From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 10:53:02 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:53:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Help YOURS win $10,000 Message-ID: <9368bc9b0811010853s2cda47a1v212a426bc1f27e11@mail.gmail.com> We need your help: If you like our idea or support what we do, then go to ideablob.com, register and vote for our submission The "Business Incubation Learning Lab for Innovative Teens- BILL-IT". This program anchored in our Hampden store, helps youth create cooperative businesses providing goods and services to the people and communities of Baltimore. You can help us support this funding in 3 easy steps Step 1: Go to Ideablob.com and register (the register link is at the top right of the screen) Step 2: Check out our entry and vote (http://ideablob.com/ideas/ 3667-YOURS-Business-Incubation-Lear or you can just search for YOURS). We want to qualify in the first week so we are aiming to get our first round of votes between Nov. 1 at 1:00 AM and Nov. 7 at 11:59 PM Eastern time. The finals are from the 22nd to the end of the month and if we qualify you can vote for us in the finals. Step 3 : Tell your friends, tell your co-workers, tell your family. It takes 10 minutes and it can substantially improve the quality and reach of our programming. That is it, easy as 1-2-3. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/e8806346/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 11:08:37 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:08:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Baltimore College Debate & YOURS Welcome Shawntia Diggs to the Team Message-ID: <9368bc9b0811010908k9837b79jfd7221bdc6477b90@mail.gmail.com> Hello: I am excited to announce that Shawntia Diggs will be joining YOURS as the coordinator of the Baltimore College Debate program. Shawntia will be working to get Baltimore area students debating at places where there is currently no program. Never to leave debate to be by itself here in Baltimore, Shawntia's job will also include a compoennt that trains debaters to be college access mentors for high school and middle school students attending Baltimore City Public Schools. Mentors will work with debaters and non debaters alike in order to provide students the much needed peer education that can motivate them to college access and success. We will be posting the invitation for the december 6-7 tournament this week after we have the chance to figure out how shawntia wants to structure the tournaments. Congratulations Shawntia we are excited to have you on our team. Andy Ellis Managing Director Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems 822 W. 36th Street Baltimore MD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/57f59951/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 11:12:47 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 11:12:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Round 1 -- wins & losses Message-ID: <524839830811010912r560dad14u749b8e1a54f2024b@mail.gmail.com> Teams that won round one (not in order) 1. Northwestern BB (Ryan Beiermeister & Jordan Blumenthal) 1 -55 55 3 -55 -.77 438 2. Vanderbilt BN (Nicholas Brown & Cameron Norris) 1 -55 55 3 -55 -.84 564 3. Georgetown MR (Paul Milani & Carl Rice) 1 -55 55 3 -55 -.98 363 4. Texas CM (Kenny Cauthen & Drew Mcneil) 1 -55 55 4 -55 -.85 916 5. Towson JM (Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray) 1 -55 55 4 -55 -.86 135 6. Richmond (univ. Of) FL (Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon) 1 -55 55 4 -55 -.87 688 7. George Mason Univers HO (Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach) 1 -55.5 55.5 3 -55.5 -.3 962 8. Wyoming BJ (Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson) 1 -55.5 55.5 3 -55.5 -.36 158 9. Dartmouth AB (Cyrus Akrami & Caroline Brandt) 1 -55.5 55.5 3 -55.5 -.39 716 10. Wyoming AP (Sam Allen & Jamie Piechura) 1 -55.5 55.5 3 -55.5 -.67 382 11. Wake Forest CC (Doowon Chung & Seungwon Chung) 1 -56 56 3 -56 .21 336 12. Iowa SV (Corey Stone & Kyle Vint) 1 -56 56 3 -56 .19 819 13. Wake Forest SS (Will Sears & Ryan Stevens) 1 -56 56 3 -56 .14 996 14. Trinity University BH (Brendon Bankey & Michael Hart) 1 -56 56 3 -56 .09 302 15. Georgetown HZ (Dorothy Hector & Lucy Zhu) 1 -56 56 3 -56 -.05 635 16. North Texas (univ.) CP (Kuntal Cholera & Grant Peretz) 1 -56 56 4 -56 .15 122 17. Wayne State Universi NP (Bruce Najor & Sydney Pasquinelli) 1 -56 56 5 -56 .13 512 18. Oklahoma GW (R.j. Giglio & Nick Watts) 1 -56.5 56.5 3 -56.5 .7 340 19. Northwestern MS (Rob Mulholand & Stephanie Spies) 1 -56.5 56.5 3 -56.5 .65 468 20. Emory IP (D Inamullah & Pradeep Pramanik) 1 -56.5 56.5 3 -56.5 .61 375 21. Gonzaga BC (Nick Bormann & Abe Corrigan) 1 -56.5 56.5 4 -56.5 .68 302 22. Mary Washington KS (Kevin Kallmyer & Matt Struth) 1 -56.5 56.5 4 -56.5 .64 836 23. Georgia CS (Brittany Cambre & Adam Schmidt) 1 -56.5 56.5 6 -56.5 .6 243 24. West Georgia BS (Vince Binder & Jim Schultz) 1 -56.5 56.5 6 -56.5 -.25 926 25. Emory SW (Matt Senghas & Stephen Weil) 1 -57 57 3 -57 1.2 451 26. Gonzaga MM (Leah Moczulski & Karina Momary) 1 -57 57 3 -57 1.15 426 27. Georgetown FK (Cody Forrester & Bon Koo) 1 -57 57 3 -57 1.13 342 28. Kansas (univ. Of) KQ (Sean Kennedy & Dylan Quigley) 1 -57 57 3 -57 1.11 382 29. Dartmouth AH (Shane Avidan & Caroline Harkins) 1 -57 57 3 -57 1.1 659 30. Missouri State FW (Jordan Foley & Clay Webb) 1 -57 57 3 -57 .75 657 31. Idaho State JM (Danielle Jennings & Paul Montreuil) 1 -57 57 5 -57 .86 771 32. Georgia BL (Thomas Beyers & Mike Lacy) 1 -57 57 6 -57 1.1 826 33. Michigan State Univ. AW (Garrett Abelkop & Carly Wunderlich) 1 -57.5 57.5 3 -57.5 1.65 644 34. Emory MS (Nick Miller & Chipp Schwab) 1 -57.5 57.5 3 -57.5 1.65 599 35. California BP (Mike Burshteyn & Jacob Polin) 1 -57.5 57.5 3 -57.5 1.62 979 36. Northwestern FW (Matt Fisher & John Warden) 1 -57.5 57.5 3 -57.5 1.57 569 37. Wake Forest GL (Seth Gannon & Alex Lamballe) 1 -57.5 57.5 3 -57.5 1.29 801 38. Kansas (univ. Of) BJ (Brett Bricker & Nate Johnson) 1 -57.5 57.5 3 -57.5 .75 580 39. Southern California JL (Mike Jones & Mima Lazarevic) 1 -57.5 57.5 4 -57.5 1.61 249 40. Towson CL (Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love) 1 -57.5 57.5 4 -57.5 1.43 509 Teams that lost round 1 (not in order) 41. U.s. Military Academy CT (Alicia Chan & Eric Tonsfeldt) -54 54 7 -54 1 275 42. Binghamton BT (Maryam Belly & Matthew Torsiello) -54 54 7 -54 1 -1.77 879 43. Cornell University CK (Elizabeth Conlan & John Karin) -54 54 7 -54 1 -1.8 235 44. U.s. Military Academy EJ (Kier Elmonairy & Derrick Jerke) -54 54 7 -54 1 -1.98 648 45. Minnesota CH (Logan Chin & Arif Hasan) -54.5 54.5 6 -54.5 1 -1.35 401 46. Vermont LR (Chris Lattuca & Marnie Ritchie) -54.5 54.5 6 -54.5 1 -1.35 370 47. Binghamton GS (Pete Groh & Bill Sebelle) -54.5 54.5 6 -54.5 1 -1.36 258 48. Cornell University HP (Dan Himmelstein & Zain Pasha) -54.5 54.5 6 -54.5 1 -1.37 132 49. Oklahoma DE (Ben Dabari & Paul Eicher) -54.5 54.5 7 -54.5 1 778 50. Nevada Las Vegas CE (Elliot Carr-lee & Michael Eisenstadt) -54.5 54.5 7 -54.5 1 -1.3 706 51. Minnesota NP (Kelly Nickel & Daryl Pinto) -54.5 54.5 7 -54.5 1 -1.35 272 52. Stanford KP (Sam King & Ben Picozzi) -54.5 54.5 7 -54.5 1 -1.36 402 53. U.s. Military Academy HX (Mckinsey Hulen & Tianyi Xin) -54.5 54.5 7 -54.5 1 -1.41 436 54. Rochester BY (Ryan Bach & Rona Yang) -54.5 54.5 7 -54.5 1 -1.55 552 55. Nevada Las Vegas CM (Travis Cochran & Austin Mueller) -54.5 54.5 7 -54.5 1 -1.67 628 56. Michigan University RR (Lee Reed & Lina Rudashevski) -54.5 54.5 7 -54.5 1 -1.71 732 57. Texas San Antonio MT (Andy Montee & Christopher Thomas) -55 55 7 -55 1 -.79 687 58. Binghamton TW (Ting Ting Tam & Tansy Woan) -55 55 7 -55 1 -.81 555 59. Dartmouth CR (Trevor Chenoweth & Rob Rein) -55 55 7 -55 1 -.84 633 60. Dartmouth MS (Andrew Manns & David Sterman) -55 55 7 -55 1 -.85 493 61. Trinity University BM (Nick Burr & Alex Moon) -55 55 7 -55 1 -.86 969 62. Marist College LT (Margeaux Lippman & Sam Timinsky) -55 55 7 -55 1 -.89 295 63. San Francisco State EW (Stephanie Eisenberg & Jessica Whittle -55 55 7 -55 1 -.89 286 64. Richmond (univ. Of) DF (Callie Dowdy & James Farr) -55 55 7 -55 1 -.9 500 65. Emory CM (Sam Caporal & Mikaela Malsin) -55.5 55.5 7 -55.5 1 -.38 273 66. Kentucky GG (Suneet Gautam & Bryan Gort) -55.5 55.5 7 -55.5 1 -.43 848 67. Concordia MT (Heath Marso & Tony Tracy) -56 56 5 -56 1 .13 167 68. Michigan University LZ (Maria Liu & Edmund Zagorin) -56 56 6 -56 1 .18 385 69. Kentucky GO (Mike Gentile & Aj O'donnell) -56 56 6 -56 1 .14 367 70. Pittsburgh LS (Stephanie Luczajko & Jennifer Sweeney) -56 56 7 -56 1 .2 665 71. Texas BW (Laura Boyle & Nick Whitaker) -56 56 7 -56 1 .15 226 72. Baylor LR (Amanda Luppes & Chris Rooney) -56 56 7 -56 1 -.25 495 73. Northwestern FG (Greg Friend & Mary Gregg) -56 56 7 -56 1 -.75 670 74. Kansas (univ. Of) SW (Chris Stone & Mark Wilkins) -56.5 56.5 5 -56.5 1 .36 712 75. Binghamton CO (Ben Crossan & Alan Ostrovsky) -56.5 56.5 7 -56.5 1 .65 134 76. Wake Forest MS (Carlos Maza & Lauren Sabino) -57 57 4 -57 1 .25 997 77. Wake Forest CaCr (Mike Carlotti & Sam Critchon) -57 57 6 -57 1 1.11 533 78. Harvard BP (Abhishek Bose-kolanu & Ralph Paone) -57.5 57.5 4 -57.5 1 1.6 419 79. Texas-dallas BR (Andrew Baker & Brian Rubaie) -57.5 57.5 4 -57.5 1 1.6 373 80. Emory IN (Ovais Inamullah & Ana Nikolic) -57.5 57.5 6 -57.5 1 1.43 179 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/5d5e45bd/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 12:53:00 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 12:53:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Round 3 -- 2:30 start time, pairing includes records for rounds 1&2 Message-ID: <524839830811011053r5204f249o55bfb2ccc75e6fd5@mail.gmail.com> -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/b5908718/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: round3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8635 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/b5908718/attachment.pdf From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 16:51:45 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:51:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] round 4 Harvard, records for 1-3 Message-ID: <524839830811011451q69a1d356s7bf2ebe8d1549bbb@mail.gmail.com> -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/3ebfa17d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: round4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8647 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/3ebfa17d/attachment.pdf From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:21:56 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:21:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the guardian critiques the media free pass Message-ID: actually, harold evans critiques in the guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/01/elections-obama-press-bias-mccain The young and affluent liberals have been captivated by Obama's charisma, the unstated notion that electing a black man will be absolution for the years of discrimination and prejudice, and the expectation that Obama's undoubted appeal to the outside world will repair America's image. All understandable, but these emotions have been allowed to swamp the commonplace imperatives of journalism: curiosity and scepticism. All the mainstream national outlets were extraordinarily slow to check Obama's background. And until it became inescapable because of a video rant, they wouldn't investigate the Reverend Jeremiah Wright connection for fear of being accused of racism. They wouldn't explore Obama's dealing with the corrupt, now convicted, Chicago businessman Tony Rezko. They haven't investigated Obama's pledge to get rid of the secret ballot in trade union affairs. After years of inveighing against "money in politics", they've tolerated his breach of the pledge to restrict himself to public financing as McCain has done (to his cost). Now the LA Times refuses to release a possibly compromising video, which shows Obama praising Palestinian activist Rashid Khalidi at a 2003 banquet, saying its promises to its source prevent it from doing so. The British press is notorious for political distortions, which more or less balance out. But the American press likes to think of itself as more superior and detached than it actually is. In 2000, the mainstream media did a great deal to elect George Bush by portraying Al Gore as a boastful liar. Let's hope the consequences of electing "the one" will be as wondrous as the press has led the voters to believe. _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:29:47 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 19:29:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Results from Frederick Douglass One Day Tournament Message-ID: <9368bc9b0811011629u65be32b5s164a6f83c7a0cded@mail.gmail.com> Recently i suggested that tournament hosts provide one day options which would allow several teams to get several rounds in with much less cost and time. Today at towson we offered one of those tournaments and welcomed Coppin State to the debate world. The Open Winner is:Towson Matheno Frazier Bey/ (With assistance from Ben Morgan) Second Place is Johns Hopkins Nick Brady and Kevin Park The JV Winner is: Marist Pamela Chomba/Michael Scarduzio- Second Place is Coppin State/ Jessica Wilkie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/2291a677/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:30:45 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:30:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] fox taped berg at supreme court Message-ID: had to cut and paste this off another website because as i have claimed before the obama camp seems to be in the vein of tuna pro-internet censorship. obamacrimes.com is currently experiencing problems. sanchez style television media exclusion is not good enough for the obama camp. their hack squad serves the function of creating a near total fee pass. like bush after 9/11, the obama camp will try to interpret their diebold landslide as a mandate for limited dissent. BIG announcements from Phil Berg Posted on October 31st, 2008 by admin Obamacrimes.com I just spoke to Phil and learned that there were about 30 people who showed up to support Phil, which I consider pretty good considering they had about 3 hours notice to show up. I want to send out a special thank you to Webster Tarpley who met Phil at the train, to Momma E who helped organize people get them out, and to Will Bower who has shown his support for our cause. I want to send out a special thank you to eveyone who has encourage Phil & Lisa, donated money to help Phil with the many expenses, your good wishes, prayers and support, your posts far and wide carrying this message about the importance of this action to save our Constitution and country from the worst terrible crisis in our history. Thanks to everyone from Phil, Lisa and me. This is one message where I know I can speak for them and not have to ask first. I have an interesting little anecdote to repeat. Phil had not eaten all day and happened to stop in some little sandwich shop where they were giving some sort of fundraiser for a fallen police officer. All these cops were chering and congratulating him on this legal action. A few people were having their pictures taken with Phil. I think it really overwhelmed him as he feels he is just doing the right thing for our country. I don?t think he has really understood how much WE appreciate what he is doing for the future of our country. I think it was a very nice unexpected twist of validation for him. Phil tells me that others in addition to Fox News showed up. People who attended were videotaping and snapping pictures. There was a television film crew from Estonia (?) to film the event outside the Supreme Court. Next, I learned that as part of the appeal, Phil included the translated transcript of the taped interview of the Kenyan grandmother to support his allegations. I am very excited to read the transcript. I have never seen it yet. The filing will be posted tomorrow (Friday) with the attachments of evidence, etc. Keep monitoring this site for the new documents. I am also guessing that Fox will either use the interview tomorrow or this weekend. I?m sure no one wants it to get lost in the Halloween/Friday night events. Please help us post the news far and wide and get this important issue some good media coverage. Word is getting out, but we need more visibility this weekend - so please blog and post the URL as many places as you possibly can. Someone had an idea to make a couple of pages of numerous small strips of paper printed with the URL to hand out with the Halloween candy tomorrow night. When parent?s check the candy, some will see it and check us out. I thought it was a smart idea. _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sat Nov 1 18:44:57 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 18:44:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] hoe: lincoln, coolidge + harding = slave owners In-Reply-To: <737319.77657.qm@web50912.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <737319.77657.qm@web50912.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: in response to hyland, some black scholars disagree with the mainstream version of the africanus epithet. bakhufu, rogers and leroy vaughn cite lincoln's black features and illegitimate birth from an african man and a mother from an ethiopian tribe. without a source indict of these black scholars or disputation of their findings on exhibit, i conclude and hoe dramatically failed to answer that lincoln was the first socially constructed black president. obama is exploiting the mainstream version of history to perpertuate a fraud on the american public regarding his place in black history which amounts to narcissism and arrogance much greater than stroube. you'd think that someone who attended the sermons of reverend jeremiah wright for decades would know the radical black version of history and wouldn't throw it under the bus: http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm Lincoln, the nation's 16th president, served between 1861 and 1865. Lincoln was said to have been the illegitimate son of an African man, according to Leroy's findings. Lincoln had very dark skin and coarse hair and his mother allegedly came from an Ethiopian tribe. His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed "Abraham Africanus the First" by his opponents. one of the cartoons of africanus outside the proper definition of a social construction can be viewed here: http://www.geocities.com/cureworks1/blackabe.htm ________________________________ > Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 05:02:04 -0700 > From: privethedge at yahoo.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] hoe: lincoln, coolidge + harding = slave owners > To: edebate at ndtceda.com; oldstrega at hotmail.com > > If there is one thing I hate, it's poorly interpreted history. Lincoln was called "Abraham Africanus" by copperheads and democrats during the 1864 election because of his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation - not because he was an African-American. If you're going to pontificate about history, at least get the story right! > > And...Lincoln's wife, Mary Todd, was a slave owner through inheritance. In fact...long after Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves, the slaves on the Todd plantation in Kentucky were still in bondage. > Now..go back to your rants. > "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" > "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill > Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live." > Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman: "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!" > > > --- On Wed, 10/29/08, Old Strega wrote: > From: Old Strega > Subject: Re: [eDebate] hoe: lincoln, coolidge + harding = slave owners > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 10:11 PM > > > hoe is using the cover of rationality and sane discourse to publicly lie about > his own arguments. > > 1) hoe never said or implied all 5 previous black presidents were slave owners. > > the archives are putting words into josh's mouth. he never made the > generic disclaimer: > > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-October/076656.html > > "I know those early > Presidents looked white...and they owned slaves....but they were really > black...see," > > lincoln, coolidge and harding are among the 5 black presidents and they never > owned slaves. > > 2) but hoe did make a fabulous argument that the people of abraham africanus, > the first's time had no idea he was black. the opposition nicknamed him > the african but none of the people read the newspapers or had any idea. there > were no pamphlets disclosing lincoln's ancestry. it was a backroom > nickname that was in no way used by the opposition to discredit abraham > africanus. that's his best argument he ever made in his life. thanks, > hoe i now believe that obama is the first socially constructed black president. > you haven't been elusive on this point which so friendly of you considering > how many names i've called you. i thought because i called you those > names you were justified in dropping that argument and sticking to "obama > is the first socially constructed president" according to the technical > rules of rational discourse without losing on the flow. > > 3) my anti-black agenda is real specific. i'm glad you're not lying > about this like your slave owner parry. see, i'm against all black > puppets under brzezinski and the predominantly white council on foreign > relations who advocate warrantless wiretapping, the expansion of the criminal > justice system, the subversion of article 2 of the constitution, war in > afghanistan, and faith-based initiatives. i'm against the manipulation > of white guilt through the simulation of a "first black president" in > the media as a mandate for the liberal version of the police state. the prison > guard union which endorses obama has more black men behind bars than any other > population. the assumption that obama, the jail union wetdream, is > "pro-black" because he is black is a bad assumption. perhaps, obama > is "pro-black middle class" like dear oprah. republican lite is > hardly "pro-black". that's simpleton. i'm sorry. i hope i > didn't hurt your feelings by characterizing an extremely weak assumption as > "simpleton". you better quit this thread. it's entirely > based in ad-hominem attacks. > > ________________________________ >> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:02:17 -0400 >> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] hoe: lincoln, coolidge + harding = slave owners >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> >> Stroube, >> >> I have tried to be nice, I have tried to be mean, I have tried to humor > you....frankly I dont really care. >> You are basically making the Nader argument for the last 8 years...Its > tired...I would rather have a flawed Obama then have another Bush. You might > not appreciate degrees of difference but I do. >> >> As for the rest - you dont care what I say or dont say, if I participate, > anything I say will get "idiot Hoe" "moron" or worse....You > just want a foil so you can keep congratulating yourself about how darn smart > you are. >> >> You have yet to get the argument after three explanations...I am not > denying that the former Presidents were of color....you can keep trumpeting that > all you want...I am NOT denying that its important to deconstruct that version > of white history...I am NOT saying that they were never slurred as "of > color." >> >> Now here are the arguments...I can go reallllllllllly slow just to make > sure you get it this time: >> >> 1. Most people who voted for them thought they were white >> 2. You are using this to further an anti-Black agenda which is jackassery >> 3. You are a gasbag, give nobody respect, and could care less what anyone > says >> >> Have a nice day, if I stop responding its not because I dont think the > discussion COULD be productive with a rational human being...Its because your > narcissism is unbeliveable, >> >> Josh >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Old Strega wrote: >> hoe is leaving the conversation because his argument is awful. >> >> conceding that obama is the sixth black president, he goes for obama being > the first socially constructed black president. >> >> "abraham lincoln was called Abraham Africanus, the First by his > opponents." >> >> this argument has been made five times and hoe can't seem to show how > this is not a social construction of a black president. >> >> hoe wants all five of the previous black presidents to have been slave > owners socially constructed as white but he can't muster the complete > argument to defend that view. >> >> the only argument hoe has is that the school system and the television > have socially constructed (rewritten history) the 5 previous black presidents as > white. hoe has believed that history his whole life and this conviction is so > strong that he can't hear the historical evidence which denies obama's > presidential legacy as the first black president. >> >> ________________________________ >> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. Try Windows > Mobile? today >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > _________________________________________________________________ > Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. > http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 20:43:26 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 20:43:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard -- Rounds 5 & 6 Message-ID: <524839830811011843k15d2769fm2f48e43903c6ba4d@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/710d381c/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: round5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9037 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/710d381c/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: round6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9000 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081101/710d381c/attachment-0001.pdf From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 00:09:11 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 23:09:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] an open letter to barack obama Message-ID: "transparency" only obamatrons believe in. John Wallace New York Campaign for Liberty http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/ http://freedom-liberty-sovereignty.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/01/ open_letter_to_barack_obama_produce_yo I know you are busy running for President of the greatest country in the world, but there are a couple of things about your background and qualifications for the office that concern me and many of my fellow Americans. Never before has a Presidential candidate failed to fully disclose routine information about their background that might help the voters make an informed choice in an election. It seems that many records concerning your background have either be been sealed or are temporarily unavailable for review. I know that any honest person like yourself, who is running for the highest office in the land, would never overtly want to keep such information from public review. Here's a partial list: 1. Occidental College records -- Not released 2. Columbia College records -- Not released 3. Columbia Thesis paper -- Not available, locked down by faculty 4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty 5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released 6. Medical records -- Not released 7. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released (sealed?) 8. Certified Copy of Certification of Live Birth -- Not released (sealed?) 9. Birth records from Kenya -- (Sealed by the government of Kenya until after Election Day) 10. Your record of Christian Baptism -- Not released or unavailable 11. Illinois State Senate schedule - 'Not available' 12. Illinois State Senate records - Destroyed I believe items #7,8 and 9 are the most critical and concern two issues that are very important to the American people: 1. Are Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? and 2. Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President? In a recent federal court case in Pennsylvania, an American citizen, Philip Berg, filed a lawsuit claiming you were not a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore not qualified to be President. During that case, you never denied Mr. Berg's claims, but neither did you provid a valid birth certificate or other proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore qualified under the Constitution to be President. Rather, you hid behind technicalities in the law to avoid the issue and the federal judge hearing the case dismissed Mr. Berg's lawsuit stating that Mr. Berg, acting as a "citizen," did not have legal standing to make such a challenge. This is a prime example of another outrageous decision by a federal judge to deny the American people their rights clearly outlined in the constitution. There have been lawsuits filed, or currently being filed, in 7 or 8 states with various state Boards of Elections, claiming you are ineligible to be on their ballots because you have not produced proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States. Mr. Obama, if you are truly and honorable man and a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" you can clear up this issue very quickly. Just produce a certified copy of your birth certificate in any one of the names you have been know by (Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham). Your avoidance of the issue and your subsequent failure to prove you are a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" is very suspicious and raises a very important constitutional issue that must be addressed before the November 4th election. Stop using legal technicalities, record sealing and courtroom maneuvers to avoid the issue. The American people have every constitutional right to know and they will eventually find out. Try using honesty and truthfulness for a change and put this issue to rest. Either prove that you are a "Natural Born Citizen of the U.S." and are legally qualified to hold the Office of President, or withdraw the race. If you do not do one of the other, the American people, regardless of party affiliation, will surely stand up and kick you out. _________________________________________________________________ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 00:09:12 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 23:09:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] an open letter to barack obama Message-ID: "transparency" only obamatrons believe in. John Wallace New York Campaign for Liberty http://www.nycampaignforliberty.com/ http://freedom-liberty-sovereignty.blogtownhall.com/2008/11/01/ open_letter_to_barack_obama_produce_yo I know you are busy running for President of the greatest country in the world, but there are a couple of things about your background and qualifications for the office that concern me and many of my fellow Americans. Never before has a Presidential candidate failed to fully disclose routine information about their background that might help the voters make an informed choice in an election. It seems that many records concerning your background have either be been sealed or are temporarily unavailable for review. I know that any honest person like yourself, who is running for the highest office in the land, would never overtly want to keep such information from public review. Here's a partial list: 1. Occidental College records -- Not released 2. Columbia College records -- Not released 3. Columbia Thesis paper -- Not available, locked down by faculty 4. Harvard College records -- Not released, locked down by faculty 5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released 6. Medical records -- Not released 7. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released (sealed?) 8. Certified Copy of Certification of Live Birth -- Not released (sealed?) 9. Birth records from Kenya -- (Sealed by the government of Kenya until after Election Day) 10. Your record of Christian Baptism -- Not released or unavailable 11. Illinois State Senate schedule - 'Not available' 12. Illinois State Senate records - Destroyed I believe items #7,8 and 9 are the most critical and concern two issues that are very important to the American people: 1. Are Are you a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? and 2. Are you legally qualified to hold the Office of President? In a recent federal court case in Pennsylvania, an American citizen, Philip Berg, filed a lawsuit claiming you were not a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore not qualified to be President. During that case, you never denied Mr. Berg's claims, but neither did you provid a valid birth certificate or other proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States and therefore qualified under the Constitution to be President. Rather, you hid behind technicalities in the law to avoid the issue and the federal judge hearing the case dismissed Mr. Berg's lawsuit stating that Mr. Berg, acting as a "citizen," did not have legal standing to make such a challenge. This is a prime example of another outrageous decision by a federal judge to deny the American people their rights clearly outlined in the constitution. There have been lawsuits filed, or currently being filed, in 7 or 8 states with various state Boards of Elections, claiming you are ineligible to be on their ballots because you have not produced proof that you are a natural born citizen of the United States. Mr. Obama, if you are truly and honorable man and a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" you can clear up this issue very quickly. Just produce a certified copy of your birth certificate in any one of the names you have been know by (Barack Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham). Your avoidance of the issue and your subsequent failure to prove you are a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" is very suspicious and raises a very important constitutional issue that must be addressed before the November 4th election. Stop using legal technicalities, record sealing and courtroom maneuvers to avoid the issue. The American people have every constitutional right to know and they will eventually find out. Try using honesty and truthfulness for a change and put this issue to rest. Either prove that you are a "Natural Born Citizen of the U.S." and are legally qualified to hold the Office of President, or withdraw the race. If you do not do one of the other, the American people, regardless of party affiliation, will surely stand up and kick you out. _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 00:12:44 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 23:12:44 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social constructions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: agreed, white scholar hoe, political cartoons are not social constructions. all hail, barack obama, the first black president of the united states. ________________________________ > Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:36:01 -0400 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social constructions > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Once again insult me, everyone is a moron, except for the great brain President Stroube. > > Thank goodness you are here to save us all (like flash gordon) in your cute generals clothing....I bet there are lots of medals on your hand stiched robe (which looks suspiciously like an old bath robe but I am sure its the finest silk). > > All Hail President stroube, he will save every one of us....savior of the universe....you can play that back and re-read it if the sound of your own clapping gets too old. > > The CNN interview was so fun, I just talked and talked about all the education I was getting from that little known political genius Old Strega the alter ego for the super hero President Stroube, > > Josh > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > i just saw a show on CNN where a white scholar from the university of michigan named josh joe has just defined social constructions as not including political cartoons. > > this significance of this novel definition, from a self-proclaimed non-narcissist, is that obama remains in the eyes of all sheep THE FIRST SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLACK PRESIDENT, a stellar argument in light of the insignificance of political cartoons. hoe insists that he does not work for the obama campaign and that his new definition of a "social construction" has nothing to do with preserving obama's place in the popular imagination. CNN reaffirms the story you all heard in school: the majority of people in abraham lincoln's time thought he was white. obama is still unique and not an egomaniac overhyping his place in black history. > > http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/09/our-black-and-indian-presidents.html > > Lincoln's presidential opponents made cartoon drawings depicting him as a Negro and nicknamed him "Abraham Africanus the First." > > hoe's greatest contribution to scholarship yet is the fact that nobody ever looked at cartoons in lincoln's time. cartoons were considered works of the devil. > _________________________________________________________________ > You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sat Nov 1 23:17:04 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 00:17:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social constructions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank Goodness you have finally seen reason.....oh hold on, more sarcasm, disrespect, and self-aggrandizement...shocker. When will you start putting pictures of yourself with all your war medals and military uniform on....I can't wait :) Josh On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > agreed, white scholar hoe, political cartoons are not social constructions. > all hail, barack obama, the first black president of the united states. > ________________________________ > > Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:36:01 -0400 > > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social > constructions > > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > > > Once again insult me, everyone is a moron, except for the great brain > President Stroube. > > > > Thank goodness you are here to save us all (like flash gordon) in your > cute generals clothing....I bet there are lots of medals on your hand > stiched robe (which looks suspiciously like an old bath robe but I am sure > its the finest silk). > > > > All Hail President stroube, he will save every one of us....savior of the > universe....you can play that back and re-read it if the sound of your own > clapping gets too old. > > > > The CNN interview was so fun, I just talked and talked about all the > education I was getting from that little known political genius Old Strega > the alter ego for the super hero President Stroube, > > > > Josh > > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > > > i just saw a show on CNN where a white scholar from the university of > michigan named josh joe has just defined social constructions as not > including political cartoons. > > > > this significance of this novel definition, from a self-proclaimed > non-narcissist, is that obama remains in the eyes of all sheep THE FIRST > SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLACK PRESIDENT, a stellar argument in light of the > insignificance of political cartoons. hoe insists that he does not work > for the obama campaign and that his new definition of a "social > construction" has nothing to do with preserving obama's place in the > popular imagination. CNN reaffirms the story you all heard in school: the > majority of people in abraham lincoln's time thought he was white. obama > is still unique and not an egomaniac overhyping his place in black history. > > > > > http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/09/our-black-and-indian-presidents.html > > > > Lincoln's presidential opponents made cartoon drawings depicting him as a > Negro and nicknamed him "Abraham Africanus the First." > > > > hoe's greatest contribution to scholarship yet is the fact that nobody > ever looked at cartoons in lincoln's time. cartoons were considered works > of the devil. > > _________________________________________________________________ > > You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > _________________________________________________________________ > You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/c31240b3/attachment.htm From seanluechtefeld at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 11:06:54 2008 From: seanluechtefeld at gmail.com (Sean Luechtefeld) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 12:06:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Seeks Novice Swing for Liberty Message-ID: If you've got an odd number, let me know. Sean Wake Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/14a2518a/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 13:35:05 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:35:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Round 7 Harvard (includes 1-6 records) Message-ID: <524839830811021135u402c1d2fkc33f2c68d850c436@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/962d9d9c/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: round7.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8702 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/962d9d9c/attachment.pdf From mmk_savant at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 16:19:07 2008 From: mmk_savant at hotmail.com (Michael Korcok) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:19:07 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] we are all Africans Message-ID: I haven't been reading all the posts about this so I will apologize ahead of time if my comments miss the mark. We are all, every one of us, descended from Africans. Ethiopians to be exact. A mere 80,000 years ago, all Homo Sapiens lived in Africa. We know this because our mitochondrial DNA, the stuff which is unaffected by male germline DNA, can be used to trace matrilineal descent. All of us share mitochondrial DNA passed down to us through our mother from a woman fancifully named Mitochondrial Eve who lived about 170,000 years ago. She was not the first Homo Sapiens female or anything, it is just that hers is the only matrinlineal line to survive to the present. About 100,000 years after she lived, some of her descendents left Africa. By then, her mitochondrial DNA had mutated into several clearly definable branches. One of those branches, now labelled L3, was the first to leave Africa north through the Middle East about 80,000 years ago. I am a descendant of the L3 line, for example. Specifically I am MtDNA haplogroup K2a, fancifully named Clan Katrine. I am in that haplogroup with folks like Steven Colbert and Katie Couric. But, in the end, we are all Africans. We also know this because nearly all males have a Y-chromosome which is unaffected by female germline DNA, which can be used to trace patrilineal descent. About 60,000 years ago, during the African Ice Age, a male with Y chromosome mutations, the M168 haplogroup, was born. His DNA is in all males with recent non-African ancestors. Since then, there have been numerous mutations on the Y chrmosome, of course. My own Y chromosome haplogroup is I1b1 (with the P37.2 marker). This particular set of DNA mutations appeared about 15,000 years ago in the South Slavic Balkans and is called Dinaric after the specific geographical region that it emerged in. Ironically enough, my male peeps seem to have been homeboys of the first order: my patrilineal descent lived in the same small part of the Slavic Balkans for a long long long time. It was almost certainly one of the few refuges during the long Wurm. But all of us in I1b1, and every other haplogroup, share a common male ancestor who lived in Africa. Was Abraham Lincoln African? Of course. So was John Kennedy and so is John McCain and so was Queen Victoria and so are you. It isn't that race is a social construction, not entirely. There are ways to divide and categorize persons just by examining their DNA, for example. Or the color of their skin or the texture of their hair. I have the "blond hair" mutation of gene MC1R, for example, which emerged about 11,000 years ago in Lithuania and spread to Scandinavia and eventually took hold throughout Europe. I also have blue eyes (true blue, not that weird blue with brown spots mutation), a genetic mutation that first arose in a single individual about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago near the Black Sea. That person's OCA2 gene miscopied into a variant which turned down melanin production in the eyes and everyone in the world with blue eyes is a descendant of that first blue-eyed mutant. And of course I could go down a very long list of the physical and biological specifications of this exceptionally spectacular individual that is me. And you could too and every one of us could. Choosing one or a few of those categories and giving them legal or ethical significance seems to me intellectually dishonest from the get-go. One more point. A generation back, you have 2 ancestors, mom and dad. Two generations back, you have 4 ancestors, your grandparents. A mere 20 generations back, about 500 years ago, there are up to 1 million different people that contributed their germline DNA to you. That is very many different individuals whose genetic material mashed together resulted in a specific individual biological person. I am not sure what the criteria are for being "Black". That's okay because I am nearly certain that you aren't sure either. If Barack Obama wishes to call himself "Black" then that is fine by me. If that means he will become the first Black President in a few days, then that may be good for this country. But would he become the first African President? Well, no... he would become the 44th President of the United States of African descent. Michael Korcok In case any of the above DNA/haplogroup/descent discussion is new to you... check out https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ http://www.familytreedna.com/ The IBM/National Geographic Genographic Project has a genetic test kit for $100 that you can buy to get a good look at your own deep ancestry. _________________________________________________________________ Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn ?10 hidden secrets? from Jamie. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/b513ec60/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 16:43:10 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:43:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social constructions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: you're the one with all the evidence who keeps winning that the previous 5 black presidents were slave owners and none were socially constructed as black presidents. i like my war medals and military uniform that bode well for a quicky and easy, shock and awe, high-tech excision of the al-qaeda disease from pakistan with no repurcussions. bush has been fighting the wrong war. i support brzezinski, the first black president's chief foreign policy advisor and creator of al-qaeda under carter, to stamp out his own creation ending the policy elite irony of this situation. the photos here of brzezinksi with osama bin laden would remind me of rumsfeld and saddam hussein but they're photoshopped and not real. http://www.geocities.com/RepresentativePress/binLadenphoto.html barack obama is the perfect presidential candidate without a single contradiction, flaw or least taint of narcissism which gives all the more reason for his media free pass. i will be glad to die for barack obama in afghanistan. my medals don't matter. i fight for the truth and i know this time, in blatant conflict with their historical actions, al-qaeda is going to be suicidal in wait in pakistan for the greatest president in the history of the world under their former boss brzezinski to swoop down and save mankind from the evil menace. my medals and my uniform represent the right of young soldiers to be deceived by the chicago daley machine just as easily as they were by dick cheney. it's all about by choosing the right imperial war for the sake of truth and the democratic party of the united states of america. ________________________ ________ > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 00:17:04 -0400 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social constructions > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Thank Goodness you have finally seen reason.....oh hold on, more sarcasm, disrespect, and self-aggrandizement...shocker. > > When will you start putting pictures of yourself with all your war medals and military uniform on....I can't wait :) > > Josh > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > agreed, white scholar hoe, political cartoons are not social constructions. all hail, barack obama, the first black president of the united states. > ________________________________ >> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:36:01 -0400 >> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social constructions >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> >> Once again insult me, everyone is a moron, except for the great brain President Stroube. >> >> Thank goodness you are here to save us all (like flash gordon) in your cute generals clothing....I bet there are lots of medals on your hand stiched robe (which looks suspiciously like an old bath robe but I am sure its the finest silk). >> >> All Hail President stroube, he will save every one of us....savior of the universe....you can play that back and re-read it if the sound of your own clapping gets too old. >> >> The CNN interview was so fun, I just talked and talked about all the education I was getting from that little known political genius Old Strega the alter ego for the super hero President Stroube, >> >> Josh >> >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Old Strega wrote: >> >> i just saw a show on CNN where a white scholar from the university of michigan named josh joe has just defined social constructions as not including political cartoons. >> >> this significance of this novel definition, from a self-proclaimed non-narcissist, is that obama remains in the eyes of all sheep THE FIRST SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLACK PRESIDENT, a stellar argument in light of the insignificance of political cartoons. hoe insists that he does not work for the obama campaign and that his new definition of a "social construction" has nothing to do with preserving obama's place in the popular imagination. CNN reaffirms the story you all heard in school: the majority of people in abraham lincoln's time thought he was white. obama is still unique and not an egomaniac overhyping his place in black history. >> >> http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/09/our-black-and-indian-presidents.html >> >> Lincoln's presidential opponents made cartoon drawings depicting him as a Negro and nicknamed him "Abraham Africanus the First." >> >> hoe's greatest contribution to scholarship yet is the fact that nobody ever looked at cartoons in lincoln's time. cartoons were considered works of the devil. >> _________________________________________________________________ >> You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > _________________________________________________________________ > You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ _________________________________________________________________ Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 16:52:48 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:52:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Round 8, 1-7 records Message-ID: <524839830811021452w59f02b36q90824cf1b16d42fb@mail.gmail.com> -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/7d18caea/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ROUND8.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8677 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/7d18caea/attachment.pdf From malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 17:02:13 2008 From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 17:02:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] posting records with pairings Message-ID: great idea, i hope every tournament starts implementing this practice. _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows Mobile brings your life together?at home, work, or on the go. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/2fad2565/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Nov 2 18:48:23 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 18:48:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] sanchez: circular xenophobia Message-ID: you are drifting into vague 19th century anti-statism. your argument is not that article 2 requiring natural-born citizenship is particularly xenophobic. rather, the thrust of your position is that the founding of a nation through a constitution is xenophobic because it distinguishes one nation from another, citizens from non-citizens. your argument against article could just as easily be applied to the entirety of the constitution which distinguishes one nation's laws from another including citizens from non-citizens. according to this backsliding retreat, barack obama's presidential campaign is xenophobic because its seeks the leadership of only one nation. even if obama's subversion of article 2 could be viewed as a protest against xenophobia, the end result of his election giving him the right of selective application of the constitution according to the plans of his policy elite bosses would be xenophobic according to your own circular definition. i find foucault's 20th century critiques of generic, totalizing anti-statism more compelling. the magna carta and later documents like the US constitution are world-historical because they hold leaders accountable to laws. these constitutional documents are easy to distinguish from the communist manifesto and the march 23, 1933 enabling act of the third reich which clearly disregard the accountability of leaders. foucault's comprehension of the magna carta and constitutional governments was the basis of his rejection of communism and fascism. law is inherently arbitrary but unarbitrary standards are tools for enabling dissent and disabling executive power abuse both through constitutional safeguards. in this light, political philosophy is sundered from a theoretical vacuum of "verbal logic" and allowed into the domain of technical innovation which foucault called "the art of governing". the results of political systems which blatantly hold the leaders above the law are evident in the mass imprisonment of the opposition as hitler and stalin did and china still does. the logic of anti-statism has historically been coopted by political parties to immunize themselves from constitutional standards of unarbitrary law. the case in point, today, would be to see a line of continuity between obama's subversion of article 2, his vote for and "legal defense" of warrantless wiretapping, his unquestioned support of the criminal justice system, and his violation of campaign funding laws. a picture of the obama presidency begins to come into focus through "foucauldian" analysis where the critiques of cheney's power abuses of the OVP become galvanized to empower a friendlier version of the executive branch above the law with a new face. national security concerns surrounding the war in afghanistan will allow obama to conduct routine surveillance of any citizen even if for the purpose of intimidating and derailing their opposition to the afghan quagmire. the line of continuity between article 2 and FISA and undoing of standards that hold leaders accountable is what makes the US constitution the most relevant critical question of today. what also distinguishes the magna carta tradition from other modern political philosophies is the right of revolution according to the standards which subject leaders to the same laws as subjects. foucault used this clause of the magna carta to further distinguish the magna carta tradition of constitutional goverment from commumism and fascism, political forms known for their imprisonment and liquidation of dissent. the magna carta is the founding document of constitutional government and the right to overthrow violators of that framework. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution In Europe, the right of revolution may be traced back to the Magna Carta, an English charter issued in 1215, that required the King to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It included a "security clause" that gave the right to a committee of barons to overrule the will of the King through force if needed. The Magna Carta directly influenced the development of parliamentary democracy and many constitutional documents, such as the United States Constitution. end quote the application of foucault in the direction of a statism critique through spanos under shanahan's tutelage spread many dated misconceptions in the policy debate community about foucault's relation to constitutionality. the panopticon quickly became the buzzword for coopting foucault into the old anarchy counterplan under the pretense that law is bad. actually, the foucault argument is the legal conception of power as possessed is bad. don't think the judge is the site of power in punishment since the social conservatives have now created a massive machine for punishing individuals behind closed doors and outside the law. the purpose of the law is no longer justice to decide innocence or guilt but to reform the criminal. power is not possessed. it is diffused through various social agents that subvert the basis of constitutional law through extra-legal means. in conclusion: your question has become: is the constitution inherently xenophobic and thereby problematic? you try to sever your question from anti-statism and the critique of governance but generic 19th century analysis lurks in your approach. the better question is the one put forward by foucault which asks us to trace back the origins of english constitutional liberalism to the question: how can we use the least amount of government possible? this question leads back to roman questions on the individual as the one who becomes free through an art of living that needs little governance. ?Rather than a relatively coherent doctrine, rather than a politics pursuing a certain number of more or less clearly defined goals, I would be tempted to see in liberalism a form of critical reflection on governmental practice. That criticism can come from within or without, it can rely on this or that economic theory, or refer to this or that juridical system without any necessary and one-to-one connection. The question of liberalism, understood as the question of ?too much government,? was one of the constant dimensions of that recent European phenomenon, having appeared first in England, it seems, namely, ?political life.? Indeed, it is one of the constituent elements of it, if it is the case that political life exists when governmental practice is limited in its possible excess by the fact that it is the object of public debate as to its ?good or bad,? its ?too much or too little.? (Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, volume 1, p. 77) yes, the constitution including article 2 requiring natural born citizenship is important because it is potentially the greatest political tool for limiting the scope of government ever founded through public debate. this applies to all modern constitutions which have evolved from the magna carta as much our constitution. finally, if article 2 is xenophobic because it excludes naturalized citizens like obama, then the only way to preserve the constitutional process that foucault finds so important is to amend the constitution through normal means and not de facto impose that standard through forgery and subversion which effectively places the president above the constitution and opens the door to a panoply of constitutional infringements. there is no good argument for correcting the "xenophobia" of the constitution through a process other than a constitutional amendment. _________________________________________________________________ Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive. http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008 From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 22:28:50 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 23:28:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social constructions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Awesome news, good to hear it, good for you! Happy Birthday, Josh On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > you're the one with all the evidence who keeps winning that the previous 5 > black presidents were slave owners and none were socially constructed as > black presidents. > > i like my war medals and military uniform that bode well for a quicky and > easy, shock and awe, high-tech excision of the al-qaeda disease from > pakistan with no repurcussions. bush has been fighting the wrong war. > i support brzezinski, the first black president's chief foreign policy > advisor and creator of al-qaeda under carter, to stamp out his own creation > ending the policy elite irony of this situation. > > the photos here of brzezinksi with osama bin laden would remind me of > rumsfeld and saddam hussein but they're photoshopped and not real. > > http://www.geocities.com/RepresentativePress/binLadenphoto.html > > barack obama is the perfect presidential candidate without a single > contradiction, flaw or least taint of narcissism which gives all the more > reason for his media free pass. i will be glad to die for barack obama in > afghanistan. my medals don't matter. i fight for the truth and i know > this time, in blatant conflict with their historical actions, al-qaeda is > going to be suicidal in wait in pakistan for the greatest president in the > history of the world under their former boss brzezinski to swoop down and > save mankind from the evil menace. my medals and my uniform represent the > right of young soldiers to be deceived by the chicago daley machine just as > easily as they were by dick cheney. it's all about by choosing the right > imperial war for the sake of truth and the democratic party of the united > states of america. > ________________________ ________ > > Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 00:17:04 -0400 > > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social > constructions > > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > > > Thank Goodness you have finally seen reason.....oh hold on, more sarcasm, > disrespect, and self-aggrandizement...shocker. > > > > When will you start putting pictures of yourself with all your war medals > and military uniform on....I can't wait :) > > > > Josh > > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > > > agreed, white scholar hoe, political cartoons are not social > constructions. all hail, barack obama, the first black president of the > united states. > > ________________________________ > >> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:36:01 -0400 > >> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] the abraham lincoln cartoons were not social > constructions > >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > >> > >> Once again insult me, everyone is a moron, except for the great brain > President Stroube. > >> > >> Thank goodness you are here to save us all (like flash gordon) in your > cute generals clothing....I bet there are lots of medals on your hand > stiched robe (which looks suspiciously like an old bath robe but I am sure > its the finest silk). > >> > >> All Hail President stroube, he will save every one of us....savior of > the universe....you can play that back and re-read it if the sound of your > own clapping gets too old. > >> > >> The CNN interview was so fun, I just talked and talked about all the > education I was getting from that little known political genius Old Strega > the alter ego for the super hero President Stroube, > >> > >> Josh > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Old Strega wrote: > >> > >> i just saw a show on CNN where a white scholar from the university of > michigan named josh joe has just defined social constructions as not > including political cartoons. > >> > >> this significance of this novel definition, from a self-proclaimed > non-narcissist, is that obama remains in the eyes of all sheep THE FIRST > SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED BLACK PRESIDENT, a stellar argument in light of the > insignificance of political cartoons. hoe insists that he does not work > for the obama campaign and that his new definition of a "social > construction" has nothing to do with preserving obama's place in the > popular imagination. CNN reaffirms the story you all heard in school: the > majority of people in abraham lincoln's time thought he was white. obama > is still unique and not an egomaniac overhyping his place in black history. > >> > >> > http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2008/09/our-black-and-indian-presidents.html > >> > >> Lincoln's presidential opponents made cartoon drawings depicting him as > a Negro and nicknamed him "Abraham Africanus the First." > >> > >> hoe's greatest contribution to scholarship yet is the fact that nobody > ever looked at cartoons in lincoln's time. cartoons were considered works > of the devil. > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. > >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ > >> _______________________________________________ > >> eDebate mailing list > >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _________________________________________________________________ > > You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ > _________________________________________________________________ > Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. > > http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/ca1cb2b4/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 22:37:41 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 23:37:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard -- Octos Pairing & Elim Bracket Message-ID: <524839830811022037y202c1eb7me8b001048031db23@mail.gmail.com> You can move into the rooms shortly after 7am. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/9be3751f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: octosfinal.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 7731 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/9be3751f/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: elimbracket.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8308 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/9be3751f/attachment-0001.pdf From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 22:45:20 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 23:45:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Packet & Top 50 Speakers Message-ID: <524839830811022045i2bfcd499ib5b9a03c87cd1903@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/1a493ead/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: harvardpacket.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 62707 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/1a493ead/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: harvardspeakers.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 11214 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/1a493ead/attachment-0001.pdf From pyampya at gmail.com Sun Nov 2 23:32:00 2008 From: pyampya at gmail.com (Mike Baxter-Kauf) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 23:32:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] WFU Judging for Sale Message-ID: <3ffd85940811022132r75f0e288t9fb14173cf5a923f@mail.gmail.com> I have 3 debates available at Wake Forest, if anyone is interested. Peace, Mike Baxter-Kauf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081102/a8d5d3e3/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Mon Nov 3 02:16:31 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 02:16:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] on pains of circularity Message-ID: in reply to stroube's latest, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-November/076729.html _ more and more on how foucault isn't an anti-statist: we agree! over-simply, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-September/051203.html overly-complex, http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1031607&postcount=21 ...the point being dodged is, why is someone born in kenya - then brought to hawaii - unfit to be the american president? obama's campaign is nationalist ("because it seeks the leadership of only one nation"), but there seems to be a hidden xenophobic premise to *your* reasoning, as if you were trying to turn a conservative discourse back on itself: 'we don't wanna be led by no furreners!'. you're not only being a stickler - which is fine i guess; you're also questioning his loyalty. so, be more careful, is all i'm saying there. (also, my cautionary note is specific to your rhetoric, not the constitution itself, and there's plenty of arguments for 'correcting' bad laws by simply no longer following them, which is why i quoted foucault as saying that liberty is a practice which no law could ever garauntee. amending the constitution is a pesky process, to say the least, and what's the harm of a purely symbolic law that no one enforces? ...it's like the congressional chaplain - who cares?) _ couple more points. given the nature of the electoral beast, an argument *against* obama at this point is an argument *for* mccain. necessarily you're pulled into the comparison, since there are only two viable options. therefore, when you cite obama's position on warrantless wire-tapping or the criminal justice system, those are very fine reasons to criticize him, but unless mccain's position is better, it's not a reason not to vote for him. now since i don't vote, i typically focus on those vast areas where the candidates agree in order to show that americans (...that is, those who haven't been convicted of a felony and have lived for 18 revolutions of the earth around the sun, among other exclusions) aren't being offered a real choice. both mccain and obama voted for the bailout, for example; so who represents all those - perhaps a majority - who opposed it? _ lastly, on foucault's politics, was his mistake supporting the socialists or was it disassociating himself when the going got rough? ... see, this is a classic problem of revolutionary politics: what happens on 'the morning after' when toilets need fixing and trains need to run on time? (and we could even include as 'revolutionary' here the neo-conservative liberation of iraq, which failed to address this classic problem beforehand.) in zizek's book 'in defense of lost causes', he calls foucault's support for the iranian revolution 'a right step in the wrong direction'. he refers to heidegger's nazism in similar terms. these were concrete attempts to avoid sitting on the sidelines, and when both events went down in flames, both intellectuals retreated from political engagement. that's the context in which we're forced to read foucault's brief support and subsequent disassociation from the french socialist party. i don't think there's any easy answers here, but intimately related to the problem of 'the morning after' is the problem of 'the beautiful soul' - the person whose conscience is offended by any engagement, and so sees fit to pass judgement on those with the courage to act in the face of uncertainty. in this respect, sometimes the most ethical option is the temptation we have to avoid at all costs; we have to rid ourselves of the need for purity, for example... if i was actually the best leader to run a certain government (we'll say the united states federal government) and by some fluke i was actually born in another country (we'll say kenya), then i might bandy a forged birth certificate and otherwise refuse to drop out of the election -- as opposed to meticulously following the letter of constitutional law while my country goes down the tubes. some jobs require dirty hands before you can do any good. _________________________________________________________________ Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive. http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081103/96c8451b/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Nov 3 04:05:57 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 02:05:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt: nov 22-23, join us Message-ID: <83F42EFF24E7416B934E3681A706D2DC@hansonjbPC> have teams not going to wake? want some late november competition at a low cost? join us at the wnpt--november 22 and 23. the tournament is free for those not from the state of washington--no fees at all--and you get bfast, lunch, and dinner each day. free shuttle (from and to airport and hotel and tournament) full tournament invitation at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54wnpt2008.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081103/aa5afa5e/attachment.htm From thowarddebates at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 11:26:18 2008 From: thowarddebates at gmail.com (Thomas Howard) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:26:18 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UCO Novice Hybrid Message-ID: Please contact if you are in need of a novice hybrid partner for UCO. -Tom Howard ENMU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081103/6765e450/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 14:05:37 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:05:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Semis Message-ID: <524839830811031205u640de41aja83eb8ac21073e6@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081103/478246b3/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JUDGES.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 7033 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081103/478246b3/attachment.pdf From akelsie at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 09:59:34 2008 From: akelsie at gmail.com (Amber Kelsie) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:59:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] MLK never said... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59a0c94f0811030759r53329d07r872534d5fef432e0@mail.gmail.com> you dont think you're an ahistorical revisionist? just saying... you just emailed out that there were six black presidents, with the overt assumption that that means that those (potentially) black presidents were identified as black and experienced blackness in mostly a similar way to today, and that societies experienced their blackness in some way remotely similar to today, without any discussion or insight whatsoever into the national context, or better yet, the status of race relations of those time periods. Seems to me like someone's got a pretty static notion of history himself, not to mention very obviously has a static notion of what it means to be black in America. i mean, Beethoven was black, and nobody knows that "fact," but that doesn't make him black in the same way that R. Kelly is (sorry for the terrible musical comparison). I feel like there are a billion ways to articulate how the racial environment of Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln - especially in terms of "drops" of blackness - were distinctively different than from today. Things like blackface (at least in Lincolns time) both prove that people had no sense of having "black presidents" but rather put blackness onto "bad whites," and also - that many had a not-talked about sense that everyone was sorta kinda a little maybe black. But blackface, and other cultural methods/rituals/common beliefs were promoted to sustain a white purity - one drop rule political environment (a purging of bad blood if you will), and to reaffirm that white=good, black=bad. Read some books on that shit. I'm pretty sure the state of the world today indicates that neither Andrew Jackson' nor Abraham Lincoln's celebration or non-celebration of blackness did much to overcome that (the civil war notwithstanding). How about how it's probably at the very least intellectually short-sighted to assume and project that just because we are able to take accounts today of the supposed blackness of famous peoples in the past doesn't make it common knowledge at particular time in history - furthermore, whether or not people in some circles fessed up to it seems to have little standing, especially given bad forms of communication. how about a little more academic integrity. Not to mention the fact that people with the power to write history as it happens (or doesn't happen) already informs how you go back and re-write that past (Beethoven is a good example) from within your present. I highly doubt that you are going to find for me a president that ran "as a black candidate" or that was assumed (not just by some southern bigots who africanized every enemy they had) to be black by the vast majority of the country. In fact, just being able to write this requires so much distanciation simply because of the extreme offensiveness (and I'm not afraid of that word either, probably emotions betray an important aspect of thinking) I feel over the fact that you just implied that black people had it good enough that they could freely be president, and while slavery was in full force no less. I guess we weren't oppressed after all! That truly is the logical limit of the crap you are espousing. How about that for ahistorical revisionism. The phenomenon of passing is commonplace in black history. But you seem to have really found a way ,i suppose an ingenious way, to manipulate that phenomenon for your own not-so-subtle bigoted ends. Passing, did not mean that NO ONE knew your "true identity." It meant that you were able to walk the world without "people" knowing. A well-guarded secret. And besides, one that generally would not have been believed anyway in the right circles. It's generally hard for people with power to imagine that they've been duped or their most dearly held myths shattered. But really, I think the "truthfulness" of the "facts" you and Dr. Vaughn seem so bent on (and for very different reasons, which I'll get to below), are actually completely irrelevant to what's really going on here and how this is or is not useful to imagining and formulating "good" politics, much less in determining why or why not Obama is good candidate. The media seems important to you: First - it may be that the media has in some way (and yes - the media is totally fucked, but the way you talk about it is very similar to the way that stormfront or the national alliance talks about Jew-controlled media. You scare me.) "repressed" or more likely simply chosen not to promote and air the beliefs by some academics that there "really were" other black presidents. This may be due to many reasons, let me throw out three: 1) Many many people have little grasp of what is a good way or, especially in things like media, a "right" way to handle issues concerning race. Therefore they would rather leave it alone, or sensationalize it. They don't want to be the bad guys, and media especially abhors controversy that they cant control, channel, and profit from. 2) They don't even know that people write stuff like this. It's not very "normal" for this country to have very smart or deep conversations concerning race, much less to read anything about the history of blackness in this country. You see this issue as inherently tied to the election because you want to tell liberals (or maybe just obama supporters? actually in all your rants, I can't tell who your real beef is with) that they are the "true racists." CNN on the other hand doesn't know about Dr. Vaughn and couldn't care less b/c they don't share your liberal/race-card-busting agenda. (You seem to see that as the most awful evilest thing, and talk about it as if that value-judgment were self-evident. It's not.) 3) People simply don't care, because even without knowing the "truthfulness" of the claim that some presidents have African ancestors, it seems apparent that it has little bearing on the either the state of race today, or the state of race in this election, or the election proper. Will it help me contemplate my past and my history? Sure probably. Will it destroy my sense of this as being a watershed moment? Absolutely not. Because that past non-history (even assuming its factual-ness) simply does not denigrate the amazing phenomenon we are all witness to today. Obama is not simply the first black presidential candidate to make it this far simply because he controls all the media in the world and is the anti-christ with unimaginable powers of persuasion. No. People - whether true or not - whether black or white - do not have any sense that a black president can or could be elected. The xenophobia in this country is out of control, this particular election bringing it out into the open "on main street" in a big way, promoted, not just by race-baiting Obama, but yea, by McCain and his overtly xenophobic advertisements that paint Obama (as you have also painted him) as Foreigner/Muslim/Terrorist/Black/Not-So-Black Bad Man. And this shit is damn important. Period. It's really that simple. I agree with you that Obama is not the messiah. He probably gets away with a lot b/c of racial politics. I doubt he gets away with any more than McCain does, but you and most of us are so used to seeing white people get shit, it's really hard to recognize favors even when they stare you in the face. It may be worthwhile to go back and re-write black people into history, especially since their removal was the result of a lot of racist knowledge production, but to do so with the intent of writing Obama's historic run out of history is truly... sad. To chalk up why we care to simple emotion (as you tell Josh) is really selling everyone short. You seem to really hate on the "circular xenophobia" of X-ist (liberal?) theory, but it seems like your only way to really prove that is to pit the good liberal intellectual pursuits against their very ends. That is, historical revisionism (or ie - the liberal/progressive project of writing Others into history) is noble - (or maybe to you it's not and you're just using this academic to get your jollies off) - but it's goal is to rectify endless years of cultural oppressions. Denying a history therefore, seems to be something worth interrogating. But to do so with the intent of denying that very history in the present, is slimy. That is your politics. I notice you keep talking to people as if this were a debate, which to me it seems to clearly not be. So please spare me on that front. But for the sake of good honest intellectual discussion, I can see the value in discussing why Obama is not this and is not that. I can see the value in interrogating why it may be that so many people honestly do seem to think he is the messiah (although even those statements seem to come with a grain of salt.) But you want to deny that this moment is significant? Now you've clearly lost it. That is not education, it is not helpful in formulating a politics, you just engage in the exact same production of a knowledge designed to write black people out of history as the people that (supposedly) wrote jefferson, jackson, lincoln, harding, coolige out of history. Thanks! A few more things: 1) Moors were not black in the way that Black Americans are (Beethoven again - he was a moor). You can look at many blackness readings of Othello to see the difference. 2) Claiming Indian ancestry is not the same as claiming black ancestry. It may be that your Dr. Vaughn has a little revisionism of his own. Which I actually don't doubt, but I'd have to read him I suppose before I blew up that claim. 3) My great-aunt proves anything you say about "oh everyone knew they were black" pretty wrong. 4) You evidence says opposite things. Or rather your evidence doesn't support your claims. Whatever link you put up says that those presidents never revealed their ancestry. 5) This post below wasn't really the one that got me going. On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > pull-out of vietnam, redeploy to cuba. > > he just said -- pull out of vietnam, war is bad. > > obama is a fucking fraud parlaying mass media confusion.' > > the war in afghanistan is bush's old war, bush's old bad idea. > > in my opininon, given MLK's commitment to non-violence and the strength of his far superior rhetoric to chump boy obama, MLK would be in the streets fighting the afghan war just like he fought against vietam. > > to characterize MLK's resistance to vietnam as "you got the wrong war, whitey" and not "war is wrong" is typical of the poorly educated masses of our day who wouldn't know their asses from their mouths. > > tuna, bear and sanchez are my favorite ones amongst the ahistorical revisionists who would love to identify obama's stance on iraq adopted from brzezinski with MLK's commitment to non-violence and opposition to all imperial wars. > > it's the biggest pile of shit i've ever seen. > _________________________________________________________________ > Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. > http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Mon Nov 3 17:11:38 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 18:11:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Elim Results Message-ID: <524839830811031511w4d803bdfif1ac355ddebc3a37@mail.gmail.com> Finals: KS BJ debating Northwestern FW Heidt, Repko, Stahl elim bracket with results attached debate starts at 6:45 -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081103/b6893e4a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: harvardelims.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8451 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081103/b6893e4a/attachment.pdf From shahall at comcast.net Mon Nov 3 21:48:14 2008 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 22:48:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Elim Results References: <524839830811031511w4d803bdfif1ac355ddebc3a37@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00f201c93e30$2a47a320$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> Kansas defeated Northwestern 2-1 (Heidt) ----- Original Message ----- From: Stefan Bauschard To: edebate Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 6:11 PM Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Elim Results Finals: KS BJ debating Northwestern FW Heidt, Repko, Stahl elim bracket with results attached debate starts at 6:45 -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081103/cbe9c468/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Nov 3 21:53:26 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 21:53:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] MLK never said... In-Reply-To: <59a0c94f0811030759r53329d07r872534d5fef432e0@mail.gmail.com> References: <59a0c94f0811030759r53329d07r872534d5fef432e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: obama supposedly attended many jeremiah wright sermons over decades. to be in that crowd, you'd have to have heard of bakhufu, rogers and vaughn and the role of black people in world history. you'd think. screw the media. how come obama ain't the one claiming he's the 6th black president. i bet if malcolm x had been elected president he wouldn't claim to be the first black president. i bet malcolm x would have told white folks that they were denying black people their 5 presidents as part of their campaign to deny black people their role in world history (vaughn). if i'm bigoted to cite the 5 previous black presidents at this historical juncture then so is professor leroy vaughn claiming obama is the 6th black president. the question is: how come obama refuses to tell his own people's story? the next question is: how come so many people want or need obama to be the first black president despite evidence that he is not? the only argument you have is that obama is the first black president to be seen in a positive light and that he is the first black president to be known to be black by the majority of citizens. i agree most likely jefferson and jackson were not socially constructed black presidents but i do think there is an argument that lincoln, coolidge and harding were known to be black and possibly by many people if not a majority. especially lincoln given the political cartoons and the attempt of his opponents to make sure as many people knew lincoln was black as possible. the opposition did characterize lincoln negatively as abraham africanus, the first, but many racists also characterize obama negatively. i think it's highly likely that in order to discredit lincoln the opposition spread rumors far and wide that lincoln looked black and had black parents. hence, africanus. i see no evidence in the historical record to discourage that possibility. if so, i think many people who voted for lincoln may have voted for him because he was black and because he did represent emancipation. particularly, i think there is a likelihood that black people who could not vote knew lincoln was black and saw him in a positive light. i have focused on lincoln but also coolidge and harding did not deny their ancestry and more people may have known their blackness than people today would like to believe. http://www.mixedheritagecenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1471&Itemid=29 President Warren Harding, the 29th president, in office between 1921 and 1923, apparently never denied his ancestry. According to Vaughn, William Chancellor, a professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in Ohio, wrote a book on the Harding family genealogy. Evidently, Harding had black ancestors between both sets of parents. Chancellor also said that Harding attended Iberia College, a school founded to educate fugitive slaves. Coolidge, the nation's 30th president, served between 1923 and 1929 and supposedly was proud of his heritage. He claimed his mother was dark because of mixed Indian ancestry. Coolidge's mother's maiden name was "Moor" and in Europe the name "Moor" was given to all blacks just as "Negro" was used in America. It later was concluded that Coolidge was part black. end quote. my intuition is that,given what we have been taught in school, the radical black histories of the 1960s which retraced the genealogies of 5 presidents back to significant black ancestry are difficult to swallow. even more difficult is the idea that the race of at least one of those black presidents was common knowledge which is an idea even more at odds with the stories told in school. i do think obama should stop overhyping his place in black history and contextualize his presidency. even if he is the first socially constructed black president which is debatable that doesn't mean obama is off the hook for ignoring bakhufu, rogers and vaughn and pretending he's never heard about the 5 black presidents. the whole thing wreaks of opportunism and cultural amnesia. i guess i'm bigoted to challenge the 6th black president on his place in history and not allowing the climax of the glorious inauguration to go uncontested. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:59:34 -0500 > From: akelsie at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] MLK never said... > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > you dont think you're an ahistorical revisionist? > > just saying... > > you just emailed out that there were six black presidents, with the > overt assumption that that means that those (potentially) black > presidents were identified as black and experienced blackness in > mostly a similar way to today, and that societies experienced their > blackness in some way remotely similar to today, without any > discussion or insight whatsoever into the national context, or better > yet, the status of race relations of those time periods. Seems to me > like someone's got a pretty static notion of history himself, not to > mention very obviously has a static notion of what it means to be > black in America. > > i mean, Beethoven was black, and nobody knows that "fact," but that > doesn't make him black in the same way that R. Kelly is (sorry for the > terrible musical comparison). > I feel like there are a billion ways to articulate how the racial > environment of Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln - especially in terms > of "drops" of blackness - were distinctively different than from > today. Things like blackface (at least in Lincolns time) both prove > that people had no sense of having "black presidents" but rather put > blackness onto "bad whites," and also - that many had a not-talked > about sense that everyone was sorta kinda a little maybe black. But > blackface, and other cultural methods/rituals/common beliefs were > promoted to sustain a white purity - one drop rule political > environment (a purging of bad blood if you will), and to reaffirm that > white=good, black=bad. Read some books on that shit. I'm pretty sure > the state of the world today indicates that neither Andrew Jackson' > nor Abraham Lincoln's celebration or non-celebration of blackness did > much to overcome that (the civil war notwithstanding). > > How about how it's probably at the very least intellectually > short-sighted to assume and project that just because we are able to > take accounts today of the supposed blackness of famous peoples in the > past doesn't make it common knowledge at particular time in history - > furthermore, whether or not people in some circles fessed up to it > seems to have little standing, especially given bad forms of > communication. how about a little more academic integrity. Not to > mention the fact that people with the power to write history as it > happens (or doesn't happen) already informs how you go back and > re-write that past (Beethoven is a good example) from within your > present. > > I highly doubt that you are going to find for me a president that ran > "as a black candidate" or that was assumed (not just by some southern > bigots who africanized every enemy they had) to be black by the vast > majority of the country. In fact, just being able to write this > requires so much distanciation simply because of the extreme > offensiveness (and I'm not afraid of that word either, probably > emotions betray an important aspect of thinking) I feel over the fact > that you just implied that black people had it good enough that they > could freely be president, and while slavery was in full force no > less. I guess we weren't oppressed after all! That truly is the > logical limit of the crap you are espousing. > How about that for ahistorical revisionism. > > The phenomenon of passing is commonplace in black history. But you > seem to have really found a way ,i suppose an ingenious way, to > manipulate that phenomenon for your own not-so-subtle bigoted ends. > Passing, did not mean that NO ONE knew your "true identity." It meant > that you were able to walk the world without "people" knowing. A > well-guarded secret. And besides, one that generally would not have > been believed anyway in the right circles. It's generally hard for > people with power to imagine that they've been duped or their most > dearly held myths shattered. > > But really, I think the "truthfulness" of the "facts" you and Dr. > Vaughn seem so bent on (and for very different reasons, which I'll get > to below), are actually completely irrelevant to what's really going > on here and how this is or is not useful to imagining and formulating > "good" politics, much less in determining why or why not Obama is good > candidate. > > The media seems important to you: > First - it may be that the media has in some way (and yes - the media > is totally fucked, but the way you talk about it is very similar to > the way that stormfront or the national alliance talks about > Jew-controlled media. You scare me.) "repressed" or more likely > simply chosen not to promote and air the beliefs by some academics > that there "really were" other black presidents. This may be due to > many reasons, let me throw out three: > 1) Many many people have little grasp of what is a good way or, > especially in things like media, a "right" way to handle issues > concerning race. Therefore they would rather leave it alone, or > sensationalize it. They don't want to be the bad guys, and media > especially abhors controversy that they cant control, channel, and > profit from. > 2) They don't even know that people write stuff like this. It's not > very "normal" for this country to have very smart or deep > conversations concerning race, much less to read anything about the > history of blackness in this country. You see this issue as > inherently tied to the election because you want to tell liberals (or > maybe just obama supporters? actually in all your rants, I can't tell > who your real beef is with) that they are the "true racists." > CNN on the other hand doesn't know about Dr. Vaughn and couldn't care > less b/c they don't share your liberal/race-card-busting agenda. (You > seem to see that as the most awful evilest thing, and talk about it as > if that value-judgment were self-evident. It's not.) > 3) People simply don't care, because even without knowing the > "truthfulness" of the claim that some presidents have African > ancestors, it seems apparent that it has little bearing on the either > the state of race today, or the state of race in this election, or the > election proper. > > Will it help me contemplate my past and my history? Sure probably. > Will it destroy my sense of this as being a watershed moment? > Absolutely not. Because that past non-history (even assuming its > factual-ness) simply does not denigrate the amazing phenomenon we are > all witness to today. Obama is not simply the first black > presidential candidate to make it this far simply because he controls > all the media in the world and is the anti-christ with unimaginable > powers of persuasion. No. People - whether true or not - whether > black or white - do not have any sense that a black president can or > could be elected. The xenophobia in this country is out of control, > this particular election bringing it out into the open "on main > street" in a big way, promoted, not just by race-baiting Obama, but > yea, by McCain and his overtly xenophobic advertisements that paint > Obama (as you have also painted him) as > Foreigner/Muslim/Terrorist/Black/Not-So-Black Bad Man. And this shit > is damn important. Period. > > It's really that simple. > > I agree with you that Obama is not the messiah. He probably gets away > with a lot b/c of racial politics. I doubt he gets away with any more > than McCain does, but you and most of us are so used to seeing white > people get shit, it's really hard to recognize favors even when they > stare you in the face. It may be worthwhile to go back and re-write > black people into history, especially since their removal was the > result of a lot of racist knowledge production, but to do so with the > intent of writing Obama's historic run out of history is truly... sad. > To chalk up why we care to simple emotion (as you tell Josh) is > really selling everyone short. You seem to really hate on the > "circular xenophobia" of X-ist (liberal?) theory, but it seems like > your only way to really prove that is to pit the good liberal > intellectual pursuits against their very ends. That is, historical > revisionism (or ie - the liberal/progressive project of writing Others > into history) is noble - (or maybe to you it's not and you're just > using this academic to get your jollies off) - but it's goal is to > rectify endless years of cultural oppressions. Denying a history > therefore, seems to be something worth interrogating. But to do so > with the intent of denying that very history in the present, is slimy. > That is your politics. > > I notice you keep talking to people as if this were a debate, which to > me it seems to clearly not be. So please spare me on that front. But > for the sake of good honest intellectual discussion, I can see the > value in discussing why Obama is not this and is not that. I can see > the value in interrogating why it may be that so many people honestly > do seem to think he is the messiah (although even those statements > seem to come with a grain of salt.) But you want to deny that this > moment is significant? Now you've clearly lost it. That is not > education, it is not helpful in formulating a politics, you just > engage in the exact same production of a knowledge designed to write > black people out of history as the people that (supposedly) wrote > jefferson, jackson, lincoln, harding, coolige out of history. Thanks! > > A few more things: > 1) Moors were not black in the way that Black Americans are (Beethoven > again - he was a moor). You can look at many blackness readings of > Othello to see the difference. > 2) Claiming Indian ancestry is not the same as claiming black > ancestry. It may be that your Dr. Vaughn has a little revisionism of > his own. Which I actually don't doubt, but I'd have to read him I > suppose before I blew up that claim. > 3) My great-aunt proves anything you say about "oh everyone knew they > were black" pretty wrong. > 4) You evidence says opposite things. Or rather your evidence doesn't > support your claims. Whatever link you put up says that those > presidents never revealed their ancestry. > 5) This post below wasn't really the one that got me going. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Old Strega wrote: >> >> pull-out of vietnam, redeploy to cuba. >> >> he just said -- pull out of vietnam, war is bad. >> >> obama is a fucking fraud parlaying mass media confusion.' >> >> the war in afghanistan is bush's old war, bush's old bad idea. >> >> in my opininon, given MLK's commitment to non-violence and the strength of his far superior rhetoric to chump boy obama, MLK would be in the streets fighting the afghan war just like he fought against vietam. >> >> to characterize MLK's resistance to vietnam as "you got the wrong war, whitey" and not "war is wrong" is typical of the poorly educated masses of our day who wouldn't know their asses from their mouths. >> >> tuna, bear and sanchez are my favorite ones amongst the ahistorical revisionists who would love to identify obama's stance on iraq adopted from brzezinski with MLK's commitment to non-violence and opposition to all imperial wars. >> >> it's the biggest pile of shit i've ever seen. >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. >> http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> _________________________________________________________________ Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive. http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008 From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Nov 3 22:22:39 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 22:22:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] sanchez: why is article 2 so hard to understand? Message-ID: obama is not unfit to be president because he was born in kenya. he's simply ineligible which is why vieira and other law professors predict a constitutional crisis. in order for naturalized citizens to become eligible for the presidency, you would need an amendment of the constitution. no such amendment exists. if natural-born citizenship is out of date and irrelevant, you'd think an amendment would've been passed decades ago. because article 2 is still extremely relevant, obama has possibly committed several crimes to create the illusion that he is a natural born citizen including break-ins into passport offices and forgery of a birth certificate. if obama was born in kenya, he's gonna get booted and that's why he and his sister have told conflicting stories that he was born in two different honolulu hospitals. and that's why sheriff's are currently guarding the records of those hospitals to make no private investigators or citizens concerned about fraud are allowed to view hospital records that would confirm obama's birth in honolulu. that's why ruppert murdoch who finds obama a palatable version of republican lite is not letting fox run the story. that's why ron paul is talking on the rampert radio show tonight. that's why the new york civil liberties union has written an open letter. article 2 is not inherently xenophobic despite superficial appearances. or if it is the whole constitution is xenophobic because it is based on the idea of citizenship, natural born and naturalized. if article 2 were truly disciminatory, you'd think one person in history would've tried to have had it amended to include naturalized citizens or even resident aliens before obama forged his birth certificate. and if article 2 is truly disciminatory, the only way to reverse that discrimination without opening the door to executive power no longer subject to the law is to amend the constitution and not impose a new constitutional standard through deception, forgery and propaganda. the ruse to highlight the crimes of the bush administration to distract from one's own criminal activity outweighs the xenophobia concerns of article 2 especially with the future afghan quagmire being spun without criticism and the new criminal's stance on warrantless wiretapping. it's time to fight for the critical space the obama camp is going to try to close down. if that's xenophobia, it's the kind where the periphery fears the control of the center. it's not my fault the democrats allowed an ineligible candidate to make it all the way to the election and that so many people's nietzschean will to believe was manipulated to the point of refusing to question seriously suspicious background problems of their candidate whose records are all sealed. i'm not saying vote for mccain. i'm saying howard dean fucked his own party again. _________________________________________________________________ Want to read Hotmail messages in Outlook? The Wordsmiths show you how. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/wedowindowslive.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!20EE04FBC541789!167.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_092008 From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 00:49:57 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 01:49:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] MLK never said... In-Reply-To: <59a0c94f0811030759r53329d07r872534d5fef432e0@mail.gmail.com> References: <59a0c94f0811030759r53329d07r872534d5fef432e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Amen, wish I had the time to have gone into this much detail...but amazing job Amber! Josh On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Amber Kelsie wrote: > you dont think you're an ahistorical revisionist? > > just saying... > > you just emailed out that there were six black presidents, with the > overt assumption that that means that those (potentially) black > presidents were identified as black and experienced blackness in > mostly a similar way to today, and that societies experienced their > blackness in some way remotely similar to today, without any > discussion or insight whatsoever into the national context, or better > yet, the status of race relations of those time periods. Seems to me > like someone's got a pretty static notion of history himself, not to > mention very obviously has a static notion of what it means to be > black in America. > > i mean, Beethoven was black, and nobody knows that "fact," but that > doesn't make him black in the same way that R. Kelly is (sorry for the > terrible musical comparison). > I feel like there are a billion ways to articulate how the racial > environment of Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln - especially in terms > of "drops" of blackness - were distinctively different than from > today. Things like blackface (at least in Lincolns time) both prove > that people had no sense of having "black presidents" but rather put > blackness onto "bad whites," and also - that many had a not-talked > about sense that everyone was sorta kinda a little maybe black. But > blackface, and other cultural methods/rituals/common beliefs were > promoted to sustain a white purity - one drop rule political > environment (a purging of bad blood if you will), and to reaffirm that > white=good, black=bad. Read some books on that shit. I'm pretty sure > the state of the world today indicates that neither Andrew Jackson' > nor Abraham Lincoln's celebration or non-celebration of blackness did > much to overcome that (the civil war notwithstanding). > > How about how it's probably at the very least intellectually > short-sighted to assume and project that just because we are able to > take accounts today of the supposed blackness of famous peoples in the > past doesn't make it common knowledge at particular time in history - > furthermore, whether or not people in some circles fessed up to it > seems to have little standing, especially given bad forms of > communication. how about a little more academic integrity. Not to > mention the fact that people with the power to write history as it > happens (or doesn't happen) already informs how you go back and > re-write that past (Beethoven is a good example) from within your > present. > > I highly doubt that you are going to find for me a president that ran > "as a black candidate" or that was assumed (not just by some southern > bigots who africanized every enemy they had) to be black by the vast > majority of the country. In fact, just being able to write this > requires so much distanciation simply because of the extreme > offensiveness (and I'm not afraid of that word either, probably > emotions betray an important aspect of thinking) I feel over the fact > that you just implied that black people had it good enough that they > could freely be president, and while slavery was in full force no > less. I guess we weren't oppressed after all! That truly is the > logical limit of the crap you are espousing. > How about that for ahistorical revisionism. > > The phenomenon of passing is commonplace in black history. But you > seem to have really found a way ,i suppose an ingenious way, to > manipulate that phenomenon for your own not-so-subtle bigoted ends. > Passing, did not mean that NO ONE knew your "true identity." It meant > that you were able to walk the world without "people" knowing. A > well-guarded secret. And besides, one that generally would not have > been believed anyway in the right circles. It's generally hard for > people with power to imagine that they've been duped or their most > dearly held myths shattered. > > But really, I think the "truthfulness" of the "facts" you and Dr. > Vaughn seem so bent on (and for very different reasons, which I'll get > to below), are actually completely irrelevant to what's really going > on here and how this is or is not useful to imagining and formulating > "good" politics, much less in determining why or why not Obama is good > candidate. > > The media seems important to you: > First - it may be that the media has in some way (and yes - the media > is totally fucked, but the way you talk about it is very similar to > the way that stormfront or the national alliance talks about > Jew-controlled media. You scare me.) "repressed" or more likely > simply chosen not to promote and air the beliefs by some academics > that there "really were" other black presidents. This may be due to > many reasons, let me throw out three: > 1) Many many people have little grasp of what is a good way or, > especially in things like media, a "right" way to handle issues > concerning race. Therefore they would rather leave it alone, or > sensationalize it. They don't want to be the bad guys, and media > especially abhors controversy that they cant control, channel, and > profit from. > 2) They don't even know that people write stuff like this. It's not > very "normal" for this country to have very smart or deep > conversations concerning race, much less to read anything about the > history of blackness in this country. You see this issue as > inherently tied to the election because you want to tell liberals (or > maybe just obama supporters? actually in all your rants, I can't tell > who your real beef is with) that they are the "true racists." > CNN on the other hand doesn't know about Dr. Vaughn and couldn't care > less b/c they don't share your liberal/race-card-busting agenda. (You > seem to see that as the most awful evilest thing, and talk about it as > if that value-judgment were self-evident. It's not.) > 3) People simply don't care, because even without knowing the > "truthfulness" of the claim that some presidents have African > ancestors, it seems apparent that it has little bearing on the either > the state of race today, or the state of race in this election, or the > election proper. > > Will it help me contemplate my past and my history? Sure probably. > Will it destroy my sense of this as being a watershed moment? > Absolutely not. Because that past non-history (even assuming its > factual-ness) simply does not denigrate the amazing phenomenon we are > all witness to today. Obama is not simply the first black > presidential candidate to make it this far simply because he controls > all the media in the world and is the anti-christ with unimaginable > powers of persuasion. No. People - whether true or not - whether > black or white - do not have any sense that a black president can or > could be elected. The xenophobia in this country is out of control, > this particular election bringing it out into the open "on main > street" in a big way, promoted, not just by race-baiting Obama, but > yea, by McCain and his overtly xenophobic advertisements that paint > Obama (as you have also painted him) as > Foreigner/Muslim/Terrorist/Black/Not-So-Black Bad Man. And this shit > is damn important. Period. > > It's really that simple. > > I agree with you that Obama is not the messiah. He probably gets away > with a lot b/c of racial politics. I doubt he gets away with any more > than McCain does, but you and most of us are so used to seeing white > people get shit, it's really hard to recognize favors even when they > stare you in the face. It may be worthwhile to go back and re-write > black people into history, especially since their removal was the > result of a lot of racist knowledge production, but to do so with the > intent of writing Obama's historic run out of history is truly... sad. > To chalk up why we care to simple emotion (as you tell Josh) is > really selling everyone short. You seem to really hate on the > "circular xenophobia" of X-ist (liberal?) theory, but it seems like > your only way to really prove that is to pit the good liberal > intellectual pursuits against their very ends. That is, historical > revisionism (or ie - the liberal/progressive project of writing Others > into history) is noble - (or maybe to you it's not and you're just > using this academic to get your jollies off) - but it's goal is to > rectify endless years of cultural oppressions. Denying a history > therefore, seems to be something worth interrogating. But to do so > with the intent of denying that very history in the present, is slimy. > That is your politics. > > I notice you keep talking to people as if this were a debate, which to > me it seems to clearly not be. So please spare me on that front. But > for the sake of good honest intellectual discussion, I can see the > value in discussing why Obama is not this and is not that. I can see > the value in interrogating why it may be that so many people honestly > do seem to think he is the messiah (although even those statements > seem to come with a grain of salt.) But you want to deny that this > moment is significant? Now you've clearly lost it. That is not > education, it is not helpful in formulating a politics, you just > engage in the exact same production of a knowledge designed to write > black people out of history as the people that (supposedly) wrote > jefferson, jackson, lincoln, harding, coolige out of history. Thanks! > > A few more things: > 1) Moors were not black in the way that Black Americans are (Beethoven > again - he was a moor). You can look at many blackness readings of > Othello to see the difference. > 2) Claiming Indian ancestry is not the same as claiming black > ancestry. It may be that your Dr. Vaughn has a little revisionism of > his own. Which I actually don't doubt, but I'd have to read him I > suppose before I blew up that claim. > 3) My great-aunt proves anything you say about "oh everyone knew they > were black" pretty wrong. > 4) You evidence says opposite things. Or rather your evidence doesn't > support your claims. Whatever link you put up says that those > presidents never revealed their ancestry. > 5) This post below wasn't really the one that got me going. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > > > pull-out of vietnam, redeploy to cuba. > > > > he just said -- pull out of vietnam, war is bad. > > > > obama is a fucking fraud parlaying mass media confusion.' > > > > the war in afghanistan is bush's old war, bush's old bad idea. > > > > in my opininon, given MLK's commitment to non-violence and the strength > of his far superior rhetoric to chump boy obama, MLK would be in the streets > fighting the afghan war just like he fought against vietam. > > > > to characterize MLK's resistance to vietnam as "you got the wrong war, > whitey" and not "war is wrong" is typical of the poorly educated masses of > our day who wouldn't know their asses from their mouths. > > > > tuna, bear and sanchez are my favorite ones amongst the ahistorical > revisionists who would love to identify obama's stance on iraq adopted from > brzezinski with MLK's commitment to non-violence and opposition to all > imperial wars. > > > > it's the biggest pile of shit i've ever seen. > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. > > http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20081104/61ddb971/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 00:53:20 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 01:53:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] MLK never said... In-Reply-To: References: <59a0c94f0811030759r53329d07r872534d5fef432e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Maybe you will get lucky and all your work will get you elected as the next President of the "racially sensitive" hall of fame...You really do the good work Old Strega....Supah Star...... J On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:53 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > obama supposedly attended many jeremiah wright sermons over decades. to be > in that crowd, you'd have to have heard of bakhufu, rogers and vaughn and > the role of black people in world history. you'd think. screw the > media. how come obama ain't the one claiming he's the 6th black president. > i bet if malcolm x had been elected president he wouldn't claim to be the > first black president. i bet malcolm x would have told white folks that > they were denying black people their 5 presidents as part of their campaign > to deny black people their role in world history (vaughn). > > if i'm bigoted to cite the 5 previous black presidents at this historical > juncture then so is professor leroy vaughn claiming obama is the 6th black > president. > > the question is: how come obama refuses to tell his own people's story? > the next question is: how come so many people want or need obama to be the > first black president despite evidence that he is not? > > the only argument you have is that obama is the first black president to be > seen in a positive light and that he is the first black president to be > known to be black by the majority of citizens. > > i agree most likely jefferson and jackson were not socially constructed > black presidents but i do think there is an argument that lincoln, coolidge > and harding were known to be black and possibly by many people if not a > majority. especially lincoln given the political cartoons and the attempt > of his opponents to make sure as many people knew lincoln was black as > possible. > > the opposition did characterize lincoln negatively as abraham africanus, > the first, but many racists also characterize obama negatively. i > think it's highly likely that in order to discredit lincoln the opposition > spread rumors far and wide that lincoln looked black and had black parents. > hence, africanus. i see no evidence in the historical record to > discourage that possibility. if so, i think many people who voted for > lincoln may have voted for him because he was black and because he did > represent emancipation. particularly, i think there is a likelihood that > black people who could not vote knew lincoln was black and saw him in a > positive light. > > i have focused on lincoln but also coolidge and harding did not deny their > ancestry and more people may have known their blackness than people today > would like to believe. > > > http://www.mixedheritagecenter.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1471&Itemid=29 > > President Warren Harding, the 29th president, in office between 1921 and > 1923, apparently never denied his ancestry. According to Vaughn, William > Chancellor, a professor of economics and politics at Wooster College in > Ohio, wrote a book on the Harding family genealogy. Evidently, Harding had > black ancestors between both sets of parents. Chancellor also said that > Harding attended Iberia College, a school founded to educate fugitive > slaves. > > Coolidge, the nation's 30th president, served between 1923 and 1929 and > supposedly was proud of his heritage. He claimed his mother was dark because > of mixed Indian ancestry. Coolidge's mother's maiden name was "Moor" and in > Europe the name "Moor" was given to all blacks just as "Negro" was used in > America. It later was concluded that Coolidge was part black. end quote. > > my intuition is that,given what we have been taught in school, the radical > black histories of the 1960s which retraced the genealogies of 5 presidents > back to significant black ancestry are difficult to swallow. even more > difficult is the idea that the race of at least one of those black > presidents was common knowledge which is an idea even more at odds with the > stories told in school. > > i do think obama should stop overhyping his place in black history and > contextualize his presidency. even if he is the first socially > constructed black president which is debatable that doesn't mean obama is > off the hook for ignoring bakhufu, rogers and vaughn and pretending he's > never heard about the 5 black presidents. the whole thing wreaks of > opportunism and cultural amnesia. i guess i'm bigoted to challenge the > 6th black president on his place in history and not allowing the climax of > the glorious inauguration to go uncontested. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:59:34 -0500 > > From: akelsie at gmail.com > > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] MLK never said... > > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > > > you dont think you're an ahistorical revisionist? > > > > just saying... > > > > you just emailed out that there were six black presidents, with the > > overt assumption that that means that those (potentially) black > > presidents were identified as black and experienced blackness in > > mostly a similar way to today, and that societies experienced their > > blackness in some way remotely similar to today, without any > > discussion or insight whatsoever into the national context, or better > > yet, the status of race relations of those time periods. Seems to me > > like someone's got a pretty static notion of history himself, not to > > mention very obviously has a static notion of what it means to be > > black in America. > > > > i mean, Beethoven was black, and nobody knows that "fact," but that > > doesn't make him black in the same way that R. Kelly is (sorry for the > > terrible musical comparison). > > I feel like there are a billion ways to articulate how the racial > > environment of Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln - especially in terms > > of "drops" of blackness - were distinctively different than from > > today. Things like blackface (at least in Lincolns time) both prove > > that people had no sense of having "black presidents" but rather put > > blackness onto "bad whites," and also - that many had a not-talked > > about sense that everyone was sorta kinda a little maybe black. But > > blackface, and other cultural methods/rituals/common beliefs were > > promoted to sustain a white purity - one drop rule political > > environment (a purging of bad blood if you will), and to reaffirm that > > white=good, black=bad. Read some books on that shit. I'm pretty sure > > the state of the world today indicates that neither Andrew Jackson' > > nor Abraham Lincoln's celebration or non-celebration of blackness did > > much to overcome that (the civil war notwithstanding). > > > > How about how it's probably at the very least intellectually > > short-sighted to assume and project that just because we are able to > > take accounts today of the supposed blackness of famous peoples in the > > past doesn't make it common knowledge at particular time in history - > > furthermore, whether or not people in some circles fessed up to it > > seems to have little standing, especially given bad forms of > > communication. how about a little more academic integrity. Not to > > mention the fact that people with the power to write history as it > > happens (or doesn't happen) already informs how you go back and > > re-write that past (Beethoven is a good example) from within your > > present. > > > > I highly doubt that you are going to find for me a president that ran > > "as a black candidate" or that was assumed (not just by some southern > > bigots who africanized every enemy they had) to be black by the vast > > majority of the country. In fact, just being able to write this > > requires so much distanciation simply because of the extreme > > offensiveness (and I'm not afraid of that word either, probably > > emotions betray an important aspect of thinking) I feel over the fact > > that you just implied that black people had it good enough that they > > could freely be president, and while slavery was in full force no > > less. I guess we weren't oppressed after all! That truly is the > > logical limit of the crap you are espousing. > > How about that for ahistorical revisionism. > > > > The phenomenon of passing is commonplace in black history. But you > > seem to have really found a way ,i suppose an ingenious way, to > > manipulate that phenomenon for your own not-so-subtle bigoted ends. > > Passing, did not mean that NO ONE knew your "true identity." It meant > > that you were able to walk the world without "people" knowing. A > > well-guarded secret. And besides, one that generally would not have > > been believed anyway in the right circles. It's generally hard for > > people with power to imagine that they've been duped or their most > > dearly held myths shattered. > > > > But really, I think the "truthfulness" of the "facts" you and Dr. > > Vaughn seem so bent on (and for very different reasons, which I'll get > > to below), are actually completely irrelevant to what's really going > > on here and how this is or is not useful to imagining and formulating > > "good" politics, much less in determining why or why not Obama is good > > candidate. > > > > The media seems important to you: > > First - it may be that the media has in some way (and yes - the media > > is totally fucked, but the way you talk about it is very similar to > > the way that stormfront or the national alliance talks about > > Jew-controlled media. You scare me.) "repressed" or more likely > > simply chosen not to promote and air the beliefs by some academics > > that there "really were" other black presidents. This may be due to > > many reasons, let me throw out three: > > 1) Many many people have little grasp of what is a good way or, > > especially in things like media, a "right" way to handle issues > > concerning race. Therefore they would rather leave it alone, or > > sensationalize it. They don't want to be the bad guys, and media > > especially abhors controversy that they cant control, channel, and > > profit from. > > 2) They don't even know that people write stuff like this. It's not > > very "normal" for this country to have very smart or deep > > conversations concerning race, much less to read anything about the > > history of blackness in this country. You see this issue as > > inherently tied to the election because you want to tell liberals (or > > maybe just obama supporters? actually in all your rants, I can't tell > > who your real beef is with) that they are the "true racists." > > CNN on the other hand doesn't know about Dr. Vaughn and couldn't care > > less b/c they don't share your liberal/race-card-busting agenda. (You > > seem to see that as the most awful evilest thing, and talk about it as > > if that value-judgment were self-evident. It's not.) > > 3) People simply don't care, because even without knowing the > > "truthfulness" of the claim that some presidents have African > > ancestors, it seems apparent that it has little bearing on the either > > the state of race today, or the state of race in this election, or the > > election proper. > > > > Will it help me contemplate my past and my history? Sure probably. > > Will it destroy my sense of this as being a watershed moment? > > Absolutely not. Because that past non-history (even assuming its > > factual-ness) simply does not denigrate the amazing phenomenon we are > > all witness to today. Obama is not simply the first black > > presidential candidate to make it this far simply because he controls > > all the media in the world and is the anti-christ with unimaginable > > powers of persuasion. No. People - whether true or not - whether > > black or white - do not have any sense that a black president can or > > could be elected. The xenophobia in this country is out of control, > > this particular election bringing it out into the open "on main > > street" in a big way, promoted, not just by race-baiting Obama, but > > yea, by McCain and his overtly xenophobic advertisements that paint > > Obama (as you have also painted him) as > > Foreigner/Muslim/Terrorist/Black/Not-So-Black Bad Man. And this shit > > is damn important. Period. > > > > It's really that simple. > > > > I agree with you that Obama is not the messiah. He probably gets away > > with a lot b/c of racial politics. I doubt he gets away with any more > > than McCain does, but you and most of us are so used to seeing white > > people get shit, it's really hard to recognize favors even when they > > stare you in the face. It may be worthwhile to go back and re-write > > black people into history, especially since their removal was the > > result of a lot of racist knowledge production, but to do so with the > > intent of writing Obama's historic run out of history is truly... sad. > > To chalk up why we care to simple emotion (as you tell Josh) is > > really selling everyone short. You seem to really hate on the > > "circular xenophobia" of X-ist (liberal?) theory, but it seems like > > your only way to really prove that is to pit the good liberal > > intellectual pursuits against their very ends. That is, historical > > revisionism (or ie - the liberal/progressive project of writing Others > > into history) is noble - (or maybe to you it's not and you're just > > using this academic to get your jollies off) - but it's goal is to > > rectify endless years of cultural oppressions. Denying a history > > therefore, seems to be something worth interrogating. But to do so > > with the intent of denying that very history in the present, is slimy. > > That is your politics. > > > > I notice you keep talking to people as if this were a debate, which to > > me it seems to clearly not be. So please spare me on that front. But > > for the sake of good honest intellectual discussion, I can see the > > value in discussing why Obama is not this and is not that. I can see > > the value in interrogating why it may be that so many people honestly > > do seem to think he is the messiah (although even those statements > > seem to come with a grain of salt.) But you want to deny that this > > moment is significant? Now you've clearly lost it. That is not > > education, it is not helpful in formulating a politics, you just > > engage in the exact same production of a knowledge designed to write > > black people out of history as the people that (supposedly) wrote > > jefferson, jackson, lincoln, harding, coolige out of history. Thanks! > > > > A few more things: > > 1) Moors were not black in the way that Black Americans are (Beethoven > > again - he was a moor). You can look at many blackness readings of > > Othello to see the difference. > > 2) Claiming Indian ancestry is not the same as claiming black > > ancestry. It may be that your Dr. Vaughn has a little revisionism of > > his own. Which I actually don't doubt, but I'd have to read him I > > suppose before I blew up that claim. > > 3) My great-aunt proves anything you say about "oh everyone knew they > > were black" pretty wrong. > > 4) You evidence says opposite things. Or rather your evidence doesn't > > support your claims. Whatever link you put up says that those > > presidents never revealed their ancestry. > > 5) This post below wasn't really the one that got me going. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Old Strega wrote: > >> > >> pull-out of vietnam, redeploy to cuba. > >> > >> he just said -- pull out of vietnam, war is bad. > >> > >> obama is a fucking fraud parlaying mass media confusion.' > >> > >> the war in afghanistan is bush's old war, bush's old bad idea. > >> > >> in my opininon, given MLK's commitment to non-violence and the strength > of his far superior rhetoric to chump boy obama, MLK would be in the streets > fighting the afghan war just like he fought against vietam. > >> > >> to characterize MLK's resistance to vietnam as "you got the wrong war, > whitey" and not "war is wrong" is typical of the poorly educated masses of > our day who wouldn't know their asses from their mouths. > >> > >> tuna, bear and sanchez are my favorite ones amongst the ahistorical > revisionists who would love to identify obama's stance on iraq adopted from > brzezinski with MLK's commitment to non-violence and opposition to all > imperial wars. > >> > >> it's the biggest pile of shit i've ever seen. > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. > >> http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 > >> _______________________________________________ > >> eDebate mailing list > >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > >> > _________________________________________________________________ > Store, manage and share up to 5GB with Windows Live SkyDrive. > > http://skydrive.live.com/welcome.aspx?provision=1?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_102008 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081104/dea8d9fa/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Tue Nov 4 02:16:17 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 02:16:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] enough! Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-November/076742.html _ stroube: "if natural-born citizenship is out of date and irrelevant, you'd think an amendment would've been passed decades ago." you can't infer anything from lack of passage -- they never got around to ratifying the equal rights amendment, for example. you say, 'if article 2 is xenophobic, then the whole constitution is', but you miss the distinction i make between nationalism and xenophobia. we have two presidential candidates who were not born in the contiguous united states, but are still patriots. no law enforces itself; it's your hinging of this election on an issue about as relevant as the titles of nobility amendment which is what i criticize as xenophobic: you're attempting to exploit - but only risk furthering - an anti-foreigner bias, you're spinning a yarn about the sacredness of our legal system which i don't even believe you believe, and you're seeking to disqualify someone simply because they were born in another country, ranting on about the slippery slope of chinese and/or iranian hordes who're now sure to infiltrate the office of the president in the future. this is what YOU - not the constitution, not ron paul - are choosing to talk about this evening, and it's got precious little to do with 'fighting for the critical space the obama camp is going to try to close down'. you forfeit any credibility you may've had with wild accusations of criminal activity, when the simpler explanation why obama (and foxnews!) don't share in your enthusiasm for this tripe is probably because it's nothing more than conspiratorial garbage. you're feigning concern for truth while cheapening yourself and your political ideals in the process. and to even juxtapose allegedly altering a birth record to the appallingly naked crimes of the bush administration should disqualify YOU from any further commentary. ...so, i'm not going to talk about article 2 anymore, but one argument for obama that many on the radical left ignore is this: his administation will almost certainly be more vulnerable to protest activism than mccain's. bush got away with glib dismissals - 'see, we allow peaceful protests; don't you want iraqis to have the same right?' - but i can't forsee such condescension working as well for obama. he risks alienating his base, betraying his image/message, hurting his chances at re-election, etc... in fact, stroube's recent string of posts already presume this thesis - after all, jack isn't writing 'open letters' to john mccain, now is he? of course, it's difficult not to be cynical about the protest movement's propensity to misplay their cards or muck the winning hand. we'll see. _________________________________________________________________ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/c0068aa7/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Tue Nov 4 06:09:52 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 07:09:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] crimson thanks References: <524839830811031511w4d803bdfif1ac355ddebc3a37@mail.gmail.com> <00f201c93e30$2a47a320$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ABF4@castor.richmond.edu> MAJOR thanks to harvard--awesome rounds, judging and food. Kevin From jrlyle at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 09:45:25 2008 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 10:45:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion still seeks Liberty judging Message-ID: <25fd497f0811040745r58e0d4e0u17bb06f08c48eb2d@mail.gmail.com> We've had a late-breaking change in anticipated judging so we are still looking for a few rounds. If interested let me know. Will pay in American cash dollars and/or skittles. Interesting trades considered... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/f0b006b0/attachment.htm From austin at votenader.org Tue Nov 4 11:00:32 2008 From: austin at votenader.org (Austin Case) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:00:32 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Congress Action Group Message-ID: <5bda58550811040900w352c26eas7fa9e4a6f54a4ea1@mail.gmail.com> Hey everybody, many of you know I have been working for the Nader/Gonzalez campaign this year. As the election winds down, here at the Nader campaign were gearing up. I would like to announce the creation of Ralph Nader's new non-profit the Congress Action Group. Nader envisions 2,000 active citizens and organizers in each congressional district committed to exposing half truths, eliminating pork, and pushing for real change on a host of issues including: -Increasing the minimum wage to a living wage -Ending corporate welfare and bailouts -Universal Single payer health care -Quickly ending the war -Invest in Solar energy We are trying to build a newtwork of progressives, to find out more, volunteer go to http://congressactiongroup.blogspot.com/ Thanks, Austin Case -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/3ade29c0/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Tue Nov 4 11:18:17 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 10:18:17 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate assistant 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 _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093185mrt/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/0383807d/attachment.htm From emarlow at ucok.edu Tue Nov 4 11:38:06 2008 From: emarlow at ucok.edu (Eric Wendell Marlow) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 11:38:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Finalize entries for UCO Message-ID: <1914829.1225820286890.JavaMail.emarlow@ucok.edu> If you have not done so, please finalize your entries and judging (Ermo) for the Joe C. Jackson this weekend. I will be turning entries off tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 11 am and prefs will go up shortly after that. There will be a revised schedule that I will send out tomorrow that will include the partial rounds that we will be having as well as the D3 meeting. A note on judging: all judges are committed through the octafinals in open. Still missing philosophy for Michael "Shooter" Weitz. Must be completed by the time entries are closed or he will be removed from the pool and entry fees adjusted accordingly. Weather looks good for the weekend, highs in the mid 60's and lows around 40. This should ease the pain of having to use 3 different buildings. We are trying to have a building for each division to minimize the amount of travel teams must do between rounds. A note on doors: Because people keep shooting each other on college campuses, all of our classroom doors lock automatically when you close the door. Please remind your students not to close a classroom door if there is no one in the room. We would like to minimize the number of times campus security has to be called out to unlock classrooms. Peace, Marlow **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is moving to a new Internet address. This e-Mail address and web sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and web sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. From wk02 at txstate.edu Tue Nov 4 12:07:34 2008 From: wk02 at txstate.edu (Kraemer, Wayne L) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:07:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: Texas State needs 3 rounds of judging at UCO this weekend. If you can help us out please email Jeremy Hutchins at jh200 at txstate.edu Thanks. Wayne Wayne Kraemer Director of Forensics Texas State University Department of Communication Studies San Marcos, Texas 78666 512-245-2331 From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 12:28:54 2008 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 12:28:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Emporia needs to hire judging for UCO Message-ID: <7fd76c680811041028l1d8416b4x2aa7d52fbc864166@mail.gmail.com> 3 rounds, maybe more if you are interested $25 per, cash -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From jrlyle at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 14:31:35 2008 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:31:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion seeks novice swing for Liberty Message-ID: <25fd497f0811041231l4c566483ne25d4083b78932c0@mail.gmail.com> We have a novice debater who is looking for a partner for the weekend. If interested let me know. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/73049550/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Tue Nov 4 15:59:50 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:59:50 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by North Texas (Univ.) Message-ID: <5C27B395EA074AC48B4A2DDE9E6EA0C5@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:William DeMougeot Debates at UNT Starts:1/6/2009 Ends:1/8/2009 Hosted by: North Texas (Univ.) Contact: Address: Phone: 940-565-4534 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From mphall at liberty.edu Tue Nov 4 16:01:43 2008 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 17:01:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Liberty Tournament Request Message-ID: <17328617EA180D4AAEFC0852B21B61F40619A9E26A@LUEMS01VS.University.liberty.edu> If you haven't already done so, please update your entry on debatresults to include the total number attending (including observers), and the number of vegetarians and vegans. Thanks, mph [cid:image003.jpg at 01C93E9F.03A69220] Michael P. Hall Director of Debate Liberty University 1971 University Blvd. Lynchburg, VA 24502 Ph: (434) 582-2080 Fx: (434) 582-2113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/4b34095d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2676 bytes Desc: image003.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/4b34095d/attachment.jpg From blain at unt.edu Tue Nov 4 16:22:45 2008 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 16:22:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] William DeMougeot Debates at UNT, Invitation Message-ID: Colleagues, Apologies for the delay in posting this, we have made many revisions and improvements to the UNT tournament for this upcoming January. I think I can sum it all up by asking this rhetorical question, remember how much you loved the UNT tournament but had problems with the hotel rooms, staff, internet? All of that is fixed. We will host many events and our block of rooms from the Holiday Inn in Denton this year ( http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/dtotb?_requestid=584821 or www.holidayinn.com/dentontx). This Holiday Inn is a prototype for future Holiday Inns, has new rooms, has free internet and is an all-around great property. You can make reservations online or by calling them at (940) 383-4100, be sure to mention North Texas Debate to get a special rate of $85.00/night. We offer quality competiton, lots of hositality, and (now) luxurious accomodations. We love hosting everyone who can make it. Please come and join us in Texas January 6-8 for the first step of the Texas Two-Step. -Brian Lain and the UNT Debate Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/be185c26/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNT Invite 09.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35840 bytes Desc: UNT Invite 09.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/be185c26/attachment.doc From sarahtp73 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 4 21:08:29 2008 From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.com (sarahtp73) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 03:08:29 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] sarahtp73 wants to keep up with you on Twitter Message-ID: <49110e2dd5bc7_743d1555595d422413035@twitter-web018.twitter.com.tmail> To find out more about Twitter, visit the link below: http://twitter.com/i/236c26328747728c8c4966c51e80233739d729fe Thanks, -The Twitter Team About Twitter Twitter is a unique approach to communication and networking based on the simple concept of status. What are you doing? What are your friends doing?right now? With Twitter, you may answer this question over SMS, IM, or the Web and the responses are shared between contacts. This message was sent by a Twitter user who entered your email address. If you'd prefer not to receive emails when other people invite you to Twitter, click here: http://twitter.com/i/optout/25877bd964c794ce65b9460b4d5e9b5141761ddd From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Tue Nov 4 21:49:16 2008 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 21:49:16 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UCO Judging Needed Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCAC1EBB0@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> Potential judges: UTSA needs to hire someone (or more than one) for six rounds--$25 p/rd, cash, on site. Please respond asap--thanks--Skip Eno -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/b93b5d3d/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Nov 4 22:05:01 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:05:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] woo hoo Message-ID: And a happy election day to everyone :):):)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO HOO Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081104/af7c958b/attachment.htm From glueboy1 at hotmail.com Wed Nov 5 06:49:17 2008 From: glueboy1 at hotmail.com (john foy) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 05:49:17 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Selling Wake Rounds Message-ID: Selling three rounds. Hot me up if you're interested. John Foy _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/48c5fafb/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 10:07:30 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:07:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JV Novice Nationals-March 6-9 Message-ID: <9368bc9b0811050807u5f8faa99wc7f3595807c71505@mail.gmail.com> This year the Towson University Speech and Debate team and Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems are partnering to offer the community Junior Varsity and Novice Nationals. In many ways this partnership will not change much the tournament, it will still be hosted on the Towson Campus, Towson students will still help out, and it will still be a unique celebration of Junior Varsity and Novice debaters from around the country. However what will change is the time and resources which can be dedicated to making this tournament the best it can be. In the past this National Championship has always been run by a team, who takes off precious coaching and practice time at the end of the season to put it together, through this partnership however the tournament can receive the dedicated focus of a non-profit community organization with an experienced staff of event planners and program designers. With that focus we hope to offer an even higher quality tournament for some of our communities most important particpants. We are excited about the partnership and look forward to seeing you all in Baltimore in March. Within the next week i will be posting the official invite, but i wanted to give people a few previews of some things. THINGS YOU HAVE COME TO EXPECT 1. 7 rounds of high quality preliminary debate with out rounds for all teams with a winning record. 2. Now famous pottery trophies for out round participants, top speakers, and judges 3. Mutually preferred judging 4. Top critic awards 5. a constant supply of snacks, sodas, and coffee coupled with a top notch hospitality team New features. 1. Entry fees between $50- $70 per team with the possibility of signifigant reductions. This year we will be fundraising to cover the cost of the tournament, the more we raise the less the entry fees become. In the next few weeks we will be rolling out the JV-Novice Nats website which allows you to solicit donations, and we have several fun fundraisers planned that you can particpate in to help decrease the cost. With your help we can get the cost down to nearly nothing. 2.End of year awards- We did these last year but this year we are changing the format a little bit 1. The nominations forms will be posted early and widely distributed, AND the actual awards will be shorter. 3. The JV-Novice Nats website will be up in a few days and will have frequent updates and news about the tournament, during the tournament it will have updated multimedia, pairings, results and other important information. We aim to make the website a dynamic tool that you can use in order to plan your trip, discuss possibilities, follow the fundraising effort, and contribute ideas. 4. If sufficient interest exists we will have a "second round square off" that takes place during rounds 1-2. Teams applying for a second round can get crucial head-to-head matchups during the presets, but only if they opt in ahead of time. 5. An on site event coordinator who will be at the hotel to help out with any problems, concerns or questions you might have. There is much more to come, i just wanted to give you a preview, stay tuned as updates become more frequent and important information is released. Andy Ellis Managing Director Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems 822 W. 36th Street Baltimore MD 21218 www.bmoreyours.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/ad23b8db/attachment.htm From matt.paz at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 10:21:51 2008 From: matt.paz at gmail.com (Matt Paz) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:21:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire a card cutter Message-ID: Please let me knwo if interested. Mostly policy things and case cards. thanks, Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/c848f01f/attachment.htm From matt.paz at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 10:36:06 2008 From: matt.paz at gmail.com (Matt Paz) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:36:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire card cutter Message-ID: Looking to hiore a card cutter to cut mostly policy related things (DAs, CPs) and case cards on this topic (Ag). we need a few things for Wake, so please let me know if you are available and how much. We are looking for you to cut original things and not give us something we can get from Planet Debate or somehting. Let me know your rate as well. thanks,. Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/378bb007/attachment.htm From matt.paz at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 10:36:06 2008 From: matt.paz at gmail.com (Matt Paz) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:36:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire card cutter Message-ID: Looking to hiore a card cutter to cut mostly policy related things (DAs, CPs) and case cards on this topic (Ag). we need a few things for Wake, so please let me know if you are available and how much. We are looking for you to cut original things and not give us something we can get from Planet Debate or somehting. Let me know your rate as well. thanks,. Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/378bb007/attachment-0001.htm From matt.paz at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 10:44:39 2008 From: matt.paz at gmail.com (Matt Paz) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:44:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire card cutter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looking to hire a card cutter to cut mostly policy related things (DAs, CPs) and case cards on this topic (Ag). we need a few things for Wake, so please let me know if you are available and how much. We are looking for you to cut original things and not give us something we can get from Planet Debate or somehting. Let me know your rate as well. thanks,. Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/dbd9583f/attachment.htm From runlittleman at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 10:50:19 2008 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:50:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Liberty Tournament Caselist Information Message-ID: <886dd32a0811050850u6e626744jff6ee26d2739a0b7@mail.gmail.com> Liberty University would like to thank those who plan on attending the Liberty Tournament this weekend, and would like to request that teams submit their most recent 1AC outlines to the wiki or send them to mkoh at Liberty.edu . For those of you who submit your 1AC's to us, we will wait to post information until after round 2. It would also be appreciated if you included frequently run 1NC positions. Thanks. Nick Ryan Asst. Debate Coach Liberty University From matt.paz at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 11:39:46 2008 From: matt.paz at gmail.com (Matt Paz) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:39:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire card cutter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looking to hire a card cutter to cut mostly policy related things (DAs, CPs) and case cards on this topic (Ag). we need a few things for Wake, so please let me know if you are available and how much. We are looking for you to cut original things and not give us something we can get from Planet Debate or somehting. Let me know your rate as well. thanks,. Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/d65dad36/attachment.htm From matt.paz at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 11:39:46 2008 From: matt.paz at gmail.com (Matt Paz) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:39:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire card cutter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looking to hire a card cutter to cut mostly policy related things (DAs, CPs) and case cards on this topic (Ag). we need a few things for Wake, so please let me know if you are available and how much. We are looking for you to cut original things and not give us something we can get from Planet Debate or somehting. Let me know your rate as well. thanks,. Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/d65dad36/attachment-0001.htm From brian95882 at msn.com Wed Nov 5 11:46:56 2008 From: brian95882 at msn.com (brian schrader) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:46:56 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] RE John Foy's Rounds @ Wake Message-ID: Mr. Foy, I am interested in your rounds but am unclear as to how one might "hot you up" please explain... _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows? connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/586ee23a/attachment.htm From matt.paz at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 11:39:46 2008 From: matt.paz at gmail.com (Matt Paz) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:39:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire card cutter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looking to hire a card cutter to cut mostly policy related things (DAs, CPs) and case cards on this topic (Ag). we need a few things for Wake, so please let me know if you are available and how much. We are looking for you to cut original things and not give us something we can get from Planet Debate or somehting. Let me know your rate as well. thanks,. Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/d65dad36/attachment-0002.htm From runlittleman at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 11:52:22 2008 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:52:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Liberty Tournament Caselist Information In-Reply-To: <886dd32a0811050850u6e626744jff6ee26d2739a0b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <886dd32a0811050850u6e626744jff6ee26d2739a0b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <886dd32a0811050952g682cbbfcx63f81f92c88a025@mail.gmail.com> Liberty University would like to thank those who plan on attending the Liberty Tournament this weekend, and would like to request that teams submit their most recent 1AC outlines to the wiki or send them to mkoh at Liberty.edu . For those of you who submit your 1AC's to us, we will wait to post information until after round 2. It would also be appreciated if you included frequently run 1NC positions. Thanks. Nick Ryan Asst. Debate Coach Liberty University From emarlow at ucok.edu Wed Nov 5 12:19:43 2008 From: emarlow at ucok.edu (Eric Wendell Marlow) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:19:43 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] UCO prefs and updates--schedule revision Message-ID: <246539.1225909183700.JavaMail.emarlow@ucok.edu> Prefs are up. Please have them completed by 9 pm Thursday. Constraints go in the C category. Novice and JV teams are allowed to strike six (6) critics. If you email the critics and teams to Marty at Martin.Glendinning at edmondschools.net by 9 pm Thursday, we will honor them throughout. If you miss the deadline or have no email, we will have sheets at registriation, but they probably won't go into effect until Round 3. Here is the revised schedule to include all of the partials and the D3 meeting. Revised Schedule Friday, November 7 2-3 pm Late registration Liberal Arts Lobby 3 pm Round 1 Pairings Released 4 pm Round 1 pre-set 6:30 pm Round 2 pre-set Saturday, November 8 7:00 am Round 3 pairings released at Sleep Inn and campus 8 am Round 3 10:30 Round 4 12:30 pm Lunch provided on campus 1 pm D3 District Meeting Room LA 136 2:00 pm Round 5 5:00 pm Round 6 8:00 pm Partials for All Divisions Sunday, November 9 7:30 pairings released Sleep Inn and campus 9 am Elimination Round 12 pm Awards Pegasus Theatre Elim rounds continue All judges are committed through the octa-final round We look forward to hosting all of you this weekend. Let me know if you have any problems or questions. Peace, Marlow **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is moving to a new Internet address. This e-Mail address and web sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and web sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. From christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 12:49:31 2008 From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com (Christopher Thomas) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 12:49:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ATTN: Anyone from UCO or Marlow Message-ID: <2d622bfb0811051049h74c1ee90l2eb449137161f43c@mail.gmail.com> Could a UCO person/Marlow/one of their assistant coachesback channel me. Christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com Soon as possible, please. CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/f7d5f722/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Wed Nov 5 14:10:30 2008 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 13:10:30 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Don't forget to apply to the Val - 11/15 = Deadline Message-ID: The applications are coming in ? but we want yours! So this weekend when you in the squad room working for Wake. Take 5 minutes and send me an application for your team! Why should you come to the Val? 1. 1. No Entry Fees for Teams that Fly (more than 500 miles) 2. 2. All meals (both lunches and dinners) are provided 3. 3. NDT style debating facilities at a 4-star hotel 4. 4. National circuit elimination-round quality judging (w/ a limited pref sheet) 5. 5. 2nd Oldest NDT-CEDA Style Round Robin in the Nation 6. 6. Frap is Director of the Tournament 7. 7. 24 hour hospitality rooms for coaches, judges ? student parties at night 8. 8. No need to rent a car! We?ll pick you up! 9. 9. Join the long list of historical attendees in the last handful of years including: Gabe Murillo, Martin Osborne, Travis Cram, Will Jensen, Brian Delong, Chris Crowe, Jessica Yeats, Izak Dunn, Grace Saez, Nick Borman, Matt Coleman, Eric Robinson, Eric Chalfant, Mike Meredith and, of course, Ryan Cheek J 10. 10. CEDA NATS is at ISU, and it could only help to get more face time in front of D2 and D9 critics ? many of whom will be judging late elimination rounds at CEDA Nationals So don?t be shy! Put your application in by November 15th! Applications should be sent to: oguevara at hotmail.com Thanks! Omar 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 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/1abbd72e/attachment.htm From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Wed Nov 5 14:12:31 2008 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:12:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UCO 3 rds judging Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCAC1EBB7@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> Hello out there--UTSA still need three rounds of judging at UCO ($25 per, cash, on site). John Foy helped us with three rounds--who is next? Thanks, Skip Eno -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/b2147e87/attachment.htm From mudman19 at msn.com Wed Nov 5 15:08:17 2008 From: mudman19 at msn.com (James Parrish Davis) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:08:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] wake rounds for sale Message-ID: selling 2 rounds at wake . james davisuco debate _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/c4262e25/attachment.htm From tara_l_tate at hotmail.com Wed Nov 5 17:53:00 2008 From: tara_l_tate at hotmail.com (Tara Tate) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 17:53:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The 2008 Glenbrooks Message-ID: The 2008 Glenbrooks will be held on November 22-24, 2008. As always, we look forward to hosting one of the largest speech/debate tournaments in the nation. Our events filled up this year faster than ever before! This is also a great weekend to bridge the college and high school debate communities. We welcome college directors and competitors this weekend for recruiting high school students, socializing with their high school counterparts and enjoying all that Chicago has to offer. Our website is www.glenbrookdebate.com if you are needing schedule information. The main tournament hotel, The Hyatt-Deerfield, was booked up about three weeks ago. It appears some last minute cancellations have a few openings. If the Hyatt is full, there are three overflow hotels listed on our website as well. You can also contact me via email if you are needing assistance with "sold out" hotels. Please let me know if you are in town and you are willing to volunteer a round or two during your stay. We want to make sure to get you on the strike sheet. There are two receptions for our guests - The Ted W. Belch Reception will be held during registration in the Ballroom during registration and there will be an informal reception on Sunday night in the Presidential Suite. See you in a couple of weeks! Tara Tate, Glenbrook South Christina Tallungan, Glenbrook North _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081105/0552e341/attachment.htm From christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com Wed Nov 5 21:22:41 2008 From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com (Christopher Thomas) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 21:22:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Anyone from UCO? Message-ID: <2d622bfb0811051922t7a7d5594u6ab09a031f64e092@mail.gmail.com> could someone from UCO, ideally Marlow or whoever takes care of Prefs, back channel me? thanks CT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/ac54bcf5/attachment.htm From jasdeep27b at yahoo.com Wed Nov 5 22:15:20 2008 From: jasdeep27b at yahoo.com (Jasdeep Sandhu) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:15:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] andy ellis contact info Message-ID: <289282.45261.qm@web50301.mail.re2.yahoo.com> could anyone get me contact information for andy ellis it would be much appreciated ? ~jasdeep jasdeep27b at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/dc32c62f/attachment.htm From jasdeep27b at yahoo.com Wed Nov 5 22:28:28 2008 From: jasdeep27b at yahoo.com (Jasdeep Sandhu) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:28:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Andy Ellis contact info Message-ID: <943921.93761.qm@web50307.mail.re2.yahoo.com> could anyone get me contact information for Andy Ellis it would be much appreciated ? ~jasdeep jasdeep27b at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081105/a50eb8fd/attachment.htm From athenamurray at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 00:01:57 2008 From: athenamurray at gmail.com (Athena Murray) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:01:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Rounds for Sale Message-ID: Travis Cram has four rounds for sale at Wake, cash preferred. Email him at traviscram at gmail.com! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081106/a8b53e52/attachment.htm From athenamurray at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 00:05:17 2008 From: athenamurray at gmail.com (Athena Murray) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:05:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Rounds for Sale Message-ID: Travis Cram has four rounds for sale at Wake, cash preferred. Email him at traviscram at gmail.com! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081106/1afbcc4e/attachment.htm From cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu Thu Nov 6 03:22:03 2008 From: cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu (Cameron T. Norris) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 03:22:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Dartmouth cite request Message-ID: <3bf818490811060122r615d15fco6df25dfb7dbfefc7@mail.gmail.com> Could someone from Dartmouth backchannel me? I need cites for a politics DA your team read at Harvard -- Cameron Norris cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081106/905fc328/attachment.htm From jrwatchtower at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 08:26:38 2008 From: jrwatchtower at gmail.com (john rief) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:26:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] RE John Foy's Rounds @ Wake In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <65f6da530811060626r3b36764x68a84e3849a19b3f@mail.gmail.com> I was also unclear but after emailing Mr. Foy, everything was made clear . . . On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:46 PM, brian schrader wrote: > Mr. Foy, > I am interested in your rounds but am unclear as to how one might "hot you > up" > please explain... > > > ------------------------------ > See how Windows(R) connects the people, information, and fun that are part of > your life Click here > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081106/ce7bd9f2/attachment.htm From emarlow at ucok.edu Thu Nov 6 11:05:35 2008 From: emarlow at ucok.edu (Eric Wendell Marlow) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:05:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] RE John Foy's Rounds @ Wake Message-ID: <4193900.1225991135449.JavaMail.emarlow@ucok.edu> Quite possibly the most frightening thing I have ever read on edebate....the nightmares!!! john rief wrote: >I was also unclear but after emailing Mr. Foy, everything was made clear . . >. > >On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:46 PM, brian schrader wrote: > >> Mr. Foy, >> I am interested in your rounds but am unclear as to how one might "hot you >> up" >> please explain... >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> See how Windows(R) connects the people, information, and fun that are part of >> your life Click here >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is moving to a new Internet address. This e-Mail address and web sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and web sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. From glueboy1 at hotmail.com Thu Nov 6 11:19:22 2008 From: glueboy1 at hotmail.com (john foy) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 10:19:22 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] John Foys Rounds @ Wake Message-ID: Brian and John, You two keep this up and I'll hot you up good next time I see you. You've been warned. Glue _________________________________________________________________ Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_5gb_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081106/db92e40a/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Nov 6 18:52:45 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 18:52:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] december 1st: will obama become the marion jones of politics? Message-ID: ion ?we've had tears. will we see the medals returned?Justice Souter denies injunction, Philip J Berg request, Stay of presidential election, Writ of Certiorari, Obama DNC must respond by December 1, 2008November 4, 2008 ? 17 CommentsHere is the latest on the Philip J Berg petition to the US Supreme Court:?Justice Souter denies injunction for stay of presidential electionby Obama Crimes on Tue 04 Nov 2008 12:54 PM ESTJustice Souter?s Clerk has informed Mr. Berg that Mr. Berg?s application for an injunction to stay the November 4th election has been denied. (The U. S. Supreme Court Docket is below.)The defendants are required to respond to the Writ of Certiorari by December first, after which Mr. Berg will have an opportunity to respond.No. 08-570 Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitionerv.Barack Obama, et al. Docketed: October 31, 2008Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (08-4340)Rule 11~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391?Help Philip J Berg uphold the Constitution:http://obamacrimes.com _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081106/43f33f89/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Nov 6 18:53:16 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:53:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pre-Shirley Disclosure Message-ID: <4913917C.9040607@wfu.edu> [Summary: Post stuff on wiki soon. If you have intel that isn't "self disclosure" post that too.] Once again, we're looking forward to scouting the Shirley. Our goal is to upgrade the scouting at opencaselist.wikispaces.com as much as possible. This will take effort from each participant in the tournament. In the end, I hope the effort will pay off by helping everyone debate better. To facilitate scouting during the tournament, we need a good deal of pre-tournament information. That way, everyone scouting can focus on upgrading what we've already got & gathering new information. You can submit your information two ways: 1. Become a member of the wiki & post it (Easy, just label your stuff "Pre-Shirley") Just go to http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/ and click "join . . ." Be sure to include information that identifies you as a debater/coach for a school in your request to join. 2. Email it to me: lacyjp at wfu.edu (This way may work, but it's slow & doesn't get common cite requests out of your hair as quickly) Target deadline: Midnight, Wednesday, November 12. Expectations: Affirmative Disclosure-- Plan text(s) you've read. Complete 1ac outline(s) with full cites [Author, Source, Date,URL, page #s, First & Last phrases.] 2ac add-ons 2ac answers to common negative positions (including off case args & major case arguments) If your 1ac is not 'traditional', describe your affirmative in as much detail as necessary to provide the opposition the equivalent of the above. [Plus full cites for anything that can be cited] Negative Disclosure-- Basic rule: Disclose the quantity & quality of information you'd want from a team when you are affirmative. Include at minimum the generic strategies you've deployed thus far, with a complete outline & full citations as described above. I say this every year: A good norm to strive for is MSU's Pre-Shirley disclosure from the courts topic at http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/Michigan+State+Neg#toc2 We don't expect you to disclose new arguments. Keeping 'caselist-able' electronic versions of new arguments is a great idea. Thanks! --JP Lacy lacyjp at wfu.edu From lukephill at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 20:01:25 2008 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 20:01:25 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Hiring rounds for Wake Message-ID: Northwestern is looking to hire rounds for Wake. We pay well and in cash. Please back channel if interested. 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/20081106/8e1bfcb3/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Nov 6 21:18:11 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 21:18:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] dove "rahmbo" appointment encouraging Message-ID: the change is fast and furious. moveon.org, dailykos.com and the anti-war movement are now in bed with the neo-conservative war hawks. i hope chuck hagel gets DOD. the way diebold landslided mccain. i see no reason why not. i also hope hagel's not the only republican to speed up all the change. colin powell, condoleeza could both get reappointed to the change doctrine. probably not powell, because he was too republican for an obama cabinet but maybe condoleeza. remember when obama said to an AIPAC conference: "jerusalem should be divided". oops, that was just a bush-ism or lil' slip of the tongue. don't worry, obama is actually intelligent and rhetorically proficient. after being educated on the issue, his faux pas was fixex. the marion jones of politics just switched his position the next day like a used car saleswhore and that was that. no problem.http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9939.shtmlDuring the United States election campaign, racists and pro-Israel hardliners tried to make an issue out of President-elect Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein. Such people might take comfort in another middle name, that of Obama's pick for White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Israel Emanuel.Emanuel is Obama's first high-level appointment and it's one likely to disappointment those who hoped the president-elect would break with the George W. Bush Administration's pro-Israel policies. White House Chief of Staff is often considered the most powerful office in the executive branch, next to the president. Obama has offered Emanuel the position according to Democratic party sources cited by media including Reuters and The New York Times. While Emanuel is expected to accept the post, that had not been confirmed by Wednesday evening the day after the election.Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959, the son of Benjamin Emanuel, a pediatrician who helped smuggle weapons to the Irgun, the Zionist militia of former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, in the 1940s. The Irgun carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Palestinian civilians including the bombing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel in 1946.Emanuel continued his father's tradition of active support for Israel; during the 1991 Gulf War he volunteered to help maintain Israeli army vehicles near the Lebanon border when southern Lebanon was still occupied by Israeli forces.As White House political director in the first Clinton administration, Emanuel orchestrated the famous 1993 signing ceremony of the "Declaration of Principles" between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. Emanuel was elected to Congress representing a north Chicago district in 2002 and he is credited with a key role in delivering a Democratic majority in the 2006 mid-term elections. He has been a prominent supporter of neoliberal economic policies on free trade and welfare reform.One of the most influential politicians and fundraisers in his party, Emanuel accompanied Obama to a meeting of AIPAC's executive board just after the Illinois senator had addressed the pro-Israel lobby's conference last June.In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, sometimes more so than President Bush. In June 2003, for example, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror," Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats wrote to Bush. The letter said that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense" ("Pelosi supports Israel's attacks on Hamas group," San Francisco Chronicle, 14 June 2003).In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several members who called for the cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki because al-Maliki had criticized Israel's bombing of Lebanon. Emanuel called the Lebanese and Palestinian governments "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a 19 July 2006 speech supporting a House resolution backing Israel's bombing of both countries that caused thousands of civilian victims.Emanuel has sometimes posed as a defender of Palestinian lives, though never from the constant Israeli violence that is responsible for the vast majority of deaths and injuries. On 14 June 2007 he wrote to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "on behalf of students in the Gaza Strip whose future is threatened by the ongoing fighting there" which he blamed on "the violence and militancy of their elders." In fact, the fighting between members of Hamas and Fatah, which claimed dozens of lives, was the result of a failed scheme by US-backed militias to violently overthrow the elected Hamas-led national unity government. Emanuel's letter urged Rice "to work with allies in the region, such as Egypt and Jordan, to either find a secure location in Gaza for these students, or to transport them to a neighboring country where they can study and take their exams in peace." Palestinians often view such proposals as a pretext to permanently "transfer" them from their country, as many Israeli leaders have threatened. Emanuel has never said anything in support of millions of Palestinian children whose education has been disrupted by Israeli occupation, closures and blockades.Emanuel has also used his position to explicitly push Israel's interests in normalizing relations with Arab states and isolating Hamas. In 2006 he initiated a letter to President Bush opposing United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based Dubai Ports World's attempt to buy the management business of six US seaports. The letter, signed by dozens of other lawmakers, stated that "The UAE has pledged to provide financial support to the Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority and openly participates in the Arab League boycott against Israel." It argued that allowing the deal to go through "not only could place the safety and security of US ports at risk, but enhance the ability of the UAE to bolster the Hamas regime and its efforts to promote terrorism and violence against Israel" ("Dems Tie Israel, Ports," Forward, 10 March 2006).Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, told Fox News that picking Emanuel is "just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the US-Israel relationship ... that was never true."Over the course of the campaign, Obama publicly distanced himself from friends and advisers suspected or accused of having "pro-Palestinian" sympathies. There are no early indications of a more balanced course.Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli- Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006).________________ _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081106/a83d6b71/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 21:19:50 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:19:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] dove "rahmbo" appointment encouraging In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are so right.....It would be so much better if we just had McCain so we were upfront about being in every war instead of just some of them.....you do want to be a General dont you :) Josh On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Old Strega wrote: > the change is fast and furious. moveon.org, dailykos.com and the > anti-war movement are now in bed with the neo-conservative war hawks. i > hope chuck hagel gets DOD. the way diebold landslided mccain. i see no > reason why not. i also hope hagel's not the only republican to speed up > all the change. colin powell, condoleeza could both get reappointed to the > change doctrine. probably not powell, because he was too republican for > an obama cabinet but maybe condoleeza. > remember when obama said to an AIPAC conference: "jerusalem should be > divided". oops, that was just a bush-ism or lil' slip of the tongue. > don't worry, obama is actually intelligent and rhetorically proficient. > after being educated on the issue, his faux pas was fixex. the marion > jones of politics just switched his position the next day like a used car > saleswhore and that was that. no problem. > http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9939.shtml > > During the United States election campaign, racists and pro-Israel > hardliners tried to make an issue out of President-elect Barack Obama's > middle name, Hussein. Such people might take comfort in another middle name, > that of Obama's pick for White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Israel Emanuel. > > Emanuel is Obama's first high-level appointment and it's one likely to > disappointment those who hoped the president-elect would break with the > George W. Bush Administration's pro-Israel policies. White House Chief of > Staff is often considered the most powerful office in the executive branch, > next to the president. Obama has offered Emanuel the position according to > Democratic party sources cited by media including Reuters and The New York > Times. While Emanuel is expected to accept the post, that had not been > confirmed by Wednesday evening the day after the election. > > Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959, the son of Benjamin > Emanuel, a pediatrician who helped smuggle weapons to the Irgun, the Zionist > militia of former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, in the 1940s. The > Irgun carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Palestinian civilians > including the bombing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel in 1946. > > Emanuel continued his father's tradition of active support for Israel; > during the 1991 Gulf War he volunteered to help maintain Israeli army > vehicles near the Lebanon border when southern Lebanon was still occupied by > Israeli forces. > > As White House political director in the first Clinton administration, > Emanuel orchestrated the famous 1993 signing ceremony of the "Declaration of > Principles" between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime > minister Yitzhak Rabin. Emanuel was elected to Congress representing a north > Chicago district in 2002 and he is credited with a key role in delivering a > Democratic majority in the 2006 mid-term elections. He has been a prominent > supporter of neoliberal economic policies on free trade and welfare reform. > > One of the most influential politicians and fundraisers in his party, > Emanuel accompanied Obama to a meeting of AIPAC's executive board just after > the Illinois senator had addressed the pro-Israel lobby's conference last > June. > > In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, > sometimes more so than President Bush. In June 2003, for example, he signed > a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. "We > were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of > terror," Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats wrote to Bush. The letter > said that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders > "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense" > ("Pelosi supports Israel's attacks on Hamas group," San Francisco Chronicle, > 14 June 2003). > > In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several members who called for the > cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi prime minister Nouri > al-Maliki because al-Maliki had criticized Israel's bombing of Lebanon. > Emanuel called the Lebanese and Palestinian governments "totalitarian > entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a 19 July > 2006 speech supporting a House resolution backing Israel's bombing of both > countries that caused thousands of civilian victims. > > Emanuel has sometimes posed as a defender of Palestinian lives, though > never from the constant Israeli violence that is responsible for the vast > majority of deaths and injuries. On 14 June 2007 he wrote to US Secretary of > State Condoleezza Rice "on behalf of students in the Gaza Strip whose future > is threatened by the ongoing fighting there" which he blamed on "the > violence and militancy of their elders." In fact, the fighting between > members of Hamas and Fatah, which claimed dozens of lives, was the result of > a failed scheme by US-backed militias to violently overthrow the elected > Hamas-led national unity government. Emanuel's letter urged Rice "to work > with allies in the region, such as Egypt and Jordan, to either find a secure > location in Gaza for these students, or to transport them to a neighboring > country where they can study and take their exams in peace." Palestinians > often view such proposals as a pretext to permanently "transfer" them from > their country, as many Israeli leaders have threatened. Emanuel has never > said anything in support of millions of Palestinian children whose education > has been disrupted by Israeli occupation, closures and blockades. > > Emanuel has also used his position to explicitly push Israel's interests in > normalizing relations with Arab states and isolating Hamas. In 2006 he > initiated a letter to President Bush opposing United Arab Emirates > (UAE)-based Dubai Ports World's attempt to buy the management business of > six US seaports. The letter, signed by dozens of other lawmakers, stated > that "The UAE has pledged to provide financial support to the Hamas-led > government of the Palestinian Authority and openly participates in the Arab > League boycott against Israel." It argued that allowing the deal to go > through "not only could place the safety and security of US ports at risk, > but enhance the ability of the UAE to bolster the Hamas regime and its > efforts to promote terrorism and violence against Israel" ("Dems Tie Israel, > Ports," Forward, 10 March 2006). > > Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, > told Fox News that picking Emanuel is "just another indication that despite > the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or > listen to the wrong people when it comes to the US-Israel relationship ... > that was never true." > > Over the course of the campaign, Obama publicly distanced himself from > friends and advisers suspected or accused of having "pro-Palestinian" > sympathies. There are no early indications of a more balanced course. > > Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One > Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli- Palestinian Impasse > (Metropolitan Books, 2006). > ________________ > > ------------------------------ > Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious > email. Sign up today. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081106/4c1077b5/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Nov 6 21:46:42 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 21:46:42 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] dove "rahmbo" appointment encouraging In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: so true josh. the rhetorical "change" that was milked to hog heaven is not the change that is going to happen.it's really just a fraction of change from one face of neoconservative republicanism to a new face of neoconservative republican lite, most notably with vow to expand faith-based initiatives, the hallmark of fractional change. real change is best justified not by making demonstrative major policy changes or staff appointments outside the corrupt washington beltway but by realizing that the new neoconservative administration is not as bad as mccain's would have been.i'm on your side with unity about the fraction of change that is going to fall way below the bar of the rhetoric that was flaunted on television. "not as bad as mccain". you couldn't have captured change any better. if it even happens at all. the biggest change i've seen yet is the fact that president elect barack obama is the first candidate in presidential history ordered by the supreme court to respond to a writ a certiori contesting his eligibility. that would be december the 1st. that's the due date. marion jones could respond earlier than december 1 with a certificate of live birth, not just an internet fascimile, but i bet you big money mr. jones tries to stall the case and continue to profit from the media blackout. i bet you big money this is the real reason behind the attempt to build a cabinet quick like cuz mr. jones wants to try to intimidate the supreme court out of considering his eligibility under article 2 through establishing a fait d'accompli. we'll see on december 1st, when mr. jones becomes the first president to appear in front of the supreme court before his inauguration on allegations of cheating the people.the constitutional crisis is not happening cuz CNN told me so."rahmbo" is encouraging and the chuck hagel possibility is titillating. mccain's DOD appointment would have been a little worse than republican diebold master chuck hagel and therefore we're gonna get josh's fraction of change across the board at every cabinet position.Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:19:50 -0500From: jbhdb8 at gmail.comTo: oldstrega at hotmail.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] dove "rahmbo" appointment encouragingCC: edebate at ndtceda.comYou are so right.....It would be so much better if we just had McCain so we were upfront about being in every war instead of just some of them.....you do want to be a General dont you :) Josh On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Old Strega wrote: the change is fast and furious. moveon.org, dailykos.com and the anti-war movement are now in bed with the neo-conservative war hawks. i hope chuck hagel gets DOD. the way diebold landslided mccain. i see no reason why not. i also hope hagel's not the only republican to speed up all the change. colin powell, condoleeza could both get reappointed to the change doctrine. probably not powell, because he was too republican for an obama cabinet but maybe condoleeza. remember when obama said to an AIPAC conference: "jerusalem should be divided". oops, that was just a bush-ism or lil' slip of the tongue. don't worry, obama is actually intelligent and rhetorically proficient. after being educated on the issue, his faux pas was fixex. the marion jones of politics just switched his position the next day like a used car saleswhore and that was that. no problem. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9939.shtml During the United States election campaign, racists and pro-Israel hardliners tried to make an issue out of President-elect Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein. Such people might take comfort in another middle name, that of Obama's pick for White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Israel Emanuel. Emanuel is Obama's first high-level appointment and it's one likely to disappointment those who hoped the president-elect would break with the George W. Bush Administration's pro-Israel policies. White House Chief of Staff is often considered the most powerful office in the executive branch, next to the president. Obama has offered Emanuel the position according to Democratic party sources cited by media including Reuters and The New York Times. While Emanuel is expected to accept the post, that had not been confirmed by Wednesday evening the day after the election. Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959, the son of Benjamin Emanuel, a pediatrician who helped smuggle weapons to the Irgun, the Zionist militia of former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, in the 1940s. The Irgun carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Palestinian civilians including the bombing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel in 1946. Emanuel continued his father's tradition of active support for Israel; during the 1991 Gulf War he volunteered to help maintain Israeli army vehicles near the Lebanon border when southern Lebanon was still occupied by Israeli forces. As White House political director in the first Clinton administration, Emanuel orchestrated the famous 1993 signing ceremony of the "Declaration of Principles" between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. Emanuel was elected to Congress representing a north Chicago district in 2002 and he is credited with a key role in delivering a Democratic majority in the 2006 mid-term elections. He has been a prominent supporter of neoliberal economic policies on free trade and welfare reform. One of the most influential politicians and fundraisers in his party, Emanuel accompanied Obama to a meeting of AIPAC's executive board just after the Illinois senator had addressed the pro-Israel lobby's conference last June. In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, sometimes more so than President Bush. In June 2003, for example, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror," Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats wrote to Bush. The letter said that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense" ("Pelosi supports Israel's attacks on Hamas group," San Francisco Chronicle, 14 June 2003). In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several members who called for the cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki because al-Maliki had criticized Israel's bombing of Lebanon. Emanuel called the Lebanese and Palestinian governments "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a 19 July 2006 speech supporting a House resolution backing Israel's bombing of both countries that caused thousands of civilian victims. Emanuel has sometimes posed as a defender of Palestinian lives, though never from the constant Israeli violence that is responsible for the vast majority of deaths and injuries. On 14 June 2007 he wrote to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "on behalf of students in the Gaza Strip whose future is threatened by the ongoing fighting there" which he blamed on "the violence and militancy of their elders." In fact, the fighting between members of Hamas and Fatah, which claimed dozens of lives, was the result of a failed scheme by US-backed militias to violently overthrow the elected Hamas-led national unity government. Emanuel's letter urged Rice "to work with allies in the region, such as Egypt and Jordan, to either find a secure location in Gaza for these students, or to transport them to a neighboring country where they can study and take their exams in peace." Palestinians often view such proposals as a pretext to permanently "transfer" them from their country, as many Israeli leaders have threatened. Emanuel has never said anything in support of millions of Palestinian children whose education has been disrupted by Israeli occupation, closures and blockades. Emanuel has also used his position to explicitly push Israel's interests in normalizing relations with Arab states and isolating Hamas. In 2006 he initiated a letter to President Bush opposing United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based Dubai Ports World's attempt to buy the management business of six US seaports. The letter, signed by dozens of other lawmakers, stated that "The UAE has pledged to provide financial support to the Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority and openly participates in the Arab League boycott against Israel." It argued that allowing the deal to go through "not only could place the safety and security of US ports at risk, but enhance the ability of the UAE to bolster the Hamas regime and its efforts to promote terrorism and violence against Israel" ("Dems Tie Israel, Ports," Forward, 10 March 2006). Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, told Fox News that picking Emanuel is "just another indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people when it comes to the US-Israel relationship ... that was never true." Over the course of the campaign, Obama publicly distanced himself from friends and advisers suspected or accused of having "pro-Palestinian" sympathies. There are no early indications of a more balanced course. Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli- Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006). ________________ Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email. Sign up today. _______________________________________________eDebate mailing listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081106/41d9891a/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Nov 6 21:50:39 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:50:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] dove "rahmbo" appointment encouraging In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not the point, as I have said degrees of difference matter...I guess not to you, Josh On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:46 PM, Old Strega wrote: > so true josh. > the rhetorical "change" that was milked to hog heaven is not the change > that is going to happen. > > it's really just a fraction of change from one face of neoconservative > republicanism to a new face of neoconservative republican lite, most notably > with vow to expand faith-based initiatives, the hallmark of fractional > change. real change is best justified not by making demonstrative major > policy changes or staff appointments outside the corrupt washington beltway > but by realizing that the new neoconservative administration is not as bad > as mccain's would have been. > > i'm on your side with unity about the fraction of change that is going to > fall way below the bar of the rhetoric that was flaunted on television. > > "not as bad as mccain". you couldn't have captured change any better. > if it even happens at all. > > the biggest change i've seen yet is the fact that president elect barack > obama is the first candidate in presidential history ordered by the supreme > court to respond to a writ a certiori contesting his eligibility. that > would be december the 1st. that's the due date. marion jones could > respond earlier than december 1 with a certificate of live birth, not just > an internet fascimile, but i bet you big money mr. jones tries to stall the > case and continue to profit from the media blackout. i bet you big money > this is the real reason behind the attempt to build a cabinet quick like cuz > mr. jones wants to try to intimidate the supreme court out of considering > his eligibility under article 2 through establishing a fait d'accompli. > we'll see on december 1st, when mr. jones becomes the first president to > appear in front of the supreme court before his inauguration on allegations > of cheating the people. > > the constitutional crisis is not happening cuz CNN told me so. > > "rahmbo" is encouraging and the chuck hagel possibility is titillating. > mccain's DOD appointment would have been a little worse than republican > diebold master chuck hagel and therefore we're gonna get josh's fraction of > change across the board at every cabinet position. > ------------------------------ > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:19:50 -0500 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] dove "rahmbo" appointment encouraging > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > > You are so right.....It would be so much better if we just had McCain so we > were upfront about being in every war instead of just some of them.....you > do want to be a General dont you :) > > Josh > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > the change is fast and furious. moveon.org, dailykos.com and the > anti-war movement are now in bed with the neo-conservative war hawks. i > hope chuck hagel gets DOD. the way diebold landslided mccain. i see no > reason why not. i also hope hagel's not the only republican to speed up > all the change. colin powell, condoleeza could both get reappointed to the > change doctrine. probably not powell, because he was too republican for > an obama cabinet but maybe condoleeza. > remember when obama said to an AIPAC conference: "jerusalem should be > divided". oops, that was just a bush-ism or lil' slip of the tongue. > don't worry, obama is actually intelligent and rhetorically proficient. > after being educated on the issue, his faux pas was fixex. the marion > jones of politics just switched his position the next day like a used car > saleswhore and that was that. no problem. > http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9939.shtml > > During the United States election campaign, racists and pro-Israel > hardliners tried to make an issue out of President-elect Barack Obama's > middle name, Hussein. Such people might take comfort in another middle name, > that of Obama's pick for White House Chief of Staff: Rahm Israel Emanuel. > > Emanuel is Obama's first high-level appointment and it's one likely to > disappointment those who hoped the president-elect would break with the > George W. Bush Administration's pro-Israel policies. White House Chief of > Staff is often considered the most powerful office in the executive branch, > next to the president. Obama has offered Emanuel the position according to > Democratic party sources cited by media including Reuters and The New York > Times. While Emanuel is expected to accept the post, that had not been > confirmed by Wednesday evening the day after the election. > > Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959, the son of Benjamin > Emanuel, a pediatrician who helped smuggle weapons to the Irgun, the Zionist > militia of former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, in the 1940s. The > Irgun carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Palestinian civilians > including the bombing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel in 1946. > > Emanuel continued his father's tradition of active support for Israel; > during the 1991 Gulf War he volunteered to help maintain Israeli army > vehicles near the Lebanon border when southern Lebanon was still occupied by > Israeli forces. > > As White House political director in the first Clinton administration, > Emanuel orchestrated the famous 1993 signing ceremony of the "Declaration of > Principles" between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime > minister Yitzhak Rabin. Emanuel was elected to Congress representing a north > Chicago district in 2002 and he is credited with a key role in delivering a > Democratic majority in the 2006 mid-term elections. He has been a prominent > supporter of neoliberal economic policies on free trade and welfare reform. > > One of the most influential politicians and fundraisers in his party, > Emanuel accompanied Obama to a meeting of AIPAC's executive board just after > the Illinois senator had addressed the pro-Israel lobby's conference last > June. > > In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel hardliner, > sometimes more so than President Bush. In June 2003, for example, he signed > a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. "We > were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of > terror," Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats wrote to Bush. The letter > said that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders > "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right to self-defense" > ("Pelosi supports Israel's attacks on Hamas group," San Francisco Chronicle, > 14 June 2003). > > In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several members who called for the > cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi prime minister Nouri > al-Maliki because al-Maliki had criticized Israel's bombing of Lebanon. > Emanuel called the Lebanese and Palestinian governments "totalitarian > entities with militias and terrorists acting as democracies" in a 19 July > 2006 speech supporting a House resolution backing Israel's bombing of both > countries that caused thousands of civilian victims. > > Emanuel has sometimes posed as a defender of Palestinian lives, though > never from the constant Israeli violence that is responsible for the vast > majority of deaths and injuries. On 14 June 2007 he wrote to US Secretary of > State Condoleezza Rice "on behalf of students in the Gaza Strip whose future > is threatened by the ongoing fighting there" which he blamed on "the > violence and militancy of their elders." In fact, the fighting between > members of Hamas and Fatah, which claimed dozens of lives, was the result of > a failed scheme by US-backed militias to violently overthrow the elected > Hamas-led national unity government. Emanuel's letter urged Rice "to work > with allies in the region, such as Egypt and Jordan, to either find a secure > location in Gaza for these students, or to transport them to a neighboring > country where they can study and take their exams in peace." Palestinians > often view such proposals as a pretext to permanently "transfer" them from > their country, as many Israeli leaders have threatened. Emanuel has never > said anything in support of millions of Palestinian children whose education > has been disrupted by Israeli occupation, closures and blockades. > > Emanuel has also used his position to explicitly push Israel's interests in > normalizing relations with Arab states and isolating Hamas. In 2006 he > initiated a letter to President Bush opposing United Arab Emirates > (UAE)-based Dubai Ports World's attempt to buy the management business of > six US seaports. The letter, signed by dozens of other lawmakers, stated > that "The UAE has pledged to provide financial support to the Hamas-led > government of the Palestinian Authority and openly participates in the Arab > League boycott against Israel." It argued that allowing the deal to go > through "not only could place the safety and security of US ports at risk, > but enhance the ability of the UAE to bolster the Hamas regime and its > efforts to promote terrorism and violence against Israel" ("Dems Tie Israel, > Ports," Forward, 10 March 2006). > > Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, > told Fox News that picking Emanuel is "just another indication that despite > the attempts to imply that Obama would somehow appoint the wrong person or > listen to the wrong people when it comes to the US-Israel relationship ... > that was never true." > > Over the course of the campaign, Obama publicly distanced himself from > friends and advisers suspected or accused of having "pro-Palestinian" > sympathies. There are no early indications of a more balanced course. > > Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One > Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli- Palestinian Impasse > (Metropolitan Books, 2006). > ________________ > > ------------------------------ > Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious > email. Sign up today. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081106/0f2b7c68/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Nov 6 22:44:44 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:44:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] dove "rahmbo" appointment encouraging In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4913C7BC.5070805@wfu.edu> Whatever. Your favorite source, The Israeli Insider, is now reporting that Obama may be the secret son of Malcolm X. http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-obama-the-secret-son-of? Old Strega wrote: > so true josh. > > the rhetorical "change" that was milked to hog heaven is not the > change that is going to happen. > > it's really just a fraction of change from one face of neoconservative > republicanism to a new face of neoconservative republican lite, most > notably with vow to expand faith-based initiatives, the hallmark of > fractional change. real change is best justified not by making > demonstrative major policy changes or staff appointments outside the > corrupt washington beltway but by realizing that the new > neoconservative administration is not as bad as mccain's would have been. > > i'm on your side with unity about the fraction of change that is going > to fall way below the bar of the rhetoric that was flaunted on > television. > > "not as bad as mccain". you couldn't have captured change any > better. if it even happens at all. > > the biggest change i've seen yet is the fact that president elect > barack obama is the first candidate in presidential history ordered by > the supreme court to respond to a writ a certiori contesting his > eligibility. that would be december the 1st. that's the due date. > marion jones could respond earlier than december 1 with a certificate > of live birth, not just an internet fascimile, but i bet you big money > mr. jones tries to stall the case and continue to profit from the > media blackout. i bet you big money this is the real reason behind > the attempt to build a cabinet quick like cuz mr. jones wants to try > to intimidate the supreme court out of considering his eligibility > under article 2 through establishing a fait d'accompli. we'll see > on december 1st, when mr. jones becomes the first president to appear > in front of the supreme court before his inauguration on allegations > of cheating the people. > > the constitutional crisis is not happening cuz CNN told me so. > > "rahmbo" is encouraging and the chuck hagel possibility is > titillating. mccain's DOD appointment would have been a little worse > than republican diebold master chuck hagel and therefore we're gonna > get josh's fraction of change across the board at every cabinet position. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:19:50 -0500 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] dove "rahmbo" appointment encouraging > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > You are so right.....It would be so much better if we just had McCain > so we were upfront about being in every war instead of just some of > them.....you do want to be a General dont you :) > > Josh > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Old Strega > wrote: > > the change is fast and furious. moveon.org , > dailykos.com and the anti-war movement are > now in bed with the neo-conservative war hawks. i hope chuck > hagel gets DOD. the way diebold landslided mccain. i see no > reason why not. i also hope hagel's not the only republican to > speed up all the change. colin powell, condoleeza could both get > reappointed to the change doctrine. probably not powell, > because he was too republican for an obama cabinet but maybe > condoleeza. > > remember when obama said to an AIPAC conference: "jerusalem should > be divided". oops, that was just a bush-ism or lil' slip of the > tongue. don't worry, obama is actually intelligent and > rhetorically proficient. after being educated on the issue, his > faux pas was fixex. the marion jones of politics just switched > his position the next day like a used car saleswhore and that was > that. no problem. > > http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9939.shtml > > During the United States election campaign, racists and pro-Israel > hardliners tried to make an issue out of President-elect Barack > Obama's middle name, Hussein. Such people might take comfort in > another middle name, that of Obama's pick for White House Chief of > Staff: Rahm Israel Emanuel. > > Emanuel is Obama's first high-level appointment and it's one > likely to disappointment those who hoped the president-elect would > break with the George W. Bush Administration's pro-Israel > policies. White House Chief of Staff is often considered the most > powerful office in the executive branch, next to the president. > Obama has offered Emanuel the position according to Democratic > party sources cited by media including Reuters and The New York > Times. While Emanuel is expected to accept the post, that had not > been confirmed by Wednesday evening the day after the election. > > Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago, Illinois in 1959, the son of > Benjamin Emanuel, a pediatrician who helped smuggle weapons to the > Irgun, the Zionist militia of former Israeli prime minister > Menachem Begin, in the 1940s. The Irgun carried out numerous > terrorist attacks on Palestinian civilians including the bombing > of Jerusalem's King David Hotel in 1946. > > Emanuel continued his father's tradition of active support for > Israel; during the 1991 Gulf War he volunteered to help maintain > Israeli army vehicles near the Lebanon border when southern > Lebanon was still occupied by Israeli forces. > > As White House political director in the first Clinton > administration, Emanuel orchestrated the famous 1993 signing > ceremony of the "Declaration of Principles" between Palestinian > leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. > Emanuel was elected to Congress representing a north Chicago > district in 2002 and he is credited with a key role in delivering > a Democratic majority in the 2006 mid-term elections. He has been > a prominent supporter of neoliberal economic policies on free > trade and welfare reform. > > One of the most influential politicians and fundraisers in his > party, Emanuel accompanied Obama to a meeting of AIPAC's executive > board just after the Illinois senator had addressed the pro-Israel > lobby's conference last June. > > In Congress, Emanuel has been a consistent and vocal pro-Israel > hardliner, sometimes more so than President Bush. In June 2003, > for example, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being > insufficiently supportive of Israel. "We were deeply dismayed to > hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror," > Emanuel, along with 33 other Democrats wrote to Bush. The letter > said that Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian political > leaders "was clearly justified as an application of Israel's right > to self-defense" ("Pelosi supports Israel's attacks on Hamas > group," San Francisco Chronicle, 14 June 2003). > > In July 2006, Emanuel was one of several members who called for > the cancellation of a speech to Congress by visiting Iraqi prime > minister Nouri al-Maliki because al-Maliki had criticized Israel's > bombing of Lebanon. Emanuel called the Lebanese and Palestinian > governments "totalitarian entities with militias and terrorists > acting as democracies" in a 19 July 2006 speech supporting a House > resolution backing Israel's bombing of both countries that caused > thousands of civilian victims. > > Emanuel has sometimes posed as a defender of Palestinian lives, > though never from the constant Israeli violence that is > responsible for the vast majority of deaths and injuries. On 14 > June 2007 he wrote to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "on > behalf of students in the Gaza Strip whose future is threatened by > the ongoing fighting there" which he blamed on "the violence and > militancy of their elders." In fact, the fighting between members > of Hamas and Fatah, which claimed dozens of lives, was the result > of a failed scheme by US-backed militias to violently overthrow > the elected Hamas-led national unity government. Emanuel's letter > urged Rice "to work with allies in the region, such as Egypt and > Jordan, to either find a secure location in Gaza for these > students, or to transport them to a neighboring country where they > can study and take their exams in peace." Palestinians often view > such proposals as a pretext to permanently "transfer" them from > their country, as many Israeli leaders have threatened. Emanuel > has never said anything in support of millions of Palestinian > children whose education has been disrupted by Israeli occupation, > closures and blockades. > > Emanuel has also used his position to explicitly push Israel's > interests in normalizing relations with Arab states and isolating > Hamas. In 2006 he initiated a letter to President Bush opposing > United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based Dubai Ports World's attempt to > buy the management business of six US seaports. The letter, signed > by dozens of other lawmakers, stated that "The UAE has pledged to > provide financial support to the Hamas-led government of the > Palestinian Authority and openly participates in the Arab League > boycott against Israel." It argued that allowing the deal to go > through "not only could place the safety and security of US ports > at risk, but enhance the ability of the UAE to bolster the Hamas > regime and its efforts to promote terrorism and violence against > Israel" ("Dems Tie Israel, Ports," Forward, 10 March 2006). > > Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic > Council, told Fox News that picking Emanuel is "just another > indication that despite the attempts to imply that Obama would > somehow appoint the wrong person or listen to the wrong people > when it comes to the US-Israel relationship ... that was never true." > > Over the course of the campaign, Obama publicly distanced himself > from friends and advisers suspected or accused of having > "pro-Palestinian" sympathies. There are no early indications of a > more balanced course. > > Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of > One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli- Palestinian > Impasse (Metropolitan Books, 2006). > ________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to > suspicious email. Sign up today. > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Nov 7 02:20:15 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:20:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] hail rahmbo, fractions of degrees matter by fractions of degrees Message-ID: i'm so glad hoe is on board with the stroube unity campaign '08. we don't want to change anything more than a fraction of a degree so we can be "topical".i'm sure the policy debate, now CEDA merged with tuna's leadership, understands exactly what stroube is talking about. you know the adverb "signficantly" that justifies inherency in the resolution making sure the policy is not the exact same as the status quo.if colin powell had been the republican nominee in place of john mccain, i don't know if i could even call a fraction of a degree of change to believe in?i think the lofty rhetoric of the obama campaign was right on target. obama has no connections to the chicago daley machine or the washington policy elite. real change outside the washington beltway is about to happen...oprah for secretary of state to replace condoleezea who is too LIBERAL for the obama administration.oopppssss....if it's allowed to happen.the hoe committee is real excited about obama's birth certificate being submitted to third party forensics experts. in fact, hoe will wager the entire michigan debate program on the guarantee that obama was born in one of two honolulu hospitals and not in kenya like his grandmother says. this is what i love about hoe. he doesn't skirt the real issues and just talk about the gigantic neocon change on the horizon. he goes straight to the supreme court and the right to subvert article 2 by kenyan born marion jones type candidates.don't worry, obamatrons, berg vs. obama is a stroube invention/fantasy. judge souter didn't make a ruling that says "president elect" obama is the first president to defend his eligibility before his inauguration in the history of the united states. and an audio tape of his kenyan grandma sayin she witnessed his birth in kenya is a hoax despite being an affidavit. december 1st is not the deadline for the fraud with no birth certificate to respond.if there is no certificate of live birth, or vault birth certificate, then stroube is right. obama is the marion jones of politics. _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081107/cfff1f7a/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Nov 7 02:50:59 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 02:50:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] obama presents non-facscimilie COLB Message-ID: the supreme court case is over. former deputy attorney general of pennsylvania, berg, is a fraud.justice souter has pronounced constitutional eligibility requirements irrelevant.the hoe committee wins victory. the supreme court of the united states of america has accepted both stories, the story of barack obama and his sister, that the mr. marion of jones of politiics was born in BOTH HONOLULU HOSPITALS despite the blatant contradiction that upsets belief as well as common sense.thank jesus christ, obama is no longer required by the supreme court to respond to berg's writ a certiori.that was a racist stroube fantasy incompatible with the electorate.obama is really, really is the next president of the united states. the television circle of truth has been proven exactly correct. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081107/dfa5fc81/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Nov 7 09:19:21 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:19:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] lacy's solid backchannel tip: Lamphere 10 EST Message-ID: obama couldn't be malcolm x' son. he thinks he's the first black president when he's just the marion jones of politics, the 6th black president that didn't happen. plus, he was "born in kenya," the springstein rendition to get the grammy in '09. the first OJ trial was racist, whitney houston told me so, and oprah should get attorney general. http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/livejava.phpLan Lamphere thinks it's time to take the issue of Obama's citizenship away from the fringe, and bring it into perspective. "Why is it that we, as a nation, must accept Barack H. Obama as the President of the United States in order to resolve this issue, as well as many other issues surrounding his election, history and affiliations?" asks Lan Lamphere.Phil J. Berg will be Lan's guest to discuss next steps and strategy. Tune in live and take the opportunity to phone in your questions and comments.The program airs at 10:00PM EST. Live stream on Patriot Brigade Radio.If you missed previous programs with Phil J. Berg, Congressman Ron Paul, and Andy Martin, they are being re-broadcast until the start of the live show. Direct Link _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081107/021faec6/attachment.htm From mjjanas at samford.edu Fri Nov 7 09:42:30 2008 From: mjjanas at samford.edu (Janas, Michael) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:42:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CIDD British Debate Tour Tryouts 2009 Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30A25EEA4@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> The Committee for International Discussion and Debate (CIDD) of the National Communication Association (NCA) announces tryouts for The 2009 tour of the United Kingdom Approximate tour dates: mid-February to mid-March 2009 Who is eligible: Any past or present forensic participant who is under 25 and is a full time undergraduate in good standing, or who has received an undergraduate degree but is no older than 25; juniors and seniors are preferred. We encourage applications from students active in all forms of forensics, including Lincoln-Douglas debate, team policy debate, parliamentary debate, and individual events. Students who apply should have (or plan to obtain) a valid, current passport. Students will be evaluated on the basis of their debating skills and their ability to teach debate basics; their knowledge of political, social and cultural conditions in the UK, Europe, and the world; and their ability to represent the United States and American forensics effectively and professionally. How to apply: If you are interested in trying out for the tour, send by Friday, November 14, 2008: 1) a letter of interest, explaining your suitability for the tour 2) an official college transcript 3) two letters of recommendation 4) a resume 5) contact information, especially an email address, to: Sam Nelson Department of Communication Cornell University 329 Kennedy Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 If you have questions, please feel free to contact Sam Nelson via email at smn33 at cornell.edu or via telephone at (607) 255-2771. Two participants will be chosen to represent the United States on an all-expense-paid tour. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081107/0eb55433/attachment.htm From mjjanas at samford.edu Fri Nov 7 09:43:17 2008 From: mjjanas at samford.edu (Janas, Michael) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:43:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CIDD Japan Debate Tour Tryouts 2009 Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30A25EEA5@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> The Committee for International Discussion and Debate (CIDD) of the National Communication Association (NCA) announces tryouts for The 2009 tour of Japan Approximate tour dates: Early June to early July 2009 Who is eligible: Any past or present forensic participant who is under 25 and is a full time undergraduate in good standing (juniors and seniors are preferred), or who has received an undergraduate degree but is no older than 25. We encourage applications from students active in all forms of forensics, including Lincoln-Douglas debate, team policy debate, parliamentary debate, and individual events. Students who apply should have (or plan to obtain) a valid, current passport. Students will be evaluated on the basis of their debating skills and their ability to teach debate basics; their knowledge of political, social and cultural conditions in Japan, Asia, and the world; and their ability to represent the United States and American forensics effectively and professionally. How to apply: If you are interested in trying out for the tour, send by Friday, November 14, 2008: 1) a letter of interest, explaining your suitability for the tour 2) an official college transcript 3) two letters of recommendation 4) a resume 5) contact information, especially an email address, to: Sam Nelson Department of Communication Cornell University 329 Kennedy Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 If you have questions, please feel free to contact Sam Nelson via email at smn33 at cornell.edu or via telephone at (607) 255-2771. Tryouts for the 2009 British tour will also be held at this same time. You may apply to both tours, but you should send separate applications for each tour. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081107/c5bffe00/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 13:16:11 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:16:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy's solid backchannel tip: Lamphere 10 EST In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Isnt that cute, I think you are just jealous.....poor fella...dont forget you can dress up your Nader doll and yourself in matching military finery and march together up and down your hallway...It will be reallllllly cute :) Lucky fella, you can just make up your own little world to escape the "disaster" of Obama winning.....I bet it will be so cool too, Josh On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Old Strega wrote: > obama couldn't be malcolm x' son. he thinks he's the first black > president when he's just the marion jones of politics, the 6th black > president that didn't happen. plus, he was "born in kenya," the > springstein rendition to get the grammy in '09. the first OJ trial was > racist, whitney houston told me so, and oprah should get attorney general. > > > http://www.patriotbrigaderadio.com/livejava.php > > Lan Lamphere thinks it's time to take the issue of Obama's citizenship away > from the fringe, > and bring it into perspective. "Why is it that we, as a nation, must accept > Barack H. Obama as the President of the United States in order to resolve > this issue, as well as many other issues surrounding his election, history > and affiliations?" asks Lan Lamphere. > > Phil J. Berg will be Lan's guest to discuss next steps and strategy. Tune > in live and take the opportunity to phone in your questions and comments. > > The program airs at 10:00PM EST. Live stream on > Patriot Brigade Radio. > > If you missed previous programs with Phil J. Berg, Congressman Ron Paul, > and Andy Martin, they are being re-broadcast until the start of the live > show. Direct Link > > > ------------------------------ > Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious > email. Sign up today. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081107/2aa1bc7b/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 13:21:59 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:21:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] obama presents non-facscimilie COLB In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh neat, now you are a Supreme Court Justice too....your wardrobe is so filled with finery. Awwwwwwww, one two buckle our shoe....three four Obama's not a Moor.....five six Souter wont fix.....seven eight Berg is great.....nine ten Nader should win..... Thank goodness you are here to show us the one true light...the true way....the path of goodness and rightousness....the real way to hope and justice and real peace...Oh, I forgot, you havent done that have you....You just rag on Obama....over and over and over and over and over and over and over and zzzzzzzzzzzzz Thank goodness you have a computer and your fancy uniforms, Josh On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Old Strega wrote: > the supreme court case is over. former deputy attorney general of > pennsylvania, berg, is a fraud. > justice souter has pronounced constitutional eligibility requirements > irrelevant. > > the hoe committee wins victory. the supreme court of the united states of > america has accepted both stories, the story of barack obama and his sister, > that the mr. marion of jones of politiics was born in BOTH HONOLULU > HOSPITALS despite the blatant contradiction that upsets belief as well as > common sense. > > thank jesus christ, obama is no longer required by the supreme court to > respond to berg's writ a certiori. > > that was a racist stroube fantasy incompatible with the electorate. > > obama is really, really is the next president of the united states. > > the television circle of truth has been proven exactly correct. > > ------------------------------ > Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious > email. Sign up today. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081107/741f17ec/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 13:24:49 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 14:24:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] hail rahmbo, fractions of degrees matter by fractions of degrees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Blah blah blah Ironic use of "change" commander kristoff I am on board, the Stroube unity campaign sounds so great, I cant wait to see you talking to world leaders, especially Kim in NK....you two have a TON to talk about, Josh On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Old Strega wrote: > i'm so glad hoe is on board with the stroube unity campaign '08. > we don't want to change anything more than a fraction of a degree so we can > be "topical". > > i'm sure the policy debate, now CEDA merged with tuna's leadership, > understands exactly what stroube is talking about. you know the adverb > "signficantly" that justifies inherency in the resolution making sure the > policy is not the exact same as the status quo. > > if colin powell had been the republican nominee in place of john mccain, i > don't know if i could even call a fraction of a degree of change to believe > in? > > i think the lofty rhetoric of the obama campaign was right on target. > obama has no connections to the chicago daley machine or the washington > policy elite. real change outside the washington beltway is about to > happen... > oprah for secretary of state to replace condoleezea who is too LIBERAL for > the obama administration. > oopppssss....if it's allowed to happen. > > the hoe committee is real excited about obama's birth certificate being > submitted to third party forensics experts. in fact, hoe will wager the > entire michigan debate program on the guarantee that obama was born in one > of two honolulu hospitals and not in kenya like his grandmother says. this > is what i love about hoe. he doesn't skirt the real issues and just talk > about the gigantic neocon change on the horizon. he goes straight to the > supreme court and the right to subvert article 2 by kenyan born marion jones > type candidates. > > don't worry, obamatrons, berg vs. obama is a stroube invention/fantasy. > judge souter didn't make a ruling that says "president elect" obama is the > first president to defend his eligibility before his inauguration in the > history of the united states. and an audio tape of his kenyan grandma > sayin she witnessed his birth in kenya is a hoax despite being an affidavit. > december 1st is not the deadline for the fraud with no birth certificate > to respond. > > if there is no certificate of live birth, or vault birth certificate, then > stroube is right. obama is the marion jones of politics. > > > ------------------------------ > Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows > Live Click here > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081107/a3e38d5b/attachment.htm From mmangus at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 14:28:47 2008 From: mmangus at gmail.com (Michael Mangus) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 15:28:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] can this berg crap finally stop now? Message-ID: <93ba10490811071228o778fcc9ex48b24965c0d9f2b1@mail.gmail.com> seriously, i get enough email without the help of a dozen irrelevant (i.e. not about competitive debate) edebate posts every day. the horse is dead and gone; you guys are just sitting around beatin' it. ps: since i'm already pretty certain the answer is going to be, "no, we cant stop! i enjoy wasting my time!" can we at least agree that people should send 1 message at a time? search deep within yourself and ask "do i need to send 3 replies to this dude over the span of 10 minutes?" - i'm pretty sure you dont. On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Josh wrote: > Blah blah blah > > Ironic use of "change" commander kristoff > > I am on board, the Stroube unity campaign sounds so great, I cant wait to > see you talking to world leaders, especially Kim in NK....you two have a TON > to talk about, > > Josh > > On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Old Strega wrote: > >> i'm so glad hoe is on board with the stroube unity campaign '08. >> we don't want to change anything more than a fraction of a degree so we >> can be "topical". >> >> i'm sure the policy debate, now CEDA merged with tuna's leadership, >> understands exactly what stroube is talking about. you know the adverb >> "signficantly" that justifies inherency in the resolution making sure the >> policy is not the exact same as the status quo. >> >> if colin powell had been the republican nominee in place of john mccain, i >> don't know if i could even call a fraction of a degree of change to believe >> in? >> >> i think the lofty rhetoric of the obama campaign was right on target. >> obama has no connections to the chicago daley machine or the washington >> policy elite. real change outside the washington beltway is about to >> happen... >> oprah for secretary of state to replace condoleezea who is too LIBERAL for >> the obama administration. >> oopppssss....if it's allowed to happen. >> >> the hoe committee is real excited about obama's birth certificate being >> submitted to third party forensics experts. in fact, hoe will wager the >> entire michigan debate program on the guarantee that obama was born in one >> of two honolulu hospitals and not in kenya like his grandmother says. this >> is what i love about hoe. he doesn't skirt the real issues and just talk >> about the gigantic neocon change on the horizon. he goes straight to the >> supreme court and the right to subvert article 2 by kenyan born marion jones >> type candidates. >> >> don't worry, obamatrons, berg vs. obama is a stroube invention/fantasy. >> judge souter didn't make a ruling that says "president elect" obama is the >> first president to defend his eligibility before his inauguration in the >> history of the united states. and an audio tape of his kenyan grandma >> sayin she witnessed his birth in kenya is a hoax despite being an affidavit. >> december 1st is not the deadline for the fraud with no birth certificate >> to respond. >> >> if there is no certificate of live birth, or vault birth certificate, then >> stroube is right. obama is the marion jones of politics. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows >> Live Click here >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20081107/ad212892/attachment.htm From justinwkirk at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 21:48:39 2008 From: justinwkirk at gmail.com (justin kirk) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 21:48:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake CC Message-ID: Please Back channel . . . -- Justin Kirk UTD Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081107/6424a2ba/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Nov 7 23:25:46 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 23:25:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] last post: nietzsche, shanahan and conflict Message-ID: i've been told to shut up by a marine and the consequences of continuing to pursue an internet comedy routine that is not explicitly racist but explores the possibility of conflating opposition to obama with racism are greater than i can risk given the current state of my marginilization.shirley, no mainstream media comedian has even considered certain jokes against obama's puppetry that i have ventured under kerpen's protection. perhaps, a mainstream trend of obama mockery will emerge after the second term.to close, i am not a disciple of shanahan but i did have many valuable conversations with the greatest thinker in your community many years ago regarding friedrich nietzsche and martin heidegger.it is most difficult to hear that shanahan has been characterized as an "angry professor". shanahan enjoyed life more than any of his opponents because shanahan embraced conflict. the group thinkers finally got their say. jealousy of shanahan's ecstasy of the elusive moment did shanahan in. this will most probably backfire but i hope at least a few will confirm that shanahan is a debate coach ahead of his time who embodies the spirit of debate at the expense of the spirit of coach. stroube is not an impact to the shanahan DA no matter how they spin this. i'm confident that shanahan's reputation exceeds our former relationship.i can not say that shanahan was an "angry professor" for one second. shanahan has been an intense professor in a world afraid of intensity which is the mark of passion for learning.i think shanahan missed foucault terribly and fell for derridean "language kritiks" which fit his more generic anarchy CP pattern.at the same time, i realize that shanahan embodied the conflictual spirit of nietzschean critique more than any person still allowed the cloak of academia. and this i respect more than words can tell in light of the intimidation that silences me today.conflict is a higher value than tolerance since tolerance is the perfect mantle of exclusion. intellectual conflict, the agonal spirit of the tragic age of the greeks, is dead. a madman says so.to close, obama is a total fraud, a black puppet who will redeploy COINTELPRO to monolithically marginilize dissent as racist.i thank all debate community persons not opposed to the spirit of conflict. _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081107/708f1192/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 23:27:12 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 00:27:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] take a minute Message-ID: <9368bc9b0811072127l366c6300rd096aa174f483f99@mail.gmail.com> go to www.ideablob.com register and vote for YOURS we are on the front page, the more votes we get the more likely we are to winn 10k. Its for a program that helps young people build businesses, that help reviatlize the community. It takes less than 5 minutes.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081108/1f12413f/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Nov 7 23:46:04 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 00:46:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] last post: nietzsche, shanahan and conflict In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What right do you have to call him a black puppet..you should be ashamed of yourself Stroube....seriously, get over yourself, As was said in a movie a decade or so ago "once you get down off that cross you crucified yourself on" rejoin everyone else on planet earth. Josh On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Old Strega wrote: > i've been told to shut up by a marine and the consequences of continuing to > pursue an internet comedy routine that is not explicitly racist but explores > the possibility of conflating opposition to obama with racism are greater > than i can risk given the current state of my marginilization. > shirley, no mainstream media comedian has even considered certain jokes > against obama's puppetry that i have ventured under kerpen's protection. > perhaps, a mainstream trend of obama mockery will emerge after the second > term. > > to close, i am not a disciple of shanahan but i did have many valuable > conversations with the greatest thinker in your community many years ago > regarding friedrich nietzsche and martin heidegger. > > it is most difficult to hear that shanahan has been characterized as an > "angry professor". shanahan enjoyed life more than any of his opponents > because shanahan embraced conflict. the group thinkers finally got their > say. jealousy of shanahan's ecstasy of the elusive moment did shanahan in. > this will most probably backfire but i hope at least a few will confirm > that shanahan is a debate coach ahead of his time who embodies the spirit of > debate at the expense of the spirit of coach. stroube is not an impact to > the shanahan DA no matter how they spin this. i'm confident that > shanahan's reputation exceeds our former relationship. > > i can not say that shanahan was an "angry professor" for one second. > > shanahan has been an intense professor in a world afraid of intensity which > is the mark of passion for learning. > > i think shanahan missed foucault terribly and fell for derridean "language > kritiks" which fit his more generic anarchy CP pattern. > > at the same time, i realize that shanahan embodied the conflictual spirit > of nietzschean critique more than any person still allowed the cloak of > academia. and this i respect more than words can tell in light of the > intimidation that silences me today. > > conflict is a higher value than tolerance since tolerance is the perfect > mantle of exclusion. intellectual conflict, the agonal spirit of the > tragic age of the greeks, is dead. a madman says so. > > to close, obama is a total fraud, a black puppet who will redeploy > COINTELPRO to monolithically marginilize dissent as racist. > > i thank all debate community persons not opposed to the spirit of conflict. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows > Live Click here > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081108/2e396ebc/attachment.htm From justinwkirk at gmail.com Sat Nov 8 07:16:45 2008 From: justinwkirk at gmail.com (justin kirk) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 07:16:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Mich St. AW Message-ID: Could you back channel me? -- Justin Kirk UTD Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081108/dd26a54d/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Sat Nov 8 13:37:31 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 13:37:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] conflict Message-ID: or, on becoming obama's people. _ one interesting question underlying recent discussions surrounding obama's election is, how should democratic societies conceive of a leader's role? does a leader merely represent the popular will, or does the leader help to create that popular will? is obama the sum total of his supporters' demands for change, or does his figure cast a shadow over his supporters (and now, over all citizens), in some sense constituting the body politic? taken too far, we can immediately see a fascist potential: if a leader tries to wholly embody his people, then we're not far from kim jong-il territory; however, if we go too far in the other direction, the classic worry is that we end up with 'mob rule' - plato's critique of democracy. so where's the proper balance?... what liberals like stroube have trouble wrapping their minds around, and more conservative theorists grasp from the get-go, is that politics as such is a response to the absence of such a balance: there's danger in too much centralization and there's danger in too much balkanization, and there's no way to eliminate the possibility of either without also dispensing with politics altogether. obama may not be malcolm x's son, but there's a silent x that follows his name. cynics criticize this x-factor as trying to be 'all things to all people' and many leftists of stroube's ilk will conclude that obama's candidacy is empty. defenders of obama may reply that it's not that obama is two-faced, but that representation itself is a two-way street, and radical defenders of democracy may point to this as democracy's saving grace: it is empty. that means it's in no small part up to us what obama represents. neither him or us exist before the process that'll write our history. how democratic that process is, it's true, remains to be seen, but we ought to beware of seemingly radical rejections which, if taken seriously, would make an impossible best the enemy of the real good that's now possible. _ i highly recommend ernesto laclau's 'on populist reason' (2005) for its clarity on these matters -- here's two representative quotations... _ pages 158-9: Let us concentrate on what is involved in a process of representation under democratic conditions. Democratic theory, starting with Rosseau, has always been highly suspicious of representation, and has accepted it only as a lesser evil, given the impossibility of direct democracy in large communities like modern nation-states. Given these premises, democracy has to be as transparent as possible: the representative has to transmit as faithfully as possible the will of those he represents. Is this, however, a fair description of what is actually involved in a process of representation? There are good reasons to think that it is not. The function of the representative is not simply to transmit the will of those he represents, but to give credibility to that will in a milieu different from the one in which it was originally constituted. That will is always the will of a sectorial group, and the representative has to show that it is compatible with the interests of the community as a whole. It is in the nature of representation that the representative is not merely a passive agent, but has to add something to the interest he represents. This addition, in turn, is reflected in the identity of those represented, which changes as a result of the very process of representation. Thus, representation is a two-way process: a movement from represented to representative, and a correlative one from representative to represented. The represented depends on the representative for the constitution of his or her own identity. So the alternative that [Ernest] Barker describes [namely, 'either the leader represents the will of his following, or the following represents the will of the leader'] is not one that corresponds to two different types of regimes - it is, in fact, not an alternative at all: it simply points to two dimensions which are inherent in any process of representation. It could be argued that although the two dimensions are inherent to representation, the latter would be more democratic whenever the first movement - from represented to representative - prevails over the second. This argument, however, does not take into account the nature of the will to be represented. If we have a fully constituted will - of a corporative group, for instance - the representative's room for maneuver would indeed by limited. This, however, is an extreme case within a wider range of possibilities. Let us take, at the opposite extreme, the case of marginal sectors with a weak degree of integration into the stable framework of a community. In this case we would be dealing not with a will to be represented but, rather, with the constitution of that will through the very process of representation. The task of the representative is, however, democratic, because without his intervention there would be no incorporation of those marginal sectors into the public sphere. But in that case, his task would consist less in transmitting a will than in providing a point of identification which would constitute as historical actors the sectors that he is addressing. As always, there will be some distance between a sectorial interest - even a fully constituted one - and the community at large; there will always be a space within which this process of identification will take place. It is on this moment of identification that we have now to concentrate our attention. _ pages 170-1: We know that there is an insurmountable abyss between the particularity of groups integrating into a community - often in conflict with one another - and the community as a whole, conceived as a universalistic totality. We also know that such an abyss can only be hegemonically mediated, through a particularity which, at some point, assumes the representation of a totality which is incommensurable with it. But for this to be possible, the hegemonic force has to present its own particularity as the incarnation of an empty universality that transcends it. So it is not the case that there is a particularity which simply occupies an empty place, but a particularity which, because it has succeeded, through a hegemonic struggle, in becoming the empty signifier of the community, has a legitimate claim to occupy that place. Emptiness is not just a datum of constitutional law, it is a political construction. Let us now consider the matter from the other side: that of the place as empty. Emptiness, as far as that place is concerned, does not simply mean void; on the contrary, there is emptiness because that void points to the absent fullness of the community. Emptiness and fullness are, in fact, synonymous. But that fullness/emptiness can exist only embodied in a hegemonic force. This means that emptiness circulates between the place and its occupiers. They contaminate each other. So the logic of the King's two bodies has not disappeared in democratic society: it is simply not true that pure emptiness has replaced the immortal body of the King. This immortal body is revived by the hegemonic force. What has changed in democracy, as compared with the anciens regimes, is that in the latter that revival took place in only one body, while today it transmigrates through a variety of bodies. But the logic of embodiment continues to operate under democratic conditions and, under certain circumstances, it can acquire considerable stability. Think of a phenomenon such as Gaullism. One could say that one of the fundamental hegemonic defects of the French Fourth Republic was its inability to provide relatively stable symbols to embody the empty place. At this point, however, we have to move the argument one step forward. Empty signifiers can play their role only if they signify a chain of equivalences, and it is only if they do so that they constitute a 'people'. In other words: democracy is grounded only on the existence of a democratic subject, whose emergence depends on the horizontal articulation between equivalential demands. An ensemble of equivalential demands articulated by an empty signifier is what constitutes a 'people'. So the very possibility of democracy depends on the constitutions of a democratic 'people'. We also know that if there is to be an articulation/ combination between democracy and liberalism, demands of two different types have to be combined. Combination, however, can take place in two different ways: either one type of demands - liberalism, for instance, with its defense of human rights, civil liberties, and so on - belongs to the symbolic framework of a regime, in the sense that they are part of a system of rules accepted by all participants in the political game, or they are contested values, in which case they are part of the equivalential chain, and so part of the 'people'. In Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s, for instance, the defense of human rights was part of the popular demands and so part of the popular identity. It is a mistake to think that the democratic tradition, with its defense of the sovereignty of the 'people', excludes liberal claims as a matter of principle. That could only mean that the 'people''s identity is fixed once and for all. If, on the contrary, the identity of the 'people' is established only through changing equivalential chains, there is no reason to think that a populism which includes human rights as one of its components is a priori excluded. At some points in time - as happens today quite frequently in the international scene - defense of human rights and civil liberties can become the most pressing popular demands. But popular demands can also crystallize in entirely different configurations, as Lefort's analysis of totalitarianism shows. It is on this variety in the constitution of popular identities that we must now focus our attention. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081108/4d83cd70/attachment.htm From acasey3 at ucok.edu Sun Nov 9 00:31:55 2008 From: acasey3 at ucok.edu (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 00:31:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Judge List for UCO - Outrounds Message-ID: <2412317.1226212315551.JavaMail.acasey3@ucok.edu> Start Time 9am. Pairings released at 8am. The following judges are judging in the morning: Taylor Davis Schrader Easley Gaston Vega Shook Dipiazza Maurer Atchison Voth Jordan Russell Cleary Walters, Sheena Petit Cook Thiele Malgor Naputi Smith, Ryan Jarman Morris Johnson,Spencer Hamilton Henry Casey Pennington Roubidoux Ketchum Zarazan Shirley Johnson Patterson Howard, Casey Brown, Zachary Abbas Harris, Spencer Harlow Tews Steece Warner Wagner Tiffee Crockett See ya in the morning, -AC **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is moving to a new Internet address. This e-Mail address and web sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and web sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. From acasey3 at ucok.edu Sun Nov 9 00:47:31 2008 From: acasey3 at ucok.edu (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 00:47:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Brackets for the UCO tournament Message-ID: <3362003.1226213251626.JavaMail.acasey3@ucok.edu> Sorry this is coming out at 12:50 OPEN octos 1 - OU GW vs. UTD LR 2 - Kansas KS vs. OU DT 3 - OU KT vs. Mo St. FS 4 - UTSA MT vs. Emporia FL 5 - Baylor CM vs. OU BY 6 - K-State MZ vs. Wichita BR 7 - K-State CW vs. Texas SB 8 - UMKC AG vs. Wichita CM JV - quarters Oklahoma CD vs, UTSA CT KCKCC NF vs. KCKCC ST Trinity CH vs. UMKC BE OU NW vs. Wichita CK Novice - quarters Miami RR vs. Baylor ST OU PR vs. Wisconsin OshKosh BV Mo State SW vs. ENMU HK ULL BG vs. K-State CG -AC **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is moving to a new Internet address. This e-Mail address and web sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and web sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Sun Nov 9 10:55:33 2008 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:55:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Appstate entries Message-ID: Please finalize your entries and numbers in the debateresults system ASAP. We have to finalize all our food numbers etc. Also please indicate meal preferences. Thanks, Kris _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081109/a1baf810/attachment.htm From mphall at liberty.edu Sun Nov 9 19:36:12 2008 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:36:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Liberty Debate Tournament Results Message-ID: <17328617EA180D4AAEFC0852B21B61F406193DE97E@LUEMS01VS.University.liberty.edu> Thanks to everyone who attended. Here are the results. Top 10 Open Speakers: 1. Lauren Sabino - Wake 2. Kirk Gibson - Emory 3. Karen Harrison - Georgia 4. Carlos Moza - Wake 5. Scott Movens - Emory 6. Andrew Hart - Georgia 7. James Hamriae - Emory 8. Maggie Warden - Georgia 9. Charlie Cavalier - Kentucky 10. Megan Swenson - Emory ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION ONE: OPEN OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS Wake Forest MS Advances without debating Emory GH Advances Over Emory CM Georgia HW Advances Over Georgia AH Emory MS (Aff) defeated Georgia State BG 3-0 Congdon, K Stevenson, Smith, Ros Wake Forest BC (Neg) defeated Kentucky CG 2-1 *Lyle, Jim Keenan, Dy Brovero, A Georgia HP (Aff) defeated George Mason Univers OR 3-0 Mills, Rob Silber, Ma O'Donnell, Emory MT (Aff) defeated Richmond (univ. Of) FL 3-0 Angat, Jom Luechtefel Galloway, Wayne State Universi HP (Aff) defeated Wake Forest DM 2-1 Kuswa, Kev *Patrice, Solt, Roge QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Wake Forest MS (Neg) defeated Wayne State Universi HP 3-0 Lee, Ed Bryson, Do Silber, Ma Emory GH Advances Over Emory MT Georgia HW Advances Over Georgia HP Wake Forest BC (Neg) defeated Emory MS 2-1 Davis, Mik O'Donnell, *Young, Ke SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Wake Forest BC & Wake Forest MS Emory GH (Aff) defeated Georgia HW 2-1 Gonzalez, Davis, Mik *Mika, Jas FINAL ROUND RESULTS Wake Forest MS (Neg) defeated Emory GH 2-1 Lyle, Jim Brovero, A *Bryson, D Top 10 JV Speakers: 1. Jeff Kurr - Pittsburgh 2. Blake Tanase - Florida 3. Sean Slattery - Mary Washington 4. McKinsey Hulen - USMA 5. Joe Quist - Wayne State 6. Ben Saunders - Mary Washington 7. Aaron Swanlek - Clarion 8. Tianyi Xin - USMA 9. Kyle Leinbach - George Mason 10. Jayla Kahn - USMA ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION TWO: JUNIOR VARSITY OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS Pittsburgh KW Advances without debating U.s. Military Academy HX Advances without debating Mary Washington SS Advances without debating Florida ST Advances without debating Clarion University SZ (Neg) defeated Mary Washington DL 2-1 Weiner, Ja Packer, Jo *Lee, Ed U.s. Military Academy EK Advances Over U.s. Military Academy Mary Washington GT Advances Over Mary Washington DT Binghamton CJ (Aff) defeated George Mason Univers JL 3-0 Young, Kel Hausrath, Bellon, Jo QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Pittsburgh KW (Aff) defeated Binghamton CJ 2-1 *Brovero, Goss, Judy Kennedy, T Mary Washington GT (Neg) defeated U.s. Military Academy HX 2-1 Congdon, K O'Gorman, *Newnam, B Mary Washington SS (Aff) defeated U.s. Military Academy EK 3-0 Beaton, Hu Mills, Rob Packer, Jo Clarion University SZ (Neg) defeated Florida ST 3-0 Mosley-jen Keenan, Dy Watson, Ha SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Clarion University SZ (Neg) defeated Pittsburgh KW 2-1 Lacy, J.P. Herndon, J *Beaton, H Mary Washington SS Advances Over Mary Washington GT FINAL ROUND RESULTS Clarion University SZ (Neg) defeated Mary Washington SS 2-1 Luechtefel Davis, Mik *Newnam, B Top 10 Novice Speakers: 1. Frederick Heitjan - USMA 2. Erin Caldwell - USNA 3. Tuba Ahmed - JMU 4. Mark Waugh - JMU 5. Briana Fierst - Clarion 6. Nichole Flick - Clarion 7. Daniel Thies - George Mason 8. Christie Adams - Mary Washington 9. Amanda Branch - George Mason 10. Kelsey Averill - USNA ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION THREE: NOVICE OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS James Madison AW Advances without debating Clarion University HP Advances without debating Clarion University MS (Aff) defeated Samford HH 3-0 Verney-O'G Bryson, Do Rubino, Ka Mary Washington AS (Neg) defeated U.s. Military Academy MR 2-1 Wallace, B Noerr, Rob *Kennedy, Wayne State Universi JS (Aff) defeated U.s. Military Academy2-1 Watson, Ha *Lacy, J.P Schatz, Jo Clarion University FF (Aff) defeated Mary Washington MV 2-1 *Bowman, P Gonzalez, Baldis, N U.s. Naval Academy CS (Aff) defeated Mary Washington HL 3-0 Grimm, Tyl Herndon, J Newnam, Bi Richmond (univ. Of) HV (Aff) defeated George Mason Univers B2-1 *Gray, Chr Green, RJ Davis, Mik QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS James Madison AW (Aff) defeated Richmond (univ. Of) HV 2-1 Lyle, Jim *Gartman, Lacy, J.P. U.s. Naval Academy CS (Aff) defeated Clarion University HP 2-1 Mika, Jaso Patrice, J *Stevenson Clarion University MS Advances Over Clarion University FF Mary Washington AS (Aff) defeated Wayne State Universi JS 3-0 Herndon, J Gonzalez, Ayers, Nic SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS James Madison AW (Aff) defeated Mary Washington AS 2-1 O'Gorman, *Luechtefe Verney-O'G U.s. Naval Academy CS (Neg) defeated Clarion University MS 3-0 Mannino, P Keenan, Dy Mills, Rob FINAL ROUND RESULTS James Madison AW (Neg) defeated U.s. Naval Academy CS 3-0 O'Donnell, Gonzalez, Lee, Ed Michael Hall Director of Debate Liberty University Lynchburg, VA 24502 (434) 582-2080 From acasey3 at ucok.edu Sun Nov 9 20:35:58 2008 From: acasey3 at ucok.edu (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:35:58 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] UCO Results Message-ID: <2630552.1226284558891.JavaMail.acasey3@ucok.edu> Speaker Awards Novice 1 ? Rutledge ? Miami (FL) 2- Steed ? Baylor 3 ? Wright ? Mo State 4 ? Reman ? Miami 5 ? Van Nuland ? Wisconsin-Oshkosh 6- Smith ? Mo State 7 ? Rupert ? Oklahoma 8 ? Pedraza ? Oklahoma Junior 1- Nordstrom ? Oklahoma 2- Brunson ? UMKC 3- Cox ? Oklahoma CD 4- Dabiri ? Oklahoma CD 5- Easterwood ? UMKC 6- Matis ? Louisiana-Lafeyette 7- Cortelyou ? Wichita 8- Breslin ? Johnson County 9- Katschke ? Wichita 10- Slinkard ? KCKCC ST Open 1 ? Ziegler ? K-State 2 ? Calhoun ? K- State 3 ? Watts ? Oklahoma 4 ? Giglio ? Oklahoma 5 ? Mendenhall ? K-State 6 ? Williams-green ? Emporia 7 ? Woods ? K-State 8 ? Defilippis ? Oklahoma 9 ? Garcia ? UMKC 10 ? Rinker ? Wichita 11 ? Boyle ? Texas 12 ? Coleman ? Wichita 13 ? Roark ? UTD 14 ? Wash ? Emporia 15 ? Dawson ? Weber St. 16 ? Thomas ? UTSA MT 17 ? Kennedy ? Kansas 18 ? Leach ? UTD 19 ? Frederick ? Mo State 20 ? Tomik - Oklahoma? Novice Results Quarterfinals Miami RR defeated Baylor ST (Steed/Richard) 3-0 Spencer Harris, Harlow, Abbas Missouri State SW defeated ENMU HK (Hatten/Kelley) 3-0 Tews, Steece, Warner Louisiana-Lafeyette BG defeated K-State CG (Crimm/Graham) 2-1 Casey Howard, Brown, Patterson* Oklahoma PR defeated Wisconsin Oshkosh BV (Brown/Van Nuland) 2-1 Wagner, Tiffee, Crockett* Semifinal Miami RR defeated Oklahoma PR (Pedraza/Rupert) 3-0 Kearney, Weitz, Crockett Louisiana-Lafeyette BG defeated Mo State SW (Smith/Wright) 3-0 Halley, Kissinger, Howard Finals Miami RR (Reman/Rutledge) defeated Louisiana-Lafayette BG (Bajapee/Guillory) 3-0 Tiffee, Shirley, Greenwalt ? JV Results Partial Octafinals Advancing without debating Oklahoma CD KCKCC NF Trinity CH OU NW Wichita CK defeated ULL MW (Matis/Wilson) 2-1 Kearney*, Weitz, Henry UMKC BE defeated Oklahoma WZ (Wynn/Zahrai) 3-0 Tripe-Roberts, McCaffrey, Sheena Walters KCKCC ST defeated OU KS (Kistler/Shephard) 3-0 Newton, Smith, Steinberg UTSA CT defeated Miami BF (Branch/Fox) 2-1 Lieurance, Cleary, Schrader Quarterfinals UTSA CT defeated Oklahoma CD 3-0 Hamilton, Henry, Casey KCKCC NF advances over KCKCC ST (Slinkard/Thomas) Trinity CH defeated UMKC BE 2-1 (Brunson/Easterwood) Zarazan, Shirley*, Jessica Johnson Oklahoma NW defeated Wichita CK (Cortelyou/Katschke) 3-0 Pennington, Roubidoux, Spurlock Semifinals UTSA CT defeated Oklahoma NW (Nordstrom/Warren) 2-1 Thiele, Vega, Atchison* Trinity CH defeated KCKCC NF (Fugate/Nichols) 3-0 McCaffrey, Cook, Wagner Finals to be decided in a format agreed upon by the following participants from San Antonio who wanted to get home in a humane fashion: #3 Seed Trinity Clemmons/Hall and the #8 seed Texas-San Antonio Colwell/Tahmoressi? OPEN RESULTS Partial Double Octafinals The following advanced without debating: Oklahoma GW Kansas KS Oklahoma KT UTSA MT Baylor CM K-State MZ K-State CW UMKC AG Wichita CM Texas SB Wichita State BR Oklahoma BY defeated K-State GH (Grice/Hanson) 2-1 Foy, Petit, Gordon* Emporia FL defeated Trinity BH (Bankey/Hart) 2-1 Russell, Shook, Morris* Mo State FS defeated Baylor BJ (Butera/Jung) 2-1 Jordan, Darren Elliot, Hamilton* Oklahoma DT defeated UNT RS (Rowe/Searles) 2-1 Atchison*, Jarman, Vega Texas ?Dallas LR Defeated Oklahoma EE (The Brothers Eicher) 3-0 JT, Thiele, Cook Octafinals OU GW defeated Texas-Dallas LR (Leach/Roark) Kansas KS defeated OU DT (Defilippis/Thornhill) 3-0 Gaston, Easley, Vega Oklahoma KT defeated Mo State FS 2-1 (Frederick/Steiner) Malgor, Naputi*, Smith Emporia FL defeated UTSA MT (Montee/Thomas) 2-1 Jarman, Morris, Johnson, Spencer Baylor CM defeated Oklahoma BY (Bunas/Yost) 3-0 JT, The Beav ?James Davis?, Schrader K-State MZ defeated Wichita BR (Brown/Rinker) 3-0 atchison, Voth, Jordan Texas SB defeated K-State CW (Calhoun/Woods) 3-0 Shook, Dipiazza, Maurer UMKC AG defeated Wichita CM (Coleman/Munday) 2-1 Russell, Cleary, Walters* Quarterfinals OU GW defeated UMKC AG (Allsup/Garcia) 3-0 Naputi, Morris, Tripe-Roberts Texas SB defeated Kansas KS (Kennedy/Shah) 2-1 Cleary*, JT, Dipiazza Oklahoma KT defeated K-State MZ (Mendenhall/Ziegler) 3-0 Malgor, Shook, Spencer Johnson Baylor CM defeated Emporia FL (Fifelski and the Return of the Loghry) 2-1 Russell, Jordan, The mudman ?James Davis? Semifinals Oklahoma GW defeated Baylor CM (Cook/McVey) 3-0 Ketchum, Spencer Johnson, and James ?Catfish? Davis Texas SB defeated Oklahoma KT (Koslow/Tomik) 3-0 JT, Malgor, Maurer Finals is now underway The #1 Seed Oklahoma Giglio/Watts vs. the #10 Seed and half of the UCO Defending Champions Texas Boyle/Scott Panel of Ketchum, Foy, and Jimmy Joe Davis thanks alot for comin out -AC **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is moving to a new Internet address. This e-Mail address and web sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and web sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. From acasey3 at ucok.edu Sun Nov 9 22:20:19 2008 From: acasey3 at ucok.edu (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 22:20:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] UCO Open Finals Results Message-ID: <1034394.1226290819135.JavaMail.acasey3@ucok.edu> Oklahoma GW defeated Texas SB on a 3-0 with a panel of ketchum, foy, and mudcat. thanks to John for judging the finals debate. hope to see everyone again next year, -AC **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is moving to a new Internet address. This e-Mail address and web sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and web sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. From npaqueo at gmu.edu Sun Nov 9 22:29:48 2008 From: npaqueo at gmu.edu (Niccolo Cortes Paqueo) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:29:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Lost GPS at Liberty Message-ID: One of our debaters at GMU left a Magellan GPS system at Liberty. If you know anything about it or have it, please backchannel me. Thanks, Niccolo Paqueo From mjjanas at samford.edu Mon Nov 10 08:20:26 2008 From: mjjanas at samford.edu (Janas, Michael) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:20:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CIDD Tour of Japan, 2009: Call for participants Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30A25EEA9@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> The Committee for International Discussion and Debate (CIDD) of the National Communication Association (NCA) announces tryouts for The 2009 tour of Japan Approximate tour dates: Early June to early July 2009 Who is eligible: Any past or present forensic participant who is under 25 and is a full time undergraduate in good standing (juniors and seniors are preferred), or who has received an undergraduate degree but is no older than 25. We encourage applications from students active in all forms of forensics, including Lincoln-Douglas debate, team policy debate, parliamentary debate, and individual events. Students who apply should have (or plan to obtain) a valid, current passport. Students will be evaluated on the basis of their debating skills and their ability to teach debate basics; their knowledge of political, social and cultural conditions in Japan, Asia, and the world; and their ability to represent the United States and American forensics effectively and professionally. How to apply: If you are interested in trying out for the tour, send by Friday, November 14, 2008: 1) a letter of interest, explaining your suitability for the tour 2) an official college transcript 3) two letters of recommendation 4) a resume 5) contact information, especially an email address, to: Sam Nelson Department of Communication Cornell University 329 Kennedy Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 If you have questions, please feel free to contact Sam Nelson via email at smn33 at cornell.edu or via telephone at (607) 255-2771. Tryouts for the 2009 British tour will also be held at this same time. You may apply to both tours, but you should send separate applications for each tour. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081110/8b95a5f3/attachment.htm From mjjanas at samford.edu Mon Nov 10 08:21:46 2008 From: mjjanas at samford.edu (Janas, Michael) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:21:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CIDD Britain Tour 2009--Call for participants Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30A25EEAA@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> The Committee for International Discussion and Debate (CIDD) of the National Communication Association (NCA) announces tryouts for The 2009 tour of the United Kingdom Approximate tour dates: mid-February to mid-March 2009 Who is eligible: Any past or present forensic participant who is under 25 and is a full time undergraduate in good standing, or who has received an undergraduate degree but is no older than 25; juniors and seniors are preferred. We encourage applications from students active in all forms of forensics, including Lincoln-Douglas debate, team policy debate, parliamentary debate, and individual events. Students who apply should have (or plan to obtain) a valid, current passport. Students will be evaluated on the basis of their debating skills and their ability to teach debate basics; their knowledge of political, social and cultural conditions in the UK, Europe, and the world; and their ability to represent the United States and American forensics effectively and professionally. How to apply: If you are interested in trying out for the tour, send by Friday, November 14, 2008: 1) a letter of interest, explaining your suitability for the tour 2) an official college transcript 3) two letters of recommendation 4) a resume 5) contact information, especially an email address, to: Sam Nelson Department of Communication Cornell University 329 Kennedy Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 If you have questions, please feel free to contact Sam Nelson via email at smn33 at cornell.edu or via telephone at (607) 255-2771. Two participants will be chosen to represent the United States on an all-expense-paid tour. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081110/18beb154/attachment.htm From csedelmyer at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 09:07:35 2008 From: csedelmyer at gmail.com (Chris Sedelmyer) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:07:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Rounds for Sale Message-ID: I still have up to 5 to sell. If interested, please email me at sedelmyer at gmail.com Thanks, Chris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081110/6c714210/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Mon Nov 10 09:07:52 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:07:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Paper Publication Opportunity (CEDA journal--CAD) References: <4F7743D6-F783-45EC-B469-55BF93C98554@wichita.edu> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AC92@castor.richmond.edu> hi all, Rhetoric students/faculty: if you have a relatively short paper that you think is worth publishing, consider submitting it to the CEDA Journal (CAD). we're putting together a Forum on "rhetorical genres" and would love to include your paper. The call for papers is posted below...the process is on-going so we will review your papers as they come in until the forum is filled. thanks, kevin kuswa u. of richmond CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS Contemporary Argumentation & Debate Forum on "Rhetorical Genres" Submission Policy Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: The Journal of the Cross Examination Debate Association, is a refereed journal dedicated to publishing quality scholarship related to the theory and practice of debate (academic and pubic sphere) and argumentation (theoretical and applied). Submission Guidelines Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The journal employs a blind review system. Manuscripts must be submitted electronically in a current Word or rich-text format. Identification materials--the author(s), institutional affiliation, mailing address, e-mail address, and phone numbers--should only appear on the first page. The first page should also note any previous public presentation of publication of any portion or form of the manuscript. The manuscript should not contain internal references that identify the author in a way to compromise blind review. All correspondence relating to the manuscript, including notification that the manuscript has been received, will be directed to the specified author. Authors submitting to Contemporary Argumentation and Debate must give exclusive right of review to this journal until such time that the review has been completed. Upon acceptance, assignment of copyright will be made to the Cross Examination Debate Association. CAD is an annual publication with manuscripts accepted throughout the year. Forum submissions to kkuswa at richmond.edu Dr. Kevin Kuswa (CAD Forum Editor) 400-A Weinstein Hall University of Richmond, VA 23173 general submissions to Al Louden: Allan Louden - louden at wfu.edu Editor, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Department of Communication Box 7347, Reynolda Station Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, NC 27109 From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Nov 10 09:11:22 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:11:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake judging Message-ID: <4917FABA.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> In order to give everyone the maximum amount of time to complete their judge preferences, we would like everyone to firm up their judge commitments for Wake (a number of schools have not yet filled their commitment). I will turn on the pref sheets tomorrow for preliminary work in managing your prefs but would like everyone to finalize judge commitments by Wednesday 6:00 PM at the latest. After that, all changes will need to be communicated directly to me and to Ross. If you have constraints that are not entered on the Bruschke site, please enter them there and/or communicate them directly to me. GARY From mphall at liberty.edu Mon Nov 10 09:43:50 2008 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:43:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Correction to Liberty Results Message-ID: <9275B17A-D221-4DAA-AE99-2DB7FA64AFFD@liberty.edu> The winner of the novice final round was the Naval Academy (aff) on a 3-0. mph From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Mon Nov 10 10:10:51 2008 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:10:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to Liberty In-Reply-To: <9275B17A-D221-4DAA-AE99-2DB7FA64AFFD@liberty.edu> References: <9275B17A-D221-4DAA-AE99-2DB7FA64AFFD@liberty.edu> Message-ID: ...for a wonderful tournament. Everything ran smoothly, food was wonderful as always, and my debaters played with their speaker awards the whole way home. Thanks to the Flames for a great weekend! Danielle Verney O'Gorman Navy Debate _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows? connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081110/14325932/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Mon Nov 10 12:03:54 2008 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:03:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to UCO Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F39EC07458@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Hey, Thanks to UCO for a great weekend in Edmond, and an excellent job of adjusting to the huge amount of teams entered in the tournament across all divisions. I want to say thanks to Mary G for running the tab, and to all the UCO debaters who stayed at the school before and after the tournament, to do all the small things that help the tournament happen. Oh, yeah, good job Marlow. (and Catfish and Ketchum) Also thanks to Miami and LSU Laffy and Oshkosh, Denver and Weber for making their way out to Oklahoma. Another Doubles tournament in the Midwest! Yeah Debate! Peace Massey PS - Can i footnote i may have been wrong about the change in the novice rule! It does seem to be larger this year than the previous years. From jtedebate at yahoo.com Mon Nov 10 13:36:07 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:36:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] UCO Thanks Message-ID: <624635.12057.qm@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks to Marlow and the UCO crowd (Martin!) for a great tournament! W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081110/de0f4fe2/attachment.htm From wildendeavor at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 15:16:58 2008 From: wildendeavor at gmail.com (Georg Curnutt) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:16:58 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Georg Curnutt may need help? Message-ID: <6b55a37d0811101316w38088f0co7247e870f94fa4c0@mail.gmail.com> I subscribed and was able to get into the listserve to change my password and stuff, but when I returned to my email I have a slew of 'bounce' messages? What can I do? -- Georg Curnutt "WildEndeavor" P.O. Box 86053 San Diego, California 92138-6053 619 519-4494 USA http://www.letssaythanks.com/Home1280.html Please send a soldier a holiday card, clickthe above link. Free, Xerox sponsors it! http://www.WildEndeavor.com/default.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081110/8a2dead5/attachment.htm From chris.thiele at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 15:44:41 2008 From: chris.thiele at gmail.com (Chris Thiele) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:44:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Rounds for Sale Message-ID: <9c24dd310811101344y5234000bhc0624f655c911df9@mail.gmail.com> Have 6 rounds for sale. Anyone still need them? See you all at wake. Chris Thiele -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081110/6150763f/attachment.htm From kerry.coleman at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 16:18:24 2008 From: kerry.coleman at gmail.com (Kerry Coleman) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:18:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] more wake judging for sale Message-ID: <9001a6770811101418n4da0c78fn662ba9bbd61d1e3e@mail.gmail.com> howdy, i have three rounds to sell if anyone still needs judging. thanks! kerry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081110/cc08ff86/attachment.htm From dsrader at northwestchristian.edu Mon Nov 10 19:01:18 2008 From: dsrader at northwestchristian.edu (Doyle Srader) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:01:18 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] College student seeks help for launching a program Message-ID: <11EB54FFE7082149BAD19E0230D2641C017260E113@noah> A college student has back-channeled me asking for advice on how to start a student-led debate program at his school. In particular, he wants input on who to talk to, what arguments to make, etc. I know that in the past several of you have offered tips and encouragement to people who've accomplished that, so if you're willing to lend him assistance, email me and I'll fire back his name and email address. -- Doyle Srader, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Communication Northwest Christian University From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Mon Nov 10 19:39:41 2008 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:39:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] FEAR AND LOATHING IN DALLAS -- UT DALLAS TOURNAMENT INVITATION Message-ID: November 10, 2008 Sixth Annual Fear and Loathing in Dallas Invitation to the University of Texas at Dallas Intercollegiate Debate Tournament Dear Colleagues, We cordially invite you to join us January 10-12, 2009 for the sixth annual Fear and Loathing in Dallas Intercollegiate Debate Tournament. The University of Texas at Dallas Debate Team will once again serve as your hosts. Yes, somehow we still get to do this. Our tournament will be the second half of the Texas Two Step. The University of North Texas will host the first half. Teams attending both tournaments will have January 9th as a full day off to relocate, rest, and research. We will offer debates in three divisions (open, junior varsity, and novice). We expect all three divisions to be large enough to remain distinct this season. However, we will collapse the Novice division into the Junior Varsity division if necessary. Please complete all entries by 12:00 noon on Wednesday, January 7, 2009. We will submit final orders for all food purchases that afternoon so correct information by the entry deadline is necessary. We will also need to close entries into order to begin the judge preference process. We definitely need final entries for both TEAMS and JUDGES by noon of January 7. Please use the famous Bruschke system for entering the teams and the judges. You can find that system here: http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/Index.aspx ENTRY LIMITS: UT Dallas is experiencing a shortage of suitable classrooms. Therefore the UT Dallas Debate Team must unfortunately impose an entry limit of ninety (90) total teams at this time. There is a good chance that we might be able to secure access to a few more rooms but we cannot guarantee it at this moment. So we must impose an entry cap. Entries will be first come, first serve regardless of division until we reach our cap. So please enter as soon as possible. If we do secure access to more rooms and raise the cap, we will post a note to eDebate to inform everyone of the change. FORMAT: There will be seven preliminary debates in the Open division with the tab room randomly assigning the sides to each team in round seven. The Junior Varsity and Novice divisions will have six preliminary debates. The schedule has changed slightly so be sure to examine the tournament schedule located at the end of this document. The teams advancing to the Elimination rounds will be determined by the following criteria. The top half of the Open teams will clear. Each team must have a winning record (4 or more wins) in order to advance, even if that requirement results in a total that is slightly less than half of all Open teams. The maximum number of Open teams advancing will be 32. We will also hold an appropriate number of elimination rounds in Junior Varsity and Novice divisions. Judges will be allowed and encouraged to use quarter speaker points to distinguish between speakers. Judges should refrain from giving the same points to the speakers in the same round. ALTERNATE USE TIME: The regular time limits of 9 minutes per constructive speech and 6 minutes per rebuttal will be observed for speech times. Once again the tournament will use ?alternate use? prep time rules for all debates ? each team will have sixteen (16) minutes total to use for cross-examination and/or preparation. Cross-examination periods are allowed only after constructive speeches. Coaches should inform their debaters about the proper use of alternate use prep time prior to the tournament. TAB ROOM and TOURNAMENT ADMINISTRATION: Dr. Jeff Jarman of Wichita State University has agreed to join us in Dallas to direct the operations of the tabulation room. Justin Green of Kansas State University will also assist in the tab room. Dr. Jarman, Mr. Green and the UT Dallas coaching staff will resolve any tournament administration problems that arise. Current and former UT Dallas students will be available throughout the tournament to run ballots, give directions and, and generally provide any needed assistance. ENTRY FEES: Freedom isn?t free and neither is the ?Fear and Loathing in Dallas? debate tournament. The entry fees will be $130 per covered team, regardless of division. One team requires four (4) rounds of judging. Two teams require seven (7) rounds of judging. Uncovered teams will be assessed an additional fee of $40 per uncovered round. Please send your qualified judges instead of just paying the extra fee if possible. The UT Dallas debate team does not even come close to making a profit on this tournament. In fact, the hosting of the tournament generates a financial loss and some stern questions from our Dean. We believe that our tournament will provide both high quality hospitality and strong competition relative to total costs of attendance. Cash is preferred. However you can make your checks payable to ?The University of Texas at Dallas.? Our University?s Federal Tax ID number is 75-1305566 if your institution requires such information. Our mailing address: UT Dallas Debate Team Department of Undergraduate Education P.O. Box 830688, GC 14 Richardson, Texas 75083-0688 We once again will go to great lengths to make special accommodations for teams with limited financial resources ? please contact us in advance for details. We attempt to ensure that entry fees will not exclude a school from participating in our Fear and Loathing tournament. We want to share our Fear and Loathing with everyone. HOSPITALITY: We take this extremely seriously. We are committed to providing a tournament experience that you will find both competitive and entertaining. We hope to earn a spot on your annual travel schedule. Those who have attended in the past have almost always returned with enthusiasm There will be a reception for all coaches during registration during the evening of the Friday, January 9 at the Crowne Plaza Suites. There will also be a large tournament-wide survivors? reception for all participants during the evening of Monday, January 12. We invite all debaters, coaches, and judges to stay for the survivors? reception. Those who have remained in Dallas for the Monday night survivors? reception have not been disappointed. Lunches will be provided to all tournament participants on January 10 and 11. Breakfast will also be provided at the campus on those days. Please indicate any special dietary needs when entering the tournament. The vast majority of last year's participants found the provided food and beverages to be high quality. Also, the city of Dallas has many excellent options for dining and entertainment. A packet full of suggestions will be provided to all teams at registration. Scott and Chris are also available to answer your questions ? we know where to go in Big D. JUDGING: One pillar of a successful tournament is quality judging so please bring your least sketchy judges. Each team seeking to enter should provide a qualified judge who will be available to judge at least four (4) preliminary rounds and who will comply with tournament rules. A judge covering the requirements for two teams should prepare to judge seven (7) preliminary debates. A qualified judge is a currently active coach, graduate student, or former college debater. EVERY judge will be committed through the octafinal debates in the Open division. We will have very, very few hired judges available this year. Please inform the UT Dallas staff at least one week in advance if your team will need to pay the fee for uncovered teams. Monies gained by such fees will go towards to the hiring of qualified judges and the procurement of ether. Judges will be assigned on the basis of mutual preference. Teams will be allowed to strike a limited number of judges. The number of strikes will depend upon the size of the judging pool, the number of many sketchy people y?all bring, and the number of sketchy people we hire. Please, please, please indicate to the tournament administration if a judge cannot judge all three divisions. Please repeat any such limitation in person at registration. Judges assigned to a debate by the tab room will be responsible for submitting a correctly completed ballot at the end of that debate. Judges should not leave the tournament unless their commitment has been fulfilled. DON?T MESS WITH TEXAS: Any judge who is unable or unwilling to comply with these criteria should not register as a judge. Failure on the part of a judge to comply with these rules may result in a decision by the tab room staff and may also result in the top team from the judge?s school being removed from further participation in the tournament. Please do not enter unknown and/or sketchy judges for all seven round then have a highly preferred judge available for only one. That ain?t cool. And it makes it much more difficult for us to get highly preferred judges in every round to all teams, including your teams. Directors should ensure that each and every judge has a judge philosophy statement posted in the Bruschke system by Tuesday, January 6, 2009. Any judge still without a judge philosophy statement by that deadline will be dropped from the tournament. The rounds originally assigned to that judge will be redistributed to other judges representing that squad. HOST HOTEL INFORMATION: We strongly encourage all tournament participants to stay at the host hotel. Tournament registration, tournament receptions, and all rounds on Monday, January 12 will occur at the hotel. The tournament will return to the Crowne Plaza Suites in 2009. Please see the ?Hotel? section below for detailed reservation information. The Crowne Plaza Suites is located just north of the Westin Park Central and the LBJ freeway. It is a quick, easy twelve-minute drive from the hotel to the UT Dallas campus. Every room in the hotel is a suite. The rooms are quite large. The block rates are $78 for each double room and $73 for each king room. This rate will include internet access at no additional charge. The hotel offers ample free parking. Overall this is an exceptional value for such an amazing facility. They offered this great rate and so we switched from the Westin. The Crowne Plaza nightly rate is noticeably less than the Westin?s rate was last season. Oh the wonders of competitive bidding. Those wishing to access the block rate should reserve rooms using the specific website provided http://www.cpdallas.com/ and use the code ?DEB? when making reservations. Reservations can also be made over the telephone. We strongly encourage you to use the website reservation system in order to receive updates on the hotel and your reservation. While rooms may be available at the last minute, the hotel will only guarantee the block of rooms and the tournament rate for those reservations made before December 19, 2008. We suggest that your reserve your rooms as soon as possible. Rooms might be available after that date but room availability, room rates, and room type will not be guaranteed for those reservations made after December 19. The host hotel has a very limited number of smoking rooms available. Please do not smoke in the common areas of the hotel. Please do not smoke in the non-smoking rooms. Hotel Details: Crowne Plaza Suites - Dallas Park Central 7800 Alpha Road Dallas, TX 75240 Front Desk: (972) 233-7600 http://www.cpdallas.com/ http://www.crowneplaza.com/h/d/cp/1/en/hotel/daltx Our hotel contact: Karen Buta Her Email: Karen.Buta at ihg.com TRANSPORTATION: Dallas is easily accessible by ground or air. The tournament hotel is directly east of DFW airport and it a mere 30 minutes away. Use the ?North? exit from DFW airport toward IH-635 and proceed East on IH-635. Exit at ?Coit? Road. All major national rental agencies have operations at DFW airport. The UNT campus is roughly an hour drive from the UT Dallas campus. Teams competing at both tournaments will definitely need to change hotels. Unfortunately, we at UT Dallas will not be able to provide ground transportation and the hotel will not be able to provide anything beyond the most basic local service. Nor will UT Dallas be able to transport teams coming from the UNT tournament in Denton. Participating teams should definitely plan to provide their own transportation throughout the tournament. Major rental agencies such as Enterprise, Avis, and Hertz have offices at both airports. Those seeking to rent large vans might try Capps at http://www.cappsvanrental.com/ AUDIO and VIDEO RECORDING: All rounds (defined as the speeches of the participants) are open to registered tournament participants and may be electronically recorded for private educational use by tournament participants (registered coaches, debaters and helpers, and UT Dallas tournament staff) only. Public distribution of such recordings is expressly prohibited unless prior written consent of all people on the recording is obtained and unless prior written consent of the University of Texas at Dallas is obtained. Private sharing for educational use is permitted. TOURNAMENT RULES: If you know us, then you know we love rules and we will enforce them. 1. The tournament will follow the CEDA guidelines on sexual harassment. 2. The topic for all debates will be the 2008-2009 NDT/CEDA policy debate topic. 3. Each judge obligated to judge a round 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 quarter points. Each judge will have a maximum of two hours and 45 miuntes 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 the top team from the judge?s school being removed from further participation in the tournament. 4. In order to enter and compete at the tournament, debate must be eligible according to CEDA and NDT guidelines. Each competitor should be currently enrolled undergraduate student (or, since the tournament occurs over the Winter Break, every competitor should have been officially enrolled during the previous semester and/or be officially enrolled in the upcoming semester). 5. Hybrid teams will be allowed to enter the tournament and are eligible to advance to the elimination rounds. Maverick debaters will not be allowed to enter the tournament and will not be allowed to compete ? a team consists of two and only two undergraduate students. Should one member of a team or both be or unable to debate in more than two rounds, that team will receive a loss for those rounds and will become ineligible for elimination rounds and awards. 6. While it is unlikely, one or more teams from UT Dallas might compete at the tournament. However no UT Dallas team will compete in elimination rounds. 7. Debaters, coaches, judges and all other tournament guests should not damage or remove any UT Dallas property. No smoking is allowing in any UT Dallas building. No food or drinks are allowed in any classroom. Please, please, please follow these rules. Please, please, please help us to keep the rooms and hallways clean. The room czars are reluctant to give us rooms even when they are in a good mood. And the debate tournament will be the only large event occurring on the campus in early January so the room inspectors will assume that someone involved with the debate community caused the damage. Many UT Dallas buildings are very new and we will not be allowed to use them in the future if any damage occurs during the tournament. 8. Brackets will NOT be broken in elimination rounds. Teams from the same school that face each other in elimination rounds may either choose to declare a winning team or may choose to debate the round. 9. Unless the teams have met previously in the preliminary rounds, sides in elimination rounds will be determined by coin flip or an agreement by both teams. Please flip the coin and announce sides as soon as possible. We all want to expedite the rounds on Monday. 10. The eligibility rules for participation in the junior varsity and novice divisions will follow the CEDA standards. AWARDS: They will be cool and you will enjoy them. Trust us, we?re experts. We will once again present the traveling ?Texas Two Step? award to the Open Division team that gains the most preliminary wins at the two tournaments. Obie Lansford and Halli Tripe of Baylor University won the award last season with 12 wins. Someone please remind Gerber to bring the trophy in January. INFORMATION: We hope to make this sixth annual ?Fear and Loathing in Dallas? Debate Tournament meet the high standard established by our previous tournaments. Please contact Chris Burk or Scott Herndon if you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions regarding the tournament. The best way to reach us will probably be the provided tournament email account. We look forward to once again welcoming the college debate community to Dallas. Your lovely hosts, THE UTD DEBATE TEAM www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ Tournament email: falid.tournament at gmail.com Christopher Burk Director of Debate crb01200 at utdallas.edu Scott Herndon Assistant Director of Debate sxh021200 at utdallas.edu Justin Kirk Assistant Coach justinwkirk at gmail.com Todd Jordan Assistant Coach and Graduate Student tajordan at utdallas.edu Trevor Andreas Assistant Coach tha031000 at utdallas.edu UT Dallas Debate Office Phone: 972-883-4806 (not the best option) UT DALLAS ? 2009 TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE: Friday, January 9 (Crowne Plaza Suites) 6:00pm ? Tournament Registration and Coaches Reception 9:00pm ? Tournament Registration Ends 10:00pm ? Pairings for Rounds 1 and 2 release at hotel and on-line Saturday, January 10 (UT Dallas campus) 7:30am ? Breakfast available (UTD campus) 8:30am ? Round One (pre-set) start time (all rounds on campus) 11:15am ? Round Two (pre-set) start time 1:30pm ? Lunch provided at campus 2:45pm ? Round Three (high-high) start time 5:45pm ? Round Four (high-low) start time Sunday, January 11 (UT Dallas campus) 7:00am ? Pairings for Round 4 released. Breakfast and coffee provided 8:00am ? Round Five (high-high) start time 11:00am ? Round Six (high-low) start time. Pairings based on results of all five rounds. 12:45pm ? Lunch Provided 1:45pm ? Pairings Released 2:15pm ? Round Seven in Open (high-low, Sides assigned by computer) start time 2:15pm ? First elimination round in Junior Varsity and Novice divisions start time 5:15pm ? Pairings for Open Division Doubles Released (no round for JV and Novice) 5:45pm ? Open Division Doubles start time (no round for JV and Novice) Monday, January 12 (all events at Crowne Plaza Suites) 8:30am ? Pairings Released for Open Division Octafinals 8:30am ? Pairings Released for second novice & JV elimination rounds 9:30am ? Open Octafinal Rounds begin 9:30pm ? Second Elimination Rounds in Novice & JV divisions begin High Noon ? Awards Assembly 1:30pm ? Elimination rounds continue Evening ? Tournament reception From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Nov 10 19:44:48 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:44:48 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Texas-Dallas Message-ID: Name:Fear and Loathing in Dallas (UTD) Starts:1/10/2009 Ends:1/12/2009 Hosted by: Texas-Dallas Contact: Christopher Burk Address: Phone: 972-536-3995 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles Junior Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From scottelliott at grandecom.net Mon Nov 10 21:19:24 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:19:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ at Tournaments. Message-ID: <1226373564.4918f9bc20f61@webmail.grandecom.net> We have been to three tournaments post-amendment regarding equalization of MPJ for all divisions. My impression is that at each tournament, varsity teams have recieved all of the preferences/MPJ, with junior varsity and novice getting little or nothing. There are a lot of reasons that I can list as to why I think this is a bullshit deal for novice and JV teams, but I will save that rant for another day. Rather, I just want to know whether the amendment to CEDA 1) has any meaning at all and 2) if it does, what the hell does it mean? Because if the goal was to make the opportunity to have my teams have a chance to be heard by the top judges, I think the amendment has become an epic failure. Can someone from the CEDA Executive Committee, or the CEDA Executive Secretary, establish a clear explanation to tournament directors what they are required to provide for a CEDA sanctioned tournamnet? Scott Elliott From justinwkirk at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 21:24:26 2008 From: justinwkirk at gmail.com (justin kirk) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:24:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Kansas BJ Message-ID: Backchannel -- Justin Kirk UTD Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081110/5145affd/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Mon Nov 10 21:36:40 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:36:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ at Tournaments. In-Reply-To: <1226373564.4918f9bc20f61@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1226373564.4918f9bc20f61@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811101936k12feb944m99ba4ea531a15a4f@mail.gmail.com> As far as I understand it is on a tournament by tournament basis. At the two tournaments I ran this year that used MPJ (I assume that these are two of the ones you are referring to). At GSU varsity was assigned first and then I alternated JV and novice assignments. For Vandy, we used a rotating judge assignment system (something we will do at App State as well). I assign varsity first in rounds 1 and 6, jv in 2 and 5 and novice in 3 and 4. Please let me know if you (or anyone else) has any other questions. Mike On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:19 PM, wrote: > We have been to three tournaments post-amendment regarding equalization of MPJ > for all divisions. My impression is that at each tournament, varsity teams have > recieved all of the preferences/MPJ, with junior varsity and novice getting > little or nothing. There are a lot of reasons that I can list as to why I think > this is a bullshit deal for novice and JV teams, but I will save that rant for > another day. Rather, I just want to know whether the amendment to CEDA 1) has > any meaning at all and 2) if it does, what the hell does it mean? Because if > the goal was to make the opportunity to have my teams have a chance to be heard > by the top judges, I think the amendment has become an epic failure. Can someone > from the CEDA Executive Committee, or the CEDA Executive Secretary, establish a > clear explanation to tournament directors what they are required to provide for > a CEDA sanctioned tournamnet? > > Scott Elliott > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 dave at miami.edu Tue Nov 11 07:10:04 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:10:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Live Debate Streamed Online Tonight! Message-ID: Live Debate Streamed Online Tonight! Check out the British Debate Team's Ed James and Derek Doyle and University of Miami's Robert Levine and Jennefer Melendez as they debate Western Prosperity live on UMTV's "We the Students". To view the debate log onto www.wethestudents.tv at 9pm. At the site, students from around the world can comment on the debate and ask questions to the debaters! Watch live at 9! 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 jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Tue Nov 11 08:50:37 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 08:50:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ at Tournaments. In-Reply-To: <1226373564.4918f9bc20f61@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1226373564.4918f9bc20f61@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <08B4C4FA-1346-48C9-9FA0-0066C44095B0@wichita.edu> The rule states that each division must employ some type of preference. The author of the amendment has stated that "strikes only" in jv/novice conforms with the intent of the rule. To be clear: if you employ some type of preference in Open (strikes, mpj, etc), then you must employ some type of preference (strikes, mpj, etc) in all divisions. Below is the text of Darren's post on the issue from Nov 25, 2007 when he wrote to eDebate to encourage a yes vote on the amendment: "Amendment #7 Tournament Sanctioning This amendment will make sure that tournaments that use a preference system in any division will use some sort of preference in all divisions offered to receive CEDA sanctioning. It makes a philosophical statement that if we value MPJ than it should extend to all divisions, and that as an organization we do not value placement over division. What it does NOT do is require the same preference in each division. One division might get 6 categories and strikes, another may get ABC, another may just get strikes. The options are endless. But it does preserve the ability to allow some protection for Novice and JV teams, who normally get the judges struck out of the Open pool. I think as an organization we need to make a statement that all levels of debate are valuable and receive our acknowledgement." Jeff On Nov 10, 2008, at 9:19 PM, scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > We have been to three tournaments post-amendment regarding > equalization of MPJ > for all divisions. My impression is that at each tournament, varsity > teams have > recieved all of the preferences/MPJ, with junior varsity and novice > getting > little or nothing. There are a lot of reasons that I can list as to > why I think > this is a bullshit deal for novice and JV teams, but I will save > that rant for > another day. Rather, I just want to know whether the amendment to > CEDA 1) has > any meaning at all and 2) if it does, what the hell does it mean? > Because if > the goal was to make the opportunity to have my teams have a chance > to be heard > by the top judges, I think the amendment has become an epic failure. > Can someone > from the CEDA Executive Committee, or the CEDA Executive Secretary, > establish a > clear explanation to tournament directors what they are required to > provide for > a CEDA sanctioned tournamnet? > > Scott Elliott > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/a061bbbf/attachment.htm From droubidoux at gmail.com Tue Nov 11 09:01:40 2008 From: droubidoux at gmail.com (Douglas Roubidoux) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:01:40 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ at Tournaments. In-Reply-To: <08B4C4FA-1346-48C9-9FA0-0066C44095B0@wichita.edu> References: <1226373564.4918f9bc20f61@webmail.grandecom.net> <08B4C4FA-1346-48C9-9FA0-0066C44095B0@wichita.edu> Message-ID: Tournaments should make sure that it is clear what type of preference is being used for each division. If the tournament invite says it will be using MPJ and thats it, then all the divisions should get it. Strikes only for the JV/Novice division should be clear in the invitation. On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Jeffrey Jarman wrote: > The rule states that each division must employ some type of preference. > The author of the amendment has stated that "strikes only" in jv/novice > conforms with the intent of the rule. > To be clear: if you employ some type of preference in Open (strikes, mpj, > etc), then you must employ some type of preference (strikes, mpj, etc) in > all divisions. > > Below is the text of Darren's post on the issue from Nov 25, 2007 when he > wrote to eDebate to encourage a yes vote on the amendment: > > "Amendment #7 Tournament Sanctioning > > This amendment will make sure that tournaments that use a preference system in > any division will use some sort of preference in all divisions offered to > receive CEDA sanctioning. It makes a philosophical statement that if we value > MPJ than it should extend to all divisions, and that as an organization we do > not value placement over division. What it does NOT do is require the same > preference in each division. One division might get 6 categories and strikes, > another may get ABC, another may just get strikes. The options are endless. > But it does preserve the ability to allow some protection for Novice and JV > teams, who normally get the judges struck out of the Open pool. I think as an > organization we need to make a statement that all levels of debate are valuable > and receive our acknowledgement." > > > Jeff > > > On Nov 10, 2008, at 9:19 PM, scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > > We have been to three tournaments post-amendment regarding equalization > of MPJ > for all divisions. My impression is that at each tournament, varsity teams > have > recieved all of the preferences/MPJ, with junior varsity and novice getting > little or nothing. There are a lot of reasons that I can list as to why I > think > this is a bullshit deal for novice and JV teams, but I will save that rant > for > another day. Rather, I just want to know whether the amendment to CEDA 1) > has > any meaning at all and 2) if it does, what the hell does it mean? Because > if > the goal was to make the opportunity to have my teams have a chance to be > heard > by the top judges, I think the amendment has become an epic failure. Can > someone > from the CEDA Executive Committee, or the CEDA Executive Secretary, > establish a > clear explanation to tournament directors what they are required to provide > for > a CEDA sanctioned tournamnet? > > Scott Elliott > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/00b81f38/attachment.htm From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu Tue Nov 11 09:13:33 2008 From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:13:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ atTournaments. Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899E01205722@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> The judging pools often differ by division as well. For a variety of reasons, some judges are listed as jv only or novice only. If one feels inclined to strike or downgrade those judges, then it also creates a relative skew. I'm inclined to defer to directors who may those sorts of judgements when entering their judges. Ermo -------------------------- Sent using BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com To: scottelliott at grandecom.net CC: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tue Nov 11 08:50:37 2008 Subject: Re: [eDebate] Request for Clarification regarding MPJ atTournaments. The rule states that each division must employ some type of preference. The author of the amendment has stated that "strikes only" in jv/novice conforms with the intent of the rule. To be clear: if you employ some type of preference in Open (strikes, mpj, etc), then you must employ some type of preference (strikes, mpj, etc) in all divisions. Below is the text of Darren's post on the issue from Nov 25, 2007 when he wrote to eDebate to encourage a yes vote on the amendment: "Amendment #7 Tournament Sanctioning This amendment will make sure that tournaments that use a preference system in any division will use some sort of preference in all divisions offered to receive CEDA sanctioning. It makes a philosophical statement that if we value MPJ than it should extend to all divisions, and that as an organization we do not value placement over division. What it does NOT do is require the same preference in each division. One division might get 6 categories and strikes, another may get ABC, another may just get strikes. The options are endless. But it does preserve the ability to allow some protection for Novice and JV teams, who normally get the judges struck out of the Open pool. I think as an organization we need to make a statement that all levels of debate are valuable and receive our acknowledgement." Jeff On Nov 10, 2008, at 9:19 PM, scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: We have been to three tournaments post-amendment regarding equalization of MPJ for all divisions. My impression is that at each tournament, varsity teams have recieved all of the preferences/MPJ, with junior varsity and novice getting little or nothing. There are a lot of reasons that I can list as to why I think this is a bullshit deal for novice and JV teams, but I will save that rant for another day. Rather, I just want to know whether the amendment to CEDA 1) has any meaning at all and 2) if it does, what the hell does it mean? Because if the goal was to make the opportunity to have my teams have a chance to be heard by the top judges, I think the amendment has become an epic failure. Can someone from the CEDA Executive Committee, or the CEDA Executive Secretary, establish a clear explanation to tournament directors what they are required to provide for a CEDA sanctioned tournamnet? Scott Elliott _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/66595d26/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Tue Nov 11 12:24:53 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:24:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] MPJ at tournaments with multiple divisions Message-ID: <49197995.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> My understanding of the amendment parallels Jeff's. I should note, however, that the order in which divisions are paneled with respect to MPJ potentially makes a huge difference. Given a moderately size open and JV and/or novice division, unless one consciously downgrades preference choices in the first division paired, subsequent divisions will not receive anything near the same level of preference. STA (which is not currently used at the majority of multi-division tournaments) provides the ability to panel judges for multiple divisions simultaneously, using a variety of strategies for prioritizing individual debates. For instance, in a round where you wish to privilege break rounds, followed by rounds above the break, followed by rounds where both teams have been eliminated, STA will first assign judges to all of the break rounds in all divisions selected (using average pref of previous rounds as an additional tiebreaker) followed by above and below. Selecting the option of pairing more than one division simultaneously has as an inevitable outcome the reduction of pref in the division that you would have paired first coupled with a significant improvement in divisions you would pair subsequently. Additionally, the average overall preference across all divisions would slightly improve because of the ability to consider many more alternative placements. Since many more tournaments use TRPC as opposed to STA with many tournaments still assigning judges using a largely "manual" or "computer-aided" strategy, Rich, Jon and I are working on a new version (or successor) to TRPC that will be able to integrate my judge assignment algorithms (as an option) into the interface that most members of the community are already comfortable with. While I had hopes of completing that project by now, it is still a few months away. GARY From berchnorto at msn.com Tue Nov 11 12:37:15 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:37:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] MPJ at tournaments with multiple divisions In-Reply-To: <49197995.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> References: <49197995.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Message-ID: That would be, as all of Gary's efforts are, a tremendous boon to our community. Speaking as someone who has tabbed multiple tournaments with MPJ in three divisions, I think it's important to recognize one other practical issue. At most such tournaments, there are a few judges who are self-restricted to JV and Novice, and there are often many judges who are self-restricted to Novice. Thus, if one starts by pairing Novice (because Gary's point is of course correct with regard to the impact of the order of pairing), one runs the very real risk of not using enough of those Novice-only judges in Novice and then running out of judges by the time you pair Open (which then requires tab room intervention to move judges from one division to another, and I share Gary's strong belief that minimizing tab room intervention is a primary goal). Bottom line is that being able to assign judges across multiple divisions at once in TRPC would be a great improvement, and we should all be grateful to all of those who work to improve the mechanics of what we do. --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Larson To: Edebate Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: [eDebate] MPJ at tournaments with multiple divisions My understanding of the amendment parallels Jeff's. I should note, however, that the order in which divisions are paneled with respect to MPJ potentially makes a huge difference. Given a moderately size open and JV and/or novice division, unless one consciously downgrades preference choices in the first division paired, subsequent divisions will not receive anything near the same level of preference. STA (which is not currently used at the majority of multi-division tournaments) provides the ability to panel judges for multiple divisions simultaneously, using a variety of strategies for prioritizing individual debates. For instance, in a round where you wish to privilege break rounds, followed by rounds above the break, followed by rounds where both teams have been eliminated, STA will first assign judges to all of the break rounds in all divisions selected (using average pref of previous rounds as an additional tiebreaker) followed by above and below. Selecting the option of pairing more than one division simultaneously has as an inevitable outcome the reduction of pref in the division that you would have paired first coupled with a significant improvement in divisions you would pair subsequently. Additionally, the average overall preference across all divisions would slightly improve because of the ability to consider many more alternative placements. Since many more tournaments use TRPC as opposed to STA with many tournaments still assigning judges using a largely "manual" or "computer-aided" strategy, Rich, Jon and I are working on a new version (or successor) to TRPC that will be able to integrate my judge assignment algorithms (as an option) into the interface that most members of the community are already comfortable with. While I had hopes of completing that project by now, it is still a few months away. GARY _______________________________________________ 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/20081111/9f11b7fa/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Tue Nov 11 12:55:07 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:55:07 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] MPJ at tournaments with multiple divisions References: <49197995.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Message-ID: <6A7D4064F0624949BDF0213E2E59F137@hansonjbPC> I'll add in another voice here. I support mpj in all divisions. still, I believe open division should receive mpj first. why? 1) open debates require a more discerning eye for distinguishing who won and thus having a pref'd judge becomes more important. I am not saying that novice and jv divisions don't get close but they are, as a whole, less intricate. 2) open debaters have, as a whole, put more years into the activity and they deserve some preference for their judging. 3) that's on top of the arguments about how some judges are novice/jv judges only. that said, I do think novice and jv divisions should still get mpj and I think gary's email raises an interesting question, at least for me, about whether break rounds in novice and jv divisions should get priority over teams that are out in open division. I think they should and it is something I had not thought about before. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: NEIL BERCH Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:37 AM To: Edebate ; Gary Larson Subject: Re: [eDebate] MPJ at tournaments with multiple divisions That would be, as all of Gary's efforts are, a tremendous boon to our community. Speaking as someone who has tabbed multiple tournaments with MPJ in three divisions, I think it's important to recognize one other practical issue. At most such tournaments, there are a few judges who are self-restricted to JV and Novice, and there are often many judges who are self-restricted to Novice. Thus, if one starts by pairing Novice (because Gary's point is of course correct with regard to the impact of the order of pairing), one runs the very real risk of not using enough of those Novice-only judges in Novice and then running out of judges by the time you pair Open (which then requires tab room intervention to move judges from one division to another, and I share Gary's strong belief that minimizing tab room intervention is a primary goal). Bottom line is that being able to assign judges across multiple divisions at once in TRPC would be a great improvement, and we should all be grateful to all of those who work to improve the mechanics of what we do. --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Larson To: Edebate Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: [eDebate] MPJ at tournaments with multiple divisions My understanding of the amendment parallels Jeff's. I should note, however, that the order in which divisions are paneled with respect to MPJ potentially makes a huge difference. Given a moderately size open and JV and/or novice division, unless one consciously downgrades preference choices in the first division paired, subsequent divisions will not receive anything near the same level of preference. STA (which is not currently used at the majority of multi-division tournaments) provides the ability to panel judges for multiple divisions simultaneously, using a variety of strategies for prioritizing individual debates. For instance, in a round where you wish to privilege break rounds, followed by rounds above the break, followed by rounds where both teams have been eliminated, STA will first assign judges to all of the break rounds in all divisions selected (using average pref of previous rounds as an additional tiebreaker) followed by above and below. Selecting the option of pairing more than one division simultaneously has as an inevitable outcome the reduction of pref in the division that you would have paired first coupled with a significant improvement in divisions you would pair subsequently. Additionally, the average overall preference across all divisions would slightly improve because of the ability to consider many more alternative placements. Since many more tournaments use TRPC as opposed to STA with many tournaments still assigning judges using a largely "manual" or "computer-aided" strategy, Rich, Jon and I are working on a new version (or successor) to TRPC that will be able to integrate my judge assignment algorithms (as an option) into the interface that most members of the community are already comfortable with. While I had hopes of completing that project by now, it is still a few months away. GARY _______________________________________________ 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/20081111/3f950165/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Tue Nov 11 13:36:26 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:36:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Important Wake tournament notes Message-ID: <4919DEBA.9000909@wfu.edu> 1) We will be "closing" your access to make entry changes on Bruschke after this evening. So, be sure to get all of the following taken care of: a) Correct judges entered (all in attendance should judge at least some). b) Correct number of rounds per judge (3 rounds per team, 4 rounds per team for 3rd or fourth teams). Some of you have entered judges for 7 or eight prelims, but we only have six! c) Judge conflict info entered. d) Number of participants from your school, vegan/vegetarian info on the "school info" info page. e) Correct e-mail and phone contact info on the "Edit your account" under "Account Management" on the main page of the Bruschke site. 2) Starting Wednesday, we will let you rank (ordinally) judges. 3) Entry info you cannot fix on Bruschke site should be sent to Gary Larson, Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu 4) Frosh/Soph breakout team eligibility will be checked at registration, so do not fret about the fact that there is no way to indicate that in Bruschke. Note: any team with both debaters in their first two years of college debate is eligible. No team with a debater in their third year of college debate is eligible. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From davismk13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 11 13:45:03 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:45:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Please finalize your App State entries Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811111145j5c0e7f87la0603aa4da47658@mail.gmail.com> I will be closing registration tonight. We will have limited MPJ so please make sure all your judges are correct so I can open preferences tomorrow. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From mphall at liberty.edu Tue Nov 11 14:08:49 2008 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:08:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Rounds Needed Message-ID: <2F132EA2-342A-4416-B46D-5C334B6040F2@liberty.edu> Liberty is looking to hire rounds for Wake. Cash at the tournament. Email me if interested. Michael From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Tue Nov 11 15:42:47 2008 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:42:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Spencer Harris Message-ID: <7fd76c680811111342u356ff295qd0b000037bb1a855@mail.gmail.com> Just wanted to get some contact info from you when you get a second. Thanks! -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From paulj567 at yahoo.com Tue Nov 11 15:54:34 2008 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:54:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Coaching and Phd Opportunity at the University of Iowa Message-ID: <803158.27116.qm@web53509.mail.re2.yahoo.com> All, A friendly reminder of two excellent opportunities if you're interested in coaching debate and/or pursuing a higher degree. Iowa City is a wonderful place, with a lot of great stuff going on. First, the University of Iowa has a full time coaching position open next Fall. The position pays competitively. We have a dedicated group of debaters at the A. Craig Baird Debate forum, and are all excited at the prospect of adding a high caliber member to our staff. Secondly, if you are interested in pursuing a phd and coaching debate, the University of Iowa's communication studies department is a great place to do so. Recent hire Isaac West (of KState debate fame) is a new addition to the department, and there has been another job call out this year for another rhetorical theorist. Also, while debate people rarely do media, Iowa's media studies program boasts many pluses, including one of the smartest people around, John Durham Peters, so if you're into that, its worth a mention. The intellectual resources in Iowa City are amazing, the stipend competitive, and the atmosphere for both scholarly and debate-related pursuits is excellent. The department and debate team offer assistantships which are accompanied with a teaching reduction in the department. If you have any interest in either of these positions, feel free to talk to myself, Paul Bellus, Jason Regnier, or Sarah Spring at the Wake Tournament this weekend. Also feel free to email any of us (our emails are just the first then last name separated by a dash ie. paul-johnson at uiowa.edu) David Hingstman is also good to talk to, but is on research leave this semester, so you have to catch him when he's wandered out of some thick book on the Stoics. See everyone in the Dash, Paul Elliott Johnson UIowa '12 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Debate Job Ad.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 122655 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/877e2c7c/attachment.pdf From smithr at wfu.edu Tue Nov 11 15:58:55 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:58:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 100 point scale at Wake Message-ID: <491A001F.5040108@wfu.edu> attached is a graph of the distribution of scores given at our tournament last year, FYI -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Score distribution.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/85e3ed02/attachment.pdf From clairecmckinney at hotmail.com Tue Nov 11 18:02:19 2008 From: clairecmckinney at hotmail.com (Claire McKinney) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:02:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] High School Debate Coaches: Please take this survey! Message-ID: Hi, My name is Claire McKinney and I'm currently a grad student in Political science at the University of Chicago. I am completing a course project on high school debate coaches which includes a survey. The more folks who take it, the better. So, if you have any association with a high school debate team and don't mind helping me out, please take the following survey and email it to cmckinney at uchicago.edu or claircmckinney at hotmail.com. You can email it in the text of the email or as a .rtf document. I've also attached the empty survey if you'd rather use the document. Thanks! Claire Short Survey for Network Analysis of High School Policy Debate The purpose of this survey is to gather data on the social and professional networks that exist amongst high school debate coaches. This study is only being performed for use in a course. Since the research will not be disseminated in any way, I have not applied for research approval by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago. All personal information will be kept anonymous, including personal names, school names, and names of debate institutes. If you have any questions concerning the survey, please email me at cmckinney at uchicago.edu. 1) Name ____________________________________________________________ 2) School by which you are employed: ___________________________________ 3) How long have you worked there? _________________ 4) What is your position? (eg, head coach, assistant coach) ________________________ 5) How many coaches does your program employ in a given season? Coaches should include anyone who is hired by the school, the team, or individual debaters, to interact with students. This could include people who are hired for only a single tournament to a permanent position. _________________________ Please list the names of the people who are currently employed as coaches by your program. ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 6) How much is your programs? travel budget for the regular debate season? Please Check One None or less than $2,999 ___ $3,000 -$4,999 ___ $5,000 -$6,999 ___ $7,000 -$8,999 ___ $9,000 -$10,999 ___ $11,000-$12,999 ___ $13,000-$14,999 ___ $15,000-$16,999 ___ $17,000-$19,999 ___ $20,000-$21,999 ___ $22,000-$24,999 ___ $25,000-$29,999 ___ $30,000-$34,999 ___ $35,000-$39,999 ___ $40,000-$44,999 ___ $45,000-$49,999 ___ $50,000-$59,999 ___ $60,000-$69,999 ___ $70,000-$79,999 ___ $80,000-$89,999 ___ $90,000-$104,999 ___ $105,000-$119,000 ___ $120,000 and over ___ Don?t Know ___ 7) Do students have to pay for any travel costs? If so, which ones? Check all that apply Squad membership fee NFL membership Supplies (including copies) Entry fees Lodging at tournaments Airfare Other transportation costs Other (please specify below) Other: ___________________________________________________________________ 8) Are you or your institution a member of any debate organizations (NDCA, NFL, an urban debate league, TFA or other state organization, etc)? ______________ If so, which ones? ______________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 9) Where and when did you attend high school?_________________________________ 10) Did you debate in high school? _________________ 11) Where and when did you attend college? ____________________________________ 12) Did you debate in college? ___________________ 13) In high school, did you attend any debate camps? _________________ If so, which ones? ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 14) Have you worked at any summer debate institutes over the past 5 years? ________ If so, which ones? ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ 15) Please list the high school debate coaches who you consider to be close friends. Name as few or as many as you desire. ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows? connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/473f085e/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Short Survey for Network Analysis of High School Policy Debate.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 80387 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/473f085e/attachment.rtf From uwgdebate at gmail.com Tue Nov 11 21:58:14 2008 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:58:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga tournament on debateresults Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70811111958w6c90b245m9d584e8894f63030@mail.gmail.com> Hey folks, the UWG tournament should be up on debateresults asap. a few notes: 1) Jan 17-19, MLK weekend. 7 prelims, clear to octas in open, 7 prelims, clear to semis in JV and Novice divisions. 2) current limit is no more than 4 teams per division from any school. we'll adjust that if we have space. 80 team limit in Open. 3) there is no "tournament hotel." so, feel free to stay wherever you want. here's a list of local accommodations. all of these are w/in 5 miles of the school: Holiday Inn Express - 770-838-0508, 104 S Cottage Hill Rd Carrollton Hampton Inn - 770-838-7722, 102 S Cottage Hill Rd Carrollton Jameson Inn - 770-834-2600, 700 S Park St, Carrollton Best Western - 770-838-1000, 1111 Bankhead Hwy, Carrollton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/8d81c71c/attachment.htm From mphall at liberty.edu Tue Nov 11 22:25:44 2008 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:25:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Liberty's Wake Rounds are Now Covered Message-ID: <17328617EA180D4AAEFC0852B21B61F40619C2993B@LUEMS01VS.University.liberty.edu> Thanks to those who responded. [cid:image003.jpg at 01C94454.D1C04470] Michael P. Hall Director of Debate Liberty University 1971 University Blvd. Lynchburg, VA 24502 Ph: (434) 582-2080 Fx: (434) 582-2113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/ed7ccef6/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2676 bytes Desc: image003.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/ed7ccef6/attachment.jpg From andreareed2007 at gmail.com Tue Nov 11 22:40:24 2008 From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com (Andrea Reed) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 23:40:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pre Wake scouting update Message-ID: Below is the list of teams that still need to post their pre-Shirley disclosure to the caselist. Please try to get your information up ASAP so it will be actually useful for pre-tournament prep. Again, we can post for you... email your intel to JP (lacyjp at wfu dot edu) or myself (reedac7 at wfu dot edu). Or, JP's first scouting info email has instructions on how to register and post to the wiki yourself. We strongly encourage everyone to sign up anyways. Debaters and judges could contribute a lot to the scouting process by posting more round-by-round intel. Though we are creating "pre-Wake" links for each team as a general guideline, you can adjust the organization of your page if necessary. Just make it clear which teams read what if you group your squad's disclosure. Let us know if you have any questions or problems... See you soon in WS... Andrea Teams that still need to post their disclosure: Binghamton Matthew Torsiello & Bill Sebelle Aff/ Neg Binghamton Lauren Cameron & Peter Fountain Aff/Neg California James Brockaway & Rahul Jaswa Aff California Mike Burshteyn & Jacob Polin Aff California Kathy Bowen & Andres Gannon Aff Case Western David Mattern & Andrew Wolf Aff/Neg Central Oklahoma (Un Andy Casey & Avery Henry Aff/Neg Central Oklahoma (Un Stacy Spomer & Chris Spurlock Aff/Neg City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Clarion University Aaron Swanlek & Andrew Zachar Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/ Neg Aff/Neg Concordia Kristi Cronin & Dana Rognlie Aff/Neg CSU Fullerton Caitlin Gray & Bryce Bridge Aff/Neg Dartmouth Shane Avidan & Caroline Harkins Aff Dartmouth Cyrus Akrami & Caroline Brandt Aff/Neg Dartmouth Trevor Chenoweth & Rob Rein Aff/Neg Emory Ovais Inamullah & Ana Nikolic Aff/Neg Emory Sam Caporal & Mikaela Malsin Aff/Neg Emory Nicholas Miller & Chipp Schwab Aff/Neg Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas Aff/Neg Emporia State U. Ryan Wash & LaToya Williams- Green Aff/Neg Emporia State U. Kurt Fifelski & Chris Loghry Neg Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Aff/Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Georgetown Dorothy Hector & Lucy Zhu Aff Georgetown Cody Forrester & Bon Koo Aff Georgia State Kevin Bottoms & Josh Grace Aff/Neg Gonzaga Brent Hamilton & James Joseph Neg Gonzaga Karina Momary & Leah Moczulski Neg Harvard Seth Bour & Ralph Paone Aff/Neg Harvard Tripp Rebrovick & Geoff Smith Aff/Neg Harvard Elizabeth Kim & Catalina Santos Aff/Neg Harvard Alex Parkinson & Eli Jacobs Aff Idaho State Lindsay Vanluvanee & Andrew Ridgeway Aff/Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg Iowa Kiran Dhillon & Nat Olson Aff Iowa Kyle Vint & Corey Stone Aff James Madison Shruti Chaganti & Tori Federwisch Aff/Neg James Madison Sean Lowry & Marie Eszenyi Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Aff/Neg Johnson County Zac Hartkopp & Sarah Wyatt Aff/Neg Kansas (Univ. of) Brett Bricker & Nate Johnson Aff/Neg Kansas (Univ. of) Chris Stone & Mark Wilkins Aff/ Neg Kansas (Univ. of) Erum Shah & Patrick Kennedy Aff/Neg Kansas State Rafi Ahmadullah & Brett Farmer Aff/ Neg Kansas State Beth Mendenhall & Derek Ziegler Aff/ Neg Kansas State John Grice & Jordan Hanson Aff/Neg Kentucky AJ O'Donnell & Mike Gentile Aff/Neg Kentucky Suneet Gautam & Bryan Gort Neg Liberty University Stephanie Dillard & Ross Garrett Aff/Neg Liberty University Michelle Oh & Joshua Turnage Aff/Neg Liberty University Eddie Fitzgerald & Jeff White Aff/Neg Liberty University Amy Boyd & Ben Hagwood Aff/Neg Louisville Sarah Powell & Rosie Washington Aff/Neg Louisville Marian Kennedy & Chris Vincent Aff/Neg Marist College Margeaux Lippman & Sam Timinsky Aff/Neg Mary Washington Andrew Snyder-Beattie & Peter Susko Aff/Neg (?) Mary Washington Kevin Kallmyer & Matt Struth Aff/ Neg (?) Miami Matt Molinaro & Andrew Hart Aff/Neg Miami Mike Jensen & Drew Wallenstein Aff/Neg Michigan State Univ. Gustavo Eyzaguirre & Sam Shore Aff/Neg Michigan State Univ. Garrett Abelkop & Carly Wunderlich Aff/Neg Michigan University Maria Liu & Edmund Zagorin Aff/Neg Michigan University Lina Rudashevski & Lee Reed Aff/Neg Minnesota Arif Hasan & Logan Chin Aff/Neg Minnesota Daryl Pinto & Kelly Nickel Aff/Neg Missouri State Jordan Foley & Clay Webb Aff/Neg Missouri State Katie Frederick & Becca Steiner Aff/Neg Missouri State Jace Gilmore & Aaron Kruse Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Andrew Allsup & Juan Garcia Aff/Neg Nevada Las Vegas Travis Cochran & Austin Mueller Aff/Neg Nevada Las Vegas Michael Eisenstadt & Elliot Carr- Lee Aff/Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Aff/Neg North Texas (Univ.) Kuntal Cholera & Grant Peretz Aff/Neg Northwestern Matt Fisher & John Warden Aff/Neg Northwestern Rob Mulholand & Stephanie Spies Aff/ Neg Oklahoma Scott Koslow & Keegan Tomik Aff/Neg Oklahoma R.J. Giglio & Nick Watts Aff/Neg Pepperdine Jaimie Franklin & Cameron Kirkland Aff/Neg Pittsburgh Stephanie Luczajko & Jennifer Sweeney Aff/Neg Puget Sound Will Gent & Philip Johnson-Freyd Aff/ Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Mycal Kelly & James Farr Aff/ Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Aff/Neg Samford Dan Bagwell & Logan Gramzinski Aff/Neg Samford Jayme Cloninger & Ben Johnson Aff/Neg Southern California Monica Do & Stephanie Scott Aff/Neg Southern California Mike Jones & Mima Lazarevic Aff/Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Aff/Neg Texas Laura Boyle & Nick Scott Aff/Neg Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil Aff/Neg Texas San Antonio Christopher Thomas & Andy Montee Aff/Neg Texas-Dallas Brittany Leach & Collin Roark Aff/Neg Texas-Dallas Andrew Baker & Brian Rubaie Aff/Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg Trinity University Brendon Bankey & Michael Hart Neg Trinity University john elson & Nick Burr Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Aff/Neg Vermont Marnie Ritchie & Chris Lattuca Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Geneva Hackler & Alex Pasquinelli Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Baldomero Gonzalez & Michelle Kesling Aff/Neg Weber State Univ. Stacy Dawson & Shola Adesanwo Aff/Neg Weber State Univ. Isa Tausinga & Brian Bryngelson Aff/Neg West Georgia Jadon Marianetti & Zak Schaller Aff/ Neg West Georgia Vince Binder & Jim Schultz Aff/Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Whitman- Intel fine, but can you please indicate which teams read which aff Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson Aff/Neg Wyoming Sam Allen & Jamie Piechura Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Nov 11 22:56:58 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:56:58 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] MPJ Clarification for multiple divisions Message-ID: <491A0DBA020000930001F65E@mymail.kckcc.edu> Hey all. Since I authored the amendment requiring MPJ in all divisions at tournaments that use a preference system in any division, I thought I should also weigh in. A few things: 1. Jarman is correct (someone write that down in a permanent archive please) : ) about my original posting on the subject where I encouraged a yes vote. The amendment was not written to make each division use the SAME system. 2. I understand and appreciate the frustration of Scott and Doug et al. We talked a lot about this lately. Bottom line for many of us with Novices and JV teams is that sometimes those people need the kind of feedback and critiques in order to learn that tournaments tend to preference into the Open rounds. Like Scott I would love my novices to have a break even chance of being judged by Calum Matheson, Roger Solt, JP Lacy, Will Repko, etc. Rarely does it happen. There are a couple different schools of thought. I can empathize with Hanson's, about Open debaters and debates being more nuanced, requiring a more discerning judge. I lean towards the one I mention above-the need of young debaters to be educated by the best and brightest. I also think it should go without saying that tab room directors should try hard to place judges in rounds that matter first across all divisions. Dont place A+ judges in a division for teams that are down and out before placing judges in break rounds in other divisions. If this isnt standard practice it should be in my opinion. I think tab room directors should be willing to share how they will assign judges and how they ended up assigning judges (should something change over the course of the tournament). When I ran tab at East Coast JV/Nov Nats last year I posted a lengthy description of how we placed judges. The days of smoke filled, shady, protect my friends tab rooms are hopefully long behind us. Everyone should be willing to be open and honest. 3. If the work of Gary and Rich continue to imporve these practices we owe them even more thanks. 4. One thing I have come to believe is that every single tournament no matter the size of the divisions or judge pools CAN use MPJ across all divisions. While my amendment did not require the same MPJ, I believe every tournament has the capability to provide more than strikes, and use MPJ. And it is better for the tournament likely. UCO this weekend gave 6 strikes in JV and Novice. I thought this was an ample amount given the judge pool. In fact after our first 5 I just kind of picked a 6th. In this world, if most teams strike the same 5 or 6, you could lose a lot of rounds. I think it would be better for the tournament tab room AND for the teams to at least allow A B C Strikes. You could reduce strikes by a couple AND ensure some mutuality. In a world where all judges except strikes are treated equal, is where the shaft usually occurs. Why it seems ok to assume a non-struck judge is the same mutuality for everyone is beyond me. My #1 may be my opponents #30. Sure, they didnt strike them, but that wide a discrepancy seems ludicrous. At least with A B C, even if you place that #30 judge, it will be a mutual #20-30 as opposed to a 1-30 range. I cant imagine a world in which a tournament could not offer A B C across divisions at a minimum. Worst case? You have to place an A/C judge. It will rarely happen. In a world of random or just strikes, it is likely happening a lot in the squo. 5. Finally, I would encourage programs to ask tab directors their methods. Vote with your feet if you need to. PS--I dont think if you place a mutual strike, in order to preserve preferences in another division, you are really compliant with the CEDA amendment. That's my opinion. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College From commgradstudent08 at gmail.com Tue Nov 11 23:08:39 2008 From: commgradstudent08 at gmail.com (J K) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:08:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Anyone need judging for APP State? Message-ID: <5088761a0811112108r433fe8a8gc5f72ebc0ee7e639@mail.gmail.com> I got 6 rounds to sell. Backchannel me if interested---John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/5e189dee/attachment.htm From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Wed Nov 12 10:49:23 2008 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:49:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] AppState Tournament Schedule Message-ID: Hello all and safe travels up to Boone! Below is our schedule for the tournament. Another email will be sent later for other relevant details about Boone, food, etc. Kris 69th Annual Mountain Debate Tournament 2008 Friday, November 14th 10am ? 1pm. Mountaineer Hike (Join us for a hike with amazing views! We will meet in the lobby of the tournament hotel.) 1:00- 3:00 p.m. Registration (Raley Hall Main Lobby) 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. Round I (Raley Hall, Howard St.) 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Round II *Saturday, November 15th* 8:15-8:45 a.m. Breakfast 9 ?11:00 a.m. Round III 11:30 - 1:30 p.m. Round IV 1:30 - 2:30 p.m. Lunch Break 3:00 ? 5:00 p.m. Round V 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Round VI *Sunday, November 16th* 8:00 - 10:00 a.m. Elimination round one 10 ? 10:30 a.m. Awards Ceremony 11? 1 Debate Round 2 1:15 ? 3:15 p.m. Round 3 3:30 ? 5:30 p.m. Round 4 _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/8255721c/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Wed Nov 12 11:29:30 2008 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:29:30 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ Clarification for multiple divisions In-Reply-To: <491A0DBA020000930001F65E@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <491A0DBA020000930001F65E@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: Just a quick note on the subject. If the intention of this rule was to have separate pref systems in different divisions, I wish someone would have communicated that to me. Since separate systems for separate divisions had NOT been a practice prior to this amendment, the debateresults page was not set up to handle it. It will require a major revision, and I can't really devote the time to doing that now. I agree that we need good judging in novice division. But, I feel just as strongly that our new judges need to hear rounds to get better, and for pedagogical reasons it is better for everyone if they get their practice in the novice and JV divisions. MPJ in novice and JV divisions frustrates that goal. In addition, MPJ results in "lost" rounds in open division with un-placeable judges. If those judges can't hear rounds in JV or novice either, the ONLY solution is to increase the rounds of commitment per team. This, in my view, creates a situation where we are now weighing judge burnout against the value of more preferred judging in novice and JV. I do believe judge burnout is a much greater threat to the long-term viability of our community than less experienced novice judging. Utlimately, I am supportive of systems that explore a workable MPJ in novice and JV, but I'm not sure that it should be mandated in the constitution. But, I'm happy to program into debateresults whatever the community norms are, but I will not be able to make the changes in a timely way without a much earlier heads-up. Jon ________________________________________ 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, November 11, 2008 8:56 PM To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [CEDA-L] MPJ Clarification for multiple divisions Hey all. Since I authored the amendment requiring MPJ in all divisions at tournaments that use a preference system in any division, I thought I should also weigh in. A few things: 1. Jarman is correct (someone write that down in a permanent archive please) : ) about my original posting on the subject where I encouraged a yes vote. The amendment was not written to make each division use the SAME system. 2. I understand and appreciate the frustration of Scott and Doug et al. We talked a lot about this lately. Bottom line for many of us with Novices and JV teams is that sometimes those people need the kind of feedback and critiques in order to learn that tournaments tend to preference into the Open rounds. Like Scott I would love my novices to have a break even chance of being judged by Calum Matheson, Roger Solt, JP Lacy, Will Repko, etc. Rarely does it happen. There are a couple different schools of thought. I can empathize with Hanson's, about Open debaters and debates being more nuanced, requiring a more discerning judge. I lean towards the one I mention above-the need of young debaters to be educated by the best and brightest. I also think it should go without saying that tab room directors should try hard to place judges in rounds that matter first across all divisions. Dont place A+ judges in a division for teams that are down and out before placing judges in break rounds in other divisions. If this isnt standard practice it should be in my opinion. I think tab room directors should be willing to share how they will assign judges and how they ended up assigning judges (should something change over the course of the tournament). When I ran tab at East Coast JV/Nov Nats last year I posted a lengthy description of how we placed judges. The days of smoke filled, shady, protect my friends tab rooms are hopefully long behind us. Everyone should be willing to be open and honest. 3. If the work of Gary and Rich continue to imporve these practices we owe them even more thanks. 4. One thing I have come to believe is that every single tournament no matter the size of the divisions or judge pools CAN use MPJ across all divisions. While my amendment did not require the same MPJ, I believe every tournament has the capability to provide more than strikes, and use MPJ. And it is better for the tournament likely. UCO this weekend gave 6 strikes in JV and Novice. I thought this was an ample amount given the judge pool. In fact after our first 5 I just kind of picked a 6th. In this world, if most teams strike the same 5 or 6, you could lose a lot of rounds. I think it would be better for the tournament tab room AND for the teams to at least allow A B C Strikes. You could reduce strikes by a couple AND ensure some mutuality. In a world where all judges except strikes are treated equal, is where the shaft usually occurs. Why it seems ok to assume a non-struck judge is the same mutuality for everyone is beyond me. My #1 may be my opponents #30. Sur e, they didnt strike them, but that wide a discrepancy seems ludicrous. At least with A B C, even if you place that #30 judge, it will be a mutual #20-30 as opposed to a 1-30 range. I cant imagine a world in which a tournament could not offer A B C across divisions at a minimum. Worst case? You have to place an A/C judge. It will rarely happen. In a world of random or just strikes, it is likely happening a lot in the squo. 5. Finally, I would encourage programs to ask tab directors their methods. Vote with your feet if you need to. PS--I dont think if you place a mutual strike, in order to preserve preferences in another division, you are really compliant with the CEDA amendment. That's my opinion. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Wed Nov 12 12:04:49 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:04:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] prefs In-Reply-To: <696309.50779.qm@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <696309.50779.qm@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <491AC661.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> I'll get Bruschke to fix it. People are NOT supposed to add folks already on the list when they hire them, but people always ignore that instruction. GARY >>> J T 11/12/2008 12:00 PM >>> Chris Theile is listed 4 times! How does that work? W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University From jtedebate at yahoo.com Wed Nov 12 12:12:12 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:12:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Missing Judge Philosophies Message-ID: <745341.59617.qm@web30008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Can people have their judges upload philosophies asap?? Missing philosophies make it very difficult to do prefs...especially for 1st year critics! Thanks W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/cd578c6b/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Wed Nov 12 13:28:27 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:28:27 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] MPJ across divisions Message-ID: I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd problem. Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their open teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible will be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. Darren's example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that they are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with Darrens point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging at our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the other serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could have learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily excluded from judging. I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the development of a new community understanding), 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their students. 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my vision of how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, I could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be on the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in and would be ranked accordingly. Here are the benefits: a) each division still gets prefs b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV and novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. I'm sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace Saez, etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy to dedicate a judge to that division only. c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better coach the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have judged/scouted the competition and can give the team they are coaching more specific pre-round prep advise. d) no massive loss of elegible judging My two cents. Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/1cbe691b/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 13:54:06 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:54:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think the tab from West Point (Patrice/Rubino) and the tab from West Conn have pretty good counter-examples of using preferred judges across divisions that we may want to examine. West Point does use an ABC/strike system in all divisions. Of course, they also put the "lay" judges in Open Finals ... but overall the recent move to prefs has worked very well for both years. Joe and Kathryn may have some specific insight on this if we do a formal follow-up. Neil Berch was primarily tabbing West Conn, which gave each division the same amount of strikes I believe, but no additional prefs. Any tournament that has Ken Strange judging multiple jv rounds and Sherry Hall giving feedback to novices in prelims may also give us some insight into how to ensure we allow our emerging debaters to have some of the best feedback available.. (Sherry also judged elims in nov and jv, as did Ken). Also, 3 of our most preferred judges in the entire region (based on past prefs) also judged all three divisions in the tournament. One common thing I know about both of these tab rooms is that they primarily leave things to the program, with only minor changes (Neil was very excited when the computer decided that only women would judge in Open for one round). But this may be affected by a second criteria - division numbers. West Point broke to partial-doubles in novice, West Conn broke to Octs. In both tournaments novice was clearly the largest division. Assuming it is the "biggest" division that is paired first or has the most break rounds, it could conceivably change the ordering priorities of tabulation. Of course, these are also examples of tournaments where novice debate itself is a very high priority. Finally, Jake brings up an interesting point about how "novice only eligible" judges may skew preferencing. One criteria I would emphasize that affects this is the availability of judging philosophies. Many novice only judges don't have them. In fact, if there is a lesser known judge with a philosophy, versus one without, I think many of us prefer the more known quantity. Most judges aren't a Jessica Yeats or a Josh Kernoff, who will get rounds at Harvard whether or not they have a philosophy up (yes, that's a reminder). A novice only judge is likely to have little-to-no reputation, making them automatically less preferred. In our region we have a number of Open debaters who regularly judge - and some can fill a commitment, and some can't, but if all other criteria are equal, in theory there shouldn't be as much of a skew. I think an interesting tournament to look at might be Richmond - they have offered the same type of prefering in ALL divisions for years (previously just strike, now multiple categories). It might be a good start for a "control" if we want to analyze the data. It has some novice only judges, as well a diversity of argumentation leanings by both the debaters and the judging pool, so it forces some choice more than some other larger Open tournaments. The Novice teach in round might even offer an interesting comparison for pairing 2 versus 3 divisions. I think ultimately it is important to understand that the MPJ rule will NOT change the competitive or educational focus of a tournament that has existed historically. And I think that intent is a lot more of a factor than any rule we can possibly make for the CEDA constitution. -VIK 2008/11/12 > > I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ > across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational > tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd > problem. > > Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with > slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their open > teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible will > be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. Darren's > example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most > preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that they > are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are > learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with Darrens > point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging at > our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the other > serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could have > learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily excluded > from judging. > > I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the development > of a new community understanding), > > 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not > summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their > students. > > 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but > only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my vision of > how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, I > could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge > between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be on > the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in and > would be ranked accordingly. > > Here are the benefits: > a) each division still gets prefs > b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV and > novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. I'm > sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace Saez, > etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy to > dedicate a judge to that division only. > c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better coach > the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have judged/scouted > the competition and can give the team they are coaching more > specific pre-round prep advise. > d) no massive loss of elegible judging > > My two cents. > > Jake > > Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. > Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > Assistant Professor In Residence > Greenspun College of Urban Affairs > Department of Communication Studies > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 > Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 > office (702) 895-3474 > fax (702) 895-4805 > cell (702) 809-9670 > > Rebel Debate on the web: > www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -- 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/20081112/907310eb/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Wed Nov 12 14:00:08 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:00:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions Message-ID: <491AE168020000930001F745@mymail.kckcc.edu> Jake, Interesting comments that I plan to give some thought to. (Right now inundated in the D3 discussion over AFA rules). In the meantime can someone forward me Bruschke's post on this that Jake alludes to? CEDA-L messages are not all coming through. I am hesitant to post to ceda-l because of this. At least edebate is archived where I can easily see the 10-12 posts a day I miss. thanks, chief >>> 11/12/08 1:28 PM >>> I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd problem. Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their open teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible will be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. Darren's example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that they are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with Darrens point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging at our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the other serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could have learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily excluded from judging. I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the development of a new community understanding), 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their students. 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my vision of how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, I could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be on the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in and would be ranked accordingly. Here are the benefits: a) each division still gets prefs b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV and novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. I'm sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace Saez, etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy to dedicate a judge to that division only. c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better coach the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have judged/scouted the competition and can give the team they are coaching more specific pre-round prep advise. d) no massive loss of elegible judging My two cents. Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate From stables at usc.edu Wed Nov 12 14:05:20 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:05:20 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions In-Reply-To: <491AE168020000930001F745@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <491AE168020000930001F745@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <013e01c94501$fd460c80$f7d22580$@edu> CEDA-L uses the same platform as edebate and has the same archive system. CEDA-L archives are publicly available at http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/ The two lists are similar except that CEDA-L has a restricted posting membership. Emails may take a few minutes to process on either list. Folks may not also have their posting subscription enabled on both accounts. Jon's email is on the edebate archives at http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-November/076855.html 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 -----Original Message----- From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Darren Elliott Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:00 PM To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com; Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions Jake, Interesting comments that I plan to give some thought to. (Right now inundated in the D3 discussion over AFA rules). In the meantime can someone forward me Bruschke's post on this that Jake alludes to? CEDA-L messages are not all coming through. I am hesitant to post to ceda-l because of this. At least edebate is archived where I can easily see the 10-12 posts a day I miss. thanks, chief >>> 11/12/08 1:28 PM >>> I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd problem. Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their open teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible will be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. Darren's example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that they are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with Darrens point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging at our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the other serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could have learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily excluded from judging. I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the development of a new community understanding), 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their students. 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my vision of how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, I could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be on the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in and would be ranked accordingly. Here are the benefits: a) each division still gets prefs b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV and novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. I'm sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace Saez, etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy to dedicate a judge to that division only. c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better coach the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have judged/scouted the competition and can give the team they are coaching more specific pre-round prep advise. d) no massive loss of elegible judging My two cents. Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From berchnorto at msn.com Wed Nov 12 14:11:48 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:11:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Four notes on the West Conn tournament: 1. Each division had 7 strikes, no other prefs. The tougher conditiion would be with prefs. 2. The fact that the novice division was the largest was probably the biggest factor in placing superstar judges in Novice (that's just where most of the judging was). 3. In each round, I first placed judges in the most constrained pool (Open), and worked my way to the least constrained. Gary's point about the order in which you place judges determining average preference between divisions doesn't apply when there are only strikes (regardless of division, everyone got non-struck judges, of course). 4. No judge was struck by more than 50% of teams, if memory serves me correctly. --Neil Berch West Virginia University >From: "V I Keenan" >To: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu >CC: edebate at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:54:06 -0500 > >I think the tab from West Point (Patrice/Rubino) and the tab from West Conn >have pretty good counter-examples of using preferred judges across >divisions >that we may want to examine. West Point does use an ABC/strike system in >all divisions. Of course, they also put the "lay" judges in Open Finals >... >but overall the recent move to prefs has worked very well for both years. >Joe and Kathryn may have some specific insight on this if we do a formal >follow-up. > >Neil Berch was primarily tabbing West Conn, which gave each division the >same amount of strikes I believe, but no additional prefs. Any tournament >that has Ken Strange judging multiple jv rounds and Sherry Hall giving >feedback to novices in prelims may also give us some insight into how to >ensure we allow our emerging debaters to have some of the best feedback >available.. (Sherry also judged elims in nov and jv, as did Ken). Also, 3 >of our most preferred judges in the entire region (based on past prefs) >also >judged all three divisions in the tournament. > >One common thing I know about both of these tab rooms is that they >primarily >leave things to the program, with only minor changes (Neil was very excited >when the computer decided that only women would judge in Open for one >round). But this may be affected by a second criteria - division numbers. > >West Point broke to partial-doubles in novice, West Conn broke to Octs. In >both tournaments novice was clearly the largest division. Assuming it is >the "biggest" division that is paired first or has the most break rounds, >it >could conceivably change the ordering priorities of tabulation. Of course, >these are also examples of tournaments where novice debate itself is a very >high priority. > >Finally, Jake brings up an interesting point about how "novice only >eligible" judges may skew preferencing. One criteria I would emphasize >that >affects this is the availability of judging philosophies. Many novice only >judges don't have them. In fact, if there is a lesser known judge with a >philosophy, versus one without, I think many of us prefer the more known >quantity. Most judges aren't a Jessica Yeats or a Josh Kernoff, who will >get rounds at Harvard whether or not they have a philosophy up (yes, that's >a reminder). A novice only judge is likely to have little-to-no >reputation, >making them automatically less preferred. In our region we have a number >of >Open debaters who regularly judge - and some can fill a commitment, and >some >can't, but if all other criteria are equal, in theory there shouldn't be as >much of a skew. > >I think an interesting tournament to look at might be Richmond - they have >offered the same type of prefering in ALL divisions for years (previously >just strike, now multiple categories). It might be a good start for a >"control" if we want to analyze the data. It has some novice only judges, >as well a diversity of argumentation leanings by both the debaters and the >judging pool, so it forces some choice more than some other larger Open >tournaments. The Novice teach in round might even offer an interesting >comparison for pairing 2 versus 3 divisions. > >I think ultimately it is important to understand that the MPJ rule will NOT >change the competitive or educational focus of a tournament that has >existed >historically. And I think that intent is a lot more of a factor than any >rule we can possibly make for the CEDA constitution. > >-VIK > > >2008/11/12 > > > > > I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ > > across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational > > tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd > > problem. > > > > Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with > > slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their >open > > teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible >will > > be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. >Darren's > > example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the most > > preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that >they > > are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are > > learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with >Darrens > > point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging >at > > our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the >other > > serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could >have > > learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily >excluded > > from judging. > > > > I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the >development > > of a new community understanding), > > > > 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should not > > summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their > > students. > > > > 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but > > only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my >vision of > > how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, >I > > could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge > > between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be >on > > the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in >and > > would be ranked accordingly. > > > > Here are the benefits: > > a) each division still gets prefs > > b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV >and > > novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. >I'm > > sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace >Saez, > > etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be happy >to > > dedicate a judge to that division only. > > c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better >coach > > the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have >judged/scouted > > the competition and can give the team they are coaching more > > specific pre-round prep advise. > > d) no massive loss of elegible judging > > > > My two cents. > > > > Jake > > > > Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. > > Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > > Assistant Professor In Residence > > Greenspun College of Urban Affairs > > Department of Communication Studies > > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > > 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 > > Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 > > office (702) 895-3474 > > fax (702) 895-4805 > > cell (702) 809-9670 > > > > Rebel Debate on the web: > > www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > > > > >-- >Vik Keenan >Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY >Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges >212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From joepatrice at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 14:13:52 2008 From: joepatrice at gmail.com (Joe Patrice) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:13:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Also, at West Point there was one instance of people not understanding that their rankings changed depending on the division of the team. But beyond that it worked OK. On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:11 PM, NEIL BERCH wrote: > Four notes on the West Conn tournament: > 1. Each division had 7 strikes, no other prefs. The tougher conditiion > would be with prefs. > 2. The fact that the novice division was the largest was probably the > biggest factor in placing superstar judges in Novice (that's just where > most > of the judging was). > 3. In each round, I first placed judges in the most constrained pool > (Open), and worked my way to the least constrained. Gary's point about the > order in which you place judges determining average preference between > divisions doesn't apply when there are only strikes (regardless of > division, > everyone got non-struck judges, of course). > 4. No judge was struck by more than 50% of teams, if memory serves me > correctly. > > --Neil Berch > West Virginia University > > >From: "V I Keenan" > >To: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu > >CC: edebate at ndtceda.com, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com > >Subject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] MPJ across divisions > >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:54:06 -0500 > > > >I think the tab from West Point (Patrice/Rubino) and the tab from West > Conn > >have pretty good counter-examples of using preferred judges across > >divisions > >that we may want to examine. West Point does use an ABC/strike system in > >all divisions. Of course, they also put the "lay" judges in Open Finals > >... > >but overall the recent move to prefs has worked very well for both years. > >Joe and Kathryn may have some specific insight on this if we do a formal > >follow-up. > > > >Neil Berch was primarily tabbing West Conn, which gave each division the > >same amount of strikes I believe, but no additional prefs. Any tournament > >that has Ken Strange judging multiple jv rounds and Sherry Hall giving > >feedback to novices in prelims may also give us some insight into how to > >ensure we allow our emerging debaters to have some of the best feedback > >available.. (Sherry also judged elims in nov and jv, as did Ken). Also, 3 > >of our most preferred judges in the entire region (based on past prefs) > >also > >judged all three divisions in the tournament. > > > >One common thing I know about both of these tab rooms is that they > >primarily > >leave things to the program, with only minor changes (Neil was very > excited > >when the computer decided that only women would judge in Open for one > >round). But this may be affected by a second criteria - division numbers. > > > >West Point broke to partial-doubles in novice, West Conn broke to Octs. > In > >both tournaments novice was clearly the largest division. Assuming it is > >the "biggest" division that is paired first or has the most break rounds, > >it > >could conceivably change the ordering priorities of tabulation. Of > course, > >these are also examples of tournaments where novice debate itself is a > very > >high priority. > > > >Finally, Jake brings up an interesting point about how "novice only > >eligible" judges may skew preferencing. One criteria I would emphasize > >that > >affects this is the availability of judging philosophies. Many novice > only > >judges don't have them. In fact, if there is a lesser known judge with a > >philosophy, versus one without, I think many of us prefer the more known > >quantity. Most judges aren't a Jessica Yeats or a Josh Kernoff, who will > >get rounds at Harvard whether or not they have a philosophy up (yes, > that's > >a reminder). A novice only judge is likely to have little-to-no > >reputation, > >making them automatically less preferred. In our region we have a number > >of > >Open debaters who regularly judge - and some can fill a commitment, and > >some > >can't, but if all other criteria are equal, in theory there shouldn't be > as > >much of a skew. > > > >I think an interesting tournament to look at might be Richmond - they have > >offered the same type of prefering in ALL divisions for years (previously > >just strike, now multiple categories). It might be a good start for a > >"control" if we want to analyze the data. It has some novice only judges, > >as well a diversity of argumentation leanings by both the debaters and the > >judging pool, so it forces some choice more than some other larger Open > >tournaments. The Novice teach in round might even offer an interesting > >comparison for pairing 2 versus 3 divisions. > > > >I think ultimately it is important to understand that the MPJ rule will > NOT > >change the competitive or educational focus of a tournament that has > >existed > >historically. And I think that intent is a lot more of a factor than any > >rule we can possibly make for the CEDA constitution. > > > >-VIK > > > > > >2008/11/12 > > > > > > > > I'd like to second Jon Bruschke's concern about problems related to MPJ > > > across divisions. Based on our experience at the UNLV invitational > > > tournament this year, respecting MPJ across divisions creates an odd > > > problem. > > > > > > Most teams/coaches appear to simply copy the prefs (or copy them with > > > slight modifications) for their JV and novice teams from one of their > >open > > > teams. This means that the judges who are only Novice or JV elegible > >will > > > be struck or ranked incredibly low by most JV and novice teams. > >Darren's > > > example of his novice or JV teams wanting feedback from some of the > most > > > preferred judges in the country exemplifies this point... It means that > >they > > > are much less interested in feedback from new judges who are > > > learning/developing their judging skills. While I sympathise with > >Darrens > > > point, in the end, we lost many, many, many elegible rounds of judging > >at > > > our tournament because of MPJ across divisions. As Jon points out the > >other > > > serious downside of this quandry is that many of the judges who could > >have > > > learned and improved in the novice and JV divisions were summarily > >excluded > > > from judging. > > > > > > I think the rule needs some serious revision (or at least the > >development > > > of a new community understanding), > > > > > > 1) at a bare minimum, coaches or the folks who fill out prefs should > not > > > summarily dismiss novice or JV only elegible judges from judging their > > > students. > > > > > > 2) Ideally, I believe that we should consider MPJ across divisions, but > > > only within discrete judguing pools for each division. Here is my > >vision of > > > how the system would work: if I bring a JV or novice team to a tourney, > >I > > > could select a UNLV judge for that division (or even split that judge > > > between 2 divisions--i.e. 2 uin JV and 2 in Open. That judge would be > >on > > > the pref sheet only for the divisions that they were slated to judge in > >and > > > would be ranked accordingly. > > > > > > Here are the benefits: > > > a) each division still gets prefs > > > b) fairly good judges would be entered in the pool for the JV > >and > > > novice divisions--any of my assistant coaches are a perfect example. > >I'm > > > sure that Darren's team would get great feedback from Grace > >Saez, > > > etc. We'll take at least 1 JV team to the cal swing, and would be > happy > >to > > > dedicate a judge to that division only. > > > c) the judge for your team judging in novice or JV can better > >coach > > > the novice or JV team(s) they are judging for. They may have > >judged/scouted > > > the competition and can give the team they are coaching more > > > specific pre-round prep advise. > > > d) no massive loss of elegible judging > > > > > > My two cents. > > > > > > Jake > > > > > > Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. > > > Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > > > Assistant Professor In Residence > > > Greenspun College of Urban Affairs > > > Department of Communication Studies > > > University of Nevada, Las Vegas > > > 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 > > > Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 > > > office (702) 895-3474 > > > fax (702) 895-4805 > > > cell (702) 809-9670 > > > > > > Rebel Debate on the web: > > > www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CEDA-L mailing list > > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >Vik Keenan > >Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY > >Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges > >212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >eDebate mailing list > >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081112/9043daee/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Nov 12 14:17:37 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:17:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] pitt's h. rights conference Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB8440649954B@castor.richmond.edu> just saw this on the rhetoric list and thought some people here might be interested... kevin -----Original Message----- From: H-NET List for the History of Rhetoric [mailto:H-RHETOR at H-NET.MSU.EDU] On Behalf Of h-rhetor, Linda Vavra Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:37 PM To: H-RHETOR at H-NET.MSU.EDU Subject: Save the Date: Public Address Conference on Human Rights Rhetoric Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:21:27 -0500 (EST) From: "Lester C. Olson" The Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh will be hosting the 22nd biennial Public Address Conference in Pittsburgh, PA on Sept. 30-Oct. 2, 2010. The theme of the conference is Human Rights Rhetoric: Controversies, Conundrums, and Community Actions. David Zarefksy, Owen L Coon Professor of Argumentation and Debate and Professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University, will be honored for his substantial contributions to public address, rhetoric, argument,and academic debate. Preliminary information about the conference theme and honoree can be found by using a link directly from the main page of the Department of Communication at Pitt or by using this link: https://sslvpn.pitt.edu/~olson/,DanaInfo=www.pitt.edu+ As the conference date approaches, the website will be updated with details on the schedule of presenters and respondents, conference registration, transportation, and lodging. This preliminary note alerts you to save the date. Contact Lester C. Olson at olson at pitt.edu for additional information. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/15d9f54c/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Nov 12 14:57:21 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (lacyjp) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:57:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Missing Pre-Shirley Disclosure In-Reply-To: <4913917C.9040607@wfu.edu> References: <4913917C.9040607@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <491B4331.4040304@wfu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/891137b6/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Wed Nov 12 15:15:58 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:15:58 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Shirley judging and pref update - DEADLINE 2:00 PM Friday Message-ID: <491AF32E.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> 1) Since a number of changes have been made today to the judge list for Wake, if you completed your prefs before noon today, make sure that you double-check them in the next couple of days to verify that you've ranked all judges. 2) A number of schools with three or four teams have not designated how they will cover the additional round for each of those teams. Please verify your number of rounds ASAP and communicate any changes in your obligations to me. 3) According to my records, we should have a "surplus" of 23 rounds based on the number of 3rd and 4th teams. Aggregate pref will be much better if we had additional rounds. For a tournament the size of Wake, it is anticipated that 35-40 rounds total would be ideal. Since a number of judges in the pool only have obligations of 1-2 rounds, if anyone would be willing to "volunteer" or "hire out" additional rounds to the tournament, it would be greatly appreciated. You can communicate your willingness to both Ross and to me. THANKS Gary From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Nov 12 15:38:15 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:38:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Shirley judge commitments -- please correct Message-ID: <491B4CC7.2060408@wfu.edu> From the invitation: Each school must provide 3 rounds of prelim judging for each of their first two teams and 4 rounds of judging for each additional team. Based on the latest info Larson has via debateresults, the following schools are short: Baylor - 1 Dartmouth -4 George Mason -1 Samford -3 Towson -1 Whitman -2 Wyoming -1 Please let Gary know how you will be fixing this. Thanks. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 15:47:48 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:47:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] App State Prefs Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811121347o13afc4b4x1588b826a9d6d135@mail.gmail.com> Are up and ready to go. Rank one third of the judges in each category (1, 2 or 3). Any questions. Just ask. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Nov 12 15:51:08 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:51:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Child care needs at Shirley? Message-ID: <491B4FCC.4010704@wfu.edu> Let me know and we will provide for you. Thanks. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 16:15:01 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:15:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Guidelines Message-ID: I'd encourage everyone to contact their district chairs about the content of these upcoming rules proposals. They are vague and subjective and I'd encourage everyone to get out the vote to oppose them. At the very least, people ought to know the rules that may be potentially enacted in their names. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/83f04537/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 16:19:50 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:19:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The AFA proposal Message-ID: Is attached. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/a18c3db3/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AFA Professional Conduct Policy-2008.doc Type: application/msword Size: 59392 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/a18c3db3/attachment.doc From berchnorto at msn.com Wed Nov 12 16:36:56 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:36:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The AFA proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Three things: 1. Is just the stuff that's underlined the new proposal? Much of the rest looks very familiar. 2. Indeed, the rest includes my favorite line from the AFA Code (which was copied word-for-word into the ADA rules as well): "Their tournament is not run to benefit financially the best school". That phrase has been in there for at least 10 years. When I first started coaching, I read it and thought that there was prize money involved, or maybe that it was a prohibition on prize money (NOTE: "best" is supposed to be "host"). If we're amending this document, a significant editing is in order. 3. On the substance of Jason's complaint, I find it hard to judge. I assume some of this is a response to the CEDA Nats situation (but I don't know that for sure). It's certainly sad if that's what we're legislating here, but I'm not clear about that from the document (are we legislating behavior in rounds, out of rounds, both??). I'm skeptical about the need for this (think it could be solved through common-sense instead), but I'd like to hear from proponents and opponents. --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: Jason Russell To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:19 PM Subject: [eDebate] The AFA proposal Is attached. J _______________________________________________ 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/20081112/16bfee87/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Wed Nov 12 16:59:04 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:59:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Constraints Message-ID: <491B0B58.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> I just downloaded all of the constraints that have been entered on Bruschke's site as well as any e-mails sent to me. If you ADD any constraints to Bruschke's site after 5:00 PM today, make sure that you ALSO communicate them with me. GARY From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 19:01:00 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:01:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Specifics Message-ID: It's come to my attention that my position on the ADA rules should be more clear. Here are my specific complaints. *"outside the specific time period when a student is competing in a round during a tournament" -- For how long? When I'm at home? When I'm at the hotel? When I'm at lunch? Is there any time period this does not extend to? * "*behaviors which belittle, degrade, demean, or otherwise dehumanize others" -- Void for vagueness. No one knows exactly what this means, allowing this clause to be interpreted as strictly or as leniently as whoever the 6 people on this committee are see fit. * "the community standard of a healthy educational environment"-- There is no such standard. There is no community. This sounds a lot like the definition of pornography that says you know it when you see it. This is too subjective a standard to base our professional lives on. "barred from participation in AFA sponsored events for a specific length of time" -- Too arbitrary. This condition needs to be spelled out more specifically and associated with potential behaviors. It also concerns me that this is the only mechanism for censure that has any teeth. No probation, no counsel, no warning. Just "slap on the wrist" or "ban". Surely there is some more moderate move here. I know that there is a rush to "do something" because of the Great Ass-Out of 2008, but this rush to act should be more well-thought out than this, especially with individuals' careers on the line. Keep in mind that a ban from ADA activities for those of us that are debate coaches is functionally the same thing as being fired. It's an extreme solution and should be approached with extreme caution. In this case, a bad rule is worse than no rule at all. I am opposed to granting blanket authority to an unelected committee that could fire myself or my colleagues for standards I disagree with. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/47ac889a/attachment.htm From bk2nocal at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 19:28:29 2008 From: bk2nocal at gmail.com (Sue Peterson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 17:28:29 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Specifics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <417507f50811121728x1c4df7cfs52a13c9e8e6929f1@mail.gmail.com> Not a challenge, just a question - you say the rules should be more clear and you identify places where the clarity needs to be obtained, but I am more interested in ways of making it more clear - do you have any ideas on that? I would appreciate some specific suggestions for changes rather than getting into an all-or-nothing let's pass it as is or do away with it as is. I wish we could have started this conversation earlier, but we have two weeks and I would like to hash out our options on making this doable vs. just throwing it out. --Sue On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Jason Russell wrote: > It's come to my attention that my position on the ADA rules should be more > clear. Here are my specific complaints. > > *"outside the specific time period when a student is competing in a round > during a tournament" -- For how long? When I'm at home? When I'm at the > hotel? When I'm at lunch? Is there any time period this does not extend to? > * > > "*behaviors which belittle, degrade, demean, or otherwise dehumanize > others" -- Void for vagueness. No one knows exactly what this means, > allowing this clause to be interpreted as strictly or as leniently as > whoever the 6 people on this committee are see fit. * > "the community standard of a healthy educational environment"-- There is > no such standard. There is no community. This sounds a lot like the > definition of pornography that says you know it when you see it. This is too > subjective a standard to base our professional lives on. > > "barred from participation in AFA sponsored events for a specific length of > time" -- Too arbitrary. This condition needs to be spelled out more > specifically and associated with potential behaviors. It also concerns me > that this is the only mechanism for censure that has any teeth. No > probation, no counsel, no warning. Just "slap on the wrist" or "ban". Surely > there is some more moderate move here. > > I know that there is a rush to "do something" because of the Great Ass-Out > of 2008, but this rush to act should be more well-thought out than this, > especially with individuals' careers on the line. Keep in mind that a ban > from ADA activities for those of us that are debate coaches is functionally > the same thing as being fired. It's an extreme solution and should be > approached with extreme caution. In this case, a bad rule is worse than no > rule at all. I am opposed to granting blanket authority to an unelected > committee that could fire myself or my colleagues for standards I disagree > with. > > J > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Sue Peterson, Director of Speech and Debate at CSU Chico sepeterson at csuchico.edu 530-898-4771 "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/20081112/a19ebe6d/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Wed Nov 12 19:28:27 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:28:27 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake pref update Message-ID: <491B2E5B.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> I notice that a significant number of teams have entered prefs for 143 judges. There are now 146 judges in the pool, so everyone who's completed prefs should provide rankings for the additional three judges. GARY From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 19:35:00 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:35:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Specifics In-Reply-To: <417507f50811121728x1c4df7cfs52a13c9e8e6929f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <417507f50811121728x1c4df7cfs52a13c9e8e6929f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Honestly, as written, I can't see a precise version of these rules. I have no idea what the intent was in writing these rules, which behaviors they intend to prohibit and which they intend to allow, and the fear of witch hunting is and ought to be strong. I don't see a two week solution to the problems in these statutes. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/b4ffa4b3/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Wed Nov 12 19:47:14 2008 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 20:47:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Contacting Idaho State Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70811121747k30844f4pa02f9eeb1fa0c5ff@mail.gmail.com> want to discuss details about the UNLV final round. specifically, the possibility of taking care of this friday night at wake. hester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081112/6b8b7df4/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Nov 12 21:01:10 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:01:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Missing Pre-Shirley Disclosure In-Reply-To: <491B4331.4040304@wfu.edu> References: <4913917C.9040607@wfu.edu> <491B4331.4040304@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <491B9876.2050709@wfu.edu> Thanks to everyone who has posted information so far! As of 10 Eastern, below are the teams who are missing Pre-Shirley disclosure. If you haven't submitted intel, please post it to the wiki (Fast) or email it to reedac7 at wfu.edu & lacyjp at wfu.edu (Slow & Unreliable.) [This may be as easy as saying "Our stuff from X & Y tournament is accurate and complete."] If you need more details about how & what to submit, scroll to the bottom of this email. Thanks again! --JP Binghamton Matthew Torsiello & Bill Sebelle Aff/Neg Binghamton Lauren Cameron & Peter Fountain Aff/Neg California Mike Burshteyn & Jacob Polin Aff ADD ONS?? Case Western David Mattern & Andrew Wolf Aff/Neg City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Clarion University Aaron Swanlek & Andrew Zachar Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/Neg Aff/Neg CSU Fullerton Caitlin Gray & Bryce Bridge Aff/Neg Dartmouth Cyrus Akrami & Caroline Brandt Aff/Neg Emory Ovais Inamullah & Ana Nikolic Aff Emory Nicholas Miller & Chipp Schwab Aff Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas Aff Emporia State U. Ryan Wash & LaToya Williams-Green Neg Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Georgetown Dorothy Hector & Lucy Zhu Aff Georgetown Cody Forrester & Bon Koo Aff Georgia State Kevin Bottoms & Josh Grace Neg *needs more neg intel Gonzaga Brent Hamilton & James Joseph Neg Gonzaga Karina Momary & Leah Moczulski Neg Harvard Tripp Rebrovick & Geoff Smith Aff Harvard Elizabeth Kim & Catalina Santos Neg Idaho State Lindsay Vanluvanee & Andrew Ridgeway Aff/Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg Iowa Kiran Dhillon & Nat Olson Aff John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Aff/Neg Kansas (Univ. of) Brett Bricker & Nate Johnson Aff Kansas (Univ. of) Chris Stone & Mark Wilkins Neg Kansas (Univ. of) Erum Shah & Patrick Kennedy Aff/Neg Kansas State Rafi Ahmadullah & Brett Farmer Aff/Neg Kansas State Beth Mendenhall & Derek Ziegler Aff/Neg Kansas State John Grice & Jordan Hanson Aff/Neg Kentucky AJ O'Donnell & Mike Gentile Aff/Neg Kentucky Suneet Gautam & Bryan Gort Neg Liberty University Michelle Oh & Joshua Turnage Neg Liberty University Eddie Fitzgerald & Jeff White Neg Liberty University Amy Boyd & Ben Hagwood Aff/Neg Louisville Sarah Powell & Rosie Washington Aff/Neg Louisville Marian Kennedy & Chris Vincent Aff/Neg Michigan State Univ. Gustavo Eyzaguirre & Sam Shore Aff/Neg Michigan State Univ. Garrett Abelkop & Carly Wunderlich Aff/Neg Michigan University Maria Liu & Edmund Zagorin Aff/Neg Michigan University Lina Rudashevski & Lee Reed Aff/Neg Minnesota Arif Hasan & Logan Chin Aff/Neg Minnesota Daryl Pinto & Kelly Nickel Aff/Neg Missouri State Jordan Foley & Clay Webb Aff/ Missouri State Jace Gilmore & Aaron Kruse Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Andrew Allsup & Juan Garcia Aff/Neg Nevada Las Vegas Travis Cochran & Austin Mueller Aff/Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Aff/Neg North Texas (Univ.) Kuntal Cholera & Grant Peretz Neg Northwestern Matt Fisher & John Warden Aff Oklahoma R.J. Giglio & Nick Watts Aff/Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Mycal Kelly & James Farr Aff/Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Aff/Neg Samford Dan Bagwell & Logan Gramzinski Neg Samford Jayme Cloninger & Ben Johnson Aff/Neg Southern California Mike Jones & Mima Lazarevic Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Neg Texas Laura Boyle & Nick Scott Aff/Neg Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil Aff/Neg Texas San Antonio Christopher Thomas & Andy Montee Aff/Neg Texas-Dallas Andrew Baker & Brian Rubaie Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg Trinity University john elson & Nick Burr Aff U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Geneva Hackler & Alex Pasquinelli Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Baldomero Gonzalez & Michelle Kesling Aff/Neg Weber State Univ. Stacy Dawson & Shola Adesanwo Aff/Neg Weber State Univ. Isa Tausinga & Brian Bryngelson Aff/Neg West Georgia Jadon Marianetti & Zak Schaller Aff/Neg West Georgia Vince Binder & Jim Schultz Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson Aff/Neg Wyoming Sam Allen & Jamie Piechura Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg On 11/6/2008 7:53 PM, JP Lacy wrote: >> [Summary: Post stuff on wiki soon. If you have intel that isn't "self >> disclosure" post that too.] >> >> Once again, we're looking forward to scouting the Shirley. >> >> Our goal is to upgrade the scouting at opencaselist.wikispaces.com as >> much as possible. This will take effort from each participant in the >> tournament. In the end, I hope the effort will pay off by helping >> everyone debate better. >> >> To facilitate scouting during the tournament, we need a good deal of >> pre-tournament information. That way, everyone scouting can focus on >> upgrading what we've already got & gathering new information. >> >> You can submit your information two ways: >> >> 1. Become a member of the wiki & post it (Easy, just label your stuff >> "Pre-Shirley") Just go to http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/ and click >> "join . . ." Be sure to include information that identifies you as a >> debater/coach for a school in your request to join. >> >> 2. Email it to me: lacyjp at wfu.edu (This way may work, but it's slow & >> doesn't get common cite requests out of your hair as quickly) >> >> >> Target deadline: Midnight, Wednesday, November 12. >> >> >> Expectations: >> >> Affirmative Disclosure-- >> >> Plan text(s) you've read. >> Complete 1ac outline(s) with full cites [Author, Source, Date,URL, page >> #s, First & Last phrases.] >> 2ac add-ons >> 2ac answers to common negative positions (including off case args & >> major case arguments) >> If your 1ac is not 'traditional', describe your affirmative in as much >> detail as necessary to provide the opposition the equivalent of the >> above. [Plus full cites for anything that can be cited] >> >> Negative Disclosure-- >> >> Basic rule: Disclose the quantity & quality of information you'd want >> from a team when you are affirmative. >> Include at minimum the generic strategies you've deployed thus far, with >> a complete outline & full citations as described above. >> >> I say this every year: A good norm to strive for is MSU's Pre-Shirley >> disclosure from the courts topic at >> http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/Michigan+State+Neg#toc2 >> >> We don't expect you to disclose new arguments. Keeping 'caselist-able' >> electronic versions of new arguments is a great idea. >> >> Thanks! >> --JP Lacy >> lacyjp at wfu.edu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20081112/2031b60a/attachment.htm From andreareed2007 at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 02:40:42 2008 From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com (Andrea Reed) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 03:40:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Scouting- Still Needed Message-ID: <55B7B407-C611-4BAD-9CEB-6AFD52AD99F6@gmail.com> Teams without Wake disclosure still...... Its Thursday now... You have run out of days to procrastinate... post ASAP please.... Binghamton Matthew Torsiello & Bill Sebelle Aff/ Neg Binghamton Lauren Cameron & Peter Fountain Aff/Neg Case Western David Mattern & Andrew Wolf Aff/Neg City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Clarion University Aaron Swanlek & Andrew Zachar Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/ Neg Aff/Neg CSU Fullerton Caitlin Gray & Bryce Bridge Aff/Neg Dartmouth Cyrus Akrami & Caroline Brandt Aff/Neg Emory Ovais Inamullah & Ana Nikolic Aff Emory Nicholas Miller & Chipp Schwab Aff Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas Aff Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Georgia State Kevin Bottoms & Josh Grace Neg - need full cites** Gonzaga Karina Momary & Leah Moczulski Neg Idaho State Lindsay Vanluvanee & Andrew Ridgeway Aff/Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg Iowa Kiran Dhillon & Nat Olson Aff John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Aff/Neg Kansas (Univ. of) Brett Bricker & Nate Johnson Aff Kansas State Rafi Ahmadullah & Brett Farmer Aff/ Neg Kansas State Beth Mendenhall & Derek Ziegler Aff/ Neg Kansas State John Grice & Jordan Hanson Aff/Neg Kentucky AJ O'Donnell & Mike Gentile Aff Liberty University Michelle Oh & Joshua Turnage Neg Liberty University Eddie Fitzgerald & Jeff White Neg Liberty University Amy Boyd & Ben Hagwood Aff/Neg Louisville Sarah Powell & Rosie Washington Aff/Neg Louisville Marian Kennedy & Chris Vincent Aff/Neg Michigan University Maria Liu & Edmund Zagorin Aff/Neg Michigan University Lina Rudashevski & Lee Reed Neg Minnesota Arif Hasan & Logan Chin Aff/Neg Minnesota Daryl Pinto & Kelly Nickel Aff/Neg Missouri State Jordan Foley & Clay Webb Aff/ Missouri State Jace Gilmore & Aaron Kruse Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Andrew Allsup & Juan Garcia Aff/Neg Nevada Las Vegas Travis Cochran & Austin Mueller Aff/Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Neg Oklahoma R.J. Giglio & Nick Watts Aff/Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Neg Samford Dan Bagwell & Logan Gramzinski Neg Samford Jayme Cloninger & Ben Johnson Aff/Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Neg Texas Laura Boyle & Nick Scott Aff/Neg Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil Aff/Neg Texas-Dallas Andrew Baker & Brian Rubaie Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg Trinity University john elson & Nick Burr Aff U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Geneva Hackler & Alex Pasquinelli Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Baldomero Gonzalez & Michelle Kesling Aff/Neg Weber State Univ. Stacy Dawson & Shola Adesanwo Aff/Neg Weber State Univ. Isa Tausinga & Brian Bryngelson Aff/Neg West Georgia Jadon Marianetti & Zak Schaller Aff/ Neg West Georgia Vince Binder & Jim Schultz Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Thu Nov 13 10:03:36 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:03:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ordinals for wake In-Reply-To: <8F1214AF088DD246A7A0B489E89441321EFC250314@ac-ex07mb1.employee.directory.jccc> References: <8F1214AF088DD246A7A0B489E89441321EFC250314@ac-ex07mb1.employee.directory.jccc> Message-ID: <491BFB78.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Since I've received two very similar requests this AM, I'll post the answer to everyone. >>>Sorry to bother you - I know I did ordinals at CEDA, but I vaguely remember the process/rules of it all - could you briefly tell me what I am striving for? Can I rank people the same number? 1 is best? Sorry....just can't remember how it all worked. Using the tools that Jon provides, the simplest is to just rank non-constrained judges 1-X with no ties (1 is best). Most people do it this way. But, if you would like to have ties, they are permitted as long as the tie is at the top of the range rather than the middle or the bottom. As an illustration, if you are ranking the top 10 you can have 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 OR something like 1,1,1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 but you can't have 1,4,4,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 OR 1,3,3,3,5,6,7,8,9,10 The "rule" is that no judge in your top X judges can be ranked worse than X. The two "bad" examples each have the 2nd ranked judged ranked lower than 2. GARY From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 12:55:48 2008 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:55:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] AFA/CEDA Conduct Specifics Message-ID: <7fd76c680811131055p9831596jc90a7a1a0e8aabd4@mail.gmail.com> No rule is better than a bad rule -- agreed. Plus, a non-enforceable rule is also dangerous. If this rule passes and no one ever does anything to enforce it -- it just kinda is 'there' for PR purposes -- then what does that say about the rest of the governing rules of the AFA? What else is "just there"? Murder is illeagal at debate tournaments. However, the AFA doesn't regulate it in its governing documents. Similarly, assault is legally punishable. Furthermore, what happened over the summer demonstrated that university policies can regulate really over-the-top behavior. It also seems more likely that the rule(s) could be written unintentionally in a flawed manner or mis-appropriated (e.g. witch-hunt) in such a way that someone got fired (functionally) and sued the organization. Maybe I'm just not seeing it but it seems to me like the only way to create legal liability for the organization is to wade into those waters (e.g "I'm suing cause I got dehumed at a tournament and no one did anything"). Otherwise, it seems like whoever did the mooning/dehuming would be arrested/sued and the organization wouldn't be at fault. My biggest concern is not with the function of premptory laws preventing future 'lunar events'. I'm concerned with how this rush to pass a bunch of rules outlawing things we largely don't do makes us look. Someone who has ONLY seen the last summer's events on youtube probably has a skewed perception about debate. Then to hear that we are in a rush to ban fights, dehumanization, insults, mooning, chair-throwing, puppy murder, and whatever else probably thinks that any given debate tournament looks like an episode of Jerry Springer with a sprinkle of anarchy. As a matter of fact, it doesn't. Are we really making these rules because of some trend that we've seen in debate? Are 'dehum's' routine now and I missed it? Aside from CEDA's shenanigans, I've got a pretty good impression of how folks conduct themselves in the high-stress environment that is debate -- we don't fight, yell, or throw things at eachother. And if we do yell, we apologize later. Perhaps I'm just unaware of some growing trend of negativity and pejorative hatefulness that happens after rounds, but it seems to me like we are treating a problem that largely doesn't exist. PR class was a long time ago but I think I remember that if someone accuses an organization of having a problem, action to solve the problem corroborates the suspicion that it exists. I don't know why we can't just acknowledge that what happened at CEDA was an anomoly that was dealt with properly by the appropriate governing body -- the university whose policy was violated -- and move on. These rules will be enforced one of two ways: Either A: A Witch-hunt -- the vagueness of the standards will result in arbitrary and politically-motivated application which, as Jason points out, would functionally result in firing someone (who would likely sue both CEDA and the AFA). Or B: They won't be enforced at all -- in which case they only run the risk of making us look like we have a problem and calling into question the validity of other rules that are "just there". So why on earth are we considering this -- to take a stand??? To let the world know that the debate community is opposed to dehumanization? I would hope that that goes without saying. Perhaps not, so here are a few other things we should add to the list, just to make sure that the world at large doesn't think that we advocate them: 1. No to AIDS 2. No to Hunger 3. No to Violence against puppies Listen, I know that the advocates of these rule changes are trying to make debate better and safer, and I applaud you for that. My humor is not intended to be nasty or mean but sobering...I honestly think that everyone is over-reacting to debate's 15 minutes of fame over the summer. Adminstrators don't want to hear that we are taking action to decrease dehumanization in debate -- they want to hear that we are doing good things. "we've eliminated dehumanization in debate" is not an offensive argument -- it's just short-sighted, counter-productive PR move. Even though we are stressed-out and competitive, we are generally pretty respectful toward one another -- those of you who want to pass these rules know this, but "outsiders" don't and may formulate their opinions based on what actions we take to curtail this illusory problem. Maybe I'm wrong and someone can elighten me by telling me about some other event that has occured that would have been avoided/solved by having a rule outlawing "inappropriatness" or whatever it is that we are trying to make illegal. Seriously, tell me the situation that would've been 'fixed' by a rule. Or perhaps someone can explain to me how different CEDA or its protracted aftermath could have been if this rule was on the books then. Best I can figure, a rule wouldn't have kept Bill's pants on so what are we talking about here -- a stance? Fine. Add the thing about puppies and AIDS. Or just don't do it and stop worrying about fixing a problem that doesn't exist because you are slowly convincing the outside world that it does. To hear now that CEDA is thinking of doing something similarly vague and unenforceable/salem-esque is very frustrating. I think it is a reactionary reform grounded in groupthink and fear, not forward-thinking, smart PR. Maybe I'm wrong. If so, someone tell me: WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WHAT WILL THIS FIX? Maurer On 11/12/08, Jason Russell wrote: > Honestly, as written, I can't see a precise version of these rules. I have > no idea what the intent was in writing these rules, which behaviors they > intend to prohibit and which they intend to allow, and the fear of witch > hunting is and ought to be strong. I don't see a two week solution to the > problems in these statutes. > > J > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 14:45:47 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:45:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Decision Message-ID: My understanding is that basically this committee has decided that there WILL be a new standard for professional conduct made at this meeting. They apparently believe that there is a mandate for change. I am not certain, from the conversations that are going on in our district, or from the feedback I've heard from others, that there is. If there is not, please contact the following and make your voice heard: Rae Lynn Schwartz-DuPre Larry Scoone Daniel Cronn-Mills Tim O'Donnell Kelly McDonald David Grier John Fritch Joe Bellon S. Thompson Jay Warner T. Brown Also, I think people should know the AFA meeting schedule that is relevant here. Thursday Nov. 20th AFA Educational & Developmental Practices Committee- 10am-12pm AFA & NDT meeting 12-3:45pm AFA Business Meeting 4-5:30 This meeting will occur from 10-12 and before any NDT or CEDA meetings. WAKE UP AND GO. Makes your voices heard. Additionally, Tim O'Donnell is having a meeting with NDT people on Saturday morning at Wake to get feedback from the NDT committee. This is NOT another inconsequential meeting of the AFA. It is a meeting that could literally police your career. I don't even know most of the people making this decision, and I bet you don't either. Those that we do know need to make our concerns heard. This raises another point -- given that the AFA is a larger organization, majoritarian politics do NOT favor debate folks in the way these rules would be carried out and selectively enforced. There are many more i.e.-ers and parli people out there. Those individuals will now have a say on what our community standards are. Individuals competing for funding, office space, students, and general support from departments can use this rule to settle scores and enact grudges using vaguely spelled out rules. Please, if you know the individuals on this committee, lobby them not to pass this rule. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081113/8514148b/attachment.htm From athenamurray at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 15:37:13 2008 From: athenamurray at gmail.com (Athena Murray) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:37:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The Amazing Race: Jennings v. Repko Message-ID: Looking for some entertainment before the Wake Forest poker tournament? Come join us Monday night for the Jennings v. Repko footrace! Hailing from the bustling metropolis that is western Kansas, Andrew "Thursday" Jennings, 5'6", 185 pounds, will take on William J. Repko, 6'6", 119 pounds, in the parking lot of the hotel. Will gives himself a 33.87% chance of winning. Jennings insists that his 1-0 record in footraces (and embarrassing defeat of Brett Bricker) will give him the upper hand. Can Jennings overcome Will's height (and sobriety?). Can Will check in in less than an hour and a half? For those of you interested in a pool or being line judges, see me (Garrett Abelkop is precluded). D.J. are you willing to time? -Athena -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081113/5712e74d/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 15:51:09 2008 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:51:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] question about forensics Message-ID: <7fd76c680811131351s7decc889t6af71ba482e66a7f@mail.gmail.com> does anyone know if there is an edebate equivalent for collegiate forensics programs? Thanks. Sam -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu Nov 13 16:07:10 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:07:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] question about forensics References: <7fd76c680811131351s7decc889t6af71ba482e66a7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20081113T160710Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> There is an ie list serv. IE-L at cornell.edu chief >>> "Samuel Maurer" 11/13/2008 3:51 PM >>> does anyone know if there is an edebate equivalent for collegiate forensics programs? Thanks. Sam -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State 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/20081113/1db5331a/attachment.htm From beth.skinner at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 16:12:13 2008 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:12:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The Amazing Race: Jennings v. Repko In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4550c7380811131412r5a55257cgb181de9dceff5d82@mail.gmail.com> I guess we'd better get in our fun before the new AFA code goes into effect and robs such joy from our lives... On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Athena Murray wrote: > > Looking for some entertainment before the Wake Forest poker tournament? > Come join us Monday night for the Jennings v. Repko footrace! Hailing from > the bustling metropolis that is western Kansas, Andrew "Thursday" Jennings, > 5'6", 185 pounds, will take on William J. Repko, 6'6", 119 pounds, in the > parking lot of the hotel. Will gives himself a 33.87% chance of winning. > Jennings insists that his 1-0 record in footraces (and embarrassing defeat > of Brett Bricker) will give him the upper hand. > > Can Jennings overcome Will's height (and sobriety?). Can Will check in in > less than an hour and a half? > > For those of you interested in a pool or being line judges, see me (Garrett > Abelkop is precluded). > > D.J. are you willing to time? > > -Athena > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081113/71e47ec0/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Nov 13 16:45:10 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (lacyjp) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:45:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Shirley Caselist Update Message-ID: <491CADF6.2080402@wfu.edu> We are missing information from the teams below. If you've already sent in stuff-just resend it--its probably lost in the ether. You can submit your information 2 ways: 1. Post it to the wiki 2. Email it: reedac7 at wfu.edu & lacyjp at wfu.edu Thanks! --JP Binghamton Matthew Torsiello & Bill Sebelle Aff/Neg Binghamton Lauren Cameron & Peter Fountain Aff/Neg City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/Neg Aff/Neg Dartmouth Cyrus Akrami & Caroline Brandt Aff/Neg Emory Ovais Inamullah & Ana Nikolic Aff Emory Nicholas Miller & Chipp Schwab Aff Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas Aff Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Gonzaga Karina Momary & Leah Moczulski Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Neg Kansas State Beth Mendenhall & Derek Ziegler Aff/Neg Kansas State John Grice & Jordan Hanson Aff/Neg Liberty University Eddie Fitzgerald & Jeff White Neg Liberty University Amy Boyd & Ben Hagwood Aff Louisville Sarah Powell & Rosie Washington Aff/Neg Louisville Marian Kennedy & Chris Vincent Aff/Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Neg Samford Dan Bagwell & Logan Gramzinski Neg Samford Jayme Cloninger & Ben Johnson Aff/Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Neg Texas Laura Boyle & Nick Scott Aff Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil Aff/Neg Texas-Dallas Andrew Baker & Brian Rubaie Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Neg Wayne State Universi Geneva Hackler & Alex Pasquinelli Aff/Neg Wayne State Universi Baldomero Gonzalez & Michelle Kesling Neg West Georgia Vince Binder & Jim Schultz Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Thu Nov 13 17:10:01 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:10:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Remaining prefs - Due 2:00 PM tomorrow Message-ID: <491C5F69.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Each of the following teams have remaining prefs to record. The number indicates how many judges have been ranked. There are 146 judges total Baylor David Jung & Michael Butera 0 Baylor John Cook & Alex McVey 0 Binghamton Matthew Torsiello & Bill Sebelle 0 City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble 0 City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple 0 Clarion University Aaron Swanlek & Andrew Zachar 0 Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind 0 Emory Ovais Inamullah & Ana Nikolic 0 Emory Kirk Gibson & Mikaela Malsin 0 Emory Nicholas Miller & Chipp Schwab 0 Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine 0 George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach 0 George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James 0 George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds 0 Georgia State Kevin Bottoms & Josh Grace 0 Iowa Kiran Dhillon & Nat Olson 0 Iowa Kyle Vint & Corey Stone 0 John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda 0 Kentucky AJ O'Donnell & Mike Gentile 0 Kentucky Suneet Gautam & Bryan Gort 0 Louisville Sarah Powell & Rosie Washington 0 Louisville Marian Kennedy & Chris Vincent 0 Miami Matt Molinaro & Andrew Hart 0 Miami Mike Jensen & Drew Wallenstein 0 Michigan State Univ. Gustavo Eyzaguirre & Sam Shore 0 Michigan State Univ. Garrett Abelkop & Carly Wunderlich 0 Michigan University Lina Rudashevski & Lee Reed 0 Minnesota Arif Hasan & Logan Chin 0 Minnesota Daryl Pinto & Kelly Nickel 0 Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens 0 Nevada Las Vegas Travis Cochran & Austin Mueller 0 North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles 0 Pittsburgh Stephanie Luczajko & Jennifer Sweeney 0 Southern California Monica Do & Stephanie Scott 0 Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker 0 Texas Laura Boyle & Nick Scott 0 Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil 0 Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love 0 Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray 0 Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan 0 Trinity University Brendon Bankey & Michael Hart 0 Vermont Marnie Ritchie & Chris Lattuca 0 Wayne State Universi Geneva Hackler & Alex Pasquinelli 0 Wayne State Universi Baldomero Gonzalez & Michelle Kesling 0 Whitman College Brian Cole & Alex Zendeh 0 Whitman College Nick Griffin & Jon Riley 0 Whitman College Ali Edwards & Dave Mathews 0 Whitman College Nate Cohn & Daniel Straus 0 Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson 0 Vanderbilt Nicholas Brown & Cameron Norris 8 Columbia University Shree Awsare & Jonathan Dentler 14 Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper 28 Gonzaga Nick Bormann & Abe Corrigan 33 Kansas (Univ. of) Chris Stone & Mark Wilkins 40 Johnson County Zac Hartkopp & Sarah Wyatt 41 California Mike Burshteyn & Jacob Polin 43 California James Brockaway & Rahul Jaswa 57 Southern California Mike Jones & Mima Lazarevic 57 Kansas (Univ. of) Erum Shah & Patrick Kennedy 60 Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson 61 Binghamton Lauren Cameron & Peter Fountain 75 Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas 86 John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder 86 Concordia Kristi Cronin & Dana Rognlie 95 Case Western David Mattern & Andrew Wolf 96 Nevada Las Vegas Michael Eisenstadt & Elliot Carr-Lee 102 Baylor Amanda Luppes & Chris Rooney 114 Kansas State Rafi Ahmadullah & Brett Farmer 137 Harvard Tripp Rebrovick & Geoff Smith 143 Harvard Elizabeth Kim & Catalina Santos 143 Harvard Alex Parkinson & Eli Jacobs 143 Idaho State Lindsay Vanluvanee & Andrew Ridgeway 143 Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings 143 North Texas (Univ.) Kuntal Cholera & Grant Peretz 143 Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon 143 From sjsnider at ksu.edu Thu Nov 13 19:23:02 2008 From: sjsnider at ksu.edu (Sarah Jane Green) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:23:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: please foward to NDT/CEDA list and Jason Russell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rae Lynn Schwartz Date: Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 4:31 PM Subject: please foward to NDT/CEDA list and Jason Russell To: Sarah Jane Green , "snider.sj at gmail.com" The following are my personal views and not that of the AFA or any subcommittee. Much thanks to Jason Russell for bringing the upcoming AFA legislation to the attention of the community. While I am not currently formally involved in competitive debate, I try to give back to the community that has given me so much. My service to the AFA is one of those ways. My personal intention is not to "police" any one. There are enough areas where speech is censored and my hope is that debate remains a place where difficult issues can be expressed. As for the upcoming AFA meeting, Jason is right to say it is important that you attend and have your voice heard. I am currently in conversation with other members of the committee and would be happy to hear from you. Feel free to email me raelynn.schwartz at gmail.com if you have productive contributions, suggestions and/or objections. Below you will find my position on the current legislation as it. I encourage you to send me suggestions for alternative wordings. Thank you for your time. Rae Lynn Schwartz-DuPre "After following much of the conversation about the "outside" of round activities I would like to refer back article IV #3. Specifically, I am concerned about this statement: 1.The AFA acknowledges the district and national tournaments sponsored by the association are designed to promote responsible and effective discourse. The AFA recognizes that behaviors which belittle, degrade, demean, or otherwise dehumanize others are not in the best interest of the activities sponsored by the AFA. Such behaviors interfere with the goals of forensic education. On my view, this type of statement, from a debate standpoint, seems subject to a serious of topicality debates so to speak. In other words, what is degrading or dehumanizing to one is not the other. The current political debate over Prop 8 seems to be a case in point. I can image many instances where individuals with loved ones in the army would not want to discuss the nature or validly of war in Iraq or Afghanistan; that those emotionally effective by legalization of gay marriage may not want to discuss the politics disadvantage; or that someone who has been a victim of domestic violence may not want to hear an affirmative aiming to regulate. The examples are limitless as are the opportunities for a bright line. I have judged many debates that involved nudity, graphic descriptions of violence, music with controversial lyrics etc. On my view, if you do not want to hear/see it you can leave. That is so long as you are not on the other team or judging. In the later instances it seems the team introducing the material/performance has the obligation and burden to support its relevance and dialogic value. And, should they fail to do so, ought to lose the round. Yet I do not believe this is a time or place for the AFA to regulate what is and is not "responsible and effective discourse." As for an alternative, I am not yet sure. But I invite discussion and suggestions." Best, Rae Lynn Rae Lynn Schwartz-DuPre, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Communication Western Washington University MS 9162 516 High Street, CF 283 Bellingham, WA 98225-9162 360-650-4212 raelynn.schwartz at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081113/986b5676/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Thu Nov 13 20:27:10 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:27:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] useful Shirley info Message-ID: <491CE1FE.9060902@wfu.edu> 1) Remember, if you have entry data that needs adjustment, Gary Larson needs it: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton dot edu 2) There is basic info here: http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/DixieClassic/DixieInvitation2008.htm 3) Judges: realize that you must make a decision within the allotted time: 2:45 from round starting time in prelims, 3:00 in elims. There is ample time allotted to move, eat, coach, etc. . Show up and START ROUNDS ON TIME. Bring a timer. Manage your time. Debaters use 10 minutes per team prep. Some are better at it than others. Judges have more than five times that amount of time to make a decision. Some are better at it than others. But if the debaters give you no good way to evaluate their debate in less than an hour, it's just time to flip the coin. 4) Twitter. You can get all the tournament news and updates (new cases being run, pairings about to be released, etc.) in real time during the tournament by following us on Twitter. If you are not already a follower . . . 1. Send a text message to 40404 (it doesn't matter what's in the text message) 2. You will then receive a text from twitter (40404) asking you to send your name to confirm you want a twitter mobile account (this may take a minute); reply to this message with your name. 3. Send a message to 40404 that contains "follow wfushirley" (as written exactly here with a space between follow and wakedebate, without the quotes) 4. You should receive a confirmation text from twitter saying that you'll receive wfushirley updates You can learn more about Twitter and sign up to send an recieve via AIM and other computer channels at twitter.com Restaurant list is being updated by Reed and Gonzalez, but if you have Friday night questions, I recommend Szechuan Palace above all else. Close to hotel Putters and Elizabeths are no brainers. Call or e-mail me for customized recommendations. Chilly but Sunny is the forecast. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Nov 13 20:59:06 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:59:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Another Shirley List Update In-Reply-To: <491CADF6.2080402@wfu.edu> References: <491CADF6.2080402@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <491CE97A.8090300@wfu.edu> We're missing information from the teams below. If you've already sent in stuff-just resend it--its probably lost in the ether. If your information is the same as before, just say so! You can submit your information 2 ways: 1. Post it to the wiki 2. Email it: reedac7 at wfu.edu & lacyjp at wfu.edu Thanks! --JP Binghamton Lauren Cameron & Peter Fountain Aff/Neg City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/Neg Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas Aff Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Neg Texas Laura Boyle & Nick Scott Aff Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil Aff/Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Neg West Georgia Vince Binder & Jim Schultz Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Thu Nov 13 22:11:22 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:11:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] AFA and CEDA Professionalism Standards Message-ID: After extensive conversations with individuals on the inside of this process, I'd like to provide the general membership of the list with some things to think about. The urge to act is strong. Many feel like the organizations' inaction in the face of the incident involving Bill at CEDA nationals must be remedied by new standards for conduct. In the absence of a strong case against any action, these deeply flawed rules will likely be enacted or at least proposed to us, warts and all. Some members of the organization are hungry for alternative solutions. I have proposed several to those I've spoken to, such as better PR (perhaps a full-time professional) rather than new standards, guidelines for professionalism rather than standards, non-punitive standards rather than punitive standards, etc. I'm frankly not sure that we do need to "do something". 80 years of competitive debate and one mooning is probably a pretty good track record. Maybe the exception disproves the need for the rule. I bet moonings are more prevalent in regular university environments than they are in debate (a PR person would find this info out for sure and publicize it). Regardless, the organization needs to hear both of these things -- why we shouldn't act and how else we could. Let them know. Otherwise, this is what we'll get. Some of the leadership is frustrated that some of us don't want them to act. I've been told that this is a head in the sand strategy, that change is coming, that money is drying up, etc. I haven't really seen any information directly tying programs other than Fort Hayes to professionalism, but I'm told it's there. I know that the Fort Hayes president is making waves with debatable degrees of success in his area. Will rules help? I don't know. I doubt it. I know the Fort dude wanted us to do something, but what? Do we have a rule that works here? Can we even make one that would deal with this situation? Does the new rule deal with it? I think this is entirely speculative. Can't we make a rule that's more specific and less categorical, less subjective? Is the "community standard for educational health" -- the "i'll know it when I see it" porn standard -- the best we've got? We need to ask very specific questions about why we think these rules will fix problems. We don't have to believe that the status quo is perfect to believe that the disadvantages of a bad rule outweigh it's advantages. We're going to be pitched a "try or die" scenario -- I think we really need to resist this packaging of the issue. I've been told that debate is "out of control"; I dont see it. A debate coach made an admittedly regrettable decision in an emotional outburst. But debate, overall, is as civil as we'd be happy with it being, given its nature. We could make some suggestions for future hard cases, but should not rush to establish a broad new rule that has enormous consequences for peoples' futures. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081113/52a95db6/attachment.htm From gonza310 at msu.edu Thu Nov 13 22:34:00 2008 From: gonza310 at msu.edu (Joshua Gonzalez) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:34:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Seniors and Others Interested in Graduate School? Message-ID: <38BF78D1A5A64E21AD82E24CFFBC9D3D@deacnet.wfu.edu> If you are attending the Shirley Classic this weekend, please take the time to join a few of the debaters and coaches of Wake Debate, as well as our esteemed Director of Graduate Studies, Dr. Alan Louden, for a brief chat and dinner Friday evening. We'll answer questions, fill people in, and generally just chat about both the Wake Debate experience and the outstanding Communication MA program here at Wake Forest. We're shooting for something in the range of 8 pm, but are generally flexible. If you can't make it, but are nonetheless interested in graduate education at Wake, please do not hesitate to speak to Dr. Louden, myself, or really just about any of the various Wake Debate folks you'll see running about the campus this weekend. If you're interested in coming to dinner, send me an e-mail at gonzja8 at wfu.edu, or alert any of the folks at the registration table. Josh Gonzalez Graduate Assistant Wake Forest Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081113/622e59bb/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Nov 13 23:21:16 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:21:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Yet another Shirley list update In-Reply-To: <491CE97A.8090300@wfu.edu> References: <491CADF6.2080402@wfu.edu> <491CE97A.8090300@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <491D0ACC.1030502@wfu.edu> Hurry up and get your info in! There are 14 affs we haven't heard from. We've got 24 teams who we are missing some intel on. Remember: 1. The basic rule--disclose what you expect from an opponent. 2. Your pre-tournament info drastically improves our scouting. If you like good intel on your opponents, send your stuff as soon as you can. Good intel improves everyone's debating! If you've already sent your disclosure-please resend it--its obviously lost somewhere along the line. If your information is the same as before, just let us know! You can submit your information 2 ways: 1. Post it to the wiki 2. Email it: reedac7 at wfu.edu & lacyjp at wfu.edu Thanks! --JP City University NY Dima Povazhuk & Timothy Pimble Aff/Neg City University NY Kate Ortiz & Aubrey Semple Aff/Neg Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind Aff/Neg Florida State Matthew Rosenblum & Louis Paine Aff/Neg George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Aff George Mason Univers Kyle Leinbach & Adam James Neg George Mason Univers Emily Owens & Janna Reynolds Neg George Washington Troy Roth & Jon Karlin Aff/Neg George Washington Tim Kellogg & Sunny Park Aff/Neg Idaho State Paul Montreuil & Danielle Jennings Aff/Neg John Carroll Univers Brian Brossmann & Anthony Miranda Neg John Carroll Univers Andy Labuza & Chris Schroeder Neg Missouri-Kansas City Toni Jantz & Rachel Stevens Neg North Texas (Univ.) Daniel Rowe & Brian Searles Neg Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon Neg Texas Hayden Schottlaender & Nick Whitaker Neg Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Aff/Neg Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray Aff/Neg Towson Ignacio Evans & Ben Morgan Aff/Neg U.S. Naval Academy Laura Faulkner & Jessica Wilcox Neg U.S. Naval Academy Josh Palacios & Casey Sheldon Neg West Georgia Darcey McCampbell & Sara Simonis Aff/Neg Wyoming Travis Beach & Grae Harper Aff/Neg Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Aff/Neg From scottelliott at grandecom.net Fri Nov 14 00:56:59 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:56:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Yet another Shirley Update Message-ID: <1226645819.491d213b760a5@webmail.grandecom.net> "2. Your pre-tournament info drastically improves our scouting. If you like good intel on your opponents, send your stuff as soon as you can. Good intel improves everyone's debating!" What are the warrants for this claim? I don't think debate has improved that much since the forced discolsure policies of these mega tournaments. Where are these "awesome" case debates that are/were supposed to result from case disclosures? All I hear are the same bad critiques and the same politics disads every round. Who really benefits? Squads with 10 coaches and 30 debaters? The only thing I found interesting from the GSU case list was the Wake F-22 disad...wow, That was a real gem of a disad to find out about. Scott Elliott From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Nov 14 01:40:00 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 02:40:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fair Scouting Re: Yet another Shirley Update In-Reply-To: <1226645819.491d213b760a5@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1226645819.491d213b760a5@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <491D2B50.7060309@wfu.edu> I remember the day when caselists were "closed." Those with large squads and coaching staffs had info. Their friends had some access to that information. Teams who weren't in the loop "thought on their feet." People in the know knew exactly where those "thinkers" had to go. It wasn't fair. Its sort of like the Pats stealing defensive calls. Some teams knew the other's playbooks. Others didn't. Its better if everyone has the same access. Shared scouting is & was a reaction to that era of debate. You're right: Debate hasn't improved "that much" since then. At least now people can have a decent clue about what their opponent is going to say. Given that information will be collected & shared, why not improve that information & share it with more people? It isn't "forced disclosure" that improves debating...its the better scouting that results that improves debating as a whole. (We can scout higher priority information.) Bad "gotcha" arguments only last one round & less information inequities abound. --JP ps-If you're itching for a fancy case debate instead of the same old K & Politics stuff, maybe you should make a stop at The Shirley:) I don't know who claimed scouting caused "Awesome Case Debates." At least, it makes the value of that F-22 disad what its really worth. scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > "2. Your pre-tournament info drastically improves our scouting. If you like good > intel on your opponents, send your stuff as soon as you can. Good intel improves > everyone's debating!" > > What are the warrants for this claim? > > I don't think debate has improved that much since the forced discolsure policies > of these mega tournaments. Where are these "awesome" case debates that are/were > supposed to result from case disclosures? All I hear are the same bad critiques > and the same politics disads every round. Who really benefits? Squads with 10 > coaches and 30 debaters? The only thing I found interesting from the GSU case > list was the Wake F-22 disad...wow, That was a real gem of a disad to find out > about. > > Scott Elliott > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > From andreareed2007 at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 03:07:00 2008 From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com (Andrea Reed) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:07:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Tourney Dining Guide 08 Message-ID: <18B3C99E-6D1F-4869-8663-DEF8A3398D92@gmail.com> Attached.... like Ross said, feel free to ask any Wake debater for some more personalized suggestions... See you tomorrow in WS, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Dining Guide 2008.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 72704 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081114/84462d82/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- From kkuswa at richmond.edu Fri Nov 14 08:26:40 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:26:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Standards References: Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ACF5@castor.richmond.edu> Hi all, Jason Russell has made some good points on the AFA deliberations. I have immense respect for the AFA Committee members, but we have to realize that the AFA organization may be unprofessional itself in terms of its priorities. What are these rules new expected to prevent? How will they actually solve? At what point are they bringing attention to aspects of forensics that are not central to student education? Is this not a mis-placed reaction to events that cannot be fully legislated away? Because I think we know the answers to these questions, I would ask the very capable AFA members (thank you for your service to the community) to table these professional conduct rules and work on something far more valuable: 1. Clear up the expectations on gradauate assistant researchers and hired guns. 2. Work on TENURE GUIDELINES FOR DEBATE AND OTHER FORENSICS EDUCATORS. Guidelines from the AFA on how to approximate tenure-qualifications for Forensics coaches would be a wonderful contribution to the community. Brian Lain, myself, and others have been nudging the AFA for years on this and every time there seems to be momentum, it stalls for unknown reasons. The best way to encourage respect for a professional association and its guidelines is to work to make the members more than janitors and bus drivers in the eyes of the discipline. Without a better statement on Tenure and Academic security, the AFA is telling the same group of people that they should not only be more professional, but also that they are expendable relative to other professionals in the field. In this sense, the conduct of the AFA is worse than any example of behavior we have talked about on this list. The AFA does not have a concrete set of tenure suggestions for its members to share with their employers and that is far more unprofessional than anything the new rules will solve. 3. Moves to address equality (economic and otherwise) in the activity, including recruiting, scholarships, etc. Moves to recruit new programs and to retain the ones we have. Why is all of this work coming from the bottom-up now? 4. Work on any of the above areas. The professional conduct standards may involve a lot of effort, but the best result does not really change anything on the ground. Talk to coaches and graduate assistants at Wake this weekend and ask them whether work on tenure standards and professional advancement (integrating debate back into the academy in the ways the DAWG encourages for example) would be better than the current amorphous conduct statements. I promise you will have more people on the side of professional advancement than on behavior conduct. Before you say, "do both," there still is not a clear articulation of the advantages of the new conduct rules, AND there is a time trade-off--the committee cannot do everything it would like to. We all applaud your concerns and desire to assist the community--we are simply asking for a change in focus and to hear the folks who are attending tournaments on a regular basis. In the spirit of Rae Lynn's message (wonderful post), give back to the community without trying to prescibe civility and behavioral norms dependent on the interpretation and enforcement of a committee. Thanks, kevin kuswa u richmond From kkuswa at richmond.edu Fri Nov 14 08:28:42 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:28:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Standards References: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ACF5@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ACF7@castor.richmond.edu> ps--i have a collection of tenure and tenure-equivalent standards/documents/overview statements if there is someone at AFA working on this (or willing to)...just let me know. thanks, kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Kuswa, Kevin Sent: Fri 11/14/2008 9:26 AM To: Sarah Jane Green; edebate at ndtceda.com; Jason Russell Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Standards Hi all, Jason Russell has made some good points on the AFA deliberations. I have immense respect for the AFA Committee members, but we have to realize that the AFA organization may be unprofessional itself in terms of its priorities. What are these new rules expected to prevent? How will they actually solve? At what point are they bringing attention to aspects of forensics that are not central to student education? Is this not a mis-placed reaction to events that cannot be fully legislated away? Because I think we know the answers to these questions, I would ask the very capable AFA members (thank you for your service to the community) to table these professional conduct rules and work on something far more valuable: 1. Clear up the expectations on gradauate assistant researchers and hired guns. 2. Work on TENURE GUIDELINES FOR DEBATE AND OTHER FORENSICS EDUCATORS. Guidelines from the AFA on how to approximate tenure-qualifications for Forensics coaches would be a wonderful contribution to the community. Brian Lain, myself, and others have been nudging the AFA for years on this and every time there seems to be momentum, it stalls for unknown reasons. The best way to encourage respect for a professional association and its guidelines is to work to make the members more than janitors and bus drivers in the eyes of the discipline. Without a better statement on Tenure and Academic security, the AFA is telling the same group of people that they should not only be more professional, but also that they are expendable relative to other professionals in the field. In this sense, the conduct of the AFA is worse than any example of behavior we have talked about on this list. The AFA does not have a concrete set of tenure suggestions for its members to share with their employers and that is far more unprofessional than anything the new rules will solve. 3. Moves to address equality (economic and otherwise) in the activity, including recruiting, scholarships, etc. Moves to recruit new programs and to retain the ones we have. Why is all of this work coming from the bottom-up now? 4. Work on any of the above areas. The professional conduct standards may involve a lot of effort, but the best result does not really change anything on the ground. Talk to coaches and graduate assistants at Wake this weekend and ask them whether work on tenure standards and professional advancement (integrating debate back into the academy in the ways the DAWG encourages for example) would be better than the current amorphous conduct statements. I promise you will have more people on the side of professional advancement than on behavior conduct. Before you say, "do both," there still is not a clear articulation of the advantages of the new conduct rules, AND there is a time trade-off--the committee cannot do everything it would like to. We all applaud your concerns and desire to assist the community--we are simply asking for a change in focus and to hear the folks who are attending tournaments on a regular basis. In the spirit of Rae Lynn's message (wonderful post), give back to the community without trying to prescibe civility and behavioral norms dependent on the interpretation and enforcement of a committee. Thanks, kevin kuswa u richmond _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From sjdiggs at hotmail.com Fri Nov 14 09:46:21 2008 From: sjdiggs at hotmail.com (Shawntia Diggs) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:46:21 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Mid-Atlantic Championship December 6-7, 2008 Tournament Invite Message-ID: Baltimore College Debate Mid-Atlantic Championship Debates Towson University December 6-7, 2008 Dear Debate Community: We are excited to invite you to the Second Annual Mid-Atlantic Championship Debates December 6th and 7th at Towson University. We will offer 5 rounds of competition in Novice and a combined JV/Varsity Division with a (partial) octa-final for all teams who win 3 debates. Our goal is to offer high quality competition in prelims and out rounds in a humane and safe way, as our tournaments have grown we have been hard pressed to clear the appropriate number of teams and finish out rounds at an hour that allows everyone to get home safely. If you have questions please feel free to contact me. Looking forward to seeing you in Baltimore! Shawntia J. Diggs Program Coordinator Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems 822 W. 36th Street Baltimore MD 21211 (p) 443-912-4667 sjdiggs at hotmail.com *ELIGIBILITY & EXPECTATIONS:* The tournament is open to any two-person team of undergraduate students. Teams in all divisions will be expected to engage in switch-sides debating. Debaters without partners (mavericks) will be paired up with other debaters with out a partner and will only be allowed to compete without a partner at the discretion of the tournament director . Towson may enter teams and those teams can clear in all divisions. Hybrid teams will be accepted. Novice & JV debaters should meet the CEDA standards for novice eligibility. Varsity is open to any competitor. *ENTRIES & FEES:* Please enter via debate results.You will receive a confirmation. Entry fees are a special rate of $25 per team at the tournament. Teams who have purchased a membership can use the credits that come with membership to cover entry fees. *FORMAT:* All divisions will have 5 preliminary rounds; advancement to elimination rounds will be based on (1) win-loss record, (2) strength of opposition (3) adjusted speaker points, and (4) total speaker points,. Speaker points may be given in .5 increments.The first two rounds will be pre-set. Round 3 will be paired off of round 1 and round 4 & 5 will be paired off of rounds 1-3.Round 6 will be paired off of 1-4 . Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes prep time. Elimination round sides will be determined based on (1) reversing sides from a prelim meeting, (2) individual coin flips. In the Combined JV/Varsity Division Rounds 1 and 2 will be paired within division to the best of our ability. The tournament will use the CEDA Resolution: *Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat.* The tab room will be open and public, coaches,judges and teams are encouraged to watch and participate in the process. The tournament will seek ADA certification and abide by ADA rules. *JUDGES:* One judge is required to cover every two teams. One judge covering one team is responsible for 3 rounds. All judges are committed to one round past their teams' elimination. A very limited number of judges may be available for hire through the tournament at $150 per uncovered team. Contact us early if you need help finding judges. Judges should meet the standards of the sanctioning organizations. *HOTELS:* We provide two primary Hotel options. *The La Quinta Inn *(Tournament Hotel) on Philadelphia Ct is 15 Minutes from the tournament convenient access to interstates, food and shopping. We have a rate of $99 a night that includes breakfast each morning and free wireless in all rooms. We encourage you to become a member of the La Quinta rewards program, if you use the rewards program your rate over time will decrease by a noticeable amount as the free rooms kick in. Contact the la quinta at 410 574 8100 the block is under Baltimore College Debate. *Comfort Inn * $79/night, ask for the Towson U Rate. 8801 Loch Raven Blvd, Towson MD, 21286|410-882-0900 While the Comfort Inn is not the tournament hotel it is convenient and many people choose to stay there. If you stay there frequently we encourage you to join the Comfort Inn rewards program. If you have questions about hotels please feel free to contact me at (443)912-4667 *TRAVEL:* Towson is easily accessible from the I-95 corridor to the north and south and from the I-70 corridor to the west. Towson is 100 miles from Philly, 70 miles from Harrisburg 80 miles from Hagerstown, 60 miles from DC, 70 miles from Wilmington Delaware and less then 50 miles from Bowie and Annapolis. *PARKING:* Parking is free on weekends as long as it is marked as such, we will post parking maps on edebate and closer to the tournament. *FOOD:* We will provide snacks, coffee and water throughout the day. Light breakfast and lunch will be provided on Saturday and Sunday. Please let us know any dietary restrictions in advance. * Schedule: *Saturday 12/6* 9:00-9:45 Registration 9:45 Pairings Released for Round 1 & 2 10:00 Round 1 12:00 Round 2 2:00 Lunch 3:00 Round 3 5:30 Round 4 *Sunday 12/7* *8:00 AM Pairings released 8:30 Round 5 11:30 First Out Round 1:00 Lunch 2:00 The Next one 4:00 Awards 4:30 The one after that 7:00 The Last One SHAWNTIA J. DIGGS _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows? connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081114/2e39aa91/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 11:42:28 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:42:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Standards In-Reply-To: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ACF7@castor.richmond.edu> References: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ACF5@castor.richmond.edu> <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ACF7@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811140942t69cfb021hc46f05c055b91807@mail.gmail.com> Kuswa says: >3. Moves to address equality (economic and otherwise) in the activity, including recruiting, >scholarships, etc. Moves to recruit new programs and to retain the ones we have. Why is all >of this work coming from the bottom-up now? I am the chair of the new program committee for CEDA. I ask for volunteers every summer to help create new programs and few volunteer. In the past year and a half we have secure half price entry fees at every CEDA sanctioned tournament, wavier organization membership fees and free evidence. I need more help and I will give my report at NCA about what sort of help I need (I will also post that report at the CEDA website after I receive some feedback at NCA). Kevin is right. Bottom up moves are less sustainable so we need to find ways to secure new programs (with administrative support). From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 11:50:02 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:50:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Conduct Standards In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740811140942t69cfb021hc46f05c055b91807@mail.gmail.com> References: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ACF5@castor.richmond.edu> <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ACF7@castor.richmond.edu> <9a7f6f740811140942t69cfb021hc46f05c055b91807@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0811140950h8bd5183g8e46b0c43b9cc154@mail.gmail.com> One solution to this is a simple easy to use resource that contains sample documentation, and basically boiler plate that you can use for your specific team. The process of starting a new team is not easy, but if we dont make people find us and can give them a turnkey solution, they will find us when they need us.It wont instantly generate new teams but if it gives students a checklist of what steps they should take and examples of the things they could use it will make it so students can generate programs. Administartive support is important, but students leadership is almost a requirement to get that administartive support. On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Mike Davis wrote: > Kuswa says: > > >3. Moves to address equality (economic and otherwise) in the activity, > including recruiting, >scholarships, etc. Moves to recruit new programs > and to retain the ones we have. Why is all >of this work coming from the > bottom-up now? > > > > I am the chair of the new program committee for CEDA. I ask for > volunteers every summer to help create new programs and few volunteer. > In the past year and a half we have secure half price entry fees at > every CEDA sanctioned tournament, wavier organization membership fees > and free evidence. > > I need more help and I will give my report at NCA about what sort of > help I need (I will also post that report at the CEDA website after I > receive some feedback at NCA). > > Kevin is right. Bottom up moves are less sustainable so we need to > find ways to secure new programs (with administrative support). > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081114/2fa34b7c/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Fri Nov 14 12:50:24 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:50:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Missing prefs - Please complete ASAP Message-ID: <491D7410.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> I'm missing all prefs for the following: Emory MS George Mason LJ, OR I'm missing some prefs from the following CUNY OS Florida State RP The following have ranked 143 instead of 146 - need ranks for the remaining three North Texas RX Idaho State VR, MJ From hansonjb at whitman.edu Fri Nov 14 13:16:14 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 11:16:14 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] AFA and CEDA Professionalism Standards References: Message-ID: <1291AF5E92954D93BA2CD8E10A7E37C6@hansonjbPC> I initially read through the afa professional conduct policy to defend it with some alterations. I still come at this issue from that perspective--that we should have expectations against abusive behavior. but having read through the policy, I am stunned at how outdated the entire policy is. there are multiple expectations in the document that are not followed in our community on a routine basis (e.g. coaches may not research evidence for teams except for "show how to do it" purposes--that's something most of us know BUT DID YOU KNOW THAT judges who do not write written ballots shall be censured, and that 5/7 (odd numbered) round tournaments are against the rules). and specific to this issue, this newly suggested policy needs major revision if the afa really cares about the first amendment and about its role in our professional lives and programs. jason and others have raised a number of very legitimate concerns. I'm going to state two more that I have: 1. the afa becomes a police force for individual school policies. I have major concerns with this both in the sense that it subjects all of us to differing standards (which of course is expected) but now the afa interprets these school policies; I can't imagine the afa being in a good place to enforce a policy from my school or any school as they don't know the full meaning of the school's policies nor the way such policies are utilized at the school. not to mention, now the afa will censure someone for a violation--but not another person--because of differing school policies. but worst of all, what if the school's policy is one that we as a community don't support. say a school has a policy against displays of gay/lesbian love. as I understand subsection 5 (the last sentence is missing "shall be deemed unprofessional conduct"), the afa would be required to enforce that school's rule. that is not what the afa should be doing. it should NOT be involved in enforcing school policies. schools should enforce their own policies. 5. Forensics educators shall act in accordance with their own institutional obligations. Failure to adhere to employer's policies (e.g., a person suspended or terminated for violations of university sexual harassment policy, substance abuse policy, fiduciary policy or academic responsibility policy may be subject to sanctions by the AFA). 2. the document provides no definition of what shall be deemed unprofessional conduct. jason made this point but I want to make it really clear because the document appears to say what unprofessional conduct is but it doesn't. the document says: "behaviors . . . that violate the community standard of a healthy educational environment shall be deemed "unprofessional conduct." that is it. no guidance, nothing. in 3, the document appears to say that "behaviors which belittle, degrade, demean, or otherwise dehumanize others" "violate the community standard of a healthy educational environment" but the wording does NOT say that. the two are not explicitly connected. this is a serious shortcoming. (and jason and rae lynn and others are right that the wording itself is too vague although I think it is close to being okay) further, as I said, having read through the afa document and with all due respect to the committee members--a number of whom I know, I am _seriously_ concerned about a lack of organizational understanding about how our community operates. when the afa is using this new policy to punish someone for inappropriate behaviors, with a document that says judges should be censured for not writing out a ballot, I think the entire enterprise is called into question. 3. The AFA acknowledges the district and national tournaments sponsored by the association are designed to promote responsible and effective discourse. The AFA recognizes that behaviors which belittle, degrade, demean, or otherwise dehumanize others are not in the best interest of the activities sponsored by the AFA. Such behaviors interfere with the goals of forensic education. 4. All participants in an AFA sponsored event shall recognize the rights of others and communicate with respect for opponents, colleagues, critics, tournament hosts and audience members. Behaviors by any tournament participants occurring at an AFA sponsored event that violate the community standard of a healthy educational environment shall be deemed "Unprofessional Conduct." Unprofessional conduct is subject to sanction(s) by the AFA. 3. I think the afa should do two things to rescue this effort: a) examine the fighting words doctrine (and not just its immediate wording of inciting violence, lawlessness or inflicting injury--but the full context of it--for example, that the behaviors must be directed at specific individuals). hostile work/educational environment would also be good--and all of this considered in the context of debate--the exchange of ideas which happens in and out of the debate itself. b) meet/work with the policy debate community to remove a number of sections of this document so that it actually matches what we do so that we can have some confidence that this document reflects the ACTUAL community practices and beliefs we have. while I still support a policy, I urge the committee to make _major_ revisions to what they are doing, and seek our input in this process through another set of revisions--rather than just having a vote to do something. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: Jason Russell Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 8:11 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] AFA and CEDA Professionalism Standards After extensive conversations with individuals on the inside of this process, I'd like to provide the general membership of the list with some things to think about. The urge to act is strong. Many feel like the organizations' inaction in the face of the incident involving Bill at CEDA nationals must be remedied by new standards for conduct. In the absence of a strong case against any action, these deeply flawed rules will likely be enacted or at least proposed to us, warts and all. Some members of the organization are hungry for alternative solutions. I have proposed several to those I've spoken to, such as better PR (perhaps a full-time professional) rather than new standards, guidelines for professionalism rather than standards, non-punitive standards rather than punitive standards, etc. I'm frankly not sure that we do need to "do something". 80 years of competitive debate and one mooning is probably a pretty good track record. Maybe the exception disproves the need for the rule. I bet moonings are more prevalent in regular university environments than they are in debate (a PR person would find this info out for sure and publicize it). Regardless, the organization needs to hear both of these things -- why we shouldn't act and how else we could. Let them know. Otherwise, this is what we'll get. Some of the leadership is frustrated that some of us don't want them to act. I've been told that this is a head in the sand strategy, that change is coming, that money is drying up, etc. I haven't really seen any information directly tying programs other than Fort Hayes to professionalism, but I'm told it's there. I know that the Fort Hayes president is making waves with debatable degrees of success in his area. Will rules help? I don't know. I doubt it. I know the Fort dude wanted us to do something, but what? Do we have a rule that works here? Can we even make one that would deal with this situation? Does the new rule deal with it? I think this is entirely speculative. Can't we make a rule that's more specific and less categorical, less subjective? Is the "community standard for educational health" -- the "i'll know it when I see it" porn standard -- the best we've got? We need to ask very specific questions about why we think these rules will fix problems. We don't have to believe that the status quo is perfect to believe that the disadvantages of a bad rule outweigh it's advantages. We're going to be pitched a "try or die" scenario -- I think we really need to resist this packaging of the issue. I've been told that debate is "out of control"; I dont see it. A debate coach made an admittedly regrettable decision in an emotional outburst. But debate, overall, is as civil as we'd be happy with it being, given its nature. We could make some suggestions for future hard cases, but should not rush to establish a broad new rule that has enormous consequences for peoples' futures. J -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20081114/7f27db3b/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Fri Nov 14 14:44:02 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:44:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Elections Call for Nominations Message-ID: <20081114T144402Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> Community members, I am sending this out on behalf of the nominatiing committee. At NCA during the CEDA Business Meeting, we will entertain nominations for the offices up for election this year. At the close of the Business Meeting, all nominations will be closed. That means you have about 1 week to nominate for the following positions. Please send your nominations to myself by replying to this email or to Jeff Jarman at jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu or Mike Davis at davismk13 at gmail.com There are no term limits, so people can serve in a position more than once. Open Offices: 2nd Vice President (will assume the role of 1st Vp in 2nd year of term and President in 3rd year of term. member of the Executive Council) Topic Committee Rep (at large seat with a 3 year obligation) Regional Reps from the following Regions: (2 year term, member of the Executive Council) Northwest West Mid-America East Central Southeast Central Southeast thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081114/9cc3d649/attachment.htm From dbuescher at ups.edu Fri Nov 14 15:29:38 2008 From: dbuescher at ups.edu (Derek T Buescher) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:29:38 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Forensics Assessment, Evaluation, Tenure, Review and Promotion Message-ID: Apologies for multiple listing--I was using my gmail account which is not registered to the lists. This is also a slightly modified letter from the other version caught somewhere in the "tubes." Derek ____________________________ Dear Colleagues, At the annual Northwest Forensics Conference meeting held this last September at the University of Washington, I was placed in charge of a committee to plan a one day conference entitled: ?A Conversation about Forensics Assessment? which will take place on September 11, 2009 at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. The immediate and prescient purpose of this conference is to examine educational assessment as it pertains to forensics and to assist forensics programs in meeting increasing demands for pedagogical assessment, professional development and review, and programmatic assessment and accreditation. The issues before the conference are important issues to the future of forensics education and the continuing opportunities of students to participate in forensics as an educational enterprise. Although there are many approaches and topics that the conference may cover, I am going to do my best to limit the day in order to provide both a fruitful conversation and generate substantive outcomes (or statements) about forensics education that may assist best our programs and our careers. I write to ask you both if you are interested in attending the conference and for some initial information, some basics for data collection, and your thoughts and feedback as we move forward. My goal is to collect this information from as many programs as possible and create a database of information that will assist our committee to create a useful assessment of current similarities and differences across participating programs, a collection of relevant information and models of evaluation and development, and, importantly, a productive conversation next September. First, a list of items I hope to solicit: ? The job title and description of your academic position (simple, no more than a paragraph) including information on your teaching load and requirements ? A copy of the University/College and departmental criteria used to evaluate your position whether in the case of cyclic reviews and/or promotions and tenure ? Your latest review statement (the forensics sections only) and only if willing ? A brief description (narrative) of your forensics program?number of students, types of competition, number of tournaments, means of funding, relationship to an academic department, leadership (i.e. student run or faculty led), etc. ? Any pertinent guiding educational documents--University/College/departmental/programmatic mission statements, philosophies, etc. ? Any pertinent information regarding recent programmatic assessments including documents submitted for accreditation and/or review If you wish to participate, please submit the above information no later than February 1, 2009. Second, I invite your comments and feedback regarding a few starter questions (while I also realize these are long and open-ended questions. Please respond as you see fit): ? In what ways, if any, has the role of forensics education relative to your university setting changed during the course of your involvement? (Has the program funding altered in any dramatic ways? Have new tenure lines been created or old ones eliminated? Has your program altered its participation in professional organizations and styles or practices of forensics competition and education?) ? In what ways is your forensics program a professional program (that is, akin to or on par with other academic programs), or professionalized in its directing position? Has your institution?s forensics program had its professional status altered in any substantive ways? For instance, has it lost or created tenure line positions? Has its directing role been moved from tenure line faculty to graduate students, or is/has the program become student run? ? In what ways do existing forensics organizations meet or fail to meet your professional development needs? Your program?s educational needs? Your institution?s educational needs? ? How best might this committee?s efforts serve your interests and needs regarding forensics education, professional development, and forensics assessment? ? What other materials or assistance might you, your program, or your institution need for effective assessment and professional development? As information becomes available and we are able to document our current status as forensics educators and develop helpful materials for forensics education and the educators of forensics relative to their professional and programmatic development we will make every effort to make this information accessible to all. Most importantly, we hope to create a discussion ahead of the curve of contemporary models of educational assessment, to position forensics at the forefront of educational assessment models. And, we hope to make this merely the beginning of an ongoing conversation. To facilitate the collection of this information I have created a new gmail.com account at forensicseducation at gmail.com. Please send all information to that account. If you are interested in attending the conference please let me know and I will provide information. Sincerely, Derek Buescher Associate Professor and Director of Forensics University of Puget Sound -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081114/664d493f/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Fri Nov 14 19:44:15 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:44:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Rounds 1-2 Message-ID: <491DD50F.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Forest Round 2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12316 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081114/28193156/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Forest Round 1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12302 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081114/28193156/attachment-0001.pdf From andreareed2007 at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 20:04:48 2008 From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com (Andrea Reed) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:04:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Outstanding Wake registration Message-ID: The following schools still need to register with the Wake tourney: Binghamton Emory George Mason George Washington John Carroll UNLV Wyoming If you are not intending to register tonight, please just email me (reedac7 at wfu dot edu) to let me know, and you can register in the morning. These schools have already told us they will be late, no problem, just come to the Carswell ballot desk in the morning: Clarion Columbia Macalester Navy Thanks, Andrea From smithr at wfu.edu Fri Nov 14 21:54:27 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:54:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT committee meeting during round 2 Message-ID: <491E47F3.6070307@wfu.edu> At Wake, Room A3, Tribble Hall. 11:15 a.m. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sat Nov 15 05:53:30 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:53:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Gerber for Rappmund in Round 1 Message-ID: <491E63DA.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> From andreareed2007 at gmail.com Fri Nov 14 21:07:59 2008 From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com (Andrea Reed) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:07:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] wake registration closed- late registration tomorrow morning Message-ID: The following schools should come to the Carswell ballot desk tomorrow morning to register and pay: Columbia George Washington John Carroll Macalester Navy Thanks! Andrea From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sat Nov 15 07:54:17 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:54:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Frosh-Soph breakout eligible Message-ID: <491E8029.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> According to info at registration, the following teams are eligible for the frosh/soph breakout. Please verify that we haven't left anyone out and that the teams listed are correct. Binghamton CF Lauren Cameron Peter Fountain Binghamton TS Matthew Torsiello Bill Sebelle California BG Kathy Bowen Andres Gannon Clarion SZ Aaron Swanlek Andrew Zachar Columbia AD Shree Awsare Jonathan Dentler Dartmouth CR Trevor Chenoweth Rob Rein Emory IN Ovais Inamullah Ana Nikolic Emory WS Stephen Weil Matt Senghas Emporia State WW Ryan Wash LaToya Williams-Green George Mason LJ Kyle Leinbach Adam James George Mason OR Emily Owens Janna Reynolds George Washington KP Tim Kellogg Sunny Park George Washington RK Troy Roth Jon Karlin Georgetown FK Cody Forrester Bon Koo Georgetown HZ Dorothy Hector Lucy Zhu Georgia BL Thomas Beyers Mike Lacy Georgia State BG Kevin Bottoms Josh Grace Gonzaga MM Karina Momary Leah Moczulski Harvard PJ Alex Parkinson Eli Jacobs Idaho State VR Lindsay Vanluvanee Andrew Ridgeway Johnson County HW Zac Hartkopp Sarah Wyatt Louisville KV Marian Kennedy Chris Vincent Mary Washington SS Andrew Snyder-Beattie Peter Susko Miami MH Matt Molinaro Andrew Hart Michigan RR Lina Rudashevski Lee Reed Minnesota HC Arif Hasan Logan Chin Missouri State FS Katie Frederick Becca Steiner Missouri State GK Jace Gilmore Aaron Kruse Missouri-Kansas City AG Andrew Allsup Juan Garcia Missouri-Kansas City JS Toni Jantz Rachel Stevens Nevada Las Vegas CM Travis Cochran Austin Mueller Nevada Las Vegas EC Michael Eisenstadt Elliot Carr-Lee North Texas RS Daniel Rowe Brian Searles Puget Sound GJ Will Gent Philip Johnson-Freyd Redlands LM Alyssa Lucas-Bolin Evan Matthews Samford CJ Jayme Cloninger Ben Johnson Texas-Dallas LR Brittany Leach Collin Roark Towson EM Ignacio Evans Ben Morgan Trinity BH Brendon Bankey Michael Hart US Naval Academy FW Laura Faulkner Jessica Wilcox Vermont RL Marnie Ritchie Chris Lattuca West Georgia McSi Darcey McCampbell Sara Simonis Whitman CZ Brian Cole Alex Zendeh Whitman GR Nick Griffin Jon Riley From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sat Nov 15 12:59:42 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:59:42 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Round 3 Message-ID: <491EC7BE.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Round 3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12277 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081115/7c8c268d/attachment.pdf From smithr at wfu.edu Sat Nov 15 14:31:38 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:31:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] REAL Sunday Shirley schedule Message-ID: <491F31AA.6030400@wfu.edu> OOPS -- hundreds of people saw this but no one noticed the flaw. Therefore, real schedule is: 8 am pairings 9 am round 5 start 11:45 round 5 decision deadline 12:00 noon round 6 pairings 12:45 round 6 start 3:30 round 6 decision deadline 3:45 first elim round pairings 4:30 first elim start 7:30 first elim decision deadline 7:15 banquet start -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sat Nov 15 16:52:49 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 16:52:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Round 4 Message-ID: <491EFE61.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Round 4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12282 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081115/ad0fdcf9/attachment.pdf From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Nov 15 19:40:02 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:40:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Teams Clearing at App State Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811151740i63314fcfgfe3e94247542ad5d@mail.gmail.com> App State Team Clearing Open Liberty/Capital AC 6 Liberty BP 6 Liberty GW 5 Liberty JS 5 Vandy LM 3 JV Miami FR Vandy AJ Novice GMU BT 3 Miami HR 3 JMU AW 5 Liberty AS 6 Liberty AT 5 Liberty CD 3 Liberty ET 5 Liberty HL 4 Vandy EM 5 Vandy CG 4 Vandy KO 4 -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Nov 16 06:40:20 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:40:20 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Round 5 - Start 9:00 AM Message-ID: <491FC054.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Round 5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12222 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/3fcaea1d/attachment.pdf From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Nov 16 06:48:54 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:48:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Judge Change - round 5 Message-ID: <491FC256.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Due to illness Andrew Jennings - Cal will take Kelly Young's ballot in the Whitman GR vs Baylor LR debate From lacyjp at wfu.edu Sun Nov 16 09:22:57 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (lacyjp) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:22:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Missing Laptop At Shirley Message-ID: <49203AD1.2040600@wfu.edu> I would like to now if anyone picked up my laptop, perhaps by mistake the the tribble lobby around the time round 4 pairings released? Its in a black samsonite case and it's a MacBook pro. If so, please return it to RJ Green, or Carswell Thanks! From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Nov 16 10:51:44 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:51:44 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Round 6 - Start 12:45 Message-ID: <491FFB40.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Most open elims in Greene Other elims in Carswell Sandwiches available outside Tribble -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/8ece775a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Round 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12282 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/8ece775a/attachment.pdf From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Nov 16 14:51:22 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:51:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake elims Message-ID: <4920336A.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Breakout octas.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10176 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/83455c0e/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Open Doubles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10746 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/83455c0e/attachment-0001.pdf From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Nov 16 15:19:31 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:19:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake revised frosh-soph Message-ID: <49203A03.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> With apologies to Louisville in Frosh-Soph breakout (15th seed) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/4e2b23b9/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Open Doubles.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10746 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/4e2b23b9/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Forest Revised Breakout.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10206 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/4e2b23b9/attachment-0001.pdf From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Nov 16 16:00:55 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:00:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake prelim results - elim pairings Message-ID: <492043B7.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake prelim results - elim pairing.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 59392 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/14642670/attachment.xls From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Nov 16 20:58:51 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:58:51 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake elims - 8:00 AM Message-ID: <4920898B.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Forest Breakout Quarters.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9904 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/647d414b/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Forest Octas.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/647d414b/attachment-0001.pdf From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Nov 16 21:29:41 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:29:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake speaker awards Message-ID: <492090C5.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Forest Speaker Awards.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 19039 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/5c01653e/attachment.pdf From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Nov 17 06:02:15 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:02:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake cume sheet Message-ID: <492108E7.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Nov 17 06:03:04 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:03:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake cume sheet Message-ID: <49210918.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Forest Cume Sheet.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 121344 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081117/ffaac57a/attachment.xls From scottelliott at grandecom.net Mon Nov 17 10:40:43 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:40:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UL-Lafayette seeks three graduate assistant coaches Message-ID: <1226940043.49219e8bb9534@webmail.grandecom.net> The University of Louisiana-Lafayette Department of Communication has opennings for three graduate assistantships for Fall 2009. These graduate assistantships are dedicated for students who will assist in coaching the UL-Lafayette Debate team. For more information, please contact Dr. Scott Elliott at this address or at this address sme2607 at louisiana.edu. Scott Elliott Director of Debate, UL-Lafayette From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Nov 17 10:43:53 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:43:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake results - Quarters pairings Message-ID: <49214AE9.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake Forest Cume Sheet.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 121344 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081117/ddb0e5ec/attachment-0001.xls From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Nov 17 10:58:26 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:58:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake results - Quarters pairings Message-ID: <49214E52.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake results - pairings to Quarters.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 68096 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081117/2588960b/attachment.xls From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Nov 17 11:19:12 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:19:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Rank order of teams Message-ID: <49215330.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wake rank order of teams.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081117/846e9436/attachment.xls From Kelly.McDonald at asu.edu Mon Nov 17 16:05:50 2008 From: Kelly.McDonald at asu.edu (Kelly McDonald) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:05:50 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Distinguished Service Award Recipient for 2008 - Duane Fish Message-ID: <573F49EC9809E84DBEA02A14BBEF378905624033@EX05.asurite.ad.asu.edu> As Chair of the American Forensic Association's Professional Development Committee it is my honor to announce the 2008 recipient of the AFA Distinguished Service Award is Dr. Duane Fish of Northwest College. Duane has been Director of Forensics at Northwest College since 1976 and Communication Division Chair since 1992. Numerous organizations have recognized Duane's longtime commitment to teaching and service, especially in regard to his work with forensics. Among some of his awards are: being acknowledged by his alma mater honoring him with the "Distinguished Alumni" award in 2006, recipient of the Outstanding Teaching Award in 2004 by the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, was recognized for Distinguished Service by Phi Rho Pi in 2004, Michael Peterson Service to Debate Award in 2003, the B. Aubrey Fisher Award in 1992, Service Award from Phi Rho Pi in 1986 and induction into the Montanta State University Hall of Fame in 1981. District IX is stronger and better for Duane's service to high school and collegiate speech and debate and the AFA is honored to present Professor Duane R. Fish with the 2008 Distinguished Service Award. It is also my pleasure to announce that the recipient of the 2008 Speaker of the Year goes to the late actor Paul Newman for his tireless campaigning on behalf of progressive causes through the nation and around the world and his generous philanthropic work through his food products company 'NEWMAN'S OWN,' which has donated more than a quarter billion dollars to charities since its inception. Please join us at the AFA business meeting when Dr. Fish is presented his award and later on Thursday evening for the AFA / Forensic Organizations co-sponsored reception. AFA Business Meeting Time: Thursday, Nov 20 - 4:00pm - 5:30pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth B AFA Reception Time: Thursday, Nov 20 - 7:00pm - 10:00pm Place: Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth B An updated list of past award winners follows: Speaker of the Year 2008 Paul Newman, Actor, Humanitarian and Philanthropist 2007 Former Vice President Albert Gore 2006 Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi 2005 Nina Tottenberg, National Public Radio 2004 Christopher Reeve, Actor and Advocate for Medical Research 2003 Janet Reno, Former Attorney General of the United States 2001 Jimmy Carter, The Carter Center, Atlanta 1999 Parents Campaign Against Violence in the Schools 1998 Kofi Annan, Secretary General, United Nations 1997 Franklyn Haiman, President, American Civil Liberties Union 1996 Bill Moyers, Public Broadcasting System 1995 Barbara Jordan, Professor of Law, University of Texas 1994 Brian Lamb, C-SPAN 1993 Hillary Rodham Clinton, First Lady of the United States 1992 Barbara Jordan, Professor of Law, University of Texas 1991 William Brennan, Justice, United States Supreme Court 1990 Laurence Tribe, Professor of Law, Harvard University 1989 Dianne Feinstein, Mayor, San Francisco 1988 Ann Richards, Governor, Texas 1987 C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General of the United States 1986 Franklin Zimring 1985 Richard Lamb, Governor, Colorado 1984 Paul Simon, United States Senator, Illinois 1983 Larry Pressler, United States Senator, South Dakota 1982 Joshua B. Everett 1981 Thomas Bradley, Mayor, Los Angeles, California 1980 Bishop Fulton J. Sheen 1979 Henry Cisneros, Mayer, San Antonio, Texas Distinguished Service Awards 2008 Duane Fish Northwest College 2007 Allan Louden Wake Forest University 2006 Melissa Wade Emory University 2005 David Hingstman University of Iowa 2004 Dale Herbeck Boston College 2003 James F. Klumpp University of Maryland 2002 Guy Yates West Texas A & M University 2001 James A. Johnson Colorado College 2000 Jerry M. Goldberg Pace University, New York 1999 Joseph W. Wenzel University of Illinois, Urbana 1998 James W. Pratt Univ. f Wisc., River Falls 1997 Rebecca Bjork University of Utah 1996 V. William Balthrop University of North Carolina 1995 Larry Schnoor Mankato State University 1994 Jerry Anderson Concordia College (MN) 1993 Scott Nobles Macalester College 1992 Walter Ulrich University of Northern Iowa 1991 Gerald Sanders Miami University (Ohio) 1990 Raymie McKerrow University of Maine 1989 David Zarefsky Northwestern University 1988 Donn Parson University of Kansas 1987 Vernon McGuire Texas Tech University 1986 Jack Howe Cal State- Long Beach 1985 Malcolm Sillars University of Utah 1984 Wayne Brockriede University of Colorado 1983 Lucy Keele California State - Fullerton 1982 Glenn Capp Baylor University 1981 George Ziegelmueller Wayne State University 1980 Austin J. Freeley John Carroll University 1979 Annabel Hagood University of Alabama Kelly M. McDonald, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Communication School of Letters and Sciences Arizona State University - Downtown Campus 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 300 Phoenix AZ 85004-0694 Office: 345 University Center Direct line: (602) 496-0652 Fax: (602) 496-0655 Email: kelly.mcdonald at asu.edu http://sls.asu.edu/ From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Nov 17 16:09:53 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:09:53 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt--finalize entries Message-ID: <5008335785CC4567A847CEF3017BF898@whitman.edu> we're set to go with the wnpt (sat and sun nov 22 and 23). please finalize your teams and judges for the tournament. on tuesday night, I will email coaches with pref information. tournament info at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54wnpt2008.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From dave at miami.edu Mon Nov 17 17:39:31 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:39:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NCA Reception Message-ID: You're Invited! The University of Miami School of Communication cordially invites you to a cocktail reception 2008 NCA Convention Friday, November 21, 8:00 - 10:00 p.m. Meeting Room Emma C Manchester Grand Hyatt 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/20081117/694431c9/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu Mon Nov 17 18:09:44 2008 From: jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu (Patterson, J W) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:09:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC QUALS: LONG BEACH, ST. JAMES, SAMFORD, HARVARD WEST-LAKE Message-ID: NOTE: NEW HOTEL FOR THE 2009 TOC HOLIDAY INN NORTH 1950 Newtown Pike PHONE: 859--233--0512 Room Rate: $95+ tax /per night (up to 4 in a room) The HOLIDAY INN NORTH is holding a block of rooms until April 10, 2009, or until the block is gone. When calling, be sure you mention you are with ?UK Debate.? The hotel is located at 1950 Newtown Pike (at Exit 115 on Interstate 75) and the telephone number is (859) 233-0512. The hotel offers ?free parking for cars, vans and busses? as well as ?free wireless internet" throughout the entire hotel. LONG BEACH STATE: Chuck Ballingall, tab room director at Long Beach State, has certified the 2009 TOC Qualifiers. Long Beach is a TOC qualifier in Policy debate at the finals level. POLICY: Robin Gray and Sasha Sabberwal, Fullerton (CA) Christion Bato and Greg Rodarte, Damien, (CA) ST. JAMES Melanie Eller, director of the St. James invitational, has certified the 2009 TOC qualifiers. St.James is a TOC qualifier in LD at the finals level. LINCOLN DOUGLAS Carter Beilen, Mountain Brook HS, (AL) Melanie Eller, New Orleans Jesuit, (LA) *Claire Herron, Mountain Brook HS, (AL) SAMFORD Abi Williams, director of the Samford University Invitational, has certified the 2009 TOC qualifiers. Samford is a TOC qualifier in policy debate at the finals level POLICY: Fadi Pulous and Rahul Sastry, MBA, (TN) Gabrielle Tandet and Lee Quin, Mountain Brook HS (AL) HARVARD-WESTLAKE (CA) Mikr Bietz, director of the Harvard Westlake Invitational, has certified the 2009 TOC qualifiers. Harvard-Westlake is a TOC qualifier in LD at the finals Level. LINCOLN-DOUGLAS Amanda Signorelli, The Meadows School, (NV) Cameron Baghai, Rancho Bernardo High School (CA) Sincerely, JW Patterson TOC FOUNDER From dave at miami.edu Mon Nov 17 19:50:24 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:50:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Emory v. Miami Dade College on-line debate Message-ID: Please share this with other debate and student lists. Thank you! Tuesday Nov. 18 9pm EST Emory University v Miami Dade College (produced by University of Miami) Topic: Globalization log onto www.wethestudents.tv to watch the debate live, comment and ask questions to the debaters! 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 dave at miami.edu Tue Nov 18 06:13:36 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:13:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Participate in a Live Debate Tonight! Message-ID: Please forward about WTS show tonight! Thank you! VOICE YOUR OPINION! Share your thoughts on Globalization with college students from across the country TONIGHT on the UMTV show, We the Students! Join debaters from Emory University and Miami-Dade College in their debate on the benefits and consequences of globalization. Log onto www.wethestudents.tv at 9pm EST to view the live debate, make comments and ask questions for the debaters to answer during the show! For more information check out We the Students on Facebook! 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/20081118/e9d78b81/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Tue Nov 18 09:08:36 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:08:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Results? Message-ID: <1227020916.4922da741443d@webmail.grandecom.net> Who won? From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu Tue Nov 18 09:11:14 2008 From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:11:14 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Results? Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899E01205856@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Northwestern over Kansas -------------------------- Sent using BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tue Nov 18 09:08:36 2008 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Results? Who won? _______________________________________________ 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/20081118/e84331e9/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu Tue Nov 18 09:17:28 2008 From: jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu (Patterson, J W) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:17:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC Quals: Monticello, Valley, Titan, Marquette Message-ID: NOTE: NEW HOTEL FOR THE 2009 TOC HOLIDAY INN NORTH 1950 Newtown Pike PHONE: 859--233--0512 Room Rate: $95+ tax /per night (up to 4 in a room) The HOLIDAY INN NORTH is holding a block of rooms until April 10, 2009, or until the block is gone. When calling, be sure you mention you are with ?UK Debate.? The hotel is located at 1950 Newtown Pike (at Exit 115 on Interstate 75) and the telephone number is (859) 233-0512. The hotel offers ?free parking for cars, vans and busses? as well as ?free wireless internet" throughout the entire hotel. MONTICELLO KAISER Jim Minnick, tab room director for the Monticello Kaiser invitational has certified the 2009 TOC qualifiers. Monticello is a TOC qualifier in LD debate at the semi-finals level. LINCOLN DOUGLAS Alli Gofman, Hendrick Hudson HS, NY Eric Thurm, Scarsdale HS, NY Josh Seiden, Scarsdale HS, NY Saboor Sheerazi, Bronx HS of Science, NY *Bobby Esnard, Bronx HS of Science, NY WEST DES MOINES VALLEY Dave McGinnis, director of the West Des Moines Valley tournament, has certified the 2009 TOC qualifiers. West Des Moines is a TOC qualifier in Lincoln Douglas debate at the quarterfinals level, in Policy debate at the semifinals level,and in Public Forum Debate at the finals level. LINCOLN DOUGLAS: Daniel Moerner of Los Altos HS, Los Altos, CA Ben Holguin of Edina HS, Edina, MN Marcus Moretti of Scarsdale HS, Scarsdale, NY Gurdane Bhutani of Lake Highland HS, Orlando, FL Adrienne Keamy of The Meadows School, Las Vegas, NV Charlie Cao of New Trier HS, Northfield, IL Catherine Tarsney of St. Louis Park HS, St. Louis Park, MN David McNeil of Edina HS, Edina, MN POLICY: Laura Johnson and Steve Quam, - St. Paul Central, MN Cleo Johnson and Ian Miller - Stevens Point Area , WI Tim Knoedler and Laurel Mills - Sheboygan North , WI Charlie Curran and Tim Bingham - Walter Payton College Prep IL PUBLIC FORUM: Matt Reisner and Jessie Ede, Indianola,IA Graham Flitz and Tom Ewing, Iowa City West ,IA FLORIDA TITAN Lisa Miller, director of the Florida Titan, has certified the 2009 TOC qualifiers. The Titan is a TOC qualifier in Public Forum at the finals level and in Congress at the finals level. PUBLIC FORUM: Mickael Silangil and Brian Zakarin, Taravella, FL Scott Miller and Matthew Hershoff, Michael Krop. FL CONGRESS: Brad Gross, Taravella,FL Joseph Peretta, Columbus,FL Ray Escobar, St. Tjomas,FL Rafael Perez, Am Heritage Plantation,FL Michael DeRosa, American Heritage Platation,FL Ryan Terrell, Cypreess Bay,FL MARQUETTE, (WI) : Bill Batterman, director of the Marquette Invitational, has certified the 2009 TOC qualifiers. Marquette is a TOC qualifier in policy debate at the finals level. POLICY: Colin Quinn and Alec Zimmer, Glenbrook South.,IL Timothy Knoedler and Laurel Mills,Sheboygan North, WI Sincerely, JW Patterson TOC FOUNDER From chauncie19 at juno.com Tue Nov 18 09:39:11 2008 From: chauncie19 at juno.com (Aimi Hamraie) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:39:11 GMT Subject: [eDebate] Hire me for the Coast Message-ID: <20081118.103911.15366.0@webmail21.dca.untd.com> I'm willing to cut cards, judge, coach, whatever. We can negotiate the details. If you're interested, send me an email at aimi.hamraie at gmail.com. Aimi ____________________________________________________________ Find success and happiness with drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Click now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/PnY6rbuylnyBijQivkRrg02QfpV8FHIoYnIj2vw3fwYVb2EPirPmg/ From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Tue Nov 18 18:53:23 2008 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:53:23 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nov/JV points In-Reply-To: <491F31AA.6030400@wfu.edu> References: <491F31AA.6030400@wfu.edu> Message-ID: This is a quick note to urge your support for the CEDA amendment that would move novice/JV MPJ from the sanctioning section of the constitution to the recommended tournament practicies section. Briefly, this encourages tournaments to continue to experiment with workable systems in novice and JV without requiring them in situations that are unwieldy or inappropriate. There are drawbacks to novice/JV prefs, which include: 1) Beginning judges do not get to hear ANY rounds. This is a real concern, we cannot develop new judges if they are struck out of all divisions, and given the shortage of forensics professionals it seems like we should be doing all we can to encourage newcomers to hang in there. 2) An increased number of "lost" rounds that can ONLY be solved by increasing overall commitment levels 3) Increased difficulty in the use of MPJ in open divisions. Despite these drawbacks, I am supportive of the placement of more qualified and experienced judges in novice and JV divisions, and a vote for the amendment is not a vote against the practice. It is simply the recognition that, at least at present and perhaps inherently, there is not a sufficiently established system in place to MANDATE the use of MPJ in the lower divisions. The amendment continues to encourage the placement of better judging in less experienced divisions. Thanks for reading this far! Jon From jane.munksgaard at gmail.com Tue Nov 18 22:27:32 2008 From: jane.munksgaard at gmail.com (Jane Munksgaard) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:27:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Anyone need last minute NCA housing? Message-ID: I have a suite I'm sharing with Paul Johnson from Iowa for Thursday-Sat at the Embassy Suites (right across from the Hyatt). Our two other roomies bailed. So if anyone needs a place to stay we've got plenty of room. You would have you own bed, and it would only cost you minimal coin. Lemme know. -- Jane Munksgaard Ph.D. Student and Teaching Assistant University of Georgia-Athens 319.621.6432 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081118/d1446684/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Tue Nov 18 23:57:23 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:57:23 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] $600 to go to a debate tournament? DEC 1 DEADLINE Message-ID: <3030506CAFA14C72845CABAF5452E0CA@whitman.edu> yep. be a "golden ten" team and judge. bring a team and a judge that will judge all rounds to the northwest ceda championship. date: feb 28-mar 2, 2009 no fees breakfast, lunch, and dinner provided (free). you won't go hungry. free shuttle (to and from pasco or walla walla airport and to and from hotel and tournament). if you need free housing--we can provide it HOW? BY DEC. 1, email jim hanson with your team--first and last name--and your judge--first and last name and confirm that you will attend if chosen. yes, schools can submit more than 1 team. golden ten schools must be 700 or more miles away from whitman. jim, glenn frappier and derek buescher will choose the 10 team-judge combos who will receive the golden ten slots. we will announce in early december shortly after dec. 1. full invite: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54nwceda2009.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Nov 19 01:40:30 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:40:30 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] jordan mills Message-ID: please email me. lemonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. with some walla walla. :) jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From shahall at comcast.net Wed Nov 19 01:52:05 2008 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:52:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Subscription Update Message-ID: <005b01c94a1b$b7558f60$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> Greetings! I have just received the list of schools that paid their subscriptions to the NDT via the AFA website in October. This list represents all schools who have either paid me directly (through the Wake Forest tournament) or paid via the AFA site through the end of October. If you paid on the AFA site after October 31, you can send me an electronic copy of your receipt. I will receive another update from James Pratt in Mid December. If your name is not on this list then as far as I know, you have not yet subscribed. According to the Standing Rules of the Board of Trustees, the fee for subscribing has now doubled from $50.00 to $100.00. Please keep in mind that that fee will increase to $150.00 on December 15. The final deadline for subscribing is January 15, 2009. In order to participate in the district qualifying tournament, the at-large bid processes and the NDT itself you must have subscribed by January 15. I will be at the NCA convention this weekend and will be prepared to accept payments (cash or check). You can mail a check made out to "The National Debate Tournament" to my home: 324 Franklin St, Cambridge, MA, 02139. Finally, you can pay via the AFA website (this is the only way to pay by credit card). Here is the updated list as of November 19, 2008. Sherry NDT 2008-2009 Subscribers Binghamton University Boston College California Polytechnic University California State University @ Chico California State University @ Northridge City University of New York Clarion College Columbia University Concordia College Dartmouth College Eastern New Mexico University George Mason University George Washington University Gonzaga University Harvard University Illinois College Illinois State University Johnson County Community College Kansas State University Liberty University Macalaster Marist College Mary Washington University Methodist University Michigan State University New York University Northwestern University Pepperdine University Redlands Sacramento State University Samford University San Francisco State University Southern Methodist University Towson University Trinity University United States Naval Academy University of California @ Berkeley University of Central Oklahoma University of Florida University of Georgia University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Miami - Ohio University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri @ Kansas City University of Nevada @ Las Vegas University of North Texas University of Notre Dame University of Pittsburgh University of Richmond University of Rochester University of Texas @ Austin University of Texas @ Dallas University of Tulsa University of Vermont Wake Forest University Weber State West Virginia Western Connecticut State University Whitman College Wichita State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081119/8b310afb/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Nov 19 09:27:38 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 07:27:38 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Baltimore College Debate Message-ID: <38F0CC07961246BF9EAB38090553303E@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Mid Atlantic Fall Championships Starts:12/6/2008 Ends:12/7/2008 Hosted by: Baltimore College Debate Contact: Andy Ellis Address: 1800 n. charles street suite 906 baltimore, md 21218 Phone: 240-285-0843 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 5 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos jv with 5 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Novice with 5 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Wed Nov 19 09:54:35 2008 From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:54:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] Fullerton Hybrid? Message-ID: Serious, policy-centric but kritik-capable 2A, top ten speakers at Shirley, seeks similarly serious 2N for hybrid fun in the sun. Just a fling, no committment beyond 1/9/9. From proudsavage at gmail.com Wed Nov 19 10:54:59 2008 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:54:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] massey Message-ID: <9b5963440811190854o622f16e8w762614af88ba28df@mail.gmail.com> lets at least pretend we are adults for a minute... hit me up -- 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/20081119/ced22be5/attachment.htm From rowedan at gmail.com Wed Nov 19 11:58:12 2008 From: rowedan at gmail.com (Dan Rowe) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:58:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Lost Laptop at Wake Message-ID: <645cb0570811190958y272d2830q890c1b89cd4cede3@mail.gmail.com> I believe I left a black North Face backpack in the room in which finals was happening. could have been somewhere in the larger hotel area. It has all my school work in it so i'd be greatly appreciative if i got it back rowedan at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081119/24b6269d/attachment.htm From infinite.monad at gmail.com Wed Nov 19 13:41:22 2008 From: infinite.monad at gmail.com (iz: -ak) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:41:22 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Concept-map of Being and Time Message-ID: if you got it, i want it izak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081119/3c606863/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Wed Nov 19 15:59:58 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:59:58 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC - Alan Nichols Tournament Hotel Message-ID: <03c901c94a92$29b9e8a0$7d2db9e0$@edu> Apologies to all for the delays. The full invite will be up shortly. The seven round tournament for Open, JV and Novice (entries permitting) tournament will be running from January 3-5, 2009. I wanted to get the hotel information up so folks can go ahead and make their reservations. We have once again secured a block of rooms at the Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown Hotel. This is the same property that we have used in previous years. We are pleased to have secured a $109.00 per night rate for up to four guests per room at this property. We realize this is an increase over past years, but the changing nature of downtown hotel properties has made our historical rate structure difficult to maintain. Contact the hotel at (213) 488-3500 to make reservations. Ask for the block for the 'USC Debate Squad.' We strongly encourage you to use this option. New Year's in Los Angeles can be very expensive. Making reservations outside the block with the Sheraton can cost you at least $199 per room over those dates. The block is available on a first-come, first-serve basis to our guests. The block typically fills so please reserve as early as possible. You can access the Sheraton's website to find more information about the property or contact them. 711 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone (213) 488-3500 Fax (213) 488-4110 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/20081119/e1bf32e7/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 92 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081119/e1bf32e7/attachment.gif From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Nov 19 18:42:24 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:42:24 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Southern California Message-ID: <906F6052E8EE4A5596AD473F975C0840@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:USC 'Alan Nichols' Debate Tournament Starts:1/3/2009 Ends:1/5/2009 Hosted by: Southern California Contact: Gordon Stables Address: Annenberg School for Communication - USC, Los Angeles, CA 90089 Phone: 213-740-2759 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Open with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Novice with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Wed Nov 19 18:48:18 2008 From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:48:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] Harvard High School Tournament Invitation Message-ID: The invitation to the Thirty-fifth Annual Harvard National Invitational Forensics Tournament is now available at www.harvard-debate.org dp From grantperetz at gmail.com Wed Nov 19 19:46:00 2008 From: grantperetz at gmail.com (Grant Peretz) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:46:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ATTN: Jon Dentler Message-ID: <255d2cfb0811191746w5a9fb540y7f3a2235eaee5ad5@mail.gmail.com> backchannel please. grantperetz at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081119/f7a24a6c/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Nov 20 13:11:34 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:11:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Professional Responsibility Amendment Message-ID: <1227208294.4925b66677aac@webmail.grandecom.net> Dear Colleagues: I support the Professional Responsibility amendment. I won?t be at NCA. However, I would like to raise a few key issues that I believe may be overlooked in the drive to protect academic freedom and free speech at all costs. (1) Predators and miscreants. Some have argued in posts that the University policies of employers are enough to check abuse. If the person in question has behaved egregiously enough, they can be fired. That solves the problem. This is incorrect for a few key reasons: a. University employers often enter into settlement agreements with professors that allow them to exit the university gracefully and with secrecy of past indiscretions. The professor can then get hired on at another university and can resume his or her activities. For example, and merely a hypothetical (cough, cough) example, Professor X coerces his debaters to purchase drugs for them, or a coercive sexual relationship ensues. Professor X is asked to quietly leave his university. He then is hired to coach at another school. This person would be on the circuit with other students and there is nothing that we as an organization can do about it. As a community, we should be able to weed out the bad apples. But, as it currently stands, there is nothing we can do. b. If someone does behave egregiously at a tournament sanctioned by CEDA, there is currently no mechanism for the Association to take action against that person unless it is sexual harassment. Even the sexual harassment clause is so weak that it is ineffective. So, person Y shows up to a round strung out on heroin, or any other bad thing like literally showing your ass there is nothing in the CEDA Constitution that allows the community to enforce any standards or to notify that person?s home institution. CEDA should have a process by which, after some element of due process, it can notify the bad actor?s employer so more action can be taken. c. Sometimes Universities do not take action on issues that we may consider to be unprofessional. For example, take fabrication of evidence. It may be a big deal to those within the community, but I doubt it is an offense worthy of firing someone. Other examples of inconsistent enforcement abound. We need only look at the incident that sparked this discussion to see that there were inconsistent outcomes for the parties at issue. (2) The legal liability issue. I guess it?s the lawyer in me that keeps worrying about this point. Free speech and academic freedom anarchists in the community just don?t seem to get it. There are real world implications our Association?s inaction on this issue. If we have a pattern of tolerating everything and anything, then CEDA could be liable at some level for damages. Extending on the predators example given above, if we just have a laizzie faire attitude towards the professionals in this activity, and we have knowledge of their past misdeeds, and something does happen, CEDA is possibly liable. Just being named in a lawsuit is bad enough. Defending such a suit is expensive and could bankrupt the organization. Worse, not having a Professional Responsibility code would hurt the Association?s ability to defend itself. Granted, we cannot stop bad things from happening just by enacting an enforceable set of rules. But we can show a judge or a jury that we did everything in our Association?s power to protect students. (3) Pathological periods. Martin Reddish, a 1st Amendment scholar wrote an article regarding ?pathological periods.? In a nutshell, he argued that core 1st Amendment rights were in danger of being rolled back because Free Expression was being trivialized. During pathological periods such as a war or national crisis, the trivialization would be used as an excuse to rollback 1st Amendment rights and other rights, even to the detriment of core free speech (political dissent). I personally think that policy debate is about to enter into a pathological period. In fact, I think we have seen the first volley from the administrations at Pitt and Fort Hays State University. We have seen the second volley from some ass Parly coach at Yale who apparently thinks anyone debating from a land grant institution should be shot on sight. In case you have not heard about it, the country is in a major recession. This means that your ivory towers are about to collide with the realities of the markets and the taxpayers in your respective states. Even the Ivy league schools like Harvard are beginning to do cut backs in programs because their stock portfolios have been slashed by as much at 30%. So what is the point? The point is that allowing total and absolute freedom within this activity with little to no real check risks the enemies of the activity using the excesses to crush it. Total freedom and an ?animal house? attitude toward debate risks having competitors for ever dwindling resources point to these excesses as an excuse to cut program budgets. If administrators see debate as having little value, then it is easy to cut the program in a time of fiscal trouble. Mere public relations saying ?well, that only happens a few times,? will not be enough. It really does take only one bad example to ruin the reputation of CEDA. Nobody is going to report the final round in which the competitors ended the debate with a hug. Nobody is going to report when one debater helps another. What will always take center stage is the equivalent of a mid-air collision. My fear is that our community?s tolerance will be used by our enemies to undermine policy debate. I too have concerns about some of the language. In fact, I originally preferred a more detailed list of behaviors subject to sanction. Regardless, the proposed amendment allows for multiple levels of due process, investigation and appeals. As a contrarian on many of the issues within this community, and as someone who has been known to cuss more than a few people out, I too fear a ?witchhunt? mentality. However, I believe the due process sections and the appeals sections provide enough protection for individuals accused of unprofessional conduct. Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D. Director of Debate U.L.-Lafayette From jmgreen at ksu.edu Thu Nov 20 13:46:37 2008 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:46:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Macalester Tournament - Come one ----- Come all ---- sign up if coming Message-ID: <5a6e2a80811201146i50414fe4wc6605c5967308b5f@mail.gmail.com> Kansas State is excited about attending the Macalester Tournament....Register your teams soon - so we can make definite arrangements to attend... Top 5 unofficial reasons to attend the tournament..... 5 - great food in the Twin Cities - 4 - the Baxter-Kaufs 3 - focus on teams that usually don't get attention 2 - you won't want your debaters to forget what the topic is between Wake and whenever you travel next 1 - it might be cold, but there's a lotta love.... Justin Green From jmgreen at ksu.edu Thu Nov 20 14:27:22 2008 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:27:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Debate Assistantship(s) at Kansas State Message-ID: <5a6e2a80811201227k63e71bddw5a1fd15f661cd937@mail.gmail.com> KSU has one, maybe two, Speech Communications Graduate School Teaching assistantship available for the 2009-10 school year. Don't like Comm Studies...see very end of email. The recipient will receive: - a $10,000 stipend for each year to be split up over 9 months - a tuition waiver for Communication Studies MA program - you still must pay student fees of about $300 a semester. This is a 2-year program. Why KSU Debate? - Diversity in argument - of our top 5 Varsity teams (no seniors graduating) - righteous performers, critical nihilists, policy wonks, flexible, and discoursekeyers - Family environment - we have pot-lucks, show up at the hospital for one another, birthdays are celebrated - School Support - Awesome jumpsuits are provided by our President, everyone at the school knows of the debate team, - Manhattan, KS is awesome - cheap housing within walking distance of campus, Aggieville (a 5 block radius with over 20 different watering holes within walkind distance of campus), no traffic, parks and centrally located for all of the D-3 tournaments The recipient is expected to: - travel to 4 debate tournaments a semester. Want to go to more, great, definitely not required. - teach 6 hours of Public Speaking. Extensive assistance is provided. You will receive Teacher Evaluations for your class which many find helpful in applying for future jobs. - attend a 1-week training session for Public Speaking prior to the start of each Fall semester. - listen to 2-3 practice speeches a week - complete/work extensively with debaters on 2 files a year within your area of specialty. Want to do more....again great. The candidate must: - be on track for completion of their B.A. Those who plan to finish in the summer must demonstrate ability to complete coursework. This might seem obvious, but past experiences make posting this a necessity. - have at least a 2.5 GPA. A 3.0 or above is preferred. The higher the GPA, the better the chances. - disclose to Justin Green their desire to apply via email to the address above. The ideal candidate would: - desire to win. Winning is not the most important lesson in debate for KSU debaters and coaches; it is why we receive funding. We believe striving to win does increase knowledge of lessons learned and helps to create a strong bond. - enjoy being around a big team - i.e. be willing to make fun of/with everyone including themselves. This includes working well with other coaches (Sarah Snider, Jeff Roberts, Natalie Pennington, Hallie Tripe). KSU debate is a family. - enjoy working with all experience levels - All of our coaches coach all of our teams. - desire to take a very active role while at a debate tournament. - have achieved personal success in debate. DIVERSITY Our squad is diverse. Categories... if you like to use them, pick one or two or combine, we probably have it represented and celebrated. If you don't like categories, we have lots of different people and like to add others to the mix (although not necessarily stir). We celebrate diversity/flexibility in argument too. We like coaches who have in-depth experience/knowledge about a certain area/style of debate. We seek diverse experts of all varieties and backgrounds. We are actively looking for someone who is interested in performance styles. If you are interested please send an email to jmgreen at ksu.edu I will also be at the Texas 2-Step, please feel free to ask questions of myself or any of the KSU coaches and/or debaters. FOR THOSE NOT SEEKING COMM DEGREES I encourage you to apply for one of many GTA programs in other disciplines: ENGLISH, MATH, HARD SCIENCES, just to name a few. There is no preference given to debaters in admissions into these programs, but there are still possibilities to work with the debate team. If you have a certain field in mind and are interested in Manhattan, please let me know your field of interest. Justin Green Director of Debate - Kansas State From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu Nov 20 18:33:38 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:33:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Debate Assistantship(s) at Kansas State Message-ID: <4925AD820200009300020154@mymail.kckcc.edu> With Wefald's impending retirement, I would make sure you get in writing from all potential Presidential candidates the commitment to continue to provide jumpsuits. We love the purple, seriously. All I got at Wichita State was a damn yellow t-shirt AND I had to room with Jarman. Can you say hosed? As for the ideal qualifications you listed: Please cross post those to the hiring post for the new football coach too. Desire to win, work with all experience levels, take an active role while at games, and achieved personal success. All qualities your AD needs to get this time around. See if only debaters ran the world. GO STATE! chief >>> "Justin Green" 11/20/08 2:27 PM >>> KSU has one, maybe two, Speech Communications Graduate School Teaching assistantship available for the 2009-10 school year. Why KSU Debate? - School Support - Awesome jumpsuits are provided by our President, everyone at the school knows of the debate team, The ideal candidate would: - desire to win. Winning is not the most important lesson in debate for KSU debaters and coaches; it is why we receive funding. We believe striving to win does increase knowledge of lessons learned and helps to create a strong bond. - enjoy working with all experience levels - All of our coaches coach all of our teams. - desire to take a very active role while at a debate tournament. - have achieved personal success in debate. Justin Green Director of Debate - Kansas State _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From stables at usc.edu Thu Nov 20 18:54:39 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:54:39 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Schedule and Agenda for NCA Meetings Message-ID: <004301c94b73$bb7837b0$3268a710$@edu> There are many great NCA sessions. We encourage you to review those items and to join us for a many of them, including the business meetings. The full schedule of meetings and agenda is below. If you cannot attend the business meeting on Saturday, but would like to cast a proxy vote, the form is available online at http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=proxy Meeting schedule: 1. CEDA Executive Committee Meeting, Fri, Nov 21 - 8:00am - 9:15am, Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 734 2. The CEDA Business Meeting is scheduled for Saturday, November 22, from 12:30 - 1:45 in the Manchester Grand Hyatt / Parlor Room 824 3. CEDA President's Roundtable , Sat, Nov 22 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm, Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 824 4. CEDA Topic Meeting, Sun, Nov 23 - 8:00am - 9:15am, Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 605 CEDA Meeting Agenda NCA 2008 November 2008 Agenda I. Reports A. President Report (Gordon Stables for Darren Elliott) a. Heather Walters has agreed to be at the meetings and serve as a Presidential-Appointed Recording Secretary. b. CEDA Nationals Novice BreakOut Award i. CEDA Nationals 2009 will, for the first time, offer a Novice breakout bracket, culminating in the crowning of a CEDA recognized Champion among Novice Debate Teams. Once preliminary rounds are concluded, a separate bracket will be created among Novice eligible teams. Both debaters must be eligible based on CEDA's definition of Novice. I will work with Tab Room Director Gary Larson to determine the appropriate number of teams (hopefully at least Quarters) and when the best time to begin these rounds based on room availability and judges. B. 2009 CEDA National Tournament Host Report--Sarah Partlow-Lefevre C. 1st VP & Topic Committee Report - Gordon Stables a. 2009 Summer Meetings - Debate Summit and Development Conference i. Wake Forest University - June 2-9 1. Business meeting 2. Topic meeting 3. Debate Summit and Development Conference b. 2009 Awards c. Ad Hoc Committee on Curriculum d. Insurance Policy Review (via Kelly McDonald) e. Financial Emergency Planning Initiative f. Topic Committee Update g. Bid to host 2010 - (see below. This item was already provided to the membership in the Fall 2008 newsletter) UC Berkeley is pleased to submit a bid to host the 2010 CEDA National tournament. It is our hope to, for the first time, host both the NDT and CEDA Nationals. Dates: March 25-28, 2010. The NDT will run March 20-23. This falls during Cal's spring break and if it coincides with other schools spring bring this will significantly minimize the amount of school missed by students who attend both tournaments. Hotel: The hotel we have selected is the Oakland Marriott City Center. We have secured a block of 175 rooms all of which are doubles, though people can request kings for the same cost. The rate for the event is $117 which includes free internet. The Oakland Marriott is in the heart of downtown Oakland and is minutes from several bars and restaurants (including Oakland's Chinatown) as well as the Oakland BART station. There will be no shortage of great restaurants and nightlife opportunities in Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco. The hotel is also connected to the Oakland Convention Center and elimination rounds on the final day of the tournament would all be held there. We are in the process of negotiating a reduced parking rate at the hotel (anyone who has spent time in the Bay Area knows that parking is hard to come by and expensive) and are hopeful we will be able to get parking reduced to around $15 per day. This will also be the same hotel used for the NDT. We will also have ample space at the hotel for a student party and for any and all meetings that need to take place. One final note with regards to our bid. The room reservation office on our campus has a strict policy of not reserving rooms until 1 year before the event. We have a close relationship with this office and the Director of the office assured me that it was very, very unlikely that there would be any group on campus attempting to use rooms over Spring Break, but there is a small chance that this would effect our ability to host. If it does we will know by March 2009 and will thus have time to make alternative preparations. Thank you very much for your consideration of our bid. Greg Achten and Dave Arnett, Co-Directors of Forensics, UC Berkeley D. 2nd VP Report - Sue Peterson E. Treasurer Report - ML Sandoz F. Exec Sec Report - Jeff Jarman New website www.cedadebate.org G. Journal Editor Report - Al Louden H. Committee Reports II. New Business: A. Elections - We have many positions to elect and still need interested members of our community. Nominations for all open positions close at the business meeting. At the close of the Business Meeting, all nominations will be closed. There are no term limits, so people can serve in a position more than once. 1. 2nd Vice President (will assume the role of 1st Vp in 2nd year of term and President in 3rd year of term. Member of the Executive Council) * Andy Ellis * Vik Keenan * * Jason Russell * Mike Davis * 2. Topic Committee Rep (at large seat with a 3 year obligation) * Jake Thompson * Scott Elliott * Jason Russell * Dave Arnett Regional Reps from the following Regions: (2 year term, member of the Executive Council) 3. Northwest - Derek Buescher 4. West - Kristen Tudor * 5. Mid-America - Darren Elliott 6. East Central 7. Southeast Central 8. Southeast - Dave Steinberg * ( * = not yet confirmed) B. Professional Code of Conduct Amendment The amendment is available online at http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=node/220 III. Discussion Items * Does participation in public forum debate in high school count against novice eligibility? * CEDA Region redistricting. * Future of CEDA role with listservs and websites. * New recording and publication policy 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/20081120/df647dfa/attachment.htm From cramhelwich at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 21:38:52 2008 From: cramhelwich at gmail.com (David Cram Helwich) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:38:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate School at Minnesota Message-ID: <52ace93c0811201938o162bbcb6s7407db986e842e87@mail.gmail.com> OFFICIAL WORDS The Communication Studies Department at the University of Minnesota encourages students interested in pursuing an MA or PhD to apply to our program. We have a highly regarded faculty with diverse areas of expertise. Graduate students concentrate in communication theory, rhetorical studies, and/or critical media studies, and are afforded considerable flexibility in crafting a course of study that matches their individual scholarly interests. The department also has an excellent track record of both having students complete their degrees in a timely fashion and seeing those students placed in faculty positions. If you have any questions about the graduate program, or would like to complete an application, please visit our web page at: http://comm.umn.edu/grad/, or contact Dr. Mary Douglas Vavrus, Director of Graduate Studies at: vavru001 at umn.edu There are also many opportunities for graduate students to work with the debate program. If you are interested, please contact David Cram Helwich at: helwi012 at umn.edu OR cramhelwich at gmail.com. You can also learn more about the team at our website: debate.umn.edu THE SCOOP The U has an excellent graduate program, featuring a very bright crop of graduate students and an outstanding faculty. People finish their degrees on time, and move on to good jobs in their chosen disciplines. The department exhibits a high degree of professionalism and comity, and has an excellent working and learning environment. The debate team receives a high level of support from the administration. We have a great group of students, and are looking for graduate students who are interested in helping us build a strong program that balances competitive excellence with a commitment to debate as a powerful pedagogical tool and platform for social change. The coaching staff makes most decisions collectively, and you will have the opportunity to put your mark on an emerging program. The Twin Cities are a fantastic place to live and work--great music scenes, internationally renowned theaters and art galleries, a reasonable cost of living, diverse (and close) outdoor recreation opportunities, and all of the amenities of a major city. Yes, winter is cold, but you can buy a coat to wear when you go out to visit the Guthrie, or MIA, or First Ave, or the Dakota, or the Walker, or one of the many lakes, or the Winter Carnival, or the groomed cross country ski trails in the city parks. dch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081120/eef36660/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Nov 20 23:10:21 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:10:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 14th to last post: birth certificate case moves up @ supreme court Message-ID: ladies and gents, the denofrio case against the marion jones of politics has reached the threshold of a supreme court conference. that means in plain language, the supreme court does not think that the birth certificate issue is as irrelevant as the obama team would like you to believe. the logic of berg and harvard law graduate vieira still applies: obama refuses to submit his birth certificate to the court system because that birth certificate will not withstand scrutiny.now lookie here. if only i could speed up my presidency a lil quicker with total appointments before thanksgiving and create the illusion of a fait d'accompli, i would. the supreme court is trying to stop me and i don't know why. i gave my birth certificate to fact check. why should i have to give it to the fly paper courts and third party forensics experts? those racists just want to trash the greatest fairy tale ever told. believe me, my birth certificate is legit. you don't need to see the original, vault copy. i wasn't born in kenya. hillary for sec state wouldn't be the worst cabinet appointment in history. jarrett wasn't an african-american slumlord. rahm didn't deploy lewinsky. team of rivals still applies post-FDR. CNN tells the truth. iraqi troops will not be redeployed for the afghan surge. they're comin' home. national civil service is a great idea.Donofrio v Obama Citizenship Case Moves To New Supreme Court LevelBy Devvy Kidd11-19-8 Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been "distributed for conference." On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to discuss this case identified as: Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New JerseyUnited States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 Leo informed me earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas. This is the link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm If you go to this link, it will give you the process under Title 18: http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007/10/petition-distributed-for- conference-on.html Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process. This docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen." Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081120/0adf1f48/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Nov 20 23:13:44 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:13:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 14th to last post: birth certificate case moves up @ supreme court In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Woo Hoo, the Court is doing its job so there is no need for us......Thank God, now go away, All hail the Justices, Josh On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Old Strega wrote: > ladies and gents, the denofrio case against the marion jones of politics > has reached the threshold of a supreme court conference. that means in > plain language, the supreme court does not think that the birth certificate > issue is as irrelevant as the obama team would like you to believe. the > logic of berg and harvard law graduate vieira still applies: obama refuses > to submit his birth certificate to the court system because that birth > certificate will not withstand scrutiny. > now lookie here. if only i could speed up my presidency a lil quicker > with total appointments before thanksgiving and create the illusion of a > fait d'accompli, i would. the supreme court is trying to stop me and i don't > know why. i gave my birth certificate to fact check. why should i have > to give it to the fly paper courts and third party forensics experts? those > racists just want to trash the greatest fairy tale ever told. believe me, > my birth certificate is legit. you don't need to see the original, vault > copy. i wasn't born in kenya. hillary for sec state wouldn't be the > worst cabinet appointment in history. jarrett wasn't an african-american > slumlord. rahm didn't deploy lewinsky. team of rivals still applies > post-FDR. CNN tells the truth. iraqi troops will not be redeployed for > the afghan surge. they're comin' home. national civil service is a > great idea. > *Donofrio v Obama Citizenship > Case Moves To New > Supreme Court Level* > By Devvy Kidd > 11-19-8 Leo Donofrio's case submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court > reagrding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level: the case has been > "distributed for conference." On December 5, 2008, only ten days before > the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court > will meet in private to discuss this case identified as: Leo C. > Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New > Jersey United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407 Leo informed me > earlier today via telephone about this historic event and wanted to thank > everyone who sent their letters to Justice Clarence Thomas. This is the > link to the Supreme Court showing the docket and action: > http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a407.htm If you go to this > link, it will give you the process under Title 18: > http://nocriminalcode.blogspot.com/2007/10/petition-distributed-for-conference-on.html > Click on Justices Conference for more history on this process. This > docketing today by the court for this next step should send ripples of fear > through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lighenting speed to put > together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that > he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a > "natural born citizen." Every major news network, print and cable news > like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging > Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in > their best interest at this point to report this critically important > meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility > they have left. > ------------------------------ > Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081121/127f3fcb/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Nov 20 23:21:26 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:21:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] josh: judicial activism wrong --- trash the constitution Message-ID: that's right, article is outdated along with almost the entirety of the US constitution.who cares if obama is lying about his birth in kenya? he'll be honest about the rest of transparency and straight talk.the whole question is stupid. the supreme court is a bunch of morons including scalia. no wonder CNN refuses to talk about their serious scrutiny of fact check's analysis.i agree with the lower court, i.e. surrick's ruling in pennsylvania. narcissistic citizens have no right to contest the eligibility of presidential candidates. if the DNC vets 'em, that's final.i can't wait for the supreme court to confirm surrick and set the precedent for ineligible right-wackos from caucacus to circumvent the three branch system of checks and balances. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081120/9e4f65be/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 00:11:44 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:11:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] josh: judicial activism wrong --- trash the constitution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ok, so, its important/relevant because the "stupid" Supreme Court recognized it? Hmmmmm, ok, I will go back to nervously pacing my apartment until this terrible tragedy is finally resolved and we can get rid of that terrible "birth-certificate thief" Obama, Josh On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Old Strega wrote: > that's right, article is outdated along with almost the entirety of the US > constitution. > who cares if obama is lying about his birth in kenya? he'll be honest > about the rest of transparency and straight talk. > > the whole question is stupid. the supreme court is a bunch of morons > including scalia. no wonder CNN refuses to talk about their serious > scrutiny of fact check's analysis. > > i agree with the lower court, i.e. surrick's ruling in pennsylvania. > narcissistic citizens have no right to contest the eligibility of > presidential candidates. if the DNC vets 'em, that's final. > > i can't wait for the supreme court to confirm surrick and set the precedent > for ineligible right-wackos from caucacus to circumvent the three branch > system of checks and balances. > > > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081121/d2c2f95b/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Nov 21 09:06:50 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:06:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] kenyan embassy admits cagliostro born in kenya Message-ID: http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081121/8d0cb374/attachment.htm From kenrjohnson at msn.com Fri Nov 21 09:10:55 2008 From: kenrjohnson at msn.com (Ken Johnson) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:10:55 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking JV/Open partner for Texas Swing Message-ID: We have a partnerless person for Texas -- he will debate open or JV. Any swingers? ken rochester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081121/b3cd0fbe/attachment.htm From sjdiggs at hotmail.com Fri Nov 21 12:14:08 2008 From: sjdiggs at hotmail.com (Shawntia Diggs) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:14:08 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Elizabeth Wiley from George Washington Message-ID: Hey, I'm looking for contact info for Elizabeth Wiley. If you have any or if you happen to be her. Backchannel me at shawntia.bmoreyours at gmail. Thanks. SHAWNTIA J. DIGGS _________________________________________________________________ Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642556/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081121/543f846e/attachment.htm From sjdiggs at hotmail.com Fri Nov 21 12:20:42 2008 From: sjdiggs at hotmail.com (Shawntia Diggs) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:20:42 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Mid-Atlantic Championship December 6-7 Message-ID: Hey all, The invitation for the Mid-Atlantic Championship at Towson University is up now on Debateresults. If your interested in 5 rounds of competition plus elims, quality judging all at a low cost = Come to Baltimore. The day on Saturday starts at 9:30 and we will be going home for the night by 8pm =Great schedule =Come to Baltimore. Any questions contact me at shawntia.bmoreyours at gmail.com. Hope to see you there. SHAWNTIA J. DIGGS Program Coordinator Baltimore College Debate Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems _________________________________________________________________ Proud to be a PC? Show the world. Download the ?I?m a PC? Messenger themepack now. hthttp://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642558/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081121/7892cc1c/attachment.htm From mschnall at gmx.net Fri Nov 21 14:21:04 2008 From: mschnall at gmx.net (Matt Schnall) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:21:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Boston Debate League Message-ID: <4926D1E0.21790.397377C1@mschnall.gmx.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081121/29036228/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Nov 21 14:30:59 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:30:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JV Nov Nats Info Message-ID: <9368bc9b0811211230h7b91edf0y76e834578b83ac53@mail.gmail.com> Plans are going forward but i wanted to let you all know about an opportunity you will have to help drive down the cost of the tournament. Starting December 1st we will register JV/Novice Nationals on Ideablob.com If we as a community can get enough votes they will give us 10 k for the tournament. Once it is posted i will give you all the info you need to vote and the contest instructions, and then you should vote early and as often as you can convince a student to do it. Really, this is the easiest fundraising we will ever do and if we get the 10k it will SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the cost of the tournament for all particpants and will help fund travel and lodging for some new tournaments. In the past it has taken nearly 600 votes to win and i am sure we have the network to get 600 votes. Stay tuned for more information. Andy Ellis Chief Operating Officer Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems 822 W. 36th Street Baltimore MD, 21211 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081121/1875a496/attachment.htm From mschnall at gmx.net Fri Nov 21 15:51:41 2008 From: mschnall at gmx.net (Matt Schnall) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:51:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Boston Debate League (reposting in plaintext) Message-ID: <4926E71D.8386.39C66CBD@mschnall.gmx.net> I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Steve Stein, the new coordinator of Boston's urban debate league. (Some of you will remember Steve from his college debate days at Emory.) If you have ties to the Boston area, please join our list of interested debaters/alums by emailing Steve or me. We will let you know about the great progress the league is making and how, if you like, you can get involved. -- Matt Matt Schnall Harvard Debate '90 Boston, MA mschnall at gmx.net ________________________________ Calling all former debaters in and from the Boston area. The Boston Debate League is a non-profit organization that, in partnership with the Boston Public Schools, extends the life-changing opportunity of debate to students in Boston?s public high schools. If you benefited from debate yourself, or if you are passionate about providing valuable educational opportunities to Boston?s young people, then you know how significant debate can be. The Boston Debate League would like to get in touch with as many former debaters in or from the Boston area as we can. To find out more about what we are doing in Boston, please email our director Steve Stein at steve at bostondebate.org. I also highly recommend the powerful and moving piece by 60 Minutes about the impact that Urban Debate Leagues have on the lives of troubled students, available at http://urbandebate.org/60minutes.shtml . Steven Stein Executive Director Boston Debate League 334 Boylston St., Suite 500 Boston, MA 02116 617-933-1897 (office) 773-329-1306 (cell) 617-262-6509 (fax) From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Nov 21 21:31:23 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:31:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] josh: judicial activism wrong --- trash the constitution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: not submitting a birth certificate to court is good because the momentum of the election can ride cagliostro through the technicalities.not submitting a birth certificate to court is not the reason the supreme court conference is happening. it would be stupid to force the case to go away completely with real evidence of natural born citizenship. josh wouldn't get to make his hilarious pacing in his apartment jokes anymore.not submitting a birth certificate to court meets common sense standards of transparency which isn't important anyway since transparency is an obstacle to the top-down executive power needed to reverse the bush-cheney debacle.the more we make fun of the berg and donofrio cases on the supreme court docket the more the supreme court will uphold obama's right not to submit his birth certificate to anybody but factcheck. the conference to take place on december 5th is in name only. the justices won't even show up or talk about the case against obama.in the end, if obama had chosen to let anybody but fact check look at his hawaiian short-form with no notarized witness signatures, then i would no longer consider him a "transformational figure" on the brink of reversing all the bush treachery ushering in the liberal utopia of hard work and responsibility. with obama's long history of making change and the encouraging signs of his appointments, especially hillary clinton, the birth certificate issue becomes irrelevant. it doesn't matter much because so much good is about to happen and optimism will be fulfilled. ha ha ha. obama is too good to be transparent about his birth certificate.and, again, i'm glad obama is refusing to submit the birth certificate and forcing the courts in the 15 birth certificate cases in roughly one third of the 50 states to rule that the plaintiffs have no standing setting the precedent for a right-wing wacko to do copy his subversion of the eligibility rules. the eligibility requirements of the constitution are a worthy target of irony as long as you think your candidate is worth trashing those requirements. Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:11:44 -0500From: jbhdb8 at gmail.comTo: oldstrega at hotmail.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] josh: judicial activism wrong --- trash the constitutionCC: edebate at ndtceda.comOk, so, its important/relevant because the "stupid" Supreme Court recognized it? Hmmmmm, ok, I will go back to nervously pacing my apartment until this terrible tragedy is finally resolved and we can get rid of that terrible "birth-certificate thief" Obama, Josh On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Old Strega wrote: that's right, article is outdated along with almost the entirety of the US constitution. who cares if obama is lying about his birth in kenya? he'll be honest about the rest of transparency and straight talk. the whole question is stupid. the supreme court is a bunch of morons including scalia. no wonder CNN refuses to talk about their serious scrutiny of fact check's analysis. i agree with the lower court, i.e. surrick's ruling in pennsylvania. narcissistic citizens have no right to contest the eligibility of presidential candidates. if the DNC vets 'em, that's final. i can't wait for the supreme court to confirm surrick and set the precedent for ineligible right-wackos from caucacus to circumvent the three branch system of checks and balances. Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today._______________________________________________ eDebate mailing listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081121/f7d49307/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sat Nov 22 00:31:49 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:31:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] josh: judicial activism wrong --- trash the constitution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You win, he isnt transformational, the courts suck, my jokes are funny.....Victory for Democracy....If he only had not stolen his birth certificate in Watergate 2008 damn him for forcing the destruction of the constitution in his name.....man, this is better than the weekly world news, Josh On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Old Strega wrote: > not submitting a birth certificate to court is good because the momentum of > the election can ride cagliostro through the technicalities. > not submitting a birth certificate to court is not the reason the supreme > court conference is happening. it would be stupid to force the case to go > away completely with real evidence of natural born citizenship. josh > wouldn't get to make his hilarious pacing in his apartment jokes anymore. > > not submitting a birth certificate to court meets common sense standards of > transparency which isn't important anyway since transparency is an obstacle > to the top-down executive power needed to reverse the bush-cheney debacle. > > the more we make fun of the berg and donofrio cases on the supreme court > docket the more the supreme court will uphold obama's right not to submit > his birth certificate to anybody but factcheck. the conference to take > place on december 5th is in name only. the justices won't even show up or > talk about the case against obama. > > in the end, if obama had chosen to let anybody but fact check look at his > hawaiian short-form with no notarized witness signatures, then i would no > longer consider him a "transformational figure" on the brink of reversing > all the bush treachery ushering in the liberal utopia of hard work and > responsibility. with obama's long history of making change and the > encouraging signs of his appointments, especially hillary clinton, the birth > certificate issue becomes irrelevant. it doesn't matter much because so > much good is about to happen and optimism will be fulfilled. ha ha ha. > obama is too good to be transparent about his birth certificate. > > and, again, i'm glad obama is refusing to submit the birth certificate and > forcing the courts in the 15 birth certificate cases in roughly one third of > the 50 states to rule that the plaintiffs have no standing setting the > precedent for a right-wing wacko to do copy his subversion of the > eligibility rules. the eligibility requirements of the constitution are > a worthy target of irony as long as you think your candidate is worth > trashing those requirements. > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:11:44 -0500 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] josh: judicial activism wrong --- trash the > constitution > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > > Ok, so, its important/relevant because the "stupid" Supreme Court > recognized it? > > Hmmmmm, ok, I will go back to nervously pacing my apartment until this > terrible tragedy is finally resolved and we can get rid of that terrible > "birth-certificate thief" Obama, > > Josh > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > that's right, article is outdated along with almost the entirety of the US > constitution. > who cares if obama is lying about his birth in kenya? he'll be honest > about the rest of transparency and straight talk. > > the whole question is stupid. the supreme court is a bunch of morons > including scalia. no wonder CNN refuses to talk about their serious > scrutiny of fact check's analysis. > > i agree with the lower court, i.e. surrick's ruling in pennsylvania. > narcissistic citizens have no right to contest the eligibility of > presidential candidates. if the DNC vets 'em, that's final. > > i can't wait for the supreme court to confirm surrick and set the precedent > for ineligible right-wackos from caucacus to circumvent the three branch > system of checks and balances. > > > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > ------------------------------ > Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail. Sign up > today. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081122/ab1dc569/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Sat Nov 22 13:47:57 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:47:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] NCA - CEDA Business Meeting Message-ID: The room for the CEDA Business Meeting (and the President's Roundtable) have been moved from 824 at the Hyatt to room 868. Please also check the CEDA website for updated agenda and amendment information. www.cedadebate.org 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 From stables at usc.edu Sat Nov 22 14:08:50 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 12:08:50 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Ceda meeting update Message-ID: Please ignore the earlier message. The hyatt incorrectly listed a room move. The ceda meetings are still in room 824 as originally scheduled. Gordon From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sat Nov 22 20:25:14 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:25:14 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt after round 3 Message-ID: here's results up to this point at the wnpt. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: wnpt-after-rd-3.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 20992 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081122/3c2a8970/attachment.xls From sailorferrets at gmail.com Sat Nov 22 21:56:55 2008 From: sailorferrets at gmail.com (joe leeson-schatz) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:56:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Binghamton Novice Breaks Message-ID: All Novice Teams we a 3-2 Record broke to double octos. Rookie Semi Teams: Wilkes Mommoth st vermont jm rochester ms Doubles and rookie semis will happen during round 6 of jv/varsity. joe leeson-schatz director of debate at binghamton university campaigns coordinator of the binghamton/vestal vegan association From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sat Nov 22 23:39:50 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:39:50 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt after round 4 Message-ID: jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: wnpt-after-rd-4.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 22528 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081122/7efa3f8b/attachment.xls From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sun Nov 23 15:49:31 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:49:31 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt after round 5 Message-ID: jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: wnpt-after-rd-5.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081123/3f0042e7/attachment.xls From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Nov 23 16:57:59 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:57:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate Message-ID: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFBARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATETo: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other controlling legal authoritiesWhereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen;Whereas, there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims;Whereas, Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery;Whereas, lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed;Whereas, Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii;Whereas, concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections;SIGN THE PETITIONWe, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United Statesin demanding that the constitutional eligibility requirement be taken seriously and that any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter examine the complete birth certificate of Barack Obama, including the actual city and hospital of birth, and make that document available to the American people for inspection.Name: *Email: *Zipcode: YES! Please keep me informed about the upcoming constitutional crisis over Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility for the presidency, as well as other breaking news and special offers from WND. Privacy PolicyTotal Signatures: 51,519 _________________________________________________________________ Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642556/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081123/0e310d18/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sun Nov 23 18:09:02 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:09:02 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt quarters Message-ID: <5B03A5AE36874EC4A726D831CCC444C7@whitman.edu> jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WNPT-quarters-results.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 25088 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081123/6a6424f8/attachment.xls From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sun Nov 23 21:08:33 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:08:33 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt quarters results, semis pairings Message-ID: <154205130BEF4FA0ABD6F6131EDF4CD1@whitman.edu> also, in jv breakout finals: whitman friedenbachmckibben v isu alamkhan jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WNPT-semis-results.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 25600 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081123/deca5ab6/attachment.xls From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sun Nov 23 23:48:57 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:48:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt open semis results and jv finals results Message-ID: <4CB638B83BDD4FEA9331A3583EA5C175@whitman.edu> jv breakout finals: isu alamkhan 2-1 over whitman friedenbachmckibben jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WNPT-prior-to-finals-results.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 26624 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081123/efd05d9e/attachment.xls From pc_racist at mail.com Mon Nov 24 01:33:56 2008 From: pc_racist at mail.com (PC Racist) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:33:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate Message-ID: <20081124073356.A64E61642A6@ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com> STFU already and quite wasting my inbox space. No one gives a shit. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Old Strega" To: edebate at ndtceda.com, "Jay Reed" Subject: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:57:59 -0600 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATETo: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other controlling legal authoritiesWhereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen; Whereas, there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims; Whereas, Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery; Whereas, lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed; Whereas, Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii; Whereas, concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections; SIGN THE PETITIONWe, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United Statesin demanding that the constitutional eligibility requirement be taken seriously and that any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter examine the complete birth certificate of Barack Obama, including the actual city and hospital of birth, and make that document available to the American people for inspection. Name: * Email: * Zipcode: YES! Please keep me informed about the upcoming constitutional crisis over Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility for the presidency, as well as other breaking news and special offers from WND. Privacy Policy [IMAGE] Total Signatures: 51,519 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile?. See how. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081124/10c46c58/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Nov 24 03:35:09 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 01:35:09 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt final results Message-ID: Gonzaga KannellopoSydnor defeats Whitman JanykClone 2-1 in finals. cumes and speaker rankings (pictures coming) http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/97wnptresults.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Nov 24 08:37:38 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:37:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate In-Reply-To: <20081124073356.A64E61642A6@ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20081124073356.A64E61642A6@ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: "no one" gives a shit. are you the incarnation of odysseus who tricked the cyclops?join tuna and ask kerpen to translate you're speaking for everyone who doesn't care into censorship.then, edebate could more closely resemble CNN where "no one" ever talks about the constitutional crisis and the supreme court cases asking obama to make good on his word for transparency and straight talk. From: pc_racist at mail.comTo: oldstrega at hotmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.com; jvreedmore at hotmail.comDate: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:33:56 -0500Subject: Re: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate STFU already and quite wasting my inbox space. No one gives a shit. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Old Strega" To: edebate at ndtceda.com, "Jay Reed" Subject: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:57:59 -0600 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFBARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATETo: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other controlling legal authoritiesWhereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen;Whereas, there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims;Whereas, Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery;Whereas, lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed;Whereas, Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii;Whereas, concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections;SIGN THE PETITIONWe, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United Statesin demanding that the constitutional eligibility requirement be taken seriously and that any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter examine the complete birth certificate of Barack Obama, including the actual city and hospital of birth, and make that document available to the American people for inspection.Name: *Email: *Zipcode: YES! Please keep me informed about the upcoming constitutional crisis over Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility for the presidency, as well as other breaking news and special offers from WND. Privacy PolicyTotal Signatures: 51,519Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile?. See how. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com! _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081124/1bb9f6c3/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Mon Nov 24 08:58:15 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:58:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] just finish presenting a paper at NCA? Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AD97@castor.richmond.edu> If you just finished presenting a paper at NCA or have a paper you have been working on that is related (even remotely) to "rhetorical genres," you should consider submitting it to the CEDA Journal--CAD. More information below, kevin From: Kuswa, Kevin Subject: [eDebate] Paper Publication Opportunity (CEDA journal--CAD) Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 10:07 AM hi all, Rhetoric students/faculty: if you have a relatively short paper that you think is worth publishing, consider submitting it to the CEDA Journal (CAD). we're putting together a Forum on "rhetorical genres" and would love to include your paper. The call for papers is posted below...the process is on-going so we will review your papers as they come in until the forum is filled. thanks, kevin kuswa u. of richmond CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS Contemporary Argumentation & Debate Forum on "Rhetorical Genres" Submission Policy Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: The Journal of the Cross Examination Debate Association, is a refereed journal dedicated to publishing quality scholarship related to the theory and practice of debate (academic and pubic sphere) and argumentation (theoretical and applied). Submission Guidelines Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The journal employs a blind review system. Manuscripts must be submitted electronically in a current Word or rich-text format. Identification materials--the author(s), institutional affiliation, mailing address, e-mail address, and phone numbers--should only appear on the first page. The first page should also note any previous public presentation of publication of any portion or form of the manuscript. The manuscript should not contain internal references that identify the author in a way to compromise blind review. All correspondence relating to the manuscript, including notification that the manuscript has been received, will be directed to the specified author. Authors submitting to Contemporary Argumentation and Debate must give exclusive right of review to this journal until such time that the review has been completed. Upon acceptance, assignment of copyr ight will be made to the Cross Examination Debate Association. CAD is an annual publication with manuscripts accepted throughout the year. Forum submissions to kkuswa at richmond.edu Dr. Kevin Kuswa (CAD Forum Editor) 400-A Weinstein Hall University of Richmond, VA 23173 general submissions to Al Louden: Allan Louden - louden at wfu.edu Editor, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Department of Communication Box 7347, Reynolda Station Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, NC 27109 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 12:22:05 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:22:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate In-Reply-To: References: <20081124073356.A64E61642A6@ws1-4.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: Once again, you are not the news oracle, you are talking to a community of people who read the news every day and not just from CNN. The mistake you make is assuming that without you we would be at a loss to follow the Obama birth certificate "crisis." Oh, there is that other mistake, the one that presumes people caring about "not censoring you" means the same as people giving a crap about your Obama reports. Some, I suspect think its funny that you tweak us all. Some might actually care. I would be willing to bet you a carton of cigarettes that the vast majority just finds it annoying (if you took a poll and published the honest results). I would be willing to bet you another carton the vast majority disagrees with your perspective and finds it doubly annoying. You are right, we are not odysseus and you are not the oracle. Either way, we can keep up on the "birth certificate watergate" without your help.....thats why most people do not post actual "news (or weekly world news)" stories in edebate. Its not an attempt to "censor" you although since its a privately owned discussion group its not exactly the same anyway. Its an attempt to ask you to just chill on posting things that are repetitive and annoying. You will of course just mock this, slap your own hand, claim victory, and post another 10 "vital news stories" about obamawatergate. Josh On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Old Strega wrote: > "no one" gives a shit. are you the incarnation of odysseus who tricked the > cyclops? > join tuna and ask kerpen to translate you're speaking for everyone who > doesn't care into censorship. > > then, edebate could more closely resemble CNN where "no one" ever talks > about the constitutional crisis and the supreme court cases asking obama to > make good on his word for transparency and straight talk. > > > > ------------------------------ > From: pc_racist at mail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.com; jvreedmore at hotmail.com > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:33:56 -0500 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein > obama's birth certificate > > > STFU already and quite wasting my inbox space. No one gives a shit. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Old Strega" > To: edebate at ndtceda.com, "Jay Reed" > Subject: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's > birth certificate > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:57:59 -0600 > > http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 > *PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF > BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE* > To: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections > Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other > controlling legal authorities > *Whereas,* by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, > Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States > without being a natural born citizen; > *Whereas,* there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the > United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was > actually born in Hawaii as he claims; > *Whereas,* Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his > entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital > that performed the delivery; > *Whereas,* lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the > basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed; > *Whereas,* Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took > place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii; > *Whereas,* concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional > question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of > free and fair elections; > *SIGN THE PETITION* > *We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States*in > demanding that the constitutional eligibility requirement be taken seriously > and that any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter examine > the complete birth certificate of Barack Obama, including the actual city > and hospital of birth, and make that document available to the American > people for inspection. > > Name: *** Email: *** Zipcode: YES! Please keep me informed about > the upcoming constitutional crisis over Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility > for the presidency, as well as other breaking news and special offers from > WND. Privacy Policy > Total Signatures: 51,519 > > ------------------------------ > Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile(R). > See how. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! > Choose From 200+ Email Addresses > Get a *Free* Account at www.mail.com! > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081124/9980e396/attachment.htm From shree.awsare at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 13:17:16 2008 From: shree.awsare at gmail.com (Shree Awsare) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:17:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rutgers Message-ID: Anyone from the Rutgers team, please backchannel me. Thanks! -Shree -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081124/c0bb0b5a/attachment.htm From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Mon Nov 24 13:34:38 2008 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:34:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Entries at 2009 Fear and Loathing in Dallas (UTD) Message-ID: We have been able to boost slightly the number of rooms available for the tournament. The total is now 48 rooms. So I have raised the entry limit to 96 total teams. Five teams have been shifted from the wait list to entered. The total entered at this moment is 95, leaving one slot available. We are working to secure even more rooms but we cannot make any promises at this time. We will we do secure more rooms or currently entered teams drop, then we will shift teams from the wait list to entered. If you wish to enter teams, please indicate that be submitted your teams to the wait list. There are a handful of drops each season during the winter break so there's a very high chance that many teams from the wait list will eventually allowed to enter and compete. If you have already secured entry for your teams then please take the next few appropriate steps. Please indicate the food preferences of people on your squad. Please register your judges and ensure that each judge from your squad has a post judging statement. Please make hotel reservations at the Crowne Plaza. And please verify that your debaters will actually attend. In other words, please drop any team that cannot or will not attend the tournament. Please email me if you have any questions or concerns regarding our tournament. Chris Burk Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ "If you believe everything you read, you better not read." -- Japanese Proverb From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Nov 24 16:43:56 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:43:56 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt pictures Message-ID: <9ECF1882C4D84FD5960EE941566F5D5A@whitman.edu> the pictures are now posted. http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/97wnptresults.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Nov 24 20:32:13 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:32:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] press secretary fratto dodges birth certificate question today Message-ID: story is gaining traction. lester kinsolving of the white house press corps disagrees with the idea that this is a total conspiracy theory. fratto's silence is indicative of the explosiveness of the issue surrounding obama's refusal to let the public analyze his birth certificate. will obama kick lester kinsolving out of the press corps before he can ask his new spin doctor the same question?http://www.oilforimmigration.org/Deputy White House Press Secretary Avoids Question About Obama Birth CertificatePosted on November 25th, 2008 by adminIn a press briefing this morning, Deputy White House Press Secretary Tony Fratto ended the briefing by overtly avoiding a question regarding President-elect Barack Obama?s birth certificate and demands made by the CEO of WorldNetDaily that a long-form document be released.From the transcript (video also available at the link HERE):http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081124-1.htmlAnd Lester, and then we?re done.Q: Thank you, Tony. Two questions. There?s been extensive media coverage of where the two Obama daughters will attend school. And my question: The White House believes that they should be able to attend the school their parents select without criticism because it?s private rather than public, don?t you?MR. FRATTO: I think we support all parents making that decision.Q: Good. The CEO of WorldNetDaily has called on the President-elect to release a birth certificate listing the hospital and names of parents. The White House believes that this would fully satisfy the constitutional requirement, don?t you?MR. FRATTO: I don?t think I have anything to say on that, Lester, and I think we?re going to end it right there.Thank you.The question, it seems, came from Lester Kinsolving, a journalist known over the past few decades for his off-the-wall questions while working as a member of the White House press corps. Still, with the recent news that the Kenyan Ambassador ?confirmed? to a radio host that Obama was born in Kenya (personally, their questioning left much to be desired, and reminded me of the classic deposition question, ?So, when did you stop beating your wife,? in that it was designed to catch the guy off-guard), it seems that the story is gaining some traction.by Jeff Schreiber _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_faster_112008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081124/f316a089/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Mon Nov 24 21:02:45 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:02:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA amendments?? Message-ID: Did the two proposed amendments (Professional Conduct and Novice/JV MPJ recommended instead of required, etc.) pass? Thanks in advance for any info. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081124/a843c628/attachment.htm From commgradstudent08 at gmail.com Mon Nov 24 23:11:21 2008 From: commgradstudent08 at gmail.com (J K) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:11:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Assistantships? Message-ID: <5088761a0811242111l2684c459nc9a7b68a60a39952@mail.gmail.com> For various reasons, I was unable to begin graduate study this year. However, unless the unexpected happens again, I plan on enrolling in a graduate program next year. While I wish I was in graduate school now, this year off has been good for me as I have worked with Capital University to rebuild their policy debate program. This experience has renewed my love for debate and solidified my desire to continue working in forensics. Thus, I am posting this message to inquire about graduate assistant opportunities for 2009-2010. If you are looking for graduate students, I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks---John P.S. I thank everyone who has replied in the past. If you have contacted me in the past, I would be happy to talk to you again. With my health difficulties behind me, I am set on attending graduate school next year. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081125/ff05f655/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Tue Nov 25 00:06:33 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:06:33 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Update from CEDA Meetings at NCA Message-ID: <002001c94ec3$f781d4c0$e6857e40$@edu> Thanks to everyone who took part in the meetings over the last few days. The minutes from the minutes, along with the list of folks nominated for office are now available on the CEDA website http://www.cedadebate.org/ The news from NCA is the top story on the page. To answer Neil's question, the professional conduct amendment passed in the meeting and will be now sent for a vote of the membership. This will be on the same ballot with the officer elections. Thanks and happy holidays to all. 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/20081124/d681eca2/attachment.htm From pc_racist at mail.com Tue Nov 25 05:06:02 2008 From: pc_racist at mail.com (PC Racist) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:06:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate Message-ID: <20081125110602.3751132675E@ws1-8.us4.outblaze.com> To reiterate "No One Gives A SHIT" 1. Telling you to shut up and trying to censor you are two different things. If Kerpen wanted to censor you, he'd have blocked your ip and deleted your messages. We see your messages, you aren't being censored. 2. I'm vegetarian, can't eat Tuna. 3. If by Odysseus, you mean the witty and brilliant Greek who helped win the Trojan war, and by cyclops you mean the retarded, one eyed oaf, i.e. you and the rest of idiot America, I'll take that as a compliment. 4.Accusing me of censorship is as warrantless as being called a sexist for thinking Palin is an idiot,a racist for thinking Obama sucks, and anti-semtic for criticizing Israel. This a board about Policy Debate, unless you can tie this to politics disad, kritik, or oppressive conditions of the community at large, no one cares. 5. Constituion is an issue for the rich. Notice how abortion really didn't figure into the election campaign or capital punishment. Why, because no one gives a shit, when the economy is down in the dumps, unemployment is high, and lives are being lost in Iraq. In four years time, during reelection, when the economy is better, I'm sure this'll be a hot button issue. 6. STFU, no one cares, because there are slightly more presssing issues at hand. As Josh said, we read the news and can form our own opinions. Given that Obama has released his birth certificate online, which many qualified experts assert as real, and there is only speculation that it can be fake, economy outweighs. Stop wasting my inbox space. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Old Strega" To: pc_racist at mail.com, edebate at ndtceda.com, "Jay Reed" Subject: RE: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:37:38 -0600 "no one" gives a shit. are you the incarnation of odysseus who tricked the cyclops? join tuna and ask kerpen to translate you're speaking for everyone who doesn't care into censorship. then, edebate could more closely resemble CNN where "no one" ever talks about the constitutional crisis and the supreme court cases asking obama to make good on his word for transparency and straight talk. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pc_racist at mail.com To: oldstrega at hotmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.com; jvreedmore at hotmail.com Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:33:56 -0500 Subject: Re: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate STFU already and quite wasting my inbox space. No one gives a shit. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Old Strega" To: edebate at ndtceda.com, "Jay Reed" Subject: [eDebate] petition for public release of barack hussein obama's birth certificate Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 16:57:59 -0600 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 PETITION FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATETo: Electoral College, Congress of the United States, Federal Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court, President of the United States, other controlling legal authoritiesWhereas, by requirement of the United States Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, no one can be sworn into office as president of the United States without being a natural born citizen; Whereas, there is sufficient controversy within the citizenry of the United States as to whether presidential election winner Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii as he claims; Whereas, Barack Obama has refused repeated calls to release publicly his entire Hawaiian birth certificate, which would include the actual hospital that performed the delivery; Whereas, lawsuits filed in several states seeking only proof of the basic minimal standard of eligibility have been rebuffed; Whereas, Hawaii at the time of Obama's birth allowed births that took place in foreign countries to be registered in Hawaii; Whereas, concerns that our government is not taking this constitutional question seriously will result in diminished confidence in our system of free and fair elections; SIGN THE PETITIONWe, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United Statesin demanding that the constitutional eligibility requirement be taken seriously and that any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter examine the complete birth certificate of Barack Obama, including the actual city and hospital of birth, and make that document available to the American people for inspection. Name: * Email: * Zipcode: YES! Please keep me informed about the upcoming constitutional crisis over Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility for the presidency, as well as other breaking news and special offers from WND. Privacy Policy [IMAGE] Total Signatures: 51,519 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile?. See how. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Windows Live Hotmail now works up to 70% faster. Sign up today. -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081125/fe2a3e06/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 08:19:35 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:19:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Running for CEDA 2nd vp Message-ID: <9368bc9b0811250619h24d51e57r400aa086047f3c9@mail.gmail.com> I have accepted a nomination to run for second vice president of CEDA I have been a part of CEDA for every year since the merger. In those thirteen years I have been a student, a coach, a tournament host and an executive committee member. Since the merger CEDA has struggled to find an identity. The NDT has continued its mission of running a National Debate Tournament but CEDA'S mission is more expansive. It sets out to create a community that provides for the needs of all students and educators who debate during the entire school year, not just at the NDT or even CEDA nationals. As such its focus has often been seen to be on the little guy and the guiding hand of the leadership has tried to live up to that expectation. The social justice clause of the mission leaves little doubt on this question. I would say CEDA has done an exceptional job since the merger. The leadership structure has worked tirelessly over the years to create a community of debaters and educators united by a common mission, and given the task they have taken upon themselves and the resources they have had to do it they have done an extraordinary job. However for many in the community CEDA's mission is blurry and ill-defined or most often irrelevant. I would venture to say that most students do not consider themselves stakeholders in CEDA, and I would also guess that much the same is true of many coaches. To many of these folks CEDA hosts a cool national tournament that is open to everybody. Efforts to promote the CEDA brand have been moderately successful at best within the community, and close to non existent in the public sphere in any thing but the most reactive way. You ask the CEDA leadership at any given time "what is CEDA" and those that can tell you will give you a different answer each time. At first this may seem a strength, differing opinions are supposed to make for stronger leadership. However; lack of a common answer can also mean an organization whose mission lacks the concreteness to fulfill its mission. As we approach the 40th year of CEDA we have endured our greatest public crisis. The strength of the community has been a welcome development, but while people are rallying to defend CEDA, what exactly is it that they are defending? We need a dialogue that defines what it is we want to be, and how to get there, and while the leadership has done a good job with limited resources, the organization lacks the programmatic vision to go beyond hosting a national tournament and to become the organization its mission and it officers strive for it to be. We face a crisis of definition that fundamentally effects our future. It can be seen in the time since the merger in many forms: parli at the college, high school, and middle school levels; lack of ability to respond to media and departmental challenges to the justifications for debate; programs which have seen their budgets not adjusted for inflation in 10 years; lack of public knowledge or interest in what we do and why its pretty damn cool. All of these things can be traced back to stagnant external explanations for the justification of the kind of debate we do. The changes in debate over the last decade have greatly expanded the academic scope of our work and have made debate one of the most exciting forums for intense multidisciplinary education around. For all the internal fighting over the last decade we should be good at having debates about debate, but until we can effectively define and justify ourselves externally as a community and an organization, not just as individual teams, those internal changes become a liability. We will never effectively regulate in round content to the extent that it won't be a potential liability, but we can build the structure to effectively back up and justify it. For CEDA to be sustainable and to grow it must move beyond a national tournament, choosing the topic and a few other identifiable traits and uphold its mission to "create and support a community of scholar-advocates within the larger; institution of higher education who respect one another as seekers of knowledge and agents of social justice; actively encourage participation in all forms of academic debate as a means to create personal leadership, transformation and growth; embrace a diversity of ideas and participants in order to foster an appreciation of the complexity and richness of human existence; promote the value of argumentative discourse as a means of producing reasoned, measured, cooperative solutions to contemporary problems of social and political significance." That's a lot to live up to, but I believe if we can get there it will be good for all in the community, because if we can grow up as an organization, and clearly describe what our organization is and does I believe we will see most programs more able to justify budget, scholarship, staff, and community support. As we move forward to build an organization that can fufill this mission we need to focus first and fore most on building the capacity to effectively implement our version democratic debate. If I where elected 2nd vice president I would use that position to achieve these goals in several significant ways, all of which I will go into more detail about over the course of the campaign, but include: Substantially increased fundraising capability; Student & Grad Student Employment; New Program Support; High School and middle school out reach; Public Debate; Sanctioning of local tournament structure; One day tournaments; Free Nationals ;CEDA Regional Development Initiative; The CEDA public research initiative, a revised role and responsibility for the executive council and the hiring of an executive director. I have the experience to build debate programs and organizations and have worked at every level from high school to middle to colleges around the country. Currently I serve as the chief operating officer of a growing non profit and am responsible for the capacity building and program building. This experience, outside the academy uniquely prepares me to guide the organization through a program which will protect the argument culture we love while helping to make CEDA a more effective advocate for debate around the nation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081125/32d09037/attachment.htm From bk2nocal at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 11:17:14 2008 From: bk2nocal at gmail.com (Sue Peterson) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:17:14 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: CEDA amendments?? In-Reply-To: <417507f50811250914u9a1d8d3p83128d6682ac19fc@mail.gmail.com> References: <417507f50811250914u9a1d8d3p83128d6682ac19fc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <417507f50811250917v65103fahde03489f89d25ecc@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sue Peterson Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:14:10 -0800 Subject: Re: [eDebate] CEDA amendments?? To: NEIL BERCH The conduct amendment was approved for inclusion on a ballot to go out to the entire membership in the next few weeks. The novice/jv change was tabled due to it not being posted early enough and not having a clear start date for implementation. It will be included in spring. I believe Heather Walters generously took minutes and they may already be posted on the CEDA website. I would just like to thank everyone who took the time and effort to either attend the meetings at NCA or get in touch with their regional reps or even post on e-debate about these issues. It was nice to have intelligent and well-meaning discussions and its good to know the areas of contention on issues without it becoming a divisive factor in our organization. Looking forward to further discussions! --Sue Peterson On 11/24/08, NEIL BERCH wrote: > Did the two proposed amendments (Professional Conduct and Novice/JV MPJ > recommended instead of required, etc.) pass? > Thanks in advance for any info. > --Neil Berch > West Virginia University -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com 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 -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com 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 From sailorferrets at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 11:55:38 2008 From: sailorferrets at gmail.com (joe leeson-schatz) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:55:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Binghamton Tournament Results Message-ID: Thanks for all who participated in our tournament. It was amazing hosting all 320+ of you! Congrats to new programs like Wilkes, Rutgers, and Monmouth who all had great performances for being so new to the circuit. Full results, with ballots and everything, can be found at http://www.ferretspress.com/debate Elim Results below... Novice: Partial Doubles: Army HI advances without debating Vermont BG advances without debating West Conn BS advances without debating BC AD advances without debating Vermont PS advances without debating Cornell OP advances without debating Army DH advances without debating UMass BO advances without debating BC BF advances without debating Vermont MR over Monmouth BL 3-0 Rochester ChWe walks over Rochester DP WVU BZ over Monmouth MT 2-1 Monmouth DW over Rochester SW 3-0 Army MR over Rochester CW 3-0 Vermont RS over Rochester DM 3-0 Rochester MT over Monmouth DS 2-1 Octos: Army HI over Rochester MT 3-0 Vermont BG walks over Vermont RS West Conn BS over Army MR 2-1 BC AF over Monmouth DW 3-0 Vermont PS over WVU BZ 2-1 Cornell OP over Rochester ChWe 2-1 Army DH over Vermont MR 3-0 BC BF over UMass BO 3-0 Quarters: BC BF over Army HI 3-0 Vermont BG over Army DH 2-1 West Conn BS over Cornell OP 3-0 BC AF over Vermont PS 2-1 Semis: BC BF walks over BC AF West Conn BS over Vermont BG 2-1 Finals: BC BF over West Conn BS 2-1 JV: Partial Quarters: Rutgers CP advances without debating CUNY CN walks over CUNY JL Army AE over WVU CP 3-0 Bard BE over Cornell LM 2-1 Semis: Rutgers CP over Bard BE 3-0 CUNY CN over Army AE 2-1 Finals: Rutgers CP over CUNY CN 2-1 Open: Partial Octos: NYU CP advances without debating WVU NS advances without debating New School AD advances without debating Dartmouth MS over Cornell KS 3-0 Rochester BY over Cornell CK 2-1 Cornell BK over BC OS 3-0 UMass DG over New School LM 2-1 New School IP over Cornell H 2-1 Quarters: NYU CP over New School IP 3-0 WVU NS over Umass DG 3-0 New School AD over Cornell BK 3-0 Rochester BY over Dartmouth MS 3-0 (forfeit) Semis: Rochester BY over NYU CP 3-0 New School AD over WVU NS 2-1 Finals: New School AD over Rochester BY 3-0 joe leeson-schatz director of debate at binghamton university campaigns coordinator of the binghamton/vestal vegan association From oguevara at hotmail.com Tue Nov 25 11:56:31 2008 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 10:56:31 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Weber HEARTS Whitman :) In-Reply-To: <4CB638B83BDD4FEA9331A3583EA5C175@whitman.edu> References: <4CB638B83BDD4FEA9331A3583EA5C175@whitman.edu> Message-ID: Thanks to Jim and the crew for a great time. Jim is a master of not only running the tournament efficiently, but making all the students feel special. That is neither easy nor cheap to achieve that result. And given that you don't have to pay entry fees if you are outside of D2, it is tremedously generous of the whole crew in Walla Walla to just provide they great experience they do. The only expense you would incur is travel costs and hotel room. This year rooms were $45 at the travel lodge right across the street from the building in which we were debating. Such generosity would be considerate in good time, but in these economic and budget times...it is inspiring. Thanks to all Whitman folk for another great time. OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM > From: hansonjb at whitman.edu> To: edebate at ndtceda.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:48:57 -0800> Subject: [eDebate] wnpt open semis results and jv finals results> > jv breakout finals: isu alamkhan 2-1 over whitman friedenbachmckibben > > jim :)> hansonjb at whitman.edu> _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081125/d9332050/attachment.htm From fcmnyc at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 15:41:11 2008 From: fcmnyc at gmail.com (F M) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:41:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] julian gagnon from UTD Message-ID: <38531a990811251341h196e4423rb882055e6ce98da0@mail.gmail.com> Please backchannel me. Thanks. Frank Montano Columbia University/New School Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081125/252e5cb1/attachment.htm From fcmnyc at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 15:57:31 2008 From: fcmnyc at gmail.com (F M) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:57:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] julian gagnon from UTD In-Reply-To: <38531a990811251341h196e4423rb882055e6ce98da0@mail.gmail.com> References: <38531a990811251341h196e4423rb882055e6ce98da0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <38531a990811251357uf7ae70ewbef9647464bb5f0a@mail.gmail.com> I meant UNT :-). On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:41 PM, F M wrote: > Please backchannel me. Thanks. > > Frank Montano > Columbia University/New School Debate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081125/0d39d5d7/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 16:06:47 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:06:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd VP Statement Message-ID: Debate is a big tent. At a time when threats from within and without are challenging the mission of cross-examination debate, our leadership should support debate as a whole rather than giving in to the suggestion from outside of our community that we've lost our heads and abandoned valuable tradition. While this diversity can make bringing debaters together difficult, heterogeneity offers great potential for generating creative approaches to the challenges facing debate and debaters today. My experience with teams of all shapes and sizes, with debaters from high school novices to NDT and CEDA final round participants and champions, with individuals from a variety of social locations, demonstrates my qualification to speak to diversity in debate. People, like arguments, should be judged on their content. CEDA as an organization is uniquely suited to incorporate this philosophy of inclusion of a diversity of argumentative styles and argument content. I will deliver an organization that defends and celebrates diversity. This election cycle we've heard a lot about change you can believe in. I think debate deserves change that believes in it, change that believes in you. I believe our coaches and debaters are out there, working hard, debating well, and doing their best to represent their schools and this activity each weekend. I believe that debate offers a uniquely educational opportunity unmatched in the academy and is worth fighting for. I've spent over half of my life in debate. It's given me a lot. I come from a long line of CEDA coaches and have coached in the belly of classic CEDA at UCO, the cutting edge of CEDA programs at the time of the merger with MSU, and a neuvo CEDA institution at OU. I intend to serve CEDA because I believe in debate. I will deliver a vision of debate that supports debaters, coaches, and directors. Debate needs to be proactive in defending itself. The anecdotal impetus for debate arises from the failure of the secondary and higher education to meet the needs of students to compare, contrast, and make decisions about ideas that are at odds with one another. We should not be apologetic for being weird. Much of the challenge facing debate today stems from our refusal to dress like everyone else, to act like everyone else, and to hide our disagreements, especially when they're emotional and meaningful. While certain behaviors have no business in debate, we should not hide that which makes us special ? our ability to allow individuals from across the social spectrum to disagree meaningfully and openly. CEDA should resist new content restrictions and categorical and vague organizational rules regarding professionalism and instead support proactive adoption of a public relations model, in-house guidelines for ethical behavior, and develop procedures for information gathering regarding sensitive or extreme incidents. I will deliver a debate that is out front, extolling its virtues, and refuses to abide by a general negativity toward what we do. Anyone that knows me can be sure that I will not back down from the challenge of defending debate and debaters. Debate is not on the ropes. Lowest-common denominator education has let some of the best students slip through the cracks due to boredom and the evident mismatch between the subjects being taught them and the reality of their experiences. As a result, debate attracts disaffected, socially active, intelligent individuals. It is intentionally anti-majoritarian. It's unsurprising that some individuals don't understand and support us. There is a rising ride of anti-intellectualism in America. Universities have largely given into the business model for schools, eschewing esoteric educational opportunities. Debate should hold the line on maintaining its mission of providing a truly academic experience for students while exploring possibilities for revenue creation and capacity building. More debate coaches than ever serve duel roles as debate coaches and educators serving broadly in the academy, a role I can relate to as a PhD candidate nearing completion at an R1 institution. CEDA should be at the forefront of producing information for its membership on new revenue streams and human resources enhancements. I will deliver exploratory research into new funding opportunities for debate programs of all types, helping to weather the storm of increasing financial uncertainty. Debate is about the debaters. The organization sometimes loses sight of this. Our jobs exist because debaters exist. They are the primary unit of our professional lives. The national tournament *is* significant. It is a celebration not just of the students that win or even of the students that participate in the tournament, but of the entirety of debate across the board. Hosting and preparing for the CEDA national tournament is a high-intensity job, but debating in it is even more nerve-wracking. The national tournament has to be run with debaters in mind, releasing pairings reasonably, placing judges with as high a mix of preference and mutuality as possible, and providing for high-quality host facilities, both on campus and at the tournament hotel(s). A CEDA officer should think like a debater first. I will deliver a CEDA national tournament that debaters can't wait to attend, bringing the tournament back to its ever-growing participation numbers from the 1990's. Debate asks a lot of you. It's time for you to ask something of debate. You deserve leadership that believes in you, that defends diversity, that loves debate for what it is, not for what it was, and that recognizes the primacy of debaters. The CEDA leadership is not all-powerful, but should be working as the public face of those it represents, not in the limited sense of the ideal of debate, but in the far-reaching sense of everyone that debate includes. Debate is alive and thriving in spite of the challenges it faces. The apparent crisis facing debate is one of image, not substance. Our students are more talented than ever, our tournaments are increasingly competitive, our directors and coaches are qualified and well-compensated, and our organization is hopeful, but timid. Our leaders should be as positive as our programs. Debate should defend itself without being defensive ? about whom we are, about what we do, and about how we do it. This election should be more than a coronation of the seated CEDA administration; it should represent an opportunity to elect a new vision for the organization. Vote for change that believes in you. As an aside, Mike Davis is a low-rent version of me, Vik Keenan is obviously some kinda terrorist, Andy Ellis is from South Carolina, need I say more, and Scott Elliot doesn't really require my help to indict him. I wanted to go negative first. Any responses to these allegations are clearly derivative mud-slinging. Seriously though, debate should be more fun. Our leadership is frequently boring and takes itself too seriously. Most tournaments have lost that sense of camaraderie that drew many of us to commit to debate as a career. We should be able to belittle and degrade a bit. Like Eisenhower said, "A sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done." Thanks, JLR -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081125/976e688e/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 18:58:57 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:58:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A series of Debates Message-ID: <9368bc9b0811251658q4769b8d8x4582922d06c2dcab@mail.gmail.com> I challenged Jason Russel to a set of 2nd vp debates and despite his gmail status being green he did not respond. His failure to agree to such a set of debates indicates serious trouble ahead.... but seriously...lets make this election cycle the change you(and jason) want to see and in the process of campaigning produce ideas and work that propels the organization forward, i would suggest that we have a series of debates, about the organization and its future. None of the candidates (except davis) is shy about expressing their opinion, so lets do elections like we do other things, with debate. Perhaps if the other candidates agree jarmen could set us up a forum on the web site and we could agree on a method of doing the debates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081125/63804d2f/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Nov 25 20:48:00 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:48:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] not 4 josh: what do michigan debate & Message-ID: and michigan football have in common of late?you got it. they have risen to the level of competing for the national championship on an annual basis.the phoenix is not rising. these coaches put their money where their mouth is. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081125/15c71d74/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Tue Nov 25 22:05:56 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:05:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd VP Statement Message-ID: <9a7f6f740811252005q3b563266t98df5e786b519af5@mail.gmail.com> I've been in CEDA as long as I have been involved in debate. I joined back in 1991 as a college debater who, like many of our students, did not debate in college. I have served for nine years a regional representative and have been to every summer meeting since 1994 (except one) and CEDA Nationals since 1992 (except one). I have been the chair of numerous committees and have tried to serve whenever I felt my assistance was needed. I have been asked to run for second VP before, but have always declined previous. So why am I running now? Being a CEDA officer is a difficult and thankless job, but I love the Cross Examination Debate Association. I love what we represent because it was the organization that welcomed someone like me into it with no previous experience as has let me continue to serve for all these years. When I look at my debaters I know that I have made the right choice sticking around as long as I have and I am running now because I want to make sure that as many debaters as possible have the opportunity to participate. Despite my undying love for CEDA, I know that our organization is far from perfect. We are smaller than we were 10 or 20 years ago and that is inexcusable. The role I have had with CEDA that I am the most proud of is my position as chair of the Program Development and Retention Committee. We have worked to pass rules changes that reduce tournament entry fees, waive CEDA membership fees and, starting this year, secure free evidence for emerging programs. Our work is just getting started, but I believe that the best way to ensure the future of our organization is to ensure that as many schools as possible are competing. If elected this will be the most important item on my agenda because I think without new programs our other goals all become more difficult. We also need to do more to be proactive in promoting what we do well. 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. That said, I do think we need to do more to make sure that our administrators, the media and those who are choosing whether they want to do policy debate or some other incarnation know why what we do is the best educational experience around. Whether I am elected or not I will be at the summer debate conference at Wake to help to figure out the best ways to encourage positive representations of policy debate. Also, we need to be more responsive. The times when I have been most frustrated with the CEDA leadership are those times when we have lacked information about how decisions were made and why. I ensure you that second vice president we will have a transparent decision making process. I think a lot of people don't participate in our business meetings and so few people vote on our various amendments and elections is because they feel detached from our organization. We need to do everything we can to make sure as many schools (and students) are including in the decision making process. I am excited that we have five individuals running for this office. Most years no one is willing to serve in this office. I know that all of these individuals have a love for the organization that I do and I look forward to the conversation that this election should encourage. And I am excited about serving this organization in whatever capacity the membership sees fit. If you choose to vote for me it will be my honor to serve. If not, I will still be at every CEDA Nats and summer business meeting because I think that the future of CEDA is strong. Thanks for listening. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Wed Nov 26 01:40:10 2008 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:40:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Entries at 2009 Fear and Loathing in Dallas (UTD) -- second update Message-ID: A big thanks to Scott Herndon who diligently labored to secure more classrooms for the tournament. We currently have 63 total rooms available. So we can accomidate up to 126 entries. That amount allows every team currently on the wait list to enter the tournament. I have already shifted all waited listed teams to entered. We have space for another 10 teams so enter soon if you still seek to do so. We are glad to host such a large tournament. However it will place a strain on our campus resources and the host hotel. Please make your reservations soon at the Crowne Plaza. Those seeking assistance with alternative accommodations should email me for suggestions. If you believe that your squad will need to hire additional judging, then please contact me as soon as possible to alert us to your needs. We wish to avoid a judge shortage. Hopefully we can ensure that every team in all divisions can receive preferred judges. Please go ahead and enter your judges if possible. Every entered judge should have a philosophy statement posted on debateresults. ?You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas? ? Davy Crockett From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Nov 26 12:10:12 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:10:12 +0100 Subject: [eDebate] Hello from Intl Debate Academy Message-ID: <492D9104.9020107@uvm.edu> We arrived, but not without some struggle. Delays in Paris caused a late arrival in Vienna, which meant problems with train connections. Th result was that they arrived in Maribor, Slovenia after the last train to Ormoz. The crew found good housing in a youth hostel at modest rates, and the next day (Sunday) they made their way into Ormoz and checked into the world's finest two-star hotel, Hotel Ormoz. Now we are about 80 people from 15 countries here for a week before we move to Maribor for the tournament. Sunday night most people had arrived and a demo debate was featured. The motion was ?This house would punish parents for the crimes of their minor children." It was an all-star cast, with Debbie Newman (world champion WSDC coach for England, England-Wales debate champion, former president of Cambridge Union) debating with Sam Greenland (Sydney WUDC semifinalist in 2007, former Hong Kong WSDC coach) were opening proposition, Sam Natale (top speaker, Northeast Universities 2008, University of Vermont) and Lucas Caress (top speaker, Global Youth Debate Conclave, Bangalore 2008, University of Vermont) were closing proposition; Filip Dobranic (twice top EFL speaker at WSDC, University of Ljubljana) and Maja Cimerman (EFL world WSDC champion, University of Ljubljana) were opening opposition, and last but not least Steve Llano (former national champion coach in USA, St. John's University) and Loke Wing Fatt (Singapore, WUDC breaking judge, father of debate in China) as closing opposition. It was a very spirited debate, chaired by Berlin Debating Union's Jens Fischer, and caused a great deal of discussion among he students. The video is coming soon. Each day has the same schedule. There is an 8:45 AM organizational meeting at breakfast, followed by a series of lectures divided by experience level. After one hour there is a brief break before we meet again for an hour of drills on the subject of the lectures to help turn theoretical materials into behavior and habit. Then a motion is given and everyone has a debate with a long critique. There is a lunch break followed by a digestion break before the afternoon's activities take place. There are two one-hour period for elective classes. During each of these periods between five and seven different topics are offered, and students can choose which they would like to go to. I will send along a list of enacted electives later. After the second elective of the afternoon another motion is announced and with another debate and a long critique before dinner. The first practice debate motions were: 1-THW pay a salary to stay-at-home parents 2-TH would create separate units for gays in the military. 3-THBT supporting Georgia's NATO bid is more important than maintaining good relations with Russia. 4-THBT the capitalist experiment has failed. 5-THW criminalize Holocaust denial. Evenings have had a considerable social component. On Monday night the Country Exhibition took place where students but items, foods, beverages and other things from their country on display and shared them with everyone. This was a robust affair of international fraternity and lasted well into the night. On Tuesday evening the traditional Slovenian "Kitsch Party" took place. Students swapped clothing and dressed outrageously for the party. It raged for quite a while before the judging took place. Sam(antha) Ricker of the University of Vermont was the winner, looking quite good in ponytails and wearing Helena Felc's pajamas. Second place was Don(na) Bracciodieta of St. John's, who had nice cleavage. Pictures will be coming along soon. Having been at all six International Debate Academy sessions, I would say that the experience level and excellence of the teams is growing immensely here and all over Europe and the world. Stay tuned for more from Ormoz. -- 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 max.o.archer at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 12:14:03 2008 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:14:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Augustana College Viking Debates Invitation - Jan. 30-Feb. 1 2009 Message-ID: <1944fe1d0811261014y761397b4ka42118e2458c072@mail.gmail.com> 4 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/20081126/5b7fb932/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tourney invite.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15994 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081126/5b7fb932/attachment.bin From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Nov 26 14:31:01 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:31:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] John Carroll - anyone got an extra debater Message-ID: Due to an unexpected engineering "experiment" we seem to have lost one ofour JCU crew. Rather than cancel the team we would love to "swing" with another school in a similar situation. If you have an extra debater you are trying to get some debates at JCU (2A, 1N would be best but whatever) I will cover the entry fee and the judging for that team (my person and your person). Let me know, Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081126/133323bf/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Nov 26 19:50:16 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:50:16 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] not 4 sophmorics: how many times will lady mcclinton Message-ID: stab obama in the back before he starts squealing like lipstick on a pig?the answer is as old as revenge itself.team of rivals is frontline cover for blackmail. likely story for the naive. remember, lady mcclinton kept warning the electorate that mr. obama had not been completely vetted. lady mcclinton has information far more damaging than the birth certificate and will destroy the administration from the inside.team of rivals smells rather fishy from these parts. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081126/dfe42fca/attachment.htm From xaze0x at gmail.com Fri Nov 28 02:39:18 2008 From: xaze0x at gmail.com (Sean Malley) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:39:18 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] A Participation Question Message-ID: <7ba0640d0811280039t4effecbci776f6f7b82090294@mail.gmail.com> I've been wondering for some time now, what amount of participation do squads around the country see from engineering students. Despite the sheer number of engineering professors hounding students about poor public speaking techniques and recruiters lamenting about recent graduates lack of communication skills, sparse few students decide to participate in policy debate. Granted, it's distinctly possible I'm just at the opposite tournaments and have a much skewed idea of how many engineers are also debaters, so I'm wondering do we have any actual numbers on debate participation vs. academic majors? Are there any squads that actually have any significant engineering participation? Just curious, Sean From iasi60 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Nov 28 03:21:01 2008 From: iasi60 at yahoo.co.uk (Bacanu Cristi) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:21:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: <759887.24102.qm@web28610.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Could you please unsurscribe me from the discussion group? ? Thank you, ? Cristian Bacanu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081128/f9ff206f/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Fri Nov 28 10:02:23 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:02:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Stephen Zunes on "Shared Sacrifice" radio Message-ID: Our guest this week is Professor Stephen Zunes, chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco and a senior policy analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus. Professor Zunes was an especially prescient doubter of the Bush administration's claims of WMD in Iraq, doubting those claims as early as 2003, when nearly everyone else on the right and left believed such claims. He is the principal editor of Nonviolent Social Movements (Blackwell Publishers, 1999) and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003) and the forthcoming Western Sahara: Nationalism and Conflict in Northwest Africa (Syracuse University Press.) With Rachel M. MacNair, he edited Consistently Opposing Killing: From Abortion to Assisted Suicide, the Death Penalty, and War (Praeger, 2008). Most recently, he authored the Alternet article "Is Obama Screwing His Base with Rahm Emanuel Selection?" Professor Zunes joins us to discuss the challenges and opportunities for progressives during an Obama presidency. Our call-in number is (347) 327-9615. Listen live or archived at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingLeft/Shared_Sacrifice or on itunes. _________________________________________________________________ Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642556/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081128/9ae322cd/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sat Nov 29 02:09:23 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:09:23 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] and another thing . . . Message-ID: <3362D463F899439B8527EE43B3C31715@whitman.edu> currently the afa code says this: ARTICLE III, Section 6: All tournaments should operate in an environment free of any behavior (whether verbal or nonverbal) that results in the harrassment of any participant (whether student, coach, or judge). oddly, in article v, penalties, no mention is made of what happens to someone who violates this section other than possibly to link it to the tournament director who could be held responsible for not stopping/preventing this harassment. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081129/4918d106/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sat Nov 29 02:01:57 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:01:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] 4 afa changes Message-ID: <0BAF3145D0E4460F90EB039562EE3C34@whitman.edu> I've sent this to al louden who I believe is the afa president, but figured I would share it with the larger community. ==========CHANGE THE RESEARCH EXPECTATIONS TO BE COLLABORATIVE CURRENT ARTICLE II 3. Forensics competitors are expected to do their own research. 1.. Persons other than the forensic competitor (undergraduate students, graduate students or instructor/coaches) are not to get charged with the responsibility for doing a forensics competitor's research. 2.. This provision shall not be construed to prevent coaches or assistants from engaging in limited research designed to: 1.. teach research techniques 2.. provide limited examples of high quality research 3.. identify areas of research which students should pursue, and 4.. provide the coach with the working knowledge necessary to function as effective critic with respect to the debate or speech topics being investigated by his/her students. ARTICLE V 7. Forensics squads found guilty of using non-competitors for primary research purposes will have a note of censure published in the AFA Newsletter, with written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President to appropriate officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from national competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of 12 calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. CHANGE TO ARTICLE II 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. Students who fail to contribute by researching on their own or as part of a collaborative effort should not be permitted to compete. ARTICLE V 7. Forensics squads found guilty of having students compete who did not do their own research or did not participate in a collaborative effort with other students and coaches will have a note of censure published in the AFA Newsletter, with written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President to appropriate officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from national competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of 12 calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. RATIONALE: In debate and in extemporaneous speaking, these research expectations are unrealistic, unhealthy, and grossly out of touch with how debate and extemporaneous speaking is practiced. Collaborative research on squads with students and coaches is a norm and we all know it. Collaborative research is beneficial; it makes all involved work together, as a team. Such research approaches should not be punished by the AFA. Further, as far as I am concerned, Article V, Section 7 could be removed entirely. This really should be a coach's prerogative. ==============DON'T PROSCRIBE JUDGING TEAMS TWICE IN PRELIMS CURRENT ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds unless there is no way to avoid this conflict. In such cases: CHANGE TO ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds unless there is no way to avoid this conflict or if the tournament is seeking to maximize judge preferencing. In such cases: RATIONALE: Judging teams twice is a good way to maximize judge preferencing. The provision to avoid a judge seeing a team on the same side remains in place. The AFA should not prohibit this. Tournament directors should make the decision to establish this practice. =============CHANGE THE EXPECTATION OF A WRITTEN BALLOT CURRENT ARTICLE III 4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate. Judges are expected to provide written comments on the ballots provided by the tournament. These written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. All provisions of this article shall apply to high school and college competitors. ARTICLE V 9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to turn in written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which leaves a tournament without all of the preliminary round ballots it should have, and assuming there is no valid explanation for missing ballots, may notify the Chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee of the judge(s) who failed to provide ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide written preliminary round ballots for all rounds judged by the end of the tournament on two occasions, the judge shall: A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA. C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to turn in ballots is received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should not be imposed, under the appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the Code. CHANGE TO ARTICLE III 4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate. A. Judges in debate rounds should provide comments justifying their decision. Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, such judges should provide these comments orally to debaters at the conclusion of debates and/or in writing on ballots provided by the tournament. B. Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, judges in speaking events should provide comments in writing on ballots provided by the tournament and/or orally to speakers. C. Written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. D. All provisions of this article shall apply to high school and college competitors. ARTICLE V 9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to meet the expectations of a tournament director to offer oral comments and/or to turn in written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which leaves a tournament without oral comments or written ballots for all preliminary rounds, and assuming there is no valid explanation for the lack of oral comments or missing ballots, may notify the Chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee of the judge(s) who failed to provide oral comments or ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide oral comments or written preliminary round ballots as expected by the tournament director for all rounds judged by the end of the tournament on two occasions, the judge shall: A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA. C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to offer oral comments or to turn in ballots is received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should not be imposed, under the appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the Code. RATIONALE: This section is also embarrassingly out of date for college debate. Virtually no policy debate tournament uses written ballots and many parliamentary debate tournaments do the same. Oral decisions and feedback are excellent ways to directly discuss why the judge decided as he/she did, how to improve, and how to do so before the next round--providing a great way to improve. Further, oral decisions reduce tab errors because the competitors know who won and can notify the tab if there has been an error. This should not be dictated by the AFA; the expectation should be set by the tournament director. ===========TOURNAMENT SETUP EXPECATIONS CURRENT 5. Tournament directors should ensure that: A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition ends as is humanly possible. B. Their tournament is not run to benefit financially the best (I ASSUME THIS MEANS HOST) school. An anticipated profit in excess of 10% of total entry fees is considered excessive. C. Their tournament runs smoothly and efficiently, with breaks in between rounds for power-matching minimized whenever possible. D. All results are kept secret if that is specified by the tournament rules. CHANGE TO 5. Tournament directors should ensure that: A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition ends as is humanly possible. B. Their tournament should not make profit beyond that generated by paying minimum wage to those volunteering their services to the program (for example, team members or coaches judging or assisting with tab for "free"). In the event, that a tournament makes profit in excess of this amount, it should make note that such is possible in its tournament invitation. C. Tournament schedules should be realistic so that rounds actually occur close to the times included in the tournament's invitation and they should not exceed 14 hours a day except for a select few competitors in the last elimination round. RATIONALE: This section of the AFA code is updated on two accounts. First, some programs depend upon their tournaments to fund their programs. Further, "10%" is arbitrary. The key should be the amount of work a program puts into a tournament. And, if a tournament is going to make profit beyond that, they should just let other programs know it. Programs can make their own determination about whether to attend or not. Second, the power-matching time minimized and secret rules seem irrelevant/unimportant. What is important that tournament days not be too lengthy and that they remain on schedule. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081129/c6ed781d/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Sat Nov 29 08:04:22 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:04:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 4 afa changes References: <0BAF3145D0E4460F90EB039562EE3C34@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ADFB@castor.richmond.edu> Jim, Thanks for doing this administrative work---I have not looked closely at all the proposed changes but have followed the debate about "graduate student research" for some time now. This is one of Joel's favorites. The other changes seem reasonable, although the written ballot can be a helpful guideline at times. Also, why mention "excessive profit" for a tournament if those numbers are not public? I'm sure your tournament runs at a lost and we have not run in the black, but others do (and might need to, as you say, to operate during the year). Those are all things open for debate. You should also refer to the ADA documents for some helpful language on all of these issues. In the short-term, though, your "enforcement" correction in the research section IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. What is research and why would you want to prevent students from competing on this issue? What about novices? What defines "collaborative"? I agree that the enforcement for that (Art 7) should be removed. You Propose This: 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. Students who fail to contribute by researching on their own or as part of a collaborative effort should not be permitted to compete. What about the first sentence only? Change to: 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. The collective rush to enforce standards like these in the past year has been alarming to say the least. Sincerely, Kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Jim Hanson Sent: Sat 11/29/2008 3:01 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] 4 afa changes I've sent this to al louden who I believe is the afa president, but figured I would share it with the larger community. ==========CHANGE THE RESEARCH EXPECTATIONS TO BE COLLABORATIVE CURRENT ARTICLE II 3. Forensics competitors are expected to do their own research. A. Persons other than the forensic competitor (undergraduate students, graduate students or instructor/coaches) are not to get charged with the responsibility for doing a forensics competitor's research. B. This provision shall not be construed to prevent coaches or assistants from engaging in limited research designed to: i. teach research techniques ii. provide limited examples of high quality research iii. identify areas of research which students should pursue, and iv. provide the coach with the working knowledge necessary to function as effective critic with respect to the debate or speech topics being investigated by his/her students. ARTICLE V 7. Forensics squads found guilty of using non-competitors for primary research purposes will have a note of censure published in the AFA Newsletter, with written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President to appropriate officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from national competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of 12 calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. CHANGE TO ARTICLE II 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. Students who fail to contribute by researching on their own or as part of a collaborative effort should not be permitted to compete. ARTICLE V 7. Forensics squads found guilty of having students compete who did not do their own research or did not participate in a collaborative effort with other students and coaches will have a note of censure published in the AFA Newsletter, with written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President to appropriate officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from national competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of 12 calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. RATIONALE: In debate and in extemporaneous speaking, these research expectations are unrealistic, unhealthy, and grossly out of touch with how debate and extemporaneous speaking is practiced. Collaborative research on squads with students and coaches is a norm and we all know it. Collaborative research is beneficial; it makes all involved work together, as a team. Such research approaches should not be punished by the AFA. Further, as far as I am concerned, Article V, Section 7 could be removed entirely. This really should be a coach's prerogative. ==============DON'T PROSCRIBE JUDGING TEAMS TWICE IN PRELIMS CURRENT ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds unless there is no way to avoid this conflict. In such cases: CHANGE TO ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds unless there is no way to avoid this conflict or if the tournament is seeking to maximize judge preferencing. In such cases: RATIONALE: Judging teams twice is a good way to maximize judge preferencing. The provision to avoid a judge seeing a team on the same side remains in place. The AFA should not prohibit this. Tournament directors should make the decision to establish this practice. =============CHANGE THE EXPECTATION OF A WRITTEN BALLOT CURRENT ARTICLE III 4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate. Judges are expected to provide written comments on the ballots provided by the tournament. These written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. All provisions of this article shall apply to high school and college competitors. ARTICLE V 9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to turn in written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which leaves a tournament without all of the preliminary round ballots it should have, and assuming there is no valid explanation for missing ballots, may notify the Chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee of the judge(s) who failed to provide ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide written preliminary round ballots for all rounds judged by the end of the tournament on two occasions, the judge shall: A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA. C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to turn in ballots is received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should not be imposed, under the appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the Code. CHANGE TO ARTICLE III 4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate. A. Judges in debate rounds should provide comments justifying their decision. Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, such judges should provide these comments orally to debaters at the conclusion of debates and/or in writing on ballots provided by the tournament. B. Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, judges in speaking events should provide comments in writing on ballots provided by the tournament and/or orally to speakers. C. Written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. D. All provisions of this article shall apply to high school and college competitors. ARTICLE V 9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to meet the expectations of a tournament director to offer oral comments and/or to turn in written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which leaves a tournament without oral comments or written ballots for all preliminary rounds, and assuming there is no valid explanation for the lack of oral comments or missing ballots, may notify the Chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee of the judge(s) who failed to provide oral comments or ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide oral comments or written preliminary round ballots as expected by the tournament director for all rounds judged by the end of the tournament on two occasions, the judge shall: A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA. C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to offer oral comments or to turn in ballots is received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should not be imposed, under the appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the Code. RATIONALE: This section is also embarrassingly out of date for college debate. Virtually no policy debate tournament uses written ballots and many parliamentary debate tournaments do the same. Oral decisions and feedback are excellent ways to directly discuss why the judge decided as he/she did, how to improve, and how to do so before the next round--providing a great way to improve. Further, oral decisions reduce tab errors because the competitors know who won and can notify the tab if there has been an error. This should not be dictated by the AFA; the expectation should be set by the tournament director. ===========TOURNAMENT SETUP EXPECATIONS CURRENT 5. Tournament directors should ensure that: A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition ends as is humanly possible. B. Their tournament is not run to benefit financially the best (I ASSUME THIS MEANS HOST) school. An anticipated profit in excess of 10% of total entry fees is considered excessive. C. Their tournament runs smoothly and efficiently, with breaks in between rounds for power-matching minimized whenever possible. D. All results are kept secret if that is specified by the tournament rules. CHANGE TO 5. Tournament directors should ensure that: A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition ends as is humanly possible. B. Their tournament should not make profit beyond that generated by paying minimum wage to those volunteering their services to the program (for example, team members or coaches judging or assisting with tab for "free"). In the event, that a tournament makes profit in excess of this amount, it should make note that such is possible in its tournament invitation. C. Tournament schedules should be realistic so that rounds actually occur close to the times included in the tournament's invitation and they should not exceed 14 hours a day except for a select few competitors in the last elimination round. RATIONALE: This section of the AFA code is updated on two accounts. First, some programs depend upon their tournaments to fund their programs. Further, "10%" is arbitrary. The key should be the amount of work a program puts into a tournament. And, if a tournament is going to make profit beyond that, they should just let other programs know it. Programs can make their own determination about whether to attend or not. Second, the power-matching time minimized and secret rules seem irrelevant/unimportant. What is important that tournament days not be too lengthy and that they remain on schedule. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From jtedebate at yahoo.com Sat Nov 29 09:54:05 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:54:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] 4 afa changes In-Reply-To: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ADFB@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <529247.23454.qm@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Written Ballots:? Silly...very few write anything but prep time on the ballot.? In high school, written ballots were important for a lot of people because they could not receive oral criticism after the noon. Tournament Profit:? There should be no restriction on the profit a squad makes from hosting a tournament.? Although I've heard mention of this before (vaguely), I would assume this is a response to GA State.? I think community standards will (and do for the most part) prevail.? That's why several directors have expressed that they will not be returning next year.? If you feel business x overcharges, you'll likely go to business y.? But it is unfortunate that some school need to make a profit on their tournament, especially when Hanson offers to help pay for lodging and travel for non-district teams to attend NW CEDA Champs (if you have not attended, you should---Jim takes care of you!) Research:? What a joke.? Comparing Extemp to policy debate research is a non-starter.? Furthermore, I agree that section 7 should be struck outright.? It will never be enforceable and assumes it is ONLY debaters that receive the educational benefits of research (whatever that research may entail:? books, lexis, ethnography, etc.).? That is one of the primary reasons I do so much research--education...and you can't hold me back!? I will probably cut cards until the day I die.? I can also sign on to just having the first line of Jim's correction.? The second line is a program/director issue--but I agree that people who do not "work" [flexible term] probably don;t deserve to travel. 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. --- On Sat, 11/29/08, Kuswa, Kevin wrote: From: Kuswa, Kevin Subject: Re: [eDebate] 4 afa changes To: "Jim Hanson" , edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 6:04 AM Jim, Thanks for doing this administrative work---I have not looked closely at all the proposed changes but have followed the debate about "graduate student research" for some time now. This is one of Joel's favorites. The other changes seem reasonable, although the written ballot can be a helpful guideline at times. Also, why mention "excessive profit" for a tournament if those numbers are not public? I'm sure your tournament runs at a lost and we have not run in the black, but others do (and might need to, as you say, to operate during the year). Those are all things open for debate. You should also refer to the ADA documents for some helpful language on all of these issues. In the short-term, though, your "enforcement" correction in the research section IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. What is research and why would you want to prevent students from competing on this issue? What about novices? What defines "collaborative"? I agree that the enforcement for that (Art 7) should be removed. You Propose This: 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. Students who fail to contribute by researching on their own or as part of a collaborative effort should not be permitted to compete. What about the first sentence only? Change to: 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. The collective rush to enforce standards like these in the past year has been alarming to say the least. Sincerely, Kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Jim Hanson Sent: Sat 11/29/2008 3:01 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] 4 afa changes I've sent this to al louden who I believe is the afa president, but figured I would share it with the larger community. ==========CHANGE THE RESEARCH EXPECTATIONS TO BE COLLABORATIVE CURRENT ARTICLE II 3. Forensics competitors are expected to do their own research. A. Persons other than the forensic competitor (undergraduate students, graduate students or instructor/coaches) are not to get charged with the responsibility for doing a forensics competitor's research. B. This provision shall not be construed to prevent coaches or assistants from engaging in limited research designed to: i. teach research techniques ii. provide limited examples of high quality research iii. identify areas of research which students should pursue, and iv. provide the coach with the working knowledge necessary to function as effective critic with respect to the debate or speech topics being investigated by his/her students. ARTICLE V 7. Forensics squads found guilty of using non-competitors for primary research purposes will have a note of censure published in the AFA Newsletter, with written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President to appropriate officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from national competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of 12 calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. CHANGE TO ARTICLE II 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. Students who fail to contribute by researching on their own or as part of a collaborative effort should not be permitted to compete. ARTICLE V 7. Forensics squads found guilty of having students compete who did not do their own research or did not participate in a collaborative effort with other students and coaches will have a note of censure published in the AFA Newsletter, with written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President to appropriate officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from national competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of 12 calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. RATIONALE: In debate and in extemporaneous speaking, these research expectations are unrealistic, unhealthy, and grossly out of touch with how debate and extemporaneous speaking is practiced. Collaborative research on squads with students and coaches is a norm and we all know it. Collaborative research is beneficial; it makes all involved work together, as a team. Such research approaches should not be punished by the AFA. Further, as far as I am concerned, Article V, Section 7 could be removed entirely. This really should be a coach's prerogative. ==============DON'T PROSCRIBE JUDGING TEAMS TWICE IN PRELIMS CURRENT ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds unless there is no way to avoid this conflict. In such cases: CHANGE TO ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds unless there is no way to avoid this conflict or if the tournament is seeking to maximize judge preferencing. In such cases: RATIONALE: Judging teams twice is a good way to maximize judge preferencing. The provision to avoid a judge seeing a team on the same side remains in place. The AFA should not prohibit this. Tournament directors should make the decision to establish this practice. =============CHANGE THE EXPECTATION OF A WRITTEN BALLOT CURRENT ARTICLE III 4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate. Judges are expected to provide written comments on the ballots provided by the tournament. These written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. All provisions of this article shall apply to high school and college competitors. ARTICLE V 9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to turn in written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which leaves a tournament without all of the preliminary round ballots it should have, and assuming there is no valid explanation for missing ballots, may notify the Chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee of the judge(s) who failed to provide ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide written preliminary round ballots for all rounds judged by the end of the tournament on two occasions, the judge shall: A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA. C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to turn in ballots is received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should not be imposed, under the appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the Code. CHANGE TO ARTICLE III 4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate. A. Judges in debate rounds should provide comments justifying their decision. Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, such judges should provide these comments orally to debaters at the conclusion of debates and/or in writing on ballots provided by the tournament. B. Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, judges in speaking events should provide comments in writing on ballots provided by the tournament and/or orally to speakers. C. Written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. D. All provisions of this article shall apply to high school and college competitors. ARTICLE V 9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to meet the expectations of a tournament director to offer oral comments and/or to turn in written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which leaves a tournament without oral comments or written ballots for all preliminary rounds, and assuming there is no valid explanation for the lack of oral comments or missing ballots, may notify the Chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee of the judge(s) who failed to provide oral comments or ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide oral comments or written preliminary round ballots as expected by the tournament director for all rounds judged by the end of the tournament on two occasions, the judge shall: A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA. C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to offer oral comments or to turn in ballots is received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should not be imposed, under the appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the Code. RATIONALE: This section is also embarrassingly out of date for college debate. Virtually no policy debate tournament uses written ballots and many parliamentary debate tournaments do the same. Oral decisions and feedback are excellent ways to directly discuss why the judge decided as he/she did, how to improve, and how to do so before the next round--providing a great way to improve. Further, oral decisions reduce tab errors because the competitors know who won and can notify the tab if there has been an error. This should not be dictated by the AFA; the expectation should be set by the tournament director. ===========TOURNAMENT SETUP EXPECATIONS CURRENT 5. Tournament directors should ensure that: A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition ends as is humanly possible. B. Their tournament is not run to benefit financially the best (I ASSUME THIS MEANS HOST) school. An anticipated profit in excess of 10% of total entry fees is considered excessive. C. Their tournament runs smoothly and efficiently, with breaks in between rounds for power-matching minimized whenever possible. D. All results are kept secret if that is specified by the tournament rules. CHANGE TO 5. Tournament directors should ensure that: A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition ends as is humanly possible. B. Their tournament should not make profit beyond that generated by paying minimum wage to those volunteering their services to the program (for example, team members or coaches judging or assisting with tab for "free"). In the event, that a tournament makes profit in excess of this amount, it should make note that such is possible in its tournament invitation. C. Tournament schedules should be realistic so that rounds actually occur close to the times included in the tournament's invitation and they should not exceed 14 hours a day except for a select few competitors in the last elimination round. RATIONALE: This section of the AFA code is updated on two accounts. First, some programs depend upon their tournaments to fund their programs. Further, "10%" is arbitrary. The key should be the amount of work a program puts into a tournament. And, if a tournament is going to make profit beyond that, they should just let other programs know it. Programs can make their own determination about whether to attend or not. Second, the power-matching time minimized and secret rules seem irrelevant/unimportant. What is important that tournament days not be too lengthy and that they remain on schedule. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu _______________________________________________ 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/20081129/2ea09beb/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sat Nov 29 14:46:41 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:46:41 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] 4 afa changes References: <0BAF3145D0E4460F90EB039562EE3C34@whitman.edu> <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5ADFB@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <3E2DC5FBBAC3495E8B8FA6E64D5FEC29@whitman.edu> I consider this a friendly amendment. I don't think the afa should be involved in the enforcement of who works and who doesn't. that should be up to the school involved. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------------------------------------------- From: "Kuswa, Kevin" Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 6:04 AM To: "Jim Hanson" ; Subject: RE: [eDebate] 4 afa changes Jim, Thanks for doing this administrative work---I have not looked closely at all the proposed changes but have followed the debate about "graduate student research" for some time now. This is one of Joel's favorites. The other changes seem reasonable, although the written ballot can be a helpful guideline at times. Also, why mention "excessive profit" for a tournament if those numbers are not public? I'm sure your tournament runs at a lost and we have not run in the black, but others do (and might need to, as you say, to operate during the year). Those are all things open for debate. You should also refer to the ADA documents for some helpful language on all of these issues. In the short-term, though, your "enforcement" correction in the research section IS A TOTAL NIGHTMARE. What is research and why would you want to prevent students from competing on this issue? What about novices? What defines "collaborative"? I agree that the enforcement for that (Art 7) should be removed. You Propose This: 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. Students who fail to contribute by researching on their own or as part of a collaborative effort should not be permitted to compete. What about the first sentence only? Change to: 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. The collective rush to enforce standards like these in the past year has been alarming to say the least. Sincerely, Kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Jim Hanson Sent: Sat 11/29/2008 3:01 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] 4 afa changes I've sent this to al louden who I believe is the afa president, but figured I would share it with the larger community. ==========CHANGE THE RESEARCH EXPECTATIONS TO BE COLLABORATIVE CURRENT ARTICLE II 3. Forensics competitors are expected to do their own research. A. Persons other than the forensic competitor (undergraduate students, graduate students or instructor/coaches) are not to get charged with the responsibility for doing a forensics competitor's research. B. This provision shall not be construed to prevent coaches or assistants from engaging in limited research designed to: i. teach research techniques ii. provide limited examples of high quality research iii. identify areas of research which students should pursue, and iv. provide the coach with the working knowledge necessary to function as effective critic with respect to the debate or speech topics being investigated by his/her students. ARTICLE V 7. Forensics squads found guilty of using non-competitors for primary research purposes will have a note of censure published in the AFA Newsletter, with written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President to appropriate officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from national competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of 12 calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. CHANGE TO ARTICLE II 3. Forensics competitors are expected to research on their own or as part of a collaborative effort with other students and coaches. Students who fail to contribute by researching on their own or as part of a collaborative effort should not be permitted to compete. ARTICLE V 7. Forensics squads found guilty of having students compete who did not do their own research or did not participate in a collaborative effort with other students and coaches will have a note of censure published in the AFA Newsletter, with written notice of the censure communicated by the AFA President to appropriate officials at the offending school. The squad will be barred from national competitions sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA for a period of 12 calendar months from the date when the Educational Development and Practices Committee ruled the school to be in violation of this part of the Code. RATIONALE: In debate and in extemporaneous speaking, these research expectations are unrealistic, unhealthy, and grossly out of touch with how debate and extemporaneous speaking is practiced. Collaborative research on squads with students and coaches is a norm and we all know it. Collaborative research is beneficial; it makes all involved work together, as a team. Such research approaches should not be punished by the AFA. Further, as far as I am concerned, Article V, Section 7 could be removed entirely. This really should be a coach's prerogative. ==============DON'T PROSCRIBE JUDGING TEAMS TWICE IN PRELIMS CURRENT ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds unless there is no way to avoid this conflict. In such cases: CHANGE TO ARTICLE III, SUBSECTION E iii. A judge shall not judge the same debate team or student speaker in one particular individual event twice during a tournament's preliminary rounds unless there is no way to avoid this conflict or if the tournament is seeking to maximize judge preferencing. In such cases: RATIONALE: Judging teams twice is a good way to maximize judge preferencing. The provision to avoid a judge seeing a team on the same side remains in place. The AFA should not prohibit this. Tournament directors should make the decision to establish this practice. =============CHANGE THE EXPECTATION OF A WRITTEN BALLOT CURRENT ARTICLE III 4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate. Judges are expected to provide written comments on the ballots provided by the tournament. These written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. All provisions of this article shall apply to high school and college competitors. ARTICLE V 9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to turn in written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which leaves a tournament without all of the preliminary round ballots it should have, and assuming there is no valid explanation for missing ballots, may notify the Chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee of the judge(s) who failed to provide ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide written preliminary round ballots for all rounds judged by the end of the tournament on two occasions, the judge shall: A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA. C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to turn in ballots is received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should not be imposed, under the appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the Code. CHANGE TO ARTICLE III 4. Tournament judges are obliged to provide detailed and constructive criticism of any and all rounds of competition they evaluate. A. Judges in debate rounds should provide comments justifying their decision. Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, such judges should provide these comments orally to debaters at the conclusion of debates and/or in writing on ballots provided by the tournament. B. Based on the expectations set by the tournament host, judges in speaking events should provide comments in writing on ballots provided by the tournament and/or orally to speakers. C. Written comments should be made available to all the competitors a judge has heard by the conclusion of the tournament. D. All provisions of this article shall apply to high school and college competitors. ARTICLE V 9. Tournament directors should forward names of all judges who fail to meet the expectations of a tournament director to offer oral comments and/or to turn in written ballots for all the preliminary rounds they judge at a tournament to the chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee. Any school which leaves a tournament without oral comments or written ballots for all preliminary rounds, and assuming there is no valid explanation for the lack of oral comments or missing ballots, may notify the Chair of the Educational Development and Practices Committee of the judge(s) who failed to provide oral comments or ballots. If a judge is guilty of failing to provide oral comments or written preliminary round ballots as expected by the tournament director for all rounds judged by the end of the tournament on two occasions, the judge shall: A. Be subject to censure by notification in the AFA Newsletter, and B. Be declared ineligible to be hired as a judge at any national competition sponsored in whole or in part by the AFA. C. Be informed when notification of the second failure to offer oral comments or to turn in ballots is received. The judge to appeal that the penalty should not be imposed, under the appeal procedures outlined in Article IV, Section 4 of the Code. RATIONALE: This section is also embarrassingly out of date for college debate. Virtually no policy debate tournament uses written ballots and many parliamentary debate tournaments do the same. Oral decisions and feedback are excellent ways to directly discuss why the judge decided as he/she did, how to improve, and how to do so before the next round--providing a great way to improve. Further, oral decisions reduce tab errors because the competitors know who won and can notify the tab if there has been an error. This should not be dictated by the AFA; the expectation should be set by the tournament director. ===========TOURNAMENT SETUP EXPECATIONS CURRENT 5. Tournament directors should ensure that: A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition ends as is humanly possible. B. Their tournament is not run to benefit financially the best (I ASSUME THIS MEANS HOST) school. An anticipated profit in excess of 10% of total entry fees is considered excessive. C. Their tournament runs smoothly and efficiently, with breaks in between rounds for power-matching minimized whenever possible. D. All results are kept secret if that is specified by the tournament rules. CHANGE TO 5. Tournament directors should ensure that: A. Results are made available to all contestants as soon after competition ends as is humanly possible. B. Their tournament should not make profit beyond that generated by paying minimum wage to those volunteering their services to the program (for example, team members or coaches judging or assisting with tab for "free"). In the event, that a tournament makes profit in excess of this amount, it should make note that such is possible in its tournament invitation. C. Tournament schedules should be realistic so that rounds actually occur close to the times included in the tournament's invitation and they should not exceed 14 hours a day except for a select few competitors in the last elimination round. RATIONALE: This section of the AFA code is updated on two accounts. First, some programs depend upon their tournaments to fund their programs. Further, "10%" is arbitrary. The key should be the amount of work a program puts into a tournament. And, if a tournament is going to make profit beyond that, they should just let other programs know it. Programs can make their own determination about whether to attend or not. Second, the power-matching time minimized and secret rules seem irrelevant/unimportant. What is important that tournament days not be too lengthy and that they remain on schedule. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From spring.sarah at gmail.com Sat Nov 29 16:54:12 2008 From: spring.sarah at gmail.com (Sarah Spring) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 17:54:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Applescript/Word 2008 help Message-ID: <867D75F7-9845-47F6-A256-BA1B797ED15C@gmail.com> I've been putting off for a while now switching over to Word 2008 (for mac, not vista) because of the lack of visual basic and I've become so accustomed to doing debate work in the nice templates people have written for VBA. However, I've finally gotten a new computer and I'd really like to not have to install Word 2004 just for debate work. Now, I really don't understand either programming language or programming at all. But with the help of google I've been able to figure out how to get an Applescript to paste plain text and remove returns. Yet, I still would really like to get the macro that makes the ununderlined font smaller (Hanson's template calls this "font 8", I think) work in Applescript. So my question is as follows, does anyone have a debate template that works in Word 08 probably with Applescript? Or does anyone know how to make some of these VBA macros into Applescript? I'm sure others have had similar problems... Any help? Sarah Spring University of Iowa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081129/172b4769/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sat Nov 29 19:42:15 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 19:42:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] chicago tribune conspiracy theory ad Message-ID: sucks when your candidate forces you to go back on straight talk post-cheney. sucks when suddenly you find yourself believing factcheck to the point of supporting obama not presenting the birth certificate or any record of his past for public inspection. sucks to be the liberal versions of the cheney-heads. secret government good because the economy outweighs. full page. resembles washington times ad from nearly 2 weeks ago.http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf _________________________________________________________________ Get more done, have more fun, and stay more connected with Windows Mobile?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119642556/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081129/70e6bc61/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sun Nov 30 13:00:00 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:00:00 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] $600 to come to nw ceda champ . . . dec 1 deadline Message-ID: <3DFA5BB5473147C49BFCE0583437B7BF@whitman.edu> hi all unfortunately, the economic downturn is hitting us so we will be selecting 6 golden teams instead of 10. that said, you can still apply for those 6 slots by dec. 1 (as late at night as you want). nw ceda champs happens feb 28 to mar 2 (sat thru mon). if selected, your entry fees to the tournament are zero, you get free food throughout the tournament (bfast, lunch, dinner), free shuttle service, and you get $600. if you want free housing, we will arrange it for you. to apply--email me with your team names and your judge (your judge must judge all prelim and elim rounds at the tournament). we should be announcing the golden 6 late this coming week. full invitation is at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54nwceda2009.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From pyampya at gmail.com Sun Nov 30 17:31:40 2008 From: pyampya at gmail.com (Mike Baxter-Kauf) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:31:40 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Macalester Tournament Entries Message-ID: <3ffd85940811301531y5b4587abp5f94825ef40cf650@mail.gmail.com> I was just looking to get a heads up about potential for entries at the Macalester tournament this upcoming weekend. I have had a couple people email me to indicate that they are just firming up availability, but if you are planning on attending and have not let me know, I would appreciate it if you would drop me a line. It will help with scheduling, food, etc. Any info I could get via email or debateresults by tuesday would be extremely helpful. Thanks and we look forward to seeing you in St Paul. -- Peace, Mike Baxter-Kauf From jrlyle at gmail.com Sun Nov 30 20:51:39 2008 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:51:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion seeks John Carroll judging Message-ID: <25fd497f0811301851w4a2f1b8di74e5d86f0187fa1@mail.gmail.com> Looking for 3-6 rounds. Let me know. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081130/afa414ee/attachment.htm