifies the problem, and explains the course of action. Yes its formulaic, but it is what the times expects, VIK mentioned in her candidate statement that she had to answer why should a non academic want this job...This is a good question too, and it interacts with neil's in a very interesting way. The answer is that ceda IS NOT an academic institution, many of its stake holders are academics, but it itself is an organization, not wholly private not wholly public, but whatever it is it is not the academy. The New York Times does not operate on an academic schedule and neither should ceda. When hesitating to answer neil's question last night i got to thinking, what if the crisis occured during finals, would any of the candidates with academic jobs be able to put forth the time, focus and energy needed to steer the organization to the other side? If so what would suffer school? debate team? family? This is not to say that people working in universities should not do service for ceda, without their contribution the organization would be nothing, but that perhaps when we talk about change (russel your ad is coming) we need to think differently about who we want leading this organization. My day job does not involve classes grading office hours or faculty plennarys, i have loved all that stuff when i was in academic settings, what it does involve is leverging our non profit statsu to build an organization by finding the resources needed to sustain the vision the director and stake holders have for the organization. Today i am preparing executive level volunteer job descriptions and seeking pro bono accounting assistance to provide our memebers, i will post these to a variety of resources such as idealist.com, volunteer match, the united way, and grassroots.org, later today i will meet with a videographer who is interested in teaching the youth we work with to make effective videos, and when i get back from the break i will have meetings with city officials and educators to try to plan our summer program. None of this involves the sticky question of fundraising yet all of it contributes invaluble services to our organization because it makes services we could never afford available to us through the incentives in tax law. The person who eventualy leads ceda needs to know how to talk to department heads and debaters, but also business leaders, civic leaders, and service providers, they need to have the innovativeness to scrap together a team or an organization through tough times, and they need to have the resourcefulness to fiigure out what ceda can and cant do on its own and what to do when it needs help. I mentioned earlier that i would have a group of volunteers who where not current debate people....yes i would...I would work with ceda members to reach out to alumni who have moved beyond debate and try to get volunteer and pro bono work for the organization. One of the areas that i would focus on would be PR and Marketing. Key Chains are cute, I am CEDA is kinda cool(but a huge timebomb of liability when they get jammed or spoofed), but shouldnt we let people who do this for a living do this work on our behalf? They will do it faster and they will do it better (btw when it comes time to have key chains made i have a series of good programs that will do them for free, or very low charge) and Kathryn's time could be better speant doing what Kathryn does well as a debate leader. When Jarmen made the new ceda page he did an excellent job, learned a cool skill, and maybe got some academic value out of it...maybe...but what if we had submitted an application at grassroots.org and they had done it for free...Jarmen could spend more time coaching, teaching, and thinking about how to guide ceda...but we tend to make our officers do a bunch of different jobs...change may mean we have to focus on our first and second jobs again, but i think that will be better for the community and for all of us... I am rambling, which is kind of why i prefer youtube but i promise one of the groups of volunteers i would recruit if i got this job was a team of editors. Thanks and Russel You are on next... On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:13 PM, NEIL BERCH > wrote: I don't understand this one, but I'm sure you young people do. Here's a semi-serious question for all the candidates: It's 3 am, and the phone rings in the CEDA President's residence. It's the New York Times, or the Chronicle of Higher Education, or Rolling Stone, and they're calling to get your comment some awful thing that someone may have done at a CEDA tournament. Why should we as an organization want you to be the one to take that call? --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Ellis To: eDebate Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: [eDebate] How well do you really know mike davis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTQtiPUjXdg _______________________________________________ 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/20081217/b68fbab5/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Dec 17 20:01:12 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:01:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] topic--controversy papers Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E8D69D52D7B@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> hi all--happy holiday season. enjoying the debate for ceda admin. Ellis, Russell, Elliot, Keenan, M. Davis...quite the panel! this is just a little reminder to consider writing a controversy paper or helping with an existing one. Gordon Stables, Chair of the Committee, has put together a very useful description of the process: http://www.cedatopic.com/topic_process.html Also (and slightly related), we've had a USFG topic for almost twice as long as Bush has been in office...it's time for a change (even if small). It starts with good controversy papers that lay out the possibilities for diverse phrases and wordings. An option for a wording written in the passive voice, for a wording with a non-USFG agent, for a wording with fewer than about twenty words, or for another type of wording off the beaten path is possible, but it will need to be well-defended in a controversy paper, a wording paper, or both. have fun with it! kevin From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Dec 17 20:04:31 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:04:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Neil's Question In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0812171154j229263e9ma9a564350c77e591@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9a7f6f740812171804w107b17e6sf71f01fb84455771@mail.gmail.com> While I am sure that this issue will be dealt with at much greater length in the debates that Chief is helping organize, I'll give my brief response: 1. I have excellent institutional support. When unfavorable articles comes out or CEDA has to deal with difficult issues I never worry that my debate team might be in trouble. This allows me the institutional freedom to response in a way that I think is best for CEDA without having to worry about the future of my program or my own career. 2. I have dealt with these types of issues before. I do PR for debate every day. Part of the reason I don't worry about the future of my program is because I work (along with Pete Bsumek) to make sure that our university has favorable opinion of debate. Something I have done well and will continue to do so even if not elected. 3. The reason I have never run for this office before is because I was never in a position that would have allowed me the freedom to respond when CEDA would need me. I am in a good place now with a full time assistant, a work study student, a departmental assistant and plenty of release time to do debate related work. I'm not nearly as busy even during my busiest time of the year as most people are and my time is always more flexible. 4. I've dealt with CEDA related PR for years. I have served as a regional rep for 9 years and have only missed a single CEDA summer meeting since 1994. I have served on countless committees and know the way CEDA works from being on the ground floor every time these decisions are being made. Some may see this as a negative (because CEDA bashing is an extremely popular pastime) , but I think considering the diverse constituency we serve CEDA has done a fairy good job balancing a diverse set of interests. I am looking forward to the VP debates that Chief is organizing. I think the discussion of these issues is critical to the future of our organization. Mike On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:00 PM, NEIL BERCH wrote: > Thanks to Andy for a thought-provoking answer. He should also be given a > great deal of credit for taking on so directly what may be perceived to be > the greatest weakness of his candidacy. We should all be so > self-aware!--Neil > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andy Ellis > To: NEIL BERCH > Cc: eDebate > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:54 PM > Subject: Neil's Question > Hello, > > Good question Neil > > Believe it or not i am conscious of the chilling effect my words can have on > discourse on this list and in other places so i held off on answering this > question both to give the other candidates a chance to speak, but also to > put some thought into what it was Neil was asking. > > It is the most important question facing the next 2nd vice president and i > feel confident that i can answer it. It of course depends on the situation, > but my response would be in several parts:1) Gather information-What exactly > is the times looking for, what specific information does the reporter want? > How can i contact him and when is her deadline(in the first call unless i > have already sought the consul of other stakeholders i will not comment) > 2)Consult-I will seek advice from the ec, appropriate committees, and non > debate experts who my administration will work to bring into the fold(more > on that in a second) 3)I will issue a statement that recognizes appropriate > responsibility, identifies the problem, and explains the course of action. > > Yes its formulaic, but it is what the times expects, VIK mentioned in her > candidate statement that she had to answer why should a non academic want > this job...This is a good question too, and it interacts with neil's in a > very interesting way. The answer is that ceda IS NOT an academic > institution, many of its stake holders are academics, but it itself is an > organization, not wholly private not wholly public, but whatever it is it is > not the academy. The New York Times does not operate on an academic schedule > and neither should ceda. When hesitating to answer neil's question last > night i got to thinking, what if the crisis occured during finals, would any > of the candidates with academic jobs be able to put forth the time, focus > and energy needed to steer the organization to the other side? If so what > would suffer school? debate team? family? > > This is not to say that people working in universities should not do service > for ceda, without their contribution the organization would be nothing, but > that perhaps when we talk about change (russel your ad is coming) we need to > think differently about who we want leading this organization. > > My day job does not involve classes grading office hours or faculty > plennarys, i have loved all that stuff when i was in academic settings, what > it does involve is leverging our non profit statsu to build an organization > by finding the resources needed to sustain the vision the director and stake > holders have for the organization. Today i am preparing executive level > volunteer job descriptions and seeking pro bono accounting assistance to > provide our memebers, i will post these to a variety of resources such as > idealist.com, volunteer match, the united way, and grassroots.org, later > today i will meet with a videographer who is interested in teaching the > youth we work with to make effective videos, and when i get back from the > break i will have meetings with city officials and educators to try to plan > our summer program. None of this involves the sticky question of fundraising > yet all of it contributes invaluble services to our organization because it > makes services we could never afford available to us through the incentives > in tax law. The person who eventualy leads ceda needs to know how to talk to > department heads and debaters, but also business leaders, civic leaders, and > service providers, they need to have the innovativeness to scrap together a > team or an organization through tough times, and they need to have the > resourcefulness to fiigure out what ceda can and cant do on its own and what > to do when it needs help. > > I mentioned earlier that i would have a group of volunteers who where not > current debate people....yes i would...I would work with ceda members to > reach out to alumni who have moved beyond debate and try to get volunteer > and pro bono work for the organization. One of the areas that i would focus > on would be PR and Marketing. Key Chains are cute, I am CEDA is kinda > cool(but a huge timebomb of liability when they get jammed or spoofed), but > shouldnt we let people who do this for a living do this work on our behalf? > They will do it faster and they will do it better (btw when it comes time to > have key chains made i have a series of good programs that will do them for > free, or very low charge) and Kathryn's time could be better speant doing > what Kathryn does well as a debate leader. > > When Jarmen made the new ceda page he did an excellent job, learned a cool > skill, and maybe got some academic value out of it...maybe...but what if we > had submitted an application at grassroots.org and they had done it for > free...Jarmen could spend more time coaching, teaching, and thinking about > how to guide ceda...but we tend to make our officers do a bunch of different > jobs...change may mean we have to focus on our first and second jobs again, > but i think that will be better for the community and for all of us... > > I am rambling, which is kind of why i prefer youtube but i promise one of > the groups of volunteers i would recruit if i got this job was a team of > editors. > > Thanks and Russel You are on next... > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:13 PM, NEIL BERCH wrote: >> >> I don't understand this one, but I'm sure you young people do. Here's a >> semi-serious question for all the candidates: >> It's 3 am, and the phone rings in the CEDA President's residence. It's >> the New York Times, or the Chronicle of Higher Education, or Rolling Stone, >> and they're calling to get your comment some awful thing that someone may >> have done at a CEDA tournament. >> >> Why should we as an organization want you to be the one to take that call? >> --Neil Berch >> West Virginia University >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Andy Ellis >> To: eDebate >> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 8:03 PM >> Subject: [eDebate] How well do you really know mike davis >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTQtiPUjXdg >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 snarkyclarkykitteh at gmail.com Wed Dec 17 23:43:23 2008 From: snarkyclarkykitteh at gmail.com (Snarky Clarky Kitteh) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:43:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The Video Andy Ellis Doesn't Want You to See Message-ID: <8d6c8e340812172143x7511f22dyf16612624b5862f0@mail.gmail.com> Greetings Debaters, In response to the recent campaign video by Andy Ellis (and its invitation for more videos in debate politics), I have produced this commentary on both Andy's use of video and the campaigns for 2nd VP. It is my hope that you will watch it and gain some new perspectives of our electoral process. You can find my video here: http://www.dailymotion.com/allroy63/video/x7r8ke_no-more-puppies_school Enjoy, Clark Kitteh P.S. The first person to rickroll this conversation should be banned from edebate for life. P.S.S. If you don't know what a rickroll is, you are probably Neil Berch. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081218/37fdda63/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Thu Dec 18 00:15:22 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:15:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Neil's Question Message-ID: In the spirit of recognizing our biggest weaknesses, I'll be brief as well: As I mentioned in my candidate statement, my current position at NYU offers me a great deal of scheduling flexibility to be responsive as a national representative for CEDA while still being grounded within a supportive university administration. This gives me not only the ability to prioritize CEDA as necessary, but also to easily seek feedback from a variety of higher ed perspectives regarding ongoing press issues to identify the response that best serves our community. I also enjoy unique support from both my day job and my debate employment regarding not only my involvement in CEDA, but also my independence to pursue what is best for collegiate debate in that role. I do not think the approach that Andy describes - identify goals, gather information, establish deadlines, consult, formulate a course of action - is unique to any of us as candidates. I think it is the logical approach when confronted with issuing a public statement related to CEDA as a national officer. However; I think the real heart of Neil's question is that, when caught on the spot, when an immediate response is needed, whose impulse will be to think before speaking and whose thoughts will best represent our activity? I feel I have a reasonable reputation for being a moderate voice when there are issues of contention and recognizing that debate IS a big tent (and only occasionaly a three-ring-circus). I understand the value of taking a breath before speaking (or typing) and verifying the facts I will base an opinion on. I am no where near perfect on this, but I recognize the distinction of speaking as myself versus speaking as a representative of a larger body, and I am able to recognize when things such as tact and diplomacy serve a purpose, when coalition building is needed instead of divisiveness, and when it is time to pick a battle and defend our ground. I spend almost every day of my job at NYU discussing why debate is not just good, but necessary; frequently on the spot, and in different ways to different audiences. Finally, when time allows for consulting others to reach a consensus for how to continue, I am conscientious of finding ALL of the voices important to the discussion. Essentially, eight years of taking attendance means I am acutely aware of what voices I am NOT hearing (i.e.: edebate does not equal a majority, backchannels and phone calls aren't hard, timezones are realities), and I am willing to take the initiative to both inform relevant parties of key issues and to gather those voices necessary to make informed decisions moving forward. Finally, my insomnia makes me more likely to be conscious and coherent at 3AM, and year's of teaching high school and coaching the Coalition have programmed me to be alert and attentive if the phone rings and I am woken in case of emergency. -VIK 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/20081218/fc040bc1/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Thu Dec 18 00:49:10 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:49:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] topic--controversy papers Message-ID: on this note: At NCA I volunteered to work on an immigration based controversy paper, probably with a labor policy focus. The scholarship program I run at NYU is a debate based competition, and I'm using this year's topic of immigration reform as a bit of a lab for the paper. The resolution I'm working with for the competition is actually bidirectional (specifically broad), and the students involved represent all levels and types of debate experience. If you're interested in working on this with me and we haven't spoken about it, or if you have specific ideas or sources that would be helpful, please let me know. I'll also send out reminders after the NYU preliminary competition based on the argument evolution from the students involved and the faculty feedback. On Kevin's specific topic suggestion - if anyone is interested in writing a UN actor based paper, I'd be happy to discuss my experiences with it as a year long topic in the same competition (mostly positive - we kept an advantage area focus of peacekeeping/building and a funding mechanism of UN taxation, ie Tobin tax). The resources from that topic are still easily available for a research overview and I have videos of various (public) debates from the competition. It's basically a starting point - the counterplan scenarios are there, the K links are pretty solid, and there's case debate potential if we limited the area of the topic. I assume the rewrite of Russia has begun .... (or maybe could begin with a Moscow based actor option?) -VIK 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/20081218/f3fd2a79/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Thu Dec 18 01:46:53 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:46:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] topic-controversy papers - CEDA Website Forums Message-ID: Since the conversation has begun ... I started a forum topic on the CEDA website. http://cedadebate.org (Yes, I know, a topic on topics ... let the self referentialness begin) As the CEDA Website is updated, it is my understanding that the current topic blog will be moved there eventually. In the meantime, it seems like the Forums are a good place to concentrate the discussion as interests in controversy areas for the next year emerge. I posted a quick summary of Kuswa's original post and my response. (yes, I know it's only 2:45 AM) -VIK 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/20081218/3d5b5404/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Thu Dec 18 06:03:26 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:03:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Ballot Message-ID: Hello Everyone: The Winter 2008 ballot is now open. Vote online at http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=vote_here You must register at the CEDA site in order to vote. Almost all coaches/director have registered, but if you need a password to register, please let me know. There are several items requiring a vote: 1. CEDA 2nd VP: Mike Davis, Scott Elliott, Andy Ellis, Vik Keenan, and Jason Russell. 2. Topic committee: Dave Arnett, Scott Elliott, Jason Russell, Jake Thompson 3. Amendment: Professional conduct amendment (text available at http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=node/239) 4. Regional reps: Northwest, Southeast, Southeast Central, Mid America, East Central, West. All ballots are due no later than midnight, Saturday, January 17. You will receive an email confirmation after your vote is received. Jeff From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Dec 18 10:25:35 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:25:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The Video Andy Ellis Doesn't Want You to See In-Reply-To: <8d6c8e340812172143x7511f22dyf16612624b5862f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <8d6c8e340812172143x7511f22dyf16612624b5862f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812180825w25be1c61t5b198d3ba6134a9@mail.gmail.com> Haha What can i say, there are many things i have tried that i am um not so good at, and others are clearly better at, one thing about living your life (at least in the debate community) for everyone to see is its hard to be embarrassed by others more than i am by myself, i am a very self critical person and have laughed (probably with the producer of this video) at my self many times. We could spend this whole election dragging up edebate and youtube posts from my past, and at the end of the day it might remind you of that particular time that i said something insensitive or out of place or just plaine rude, but att the end of the day it will do nothing but remind you of what you think you already know, kinda meh to me... what i am interested in is how we go forward, how we use our existing resources more effectivly to fufill our mission,how to use that success to secure more resources and benefits for member institutions and how to promote and grow intercolleggiate debate around the country. I am looking forward to the debates coming up, and looking forward to more people joining youtube debates On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Snarky Clarky Kitteh < snarkyclarkykitteh at gmail.com> wrote: > Greetings Debaters, > > In response to the recent campaign video by Andy Ellis (and its invitation > for more videos in debate politics), I have produced this commentary on both > Andy's use of video and the campaigns for 2nd VP. > > > It is my hope that you will watch it and gain some new perspectives of our > electoral process. > > > You can find my video here: > http://www.dailymotion.com/allroy63/video/x7r8ke_no-more-puppies_school > > Enjoy, > > Clark Kitteh > > P.S. The first person to rickroll this conversation should be banned from > edebate for life. > > P.S.S. If you don't know what a rickroll is, you are probably Neil Berch. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081218/03973e30/attachment.htm From bk2nocal at gmail.com Thu Dec 18 11:41:50 2008 From: bk2nocal at gmail.com (Sue Peterson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:41:50 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Information/Encouragement for Data Collection/Research at CEDA Nationals 2009 Message-ID: <417507f50812180941u6281b413t3ae03b59d38cc2b6@mail.gmail.com> Hello all! I am writing to encourage those doing research that requires data collection, especially that related to debate and/or forensics, to consider submitting proposals for doing that collection at the 2009 CEDA Nationals at Idaho State University. The campus would like anyone who plans on doing data collection to submit a letter notifying them of the project (a simple cover letter should do) and a copy of your campus' human subjects approval. There is no additional approval needed from ISU, just notification of the plan to conduct the study during CEDA Nationals and your own campus' approval. The address to submit letters to is: Human Subjects Committee Idaho State University Mail Stop 8130 Pocatello ID 83209-8130 For additional information, the contact in ISU's Human Subjects office is Pat Hunt, huntpatr at isu.edu. I would like to coordinate research at CEDA Nationals to make it as successful as possible, so please let me know when you submit the letter and approval to ISU and provide me with the cover letter describing your project as well. CEDA Nationals is a great opportunity to get good response numbers and it has gone underutilized lately. I hope we can reinvigorate interest in using this opportunity to its fullest each year. Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks, Sue Peterson, Director of Speech and Debate at CSU Chico sepeterson at csuchico.edu 530-898-4771 "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081218/fa03bed8/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Dec 18 13:05:20 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:05:20 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] statements from the topic committee candidates? Message-ID: <49B5B6A2FEE04BE288F63ACBEC309E66@hansonjbPC> dave? scott? jason? jake? thoughts on current wordings in resolutions? thoughts on balancing aff/neg ground in crafting resolutions (eg dealing with pics that eviscerate 2ac offense, no usfg in the resolution, directionless resolutions--"change" instead of "increase," kritik ground, etc.)? any agendas you have for the topic committee? jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081218/ff704bb9/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Dec 18 13:07:43 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:07:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Area thought--taboo topics Message-ID: <1229627263.494a9f7f5e2ee@webmail.grandecom.net> I thought perhaps a resolution along the following lines: The United States Federal Government should legalize and/or constitutionally protect one or more of the following: human body modification; marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of their sex; polygamy; beastiality and/or zoophilia; prostitution; possession and/or use of one or more Schedule 4 drugs; suicide; sexual relations between aduts and minors. Obviously the area deals with taboo topics. It is heavy on the politcs of sexuality. But I also think drug usage and suicie fall within the list of taboo/forbidden fruit issues. Drug usage and suicide could be easily deleted to focus the debate exclusively on the issues of society and sexuality. I think it would be interesting for people to explore these taboo areas. The critical ground is obvious. The inherency is pretty straight forward. I think with some research and adjustments, this would be a good topic area. If anyone thinks this may have legs, I will be willing to put some work into a proposal. Scott Elliott From dylan.keenan at gmail.com Thu Dec 18 13:17:41 2008 From: dylan.keenan at gmail.com (Dylan Keenan) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:17:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Area thought--taboo topics In-Reply-To: <1229627263.494a9f7f5e2ee@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1229627263.494a9f7f5e2ee@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: You forgot cannibalism. But I suppose this is still better than a Russia topic. (kidding) On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 2:07 PM, wrote: > I thought perhaps a resolution along the following lines: > > The United States Federal Government should legalize and/or > constitutionally > protect one or more of the following: human body modification; marriage > between > two consenting adults, regardless of their sex; polygamy; beastiality > and/or > zoophilia; prostitution; possession and/or use of one or more Schedule 4 > drugs; > suicide; sexual relations between aduts and minors. > > Obviously the area deals with taboo topics. It is heavy on the politcs of > sexuality. But I also think drug usage and suicie fall within the list of > taboo/forbidden fruit issues. Drug usage and suicide could be easily > deleted to > focus the debate exclusively on the issues of society and sexuality. I > think it > would be interesting for people to explore these taboo areas. The critical > ground is obvious. The inherency is pretty straight forward. I think with > some > research and adjustments, this would be a good topic area. If anyone thinks > this may have legs, I will be willing to put some work into a proposal. > > Scott Elliott > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- -dylan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081218/7547c77f/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Thu Dec 18 13:17:54 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:17:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] College Bowl Pickem Message-ID: Play College Football Bowl Pickem. To join the group, go to: http://msn.foxsports.com/fantasy/collegefootball/bowlpickem/group/non-member-home?groupId=990023&pointSpreadsCode=2 GROUP INFORMATION Group Name: Debaters Football Picks Group ID: 990023 David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081218/ac120d0a/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Dec 18 14:03:37 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:03:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Statement Message-ID: <1229630617.494aac9982410@webmail.grandecom.net> There won't be any jokes in this post. Why? Because the debate resolution is one of the most important issues that CEDA works on every year. I take this more seriously than anything else this organization does. When a topic sucks, the whole year of debate sucks. Bad resolutions make for bad debates. If you are serious about debate topics and how to craft good debate topics, please go back and read my genetic engineering topic paper from last year. http://www.cedatopic.com/topic_archive.html It gives you an idea of exactly where I am coming from when it comes to crafting a good resolution. It also shows you the type of research and analysis I will pursue in crafting an adequate topic. If you have a specific question, please e-mail me and I will try to provide you with an answer. Summary of what I will work toward if elected to the Topic Committee.: We should have a unidirectional resolution, focused on one subject area of public controversy, that allows affirmative teams the ability to craft plans that are topical and defensible against PICs. In light of the growth of negative strategies, affirmatives need more flexibility. The topic should require a substantialchange from status quo policies. This makes advantages and disadvantages unique. Negative teams should have a reasonable expectation of what their counter-plan, disad, and critical ground will be if the affirmative runs a topical plan. The current Topic Committee is trying to micro-manage affirmative plans via the resolution. I will always strive to give the community a real choice between a restrictive resolution and a broadly worded resolution that meets the goals I have stated. I think Russia or Latin America are the two leading topic areas. Both are fine areas (I really do). However, the real work will be crafting resolutions that are not overly broad. In a perfect world, I'd love to have us vote on the topic areas earlier, then spend much, much more time contemplating resolutions. I think the biggest problem the Topic Committee faces is the rush to craft a slate of resolutions within a 2 or 3 day time period. More contemplation is needed. Believe it or not, I work well with others. Scott Elliott p.s. You could kill two birds with one stone. Elect me CEDA 2nd V.P. and I will be on the Topic Committee. From ianedebate at gmail.com Thu Dec 18 15:59:33 2008 From: ianedebate at gmail.com (Ian Beier) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:59:33 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] rounds available at the Cal swing Message-ID: <93ac16710812181359x302ec3dfk360051ab8e0e19ef@mail.gmail.com> all, us las vegas folk have some rounds available for the swing. if you want justin grace, joe, or me, lemme know. Ian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081218/a7d174fc/attachment.htm From blakejohnson at urbandebate.org Thu Dec 18 18:59:55 2008 From: blakejohnson at urbandebate.org (Blake Johnson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:59:55 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Daryl Burch or delete Message-ID: <7c50ea8f0812181659v390b3091i5081052191f9182@mail.gmail.com> tried your budl address...didn't work. hit me up, please? b -- Blake Johnson Executive Director Bay Area Urban Debate League www.baudl.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081218/99912374/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Dec 18 19:32:47 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:32:47 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] darren goins or current coach at towson . . . Message-ID: <1823A3E22B424E79A21D989DA715E05E@hansonjbPC> the email address I have for you is not working. please email me. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081218/2da2c69b/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Dec 18 22:59:14 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:59:14 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ndt rankings, fall semester 2008 Message-ID: congrats to everyone that has competed in policy debate this fall. complete report is at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ Top 10 Overall Rankings 1.. Liberty University 460 2.. Kansas (Univ. of) 454 3.. Binghamton 408 4.. Kansas State 373 5.. California 358 6.. Oklahoma 357 7.. Northwestern 356 8.. Emory 346 9.. U.S. Military Acad. 332 10.. Baylor 319 Top 10 Varsity Rankings 1. Kansas (Univ. of) 412 2. California 358 3. Northwestern 356 4. Emory 340 5. Oklahoma 332 6. Baylor 319 7. Towson 306 8. Gonzaga 282 9. Kansas State 281 10. Missouri State 276 Top CC Rankings 1.. Kansas City KS CC 164 2.. Johnson County 163 3.. East LA College 64 4.. Southwestern (CA) 64 5.. Folsom Lake College 55 6.. LA City College 26 7.. Modesto Jr College 25 8.. Bakersfield College 23 jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081218/beb9a56a/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Fri Dec 19 05:43:33 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:43:33 +0800 Subject: [eDebate] Questions for the candidates Message-ID: <494B88E5.2080901@uvm.edu> I am a former CEDA president and I ran for this office. During my term I did two things which might have, in retrospect, been bad ideas: * File the motion for one year-long policy topic so that NDT schools would debate our topic. We did not merge formally, but by debating the same topic we did functionally. * Adopted mutually preferred judging at CEDA nationals. I wish that I had been more forcefully questioned on my proposals. I have some tough questions for the candidates. They may be tough and personal, but you all seem to want to jump out into the open on this. I am worried that if I just post them people will be mad at me. With permission I will offer 3-4 questions to each candidate, but only with permission. Vik, Andy, Mike, Scott, Jason you know that I can be a hard boiled asshole at times, so feel free to decline. They may involve issues from your past and may not be particularly pleasant, but I think they are relevant. I have different questions for different people. Please think about it. It happens only with your permission. 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 davismk13 at gmail.com Fri Dec 19 09:29:24 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:29:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Questions for the candidates In-Reply-To: <494B88E5.2080901@uvm.edu> References: <494B88E5.2080901@uvm.edu> Message-ID: <9a7f6f740812190729q7f46dccepf711ce38fc2a056@mail.gmail.com> I know that Darren is coordinating a series of questions for the candidates to answer (partially to avoid any one person from being blamed for a question and partially to give us all a holiday break). I would certainly answer your questions, but the debates Darren is organizing might be a better option. I would certainly welcome the input of any of the former presidents in the debate process (as well as in the running of the organization). Mike On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Alfred Snider wrote: > I am a former CEDA president and I ran for this office. During my term I > did two things which might have, in retrospect, been bad ideas: > > * File the motion for one year-long policy topic so that NDT schools > would debate our topic. We did not merge formally, but by debating > the same topic we did functionally. > * Adopted mutually preferred judging at CEDA nationals. > > > I wish that I had been more forcefully questioned on my proposals. > > I have some tough questions for the candidates. > > They may be tough and personal, but you all seem to want to jump out > into the open on this. > > I am worried that if I just post them people will be mad at me. > > With permission I will offer 3-4 questions to each candidate, but only > with permission. > > Vik, Andy, Mike, Scott, Jason you know that I can be a hard boiled > asshole at times, so feel free to decline. They may involve issues from > your past and may not be particularly pleasant, but I think they are > relevant. > > I have different questions for different people. > > Please think about it. > > It happens only with your permission. > > Tuna > > -- > Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna > Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics > University of Vermont > Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA > Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com > Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu > World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ > World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com > 802-656-0097 office telephone > 802-656-4275 office fax > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Fri Dec 19 10:11:47 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:11:47 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Walter Brasch and Call-in challenge on Shared Sacrifice Radio Message-ID: Walter Brasch, an award-winning progressive journalist, will be the guest on tomorrow's show. You can read more about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Brasch We are trying to get 50 people to call in during the next two shows--our last shows of '08. So call in and wish us happy holidays, tell us what new policies you want in the new administration, share your choice for number one news story of the year, ask our guest a question, whatever. Join us from noon to 2:00 PM mountain time at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingLeft/Shared_Sacrifice Call us directly during that time at (347) 327-9615 You have nothing to lose but your ornaments. _________________________________________________________________ It?s the same Hotmail?. If by ?same? you mean up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081219/17acbc73/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Dec 19 11:33:22 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:33:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Questions for the candidates In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740812190729q7f46dccepf711ce38fc2a056@mail.gmail.com> References: <494B88E5.2080901@uvm.edu> <9a7f6f740812190729q7f46dccepf711ce38fc2a056@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812190933h3204298cnef39ba619e242a3@mail.gmail.com> To Tuna I Say: Ask anything you like. To Mike I Say: I respect the desire to honor the holiday, but i must say i am more than a little skeptical of your belief that a better option is to go through darren's forum, another option? sure, but a better option i think not. I think candidates should connect with stakeholders across a variety of mediums in converations instigated by an array of processes. To Everybody Else... Mikes indication that CEDA has the best process(mind you a cool one, but not one they have a particular expertise at conducting) is a little to insider for me, its reminds too much of other discussions that havent been transparent, that have been controlled by the ec, and have been stupifying to the extent they shut out discourse, but thats why mikes 2nd vp statement is not really about change, but is more about sticking with the same structure he has been a part of for a while now...any way you know the differences between mike and i... I want to announce a way to use youtube effectivly as opposed to just for fun...starting this weekend i will issue several short statements about my candidacy and my platform, i will then take youtube questions, facebook questions, and email questions from anybody. I will answer as many questions as i can. I will be gone till next friday and when i get back i will then answer the questions. Easy enough i suggest everybody make themseleves open to such questions. www.youtube.com/bmoredb8 On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Mike Davis wrote: > I know that Darren is coordinating a series of questions for the > candidates to answer (partially to avoid any one person from being > blamed for a question and partially to give us all a holiday break). I > would certainly answer your questions, but the debates Darren is > organizing might be a better option. I would certainly welcome the > input of any of the former presidents in the debate process (as well > as in the running of the organization). > > Mike > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Alfred Snider > wrote: > > I am a former CEDA president and I ran for this office. During my term I > > did two things which might have, in retrospect, been bad ideas: > > > > * File the motion for one year-long policy topic so that NDT schools > > would debate our topic. We did not merge formally, but by debating > > the same topic we did functionally. > > * Adopted mutually preferred judging at CEDA nationals. > > > > > > I wish that I had been more forcefully questioned on my proposals. > > > > I have some tough questions for the candidates. > > > > They may be tough and personal, but you all seem to want to jump out > > into the open on this. > > > > I am worried that if I just post them people will be mad at me. > > > > With permission I will offer 3-4 questions to each candidate, but only > > with permission. > > > > Vik, Andy, Mike, Scott, Jason you know that I can be a hard boiled > > asshole at times, so feel free to decline. They may involve issues from > > your past and may not be particularly pleasant, but I think they are > > relevant. > > > > I have different questions for different people. > > > > Please think about it. > > > > It happens only with your permission. > > > > Tuna > > > > -- > > Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna > > Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics > > University of Vermont > > Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA > > Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com > > Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu > > World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ > > World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com > > 802-656-0097 office telephone > > 802-656-4275 office fax > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > -- > 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/20081219/0d1e8393/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Dec 19 11:37:54 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:37:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Questions for the candidates In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740812190729q7f46dccepf711ce38fc2a056@mail.gmail.com> References: <494B88E5.2080901@uvm.edu> <9a7f6f740812190729q7f46dccepf711ce38fc2a056@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812190937i642837ffo16d9c356d0338644@mail.gmail.com> Some questions you might want to ask me Andy why did you do that to shanahan Andy do you even have a degree So remember that one time you said you where gonna do something and you didnt Hey why do you hate our freedom Spell Cheif How will you really get more debate for less money and less time Don't you think stuff other than ceda nats overburdens the organization How are you going to pay for all this and last but not least...whats up with that stephen davis guy? On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Mike Davis wrote: > I know that Darren is coordinating a series of questions for the > candidates to answer (partially to avoid any one person from being > blamed for a question and partially to give us all a holiday break). I > would certainly answer your questions, but the debates Darren is > organizing might be a better option. I would certainly welcome the > input of any of the former presidents in the debate process (as well > as in the running of the organization). > > Mike > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Alfred Snider > wrote: > > I am a former CEDA president and I ran for this office. During my term I > > did two things which might have, in retrospect, been bad ideas: > > > > * File the motion for one year-long policy topic so that NDT schools > > would debate our topic. We did not merge formally, but by debating > > the same topic we did functionally. > > * Adopted mutually preferred judging at CEDA nationals. > > > > > > I wish that I had been more forcefully questioned on my proposals. > > > > I have some tough questions for the candidates. > > > > They may be tough and personal, but you all seem to want to jump out > > into the open on this. > > > > I am worried that if I just post them people will be mad at me. > > > > With permission I will offer 3-4 questions to each candidate, but only > > with permission. > > > > Vik, Andy, Mike, Scott, Jason you know that I can be a hard boiled > > asshole at times, so feel free to decline. They may involve issues from > > your past and may not be particularly pleasant, but I think they are > > relevant. > > > > I have different questions for different people. > > > > Please think about it. > > > > It happens only with your permission. > > > > Tuna > > > > -- > > Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna > > Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics > > University of Vermont > > Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA > > Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com > > Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu > > World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ > > World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com > > 802-656-0097 office telephone > > 802-656-4275 office fax > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > -- > 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/20081219/3d81ea1e/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Fri Dec 19 12:03:12 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:03:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Questions for the candidates Message-ID: Mike is probably right that it might be more efficient to post questions via Darren's organized debate, especially if the intent is to thoroughly vet some of the specific proposals that we have discussed in our candidate statements. It's not about process legitimacy - it's about giving our constituents a convenient place to see many questions answered all at once. Given that I'm currently serving as Tuna's Regional Rep, and that I interact with him and his squad directly probably the most at this point, I do think it's legitimate that he pose specific questions about my "leadership" potential given he has direct experience with me. I actually think that we've had a number of conversations, backchannels, and regional listserve discussions that we probably know where we agree and we potentially disagree, but they may not have covered all concerns related to a national leadership position. Honestly, if anyone has a specific clarification they want from me as a candidate that isn't answered by the debate, you can backchannel me. I'm more than happy to answer and have no problem if you want to post publicly. Tuna points out the major changes he initiated with his Presidency that he might question more in the long term. I appreciate that candidness, and I think it does illustrate the importance of learning from our past and learning from our peers. I think a lot of my experience in debate has been informed by people serving as CEDA President. Pam Steppe and Tuna were essentially my introduction to the idea of a national community because I was fortunate enough see them regionally. I took my current position at NYU in part because I understood what Will Baker's obligations were as CEDA President (and what that means to your time in general and to your focus for your team) after working with him in his 2VP and 1VP year. My attendance at National meetings and Topic Meetings essentially began with Joe Patrice's national term. It's important to learn from both successes and from areas of criticism, and I think I come to election with a very good idea of what would be asked of me both from proximity of observation AND from asking relevant questions of those who've had this job. Mike has discussed why he hasn't sought this position in the past, and a lot of it has to do with time and ability to serve the organization best because we are both acutely aware of what these positions require from candidates on the national level. It's a discussion we've had about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of particular national initiatives, amongst other things. But more important than running because I too am in a "position" to serve, I accepted my nomination because I think we ARE reaching a cross roads, and I think I have the skills and perspective to create solutions for our community moving forward. So ask away. -VIK P.S. - Congrats to UVM at the World Universities Peace Invitational Debates. They were in the Finals and got 3rd place in the entire competition. Yay Catamounts. Tuna can be a "hard boiled asshole" at times, but I live in NYC, so I think it's a form of affection. Safe travels home from Malaysia. 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/20081219/e35836c7/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Fri Dec 19 17:04:44 2008 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:04:44 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Please Finalize UNT Entries Message-ID: Colleagues, If you have not entered the UNT debate tournament for Jan 6-8, 2009 and you plan on attending, please do so at your earliest convenience. The tournament is shaping up nicely and will host three divisions of quality competition. I have spoken with the hotel and they are currently sold out of double rooms. If you have extra that you do not think you need, please contact me, or Jennifer Maynard at the Holiday Inn. The hotel is being very gracious and we plan on having a reception there in addition to our usual coaches' receptions. Please try to finalize your bodies/meal information at debateresults.com. It is especially important that we know how many vegans/vegetarians as well as a total body count for your party so that we can plan accordingly. Further, because we are over the break, I would like to allow more time for people to do judge preferences, but in order to turn the system on, I need to have people complete all changes to entries but especially judging. We are committed to releasing the presets at registration and in order to honor preferences I would like to be able to turn the preference entry on before Jan 1st. However, in order for that to be feasible, all entries must be completed. Look forward to further announcements concerning internet access on campus, campus parking, and entertainment in Denton. Best, -Brian Lain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081219/c1d11ecf/attachment.htm From lifer-hat at hotmail.com Fri Dec 19 18:12:48 2008 From: lifer-hat at hotmail.com (bandana organizer) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:12:48 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Walter Brasch and Call-in challenge on Shared Sacrifice Radio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If this is not about debate, it's as off-topic as those "Obama is a secret Kenyan" posts. From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:11:47 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Walter Brasch and Call-in challenge on Shared Sacrifice Radio .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass body.EC_hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;} Walter Brasch, an award-winning progressive journalist, will be the guest on tomorrow's show. You can read more about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Brasch We are trying to get 50 people to call in during the next two shows--our last shows of '08. So call in and wish us happy holidays, tell us what new policies you want in the new administration, share your choice for number one news story of the year, ask our guest a question, whatever. Join us from noon to 2:00 PM mountain time at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingLeft/Shared_Sacrifice Call us directly during that time at (347) 327-9615 You have nothing to lose but your ornaments. _________________________________________________________________ It?s the same Hotmail?. If by ?same? you mean up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008 From lifer-hat at hotmail.com Sat Dec 20 00:52:55 2008 From: lifer-hat at hotmail.com (bandana organizer) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:52:55 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Walter Brasch and Call-in challenge on Shared Sacrifice Radio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com > To: lifer-hat at hotmail.com > Subject: RE: [eDebate] Walter Brasch and Call-in challenge on Shared Sacrifice Radio > Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:42:21 -0700 > > Yeah, I care. I guess the rest of us could start forwarding our personal projects to the lists, but I think it would make the list less useful. Don't you believe in the tragedy of the commons? If we all use the list for promotion of our personal, non-debate-related activities, the list's purpose would be destroyed. Don't you think we each have a responsibility to our shared goal of a useful list? What makes your event so special that you get an exemption from the rules we all must follow in order to maintain list usability? >> From: lifer-hat at hotmail.com >> To: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:12:48 -0800 >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Walter Brasch and Call-in challenge on Shared Sacrifice Radio >> >> >> If this is not about debate, it's as off-topic as those "Obama is a secret Kenyan" posts. _________________________________________________________________ It?s the same Hotmail?. If by ?same? you mean up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008 From rickydeck at gmail.com Sat Dec 20 02:41:22 2008 From: rickydeck at gmail.com (Ricky Deck) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:41:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] North Texas Cite Request Message-ID: <6ae7c1540812200041t5eba1b66hae3fdb86964eaea9@mail.gmail.com> Anyone from North Texas, I have a cite request, I'd greatly appreciate it. Ricky Deck JMU Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081220/d5805b52/attachment.htm From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Sat Dec 20 08:39:00 2008 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 08:39:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Hotel Deadline approaching... Message-ID: Hey folks, the block at the tournament hotel expires on December 31st...just thought I would remind people as the holidays approach. We hope to see you in January! The Bears _________________________________________________________________ Life on your PC is safer, easier, and more enjoyable with Windows Vista?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032870/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081220/cde6b595/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Dec 20 20:51:39 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:51:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Requesting Questions for 2nd VP online forum Message-ID: <494D5ADB02000093000222AD@mymail.kckcc.edu> Debate Community: The 5 candidates for CEDA 2nd VP (while obviously adept at youtube video production) have also agreed to an online format where they will field questions in a forum that allows each candidate the opportunity to react to various questions without knowing the answer of their opponents. Once all answers are gathered (or just past the deadline for responses), I will upload the answers to a forum with each candidate attached to their answers. This will give you a chance to see where the candidates stand. In the meantime, what can you do to get involved? Send me questions that you would like to see each candidate answer. I need all questions by Sat. Dec. 27th. I will ask all candidates to have their answers to me by Dec. 2nd. The goal is to post their answers by Dec. 3rd. When sending your question, try to make it universal for each candidate. Indicate if you want your name and institution attached or not. I will pick which questions to ask should we exceed what seems like a reasonable amount. I understand there are multiple forums and opportunities for candidates to engage you. This is merely one forum all have agreed to. I am also working on another format option and will inform you if that comes to fruition. In the meantime, please send me your questions. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Dec 20 21:48:36 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:48:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Facebook Group--CEDA 2nd VP Debates Message-ID: <494D683402000093000222B1@mymail.kckcc.edu> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40120691327 Join the group and stay involved. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From james.maritato at gmail.com Sun Dec 21 02:28:56 2008 From: james.maritato at gmail.com (James Maritato) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:28:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A Question for CEDA and NDT Leadership Present and Future on Convergence Message-ID: Dear CEDA Community, Potential Officer Candidates, and Random Onlookers, I hope that you are all well as we approach the end of 2008. I am excited to see the discussion of potential candidates for CEDA's next 2VP taking place within our listserv and to see our organization taking steps towards increasing democratic participation from within the community by fostering a series of "debates" via online forums. As I've been thinking about the discussions emerging this week, questions posed by colleagues within the community, funny campaign and campaign mocking videos (yes, for the astute who linked Poughkeepsie with me, you win, that was me), I've started to really wonder about an important question I'll outline in a moment. I've also sent this e-mail to Chief, as requested, for discussion within the organized CEDA vetting process for 2VP. Though, given its lengthiness, I kinda think it will just get rejected, and I'm sort of interested to see what current leadership might have to say on this issue as well. So, the question is: What will CEDA and NDT leadership do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what will CEDA and NDT leadership do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" I pose this question for a couple of reasons: I. Our organizations are technologically broken. I am not saying this in terms of the effort applied by those who have tried to develop means of organizational process that are more convenient and have embraced digital convergence. John Bruschke is my personal hero because he'll always understand databases better than I do and must put in a ton of time to make the "accounting" functions of our competition work. Those that write our tab room software are my heroes, because I could never do that, nor could I have the ability to make it all work with John's website. Folks who have made the CEDA website and topic spaces function successfully should be commended for their efforts in normalizing participation in democratic process.And Folks like Phil Kerpen, who I admittedly have never met (though I did see his brother on that reality tv show) are awesome because they provide the resources to make vital communication lines of our organizations function, despite no inherent benefit to themselves. So why is it broken then? Because really, none of it's converged. Each of the forums I just described (save the CEDA website and topic blogs) are managed by independent individuals, attempting to respond to the changing face of technology, media integration and syndication, etc. on their own and in their available time. Accountability for CEDA, in these areas, is at a zero point -- what happens on eDebate isn't manageable by CEDA, what happens on Debateresults is up to Bruschke, what happens to tab room software is largely out of the scope of CEDA leadership. What happens on Youtube is up to Youtube, and now, as a result of things like the new CEDA 2VP group on Facebook, what happens on Facebook is up to Facebook. Discourse is also not converged. Folks will inevitably want to point to CEDA-L as the point of interaction for CEDA business, or the CEDA website, yet then CEDA outsources its technology needs to "free" services - decentralizing discourse. This means that certain conversations happen in certain places - and as an example I will point to the 2VP Facebook group. Chief - I applaud you for trying to encourage student discussion on future CEDA leadership issues -- but if you think I am going to sit on Facebook and wade through the various requests to join zombie armies, vampire bite someone, install applications, find out how my friends have been voting about me, etc. purely so that I can know what students in our activity think about what they do and what they would like to see out of future leadership, sorry, but you're wrong. Personal accountability is also at a low point within our forums, and the use of outside forums promotes this. You can call me a hypocrite here for posting videos of kittens as an avatar this week, but it sort of illustrates my point. My video was facetious and playful - and Andy was well aware of its existence. We did, indeed, sit back and laugh about how much his video made him look like the Eminem of debate several months ago. There's * nothing* to stop any disgruntled individual from taking the most egregious stuff posted on Youtube, or any of the other forums we have no management of, control of, ability to account for, etc. and editing it together into a media savvy video news release that besmirches the identity of this activity and those within it. We need to centralize our discourse, and be able to hold individuals accountable for their discourse. That doesn't inherently mean censoring discourse - it means making individuals liable for their discourse through terms of service agreements, etc. That's why those things exist. We need to be able to create centralized forums of discussion that can be easily accessed and used by members of these communities -- where both critical information and topical (not "topical" in the debater sense - but on the topic of debate) discourse can be readily accessed without the precondition of knowledge of "traditions," or "norms." At the same time, off-topic discourse can still be served. If we had a centralized space where forums such as Slashcode were implemented, both topical and non-topical interests could be served. We'd also have the ability to communicate through convergence. I find it somewhat ironic that as Andy and I posted videos this week, we had to paste a link and hope people would follow it. Hands down, eDebate is the ONLY forum I still interact in on the Internet that does not support embedding media, attaching a file without changes to the file name, rich text formatting (yeah, this e-mail as italics and emphasis in it, but you'll never see it), etc. We're using listserve technology when we should be using converged technologies that allow us to upload videos we record, that allow us to syndicate the best representations of our activity to the CEDA website, etc. There is so much more we could be doing -- so what will YOU do? Secondarily then, is the issue of our students - and I'm placing this issue second, not because it's less important, but because I'd like to scare fewer of you by proposing changes to what we do, rather than how we do it organizationally. If you haven't noticed, it's become increasingly important for students to have skills in digital production in order to be competitive in job markets, life, etc. Are job opportunities won or lost on Youtube? Not necessarily - but we've certainly seen stories in news media indicating that employers are looking to these forums, as are graduate directors, etc. in order to weed out potentially problematic individuals based on subjective notions, or even more problematically, to "tiebreak" between two equally qualified and skilled candidates. At the same time, more and more employers and schools are looking for proficiency in areas of media production (journalists need to have digital production skills, pr students need to have digital media awareness, production skills, and exposure to mediated persuasive message creation and effects, poli sci students need to have awareness of the ways these skills are changing the world, and be good at navigating them to be aware of their impacts, their integration with globalization, etc., educators need to have awareness of these skills... i could keep doing this but i won't.) Meanwhile, since last year's CEDA Nationals my team and I have been regularly deploying visual media we've produced to make arguments, and we're continually asked why we "get" to do this by competitors, coaches, and judges. As a community, we treat "policy debate" - meaning fast, card reading, line-by-line driven debate as the "default" paradigm. There are certainly judges who don't do this, and they get to be the folks who don't judge for like 14 consecutive MPJ rounds between Harvard and Wake (hi!), because they are "regional" critics, or some other stupid excuse that makes no sense (especially given when the critic's been doing this for 8 years, 7 of which as a critic, 6 of which attending national level tournaments.) I don't understand why we are asked this question all the time, because if I show our video to someone outside the debate community and explain what our argument is, people get really emotional, they get involved, they want to know what they can do to stop the problems we're talking about. They then usually say something to the effect of "that's really cool, I didn't know you could do that in debate -- what else can you do in debate?" If I send the video to a friend of mine via Youtube and leave it unlocked for 24 hours, my video hits double. People outside the community send it to each other and say wow, that's really cool, I didn't realize what goes on, maybe I should stop putting sugar in my coffee, etc. But when we present the argument in a debate round, we get asked either A. why do you get to do this, or B. your video was so cool, i really liked it, but why don't you have better answers to why your video doesn't cause terrorism, or nuclear war, etc. etc. There are rare occasions where you have the privilege of having your students debate in front of people like John Sharp who will say omg that was so cool and here's how you can make it better. :-) But why aren't there more of those types of interactions? (This should by the way, be recognized as my veiled attempt to promote John Sharp as the coolest critic that ever walked the face of planet earth, because my debaters LOSE rounds in front of him and say "can we just have him judge every round, because he actually gives what we say and do the time of day and cares about if it can be better".) Why do we have to justify what we do because it's not "normative?" What will CEDA leadership do to begin to change these norms? How long are we going to continue to say debate has no rules, but then impose norms as if they were rules? I will also say this: in the four years I have worked with these students, NEVER have they been as energized about an argument until they had the ability to create something that they could take both to debate tournaments and OUTSIDE of debate and have people comprehend. On a personal note, I've been involved in this activity for 8 years - and this is the first argument I've ever been able to show to my mother and have her understand. So what will CEDA leadership do in the next 5 years to foster the development of community norms that are conducive to the teaching of electronic eloquence and producerly skills that allow our activity's impact and importance transcend the insularity of the tournaments, the awards ceremonies and the current normative formats of debate? If you made it this far, I appreciate it. If you don't want to respond, that's cool. If you want to respond with a counterargument, I'm not going to refute it, nor do I think I should, as if this were a town hall meeting and this were my question for leadership and candidates, I wouldn't expect to refute your counterargument. So, anyone purely looking for a fight should really bother to respond. One final caveat -- this is not the beginning of some dogmatic campaign to change debate on my part. Put simply, enough of my friends in this community know that my longevity in this activity is waning and that other opportunities are already looking more attractive. I have no agenda to lead this community in any direction, but concern for what directions it will take in the future. But I do think that an activity that has been very important to me for a long time has missed the boat on digital convergence, and that the impacts of that missed opportunity will only become worse in magnitude as time goes on. Thanks for paying attention, and since I posted this publicly, yes Chief, you can put my name on this if/when you use your infinite wisdom to decide which questions do and do not get submitted :-). Jim Maritato Director of Debate Marist College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081221/e2817975/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Sun Dec 21 08:06:41 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:06:41 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] My question In-Reply-To: <494D5ADB02000093000222AD@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <494D5ADB02000093000222AD@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? I am happy to clarify this question if necessary. mjs > Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:51:39 -0600> From: delliott at kckcc.edu> To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com> Subject: [CEDA-L] Requesting Questions for 2nd VP online forum> > Debate Community:> > The 5 candidates for CEDA 2nd VP (while obviously adept at youtube video production) have also agreed to an online format where they will field questions in a forum that allows each candidate the opportunity to react to various questions without knowing the answer of their opponents. Once all answers are gathered (or just past the deadline for responses), I will upload the answers to a forum with each candidate attached to their answers. This will give you a chance to see where the candidates stand.> > In the meantime, what can you do to get involved?> > Send me questions that you would like to see each candidate answer. > I need all questions by Sat. Dec. 27th. > I will ask all candidates to have their answers to me by Dec. 2nd.> The goal is to post their answers by Dec. 3rd.> When sending your question, try to make it universal for each candidate.> Indicate if you want your name and institution attached or not.> I will pick which questions to ask should we exceed what seems like a reasonable amount.> > I understand there are multiple forums and opportunities for candidates to engage you. This is merely one forum all have agreed to.> > I am also working on another format option and will inform you if that comes to fruition.> > In the meantime, please send me your questions.> > thanks,> chief> > Darren Elliott> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC> CEDA President> > _______________________________________________> CEDA-L mailing list> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081221/6b7cdb8d/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Mon Dec 22 00:30:25 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:30:25 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Last call for USC tournament information Message-ID: <00bf01c963fe$c62709e0$52751da0$@edu> Greetings all. In the next few days we will be closing the online entry option for the USC tournament. Please double-check your entries and make sure you have provided us with: - The correct number of rounds for your judges - Correct number of folks in your party - How many people will need ground transportation I will be confirming many of these items, especially the ground transportation, this week by email. If you have already emailed me about it, please expect to see a confirmation by mid-week. Enjoy the holidays. We are excited about what looks to be the largest USC 'Alan Nichols' tournament ever! Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081221/d300a5ef/attachment.htm From ianedebate at gmail.com Mon Dec 22 14:44:18 2008 From: ianedebate at gmail.com (Ian Beier) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:44:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] still have 12 to sell at SC and 6 at Fullerton if anyone wants them Message-ID: <93ac16710812221244h51c036cev7ec74bbf7bae5fd7@mail.gmail.com> ya i know. waited til the last minute and reposted. the vegas staff is poor though. cant even afford capslock. Ian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081222/744604c8/attachment.htm From u.hrair at gmail.com Mon Dec 22 16:14:02 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:14:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area Message-ID: I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another one too, about US military policy. I'm thinking about something like this: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand strategy significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. Policy advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power than that to which we have recently been accustomed. The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me for some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual strategy is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as opposed to the simple level of its power. I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially change one or more of its operational doctrines. "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there seems to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p ground is particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden sharing, and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the terms that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the electronic tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. Calum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081222/92ae2149/attachment.htm From gacggc at gmail.com Mon Dec 22 21:44:19 2008 From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:44:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8371758b0812221944o5b2b5eb0p89625a7f137f19ca@mail.gmail.com> hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" grand is obv problematic a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something so consider: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce its overseas military deployment. On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another one > too, about US military policy. > > I'm thinking about something like this: > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand strategy > significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. > > Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of > selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like > discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. Policy > advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but > also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power than > that to which we have recently been accustomed. > > The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me for > some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual strategy > is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when > neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as opposed > to the simple level of its power. > > I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: > Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially change > one or more of its operational doctrines. > > "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat > different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not > sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there seems > to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p ground is > particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden sharing, > and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it > avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely > that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. > > I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the terms > that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much > preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in > helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the electronic > tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. > > Calum > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From u.hrair at gmail.com Mon Dec 22 22:28:39 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:28:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area In-Reply-To: <8371758b0812221944o5b2b5eb0p89625a7f137f19ca@mail.gmail.com> References: <8371758b0812221944o5b2b5eb0p89625a7f137f19ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: This isn't really a reply to Dr. Glass, but just an explanation of why I suggested the phrase "grand strategy." I'm certainly open to alternative suggestions. "Strategy" can be defined to narrowly--a military strategy, as opposed to a grand strategy, may be defined as a plan to accomplish a particular military objective. Grand strategy can be defined as a broader policy, by the civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to achieve American objectives. I want the aff to be able to do things other than simply reduce US deployed forces--offshore balancing for example--and be able to make the requisite changes in force structure, etc. The phrase "military strategy" is properly used (according to some narrow definitions) only to describe land forces (so JFC Fuller was a military strategist, for example, as opposed to Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist). "Doctrine" was also not what I was looking for, although I intend to explore it as a separate area within the broader topic. It is my understanding that this describes a set of rules or procedures governing the conduct of the military. So Operation Gericht (the WWI German operation around Verdun, 1916) was an "operation," the "strategy" was attrition, but the "grand strategy" was the overall German plan to dominate continental Europe (presumably for the purposes of evil, knowing them). I could certainly be wrong about this (the terms, not the intent of Germany to do evil). Is anyone interested in this topic willing to suggest (directly to me, if you wish) alternate terms? "Grand strategy" is not meant to be the primary limiting term, but rather to allow the aff to include broad changes in force deployment. The "reduce deployment" part is supposed to be the primary limit. Some examples of how "grand strategy" is used: Christopher Layne uses it to describe a policy of offshore balancing, including the end of large-scale forward deployment (in "The Peace of Illusions," for example). This is Robert Art, in "A Grand Strategy for America:" "Grand strategy, like foreign policy, deals with the momentous choices that a nation makes in foreign affairs, but it differs from foreign policy in one fundamental respect. To define a nation's foreign policy is to lay out the full range of goals that a state should seek in the world and then determine how all the instruments of statecraft?political power, military power, economic power, ideological power?should be integrated and employed with one another to achieve those goals. Grand strategy, too, deals with the full range of goals that a state should seek, but it concentrates primarily on how the military instrument should be employed to achieve them. It prescribes how a nation should wield its military instrument to realize its foreign policy goals." On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, David Glass wrote: > hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" > > grand is obv problematic > a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something > > > so consider: > > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly > reduce its overseas military deployment. > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > > I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another > one > > too, about US military policy. > > > > I'm thinking about something like this: > > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand > strategy > > significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. > > > > Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of > > selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like > > discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. Policy > > advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but > > also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power > than > > that to which we have recently been accustomed. > > > > The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me for > > some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual > strategy > > is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when > > neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as > opposed > > to the simple level of its power. > > > > I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: > > Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially > change > > one or more of its operational doctrines. > > > > "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat > > different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not > > sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there > seems > > to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p ground > is > > particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden sharing, > > and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it > > avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely > > that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. > > > > I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the terms > > that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much > > preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in > > helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the > electronic > > tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. > > > > Calum > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20081222/61a5f83a/attachment.htm From dylan.keenan at gmail.com Mon Dec 22 23:11:16 2008 From: dylan.keenan at gmail.com (Dylan Keenan) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:11:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area In-Reply-To: References: <8371758b0812221944o5b2b5eb0p89625a7f137f19ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I like this topic idea ---- the impact lit is already fun, and would be made better when it central to the topic (although ME seems to disprove this a bit. How were people still getting away with Steinbach generic ME war goes nuclear when it was pre Iraq). I agree with Calum that a lot of heg debates are kind of shallow. Part of the problem is that the debate often ends with "heg inevitable ? we just make the US good at it/make the world hate us less" ---- this topic seems like, if well debated, it could avoid some of that. I do have a few thoughts/concerns 1) Can we stick the term grand strategy with any enforceable meaning? That is, what is to stop the aff from say getting US security out of Nigeria (not sure if we actually have military personel there) or withdrawing from the Arctic, or stopping coast guard good will missions to X country and nothing else. I get that the term grand strategy is a term of art, and is designed to deal with this. I also know that terms like "energy policy" or "constructive engagement" which are designed to make affs do something significant frequently devolve to the minimum and nothing more. Given the idiocy the neg gets away with these days something like that is perhaps necessary but still, it is a concern because small affs ALWAYS reduce the quality of debate. 2) Conversely, I think we should center a lot of the topic discussion around how the neg will try to cheat and write the topic to prevent that. Is it possible people will have a counterplan to redeploy without changing grand strategy (basically do the plan under a different name). To have host countries force the US out? Use temporary redeployment to other areas? Consult CP is a concern that always arises. Since the supreme court doesn't set grand strategy a courts CP may be used with some stupid self serving justification like "tests grand strategy" ? or con/con or amendment ? all that trash. And some possibly legit PICS (offshore balancing except one brigade at one port which is at risk of terrorism). 3) Global link U questions will come up. Obama is gonna wind down in Iraq. I don't want to hear a year of "drawdown now" = no link uniqueness. 4) Is the topic a bit too expansive on the mechanisms besides military power. That Layne def. mentions economic power. Is this basically sanctions or trade policy as well? A few pluses: 1) Advantage innovation. I think that is a big problem this year. I doubt it would be when you have the whole military, planet, and economy to play with 2) I bet there are cards about the importance of a public statement shifting US strategy for states as well as non-state actors. That might help deal with negative BS counterplans 3) Big impact debates on a lot of different impacts = good for outweighing disads. On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > This isn't really a reply to Dr. Glass, but just an explanation of why I > suggested the phrase "grand strategy." I'm certainly open to alternative > suggestions. > > "Strategy" can be defined to narrowly--a military strategy, as opposed to a > grand strategy, may be defined as a plan to accomplish a particular military > objective. Grand strategy can be defined as a broader policy, by the > civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to > achieve American objectives. I want the aff to be able to do things other > than simply reduce US deployed forces--offshore balancing for example--and > be able to make the requisite changes in force structure, etc. The phrase > "military strategy" is properly used (according to some narrow definitions) > only to describe land forces (so JFC Fuller was a military strategist, for > example, as opposed to Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist). > > "Doctrine" was also not what I was looking for, although I intend to > explore it as a separate area within the broader topic. It is my > understanding that this describes a set of rules or procedures governing the > conduct of the military. So Operation Gericht (the WWI German operation > around Verdun, 1916) was an "operation," the "strategy" was attrition, but > the "grand strategy" was the overall German plan to dominate continental > Europe (presumably for the purposes of evil, knowing them). I could > certainly be wrong about this (the terms, not the intent of Germany to do > evil). > > Is anyone interested in this topic willing to suggest (directly to me, if > you wish) alternate terms? "Grand strategy" is not meant to be the primary > limiting term, but rather to allow the aff to include broad changes in force > deployment. The "reduce deployment" part is supposed to be the primary > limit. > > Some examples of how "grand strategy" is used: > > Christopher Layne uses it to describe a policy of offshore balancing, > including the end of large-scale forward deployment (in "The Peace of > Illusions," for example). > > This is Robert Art, in "A Grand Strategy for America:" > "Grand strategy, like foreign policy, deals with the momentous choices that > a nation makes in foreign affairs, but it differs from foreign policy in one > fundamental respect. To define a nation's foreign policy is to lay out > the full range of goals that a state should seek in the world and then > determine how all the instruments of statecraft?political power, military > power, economic power, ideological power?should be integrated and employed > with one another to achieve those goals. Grand strategy, too, deals with > the full range of goals that a state should seek, but it concentrates > primarily on how the military instrument should be employed to achieve them. > It prescribes how a nation should wield its military instrument to realize > its foreign policy goals." > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, David Glass wrote: > >> hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" >> >> grand is obv problematic >> a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something >> >> >> so consider: >> >> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly >> reduce its overseas military deployment. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson >> wrote: >> > I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another >> one >> > too, about US military policy. >> > >> > I'm thinking about something like this: >> > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand >> strategy >> > significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. >> > >> > Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of >> > selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like >> > discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. >> Policy >> > advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but >> > also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power >> than >> > that to which we have recently been accustomed. >> > >> > The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me >> for >> > some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual >> strategy >> > is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when >> > neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as >> opposed >> > to the simple level of its power. >> > >> > I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: >> > Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially >> change >> > one or more of its operational doctrines. >> > >> > "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat >> > different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not >> > sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there >> seems >> > to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p >> ground is >> > particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden >> sharing, >> > and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it >> > avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely >> > that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. >> > >> > I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the >> terms >> > that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much >> > preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in >> > helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the >> electronic >> > tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. >> > >> > Calum >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > -- Dylan Keenan Debate Coach Barkley Forum Emory University dylan.keenan at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/d9a4c2bc/attachment.htm From u.hrair at gmail.com Tue Dec 23 00:26:36 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:26:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area In-Reply-To: References: <8371758b0812221944o5b2b5eb0p89625a7f137f19ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: thanks dylan. here are my initial reactions, although i will have to do some research again to dig up evidence to support some of them, the cites for which i have forgotten. 1. enforceable meaning for grand strategy one thing i like about this phrase (and again--anyone with alternatives, let me know) is that it may make the aff implement broad changes in US strategy. "grand strategy" can be distinguished from just "strategy," or more usefully, defined by its scope--iraq is one theater, as is afghanistan, the arctic, etc. i think you could credibly define the term to force the aff to change US military policy in general--something like "selective engagement," or "offshore balancing," or "isolationism" is a dictate intended to govern american responses world wide. world war II's "germany first" policy, for example, was a grand strategy, as is the policy of global military preponderance--they are partly defined by broad goals, not just actions to accomplish them. this is the "levels of war" thing i was hinting at earlier. here's a world war one example: artillery drumfire--tactical; the ludendorff offensives (1918)--operational; the attempt to capture the channel ports--strategic; the attempt to force the BEF off the continent (because jerry thought that meant winning the war)--grand strategic. you are probably right that some affs will try only to withdraw troops. however, i think there's a few things the neg has going for them: a) grand strategy = multiple theaters (above) b) the aff still has to "significantly reduce" presence (or some similar phrase) c) the word "deployed" helps to limit out the "coast guard missions" or whatever (maybe "forward deployed" would be even better?) d) ultimately, the aff has to withdraw troops from a place where there's an advocate to do so--the need for an advantage will limit out some of the very small fears. here's one definition of the word "deployed," just from dictionary.com: "To position (troops) in readiness for combat, as along a front or line." 2. neg cheating to some extent this is unavoidable of course, but i'll talk about some of the specific things you've mentioned. consult counterplans are a perennial plague, but in this case, a lot of them won't solve the case, and their net benefits are the reverse of the aff anyway. would japan accept a US withdrawal from asia? probably not, and if they did, it would seriously mess with the usual net benefit--the US-japan alliance. NATO? methinks they would say no, and if they said yes, same deal with the net benefit. russia would say yes, but the NATO-russia council would of course say "no," as both the NAC and NRC operate based on consensus. also, even if one doesn't like consult counterplans, at least they make sense on this topic. it's pretty much the thing that consultation is intended for, so i don't think it would be the end of the world--there's definitely going to be evidence about the topic. probably about each individual aff. "redeploy without changing strategy" i think is not a concern either. the withdrawal of troops is an example of grand strategy--if the plan only did this, and so did the counterplan, it wouldn't compete; if the plan did more than this, the c/p would be a pic and the aff would just have to win that the other parts of the plan were important. i think it's like "lift sanctions but don't constructively engage" on last year's topic. don't think you can do that. as for all the temporary c/ps/redeploy elsewhere etc. i think they either wouldn't solve the aff, wouldn't have net benefits, or would just be impossible. it takes a minute or two to redeploy, say, 100,000 troops from iraq. if we decided to send them to korea, it would take months. that's why we forward deploy in the first place. there might be evidence about this, and so i could be wrong, but i think it's either not there, or not good enough to beat the aff. "leave troops in this one place" will probably not compete--most advocates of disengagement don't think we should disengage everywhere; most affs won't put "all forces" or whatever in their plan; the net benefit to it is probably the opposite of the aff; there are only so many of those places to begin with and the aff will probably be ready. the courts counterplan gets into a deference debate where there's at least literature (that, and a "that's crazy the world would explode" debate based on the courts dictating military strategy). 3. global u "global" uniqueness isn't global, actually--really just iraq. the "you surrender american hegemony" disad, for example, will not be made not-unique by iraq withdrawal. if the aff just withdrew from iraq and said that we were doing that anyway, it wouldn't really change grand strategy--it would only implement it. we're probably going to ramp up presence in afghanistan, too, so there's that. there will be theater disads unaffected by that too, like korea, japan, europe, and central asia. other things like chinese aggression, appeasement, and russian imperialism (ahem) will be unaffected by iraq probably, or at least good ev will exist to suggest that they are. it might mess with the politics disad. it's going to do that anyway, regardless of the topic. and i don't think politics will be the best disad on a topic that requires a military draw down. 4. too expansive this is something i've thought about, and it's definitely a concern for the wording, but not a fatal one i think. first, no matter what the aff does, they have to reduce US military deployments--bottom line. those are where the best disads come from. if they do stuff unrelated to that, the neg can easily pic out of it all. this realization i think will mean that affs don't do it in the first place. second, economic and diplomatic initiatives can plausibly be included in grand strategy--in fact, they usually are. there are narrower definitions though, like the one from robert art that distinguishes grand strategy from foreign policy by saying that all those other concerns are foreign policy, although (not in that quote) he acknowledges that the term is broad. as always seems to be the case, i believe that the narrowest possible interpretation will probably come to be accepted as the orthodox one. i hope no one poops their pants over this, but i don't think that having a lot of aff plan possibilities is so bad anyway. i'd kind of prefer it, as long as some central theme pulls it all together, which in this case it does. something else about this that i think deserves saying. i got a lot of backchannels last year before the tragic defeat of the russia topic (by nazis? most probably, yes) where people made fun of me for talking about the critical arguments possible on that topic, because no one defends the topic, or it's not a useful conceptual category, or "k teams" don't matter, or whatever. bite me. the critical ground on the grand strategy topic is, in my opinion, very strong. i'll leave aside the low-hanging fruit of imperialism, orientalism, militarism, capitalism, nuclearism, and many, many others. the aff gets to reduce US military deployment, so the lukewarm K affs could be excellent. "grand strategy" allows all sorts of interesting things, like military humanitarianism, that have solid critical defenses. affs that don't want to defend a plan but instead do something more radical have great opportunities. you get to say the military is bad. seriously. it's even topical. there's a section in "metaphors we live by" by lakoff and johnson (if i'm remembering this correctly) about the way that "strategic" and military metaphors are used in debate--just one of many ways that one could use reference to this topic to make broader statements about the debate "community," if one wished to. the neg critique ground is similarly strong--layne, gholz, press, and a variety of others who are the chief advocates of these affs are also offensive realists. the usual mush of dillon, shapiro, tickner, and ashley cards, the plagues of generic critique debates, are now directly relevant. trust me, they will make more sense when they actually link to the aff. there will be an impact. it will relate to the case. i'm in favor of that simply on the grounds that we will be applying opposed arguments to each other in ways that make sense and for which they were intended. not everyone is going to be happy, but then again, not everyone ever will. this topic is better than most in that regard. there might not be something for everyone, but it could be a whole lot worse. it could be courts. calum On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Dylan Keenan wrote: > I like this topic idea ---- the impact lit is already fun, and would be > made better when it central to the topic (although ME seems to disprove this > a bit. How were people still getting away with Steinbach generic ME war goes > nuclear when it was pre Iraq). I agree with Calum that a lot of heg debates > are kind of shallow. Part of the problem is that the debate often ends with > "heg inevitable ? we just make the US good at it/make the world hate us > less" ---- this topic seems like, if well debated, it could avoid some of > that. > > I do have a few thoughts/concerns > > > > 1) Can we stick the term grand strategy with any enforceable meaning? > That is, what is to stop the aff from say getting US security out of Nigeria > (not sure if we actually have military personel there) or withdrawing from > the Arctic, or stopping coast guard good will missions to X country and > nothing else. I get that the term grand strategy is a term of art, and is > designed to deal with this. I also know that terms like "energy policy" or > "constructive engagement" which are designed to make affs do something > significant frequently devolve to the minimum and nothing more. Given the > idiocy the neg gets away with these days something like that is perhaps > necessary but still, it is a concern because small affs ALWAYS reduce the > quality of debate. > > > > 2) Conversely, I think we should center a lot of the topic discussion > around how the neg will try to cheat and write the topic to prevent that. Is > it possible people will have a counterplan to redeploy without changing > grand strategy (basically do the plan under a different name). To have host > countries force the US out? Use temporary redeployment to other areas? > Consult CP is a concern that always arises. Since the supreme court doesn't > set grand strategy a courts CP may be used with some stupid self serving > justification like "tests grand strategy" ? or con/con or amendment ? all > that trash. And some possibly legit PICS (offshore balancing except one > brigade at one port which is at risk of terrorism). > > > > 3) Global link U questions will come up. Obama is gonna wind down in > Iraq. I don't want to hear a year of "drawdown now" = no link uniqueness. > > > > 4) Is the topic a bit too expansive on the mechanisms besides > military power. That Layne def. mentions economic power. Is this basically > sanctions or trade policy as well? > > > > A few pluses: > > 1) Advantage innovation. I think that is a big problem this year. I doubt > it would be when you have the whole military, planet, and economy to play > with > > > > 2) I bet there are cards about the importance of a public statement > shifting US strategy for states as well as non-state actors. That might help > deal with negative BS counterplans > > > > 3) Big impact debates on a lot of different impacts = good for outweighing > disads. > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > >> This isn't really a reply to Dr. Glass, but just an explanation of why I >> suggested the phrase "grand strategy." I'm certainly open to alternative >> suggestions. >> >> "Strategy" can be defined to narrowly--a military strategy, as opposed to >> a grand strategy, may be defined as a plan to accomplish a particular >> military objective. Grand strategy can be defined as a broader policy, by >> the civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to >> achieve American objectives. I want the aff to be able to do things other >> than simply reduce US deployed forces--offshore balancing for example--and >> be able to make the requisite changes in force structure, etc. The phrase >> "military strategy" is properly used (according to some narrow definitions) >> only to describe land forces (so JFC Fuller was a military strategist, for >> example, as opposed to Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist). >> >> "Doctrine" was also not what I was looking for, although I intend to >> explore it as a separate area within the broader topic. It is my >> understanding that this describes a set of rules or procedures governing the >> conduct of the military. So Operation Gericht (the WWI German operation >> around Verdun, 1916) was an "operation," the "strategy" was attrition, but >> the "grand strategy" was the overall German plan to dominate continental >> Europe (presumably for the purposes of evil, knowing them). I could >> certainly be wrong about this (the terms, not the intent of Germany to do >> evil). >> >> Is anyone interested in this topic willing to suggest (directly to me, if >> you wish) alternate terms? "Grand strategy" is not meant to be the primary >> limiting term, but rather to allow the aff to include broad changes in force >> deployment. The "reduce deployment" part is supposed to be the primary >> limit. >> >> Some examples of how "grand strategy" is used: >> >> Christopher Layne uses it to describe a policy of offshore balancing, >> including the end of large-scale forward deployment (in "The Peace of >> Illusions," for example). >> >> This is Robert Art, in "A Grand Strategy for America:" >> "Grand strategy, like foreign policy, deals with the momentous choices >> that a nation makes in foreign affairs, but it differs from foreign policy >> in one fundamental respect. To define a nation's foreign policy is to >> lay out the full range of goals that a state should seek in the world and >> then determine how all the instruments of statecraft?political power, >> military power, economic power, ideological power?should be integrated and >> employed with one another to achieve those goals. Grand strategy, too, >> deals with the full range of goals that a state should seek, but it >> concentrates primarily on how the military instrument should be employed to >> achieve them. It prescribes how a nation should wield its military >> instrument to realize its foreign policy goals." >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, David Glass wrote: >> >>> hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" >>> >>> grand is obv problematic >>> a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something >>> >>> >>> so consider: >>> >>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly >>> reduce its overseas military deployment. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson >>> wrote: >>> > I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another >>> one >>> > too, about US military policy. >>> > >>> > I'm thinking about something like this: >>> > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand >>> strategy >>> > significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. >>> > >>> > Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of >>> > selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options >>> like >>> > discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. >>> Policy >>> > advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, >>> but >>> > also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power >>> than >>> > that to which we have recently been accustomed. >>> > >>> > The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me >>> for >>> > some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual >>> strategy >>> > is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when >>> > neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as >>> opposed >>> > to the simple level of its power. >>> > >>> > I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: >>> > Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially >>> change >>> > one or more of its operational doctrines. >>> > >>> > "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat >>> > different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm >>> not >>> > sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there >>> seems >>> > to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p >>> ground is >>> > particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden >>> sharing, >>> > and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it >>> > avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, >>> namely >>> > that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. >>> > >>> > I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the >>> terms >>> > that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much >>> > preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in >>> > helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the >>> electronic >>> > tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. >>> > >>> > Calum >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >> > > > > -- > Dylan Keenan > Debate Coach > Barkley Forum > Emory University > dylan.keenan at gmail.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/eab65898/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Tue Dec 23 06:07:08 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:07:08 +0100 Subject: [eDebate] Debates in Second Life Message-ID: <4950D46C.8010908@uvm.edu> See stories and pictures at http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/coming-soon-debates-in-second-life.html What is Second Life? From http://secondlife.com/whatis/ Second Life? is a 3-D virtual world created by its Residents. Since opening to the public in 2003, it has grown explosively and today is inhabited by millions of Residents from around the globe. From the moment you enter the World you'll discover a vast digital continent, teeming with people, entertainment, experiences and opportunity. Once you've explored a bit, perhaps you'll find a perfect parcel of land to build your house or business. You'll also be surrounded by the Creations of your fellow Residents. Because Residents retain intellectual property rights in their digital creations, they can buy, sell and trade with other Residents. The Marketplace currently supports millions of US dollars in monthly transactions. This commerce is handled with the inworld unit of trade, the Linden? dollar, which can be converted to US dollars at several thriving online Linden dollar exchanges. St. John's University and the University of Vermont announce plans to hold debates in Second Life. This will be done using the beautiful facilities of St. John's University within Second Life and with the technical assistance of the University of Vermont. Teams from around the world will be able to debate against each other as long as they have an online computer, a microphone and a speaker. Distance will be irrelevant. Sponsors for a series of real time global debates are now being sought. Those interested in participating can contact Alfred Snider at alfred.snider at uvm.edu . A demonstration debate will be held in January 2009. Look for it. To inspect the space, go to Second Life and search for "St. John's University" and then teleport to the location. Wander around and check it out. There are two spaces in which we plan to hold debates, one a smaller classroom and the other a large auditorium, although oddly enough with very comfortrable chairs. In such a debate, the self-designed avatar of each individual debater will speak in real time using their own voice. Judges seated in the audience will listen to the debaters, but also be responsible for calling the house to order, announcing the speakers, and everything else one would expect of a formal debate. Points of information will be enabled. At the end of the debate judges will adjourn for a decision and then return, announcing the decision and explaining it. Audience members will be seated and watching the event from their own individual perspective. Second Life offers free membership at http://secondlife.com/ Here is an example of what is being done educationally with Second Life. >From http://www.kstatecollegian.com/professor_tests_digital_classroom_in_event_management_course Professor tests digital classroom in event management course Jason Miller Updated: Thursday, December 11, 2008 Imagine waking up to see snow falling outside while still being able to attend class in the comfort of your pajamas. At this point it sounds too good to be true, but this reality might be closer than many people think. This week, Betsy Barrett, associate professor of hospitality management and dietetics, with the help of her teaching assistant Nellie Feehan, junior in hotel and restaurant management, organized the first K-State class period in the virtual world, ?Second Life.? About 30 students were enrolled in her course, Convention and Event Management, which students attended on K-State?s campus all semester. As a special project, Barrett had her students attend one class session via Second Life and assigned the students projects to be presented in the digital classroom. According to Second Life?s Web site, secondlife.com, Second Life is a 3-D virtual world created by its residents. Since opening in 2003, it has expanded and is inhabited by millions of residents from around the globe. The students spent weeks creating avatars, which are computer versions of themselves, and working on their projects. The projects included presentations for the entire class and a party in Second Life. The computerized class session was Dec. 4. The students will organize two other events in Second Life to complete this special project. Barrett said the students? party, which was planned for Thursday afternoon, is to launch the department?s new name, Hospitality Management and Dietetics, formerly known as Hotel, Restaurant and Institution Management and Dietetics. The students planned the event using real-world application measures of event planning, though they did not need to physically coordinate the event, Barrett said. Larry Jackson, director of information and educational technology, first approached Barrett at a technology meeting about the opportunity to teach in Second Life. ?Educational organizations are becoming a force in Second Life, where it?s not so much anymore about watching some second persona I have, it?s becoming more a tool for educational purposes,? Jackson said. ?That?s what our interest at K-State is. It?s about how to use this environment for an educational purpose that makes students and others go away smarter than when they arrived, and it?s a really great tool for that.? Jackson helped instruct Barrett and Feehan on the use of Second Life and helped them find a location, called an ?island? in Second Life, which Barrett leased for one month for this special project. The pair was then ready to introduce the students to a new platform of learning. Barrett was quick to point out that the help of her TA was instrumental in reaching the goal. ?Nellie has done a lot to help me,? she said. ?She really knows the ins and outs of the technology of Second Life. She has helped the students out a lot throughout the project.? Aside from just being able to avoid inclement weather to attend class, Second Life opens the doors to a borderless world. ?These students could have been in the Port of Maine if they wanted to and still attended class,? Barrett said. ?They could have been in their offices at home or wherever and still got the information.? Online classes and events also provide the opportunity to cut costs. ?I would like to be able to be in my house and still go to class,? said Jessica Smith, sophomore in food science and industry. ?If we had the opportunity, I think most students would want to do that. Also, it might lower costs since all we would need to do is pay the speaker.? -- 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 drmosbornesq at gmail.com Tue Dec 23 09:37:40 2008 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:37:40 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area In-Reply-To: References: <8371758b0812221944o5b2b5eb0p89625a7f137f19ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <39c09a80812230737s746c27caqa67301b1947cef80@mail.gmail.com> but "k teams" don't matter On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > thanks dylan. here are my initial reactions, although i will have to do > some research again to dig up evidence to support some of them, the cites > for which i have forgotten. > > 1. enforceable meaning for grand strategy > > one thing i like about this phrase (and again--anyone with alternatives, > let me know) is that it may make the aff implement broad changes in US > strategy. "grand strategy" can be distinguished from just "strategy," or > more usefully, defined by its scope--iraq is one theater, as is afghanistan, > the arctic, etc. i think you could credibly define the term to force the > aff to change US military policy in general--something like "selective > engagement," or "offshore balancing," or "isolationism" is a dictate > intended to govern american responses world wide. world war II's "germany > first" policy, for example, was a grand strategy, as is the policy of global > military preponderance--they are partly defined by broad goals, not just > actions to accomplish them. this is the "levels of war" thing i was hinting > at earlier. here's a world war one example: artillery drumfire--tactical; > the ludendorff offensives (1918)--operational; the attempt to capture the > channel ports--strategic; the attempt to force the BEF off the continent > (because jerry thought that meant winning the war)--grand strategic. > > you are probably right that some affs will try only to withdraw troops. > however, i think there's a few things the neg has going for them: a) grand > strategy = multiple theaters (above) b) the aff still has to "significantly > reduce" presence (or some similar phrase) c) the word "deployed" helps to > limit out the "coast guard missions" or whatever (maybe "forward deployed" > would be even better?) d) ultimately, the aff has to withdraw troops from a > place where there's an advocate to do so--the need for an advantage will > limit out some of the very small fears. > > here's one definition of the word "deployed," just from dictionary.com: > "To position (troops) in readiness for combat, as along a front or line." > > 2. neg cheating > to some extent this is unavoidable of course, but i'll talk about some of > the specific things you've mentioned. consult counterplans are a perennial > plague, but in this case, a lot of them won't solve the case, and their net > benefits are the reverse of the aff anyway. would japan accept a US > withdrawal from asia? probably not, and if they did, it would seriously > mess with the usual net benefit--the US-japan alliance. NATO? methinks > they would say no, and if they said yes, same deal with the net benefit. > russia would say yes, but the NATO-russia council would of course say "no," > as both the NAC and NRC operate based on consensus. also, even if one > doesn't like consult counterplans, at least they make sense on this topic. > it's pretty much the thing that consultation is intended for, so i don't > think it would be the end of the world--there's definitely going to be > evidence about the topic. probably about each individual aff. > > "redeploy without changing strategy" i think is not a concern either. the > withdrawal of troops is an example of grand strategy--if the plan only did > this, and so did the counterplan, it wouldn't compete; if the plan did more > than this, the c/p would be a pic and the aff would just have to win that > the other parts of the plan were important. i think it's like "lift > sanctions but don't constructively engage" on last year's topic. don't > think you can do that. as for all the temporary c/ps/redeploy elsewhere > etc. i think they either wouldn't solve the aff, wouldn't have net benefits, > or would just be impossible. it takes a minute or two to redeploy, say, > 100,000 troops from iraq. if we decided to send them to korea, it would > take months. that's why we forward deploy in the first place. there might > be evidence about this, and so i could be wrong, but i think it's either not > there, or not good enough to beat the aff. "leave troops in this one place" > will probably not compete--most advocates of disengagement don't think we > should disengage everywhere; most affs won't put "all forces" or whatever in > their plan; the net benefit to it is probably the opposite of the aff; there > are only so many of those places to begin with and the aff will probably be > ready. the courts counterplan gets into a deference debate where there's at > least literature (that, and a "that's crazy the world would explode" debate > based on the courts dictating military strategy). > > 3. global u > "global" uniqueness isn't global, actually--really just iraq. the "you > surrender american hegemony" disad, for example, will not be made not-unique > by iraq withdrawal. if the aff just withdrew from iraq and said that we > were doing that anyway, it wouldn't really change grand strategy--it would > only implement it. we're probably going to ramp up presence in afghanistan, > too, so there's that. there will be theater disads unaffected by that too, > like korea, japan, europe, and central asia. other things like chinese > aggression, appeasement, and russian imperialism (ahem) will be unaffected > by iraq probably, or at least good ev will exist to suggest that they are. > it might mess with the politics disad. it's going to do that anyway, > regardless of the topic. and i don't think politics will be the best disad > on a topic that requires a military draw down. > > 4. too expansive > this is something i've thought about, and it's definitely a concern for the > wording, but not a fatal one i think. first, no matter what the aff does, > they have to reduce US military deployments--bottom line. those are where > the best disads come from. if they do stuff unrelated to that, the neg can > easily pic out of it all. this realization i think will mean that affs > don't do it in the first place. second, economic and diplomatic initiatives > can plausibly be included in grand strategy--in fact, they usually are. > there are narrower definitions though, like the one from robert art that > distinguishes grand strategy from foreign policy by saying that all those > other concerns are foreign policy, although (not in that quote) he > acknowledges that the term is broad. as always seems to be the case, i > believe that the narrowest possible interpretation will probably come to be > accepted as the orthodox one. i hope no one poops their pants over this, > but i don't think that having a lot of aff plan possibilities is so bad > anyway. i'd kind of prefer it, as long as some central theme pulls it all > together, which in this case it does. > > something else about this that i think deserves saying. i got a lot of > backchannels last year before the tragic defeat of the russia topic (by > nazis? most probably, yes) where people made fun of me for talking about the > critical arguments possible on that topic, because no one defends the topic, > or it's not a useful conceptual category, or "k teams" don't matter, or > whatever. > > bite me. > > the critical ground on the grand strategy topic is, in my opinion, very > strong. i'll leave aside the low-hanging fruit of imperialism, orientalism, > militarism, capitalism, nuclearism, and many, many others. the aff gets to > reduce US military deployment, so the lukewarm K affs could be excellent. > "grand strategy" allows all sorts of interesting things, like military > humanitarianism, that have solid critical defenses. affs that don't want to > defend a plan but instead do something more radical have great > opportunities. you get to say the military is bad. seriously. it's even > topical. there's a section in "metaphors we live by" by lakoff and johnson > (if i'm remembering this correctly) about the way that "strategic" and > military metaphors are used in debate--just one of many ways that one could > use reference to this topic to make broader statements about the debate > "community," if one wished to. the neg critique ground is similarly > strong--layne, gholz, press, and a variety of others who are the chief > advocates of these affs are also offensive realists. the usual mush of > dillon, shapiro, tickner, and ashley cards, the plagues of generic critique > debates, are now directly relevant. trust me, they will make more sense > when they actually link to the aff. there will be an impact. it will > relate to the case. i'm in favor of that simply on the grounds that we will > be applying opposed arguments to each other in ways that make sense and for > which they were intended. not everyone is going to be happy, but then > again, not everyone ever will. this topic is better than most in that > regard. there might not be something for everyone, but it could be a whole > lot worse. > > it could be courts. > > calum > > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:11 PM, Dylan Keenan wrote: > >> I like this topic idea ---- the impact lit is already fun, and would be >> made better when it central to the topic (although ME seems to disprove this >> a bit. How were people still getting away with Steinbach generic ME war goes >> nuclear when it was pre Iraq). I agree with Calum that a lot of heg debates >> are kind of shallow. Part of the problem is that the debate often ends with >> "heg inevitable ? we just make the US good at it/make the world hate us >> less" ---- this topic seems like, if well debated, it could avoid some of >> that. >> >> I do have a few thoughts/concerns >> >> >> >> 1) Can we stick the term grand strategy with any enforceable >> meaning? That is, what is to stop the aff from say getting US security out >> of Nigeria (not sure if we actually have military personel there) or >> withdrawing from the Arctic, or stopping coast guard good will missions to X >> country and nothing else. I get that the term grand strategy is a term of >> art, and is designed to deal with this. I also know that terms like "energy >> policy" or "constructive engagement" which are designed to make affs do >> something significant frequently devolve to the minimum and nothing more. >> Given the idiocy the neg gets away with these days something like that is >> perhaps necessary but still, it is a concern because small affs ALWAYS >> reduce the quality of debate. >> >> >> >> 2) Conversely, I think we should center a lot of the topic >> discussion around how the neg will try to cheat and write the topic to >> prevent that. Is it possible people will have a counterplan to redeploy >> without changing grand strategy (basically do the plan under a different >> name). To have host countries force the US out? Use temporary redeployment >> to other areas? Consult CP is a concern that always arises. Since the >> supreme court doesn't set grand strategy a courts CP may be used with some >> stupid self serving justification like "tests grand strategy" ? or con/con >> or amendment ? all that trash. And some possibly legit PICS (offshore >> balancing except one brigade at one port which is at risk of terrorism). >> >> >> >> 3) Global link U questions will come up. Obama is gonna wind down in >> Iraq. I don't want to hear a year of "drawdown now" = no link uniqueness. >> >> >> >> 4) Is the topic a bit too expansive on the mechanisms besides >> military power. That Layne def. mentions economic power. Is this basically >> sanctions or trade policy as well? >> >> >> >> A few pluses: >> >> 1) Advantage innovation. I think that is a big problem this year. I doubt >> it would be when you have the whole military, planet, and economy to play >> with >> >> >> >> 2) I bet there are cards about the importance of a public statement >> shifting US strategy for states as well as non-state actors. That might help >> deal with negative BS counterplans >> >> >> >> 3) Big impact debates on a lot of different impacts = good for outweighing >> disads. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: >> >>> This isn't really a reply to Dr. Glass, but just an explanation of why I >>> suggested the phrase "grand strategy." I'm certainly open to alternative >>> suggestions. >>> >>> "Strategy" can be defined to narrowly--a military strategy, as opposed to >>> a grand strategy, may be defined as a plan to accomplish a particular >>> military objective. Grand strategy can be defined as a broader policy, by >>> the civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to >>> achieve American objectives. I want the aff to be able to do things other >>> than simply reduce US deployed forces--offshore balancing for example--and >>> be able to make the requisite changes in force structure, etc. The phrase >>> "military strategy" is properly used (according to some narrow definitions) >>> only to describe land forces (so JFC Fuller was a military strategist, for >>> example, as opposed to Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist). >>> >>> "Doctrine" was also not what I was looking for, although I intend to >>> explore it as a separate area within the broader topic. It is my >>> understanding that this describes a set of rules or procedures governing the >>> conduct of the military. So Operation Gericht (the WWI German operation >>> around Verdun, 1916) was an "operation," the "strategy" was attrition, but >>> the "grand strategy" was the overall German plan to dominate continental >>> Europe (presumably for the purposes of evil, knowing them). I could >>> certainly be wrong about this (the terms, not the intent of Germany to do >>> evil). >>> >>> Is anyone interested in this topic willing to suggest (directly to me, if >>> you wish) alternate terms? "Grand strategy" is not meant to be the primary >>> limiting term, but rather to allow the aff to include broad changes in force >>> deployment. The "reduce deployment" part is supposed to be the primary >>> limit. >>> >>> Some examples of how "grand strategy" is used: >>> >>> Christopher Layne uses it to describe a policy of offshore balancing, >>> including the end of large-scale forward deployment (in "The Peace of >>> Illusions," for example). >>> >>> This is Robert Art, in "A Grand Strategy for America:" >>> "Grand strategy, like foreign policy, deals with the momentous choices >>> that a nation makes in foreign affairs, but it differs from foreign policy >>> in one fundamental respect. To define a nation's foreign policy is to >>> lay out the full range of goals that a state should seek in the world and >>> then determine how all the instruments of statecraft?political power, >>> military power, economic power, ideological power?should be integrated and >>> employed with one another to achieve those goals. Grand strategy, too, >>> deals with the full range of goals that a state should seek, but it >>> concentrates primarily on how the military instrument should be employed to >>> achieve them. It prescribes how a nation should wield its military >>> instrument to realize its foreign policy goals." >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, David Glass wrote: >>> >>>> hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" >>>> >>>> grand is obv problematic >>>> a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something >>>> >>>> >>>> so consider: >>>> >>>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly >>>> reduce its overseas military deployment. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson >>>> wrote: >>>> > I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another >>>> one >>>> > too, about US military policy. >>>> > >>>> > I'm thinking about something like this: >>>> > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand >>>> strategy >>>> > significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. >>>> > >>>> > Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of >>>> > selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options >>>> like >>>> > discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. >>>> Policy >>>> > advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, >>>> but >>>> > also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power >>>> than >>>> > that to which we have recently been accustomed. >>>> > >>>> > The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me >>>> for >>>> > some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual >>>> strategy >>>> > is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when >>>> > neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as >>>> opposed >>>> > to the simple level of its power. >>>> > >>>> > I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like >>>> this: >>>> > Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially >>>> change >>>> > one or more of its operational doctrines. >>>> > >>>> > "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat >>>> > different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm >>>> not >>>> > sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there >>>> seems >>>> > to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p >>>> ground is >>>> > particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden >>>> sharing, >>>> > and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and >>>> it >>>> > avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, >>>> namely >>>> > that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. >>>> > >>>> > I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the >>>> terms >>>> > that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much >>>> > preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in >>>> > helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the >>>> electronic >>>> > tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. >>>> > >>>> > Calum >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dylan Keenan >> Debate Coach >> Barkley Forum >> Emory University >> dylan.keenan at gmail.com >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081223/343aa145/attachment.htm From james.maritato at gmail.com Tue Dec 23 09:52:09 2008 From: james.maritato at gmail.com (James Maritato) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:52:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Question for Tuna About Second Life Debates Message-ID: AH! CONVERGENCE AND DEBATE! NICE! :-) I posted this to eDebate because I was hoping you might elaborate a little more on what these debates are about and such. World's, policy, a public debate format? I noted in your article that "points of information will be allowed" so I'm presuming it's Worlds (in which case you probably can't answer the next question). What's the resolution/motion? Can I be in one and run hypercap bad?! :-) Virtual landwars?! The Linden Dollar Econ Disad?! You know a long time ago, way before I was directing anything, I remember when Marist and Vermont held the first debate on Internet II. Definitely cool to see debate reach a new Internet medium. Of course now I want to login to Second Life, create debate tubs and a virtual Planet Debate and start selling intellectual property like mad! Very cool stuff. -JM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/5e3f85d2/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Tue Dec 23 10:52:46 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:52:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] "Grand Strategy" definitions Message-ID: <44785.60779.qm@web110603.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Google...in five minutes or less.... http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/boyd_grand_strategy.htm ? http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/fareed_zakaria/2008/12/wanted_a_new_grand_strategy_1.html ? http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86406/charles-a-kupchan-peter-l-trubowitz/grand-strategy-for-a-divided-america.html ? http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/schwarzlayne.htm ? http://uc.princeton.edu/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3775 ? http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/01/schwarzlayne.htma ? ??Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership,? http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/080110_grand_strategy.pdf, 2007 ? General (ret.) Dr. Klaus Naumann, KBE, Former Chief of the Defence Staff Germany Former Chairman Military Committee NATO General (ret.) John Shalikashvili, Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States of America & Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Field Marshal The Lord Inge, KG, GCB, PC, Former Chief of the Defence Staff United Kingdom Admiral (ret.) Jacques Lanxade, Former Chief of the Defence Staff France, Former Ambassador General (ret.) Henk van den Breemen, Former Chief of the Defence Staff the Netherlands ? ? ? American Grand Strategy After 9/11: An Assessment April 01, 2005 Dr. Stephen D. Biddle. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=603 ? ?Grand strategy? integrates military, political, and economic means to pursue states? ultimate objectives in the international system. American grand strategy had been in a state of flux prior to 2001, as containment of the Soviet Union gave way to a wider range of apparently lesser challenges. The 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade towers, however, transformed the grand strategy debate and led to a sweeping reevaluation of American security policy. It may still be too early to expect this reevaluation to have produced a complete or final response to 9/11?policies as complex as national grand strategy do not change overnight. But after 3 years of sustained debate and adaptation, it is reasonable to ask what this process has produced so far, and how well the results to date serve American interests. The author argues that, heretofore, the grand strategic response to 9/11 has combined ambitious public statements with vague particulars as to the scope of the threat and the end state to be sought. This combination of ambition and ambiguity creates important but unresolved tensions in American strategy. If the costs are low enough, these tensions are tolerable: the United States can avoid making hard choices and instead pursue ill-defined goals with limited penalties. But the higher the cost, the harder this becomes. And the costs are rising rapidly with the ongoing insurgency in Iraq. Eventually something will have to give?the ambiguity in today?s grand strategy is fast becoming intolerable. There are two broad alternatives for resolving these ambiguities and creating a coherent strategy: rollback and containment. Rollback would retain the ambitious goals implicit in today?s declaratory policy and accept the cost and near-term risk inherent in pursuing them. These costs include a redoubled commitment to nation building in Iraq and elsewhere, accelerated onset of great power competition, heightened incentives for proliferation, and hence an increased risk of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) use by terrorists in the near term. But in exchange, it offers the mid-term possibility of rolling the terrorist threat, and hence the ultimate danger of WMD use, back to a level below the severity of September 10, 2001. By contrast, containment would settle for more modest goals in exchange for lower costs and lower near-term risks. In particular, it would permit America to withdraw from nation building in the Mideast, it would slow the onset of great power competition, and it would moderate the risk of near-term WMD terrorism. But this retrenchment would leave the underlying causes of Islamist terror unassailed, and would therefore accept a persistent risk of major terrorist attack for the indefinite future. And it could never eliminate entirely the risk of those terrorists acquiring WMD; though it might reduce the probability per unit time, by extending the duration of the conflict indefinitely it could ultimately increase, not decrease, the odds of WMD use on American soil in the longer term. ? ? ? ? The Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy, International Security Studies, Yale University November 5, 2008 http://www.yale.edu/iss/gs/ ? We define ?grand strategy? as a comprehensive plan of action, based on the calculated relationship of means to large ends. Never an exact science, grand strategy requires constant reassessment and adjustment. Flexibility is key. Traditionally believed to belong to and best-developed in the politico-military and governmental realms, the concept of grand strategy applies?and ISS believes is essential?to a broad spectrum of human activities, not least those of international institutions, non-governmental organizations, and private businesses and corporations. ? ? Planning Skills, 2008 http://planningskills.com/glossary/38.php Grand Strategy ? Grand strategy is a general term for a broad statement of strategic action. A grand strategy states the means that will be used to achieve long-term objectives. Examples of business grand strategies that can be customized for a specific firm include: concentration, market development, product development, innovation, horizontal integration, divestiture, and liquidation. In a government context, Paul Kennedy defines grand strategy as "the capacity of the nation's leaders to bring together all of the elements [of power], both military and nonmilitary, for the preservation and enhancement of the nation's long-term (that is, in wartime and peacetime) best interests." From this perspective, grand strategy requires the articulation of both policy goals and interim objectives, as well as a broad definition of power that extends beyond the use of the military forces. Military strategist B. H. Liddell-Hart defined grand strategy as a plan "to co-ordinate and direct all the resources of [an organization] towards the attainment of ... [a] goal defined by fundamental policy." ? ? Cites:? Kennedy, P., Grand Strategies in War and Peace, 1991, also Profs. K.C. Johnson and S. P. Remy, CUNY. Liddell-Hart, B.H., "Fundamentals of Strategy and Grand Strategy," Strategy, 1967, p. 322. Check Chris Wells at http://www.yale.edu/iss/Grand-Strategy-Bureaucracy-Wells.pdf ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University ***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University. The contents are the sole opinion of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/94366871/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Tue Dec 23 11:10:46 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:10:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <895960.51059.qm@web110605.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Dylan expresses a few valid concerns.... --- On Mon, 12/22/08, Dylan Keenan wrote: From: Dylan Keenan Subject: Re: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area To: "Calum Matheson" Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 9:11 PM I do have a few thoughts/concerns 1)????? Can we stick the term grand strategy with any enforceable meaning? That is, what is to stop the aff from say getting US security out of Nigeria (not sure if we actually have military personel there) or withdrawing from the Arctic, or stopping coast guard good will missions to X country and nothing else. I get that the term grand strategy is a term of art, and is designed to deal with this. I also know that terms like "energy policy" or "constructive engagement" which are designed to make affs do something significant frequently devolve to the minimum and nothing more. Given the idiocy the neg gets away with these days something like that is perhaps necessary but still, it is a concern because small affs ALWAYS reduce the quality of debate. I think some of this is inevitable...and idiocy.? But I would like a topic with decent T ground.? The Supreme Court topic proved this can be accomplished without massively unpredictable ground.? I think different modifiers might limit out these small cases.? Identifying specific areas (middle east for example) has been mentioned as a possibility...but perhaps identifying the end goal would work.? Some of the contextual lit after 9/11 identified anti-terrorism...so defining the agenda for the "grand strategy" might offer some limits ? 3)????? Global link U questions will come up. Obama is gonna wind down in Iraq. I don't want to hear a year of "drawdown now" = no link uniqueness. True.? The inaugural address could very well define Obama's "Grand Strategy"? This could be in vague terms (like Bush's anti-terrorism rhetoric)...that's a wait-and-see situation.? There would have to be a way to limit out things like Iraq.? Undoubtedly, Obama will mark a change from Bush's grand strategy (oppression).? However, Obama also wants to increase troop deployment to Afghanistan. ? 4)????? Is the topic a bit too expansive on the mechanisms besides military power. That Layne def. mentions economic power. Is this basically sanctions or trade policy as well? I found several authors that described "grand strategy" in vague terms, including military deployment, values, trade, etc.? One or more of these things could be included as a modifier, i.e. defining the agenda of that strategy.? I am definitely against a trade mechanism, but that might be inherent in the term A few pluses: 1) Advantage innovation. I think that is a big problem this year. I doubt it would be when you have the whole military, planet, and economy to play with ? 2) I bet there are cards about the importance of a public statement shifting US strategy for states as well as non-state actors. That might help deal with negative BS counterplans ? 3) Big impact debates on a lot of different impacts = good for outweighing disads. On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: This isn't really a reply to Dr. Glass, but just an explanation of why I suggested the phrase "grand strategy."? I'm certainly open to alternative suggestions. "Strategy" can be defined to narrowly--a military strategy, as opposed to a grand strategy, may be defined as a plan to accomplish a particular military objective.? Grand strategy can be defined as a broader policy, by the civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to achieve American objectives.? I want the aff to be able to do things other than simply reduce US deployed forces--offshore balancing for example--and be able to make the requisite changes in force structure, etc.? The phrase "military strategy" is properly used (according to some narrow definitions) only to describe land forces (so JFC Fuller was a military strategist, for example, as opposed to Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist). "Doctrine" was also not what I was looking for, although I intend to explore it as a separate area within the broader topic. It is my understanding that this describes a set of rules or procedures governing the conduct of the military.? So Operation Gericht (the WWI German operation around Verdun, 1916) was an "operation," the "strategy" was attrition, but the "grand strategy" was the overall German plan to dominate continental Europe (presumably for the purposes of evil, knowing them).? I could certainly be wrong about this (the terms, not the intent of Germany to do evil). Is anyone interested in this topic willing to suggest (directly to me, if you wish) alternate terms?? "Grand strategy" is not meant to be the primary limiting term, but rather to allow the aff to include broad changes in force deployment.? The "reduce deployment" part is supposed to be the primary limit. Some examples of how "grand strategy" is used: Christopher Layne uses it to describe a policy of offshore balancing, including the end of large-scale forward deployment (in "The Peace of Illusions," for example). This is Robert Art, in "A Grand Strategy for America:" "Grand strategy, like foreign policy, deals with the momentous choices that a nation makes in foreign affairs, but it differs from foreign policy in one fundamental respect.? To define a nation's foreign policy is to lay out the full range of goals that a state should seek in the world and then determine how all the instruments of statecraft?political power, military power, economic power, ideological power?should be integrated and employed with one another to achieve those goals.? Grand strategy, too, deals with the full range of goals that a state should seek, but it concentrates primarily on how the military instrument should be employed to achieve them.? It prescribes how a nation should wield its military instrument to realize its foreign policy goals." On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, David Glass wrote: hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" grand is obv problematic a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something so consider: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should ?significantly reduce its overseas military deployment. On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another one > too, about US military policy. > > I'm thinking about something like this: > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand strategy > significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. > > Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of > selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like > discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. Policy > advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but > also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power than > that to which we have recently been accustomed. > > The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me for > some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual strategy > is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when > neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as opposed > to the simple level of its power. > > I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: > Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially change > one or more of its operational doctrines. > > "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat > different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not > sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there seems > to be some interest. ?I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p ground is > particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden sharing, > and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it > avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely > that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. > > I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the terms > that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much > preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in > helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the electronic > tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. > > Calum > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Dylan Keenan Debate Coach Barkley Forum Emory University dylan.keenan at gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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/20081223/737328d9/attachment.htm From u.hrair at gmail.com Tue Dec 23 11:47:36 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:47:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area In-Reply-To: <895960.51059.qm@web110605.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <895960.51059.qm@web110605.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: just a few more things about the term "grand strategy" in reaction (not necessarily opposition) to JT. 1. i think that obama's inaugural address will probably not define it. the US national security statement probably defines american grand strategy more so than a particular presidential speech, since it is supposed to be the guiding document for american policy overall, and the president doesn't really define US strategy alone. 2. the second part of my example resolution ("reducing its overseas deployments") is supposed to be the real limit on the topic. "grand strategy" just allows the aff to do some extra things to access the best literature advocating new force postures. i like the idea that the term is quite broad, and that real T debates about it are possible, because the requirement of reducing troop deployments puts serious limits on the aff's ability to cheat. this is like constructive engagement--it meant very little, but the security guarantee/aid part limited the aff. constructive engagement just let the aff access the best solvency, like grand bargain. so when jt says he found authors who define grand strategy broadly, and we should include a term to limit it, i think this resolution does that. if you withdraw troops from korea, europe, and the middle east, but then also put sanctions on sudan, you're not going to win. 3. this idea is obviously still embryonic, so i might include some stuff in the paper about focusing the topic on particular regions, but at this stage i oppose it. the purpose of "grand strategy" is to focus debates about military strategic decisions at the highest level, ideally multi-theater changes that alter the disposition of forces broadly. this is, i think, is the most interesting aspect of the topic. we have a lot of area topics, but we have very few with the scope of "grand strategy." there aren't a million affs, but the ones that do exist have powerful solvency evidence, huge advantages, and lots of negative ground. this minimizes "global uniqueness" and provides the best access to the kind of debates that motivated me to propose this topic, namely, debates about fundamental strategy and the (un)desirability of american world power. calum On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:10 AM, J T wrote: > Dylan expresses a few valid concerns.... > > --- On *Mon, 12/22/08, Dylan Keenan * wrote: > > From: Dylan Keenan > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area > To: "Calum Matheson" > Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 9:11 PM > > I do have a few thoughts/concerns > > 1) Can we stick the term grand strategy with any enforceable meaning? > That is, what is to stop the aff from say getting US security out of Nigeria > (not sure if we actually have military personel there) or withdrawing from > the Arctic, or stopping coast guard good will missions to X country and > nothing else. I get that the term grand strategy is a term of art, and is > designed to deal with this. I also know that terms like "energy policy" or > "constructive engagement" which are designed to make affs do something > significant frequently devolve to the minimum and nothing more. Given the > idiocy the neg gets away with these days something like that is perhaps > necessary but still, it is a concern because small affs ALWAYS reduce the > quality of debate. > > > I think some of this is inevitable...and idiocy. But I would like a topic > with decent T ground. The Supreme Court topic proved this can be > accomplished without massively unpredictable ground. > > > I think different modifiers might limit out these small cases. Identifying > specific areas (middle east for example) has been mentioned as a > possibility...but perhaps identifying the end goal would work. Some of the > contextual lit after 9/11 identified anti-terrorism...so defining the agenda > for the "grand strategy" might offer some limits > > > 3) Global link U questions will come up. Obama is gonna wind down in > Iraq. I don't want to hear a year of "drawdown now" = no link uniqueness. > > > True. The inaugural address could very well define Obama's "Grand > Strategy" This could be in vague terms (like Bush's anti-terrorism > rhetoric)...that's a wait-and-see situation. There would have to be a way > to limit out things like Iraq. Undoubtedly, Obama will mark a change from > Bush's grand strategy (oppression). However, Obama also wants to increase > troop deployment to Afghanistan. > > > > 4) Is the topic a bit too expansive on the mechanisms besides > military power. That Layne def. mentions economic power. Is this basically > sanctions or trade policy as well? > > > I found several authors that described "grand strategy" in vague terms, > including military deployment, values, trade, etc. One or more of these > things could be included as a modifier, i.e. defining the agenda of that > strategy. I am definitely against a trade mechanism, but that might be > inherent in the term > > > A few pluses: > > 1) Advantage innovation. I think that is a big problem this year. I doubt > it would be when you have the whole military, planet, and economy to play > with > > > > 2) I bet there are cards about the importance of a public statement > shifting US strategy for states as well as non-state actors. That might help > deal with negative BS counterplans > > > > 3) Big impact debates on a lot of different impacts = good for outweighing > disads. > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > >> This isn't really a reply to Dr. Glass, but just an explanation of why I >> suggested the phrase "grand strategy." I'm certainly open to alternative >> suggestions. >> >> "Strategy" can be defined to narrowly--a military strategy, as opposed to >> a grand strategy, may be defined as a plan to accomplish a particular >> military objective. Grand strategy can be defined as a broader policy, by >> the civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to >> achieve American objectives. I want the aff to be able to do things other >> than simply reduce US deployed forces--offshore balancing for example--and >> be able to make the requisite changes in force structure, etc. The phrase >> "military strategy" is properly used (according to some narrow definitions) >> only to describe land forces (so JFC Fuller was a military strategist, for >> example, as opposed to Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist). >> >> "Doctrine" was also not what I was looking for, although I intend to >> explore it as a separate area within the broader topic. It is my >> understanding that this describes a set of rules or procedures governing the >> conduct of the military. So Operation Gericht (the WWI German operation >> around Verdun, 1916) was an "operation," the "strategy" was attrition, but >> the "grand strategy" was the overall German plan to dominate continental >> Europe (presumably for the purposes of evil, knowing them). I could >> certainly be wrong about this (the terms, not the intent of Germany to do >> evil). >> >> Is anyone interested in this topic willing to suggest (directly to me, if >> you wish) alternate terms? "Grand strategy" is not meant to be the primary >> limiting term, but rather to allow the aff to include broad changes in force >> deployment. The "reduce deployment" part is supposed to be the primary >> limit. >> >> Some examples of how "grand strategy" is used: >> >> Christopher Layne uses it to describe a policy of offshore balancing, >> including the end of large-scale forward deployment (in "The Peace of >> Illusions," for example). >> >> This is Robert Art, in "A Grand Strategy for America:" >> "Grand strategy, like foreign policy, deals with the momentous choices >> that a nation makes in foreign affairs, but it differs from foreign policy >> in one fundamental respect. To define a nation's foreign policy is to >> lay out the full range of goals that a state should seek in the world and >> then determine how all the instruments of statecraft?political power, >> military power, economic power, ideological power?should be integrated and >> employed with one another to achieve those goals. Grand strategy, too, >> deals with the full range of goals that a state should seek, but it >> concentrates primarily on how the military instrument should be employed to >> achieve them. It prescribes how a nation should wield its military >> instrument to realize its foreign policy goals." >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, David Glass wrote: >> >>> hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" >>> >>> grand is obv problematic >>> a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something >>> >>> >>> so consider: >>> >>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly >>> reduce its overseas military deployment. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson >>> wrote: >>> > I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another >>> one >>> > too, about US military policy. >>> > >>> > I'm thinking about something like this: >>> > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand >>> strategy >>> > significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. >>> > >>> > Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of >>> > selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options >>> like >>> > discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. >>> Policy >>> > advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, >>> but >>> > also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power >>> than >>> > that to which we have recently been accustomed. >>> > >>> > The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me >>> for >>> > some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual >>> strategy >>> > is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when >>> > neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as >>> opposed >>> > to the simple level of its power. >>> > >>> > I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: >>> > Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially >>> change >>> > one or more of its operational doctrines. >>> > >>> > "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat >>> > different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm >>> not >>> > sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there >>> seems >>> > to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p >>> ground is >>> > particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden >>> sharing, >>> > and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it >>> > avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, >>> namely >>> > that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. >>> > >>> > I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the >>> terms >>> > that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much >>> > preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in >>> > helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the >>> electronic >>> > tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. >>> > >>> > Calum >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >> > > > > -- > Dylan Keenan > Debate Coach > Barkley Forum > Emory University > dylan.keenan at gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081223/7e2c8ecd/attachment.htm From antonucci23 at gmail.com Tue Dec 23 12:22:55 2008 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:22:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Second Life Debates ? Message-ID: <4a71966c0812231022n3dff8fc5r158863195ead0c5e@mail.gmail.com> I think that expanding electronic debate is a great idea, and I commend you for what sounds like a fantastic project! You should probably realize, however, if you're planning a long term series of projects with Second Life, that the label carries substantial stigma. You might want to research that stigma further before mixing those two brands. -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/45db0c8a/attachment.htm From akbiotech at comcast.net Tue Dec 23 12:25:58 2008 From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Dr Arthur Kyriazis MScE) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:25:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] grand strategy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49512D36.3030408@comcast.net> regarding the topic post on "grand strategy," the last time I read the words "grand strategy" was in association with the plans of Catherine the Great's "grand strategy" to partition the Ottoman Empire as part of her secret alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire towards the end of the 18th century; Austria would get the upper Balkans, including Bosnia Herzogovina, etc. while Turkish Asia Minor and the Caucasus would go to Russia, and Catherine was going to install her grandson Constantine on the throne of a new Greek Byzantine Empire (as a Russian Protectorate) encompassing Greece, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Rumania with Constantinople as its capital. Technically, with the rollback of the Communist government, all of those treaties with the Ottoman Empire from the 1700s and 1800s made by the Tsarist regime would technically now be back in force. Maybe Putin can drive Russia back to Constantinople. There's a "Grand Strategy" for you. Or Napoleon could conquer Europe again. Or the Dutch could flood their land to stop Louis XIV's "Grand Strategy". I think the problem with "Grand Strategy" is that it's inherently an imperialistic and conquest intended phrase both by context and exegesis and hermeneutic analysis. I've rarely seen the phrase apart from the designs of rapacious conquerors. As such, it's susceptible to negative attacks along these lines. --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. still have 12 to sell at SC and 6 at Fullerton if anyone > wants them (Ian Beier) > 2. Possible Topic Area (Calum Matheson) > 3. Re: Possible Topic Area (David Glass) > 4. Re: Possible Topic Area (Calum Matheson) > 5. Re: Possible Topic Area (Dylan Keenan) > 6. Re: Possible Topic Area (Calum Matheson) > 7. Debates in Second Life (Alfred Snider) > 8. Re: Possible Topic Area (bandana martin) > 9. Question for Tuna About Second Life Debates (James Maritato) > 10. "Grand Strategy" definitions (J T) > 11. Re: Possible Topic Area (J T) > 12. Re: Possible Topic Area (Calum Matheson) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:44:18 -0600 > From: "Ian Beier" > Subject: [eDebate] still have 12 to sell at SC and 6 at Fullerton if > anyone wants them > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <93ac16710812221244h51c036cev7ec74bbf7bae5fd7 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > ya i know. waited til the last minute and reposted. the vegas staff is poor > though. cant even afford capslock. > > > Ian > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081222/744604c8/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:14:02 -0600 > From: "Calum Matheson" > Subject: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another one > too, about US military policy. > > I'm thinking about something like this: > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand strategy > significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. > > Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of > selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like > discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. Policy > advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but > also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power than > that to which we have recently been accustomed. > > The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me for > some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual strategy > is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when > neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as opposed > to the simple level of its power. > > I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: > Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially change > one or more of its operational doctrines. > > "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat > different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not > sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there seems > to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p ground is > particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden sharing, > and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it > avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely > that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. > > I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the terms > that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much > preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in > helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the electronic > tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. > > Calum > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081222/92ae2149/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:44:19 -0500 > From: "David Glass" > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area > To: "Calum Matheson" > Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <8371758b0812221944o5b2b5eb0p89625a7f137f19ca at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" > > grand is obv problematic > a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something > > > so consider: > > Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly > reduce its overseas military deployment. > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > >> I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another one >> too, about US military policy. >> >> I'm thinking about something like this: >> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand strategy >> significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. >> >> Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of >> selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like >> discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. Policy >> advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but >> also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power than >> that to which we have recently been accustomed. >> >> The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me for >> some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual strategy >> is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when >> neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as opposed >> to the simple level of its power. >> >> I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: >> Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially change >> one or more of its operational doctrines. >> >> "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat >> different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not >> sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there seems >> to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p ground is >> particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden sharing, >> and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it >> avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely >> that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. >> >> I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the terms >> that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much >> preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in >> helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the electronic >> tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. >> >> Calum >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:28:39 -0600 > From: "Calum Matheson" > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area > Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > This isn't really a reply to Dr. Glass, but just an explanation of why I > suggested the phrase "grand strategy." I'm certainly open to alternative > suggestions. > > "Strategy" can be defined to narrowly--a military strategy, as opposed to a > grand strategy, may be defined as a plan to accomplish a particular military > objective. Grand strategy can be defined as a broader policy, by the > civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to > achieve American objectives. I want the aff to be able to do things other > than simply reduce US deployed forces--offshore balancing for example--and > be able to make the requisite changes in force structure, etc. The phrase > "military strategy" is properly used (according to some narrow definitions) > only to describe land forces (so JFC Fuller was a military strategist, for > example, as opposed to Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist). > > "Doctrine" was also not what I was looking for, although I intend to explore > it as a separate area within the broader topic. It is my understanding that > this describes a set of rules or procedures governing the conduct of the > military. So Operation Gericht (the WWI German operation around Verdun, > 1916) was an "operation," the "strategy" was attrition, but the "grand > strategy" was the overall German plan to dominate continental Europe > (presumably for the purposes of evil, knowing them). I could certainly be > wrong about this (the terms, not the intent of Germany to do evil). > > Is anyone interested in this topic willing to suggest (directly to me, if > you wish) alternate terms? "Grand strategy" is not meant to be the primary > limiting term, but rather to allow the aff to include broad changes in force > deployment. The "reduce deployment" part is supposed to be the primary > limit. > > Some examples of how "grand strategy" is used: > > Christopher Layne uses it to describe a policy of offshore balancing, > including the end of large-scale forward deployment (in "The Peace of > Illusions," for example). > > This is Robert Art, in "A Grand Strategy for America:" > "Grand strategy, like foreign policy, deals with the momentous choices that > a nation makes in foreign affairs, but it differs from foreign policy in one > fundamental respect. To define a nation's foreign policy is to lay out the > full range of goals that a state should seek in the world and then determine > how all the instruments of statecraft?political power, military power, > economic power, ideological power?should be integrated and employed with one > another to achieve those goals. Grand strategy, too, deals with the full > range of goals that a state should seek, but it concentrates primarily on > how the military instrument should be employed to achieve them. It > prescribes how a nation should wield its military instrument to realize its > foreign policy goals." > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, David Glass wrote: > > >> hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" >> >> grand is obv problematic >> a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something >> >> >> so consider: >> >> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly >> reduce its overseas military deployment. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: >> >>> I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another >>> >> one >> >>> too, about US military policy. >>> >>> I'm thinking about something like this: >>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand >>> >> strategy >> >>> significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. >>> >>> Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of >>> selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like >>> discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. Policy >>> advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but >>> also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power >>> >> than >> >>> that to which we have recently been accustomed. >>> >>> The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me for >>> some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual >>> >> strategy >> >>> is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when >>> neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as >>> >> opposed >> >>> to the simple level of its power. >>> >>> I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: >>> Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially >>> >> change >> >>> one or more of its operational doctrines. >>> >>> "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat >>> different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not >>> sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there >>> >> seems >> >>> to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p ground >>> >> is >> >>> particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden sharing, >>> and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it >>> avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely >>> that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. >>> >>> I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the terms >>> that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much >>> preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in >>> helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the >>> >> electronic >> >>> tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. >>> >>> Calum >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20081222/61a5f83a/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:11:16 -0500 > From: "Dylan Keenan" > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Possible Topic Area > To: "Calum Matheson" > Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > I like this topic idea ---- the impact lit is already fun, and would be made > better when it central to the topic (although ME seems to disprove this a > bit. How were people still getting away with Steinbach generic ME war goes > nuclear when it was pre Iraq). I agree with Calum that a lot of heg debates > are kind of shallow. Part of the problem is that the debate often ends with > "heg inevitable ? we just make the US good at it/make the world hate us > less" ---- this topic seems like, if well debated, it could avoid some of > that. > > > > I do have a few thoughts/concerns > > > > 1) Can we stick the term grand strategy with any enforceable meaning? > That is, what is to stop the aff from say getting US security out of Nigeria > (not sure if we actually have military personel there) or withdrawing from > the Arctic, or stopping coast guard good will missions to X country and > nothing else. I get that the term grand strategy is a term of art, and is > designed to deal with this. I also know that terms like "energy policy" or > "constructive engagement" which are designed to make affs do something > significant frequently devolve to the minimum and nothing more. Given the > idiocy the neg gets away with these days something like that is perhaps > necessary but still, it is a concern because small affs ALWAYS reduce the > quality of debate. > > > > 2) Conversely, I think we should center a lot of the topic discussion > around how the neg will try to cheat and write the topic to prevent that. Is > it possible people will have a counterplan to redeploy without changing > grand strategy (basically do the plan under a different name). To have host > countries force the US out? Use temporary redeployment to other areas? > Consult CP is a concern that always arises. Since the supreme court doesn't > set grand strategy a courts CP may be used with some stupid self serving > justification like "tests grand strategy" ? or con/con or amendment ? all > that trash. And some possibly legit PICS (offshore balancing except one > brigade at one port which is at risk of terrorism). > > > > 3) Global link U questions will come up. Obama is gonna wind down in > Iraq. I don't want to hear a year of "drawdown now" = no link uniqueness. > > > > 4) Is the topic a bit too expansive on the mechanisms besides military > power. That Layne def. mentions economic power. Is this basically sanctions > or trade policy as well? > > > > A few pluses: > > 1) Advantage innovation. I think that is a big problem this year. I doubt it > would be when you have the whole military, planet, and economy to play with > > > > 2) I bet there are cards about the importance of a public statement shifting > US strategy for states as well as non-state actors. That might help deal > with negative BS counterplans > > > > 3) Big impact debates on a lot of different impacts = good for outweighing > disads. > > > On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > > >> This isn't really a reply to Dr. Glass, but just an explanation of why I >> suggested the phrase "grand strategy." I'm certainly open to alternative >> suggestions. >> >> "Strategy" can be defined to narrowly--a military strategy, as opposed to a >> grand strategy, may be defined as a plan to accomplish a particular military >> objective. Grand strategy can be defined as a broader policy, by the >> civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to >> achieve American objectives. I want the aff to be able to do things other >> than simply reduce US deployed forces--offshore balancing for example--and >> be able to make the requisite changes in force structure, etc. The phrase >> "military strategy" is properly used (according to some narrow definitions) >> only to describe land forces (so JFC Fuller was a military strategist, for >> example, as opposed to Alfred Thayer Mahan, a naval strategist). >> >> "Doctrine" was also not what I was looking for, although I intend to >> explore it as a separate area within the broader topic. It is my >> understanding that this describes a set of rules or procedures governing the >> conduct of the military. So Operation Gericht (the WWI German operation >> around Verdun, 1916) was an "operation," the "strategy" was attrition, but >> the "grand strategy" was the overall German plan to dominate continental >> Europe (presumably for the purposes of evil, knowing them). I could >> certainly be wrong about this (the terms, not the intent of Germany to do >> evil). >> >> Is anyone interested in this topic willing to suggest (directly to me, if >> you wish) alternate terms? "Grand strategy" is not meant to be the primary >> limiting term, but rather to allow the aff to include broad changes in force >> deployment. The "reduce deployment" part is supposed to be the primary >> limit. >> >> Some examples of how "grand strategy" is used: >> >> Christopher Layne uses it to describe a policy of offshore balancing, >> including the end of large-scale forward deployment (in "The Peace of >> Illusions," for example). >> >> This is Robert Art, in "A Grand Strategy for America:" >> "Grand strategy, like foreign policy, deals with the momentous choices that >> a nation makes in foreign affairs, but it differs from foreign policy in one >> fundamental respect. To define a nation's foreign policy is to lay out >> the full range of goals that a state should seek in the world and then >> determine how all the instruments of statecraft?political power, military >> power, economic power, ideological power?should be integrated and employed >> with one another to achieve those goals. Grand strategy, too, deals with >> the full range of goals that a state should seek, but it concentrates >> primarily on how the military instrument should be employed to achieve them. >> It prescribes how a nation should wield its military instrument to realize >> its foreign policy goals." >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 9:44 PM, David Glass wrote: >> >> >>> hmm I'd just get rid of the words "grand strategy to" >>> >>> grand is obv problematic >>> a strategy need not be implement even if its purpose is to do something >>> >>> >>> so consider: >>> >>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly >>> reduce its overseas military deployment. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Calum Matheson >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I may or may not work on a Russia topic, but I'm interested in another >>>> >>> one >>> >>>> too, about US military policy. >>>> >>>> I'm thinking about something like this: >>>> Resolved: The United States Federal Government should adopt a grand >>>> >>> strategy >>> >>>> significantly reducing its overseas military deployment. >>>> >>>> Topical affs would include offshore balancing, various incarnations of >>>> selective engagement, strict isolationism, and more radical options like >>>> discontinue the war on terrorism, disband the military, and so on. >>>> >>> Policy >>> >>>> advantage areas would include terrorism and proliferation of course, but >>>> also (in my opinion) a much more nuanced discussion of military power >>>> >>> than >>> >>>> that to which we have recently been accustomed. >>>> >>>> The advantages wouldn't all be about hegemony, but it has bothered me >>>> >>> for >>> >>>> some time now how often we talk about that, and how rarely actual >>>> >>> strategy >>> >>>> is involved, and how shallow our discussions must necessarily be when >>>> neither side can actually change the way military force is used, as >>>> >>> opposed >>> >>>> to the simple level of its power. >>>> >>>> I'd like to include a version with a non-US actor, something like this: >>>> Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially >>>> >>> change >>> >>>> one or more of its operational doctrines. >>>> >>>> "Operational doctrine" is a term of art that would create a somewhat >>>> different focus for the topic than the US-only resolution above. I'm not >>>> sure what I think about international actor resolutions yet, but there >>>> >>> seems >>> >>>> to be some interest. I like the idea of NATO as an actor: the c/p >>>> >>> ground is >>> >>>> particularly interesting (US or EU, with multilateralism, burden >>>> >>> sharing, >>> >>>> and EU defense as extremely well-developed net benefits/disads), and it >>>> avoids the most common objection that I've heard to these topics, namely >>>> that there is insufficient advocacy literature in English. >>>> >>>> I've already done a fair amount of research on this, especially the >>>> >>> terms >>> >>>> that might be included, although the resolutions above are very much >>>> preliminary ones. Anyone who is interested in >>>> helping/criticizing/questioning/attacking me without clogging the >>>> >>> electronic >>> >>>> tubes should feel free to contact me at u.hrair at gmail.com. >>>> >>>> Calum >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 alfred.snider at uvm.edu Tue Dec 23 13:11:23 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:11:23 +0100 Subject: [eDebate] Second life-format? Message-ID: <495137DB.9070606@uvm.edu> Jimbo wants to know what format. I think we are open to all of it. CX can work as well. I will probably run a worlds tournament sometime soon because it seems like the situation makes intl debating a low-cost reality. It is a space, you use it. We help you. Wait for the demo coming up and then people can see. Yes, I remember the I2 debate, and the first Internet streaming video debate 199 and international debate 1999. 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 u.hrair at gmail.com Tue Dec 23 13:18:58 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:18:58 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Dr Arthur Kyriazis MScE Message-ID: I assume that you're a real person and not a fake edebate account from the writers of Wondermark. You are very fortunate to have been acquainted with Catherine the Great. I can almost see you there in St. Petersburg's Winter Palace, sipping tea from the steaming samovar and discussing the latest works of Voltaire in what will later be the Hermitage. I hope that you've got a souvenir from that last time you heard the phrase "grand strategy." Perhaps an engraved monocle. Russia still had the gold standard then. I hope you didn't pawn it to defray the thousands of dollars in lost judging fees that you're owed. The last time I read the phrase "grand strategy" was this morning, when JT posted a dozen links to articles (written significantly later than the era of pith helmets or imperialist designs on the Low Countries). Before that, when I checked to ensure that sufficient solvency advocates existed who describe their policies in these terms. They did, I'm happy to report. It is used still, especially by military historians, to describe a *level* of policy--the highest level of military policy--which is the plan a state or coalition has to direct the sum of its resources to accomplish its goals. The phrase was indeed common in the "Old Diplomacy" of pre-World War One Europe, it is still current. "Grand strategy" itself is not imperialistic. There were imperialistic grand strategies, of course, but screw in that monocle and read the topic I suggest with more care--it requires the United States (it is a country formed from the former British colonial possessions in the New World some fifteen years after the beginning of Catherine's reign) to reduce it's military commitments overseas. So, think of it as exactly what you described...but the opposite. Here are some examples of grand strategy that come a bit later. In World War Two, the Atlantic Charter and the ARCADIA Conference defined coalition grand strategy. Following the war, the US policy of containment was its grand strategy. Detente could be described in the same terms. Now, American follows a grand strategy of preponderance--an attempt to maintain vast military, cultural, and economic power to prevent the ascendancy of a peer competitor and to spread democratic government (ostensibly, anyway). The topic I'm suggesting aims to change that. This line here intrigues me: "I've rarely seen the phrase apart from the designs of rapacious conquerors. As such, it's susceptible to negative attacks along these lines." We've established, I think, that you have done very little research on the use of this term after the end of absolute monarchy. If, however, you are correct, and the term is susceptible to negative attacks, then you've identified "negative ground," which is an important part of contemporary debate. I must confess at this juncture that I am half European and half American, so it is possible that my desire for "clash" reflects nothing more than my intellectual rapacity. Now I must bid you adieu. I have important work to do protesting my local pet store, which sells "guinea pigs," a reference to an age when the animals could be bought as food for merely one guinea--an currency of incorrigable imperialists, no less. Terrible what some base ruffians will do to a helpless animal. Tsk tsk. Calum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/16af7804/attachment.htm From dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Tue Dec 23 15:57:05 2008 From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:57:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] USC Hotel Room Share Needed Message-ID: Greetings, Harvard has one female debater who we need to house at the tournament hotel at USC (the Sheraton.) We don't have a reservation. If anybody has a room with only one or two females, we would very much appreciate the chance to share. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. dp From antonucci23 at gmail.com Tue Dec 23 18:55:49 2008 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:55:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Grand" v. "National Security" / "national security" Message-ID: <4a71966c0812231655i59a70044o9f8ec416b8fd2530@mail.gmail.com> Have you considered employing the term "national security strategy" ? As you've mentioned, it's more concretely tied to an identifiable governmental process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_strategy It seems to address your concern that we debate "a broader policy, by the civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to achieve American objectives." This wording would more explicitly enable the counterplan(s) to implement the aff through legislation, covert action, or purely internal military directives. The counterplan might succeed as a limiting function where a simple T debate based on the well-documented but imprecisely defined adjective "grand" might fail. Only advantage ground based on the perceived legitimacy of a declared strategic change would meaningully differentiate the plan from the counterplan. "Improve UAVs" loses to a process counterplan. "Offshore balancing" also might, which is a concern, but can at least leverage a pre-emptively written 1AC. If you loathe this range of counterplans, of course, you might want to rephrase the original, since "grand strategy" carries a weaker but definitely existent association with the National Security Strategy, right? Personally, I'm agnostic, since everyone will probably vote for that topic to get it on with tattooed dolphins or whatever. It seems worthwhile, though, as an exercise, to determine if you want that range of counterplans or not. -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/8b0dfe56/attachment.htm From johntheempire at gmail.com Tue Dec 23 20:55:31 2008 From: johntheempire at gmail.com (John Cook) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:55:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Attn: Dartmouth AH Message-ID: <5bfb770b0812231855s44454398v685f1211e492ecf7@mail.gmail.com> I need some cite information johntheempireATgmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081223/0834e02d/attachment.htm From gacggc at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 02:22:40 2008 From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 03:22:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Grand" v. "National Security" / "national security" In-Reply-To: <4a71966c0812231655i59a70044o9f8ec416b8fd2530@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a71966c0812231655i59a70044o9f8ec416b8fd2530@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8371758b0812240022r5ba9d9e0x7be756c22bd7d14f@mail.gmail.com> The counterplan I'm worried about is the one that PICs out of the "grand strategy" and just reduces the deployment It seems like you can just cut deployment without having a "grand strategy"... Wikipedia says : "Grand strategy is military strategy at the level of movement and use of an entire nation state or empire's resources. Military grand strategy includes calculations of economic resources and man-power. So if the Aff's grand strategy is to decrease the military budget, for example, and part of that is decreasing deployments, the PIC makes the debate just about the budget, and not about the deployment. I mean that's fine, but perhaps not the reason to write such a rez (?) Is there an example of a good aff where the strategy is required for the cut in deployment? So far, no alternative broadening language has occurred to me which isn't subject to the PIC. On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Michael Antonucci wrote: > Have you considered employing the term "national security strategy" ? > > As you've mentioned, it's more concretely tied to an identifiable > governmental process: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_strategy > > It seems to address your concern that we debate "a broader policy, by the > civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to > achieve American objectives." > > This wording would more explicitly enable the counterplan(s) to implement > the aff through legislation, covert action, or purely internal military > directives. > > The counterplan might succeed as a limiting function where a simple T debate > based on the well-documented but imprecisely defined adjective "grand" might > fail. Only advantage ground based on the perceived legitimacy of a declared > strategic change would meaningully differentiate the plan from the > counterplan. > > "Improve UAVs" loses to a process counterplan. "Offshore balancing" also > might, which is a concern, but can at least leverage a pre-emptively written > 1AC. > > If you loathe this range of counterplans, of course, you might want to > rephrase the original, since "grand strategy" carries a weaker but > definitely existent association with the National Security Strategy, right? > > Personally, I'm agnostic, since everyone will probably vote for that topic > to get it on with tattooed dolphins or whatever. It seems worthwhile, > though, as an exercise, to determine if you want that range of counterplans > or not. > > -- > Michael Antonucci > Debate Coach > Georgetown University > Mobile: 617-838-3345 > Office: 202-687-4079 > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 12:35:42 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:35:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Grand" v. "National Security" / "national security" In-Reply-To: <8371758b0812240022r5ba9d9e0x7be756c22bd7d14f@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a71966c0812231655i59a70044o9f8ec416b8fd2530@mail.gmail.com> <8371758b0812240022r5ba9d9e0x7be756c22bd7d14f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Unless I am crazy, and I usually am, the reason for Grand Strategy is likely that using that term would allow the aff to increase to decrease (rev in mil affairs, modernization, new tech etc). In other words, an affirmative could functionally modernize the armed forces and still decrease troop levels as long as "strategy" is included. Josh On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:22 AM, David Glass wrote: > The counterplan I'm worried about is the one that PICs out of the > "grand strategy" and just reduces the deployment > > It seems like you can just cut deployment without having a "grand > strategy"... > > Wikipedia says : "Grand strategy is military strategy at the level of > movement and use of an entire nation state or empire's resources. > Military grand strategy includes calculations of economic resources > and man-power. > > So if the Aff's grand strategy is to decrease the military budget, for > example, and part of that is decreasing deployments, the PIC > makes the debate just about the budget, and not about the deployment. > I mean that's fine, but perhaps > not the reason to write such a rez (?) > > Is there an example of a good aff where the strategy is required for > the cut in deployment? > > So far, no alternative broadening language has occurred to me which > isn't subject to the PIC. > > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Michael Antonucci > wrote: > > Have you considered employing the term "national security strategy" ? > > > > As you've mentioned, it's more concretely tied to an identifiable > > governmental process: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_strategy > > > > It seems to address your concern that we debate "a broader policy, by > the > > civilian leadership, fitting the use of force into an overall plan to > > achieve American objectives." > > > > This wording would more explicitly enable the counterplan(s) to implement > > the aff through legislation, covert action, or purely internal military > > directives. > > > > The counterplan might succeed as a limiting function where a simple T > debate > > based on the well-documented but imprecisely defined adjective "grand" > might > > fail. Only advantage ground based on the perceived legitimacy of a > declared > > strategic change would meaningully differentiate the plan from the > > counterplan. > > > > "Improve UAVs" loses to a process counterplan. "Offshore balancing" also > > might, which is a concern, but can at least leverage a pre-emptively > written > > 1AC. > > > > If you loathe this range of counterplans, of course, you might want to > > rephrase the original, since "grand strategy" carries a weaker but > > definitely existent association with the National Security Strategy, > right? > > > > Personally, I'm agnostic, since everyone will probably vote for that > topic > > to get it on with tattooed dolphins or whatever. It seems worthwhile, > > though, as an exercise, to determine if you want that range of > counterplans > > or not. > > > > -- > > Michael Antonucci > > Debate Coach > > Georgetown University > > Mobile: 617-838-3345 > > Office: 202-687-4079 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20081224/eaab4b31/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Dec 24 12:52:28 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:52:28 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Northwestern Message-ID: Name:Owen L. Coon at Northwestern University Starts:2/7/2009 Ends:2/9/2009 Hosted by: Northwestern Contact: Luke P. Hill Address: 1815 Chicago Ave, Evanston IL, 60201 Phone: 847-467-0345 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: with 8 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 u.hrair at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 13:33:41 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:33:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] grand strategy v. national security Message-ID: I'm obviously not given to brief responses, so I apologize. The first, really long, section is about defining "grand strategy" and some of the alternatives. The next section is about what the topic is supposed to be, and dealing more with ground and strategic (in a debate sense) things. I: Defining "grand strategy" "National Security Strategy" does not, I think, solve the problems with "grand strategy," and in fact may create more of them. The National Security Strategy is a single document, and forcing the aff to change it only creates the counterplans that Antonucci mentioned and accomplishes little else. I do indeed loathe those counterplans. Some of them don't make much sense (like covertly withdraw American troops deployed overseas?) and a number of them probably couldn't be done without presidential authorization. The "buid UAVs" aff, by the way, would have to be the "build UAVs and withdraw thousands of US troops" aff. One technological change won't be grand strategy, and the counteplan to just build the UAVs without withdrawing troops is what provides the best limit in my opinion, not process PICs based on "national security." I'd rather not focus on process, but "grand strategy" does mean some of these are possible because although the US does not have an official grand strategy, many academics believe that the NSS amounts to American grand strategy. That's okay with me. I know some people like those C/Ps, so I think the topic should make them possible, but not make them automatically compete by tying the aff to a mechanism as specific as changing the NSS. There's a debate about competition this way--I may be alone in thinking process PICs are boring, but I'm probably not alone in thinking that we shouldn't choose a term just to avoid focusing debates on the actual desirability of withdrawing US forces. Also, I think it's a mistake to think of "grand" and "national" just as adjectives that modify "strategy." It should be apparent now that these are all extensively-debated terms of art, so it's a mistake to break the terms apart. I didn't want to include the adjective "grand," but rather to make the topic about "grand strategy," which is a different conceptual category, not just "strategy that is grand." Here's some definitional stuff about NSS: First, there are definitions that make it indistinct from "grand strategy." Here's what the DoD has to say: "National strategy The art and science of developing and using the diplomatic, economic, and informational powers of a nation, together with its armed forces, during peace and war to secure national objectives. Also called national security strategy or grand strategy. " (Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) The "Dictionary of Modern Strategy and Tactics" also says that the three terms are equivalent. Second, there are definitions that define "National Security Strategy" as a broader concept than "grand strategy." By the way, I'm capitalizing it because the term has two meanings--one can talk about "national security strategy" in general, which seems to be what the DoD definition there is about, but the "National Security Strategy" is a particular document. Here's a discussion about the two terms by Terry Deibel: "[M]any writers on grand strategy go even further, putting the connection of strategy with war in second place and arguing that strategic thinking should be applied to the whole field of national security...All the instruments of state power were included...grand strategy thus became nearly synonymous with a much newer term, "national security strategy," defined by a congressional panel as "the art and science of employing and using the political, economic, and psychological powers of a nation, together with its armed forces, during peace and war, to secure national objectives." Today, in fact, most writers on *grand* strategy use that term in ways that cannot be distinguished from that definition of *national security* strategy." (Italics in original) So some writers use "grand strategy" imprecisely to mean something much broader, namely "national security strategy." Deibel thinks it should be narrower, and be applied only to military aims: "This study argues that the term "grand strategy" should be reserved for the use to which Liddell Hart put it, that is, to represent the broadest planning for and the conduct of war; encompassing all the policy instruments, nonmilitary as well as military; tailoring them to meet the political goals of the state; and considering how the conduct of hostilities will affect the peace to follow. This definition of grand strategy is not in accord with its usage in much recent literature, however, because it deliberately excludes the efforts of a nation to maintain security while at peace. Those will be included here in the term "national security strategy," limited to goals that have mainly to do with the protection of the nation's physical security against attack ? presumably the most important area of the national interest, but far from the only one with which strategic thinking should deal. National security strategy would thus include grand strategy properly defined, with the latter operating within the former when the nation is at war and the two becoming less and less distinguishable to the extent that the war becomes total (see Figure 1.1.)." This may also deal with some other objections, such as the "PIC out of changing C/P" which I will discuss in more detail below. "Grand strategy" is only a plan for wartime--the status quo qualifies certainly--where as once war ends, the same ideas and directives become "national security strategy." I think this means that the aff doesn't have to defend that the plan ties the hands of all future administrations forever. Here's some ev that "strategy" should be limited to military action (Colin Gray): "strategy is?about the threat and use of force for political reasons." And... ""it is important to keep the meaning of strategy clear and relatively narrow?my own strong preference?is for the meaning of strategy and strategic to be confined to the more restricted and clearest of the uses specified by Clausewitz. Strategy is about the threat or use of force for the political purpose of the war." More evidence that "grand strategy" means military changes--perhaps narrower still (Lars Skalnes, crazy Nordic punctuation omitted): "American scholars in the decades after World War II increasingly adopted a narrow conception of grand strategy and concentrated most of their attention on the purely military instruments available to great powers. Foreign economic policy was consigned to the realm of low politics?Posen's commonly cited definition of *grand strategy* as a "political-military means-ends chain" (1984, 13) implies a narrow conception of grand strategy. He and others have completely ignored economic means." "Mearsheimer?defines *grand strategy* as "the relationship between military means and international commitments." There are a bunch of footnotes here too--I don't have them yet, but that suggests you've got a lot more potential cards out there. One more concern about "national security strategy"--I want to ensure that the aff makes broad changes that aren't confined to a single theater. This is a bit trickier, but when the word "strategy" is used in a *military context* it is distinguishable from "operational" in that it forces a broader change. As above, "national security strategy" uses the word also in a peacetime sense, so it could potentially allow smaller affs as well as all of the broader, grand strategic ones. Here's a card about grand strategy vs. operational strategy: "Strategy A military term that denotes a long-term plan, to be distinguished from 'tactics' which relates to conduct of battles. 'Theartre strategy' refers to planning in a particular theatre of war, while 'grand strategy' is concerned with military logistics and continental or world war." II: Counterplans, etc. Okay. Here's the part about counterplan concerns and debate-strategic stuff. First, the phrase "grand strategy" will be in one of the resolutions I write about, and I currently favor it, but I'll suggest alternatives too. Everyone seems to be forgetting the "reduce overseas deployments" part. If you write an aff to reauthorize the Crusader program (or whatever), it might be small and unpredictable...but you also have to fiat a troop withdrawal. "Counterplan: reauthorize Crusader" solves that aff. This is like constructive engagement on the old sanctions topic (I'm old, yeah, whatever). You could do anything that was "constructive engagement" but you also had to lift sanctions, meaning that if the plan had two parts, you had to have an advocate for doing both together. Those didn't really exist. Similarly, "grand strategy" allows you to do a lot of things, but you won't, because the neg will PIC out of them. Second, "grand strategy" is a limiting term in some important ways, based on the definitions above (and others). The neg can probably win that it requires a change outside of a single theater (so no "withdraw from Iraq" aff, unless it also reduces US troop presence elsewhere). It means the aff can't just change something tactical or doctrinal. In this sense, the term is limiting because it is broad--it's big; it's defined by it's level and scale. Third, about this "do the plan but don't change strategy" thing. a) I'm yet to hear what the net benefit to this is, or have anyone provide a single link card. b) This is partly why I like the term "grand strategy." There are plenty of cards that describe American grand strategy, and even say that it is usually defined by the NSS (or NMS even). But this doesn't mean that the aff necessarily has to change that document--the terms "national security strategy" or even "national strategy" probably require that, but grand strategy may not. The definition by Robert Art is really important here--grand strategy is the plan for how American military assets will be employed to accomplish a goal--it is not necessarily the goal itself. The aff is not required to change the NSS to create a change in American grand strategy, although there are certainly cards that say that would be involved. There is thus a debate about whether the counterplan competes, but less of a debate about whether this elusive "change strategy disad" links. c) I'll use an analogy to this current topic, indisputably the best soybean-related topic we've ever had. No one reads a PIC to just eliminate subsidies without changing agricultural policy. Few teams even put "agricultural policy" in the plan. Similarly, most plans about strategy would be something like this: "The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce it's overseas military deployments and employ its forces for a offshore balancing." The aff can say that this amounts to adopting a new grand strategy, but they don't have to put the phrase in their plan--the "normal means" for doing the plan entails revisions of many US planning documents, but it would be tough to write a counterplan to avoid this. The idea that the NSS officially defines US grand strategy is not legally true--it is just usually the case. I haven't yet found a card saying that changing grand strategy requires changing the NSS, just that the NSS is usually interpreted as a statement defining current grand strategy. Here's the important part: "grand strategy" might *allow* the aff to do things that are broader than military deployment changes, but it might not *require* them to do these things. d) The "restricted to military means" interpretation may mean you don't have to change this document. The controversial parts of the NSS are mostly the goals, not the means, which under the Art interpretation above, you probably don't have to change--this is also the most limiting interpretation of the topic, so that's probably good. The aff could easily say that it changes the NMS, or that changes in either document are a result of the plan, not the action of it. This is the advantage of using a term, like grand strategy, that is meaningful, but not tied to a very specific legal mechanism. You can read link cards to the NSS disad (if it's out there), but you can't really read the NSS PIC. Finally, Josh Hoe: yes, the topic allows the aff to make US forces more effective. The aff can abolish the military or whatever, but the topic will mostly be about what strategies are useful. It's not the "reduce American power" topic, it's the "adopt a new strategy" topic. The aff can definitely do either, but the primary disad to the second ("you hurt American power, that's bad") applies to the first--and you don't even have to read a link. Also, the aff could do RMA, etc., but they still have to defend a troop withdrawal, so you could PIC out of the withdrawal part if the aff did something minor, as explained above. Calum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081224/0e98960f/attachment.htm From lukephill at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 14:41:56 2008 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:41:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Tournament- Update Message-ID: Hi Folks - two quick things: 1) Wanted to correct one thing in the automatic edebate post for the Owen L. Coon tournament - we will have 7 prelims, not 8 as the automatic notification states. That and a number of other important changes, improvements, and additions are detailed in the invitation which is now accessible via debateresults.com 2) Please note that the Hotel reservation deadline is rapidly approaching. The contract stipulates that registrations should be made by January 16th, which gives everyone about 20 days to get registered. Wish I could have worked it out to give people more time, but it has taken us months of planning to get everything just right. Please make your reservations soon. Last thing, we are really looking forward to having you all here in February. I always enjoyed debating at the Owen L. Coon as an undergrad, and as we have made changes and additions we keep going back to the notion that we should maximize the *debating experience *here as much as possible. Providing lots of meals, moving your evidence for you, providing free transportation to and from campus, and adding the Sunday night assistant's workspace/reception have all been planned to let coaches coach and debaters debate while keeping things like worrying about meals and where to park the vans down to a minimum. Please feel free to email me if I can be of any assistance whatsoever at fitzmier at gmail.com. On behalf of the Northwestern Debate Society, I would like to invite each of you to our tournament. Can't wait to see you here in Evanston. Fitz Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081224/911550ef/attachment.htm From csedelmyer at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 15:24:32 2008 From: csedelmyer at gmail.com (Chris Sedelmyer) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:24:32 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] James Madison Rounds for Sale Message-ID: If anyone still needs judges, I can sell 3. If interested, please email me at csedelmyer at gmail.com Thanks, Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081224/41ff2f7f/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 16:01:44 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:01:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] grand strategy v. national security In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was not saying that I think this makes the topic a bad topic...Honestly just thinking it through....I think being able to prove it has to be a multi-theater reduction is pretty important because the likelihood of change x personnell in one engagement to smaller numbers of y personnell cases will be really hard to beat (if multi-theater is not hard-wired into the language). In many cases things in the category of RMA or Modernization or New Tech inherently are designed to retire larger numbers so while you are right that the aff would also have to decrease numbers - thats really not much of a check. josh On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > I'm obviously not given to brief responses, so I apologize. The first, > really long, section is about defining "grand strategy" and some of the > alternatives. The next section is about what the topic is supposed to be, > and dealing more with ground and strategic (in a debate sense) things. > > I: Defining "grand strategy" > > "National Security Strategy" does not, I think, solve the problems with > "grand strategy," and in fact may create more of them. The National > Security Strategy is a single document, and forcing the aff to change it > only creates the counterplans that Antonucci mentioned and accomplishes > little else. I do indeed loathe those counterplans. Some of them don't > make much sense (like covertly withdraw American troops deployed overseas?) > and a number of them probably couldn't be done without presidential > authorization. The "buid UAVs" aff, by the way, would have to be the "build > UAVs and withdraw thousands of US troops" aff. One technological change > won't be grand strategy, and the counteplan to just build the UAVs without > withdrawing troops is what provides the best limit in my opinion, not > process PICs based on "national security." > > I'd rather not focus on process, but "grand strategy" does mean some of > these are possible because although the US does not have an official grand > strategy, many academics believe that the NSS amounts to American grand > strategy. That's okay with me. I know some people like those C/Ps, so I > think the topic should make them possible, but not make them automatically > compete by tying the aff to a mechanism as specific as changing the NSS. > There's a debate about competition this way--I may be alone in thinking > process PICs are boring, but I'm probably not alone in thinking that we > shouldn't choose a term just to avoid focusing debates on the actual > desirability of withdrawing US forces. > > Also, I think it's a mistake to think of "grand" and "national" just as > adjectives that modify "strategy." It should be apparent now that these are > all extensively-debated terms of art, so it's a mistake to break the terms > apart. I didn't want to include the adjective "grand," but rather to make > the topic about "grand strategy," which is a different conceptual category, > not just "strategy that is grand." > > Here's some definitional stuff about NSS: > > First, there are definitions that make it indistinct from "grand > strategy." Here's what the DoD has to say: > > > "National strategy > The art and science of developing and using the diplomatic, economic, and > informational powers of a nation, together with its armed forces, during > peace and war to secure national objectives. Also called national security > strategy or grand strategy. " > (Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) > > The "Dictionary of Modern Strategy and Tactics" also says that the three > terms are equivalent. > > Second, there are definitions that define "National Security Strategy" as a > broader concept than "grand strategy." By the way, I'm capitalizing it > because the term has two meanings--one can talk about "national security > strategy" in general, which seems to be what the DoD definition there is > about, but the "National Security Strategy" is a particular document. > Here's a discussion about the two terms by Terry Deibel: > > "[M]any writers on grand strategy go even further, putting the connection > of strategy with war in second place and arguing that strategic thinking > should be applied to the whole field of national security...All the > instruments of state power were included...grand strategy thus became > nearly synonymous with a much newer term, "national security strategy," > defined by a congressional panel as "the art and science of employing and > using the political, economic, and psychological powers of a nation, > together with its armed forces, during peace and war, to secure national > objectives." Today, in fact, most writers on *grand* strategy use that > term in ways that cannot be distinguished from that definition of *national > security* strategy." (Italics in original) > > So some writers use "grand strategy" imprecisely to mean something much > broader, namely "national security strategy." Deibel thinks it should be > narrower, and be applied only to military aims: > > "This study argues that the term "grand strategy" should be reserved for > the use to which Liddell Hart put it, that is, to represent the broadest > planning for and the conduct of war; encompassing all the policy > instruments, nonmilitary as well as military; tailoring them to meet the > political goals of the state; and considering how the conduct of hostilities > will affect the peace to follow. This definition of grand strategy is not > in accord with its usage in much recent literature, however, because it > deliberately excludes the efforts of a nation to maintain security while at > peace. Those will be included here in the term "national security > strategy," limited to goals that have mainly to do with the protection of > the nation's physical security against attack ? presumably the most > important area of the national interest, but far from the only one with > which strategic thinking should deal. National security strategy would > thus include grand strategy properly defined, with the latter operating > within the former when the nation is at war and the two becoming less and > less distinguishable to the extent that the war becomes total (see Figure > 1.1.)." > > This may also deal with some other objections, such as the "PIC out of > changing C/P" which I will discuss in more detail below. "Grand strategy" > is only a plan for wartime--the status quo qualifies certainly--where as > once war ends, the same ideas and directives become "national security > strategy." I think this means that the aff doesn't have to defend that the > plan ties the hands of all future administrations forever. > > Here's some ev that "strategy" should be limited to military action (Colin > Gray): > > "strategy is?about the threat and use of force for political reasons." > > And... > > ""it is important to keep the meaning of strategy clear and relatively > narrow?my own strong preference?is for the meaning of strategy and strategic > to be confined to the more restricted and clearest of the uses specified by > Clausewitz. Strategy is about the threat or use of force for the > political purpose of the war." > > More evidence that "grand strategy" means military changes--perhaps > narrower still (Lars Skalnes, crazy Nordic punctuation omitted): > > "American scholars in the decades after World War II increasingly adopted a > narrow conception of grand strategy and concentrated most of their attention > on the purely military instruments available to great powers. Foreign > economic policy was consigned to the realm of low politics?Posen's commonly > cited definition of *grand strategy* as a "political-military means-ends > chain" (1984, 13) implies a narrow conception of grand strategy. He and > others have completely ignored economic means." > > > "Mearsheimer?defines *grand strategy* as "the relationship between > military means and international commitments." > > There are a bunch of footnotes here too--I don't have them yet, but that > suggests you've got a lot more potential cards out there. > > One more concern about "national security strategy"--I want to ensure that > the aff makes broad changes that aren't confined to a single theater. This > is a bit trickier, but when the word "strategy" is used in a *military > context* it is distinguishable from "operational" in that it forces a > broader change. As above, "national security strategy" uses the word also > in a peacetime sense, so it could potentially allow smaller affs as well as > all of the broader, grand strategic ones. Here's a card about grand > strategy vs. operational strategy: > > "Strategy A military term that denotes a long-term plan, to be > distinguished from 'tactics' which relates to conduct of battles. 'Theartre > strategy' refers to planning in a particular theatre of war, while 'grand > strategy' is concerned with military logistics and continental or world > war." > > > > II: Counterplans, etc. > > Okay. Here's the part about counterplan concerns and debate-strategic > stuff. > > First, the phrase "grand strategy" will be in one of the resolutions I > write about, and I currently favor it, but I'll suggest alternatives too. > Everyone seems to be forgetting the "reduce overseas deployments" part. If > you write an aff to reauthorize the Crusader program (or whatever), it might > be small and unpredictable...but you also have to fiat a troop withdrawal. > "Counterplan: reauthorize Crusader" solves that aff. This is like > constructive engagement on the old sanctions topic (I'm old, yeah, > whatever). You could do anything that was "constructive engagement" but you > also had to lift sanctions, meaning that if the plan had two parts, you had > to have an advocate for doing both together. Those didn't really exist. > Similarly, "grand strategy" allows you to do a lot of things, but you won't, > because the neg will PIC out of them. > > Second, "grand strategy" is a limiting term in some important ways, based > on the definitions above (and others). The neg can probably win that it > requires a change outside of a single theater (so no "withdraw from Iraq" > aff, unless it also reduces US troop presence elsewhere). It means the aff > can't just change something tactical or doctrinal. In this sense, the term > is limiting because it is broad--it's big; it's defined by it's level and > scale. > > Third, about this "do the plan but don't change strategy" thing. > > a) I'm yet to hear what the net benefit to this is, or have anyone provide > a single link card. > > b) This is partly why I like the term "grand strategy." There are plenty of > cards that describe American grand strategy, and even say that it is usually > defined by the NSS (or NMS even). But this doesn't mean that the aff > necessarily has to change that document--the terms "national security > strategy" or even "national strategy" probably require that, but grand > strategy may not. The definition by Robert Art is really important > here--grand strategy is the plan for how American military assets will be > employed to accomplish a goal--it is not necessarily the goal itself. The > aff is not required to change the NSS to create a change in American grand > strategy, although there are certainly cards that say that would be > involved. There is thus a debate about whether the counterplan competes, > but less of a debate about whether this elusive "change strategy disad" > links. > > c) I'll use an analogy to this current topic, indisputably the best > soybean-related topic we've ever had. No one reads a PIC to just eliminate > subsidies without changing agricultural policy. Few teams even put > "agricultural policy" in the plan. Similarly, most plans about strategy > would be something like this: "The United States Federal Government should > significantly reduce it's overseas military deployments and employ its > forces for a offshore balancing." The aff can say that this amounts to > adopting a new grand strategy, but they don't have to put the phrase in > their plan--the "normal means" for doing the plan entails revisions of many > US planning documents, but it would be tough to write a counterplan to avoid > this. The idea that the NSS officially defines US grand strategy is not > legally true--it is just usually the case. I haven't yet found a card > saying that changing grand strategy requires changing the NSS, just that the > NSS is usually interpreted as a statement defining current grand strategy. > Here's the important part: "grand strategy" might *allow* the aff to do > things that are broader than military deployment changes, but it might not > *require* them to do these things. > > d) The "restricted to military means" interpretation may mean you don't > have to change this document. The controversial parts of the NSS are mostly > the goals, not the means, which under the Art interpretation above, you > probably don't have to change--this is also the most limiting interpretation > of the topic, so that's probably good. The aff could easily say that it > changes the NMS, or that changes in either document are a result of the > plan, not the action of it. This is the advantage of using a term, like > grand strategy, that is meaningful, but not tied to a very specific legal > mechanism. You can read link cards to the NSS disad (if it's out there), > but you can't really read the NSS PIC. > > Finally, Josh Hoe: yes, the topic allows the aff to make US forces more > effective. The aff can abolish the military or whatever, but the topic will > mostly be about what strategies are useful. It's not the "reduce American > power" topic, it's the "adopt a new strategy" topic. The aff can definitely > do either, but the primary disad to the second ("you hurt American power, > that's bad") applies to the first--and you don't even have to read a link. > Also, the aff could do RMA, etc., but they still have to defend a troop > withdrawal, so you could PIC out of the withdrawal part if the aff did > something minor, as explained above. > > Calum > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081224/d12231c3/attachment.htm From u.hrair at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 16:22:05 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:22:05 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] grand strategy v. national security In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: didn't think you were saying the topic was bad. yes, it should be across several theaters, although the affs you've described there seem more tactical or operational than strategic anyway. have you found a card for "reduce a small number of personnel in one theater," or is this just something that you think is theoretically possible? if the former (along with a defense of that as grand strategy) it will certainly require more serious work on my part. and yes, a lot of transformational technology is intended to reduce troop numbers. the aff will have to fiat it though, so it's still a check. if you read "reduce troop numbers and increase funding for Future Combat Systems," you'd still have to have offense against "counterplan: increase funding for Future Combat Systems." the neg could both read "high numbers good" for the usual reasons (deterrence, for example) and alliance credibility disads (better or worse depending on where the troops came from, but you'd still need offense). "t--operational versus strategic," "t--significantly reduce," "t--grand strategy" and "t--adopt" (or change, or whatever the verb is--these little personnel affs don't change the goals of US policy, just the means--a credible neg argument) would alone deal with these concerns probably, even absent the PIC discussed above, general links to strategic changes, CMR, country-specific disads based on withdrawal, tech tradeoff disads based on transformation, and finally, the abscess on the rump of debate that is the politics disad. calum On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Josh wrote: > I was not saying that I think this makes the topic a bad topic...Honestly > just thinking it through....I think being able to prove it has to be a > multi-theater reduction is pretty important because the likelihood of change > x personnell in one engagement to smaller numbers of y personnell cases will > be really hard to beat (if multi-theater is not hard-wired into the > language). > > In many cases things in the category of RMA or Modernization or New > Tech inherently are designed to retire larger numbers so while you are right > that the aff would also have to decrease numbers - thats really not much of > a check. > > josh > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > >> I'm obviously not given to brief responses, so I apologize. The first, >> really long, section is about defining "grand strategy" and some of the >> alternatives. The next section is about what the topic is supposed to be, >> and dealing more with ground and strategic (in a debate sense) things. >> >> I: Defining "grand strategy" >> >> "National Security Strategy" does not, I think, solve the problems with >> "grand strategy," and in fact may create more of them. The National >> Security Strategy is a single document, and forcing the aff to change it >> only creates the counterplans that Antonucci mentioned and accomplishes >> little else. I do indeed loathe those counterplans. Some of them don't >> make much sense (like covertly withdraw American troops deployed overseas?) >> and a number of them probably couldn't be done without presidential >> authorization. The "buid UAVs" aff, by the way, would have to be the "build >> UAVs and withdraw thousands of US troops" aff. One technological change >> won't be grand strategy, and the counteplan to just build the UAVs without >> withdrawing troops is what provides the best limit in my opinion, not >> process PICs based on "national security." >> >> I'd rather not focus on process, but "grand strategy" does mean some of >> these are possible because although the US does not have an official grand >> strategy, many academics believe that the NSS amounts to American grand >> strategy. That's okay with me. I know some people like those C/Ps, so I >> think the topic should make them possible, but not make them automatically >> compete by tying the aff to a mechanism as specific as changing the NSS. >> There's a debate about competition this way--I may be alone in thinking >> process PICs are boring, but I'm probably not alone in thinking that we >> shouldn't choose a term just to avoid focusing debates on the actual >> desirability of withdrawing US forces. >> >> Also, I think it's a mistake to think of "grand" and "national" just as >> adjectives that modify "strategy." It should be apparent now that these are >> all extensively-debated terms of art, so it's a mistake to break the terms >> apart. I didn't want to include the adjective "grand," but rather to make >> the topic about "grand strategy," which is a different conceptual category, >> not just "strategy that is grand." >> >> Here's some definitional stuff about NSS: >> >> First, there are definitions that make it indistinct from "grand >> strategy." Here's what the DoD has to say: >> >> >> "National strategy >> The art and science of developing and using the diplomatic, economic, and >> informational powers of a nation, together with its armed forces, during >> peace and war to secure national objectives. Also called national security >> strategy or grand strategy. " >> (Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) >> >> The "Dictionary of Modern Strategy and Tactics" also says that the three >> terms are equivalent. >> >> Second, there are definitions that define "National Security Strategy" as >> a broader concept than "grand strategy." By the way, I'm capitalizing it >> because the term has two meanings--one can talk about "national security >> strategy" in general, which seems to be what the DoD definition there is >> about, but the "National Security Strategy" is a particular document. >> Here's a discussion about the two terms by Terry Deibel: >> >> "[M]any writers on grand strategy go even further, putting the connection >> of strategy with war in second place and arguing that strategic thinking >> should be applied to the whole field of national security...All the >> instruments of state power were included...grand strategy thus became >> nearly synonymous with a much newer term, "national security strategy," >> defined by a congressional panel as "the art and science of employing and >> using the political, economic, and psychological powers of a nation, >> together with its armed forces, during peace and war, to secure national >> objectives." Today, in fact, most writers on *grand* strategy use that >> term in ways that cannot be distinguished from that definition of *national >> security* strategy." (Italics in original) >> >> So some writers use "grand strategy" imprecisely to mean something much >> broader, namely "national security strategy." Deibel thinks it should be >> narrower, and be applied only to military aims: >> >> "This study argues that the term "grand strategy" should be reserved for >> the use to which Liddell Hart put it, that is, to represent the broadest >> planning for and the conduct of war; encompassing all the policy >> instruments, nonmilitary as well as military; tailoring them to meet the >> political goals of the state; and considering how the conduct of hostilities >> will affect the peace to follow. This definition of grand strategy is >> not in accord with its usage in much recent literature, however, because it >> deliberately excludes the efforts of a nation to maintain security while at >> peace. Those will be included here in the term "national security >> strategy," limited to goals that have mainly to do with the protection of >> the nation's physical security against attack ? presumably the most >> important area of the national interest, but far from the only one with >> which strategic thinking should deal. National security strategy would >> thus include grand strategy properly defined, with the latter operating >> within the former when the nation is at war and the two becoming less and >> less distinguishable to the extent that the war becomes total (see Figure >> 1.1.)." >> >> This may also deal with some other objections, such as the "PIC out of >> changing C/P" which I will discuss in more detail below. "Grand strategy" >> is only a plan for wartime--the status quo qualifies certainly--where as >> once war ends, the same ideas and directives become "national security >> strategy." I think this means that the aff doesn't have to defend that the >> plan ties the hands of all future administrations forever. >> >> Here's some ev that "strategy" should be limited to military action (Colin >> Gray): >> >> "strategy is?about the threat and use of force for political reasons." >> >> And... >> >> ""it is important to keep the meaning of strategy clear and relatively >> narrow?my own strong preference?is for the meaning of strategy and strategic >> to be confined to the more restricted and clearest of the uses specified by >> Clausewitz. Strategy is about the threat or use of force for the >> political purpose of the war." >> >> More evidence that "grand strategy" means military changes--perhaps >> narrower still (Lars Skalnes, crazy Nordic punctuation omitted): >> >> "American scholars in the decades after World War II increasingly adopted >> a narrow conception of grand strategy and concentrated most of their >> attention on the purely military instruments available to great powers. >> Foreign economic policy was consigned to the realm of low politics?Posen's >> commonly cited definition of *grand strategy* as a "political-military >> means-ends chain" (1984, 13) implies a narrow conception of grand strategy. >> He and others have completely ignored economic means." >> >> >> "Mearsheimer?defines *grand strategy* as "the relationship between >> military means and international commitments." >> >> There are a bunch of footnotes here too--I don't have them yet, but that >> suggests you've got a lot more potential cards out there. >> >> One more concern about "national security strategy"--I want to ensure that >> the aff makes broad changes that aren't confined to a single theater. This >> is a bit trickier, but when the word "strategy" is used in a *military >> context* it is distinguishable from "operational" in that it forces a >> broader change. As above, "national security strategy" uses the word also >> in a peacetime sense, so it could potentially allow smaller affs as well as >> all of the broader, grand strategic ones. Here's a card about grand >> strategy vs. operational strategy: >> >> "Strategy A military term that denotes a long-term plan, to be >> distinguished from 'tactics' which relates to conduct of battles. 'Theartre >> strategy' refers to planning in a particular theatre of war, while 'grand >> strategy' is concerned with military logistics and continental or world >> war." >> >> >> >> II: Counterplans, etc. >> >> Okay. Here's the part about counterplan concerns and debate-strategic >> stuff. >> >> First, the phrase "grand strategy" will be in one of the resolutions I >> write about, and I currently favor it, but I'll suggest alternatives too. >> Everyone seems to be forgetting the "reduce overseas deployments" part. If >> you write an aff to reauthorize the Crusader program (or whatever), it might >> be small and unpredictable...but you also have to fiat a troop withdrawal. >> "Counterplan: reauthorize Crusader" solves that aff. This is like >> constructive engagement on the old sanctions topic (I'm old, yeah, >> whatever). You could do anything that was "constructive engagement" but you >> also had to lift sanctions, meaning that if the plan had two parts, you had >> to have an advocate for doing both together. Those didn't really exist. >> Similarly, "grand strategy" allows you to do a lot of things, but you won't, >> because the neg will PIC out of them. >> >> Second, "grand strategy" is a limiting term in some important ways, based >> on the definitions above (and others). The neg can probably win that it >> requires a change outside of a single theater (so no "withdraw from Iraq" >> aff, unless it also reduces US troop presence elsewhere). It means the aff >> can't just change something tactical or doctrinal. In this sense, the term >> is limiting because it is broad--it's big; it's defined by it's level and >> scale. >> >> Third, about this "do the plan but don't change strategy" thing. >> >> a) I'm yet to hear what the net benefit to this is, or have anyone provide >> a single link card. >> >> b) This is partly why I like the term "grand strategy." There are plenty >> of cards that describe American grand strategy, and even say that it is >> usually defined by the NSS (or NMS even). But this doesn't mean that the >> aff necessarily has to change that document--the terms "national security >> strategy" or even "national strategy" probably require that, but grand >> strategy may not. The definition by Robert Art is really important >> here--grand strategy is the plan for how American military assets will be >> employed to accomplish a goal--it is not necessarily the goal itself. The >> aff is not required to change the NSS to create a change in American grand >> strategy, although there are certainly cards that say that would be >> involved. There is thus a debate about whether the counterplan competes, >> but less of a debate about whether this elusive "change strategy disad" >> links. >> >> c) I'll use an analogy to this current topic, indisputably the best >> soybean-related topic we've ever had. No one reads a PIC to just eliminate >> subsidies without changing agricultural policy. Few teams even put >> "agricultural policy" in the plan. Similarly, most plans about strategy >> would be something like this: "The United States Federal Government should >> significantly reduce it's overseas military deployments and employ its >> forces for a offshore balancing." The aff can say that this amounts to >> adopting a new grand strategy, but they don't have to put the phrase in >> their plan--the "normal means" for doing the plan entails revisions of many >> US planning documents, but it would be tough to write a counterplan to avoid >> this. The idea that the NSS officially defines US grand strategy is not >> legally true--it is just usually the case. I haven't yet found a card >> saying that changing grand strategy requires changing the NSS, just that the >> NSS is usually interpreted as a statement defining current grand strategy. >> Here's the important part: "grand strategy" might *allow* the aff to do >> things that are broader than military deployment changes, but it might not >> *require* them to do these things. >> >> d) The "restricted to military means" interpretation may mean you don't >> have to change this document. The controversial parts of the NSS are mostly >> the goals, not the means, which under the Art interpretation above, you >> probably don't have to change--this is also the most limiting interpretation >> of the topic, so that's probably good. The aff could easily say that it >> changes the NMS, or that changes in either document are a result of the >> plan, not the action of it. This is the advantage of using a term, like >> grand strategy, that is meaningful, but not tied to a very specific legal >> mechanism. You can read link cards to the NSS disad (if it's out there), >> but you can't really read the NSS PIC. >> >> Finally, Josh Hoe: yes, the topic allows the aff to make US forces more >> effective. The aff can abolish the military or whatever, but the topic will >> mostly be about what strategies are useful. It's not the "reduce American >> power" topic, it's the "adopt a new strategy" topic. The aff can definitely >> do either, but the primary disad to the second ("you hurt American power, >> that's bad") applies to the first--and you don't even have to read a link. >> Also, the aff could do RMA, etc., but they still have to defend a troop >> withdrawal, so you could PIC out of the withdrawal part if the aff did >> something minor, as explained above. >> >> Calum >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20081224/92a992c1/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 16:29:08 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:29:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] grand strategy v. national security In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mostly agree with all of this, especially that you would have to fiat the decrease of troops...I just meant that most of the literature is specific to how those things are related (the tech or mod and reductions)..which is likely a good thing. "the abcess/rump of debate/that is the politics da"???? Did we walk in to ewordsworth.com??? he he, Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081224/e6307290/attachment.htm From u.hrair at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 16:37:21 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:37:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] grand strategy v. national security In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: i don't know what that website is, but we walked in and out of a highschool for four years and ended up with a standard command of the english language, coupled with enough education in civics to realize that we thought this disad was contrived and boring. if you love the politics disad, by the way, i certainly don't hold it against you. to each their own. i urge you to divorce my unrelated opinions and my personality from the arguments i'm making about this topic. that's probably a good idea anyway, as i am unfortunately guaranteed to be mean to someone along the way. calum On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Josh wrote: > Mostly agree with all of this, especially that you would have to fiat the > decrease of troops...I just meant that most of the literature is specific to > how those things are related (the tech or mod and reductions)..which is > likely a good thing. > > "the abcess/rump of debate/that is the politics da"???? Did we walk in to > ewordsworth.com??? > > he he, > > Josh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081224/35660136/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Dec 24 16:39:02 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:39:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] grand strategy v. national security In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It was just a joke....about the poetic combination not the content...although I do like the Politics DA, Josh On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Calum Matheson wrote: > i don't know what that website is, but we walked in and out of a highschool > for four years and ended up with a standard command of the english language, > coupled with enough education in civics to realize that we thought this > disad was contrived and boring. > > if you love the politics disad, by the way, i certainly don't hold it > against you. to each their own. i urge you to divorce my unrelated > opinions and my personality from the arguments i'm making about this topic. > that's probably a good idea anyway, as i am unfortunately guaranteed to be > mean to someone along the way. > > calum > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Josh wrote: > >> Mostly agree with all of this, especially that you would have to fiat the >> decrease of troops...I just meant that most of the literature is specific to >> how those things are related (the tech or mod and reductions)..which is >> likely a good thing. >> >> "the abcess/rump of debate/that is the politics da"???? Did we walk in to >> ewordsworth.com? ?? >> >> he he, >> >> Josh >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081224/ea41045f/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com Thu Dec 25 02:21:53 2008 From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 02:21:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] grand strategy v national security Message-ID: oh politics disad. the lump of coal under the christmas tree. _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081225/ecf0d565/attachment.htm From antonucci23 at gmail.com Thu Dec 25 16:51:24 2008 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:51:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Grand v. National Security Strategy Message-ID: <4a71966c0812251451m631ceda9he93db55d63fc8b6f@mail.gmail.com> I'm not wedded to either the term "national security" or "National Security Strategy." As mentioned, I believe we'll end up debating tattoos on underage farm animals, rendering this exercise academic. I'm not sure you're directly clashing with my argument, though. "The National Security Strategy is a single document, and forcing the aff to change it only creates the counterplans that Antonucci mentioned and accomplishes little else." Right. My (protean) argument is that those counterplans serve a *limiting function*. It's often much easier to win on a counterplan than it is to win a T violation, although the counterplan's rooted in a component of the topic. For example, last year, several teams included a fairly artificial quid pro quo in order to avoid the T violation. (Dartmouth's USC version of naval rules of the road's the first example that springs to mind.) Such contrivances opened them up to unconditional CPs coupled with kritiks of "quid pro quo." Such strategies were less effective against the grand bargain affs that seemed to consitute the topic's center. One might, hypothetically, despise actual debates over the T violation, regard the QPQ CP/K strategy with contempt, and yet *still* treasure them for their role as a constraint on the scope of the topic. You don't have to love war to love deterrence. " I do indeed loathe those counterplans. Some of them don't make much sense (like covertly withdraw American troops deployed overseas?) and a number of them probably couldn't be done without presidential authorization." Exactly. The counterplan(s) would be tactically ineffective against the cases that you envision, and tactically effective agaisnt cases that might game the constraints that you're attempted to delineate. That's my argument. "The "buid UAVs" aff, by the way, would have to be the "build UAVs and withdraw thousands of US troops" aff. One technological change won't be grand strategy, and the counteplan to just build the UAVs without withdrawing troops is what provides the best limit in my opinion, not process PICs based on "national security." " Yeah, I erred by using UAVs as an example. I actually thought about amending my message after I sent it, but figured that you'd cut me some slack. I suppose not. Some affs that you might dislike could potentially include: - withdrawal of covert forces or cessation of certain covert ops (which would leave the negative without much ground aside from case turns), - phasing out certain types of troops, while remaining ambiguous on whether they'd be replaced by other types of troops (maintaining link direction flex on heg) - withdrawal from a single theater in order to facilitate redeployment elsewhere. (eg, speed redeployment away from Okinawa, which is sort of a hellish aff for people who enjoy unique links to DAs. The Wons know what I'm talking about.) The term "grand strategy" may or may not limit out those affs. Vulnerability to legislative or covert CPs certainly would. "I'd rather not focus on process, but "grand strategy" does mean some of these are possible because although the US does not have an official grand strategy, many academics believe that the NSS amounts to American grand strategy. That's okay with me. I know some people like those C/Ps, so I think the topic should make them possible, but not make them automatically compete by tying the aff to a mechanism as specific as changing the NSS. There's a debate about competition this way--I may be alone in thinking process PICs are boring, but I'm probably not alone in thinking that we shouldn't choose a term just to avoid focusing debates on the actual desirability of withdrawing US forces." So, as opposed to taking a stance on crucial counterplans that delineate the viable scope of the topic, we should remain agnostic in order to encourage hot, hot competition debates? Your writing strategy doesn't seem internally consistent. If you steer away from the use of either "grand" or "national" strategy, you won't have to hear those CPs - they definitely won't compete. If you include "NSS", you won't hear that much about those process CPs either, as smart affs will simply view that vulnerability as a hard limit during the process of aff and advantage selection. Your deliberately ambiguous position, however, maximizes the number of process debates, as smart negs will roll weaker teams on competition, smart affs will bite the bullet on that vulnerability, and theory-debating skills will determine a relatively larger percentage of debates. I think there's some value to kissing either Scylla or Charybdis without attempting to navigate between them. "..I'm probably not alone in thinking that we shouldn't choose a term just to avoid focusing debates on the actual desirability of withdrawing US forces." That, however, is not my argument, unless you substitute "avoid" with "force". We should choose a term that forces teams to select affs which build their advantages on the basis of dramatic shifts in public diplomacy. Counterplans limit where your multiple contradictory definitions of grand strategy might not. "Also, I think it's a mistake to think of "grand" and "national" just as adjectives that modify "strategy."" If I make that mistake, I'm sure you'll inform me promptly. "By the way, I'm capitalizing it because the term has two meanings--one can talk about "national security strategy" in general, which seems to be what the DoD definition there is about, but the "National Security Strategy" is a particular document." Right. That's why I distinguised between the two in my original post title. I thought it might be worthwhile to consider *both* possibilities as alternatives to "grand strategy." Your long Deibel card seems to discuss "national security strategy" generally, not the National Security Strategy. While Deibel prefers a narrowly construed definition of "grand strategy," he repeatedly cites profound lack of consensus, as "the meanings of both grand strategy and national security strategy are so fuzzy that each scholar must (and usually does) begin his analysis by defining the terms anew." (p. 8) That's scarcely a ringing endorsement of definitional precision that clearly delineates the scope of affirmative ground. National Security Strategy, however, might afford CEDA debaters a measure of clarity or at least legislative predictability that both grand strategy and national security clearly can't. "One more concern about "national security strategy"--I want to ensure that the aff makes broad changes that aren't confined to a single theater. This is a bit trickier, but when the word "strategy" is used in a *military context* it is distinguishable from "operational" in that it forces a broader change. " If forced to teach your topic, I would prefer that as well. I feel a range of counterplans, however, might better accomplish that goal than where you come down in the strident dissensus over the meaning of "grand strategy." It's useful for topic writers to distinguish between *permissible* aff ground (fisheries) and *viable* aff ground (not fisheries). "Everyone seems to be forgetting the "reduce overseas deployments" part." Nah. I just badly bungled my original example. The better examples of strategic yet potentially topic-skirting affs would be: a. accelerate an ongoing troop redeployment trend, eg Okinawa (forcing the neg to win "adopt = new", enjoy that debate) b. decrease dumb or bad covert ops, no perception (does "deployment" somehow constrain these affs?) c. switch out types of troops Have you also considered whether or not you really want to build offsets into the topic, by the way? "The neg can probably win that it requires a change outside of a single theater (so no "withdraw from Iraq" aff, unless it also reduces US troop presence elsewhere). It means the aff can't just change something tactical or doctrinal. In this sense, the term is limiting because it is broad--it's big; it's defined by it's level and scale." Withdrawal from Iraq wouldn't constitute an alteration in our grand strategy? I understand the arguments within your defintions, although the definitions' authors admit that they're scarcely the product of consensus. Still - you don't think you're cherry picking even a wee bit here? "[Calum argues that the term 'grand strategy' won't be included in plan texts and will thus serve about as important a limiting function as agricultural policy does on the current topic]" Yup. I agree. I think that might be a problem. I'm not worried that "grand strategy" does too much. I'm worried that it does too little. "PLAN: The United States Federal Government should significantly reduce it's overseas military deployments and employ its forces for a offshore balancing." This plan text would bungle the distinction between a contraction and a possessive apostrophe, and probably deserves to lose on that basis. Happy Holidays! -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081225/2171f83c/attachment.htm From joe_koehle at yahoo.com Thu Dec 25 17:12:41 2008 From: joe_koehle at yahoo.com (Joe Koehle) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:12:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] here's an idea Message-ID: <418207.442.qm@web50201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> how about we don't have a topic about hege? k thx bai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081225/c13224ba/attachment.htm From u.hrair at gmail.com Thu Dec 25 18:50:37 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:50:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] grand strategy Message-ID: I'm going to get back to doing research--my original intent was just to gauge interest and see if anyone was willing to help or offer constructive suggestions, which I think I've accomplished. So I apologize for the number of messages I've written. This will probably be the last for awhile (I know everyone says that, so I could be wrong). If anyone is interested in helping or offering further criticism, however, please feel free to email me. Antonucci: --I'm sorry if the tone of my original response didn't please you (that I didn't "cut you slack" on UAVs, for example). I thought that this was a genuine misunderstanding of the topic I was proposing. Same with the parts about "grand" as an adjective, or the capitalization of "National Security Strategy"--that wasn't really directed at you, but rather comments others had made, and for the purpose of clarification for those who may not have been aware of the difference. I'm trying to explain the idea I had in general, not just to you, despite the fact that edebate posts do end up in your inbox. --I'll do more work on "National Security Strategy." From my preliminary work, I haven't found a lot of good solvency advocates that suggest these changes should be done through changing the National Security Strategy. This does seem like it would be a consequence of changing grand strategy, but I'm not convinced that the aff should be forced to fiat it, and still think that "grand strategy" is probably a better term. My concern is that the counterplans you're talking about put too much of a limit on the aff, and even the big core affs might not have a defense of changing the NSS (I think you mentioned this concern about offshore balancing). So I think that forcing the aff to modify the NSS would not "deter," but that it would "force" debates about process. My concern is that it would look like the courts topic, where many, many debates became about ammendments, and the aff didn't have much to say. Changing the National Military Strategy might be more promising. I'll probably discuss all three in the wording paper. --I think "grand strategy" combined with the "PIC out of troop reduction" is sufficient to beat most of the affs you seem scared of. The "withdraw covert troops or stop their operations" aff, for example, would have to be "withdraw covert troops," as the second one the neg can obviously counterplan out of. "Accelerate withdrawal" from anything is not a change in strategy, and yes, I think the neg can win that. Also, I do think that "multiple theaters" is one part of "grand strategy" that there isn't much dispute about. As for "withdraw one type of personnel," what types are you thinking of here? Any ev for this? That it constitutes "grand strategy" and not, say, operations or even tactics? The bit about not navigating between Scylla and Charybdis is cute, but I think it might we worthwhile to navigate the ol' internet and see if you can find evidence to support any of these positions. Any ev that compares Congress to modifications in the National Security Strategy? Any ev that we could do these various things covertly? I'm not trying to be argumentative--I'm genuinely curious because if you've actually done research for any of this I'll certainly have to take it seriously when I'm recommending various wording options. --"This plan text would bungle the distinction between a contraction and a possessive apostrophe, and probably deserves to lose on that basis." I thought about mentioning your misspellings and gramatical mistakes, but that would be petty and mean. I'lljust admit that I did insert an apostrophe where it didn't belong and note that in my opinion this is the smartest thing you've ever written. Calum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081225/7b504a67/attachment.htm From johntheempire at gmail.com Thu Dec 25 19:38:07 2008 From: johntheempire at gmail.com (John Cook) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:38:07 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga KS Message-ID: <5bfb770b0812251738p231fc0b4l272a38f7623f722a@mail.gmail.com> Your UNLV wiki does not have a plan text posted. It could just be your no-plan plankton and crabs aff but I'm guessing otherwise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081225/68ad049f/attachment.htm From ruchitagrawal at gmail.com Thu Dec 25 21:26:38 2008 From: ruchitagrawal at gmail.com (Ruchit Agrawal) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:26:38 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Paging Jon Sharp Message-ID: <28ccfeeb0812251926m2c4d0afau5a3537ccf505fb1b@mail.gmail.com> Hit me back -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081225/d1cb483c/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Fri Dec 26 02:00:24 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:00:24 +0100 Subject: [eDebate] USA-Thailand Friendship Debates Message-ID: <49548F18.6030303@uvm.edu> The Thai government and the US Embassy in Thailand have announced a series of events commemorating the 175th anniversary of Thai-USA relations. The events will take place 27 January-1 February 2009. There will be events at the US Embassy as well as a debate tournament at Mahidol University, held in the All Asians format (3 on 3) with three preliminary debates, semifinals and finals. An open debate workshop for students will be held during the stay. There will also be a USA-Thai friendship debate between Thais and Americans that will be a publicized open event. Other events will be scheduled by the Commissioner of Higher Education of Thailand and the US Embassy. The University of Vermont's Lawrence Debate Union has been selected to represent the USA. All expenses for the USA group will be shared by the US Embassy and the Thai Chancellor of Higher Education. Major Thai universities (Chulalongkorn, Mahidol, Assumption and others) will represent Thailand. The Vermont contingent will consist of Alfred Snider, Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics and director of the Lawrence Debate Union, along with three students, Lucas Caress (senior from New York City), Sam Natale (sophomore from West Palm Beach, Florida) and Allison Hamlin (sophomore, Essex Junction, Vermont). Sam and Lucas recently finished third at the elite and extremely difficult World Universities Peace Invitational Debates in Malaysia and seem to have charmed all of Asia with their fresh approach to debating and argumentation. The invitation to the tournament specifically asked for their attendance with Dr. Snider, along with another student who will represent Vermont at the upcoming World Universities Debating Championship in Cork, Ireland which begins on December 27 2008. After an open call Allison Hamlin was selected. "It is highly gratifying," said Dr. Snider, "to receive this invitation. We debated in Thailand last year and found it to be a fabulous experience. I look forward to celebrating 175 years of USA-Thai friendship. I admire Thailand for its rich culture, intellectual tradition and the fact that it was never a colony. I want to thank Professor Piyanart Faktorngpan of Chulalongkorn University for working so hard on this project, along with the US Embassy and the Thai Commissioner of Higher Education. It is clearly a sign that the University of Vermont's debate program, the Lawrence Debate Union, continues to rise in its global reputation." "We hope to set a standard for the 21st Century," Snider added, "that disagreements need to be solved by logical and reasoned discourse, not by violence. We must learn to trust the force of ideas, not the ideas of force." -- 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 antonucci23 at gmail.com Fri Dec 26 03:17:52 2008 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 04:17:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] heg topic Message-ID: <4a71966c0812260117t34d81c28re66e448728aede4b@mail.gmail.com> "I'm sorry if the tone of my original response didn't please you (that I didn't "cut you slack" on UAVs, for example)...this is the smartest thing you've ever written. " No worries. If you weren't snarking aboard a sinking topic, we'd worry about your health! I hope you don't mind if I disregard the insults for efficiency's sake, as my concern was simply that you seemed to ignore an argument in your treatise. "My concern is that the counterplans you're talking about put too much of a limit on the aff, and even the big core affs might not have a defense of changing the NSS (I think you mentioned this concern about offshore balancing). So I think that forcing the aff to modify the NSS would not "deter," but that it would "force" debates about process. My concern is that it would look like the courts topic, where many, many debates became about ammmendments, and the aff didn't have much to say. Changing the National Military Strategy might be more promising." That's a valid concern. I'd defend National Security Strategy conditionally. If this mechanism can produce a few core affs with advantages tied to the actual NSS or NMS, I think it would work better than grand strategy to corral affs. If not, you're obviously quite correct. I don't know if it can. It's your topic. I feel NSS/NMS is a proposition that merits further testing through research. You're welcome to disagree. ""Accelerate withdrawal" from anything is not a change in strategy, and yes, I think the neg can win that." Perhaps. All snark aside, you'd help out that particular negative T debater by changing your verb - "change in strategy" isn't in the hypothetical resolution. "Adopt" doesn't denote novelty. One adopts something existent. An Okinawan drawdown has been conceived, spawned, endorsed - but hasn't yet been fully adopted. My hypothetical aff would adopt a previously articulated and endorsed grand strategy by completing its implementation. Your choice of alternative verb matters. How novel must an aff be? "As for "withdraw one type of personnel," what types are you thinking of here? Any ev for this? That it constitutes "grand strategy" and not, say, operations or even tactics? The bit about not navigating between Scylla and Charybdis is cute, but I think it might we worthwhile to navigate the ol' internet and see if you can find evidence to support any of these positions. Any ev that compares Congress to modifications in the National Security Strategy? Any ev that we could do these various things covertly? I'm not trying to be argumentative--I'm genuinely curious because if you've actually done research for any of this I'll certainly have to take it seriously when I'm recommending various wording options. " I'll leave it to you to research out your own topic. Your implication is correct. Aside from reading the articles you referenced, I do not have an evidence base on a topic that does not and will not exist. If that's the price of admission to the conversation, I must decline your gracious invitation. -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081226/f8df1fc5/attachment.htm From akbiotech at comcast.net Fri Dec 26 15:19:13 2008 From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Dr Arthur Kyriazis MScE) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:19:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Grand Strategy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49554A51.3030200@comcast.net> In reply to the silly Catherine the Great comment by Matheson, the analysis on grand strategy and Catherine the Great, indeed all of what I said about the Balkans, is taken almost verbatim from a common reference text by Stavrianos covering the history of the Balkans from 1453 to present, that's about 1000 pages long. The desire of russia for a warm water port, her conquest of the tatars in order to take sevastopol and the crimea, ukraine and the khazar regions, etc., are all well-documented there and in other sources. Obviously this all led to the crimean war and the eastern question of the 1800s. Obviously, grand strategy is applied to the great conquerors--those with ambitions to dominate the European continent. Those would be Louis XIV, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Hitler. The grand strategies as to the Balkans applied to the Austrian and Russian empires when they were expanding. Modernly, the Chinese Communists have certainly had a grand strategy of expansion and conquest to the west and to the north. Ask a Tibetan. With reference to World War II, I would contend that Matheson is hoisted on his own petard, because the so-called "grand strategy" of the allies (England and America) to liberate Europe in WWII, while it succeeded in liberated France, Italy and a portion of Western Germany, also succeeded in partititioning Europe at Yalta and giving the green light to Uncle Joe Stalin to enslave all of Eastern Europe from 1945 until approximately 1990, the consequences of which are still felt today. Moreover, that result REVERSED the results of World War I, where Wilson through Versailles had liberated the Eastern European Republics from the Russian, Austrian and Turkish Empires and declared their autonomy with the fourteen points, etc. The fascists might have been bad, but in the twentieth century, the negative could argue, the communists were far worse. It was a devils' bargain to ally with stalin to defeat hitler and then pay him off with half the lands of europe. If that's the "grand strategy" that Matheson is relying on to refute my argument, then it's a turnaround in my favor, and heavily so. I'd argue that the "grand strategy" Matheson is pointing to led to the enslavement of tens of millions, not to mention all the germans and russians and eastern europeans who died in the gulag as documented by solzhenitzyn. As for containment, it's not a grand strategy at all, but a particularist strategy. Truman and Kennan picked their spots. That would be the opposite of grand strategy. The bottom line is that "Grand Strategy" is such a loaded term that hermeneutics and linguistic analysis makes it invariably a jingoistic, imperialistic phrase amenable to negative attack on all sorts of grounds. That's why I would amend it and not include it in an affirmative resolution. --art k 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. Second Life Debates ? (Michael Antonucci) > 2. Re: grand strategy (Dr Arthur Kyriazis MScE) > 3. Second life-format? (Alfred Snider) > 4. Re: Dr Arthur Kyriazis MScE (Calum Matheson) > 5. USC Hotel Room Share Needed (Dallas Perkins) > 6. "Grand" v. "National Security" / "national security" > (Michael Antonucci) > 7. Attn: Dartmouth AH (John Cook) > 8. Re: "Grand" v. "National Security" / "national security" > (David Glass) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:22:55 -0500 > From: "Michael Antonucci" > Subject: [eDebate] Second Life Debates ? > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <4a71966c0812231022n3dff8fc5r158863195ead0c5e at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I think that expanding electronic debate is a great idea, and I commend you > for what sounds like a fantastic project! > > You should probably realize, however, if you're planning a long term series > of projects with Second Life, that the label carries substantial stigma. > > You might want to research that stigma further before mixing those two > brands. > > From paulj567 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 26 15:47:57 2008 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:47:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] an interesting parallell Message-ID: <776981.14480.qm@web53505.mail.re2.yahoo.com> i've been reading with interest TPM's coverage of the Presidential pardons: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/249501.php this seems to be a lot like when the SORT was ratified on the Treaties topic but a few folks wouldn't give up the ghost because the articles of ratification had not technically been deposited. From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Fri Dec 26 20:03:05 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:03:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Grand Strategy" FYI Message-ID: <524839830812261803g94c77f3t4b35f3d01f74f0cb@mail.gmail.com> McDonough, Orbis, Winter 2009, Beyond Primacy: Hegemony and 'Security Addiction' in U.S. Grand Strategy Debating American Grand Strategy The United States emerged from the Cold War with its formidable military capabilities and globe-spanning network of allies largely intact. Strategic thinkers had an unprecedented opportunity to reassess the U.S. role in the world. Yet decision-makers found it difficult to maintain discipline on the many different interests, priorities and goals that competed for scarce resources. There was little consensus on the contours of grand strategy: What are vital U.S. interests in the post-Cold War period? What are the challenges to these interests? What means should be used to respond to these threats and to secure these goals? Of course, grand strategy is fundamentally about finding answers to these questions. It involves a theoretically informed relationship of ends and means that identifies and prioritizes national interests, potential threats and resources and/or means to meet these threats. The goal is to develop a ''conceptual road map'' and ''set of policy prescriptions'' on issues of national security.1 Containment was one such road map and it proved to be remarkably Beyond Primacy 1 Colin Dueck, Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2006), pp. 10-11. resilient. The post-Cold War period, while marked by a vigorous debate over grand strategy, has proven to be a far more difficult terrain to chart an agreed upon course. Barry Posen and Andrew Ross have summarized four alternative grand strategies.2 Neo-isolationism advocates a significant reduction in U.S. strategic commitments, including the dismantlement of NATO and other alliances, and the avoidance of international engagement. This grand strategy has an essentially benign account of the security environment. ''Strategic immunity'' is guaranteed by the U.S. nuclear arsenal and geostrategic location; retrenchment would facilitate the rise of stable regional balances and reduce the international hostility often generated by U.S. hegemony and interventionism.3 This approach was, however, largely dismissed as an unwise and essentially infeasible option. As Posen and Ross note, ''Neo-isolationists seem willing to trade away considerable international influence for a relatively modest improvement in domestic welfare.''4 In contrast, selective engagement envisions a more restrained strategy that forgoes significant humanitarian or policing duties, and instead focuses on prudential application of American power to maintain regional balances and great power peace. The United States should therefore be concerned with maintaining military commitments in Europe and Asia, as well as a presence in the Persian Gulf to forestall competition for its energy resources. Yet it can be criticized for being an explicitly ''realist'' strategy that remains ill-suited for a Republic that has historically been concerned with ''liberal'' principles as much as power. One can also question whether this approach can ever be selective in its implementation. There is little agreed-upon criteria for what constitutes ''national interests,'' and current commitments will ensure a significant U.S. global presence for the foreseeable future. Some prominent advocates have even adopted a ''realpolitik plus'' strategy that, by including humanitarianism and environmental activism, illustrates the potential temptation of an expansive definition of selectivity.5 Neo-isolationism may complement the historic American proclivity for ''limited liability'' and ''prudence'' in its international commitments. Selective MCDONOUGH 2 Barry Posen and Andrew Ross, ''Competing Visions for US Grand Strategy,'' International Security, Winter 1996/97, pp. 5-53. 3 For an excellent account of neo-isolationism, see Eugene Gholtz, Daryl Press and Harvey Sapolsky, ''Come Home, America: The Strategy of Restraint in the Face of Temptation,'' International Security, Spring 1997, pp. 5-48. 4 Posen and Ross, ''Competing Visions of US Grand Strategy,'' p. 16. An additional benefit of the neo-isolationist approach is in the reduced probability of a nuclear or biological weapon attack on American cities ? though such an attack is perhaps one of the few scenarios that might actually trigger such ''restraint.'' See Douglas Ross, ''Nuclear Weapons and American Grand Strategy: Essential Pillar or Terminal Liability?'' International Journal, Autumn 2008. 5 Robert J. Art, ''Geopolitics Updated: The Strategy of Selective Engagement.'' International Security, Winter 1998/1999, pp. 79-113. engagement is meanwhile rooted in the present unipolar environment, particularly the need to conserve scarce resources and preserve the country's remaining strategic advantage. But neither approach meets the structural and cultural conditions necessary for a stable strategic adjustment.6 American preponderance makes any return to a neo-isolationist posture highly unlikely, while its liberal impulses have always made explicitly realist strategies inherently suspect and ultimately short-lived. The two remaining grand strategies, cooperative security and primacy, provide the most ambitious blueprints for a U.S. global role. Cooperative security differs from the other approaches by being founded on unadulterated liberal principles; humanitarianism is to be prescribed and armed aggression prohibited. Supporters of this strategy have an optimistic view on the potential for institutions like NATO or the UN to coordinate ''the deterrence and defeat of aggression,'' 7 and for arms control and confidence-building measures to minimize security dilemmas and buttress strategic nuclear stability. Yet cooperative security also posits a high level of ''strategic independence'' that connects U.S. national security to any number of disputes abroad. With the pressing need to build credibility, the United States and its allies must be willing to undertake humanitarian interventions and proactive counterproliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Many United States allies, wedded to notions of ''human security'' and multilateralism, will likely embrace a U.S. shift towards cooperative security. It is, however, unlikely that allies will be able to resist the ''free-riding'' temptation and adequately reinvest in military assets. The United States will have to bear the primary burden for any such project. It is also uncertain whether the United States has the appetite to sustain the imperial policing role needed to ''regulate regional peace, discipline violators of civilized norms, and promote democracy and world order.''8 Primacists, on the other hand, have placed their trust in the overwhelming American strategic preponderance that underpins international institutions. The ultimate objective is the preservation of U.S. supremacy and the prevention of any serious challenger to this hegemonic order. Allies and more amicable regional powers are to be discouraged from developing an independent global role, through a mixture of coercion and robust security guarantees. More aggressive near-peer competitors are to be latently contained. While eschewing the multilateralism of its more ''cooperative'' cousin, primacy does envision a vigorous (and likely unilateral) effort to stem WMD proliferation, which could otherwise curtail U.S. freedom of action and facilitate the rearming of potential competitors. Beyond Primacy 6 Dueck, Reluctant Crusaders, Chapter 5. 7 Posen and Ross, ''Competing Visions of US Grand Strategy,'' p. 25. 8 Richard Betts, ''A Disciplined Defense: How to Regain Strategic Solvency,'' Foreign Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2007, pp. 67-80. Primacy is firmly rooted in key realist assumptions. ''Primacists are hawkish and hard-line, with a keen appreciation for the role of power, force, conflict, and national self-interest in international relations.''9 But this controversial choice is also optimistic on the potential for both indefinite U.S. preponderance and the successful suppression of strategic rivals and WMD-armed regional powers. Primacy supporters either underestimate or simply ignore the possibility that other countries may resent such ''imperial hubris.'' This stems partly from the U.S. liberal exceptionalism that posits a benign and more acceptable sort of hegemony, and partly from the difficulty of balancing against a superpower. The George H.W. Bush administration showed a strong inclination to adopt primacy after the Soviet Union's collapse. The draft Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) for 1994-1999 featured explicit calls for indefinite military preponderance and the prevention of a new strategic rival. The DPG was publically disavowed by the administration after it was leaked to the press in 1992. But a redrafted version, authored by I. ''Scooter'' Libby under Dick Cheney's guidance, contained even more ambitious calls to shape ''the future security environment'' and dissuade rivals from contemplating military competition. This document's statement on overall strategy was subsequently released in 1993 as the Defense Strategy for the 1990s.10 The Clinton administration came into office eager to adopt a grand strategy more attuned to notions of cooperative security. Multilateral institutions like the United Nations were given significant responsibilities for peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction, while the United States recommitted itself to a number of multilateral economic arrangements. Yet more astute observers of the United States also detected a growing disillusionment over the efficacy of international institutions. With the exception of NATO, multilateral organizations were shown to be disastrously unprepared to manage the civil conflicts and stabilization operations in Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda. The sincere desire for an institutional order conducive to achieving true cooperative security was balanced by the recognition that U.S. leadership and strategic power were essential to fulfill this vision. With multilateral organizations often dithering over such crises as Yugoslavia's dissolution, the United States rediscovered the burden of being the ''indispensible nation.'' Colin Dueck has noted that the Clinton administration's liberal internationalist assumptions were balanced by ''a strong dose of primacy,'' MCDONOUGH 9 Dueck, Reluctant Crusaders, p. 121. 10 The original DPG document was written by Zalmay Khalizad under the guidance of then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz. See Michael Mann, Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), Chapter 13. as demonstrated by the explicit rejection of ''dovish'' prescriptions to abandon ''America's forward strategic presence.''11 Indeed, President Clinton had frequently resorted to an ''assertive multilateralism'' that relies on cajoling allies towards military action, and thereby acquiring at least a semblance of multilateral legitimacy for these operations. Posen and Ross have also detected an additional emphasis on selectivity and concluded that this mismatched approach should be termed ''selective (but cooperative) primacy.''12 This grand strategic amalgamation may not satisfy the more hardline adherents of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), but there should be little doubt that the Clinton foreign policy team's lofty multilateral rhetoric was often used to soften otherwise tough primacist policies. Posen and Ross's four-fold typology of strategic choices offers an admirable clarification of the key positions of an otherwise esoteric debate. Yet the reification of these options carries the danger that similarities can be overlooked. Christopher Layne, for example, argues that American grand strategy has essentially been concerned with maintaining U.S. strategic preponderance. Selective engagement still envisions a forward strategic presence to balance potential competitors and preserve American hegemony, and cooperative security would only further reify an American centered institutional order. A grand strategy of ''offshore balancing,'' which incorporates neo-isolationist prescriptions with a more active role as the ''balancer of last resort,'' is advocated as an antidote to visions of hegemonic grandeur. Layne's vision is decidedly optimistic on the potential benefits of an eventual multipolar environment, even as it prescribes a smaller, maritime- oriented military and the dismantlement of entangling alliances.13 It is difficult to deny that both primacy and selective engagement take the preservation of American strategic preponderance as a conceptual starting point. Primacists are simply more optimistic on the continued vitality of American power, and are, therefore, reluctant to rely on other countries to provide regional counterweights to any challenger. Even supporters of cooperative security have grown to share this appreciation for American hegemony. In this light, the Clinton administration's willingness to embrace elements of these different approaches, rather than an aberration from an undisciplined presidency, seems to be a more natural condition arising from conflating American unipolarity and its liberal strategic culture. It would be imprudent, however, to simply dismiss the post-Cold War grand strategy debate. All three of these strategic options began with important points of disagreement on the necessary means to achieve American security? primacists rely on U.S. supremacy, cooperative security advocates rely on Dueck, Reluctant Crusaders, p. 132. 12 Posen and Ross, ''Competing Visions for US Grand Strategy.'' pp. 44-50. 13 Christopher Layne, ''From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America's Future Grand Strategy,'' International Security, Summer 1997, pp. 86-124. multilateral institutions, and selective engagers rely on extra-regional balancing. These differences lessened during the Clinton administration, as cooperative security and selective engagement slowly blended into a more multilateral version of primacy. The 9/11 attacks later crystallized a primacist approach that was both aggressively unilateral and, with its democratization campaign in the Middle East, also virulently liberal. The debate over American strategic options has narrowed considerably in the post-9/11 period. ''The new debate on U.S. grand strategy is essentially about which variant of a hegemonic strategy the United States should pursue.''14 Posen labeled these two variants of primacy ''national liberalism'' and ''liberal internationalism.''15 The former is essentially the current administration's unilateral approach, while the latter has been embraced by a Democratic Party eager to demonstrate its competence in national security affairs. President Bush's strategy does not represent a revolutionary change when compared to its predecessor, but it does represent the culmination of a strategic adjustment process that has effectively settled on primacy?in one form or another?for the post-9/11 period. The vagaries of U.S. domestic politics and the shock of the 9/11 attacks had given neoconservative strategists an opportunity to implement their aggressive primacist vision. Primacy is, however, a more stable strategic choice than many critics of the current administration are likely to admit. It will continue to guide American strategy long after the Republican neoconservatives have left the executive branch. Any calls for strategic restraint are unlikely to be heeded by either major party in the current strategic climate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081226/9d7a6e94/attachment.htm From drh8376 at fsu.edu Sat Dec 27 13:28:50 2008 From: drh8376 at fsu.edu (Danielle Holbrook) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:28:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GTA Position Announcement for Florida State University In-Reply-To: <8676857a0812031405m8ed6117u7c496f1bf4548ab2@mail.gmail.com> References: <8676857a0812031405m8ed6117u7c496f1bf4548ab2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8676857a0812271128l5cacd424v98d20ddde648b3a0@mail.gmail.com> Florida State University will have at least 2 debate assistantships available starting Fall 2009. Debate assistantships are available at both the Masters and PhD level. Assistantships include out of state tuition wavers as well as a stipend. Debate assistants gain invaluable experience at Florida State University through teaching sections of the basic communication course, coaching the policy team, and working with knowledgeable faculty who possess a wide array of specializations. Graduate assistants are required to be accepted to the graduate program in Communication, and to enroll for a minimum of nine hours per semester to qualify for funding. Contingent upon availability of funding and satisfactory performance, graduate assistant appointments may be continued beyond one year. The official deadline for the Fall Semester is July 1st, 2008 but those interested in funding are encouraged to apply to the program by March 1st, 2008. Florida State University is a Research 1 university of 40,000 students located in the state capital of Tallahassee, a progressive and diverse community of almost 275,000 located 40 miles from the Gulf beaches. The Department of Communication offers master's degrees in Media and Communication and Integrated Marketing Communication with degree focus in Integrated Marketing, Hispanic Marketing, or Digital Marketing Communication. At the doctoral level, the department offers a degree in Mass and Speech Communication. The program also offers graduate certificates in Project Management, Digital Video Production, and Hispanic Marketing Communication. Information on the Department of Communication can be found online at www.comm.fsu.edu For general questions about the Department of Communication please contact Audrey Post at Audrey.Post at comm.fsu.edu or 850-644-9698. For questions about the team contact me at dholbrook at fsu.edu Thanks, Danielle Holbrook Director of Debate Florida State University -- Danielle Holbrook Director of Debate Florida State University Department of Communication UCC 3125 MC:2664 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081227/35552933/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Dec 27 21:13:02 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:13:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Swing partner needed for JMU/Mary Wash Message-ID: <9a7f6f740812271913s444aacbdq79b2fbe3840997b3@mail.gmail.com> I have a varsity debater who needs a partner for both tournaments. Does anyone else have anyone in the same position? Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat Dec 27 23:37:57 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:37:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Jimbo's Question about convergence Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812272137me8f0118o40a0de338e421a2e@mail.gmail.com> Let's get to it. Should CEDA Create a Lifestream? If you are asking what is a lifestream you probably do not think ceda needs one, if you do know what it is you probably think yeah that would be pretty cool. Therin lies the problem with discussing technology within our community, and what jimbo's question gets to the heart of. There are a million different communication and computing technologies and 90 per cent of them could be used effectively by CEDA to further some aspect of its mission. But just because the technology is cool does not mean it will create your communication or information plan for you. That requires dedicated input from a group of people willing to engage in developing information systems with CEDA. Currently there is little incentive other than community service, interest, and altruism to do technology development work, and thus we have a lot of people who may or may not care how their ideas and knowledge of technology interacts with CEDA. We need to get all those minds together, Hanson, Brushke, Snider, Kerpen, Stannard,Drake, Baushard, Hall, Perkins, Smith, Lacy, Maritato, Jarmen, and others i am inevitably forgetting, if i missed you let me know and i will add you to my list....not into some sort of summit but into an online working group and collaboration teams that breaks off and assesses the areas of interest that they have and how those areas can help CEDA come up with a consolidated communication and information strategy. But just because people like tech and like CEDA doesn't mean they will put in work on this just for the heck of it. CEDA has the power as an organization to leverage power that allows all of these contributors to have access to tools and services that might not be available for their individual processes, this could include summer volunteer hires, consults with mbas and development people for specific projects, and the ability to harness the power of the collectivity of the community, to develop the information systems we need. So here is what i would do. I would recruit a large information and technology committee comprised of all of the people i mentioned above and others interested. This committee would of course be virtual, skype, google chat, i chat and a bunch of other things provide free online conferencing and meeting services, and virtual conferencing and collaborating is as easy as ever(we can for example get an education edition of google apps for free, two hundred email accounts, shared sits, shared documents etc). But the committee would be charged with at least the following -develop and implement an information and technology plan for CEDA -work to create collaborative systems not just for debate and discussion but that allow community members to work together on debate capacity projects. -identify no and low cost resources and services that could enhance CEDAs information and technology resources. -create technological resources for members interested in learning debate specific technology skills. -identify funding opportunities to further develop CEDA information and technology including paid internships fopr students who are members. -create a proactive member friendly user driven CEDA online community. One of the thing the committee would do would be to break into project and area collaboration teams, and CEDA should provide the online mechanisms like innocentive and wordpress to facilitate this conference work. So ive mentioned a ton of services, many of you have no idea what they are but would probably like them if you saw them (de.licious furl or magnolia are good for that) but if the committee gets to play with some stuff they will have more things to review for the members and to figure out how to explain not just how they are cool but how they are useful.... Tinyurl's make a ton of sense but if we don't know what they are we are not likely to make a good choice the first time a challenge is made about them being legitimate sources, its great that everybody has digital cameras, but do pictures at ceda nationals become property of flickr? The key is this, the negative embarrassing information is never going to go away nor should it, but with good information through official channels you can push it down, you can make there be less of a story when something embarrassing comes out because you have a built in defense, a defense that establishes context, and shows the true mission of the organization. The more information we have that is good the harder it becomes to jam us in a way that causes damage, if there inst much out there then you get Shanahan Howard Dean on you tube etc...the goal should be to utilize as much media and information mediums as possible to most effectively achieve the mission, diffuseness is not a problem as long as there is a strategy that can deal with diffuse media, that is what i would work to put in place. Here are the links to the services i name dropped some of them will be useful to some of you but all of you will find at least one you like. A good example of a lifestrem (a personal on but still) http://nataliadevalle.com.ar/lifestream/ grassroots.org(social venture volunteering and systems building) www.skype.com (if you are a pc user you can do a lot of online collaboration and meeting) google chat (gmail.com)you either know about or dont, and if you use a mac you know what i chat can do. http://www.innocentive.com/ http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/index.html google apps for education www.wordpress.com http://delicious.com/ http://ma.gnolia.com/ furl.net tinyurl.com twitter.com www.flickr.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm_BGJ0b_3E howard dean shanahan These are jjust some of my favorites, some of you may have better ones, and others may disagree that these are good, but thats kinda the point of all this, that disagreement and resources sharing is in fact good, as long it occurs in a forum that informs the membership and the public. In the end of the day there is a three part model for information that i like The brand-what will people remember Content- what do people want to know Function- what do people want to do. if we take this framework into a collaborative communication and information framework for CEDA we can answer the second part of Jimbo's question as well because we can provide not only potential internship and volunteer professional opportunities for our students, but we can also facilitate a community that is utilizing and learning technologies that many students already use. Simply put, we cannont begin to prepare our students to make arguments with information technology if our organization sees many of these technologies as sub par media, and web gadgets. More people doing productive technology work for the organization and more people seeing how it can be used for scholarly and professional purposes means more people willing to explore it as an in round communication and argumentation tool. Don't get me wrong we are makings strides in the right direction with the blogs and the new website, but we need to go forward further and harness the power of technology information and collaboration to enhance our ability to promote inform discuss and debate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081228/777173a6/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat Dec 27 23:52:39 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:52:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Stannards question about in round content Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812272152m63ff0ff9ne6714038cb43c653@mail.gmail.com> In round content should for the most part not be regulated. I may go far as to say that the topic should be one of the topics, but thats a different discussion The law as much as any of us may or may not like it, is a good border line. Federal, state, local, and campus laws and regulations to an extent already regulate in round content, and we should not differ to far from those definitions sub or super statutory regulations are the things most likely to be successfully challenged in the event that we regulated something and somebody filed a complaint or a suit. We should not punish or act upon students who do things within the confines of the law. Students or judges who do things that are not within the confines of the law should in instances where the law has been invoked or involved be subject to punishment. We are not in a good place to determine guilt or innocence, we have neither the tools, nor the procedure to do so. However if in round action violates the law and a student is duly processed by the law then ceda should consider action against that student. Really though outside of the law...i don't really think we should regulate in round content. This does not mean our current practices are good or that we should not allow sexual harassment law or whatever, it means we should figure out perhaps with the help of compliance experts how to gear our standards so that our regulations on the content of the speech in rounds was in line with the law. Does this mean we tell the law on people who violate it? No. But it also doesn't mean as an organization we suggest people deal with them internally. This is not the question Stannard asked, but in a sense it is... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081228/29bd9546/attachment.htm From lifer-hat at hotmail.com Sun Dec 28 02:01:40 2008 From: lifer-hat at hotmail.com (bandana organizer) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:01:40 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Stannards question about in round content In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0812272152m63ff0ff9ne6714038cb43c653@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0812272152m63ff0ff9ne6714038cb43c653@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Andy's last two messages were almost unreadable. If Andy was just sending chatty email to the list, I wouldn't say anything. Since he is applying, however, for a job in which he needs to be able to communicate via text, I expected him to demonstrate basic competence at grammar and punctuation. These emails should be embarrassing to anyone with a high school diploma. Nobody expects perfection, but please learn to use the shift key or spend one afternoon learning about commas. Andy, are you sure your writing is up to this task? If you send out another answer like these, can you respond with the kind of writing you would use in the 3a.m. press release you alluded to a few weeks ago? _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 From lifer-hat at hotmail.com Sun Dec 28 02:39:27 2008 From: lifer-hat at hotmail.com (bandana organizer) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:39:27 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Jimbo's Question about convergence In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0812272137me8f0118o40a0de338e421a2e@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0812272137me8f0118o40a0de338e421a2e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I just had to respond to this line by line. Andy's email reads like a nine-year-old's blueprint for snow fort, with the attendant excitement and confusion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But just because the technology is cool does not mean it will create your communication or information plan for you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that clarification. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently there is little incentive other than community service, interest, and altruism to do technology development work, and thus we have a lot of people who may or may not care how their ideas and knowledge of technology interacts with CEDA. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All people "may or may not care" about that. "May or may not care" covers all people. Some care, some do not. Are you trying to say that many people do not care? Do you really plan to make most people care about how their ideas of tech interacts with CEDA? To call that ambitious would be a real understatement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not into some sort of summit but into an online working group and collaboration teams that breaks off and assesses the areas of interest that they have and how those areas can help CEDA come up with a consolidated communication and information strategy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Areas of interest" can't help come up with strategies. Areas of interest, for instance, are inanimate. "Consolidated communication and information strategy" is just buzzword bingo. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CEDA has the power as an organization to leverage power that allows all of these contributors to have access to tools and services that might not be available for their individual processes, this could include summer volunteer hires, consults with mbas and development people for specific projects, and the ability to harness the power of the collectivity of the community, to develop the information systems we need. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Power of the collectivity of the community" is more buzzword bingo. Your list of ideas really just sounds like "community service, interest, and altruism" (which you rejected above), plus some "volunteer hires". What is a "volunteer hire"? Do you really think getting a meeting with an MBA is easy for CEDA but tough for coaches who work at universities? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would recruit a large information and technology committee comprised of all of the people i mentioned above and others interested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you actually ask those people already? Are you aware that the meaning of this sentence, in standard English, is that they have all already agreed? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The more information we have that is good the harder it becomes to jam us in a way that causes damage, if there inst much out there then you get Shanahan Howard Dean on you tube etc... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Howard Dean is the perfect example of how this is wrong. The media had plenty of positive information about Dean. It didn't dilute the potency of the yell clip. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> google chat (gmail.com)you either know about or dont >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that is, by definition, true. You either know about Google Chat or you do not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> These are jjust some of my favorites, some of you may have better ones, and others may disagree that these are good, but thats kinda the point of all this, that disagreement and resources sharing is in fact good, as long it occurs in a forum that informs the membership and the public. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you serious? The "point of all this" is to have a disagreement about which websites we use in a way that informs the public?! That's probably too stupid to be what you meant. I suppose this is simply some more shockingly incoherent writing. _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. http://windowslive.com/oneline/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008 From mtarsi at polsci.umass.edu Sun Dec 28 17:36:33 2008 From: mtarsi at polsci.umass.edu (Melinda R. Tarsi) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:36:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UMass Hotel Block Closing Message-ID: <1230507393.49580d810cc5b@mail-www.oit.umass.edu> Hi everyone, Just a reminder that the hotel block for the UMass-Amherst Debate Tournament closes TOMORROW (December 29). If you have not yet done so, please call Aolani at 413.362.8403 (her direct line) to book your rooms. If you have any difficulties, please email Mel at mtarsi at polsci.umass.edu. Thanks, and we look forward to seeing you soon! Best, UMass Policy Debate -- Melinda R. Tarsi Ph.D. Student, Political Science 204 Thompson Hall University of Massachusetts, Amherst From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Dec 28 18:31:20 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:31:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Jimbo's Question about convergence In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0812272137me8f0118o40a0de338e421a2e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812281631s1399f769wb036079d08d18c9c@mail.gmail.com> Answering Bandana Organizer. Yes i write chatty occasionally incoherent emails to edebate. That forum is particularly well suited to such things. As it is to anonymous posters. I like it, i would keep it as one of the options, but not require kerpen to on his own maintain the communication structure. Aside from the nasty chilling discourse that drives most people away from this forum, there are some arguments Do you intend to make people care about tech and ceda? Yes. People care about tech and debate right now, some of them care about it at the level of their team, others care about it for the community. Currently the organization relies on the latter to establish and maintain all of the information systems community practice rests on. By the community i mean the hundreds of people who use debate results, the caselist, and edebate on a daily basis. All of these people care about how debate and tech interact now, The problem is that debate and ceda are not really seen as synonymous, but for ceda's mission to be fulfilled they need to be. Providing useful content and functional services through a centralized web site would go along way toward that goal, and it could ease the burden on the members who support those systems singlehandedly now. This i'll quote " Do you really think getting a meeting with an MBA is easy for CEDA but tough for coaches who work at universities" In a word yes. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2007/911/376/2007-911376392-0369286a-Z.pdf This is CEDA's most recent 990 form from the IRS. In addition to some interesting budget information (we will get back to that in a second) it also certifies that ceda is recognized as a 501 c3 organization. Looking at the 990 tells you a lot about the organization. It explains ways that a non profit organization can earn and spend money. For example Line 1 :Contributions, gifts, grants and similar amounts received.You will notice CEDA's is zero. Lines 5-6 dealing with fundraising and special events is also 0. This also probably relates to the way the expenses column works as well. The point being CEDA has the power to receive support and funding that it is not currently using. Programs like grassroots.org provide project consulting to non profit organizations http://www.grassroots.org/services/sv-consulting. They are not at all alone. Search Social Venture volunteering. Universities are also non profits, but the whole university is the non profit, and it usually involves a decent amount more work to get a larger organization like a university or its foundation to use its one account to support the organization the debate team is part of. The reason large universities dont want to support grants for ceda? Because ceda should do it itself. CEDA could raise money, easily, we have talented writers, researchers, and program directors who could contribute grant writing work, trust me some people would do it. If they raised $25,000 k (not an unattainable goal) they could pay students, grad students, and others to contribute to the organization. No body would have a full time job, but work could certainly receive more compensation then now. Eventually we could raise funds to pay for nationals, organizational capacity building and professional development, but thats a different conversation. Back to the MBA question though. We need to get good at using our status to benefit the organization by benefiting its stakeholders and potential partners. Tax exemption gives us the ability to do it, and we are lucky we don't have to rely on our universities. We need to develop a program that allows us to seek donated professional services in a way that provides tangible tax deductions to those willing to do work for the organization. Yes MBA's will do it, so will lawyers, and web designers. The organization i work for has all of these services donated, and its because we can effectively leverage our status. CEDA, a non profit with a small budget and a big and cool mission is much more likely to receive that support from a segment of providers who we are not currently taping into. Other donors will work with universities, and most of us have that covered on our own, but using our status allows more avenues of support.. As for buzz words...i guess there is a fine line between buzzwords and concepts i feel like they are the latter, but maybe thats just me. Finally what is a volunteer hire? An opportunity whose reward is not in the form of compensation. Unpaid internships are an example, lots of people take them, some people are required to take them. The benefit is in the application and development of your skills, the professional development, and the opportunity to have something in your portfolio that shows your experience. Lots of people have academic requirements that could be fulfilled by working with CEDA.CEDA just has to think creatively enough to see a role beneficial to both the intern and the organization(including its members). On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 3:39 AM, bandana organizer wrote: > > I just had to respond to this line by line. Andy's email reads like a > nine-year-old's blueprint for snow fort, with the attendant excitement and > confusion. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > But just because the technology is cool does not mean it will create your > communication or information plan for you. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Thanks for that clarification. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Currently there is little incentive other than community service, interest, > and altruism to do technology development work, and thus we have a lot of > people who may or may not care how their ideas and knowledge of technology > interacts with CEDA. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > All people "may or may not care" about that. "May or may not care" covers > all people. Some care, some do not. > > Are you trying to say that many people do not care? Do you really plan to > make most people care about how their ideas of tech interacts with CEDA? To > call that ambitious would be a real understatement. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > not into some sort of summit but into an online working group and > collaboration teams that breaks off and assesses the areas of interest that > they have and how those areas can help CEDA come up with a consolidated > communication and information strategy. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > "Areas of interest" can't help come up with strategies. Areas of interest, > for instance, are inanimate. > > "Consolidated communication and information strategy" is just buzzword > bingo. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > CEDA has the power as an organization to leverage power that allows all of > these contributors to have access to tools and services that might not be > available for their individual processes, this could include summer > volunteer hires, consults with mbas and development people for specific > projects, and the ability to harness the power of the collectivity of the > community, to develop the information systems we need. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > "Power of the collectivity of the community" is more buzzword bingo. > Your list of ideas really just sounds like "community service, > interest, and altruism" (which you rejected above), plus some > "volunteer hires". What is a "volunteer hire"? > > Do you really think getting a meeting with an MBA is easy for CEDA but > tough for coaches who work at universities? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I would recruit a large information and technology committee comprised of > all of the people i mentioned above and others interested. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Did you actually ask those people already? Are you aware that the meaning > of this sentence, in standard English, is that they have all already agreed? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The more information we have that is good the harder it becomes to jam us > in a way that causes damage, if there inst much out there then you get > Shanahan Howard Dean on you tube etc... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Howard Dean is the perfect example of how this is wrong. The media had > plenty of positive information about Dean. It didn't dilute the potency of > the yell clip. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > google chat (gmail.com)you either know about or dont > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Yes, that is, by definition, true. You either know about Google Chat or you > do not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > These are jjust some of my favorites, some of you may have better ones, and > others may disagree that these are good, but thats kinda the point of all > this, that disagreement and resources sharing is in fact good, as long it > occurs in a forum that informs the membership and the public. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Are you serious? The "point of all this" is to have a disagreement about > which websites we use in a way that informs the public?! > > That's probably too stupid to be what you meant. I suppose this is simply > some more shockingly incoherent writing. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. > > http://windowslive.com/oneline/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081228/909f5333/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Dec 28 18:45:05 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:45:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Reparations Topic Redux Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812281645r37cded24m163c10d43557ef74@mail.gmail.com> I am interested in a reparations topic again. I think this time it should be focused entirely around the question of reparations to black people for slavery and ongoing human rights abuses. Thoughts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081228/0431b61a/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Mon Dec 29 08:56:23 2008 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:56:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Enter the UWG tournament soon Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70812290656pbfc9ed8pcac85164622f5319@mail.gmail.com> hey folks, if you haven't already done your bidness on debateresults, please do so soon. i meet with caterers at the start of next week and need a better sense of our numbers. hester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081229/7ea3e46a/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Mon Dec 29 13:00:01 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:00:01 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] partner needed for Texas Swing Message-ID: Our first-year debater has lost her partner and would rather debate than watch debates. Wyoming will pay all expenses --entry fees, a small meal stipend, reasonable travel expenses-- for a swing partner. Please contact me or Crowe if interested. matt stannard _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. http://windowslive.com/oneline/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081229/8b6915e8/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Mon Dec 29 13:49:54 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:49:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Rankings Message-ID: <9a7f6f740812291149i182620c0x868980aa039b6e2f@mail.gmail.com> Below are the current ADA rankings. Please let me know if you have any questions. Reminder - In order to be considered for an ADA sweepstakes award your membership dues must be paid by the start of ADA Nationals. Fall Semester ADA Rankings (includes all ADA sanctioned tournaments as of 12/1/2008): Overall Rankings: *School Name* *Novice Points* *JV Points* *Varsity Points* *Totals* *Rank* *Liberty* 189 139 117 445 1 *Binghamton* 99 95 51 245 2 *Mary Washington* 80 80 55 215 3 *Emory* 23 55 109 187 4 *George Mason* 83 58 41 182 5 *James Madison* 91 9 54.5 154.5 6 *Army (West Point)* 40 64 4 108 7 *John Carroll* 72 7 24 103 8 *Wake Forest* 2 0 101 103 8 *Clarion* 64 33 3 100 10 *ULL* 60 40 0 100 10 Novice Rankings Liberty 189 1 Binghamton 99 2 James Madison 91 3 George Mason 83 4 Mary Washington 80 5 John Carroll 72 6 Clarion 64 7 ULL 60 8 Appalachian State 57 9 Navy 51 10 JV Rankings Liberty 139 1 Binghamton 95 2 Mary Washington 80 3 Army (West Point) 64 4 George Mason 58 5 Emory 55 6 Pittsburgh 47 7 Appalachian State 40 8 ULL 40 8 Samford 38 10 Varsity Rankings Liberty 117 1 Emory 109 2 Wake Forest 101 3 Georgia 88 4 Towson 86 5 Northwestern 76 6 Michigan State 74 7 Kentucky 63 8 West Georgia 57 9 Mary Washington 55 10 -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081229/f067f441/attachment.htm From jrlyle at gmail.com Mon Dec 29 14:10:17 2008 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:10:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion seeks Mary Wash judging Message-ID: <25fd497f0812291210x5d71914cgd8e6d478ea3d44e5@mail.gmail.com> We're looking for 3-6 rounds. Let me know if interested. Will pay cash American dollars, and interesting trades considered. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081229/689fd4f2/attachment.htm From mtarsi at polsci.umass.edu Mon Dec 29 15:21:02 2008 From: mtarsi at polsci.umass.edu (Melinda R. Tarsi) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:21:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UMass Hotel Block - now closes Jan. 9th! Message-ID: <1230585662.49593f3eee131@mail-www.oit.umass.edu> The UMass hotel block is now extended until January 9 - If you have not yet done so, please call Aolani at 413.362.8403 (her direct line) to book your rooms. If you have any difficulties, please email Mel at mtarsi at polsci.umass.edu. Thanks! Best, UMass Policy Debate -- Melinda R. Tarsi Ph.D. Student, Political Science 204 Thompson Hall University of Massachusetts, Amherst From hallitripe at gmail.com Mon Dec 29 19:37:21 2008 From: hallitripe at gmail.com (Halli Tripe) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:37:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] someone from Harvard or delete Message-ID: <766e55810812291737g4a7dc363q10c6728ae4cf6be5@mail.gmail.com> I have a cite request - if you'd email me back I'd appreciate it. Thanks Halli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081229/58841498/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Dec 29 20:33:30 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 21:33:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] What happened to the election questions? Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812291833w6e7714c6s4675c92f47bbf4d7@mail.gmail.com> I thought they where gonna be out by now? and a follow up question? Where are the rewards points? Seems like over the last few years we should have earned some for ceda nationals,potentially a substantial amount?. My guess would be if they exist, they are either quitely used at ceda nationals, or they just go into the hands of whichever person charges things on their credit card. But if they exist,where are they, its a reasonable question... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081229/4969a80a/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Dec 29 22:34:08 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:34:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Reward Points You Say? Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812292034k27704cb9p4d438db97215c416@mail.gmail.com> They could do some good. 1) They could provide rooms at ceda for new and emerging programs 2) They could provide space at the summer meeting for more students and graduate assistants to attend 3) They could cover ec trips to a tournament in each region. 4) Or any number of things 1 year may not be significant, 2 years may be a few rooms, but an ongoing relationship could create a relationship that helps the organization provide its members more access to its services. Chief has done some work here, i know, but what i don't know is where the reward points are. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081229/6e43c941/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Tue Dec 30 07:17:11 2008 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:17:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Texas Swing - Emory looking for judging Message-ID: <34227.71705.qm@web62008.mail.re1.yahoo.com> 1 or 2 rounds would be great. Thanks for any and all assistance. We pay in cash. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081230/79d3c9af/attachment.htm From proudsavage at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 13:52:46 2008 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (proudsavage) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:52:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] prefs for usc Message-ID: <9b5963440812301152he4e66e6i14bdb4dcf4fc4335@mail.gmail.com> did i miss something or were they supposed to be open today -- Stephen M. Davis Towson University Debate Coach 412-480-2391 proudsavage at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081230/85823f4e/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Dec 30 15:35:09 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:35:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Election Questions, ans:Andy Message-ID: <495A3FAD0200009300022623@mymail.kckcc.edu> To Andy and others, As agreed upon, the election questions will be sent to the candidates. Then once the answers are received, the questions and answers will be posted to the public. My hope was to have the questions to the candidates Sunday. On Saturday our school email went down, and a number of the questions were housed there. Trying to get that up and running over the break was fun! It is back up and I am sending the candidates the questions today. Happy New Year everyone! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Dec 30 15:58:03 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:58:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! Message-ID: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> Associated Press reporting: Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. Stop. Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate Coach of entire Army! Stop. Here is a better one--just Stop! Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. Wonder if he asked the right people? I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l are suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in the past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, McDonald) or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, Schriver, Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the person charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent on those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you listed in your 2nd email? 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points (something I am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their own bills). My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these "questions" are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give their time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good faith. If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well how these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area but you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. The conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA execs simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of the other demands that come with the job. Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive dialogue about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; ) chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Tue Dec 30 16:24:48 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:24:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UW no longer needs swing partner Message-ID: We found someone. Thanks to all who responded or were about to respond. See y'all in Texas. mjs _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail anywhere. No map, no compass. http://windowslive.com/oneline/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_anywhere_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081230/d48d754f/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Tue Dec 30 16:33:41 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:33:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, Lecturer in Communication Studies University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 FLW 3015 305-284-5553 204-385-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/ ________________________________________ From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Darren Elliott [delliott at kckcc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:58 PM To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! Associated Press reporting: Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. Stop. Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate Coach of entire Army! Stop. Here is a better one--just Stop! Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. Wonder if he asked the right people? I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l are suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in the past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, McDonald) or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, Schriver, Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the person charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent on those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you listed in your 2nd email? 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points (something I am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their own bills). My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these "questions" are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give their time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good faith. If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well how these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area but you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. The conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA execs simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of the other demands that come with the job. Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive dialogue about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; ) chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From bdelo77 at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 17:11:45 2008 From: bdelo77 at gmail.com (Brian Delong) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:11:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Coast Rounds for sale Message-ID: <837710f70812301511p317880cbwc524fe2ad84b3477@mail.gmail.com> I am selling 2 rounds each at USC and Fullerton. From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 18:28:35 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 19:28:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <495A450B020000930002262E@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812301628t21716f45ke8afde2fadba259d@mail.gmail.com> This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some time to be creative. There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than i think is necessary. Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public tax reporting form. There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by general accounting procedures. It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i should be able to know without asking the people for whom the disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust obligation. Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling its business. Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance practices). If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out www.cedadebate.org/about where you will find minutes from our buisness meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free to contact kelly mcdonald." On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott wrote: > Associated Press reporting: > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > Stop. > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate Coach > of entire Army! Stop. > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l are > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in the > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, McDonald) > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, Schriver, > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the person > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent on > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you listed > in your 2nd email? > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points (something I > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their own > bills). > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these "questions" > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give their > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > faith. > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well how > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area but > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. The > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA execs > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > the other demands that come with the job. > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive dialogue > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; ) > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA President > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 19:00:01 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:00:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0812301628t21716f45ke8afde2fadba259d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812301700m1a54f46r1b024c8b69db872e@mail.gmail.com> I don't want you to pay them back, i want the organization to not make you have a credit card with enough of a limit to get three days in tahoe. I want to plan the resource so its worthwhile and accumulates and goes back to our tax exempt purpose. If we want to reward our leadership for a job well done we should as individual members take up a contribution and get them something they like. We do this now, well mostly the executive committee does this, but we shouldnt use organizational resources outside of the compensation agreement for it. On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Shawn T Whalen wrote: > > Never saw the original email. So I'm not exactly sure what has been > requested. > > I received no points or other compensation when I was president and ran the > 2003 CEDA Nationals. When I hosted in 2005, I got 50,000 Hyatt Gold Rewards > points. Those points got me 3 days at the Tahoe Hyatt. > > If the membership would like me to pay the value of those points back, let > me know. > > Shawn > > > > *"Andy Ellis" * > Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com > > 12/30/2008 04:28 PM > To > "Darren Elliott" > cc > edebate at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some > time to be creative. > > There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than > i think is necessary. > > Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price > adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under > general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from > this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self > when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It > is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for > such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the > executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have > started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public > tax reporting form. > > There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non > accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific > enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. > > There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time > and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer > arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of > the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by > general accounting procedures. > > It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an > individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... > > So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything > illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. > > However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non > profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take > donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to > write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. > > I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of > the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the > whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, > i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the > organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the > point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you > mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the > outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. > Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get > anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the > people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents > boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i > should be able to know without asking the people for whom the > disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust > obligation. > > Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their > personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to > maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed > to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up > their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be > commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be > capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should > not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what > amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling > its business. > > Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was > referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i > should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a > legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable > reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but > the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance > practices). > > If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public > disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards > points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, > as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public > conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also > provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent > form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial > disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see > our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like > any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit > payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing > fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out > www.cedadebate.org/about where you will find minutes from our buisness > meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of > interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free > to contact kelly mcdonald." > > On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott wrote: > > Associated Press reporting: > > > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > > Stop. > > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate > Coach > > of entire Army! Stop. > > > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l > are > > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in > the > > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, > McDonald) > > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, > Schriver, > > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the > person > > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent > on > > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you > listed > > in your 2nd email? > > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points > (something I > > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their > own > > bills). > > > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these > "questions" > > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give > their > > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > > faith. > > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well > how > > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area > but > > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. > The > > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA > execs > > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > > the other demands that come with the job. > > > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive > dialogue > > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; > ) > > > > chief > > > > Darren Elliott > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > CEDA President > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081230/2d2131eb/attachment.htm From Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU Tue Dec 30 19:04:25 2008 From: Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU (Kenneth M. Strange) Date: 30 Dec 2008 20:04:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need UTD judging Message-ID: <145896184@newvixen.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081230/017e1921/attachment.txt From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 19:31:55 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:31:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0812301700m1a54f46r1b024c8b69db872e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812301731m14d1054bpddce7210771dd91d@mail.gmail.com> Yes...The organization should not make you take on the contractual responsibility, thats the easier solution no doubt, but an awful one given what else the organization requires of you. If that is an expected libaility of an exec it should be in the job description, if it is just de facto that way because in 40 years we can't get together our own business accounts, that should be changed. Either way, i think we are largely on the same side here, corporate citizenship should offer benefits to the people in those positions, not 3 nights at the hyatt, but liability from contractual risk is a good starter. On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Shawn T Whalen wrote: > > When I negotiated the contract for the hotel, CEDA had no role in the > negotiation. I never used a credit card or earned reward points for > organizational purchases. The CEDA treasurer pays all the costs of catering > etc. > > I got points for signing a contract to use the Hyatt as the tournament > hotel. The organization might want to consider generating policy to govern > the contractual relationship it makes with the hotel, but when I was asked > to put a bid together no such policy existed and CEDA had no role beyond > approving our bid. Indeed, I incurred all of the contractual risk (a couple > hundred thousand if the event had been cancelled as I recall). To that end, > I never thought of those points as "CEDA's resources." (Again, if the > organization feels differently you can send me a bill). > > I'll add that my negotiation with the hotel included a number of comp rooms > that were provided to CEDA as well as a rate of $79 per night (compared to a > rack rate of well over $250), free wireless access (waiving a $15/day fee), > and 1/2 price parking. I never negotiated for the points, they were a > standard inducement offered at the time. > > Shawn > > > > > *"Andy Ellis" * > Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com > > 12/30/2008 05:00 PM > To > "Shawn T Whalen" > cc > edebate at ndtceda.com, ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com > Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > I don't want you to pay them back, i want the organization to not make you > have a credit card with enough of a limit to get three days in tahoe. I want > to plan the resource so its worthwhile and accumulates and goes back to our > tax exempt purpose. If we want to reward our leadership for a job well done > we should as individual members take up a contribution and get them > something they like. We do this now, well mostly the executive committee > does this, but we shouldnt use organizational resources outside of the > compensation agreement for it. > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Shawn T Whalen <*swhalen at sfsu.edu*> > wrote: > > Never saw the original email. So I'm not exactly sure what has been > requested. > > I received no points or other compensation when I was president and ran the > 2003 CEDA Nationals. When I hosted in 2005, I got 50,000 Hyatt Gold Rewards > points. Those points got me 3 days at the Tahoe Hyatt. > > If the membership would like me to pay the value of those points back, let > me know. > > Shawn > > > *"Andy Ellis" <**andy.edebate at gmail.com* *>* > Sent by: *ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com* > > 12/30/2008 04:28 PM > > To > "Darren Elliott" <*delliott at kckcc.edu* > cc > *edebate at ndtceda.com* , *CEDA-L at ndtceda.com* > Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > > > This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some > time to be creative. > > There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than > i think is necessary. > > Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price > adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under > general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from > this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self > when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It > is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for > such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the > executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have > started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public > tax reporting form. > > There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non > accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific > enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. > > There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time > and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer > arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of > the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by > general accounting procedures. > > It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an > individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... > > So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything > illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. > > However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non > profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take > donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to > write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. > > I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of > the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the > whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, > i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the > organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the > point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you > mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the > outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. > Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get > anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the > people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents > boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i > should be able to know without asking the people for whom the > disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust > obligation. > > Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their > personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to > maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed > to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up > their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be > commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be > capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should > not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what > amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling > its business. > > Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was > referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i > should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a > legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable > reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but > the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance > practices). > > If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public > disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards > points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, > as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public > conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also > provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent > form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial > disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see > our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like > any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit > payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing > fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out* > **www.cedadebate.org/about* where you > will find minutes from our buisness > meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of > interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free > to contact kelly mcdonald." > > On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott <*delliott at kckcc.edu* > > wrote: > > Associated Press reporting: > > > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > > Stop. > > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate > Coach > > of entire Army! Stop. > > > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l > are > > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in > the > > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, > McDonald) > > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, > Schriver, > > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the > person > > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent > on > > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you > listed > > in your 2nd email? > > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points > (something I > > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their > own > > bills). > > > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these > "questions" > > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give > their > > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > > faith. > > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well > how > > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area > but > > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. > The > > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA > execs > > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > > the other demands that come with the job. > > > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive > dialogue > > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; > ) > > > > chief > > > > Darren Elliott > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > CEDA President > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > *CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* > > *http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* * > **http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l* > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081230/d3784d22/attachment.htm From tcram at ku.edu Tue Dec 30 20:45:58 2008 From: tcram at ku.edu (tcram) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:45:58 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] USC/Fullerton rounds Message-ID: <9632C3DAB675864EB0A9B7724D85DB790B96B139@MAILBOXSEVEN.home.ku.edu> I have three at each tournament for sale. Let me know. -Travis From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 21:07:52 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:07:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0812301731m14d1054bpddce7210771dd91d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0812301907g15432916m3921a2afff9d7ec6@mail.gmail.com> i appreciate the disclosure, its not the golden ticket, its not gonna pay for free ceda, but there is potential that we should investigate and utilize to the full extent that it can. On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Shawn T Whalen wrote: > > Just wanted to provide full disclosure. I think that the organization > could potentially benefit from formalizing a strategic approach to corporate > incentives. However, I think that benefit would be marginal. Others are > surely more astute at these negotiations, but its hard to imagine a system > that would meaningfully alter the circumstances of the average member > institution. > > Shawn > > > > *"Andy Ellis" * > Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com > > 12/30/2008 05:31 PM > To > "Shawn T Whalen" cc > edebate at ndtceda.com, ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com > Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > Yes...The organization should not make you take on the contractual > responsibility, thats the easier solution no doubt, but an awful one given > what else the organization requires of you. If that is an expected libaility > of an exec it should be in the job description, if it is just de facto that > way because in 40 years we can't get together our own business accounts, > that should be changed. Either way, i think we are largely on the same side > here, corporate citizenship should offer benefits to the people in those > positions, not 3 nights at the hyatt, but liability from contractual risk is > a good starter. > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Shawn T Whalen <*swhalen at sfsu.edu*> > wrote: > > When I negotiated the contract for the hotel, CEDA had no role in the > negotiation. I never used a credit card or earned reward points for > organizational purchases. The CEDA treasurer pays all the costs of catering > etc. > > I got points for signing a contract to use the Hyatt as the tournament > hotel. The organization might want to consider generating policy to govern > the contractual relationship it makes with the hotel, but when I was asked > to put a bid together no such policy existed and CEDA had no role beyond > approving our bid. Indeed, I incurred all of the contractual risk (a couple > hundred thousand if the event had been cancelled as I recall). To that end, > I never thought of those points as "CEDA's resources." (Again, if the > organization feels differently you can send me a bill). > > I'll add that my negotiation with the hotel included a number of comp rooms > that were provided to CEDA as well as a rate of $79 per night (compared to a > rack rate of well over $250), free wireless access (waiving a $15/day fee), > and 1/2 price parking. I never negotiated for the points, they were a > standard inducement offered at the time. > > Shawn > > > > *"Andy Ellis" <**andy.edebate at gmail.com* *>* > Sent by: *ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com* > > 12/30/2008 05:00 PM > > To > "Shawn T Whalen" <*swhalen at sfsu.edu* > cc > *edebate at ndtceda.com* , *ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com*, > *CEDA-L at ndtceda.com* Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > > > I don't want you to pay them back, i want the organization to not make you > have a credit card with enough of a limit to get three days in tahoe. I want > to plan the resource so its worthwhile and accumulates and goes back to our > tax exempt purpose. If we want to reward our leadership for a job well done > we should as individual members take up a contribution and get them > something they like. We do this now, well mostly the executive committee > does this, but we shouldnt use organizational resources outside of the > compensation agreement for it. > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Shawn T Whalen <*swhalen at sfsu.edu*> > wrote: > > Never saw the original email. So I'm not exactly sure what has been > requested. > > I received no points or other compensation when I was president and ran the > 2003 CEDA Nationals. When I hosted in 2005, I got 50,000 Hyatt Gold Rewards > points. Those points got me 3 days at the Tahoe Hyatt. > > If the membership would like me to pay the value of those points back, let > me know. > > Shawn > > *"Andy Ellis" <**andy.edebate at gmail.com* *>* > Sent by: *ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com* > > 12/30/2008 04:28 PM > > To > "Darren Elliott" <*delliott at kckcc.edu* > cc > *edebate at ndtceda.com* , *CEDA-L at ndtceda.com* > Subject > Re: [CEDA-L] RewardPointsGate--CEDA exposed!! > > > > > > > > > This is funny I see that not having email for a few days gave you some > time to be creative. > > There are some good questions here, but also a bit more defensive than > i think is necessary. > > Frequent flyer miles and other rewards programs are considered "price > adjustments" tantamount to rebates, employees or officers should under > general accounting procedures not receive personal compensation from > this. It is similar to having the rebate check made out to your self > when the organization or corporation you work for buys your phone. It > is not illegal, and the irs doesn't have a specific enforment arm for > such things, but they are starting to care. It is bundled in the > executive compensation scrutiny that sarbanes oxley and grassley have > started looking into, and it will be incorporated into the new public > tax reporting form. > > There is no loophole for reimbursements, its considered a non > accountable reimbursement(something the irs does have specific > enforments on) and subject to scrutiny. > > There is also no room for a well this president donated so much time > and money to the org that it seemed ok. Thats an employment officer > arrangement with the organization that if documented falls into one of > the catagories above, if not documented above is frowned upon by > general accounting procedures. > > It also is not currently illegal to take the benefits as an > individual, it does not have to be claimed on income taxes...yet... > > So no i am not accusing anyone or the organization of anything > illegal, at worst its less than optimal governance. > > However, less than optimal governance can spell problems for non > profits, it can lead to bad audits, decreased potential to take > donations, and chum for media sharks who are looking for something to > write about. Plus it breeds contempt and distrust amongst the members. > > I have been combing the 990, looking to see if there is a record of > the reward points i can't find them, but i havent gotten through the > whole thing yet. And this really is the point. I shouldnt have to ask, > i should be able to find out as a member of the public and the > organization how the organizations assests are handled, thats the > point of public disclosure requirements, i may know the folks you > mentioned, and could probably ask them, but i want to know what the > outside view looks like, not what i can find out from those that care. > Plus without transparency there is no reason to trust that i will get > anything but the news people want me to hear, i imagine all of the > people in ceda would disclose freely (in fact one former presidents > boast about his hotel points comes to mind as a free disclosure) but i > should be able to know without asking the people for whom the > disclosure has potential consequences, thats the public trust > obligation. > > Here is my guess, CEDA presidents have had to put things on their > personal cards because ceda does not have the financial resources to > maintain an active credit card account with the kind of limit needed > to do such things, if thats the case the leaders who have offered up > their own cards have been helping the org in a lurch and should be > commended, but thats not how it should be, the organization should be > capable of maintaining and benefiting from such accounts. It should > not rely on the willingness of its officers nor should it pay what > amounts to a fee for not having business accounts capeable of handling > its business. > > Finally, you mention this allusion to you and your work, i was > referring to the attempt to establish multi year hotel contracts, i > should have been more clear. As for the time question...thats not a > legally defensible position, nor is it a reason the non accountable > reimbursement plan would pass an audit(not the kind the irs does, but > the kind an external auditor does to certify our governance > practices). > > If i take over as 2nd VP i want to know every line of our public > disclousres. I want to be able to say" no andy you missed the rewards > points in section 4, they are listed as an accounatable reimbursement, > as per our accountant and independent audit, i can show you our public > conflict of interest policy that all execs must sign. I can also > provide you the officer compensation information from our most recent > form 990. you will note that if you look at our annual financial > disclosure in the report widely available on our website you will see > our reasoning for why we made the decision we did, if you would like > any other documents that we are required to disclose please remit > payment of 40 cents per document plus a $5.00 copying and processing > fee, thank you and if you need any thing else please check out* > **www.cedadebate.org/about* where you > will find minutes from our buisness > meetings. annual reports, and our disclosures of our conflict of > interest policies. If you have additional questions please feel free > to contact kelly mcdonald." > > On 12/30/08, Darren Elliott <*delliott at kckcc.edu* > > wrote: > > Associated Press reporting: > > > > Achten and Whalen jet-setting to European Parli Conference on the back of > > CEDA Rewards Points. Stop. > > Jarman and Massey attending Big 12 Championship Games in Kansas City and > > living it up at Downtown Marriott. Not as shocking as OU win! : ) Stop. > > Baker, Steinberg, Warner, and Sandoz enjoying golf outing in Tempe with > > McDonald. Charging extravagant meals to Holiday Inn Reward Points Club. > > Stop. > > Patrice movements unknown and protected by National Security as Debate > Coach > > of entire Army! Stop. > > > > Here is a better one--just Stop! > > > > Andy asks about the rewards points possibility from past CEDA Nationals. > > Wonder if he asked the right people? > > > > I only comment because quite often, "questions" posed to edebate/ceda-l > are > > suspicious in their intent. Anyone who has hosted a CEDA Nationals in > the > > past x number of years (Jarman, Massey, Mahoney, Whalen, Warner, > McDonald) > > or who was CEDA President at the time (Patrice, Steinberg, Baker, > Schriver, > > Sandoz, Whalen) or who was CEDA Treasurer at the time (McDonald, Achten) > > could take that public posting as an attempt to expose some underhanded > > activity on their part. The post even suggested the points were being > > "quietly used" to pad the room nights of CEDA execs or "going to" the > person > > charging things on their credit card. Both of these suggest ill-intent > on > > those who would have had the power to do so. Their names for the last 6 > > years are above. But this does not seem to be a productive inquiry. > > > > Andy, did you email any of these folks personally and ask: > > 1. Did CEDA ever look into banking reward points for the ideas you > listed > > in your 2nd email? > > 2. Did CEDA ever try to formalize a relationship with parent hotel > > companies to allow the organization to benefit from points? > > 3. Did CEDA allow individual programs to earn their own points > (something I > > am sure is happening and completely legitimate for schools paying their > own > > bills). > > > > My point is, edebate and ceda-l as a launching point for these > "questions" > > are more often than not seen as "accusations" towards people who give > their > > time, energy, heart, and soul to this organization. It gets frustrating > > that good intentions get slammed, that good people get accused of things > > that are crazy, and that we dont first assume people are acting in good > > faith. > > If Andy is elected to a leadership position, he will understand too well > how > > these forums serve to frustrate more than accomplish anything positive. > > > > Final 2 points. First, you alluded to me doing some work in this area > but > > you have no idea where the points are. I have no idea what work you are > > referring to. At one a year or so ago you mentioned rewards points and I > > echoed that if CEDA were to create a relationship that would be great. > The > > conversation ended there. Second point, my guess is many individual > > programs collect their own points for use during the year OR that CEDA > execs > > simply didnt have the TIME to invest in reward points banking with all of > > the other demands that come with the job. > > > > Cut folks some slack. Ask them directly. Then begin a productive > dialogue > > about what CEDA should do. Your ideas are valuable ones. They just get > > lost in the accusatory tone of "quietly used" rhetoric. > > > > Of course, maybe I am wrong. Wonder where Achten spent the Holidays! ; > ) > > > > chief > > > > Darren Elliott > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > CEDA President > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > *CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* > > *http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* * > **http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l* > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list* > **CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com* * > **http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l* > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081230/68a21575/attachment.htm From kurtfifelski at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 21:37:46 2008 From: kurtfifelski at gmail.com (Kurt Fifelski) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:37:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] MSU EL or delete Message-ID: <7f3f88440812301937g5a884350l515a974d76ffb107@mail.gmail.com> Could you back channel me? Thanks in advance -- -Kurt Fifelski KurtFifelski at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081230/ab0b8a94/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Wed Dec 31 00:59:51 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:59:51 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Prefs are active Message-ID: <39c1ac890812302259r41f626f4q57d904a65052dd54@mail.gmail.com> Prefs are open at debateresults.com Contact Adam Symonds at asymonds at asu.edu if you have any technical questions. Thanks. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081230/7621b830/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Dec 31 09:17:23 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:17:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] barry soetoro to have tanning salon installed in white house Message-ID: the basketball court was a decoy. soetoro actually suffers from a rare form of albinism only found in puppets.berg has two cases scheduled for conference in january 8th and 9th, an injunction to stay the electoral college votes AND a writ a certiori. now berg has added a third case on behalf of retired colonel, lawrence j. joyce, to block the court from ruling "lack of standing".For Immediate Release For Further Information Contact:Philip J. Berg, Esquire 12-30-8 DETERMINED to have the TRUTH regarding OBAMA that he is NOT "NATURAL BORN" and therefore NOT constitutionally QUALIFIED to be PRESIDENT BERG files a lawsuit on behalf of a RETIRED COLONEL The lawsuit is an "Interpleader" that shifts the burden of proof to OBAMA Further, OBAMA is named as "BARRY SOETORO" as that is his "real" name when he was legally adopted in Indonesia (Lafayette Hill, PA 12/30/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama's lack of "qualifications" to serve as President of the United States which is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 570] with two [2] Conferences scheduled on January 9th and 16th 2009, filed suit against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama on behalf of a Retired Military Colonel. Berg today, with co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire, filed another lawsuit in Federal Court in the United States District for the District of Columbia on behalf of Retired Colonel Hollister against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama demanding to know Obama's real name and if he is constitutionally qualified to be President. Plaintiff, Gregory S. Hollister, is a resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and Hollister has "standing" and needs a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any Order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama. The suit is in the nature of an Interpleader that shifts the burden of proof to the Defendants, Soetoro a/k/a Obama and Biden to show that they are "qualified" for office. Berg stated, "I am determined, on behalf of the 320 million citizens in the United States, to see that "our U.S. Constitution" is followed. Specifically, in the case of Soetoro a/k/a Obama, does he meet the constitutional qualifications for President ? I do not believe so based upon: 1) Obama was born in Kenya and because his mother was not nineteen [19], he was only "naturalized" and therefore, not qualified to be President; 2) Obama was legally adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia at the approximate age of six [6] and attended school as "Barry Soetoro," [his step-father is Lolo Soetoro] for four [4] years Indonesia did not have dual citizenship and to attend school, he had to be adopted or acknowledged and he became a "natural" citizen of Indonesia; 3) when he returned to Hawaii at age ten [10], there is a question if he returned through U.S. Immigration (a) if he did, Barry Soetoro would have been given a "Certification of Citizenship" that would have indicated he was a "naturalized" U.S. citizen since he was a "natural" citizen of Indonesia; or (b) if he did not go through immigration, which I believe, then Soetoro a/k/a Obama is an illegal alien and therefore, not constitutionally qualified to be President and his three [3] years as an U.S. Senator were a fraud." Berg continued, "I am appalled that the main stream media continues to ignore this issue as we are headed to a 'Constitutional Crisis.' There is nothing more important than our U.S. Constitution and it must be enforced. I am encouraged that the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled two [2] Conferences to look into the merits of our allegations. I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified 'natural-born' citizen and therefore, is ineligible to assume the Office of the President of the United States. Obama, knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was legally adopted/acknowledged in Indonesia; is an attorney, Harvard Law head of the Law Review and graduate who taught Constitutional law; knows the Obama candidacy is the biggest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world." Berg concluded, "I will continue my efforts until Obama either proves he is qualified or does the right thing and states that he is proud that he, an African American, received more votes than anyone else in the Presidential election on November 4, 2008, but because of things in his past, he must withdraw his name." For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com For Further Information Contact: Philip J. Berg, Esquire 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531 _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081231/0c3af83d/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Wed Dec 31 14:04:20 2008 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:04:20 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Prefs Active for UNT Tournament Message-ID: The Pref system for the UNT DeMougeot Debates is turned on. Please have preferences completed by Midnight Jan 4th. If you need to make changes to entries, please contact me directly. The number categories are correct, please remember, that preferences are entered in all 3 divisions, and the number of judges is not the same for all divisions. Please make sure you have the correct numbers in your rankings. Information coming soon concerning internet, entertainment, and parking. -Brian Lain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081231/b82effdb/attachment.htm From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 31 15:26:05 2008 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:26:05 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Hotel Deadline extended... Message-ID: Hey folks, the block at the Baylor tournament hotel has been extended to Friday, Jan. 9th. If you plan on attending, please go ahead and get entered on debateresults.com so I have a better idea about our final numbers. Looking forward to seeing you all in a few weeks... The Bears _________________________________________________________________ It?s the same Hotmail?. If by ?same? you mean up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081231/7d36fb3c/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Wed Dec 31 17:13:25 2008 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:13:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Need judging for Tx Swing - Emory Message-ID: <125515.54948.qm@web62001.mail.re1.yahoo.com> 1 or 2 rounds would be awesome. We pay in cash. Thanks for any and all assistance. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081231/1e2eb06f/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Dec 31 17:17:25 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:17:25 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs . . . Message-ID: <4CD0B2A398BE49B1A13BAE52FF34F1FE@whitman.edu> join us for the 2009 nw ceda champs --no cost. zero (except for teams in washington state). --breakfast, lunch, dinner served throughout the tournament --no postings until 9:30am -- be rested for your debates --6 rounds, octas, prefs --whitman, gonzaga, ups, michigan, southwestern, wyoming, weber, idaho state are all planning to attend. --feb 28 - mar 2, 2009 (saturday-monday) --ticket prices have fallen; fly into pasco or walla walla (or even portland or spokane) http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54nwceda2009.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081231/a87100a7/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Wed Dec 31 18:11:55 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:11:55 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Alan Nichols Updates Message-ID: Hope everyone is enjoying their New Year's Eve. From the standpoint of those involved with this tournament for many years, I really hope everyone is enjoying their free time tonight. It is hard to believe that we would normally be in late elims at this point! We have a very large turnout this year (92 open teams and 22 JV teams) and we are hard to accommodate you at the Nichols. I will refrain from making a lot of update emails, so please make sure you review this note. 1) Preferences - They are active now and will be open until 9:00 pm January 2nd (the close of registration). We and Fullerton are using Jon's new CAT system so hopefully it will be easier to coordinate your preference work for both tournaments. 2) Ground transportation - I have the follow schools and number of participants using our shuttles. If you were planning on using our shuttle and don't see yourself, please let me know ASAP. We cannot make any guarantees about adding seats on the shuttles at registration. Concordia - 5, Emory - 15, Georgia - 5, Gonzaga - 14, Mary Washington - 2, North Texas - 3 3) The full invitation (available on our website - linked below) and debateresults contains lots of useful information such as parking, the schedule, etc. Printing a copy will make your travel easier. The only change is that we will be having a brief awards ceremony at its usual time (immediately after round 7) and not on January 5th. 4) Registration is at the Sheraton (room will be available at the desk) starting at 7 pm January 2nd. If you have any trouble with your travel or won't be making it to registration, please email me or call me at 702-354-2973. Have a great and safe debate-free evening all and see all 350 of you shortly!! Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com