From infinite.monad at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 01:37:49 2008 From: infinite.monad at gmail.com (iz: -ak) Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:37:49 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV judging available Message-ID: 4-8 rounds. Let the bidding begin-- izak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080930/01534e51/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Wed Oct 1 09:40:08 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:40:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock Results Message-ID: <77DC5C86-0F58-4343-BE43-06151E964255@wichita.edu> Congrats to Baylor LR for winning the Open division (over North Texas MR), Kansas DK for winning the Junior division (over Oklahoma CE), and Missouri State SW for winning the Novice Division (over JCCC/UNI). Speaker awards are listed below and the full packet is attached as a pdf file. Jeff OPEN SPEAKERS 1. Ryan Wash, Emporia 2. Chris Thomas, UTSA 3. Avery Henry, UCO 4. Patrick Kennedy, Kansas 5. Juan Garcia, UMKC 6. Latoya Williams-Green, Emporia 7. Mark Wilkins, Kansas 8. Scott Koslow, Oklahoma 9. Chris Rooney, Baylor 10. Aaron Kruse, Missouri State JUNIOR SPEAKERS 1. Alyssa Kennedy, Kansas 2. Paul Eicher, Oklahoma 3. Adam Cortelyou, Wichita State 4. Donnie Hanson, Emporia 5. Gloria Funcheon, K State 6. Miranda Nichols, KCKCC 7. Kai Davis, Kansas 8. David Blair, Oklahoma 9. Franklin Katschke, Wichita State 10. Andy Lee, K State NOVICE SPEAKERS 1. Eric Wright, Missouri State 2. Allie Chase, JCCC 3. Patrick Luong, Oklahoma 4. Danielle Smith, Missouri State 5. Austin Graham, Kansas State -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wichita_Results_Packet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 313504 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081001/4933edd2/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- From scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed Oct 1 09:47:58 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:47:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] It is a Great day for CEDA in the South Message-ID: <1222872478.48e38d9e14c9f@webmail.grandecom.net> I just noticed that the University of Houston and Mercer University (Ga.) will be fielding policy teams at Vanderbilt. It is great to see two programs coming back to CEDA debate...especially programs from the deep South. It is also great to see new/renewed programs emerging from Florida. I'd like to see at list from CEDA of new programs that have joined the activity this year so we can all welcome them. Scott Elliott From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Oct 1 10:23:41 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:23:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bad publicity for policy debate Message-ID: <48E395FD.7070401@uvm.edu> I write today because I fear for the future of policy debate in America. It is already too close to being below critical mass in terms of schools and students. The following story is illustrative of our problems. http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2008/10/college-debate.html The video of a debater standing on the table where the opposing team is sitting and uttering a stream of profanities is not a good film clip for the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION to feature. The story has some points to make that are hard for us to answer: 1. Incomprehensible speech 2. Rejection of the topic 3. Too present profanity 4. "project" hi jinks 5. Lack of perceived civility and, of course, 6. THE incident. I am sure that we can explain to ourselves and rationalize all of these, but to THE PUBLIC and to our ADMINISTRATIONS it is getting more difficult to explain in a way that they can accept. The Las Vegas article Jake reported on is good, but an exception to the rule in terms of the kinds of publicity we are getting. Rather than a top down imposition of codes and rules I think each squad needs to confront these issues as a team, publicize your efforts to your students so if called on you have an answer as to what you are doing. Then, carry them out. This way changes can happen that you agree with on your squad and the overall effect on many of the above points will be substantial. But, if we just ignore it and go on preparing for the next tournament we are at peril. I am not trying to engage in a long drawn-out argument about these issues, what I really want is to alert you to the kind of press we are getting and express my concern. Letters to the editor of THE CHRONICLE might be a place to start. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From bamadebate at yahoo.com Wed Oct 1 11:55:25 2008 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Judging for KY - Emory still looking Message-ID: <236717.69067.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com> We will take any amount. Pay in cash. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081001/c8ee3131/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 13:23:19 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:23:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bad Publicity & Reply Message-ID: I received an email from a faculty member yesterday re: the Chronicle article Tuna was talking about. I've maintained that I dont think that these accusations are that hard to reply to. Here's me putting my money where my mouth is: Yeah, I think I can defend it. First, keep in mind that what this article is discussing is an isolated incident at a specific tournament with particular judges. The quality comparison of the talent of the two teams, the experience of the judges, and the execution of the arguments is obscured in this article to the point where no reasonably intelligent person could make any decision from this snippet of 15 seconds of a 2 hour long debate round. Second, judges in debates are not called on to make decisions about the truth of an argument, but about its relative execution, as truth, by the teams in the debate. Debate would be stupid if we judges just ratified our opinions in each debate. The educational value of the 2 hour long competitive round would be limited under those conditions. Judges in debate offer advice before rounds as coaches and after rounds as observers, but attempt to disconnect themselves from the round as much as possible. Third, the vast majority of these arguments are not directed at debate as generic but at argumentative forms or practices employed by particular teams. For instance, the suggestion that speed reading in debate rounds is not neutral, but is an attempt to favor quantity over quality and to isolate debate to an expert audience as opposed to improving its accessibility for all is an attack on a specific practice employed by a particular team, an attack on their methodology. These arguments "clash" with their opponents on form and implicate content in a way that is relevant to questions of advocacy, a potentially crucial debate skill. Fourth, what debate is for is up for grabs. Debate could be just a competitive game, an educational forum, a tool for training future policymakers, a device for actualizing social movement activism, or some or all of the above. Debaters need to know what they're debating for and why. Part of what these arguments do is to unpack the simplistic assumption that debate is a neutral conveyor of policy knowledge and to reveal that it is simultaneously a part of implementing an educational agenda that is contestable and a potential tool for improving social justice. Finally, as an outside observer, what do these practices do for debaters? They force them to be able to defend their epistemological choices rather than simply executing them. They expand the amount of things that debaters need to know about, which is good. The expose debaters to ideas that are not frequently shown to undergraduates or especially high school kids that get them thinking. And, they hone panoramic advocacy skills, teaching debaters to defend their ideas from the far-right and the far-left. The alternative is obviously inferior: a debate with deeper content restrictions, carving out exceptions for legitimate knowledge and paternally dictating the best ideas, either from judges, the organization, or self-regulation. As a final aside, few teams are successful on arguments like this. It requires a great deal of "against the grain persuasion" and immense talent in execution. Those that do are to be applauded precisely because these ideas are so counterintuitive. Debate has for a long time been a forum where unpopular ideas can get a fair shake, and I hope we keep it as such. I received a prompt reply back stating: Thanks for your insightful response. I can see why youre the debate coach. Keep up the good work. Yes, these conversations are happening and will continue to happen. No, they are not the end of the world. We've always had to fend off accusations that our content should be more "real world", that debaters talk to fast and are messy and gross. That's nothing new. Unconventional debate is good because uninterrogated conventions are bad. Allowing profanity is good because the alternative to allowing it (speech codes) is so much less desirable. Debaters can and have successfully challenged the use of profanity in debates without the assistance of judges, team policies, or the organization for years and should continue to do so. Ultimately, the open contestability of debate content and practices is a strength of our game, not a weakness and convincing administrators as such should be less hard than people make it out to be. The sky is still not falling. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081001/c0cec147/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Wed Oct 1 13:27:03 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:27:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bad publicity for policy debate In-Reply-To: <48E395FD.7070401@uvm.edu> Message-ID: I begin debating in 1972, and heard then that academic debate would soon come to an end. Speed reading, the quantity of work required, sloppy kids wearing jeans and T Shirts! (... the legacy of radical types like Tuna.....) When I look at tournament entries on Debate Results for this fall, I see vibrant regional debate, some massive national tournaments, lots of 2 and 3 division tournaments, returning schools and new schools. Keep in mind the competition from other leagues and activities, and the increased cost of travel, tightening institutional budgets, and other support costs. When I put out the word about our debate team on my campus, I have more interested students than we can teach and coach. It seems to me there is support for debate. My colleagues and bosses appreciate the issues we are dealing with, and upon viewing the Chronicle's article and video, were offended by the profanity (I was too), but understood or did not object to the rest. And, they are impressed that we have an organizational structure to address positive change. Yes, we need to step up our level of professionalism, and attention to conduct. We are doing that. We need to examine and assess our curriculum. We are doing that. Yes, we should work to educate others about the positive impacts of debate and promote it on our campuses and in our communities, developing our programs publicly in consistent harmony with the strategic plans and missions of our institutions. I think most of us have been doing that: of course, we can do better. And should do more. I am proud of my association with this community of dedicated, brilliant and often eccentric thinkers. Would we rather be creating a society of Sarah Palins? (sorry, Brett!) I do not fear for the future of policy debate. dave 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! -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Alfred Snider Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 11:24 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Bad publicity for policy debate I write today because I fear for the future of policy debate in America. It is already too close to being below critical mass in terms of schools and students. The following story is illustrative of our problems. http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2008/10/college-debate.html The video of a debater standing on the table where the opposing team is sitting and uttering a stream of profanities is not a good film clip for the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION to feature. The story has some points to make that are hard for us to answer: 1. Incomprehensible speech 2. Rejection of the topic 3. Too present profanity 4. "project" hi jinks 5. Lack of perceived civility and, of course, 6. THE incident. I am sure that we can explain to ourselves and rationalize all of these, but to THE PUBLIC and to our ADMINISTRATIONS it is getting more difficult to explain in a way that they can accept. The Las Vegas article Jake reported on is good, but an exception to the rule in terms of the kinds of publicity we are getting. Rather than a top down imposition of codes and rules I think each squad needs to confront these issues as a team, publicize your efforts to your students so if called on you have an answer as to what you are doing. Then, carry them out. This way changes can happen that you agree with on your squad and the overall effect on many of the above points will be substantial. But, if we just ignore it and go on preparing for the next tournament we are at peril. I am not trying to engage in a long drawn-out argument about these issues, what I really want is to alert you to the kind of press we are getting and express my concern. Letters to the editor of THE CHRONICLE might be a place to start. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From berchnorto at msn.com Wed Oct 1 13:40:57 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:40:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bad publicity for policy debate In-Reply-To: <48E395FD.7070401@uvm.edu> Message-ID: Tuna raises some important points. I think it's important to note that there was an article that accompanied the video. The article is actually pretty good and has a lot of positive stuff, including some excellent analysis from Ede Warner, Gordon Stables, and Will Baker. It's worth reading. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i06/06a00103.htm --Neil Berch West Virginia University >From: Alfred Snider >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] Bad publicity for policy debate >Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:23:41 -0400 > >I write today because I fear for the future of policy debate in America. >It is already too close to being below critical mass in terms of schools >and students. The following story is illustrative of our problems. > >http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2008/10/college-debate.html > >The video of a debater standing on the table where the opposing team is >sitting and uttering a stream of profanities is not a good film clip for >the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION to feature. > >The story has some points to make that are hard for us to answer: > >1. Incomprehensible speech >2. Rejection of the topic >3. Too present profanity >4. "project" hi jinks >5. Lack of perceived civility >and, of course, >6. THE incident. > >I am sure that we can explain to ourselves and rationalize all of these, >but to THE PUBLIC and to our ADMINISTRATIONS it is getting more >difficult to explain in a way that they can accept. The Las Vegas >article Jake reported on is good, but an exception to the rule in terms >of the kinds of publicity we are getting. > >Rather than a top down imposition of codes and rules I think each squad >needs to confront these issues as a team, publicize your efforts to your >students so if called on you have an answer as to what you are doing. >Then, carry them out. This way changes can happen that you agree with >on your squad and the overall effect on many of the above points will be >substantial. But, if we just ignore it and go on preparing for the next >tournament we are at peril. > >I am not trying to engage in a long drawn-out argument about these >issues, what I really want is to alert you to the kind of press we are >getting and express my concern. > >Letters to the editor of THE CHRONICLE might be a place to start. > >Tuna > >-- >Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna >Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics >University of Vermont >Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA >Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com >Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu >World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ >World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com >802-656-0097 office telephone >802-656-4275 office fax > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Oct 1 14:05:08 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:05:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bad publicity for policy debate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48E3C9E4.8080108@uvm.edu> Thanks, I had not seen the other article and will check it out now. Tuna NEIL BERCH wrote: > Tuna raises some important points. I think it's important to note > that there was an article that accompanied the video. The article is > actually pretty good and has a lot of positive stuff, including some > excellent analysis from Ede Warner, Gordon Stables, and Will Baker. > It's worth reading. > http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i06/06a00103.htm > > --Neil Berch > West Virginia University > > >> From: Alfred Snider >> To: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: [eDebate] Bad publicity for policy debate >> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:23:41 -0400 >> >> I write today because I fear for the future of policy debate in America. >> It is already too close to being below critical mass in terms of schools >> and students. The following story is illustrative of our problems. >> >> http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2008/10/college-debate.html >> >> The video of a debater standing on the table where the opposing team is >> sitting and uttering a stream of profanities is not a good film clip for >> the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION to feature. >> >> The story has some points to make that are hard for us to answer: >> >> 1. Incomprehensible speech >> 2. Rejection of the topic >> 3. Too present profanity >> 4. "project" hi jinks >> 5. Lack of perceived civility >> and, of course, >> 6. THE incident. >> >> I am sure that we can explain to ourselves and rationalize all of these, >> but to THE PUBLIC and to our ADMINISTRATIONS it is getting more >> difficult to explain in a way that they can accept. The Las Vegas >> article Jake reported on is good, but an exception to the rule in terms >> of the kinds of publicity we are getting. >> >> Rather than a top down imposition of codes and rules I think each squad >> needs to confront these issues as a team, publicize your efforts to your >> students so if called on you have an answer as to what you are doing. >> Then, carry them out. This way changes can happen that you agree with >> on your squad and the overall effect on many of the above points will be >> substantial. But, if we just ignore it and go on preparing for the next >> tournament we are at peril. >> >> I am not trying to engage in a long drawn-out argument about these >> issues, what I really want is to alert you to the kind of press we are >> getting and express my concern. >> >> Letters to the editor of THE CHRONICLE might be a place to start. >> >> Tuna >> >> -- >> Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna >> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics >> University of Vermont >> Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA >> Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com >> Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu >> World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ >> World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com >> 802-656-0097 office telephone >> 802-656-4275 office fax >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > -- 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 kenrjohnson at msn.com Wed Oct 1 14:27:52 2008 From: kenrjohnson at msn.com (Ken Johnson) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:27:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] New Chronicle article on recent controversy in debate In-Reply-To: <2C77EACA08B2F14DB7ED477DA653CBA6304E5B@ITS-EXC2.UR.Rochester.edu> References: <2C77EACA08B2F14DB7ED477DA653CBA6304E5B@ITS-EXC2.UR.Rochester.edu> Message-ID: http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i06/06a00103.htm Colleges Call Debate Contests Out of Order Postmodern strategies pose challenges to traditional forensics By JEFFREY R. YOUNG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081001/8de7032a/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Oct 1 14:29:35 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:29:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Bad Publicity & Reply In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405AE5A2C@castor.richmond.edu> Good comments Jason. I judged this debate and voted for Towson. It was a partial octo and the Towson debater was debating maverick. The reporter was not too interested in asking for explanation and it seems from the article that he already had a slant to pursue. At any rate, if anyone thinks that censorship and argument-content rules should be used to "improve" or "clean-up" debate, they should question the meaning of education and their own participation in the process. This debate may have been "unruly" in ways, but it was also another great example of the intellectual desires and energized argumentation that bring college students to an empty classroom on a weekend to have a clash of ideas. The NYU debaters, the Towson debaters, and the other judges on the panel were all about debating/learning/educating and giving it their best effort. This particular Chronicle article (like most articles) got it right in some ways and got it wrong in some ways. I do not think it is devastating press, but something to consider. Look at the energy behind the presidential and VP debates-and they aren't even really debates...if that process can be defended then it should be easy to defend competitive debate. Sincerely, Kevin From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jason Russell Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:23 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Bad Publicity & Reply I received an email from a faculty member yesterday re: the Chronicle article Tuna was talking about. I've maintained that I dont think that these accusations are that hard to reply to. Here's me putting my money where my mouth is: Yeah, I think I can defend it. First, keep in mind that what this article is discussing is an isolated incident at a specific tournament with particular judges. The quality comparison of the talent of the two teams, the experience of the judges, and the execution of the arguments is obscured in this article to the point where no reasonably intelligent person could make any decision from this snippet of 15 seconds of a 2 hour long debate round. Second, judges in debates are not called on to make decisions about the truth of an argument, but about its relative execution, as truth, by the teams in the debate. Debate would be stupid if we judges just ratified our opinions in each debate. The educational value of the 2 hour long competitive round would be limited under those conditions. Judges in debate offer advice before rounds as coaches and after rounds as observers, but attempt to disconnect themselves from the round as much as possible. Third, the vast majority of these arguments are not directed at debate as generic but at argumentative forms or practices employed by particular teams. For instance, the suggestion that speed reading in debate rounds is not neutral, but is an attempt to favor quantity over quality and to isolate debate to an expert audience as opposed to improving its accessibility for all is an attack on a specific practice employed by a particular team, an attack on their methodology. These arguments "clash" with their opponents on form and implicate content in a way that is relevant to questions of advocacy, a potentially crucial debate skill. Fourth, what debate is for is up for grabs. Debate could be just a competitive game, an educational forum, a tool for training future policymakers, a device for actualizing social movement activism, or some or all of the above. Debaters need to know what they're debating for and why. Part of what these arguments do is to unpack the simplistic assumption that debate is a neutral conveyor of policy knowledge and to reveal that it is simultaneously a part of implementing an educational agenda that is contestable and a potential tool for improving social justice. Finally, as an outside observer, what do these practices do for debaters? They force them to be able to defend their epistemological choices rather than simply executing them. They expand the amount of things that debaters need to know about, which is good. The expose debaters to ideas that are not frequently shown to undergraduates or especially high school kids that get them thinking. And, they hone panoramic advocacy skills, teaching debaters to defend their ideas from the far-right and the far-left. The alternative is obviously inferior: a debate with deeper content restrictions, carving out exceptions for legitimate knowledge and paternally dictating the best ideas, either from judges, the organization, or self-regulation. As a final aside, few teams are successful on arguments like this. It requires a great deal of "against the grain persuasion" and immense talent in execution. Those that do are to be applauded precisely because these ideas are so counterintuitive. Debate has for a long time been a forum where unpopular ideas can get a fair shake, and I hope we keep it as such. I received a prompt reply back stating: Thanks for your insightful response. I can see why youre the debate coach. Keep up the good work. Yes, these conversations are happening and will continue to happen. No, they are not the end of the world. We've always had to fend off accusations that our content should be more "real world", that debaters talk to fast and are messy and gross. That's nothing new. Unconventional debate is good because uninterrogated conventions are bad. Allowing profanity is good because the alternative to allowing it (speech codes) is so much less desirable. Debaters can and have successfully challenged the use of profanity in debates without the assistance of judges, team policies, or the organization for years and should continue to do so. Ultimately, the open contestability of debate content and practices is a strength of our game, not a weakness and convincing administrators as such should be less hard than people make it out to be. The sky is still not falling. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081001/a93ea406/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Wed Oct 1 14:35:03 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:35:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bad publicity for policy debate Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-October/076230.html _ in reply to the report embedded here, http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2008/10/college-debate.html to say that a team from towson university "accused their opponents from fort hays state of racist tactics" is misleading. such a characterization gives one the impression that the towson team accused their opponents of racism - they did not. they accused their opponents of employing *racially-neutral* methods which fail to adequately address entrenched racial privilege. the towson team made a point of not imputing any racist motives, correcting this mischaracterization of their position at least a couple times during the debate. so, it's not that the tactics were racist; it's that the tactics weren't anti-racist (or racially-conscious) enough to confront racism in the activity. to say that "the charge of racism led to an argument" is both inaccurate and misleading. first, towson didn't put forward a "charge of racism" (see above), but also that description neglects to mention the argument happened *after the round* - not during. the choice of the word 'led' there suggests that the students - who behaved and performed well throughout the real debate - in some sense caused or were in some way responsible for the actions of their crazed elders. (if two members of the audience watching a presidential debate fall into an argument about the financial crisis long after the debate ends, and those members subsequently come to blows of their free volition, would we say that the presidential debate over the financial crisis "led to violence"? if so, would we ask 'what's happened to the state of presidential debates today?'? ...i think not.) to say that the coach from fort hays state "got into a shouting match with the judge" is factually incorrect. she was not "the judge". she'd been struck from the pool before the round ...and, of course, that's what most of the shouting was about. so, finally, to say this caused college officials to ask 'what is going on in one of the oldest forms of academic competition?' is unfair. first because this did not occur during an actual competition (the round had already been decided and discussed by the real judges), but also because if officials are indeed asking that question, it's in no small part due to the misleading, inaccurate coverage of the incident itself, which the chronicle of higher education's report above offers us another in a long line of fine examples. if you're truly looking for an example of how to debate a controversial subject in a civil manner (e.g., without calling your opposition 'assholes' or exposing your backside), then look no farther than the actual round, cut free from the adultish antics which occurred afterward. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081001/359ce1aa/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 1 16:04:46 2008 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:04:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] sarah palin should've debated..... Message-ID: <434962.14147.qm@web53502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> http://www.juliansanchez.com/2008/09/30/desperately-seeking-sarah/ debate makes us pretty good at pretending we know. pj From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Wed Oct 1 16:15:20 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:15:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky entries Message-ID: <48E3A218.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> For the sake of those trying to complete pref sheets, I will "freeze" entries and judge changes in Bruschke's system at 8:00 PM EDT tonight. Please double-check your team and judge entries by that time. All changes AFTER 8:00 PM need to be sent directly to me. If you have not entered judge constraints in the system, send that info as well. The pref entry system will remain open on Bruschke's site until 2:00 PM EDT on Friday. Please rank ALL judges - at present there are 99 but the number may change in the next 3 hours. Thanks for your help, GARY From scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed Oct 1 21:02:28 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 21:02:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Easy way to solve the PR Problem Message-ID: <1222912948.48e42bb4d3355@webmail.grandecom.net> I know this may come as a shock to most of you, but there really is an easy solution to all of the Bad PR. It has nothing to do with a new code of professional responsibility, or some new draconian set of rules. I will offer you a path, a way into the light....... Our program adopted a new policy this Fall--Debaters have to were business casual at tournaments and have to respect their opponents, even if it means losing a round. Wow! Incredible! I know. Its really cutting edge and revolutionary. We had a discussion on our team and asked, which is more important--the long term viability of our program or the need for a few f--tards to express themselves in any way they please? We concluded that the life of our program is more important than some individuals personal advocacy or "project." In nutshell for the slow of thought, Directos of Programs can easily rein in their debaters. We really can prevent the inmates from running the asylum. All you have to do is say: "Look, this S---- could result in our program or another program getting cut; so, folks, try to contain yourselves. Grow up. There really is no such thing as absolute freedom when Administrators write the program's checks. What I have been telling you about 'argumentative space and freedom' is nice, but it really is an illusion. Run, genocide is good, but do it with a smile and in Khakis." Sorry to pee on your parade. Scott Elliott From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 21:21:16 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 21:21:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Scott's Solution Message-ID: Dude, this post is a combination of reasonable and ridiculous. Wearing decent clothes is ok (presuming you have some or can afford to get some; not everyone can, especially people that opt to debate rather than get a job). Being respectful is a must (unless the other person is, in fact, an ass, then you should tell them as much, focusing on content, but emotion here is entirely understandable). But, the idea that any of this has to do with a project or something is nonsense. Some of the rudest debaters of yesterday and today have just run the politics disad and counterplans. A team code of conduct is reasonable, but an argument or style restriction is an undue conflation. I dont get it. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081001/7dbefacb/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed Oct 1 22:27:33 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:27:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Scott's Solution Message-ID: <1222918053.48e43fa513a9a@webmail.grandecom.net> Dear Jason et al: How can someone as smart as you not "get it"? How can some of the smartest people I have ever encounted in my life, not get it? Jason, I have been a fan of yours for years. I am excited when you judge my teams because, in a strange way, you tend to tell them exactly what I want them to hear in your after-round critiques. I do not understand how someone as obviously intelligent as yourself can fail to understand.... I will make it as plain as possible...so even an idiot savant...can understand... you can run ANY argument you want in policy debate as long as you 1) do it with a smile; 2) respect your opponents; and 3) wear decent clothes. Sorry, but if many of you should ever step outside the ivory tower (horrors! I did it for almost a decade!) you will find that people who cut the checks, i.e., pay your salary and pay for your travel funds; will tolerate any intellectual argument as long as it is PRESENTED in a civil manner. Your objection is on a restriction regarding style. As someone who wears blue jeans alomst everyday, I agree. But, I am a (dare I say it?, I think I will....) a pragmatist. Sometimes it pays to put on the monkey suit. Let me clue you in. When you eventually get your Ph.D., you WILL have to swallow your pride and wear a suit in tie for an interview--so you can feed yourself. (I cried the day I had to cut my hair, shaved my beard, and prepared for a job interview) If you want to impose your views of the world on the youth of America, you too will have to whore yourself out for the purpose of landing a job. It is reality. I am sorry, you will all have to deal with it for a moment. In the same way, if you want to have a debate program... you may have to sacrifice. What is the sacrifice? Telling your students that they cannot literally shit on the 1AC as a form of "social protest"? Repeatedly (as I did this very day) stopping practice rounds to tell students, "Dude, you have got to stop saying 'bullshit' every five words in the 1AR."? I think most of us within the debate community would love to live in a world in which San Fransisco State can simulate homosexual Al Queda Rape in rounds to the point where other students cry. I am sure most of us support other Professors getting into throw downs in which one is called a racist M-----F---, and the other drops his pants as a form of social protest. I an sure we can all gather around the Keg, and shout "wooooHOO!" at the most recent form of sticking it to "da Man." It is nice when you are in grad school, however, it sucks when you grow up and realize that thousands of dollars and students (some you have yet to meet)depend on you. If you want to preserve this little game, you may want to think about how the way in which we present ourselves has real impacts, and can very well determine whether programs exist. The exhibits/evidence of my argument lay upon a broken field of battle like the lives lost in Dalton Trumbow's "Johnny's Got a Gun." How many programs have to be canceled before Directors of Debate decide to say enough? Run Democracy Bad. Run Capitalism Bad. Run Racism permeates Policy Debate. Run White Supremeacy good and the genocide in Darfur is a way to relieve overpopulation. I do not care,...and neither do Administrators. As long as you do it with some modicum of preofessionalism and civility. As coaches and directors, we are all making choices. I prefer that I reel my students in a bit over the short term over the prospect of students I have never met foregoing the opportunity to participate in college policy debate. Scott From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 23:00:39 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:00:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Scott's Solution Message-ID: This is an uncivil post. I refuse to reply to it as Im busy tying my tie. I dont mind ties. I rather like to wear them myself on ocassion. I wont, however, tell my students how to dress. They dont have to dress any certain way in class. They dont have to dress any certain way at debate meetings. And, it doesnt do them any service to dress any special way in debates. It's just another economic entry barrier for participation that I refuse to abide by. Fortunately, my boss and administrators recognize that this is non-sequiter to content. Any debater worth their salt should be able to explain that looking civil doesnt make someone civil or smart or really anything beyond well-dressed. Frankly, many people who wear ties are assholes. I'd expect somewhere around 50%. I bet they curse and express incivility at times as well. Lipstick on a pig sounds applicable. Respect and civility are codewords. I think, frankly, there may be a racial undertone here that Im not comfortable with. But, if there isnt, it's interesting how no one considered this to be that serious back in "the good ole days" when we were just cursing about disads and calling out our policy-making opponents based on their sexual orientation, weight, aesthetic appearance, or anything else. Now, callin someone a racist asshole, thats mean. This sounds awfully self-serving. Back in the day it was "boys being boys", but now it's not ok...why, exactly? Profanity and jerkishness are fundamentally contestable in debate, by debaters, and they ought to be, from both sides. Does profanity help your cause of fighting racism? Maybe. It is emotional. It does get people's attention. But maybe it alienates and isolates. THIS IS DEBATABLE. For fuck's sake, we live in the 21st century and we really think that getting rid of naughty words is going to make debate better? Seriously? No. I dont. Personally I like dirty words. And, I will defend them. And that's that. No one is telling you how to run your team. Don't tell us how to run ours or pretend as if you've come up with a cookie-cutter solution to the ills of debate. You haven't. It's dumb. That's all. Here's my alt: tell your administrators that debate is great because it teaches people to defend themselves in all walks of life and it shows us that how you look or your eloquence in packaging your argument is exceeded by your content. Down with Sophistry, down with demogoguery, up with argument. It really is that simple. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081001/d37c10a6/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Wed Oct 1 23:03:35 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 23:03:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Easy way to solve the PR Problem Message-ID: you know what's f-u-c-k-i-n-g insulting? - the notion that towson university won c.e.d.a. nationals by accusing their opponents of racism. why is such implicature not fervently opposed when floated by news sources like THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION? what's less insulting, though equally misguided, is attributing problems in the activity to bugaboos like 'postmodernism'. take this sentence: "debaters continue to push the envelope ... - still enraging people who see debate as something serious and important and true, rather than as an intellectual sport." -- http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2008/10/college-debate.html leveling debate to mere 'intellectual sport' is a problem inherent in having to argue both for and against a policy proposition. needles to say, there's a strong defense of switch-side debating which begins with the premise that intellectual sports and serious, important inquiries into truth are not necessarily exclusive of one another. and what's so incredibly ironic is it's often those studying so-called 'postmodern' literature who adamantly take this premise to task, and are among those most enraged by the tradition of debate as a sophistic game. enter scott elliott to apologetically "pee on your parade" (and himself)... http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-October/076241.html what at first appears to originate from the same generic view of those debaters who 'continue to push the envelope' actually originates from the exact opposite place: elliott's problem seems to be that debaters are taking debate *too seriously*. debaters who actually believe in debate as a vehicle for expression, who believe in the value of personal advocacy, and/or who attempt to accomplish various 'projects' are willfully blind to the fact that this is 'just a game', an exercise in competitive sophistry. thus no debate argument could ever be worth potentially offending your opponents, or worth risking the continuance of the game. "run 'genocide is good'," elliott encourages us, "but do it with a smile and in khakis". in sum, keep up appearances. dress better. if you feel the need to call your debaters 'fuck-tards' in an edebate post, for an example, then have the decency to do so with polite dashes: "f--tards". and when confronted with the p.r.-fallout caused by an incident in which *coaches* went beserk after an otherwise well-run round, the solution is both easy and obvious: forget about perserving (the "illusion" of) debate as a space for academic freedom and call upon coaches to "rein in their *debaters*". ... i submit to those concerned that if you're interested in pinpointing the chief enemy of debate as an activity that's serious, important, or true, there's no need to haul out the usual suspects of postmodernity - his name is scott elliott, and he's truly inspiring: "we really can prevent the inmates from running the asylum." - not as long as there are still programs that listen to you, scott. _________________________________________________________________ Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. 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/20081001/fd38e56b/attachment.htm From rickydeck at gmail.com Wed Oct 1 23:16:15 2008 From: rickydeck at gmail.com (Ricky Deck) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 00:16:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] George Mason Coaches Message-ID: <6ae7c1540810012116j41f77a4bu6024e1c0b20d2239@mail.gmail.com> I spoke with several of you at the Clarion Tournament. I have some questions, if you could email me back it'd be greatly appreciated!Jake Weiner? Thanks, Ricky Drexel/Swarthmore Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081002/b5fa3fd9/attachment.htm From privethedge at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 07:13:53 2008 From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 05:13:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Scott's Solution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <650921.32759.qm@web50911.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi, Look..y'all are educators training students who will one day enter professional work places where they WILL be told how to dress - I think Scott's point is that there is nothing wrong with getting your kids used to that fact now. Believe it or not, out here in the work-a-day world you can't shit on the annual report to show how disatsified you are with your merit raise, and you can't show up for work in a battered sweat shirt and torn up jeans if your company requires a different standard of dress. ? Of course...you can continue to play the game you've turned debate into for these past many years and you'll continue to lose programs...Wasn't it Einstein (I know, dead, white male) who said the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results? Scott's proposal are common-sense, simple changes that can easily be made...and as a result, this game might survive. ? H. ? ? "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by??its collision with error." John S. Mill ?Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live." Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman: "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!" --- On Thu, 10/2/08, Jason Russell wrote: From: Jason Russell Subject: Re: [eDebate] Scott's Solution To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 12:00 AM This is an uncivil post. I refuse to reply to it as Im busy tying my tie. ? I dont mind ties. I rather like to wear them myself on ocassion. I wont, however, tell my students how to dress. They dont have to dress any certain way in class. They dont have to dress any certain way at debate meetings. And, it doesnt do them any service to dress any special way in debates. It's just another economic entry barrier for participation that I refuse to abide by. Fortunately, my boss and administrators recognize that this is non-sequiter to content. Any debater worth their salt should be able to explain that looking civil doesnt make someone civil or smart or really anything beyond well-dressed. Frankly, many people who wear ties are assholes. I'd expect somewhere around 50%. I bet they curse and express incivility at times as well. Lipstick on a pig sounds applicable. ? Respect and civility are codewords. I think, frankly, there may be a racial undertone here that Im not comfortable with. But, if there isnt, it's interesting how no one considered this to be that serious back in "the good ole days" when we were just cursing about disads and calling out our policy-making opponents based on their sexual orientation, weight, aesthetic appearance, or anything else. Now, callin someone a racist asshole, thats mean. This sounds awfully self-serving. Back in the day it was "boys being boys", but now it's not ok...why, exactly? ? Profanity and jerkishness are fundamentally contestable in debate, by debaters, and they ought to be, from both sides. Does profanity help your cause of fighting racism? Maybe. It is emotional. It does get people's attention. But maybe it alienates and isolates. THIS IS DEBATABLE. For fuck's sake, we live in the 21st century and we really think that getting rid of naughty words is going to make debate better? Seriously? No. I dont. Personally I like dirty words. And, I will defend them. And that's that. ? No one is telling you how to run your team. Don't tell us how to run ours or pretend as if you've come up with a cookie-cutter solution to the ills of debate. You haven't. It's dumb. That's all. Here's my alt: tell your administrators that debate is great because it teaches people to defend themselves in all walks of life and it shows us that how you look or your eloquence in packaging your argument is exceeded by your content. Down with Sophistry, down with demogoguery, up with argument. It really is that simple. ? 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/20081002/2d102450/attachment.htm From mmk_savant at hotmail.com Thu Oct 2 08:35:30 2008 From: mmk_savant at hotmail.com (Michael Korcok) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 06:35:30 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] worth considering Message-ID: This TED talk by Jonathan Haidt is worth considering. He offers an interesting set of ideas which point to limitations in our worldview which manifest themselves in numerous ways. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081002/f6398041/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Thu Oct 2 09:32:55 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:32:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky prefs Message-ID: <48E49547.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> The following list indicates how many judges have been ranked so far by each team in the tournament. Given the foibles of internet connections, don't wait until the last minute. Bard College Cassie Cornell & Mike Dickerson 92 Binghamton Pete Groh & Bill Sebelle 0 California Chase Burton & Sarah Weiner 0 California Kathy Bowen & Andres Gannon 0 California Mike Burshteyn & Jacob Polin 0 California James Brockaway & Rahul Jaswa 0 Clarion University Aaron Swanlek & Andrew Zachar 0 Concordia Mason Maxwell & Dana Rognlie 0 Concordia Heath Marso & Tony Tracy 99 Concordia Ian Cero & Brett Lind 0 Dartmouth Cyrus Akrami & Caroline Brandt 0 Dartmouth Kunal Arya & Nisanth Reddy 46 Dartmouth Trevor Chenoweth & Rob Rein 4 Dartmouth Andrew Manns & David Sterman 61 Emory Matt Laskey & David Elkind 0 Emory Stephen Bomze & Anuj Panday 9 Emory Megan Swenson & Scott Movens 0 Emory Kirk Gibson & James Hamriae 99 Emory Ovais Inamullah & Ana Nikolic 0 Emory D Inamullah & Pradeep Pramanik 0 Emory Nicholas Miller & Chipp Schwab 0 Emory Stephen Weil & Matt Senghas 0 Emory Sam Caporal & Makaela Malsin 26 Georgetown Cody Forrester & Bon Koo 0 Georgetown Paul Milani & Carl Rice 0 Georgetown Dorothy Hector & Lucy Zhu 0 Georgia Thomas Beyer & Mike Lacy 99 Georgia Karen Harrison & Maggy Warden 99 Georgia Brittany Cambre & Adam Schmidt 99 Gonzaga Karina Momary & Leah Moczulski 99 Gonzaga Nick Bormann & Abe Corrigan 3 Harvard Tripp Rebrovick & Geoff Smith 0 Harvard Eli Jacobs & Alex Parkinson 99 Harvard Elizabeth Kim & Catalina Santos 99 Harvard Abhishek Bose-Kolanu & Ralph Paone 0 Harvard William Karlson & Seth Bour 0 Iowa Kiran Dhillon & Nat Olson 0 Iowa Kyle Vint & Corey Stone 99 Kansas (Univ. of) Sean Kennedy & Dylan Quigley 0 Kansas (Univ. of) Brett Bricker & Nate Johnson 84 Kansas (Univ. of) Mathew Petersen & Chris Stone 35 Louisville Tiffany McCollum & Ebony Rose 0 Louisville Rosie Washington & Sarah Powell 0 Mary Washington Kevin Kallmyer & Matt Struth 99 Miami Andrew Hart & Matt Molinaro 0 Miami Mike Jensen & Mallory Morehead 0 Miami Drew Wallenstein & Aaron Vinson 0 Michigan State Univ. Nathan Bashaw & Pat Klida 0 Michigan State Univ. Tom Gliniecki & Sam Shore 0 Michigan State Univ. Gustavo Eyzaguirre & Eric Lanning 0 Michigan State Univ. Garrett Abelkop & Carly Wunderlich 0 Michigan State Univ. Meghan Barrette & Josh Miller 0 Michigan State Univ. Katie Klante & Jordan Martellaro 0 Michigan University celine saucier & Ryan Nierman 99 Michigan University Balla Sakaran & Arjun Sukamaran 99 Michigan University Alan Gocha & David Horn 0 Michigan University Maria Liu & Edmund Zagorin 99 Michigan University Lee Reed & Lina Rudashevski 99 Minnesota Lincoln Campbell & Catie Shawley 99 Minnesota Mark Katerberg & Daryl Pinto 99 Minnesota Logan Chin & Kelly Nickel 99 Missouri State Katie Frederick & Becca Steiner 0 Missouri State Anneli Hoggard & Judith Rowland 0 Missouri State Joel Reed & Joe Skaggs 0 Missouri State Jordan Foley & Clay Webb 92 Missouri State Jace Gilmore & Aaron Kruse 0 North Texas (Univ.) TBA & TBA 0 North Texas (Univ.) Kuntal Cholera & Grant Peretz 0 Northwestern Jon Blough & Jason Zhou 0 Northwestern Matt Fisher & John Warden 89 Northwestern Greg Friend & Mary Gregg 0 Northwestern Pavan Krishnamurthy & Jeremy Selesner 0 Northwestern Rob Mulholand & Stephanie Spies 0 Northwestern Ryan Beiermeister & Jordan Blumenthal 0 Oklahoma Nick Watts & R.J. Giglio 0 Pittsburgh Pat Naples & Rebar Niemi 0 Pittsburgh Michael Mangus & John Karlovic 0 Pittsburgh Jennifer Sweeney & Stephanie Luczajko 28 Richmond (Univ. of) Ashley Fortner & Liz Lauzon 99 Richmond (Univ. of) Callie Dowdy & James Farr 0 Rochester Ryan Bach & Kevin Diamond 37 Samford Jayme Cloninger & Ben Johnson 0 Samford Dan Bagwell & Logan Gramzinski 0 Southern California JR Sterling & Dayton Thorpe 0 Southern California Mike Jones & Mima Lazarevic 0 Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil 0 Texas-Dallas Brittany Leach & Collin Roark 0 Texas-Dallas Andrew Baker & Brian Rubaie 0 Towson Adam Jackson & Deverick Murray 0 Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love 84 Wake Forest Mike Carlotti & Sam Critchon 0 Wake Forest Carlos Maza & Lauren Sabino 0 Wake Forest Will Sears & Ryan Stevens 0 Wake Forest Doowon Chung & Seungwon Chung 0 Wake Forest Seth Gannon & Alex Lamballe 88 Wayne State Universi Amrit Kamboj & Harry Singh 0 Wayne State Universi Geneva Hackler & Alex Pasquinelli 0 Wayne State Universi Sydney Pasquinelli & Bruce Najor 99 Wayne State Universi Baldomero Gonzalez & Michelle Kesling 99 West Virginia Univer Megan Coffman & Marlie Whipkey 0 West Virginia Univer Amit Patel & Michael Stark 0 West Virginia Univer Schuyler Ingram & Matthew Seidel 0 West Virginia Univer Meghan Powers & Jeremy Zimmerman 0 Whitman College Nate Cohn & Daniel Straus 0 From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Thu Oct 2 15:57:26 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:57:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Travel to Lexington Message-ID: <48E4EF66.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> I am en route to Lexington and should arrive before 1:00 AM EDT. I'll check my e-mail then if you have changes or questions. GARY From jtedebate at yahoo.com Thu Oct 2 23:51:55 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 21:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] RR Results? Message-ID: <330752.68033.qm@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Anyone with RR results? 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/20081002/16d89984/attachment.htm From mardigras23 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 3 06:58:49 2008 From: mardigras23 at hotmail.com (Aaron Kall) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:58:49 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] RR Results? Message-ID: unofficially and second hand, I heard- Kansas Northwestern Emory Aaron _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081003/2f1a6263/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Fri Oct 3 07:04:30 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:04:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Missing prefs Message-ID: <48E5C3FE.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> With 6 hours to go I'm missing the following: Cal BW Emory MS Harvard RS Louisville MR, WP Northwestern BB, BZ, KS USC JL, ST Towson JM I also have only partially completed prefs from Cal BP Emory IP Harvard BP Kansas PS Northwestern FW Towson CL From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Fri Oct 3 08:11:52 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 08:11:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Prefs for Vegas Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED984385018D9E2A7@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Most teams have completed prefs. But, for those who haven't, and a few that have started but not finished: Prefs are due by 5pm (vegas time). All divisions should enter prefs online. 9 units for categories 1-7 & 9 (not preferred). If you completed your prefs a few days ago, PLEASE log back in and double check your entry since there were some changes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081003/596fdd53/attachment.htm From jmarty at comm.umass.edu Fri Oct 3 09:17:40 2008 From: jmarty at comm.umass.edu (Jillian Marty) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:17:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] UMASS needs judging for West Point Message-ID: <48E62984.1030300@comm.umass.edu> Hey, We need to hire some rounds at West Point. Please backchannel if interested. Jillian From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Fri Oct 3 09:42:12 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:42:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Missing prefs Message-ID: <48E5E8F4.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> As of 10:30 EDT Missing Cal BW Emory MS Louisville MR, WP USC ST Towson JM Partial Cal BP Kansas PS Towson CL From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Fri Oct 3 09:44:09 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:44:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Needs to fix prefs Message-ID: <48E5E969.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> As of 10:30 I also need USC JL to fix their prefs - if already done thanks and ignore message From jrlyle at gmail.com Fri Oct 3 10:24:43 2008 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:24:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion seeks Richmond judging Message-ID: <25fd497f0810030824u2edd4e5fq156ef8992258cac8@mail.gmail.com> Clarion is looking to hire rounds for Richmond. Pay cash; interesting trades considered. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081003/89ca15f6/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Fri Oct 3 17:03:33 2008 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:03:33 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV Round Robin Results Message-ID: UNLV's first annual Las Vegas Classic Round Robin Tournament has successfully concluded, and the winners are.... Speaker awards: Tied for fifth, but not receiving awards Vince Binder, West Georgia Laura Boyle, Texas Chris Spurlock, UCO 5th speaker: Mike Bausch, Wyoming 4th speaker: Beth Mendenhall, Kansas State 3rd speaker: Paul Montreuil, Idaho State 2nd speaker: Avery Henry, UCO 1st speaker: Jim Schultz, West Georgia Team Awards: 4th-University of Texas, Boyle/Scott (3-4, but beating Emory who also was 3-4 in head-to head competition) 3rd-UCO, Spurlock/Henry (5-2, but losing to Wyoming who also was 5-2 in head-to head competition) 2nd-Wyoming, Bausch/Johnson (5-2) 1st-West Georgia Binder/Schultz (7-0) Congratulations to all of the teams accepted, now on to the invitational. 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/20081003/e1b4df28/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Fri Oct 3 18:01:38 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:01:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky rounds 1-4 Message-ID: <48E65E02.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky Rounds 1-4.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 34816 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081003/e3f760e5/attachment.xls From cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu Fri Oct 3 21:32:30 2008 From: cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu (Cameron T. Norris) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 21:32:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UMKC JS or delete Message-ID: <3bf818490810031932l6e323012v41126ec84a5cc006@mail.gmail.com> Can someone from Missouri-Kansas City backchannel me? I need cites for your aff. Thanks, -- Cameron Norris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081003/d37de54b/attachment.htm From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Sat Oct 4 05:46:28 2008 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 06:46:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky Round Robin results Message-ID: Teams: Win: Kansas (Bricker and Johnson) Place: Northwestern (Fisher and Warden) Show: Emory (Miller and Schwab) Speakers Win: Brett Bricker, Kansas Place: Tripp Rebrovik, Harvard Show: Seth Gannon, Wake Forest -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081004/2b295dea/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sat Oct 4 13:22:59 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:22:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging at Kentucky Message-ID: <48E76E3302000033000568A2@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> In order to maximize preference for the rounds tomorrow, I would like to ask individuals who have relatively small remaining commitments to consider judging an extra round - either for pay (Roger is willing to pay) or as a service to the community. Contact me by e-mail or in person if you're willing to add a round. GARY From rrach at juno.com Sat Oct 4 17:22:51 2008 From: rrach at juno.com (rrach at juno.com) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 22:22:51 GMT Subject: [eDebate] Fall 2009 = no honors status for debate classes in Texas Message-ID: <20081004.172251.28789.1@webmail20.vgs.untd.com> Dear Debate Community Colleagues, For any of you fortunate enough to have a GPA award for your advanced debate or interpretation classes, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will vote October 23 to make that no longer the case. Honors GPA credit will no longer be awarded for anything other than AP or IB classes in Texas schools under rules being contemplated by the THECB. This rule would be effective Fall 2009. (see attachments). Deadline for submitting opinions and testimony for consideration by the board is Today - Saturday, Oct 4. I would hope at this eleventh hour that any and all coaches in Texas or out of state would fire off their own dissent to this proposal. I have attached a short sample letter and hope that at the very least all coaches who care about this issue will download it, modify it by placing their own names on the form, and sending it to: Natalie Coffey, Senior Program Director, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711, by October 4, 2008. at natalie.coffey at thecb.state.tx.us The letter I penned is not anywhere near perfect. I was only made aware this issue yesterday. I am proofing, amending, and resending to insure that Something, Anything is submitted before the deadline. I have two thoughts: 1. numbers are power and 2.representative group leaders speak for those numbers. Every debate coach in Texas should send a letter voicing their position on this issue. Every college debater and former high school student should submit testimony. I am hoping that leaders amongst our organizational entities - TFA, TSCA, UIL, NFL, NDCA, UDL- Bill Shuetz, Barbara Mayo, Jana Riggins/Treva Dayton, Scott Wun, Tara Tate, Scott Deatherage will also weigh in and lend their voices to this issue via submission of testimony. Apparently debate on this issue was extended past deadline by the THECB because the choir teachers in Texas protested being omitted entirely from GPA calculation. If choir teachers can effectuate a coup on this issue, then surely speech and debate professional organizations can do the same. Also hoping that college debate coaches and advocacy groups could lend their voice to this discussion and send testimony to the THEBC in recognition that decreased high school debate numbers will eventually impact their own college programs. If anyone knows any people, or has access to other high school or college debate educators who wouldn't mind weighing in with their own testimony - that would be great. please forward this message to them. if anyone wants to contact me - Russell Rach Bellaire high School 5100 Maple Bellaire, TX 77401 rrach at juno.com rrach at houstonisd.org ____________________________________________________________ Click to compare life insurance rates. Great rates, quick and easy. ____________________________________________________________ Beauty School Programs - Get the career you've always wanted. Click Now. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3oLm4H8togmkln8Wv6dy3RWMe89wbuczw6riV2woQbar2Sj2/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081004/8a4f8efc/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: debate lose honors status articles education week, TACT.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 88064 bytes Desc: debate lose honors status articles education week, TACT.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081004/8a4f8efc/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: THECB standardized letter.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 33792 bytes Desc: THECB standardized letter.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081004/8a4f8efc/attachment-0001.obj From smithr at wfu.edu Sat Oct 4 07:01:47 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:01:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] debate's image, political debates, shirley invite basics, and more Message-ID: <48E75B2B.6040704@wfu.edu> A) Lots of us have done good interviews and such around the political debates. there are radio, TV, and newspaper interviews. Please send me any links to articles that quote you, links to TV or radio media where you appeared, etc. I will make a DebateScoop post and try to raise attention elsewherer in the blogosphere and via other connections. We are valued!! If you want to see me on Fox and Friends" after the Biden/Pailin debate, look here: http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=3129737&referralPlaylistId=a9594f0389e4ea58938175cbd26195fbedd640ad B) Shirley invite out soon. Highlights: 1) 6 prelims (Our activity has proven we cannot humanely do 13 rounds high quality debates (sufficient pre-round prep, judge decision time, and post round discussion ) in 3 days. 2) 100 point speaker scale (why are tournaments still using 30?). 3) "JV breakout" (name tentattive)-- at least 20% of all teams comprised of two debaters both of whom are still in their first or second year of debate who do not clear into the doubles will clear into the Sophfrosh (name tentative) breakout. Clears at least to 8 teams. 4) Schedule details: Sat: 2 presets and two individually poered rounds. Sun: 2 individually powered round beginning at 9 am, First elim for breakout and "open" at 4:45, banquet, including all speechifying and awarding (look for superstar guest speakers) ends by 9 pm. Mon: Octas (semis of breakout) begin at 8. Finals of open begins at 8. Party begins at 10. 5) Will also include time and rooms for "community issues" discussions at a minimum during the first elim for those not otherwise obligated and also at other times. Topic committee and others wishing to schedule something should let us know. 6) MISC. BUT IMPORTANT. We will have and enforce not only a prelim judge decision time rule, but also one for elims (probably 3 hours from announced start time of the round). We will also guarantee for elims that all debates get at least 15 minutes post-round discussion and at least 30 minutes prep after that post round ends. We will use tab-assigned sides (side equalization). All rounds (defined as the speeches and judge critiques) are open to the public but may be electonically recorded for private educational use by participants or particapant's coaches only. Distribution of such recordings is expressely prohibited unless prior written consent of all people on the recording is obtatained and unless prior written consent of Wake Forest University is obtained. All participants debate at the invitation of Wake Forest University according to its tournament rules as well as any rules of their sponsoring institutions. We abide by all rules and norms of CEDA and the AFA, including but not limited to CEDA's sexaul harrassment policy. 7) Hotel, fees and such: info coming soon (you won't lose out on hotel reservations, Sundance is tourney hotel, fees won't increase much or at all, we will probably rent luggage carts . . . ). -- 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 Sun Oct 5 05:05:05 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 05:05:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky rounds 5-6 Message-ID: <48E84B01.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky Rounds 5-6.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 25600 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/f51ebea9/attachment.xls From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu Sun Oct 5 07:39:05 2008 From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 07:39:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New Programs Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6DE6@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I'm speaking with a group of students trying to get university support to start a team. I would appreciate a chance to backchannel chat with anyone who has had experience doing this successfully and/or who may have pre-assembled 'value of debate' materials in a way that may be useful. Thanks! Ermo Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/26e26549/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Sun Oct 5 09:42:31 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:42:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article on... Message-ID: ...the state of policy debate http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08279/917610-298.stm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/29a072cc/attachment.htm From adri.debate at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 18:28:00 2008 From: adri.debate at gmail.com (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 19:28:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Still looking for Richmond judging Message-ID: <50704d760810051628p2dcf9790wbee6d171ea8c7bc7@mail.gmail.com> Hi folks - Still looking to hire rounds for Richmond this coming weekend. We pay cash, at tourney. Contact me if interested. -Adrienne -- Adrienne F. Brovero Debate Coach UMW Debate 540-654-2128 "Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive." -John F. Kennedy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/e90b3e08/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sun Oct 5 19:43:14 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:43:14 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Baltimore College Debate Message-ID: Name:Frederick Douglass Debates Starts:11/1/2008 Ends:11/2/2008 Hosted by: Baltimore College Debate Contact: 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: Octos with 3 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 andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 19:49:10 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:49:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Frederick Douglass Debates nov 1 & 2 Message-ID: <9368bc9b0810051749j272e14d6u5c2037417123b10f@mail.gmail.com> Hello, Are you looking for a place to send your debaters not attending Harvard ? We have a affordable and reasonably humane option easy to get to in the mid atlantic. We will offer 5 rounds with an octo break in two days, to us that is the best combination of competition and safety possible. We will offer a special $25 entry fee per team for this tournament. Please contact us with any questions. Andy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/19889eba/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 19:50:13 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:50:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] this time with invite Message-ID: <9368bc9b0810051750g52151575hbe4643da27c66397@mail.gmail.com> Baltimore College Debate Frederick Douglass Debates Towson University November 1-2 Dear Debate Community: We are excited to invite you to the Third Annual Frederick Douglass Debates November 1st and 2nd at Towson University. We will offer 5 rounds of competition in a combined JV/Varsity Division with a (partial) octa-final for all teams who win 3 debates. We will offer two one day three round novice tournaments to encourage local participation. If no one is interested in taking up this format we will discuss with participants whether to go forward with a 5 round tournament breaking to appropriate out-rounds. 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. Andy Ellis Managing Director Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems 822 W. 36th Street Baltimore MD 21211 (p)240-285-0843 andy at bmoreyours.org *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 6 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 240-285-0843 *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 11/1* 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 11/2** *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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/2d7bdedb/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Oct 5 20:43:40 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:43:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky elims Message-ID: <48E926FC020000330005695B@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> Both doubles and first-year quarters start at 8:00 AM sharp. Pairings are in bracket order. GARY -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky elims.xls Type: application/octet-stream Size: 19456 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/eee0be31/attachment.obj From ralph.paone at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 21:27:48 2008 From: ralph.paone at gmail.com (Ralph Paone) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:27:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Lost MAC Cord at UK Message-ID: <86f9bd6d0810051927k31e75728jfc41c6e7a6b98cb8@mail.gmail.com> Jairus has left his powercord in room where Towson v. Emory debated round 8. please back-channel. Thanks a bunch, -ralph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/d78518f1/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Oct 5 21:37:29 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:37:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] judge change Message-ID: <48E93399.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> 313 Georgetown HZ Dartmouth CR Arnett, Dave - Cal Herndon , James - Emory Walters, Heather - Missouri State (for Ramakrishman) From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sun Oct 5 22:17:10 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:17:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV: Teams clearing in bracket order Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED984385018D9E2BF@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Here is the list. I'll post the results from the partials and a list of judges later tonight. TEAMS CLEARING IN OPEN?Seed order (partial double octas happening now) 1. Gonzaga HJ 2. West Georgia BS 3. Wichita State CR 4. Central Oklahoma HS 5. Wyoming BJ 6. Central Oklahoma CS 7. Baylor LR 8. Idaho State JM 9. Kansas JW 10. Texas BH 11. Texas SW 12. Kansas KS 13. Texas San Antonio MT 14. Gonzaga KS 15. Wyoming AP 16. Trinity BH 17. Macalester CP 18. CSU Fullerton BG 19. Whitman CZ 20. Emporia State FM 21. Redlands LM 22. Whitman GR 23. Wichita State BR 24. Kansas State AF 25. Whitman EM 26. Pepperdine/Redlands MN 27. Whitman BJ 28. Wyoming BH ** All teams with 4-3 records cleared TEAMS CLEARING IN JUNIOR?Seed Order (partial quarters happening now) 1. Wichita State CM 2. Johnson County BH 3. Kansas State DR 4. Oklahoma WZ 5. Florida ST 6. Augustana SW 7. Wyoming BS ** The following teams were 4-3, but missed on points. 8. Texas San Antonio CT 9. Arizona State MW 10. Weber State CL TEAMS CLEARING IN NOVICE?Seed Order (partial semis happening now) 1. Wisconsin Oshkosh BV 2. Augustana CS 3. Southern California AL *** The following team was 4-3, but missed on points. 4. CSU Fullerton NT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/11e0ddd9/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sun Oct 5 23:48:39 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:48:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV: Judges for 9am round Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED984385018D9E2C0@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> All debates in the Union at 9am. Pairings at 7:45 at hotel. 9am Round: Varsity Octas and Novice Finals. Varsity and Junior Varsity elims continue after awards. Albiniak Archer Baxter-Kauf Bruschke Cram Crowe Davis Dipiazza Dunn Foy Hamilton Ketchum Koehle Partlow Peterson Pointer Powers Reed Register Roberts Rollins Samuels Snider Symonds Taylor Thiele Varda STANDBY: Chalfant, Ellsworth, Guevara, Silber, Stables. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/90d7b7aa/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sun Oct 5 23:50:03 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:50:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV: First elim results Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED984385018D9E2C1@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> OPEN DOUBLES Gonzaga HJ advances West Georgia BS advances Wichita State CR advances Central Oklahoma HS advances Wyoming BJ over Wyoming BH Central Oklahoma CS 2-1 over Whitman Baylor LR 3-0 over Pepperdine/Redlands Idaho State JM 3-0 over Whitman EM Kansas JW 3-0 over Kansas State AF Texas BH 3-0 over Wichita State BR Texas SW 3-0 over Whitman GR Kansas KS 2-1 over Redlands LM UTSA MT 3-0 over Emporia Whitman CZ 2-1 over Gonzaga KS Wyoming AP 3-0 over CSU Fullerton Macalester CP 2-1 over Trinity BH JUNIOR DIVISION RESULTS Wichita State advances Wyoming BS 2-1 over JCCC BH Kansas State DR over Augustana Florida ST over Oklahoma WZ NOVICE RESULTS Wisconsin Oshkosh advances Augustana CS 3-0 over Southern California AL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081005/b9ff7485/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Mon Oct 6 10:55:51 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:55:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Intl Debate Academy November 2008 Message-ID: <48EA3507.1010100@uvm.edu> RESERVE YOUR PLACE NOW! THE BEST WAY TO LEARN ABOUT WUDC/BP FORMAT! See website at http://debate.uvm.edu/idas.html See news about curriculum and faculty at http://internationaldebateacademy.blogspot.com/ THE SIXTH INTERNATIONAL DEBATE ACADEMY SLOVENIA THE BEST IN WUDC/BP DEBATE INSTRUCTION 23-30 NOVEMBER 2008 MANY WAYS TO PARTICIPATE: Full program for students ? instruction, tournament Tournament for students ? tournament in Maribor. Full program for trainers, teachers, coaches, club leaders, judges at any level in any debate format SPECIFIC DATES: Arrive in Ormoz, Slovenia November 23 2008 Instruction in Ormoz November 24-28 2008 Transfer to Maribor afternoon 28 November 2008 Tournament in Maribor evening 28-30 November 2008 APPLICATION FORMS AT THE WEBSITE Organized by: ZIP ? Za in proti (ZIP), Pro et Contra, Institute for the Culture of Dialogue, Slovenia WDI ? World Debate Institute, University of Vermont, USA FACULTY Loke Wing Fatt, Singapore: Well known Asian debate trainer, WUDC breaking judge, honorary professorship North-Eastern University China, SAID Singapore, 4th IDAS. Jens Fischer, Germany: Berlin Debating Union, Chief Adjudicator at Europeans, 3rd IDAS. Sam Greenland, UK/Hong Kong/Australia: WUDC semifinalist for Sydney, Hong Kong world schools coach, 3rd IDAS. Steve Llano, USA: Professor at St. John?s University NY, NE USA Director of the Year, USA National Champion coach, 3rd IDAS. Branka Marusic, Croatia: President Europeans Council, IDAS Finalist, 2nd IDAS. Rhydian Morgan, UK: Chief Adjudicator and Finals judge at numerous tournaments, Welsh Debating Federation, World Debate Institute faculty 2008, 2nd IDAS. Debbie Newman, UK: Past president of Cambridge Union, England & Wales National Champion, former Director of Centre for Speech & Debate at English-Speaking Union, England World Schools coach now WORLD CHAMPION COACH AFTER WINNING WSDC 2008 FOR ENGLAND. Alfred Snider, USA: Professor at University of Vermont, Director World Debate Institute, USA Coach of the Year, six recent debate textbooks, 6th IDAS. Bojana Skrt, Slovenia: Director ZIP, twice WSDC EFL Champion coach, 6th IDAS. Curriculum: Students: Each Instruction day features a main lecture, exercise and drill sessions, and two complete critiqued practice debates. Many elective classes offered. Many training preparation sessions offered. Judge evaluation and training offered. Trainers: Special track created based on the needs of attending trainers. All welcome. Tournament: Sponsored by IDAS, ZIP and hosted by Debate Club University of Maribor Faculty of Law. Six preliminary rounds and semifinals in the WUDC format. No team caps as of now. Faculty will serve as adjudication core and administration for the tournament. Accommodations: Rooms and full meals provided in Ormoz and Maribor. Social activities organized each evening. Fees: Includes all meals, double rooms, instructional materials, transportation from Ormoz to Maribor, and social activities. 200 Euros for full program, 50 Euros for tournament. Scholarships: We hope to offer substantial scholarships to needy applicants. Scholarship forms are now available at the website! Financial Disclosure: IDAS is a non-profit program, trainers are not paid, trainer travel is not reimbursed, participation fees pay for attendee expenses of rooms and food only, trainers accommodations and food and other costs are covered by ZIP. Social Events : We will have frequent social events. We will not distribute free alcohol to 18+ attendees out of the workshop fees. We will seek soft drinks-beer-wine sponsors. We prioritize scholarships for attendees over free alcohol. We want as many people as possible to join the fun. Questions? Bojana Skrt, bojana.skrt at siol.net Organizing committee: Director of the Academy: Bojana Skrt, ZIP, bojana.skrt at siol.net Head of Training: Alfred C. Snider, World Debate Institute, University of Vermont, alfred.snider at uvm.edu Tournament Host, Zlata Subinski Assistant Director, Peter Mesarec Social Director, Helena Felc -- 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 matthiasbostick at gmail.com Mon Oct 6 10:59:21 2008 From: matthiasbostick at gmail.com (Matthias Bostick) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 10:59:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging for Hire - KCKCC Message-ID: I am posting this on behalf of Laci Bostick, who has four rounds of judging, all Saturday plus Sunday elims, for hire at KCKCC. No lodging/transportation necessary. Thanks. Matthias Bostick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081006/442ce9d2/attachment.htm From rrach at juno.com Mon Oct 6 12:07:29 2008 From: rrach at juno.com (rrach at juno.com) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:07:29 GMT Subject: [eDebate] TX debate Honors status update Message-ID: <20081006.120729.416.0@webmail19.vgs.untd.com> Today is the last day to submit testimony: >Ladies and Gentlemen: I am forwarding a message I sent the coaches at Bellaire about the proposed rule that would standardize GPA calculation at public high schools. That rule would eliminate any GPA augmentation for Debate, Oral Interp, Independent Study in Speech or other speech courses. It also would eliminate counting any Fine Arts or Career and Technology courses in the GPA calculation. Pre-AP courses also not be eligible to offer any GPA boost and would count the same as regular classes. While the public comment period is listed as ending 30 days after September 5, which would have been this past Saturday, October 4, Texas law says if a calculated deadline falls on a weekend it is extended to the next business day. So, I believe the comment deadline is Monday, October 6, 2008. If you can please take the time to drop a quick note to the THECB registering your opposition to the proposed GPA rule it would be appreciated. Comments should be addressed to Natalie Coffey, Senior Program Director, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, P.O Box 12788, Austin, Texas 78711. Ms. Coffey's e-mail address is natalie.coffey at thecb.state.tx.us. The names and contact information for members of the Board can be found at this link: http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/Board/. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Martin Klein Director of Forensics Deer Park High School Deer Park, Texas > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Martin Klein Date: Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 8:18 AM Subject: GPA Rule: Update To: Russell Rach , Jay Stubbs Dear Russell & Jay: Attached is the proposed GPA rule as published in the Texas Register. This is the official text. According to the proposed rule, public comments must be submitted within 30 days of publication of the rule. Since the rule was published Sept. 5, the comment period expires this coming Monday, Oct. 6. My union e-mailed me a bulletin about the new rule. Click here to read it: http://www.tcta.org/politics_government/NewGPARules.htm The Education Week article made it sound as if all elective courses would be excluded from calculation of the GPA. The text of the rule makes clear that is not the case, as all courses that have TEKS count in the calculation of GPA. However, it eliminates any honors augmentation of GPA except for AP, IB and dual credit courses. Thanks. Martin ____________________________________________________________ Click now to find the best computer mouse for your needs! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nqEK5wSYkHgbXVItHTJwkXjtwW3cVcinDDoFQMxEUMPZF0k/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081006/7c81f0a9/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Oct 6 12:38:28 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:38:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky results Message-ID: <48EA06C4.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Elim results and round details will be sent tonight when I have a better internet connection -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081006/c902446f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky Speaker Awards.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 35840 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081006/c902446f/attachment.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky Rank Order.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 31232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081006/c902446f/attachment-0001.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky Cume Sheet.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 114688 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081006/c902446f/attachment-0002.xls From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Mon Oct 6 12:41:22 2008 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:41:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] test Message-ID: Not receiving messages on edebate _________________________________________________________________ Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. 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/20081006/fbca6959/attachment.htm From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Mon Oct 6 12:59:59 2008 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:59:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Navy needs 4 rounds at Richmond Message-ID: Let me know if you're interested. We pay well, in cash, and at the tournament. We also still need judging for West Point and will probably need it for Liberty as well. _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081006/9d08ac88/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon Oct 6 14:58:01 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:58:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky results to date Message-ID: <48EA2779.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Results to date -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kentucky Results to date.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 78848 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081006/34221e50/attachment.xls From delliott at kckcc.edu Mon Oct 6 15:51:20 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:51:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] KCKCC Tournament Updates Message-ID: <48EA33F8020000930001C71D@mymail.kckcc.edu> A few things to report: 1. If you have not entered but plan to, please let me know. Still waiting on a few Regional Schools. We are needing to get a handle on numbers for food and trophies. Also need to decide what to do with the JV division which is currently small. 2. If you do not have your judging covered please let me know that you do plan on hiring through the tournament. We have some to hire but a not a lot. 3. For those with Novice teams note that there are 2 more teams that are not showing up on the Bruschke site. SMU has entered 2 Novice teams. We look forward to hosting SMU, Ben Voth and Chris on our campus for the first time. 4. If you need anything else, please let me know. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From kkuswa at richmond.edu Mon Oct 6 16:10:30 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 17:10:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Woah--UR Tournament Expansion Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84402D9117F@castor.richmond.edu> Hi all, We're now at 93 teams and are pushing our room limit for this weekend. If you have not registered and are planning on coming, now is the time to sign up. 41 Novice teams!!--over EIGHTY NEW DEBATERS GETTING SEVEN ROUNDS AND A TEACH-IN--and that's before the DOUBLES. We're excited to host all of you. Still need hotel rooms? Contact me for the back-up list. Have extra judging? We will buy those rounds or hook you up with someone else who will. We hope to turn on preferences by Wednesday--we''ll let you know. See you soon, Kevin From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Tue Oct 7 09:26:31 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:26:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV Results Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED984385018D9E2C4@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Elim results are below. The results packet is attached as a pdf. Congrats to everyone. OPEN RESULTS Doubles Gonzaga HJ advances West Georgia BS advances Wichita CR advances Central Oklahoma HS advances Wyoming BJ over Wyoming BH Central Oklahoma CS over Whitman BJ Baylor LR over Pepperdine/Redlands MN Idaho State JM over Whitman EM Kansas JW over Kansas State AF Texas BH over Wichita BR Texas SW over Whitman GR Kansas KS over Redlands LM Texas San Antonio MT over Emporia FM Whitman CZ over Gonzaga KS Wyoming AP over CSUFullerton BG Macalester CP over Trinity BH Octas Gonzaga HJ over Mac CP West Georgia BS over Wyoming AP Wichita CR over Whitman CZ Texas San Antonio MT over Central Oklahoma HS Wyoming BJ over Kansas KS Central Oklahoma CS over Texas SW Baylor LR over Texas BH Idaho State JM over Kansas JW Quarters Idaho State JM over Gonzaga HJ West Georgia BS over Baylor LR Wichita CR over Central Oklahoma CS Wyoming BJ over Texas San Antonio MT Semis Idaho State JM over Wyoming BJ West Georgia BS over Wichita CR Finals Did not occur. Both teams agreed to debate at a later date. JUNIOR Quarters Wichita State CM advances Wyoming BS over JCCC BH Kansas State DR over Augustana SW Florida ST over Oklahoma WZ Semis Wichita State CM over Florida ST Kansas State DR over Wyoming BS Finals Wichita State CM over Kansas State DR NOVICE Semis Wisconsin Oshkosh advances Augustana over Southern California Finals Wisconsin Oshkosh over Augustana -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNLV_packet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 277466 bytes Desc: UNLV_packet.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081007/8fbcacc5/attachment-0001.pdf From kkuswa at richmond.edu Tue Oct 7 11:10:21 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 12:10:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] novice Teach-In Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84402D911B4@castor.richmond.edu> Novice Teach-In: we have some good sessions planned (covering CX, Counterplans, kritiks, performance), but we could use a few more. If you are coming to UR and would like to teach a novice class during round 4 on sat (it counts as a judged round), let me know (and CC Kelly at kcongdon at richmond.edu). Just let us know what you would like to teach. It will be a back-to-back session so novices can select two classes--you will teach the same thing twice to two different groups. Thanks, kevin From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 11:50:01 2008 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:50:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pflaum -- Finalize Entries Message-ID: <7fd76c680810070950h5205ed6bj54d3ec51f023b214@mail.gmail.com> Please finalize entries soon, or at least get them in the ballpark. Also, if you need to hire judging, please get on that soon. As of now we have no where near enough judges entered to cover the number of rounds that we have (22 total judges, 59 total teams). Also, if you are a debater who is interested in judging novice and you enjoy money, let me know. Or let me know if you are a judge with nothing better to do that weekend and enjoy money. I think our reputation for hospitality speaks to the fact that the Pflaum is a fun tournament to come to when all you have to do is judge. We pay cash for all judges we hire. Looking forward to seeing everyone! -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From mardigras23 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 7 13:15:25 2008 From: mardigras23 at hotmail.com (Aaron Kall) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:15:25 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] kentucky finals results Message-ID: i heard northwestern fw defeated ku bj in finals. if anyone has quarters-finals complete results, it would be appreciated. thanks, aaron _________________________________________________________________ Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. 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/20081007/726b21e5/attachment.htm From Sarah.StoneWatt at pepperdine.edu Tue Oct 7 13:20:07 2008 From: Sarah.StoneWatt at pepperdine.edu (Stone Watt, Sarah E) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:20:07 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Pepperdine Tournament Message-ID: <65026351B33F41428D600F59706B3FCB032A6F49@logan.pepperdine.ad.pepperdine.edu> We look forward to seeing many of you in Malibu in a couple of weeks. We expect beautiful beach weather (sunny/mid 70s) and great competition. However, we need people to get their entries in ASAP. There is another event on campus that weekend and we need to know how many people to expect so that we can reserve enough space and plan hospitality. Please also remember to make your hotel reservations at the Hilton. You can find the tournament invite on debate results or at: http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/sstonew/college_tournament.htm You can reserve hotel rooms at: http://www.hilton.com/en/hi/groups/personalized/BURWCHF-PPDN-20081016/index.jhtml Please let me know if you have any questions! Sarah Sarah Stone Watt, Ph.D. Director of Forensics Assistant Professor Communication Division Pepperdine University 24255 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90263-4211 Office: 310-506-6804 email Sarah.StoneWatt at pepperdine.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081007/88d074eb/attachment.htm From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Tue Oct 7 14:21:19 2008 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:21:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky results quarterfinals on Message-ID: Quarterfinals Emory MS (A) defeated MSU AW 3-0 Smith, Arnett, Perkins Wake GL (A) defeated Towson CL 3-0 Lee, Achten, Russell Kansas BJ defeated North Texas CP (A) 3-0 Murillo, Heidt, Morris Northwestern FW (A) defeated Cal BP 3-0 Gordon, Dunkee, Lacy Semifinals Kansas defeated Wake (A) 3-0 Heidt, Brovero, Hardy Northwestern defeated Emory (A) 3-0 Achten, Arnett, Repko Finals Northwestern defeated Kansas (A) 2-1 Lacy, Hardy voted for Northwestern, Lee for Kansas First Year Finals Northwestern BB (A) defeated Cal BW 2-1 James Herndon, Topp voted for Northwestern, Harrigan for Cal Congratulations to Northwestern, and to all the other late elimination round participants. Roger Solt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081007/1b06eff7/attachment.htm From teasley3 at jccc.edu Tue Oct 7 14:25:30 2008 From: teasley3 at jccc.edu (Terri Easley) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:25:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Novice Swing for Emporia Message-ID: <8F1214AF088DD246A7A0B489E89441321EF5A53C0C@ac-ex07mb1.employee.directory.jccc> Any takers for a novice swing for Emporia? Terri Easley Director of Debate Johnson County Community College The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. From teasley3 at jccc.edu Tue Oct 7 14:25:30 2008 From: teasley3 at jccc.edu (Terri Easley) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 14:25:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Novice Swing for Emporia Message-ID: <8F1214AF088DD246A7A0B489E89441321EF5A53C0C@ac-ex07mb1.employee.directory.jccc> Any takers for a novice swing for Emporia? Terri Easley Director of Debate Johnson County Community College The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 15:19:40 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 16:19:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wayne Tournament Judging needed Message-ID: U of M had about 12 rounds of judging for Wayne State go poof in about a four day period.....If anyone has some rounds to sell please contact me ASAP, Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081007/dd3f99ba/attachment.htm From proudsavage at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 16:24:29 2008 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:24:29 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] MALGOR or Kuswa or 4 rounds for sale at richmond Message-ID: <9b5963440810071424x15d24664s55f6a6f71e3593c1@mail.gmail.com> 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/20081007/aaddbe6d/attachment.htm From agswanlek at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 17:40:16 2008 From: agswanlek at gmail.com (Aaron Swanlek) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 18:40:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] USC IL cite Request Message-ID: Hey, could one of you get back to me. Thanks, Aaron George Swanlek Clarion Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081007/82a764ed/attachment.htm From agswanlek at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 18:16:21 2008 From: agswanlek at gmail.com (Aaron Swanlek) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 19:16:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for someone from Binghampton if not Bing delete Message-ID: If anyone could email me it would be much appreciated Thanks, Aaron George Swanlek CUP Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081007/5a0abb4f/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Tue Oct 7 18:19:38 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:19:38 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Reply to The Chronicle of Higher Education Message-ID: <014f01c928d3$2b87f270$8297d750$@edu> The CEDA Executive Committee has drafted a reply and sent to The Chronicle of Higher Education. We have asked that it be printed as a reply to their recent story. You can read the letter on the ceda website. The ceda site is http://www.cedadebate.org/ The letter is directly available at http://www.cedadebate.org/files/CEDA%20Letter%20to%20CHE.pdf 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/20081007/9cdaa513/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Tue Oct 7 19:26:47 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 17:26:47 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by CSU Fullerton Message-ID: <296A021E4C0148DE9D18C52B5E77E7BE@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Fullerton Winter Tournament; Kathryn Klassic Starts:6/1/2009 Ends:8/1/2009 Hosted by: CSU Fullerton Contact: Jon Bruschke Address: PO Box 6868, CSU, Fullerton, Fulleton, CA 92870 Phone: 714-278-3272 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From u.hrair at gmail.com Tue Oct 7 22:39:27 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 22:39:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] nate silver on colbert Message-ID: watch it. he's east lansing high school's finest. clm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081007/0f7f49f7/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Wed Oct 8 09:31:43 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:31:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA's Response Message-ID: I want to commend CEDA for the response to the Chronicle of Higher Education article. In my opinion, the Chronicle article was kind of a hatchet job. Eyewitnesses to the author's on-site reporting at one tournament indicate that he was only interested in seeking out the most sensational data, and actually declined to interview people who might have offered different points of view (not what you'd expect from a journal devoted to higher education). Nevertheless, just because publicity is poorly or nefariously constructed doesn't mean we don't have to answer it. Unfortunately, we don't get to just "cry foul." In my opinion, CEDA's responser is a reasonable, honest, and straightforward refutation of the negative images constructed in the piece. Matt Stannard, Director Wyoming Speech and Debate Union _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081008/e6bcd884/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Oct 8 09:32:52 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:32:52 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Richmond NOVICE TEACH-IN Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5A96E@castor.richmond.edu> Hi all, The classes/discussions offered to novices on Saturday night are coming together. Following ADA guidelines, there will be two 50 minute sessions of teaching during round four on Saturday night. These debate experts (among others) will be leading the sessions. We'll also set you up to play "Match the Scholar with the Course" by shuffling the order down below. Yes, there are more courses than teachers--one teacher is still deciding which class to go with this year. UR Novice Teach-In Leaders Donald Bryson Adrienne Brovero Stephen Davis Heather Hall Vik Keenan Joe Keeton Adam Lee Jim Lyle Tim O'Donnell Session Titles Risk Assessment and Debating Economics Debate as Air and Why We Must Breathe Be a Search Engine: Improving On-Line Research Skills Yes! Flowing is the Key Why Debate Really Does Matter Everything You Need to Know About Counterplans You're Novice? What are Your Kritiks and Answers? Debating About Things That Are Uncomfortable to Talk About In the First Place The Art of Cross Examination being Grumpy in/as Debate See you soon, Kevin ps--we're trying to save some paper and printing....our restaurant guide is here: http://blog.richmond.edu/debate/2008/10/06/richmond-restaurant-guide-and-links-to-restaurant-lists/ tournament schedule and invite are here: http://debate.richmond.edu/tournament/index.html From joe_koehle at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 10:35:02 2008 From: joe_koehle at yahoo.com (Joe Koehle) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:35:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] 4 rounds for sale @ richmond Message-ID: <248513.24734.qm@web50203.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I know it's late, but if anyone needs rounds I have 4. Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081008/2530cd98/attachment.htm From abi8d at yahoo.com Wed Oct 8 10:37:00 2008 From: abi8d at yahoo.com (Abi Williams) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Seeking Novice Hybrid and Judging at Vandy Message-ID: <894036.24032.qm@web110402.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Samford needs hired judging - will pay $25 in cash.? We need at least one full commitment.? We also need a hybrid partner for a hard-working novice. E-mail me abilsw at gmail.com if you are interested in either. Abi Williams Samford Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081008/6fa34506/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Oct 8 11:22:27 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:22:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Reply to the Chronicle of Higher Education In-Reply-To: <1102272207562.1102200732539.7.8.30192502@scheduler> References: <1102272207562.1102200732539.7.8.30192502@scheduler> Message-ID: <48ECDE43.2010205@uvm.edu> I want to congratulate CEDA for acting and not being passive. I have personally decided to write to each reporter filing such a story and did so with this story and the recent Pittsburgh Post Gazette story. Michael Dukakis in 1988 learned that you cannot let someone else distort your story, but you have to go back on the offensive and make sure your side gets through. This is the right move and makes some very good arguments and supports what I love about policy debate -- open to new approaches, few rules, students can lead the way argumentatively, a place for radical voices to be heard and judged fairly. I wish we had been more active immediately following the March CEDA Nats, but then is then and now is now. I support what the organization is doing to call out what is disagrees with about these news stories. We also need to mount a considerable media offensive surrounding Ed Hammond's supposed "conference." We shall see what happens. Tuna CEDA wrote: > > CEDA Reply to the Chronicle of Higher Education > October 7, 2008 > > > > The following letter was drafted by the CEDA Executive Committee and > sent to the Chronicle of Higher Education. We have asked that it be > printed as a reply to their recent story. > > The story has also been posted to the ceda website www.cedadebate.org > > > To The Chronicle of Higher Education, > > We appreciate the interest that your publication has shown in > intercollegiate policy debate, but we have to disagree with the > fundamental thesis of your recent article, "Colleges Call Debate > Contests Out of Order." > > Intercollegiate policy debate is a vibrant activity that includes over > 100 universities and colleges. It attempts to foster critical thinking > by immersing students in a competitive environment that is rich with > academic context. Each year we select a single public policy > proposition and students spend the entire academic year learning about > that subject. The value is not solely determined by the topic, but > instead the method of engaging a topic and being challenged to take > positions on both sides of that question. This year alone, CEDA > sanctioned tournaments will provide upwards of 13,000 debates, > involving thousands of students engaged in detailed, research-based > discussions about federal support for US agriculture. In a global > moment of rapidly rising food prices and increasingly dysfunctional > federal budgets, we are proud to have our students engage these > questions. > > In this laboratory environment, students are the primary investigators > and advocates of these topics. When your article references a lack of > rules, it is important to have this context in mind. Our activity > allows students to identify a broad range of research materials and to > craft their own arguments. Our commitment to an academic enterprise is > built on a foundation of the free exercise of thought and is > demonstrated in the ability of students to argue for the best policy > option or position. The few rules that do exist are designed to create > fairness and educational value without stunting intellectual > creativity and growth. We consider collegiate debate competitions to > be a place to test ideas and advocacies against rigorous opposition. > > It is this fusion of dialogic method and intensive research that > provides our debaters with such a unique and rewarding experience. > This method has trained thousands of students who today perform > important roles in all manners of service to public and private > corporations and foundations, educational organizations large and > small from primary schools through universities, as well as the > non-profit sector. > > Your article contends that policy debate is insular. It would be hard > to contend that a public organization that has memberships spanning > all ranges of institutions, from community colleges to Ivy League > institutions, is some form of private club. Our members host over > fifty competitions each year all over the nation. Each of these events > is open to the public as your reporter experienced. The article's > overriding tone, as well as that in prior /Chronicle/ pieces on the > events in March in Wichita, KS, suggests strongly an element of > spectacle and fails to provide any material context or frame of > reference for the hundreds of other debates that went on in Kansas > last spring or Maryland last month. If the article's aim and author's > intent was to identify an example of students employing innovative > delivery or drawing upon different resources to support their > arguments, it was accomplished. However, the inattention to the many > other debates and our institutional dialogue suggests an inattention > to the totality of the available evidence. In choosing to include a > video of only one debate in your article, you neglect to spotlight or > even mention dozens of other debate rounds happening at this same > competition where discussions of US subsidies and their effects on our > foreign relations, the US and global economy, the survival of small > farmers in the US, the Presidential race and Congressional races were > also being discussed. Your decision to exclude any coverage of these > other debates in favor of including only one example of demonstrative > advocacy paints an incomplete and distorted picture of collegiate debate. > > As many other non-revenue earning intercollegiate events can validate, > there is a tremendous challenge in providing competitive formats that > also enjoy wide public interest. In the midst of this national debate > season, where scholars, media and public alike decry the inability of > national debates to advance matters of policy, we must always remember > that argumentative environments built solely to emphasize stylistic > conventions are weak forms of national discourse. Our organization is > one that is founded on student learning and participation in that > process. As the culture and climates of college and university > campuses have changed, so too has the culture and climate of academic > debate. The commitment to learning, in a research-driven, > student-centered process, however, has not. Our members see this > tension when they host public events on their campuses. These events, > like the overwhelming majority of our competitions throughout the year > fail to receive substantial public or media attention, even when > utilizing audience-centered formats and methods. While professionals > who work with CEDA, and the students in the programs they direct, > annually dedicate thousands of hours of service through hosting campus > and community forums, sponsoring civic engagement projects, and > teaching and mentoring to high school and middle school debate > programs and students, the challenge of attracting broad public and > media attention to these venues also exists. > > Your article also attempts to contend this insular approach had > something to do with the handling of the recent public controversy. As > the organization's public statements attest, we are not in any way > condoning or promoting the events of last March and were engaged in an > administrative discussion about it amongst the organization's elected > representatives and leaders. The events of March were a "teaching > moment" both for those of us intimately involved in the organization, > and the teaching and development of the student-scholar-leaders > promoted by this activity. We should be wary, however, to conflate > disagreement with incivility. CEDA opposes the use of personal attacks > and profane language in debates and in our sanctioned events. At the > same time, discussions of the nation's and world's most challenging > issues, such as poverty, racism, sexism, and war often provoke > disquieting and difficult reactions. It is because issues like these > are important issues that they provoke strong reactions. > > In many ways, intercollegiate debate is dealing with the same > challenges facing an increasingly diverse society. As new voices and > traditionally marginalized groups struggle to carve out a space in our > public sphere, conflicts about communication styles and argumentation > norms are inevitable. Debate is engaged in a mutual learning process > where diverse groups are learning to live, work, and compete with one > another. The comity, fellowship, and sense of mutual purpose that > characterizes the vast majority of competitive debates are a testament > to the value of dialogue and free expression in addressing our > nation's problems. The fact that this dialogue can sometimes break > down is not an indictment of debate's educational mission, but rather > is a reminder that we all still have a ways to go in learning to work > for each other. > > In our litigation-centered society, college debate, like all > organizations, must carefully develop policies that promote the best > form of our activity and also respect our member institutions. > Historically all forms of college forensics have been heavily > decentralized and deferred much of the authority for administrative > and disciplinary measures back to home institutions. Your article > fails to mention that our organization does not hire or fund any of > our debate professionals. Every single organizational member is a paid > employee of some other institution or organization. We at CEDA take > our responsibility to our members quite seriously and we are proud to > be at the forefront of considering measures that allow our > organization to have more effective means of promoting our best > practices throughout our membership. We have a new initiative related > to improving these procedures that is available for public comment at > www.cedatopic.org > > > Our members take the craft of teaching argumentation to students very > seriously. We appreciate the perspectives of those institutions who > might be interested in joining our organization and we are thrilled to > have a number of new members this year. We look forward to future ways > in which your publication might be interested in more completely > covering our activity. > > Thank you. > > *Cross Examination Debate Association - Executive Officers* > > _President_ > > Darren Elliott > > Kansas City Kansas Community College > > > > _1st Vice President_ > > Gordon Stables > > University of Southern California > > > > _2nd Vice President_ > > Sue Peterson > > California State University, Chico > > > > _Treasurer_ > > ML Sandoz > > Vanderbilt University > > > > _Executive Secretary_ > > Jeffrey Jarman > > Wichita State University > > > > > > Forward email > > Safe Unsubscribe > > > This email was sent to asnider at zoo.uvm.edu by stables at usc.edu > . > Update Profile/Email Address > > | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe > ? > | Privacy Policy > . > > Email Marketing > by > > > CEDA | Cross-Examination Debate Association | Los Angeles | CA | 90089 > -- 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 luvmarissa at hotmail.com Wed Oct 8 12:37:43 2008 From: luvmarissa at hotmail.com (Marissa Silber) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 17:37:43 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Florida still needs judging for Vanderbilt Tournament Message-ID: University of Florida still needs to hire between 1 and 1 1/2 full commitments of judging for the Vanderbilt tournament. We pay 25 dollars per round at the tournament. Even if you can only judge 1-2 rounds for us, we will gladly take it! Please help us out! Thanks, Marissa Silber _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081008/4eec0bf9/attachment.htm From teasley3 at jccc.edu Wed Oct 8 13:27:28 2008 From: teasley3 at jccc.edu (Terri Easley) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:27:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need judging for emporia Message-ID: <8F1214AF088DD246A7A0B489E89441321EF5A53C2A@ac-ex07mb1.employee.directory.jccc> Anyone with extra rounds please let me know. Terri Easley Director of Debate Johnson County Community College The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. From teasley3 at jccc.edu Wed Oct 8 13:27:28 2008 From: teasley3 at jccc.edu (Terri Easley) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:27:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need judging for emporia Message-ID: <8F1214AF088DD246A7A0B489E89441321EF5A53C2A@ac-ex07mb1.employee.directory.jccc> Anyone with extra rounds please let me know. Terri Easley Director of Debate Johnson County Community College The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. From jmgreen at ksu.edu Wed Oct 8 13:41:36 2008 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:41:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Invitation to the Soul of America Tournament at Kansas State - February 13-15th Message-ID: <5a6e2a80810081141g424585d0t8d7456b0ecc64801@mail.gmail.com> Kansas State University would like to formally welcome you to join us at the SOUL OF AMERICA tournament in Manhattan on February 13-15th. Top 5 reasons to attend our tournament: 5. Two meals will be provided. Dinner on Friday and lunch on Saturday. 4. Well-run and humane tournament. Chris Wheatley, KSU coaching alumn and all-round superstar, will serve as the tab room director. We will start prompt, plenty of time will be available for coaching, no one will yell to start debates. 3. Aggieville ? We will have shuttle runs from the hotel to a six square block radius that has 40 different social gathering places for those who are of age. 2. Done on Sunday. Less class missed. More time at home. 1. It's a mid-America tournament in February. Not everyone will go to districts and the NDT. Quality debates, quality judging, friendly experience. K.U. has graciously signed off for KSU to host a tournament on what was traditionally the Heart weekend. See Ella Fitzgerald, the Cleftones, The Four Aces, amongst others for the value of both being involved. There is potential for a rotation to take place ? more to be announced at a later date. Topic: We will follow the 2008-9 CEDA topic. Hybrids: In the Open division, two debaters from different schools may debate together and advance to elimination rounds. Yes, you can debate with anyone who still has eligibility and enrolled in a CEDA school. Division Eligibility: We will follow the CEDA eligibility rules. Please do not place anyone outside of the eligibility requirements stipulated in the Constitution even if you desire to forgo points. Kansas State teams will compete and have the ability to clear. Our debaters need the experience and this will make the tournament larger. Elimination Rounds: Half of the teams will clear. All teams must have a winning record to clear. Hotel Information: To follow. Judging: Please provide 3 rounds of judging for every team entered. If a judge is brought that can only judge in the JV or Novice division and it is mathematically impossible to place them in all of their committed rounds, the tournament will politely ask the school to increase the commitment levels of another judge or pay to have these rounds covered. The tournament will do its best to notify any schools of this problem ahead of time. Hired judging will be few and far between. If you need it, please let us know in advance. The cost of hiring is $30/round. Transportation: For those flying into Manhattan, KS ? KSU is willing to provide you with necessary shuttling to and from the tournament and to ensure that you get fed. Kansas City International Airport is about a 2 hour drive away from Manhattan. For those driving, if directions are needed, please ask. Entry Fees: $85/team. We are not doing this to make money. Checks should be made payable to "Wildcat Debate Workshop". We will also accept checks made to "Kansas State University". For new and struggling programs, if the entry fee prohibits attendance, please let us know ? we will work something out. Awards: Very sweet trophies will be given out. In addition, one member of each division, selected by student ballot, will receive an award for being an OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY MEMBER at the tournament. KSU debaters will not be eligible for the latter award. Disclosure: In order to receive strikes/preferences, a team must either submit to the tournament officials (jmgreen at ksu.edu) or to opencaselist.wikispaces.com a copy of all of their previously run affirmatives that they might run at the tournament. If new advantages/plan texts have been added, please submit these as well. SOUL BOOK: Ok, so this is a blatant steal from KU, but we want to continue the tradition ? if those entering do. We ask that each school submit information about each debater, the more appropriately incriminating the better. Please email these to jmgreen at ksu.edu. If there is not sufficient submission from the school, KSU will reserve the right to fill one out for you. If you would not like to participate in the book, please let the tournament know. Actual Name: Nickname for debater: Nickname for team: Future Occupation: Major in School: When not debating this person is: Looking forward, Justin Green on behalf of KSU debate SCHEDULE FOR TOURNAMENT: Friday, February 13th 2:00-3:15 pm Registration ? those arriving late should call 703-855-6177 3:15 pm Pairings for 1 and 2/Opening Assembly 4:00 pm Round I Random Preset 5:45-6:15 Dinner 7:00 pm Round II Random Preset Saturday, February 14th 7:30am Pairings Released online, at hotel and at tournament 8:30 am Round III (High-Low off rds 1 and 2) 11:00 am Round IV (High-High off rounds 1 and 2) 1:00-2:00 pm Lunch 2:30 pm Round V 5:30 pm Round VI 8:30 pm First Partials Round (depending on size) ASAP Release list of Elim participants at Hotels and on edebate 10:00 pm All Coaches Reception at Tournament Suite (Dependent on partials Round) Sunday, October 12th 8:00 am Awards Assembly Or Partial Elims (depending on size) 10:00 am Elims Continue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081008/2acb5b80/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Wed Oct 8 14:13:20 2008 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:13:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Emporia Tournament -- Finalize Judges/Teams Soon! Please! Message-ID: <7fd76c680810081213q66a64cbbxdd0f5c92de11a46c@mail.gmail.com> We are dangerously short on judges right now. I know this is because some schools have not entered ANY judges for a large number of teams so far, so I'm expecting some more to enter. However, at this point, we will have 40 debates going on at any given time and 31 judges to judge them. We are 9 judges short of even having a tournament. Not to mention that that assumes everyone is in for all 6 (which they aren't) and that we allow for zero preference in any division (which we will not). Also, judge availability that we currently have is inflated because several judges in the pool have division restrictions. Thus, finalize your entries soon. Please, please, please let me know so we can run a good tournament. Also, I think we have all of the teams that will be attending but if not, let me know soon because we are battling for extra rooms right now because of many late entries this week. Want to make more money? Sure, we all do. So backchannel me about judging at our tournament. We couldn't be happier that our tournament has dramatically increased in size this year (partial-doubles open, partial-octos JV, partial quarters nov). We look forward to hosting all of you!!! -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From bobjordan at gmail.com Wed Oct 8 18:53:14 2008 From: bobjordan at gmail.com (Bob Jordan) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 18:53:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ABC Casting For A Debate-Themed Episode of Wife Swap Message-ID: <91c7dd4a0810081653g27f38148k3c5b2fa9debc62ea@mail.gmail.com> The ABC television Wife Swap is casting for a debate-themed episode. I'm sure the recent media attention has led the producers to believe that we are an exciting (or excitable) group of people that might make for good television. The details are posted on the PFDebate Blog: http://blog.pfdebate.com/2008/10/08/hit-abc-show-casting-dynamic-debate-families-for-primetime/ Bob Jordan PFDebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081008/6221a9e9/attachment.htm From beth.skinner at gmail.com Wed Oct 8 21:35:00 2008 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 22:35:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 3 Rounds to Sell at West Point Message-ID: <4550c7380810081935l26c935f7mf18f6b6f5a0d77e2@mail.gmail.com> Shauntrice Martin has 3 round to sell at West Point. You can email her at: shauntricemartin at yahoo.com. Beth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081008/14d0ab6e/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Oct 9 01:45:32 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 23:45:32 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Fw: Opposing Views, New Expert Debate Site Message-ID: this site looked pretty decent to me: www.opposingviews.com more info below. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: Edgar Acosta Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 4:38 PM To: hansonjb at whitman.edu Subject: Opposing Views, New Expert Debate Site Hi Jim: My name is Edgar Acosta, and I'm an editor at a new Web site called www.opposingviews.com We feature expert debates and commentary on many different topics-including religion, social issues and politics. You'll find content on everything from the ethics of eating meat to homosexuality to carbon trading. Our experts include such diverse groups as PETA, the McCain/Obama campaigns, the Sierra Club and the NRA. Considering our shared love of debate, I'm hoping you'll take an interest in our site. While we've received favorable press from publications like the New York Times and TechCrunch, we're hoping to make inroads into the educational community. Perhaps you can spread the word by telling your colleagues and students about Opposing Views, linking to us, posting something in a blog (if you have one) or suggesting how to reach like-minded folks. Whatever you recommend is greatly appreciated. Know that our mission is to encourage intelligent, thoughtful discussion where all viewpoints are respected. We strictly adhere to our Civility 101 code, which appears at the bottom of our home page. Thanks for your time and interest. I certainly appreciate it, and I look forward to hearing from you. Edgar Acosta Editor Opposing Views 12925 Riverside Drive Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 (323) 544-9444, Ext. 263 eacosta at opposingviews.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081008/10db6618/attachment.htm From ostertaglives at yahoo.com Thu Oct 9 08:58:41 2008 From: ostertaglives at yahoo.com (Jay Hawk) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 06:58:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] The "Soul" of America? Message-ID: <305342.92218.qm@web46413.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I have questions. Soul of America? Manhattan, KS? Is this a one-time event where we have an animal husbandry school host a tourney because of the ag topic, or is it the sign of a much more troubling agenda? Why must the wildcats plunder the corpse of one of what used to be one of our activity's finest tournaments? If you are going to host a new tournament, at least try to come up with a name and activities that are not sadly derivative of the products of the many Jayhawks who gave their lives fighting KSU aggression. For shame. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081009/32f8527b/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 10:50:57 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 10:50:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Soul of America Message-ID: It is entirely fair to say that the only person at KSU with any soul is Nat Penn. Which is sad. KU, to be fair, doesnt fare much better. Quigley: I rest my case. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081009/1a721613/attachment.htm From kel1773 at msn.com Thu Oct 9 11:14:41 2008 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:14:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wayne State Tournament Hotel Deadline Today Message-ID: Greetings-- If you are planning to attend the Wayne State Motor City Classic, our block of rooms at the Hyatt closes today. The hotel information from the invite is below. There's only 2 rooms left, so I'm going to ask them to increase the block a little today. Please contact me via this email if you have problems booking rooms. Kelly A block of rooms has been reserved at the luxurious Hyatt Regency Dearborn in the Fairlane Town Center, 600 Town Center Drive, Dearborn, MI 48126, phone 313-593-1234 or the toll free number is 1-800-233-1234. A very affordable flat fee of $107.00 for a double-double with 4 occupants and free internet has been arranged, provided that your reservations are made before the deadline: October 9, 2008. This is an AMAZING rate for this kind of hotel. However, given that this is higher than the rate we are normally given, we have reduced our entry fee costs to make up for the price difference. Please ask for the ?Wayne State Debate Room Block? when you make your reservations. The group room block has been uploaded into our system and below is the information for your guests to call and make reservations: Reservations can be made by calling our central reservations at 800-233-1234 or online at www.dearborn.hyatt.com and entering the code: G-WAYN. The cut-off date to make reservations under the group block is October 9th. If you have any questions or if you would like an updated rooming list, please do not hesitate to call upon my assistant, Courtne, at 313-982-6790 or csadler at hyatt.com. Kelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081009/a0d90945/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 13:25:48 2008 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:25:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UTSA MT Message-ID: <7fd76c680810091125g4608cbb3vd015ba28c9285b16@mail.gmail.com> need intel for your paganism stuff...nothing on wiki... -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From debate at ou.edu Thu Oct 9 13:28:14 2008 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:28:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pflaum Judges Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677EF67017218@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> OU needs to find some judges for the Pflaum Please contact me if you are available. peace jackie From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Thu Oct 9 13:28:54 2008 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:28:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky still seeks Vanderbilt judging Message-ID: We will pay $30 per round, cash at the tournament. Please contact Roger Solt if you are interested. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081009/1765db0d/attachment.htm From potatopeeler at hotmail.com Thu Oct 9 13:51:24 2008 From: potatopeeler at hotmail.com (Eric Short) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 18:51:24 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Emporia judging Message-ID: Concordia is looking to hire some judging for the Emporia tournament. I think we have 9 uncovered rounds at this point. Any takers? Eric _________________________________________________________________ Discover the new Windows Vista http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=windows+vista&mkt=en-US&form=QBRE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081009/73a002d6/attachment.htm From sjsnider at ksu.edu Thu Oct 9 16:54:34 2008 From: sjsnider at ksu.edu (Sarah Jane Green) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:54:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] test Message-ID: test- have not gotten edebate messages since oct. 3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081009/24b600d3/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 9 19:21:15 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 20:21:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] new judges to pref for richmond Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5A9F4@castor.richmond.edu> Richmond attendees: Teams are still finalizing entries. Thus, judging changes have taken place and some judges have different units now..make sure to double-check prefs tonight (or complete them). thanks, kevin From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Thu Oct 9 20:15:47 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:15:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] hey Jay Hawk Message-ID: You know what tells me all I need to know about how stupid you are? Your email is "Ostertag lives." mjs _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081009/cd761cfb/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 23:57:13 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:57:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] novice swing partner for Richmond needed Message-ID: The employment needs of our debaters (and their bosses who schedule their shifts) have confounded us again. If anyone has a novice who wants to debate at Richmond this weekend, we've got an eager debater who became partnerless. We'll cover judging and fees. He's been to tournaments so wouldn't be adverse to jv if necessary. Thanks, -VIK -- Vik Keenan Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges 212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081010/491f5e32/attachment.htm From zoman931 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 00:40:26 2008 From: zoman931 at yahoo.com (Menzo Faassen) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 22:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] test Message-ID: <192331.38813.qm@web52910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Haven't received edebate posts on yahoo mail since Oct. 2nd. Anyone else having this problem? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081009/d89d419a/attachment.htm From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Fri Oct 10 06:58:47 2008 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:58:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Repost: Debate Tourney invite Appalachian State Message-ID: ***Please make your hotel reservations soon. It is a football weekend and the rate we have secured is really good*** Dear Colleagues, We are pleased to invite you to the 69th Annual Mountain Debate Tournament. The tournament is sponsored by the Appalachian State University Forensic Team on the weekend of November14-16, 2008. This invitation contains all the information you will need to register, including hotel and parking, details concerning the pre-tournament Mountaineer Hike. The tournament will feature Open, Junior Varsity, and Novice divisions of policy debate. The tournament will abide by ADA, CEDA, and NDT guidelines. Any conflict will be resolved by the Director in consultation with the Tab Room Director. We will have six preliminary policy debate rounds of competition on the 2007-2008 CEDA Policy Debate Topic. The ADA divisions of novice, JV, and open will be in effect. Half of the teams (rounding down) in each bracket will advance. Teams will advance into elimination rounds based on the following criteria: 1) win-loss record, 2) total team points, 3) adjusted team points, 4) double-adjusted team points, 5) total team ranks; and, 6) coin toss. We will not break brackets. Advancing teams when a school meets itself will be up to the discretion of the coach and the school involved. We are committed to providing you and your students with a valuable team experience. We have secured a beautiful tournament hotel, LaQuinta Inns & Suites, where we will hold registration for your convenience. We have blocked 25 rooms at the tournament hotel, LaQuinta Inns & Suites at the rate of $63.75/night. The block and rate will no longer be effective after November first. LaQuinta Inns & Suites 828-262-1234 Ask for Brenda Fisher, General Manager, to receive the $63.75 rate. www.LQ.com Just a note, there is a home football game on the weekend of our tournament which draws fans from across the nation. So I *STRONGLY encourage* you to make your reservations immediately. We are excited to sponsor our fourth annual pre-tournament Mountaineer Hike. We will be hiking a portion of the Price Park Trail which will provide debaters with a fabulous view of Trashcan falls and some pre-tournament oxygen. Please e-mail or facebook Mariam Willis at willismr at appstate.edu if you would like to participate. We will meet at the tournament hotel, which is the LaQuinta Inn at 10 a.m. on Friday, November 14th. We are providing additional hospitality services this year. We will serve a light breakfast and a lunch on Saturday, as well as coffee, water, and fruit throughout the tournament. Further, we will provide menus and a new accommodating schedule, so that you may enjoy many of Boone's outstanding locally owned restaurants. Moreover, the entire tournament will take place in a single building on campus. We hope you?ll put Appalachian State University on your tournament schedule. Come enjoy the beautiful mountain scenery and fresh air in Boone, NC! Sincerely, Kris Willis Co-Director of Forensics Appalachian State University (828)262-8371 (office) (828) 719-7705 (cell) williskw at appstate.edu Fax: (828)262-2543 Mariam Razian Willis Co-Director of Forensics Appalachian State University (828)262-7527 (office) (828) 719-7706 (cell) willismr at appstate.edu *ENTRIES*: Each school may enter as many teams as it wishes in each division. Any student may be entered in Open Division. Only students with two years or less experience in college debate may be entered in the JV division. Only those students with 2 semesters or less experience including high school debate may be entered in Novice Division (excluding Lincoln-Douglas Debate). *FORMAT*: The 2008-09 CEDA Policy Topic will be used for the three policy divisions. Six preliminary rounds with appropriate elimination rounds in each division will be offered. Speaking times will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes preparation. Rounds 1 & 2 will be randomly paired. Rounds 3 & 5 will be paired high/high based on cumulative records. Rounds 4 & 6 will be paired high/low within brackets and side constraints. Speaker awards will be given based upon adjusted speaker points (dropping highest and lowest points), then total speaker points, then double adjusted speaker points, then team record, then ranks. *AWARDS*: Appropriate awards will be provided to all teams reaching elimination rounds and the top 5 speakers in Novice, JV and Open Policy Debate. *JUDGES*: Each school must provide 1 qualified judge for every 2 teams or fraction thereof entered. All judges are obligated 1 round beyond the point their team is eliminated. Since we have a *very* limited supply of qualified judges, please make every effort to cover your judging obligation. *FEES*: *$40 per person* and $100.00 per hired judge. If you have one team and one judge, the fee will be $120. Last year we lost money on the tournament which is why the fees have increased. If these fees are prohibiting, please contact Mariam or I and we can try and work something out. *ENTRY DEADLINE*: Monday, November 10, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. We prefer to receive entries through debateresults.com. *NO ADDS AT REGISTRATION*. All changes or drops at registration will result in a $25.00 fee. * TOURNAMENT HOTEL *: Blocks are available at the LaQuinta Inns & Suites. 828-262-1234 Ask for Brenda Fisher, General Manager, to receive the $63.75 rate. www.LQ.com Tournament registration will begin at 1 p.m. at the LaQuinta. Just a note, there is a home football game on the weekend of our tournament which draws fans from across the nation. So I *STRONGLY encourage* you to make your reservations immediately. Other hotels in the area: (Expect to pay between $100.00 and $190.00 a night excluding tax.) *Comfort Suites*, (828) 268-0099, 1184 Hwy 105 Super 8 Motel- (828) 264-4133 (formerly the Greystone Lodge) Holiday Inn Express- (828) 264-2451 Greene's Motel - (828) 264-8845 Fairfield Inn & Suites (828) 268-0677 Campus maps are also available at http://www.web.appstate.edu/maps/ . *PARKING* Visitor parking tags and directions will be included at registration. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081010/33f1378f/attachment.htm From ostertaglives at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 09:48:13 2008 From: ostertaglives at yahoo.com (Jay Hawk) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Hey Stannard Message-ID: <879266.27285.qm@web46409.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Even Greg Ostertag has a better sense for sarcasm than you. I think the stupid one is the guy who can't even detect a joke. I look forward to seeing you at the NDT. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081010/ed3b16d9/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Fri Oct 10 11:52:56 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:52:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Jay Hawk Message-ID: It is true that I have no sense of humor. The fact that this surprises you only proves you don't know me very well. You could have asked around. My lack of humor, my inability to detect irony or sarcasm, and my general sour attitude are legendary. But at least I didn't get paid 8 million bones to have maybe two or three good games in my entire pro career. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081010/1a158447/attachment.htm From ostertaglives at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 12:19:00 2008 From: ostertaglives at yahoo.com (Jay Hawk) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] The Slander Has to Stop! Message-ID: <280161.59272.qm@web46414.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> After years f delivering his message of love to fans around the word with his gap-toothed grin, Greg Ostertag jeopardized his life and career in order to give a kidney to his ailing his sister. Perhaps, Stannard, you could ask him if he could donate a portion of his overly large and warm heart to you. He played the game with the joy of a young child and was willing to congratulate opposing players even in the heat of battle (shaking Big Dog's hand after a dunk in the elite 8). He was kind to everyone he met. Debaters could learn from his example. If Jesus and and Gandhi had a baby, and that baby was subjected to gamma-ray radiation resulting in gigantism, you would have an Ostertag. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081010/02dbc681/attachment.htm From velcrowe at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 12:47:34 2008 From: velcrowe at gmail.com (Chris Crowe) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:47:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Rounds for sale... Message-ID: <623f2fe20810101047k42507d5ft1b47977cfb229005@mail.gmail.com> Hey All, I can sell four debates for the Harvard tournament. If $30 per round sounds good to you, shoot me an email. -Crowe -- Christopher Crowe University of Wyoming -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081010/c64f649d/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Fri Oct 10 16:40:25 2008 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] harvard - emory wants rounds Message-ID: <948741.59082.qm@web62006.mail.re1.yahoo.com> We are interested even if you only have 1 for sell. We pay cash. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081010/a65819a1/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Fri Oct 10 19:59:39 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:59:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] PREFS--richmond Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AA1B@castor.richmond.edu> Hi all, Please check your prefs and make sure you have filled them out correctly. Many schools and teams have selected too many Cs and not enough As and Bs. We will not use your prefs until they are filled out correctly. We will try to find people tom., but if you want them used for round one, fix them by 11:00pm tonight. It's not hard--4 categories. Numbers for A and B are minimums, numbers for Cs and stikes are maximum. Thanks, kevin From kkuswa at richmond.edu Sat Oct 11 16:14:58 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 17:14:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Novice Learning / Teaching Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AA21@castor.richmond.edu> it's in the works right now....lots and lots of novices soaking up some debate juice! here are the scheduled sessions for those playing at home (winner--p. mabrey for guessing 2 of 9--both SD's): UR Teach-In 2008 Donald Bryson: Everything You Need to Know About Counterplans Adrienne Brovero: The Art of Cross Examination Stephen Davis: Debate as Air and Why We Must Breathe Heather Hall: Yes! Flowing is the Key Vik Keenan: Debating About Things That Are Uncomfortable to Talk About In the First Place Joe Keeton: Be a Search Engine: Improving On-Line Research Skills Adam Lee: You're Novice? What are Your Kritiks and Answers? Jim Lyle: Risk Assessment and Debating Economics Tim O'Donnell: Why Debate Really Does Matter From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sat Oct 11 21:06:20 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:06:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Macalester Message-ID: Name:W. Scott Nobles Memorial Tournament Starts:12/6/2008 Ends:12/7/2008 Hosted by: Macalester Contact: Mike Baxter-Kauf Address: Phone: 651-295-0479 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Oct 11 23:32:59 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:32:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Teams Clearing at KCKCC Message-ID: <48F137AB020000930001CC30@mymail.kckcc.edu> All divisions will hold their first elim at 8:30am. Pairings out at 7:30am. All judges are judging or on standby. Teams Clearing: Open Octos-- 4-2 Emporia Wash and Williams-Green 3-3 K State Denney and Reynolds 3-3 K State Grice and Hanson 6-0 K State Mendenhall and Ziegler 4-2 Missouri State Frederick and Steiner 5-1 Missouri State Husney and Stout 4-2 Oklahoma Dabari and Cox 4-2 Oklahoma Koslow and Tomik 5-1 UMKC Jantz and Stevens 4-2 UT San Antonio Montee and Thomas 3-3 Vanderbilt Norris and Brown JV Semis-- 4-2 Concordia Baseman and Towsley 4-2 K State Funcheon and Walbridge 6-0 Kansas City Kansas CC Fugate and Slinkerd 4-2 Missouri State Frenzel and Rothgeb Novice Quarters-- 4-2 JCCC Vazquez and Gantumur 5-1 Missouri State Smith and Wright 4-2 Oklahoma Luong and Perkins 5-1 Univ Northern Iowa Greenway and Chase 5-1 Vanderbilt Elder and Williams 5-1 Vanderbilt Hooks and O'Connor 4-2 Vanderbilt Mason and Watts chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Oct 12 00:10:32 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:10:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Correction on teams clearing at KCKCC Message-ID: <48F14078020000930001CC34@mymail.kckcc.edu> In Novice: Vanderbilt Hooks and O'Connor are 3-3, not 5-1 as previouslyy reported. Sorry guys, I tried. : ) chief From schiros at invisihosting.com Sun Oct 19 22:31:50 2008 From: schiros at invisihosting.com (Matthew Schiros) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:31:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] test Message-ID: <48FBFBA6.2050407@invisihosting.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Schiros President, InvisiHosting.com Web Development & Anonymous Web Host Security Through Anonymity! e: schiros at invisihosting.com c: 512-466-4146 f: 888-521-4772 aim: invisirevolution - -------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREKAAYFAkj7+6YACgkQPvlWXysx+5ZptQCfcdA7sgwaQTz+sHIRztdv6Ohc Ni8An2tSCfV/Z9aswesepF7ZKuXXoZDe =wqwQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From shahall at comcast.net Mon Oct 20 08:55:54 2008 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:55:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Dues Message-ID: <00a801c932bb$930596e0$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> Hello -- I have just received the list from Pratt of dues payments received via the AFA website through October 1. Below you will find the updated list of subscribers. If you paid via the website after October 1 and have an electronic receipt, you can forward that to me. If you have not yet paid, time is running out to pay without penalty. Between now and November 1, your subscription fee is $50.00, after November 1 it will be doubled. You can pay me directly by check at the Harvard Tournament, or by mailing me a check made out to the National Debate Tournament to 324 Franklin St., Cambridge MA, 02139. You may also pay via the AFA website. Please remember that you must subscribe to the NDT to be eligibile to participate in the NDT and its qualification process (such as the district tournaments). Thanks, Sherry NDT 2008-2009 Subscribers Boston College California State University @ Chico California State University @ Northridge Clarion College Concordia College Dartmouth College Eastern New Mexico University Gonzaga University Harvard University Illinois State University Kansas State University Liberty University Methodist University Pepperdine University Redlands Sacramento State University Samford University San Francisco State University Southern Methodist University Trinity University University of Georgia University of Kentucky University of Michigan University of North Texas University of Notre Dame University of Richmond University of Texas @ Austin University of Texas @ Dallas University of Tulsa Western Connecticut State University Whitman College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/2665e117/attachment.html From lukephill at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 09:18:08 2008 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:18:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wanye State Judging Message-ID: Northwestern needs up to 8 rounds. We will buy what you have . We pay well and in cash. Please backchannel 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/20081020/a4679812/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Oct 20 09:22:23 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:22:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt: make hotel reservations Message-ID: join us for the wnpt at whitman college. invitation is at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54wnpt2008.htm MAKE HOTEL RESERVATIONS ASAP--BY OCT. 21. CALL THE LA QUINTA AND ASK FOR "WHITMAN NOVEMBER DEBATE" ROOMS 509-525-4700 $89 plus tax jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From joe_koehle at yahoo.com Mon Oct 20 09:54:39 2008 From: joe_koehle at yahoo.com (Joe Koehle) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:54:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] 3 rounds for sale--wake Message-ID: <612025.56802.qm@web50203.mail.re2.yahoo.com> let me know if you need 'em Joe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/6a2f307c/attachment.htm From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 20 10:18:34 2008 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:18:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI seeking Debate GTAs for Fall 2009 Message-ID: The University of Northern Iowa Forensics Team is looking for M.A. students. We will have one debate position, for Fall 2009. We compete in NDT/CEDA policy debate. The UNI forensics team enjoys broad departmental support, allowing students to develop their coaching, teaching, and scholarly skills. The Communication Studies Masters program typically has 40-50 active students, including forensics GTAs. As a GTA, you would have many opportunities to work with students, travel, and help run tournaments, all while earning a M.A. in a two-year program. Our Department of Communication Studies offers an array of specialties: Communication Education, General Communication, Mass Communication, Organizational Communication, Organizational Communication-Human Resources, Performance Studies, and Public Relations. The department is particularly strong in feminist theory and gender studies, media studies, and performance studies. Nationally recognized scholars in visual rhetoric, pedagogy, and theatre of the oppressed, and feminist theory are available for students to work with. There are 22 graduate faculty members, and because the M.A. is the terminal degree in the department, you would have the opportunity to work closely with these professors. Many forensic GTAs leave the program with publications because of the support of faculty. The department includes many former coaches and competitors, as well as the Director of the National Debate Tournament, Dr. John Fritch, who is our Department Chair. As a UNI Forensics GTA, you would receive a full tuition waiver, plus a competitive stipend, as well as having teaching opportunities. The Cedar Falls/Waterloo area is a great collegiate environment, with offerings in culture, athletics, and outdoor activities, as well as an affordable place to live. Recent UNI M.A. graduates have been quite successful. Several graduates are in collegiate coaching positions and Ph.D. programs. If you are interested in learning more about our program, feel free to contact me, Dr. Katherine Lavelle, Director of Forensics at Katherine.lavelle at uni.edu or at my office phone, 319-273-7200. I will be at the Wayne State Motor City Classic, as well as the Badger Memorial Tournament this semester; it would be a pleasure to meet with you in person. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Two of our directors, Ms. Rebecca Buel and Ms. Kelsey Harr, are also excellent resources. They are recent graduates of our M.A. program. We also have information on our departmental website about our graduate program, which you can access at www.chfa.uni.edu/comstudy/graduate/Katherine L. Lavelle Director of ForensicsUniversity of Northern Iowa You must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't be resigned to that. Break out! ? Mr. Keating, Tom Schulman Dead Poets Society Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live. See Now When your life is on the go?take your life with you. Try Windows Mobile? today _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/33a51103/attachment.htm From dmattern at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 10:23:03 2008 From: dmattern at gmail.com (David Mattern) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:23:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Case Seeks Wayne State Judging Message-ID: Dear Available Judges, Case Western would like to hire you to judge at Wayne State. Will pay with cash or check, whichever you prefer. Sincerely, David Mattern -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/987ae7bc/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 13:00:15 2008 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:00:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Debate job in Texas starting next year Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70810201100x6c50dde3i7baf9895dfdff682@mail.gmail.com> hey everyone, a friend of mine is the dean of A&S at UT-Tyler and they are interested in doing CEDA/NDT debate starting next year. she'd be a very good boss and the school is ready to support the team in terms of $$$$. They are willing to offer the job as a tenure-track position OR not, depending on what will get them the best debate coach. i.e., they are flexible. i'm gathering names for her. so if you're interested, let me know. hester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/2f5866a2/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 13:05:52 2008 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:05:52 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 2 rounds of Shirley judging for sale Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70810201105g7cfacc24odcbb58a186c6887b@mail.gmail.com> i'm selling two rounds of judging - $50 cash provided by saturday of the tournament. if this fits what you need and can do, let me know. hester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/4708a792/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Mon Oct 20 14:08:46 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:08:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] ESU Pflaum Debates - Open Awards Message-ID: <415792.71801.qm@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Most Preferred Critic (via prefs)--Louie Petit--North Texas OPEN 1. Coleman-Wichita 2. A.Casey-UCO 3. E. Robinson-Witchita 4. A. Jack-Kansas 5. B. Mendenhall-K-State 6. Avery Henry-UCO 7. E. Defilippis-OU 8. J. Garcia-UMKC 9. C. Spurlock-UCO 10.Stacy Spomer-UCO OPEN Partial-Doubles Concordia MT (aff) over Baylor MN Zarazan, Morris*, Cram-Helwich Octos WSU CR (aff) over Concordia MT Vega, B. Warner, S. Maurer UCO CS (Neg) over OU BY Dipiazza, Harlow, Winfrey UCO HS (Neg) over K-State GH E. Short, J. Russell*, P. Samuels WSU BR (Aff) over OU DT Herndon, 8Pennington, H. Tripe-Roberts K-State MZ (Neg) over UNT MS Cram-Helwich, T.Easley KU JW (Neg) over OU KT R. Smith, Tiara Naputi, L. Petit Baylor CM (Neg) over Mo State GK Zarazan, T. Jordan, J. Davis Kansas KS (Neg) over Concordia LR J. Roberts, S. Snider Green, Malgor Quarters PAIRINGS KU KS vs. WSU CR J. Davis, H. Tripe-Roberts, Zarazan Baylor CM vs. UCO CS Cram Helwich, Harlow, H. Walters KU JW vs.UCO HS R. Smith, J. Russell, Z. Brown K-State MZ (neg) vs. WSU BR Winfrey, B. Warner, P. Samuels W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/d5237e9e/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Mon Oct 20 14:15:48 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] ESU Pflaum Debates - JV Awards Message-ID: <418058.29519.qm@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> JV Speakers 1. F. Katschke-Wichita 2. V. Kumar-UTSA 3. A. Cortelyou-Wichita 4. Z. Hartkopp-JCCC 5. L. Nordstrom-OU 6. S. Winkle-Kansas 7. Sean Sales-UCO 8. G. Funcheon-K-State 9. K. Zahrai-OU 10.B. Dabari-OU Partial OCtos UTSA CT (aff) over Minnesota ST *Harlow, T. Easley, N. Pennington KU DW (Neg) over JCCC XX *R. Smith, R. Patterson, K. Thompson K-State FM (aff) over UCO DS *C. Hamilton, H. Walters, Tiara Naputi Quarters OU NW over K-State FM J. Johnson, J. Jarman, E. Marlow Minnesota KS over KU DW C. Hamilton, Z. Brown, K. Doris WSU CK over USTA CT J. Massey, C. Good, S. Ketchum JCCC HW over OU WZ H. Walters, Mike Kearney, M. Burke Sems (in progress) JCCC HW (Aff) vs. OU NW Pennington, J. Jarman, K. Doris Minnesota KS over WSU CK E. Marlwo, S. Ketchum, T. Easley W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/6f2d6973/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Mon Oct 20 15:19:58 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] esu more awards Message-ID: <623473.84768.qm@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> OPEN Quarters UCO CS over Baylor CM 3-0 UCO HS over KU JW 2-1 K-State MZ over WSU BR 3-0 WSU CR over KU KS 3-0 JV Sems Minnesota KS over WSU CK 2-1 JCCC HW over OU NW 2-1 W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/7ef2c8eb/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 15:28:24 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:28:24 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] esu more awards In-Reply-To: <623473.84768.qm@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <623473.84768.qm@web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Go Bronchos! UCO Alum, Josh Hoe On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM, J T wrote: > OPEN Quarters > UCO CS over Baylor CM 3-0 > UCO HS over KU JW 2-1 > K-State MZ over WSU BR 3-0 > WSU CR over KU KS 3-0 > > JV Sems > Minnesota KS over WSU CK 2-1 > JCCC HW over OU NW 2-1 > > W. James Taylor ("JT") > > Asst. Debate Coach > Emporia State University > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/ca140656/attachment.htm From jrwatchtower at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 17:30:42 2008 From: jrwatchtower at gmail.com (john rief) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:30:42 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Pitt Looking for Four Rounds At Harvard Message-ID: <65f6da530810201530nfd76186gd7f95ee68537104c@mail.gmail.com> I know its late in the game but the edebate breakdown made this message impossible to post last week. Pitt is looking to hire 4 rounds of judging at Harvard. If anyone out there still has a few rounds they can sell, it would be much appreciated. We will generously compensate you. Individuals already attending with room/board covered are preferred. Please contact me asap so we can make changes before Harvard prefs are up. Thanks in advance! Best, John Rief Assistant Director of Policy Debate William Pitt Debating Union -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/5ecc003e/attachment.htm From u.hrair at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 18:10:11 2008 From: u.hrair at gmail.com (Calum Matheson) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:10:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Debate Documentary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tried to send this awhile ago. This is from the director, Douglas Robbins: The DEBATE TEAM DOCUMENTARY (www.debateteamdocumentary.com) is happy to announce that we have been invited to show the film at the San Francisco International Documentary Film Festival this month! So awesome. The documentary will run on three dates only: * On Sunday, October 19, 2008, 7:15 p.m. at the Roxie Cinema in San Francisco; * On Tuesday October 21, 7:15 p.m., again at the Roxie; * And on Sunday November 2, 2008, 9:30 p.m. at the Shattuck Cinema in Berkeley. If you are in California during those dates, please go here to buy tickets in advance, as the theatre might sell out: https://sfdocfest08.withoutabox.com/festivals/event_item.php?id=18322 These three dates are likely the only time that the movie will show in a theatre in California and the tickets will go fast. The Director and Producer will be there to talk about the documentary after the show and will sell signed copies of the DVD! No need to respond to this e-mail to reserve tickets, just go buy some! And please please come to the Shattuck showing in Berkeley if you can. At that showing, we'll be giving away free DVDs and wine gift baskets. No joke! Support debate. Support independent film! Douglas www.debateteamdocumentary.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/d40ecda5/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Mon Oct 20 19:51:33 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:51:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Richmond Elim Results References: Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AAC5@castor.richmond.edu> 08 RICHMOND JV: Partial Octafinal Round Results Pittsburgh NN (Neg) defeated George Mason Univers JL 3-0 Gartman, Jake Bryson, Donald Bonneau, Scott Wayne State Universi MQ (Aff) defeated Mary Washington GT 3-0 Packer, Joe Hall, Michael Skinner, Beth Johns Hopkins KS (Neg) defeated Mary Washington XX 3-0 Hall, Heather Verney-O'Gorma, Halydier, Garret Quarterfinal Round Results Binghamton GS (Aff) defeated Johns Hopkins KS 2-1 Packer, Joe Green, RJ *Skinner, Beth Binghamton BT (Aff) defeated Wayne State Universi MQ 2-1 *Ryan, Nick Hall, Heather Bowers, Jeremy Liberty University BP (Aff) defeated Pittsburgh NN 2-1 Gartman, Jake Schatz, Joe *Jones, Chris Liberty University GW (Aff) defeated Appalachian State JL 3-0 Bonneau, Scott O'Donnell, Tim Noerr, Rob Semifinal Round Results Liberty University GW (Neg) defeated Binghamton GS 3-0 Bonneau, Scott Goss, Judy Lyle, Jim Liberty University BP (Neg) defeated Binghamton BT 2-1 Hester, Mike Koehle, Joe *Skinner, Beth Final Round Results Liberty University BP Advances Over Liberty University GW 08 RICHMOND Novice Partial Double Octafinal Round Results Liberty University TT (Aff) defeated Appalachian State AH 3-0 Rief, John Keeton, Joe O'Donnell, Tim Clarion University MS (Neg) defeated U.s. Naval Academy CS 3-0 Collins, Will Ryan, Nick Nagy, John Mary Washington MV (Aff) defeated South Florida St. Pet OT 2-1 *Schraeder, Jenni Eagleton, Ben Davis, Stephen Octafinal Round Results Binghamton CJ (Aff) defeated Mary Washington MV 3-0 Ryan, Andrew Schraeder, Jenni Padgett, Rodger Liberty University DT (Neg) defeated Clarion University MS 3-0 Verney-O'Gorma, Weiner, Jake Beaton, Hunter Liberty University TT (Aff) defeated Wayne State Universi JS 2-1 Lyle, Jim Fleischmann, Cas *Patel, Nisha Binghamton FT (Aff) defeated Appalachian State TV 3-0 Nagy, Adrianne Saindon, Brent Goss, Judy Liberty University HL Advances Over Liberty University KM Clarion University HP (Neg) defeated Liberty University DE 2-1 Collins, Will Passantino, Andr *Tajima, Noriaki John Carroll Univers NV (Aff) defeated George Mason Univers BT 3-0 Nagy, John Rief, John Willis, Mariam Mary Washington HS (Aff) defeated George Mason Univers BC 2-1 *Halydier, Garret Hoyle, Lee Lind, Stephen Quarterfinal Round Results Binghamton CJ (Neg) defeated Mary Washington HS 3-0 Hall, Heather Lind, Stephen Halydier, Garret Liberty University DT (Neg) defeated John Carroll Univers NV 3-0 Bryson, Donald O'Donnell, Tim Noerr, Rob Liberty University TT (Neg) defeated Clarion University HP 2-1 Weiner, Jake *Schatz, Joe Jones, Chris Binghamton FT (Neg) defeated Liberty University HL 2-1 Hoyle, Lee Davis, Stephen *Packer, Joe Semifinal Round Results Binghamton CJ Advances Over Binghamton FT Liberty University DT Advances Over Liberty University TT Final Round Results Binghamton CJ (Neg) defeated Liberty University DT 3-0 Hester, Mike Skinner, Beth Koehle, Joe 08 RICHMOND OPEN: Partial Octafinal Round Results Towson EM (Aff) defeated Liberty University FW 2-1 Bellon, Joe *Lee, Adam R. Schatz, Joe Pittsburgh LS (Neg) defeated Binghamton TW 2-1 *Hester, Mike Green, RJ Cherian, Asha George Mason Univers HO (Aff) defeated Mary Washington SS 3-0 Sharp, Jon Davis, Mike Lyle, Jim Pittsburgh KM (Neg) defeated Mary Washington GM 2-1 Koehle, Joe Arnold, Mark *Jones, Chris Binghamton CO (Aff) defeated Georgia State BG 2-1 Noerr, Rob Bowers, Jeremy *Bowman, Pamela Liberty University DG (Aff) defeated James Madison CF 2-1 *Brovero, Adrienn Weiner, Jake Wiley, Elizabeth Quarterfinal Round Results West Georgia MS (Aff) defeated Liberty University DG 2-1 Bellon, Joe *Lee, Adam R. Bryson, Donald Binghamton CO (Neg) defeated Kentucky CG 2-1 Koehle, Joe Hester, Mike *Brovero, Adrienn Towson EM (Aff) defeated Pittsburgh KM 3-0 Congdon, Kelly Bowman, Pamela Sharp, Jon George Mason Univers HO (Aff) defeated Pittsburgh LS 2-1 Hausrath, Bary *Davis, Mike Arnold, Mark Semifinal Round Results West Georgia MS (Neg) defeated George Mason Univers HO 3-0 Rief, John Davis, Mike Brovero, Adrienn Towson EM (Neg) defeated Binghamton CO 3-0 Bowman, Pamela Bowers, Jeremy Saindon, Brent Final Round Results West Georgia MS (Aff) defeated Towson EM 2-1 Gartman, Jake *Nagy, John Hall, Heather From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Oct 20 19:52:52 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:52:52 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Los Angeles City Col Message-ID: <706129357D5641DFAB2CE7BFE101B26D@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Tina J Herman Policy Invitational Starts:12/5/2008 Ends:12/5/2008 Hosted by: Los Angeles City Col Contact: John Matteson Address: 855 N. Vermont Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90029 Phone: 323-953-4000 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Novice with 4 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Rookie with 4 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 proudsavage at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 20:44:57 2008 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:44:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 4 rounds for sale at harvard Message-ID: <9b5963440810201844g40210718x6b1c0c561770dd16@mail.gmail.com> 35 a round, cash, got my own transport and lodging.... 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/20081020/fbf127eb/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Oct 20 20:50:56 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:50:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? Message-ID: i have not turned republican but i'm curious why the court cases against obama and the DNC regarding the "existence" of his birth certificate are not a part of public discussion in the run-up to the election. it's seems to me the most fundamental argument regarding character out there. as it sits right now with the case, obama appears to have forged a birth certificate to squeak through the primaries. his unwillingness to produce a real birth certificate in a legal case does not jive with his demands for other candidates to produce tax returns, health records, etc. if obama doesn't have a birth certificate, then he is a fraud who has faked natural born citizenship for personal gains and that is not the decent man mccain described to angry crowds in recent weeks. does obama have a birth certificate? was he born in kenya? why are there so many discrepancies amongst his siblings as to which country he was born in and which hospital? why are biographers being kicked out of kenya for investigating his family? what stake does kenya have in the US election? this is a plea for mccain/palin, rush limbaugh and fox news to make obama's citizenship the forefront issue of the campaign. i encourage debaters concerned about the serious possibility of senator obama being a fraud to amplify this message to rush at eibnet.com, 70277.2502 at compuserve.com, info at johnmccain.com. contact fox news and ask why they are not running the story :1-888-369-4762. the best argument against obama is not being deployed. why? perhaps, it's best for obama to win and then get impeached. if you are unfamiliar with berg vs. obama and the DNC, please watch this utube video where mr. berg outlines his case. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOzFl-Gm_Kc the complete story resides @: http://www.obamacrimes.com/ here is the amended complaint: Monday, 06 October 2008 18:44 administrator Phil J. Berg filed an amended complaint today in Berg v. Obama. The amended complaint adds the Pennsylvania Department of State, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes (in his official capacity), the U. S. Sentate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Senator Diane Feinstein (in her official capacity as chairman) for their failure to exercise due diligence with respect to Barack Obama's contitutional qualifications to be elected and serve as President of The United States, and for his inclusion on the ballot in Pennsylvania as a candidate for President of the United States. The amended complaint also bolsters the standing argument and adds additional relevent facts. Essentially, the argument is this: Senator Obama could put this whole issue to rest by providing an official "vault copy" birth certificate. Senator Obama has chosen not to do so. The defendants (other than Obama) have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the electoral system by properly vetting the qualifications of candidates, which they have failed to perform. Mr. Berg, other Americans, and our system of government are damaged by this failure. Senator Obama, who has collected $425,000,000 in campaign contributions, has perpetrated a fraud. end quote senator obama is a fraud who has forged a hawaiian birth certificate which has subsequently been withdrawn from his website. neither the forgery nor any original birth certificate were submitted to the judge in the first appearance. instead mr. obama filed for a motion to dismiss. berg emphasizes the weakness of this "strategy" given the logical appeal to the 3rd circuit or the supreme court. i am most amazed with the obama supporters who are satisfied that their candidate has not provided a birth certificate in the legal case in order to completely dispel the controversy and that their candidate has removed the forgery from his website. "belief" has come into conflict with the constitution and any pretense of public accountability called straight talk. the obama fans are willing to bypass the constitution to get their change. the mass media boycott of the berg case against obama is disgusting. obama fans support the windfall obama is getting from the media blackout. there are now 3 suits against obama regarding his citizenship. http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/obama?s-citizenship-in-doubt-suits-filed-in-hawaii-and-washington/ Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berg is not alone. There are now currently three lawsuits questioning the eligibility of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to serve as president of the United States ? the first, of course, is Berg?s, while the other two include an action filed in Washington State Superior Court last week and one filed Friday in a Hawaiian state court. Unlike Berg?s case, which names Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission as defendants (Berg has a pending motion for leave to amend his original complaint which would add California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the Senate Rules Committee as well), the other lawsuits are geared toward ballot inclusion and document production. The suit in Washington State, filed against Secretary of State Sam Reed by Fall City, WA resident Steven Marquis, seeks the removal of Barack Obama from the ballot until the candidate provided an answer to what Marquis says are ?unanswered questions surrounding Obama?s citizenship and background,? the answers for which effectively avoid ?a ?constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest? which would arise should information come to light after the election which shows that the Illinois senator is ineligible to hold the presidency.? _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ From MWBRYANT at aol.com Mon Oct 20 21:16:48 2008 From: MWBRYANT at aol.com (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:16:48 EDT Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? Message-ID: 1. Is this is the best anti-Obama argument you can produce?! 2. His mother was clearly a US citizen. 3. The location of his birth (Hawaii!) is not really the question. If his mother was a US citizen, Obama would be a US citizen even if he was born in Moscow. 4. Why is this on eDebate? 5. More importantly, what is your real motive? No one buys for one second that you're just a concerned patriot... And I'll sign my name. Bet you won't. BTW, why do you think MCCain/Palin both refuse to release their medical records? Michael Bryant **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/f83f6088/attachment.htm From proudsavage at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 21:30:33 2008 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:30:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] nevermind Message-ID: <9b5963440810201930w1bed3f55xc4281f0145ae4f62@mail.gmail.com> -- 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/20081020/98695685/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Oct 20 21:33:59 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:33:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: it's not my argument. it's a court case. 3 court cases. you're wrong to be a natural born citizen, obama's mother must have been 19 years of age when she gave birth to barack in kenya. his mother was only 18. that's the reason for the hawaiian birth certificate. 3 siblings claim he was born in kenya and his grandmother. his sister claims he was born in one honolulu hospital while barak claims he was born in the other. you should review the law before kneejerking. FACT -- OBAMA HAS YET TO PRODUCE IN COURT A REAL HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO COMPLETELY ASSURE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT HE IS A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. the fake was withdrawn from his website. there are sufficient grounds for questioning his credibility. the burden of proof in berg and the other two ballot inclusion cases is on barack. he has failed to meet the burden of proof. you don't know the legal criteria for natural born citizenship and are just flailing. the move to censor on edebate goes well with the media blackout of the court cases and rings a strange bell with practices of the obama campaign with regards to internal dissent. apparently, many anti-obama websites have been periodically shut down. ________________________________ > From: MWBRYANT at aol.com > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:16:48 -0400 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > 1. Is this is the best anti-Obama argument you can produce?! > > 2. His mother was clearly a US citizen. > > 3. The location of his birth (Hawaii!) is not really the question. If his mother was a US citizen, Obama would be a US citizen even if he was born in Moscow. > > 4. Why is this on eDebate? > > 5. More importantly, what is your real motive? No one buys for one second that you're just a concerned patriot... > > And I'll sign my name. Bet you won't. > > BTW, why do you think MCCain/Palin both refuse to release their medical records? > > Michael Bryant > > > > ________________________________ > New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! _________________________________________________________________ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 From uwgdebate at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 21:35:46 2008 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:35:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] UT-Tyler job update Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70810201935y708181cama07fd8568e4bc8f8@mail.gmail.com> thanks to all for the quick responses. if you have emailed me expressing interest, i'm passing your names and emails along to my friend. when she gives me the info on the job notice, i'll post it here. hester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/c0ea2694/attachment.htm From dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Mon Oct 20 21:54:15 2008 From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bear may be a little sketchy on the law of citizenship, but YOU don't know much about the burden of proof in civil cases in US Courts. And you still don't sign your name. This sounds like Matt Schiros to me, and not just the politics. dp On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Old Strega wrote: > > it's not my argument. it's a court case. 3 court cases. > > you're wrong to be a natural born citizen, obama's mother must have been 19 years of age when she gave birth to barack in kenya. his mother was only 18. that's the reason for the hawaiian birth certificate. 3 siblings claim he was born in kenya and his grandmother. his sister claims he was born in one honolulu hospital while barak claims he was born in the other. > > you should review the law before kneejerking. > > FACT -- OBAMA HAS YET TO PRODUCE IN COURT A REAL HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO COMPLETELY ASSURE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT HE IS A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. the fake was withdrawn from his website. there are sufficient grounds for questioning his credibility. > > the burden of proof in berg and the other two ballot inclusion cases is on barack. he has failed to meet the burden of proof. you don't know the legal criteria for natural born citizenship and are just flailing. > > the move to censor on edebate goes well with the media blackout of the court cases and rings a strange bell with practices of the obama campaign with regards to internal dissent. apparently, many anti-obama websites have been periodically shut down. > ________________________________ >> From: MWBRYANT at aol.com >> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:16:48 -0400 >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> >> 1. Is this is the best anti-Obama argument you can produce?! >> >> 2. His mother was clearly a US citizen. >> >> 3. The location of his birth (Hawaii!) is not really the question. If his mother was a US citizen, Obama would be a US citizen even if he was born in Moscow. >> >> 4. Why is this on eDebate? >> >> 5. More importantly, what is your real motive? No one buys for one second that you're just a concerned patriot... >> >> And I'll sign my name. Bet you won't. >> >> BTW, why do you think MCCain/Palin both refuse to release their medical records? >> >> Michael Bryant >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 MWBRYANT at aol.com Mon Oct 20 21:55:58 2008 From: MWBRYANT at aol.com (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:55:58 EDT Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? Message-ID: In a message dated 10/20/2008 10:54:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dperkins at fas.harvard.edu writes: This sounds like Matt Schiros to me, and not just the politics. Too late, I've already bet him money that his name is Schiros.... **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/e1ca3589/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Oct 20 22:17:19 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:17:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: it's stroube. i've written many times under oldstrega. time has elapsed which makes it difficult for some people to remember but for the sake of identity i hope i have satisfied you. given that obama's mother was not of age to make him a natural born citizen, what else but a US birth certificate like the hawaiian document which used to be posted on obama's website could substantiate mr. obama as a us citizen? and, if we was born in kenya as 3 of his siblings and his grandmother claim would he not be ineligible for the presidency given that his mother was not of age for natural born citizenship? either obama was born in the US or he was born elsewhere. if he was born elsewhere like kenya, he's not qualified to be president. that's the basis of the berg case against obama and the DNC. the case would be over already if obama had produced a birth certificate instead of filing a motion to dismiss. why did obama not produce a birth certificate and end the controversy out right? because he doesn't need to prove that he was born in hawaii and not kenya to be eligible for president? ---------------------------------------- > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:54:15 -0400 > From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: mwbryant at aol.com; edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? > > Bear may be a little sketchy on the law of citizenship, but YOU don't know > much about the burden of proof in civil cases in US Courts. > > And you still don't sign your name. This sounds like Matt Schiros to me, > and not just the politics. > > dp > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Old Strega wrote: > >> >> it's not my argument. it's a court case. 3 court cases. >> >> you're wrong to be a natural born citizen, obama's mother must have been 19 years of age when she gave birth to barack in kenya. his mother was only 18. that's the reason for the hawaiian birth certificate. 3 siblings claim he was born in kenya and his grandmother. his sister claims he was born in one honolulu hospital while barak claims he was born in the other. >> >> you should review the law before kneejerking. >> >> FACT -- OBAMA HAS YET TO PRODUCE IN COURT A REAL HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO COMPLETELY ASSURE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT HE IS A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. the fake was withdrawn from his website. there are sufficient grounds for questioning his credibility. >> >> the burden of proof in berg and the other two ballot inclusion cases is on barack. he has failed to meet the burden of proof. you don't know the legal criteria for natural born citizenship and are just flailing. >> >> the move to censor on edebate goes well with the media blackout of the court cases and rings a strange bell with practices of the obama campaign with regards to internal dissent. apparently, many anti-obama websites have been periodically shut down. >> ________________________________ >>> From: MWBRYANT at aol.com >>> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:16:48 -0400 >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> >>> 1. Is this is the best anti-Obama argument you can produce?! >>> >>> 2. His mother was clearly a US citizen. >>> >>> 3. The location of his birth (Hawaii!) is not really the question. If his mother was a US citizen, Obama would be a US citizen even if he was born in Moscow. >>> >>> 4. Why is this on eDebate? >>> >>> 5. More importantly, what is your real motive? No one buys for one second that you're just a concerned patriot... >>> >>> And I'll sign my name. Bet you won't. >>> >>> BTW, why do you think MCCain/Palin both refuse to release their medical records? >>> >>> Michael Bryant >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! >> _________________________________________________________________ >> 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 andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 22:17:58 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:17:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0810202017p70a11165s6084217b80475ebb@mail.gmail.com> Always hating on Schiros, I mean sure once he may have been an intense racist, an asshole, and even violent. But his email got edebate working AND his help us don't abort the baby scam was slightly ingenious....and i imagine taught him alot about civil law. On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55 PM, wrote: > In a message dated 10/20/2008 10:54:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > dperkins at fas.harvard.edu writes: > > This sounds like Matt Schiros to me, > and not just the politics. > > Too late, I've already bet him money that his name is Schiros.... > > > > ------------------------------ > New *MapQuest Local* shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, > Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081020/e52aed15/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Oct 20 22:37:31 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:37:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP Message-ID: motion to dismiss was denied and obama was ordered to produce birth certificate. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Oct 20 22:56:16 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:56:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why the media blackout? Message-ID: below, i repeat my opening statement. please, explain this strange phenomenon of mass media negligence which allows obama to continue to hold his position on the ballot and as the frontrunner. there are 3 court cases against obama with regards to his being a natural born citizen and nobody is talking about it. why? because the obama campaign has been successful in defining the terms of its opposition much like the bush administration has done. "i have not turned republican but i'm curious why the court cases against obama and the DNC regarding the "existence" of his birth certificate are not a part of public discussion in the run-up to the election." _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Oct 20 23:01:59 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:01:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] why the media blackout? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It was obviously our fault, debaters and debate coaches got together and extended our amazing media blackout powers across the US in order to help "that one" get elected.....Would that we could, Josh On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > below, i repeat my opening statement. please, explain this strange > phenomenon of mass media negligence which allows obama to continue to hold > his position on the ballot and as the frontrunner. there are 3 court cases > against obama with regards to his being a natural born citizen and nobody is > talking about it. why? because the obama campaign has been successful in > defining the terms of its opposition much like the bush administration has > done. > > "i have not turned republican but i'm curious why the court cases against > obama and the DNC regarding the "existence" of his birth certificate are not > a part of public discussion in the run-up to the election." > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/7b83d37b/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Oct 20 23:05:25 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:05:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why the media blackout? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: poor sarcasm. obviously, obama's citizenship doesn't matter and the tournament schedule is more important. ________________________________ > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:01:59 -0400 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] why the media blackout? > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > It was obviously our fault, debaters and debate coaches got together and extended our amazing media blackout powers across the US in order to help "that one" get elected.....Would that we could, > > Josh > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > below, i repeat my opening statement. please, explain this strange phenomenon of mass media negligence which allows obama to continue to hold his position on the ballot and as the frontrunner. there are 3 court cases against obama with regards to his being a natural born citizen and nobody is talking about it. why? because the obama campaign has been successful in defining the terms of its opposition much like the bush administration has done. > > "i have not turned republican but i'm curious why the court cases against obama and the DNC regarding the "existence" of his birth certificate are not a part of public discussion in the run-up to the election." > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 23:07:19 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:07:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] why the media blackout? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The point was "how the hell should we know" Jack (if this is Jack). Josh On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > poor sarcasm. obviously, obama's citizenship doesn't matter and the > tournament schedule is more important. > ________________________________ > > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:01:59 -0400 > > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] why the media blackout? > > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > > > It was obviously our fault, debaters and debate coaches got together and > extended our amazing media blackout powers across the US in order to help > "that one" get elected.....Would that we could, > > > > Josh > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > > > below, i repeat my opening statement. please, explain this strange > phenomenon of mass media negligence which allows obama to continue to hold > his position on the ballot and as the frontrunner. there are 3 court cases > against obama with regards to his being a natural born citizen and nobody is > talking about it. why? because the obama campaign has been successful in > defining the terms of its opposition much like the bush administration has > done. > > > > "i have not turned republican but i'm curious why the court cases against > obama and the DNC regarding the "existence" of his birth certificate are not > a part of public discussion in the run-up to the election." > > _________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > _________________________________________________________________ > When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/4579072a/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Oct 20 23:12:41 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:12:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why the media blackout? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: that's not what you're post sounded like. just because you can't answer the question doesn't mean you had to make a stab at belittling the question. many have posited a pro-obama bias in the media dating back to the primaries. what could be a greater bias than avoiding the question that would disqualify obama from the race? yes, jack stroube, the one who has posted as oldstrega many times before.... ________________________________ > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:07:19 -0400 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] why the media blackout? > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > The point was "how the hell should we know" Jack (if this is Jack). > > Josh > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > poor sarcasm. obviously, obama's citizenship doesn't matter and the tournament schedule is more important. > ________________________________ >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:01:59 -0400 >> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] why the media blackout? >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> >> It was obviously our fault, debaters and debate coaches got together and extended our amazing media blackout powers across the US in order to help "that one" get elected.....Would that we could, >> >> Josh >> >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Old Strega wrote: >> >> below, i repeat my opening statement. please, explain this strange phenomenon of mass media negligence which allows obama to continue to hold his position on the ballot and as the frontrunner. there are 3 court cases against obama with regards to his being a natural born citizen and nobody is talking about it. why? because the obama campaign has been successful in defining the terms of its opposition much like the bush administration has done. >> >> "i have not turned republican but i'm curious why the court cases against obama and the DNC regarding the "existence" of his birth certificate are not a part of public discussion in the run-up to the election." >> _________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > _________________________________________________________________ > When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Oct 20 23:21:38 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:21:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] why the media blackout? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nope, Dallas said "why on edebate" I suspect for the same reason, as valid (or invalid) as the question is to voters...unless it was intended as rhetorical - how would anyone here answer it exactly? Josh On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > that's not what you're post sounded like. > > just because you can't answer the question doesn't mean you had to make a > stab at belittling the question. > > many have posited a pro-obama bias in the media dating back to the > primaries. what could be a greater bias than avoiding the question that > would disqualify obama from the race? > > yes, jack stroube, the one who has posted as oldstrega many times > before.... > ________________________________ > > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:07:19 -0400 > > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] why the media blackout? > > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > > > The point was "how the hell should we know" Jack (if this is Jack). > > > > Josh > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > > > poor sarcasm. obviously, obama's citizenship doesn't matter and the > tournament schedule is more important. > > ________________________________ > >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:01:59 -0400 > >> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] why the media blackout? > >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > >> > >> It was obviously our fault, debaters and debate coaches got together and > extended our amazing media blackout powers across the US in order to help > "that one" get elected.....Would that we could, > >> > >> Josh > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Old Strega wrote: > >> > >> below, i repeat my opening statement. please, explain this strange > phenomenon of mass media negligence which allows obama to continue to hold > his position on the ballot and as the frontrunner. there are 3 court cases > against obama with regards to his being a natural born citizen and nobody is > talking about it. why? because the obama campaign has been successful in > defining the terms of its opposition much like the bush administration has > done. > >> > >> "i have not turned republican but i'm curious why the court cases > against obama and the DNC regarding the "existence" of his birth certificate > are not a part of public discussion in the run-up to the election." > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > _________________________________________________________________ > > When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/20081021/53711b0a/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Oct 20 23:33:45 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 23:33:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why the media blackout? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bear, not dallas, said "why on edebate?" dallas granted bear's sketchy understanding of requirements but challenged my understanding of BOP. nowhere did dallas question the forum. perhaps, he will join the police force soon enough given that the judge in the berg case disagrees with his understanding of BOP which would invite suspicion as to motive. why not edebate? edebate is a free speech list-serv that does not censor as long as certain bare minimum rules of identity are met. again, reversing the sarcasm, because everything you always talk about on edebate is more important than the court cases against obama and the media blackout of those court cases. you did and do have the option not to police the questioning of obama's citizenship. if the obama campaign is successful in controlling discussion of his birth certificate in most forums, why should the debate community replicate? apparently, many sites that discuss his place of birth get shut down. perhaps, edebate is one place where this discussion could be fruitful. why would further discussion of this issue be bad for edebate other than injuring ultra-super machine efficiency of technological robotic debate forever the same and predictable? ________________________________ > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:21:38 -0400 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] why the media blackout? > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Nope, > > Dallas said "why on edebate" I suspect for the same reason, as valid (or invalid) as the question is to voters...unless it was intended as rhetorical - how would anyone here answer it exactly? > > Josh > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > that's not what you're post sounded like. > > just because you can't answer the question doesn't mean you had to make a stab at belittling the question. > > many have posited a pro-obama bias in the media dating back to the primaries. what could be a greater bias than avoiding the question that would disqualify obama from the race? > > yes, jack stroube, the one who has posted as oldstrega many times before.... > ________________________________ >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:07:19 -0400 >> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] why the media blackout? >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> >> The point was "how the hell should we know" Jack (if this is Jack). >> >> Josh >> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:05 AM, Old Strega wrote: >> >> poor sarcasm. obviously, obama's citizenship doesn't matter and the tournament schedule is more important. >> ________________________________ >>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:01:59 -0400 >>> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] why the media blackout? >>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> >>> It was obviously our fault, debaters and debate coaches got together and extended our amazing media blackout powers across the US in order to help "that one" get elected.....Would that we could, >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Old Strega wrote: >>> >>> below, i repeat my opening statement. please, explain this strange phenomenon of mass media negligence which allows obama to continue to hold his position on the ballot and as the frontrunner. there are 3 court cases against obama with regards to his being a natural born citizen and nobody is talking about it. why? because the obama campaign has been successful in defining the terms of its opposition much like the bush administration has done. >>> >>> "i have not turned republican but i'm curious why the court cases against obama and the DNC regarding the "existence" of his birth certificate are not a part of public discussion in the run-up to the election." >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> _________________________________________________________________ >> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ > _________________________________________________________________ > You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 lacyjp at wfu.edu Mon Oct 20 23:47:15 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:47:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FD5ED3.5090902@wfu.edu> Uh, no. That document was submitted by Berg. It was not a ruling by the court. Read the citation. If you think the document you cited is genuine, here is an equally credible filing dismissing the entire complaint. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/20/ -ps Actual court ruling http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/4/ Old Strega wrote: > motion to dismiss was denied and obama was ordered to produce birth certificate. > > http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/ > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 runlittleman at gmail.com Mon Oct 20 23:51:39 2008 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:51:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <886dd32a0810202151y17c8281fh8b67c5d710b68f35@mail.gmail.com> Actually, thats just the legal filing which sometimes contains the "pre-written" order for the judge to sign. Notice on the first page of that document the date hasn't been filed in and nothing had been signed. Here is a link to a statement by berg which assumes his filing of that breif. http://obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/27-alert-contrary-to-internet-rumor-there-has-not-yet-been-a-court-ruling-on-obama-dnc-motion-to-dismiss . On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > motion to dismiss was denied and obama was ordered to produce birth certificate. > > http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/ > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 00:02:41 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:02:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP In-Reply-To: <48FD5ED3.5090902@wfu.edu> References: <48FD5ED3.5090902@wfu.edu> Message-ID: granted the judge has not disagreed with dallas on BOP. mistaken internet search. however, the denial of the restraining order which you cite in the p.s. does not dismiss the case which is still alive. the judge has not ruled. if he does dismiss, the case will be appealed to a higher court. the question to you personally: if obama continues to refuse to produce a birth certificate in the case, do you feel his citizenship is credible? berg is leveraging the idea that obama could easily dispel all questions by submitting a real birth certificate. what does obama stand to gain by not submitting a birth certificate and continuing with motions to dismiss especially given the likelihood of appeal? if hillary and palin have to produce tax returns for public accountability why does obama not have to produce a birth certificate in a court case? ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:47:15 -0400 > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP > > > Uh, no. That document was submitted by Berg. It was not a ruling by the > court. Read the citation. > > If you think the document you cited is genuine, here is an equally > credible filing dismissing the entire complaint. > > http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/20/ > > > > > > -ps > > Actual court ruling > http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/4/ > > > > > > > > > > Old Strega wrote: >> motion to dismiss was denied and obama was ordered to produce birth certificate. >> >> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/ >> _________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 From lacyjp at wfu.edu Tue Oct 21 00:26:05 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:26:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP In-Reply-To: References: <48FD5ED3.5090902@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <48FD67ED.5090602@wfu.edu> He produced a real birth certificate. http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html ps -- You're right. Berg's initial complaint filed prior to the DNC was dismissed. His further complaints (which do not contain new arguments) have not been ruled on. pps -- Why is it Obama's interest to let this fester? Because it plays into his hands even more than the Ayers "allegations." "Ain't got no birth certificate on me now." Old Strega wrote: > granted the judge has not disagreed with dallas on BOP. mistaken internet search. > > however, the denial of the restraining order which you cite in the p.s. does not dismiss the case which is still alive. > > the judge has not ruled. if he does dismiss, the case will be appealed to a higher court. > > the question to you personally: if obama continues to refuse to produce a birth certificate in the case, do you feel his citizenship is credible? > > berg is leveraging the idea that obama could easily dispel all questions by submitting a real birth certificate. what does obama stand to gain by not submitting a birth certificate and continuing with motions to dismiss especially given the likelihood of appeal? > > if hillary and palin have to produce tax returns for public accountability why does obama not have to produce a birth certificate in a court case? > ---------------------------------------- > >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:47:15 -0400 >> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP >> >> >> Uh, no. That document was submitted by Berg. It was not a ruling by the >> court. Read the citation. >> >> If you think the document you cited is genuine, here is an equally >> credible filing dismissing the entire complaint. >> >> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/20/ >> >> >> >> >> >> -ps >> >> Actual court ruling >> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/4/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Old Strega wrote: >> >>> motion to dismiss was denied and obama was ordered to produce birth certificate. >>> >>> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/ >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> > _________________________________________________________________ > Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. > http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 > > > From shahall at comcast.net Tue Oct 21 07:01:18 2008 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:01:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Tournament Menu Message-ID: <027a01c93374$baeac220$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> Howdy: I am excited to announce that I am seeking to eliminate nearly all of the Harvard College Tournament subsidy for CAFOs by securing non-CAFO produced animal products for the food for the tournament this year. I have made changes in my personal eating choices in response to this topic's spotlight on the plight of factory-farmed animals in this country. I was struggling with what to do about the vast amounts of products I purchase for the Harvard tournament. A couple of weeks ago I began investigating alternatives and was happy to find that affordable, locally produced, humanely-raised products are available. I will have information about these local farmers available at the tournament and would be happy to communicate with anyone who is interested in how to find humanely raised, non-CAFO alternatives. 2008 Harvard Debate Tournament Menu Saturday November 1, 2008 Breakfast: Bagels, Lox, Cream Cheese, Assorted Breakfast Pastries, Carrot-Pinon Chile Bread, Pumpkin Bread, Fresh Fruit, Juice & Coffee Lunch: The Starter Table: Salsa Bar: Guacamole; Roasted Garlic and Tomato Salsa; Grilled Pineapple Salsa; Chipotle-Peach Salsa; Salsa Verde; Cranberry-Habanero Relish Ceviche Bar: Halibut with Lemon & Coriander Oil; Salmon with Mustard & Scallions; Mussels on the Half Shell with Roasted Red Pepper; Smoky Maine Shrimp with Tangerine Chili Bar: Aunt Vicky's Award Winning Texas Chili con Carne; Turkey Chicken Verde; Vegetarian Chili The Big Enchilada: New Mexico Style Cheese Enchiladas with home-made Red Chile Sauce; Chicken, Grilled Poblano Pepper and Sour Cream Enchiladas; Pumpkin and Roasted Veggies Vegan Enchiladas; Chile Rellenos stuffed with Goat Cheese & Queso Blanco; Green Chile Polenta with Three Cheeses; Spanish Rice & Refried Beans Sweets: (All made from scratch) Oatmeal Cookies, Fudge, Texas Apple Cake Sunday November 2, 2008 Breakfast: Breakfast Tacos: Egg, Cheese & Chorizo; Egg, Cheese & Potato; Grilled Vegetables & Potato Muffins, Fruit, Juices and Coffee Lunch: Salads: Green Bean & Roasted Hazelnut Salad; Grilled Corn with Jalapeno Vinaigrette; Moroccan Carrot Salad; Malaysian Cole Slaw with Grilled Pineapple; Jicama & Orange Salad; Red-Hot Potato Salad; Chilly Chile Lentil Salad; Chickpea, Hazelnut & Pepper Salad; Black-Eyed Pea and Cilantro Salad Sandwiches: Hummus Roll-Ups - with or without Roasted Swordfish; Assorted Sessa's Italian Deli Sandwiches Desserts: Rum Balls, Bread Pudding Champagne Reception (At the Sheraton): Starters: New Mexico Pumpkin Seed Dip, Chipotle Hummus, Spicy Feta-Cheese Dip, Hummus, Baba Ghanouj, with Pita Chips; Smoked-Salmon Roulades; Assorted New England Cheeses; Vegetable Crudite; Main Course: Smoked Salmon with Sour Cream Dill Sauce; Carving Station with Turkey; Chicken Parmesan; Pasta Station with Marinara and Al Fredo Sauce; Grilled Vegetables; Rolls Desserts: Cookies and Fruit. Complementary glass of champagne for participants of legal age, must provide identification. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/5c733464/attachment.htm From jeremyjbowers at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 07:14:41 2008 From: jeremyjbowers at gmail.com (Jeremy Bowers) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:14:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1beb531d0810210514j1570a946rf5f2b9a2b8aeb5f1@mail.gmail.com> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > it's stroube. i've written many times under oldstrega. time has elapsed which makes it difficult for some people to remember but for the sake of identity i hope i have satisfied you. > > given that obama's mother was not of age to make him a natural born citizen, > what else but a US birth certificate like the hawaiian document which used to be posted on obama's website could substantiate mr. obama as a us citizen? > > and, if we was born in kenya as 3 of his siblings and his grandmother claim would he not be ineligible for the presidency given that his mother was not of age for natural born citizenship? > > either obama was born in the US or he was born elsewhere. if he was born elsewhere like kenya, he's not qualified to be president. that's the basis of the berg case against obama and the DNC. the case would be over already if obama had produced a birth certificate instead of filing a motion to dismiss. why did obama not produce a birth certificate and end the controversy out right? because he doesn't need to prove that he was born in hawaii and not kenya to be eligible for president? > > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:54:15 -0400 >> From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> CC: mwbryant at aol.com; edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? >> >> Bear may be a little sketchy on the law of citizenship, but YOU don't know >> much about the burden of proof in civil cases in US Courts. >> >> And you still don't sign your name. This sounds like Matt Schiros to me, >> and not just the politics. >> >> dp >> >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Old Strega wrote: >> >>> >>> it's not my argument. it's a court case. 3 court cases. >>> >>> you're wrong to be a natural born citizen, obama's mother must have been 19 years of age when she gave birth to barack in kenya. his mother was only 18. that's the reason for the hawaiian birth certificate. 3 siblings claim he was born in kenya and his grandmother. his sister claims he was born in one honolulu hospital while barak claims he was born in the other. >>> >>> you should review the law before kneejerking. >>> >>> FACT -- OBAMA HAS YET TO PRODUCE IN COURT A REAL HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO COMPLETELY ASSURE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT HE IS A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. the fake was withdrawn from his website. there are sufficient grounds for questioning his credibility. >>> >>> the burden of proof in berg and the other two ballot inclusion cases is on barack. he has failed to meet the burden of proof. you don't know the legal criteria for natural born citizenship and are just flailing. >>> >>> the move to censor on edebate goes well with the media blackout of the court cases and rings a strange bell with practices of the obama campaign with regards to internal dissent. apparently, many anti-obama websites have been periodically shut down. >>> ________________________________ >>>> From: MWBRYANT at aol.com >>>> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:16:48 -0400 >>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? >>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>> >>>> 1. Is this is the best anti-Obama argument you can produce?! >>>> >>>> 2. His mother was clearly a US citizen. >>>> >>>> 3. The location of his birth (Hawaii!) is not really the question. If his mother was a US citizen, Obama would be a US citizen even if he was born in Moscow. >>>> >>>> 4. Why is this on eDebate? >>>> >>>> 5. More importantly, what is your real motive? No one buys for one second that you're just a concerned patriot... >>>> >>>> And I'll sign my name. Bet you won't. >>>> >>>> BTW, why do you think MCCain/Palin both refuse to release their medical records? >>>> >>>> Michael Bryant >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 > -- Jeremy Bowers http://jeremybowers.com 727-667-0510 From scottelliott at grandecom.net Tue Oct 21 08:15:49 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:15:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard Tournament Menu Message-ID: <1224594949.48fdd6054ac9c@webmail.grandecom.net> Looks like you may now be contributing to overfishing. From jahitch1 at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 09:19:34 2008 From: jahitch1 at gmail.com (jason hitchcock) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:19:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Presentation information for Architecture Debate Club Message-ID: <615869e10810210719i56dfb99ct30f734305deb7a1c@mail.gmail.com> Hey community, long time no speak. Its me Jason Hitchcock I use to debate at Vermont. I am no longer directly involved in debate, but i am trying to spread the power of debate into different academic disciplines. I am now a graduate student in Architecture at the University of Tennessee. I would like to start a debate club that promotes a synthesis of verbal and visual communication. The students here can make beautiful arguments with their drawings but fail to verbally communicate them. Creating a debate club would not only help them learn to verbally communicate, but also critically engage in theoretical and practical issues concerning architecture. What i am looking for is powerpoint presentations or other presentation tools that would help me 'sell' this debate club to the students. Also if people have possible topics that you think would apply to Architecture (which is everything), i would greatly appreciate non-architecture people's input. Thanks much, Jason Hitchcock P.S. I miss seeing all your ugly faces at debate tournaments and the crazy antics we got into. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/c37c8be4/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 09:39:33 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:39:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP In-Reply-To: <48FD67ED.5090602@wfu.edu> References: <48FD5ED3.5090902@wfu.edu> <48FD67ED.5090602@wfu.edu> Message-ID: the birth certificate has NOT NOT NOT been produced in court in the berg case or the washington case or the hawaii case. the question is why? allowing the allegations to fester makes no sense given that unlike the ayers affiliation, a phony birth certificate would disqualify obama AND that if the motion to dismiss is granted berg will appeal to a higher court. what interest does obama have in having the case heard in the third circuit or the supreme court, if he could otherwise dismiss the allegations altogether with your factcheck/fight the smears phony? if this is NOT NOT NOT on par with the ayers allegations, because the ayers allegations are front and center in the media. no one has touched the berg case in the mainstream media. actually, the idea of festering allegations is inaccurate here because the obama camp has successfully blocked media coverage consistent with their rumor that the case was dismissed. the forgery analysis which competes with factcheck.org is here. of course, it's cast as a conspiracy theory by the obama propaganda team despite the possibility that similar analysis may be the actual reason the birth certificate has not been produced in court: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html grant the restraining on the order on the convention was not allowed but lacy must show evidence that the case has been dismissed and that he is not participating in the obama camps propaganda campaign to shuck the allegations: http://obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/27-alert-contrary-to-internet-rumor-there-has-not-yet-been-a-court-ruling-on-obama-dnc-motion-to-dismiss I received a phone call from Phil J. Berg a few minutes ago. He informed me that a rumor is circulating on the Internet that the Court has ruled on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee in the Berg v. Obama case. Some of the visitors to this website have posted comments claiming the Court has ruled. The comments on this site were written by visitors to the site. On Mr. Berg's behalf, I am posting this to state clearly the Court has not yet ruled on the Motion to Dismiss in Berg v. Obama. Here's the status: Last week Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss the Berg v. Obama lawsuit. On Monday, Mr. Berg filed an answer requesting that the suit not be dismissed and that the Court order production of documents proving Senator Obama's consitutional qualifications to serve as President of The United States. As of 1 AM EST today, October 2nd, 2008, the Court has not ruled on the Motion for Dismissal in Berg v. Obama. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:26: 05 -0400 > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP > > He produced a real birth certificate. > > http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate > http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html > > ps -- You're right. Berg's initial complaint filed prior to the DNC was > dismissed. His further complaints (which do not contain new arguments) > have not been ruled on. > > pps -- Why is it Obama's interest to let this fester? Because it plays > into his hands even more than the Ayers "allegations." > > > "Ain't got no birth certificate on me now." > > > Old Strega wrote: >> granted the judge has not disagreed with dallas on BOP. mistaken internet search. >> >> however, the denial of the restraining order which you cite in the p.s. does not dismiss the case which is still alive. >> >> the judge has not ruled. if he does dismiss, the case will be appealed to a higher court. >> >> the question to you personally: if obama continues to refuse to produce a birth certificate in the case, do you feel his citizenship is credible? >> >> berg is leveraging the idea that obama could easily dispel all questions by submitting a real birth certificate. what does obama stand to gain by not submitting a birth certificate and continuing with motions to dismiss especially given the likelihood of appeal? >> >> if hillary and palin have to produce tax returns for public accountability why does obama not have to produce a birth certificate in a court case? >> ---------------------------------------- >> >>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:47:15 -0400 >>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP >>> >>> >>> Uh, no. That document was submitted by Berg. It was not a ruling by the >>> court. Read the citation. >>> >>> If you think the document you cited is genuine, here is an equally >>> credible filing dismissing the entire complaint. >>> >>> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/20/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -ps >>> >>> Actual court ruling >>> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/4/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Old Strega wrote: >>> >>>> motion to dismiss was denied and obama was ordered to produce birth certificate. >>>> >>>> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/ >>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. >> http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________ 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 razianwillis at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 09:39:47 2008 From: razianwillis at hotmail.com (Mariam Willis) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:39:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? In-Reply-To: <1beb531d0810210514j1570a946rf5f2b9a2b8aeb5f1@mail.gmail.com> References: <1beb531d0810210514j1570a946rf5f2b9a2b8aeb5f1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Jeremy. :-) Mariam Razian Willis 828-719-7706 828-262-7527 (office) > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:14:41 -0400 > From: jeremyjbowers at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? > > http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > > > it's stroube. i've written many times under oldstrega. time has elapsed which makes it difficult for some people to remember but for the sake of identity i hope i have satisfied you. > > > > given that obama's mother was not of age to make him a natural born citizen, > > what else but a US birth certificate like the hawaiian document which used to be posted on obama's website could substantiate mr. obama as a us citizen? > > > > and, if we was born in kenya as 3 of his siblings and his grandmother claim would he not be ineligible for the presidency given that his mother was not of age for natural born citizenship? > > > > either obama was born in the US or he was born elsewhere. if he was born elsewhere like kenya, he's not qualified to be president. that's the basis of the berg case against obama and the DNC. the case would be over already if obama had produced a birth certificate instead of filing a motion to dismiss. why did obama not produce a birth certificate and end the controversy out right? because he doesn't need to prove that he was born in hawaii and not kenya to be eligible for president? > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > >> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:54:15 -0400 > >> From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu > >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >> CC: mwbryant at aol.com; edebate at ndtceda.com > >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? > >> > >> Bear may be a little sketchy on the law of citizenship, but YOU don't know > >> much about the burden of proof in civil cases in US Courts. > >> > >> And you still don't sign your name. This sounds like Matt Schiros to me, > >> and not just the politics. > >> > >> dp > >> > >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Old Strega wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> it's not my argument. it's a court case. 3 court cases. > >>> > >>> you're wrong to be a natural born citizen, obama's mother must have been 19 years of age when she gave birth to barack in kenya. his mother was only 18. that's the reason for the hawaiian birth certificate. 3 siblings claim he was born in kenya and his grandmother. his sister claims he was born in one honolulu hospital while barak claims he was born in the other. > >>> > >>> you should review the law before kneejerking. > >>> > >>> FACT -- OBAMA HAS YET TO PRODUCE IN COURT A REAL HAWAIIAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO COMPLETELY ASSURE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT HE IS A NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN. the fake was withdrawn from his website. there are sufficient grounds for questioning his credibility. > >>> > >>> the burden of proof in berg and the other two ballot inclusion cases is on barack. he has failed to meet the burden of proof. you don't know the legal criteria for natural born citizenship and are just flailing. > >>> > >>> the move to censor on edebate goes well with the media blackout of the court cases and rings a strange bell with practices of the obama campaign with regards to internal dissent. apparently, many anti-obama websites have been periodically shut down. > >>> ________________________________ > >>>> From: MWBRYANT at aol.com > >>>> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:16:48 -0400 > >>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? > >>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > >>>> > >>>> 1. Is this is the best anti-Obama argument you can produce?! > >>>> > >>>> 2. His mother was clearly a US citizen. > >>>> > >>>> 3. The location of his birth (Hawaii!) is not really the question. If his mother was a US citizen, Obama would be a US citizen even if he was born in Moscow. > >>>> > >>>> 4. Why is this on eDebate? > >>>> > >>>> 5. More importantly, what is your real motive? No one buys for one second that you're just a concerned patriot... > >>>> > >>>> And I'll sign my name. Bet you won't. > >>>> > >>>> BTW, why do you think MCCain/Palin both refuse to release their medical records? > >>>> > >>>> Michael Bryant > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ________________________________ > >>>> New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! > >>> _________________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > > > -- > Jeremy Bowers > http://jeremybowers.com > 727-667-0510 > _______________________________________________ > 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/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/9bb51909/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 09:55:25 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:55:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis Message-ID: http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm the key quote: Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ From logan.martin at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 10:02:07 2008 From: logan.martin at gmail.com (Logan Martin) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:02:07 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The brilliance of Berg Message-ID: Debaters who go on to pursue careers in law could learn from Berg's example... http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0830P.pdf "Mr. Berg's conduct is the reason Rule 11 sanctions were implemented. Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg's actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession." I'm sure in the present suit he'll have more success... Logan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/88c3a54f/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 10:07:35 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:07:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate School and Coaching 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 _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/c97e7080/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Tue Oct 21 10:18:10 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (lacyjp) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:18:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FDF2B2.7000202@wfu.edu> Thats why he's visiting his "sick" grandmother in Hawaii. Its a cover to go and "fix" his birth certificate problems. On 10/21/2008 10:55 AM, Old Strega wrote: > http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm > > the key quote: > > Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. > > But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. > > But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. > > Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? > > The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > From jeremyjbowers at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 10:22:18 2008 From: jeremyjbowers at gmail.com (Jeremy Bowers) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:22:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP In-Reply-To: References: <48FD5ED3.5090902@wfu.edu> <48FD67ED.5090602@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <1beb531d0810210822g4979a6a0l9ce707a664ccc096@mail.gmail.com> Not to be difficult about this, but I work for a newspaper which wrote a story about the Obama birth certificate nonsense. Our reporter spoke with Janice Okubo, spokesman for the Hawaii Department of Health on June 25, 2008. She sent us a copy of Barack Obama's Hawaii birth certificate. It is not a forgery. It is not a photoshopped image. You can see our scanned version on our Web site, PolitiFact, here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ Amy Hollyfield is the reporter who did the research. You can see her information here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/staff/amy-hollyfield/ And in case you're wondering, I work for the St. Petersburg Times. We're owned by a non-profit organization. Our fact-checking site is a joint project between the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly. Our statement about the site is here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/about/ On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > the birth certificate has NOT NOT NOT been produced in court in the berg case or the washington case or the hawaii case. the question is why? allowing the allegations to fester makes no sense given that unlike the ayers affiliation, a phony birth certificate would disqualify obama AND that if the motion to dismiss is granted berg will appeal to a higher court. what interest does obama have in having the case heard in the third circuit or the supreme court, if he could otherwise dismiss the allegations altogether with your factcheck/fight the smears phony? > > if this is NOT NOT NOT on par with the ayers allegations, because the ayers allegations are front and center in the media. no one has touched the berg case in the mainstream media. actually, the idea of festering allegations is inaccurate here because the obama camp has successfully blocked media coverage consistent with their rumor that the case was dismissed. > > the forgery analysis which competes with factcheck.org is here. of course, it's cast as a conspiracy theory by the obama propaganda team despite the possibility that similar analysis may be the actual reason the birth certificate has not been produced in court: > > http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html > > grant the restraining on the order on the convention was not allowed but lacy must show evidence that the case has been dismissed and that he is not participating in the obama camps propaganda campaign to shuck the allegations: > > http://obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/27-alert-contrary-to-internet-rumor-there-has-not-yet-been-a-court-ruling-on-obama-dnc-motion-to-dismiss > > I received a phone call from Phil J. Berg a few minutes ago. He informed me that a rumor is circulating on the Internet that the Court has ruled on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee in the Berg v. Obama case. Some of the visitors to this website have posted comments claiming the Court has ruled. The comments on this site were written by visitors to the site. > > On Mr. Berg's behalf, I am posting this to state clearly the Court has not yet ruled on the Motion to Dismiss in Berg v. Obama. > > Here's the status: > > Last week Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss the Berg v. Obama lawsuit. > On Monday, Mr. Berg filed an answer requesting that the suit not be dismissed and that the Court order production of documents proving Senator Obama's consitutional qualifications to serve as President of The United States. > As of 1 AM EST today, October 2nd, 2008, the Court has not ruled on the Motion for Dismissal in Berg v. Obama. > > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 01:26: > > 05 -0400 >> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP >> >> He produced a real birth certificate. >> >> http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate >> http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html >> >> ps -- You're right. Berg's initial complaint filed prior to the DNC was >> dismissed. His further complaints (which do not contain new arguments) >> have not been ruled on. >> >> pps -- Why is it Obama's interest to let this fester? Because it plays >> into his hands even more than the Ayers "allegations." >> >> >> "Ain't got no birth certificate on me now." >> >> >> Old Strega wrote: >>> granted the judge has not disagreed with dallas on BOP. mistaken internet search. >>> >>> however, the denial of the restraining order which you cite in the p.s. does not dismiss the case which is still alive. >>> >>> the judge has not ruled. if he does dismiss, the case will be appealed to a higher court. >>> >>> the question to you personally: if obama continues to refuse to produce a birth certificate in the case, do you feel his citizenship is credible? >>> >>> berg is leveraging the idea that obama could easily dispel all questions by submitting a real birth certificate. what does obama stand to gain by not submitting a birth certificate and continuing with motions to dismiss especially given the likelihood of appeal? >>> >>> if hillary and palin have to produce tax returns for public accountability why does obama not have to produce a birth certificate in a court case? >>> ---------------------------------------- >>> >>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:47:15 -0400 >>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] judge disagreed with dallas on BOP >>>> >>>> >>>> Uh, no. That document was submitted by Berg. It was not a ruling by the >>>> court. Read the citation. >>>> >>>> If you think the document you cited is genuine, here is an equally >>>> credible filing dismissing the entire complaint. >>>> >>>> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/20/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -ps >>>> >>>> Actual court ruling >>>> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/4/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>> >>>>> motion to dismiss was denied and obama was ordered to produce birth certificate. >>>>> >>>>> http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/13/ >>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. >>> http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 >>> >>> >>> >> > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Jeremy Bowers http://jeremybowers.com 727-667-0510 From smithr at wfu.edu Tue Oct 21 10:35:21 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:35:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wake invitation Message-ID: <48FDF6B9.60204@wfu.edu> Must have been lost in black hole period of edebate . . . Shirley 2008 invite Intercollegiate policy debate programs are invited to enter two teams in the 2008 Franklin R. Shirley Classic, November 15-17, 2008, hosted by Wake Forest University. Schools may enter more than two teams subject to the conditions listed below. NEW THIS YEAR (see relevant sections below for details): 1) 6 prelims. 4 prelims Saturday; 2 prelims, first elim and banquet Sunday; last 4 elims Monday. Rooms for community discussion on topics of interest will be made available during first elim. 2) Frosh/soph (any team where both partners have not completed two full years of college debate) breakout ? clearing at least to quarters. 3) Strict time limits for judge decisions in elims as well as prelims, and time allotted for post round. 4) Clarification of electronic recording rules. SAME AS BEFORE: 1) Friendly and efficient. 2) Entry process and qualifications. 3) Hospitality. 4) Scouting. ENTRIES: Entries of two teams per school will be accepted until midnight October 22 on a first come, first served basis until we have reached our 150 team limit (this limit is necessary due to classroom and other facility limitations). Schools may apply for more teams by adding them to the waitlist subject to the following: As space permits, we will take additional teams, up to a total of four teams per school, as long as ALL THREE OR FOUR teams have cleared to elims in TWO varsity tournaments this fall. If both debaters on the team EITHER cleared twice this fall OR qualified for NDT in the past OR reached elimination rounds at CEDA Nationals in the past, the team is considered to have met the "cleared twice" requirement. No fourth team from a school will be accepted until all eligible third teams from other schools have been accepted. Waivers of the entry rules may be granted at the discretion of the WFU coaching staff. JUDGING (note, there are some new wrinkles here): 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. If you are hiring judging from outside of your school?s staff/alumni, and the tournament cannot place your judges into the required number of rounds, the tournament reserves the right to: 1) adjust the judging obligations of your other judges (adding rounds of commitment to those of your judges who are easier to place), and/or 2) charge your school $30.00 per round of unmet obligation. As a normative rule, all coaches are expected to make themselves available for at least some judging and will be on the pref sheet. Prelim rounds must be decided within two hours and forty-five minutes of the posted start time of the debate. The tab room will flip a coin to determine the winner when the judge cannot decide in time. Elim rounds must be decided within three hours of the posted/announced start time of the debate. The tab room will flip a coin to determine the winner when the judge cannot decide in time. Judges must vote for one and only one team in each debate and must assign speaker points and ranks in prelim rounds Fifteen minutes minimum will be allocated to post round discussion of the decision, but we must ask that the post-round cease 15 minutes after the decision deadline so debaters can move on to their next debate with adequate and fair time. SPEAKER POINTS: A 100 point scale will be used as last year. We?ll share a graph showing the distribution of points from last year. CASELIST and SCOUTING Participating teams and schools are expected to contribute to http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/ and should provide their most recent affirmative and negative information by the Tuesday before the tournament at latest. Teams and schools should cooperate with Wake Forest students and staff assigned to gather the material. AUDIO and VIDEO RECORDING All rounds (defined as the speeches and judge critiques) are open to the public and may be electronically recorded for private educational use by any tournament participants (registered coaches, debaters and helpers, and Wake Forest 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 Wake Forest University is obtained. Private sharing for educational use is permitted. TABULATION and PAIRING STUFF We will use an ordinal MPJ system run on STA. Rounds one and two preset. The other 4 prelims individually power paired hi-low within brackets. Top 32 teams clear on basis of adjusted points, opp wins, total points, twice adjusted points, ranks, random number. Brackets broken in elims. Side equalization procedure used for elims. "JV BREAKOUT" (NAME TENTATIVE) At least 20% of all teams comprised of two debaters both of whom are still in their first or second year of debate who do not clear into the doubles will clear into the Sophfrosh (name tentative) breakout. Clears at least to 8 teams. FEES: Tournament fees are $60.00 per person (debaters, coaches, judges, scouts). TOURNAMENT HOTEL: The Sundance, 3050 University Parkway, Winston-Salem, NC 27105 (336-723-2911) Flat rate: 82.99 per room per night plus taxes and fees Includes wireless internet (they have increased their capacity), parking, and continental breakfast daily. All elims will be held here. Special needs or problems re hotel? Sales contact there is Sheila Small, shefaysmall at yahoo.com We will post other info on backup lodging in the near future. RENTAL VANS For vans of all sizes, ask for the Wake Forest Debate rate at Triangle, http://www.trianglerentacar.com/ HOSPITALITY Krispy Kreme, coffee, juice, bagels in the mornings. Water, sodas, aspirin, snacks throughout. Lunch on Saturday and Sunday. Banquet Sunday night, plus the usual Survivors Party? on Monday night after the start of the final round. CONDUCT: All participants debate at the invitation of Wake Forest University according to its tournament rules as well as any rules of their sponsoring institutions. We abide by all rules and norms of CEDA and the AFA, including but not limited to CEDA's sexual harassment policy. SCHEDULE: Friday, November 14 Registration 6-9 pm; airings, rounds 1 and 2 released at 9 pm Saturday, November 15, 2008 8 am ? round 1 start 10:45 am ? round one decision deadline. 11:15 am ? round 2 start 2 pm ? round 2 decision deadline 2:15 ? round 3 (powered) pairings 3 pm ? round 3 start 5:45 ? round 3 decision deadline 6 pm -- round 4 (powered) pairings 6:45 pm ? round 4 start 9:15 pm ? round 4 decision deadline Sunday 8 am ? round 5 (powered) pairings released at hotel, online, and on campus 9 am ? round 5 start 11:45 ? round 5 decision deadline 12:15 ? round 6 (powered) pairings 3 pm ? round 6 decision deadline 3:30 pm ? first elim pairings 4:15 pm -- first elim start 7:15 pm ? first elim decision deadline 7:00 pm ? Banquet begins ? awards including speakers and coach of the year. Monday 8 am -- Octas and 2^nd breakout elim start 11 am ? decision deadline 11:15 ? postround ends by now. Noon: Quarters and 3^rd breakout elim start. 3 pm ? decision deadline 3:15 pm ? postround ends by now. 4 pm: Semis and breakout elim (if necessary) start. 7 pm ? decision deadline 7:15 pm ? postround ends by now. 8 pm: Final round begins 10 pm ? ?Survivors? Party? begins LOOK FOR MORE DETAILS coming soon at http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ -- 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 vikeenan at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 11:31:18 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:31:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard - rounds for sale Message-ID: I've got housing in Boston that weekend, and 6 rounds to sell (best offer), if anyone still needs them. -VIK -- Vik Keenan Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges 212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/07af0a6b/attachment.htm From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 11:34:23 2008 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:34:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Wake invitation In-Reply-To: <48FDF6B9.60204@wfu.edu> References: <48FDF6B9.60204@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <39c09a80810210934g4494b0f1ua3fa45117661319a@mail.gmail.com> and the poker tournament? On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Ross Smith wrote: > Must have been lost in black hole period of edebate . . . > > > Shirley 2008 invite > > Intercollegiate policy debate programs are invited to enter two teams in > the 2008 Franklin R. Shirley Classic, November 15-17, 2008, hosted by > Wake Forest University. Schools may enter more than two teams subject to > the conditions listed below. > > NEW THIS YEAR (see relevant sections below for details): > > 1) 6 prelims. 4 prelims Saturday; 2 prelims, first elim and banquet > Sunday; last 4 elims Monday. Rooms for community discussion on topics of > interest will be made available during first elim. > > 2) Frosh/soph (any team where both partners have not completed two full > years of college debate) breakout ? clearing at least to quarters. > > 3) Strict time limits for judge decisions in elims as well as prelims, > and time allotted for post round. > > 4) Clarification of electronic recording rules. > > SAME AS BEFORE: > > 1) Friendly and efficient. > > 2) Entry process and qualifications. > > 3) Hospitality. > > 4) Scouting. > > ENTRIES: > > Entries of two teams per school will be accepted until midnight October > 22 on a first come, first served basis until we have reached our 150 > team limit (this limit is necessary due to classroom and other facility > limitations). > > Schools may apply for more teams by adding them to the waitlist subject > to the following: > As space permits, we will take additional teams, up to a total of four > teams per school, as long as ALL THREE OR FOUR teams have cleared to > elims in TWO varsity tournaments this fall. If both debaters on the team > EITHER cleared twice this fall OR qualified for NDT in the past OR > reached elimination rounds at CEDA Nationals in the past, the team is > considered to have met the "cleared twice" requirement. No fourth team > from a school will be accepted until all eligible third teams from other > schools have been accepted. > > Waivers of the entry rules may be granted at the discretion of the WFU > coaching staff. > > JUDGING (note, there are some new wrinkles here): > 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. > > If you are hiring judging from outside of your school's staff/alumni, > and the tournament cannot place your judges into the required number of > rounds, the tournament reserves the right to: 1) adjust the judging > obligations of your other judges (adding rounds of commitment to those > of your judges who are easier to place), and/or 2) charge your school > $30.00 per round of unmet obligation. > > As a normative rule, all coaches are expected to make themselves > available for at least some judging and will be on the pref sheet. > > Prelim rounds must be decided within two hours and forty-five minutes of > the posted start time of the debate. The tab room will flip a coin to > determine the winner when the judge cannot decide in time. > > Elim rounds must be decided within three hours of the posted/announced > start time of the debate. The tab room will flip a coin to determine the > winner when the judge cannot decide in time. > > Judges must vote for one and only one team in each debate and must > assign speaker points and ranks in prelim rounds > > Fifteen minutes minimum will be allocated to post round discussion of > the decision, but we must ask that the post-round cease 15 minutes after > the decision deadline so debaters can move on to their next debate with > adequate and fair time. > > SPEAKER POINTS: > A 100 point scale will be used as last year. We'll share a graph showing > the distribution of points from last year. > > > CASELIST and SCOUTING > Participating teams and schools are expected to contribute to > http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/ and should provide their most recent > affirmative and negative information by the Tuesday before the > tournament at latest. Teams and schools should cooperate with Wake > Forest students and staff assigned to gather the material. > > AUDIO and VIDEO RECORDING > > All rounds (defined as the speeches and judge critiques) are open to the > public and may be electronically recorded for private educational use by > any tournament participants (registered coaches, debaters and helpers, > and Wake Forest 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 > Wake Forest University is obtained. Private sharing for educational use > is permitted. > > > > TABULATION and PAIRING STUFF > We will use an ordinal MPJ system run on STA. Rounds one and two preset. > The other 4 prelims individually power paired hi-low within brackets. > Top 32 teams clear on basis of adjusted points, opp wins, total points, > twice adjusted points, ranks, random number. Brackets broken in elims. > Side equalization procedure used for elims. > > "JV BREAKOUT" (NAME TENTATIVE) > > At least 20% of all teams comprised of two debaters both of whom are > still in their first or second year of debate who do not clear into the > doubles will clear into the Sophfrosh (name tentative) breakout. Clears > at least to 8 teams. > > FEES: > Tournament fees are $60.00 per person (debaters, coaches, judges, scouts). > > TOURNAMENT HOTEL: > The Sundance, 3050 University Parkway, Winston-Salem, NC 27105 > (336-723-2911) > > Flat rate: 82.99 per room per night plus taxes and fees > > Includes wireless internet (they have increased their capacity), > parking, and continental breakfast daily. > > All elims will be held here. > > Special needs or problems re hotel? Sales contact there is Sheila Small, > shefaysmall at yahoo.com > > > We will post other info on backup lodging in the near future. > > RENTAL VANS > > For vans of all sizes, ask for the Wake Forest Debate rate at Triangle, > http://www.trianglerentacar.com/ > > HOSPITALITY > Krispy Kreme, coffee, juice, bagels in the mornings. Water, sodas, > aspirin, snacks throughout. Lunch on Saturday and Sunday. Banquet Sunday > night, plus the usual Survivors Party? on Monday night after the start > of the final round. > > CONDUCT: > > All participants debate at the invitation of Wake Forest University > according to its tournament rules as well as any rules of their > sponsoring institutions. We abide by all rules and norms of CEDA and the > AFA, including but not limited to CEDA's sexual harassment policy. > > > > SCHEDULE: > > Friday, November 14 > Registration 6-9 pm; airings, rounds 1 and 2 released at 9 pm > > Saturday, November 15, 2008 > > 8 am ? round 1 start > > 10:45 am ? round one decision deadline. > > 11:15 am ? round 2 start > > 2 pm ? round 2 decision deadline > > 2:15 ? round 3 (powered) pairings > > 3 pm ? round 3 start > > 5:45 ? round 3 decision deadline > > 6 pm -- round 4 (powered) pairings > > 6:45 pm ? round 4 start > > 9:15 pm ? round 4 decision deadline > > Sunday > > 8 am ? round 5 (powered) pairings released at hotel, online, and on campus > > 9 am ? round 5 start > > 11:45 ? round 5 decision deadline > > 12:15 ? round 6 (powered) pairings > > 3 pm ? round 6 decision deadline > > 3:30 pm ? first elim pairings > > 4:15 pm -- first elim start > > 7:15 pm ? first elim decision deadline > > 7:00 pm ? Banquet begins ? awards including speakers and coach of the year. > > Monday > > 8 am -- Octas and 2^nd breakout elim start > > 11 am ? decision deadline > > 11:15 ? postround ends by now. > > Noon: Quarters and 3^rd breakout elim start. > > 3 pm ? decision deadline > > 3:15 pm ? postround ends by now. > > 4 pm: Semis and breakout elim (if necessary) start. > > 7 pm ? decision deadline > > 7:15 pm ? postround ends by now. > > 8 pm: Final round begins > > 10 pm ? "Survivors' Party" begins > > LOOK FOR MORE DETAILS coming soon at http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ > > -- > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081021/f6210898/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 11:35:18 2008 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:35:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Emporia semis and finals results Message-ID: <7fd76c680810210935j3130b190tc477db46a85a7180@mail.gmail.com> JV finals Minnesota def JCCC Open Semis UCO CS adv. over UCO HS WSU CR def KSU MZ open finals UCO CS def WSU CR on a 3-0 don't remember ballot counts for JV finals and open semis thanks again to all attendees! Sam -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University From aaron.olney at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 11:35:30 2008 From: aaron.olney at gmail.com (Aaron Olney) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:35:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard - rounds for sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6b016c190810210935j4d136a4ex195ff9313ef30a50@mail.gmail.com> I beg the community, please don't. On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:31 PM, V I Keenan wrote: > I've got housing in Boston that weekend, and 6 rounds to sell (best offer), > if anyone still needs them. > > -VIK > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/f25f689d/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Tue Oct 21 11:57:53 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Emporia semis and finals results In-Reply-To: <7fd76c680810210935j3130b190tc477db46a85a7180@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <172769.99137.qm@web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'd also like to point out that Andy Casey successfully defended his previous win at Emporia! Extra special thanks to Hali Tripe-Roberts, Sam Maurer & Phil Samuels for judging open finals. Samuel Maurer wrote: JV finals Minnesota def JCCC Open Semis UCO CS adv. over UCO HS WSU CR def KSU MZ open finals UCO CS def WSU CR on a 3-0 don't remember ballot counts for JV finals and open semis thanks again to all attendees! 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 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/20081021/29b477ab/attachment.htm From justinwkirk at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 12:11:34 2008 From: justinwkirk at gmail.com (justin kirk) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:11:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Check his damn website Message-ID: Ummm, Obama has a copy of his birth certificate on his website you jagoff Also, McCain was born in the Canal Zone 2 years before the law was signed that made it a us territory oh, and that law was not retroactive - so if you want to start questioning citizenship get off your high horse before someone with half a brain knocks your dumb ass off it jagoff -- Justin Kirk UTD Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/80a6c1e1/attachment.htm From justinwkirk at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 12:18:18 2008 From: justinwkirk at gmail.com (justin kirk) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:18:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Obama's birth certificate Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie070998.htm http://lettersinbottles.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccains-canal-zone-birth-disqualifier.html some reading for ya straga -- Justin Kirk UTD Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/014bcd8b/attachment.htm From sarahtp73 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 21 12:27:24 2008 From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.com (Sarah Partlow) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Rupp Debates @ Idaho State Resuts Message-ID: <236795.64391.qm@web31602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We enjoyed hosting everyone in Pocatello this weekend! We hope you all head a good time. Contgatulations to all! Top 3 Speakers in JV 1. Tom Friedenbach, Whitman 2. Adam McKibben, Whitman 3. Alex Smock, Wyoming JV Final Round WhitmanTom Triedenbach and Adam Mckibben beat Wyoming Kateri Bristoland Alex Smock on a 2-1 Top 10 Speakers in Open 1. Sam Allen, Wyoming 2. Nate Cohn, Whitman 3. James Joseph, Gonzaga 4. Nick Bormann, Gonzaga 5. Spencer Janyk, Whitman 6. Jamie Piechura, Wyoming 7. Karina Momary, Gonzaga 8. Elliot Carr-lee, UNLV 9. Daniel Straus, Whitman 10. Stacey Dawson, Weber ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION ONE: OPEN OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS Gonzaga BC Advances without debating Wyoming AP Advances without debating Gonzaga HJ Advances without debating Whitman College CZ Advances without debating Whitman College CS (Aff) defeated Nevada Las Vegas CM 3-0 Shacklefor Pointer, S Klosterboe Gonzaga MM (Neg) defeated Weber State Univ. AD 3-0 Meiches, B Beier, Ian Chalfant, Nevada Las Vegas CE (Aff) defeated Whitman College HS 3-0 Partlow Le Stannard, Odekirk, S Whitman College BJ (Aff) defeated Whitman College EM 3-0 QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Gonzaga BC (Aff) defeated Whitman College BJ 2-1 G. Guevara Eckstein, *Cheek, Ry Wyoming AP (Aff) defeated Nevada Las Vegas CE 3-0 Pointer, S Barella, C Dekeyzer, Whitman College CS (Neg) defeated Gonzaga HJ 3-0 Battoclett Thompson, Stannard, Gonzaga MM (Aff) defeated Whitman College CZ 3-0 Shacklefor Odekirk, S Klosterboe SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Gonzaga BC (Aff) defeated Whitman College CS 2-1 Eckstein, *Stannard, Beier, Ian Gonzaga MM (Aff) defeated Wyoming AP 2-1 G. Guevara *Odekirk, Battoclett FINAL ROUND RESULTS Gonzaga MM & Gonzaga BC __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/d3977d1b/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 12:33:33 2008 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:33:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ISU ROCKS! In-Reply-To: <236795.64391.qm@web31602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <236795.64391.qm@web31602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks to ISU for their incredible tournament! Important Benefits include: $80 entry fees Catered lunches at local restaurants Coaches and student parties An impressive tournament hotel (who does not love a Holidome?) giant trophies - carved in the shape of idaho - as big as your head Also, congrats to Zaga for closing out, and to Whitman, Wyo, and UNLV for their strong performances. Thanks again SPL, Odie, Paul, Danielle, and all the other Bengals who helped make the tournament possible. 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 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:27:24 -0700From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.comTo: edebate at ndtceda.comSubject: [eDebate] Rupp Debates @ Idaho State Resuts _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/b0c63e44/attachment.htm From vikeenan at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 12:52:58 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:52:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Harvard - rounds for sale Message-ID: re: aaron olney and my 6 rounds for sale... Clearly, I'm more of a cracksmoker in the back of the room than I thought. Very possible. Or maybe this was just a call for folks not to hire out their commitments . . . also possible, and noble. But given that the current round count seems to indicate about 48 rounds short of judging (or 6 full judges) for the current teams, I thought I'd inquire if extra judging was actually needed since I'll be in town anyway and stopping by to drop off a dues check to Sherry. It's my version of "shop local". (Maybe silly mathematical calculations like this are the reason the current judging pool is 12% female?) I will now go back to pondering what it was I did to this aaron in a previous life . . . -VIK -- Vik Keenan Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges 212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/fc6466f0/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Tue Oct 21 13:02:41 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:02:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Richmond Speaker Awards Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405F51B4B@castor.richmond.edu> Richmond 2008 Speaker Awards OPEN 1. Ignacio Evans (Towson EM) 2. Ben Morgan (Towson EM) 3. Ben Crossan (Binghamton CO) 4. Stephanie Luczajko (Pittsburgh LS) 5. Jadon Marianetti (West Georgia MS) 6. Mark Offenbach (George Mason Univers HO) 7. Alan Ostrovsky (Binghamton CO) 8. Zak Schaller (West Georgia MS) 9. Adam Herbert (George Mason Univers HO) 10. Ross Garrett (Liberty University DG) JV 1. Pete Groh (Binghamton GS) 2. Bill Sebelle (Binghamton GS) 3. Elaine Zhou (City University Ny JZ) 4. Matthew Torsiello (Binghamton BT) 5. Ryan Bass (Liberty University BP) 6. Justin Brown (Binghamton BT) 7. Jacquelyn Poapst (Liberty University BP) 8. Rebar Niemi (Pittsburgh NN) 9. Jeff Kurr (Pittsburgh HK) 10. Austin Woodruff (Liberty University GW) NOVICE: 1. Amanda Jaret (Binghamton CJ) 2. Lauren Cameron (Binghamton CJ) 3. Beau Troxclair (Liberty University DT) 4. Tim Kellogg (George Washington EK) 5. Katie Hubbard (Mary Washington ZZ) 6. Peter Fountain (Binghamton FT) 7. Mark Jarrett (Wayne State Universi JS) 8. Josh Damon (Liberty University DE) 9. Melanie Darling (Liberty University DT) 10. Catherine Hardee (Liberty University HL) *********************************************************** Dr. Kevin Douglas Kuswa Director of Debate, Dept. of Rhetoric & Comm. Studies 400-A Weinstein Hall (U) University of Richmond, VA 23173 Spide(R)bate (804) 289-8269 debate.richmond.edu/ *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/c0d74bce/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Tue Oct 21 13:03:35 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:03:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ISU ROCKS! References: <236795.64391.qm@web31602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: agreed. thank you sarah and glenn and the entire isu folks for running a great tournament. I'm gonna add: 1. weather was really nice--a bit cool in the evening but nice and warm during the day. 2. pocatello is pretty. it is located mostly in a valley with rolling mountains/hills buttressing each side--very nice. there are plenty of decent places to eat in town. 3. the facilities were good. 4. yes, I am advertising to encourage other schools to join us next year for the isu tournament. salt lake city, an easy airport to get to, isn't far away. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: omar guevara Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:33 AM To: Sarah Partlow ; edebate Subject: [eDebate] ISU ROCKS! Thanks to ISU for their incredible tournament! Important Benefits include: $80 entry fees Catered lunches at local restaurants Coaches and student parties An impressive tournament hotel (who does not love a Holidome?) giant trophies - carved in the shape of idaho - as big as your head Also, congrats to Zaga for closing out, and to Whitman, Wyo, and UNLV for their strong performances. Thanks again SPL, Odie, Paul, Danielle, and all the other Bengals who helped make the tournament possible. 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:27:24 -0700 From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Rupp Debates @ Idaho State Resuts -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/7f0a327f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 257 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/7f0a327f/attachment.gif From brian95882 at msn.com Tue Oct 21 13:34:24 2008 From: brian95882 at msn.com (brian schrader) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:34:24 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] ISU thanks Message-ID: Thanks to ISU for a great weekend. Top to bottom this was a fun and well run tournament! DU Debate _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093175mrt/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/ed622b53/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 13:35:11 2008 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:35:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ISU thanks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Great tournament! Thanks to the whole crew. matt From: brian95882 at msn.comTo: edebate at ndtceda.comDate: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:34:24 +0000Subject: [eDebate] ISU thanks Thanks to ISU for a great weekend. Top to bottom this was a fun and well run tournament!DU Debate See how Windows connects the people, information, and fun that are part of your life. See Now _________________________________________________________________ Get more out of the Web. Learn 10 hidden secrets of Windows Live. 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/20081021/625bfbe5/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Tue Oct 21 13:38:25 2008 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:38:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Vandy Thanks! Message-ID: Thank you to ML and the Vandy crew for a wonderful tournament, great hospitality, and excellent weekend. 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/20081021/7a279c16/attachment.htm From infinite.monad at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 14:10:28 2008 From: infinite.monad at gmail.com (iz: -ak) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:10:28 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to ISU Message-ID: Congrats to ISU for hosting an awesome tournament this weekend in Pocatello. The food was good, the rounds were centralized, and the Holodome was nothing short of monster truck weekend. Also, D9 really knows how to turn out for a little Saturday-night get together--the hospitality leaves nothing wanting, despite the fact that I can't get enough buckets of free cigarettes. Thanks to Sarah, Scott, Desi, and all the ISU debaters for hosting such a memorable experience. izak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/f474425f/attachment.htm From emarlow at ucok.edu Tue Oct 21 15:05:07 2008 From: emarlow at ucok.edu (Eric Wendell Marlow) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:05:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to Emporia Message-ID: <2764613.1224619507897.JavaMail.emarlow@ucok.edu> I just wanted to take the opportunity to say thanks to Sam, JT, Kurt, and the entire Emporia crew for putting on another great tournament. 3 rounds a day, humane start times, great competition, excellent tab and judging, and outstanding hospitality were just some of the great things about this year's Pflaum. Thanks again!!! 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 mphall at liberty.edu Tue Oct 21 15:35:11 2008 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:35:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Liberty looking for rounds at Wayne Message-ID: <17328617EA180D4AAEFC0852B21B61F40610D365CE@LUEMS01VS.University.liberty.edu> We can house and feed and will pay $30 cash/round. mph [cid:image003.jpg at 01C9339A.FC9CBB80] 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/20081021/4b25722c/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/20081021/4b25722c/attachment.jpg From vikeenan at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 16:01:09 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:01:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to West Point Message-ID: Sorry this is delayed ... but I want to thank Major Ayers and the rest of the cadets for another excellent weekend of hospitality at West Point. As always, it was an excellent tournament - and of course run on time (a miracle in our community). Special thanks to Patrice and Rubino running tab. It was also nice to see a number of alums and former directors from Army back to participate (and I'm not just saying this because we picked up Meese's ballot). Also, a special congrats to Monmouth University, who attended their first tournament this weekend and cleared as well. Welcome to the East! See most folks next weekend at West Conn! -VIK -- Vik Keenan Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges 212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/1487887a/attachment.htm From thowarddebates at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 16:32:53 2008 From: thowarddebates at gmail.com (Thomas Howard) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:32:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UCO Judging Message-ID: Want money for judging at UCO? ENMU will pay $75 in cash upfront for 3 rounds. Thanks, Tom Howard ENMU Debate Coach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/430963aa/attachment.htm From kcr23 at cornell.edu Tue Oct 21 17:17:31 2008 From: kcr23 at cornell.edu (Kyle Cherif Rouse) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:17:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Obama's birth certificate Message-ID: <1148722524.79581224627451074.JavaMail.tcwebber@orpheus7.dataserver.cornell.edu> Justin, Thank you for providing information to shut up ignorance. Kyle -----Original Message----- > Return-Path: > Received: from postoffice10.mail.cornell.edu ([unix socket]) by postoffice10.mail.cornell.edu (Cyrus v2.1.11) with LMTP; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:24:47 -0400 > Received: from hermes31.mail.cornell.edu (hermes31.mail.cornell.edu [132.236.56.56]) by postoffice10.mail.cornell.edu (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m9LHOhum005799 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:24:43 -0400 (EDT) > Received: (from daemon at localhost) by hermes31.mail.cornell.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) id m9LHOgWn029925; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:24:42 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from chestnut.mail.cornell.edu (chestnut.mail.cornell.edu [128.253.83.152]) by hermes31.mail.cornell.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m9LHOfkm029914; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:24:41 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from cross-x.com ([10.253.83.154]) by chestnut.mail.cornell.edu (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id m9LHEm0K004407; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:24:41 -0400 > X-Original-Hostname: 106.138.232.72.static.reverse.ltdomains.com > Received: from cross-x.com (106.138.232.72.static.reverse.ltdomains.com [72.232.138.106]) by localhost (TC-3.0.011); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:22:54 -0400 > Received: from 106.138.232.72.static.reverse.ltdomains.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by cross-x.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9112C75810B; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:19:15 -0500 (CDT) > X-Original-To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Delivered-To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com (ik-out-1112.google.com [66.249.90.180]) by cross-x.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F0DE7580FF for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:18:19 -0500 (CDT) > Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id c28so1826459ika.4 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:18:19 -0700 (PDT) > Received: by 10.210.16.11 with SMTP id 11mr4072531ebp.178.1224609498934; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:18:18 -0700 (PDT) > Received: by 10.210.37.13 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:18:18 -0700 (PDT) > Message-ID: > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:18:18 -0500 > X-PH: V4.1 at hermes31 > From: "justin kirk" > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Subject: [eDebate] Obama's birth certificate > X-BeenThere: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 > Precedence: list > List-Id: College Policy Debate List > List-Unsubscribe: , > List-Archive: > List-Post: > List-Help: > List-Subscribe: , > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0031460831==" > Sender: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com > Errors-To: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com > X-PMX-Version: 5.4.2.338381, Antispam-Engine: 2.6.0.325393, Antispam-Data: 2008.10.21.170712 > X-PMX-CORNELL-SPAM-CHECKED: chestnut > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/junkie/archive/junkie070998.htm > http://lettersinbottles.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccains-canal-zone-birth-disqualifier.html > > some reading for ya straga > > -- > Justin Kirk > UTD Debate From rwgallow at samford.edu Tue Oct 21 17:38:26 2008 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:38:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Samford Seeks Judging at Liberty Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30D3A7C88@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Will pay $30 a round, in cash, at the tournament. Seeking a full commitment. RG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/1e898953/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu Tue Oct 21 18:24:51 2008 From: jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu (Patterson, J W) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 19:24:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] TOC QUALS: GREENHILL Message-ID: UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY 2009 NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS MAY 2, 3, 4, 2009 (SATURDAY, SUNDAY, MONDAY) GREENHILL Aaron Timmons, director of the Greenhill, Texas, invitational, has certified the 2009 TOC qualifiers. Greenhill is a TOC qualifier in both policy and Lincoln-Douglas at the octa-finals level. POLICY Chris Power & Katryna Cadle - Bishop Guertin ? New Hampshire Brian Shim & Leigh Ann Humphries - Berkeley Preparatory - Florida Andrew Murray & Alex Nasr - Colleyville Heritage High School- Texas Krystal Rountree & Elli Kuenzel ? Ashland High School -Oregon Anshu Sathian & Rajesh Jegadeesh - Westminster Schools - Georgia ?Adi Sudarshan & Richie Choy) ? Chattahoochee High School - Georgia Andrew Markoff & Regan Bozman - Bronx Science ? New York Kunal Modi & Pratusha Erraballi ? Harker ? California Sean Hernandez & Reid Ehrlich-Quinn - Damien - California Brittany Nehman & Matthew Pesce - Woodward Academy - Georgia Craig Smyser & Layne Kirshon ? Kinkaid School - Texas Jennifer Armstrong & Peyton Lee - Pace Academy - Georgia Ross Gordon & Ira Slomski-Pritz - New Trier Township - Illinois Alicia Smart & Elliot Stein - Berkeley Preparatory - Florida Danny Bernick & Robert Ciborowski - Henry Sibley High School - Minnesota Valerie Bisharat & Alex Zavell - Head Royce School - California LINCOLN DOUGLAS Ken Hershey ? Scarsdale High School ? New York Xi Lin - Desert Vista High School ? Arizona Jake Nebel - Trinity Prep High School? Florida Tyler Cook ? Salado High School ? Texas Chris Theis - Apple Valley High School - Minnesota Ben Holguin - Edina High School - Minnesota Catherine Tarsney - St. Louis Park High School- Minnesota Devin Race - Westlake High School - Texas Shivani Vohra - Hockaday School- Texas Paul Tyger - Strake Jesuit College Prep ? Texas Daniel Garber - Mountain View High School - California Matt Hershey - Scarsdale High School ? New York David McNeil ? Edina High School - Minnesota Ben Lewis - Walt Whitman High School? Maryland Ryan Bennett - Southlake Carroll High School- Texas Jane Kessner - Walt Whitman High School - Maryland JW Patterson TOC Founder From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Oct 21 18:49:16 2008 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:49:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ISU ROCKS! References: <236795.64391.qm@web31602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20081021T184916Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> How bout advertising for March. : ) CEDA Nats in beautiful Pocatello in March 2009. I encourage everyone to come then. Sarah has worked and is working really hard--this will be a great Nationals! Chief >>> "Jim Hanson" 10/21/2008 1:03 PM >>> 4. yes, I am advertising to encourage other schools to join us next year for the isu tournament. salt lake city, an easy airport to get to, isn't far away. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: omar guevara Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:33 AM To: Sarah Partlow ; edebate Subject: [eDebate] ISU ROCKS! Thanks to ISU for their incredible tournament! Important Benefits include: $80 entry fees Catered lunches at local restaurants Coaches and student parties An impressive tournament hotel (who does not love a Holidome?) giant trophies - carved in the shape of idaho - as big as your head Also, congrats to Zaga for closing out, and to Whitman, Wyo, and UNLV for their strong performances. Thanks again SPL, Odie, Paul, Danielle, and all the other Bengals who helped make the tournament possible. 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 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:27:24 -0700 From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Rupp Debates @ Idaho State Resuts 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/3372f33d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 257 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/3372f33d/attachment.gif From ben.crossan at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 19:47:03 2008 From: ben.crossan at gmail.com (Ben Crossan) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:47:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Berkley BP Aff? Message-ID: Don't see it on opencaselist but did see they went to Kentucky so was wondering if someone could post that business, mayhaps BP themselves? Thanks, Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/578fd04a/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 20:56:16 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:56:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] can y'all flow? Message-ID: Where I come from they call y?all?s spray ?junkin up the flow?. so far, i am convinced that not even professional debaters can defend obama from allegations that he was born in kenya as his grandmother and two siblings claim and that his hawaiian birth certificate is dubious. the debaters who have spoken so far appear to be emotionally attached to obama to the point of not following the sequence of the arguments. i am convinced that they BELIEVE in obama and have become victims of a form of group think that is possibly even more frightening than what has been perpetrated by the bush administration. 1) the comments of the new challengers, bowers and kirk, appear to come from people who have skimmed the discussion so far. Sorry, we are already 3 levels deeper than the birth certificate on the obama website and the ?authenticity? derived from the fact check report. In july, fact check determined that the birth certificate was ?authentic? but since then there have criticisms of that analysis which you need to answer to be in this debate. It?s October --- see the requote from "inconsistencies with the fact check analysis" presented this morning and reposted below. The fact check report is not the ultimate truth to BELIEVE in as the obama camp inculcates you to BELIEVE. Others claim that the obama birth certificate is a forgery. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html 2) The BIG BIG problem for the obama believers who have put all their eggs in the fact check ?authentication? is that in the berg case, obama has so far chosen NOT TO PRESENT THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS EVIDENCE OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP and instead has filed a meager motion to dismiss which to this minute has not been granted by the judge. If fact check was right back in july when bowers did his newspaper research and this issue has been resolved once and for all, then WHY THE HELL HASN?T OBAMA PRESENTED THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO DISMISS THE BERG CASE? So kirk, do you get the question: WHERE IS OBAMA?S BIRTH CERTIFICATE? IN THE BERG CASE? Yeah, he?s got a possible forgery on his website but how come the berg case ain?t settled with that, huh? 3) in my opinion, the critique of the fact check report and the forgery analysis are the primary reason obama has not presented the birth certificate on his website in berg vs. obama. The ?festering allegations? hypothesis makes no sense. Instead obama hoped that fack check would fly (and to give him credit many believers have reached the point of unwillingness to question their candidate's birth in hawaii) but his legal team has no answers to the major flaws in the methodology and realize those flaws will be exposed by berg who, unlike the vast majority of the debate community, has read the entirety of the literature surrounding the controversy of obama?s birth certificate. Fact check doesn?t hold so obama had no option but to file to dismiss and hope the issue of his birth in Kenya goes away. 4) logan martin, say what you want, mr. Berg, the man who has filed the case in which obama FAILS TO PRODUCE HIS WEBSITE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, mr. Berg is the former deputy attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania. Perhaps, he lost one case or even more than one case but he?s not the fool you make out with your incomplete version of his resume. Get it, former DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Not a crackpot. 5) Lacy retreated into poor sarcasm because there is no second line of defense of the fact check report by the obama team. Instead they simply present the fact check report as the final decision on the ?authenticity? of the birth certificate. The ?Fight the Smears? heading of the obama website is out of date and REALLY needs answers to the critique of the fact check report in order to remain credible. You can?t just get one source to confirm your birth certificate and then ignore serious criticisms of that source like the ones I presented this morning that go unanswered on edebate and the obama website. That?s called bad debate showing up with just front lines for the constructives and then when the second lines come out --- JUNK UP THE FLOW --- with bullshit. requote -- repost -- the critique of the fact check report which is the basis of all the BELIEVES uttered so far on edebate that obama's website birth certificate is "authentic". if y'all could flow and debate, then we could move on to the third line of argument where i'm waiting for you. http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm the key quote: Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? _________________________________________________________________ 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 lacyjp at wfu.edu Tue Oct 21 21:08:09 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:08:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] can y'all flow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FE8B09.3060108@wfu.edu> I give. I'm voting for McCain now. Old Strega wrote: > Where I come from they call y?all?s spray ?junkin up the flow?. > > so far, i am convinced that not even professional debaters can defend obama from allegations that he was born in kenya as his grandmother and two siblings claim and that his hawaiian birth certificate is dubious. the debaters who have spoken so far appear to be emotionally attached to obama to the point of not following the sequence of the arguments. i am convinced that they BELIEVE in obama and have become victims of a form of group think that is possibly even more frightening than what has been perpetrated by the bush administration. > > 1) the comments of the new challengers, bowers and kirk, appear to come from people who have skimmed the discussion so far. Sorry, we are already 3 levels deeper than the birth certificate on the obama website and the ?authenticity? derived from the fact check report. In july, fact check determined that the birth certificate was ?authentic? but since then there have criticisms of that analysis which you need to answer to be in this debate. It?s October --- see the requote from "inconsistencies with the fact check analysis" presented this morning and reposted below. The fact check report is not the ultimate truth to BELIEVE in as the obama camp inculcates you to BELIEVE. Others claim that the obama birth certificate is a forgery. > > http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html > > 2) The BIG BIG problem for the obama believers who have put all their eggs in the fact check ?authentication? is that in the berg case, obama has so far chosen NOT TO PRESENT THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS EVIDENCE OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP and instead has filed a meager motion to dismiss which to this minute has not been granted by the judge. If fact check was right back in july when bowers did his newspaper research and this issue has been resolved once and for all, then WHY THE HELL HASN?T OBAMA PRESENTED THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO DISMISS THE BERG CASE? So kirk, do you get the question: WHERE IS OBAMA?S BIRTH CERTIFICATE? IN THE BERG CASE? Yeah, he?s got a possible forgery on his website but how come the berg case ain?t settled with that, huh? > > 3) in my opinion, the critique of the fact check report and the forgery analysis are the primary reason obama has not presented the birth certificate on his website in berg vs. obama. The ?festering allegations? hypothesis makes no sense. Instead obama hoped that fack check would fly (and to give him credit many believers have reached the point of unwillingness to question their candidate's birth in hawaii) but his legal team has no answers to the major flaws in the methodology and realize those flaws will be exposed by berg who, unlike the vast majority of the debate community, has read the entirety of the literature surrounding the controversy of obama?s birth certificate. Fact check doesn?t hold so obama had no option but to file to dismiss and hope the issue of his birth in Kenya goes away. > > 4) logan martin, say what you want, mr. Berg, the man who has filed the case in which obama FAILS TO PRODUCE HIS WEBSITE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, mr. Berg is the former deputy attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania. Perhaps, he lost one case or even more than one case but he?s not the fool you make out with your incomplete version of his resume. Get it, former DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Not a crackpot. > > 5) Lacy retreated into poor sarcasm because there is no second line of defense of the fact check report by the obama team. Instead they simply present the fact check report as the final decision on the ?authenticity? of the birth certificate. The ?Fight the Smears? heading of the obama website is out of date and REALLY needs answers to the critique of the fact check report in order to remain credible. You can?t just get one source to confirm your birth certificate and then ignore serious criticisms of that source like the ones I presented this morning that go unanswered on edebate and the obama website. That?s called bad debate showing up with just front lines for the constructives and then when the second lines come out --- JUNK UP THE FLOW --- with bullshit. > > requote -- repost -- the critique of the fact check report which is the basis of all the BELIEVES uttered so far on edebate that obama's website birth certificate is "authentic". if y'all could flow and debate, then we could move on to the third line of argument where i'm waiting for you. > > http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm > > the key quote: > > Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. > > But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. > > But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. > > Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? > > The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > From kearney.debate at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 21:13:27 2008 From: kearney.debate at gmail.com (Mike Kearney) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:13:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] can y'all flow? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9d4609f90810211913h34301b35od26f8d55e8a29d6a@mail.gmail.com> i disagree -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/6ee8feca/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 21:24:31 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:24:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] can y'all flow? In-Reply-To: <48FE8B09.3060108@wfu.edu> References: <48FE8B09.3060108@wfu.edu> Message-ID: reducing this question to which side to vote for is over-simplistic. you are going to vote for obama despite the fact that you can't defend him from allegations of fraud and the fact that obama is unable to produce the document in court that would dismiss those allegations. do you feel comfortable with your vote if obama was born in kenya, broke into the passport offices of hawaii, and forged a birth certificate to circumvent article 2 of the constitution that requires that the president be a natural born citizen? what's left of any of his campaign rhetoric about accountability and transparency after committing the greatest election fraud in american history? how can you protect the constitution from cheney's evisceration by first erasing article 2? what about the constitutional crisis when the birth certificate is exposed and the lame duck biden administration? ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:08:09 -0400 > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] can y'all flow? > > > I give. I'm voting for McCain now. > > Old Strega wrote: >> Where I come from they call y?all?s spray ?junkin up the flow?. >> >> so far, i am convinced that not even professional debaters can defend obama from allegations that he was born in kenya as his grandmother and two siblings claim and that his hawaiian birth certificate is dubious. the debaters who have spoken so far appear to be emotionally attached to obama to the point of not following the sequence of the arguments. i am convinced that they BELIEVE in obama and have become victims of a form of group think that is possibly even more frightening than what has been perpetrated by the bush administration. >> >> 1) the comments of the new challengers, bowers and kirk, appear to come from people who have skimmed the discussion so far. Sorry, we are already 3 levels deeper than the birth certificate on the obama website and the ?authenticity? derived from the fact check report. In july, fact check determined that the birth certificate was ?authentic? but since then there have criticisms of that analysis which you need to answer to be in this debate. It?s October --- see the requote from "inconsistencies with the fact check analysis" presented this morning and reposted below. The fact check report is not the ultimate truth to BELIEVE in as the obama camp inculcates you to BELIEVE. Others claim that the obama birth certificate is a forgery. >> >> http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html >> >> 2) The BIG BIG problem for the obama believers who have put all their eggs in the fact check ?authentication? is that in the berg case, obama has so far chosen NOT TO PRESENT THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS EVIDENCE OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP and instead has filed a meager motion to dismiss which to this minute has not been granted by the judge. If fact check was right back in july when bowers did his newspaper research and this issue has been resolved once and for all, then WHY THE HELL HASN?T OBAMA PRESENTED THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO DISMISS THE BERG CASE? So kirk, do you get the question: WHERE IS OBAMA?S BIRTH CERTIFICATE? IN THE BERG CASE? Yeah, he?s got a possible forgery on his website but how come the berg case ain?t settled with that, huh? >> >> 3) in my opinion, the critique of the fact check report and the forgery analysis are the primary reason obama has not presented the birth certificate on his website in berg vs. obama. The ?festering allegations? hypothesis makes no sense. Instead obama hoped that fack check would fly (and to give him credit many believers have reached the point of unwillingness to question their candidate's birth in hawaii) but his legal team has no answers to the major flaws in the methodology and realize those flaws will be exposed by berg who, unlike the vast majority of the debate community, has read the entirety of the literature surrounding the controversy of obama?s birth certificate. Fact check doesn?t hold so obama had no option but to file to dismiss and hope the issue of his birth in Kenya goes away. >> >> 4) logan martin, say what you want, mr. Berg, the man who has filed the case in which obama FAILS TO PRODUCE HIS WEBSITE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, mr. Berg is the former deputy attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania. Perhaps, he lost one case or even more than one case but he?s not the fool you make out with your incomplete version of his resume. Get it, former DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Not a crackpot. >> >> 5) Lacy retreated into poor sarcasm because there is no second line of defense of the fact check report by the obama team. Instead they simply present the fact check report as the final decision on the ?authenticity? of the birth certificate. The ?Fight the Smears? heading of the obama website is out of date and REALLY needs answers to the critique of the fact check report in order to remain credible. You can?t just get one source to confirm your birth certificate and then ignore serious criticisms of that source like the ones I presented this morning that go unanswered on edebate and the obama website. That?s called bad debate showing up with just front lines for the constructives and then when the second lines come out --- JUNK UP THE FLOW --- with bullshit. >> >> requote -- repost -- the critique of the fact check report which is the basis of all the BELIEVES uttered so far on edebate that obama's website birth certificate is "authentic". if y'all could flow and debate, then we could move on to the third line of argument where i'm waiting for you. >> >> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >> >> the key quote: >> >> Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. >> >> But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. >> >> But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. >> >> Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? >> >> The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 lacyjp at wfu.edu Tue Oct 21 21:28:06 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:28:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] can y'all flow? In-Reply-To: References: <48FE8B09.3060108@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <48FE8FB6.7040703@wfu.edu> Keep it up. You're making McCain supporters look like a bunch of wingnuts. Old Strega wrote: > reducing this question to which side to vote for is over-simplistic. > > you are going to vote for obama despite the fact that you can't defend him from allegations of fraud and the fact that obama is unable to produce the document in court that would dismiss those allegations. > > do you feel comfortable with your vote if obama was born in kenya, broke into the passport offices of hawaii, and forged a birth certificate to circumvent article 2 of the constitution that requires that the president be a natural born citizen? > > what's left of any of his campaign rhetoric about accountability and transparency after committing the greatest election fraud in american history? > > how can you protect the constitution from cheney's evisceration by first erasing article 2? > > what about the constitutional crisis when the birth certificate is exposed and the lame duck biden administration? > > > ---------------------------------------- > >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:08:09 -0400 >> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] can y'all flow? >> >> >> I give. I'm voting for McCain now. >> >> Old Strega wrote: >> >>> Where I come from they call y?all?s spray ?junkin up the flow?. >>> >>> so far, i am convinced that not even professional debaters can defend obama from allegations that he was born in kenya as his grandmother and two siblings claim and that his hawaiian birth certificate is dubious. the debaters who have spoken so far appear to be emotionally attached to obama to the point of not following the sequence of the arguments. i am convinced that they BELIEVE in obama and have become victims of a form of group think that is possibly even more frightening than what has been perpetrated by the bush administration. >>> >>> 1) the comments of the new challengers, bowers and kirk, appear to come from people who have skimmed the discussion so far. Sorry, we are already 3 levels deeper than the birth certificate on the obama website and the ?authenticity? derived from the fact check report. In july, fact check determined that the birth certificate was ?authentic? but since then there have criticisms of that analysis which you need to answer to be in this debate. It?s October --- see the requote from "inconsistencies with the fact check analysis" presented this morning and reposted below. The fact check report is not the ultimate truth to BELIEVE in as the obama camp inculcates you to BELIEVE. Others claim that the obama birth certificate is a forgery. >>> >>> http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html >>> >>> 2) The BIG BIG problem for the obama believers who have put all their eggs in the fact check ?authentication? is that in the berg case, obama has so far chosen NOT TO PRESENT THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE AS EVIDENCE OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP and instead has filed a meager motion to dismiss which to this minute has not been granted by the judge. If fact check was right back in july when bowers did his newspaper research and this issue has been resolved once and for all, then WHY THE HELL HASN?T OBAMA PRESENTED THAT BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO DISMISS THE BERG CASE? So kirk, do you get the question: WHERE IS OBAMA?S BIRTH CERTIFICATE? IN THE BERG CASE? Yeah, he?s got a possible forgery on his website but how come the berg case ain?t settled with that, huh? >>> >>> 3) in my opinion, the critique of the fact check report and the forgery analysis are the primary reason obama has not presented the birth certificate on his website in berg vs. obama. The ?festering allegations? hypothesis makes no sense. Instead obama hoped that fack check would fly (and to give him credit many believers have reached the point of unwillingness to question their candidate's birth in hawaii) but his legal team has no answers to the major flaws in the methodology and realize those flaws will be exposed by berg who, unlike the vast majority of the debate community, has read the entirety of the literature surrounding the controversy of obama?s birth certificate. Fact check doesn?t hold so obama had no option but to file to dismiss and hope the issue of his birth in Kenya goes away. >>> >>> 4) logan martin, say what you want, mr. Berg, the man who has filed the case in which obama FAILS TO PRODUCE HIS WEBSITE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, mr. Berg is the former deputy attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania. Perhaps, he lost one case or even more than one case but he?s not the fool you make out with your incomplete version of his resume. Get it, former DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Not a crackpot. >>> >>> 5) Lacy retreated into poor sarcasm because there is no second line of defense of the fact check report by the obama team. Instead they simply present the fact check report as the final decision on the ?authenticity? of the birth certificate. The ?Fight the Smears? heading of the obama website is out of date and REALLY needs answers to the critique of the fact check report in order to remain credible. You can?t just get one source to confirm your birth certificate and then ignore serious criticisms of that source like the ones I presented this morning that go unanswered on edebate and the obama website. That?s called bad debate showing up with just front lines for the constructives and then when the second lines come out --- JUNK UP THE FLOW --- with bullshit. >>> >>> requote -- repost -- the critique of the fact check report which is the basis of all the BELIEVES uttered so far on edebate that obama's website birth certificate is "authentic". if y'all could flow and debate, then we could move on to the third line of argument where i'm waiting for you. >>> >>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >>> >>> the key quote: >>> >>> Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. >>> >>> But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. >>> >>> But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. >>> >>> Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? >>> >>> The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 21:48:14 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:48:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics Message-ID: when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From schiros at invisihosting.com Tue Oct 21 21:51:10 2008 From: schiros at invisihosting.com (Matthew Schiros) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:51:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? References: BAY114-W3462EAA14FDDB8382EB5ECBE2E0@phx.gbl Message-ID: <48FE951E.7080804@invisihosting.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 >>> And you still don't sign your name. This sounds like Matt Schiros to me, and not just the politics. dp <<< Why would I resort to shitty, obviously false arguments against Bernard Patrick O'bama when there are so many good ones? What next, you'll blame me for the next random person who says "Barry is a Moooooslamic"? And why would I post anonymously, to keep my deep dark secret of not being a worshipful sycophant of the Messiah hidden from a listserv that doesn't even know who I am? Yah. You nailed me, hoss. Plus, what the fuck, you just randomly decide to blame some dude that you used to hate a whole lot like 10 years ago? - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Schiros President, InvisiHosting.com Web Development & Anonymous Web Host Security Through Anonymity! e: schiros at invisihosting.com c: 512-466-4146 f: 888-521-4772 aim: invisirevolution - -------------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREKAAYFAkj+lR4ACgkQPvlWXysx+5bzbwCgkjPvmcCtdLN9DJA2Vx7m3n68 mOYAoJV85b6IbuAlHvPtkEhBbUmsYjya =6IhH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lacyjp at wfu.edu Tue Oct 21 21:58:46 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> Group it: You're proving my point. Old Strega wrote: > when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. > > lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. > > belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. > > the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? > > we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? > > why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? > > when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. > _________________________________________________________________ > When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > From kearney.debate at gmail.com Tue Oct 21 22:04:58 2008 From: kearney.debate at gmail.com (Mike Kearney) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:04:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <9d4609f90810212004u1396705elbd35ecbc22807b0@mail.gmail.com> that's old school! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081021/058fc3d6/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 22:07:02 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:07:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> Message-ID: you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your point. that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid. why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth? you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > > Group it: You're proving my point. > > > > Old Strega wrote: >> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. >> >> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. >> >> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. >> >> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? >> >> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? >> >> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? >> >> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. >> _________________________________________________________________ >> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 lacyjp at wfu.edu Tue Oct 21 22:15:14 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. Old Strega wrote: > you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your point. > > that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid. > > why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth? > > you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. > > if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice. > ---------------------------------------- > >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 >> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >> >> Group it: You're proving my point. >> >> >> >> Old Strega wrote: >> >>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. >>> >>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. >>> >>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. >>> >>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? >>> >>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? >>> >>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? >>> >>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Oct 21 22:18:25 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:18:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] press release: obama & DNC admit all allegations in berg v. obama Message-ID: the implications are that legally obama should be removed from the ticket. 30 days is up. obama did not prove natural born citizenship and the judge failed to dismiss. Our website obamacrimes.com now has 50.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website ? and forward to your local newspapers, radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, ?we? the people, are heading to a ?Constitutional Crisis? if this case is not resolved forthwith. http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/38-press-release-obama-a-dnc-admit-all-allegations-in-berg-v-obama Press Release: Obama & DNC admit all allegations in Berg v. Obama Tuesday, 21 October 2008 11:05 administrator Obama & DNC Admit All Allegations of Federal Court Lawsuit - Obama?s ?Not? Qualified to be President Obama Should Immediately Withdraw his Candidacy for President For Immediate Release: - 10/21/08 - Complete contact details and pdfs of this press release and motions filed by plaintiff Berg today are at the end of this article (Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania ? 10/21/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama?s lack of ?qualifications? to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and tbe DNC ?ADMITTED?, by way of failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, all of the numerous specific requests in the Federal lawsuit. Obama is ?NOT QUALIFIED? to be President and therefore Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President and the DNC shall substitute a qualified candidate. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083. Berg stated that he filed Requests for Admissions on September 15, 2008 with a response by way of answer or objection had to be served within thirty [30] days. No response to the Requests for Admissions was served by way of response or objection. Thus, all of the Admissions directed to Obama and the DNC are deemed ?ADMITTED.? Therefore, Obama must immediately withdraw his candidacy for President. OBAMA - Admitted: 1. I was born in Kenya. 2. I am a Kenya ?natural born? citizen. 3. My foreign birth was registered in the State of Hawaii. 4. My father, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr. admitted Paternity of me. 5. My mother gave birth to me in Mombosa, Kenya. 6. My mother?s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham. 7. The COLB [Certification of Live Birth] posted on the website ?Fightthesmears.com? is a forgery. 8. I was adopted by a Foreign Citizen. 9. I was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, M.A. a citizen of Indonesia. 10. I was not born in Hawaii. 11. I was not born at the Queens Medical Center in Hawaii. 12. I was not born at Kapi?olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Hawaii. 13. I was not born in a Hospital in Hawaii. 14. I am a citizen of Indonesia. 15. I never took the ?Oath of Allegiance? to regain my U.S. Citizenship status. 16. I am not a ?natural born? United States citizen. 17. My date of birth is August 4, 1961. 18. I traveled to Pakistan in 1981 with my Pakistan friends. 19. In 1981, I went to Indonesia on my way to Pakistan. 20. Pakistan was a no travel zone in 1981 for American Citizens. 21. In 1981, Pakistan was not allowing American Citizens to enter their country. 22. I traveled on my Indonesian Passport to Pakistan. 23. I renewed my Indonesian Passport on my way to Pakistan. 24. My senior campaign staff is aware I am not a ?natural born? United States Citizen. 25. I am proud of my Kenya Heritage. 26. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name. 27. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name. 28. My relatives have requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth. 29. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my first name. 30. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my last name. 31. I requested changes to the portion of my birth certificate that identifies my place of birth. 32. The document identified as my Indonesian School record from Fransiskus Assisi School in Jakarta, Indonesia is genuine. 33. I went to a Judge in Hawaii to have my name changed. 34. I went to a Senator and/or Congressman or other public official in Hawaii to have my name changed. 35. I had a passport issued to me from the Government of Indonesia. 36. The United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a ?natural born? United States citizen. 37. I am ineligible pursuant to the United States Constitution to serve as President and/or Vice President of the United States. 38. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Indonesia. 39. I never renounced my citizenship as it relates to my citizenship to the country of Kenya. 40. I am an Attorney who specializes in Constitutional Law. 41. Kenya was a part of the British Colonies at the time of my birth. 42. Kenya did not become its own Republic until 1963. 43. I am not a ?Naturalized? United States Citizen. 44. I obtained $200 Million dollars in campaign funds by fraudulent means. 45. I cannot produce a ?vault? (original) long version of a birth certificate showing my birth in Hawaii. 46. My ?vault? (original) long version birth certificate shows my birth in Kenya. 47. The only times I was to a Hospital in Hawaii was for check-ups or medical treatments for illnesses. 48. Queens Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me. 49. Kapi?olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii does not have any record of my mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) giving birth to me. 50. I was born in the Coast Province Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya. 51. I represented on my State Bar application in Illinois that I never used any other name other than Barack Hussein Obama. 52. I went by the name Barry Soetoro in Indonesia. 53. My Indonesian school records are under the name of Barry Soetoro. 54. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when admitted to the State Bar of Illinois to practice Law. 55. I took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution when I was Sworn into my United States Senate Office. 56. I hold dual citizenship with at least one other Country besides the United States of America. DNC - Admitted: 1. The DNC nominated Barrack Hussein Obama as the Democratic Nominee for President. 2. The DNC has not vetted Barrack Hussein Obama. 3. The DNC did not have a background check performed on Barrack Hussein Obama. 4.The DNC did not verify Barrack Hussein Obama?s eligibility to serve as President of the United States. 5. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya. 6. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama is not a ?natural born? United States citizen. 7. The DNC admits Barrack Hussein Obama was not born in Hawaii. 8.The DNC admits they have not inquired into Barrack Hussein Obama?s citizenship status. 9. The DNC admits they have a duty to properly vette the Democratic Nominee for President. 10.The DNC admits Lolo Soetoro, M.A., an Indonesian citizen adopted Barrack Hussein Obama. 11. The DNC admits the Credentials Committee has been aware of this lawsuit since August 22, 2008 as the lawsuit was faxed to our Washington D.C. Office on August 22, 2008. 12. The DNC admits their Credentials Committee failed to verify and/or inquire into the credentials of Barack Hussein Obama to serve as the President of the United States. 13. The DNC admits their Credential Committee?s Report failed to address the issues of Barack Hussein Obama?s ineligibility to serve as President of the United States. 14.The DNC admits Howard Dean, Chair Person has and had knowledge Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya and ineligible to serve as the President of the United States. 15. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all Democratic citizens of the United States have been personally injured as a result of not having a qualified Democratic Presidential Nominee to cast their votes upon. 16. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President of the United States and to have two (2) qualified candidates of which to choose from. 17. The DNC admits Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States have a Constitutional right to have a properly vetted Democratic Presidential Nominee of which to cast their vote. 18. The DNC admits an FBI background check is not performed on the Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates. 19. The DNC admits the United States Constitution does not allow for a Person to hold the office of President of the United States unless that person is a ?natural born? United States citizen. 20. The DNC admits they collected donations on behalf of Barack Hussein Obama for his Presidential campaign. 21. The DNC admits Plaintiff and Democratic citizens donated money based on false representations that Barack Hussein Obama was qualified to serve as the President of the United States. 22. The DNC admits if Barack Hussein Obama is elected as President and allowed to serve as President of the United States in violation of our Constitution, it will create a Constitutional crisis. 23. The DNC admits Barack Hussein Obama took an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution. 24. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a ?natural born? citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff?s rights to due process of law in violation of the United States Constitution. 25. The DNC admits allowing a person who is not a ?natural born? citizen to serve as President of the United States violates Plaintiff?s rights to Equal Protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution. 26. The DNC admits the function of the DNC is to secure a Democratic Presidential Candidate who will protect Democratic citizen?s interests, fight for their equal opportunities and fight for justice for all Americans. 27. The DNC admits the Democratic National Committee has been promoting Barack Hussein Obama?s Presidential election knowing he was ineligible to serve as President of the United States. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Oct 21 22:22:16 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:22:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] new national enquirer: obama sex pervert scandal Message-ID: free pass is up on barack cagliostro obama. http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_sex_perv_scandal/celebrity/65575 OBAMA SEX PERV SCANDAL The ENQUIRER exclusively reports a "sex pervert" was Sen. Barack Obama's longtime mentor and "father figure". For seven years, the presidential candidate had a "father-son" relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, who has confessed to having sex with children, sadomasochism, bondage and practicing a wide array of deviant sexual activities. In his 1995 memoir Dreams from My Father, Obama identifies his childhood mentor only as "Frank," but Obama insiders later confirmed he was referring to Davis, a journalist and poet who was a pal of Obama's maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Frank Marshall Davis admitted in his private papers that he had secretly authored a hard-core pornographic autobiography called Sex Rebel: Black, published in 1968. The author of the book - a copy of which was been obtained by The ENQUIRER - is listed as "Bob Greene." Davis later confessed to its authorship after a reader noticed similarities in style and phraseology between that book and Davis' poetry. Davis confessed: "I could not truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine." The appalling catalog of admitted real-life decadence is laced with perverted sexual activity, bisexuality, rape - and the seduction of children. "Davis' admission he wrote this disturbing book exposes Obama's mentor as living a secret double life - and as a sexual pervert," disclosed a source. In his shocking tell-all, Davis admits to seducing a thirteen year-old girl, voyeurism, exhibitionism, bisexuality, rape and sadomasochism. Barack, called "Barry" as a child, was a mere ten year old when he first met the family friend who lead a secret double life. Obama's grandfather introduced Barry and Davis because he believed it would help his alienated grandson identify with being of mixed heritage because Barack's mother, Ann, was a white American while his father, Barack Sr.black Kenyan. Obama's parents separated and then divorced when Barack was only 2. Ann remarried and took Barack to live with her and new husband Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia - but Barack was later sent to live with his white grandparents in Honolulu, Hawaii. Barack describes how Frank Davis had a lasting effect on him and became a father figure over the seven years they knew one another on the tropical island. In Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote: "He would read us poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with Gramps out of an emptied jelly jar. "As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks." Obama described being counseled by Frank often and recalled drinking whiskey with him. Since Frank Davis has been identified as the author of Sex Rebel: Black, Obama has been extremely secretive about the true nature of his experience with the self-admitted deviant. For all the details pick up The ENQUIRER - on sale now. _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ From dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Tue Oct 21 23:00:24 2008 From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:00:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? In-Reply-To: <48FE951E.7080804@invisihosting.com> References: BAY114-W3462EAA14FDDB8382EB5ECBE2E0@phx.gbl <48FE951E.7080804@invisihosting.com> Message-ID: Sorry, dude, I was just trying to bait Stroube into showing his loser face. It did work. After howwasshe.com, you can hardly complain about being used! dp On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Matthew Schiros wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > >>>> > > And you still don't sign your name. This sounds like Matt Schiros to me, > and not just the politics. > > dp > <<< > > Why would I resort to shitty, obviously false arguments against Bernard > Patrick O'bama when there are so many good ones? What next, you'll > blame me for the next random person who says "Barry is a Moooooslamic"? > And why would I post anonymously, to keep my deep dark secret of not > being a worshipful sycophant of the Messiah hidden from a listserv that > doesn't even know who I am? Yah. You nailed me, hoss. > > Plus, what the fuck, you just randomly decide to blame some dude that > you used to hate a whole lot like 10 years ago? > > - -- > - -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Matthew Schiros > President, InvisiHosting.com > Web Development & Anonymous Web Host > Security Through Anonymity! > e: schiros at invisihosting.com > c: 512-466-4146 > f: 888-521-4772 > aim: invisirevolution > - -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEAREKAAYFAkj+lR4ACgkQPvlWXysx+5bzbwCgkjPvmcCtdLN9DJA2Vx7m3n68 > mOYAoJV85b6IbuAlHvPtkEhBbUmsYjya > =6IhH > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From MWBRYANT at aol.com Wed Oct 22 00:10:36 2008 From: MWBRYANT at aol.com (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:10:36 EDT Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics Message-ID: In a message dated 10/21/2008 11:15:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lacyjp at wfu.edu writes: Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. I agree. I think Jack should keep up his fine work. We'll probably see a frontpage article on some major newspaper tomorrow highlighting how Stroube is crushing the college debaters in his herculean effort of exposing Obama for the "other" that he is. Keep up the fine work, Jack! Everyone is watching and learning. You've REALLY convinced me.... **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/d58ff2d3/attachment.htm From logan.martin at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 02:12:36 2008 From: logan.martin at gmail.com (Logan Martin) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:12:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Alleging stuff in a lawsuit doesn't make that stuff true Message-ID: On October 6, 2008 Defendants filed a Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Dispositive Motion On October 9, 2008 Plaintiffs filed a Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. The court has not ruled on Defendants' Motion. Yesterday, Plaintiff moved for an Order Deeming Requests for Admissions Admitted. Yesterday, Plaintiff also moved for an " Expediting Ruling on Plaintiffs Motion Deeming Plaintiffs Request for Admissions Admitted." Defendant has not yet filed a response to Plaintiff's two most recent motions. Given that there's still no Order on Defendant's Motion for a Protective Order, no response to Plaintiff's most recent two motions, and, for that matter, no Order regarding the most recent two motions filed by the Plaintiff, it is HIGHLY misleading to claim that Obama has "admitted" Berg's allegations. That's kindof like claiming the aff dropped a disad...after the 1nc. Now then, with respect to... OS: 4) logan martin, say what you want, mr. Berg, the man who has filed the case in which obama FAILS TO PRODUCE HIS WEBSITE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, mr. Berg is the former deputy attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania. Perhaps, he lost one case or even more than one case but he's not the fool you make out with your incomplete version of his resume. Get it, former DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA. Not a crackpot. LM: Look, most of those words weren't mine, they were those of the Honorable Curtis Joyner for the United States District Court for the Eastern Pennsylvania. And if you read the Memorandum and Order, you'll notice that the issue really wasn't just one of winning and losing and...Now, maybe back when Berg was a Deputy AG he was a not the same Berg whose crackpottitude was elucidated in painstaking (read: hilarious) detail in Joyner's Order, but I've got my doubts. Anyhow, why would Obama produce anything pending a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? Logan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/f3ca2396/attachment.htm From antonucci23 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 22 08:05:16 2008 From: antonucci23 at yahoo.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 06:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] stroube: predictions Message-ID: <387449.36399.qm@web65506.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Jack Stroube wrote: "the implications are that legally obama should be removed from the ticket." If edebate has taught me anything (?), it's this: Jack Stroube's understanding of the US legal system leaves something to be desired. Jack - a suggestion. You're starting interminable quasi-legal and normative debates. Why not issue one or two falsifiable predictions? For example, you might tell us when the constitutional crisis will occur. You could solicit some bets at fairly long odds, then reinvest the profits in dozens - HUNDREDS - of conspiracy websites. Imagine all the truth you would bring then. It's a truthgasm in the making. Good luck! Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 ACTUAL EMAIL: antonucci23 at gmail.com From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Wed Oct 22 09:04:02 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 09:04:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] two birds, one sword in the stone Message-ID: frankly, i not only hope Barack Hussein Obama II is foreign-born, i hope he's lied about his age as well, and hasn't "attained to the age of 35" like our dear ol' constitution requires -- a blow to both xenophobia and ageism in a single stroke! ...likewise, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrP7e-Pg-Hg meanwhile, in news that matters, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4535: "new statistics from the Saudi Ministry of Interior, corroborated by the Pentagon's own findings, show that the the overwhelming majority of individuals detained at Guant?namo not only were not terrorists, but were likely INNOCENT OF ANY CRIME." one kenyan senator is on record as saying, http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php: "in the detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us. ... There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America's courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I WILL CLOSE GUANTANAMO, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions." _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/1851439b/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 22 09:45:01 2008 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] DO NOT FEED THE STROUBE In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <786519.52696.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO COINTELPRO From nicole.serrano at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 10:42:09 2008 From: nicole.serrano at gmail.com (Nicole Serrano) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:42:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Old trophies Message-ID: <2b7193330810220842h2f483601p979e27cd88871ebf@mail.gmail.com> Hello, Does anyone know of a home for old trophies? We have a collection that once replated could probably accessorize a full season worth of major tournaments. If you are interested or know of someone who might be, please let me know. Thanks! Nicole -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/3a47fd08/attachment.htm From lukephill at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 10:49:47 2008 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:49:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wayne State Judging Message-ID: Still looking for rounds, still paying cash, whatever you can offer we'll take. 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/20081022/060a7af3/attachment.htm From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Wed Oct 22 12:06:21 2008 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:06:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UTSA for UCO Judging Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCAD73E2D@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> Hello potential judges--UTSA is seeking six rounds of judging ($25 cash per) at UCO--Nov. 7-9. Any takers? Skip Eno -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/cc476ea5/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Oct 22 12:16:05 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:16:05 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs: be GOLDEN 10 Message-ID: <07252478C6574B1CB304C6A7B8DD80FC@hansonjbPC> we invite schools to submit a GOLDEN 10 team and judge bid to participate at the nw ceda championship. schools must be at least 700 miles from whitman college. (you submit after the wake forest tournament) --$600 is given to each of these teams/judges --no fees; you just debate and judge --free food (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) provided --free shuttle (pasco or walla walla airport) provided throughout the tournament --student and coach's party --all rounds occur in one, nice building--it is well setup --the tournament occurs feb 28-mar 2, 2009--the weekend after almost all districts; perfect as a nationals warmup or for teams trying to get a second round bid --great competition especially with this new golden 10 opportunity submissions accepted shortly after the wake forest tournament. jim hanson, glenn frappier, and derek buescher evaluate quality of teams and judges. 10 chosen. announcements occur in december, giving you lots of planning time. invitation with full details at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54nwceda2009.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Oct 22 12:41:42 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [NDCA] Old trophies In-Reply-To: <2b7193330810220842h2f483601p979e27cd88871ebf@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b7193330810220842h2f483601p979e27cd88871ebf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FF65D6.60409@wfu.edu> We donated a bunch to special olympics before. Trophy stores often will take them and donate them, too. On 10/22/2008 11:42 AM, Nicole Serrano wrote: > Hello, > > Does anyone know of a home for old trophies? We have a collection that > once replated could probably accessorize a full season worth of major > tournaments. > > If you are interested or know of someone who might be, please let me know. > > Thanks! > Nicole > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ---------- > > NDCA-L (Provided by the National Debate Coaches Association) > > ** Simply replying to this message will send to the original poster and not to the list. ** > > To reply to the list make sure you include: ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org -- 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 berchnorto at msn.com Wed Oct 22 13:02:44 2008 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:02:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] former debater in the news Message-ID: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/22/132237/84/959/638752 Check out the statement of former Rochester debater (and GW coach) Steve D'Amico. --Neil Berch West Virginia University From proudsavage at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 13:04:54 2008 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:04:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] toni neilson(sic) and gordon stables Message-ID: <9b5963440810221104ta3de1a0t35cf0a1a5dbd8a11@mail.gmail.com> 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/20081022/8cba9ed5/attachment.htm From repkowil at msu.edu Wed Oct 22 14:45:26 2008 From: repkowil at msu.edu (William J Repko) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:45:26 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Two new threads Message-ID: I am hoping to get community feedback on two items. Both discussions are taking place at: http://cedadebate.org/ (check the active forum topics section on the right-hand side of the page) Items under discussion: a) 6 v. 8 rounds b) how strong should strikecards be. Desperate pre-emptive appeal to have this not become a discussion about birth certificates, etc. Take it easy, Will From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 14:47:21 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:47:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Two new threads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oddly enough I must be not getting ceda posts...hmmmmm Josh On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM, William J Repko wrote: > I am hoping to get community feedback on two items. > > Both discussions are taking place at: > > http://cedadebate.org/ > > (check the active forum topics section on the right-hand side of the page) > > Items under discussion: > > a) 6 v. 8 rounds > b) how strong should strikecards be. > > Desperate pre-emptive appeal to have this not become a discussion about > birth certificates, etc. > > Take it easy, > > Will > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081022/e7650197/attachment.htm From emarlow at ucok.edu Wed Oct 22 14:51:30 2008 From: emarlow at ucok.edu (Eric Wendell Marlow) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:51:30 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] Joe C. Jackson update Message-ID: <1322312.1224705090215.JavaMail.lmadmin@clio> We are starting to get closer to this year's Jackson and we are delighted to have so many teams entered. A couple of concerns are starting to surface. 1) Hotel reservations--from what I understand, the block is just about sold out. The invite contains the information for the Holiday Inn Express and the Hampton Inn located on I-35. We do not have any rate agreement with them, but if you mention UCO, it might get you a discount. 2) Judging--several coaches have contacted me about hiring judges and uncovered teams. We have a VERY short supply of judging in this area. If at all possible, I ask that you try to acquire your own judging and only rely on paying for uncovered teams as a last resort. The uncovered team fee is extremely high because I have to pay people to judge as well as feeding and housing them, so there is no way I can reduce those fees if you can't provide judges. Do your best to find your own, and then we can discuss other options. I would hate to be forced to turn teams away, but I will if we simply can not provide enough judging for the tournament. We are looking forward to hosting all of you in Edmond next month. Speaker awards should be sweet this year. 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 jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 14:53:13 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:53:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Two new threads In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ok, 1. While 6 rounds creates a much more humane tournament schedule: a) I want my debaters to get the most possible rounds per tournament attended because at current costs and in the current economic state we will all likely go to less total tournaments. b) I worry that less rounds makes it harder for teams on the bubble to break 2. How strong should strike cards be: You will have to explain what you mean by this more.....it could mean many things. Josh On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM, William J Repko wrote: > I am hoping to get community feedback on two items. > > Both discussions are taking place at: > > http://cedadebate.org/ > > (check the active forum topics section on the right-hand side of the page) > > Items under discussion: > > a) 6 v. 8 rounds > b) how strong should strikecards be. > > Desperate pre-emptive appeal to have this not become a discussion about > birth certificates, etc. > > Take it easy, > > Will > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081022/56b63c07/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Oct 22 14:58:14 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:58:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 6 v. 8 rounds References: Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB0B@castor.richmond.edu> I sent a note to Ross about this when edebate was down. We strongly support 8 rounds because our teams usually are done debating after prelims. 25% MORE DEBATES OUTWEIGHS just about any other argument being made from our perspective. Ross replied right away to me with the response that this is just an experiment for one year and that Wake believes it is important to have enough time between out-round debates and not finish the tournament at the crack of dawn on tuesday. We LOVE the Wake tournament and are willing to try the experiment (we'd try just about anything Wake suggests...) but hopefully there will be a discussion of the merits and das afterward. I really think they will go back to 8 prelims after this year--even if it means clearing to octos and requiring a 6-2 with points to clear. kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Josh Sent: Wed 10/22/2008 3:53 PM To: William J Repko Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Two new threads Ok, 1. While 6 rounds creates a much more humane tournament schedule: a) I want my debaters to get the most possible rounds per tournament attended because at current costs and in the current economic state we will all likely go to less total tournaments. b) I worry that less rounds makes it harder for teams on the bubble to break 2. How strong should strike cards be: You will have to explain what you mean by this more.....it could mean many things. Josh On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM, William J Repko wrote: I am hoping to get community feedback on two items. Both discussions are taking place at: http://cedadebate.org/ (check the active forum topics section on the right-hand side of the page) Items under discussion: a) 6 v. 8 rounds b) how strong should strikecards be. Desperate pre-emptive appeal to have this not become a discussion about birth certificates, etc. Take it easy, Will _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Oct 22 15:17:58 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:17:58 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 6 v. 8 rounds References: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB0B@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: I'll throw in my thought: 7 rounds plus elims 4 prelims sat 3 prelims sun plus an elim 4 elims mon jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------------------------------------------- From: "Kuswa, Kevin" Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:58 PM To: "Josh" ; "William J Repko" Cc: Subject: [eDebate] 6 v. 8 rounds I sent a note to Ross about this when edebate was down. We strongly support 8 rounds because our teams usually are done debating after prelims. 25% MORE DEBATES OUTWEIGHS just about any other argument being made from our perspective. Ross replied right away to me with the response that this is just an experiment for one year and that Wake believes it is important to have enough time between out-round debates and not finish the tournament at the crack of dawn on tuesday. We LOVE the Wake tournament and are willing to try the experiment (we'd try just about anything Wake suggests...) but hopefully there will be a discussion of the merits and das afterward. I really think they will go back to 8 prelims after this year--even if it means clearing to octos and requiring a 6-2 with points to clear. kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Josh Sent: Wed 10/22/2008 3:53 PM To: William J Repko Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Two new threads Ok, 1. While 6 rounds creates a much more humane tournament schedule: a) I want my debaters to get the most possible rounds per tournament attended because at current costs and in the current economic state we will all likely go to less total tournaments. b) I worry that less rounds makes it harder for teams on the bubble to break 2. How strong should strike cards be: You will have to explain what you mean by this more.....it could mean many things. Josh On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:45 PM, William J Repko wrote: I am hoping to get community feedback on two items. Both discussions are taking place at: http://cedadebate.org/ (check the active forum topics section on the right-hand side of the page) Items under discussion: a) 6 v. 8 rounds b) how strong should strikecards be. Desperate pre-emptive appeal to have this not become a discussion about birth certificates, etc. Take it easy, Will _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From everybodylovesjim at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 15:21:31 2008 From: everybodylovesjim at gmail.com (Jim Schultz) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:21:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 6 v. 8 rounds In-Reply-To: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB0B@castor.richmond.edu> References: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB0B@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <61f2ebdb0810221321m5891e30r603c1d550fd1bbbd@mail.gmail.com> i like even numbers as much as the next American, but what about 7 rounds? if the problem is that 8 rounds is too many, and 6 rounds is too few... somehow the prospect of 5-2 and points with a doubles seems better than either 4-2 with points and doubles or 6-2 with points and octas. jim :( -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/6afa7651/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Wed Oct 22 16:05:17 2008 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:05:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Two new threads Message-ID: <48FF4F3D02000033000326CE@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> As Will starts a discussion regarding the ?strength? of the strike cards or preference system, I need to make an important clarification. The difference in ?strength? between having 2 categories (strikes only), 4 categories (ABCX), 6 categories, 9 categories, or ordinal is not primarily one of preference, but rather one of mutuality. The increase in the number of categories by itself does not significantly increase the level of preference achieved (though the power of the algorithm or method of matching judges does have a significant impact). The increase in the number of categories can rather make a dramatic difference in the degree of mutuality that can be achieved. The reason that this distinction is important is that one of the arguments that has been offered for decreasing the number of categories is that it would be less exclusive and that teams would no longer only have to debate for the judges in the top 50-60% of the pool. But that isn?t an entailment at all. An ABCX system with 25% per category could/would similarly limit all but 1-2% of debates for teams not eliminated to judges in the top half (AA, BB or AB matches). The difference would be that an AB match could have nearly a 50% ordinal difference in mutuality. If the educational goal is to increase the range of judges that teams need to be prepared to argue in front of and to decrease the exclusion of judges at the bottom of the distribution, the best solution is to have a large number of categories (or ordinal) and to relax the objective of maximizing preference while continuing to focus on maximizing mutuality. If we think that there is an educational benefit in have a team debate for a judge in the bottom 25% of their preference (or in the 50-75% range), I suspect that we would argue that it is even more important to ensure that the judge is not one that is highly skewed with respect to their opponent?s preference. GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/a6636482/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Oct 22 16:44:21 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:44:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum Message-ID: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> Repko created a thread there. No commenters. People just use edebate (even though it was down for a long time). Meanwhile, I can't create an account at the CEDA forum because it wants some damn code I do not have and there is not even a "contact us" or FAQ at that website. Oh well. Gary Larson is right about prefs. People do not want 13 4 hour (including pre-round prep, decisions, post-round, bathrooms, smoking, lunch . . .) debates in 3 days time. Everyone says they want more prelims except when they want more elims. -- 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 akbiotech at comcast.net Thu Oct 23 17:19:26 2008 From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Art Kyriazis) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:19:26 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Philip Berg Lawsuit v Obama is filed with the wrong court In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4900F86E.6000104@comcast.net> Dear Friends: I noted some comments on a lawsuit which an attorney from the great Commonwealth of PA, Mr. Phillip Berg of Lafayette Hill, has allegedly filed in U.S. District Court, against one of the candidates in the Presidential Election. I was formerly a law clerk to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania and practiced election law for many years in PA. I mention this because the Commonwealth Court of PA has exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction of all challenges to election ballots, petitions and so forth of the kind that Mr. Berg is trying to make, albeit his complaint shows no particular acquaintance with election law as it is normally practiced in Pennsylvania. To give an example, when Ralph Nader wanted to run as an independent in 2004, the proper petitions to knock him off the ballot, challenging his nominating petitions, were filed in Commonwealth Court, and in such an election challenge, the winner gets legal costs. In that case, not only did Nader lose, but he was ordered to pay legal fees of more than fifty thousand dollars to the Democratic Party, which I believe was the plaintiff in that action. The point is, the form of the complaint, and the jurisdictional filing of the complaint, by Mr. Berg, are both wrong. Also, the timing is wrong. This should have been filed much earlier in the election season. I am pretty sure he's time-barred at this point. Final point, he can't file in federal court unless he's exhausted administrative, party and state court remedies. He doesn't show that he's done any of that. This is an improper filing for these and many other reasons. Also, the filing is full of impertinent, defamatory and improper materials that are irrelevant to the issue of whether the candidate has filed a proper nominating petition or properly belongs on the ballot, which is the narrow issue before the court. I no longer practice law, but it seems to me that if Mr. Berg or any one else wanted to do discovery on the issue of the candidate's birth certificate, I would recommend he consult with Hawaii counsel, and institute some kind of a proper challenge in that state that is focused, limited and confined to the narrow issue of the birth certificate, and get a local judge in Hawaii to issue an order unsealing the records for all to see, if the issue is even justiciable. Incidentally, even if Obama was born abroad of a United States Citizen, Obama would /still/ be eligible to be President. Persons born abroad of one or more United States citizens are considered to be "natural born citizens" under the United States Constitution because they are conferred citizenship status automatically by virtue of their parents' citizenship. George Romney, Mitt Romney's dad, who was the major challenger to the 1968 Republican Presidential Nomination when he was Governor of Michigan, who was born abroad of United States citizens, had this issue thoroughly researched by his presidential team in the 1960s, and there is no barrier to those born abroad of United States citizens being President under the "natural born citizen" clause. In short, the "natural born citizen" clause encompasses more than just persons born in the territorial United States. Thus Mr. Berg's basic assumption that the candidate will somehow be ineligible if found to be born in, let's say, Indonesia, of an American parent, would be completely wrong. A person born in Indonesia of a U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen eligible to be President of the United States, assuming that individual meets the other qualifications. Again, I won't supply the legal sources, because George Romney had this researched during his campaign. --Art Kyriazis, Philly edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com wrote: > Send eDebate mailing list submissions to > edebate at www.ndtceda.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Debate job in Texas starting next year (michael hester) > 2. 2 rounds of Shirley judging for sale (michael hester) > 3. ESU Pflaum Debates - Open Awards (J T) > 4. ESU Pflaum Debates - JV Awards (J T) > 5. esu more awards (J T) > 6. Re: esu more awards (Josh) > 7. Pitt Looking for Four Rounds At Harvard (john rief) > 8. Fwd: Debate Documentary (Calum Matheson) > 9. Richmond Elim Results (Kuswa, Kevin) > 10. Tournament invitation hosted by Los Angeles City Col > (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) > 11. 4 rounds for sale at harvard (stephen davis) > 12. where is obama's birth certificate? (Old Strega) > 13. Re: where is obama's birth certificate? (MWBRYANT at aol.com) > 14. nevermind (stephen davis) > 15. Re: where is obama's birth certificate? (Old Strega) > 16. UT-Tyler job update (michael hester) > 17. Re: where is obama's birth certificate? (Dallas Perkins) > 18. Re: where is obama's birth certificate? (MWBRYANT at aol.com) > 19. Re: where is obama's birth certificate? (Old Strega) > 20. Re: where is obama's birth certificate? (Andy Ellis) > 21. judge disagreed with dallas on BOP (Old Strega) > 22. why the media blackout? (Old Strega) > 23. Re: why the media blackout? (Josh) > 24. Re: why the media blackout? (Old Strega) > 25. Re: why the media blackout? (Josh) > 26. Re: why the media blackout? (Old Strega) > 27. Re: why the media blackout? (Josh) > 28. Re: why the media blackout? (Old Strega) > 29. Re: judge disagreed with dallas on BOP (JP Lacy) > 30. Re: judge disagreed with dallas on BOP (Nick Ryan) > 31. Re: judge disagreed with dallas on BOP (Old Strega) > 32. Re: judge disagreed with dallas on BOP (JP Lacy) > 33. Harvard Tournament Menu (Sherry Hall) > 34. Re: where is obama's birth certificate? (Jeremy Bowers) > 35. Harvard Tournament Menu (scottelliott at grandecom.net) > 36. Presentation information for Architecture Debate Club > (jason hitchcock) > 37. Re: judge disagreed with dallas on BOP (Old Strega) > 38. Re: where is obama's birth certificate? (Mariam Willis) > 39. inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis (Old Strega) > 40. The brilliance of Berg (Logan Martin) > 41. Graduate School and Coaching at Wyoming (matt stannard) > 42. Re: inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis (lacyjp) > 43. Re: judge disagreed with dallas on BOP (Jeremy Bowers) > 44. Wake invitation (Ross Smith) > 45. Harvard - rounds for sale (V I Keenan) > 46. Re: Wake invitation (bandana martin) > 47. Emporia semis and finals results (Samuel Maurer) > 48. Re: Harvard - rounds for sale (Aaron Olney) > 49. Re: Emporia semis and finals results (J T) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:00:15 -0400 > From: "michael hester" > Subject: [eDebate] Debate job in Texas starting next year > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <2e0f7ba70810201100x6c50dde3i7baf9895dfdff682 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > hey everyone, > > a friend of mine is the dean of A&S at UT-Tyler and they are interested in > doing CEDA/NDT debate starting next year. she'd be a very good boss and the > school is ready to support the team in terms of $$$$. They are willing to > offer the job as a tenure-track position OR not, depending on what will get > them the best debate coach. i.e., they are flexible. > > i'm gathering names for her. so if you're interested, let me know. > > hester > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/2f5866a2/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 14:05:52 -0400 > From: "michael hester" > Subject: [eDebate] 2 rounds of Shirley judging for sale > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <2e0f7ba70810201105g7cfacc24odcbb58a186c6887b at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > i'm selling two rounds of judging - $50 cash provided by saturday of the > tournament. > > if this fits what you need and can do, let me know. > > > hester > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/4708a792/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:08:46 -0700 (PDT) > From: J T > Subject: [eDebate] ESU Pflaum Debates - Open Awards > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: <415792.71801.qm at web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Most Preferred Critic (via prefs)--Louie Petit--North Texas > > OPEN > 1. Coleman-Wichita > 2. A.Casey-UCO > 3. E. Robinson-Witchita > 4. A. Jack-Kansas > 5. B. Mendenhall-K-State > 6. Avery Henry-UCO > 7. E. Defilippis-OU > 8. J. Garcia-UMKC > 9. C. Spurlock-UCO > 10.Stacy Spomer-UCO > > OPEN > > Partial-Doubles > Concordia MT (aff) over Baylor MN Zarazan, Morris*, Cram-Helwich > > Octos > WSU CR (aff) over Concordia MT Vega, B. Warner, S. Maurer > UCO CS (Neg) over OU BY Dipiazza, Harlow, Winfrey > UCO HS (Neg) over K-State GH E. Short, J. Russell*, P. Samuels > WSU BR (Aff) over OU DT Herndon, 8Pennington, H. Tripe-Roberts > K-State MZ (Neg) over UNT MS Cram-Helwich, T.Easley > KU JW (Neg) over OU KT R. Smith, Tiara Naputi, L. Petit > Baylor CM (Neg) over Mo State GK Zarazan, T. Jordan, J. Davis > Kansas KS (Neg) over Concordia LR J. Roberts, S. Snider Green, Malgor > > Quarters PAIRINGS > KU KS vs. WSU CR J. Davis, H. Tripe-Roberts, Zarazan > Baylor CM vs. UCO CS Cram Helwich, Harlow, H. Walters > KU JW vs.UCO HS R. Smith, J. Russell, Z. Brown > K-State MZ (neg) vs. WSU BR Winfrey, B. Warner, P. Samuels > > > > > W. James Taylor ("JT") > > Asst. Debate Coach > Emporia State University > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/d5237e9e/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:15:48 -0700 (PDT) > From: J T > Subject: [eDebate] ESU Pflaum Debates - JV Awards > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: <418058.29519.qm at web30001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > JV Speakers > 1. F. Katschke-Wichita > 2. V. Kumar-UTSA > 3. A. Cortelyou-Wichita > 4. Z. Hartkopp-JCCC > 5. L. Nordstrom-OU > 6. S. Winkle-Kansas > 7. Sean Sales-UCO > 8. G. Funcheon-K-State > 9. K. Zahrai-OU > 10.B. Dabari-OU > > Partial OCtos > UTSA CT (aff) over Minnesota ST *Harlow, T. Easley, N. Pennington > KU DW (Neg) over JCCC XX *R. Smith, R. Patterson, K. Thompson > K-State FM (aff) over UCO DS *C. Hamilton, H. Walters, Tiara Naputi > > Quarters > OU NW over K-State FM J. Johnson, J. Jarman, E. Marlow > Minnesota KS over KU DW C. Hamilton, Z. Brown, K. Doris > WSU CK over USTA CT J. Massey, C. Good, S. Ketchum > JCCC HW over OU WZ H. Walters, Mike Kearney, M. Burke > > Sems (in progress) > JCCC HW (Aff) vs. OU NW Pennington, J. Jarman, K. Doris > Minnesota KS over WSU CK E. Marlwo, S. Ketchum, T. Easley > > > > > > > > > > W. James Taylor ("JT") > > Asst. Debate Coach > Emporia State University > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/6f2d6973/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:19:58 -0700 (PDT) > From: J T > Subject: [eDebate] esu more awards > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: <623473.84768.qm at web30004.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > OPEN Quarters > UCO CS over Baylor CM 3-0 > UCO HS over KU JW 2-1 > K-State MZ over WSU BR 3-0 > WSU CR over KU KS 3-0 > > JV Sems > Minnesota KS over WSU CK 2-1 > JCCC HW over OU NW 2-1 > > W. James Taylor ("JT") > > Asst. Debate Coach > Emporia State University > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/7ef2c8eb/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:28:24 -0400 > From: Josh > Subject: Re: [eDebate] esu more awards > To: "J T" > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Go Bronchos! > > UCO Alum, Josh Hoe > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:19 PM, J T wrote: > > >> OPEN Quarters >> UCO CS over Baylor CM 3-0 >> UCO HS over KU JW 2-1 >> K-State MZ over WSU BR 3-0 >> WSU CR over KU KS 3-0 >> >> JV Sems >> Minnesota KS over WSU CK 2-1 >> JCCC HW over OU NW 2-1 >> >> W. James Taylor ("JT") >> >> Asst. Debate Coach >> Emporia State University >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/ca140656/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:30:42 -0400 > From: "john rief" > Subject: [eDebate] Pitt Looking for Four Rounds At Harvard > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <65f6da530810201530nfd76186gd7f95ee68537104c at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I know its late in the game but the edebate breakdown made this message > impossible to post last week. Pitt is looking to hire 4 rounds of judging > at Harvard. If anyone out there still has a few rounds they can sell, it > would be much appreciated. We will generously compensate you. Individuals > already attending with room/board covered are preferred. Please contact me > asap so we can make changes before Harvard prefs are up. > > Thanks in advance! > > Best, > > John Rief > Assistant Director of Policy Debate > William Pitt Debating Union > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/5ecc003e/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:10:11 -0500 > From: "Calum Matheson" > Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Debate Documentary > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Tried to send this awhile ago. This is from the director, Douglas Robbins: > > The DEBATE TEAM DOCUMENTARY (www.debateteamdocumentary.com) is happy to > announce that we have been invited to show the film at the San Francisco > International Documentary Film Festival this month! So awesome. > > The documentary will run on three dates only: > > * On Sunday, October 19, 2008, 7:15 p.m. at the Roxie Cinema in San > Francisco; > * On Tuesday October 21, 7:15 p.m., again at the Roxie; > * And on Sunday November 2, 2008, 9:30 p.m. at the Shattuck Cinema in > Berkeley. > > If you are in California during those dates, please go here to buy tickets > in advance, as the theatre might sell out: > > https://sfdocfest08.withoutabox.com/festivals/event_item.php?id=18322 > > These three dates are likely the only time that the movie will show in a > theatre in California and the tickets will go fast. The Director and > Producer will be there to talk about the documentary after the show and will > sell signed copies of the DVD! > > No need to respond to this e-mail to reserve tickets, just go buy some! And > please please come to the Shattuck showing in Berkeley if you can. At that > showing, we'll be giving away free DVDs and wine gift baskets. No joke! > Support debate. Support independent film! > > Douglas > www.debateteamdocumentary.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/d40ecda5/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:51:33 -0400 > From: "Kuswa, Kevin" > Subject: [eDebate] Richmond Elim Results > To: > Message-ID: > <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AAC5 at castor.richmond.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > 08 RICHMOND JV: > > > > Partial Octafinal Round Results > > > > Pittsburgh NN (Neg) defeated George Mason Univers JL 3-0 Gartman, Jake Bryson, Donald Bonneau, Scott > > Wayne State Universi MQ (Aff) defeated Mary Washington GT 3-0 Packer, Joe Hall, Michael Skinner, Beth > > Johns Hopkins KS (Neg) defeated Mary Washington XX 3-0 Hall, Heather Verney-O'Gorma, Halydier, Garret > > > > Quarterfinal Round Results > > > > Binghamton GS (Aff) defeated Johns Hopkins KS 2-1 Packer, Joe Green, RJ *Skinner, Beth > > Binghamton BT (Aff) defeated Wayne State Universi MQ 2-1 *Ryan, Nick Hall, Heather Bowers, Jeremy > > Liberty University BP (Aff) defeated Pittsburgh NN 2-1 Gartman, Jake Schatz, Joe *Jones, Chris > > Liberty University GW (Aff) defeated Appalachian State JL 3-0 Bonneau, Scott O'Donnell, Tim Noerr, Rob > > > > Semifinal Round Results > > > > Liberty University GW (Neg) defeated Binghamton GS 3-0 Bonneau, Scott Goss, Judy Lyle, Jim > > Liberty University BP (Neg) defeated Binghamton BT 2-1 Hester, Mike Koehle, Joe *Skinner, Beth > > > > Final Round Results > > > > Liberty University BP Advances Over Liberty University GW > > > > > > 08 RICHMOND Novice > > > > Partial Double Octafinal Round Results > > > > Liberty University TT (Aff) defeated Appalachian State AH 3-0 Rief, John Keeton, Joe O'Donnell, Tim > > Clarion University MS (Neg) defeated U.s. Naval Academy CS 3-0 Collins, Will Ryan, Nick Nagy, John > > Mary Washington MV (Aff) defeated South Florida St. Pet OT 2-1 *Schraeder, Jenni Eagleton, Ben Davis, Stephen > > > > Octafinal Round Results > > > > Binghamton CJ (Aff) defeated Mary Washington MV 3-0 Ryan, Andrew Schraeder, Jenni Padgett, Rodger > > Liberty University DT (Neg) defeated Clarion University MS 3-0 Verney-O'Gorma, Weiner, Jake Beaton, Hunter > > Liberty University TT (Aff) defeated Wayne State Universi JS 2-1 Lyle, Jim Fleischmann, Cas *Patel, Nisha > > Binghamton FT (Aff) defeated Appalachian State TV 3-0 Nagy, Adrianne Saindon, Brent Goss, Judy > > Liberty University HL Advances Over Liberty University KM > > Clarion University HP (Neg) defeated Liberty University DE 2-1 Collins, Will Passantino, Andr *Tajima, Noriaki > > John Carroll Univers NV (Aff) defeated George Mason Univers BT 3-0 Nagy, John Rief, John Willis, Mariam > > Mary Washington HS (Aff) defeated George Mason Univers BC 2-1 *Halydier, Garret Hoyle, Lee Lind, Stephen > > > > Quarterfinal Round Results > > > > Binghamton CJ (Neg) defeated Mary Washington HS 3-0 Hall, Heather Lind, Stephen Halydier, Garret > > Liberty University DT (Neg) defeated John Carroll Univers NV 3-0 Bryson, Donald O'Donnell, Tim Noerr, Rob > > Liberty University TT (Neg) defeated Clarion University HP 2-1 Weiner, Jake *Schatz, Joe Jones, Chris > > Binghamton FT (Neg) defeated Liberty University HL 2-1 Hoyle, Lee Davis, Stephen *Packer, Joe > > > > Semifinal Round Results > > Binghamton CJ Advances Over Binghamton FT > > Liberty University DT Advances Over Liberty University TT > > > > Final Round Results > > Binghamton CJ (Neg) defeated Liberty University DT 3-0 Hester, Mike Skinner, Beth Koehle, Joe > > > > > > 08 RICHMOND OPEN: > > > > Partial Octafinal Round Results > > > > Towson EM (Aff) defeated Liberty University FW 2-1 Bellon, Joe *Lee, Adam R. Schatz, Joe > > Pittsburgh LS (Neg) defeated Binghamton TW 2-1 *Hester, Mike Green, RJ Cherian, Asha > > George Mason Univers HO (Aff) defeated Mary Washington SS 3-0 Sharp, Jon Davis, Mike Lyle, Jim > > Pittsburgh KM (Neg) defeated Mary Washington GM 2-1 Koehle, Joe Arnold, Mark *Jones, Chris > > Binghamton CO (Aff) defeated Georgia State BG 2-1 Noerr, Rob Bowers, Jeremy *Bowman, Pamela > > Liberty University DG (Aff) defeated James Madison CF 2-1 *Brovero, Adrienn Weiner, Jake Wiley, Elizabeth > > > > Quarterfinal Round Results > > > > West Georgia MS (Aff) defeated Liberty University DG 2-1 Bellon, Joe *Lee, Adam R. Bryson, Donald > > Binghamton CO (Neg) defeated Kentucky CG 2-1 Koehle, Joe Hester, Mike *Brovero, Adrienn > > Towson EM (Aff) defeated Pittsburgh KM 3-0 Congdon, Kelly Bowman, Pamela Sharp, Jon > > George Mason Univers HO (Aff) defeated Pittsburgh LS 2-1 Hausrath, Bary *Davis, Mike Arnold, Mark > > > > Semifinal Round Results > > > > West Georgia MS (Neg) defeated George Mason Univers HO 3-0 Rief, John Davis, Mike Brovero, Adrienn > > Towson EM (Neg) defeated Binghamton CO 3-0 Bowman, Pamela Bowers, Jeremy Saindon, Brent > > > > Final Round Results > > > > West Georgia MS (Aff) defeated Towson EM 2-1 Gartman, Jake *Nagy, John Hall, Heather > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:52:52 -0700 > From: > Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Los Angeles City > Col > To: > Message-ID: <706129357D5641DFAB2CE7BFE101B26D at AD.FULLERTON.EDU> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Name:Tina J Herman Policy Invitational > Starts:12/5/2008 > Ends:12/5/2008 > Hosted by: Los Angeles City Col > Contact: John Matteson > Address: 855 N. Vermont Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90029 > Phone: 323-953-4000 > On-line entry allowed: True > AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True > Divisions Offered: > Novice with 4 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified > Rookie with 4 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. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 21:44:57 -0400 > From: "stephen davis" > Subject: [eDebate] 4 rounds for sale at harvard > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <9b5963440810201844g40210718x6b1c0c561770dd16 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > 35 a round, cash, got my own transport and lodging.... 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/20081020/fbf127eb/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:50:56 -0500 > From: Old Strega > Subject: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? > To: > Cc: info at johnmccain.com, rush at eibnet.com, 70277.2502 at compuserve.com > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" > > > i have not turned republican but i'm curious why the court cases against obama and the DNC regarding the "existence" of his birth certificate are not a part of public discussion in the run-up to the election. it's seems to me the most fundamental argument regarding character out there. as it sits right now with the case, obama appears to have forged a birth certificate to squeak through the primaries. his unwillingness to produce a real birth certificate in a legal case does not jive with his demands for other candidates to produce tax returns, health records, etc. if obama doesn't have a birth certificate, then he is a fraud who has faked natural born citizenship for personal gains and that is not the decent man mccain described to angry crowds in recent weeks. does obama have a birth certificate? was he born in kenya? why are there so many discrepancies amongst his siblings as to which country he was born in and which hospital? why are biographers being > kicked out of kenya for investigating his family? what stake does kenya have in the US election? > > this is a plea for mccain/palin, rush limbaugh and fox news to make obama's citizenship the forefront issue of the campaign. i encourage debaters concerned about the serious possibility of senator obama being a fraud to amplify this message to rush at eibnet.com, 70277.2502 at compuserve.com, info at johnmccain.com. contact fox news and ask why they are not running the story :1-888-369-4762. the best argument against obama is not being deployed. why? > > perhaps, it's best for obama to win and then get impeached. > > if you are unfamiliar with berg vs. obama and the DNC, please watch this utube video where mr. berg outlines his case. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOzFl-Gm_Kc > > the complete story resides @: > > http://www.obamacrimes.com/ > > here is the amended complaint: > > Monday, 06 October 2008 18:44 administrator > > Phil J. Berg filed an amended complaint today in Berg v. Obama. The amended complaint adds the Pennsylvania Department of State, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes (in his official capacity), the U. S. Sentate Committee on Rules and Administration, and Senator Diane Feinstein (in her official capacity as chairman) for their failure to exercise due diligence with respect to Barack Obama's contitutional qualifications to be elected and serve as President of The United States, and for his inclusion on the ballot in Pennsylvania as a candidate for President of the United States. > > The amended complaint also bolsters the standing argument and adds additional relevent facts. > > Essentially, the argument is this: > > Senator Obama could put this whole issue to rest by providing an official "vault copy" birth certificate. > > Senator Obama has chosen not to do so. > > The defendants (other than Obama) have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the electoral system by properly vetting the qualifications of candidates, which they have failed to perform. > > Mr. Berg, other Americans, and our system of government are damaged by this failure. > > Senator Obama, who has collected $425,000,000 in campaign contributions, has perpetrated a fraud. end quote > > senator obama is a fraud who has forged a hawaiian birth certificate which has subsequently been withdrawn from his website. neither the forgery nor any original birth certificate were submitted to the judge in the first appearance. instead mr. obama filed for a motion to dismiss. berg emphasizes the weakness of this "strategy" given the logical appeal to the 3rd circuit or the supreme court. > > i am most amazed with the obama supporters who are satisfied that their candidate has not provided a birth certificate in the legal case in order to completely dispel the controversy and that their candidate has removed the forgery from his website. "belief" has come into conflict with the constitution and any pretense of public accountability called straight talk. the obama fans are willing to bypass the constitution to get their change. > > the mass media boycott of the berg case against obama is disgusting. obama fans support the windfall obama is getting from the media blackout. there are now 3 suits against obama regarding his citizenship. > > http://tsfiles.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/obama?s-citizenship-in-doubt-suits-filed-in-hawaii-and-washington/ > > Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berg is not alone. There are now currently three lawsuits questioning the eligibility of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama to serve as president of the United States ? the first, of course, is Berg?s, while the other two include an action filed in Washington State Superior Court last week and one filed Friday in a Hawaiian state court. > > Unlike Berg?s case, which names Obama, the Democratic National Committee and Federal Election Commission as defendants (Berg has a pending motion for leave to amend his original complaint which would add California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and the Senate Rules Committee as well), the other lawsuits are geared toward ballot inclusion and document production. > > The suit in Washington State, filed against Secretary of State Sam Reed by Fall City, WA resident Steven Marquis, seeks the removal of Barack Obama from the ballot until the candidate provided an answer to what Marquis says are ?unanswered questions surrounding Obama?s citizenship and background,? the answers for which effectively avoid ?a ?constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest? which would arise should information come to light after the election which shows that the Illinois senator is ineligible to hold the presidency.? > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:16:48 EDT > From: MWBRYANT at aol.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] where is obama's birth certificate? > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > 1. Is this is the best anti-Obama argument you can produce?! > > 2. His mother was clearly a US citizen. > > 3. The location of his birth (Hawaii!) is not really the question. If his > mother was a US citizen, Obama would be a US citizen even if he was born in > Moscow. > > 4. Why is this on eDebate? > > 5. More importantly, what is your real motive? No one buys for one second > that you're just a concerned patriot... > > And I'll sign my name. Bet you won't. > > BTW, why do you think MCCain/Palin both refuse to release their medical > records? > > Michael Bryant > **************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002) > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081020/f83f6088/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:30:33 -0400 > From: "stephen davis" > Subject: [eDebate] nevermind > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <9b5963440810201930w1bed3f55xc4281f0145ae4f62 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: akbiotech.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 397 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/c4c80c3e/attachment.vcf From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 17:56:23 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:56:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum In-Reply-To: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> References: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Ross et al, The problem is that the people who want more elims are not the same people who want more prelims. As you probably have noticed, some coaches get more than a little frustrated when tournaments are put together on the basis ONLY of serving the best and brightest because a great deal of people who debate never get the benefits of said treatment. In addition, schools with young debaters who are trying to get them to "bid" level generally try to get them as many rounds as possible against the GOOD teams - two less rounds in prelims for a team that likely will not clear is two less rounds they can debate good teams. Now, that said, usually I agree with most of your "innovations and experiments" and like that you are always trying new ways to make the tournament experience and/or debate experience better. Josh On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Ross Smith wrote: > Repko created a thread there. No commenters. People just use edebate > (even though it was down for a long time). > > Meanwhile, I can't create an account at the CEDA forum because it wants > some damn code I do not have and there is not even a "contact us" or FAQ > at that website. > > Oh well. > > Gary Larson is right about prefs. > > People do not want 13 4 hour (including pre-round prep, decisions, > post-round, bathrooms, smoking, lunch . . .) debates in 3 days time. > Everyone says they want more prelims except when they want more elims. > > -- > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081022/d19203a1/attachment.htm From acasey3 at ucok.edu Wed Oct 22 18:17:24 2008 From: acasey3 at ucok.edu (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:17:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum Message-ID: <6245964.1224717444796.JavaMail.acasey3@ucok.edu> I'm on board with experimentation and making tournaments better. It just seems as if a tournament (with at this point 127 teams) can hardly exist in a six round format. I understand the frustration of having that amount of outrounds in one day, but 7 rounds with a prelim on sunday seems like a better fit for all concerns; especially, for example the concerns of those in their last year who would like to not miss on speaks...again. (i'd even be willing to say those folks would love not eating that night or just getting less sleep for monday than going 4-2 with the potential to not break). just an idea, -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 charrigan at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 18:45:12 2008 From: charrigan at gmail.com (Casey Harrigan) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:45:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Reaction to Advocates of 7 Rounds Message-ID: 1. Seven rounds (with the current structure) may not be feasible: a) The main "time crunch" at tournaments occurs on elim day for a reason. Elim debates, with 3 judge panels, coin-flips, etc., take MUCH longer than prelim debates to complete. This is a big part of why Day 2 ends at 9pm, and Day 3 ends at 3am. b) On an 8-round schedule with a banquet (like Wake last year), the banquet still finishes very late. Four debates + awards is a full day. c) Switching one prelim for an elim, while keeping all else constant, will push things even later. Some Sundays/"day twos" do not finish until 9:30 or 10pm as it is. With a banquet, and the added time of an elim - how late can we push this? 2. Suggestion - eliminate elaborate and extended awards banquets. Speaker awards + thanks can be reasonably given in 20 minutes. "Banquet time" at some tournaments burns hours. Yes, most people like banquets. The food is usually ok. Speakers can be insightful. Its a public way to honor some folks. But it is not necessary. If the choice presented was "end the banquet and use its time to hold a 7th debate" or "have 6 prelims and a buffet", which would chose? Awards are good - but they could be given in a WAY more efficient manner. 3. Side note about "humaneness" - Ross' original sentiment was right. The debate community has proven that it cannot run a tournament with 8 prelim debates that clears to doubles, while also providing enough time for preparation, post-round discussion, meals, and awards, in a humane fashion. As currently structured, elim day is far too long. Many coaches/debaters wake up as early as 6am on Monday, and the final round is sometimes not completed until 3am or later. A 23 hour + day is not humane, enjoyable, or safe. Tournament structure must be changed, even if it reduces competition. Casey Harrigan UGA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/5667a92c/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 18:57:17 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:57:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Reaction to Advocates of 7 Rounds In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think for the most part very few people go to Wake that leave the night of outrounds....most people either know they wont be in late elims and leave early, stay anyway because of poker tournament and watching rounds, or are in late elims. Again, it seems to me a question of who you prefer rounds for. I would agree no banquet over less rounds.....although you want no banquet and less rounds. Josh On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Casey Harrigan wrote: > 1. Seven rounds (with the current structure) may not be feasible: > > a) The main "time crunch" at tournaments occurs on elim day for a reason. > Elim debates, with 3 judge panels, coin-flips, etc., take MUCH longer than > prelim debates to complete. This is a big part of why Day 2 ends at 9pm, and > Day 3 ends at 3am. > > b) On an 8-round schedule with a banquet (like Wake last year), the banquet > still finishes very late. Four debates + awards is a full day. > > c) Switching one prelim for an elim, while keeping all else constant, will > push things even later. Some Sundays/"day twos" do not finish until 9:30 or > 10pm as it is. With a banquet, and the added time of an elim - how late can > we push this? > > > 2. Suggestion - eliminate elaborate and extended awards banquets. Speaker > awards + thanks can be reasonably given in 20 minutes. "Banquet time" at > some tournaments burns hours. > > Yes, most people like banquets. The food is usually ok. Speakers can be > insightful. Its a public way to honor some folks. > > But it is not necessary. If the choice presented was "end the banquet and > use its time to hold a 7th debate" or "have 6 prelims and a buffet", which > would chose? > > Awards are good - but they could be given in a WAY more efficient manner. > > > 3. Side note about "humaneness" - > > Ross' original sentiment was right. The debate community has proven that it > cannot run a tournament with 8 prelim debates that clears to doubles, while > also providing enough time for preparation, post-round discussion, meals, > and awards, in a humane fashion. As currently structured, elim day is far > too long. Many coaches/debaters wake up as early as 6am on Monday, and the > final round is sometimes not completed until 3am or later. A 23 hour + day > is not humane, enjoyable, or safe. Tournament structure must be changed, > even if it reduces competition. > > > Casey Harrigan > UGA > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081022/058d3f88/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com Wed Oct 22 19:02:02 2008 From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:02:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 6 v 8 rounds Message-ID: oh my god, i agree with Mr Josh. Per round cost is extremely high with a 6 round tournament. And this is a long distance for people from the midwest and western regions to travel. We don't have a team that is likely to clear to the doubles in open. We do, however, have to go to wake to prepare a potential 2nd round application. It's a lot of time and effort to get no more debates than we would at a district tournament. tournaments are inhumane: This hasn't always been the case. The problem is teams get too much prep time between outrounds. I heard GSU ended past 3 AM. I remember on FF topic and SC topic it was over by 130. I have been told by a couple of teams that they had so much time to prepare they literally ran out of things to do to prep their strategy with 20 minutes to spare. How much time on average is a team getting on outround day to prepare for a debate? It doesn't seem necessary if most tournaments are going to release the bracket the night before. That seems to merit less preptime on outround day. Only 32 teams are in the outrounds. There are 131 teams entered right now. That means that near 100 hundred teams are getting 2 less debates so that 2 teams don't get done with the tournament late. Teams eliminated throughout the day don't experience such inhumane treatment, just those in at the end (and their 3 judges). If it is such a high priority for those 2 teams to be done earlier in the day, then agree to more strict prep limits. The same teams are in the top 32 after 6 rounds as after 8: I think many would disagree that our primary concern when determining the structure of the tournament is that 'all the right teams clear,' as if those last 2 debates don't mean anything because they don't effect the top 32 teams. As Mr Josh pointed out, for many teams those prelims are important. another idea: 6 prelims with more outrounds. I dunno if all winning teams would warrant a partial or full triple, or even a partial quad. They don't teach us your fancy math in the swamps. Whatever the result is, do what it takes to have 2 outrounds day 2 of the tournament. 4 prelims day 1, 2 prelims, a partial, then a full double day 2. Do it under the understanding the limits will be very strict on day 2 to fit in the banquet, or move/cancel banquet all together (sometimes banquets are the most inhumane part of the tournaments). just doin some thankin back to fable 2 malgor _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081022/64d74e44/attachment.htm From scottyp431 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 19:53:09 2008 From: scottyp431 at gmail.com (Scott Phillips) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:53:09 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Humaness Message-ID: <12a4de8d0810221753x793c625cyab4d944a229ef2a2@mail.gmail.com> Is this for real? Walk it off, you can sleep when your dead. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/917c7b34/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 19:59:06 2008 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:59:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] best. tournament. ever. Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70810221759r1f9412e0u6b70bec89f514f82@mail.gmail.com> Dr. Chester Gibson set the bar high. shrimp. honey baked ham. politically motivated judge placement in break rounds. (ah, the 80's...) Well, we're cranking it to ELEVEN. UWG Debate is proud to announce that the West Georgia Tournament will be January 17-19, 2009. This year's tournament promises to be especially exciting, due to our new collaboration with old friends. Last year, i was approached by WG debate alum Cary Ichter (class of '81) about the idea of his law firm sponsoring the UWG debate tournament. Cary and fellow Adorno & Yoss attorney Adriana Midence (Michigan debater, class of '02) have been working with me to develop a tournament experience like no other. (if you want to learn more about Adorno & Yoss, check out their website [ http://www.adorno.com/index.asp]. ** Adorno & Yoss is not only the largest certified minority-owned firm in the United States and the only law firm member of the *National Minority Supplier Diversity Council's Corporate Plus * Program, but also the most diverse law firm in the country.) Adorno & Yoss's sponsorship of the UWG Debate tournament will allow us to maximize all the great things we've offered in the past, as well as provide new perks that will make our tournament THE place to be MLK weekend. Things that are staying the same: 1) WIFs ? the Worst in Forensic Awards will be back for their 2nd year. So bring your brainfart rebuttals and poor decisions! 2) 7 round prelims. Last year we did it for precautionary reasons due to weather, this year we're doing it again just because we liked it! Still clearing to octafinalss, still not breaking brackets. 3) More food than you can shake a stick-figured bulimic at. Hot breakfast, catered lunches, and so many snacks you'll swear we discovered a meal between brunch and lunch! 4) 80 teams in Open. As much as we'd like to have a bigger tournament, we just don't have the classroom space to house more than this. We are creating space for small JV and Novice divisions. Things that are changing ? 1) Entry Fees ? due to the generous support of Adorno & Yoss, we are slashing our entry fees. $50 per team. Yep, you read that correctly. FIFTY DOLLARS per team. We're gonna party like it's 1999, and charge you like it's 1985. 2) An Awards Banquet Sunday night. Yes, even more food. we may even bribe Ross to get up and make fun of people. or he may just stay in the back and make fun of me (stories about "practice pairings" are always good for a laugh). either way, good times. 3) CASH awards. The top speaker will receive $1000. yes, that's THREE ZEROES. The winning team will receive $1000. Concerned about those student loans because you chose a "good school" over West Ga? Well, here's your chance to start paying off that debt. 4) A chance for those interested in legal careers to learn more about great opportunities. During the lunches on Saturday and Sunday, there will be panel discussions where attorneys with decades of experience will answer such questions as "What can I do with a law degree?" "How do I choose a law school and how can I maximize my chances of getting into the law school of my choice?" The idea is to provide extremely useful information for the 60% of the tournament population that wants to get into law. if you don't have an interest in law, you won't be bothered. These panels will happen during our regularly scheduled lunches and are open to anyone who's interested, so anyone who'd rather just eat their Cathy Ho's and chillax can do that too. 5) EVEN BETTER food. My sister Lisa will be making special desserts and other goodies throughout the weekend. You can ask the UWG debaters about her cooking skills. And even now, I'm hunting for the nearest honey-baked ham location. (Yes, Berger, you should fly out to be a guest judge). We'll be putting the invitation up soon, so keep an eye out so you don't get left out. hester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081022/d2bb84f5/attachment.htm From acasey3 at ucok.edu Wed Oct 22 20:03:32 2008 From: acasey3 at ucok.edu (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:03:32 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] 6 v 8 rounds Message-ID: <7813656.1224723812664.JavaMail.acasey3@ucok.edu> I agree with malgor on the question of how many break. If 131 teams are in this would mean less than 25% of the tournament breaks. I have never heard a good reason for why only 32 break at this big of a tournament. I also just fundamentally agree with scotty P - I'm leaving my family to travel halfway across the country, i could care less about the humaneness of these events. Sleep when you return or when you die. back to cutting...updates ha -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 hallbrad at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 20:06:50 2008 From: hallbrad at gmail.com (Brad Hall) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:06:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum In-Reply-To: References: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Everyone should also keep in mind the humane treatment of the people running the tournament. For the squads who do actually host tournaments, they spend even longer at the tournament than participants do. They arrive much earlier to make sure rooms are unlocked, cleaned, ballots out, etc and leave much later. Of 6 Dixies (so far), I only made it to the banquet once and often room cleaning, updating the scouting and other tasks keep debaters and coaches up even later. At the very least, we should keep all of this in mind when trashing rooms, irresponsibly starting debates late and interacting with those who host tournaments. Also note that the JV breakout will actually result in more debates for some younger teams (and with more judges). Brad Hall On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Josh wrote: > Ross et al, > > The problem is that the people who want more elims are not the same > people who want more prelims. As you probably have noticed, some > coaches get more than a little frustrated when tournaments are put > together on the basis ONLY of serving the best and brightest because > a great deal of people who debate never get the benefits of said > treatment. > > In addition, schools with young debaters who are trying to get them > to "bid" level generally try to get them as many rounds as possible > against the GOOD teams - two less rounds in prelims for a team that > likely will not clear is two less rounds they can debate good teams. > > Now, that said, usually I agree with most of your "innovations and > experiments" and like that you are always trying new ways to make > the tournament experience and/or debate experience better. > > Josh > > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Ross Smith wrote: > Repko created a thread there. No commenters. People just use edebate > (even though it was down for a long time). > > Meanwhile, I can't create an account at the CEDA forum because it > wants > some damn code I do not have and there is not even a "contact us" or > FAQ > at that website. > > Oh well. > > Gary Larson is right about prefs. > > People do not want 13 4 hour (including pre-round prep, decisions, > post-round, bathrooms, smoking, lunch . . .) debates in 3 days time. > Everyone says they want more prelims except when they want more elims. > > -- > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081022/a60a8505/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 20:23:36 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:23:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum In-Reply-To: References: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> Message-ID: If the point is that the tournament staff wants less total time at the tournament/tournament hotel I certainly understand that having a less massive tournament with a smaller break would be great. This, however, is the Dixie, the biggest first semester tournament...the ONLY tournament that is common for virtually every program regardless of district, style of debate, etc. If the Dixie no longer wants to be that tournament that makes sense. If 100 teams attend the Dixie 68 of those teams will pay a LARGE amount of money to get two less rounds of debate then they usually get. 32 of those teams will have the same outround start times the next morning. For 8 of those teams getting one less round on outround day will make a huge difference.....I guess, all I am saying is that maybe the value of 8 prelims for the 68 teams is more important then the late outround comfort of the 4/8 teams in at the end....especially given the massive costs of travel for most everyone to the tournament. Now, Ross has the right to run his tournament anyway he wants to....In particular, the innovations to debate, the caselist, and every other great thing he has done for the community gives him carte blanche...I am only saying that maybe this one time, the idea wasnt so good, Josh On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Brad Hall wrote: > Everyone should also keep in mind the humane treatment of the people > running the tournament. For the squads who do actually host tournaments, > they spend even longer at the tournament than participants do. They arrive > much earlier to make sure rooms are unlocked, cleaned, ballots out, etc and > leave much later. Of 6 Dixies (so far), I only made it to the banquet once > and often room cleaning, updating the scouting and other tasks keep debaters > and coaches up even later. At the very least, we should keep all of this in > mind when trashing rooms, irresponsibly starting debates late and > interacting with those who host tournaments. > > Also note that the JV breakout will actually result in more debates for > some younger teams (and with more judges). > > Brad Hall > > On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Josh wrote: > > Ross et al, > > The problem is that the people who want more elims are not the same people > who want more prelims. As you probably have noticed, some coaches get more > than a little frustrated when tournaments are put together on the basis ONLY > of serving the best and brightest because a great deal of people who debate > never get the benefits of said treatment. > > In addition, schools with young debaters who are trying to get them to > "bid" level generally try to get them as many rounds as possible against the > GOOD teams - two less rounds in prelims for a team that likely will not > clear is two less rounds they can debate good teams. > > Now, that said, usually I agree with most of your "innovations and > experiments" and like that you are always trying new ways to make the > tournament experience and/or debate experience better. > > Josh > > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Ross Smith wrote: > >> Repko created a thread there. No commenters. People just use edebate >> (even though it was down for a long time). >> >> Meanwhile, I can't create an account at the CEDA forum because it wants >> some damn code I do not have and there is not even a "contact us" or FAQ >> at that website. >> >> Oh well. >> >> Gary Larson is right about prefs. >> >> People do not want 13 4 hour (including pre-round prep, decisions, >> post-round, bathrooms, smoking, lunch . . .) debates in 3 days time. >> Everyone says they want more prelims except when they want more elims. >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20081022/e5fe0e5a/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 21:24:24 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:24:24 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum In-Reply-To: References: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <9a7f6f740810221924q5673c2a5m7c30e8854e1d60cb@mail.gmail.com> I floated this idea to Joe Bellon a few years ago when CEDA said any tournament could clear half the field. What about 6 rounds and clear half the field? Less rounds for half the teams at the tournament, but more of a chance for teams that are normally on the outside to get some big time elim experience. Mike On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Josh wrote: > If the point is that the tournament staff wants less total time at the > tournament/tournament hotel I certainly understand that having a less > massive tournament with a smaller break would be great. > > This, however, is the Dixie, the biggest first semester tournament...the > ONLY tournament that is common for virtually every program regardless of > district, style of debate, etc. If the Dixie no longer wants to be that > tournament that makes sense. If 100 teams attend the Dixie 68 of those > teams will pay a LARGE amount of money to get two less rounds of debate then > they usually get. 32 of those teams will have the same outround start times > the next morning. For 8 of those teams getting one less round on outround > day will make a huge difference.....I guess, all I am saying is that maybe > the value of 8 prelims for the 68 teams is more important then the late > outround comfort of the 4/8 teams in at the end....especially given the > massive costs of travel for most everyone to the tournament. > > Now, Ross has the right to run his tournament anyway he wants to....In > particular, the innovations to debate, the caselist, and every other great > thing he has done for the community gives him carte blanche...I am only > saying that maybe this one time, the idea wasnt so good, > > Josh > > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Brad Hall wrote: >> >> Everyone should also keep in mind the humane treatment of the people >> running the tournament. For the squads who do actually host tournaments, >> they spend even longer at the tournament than participants do. They arrive >> much earlier to make sure rooms are unlocked, cleaned, ballots out, etc and >> leave much later. Of 6 Dixies (so far), I only made it to the banquet once >> and often room cleaning, updating the scouting and other tasks keep debaters >> and coaches up even later. At the very least, we should keep all of this in >> mind when trashing rooms, irresponsibly starting debates late and >> interacting with those who host tournaments. >> Also note that the JV breakout will actually result in more debates for >> some younger teams (and with more judges). >> >> Brad Hall >> On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Josh wrote: >> >> Ross et al, >> >> The problem is that the people who want more elims are not the same people >> who want more prelims. As you probably have noticed, some coaches get more >> than a little frustrated when tournaments are put together on the basis ONLY >> of serving the best and brightest because a great deal of people who debate >> never get the benefits of said treatment. >> >> In addition, schools with young debaters who are trying to get them to >> "bid" level generally try to get them as many rounds as possible against the >> GOOD teams - two less rounds in prelims for a team that likely will not >> clear is two less rounds they can debate good teams. >> >> Now, that said, usually I agree with most of your "innovations and >> experiments" and like that you are always trying new ways to make the >> tournament experience and/or debate experience better. >> >> Josh >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Ross Smith wrote: >>> >>> Repko created a thread there. No commenters. People just use edebate >>> (even though it was down for a long time). >>> >>> Meanwhile, I can't create an account at the CEDA forum because it wants >>> some damn code I do not have and there is not even a "contact us" or FAQ >>> at that website. >>> >>> Oh well. >>> >>> Gary Larson is right about prefs. >>> >>> People do not want 13 4 hour (including pre-round prep, decisions, >>> post-round, bathrooms, smoking, lunch . . .) debates in 3 days time. >>> Everyone says they want more prelims except when they want more elims. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Oct 22 21:25:38 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:25:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> Message-ID: maybe somebody will believe me like you believe fact check. let's try a different quote from the article that made you switch from arguing in favor of obama's birth certificate to ad hominem. i thought you were capable of defending of arguments: http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign.... Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night. No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software. If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008. Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time. Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair. It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400 > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > > Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. > > > Old Strega wrote: >> you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your point. >> >> that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid. >> >> why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth? >> >> you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. >> >> if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice. >> ---------------------------------------- >> >>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 >>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>> >>> Group it: You're proving my point. >>> >>> >>> >>> Old Strega wrote: >>> >>>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. >>>> >>>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. >>>> >>>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. >>>> >>>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? >>>> >>>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? >>>> >>>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? >>>> >>>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. >>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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/ >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________ 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 smithr at wfu.edu Wed Oct 22 21:38:56 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:38:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] some comments re tournament rounds structure Message-ID: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> The following are not meant to be exhaustive of the subject, but merit consideration. 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%. Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be. 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes next to no difference to the Copeland? 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which have known starting times. 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even use elims to determine the winner? S 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament. 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us. Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and severe unfairness in side assignment. 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge decision time and post-round discussion time. 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the quantity of debates you are in. 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a fair demand? -- 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 smithr at wfu.edu Wed Oct 22 21:45:06 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:45:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740810221924q5673c2a5m7c30e8854e1d60cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> <9a7f6f740810221924q5673c2a5m7c30e8854e1d60cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FFE532.80106@wfu.edu> Proving my point about the push for more elims . . . Yea, sure. Just get back to me when you have a three day schedule that accomodates partial quad octas, a banquet, and enough sleep for the coaches who drive so that there can be no lawsuits when they crash after falling asleep at the wheel. Also, is it really "big time" elim experience when half the field clears? For all those talking about the money spent: you want a four day tournament? On 10/22/2008 10:24 PM, Mike Davis wrote: > I floated this idea to Joe Bellon a few years ago when CEDA said any > tournament could clear half the field. What about 6 rounds and clear > half the field? Less rounds for half the teams at the tournament, but > more of a chance for teams that are normally on the outside to get > some big time elim experience. > > Mike > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Josh wrote: > >> If the point is that the tournament staff wants less total time at the >> tournament/tournament hotel I certainly understand that having a less >> massive tournament with a smaller break would be great. >> >> This, however, is the Dixie, the biggest first semester tournament...the >> ONLY tournament that is common for virtually every program regardless of >> district, style of debate, etc. If the Dixie no longer wants to be that >> tournament that makes sense. If 100 teams attend the Dixie 68 of those >> teams will pay a LARGE amount of money to get two less rounds of debate then >> they usually get. 32 of those teams will have the same outround start times >> the next morning. For 8 of those teams getting one less round on outround >> day will make a huge difference.....I guess, all I am saying is that maybe >> the value of 8 prelims for the 68 teams is more important then the late >> outround comfort of the 4/8 teams in at the end....especially given the >> massive costs of travel for most everyone to the tournament. >> >> Now, Ross has the right to run his tournament anyway he wants to....In >> particular, the innovations to debate, the caselist, and every other great >> thing he has done for the community gives him carte blanche...I am only >> saying that maybe this one time, the idea wasnt so good, >> >> Josh >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Brad Hall wrote: >> >>> Everyone should also keep in mind the humane treatment of the people >>> running the tournament. For the squads who do actually host tournaments, >>> they spend even longer at the tournament than participants do. They arrive >>> much earlier to make sure rooms are unlocked, cleaned, ballots out, etc and >>> leave much later. Of 6 Dixies (so far), I only made it to the banquet once >>> and often room cleaning, updating the scouting and other tasks keep debaters >>> and coaches up even later. At the very least, we should keep all of this in >>> mind when trashing rooms, irresponsibly starting debates late and >>> interacting with those who host tournaments. >>> Also note that the JV breakout will actually result in more debates for >>> some younger teams (and with more judges). >>> >>> Brad Hall >>> On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Josh wrote: >>> >>> Ross et al, >>> >>> The problem is that the people who want more elims are not the same people >>> who want more prelims. As you probably have noticed, some coaches get more >>> than a little frustrated when tournaments are put together on the basis ONLY >>> of serving the best and brightest because a great deal of people who debate >>> never get the benefits of said treatment. >>> >>> In addition, schools with young debaters who are trying to get them to >>> "bid" level generally try to get them as many rounds as possible against the >>> GOOD teams - two less rounds in prelims for a team that likely will not >>> clear is two less rounds they can debate good teams. >>> >>> Now, that said, usually I agree with most of your "innovations and >>> experiments" and like that you are always trying new ways to make the >>> tournament experience and/or debate experience better. >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Ross Smith wrote: >>> >>>> Repko created a thread there. No commenters. People just use edebate >>>> (even though it was down for a long time). >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, I can't create an account at the CEDA forum because it wants >>>> some damn code I do not have and there is not even a "contact us" or FAQ >>>> at that website. >>>> >>>> Oh well. >>>> >>>> Gary Larson is right about prefs. >>>> >>>> People do not want 13 4 hour (including pre-round prep, decisions, >>>> post-round, bathrooms, smoking, lunch . . .) debates in 3 days time. >>>> Everyone says they want more prelims except when they want more elims. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> eDebate mailing list >>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> > > > > -- 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 Oct 22 21:51:20 2008 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:51:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum In-Reply-To: <48FFE532.80106@wfu.edu> References: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> <9a7f6f740810221924q5673c2a5m7c30e8854e1d60cb@mail.gmail.com> <48FFE532.80106@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <9a7f6f740810221951o1feb0459s641fe5d44b53ce06@mail.gmail.com> I'm not really pushing for the idea - it was just a talking point, but it would be one less round (I would say no to a partial quad - so maybe triples is more accurate) than the current structure of GSU. That means we could still have the doubles on Sunday night. I also support what Wake is doing. I think the fact that six round national tournaments are so rare is a problem for those of us looking for a humane schedule. It is easy to say suck it up early in your debate careers, but if we want people to stick around we need to have options that are not as taxing. I also think banquets are very important. There is a point where coming together as a community is important. If you think all that matters is competition and we should not celebrate those who make the community special then that is an unhealthy balance. Mike On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Ross Smith wrote: > Proving my point about the push for more elims . . . > > Yea, sure. Just get back to me when you have a three day schedule that > accomodates partial quad octas, a banquet, and enough sleep for the coaches > who drive so that there can be no lawsuits when they crash after falling > asleep at the wheel. > > Also, is it really "big time" elim experience when half the field clears? > > For all those talking about the money spent: you want a four day tournament? > > On 10/22/2008 10:24 PM, Mike Davis wrote: >> >> I floated this idea to Joe Bellon a few years ago when CEDA said any >> tournament could clear half the field. What about 6 rounds and clear >> half the field? Less rounds for half the teams at the tournament, but >> more of a chance for teams that are normally on the outside to get >> some big time elim experience. >> >> Mike >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Josh wrote: >> >>> >>> If the point is that the tournament staff wants less total time at the >>> tournament/tournament hotel I certainly understand that having a less >>> massive tournament with a smaller break would be great. >>> >>> This, however, is the Dixie, the biggest first semester tournament...the >>> ONLY tournament that is common for virtually every program regardless of >>> district, style of debate, etc. If the Dixie no longer wants to be that >>> tournament that makes sense. If 100 teams attend the Dixie 68 of those >>> teams will pay a LARGE amount of money to get two less rounds of debate >>> then >>> they usually get. 32 of those teams will have the same outround start >>> times >>> the next morning. For 8 of those teams getting one less round on >>> outround >>> day will make a huge difference.....I guess, all I am saying is that >>> maybe >>> the value of 8 prelims for the 68 teams is more important then the late >>> outround comfort of the 4/8 teams in at the end....especially given the >>> massive costs of travel for most everyone to the tournament. >>> >>> Now, Ross has the right to run his tournament anyway he wants to....In >>> particular, the innovations to debate, the caselist, and every other >>> great >>> thing he has done for the community gives him carte blanche...I am only >>> saying that maybe this one time, the idea wasnt so good, >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Brad Hall wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Everyone should also keep in mind the humane treatment of the people >>>> running the tournament. For the squads who do actually host tournaments, >>>> they spend even longer at the tournament than participants do. They >>>> arrive >>>> much earlier to make sure rooms are unlocked, cleaned, ballots out, etc >>>> and >>>> leave much later. Of 6 Dixies (so far), I only made it to the banquet >>>> once >>>> and often room cleaning, updating the scouting and other tasks keep >>>> debaters >>>> and coaches up even later. At the very least, we should keep all of this >>>> in >>>> mind when trashing rooms, irresponsibly starting debates late and >>>> interacting with those who host tournaments. >>>> Also note that the JV breakout will actually result in more debates for >>>> some younger teams (and with more judges). >>>> >>>> Brad Hall >>>> On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Josh wrote: >>>> >>>> Ross et al, >>>> >>>> The problem is that the people who want more elims are not the same >>>> people >>>> who want more prelims. As you probably have noticed, some coaches get >>>> more >>>> than a little frustrated when tournaments are put together on the basis >>>> ONLY >>>> of serving the best and brightest because a great deal of people who >>>> debate >>>> never get the benefits of said treatment. >>>> >>>> In addition, schools with young debaters who are trying to get them to >>>> "bid" level generally try to get them as many rounds as possible against >>>> the >>>> GOOD teams - two less rounds in prelims for a team that likely will not >>>> clear is two less rounds they can debate good teams. >>>> >>>> Now, that said, usually I agree with most of your "innovations and >>>> experiments" and like that you are always trying new ways to make the >>>> tournament experience and/or debate experience better. >>>> >>>> Josh >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Ross Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Repko created a thread there. No commenters. People just use edebate >>>>> (even though it was down for a long time). >>>>> >>>>> Meanwhile, I can't create an account at the CEDA forum because it wants >>>>> some damn code I do not have and there is not even a "contact us" or >>>>> FAQ >>>>> at that website. >>>>> >>>>> Oh well. >>>>> >>>>> Gary Larson is right about prefs. >>>>> >>>>> People do not want 13 4 hour (including pre-round prep, decisions, >>>>> post-round, bathrooms, smoking, lunch . . .) debates in 3 days time. >>>>> Everyone says they want more prelims except when they want more elims. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> eDebate mailing list >>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> eDebate mailing list >>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- > 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 > > > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Oct 22 22:02:54 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:02:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> You really have nothing better than the Israeli Insider? No wonder McCain is smart enough not to make this argument. The Israeli Insider, while arguing that a "bad camera timestamp" invalidates Obama's birth certificate, also believes Obama is a Muslim: http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 They also think that Factcheck's Annenberg funding somehow creates a conflict of interest: http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm (Uh...yeah. Don't go all in on that one.) Old Strega wrote: > maybe somebody will believe me like you believe fact check. > > let's try a different quote from the article that made you switch from arguing in favor of obama's birth certificate to ad hominem. i thought you were capable of defending of arguments: > > http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm > > The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign.... > > Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night. > > No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to > > FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software. > > If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008. > > Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time. > > Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair. > > It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400 >> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >> >> Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. >> >> >> Old Strega wrote: >> >>> you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your point. >>> >>> that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid. >>> >>> why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth? >>> >>> you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. >>> >>> if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice. >>> ---------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 >>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>> >>>> Group it: You're proving my point. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. >>>>> >>>>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. >>>>> >>>>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. >>>>> >>>>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? >>>>> >>>>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? >>>>> >>>>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? >>>>> >>>>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. >>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >>> > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 Wed Oct 22 22:10:17 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:10:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> Message-ID: I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that any tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to run. But, as I seem to be the "disagreeer" 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%. Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be. JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. However, its true 6 is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still better. 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes next to no difference to the Copeland? JBH: Is that another proposal? 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more debates. All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I would send just as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of educational value." In addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of the non-director coaches move on to work. The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would sometime love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand getting it without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the fantasy work in which I won). 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which have known starting times. JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday leave when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch rounds...one, two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that finals grows in audience much more with the change.....people start partying and play poker and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people would watch substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims. 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even use elims to determine the winner? S JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When was the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In addition, and perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an endurance contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last day is probably a good thing. 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament. JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my point is still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as talented 30% 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us. Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and severe unfairness in side assignment. JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or the sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested. 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge decision time and post-round discussion time. JBH: agreed 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the quantity of debates you are in. JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more watching either way. 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a fair demand? JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches and judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain v Obama here. Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley is whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been supportive of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may disagree this once..but it happens, Josh -- 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 _______________________________________________ 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/20081022/bbaafccc/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Oct 22 23:12:04 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:12:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu> Big picture. OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a highly educational experience for your debaters that is worth the money in three days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple of hints: if they do not clear in either division (that's why there are at least 40 teams clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go back home and have them give speeches as if they were in that round. Have them record their own rounds. Have them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted here at the top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims (claims, no warrants were provided). Other rebuttalish stuff: 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong. 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different and better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and getting back to school. 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and participate in the to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted coaches/judges who have questionable safety when driving and questionable decision making skills when coaching or judging are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that the exhaustion does spill over into the next day and the day after when students miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do the same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when are folks really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By Wednesday? How often are people sick? 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. Just the raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what I get when the facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity. 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end before midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our Monday schedule). Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others be "good practice" (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd event like the NDT has become. 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to me) thing I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to respond by accusing him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.??? On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote: > I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has > earned the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that > any tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to > run. But, as I seem to be the "disagreeer" > > 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the > 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if > you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful > inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of > educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%. > Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be. > JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are > currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. > However, its true 6 is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still > better. > > 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes > next to no difference to the Copeland? > JBH: Is that another proposal? > > 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social > time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That > ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The > words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all > coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? > JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more > debates. All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I > would send just as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said > above "they have more valuable content if you think pre-round prep, > judge decisions that include careful inspection of evidence, and > post-round discussion of the decision are of educational value." > > In addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a long > time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. People like > free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of the > non-director coaches move on to work. > > The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more > debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would > sometime love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand > getting it without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 > people (in the fantasy work in which I won). > > 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we > were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night > elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people > participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I > envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to > debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few > people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision > relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which > have known starting times. > JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday > leave when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch > rounds...one, two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that > finals grows in audience much more with the change.....people start > partying and play poker and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is > never that a bunch of people would watch substantially more rounds if > only there were less prelims. > > 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It > helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final > round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even > use elims to determine the winner? S > JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When > was the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In > addition, and perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an > endurance contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as > rigorous on the last day is probably a good thing. > > 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament. > JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something > here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my > point is still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as > talented 30% > > 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of > 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected > overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long > ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on > those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us. > Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and > severe unfairness in side assignment. > JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or > the sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested. > > 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge > decision time and post-round discussion time. > JBH: agreed > > 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the > quantity of debates you are in. > JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more > watching either way. > > 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a > fair demand? > JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches > and judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain > v Obama here. > > Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley > is whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been > supportive of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may > disagree this once..but it happens, > > > Josh > > -- > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -- 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 jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Oct 22 23:24:07 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:24:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu> References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Obviously, I have done something to offend Ross, obviously not my intention. I made multiple Ross friendly caveats...and tried very hard to be measured and careful. I have no idea why my arguments were dismissed out of hand and little idea why the reaction included hostility. I will literally concede this debate rather than continue to piss Ross off, I have that much respect for him. BTW, I am also a huge Obama supporter and have been doing lots of things in Ann Arbor and in other places to debunk Mccain attacks etc. It was both written in a soft way and even said in joking tone.....apologies for whatever I did to piss you off. Josh On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith wrote: > Big picture. > > OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a highly > educational experience for your debaters that is worth the money in three > days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple of hints: if they do > not clear in either division (that's why there are at least 40 teams > clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go back home and have > them give speeches as if they were in that round. Have them record their own > rounds. Have them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE > MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted here at the > top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims (claims, no warrants were > provided). > > Other rebuttalish stuff: > > 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong. > 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different and > better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and getting back to > school. > 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and participate in the > to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted coaches/judges who have > questionable safety when driving and questionable decision making skills > when coaching or judging are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that > the exhaustion does spill over into the next day and the day after when > students miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do the > same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when are folks > really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By Wednesday? How often > are people sick? > 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. Just the > raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what I get when the > facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity. > 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end before > midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our Monday schedule). > Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others be "good practice" > (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd event like the NDT has > become. > 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to me) thing > I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to respond by accusing > him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT > WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF > ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO > RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.??? > > > > > > On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote: > >> I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has earned >> the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that any >> tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to run. But, >> as I seem to be the "disagreeer" >> 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the >> 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if >> you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful >> inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of >> educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%. >> Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be. >> JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are currently >> operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. However, its true 6 >> is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still better. >> 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes >> next to no difference to the Copeland? >> JBH: Is that another proposal? >> 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social >> time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That >> ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The >> words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all >> coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? >> JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more debates. >> All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I would send just >> as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more >> valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include >> careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision >> are of educational value." In addition the "social events are good" thing >> flew the coop a long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. >> People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of >> the non-director coaches move on to work. >> The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more >> debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would sometime >> love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand getting it >> without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the >> fantasy work in which I won). >> 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we >> were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night >> elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people >> participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I >> envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to >> debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few >> people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision >> relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which >> have known starting times. >> JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday leave >> when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch rounds...one, >> two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that finals grows in >> audience much more with the change.....people start partying and play poker >> and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people >> would watch substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims. >> 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It >> helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final >> round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even >> use elims to determine the winner? S >> JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When was >> the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In addition, and >> perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an endurance >> contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last >> day is probably a good thing. >> 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament. >> JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something >> here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my point is >> still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as talented 30% >> 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of >> 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected >> overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long >> ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on >> those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us. >> Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and >> severe unfairness in side assignment. >> JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or the >> sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested. >> 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge >> decision time and post-round discussion time. >> JBH: agreed >> >> 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the >> quantity of debates you are in. >> JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more watching >> either way. >> >> 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a >> fair demand? >> JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches and >> judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain v Obama >> here. >> Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley is >> whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been supportive >> of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may disagree this >> once..but it happens, >> Josh >> >> -- >> 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 < >> http://www.debatescoop.org/> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CEDA-L mailing list >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >> >> > -- > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/9c329b0c/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Oct 22 23:25:04 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:25:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740810221924q5673c2a5m7c30e8854e1d60cb@mail.gmail.com> References: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> <9a7f6f740810221924q5673c2a5m7c30e8854e1d60cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48FFFCA0.50808@wfu.edu> Empathy. It's tough to do/have. Obama preaches it. Are we listening? Pay attention to this that Mike Davis says: "It is easy to say suck it up early in your debate careers, but if we want people to stick around we need to have options that are not as taxing. I also think banquets are very important. There is a point where coming together as a community is important. If you think all that matters is competition and we should not celebrate those who make the community special then that is an unhealthy balance." -- 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 malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com Wed Oct 22 23:33:37 2008 From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:33:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: I disagree with this notion that we need all the extra pre round prep and post round discussion for outrounds. a) these are the best teams-they should be most prepared to debate on their own, especially as the day goes on because theoretically the teams are getting better. I can understand giving the round of 32 a little more time, but when you have been debating and scouting throughout the day and you're one of the 4 remaining teams, maybe you should be prepared to do a little more without a bunch of extra pre round prep. A radical idea I know, and it might be scary to not have everything up to the 1ar planned out already, but hey it can be exciting too. b) Getting done earlier on Sunday does not = more rest. You can get done at 7PM sunday night or 1030PM sunday night, directors/coaches of teams that have cleared are staying up the same amount. If they go to the bar they go to the bar as soon as they get back. If they prefer to cut evidence they'll do it all night. I have seen few directors that say "i'm just gonna work an hour and be done with it." Bottom line is the people you are trying to save rest for with a more humane schedule (directors of the teams late into monday) are staying up until the wee hours. Do you really think everyone goes to bed earlier if we get out earlier on sunday night? Would JP go to bed at 9PM on sunday with your teams debating the next day, just because he got let out of the tournament early. c) maybe i've gone crazy, but Mr. Josh is right about people watching more debates. Debaters who are going to watch debates will do it regardless. Let's say I have not cleared at wake forest but i get back to the hotel sunday night at 11pm, the round starts at 8. If i wake up at 700 that's 8 hours. So theoretically debaters should be very well rested when watching outrounds on monday. They should have damn near a full night's rest to soak up all that outround education on monday. The reason they are tired is bc most would rather socialize (not at the banquet, at the hotel) and so they stay up until 2 am. So i don't see how it helps people who want to watch rounds. And Mr Josh is also correct that plane tickets dictate how much we watch regardless. d) here is another justification for shorter pre round prep-you release the bracket the night before. People know their whole potential path well into the day. That means they shouldn't need 45 minutes to prep for a debate. Especially if they are again, the 'best' teams at the tournament. e) safety...very important, not very relevant. I don't know of any squads who do the drive home on monday of wake after a grueling day of outrounds. What is the percentage of teams in the quarters or later at a national tournament (specifically wake) that drive home when they're done? I'm sure there are local squads but this is more a matter of someone not getting enough rest the night before which is inevitable for outround coaches bc they stay up half the night regardless. I think all this can be solved with the current structure of 4/4/5 elims. The problem isn't the number of rounds it's the leisurely, slow nature of the tournament on elim days. 4 hours for a doubles debate from flip to full announcement is ridiculous. You have already solved half the problem with strict decision time limits, clamp down on some prep time as well as some rules to get judges to the rounds quicker, and I think you can have a tournament with 5 debates, the first starting at 8AM, that is done by 1230. Mr Smith is awesome, time limits for decisions are awesome, 6 rounds not awesome. malgor _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081022/de4a7f92/attachment.htm From proudsavage at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 00:01:25 2008 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:01:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] its not suprisiing that.... Message-ID: <9b5963440810222201r1813649mb36f589d586ae61d@mail.gmail.com> im with scotty, josh, et al. on this one... more debate is better than less debate, tho wake can and should keep playing with stuff cuz experiements are good... and for real, suck it up... indurance is part of this game, get used to it or take up wooden ship building... cowards -- 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/20081023/66c2550c/attachment.htm From lifer-hat at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 00:09:55 2008 From: lifer-hat at hotmail.com (bandana organizer) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:09:55 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] More rounds for worse teams Message-ID: What about having a losers pool? When signing up for a tournament, teams could sign up for an additional optional pool on elim day. If the first elim happens on the day of the last prelim, then every team who didn't break should have half a judge to bring to the losers pool on day 3. Those teams that DO break are just like teams that couldn't make it at the last moment. Now, everyone who wants to can stay for essentially another 4 (or more) rounds. If you break, you might only get one extra round. Also, there's probably a nicer name than "losers pool". _________________________________________________________________ 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 fkatschke at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 00:12:03 2008 From: fkatschke at gmail.com (Franklin Katschke) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:12:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Missing sweater Message-ID: <2b93c82b0810222212x24f958b0mca0794aee57765f0@mail.gmail.com> I misplaced a white hoodie at the Emporia State tournament. Just wondering if anyone accidentally picked one up and took it home with them. Thanks, Franklin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/61e20583/attachment.htm From micksouders at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 00:20:31 2008 From: micksouders at gmail.com (Michael Souders) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:20:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure Message-ID: <899735480810222220u6b02d7fcsfce4f7e1c9cd1b29@mail.gmail.com> Hi Mike and Others, The solution seems simple to me. Seven round tournament and break all winning records with elim one on Sunday evening, others to follow. I love the seven round method because it makes the break so clean. Winning record = break, losing record = no break. Half of the field clearing seems, well, like overdoing it a bit. Some 3-3/4-4 teams have no business clearing. The lowest 4-4/3-3 team at a big tournament is a long way away from the best 4-4/3-3 team. Using points to seperate these teams is not really preferable to me. Better done on the field/flow/ballot/whatever. And iit hardly seems unfair to ask a team to win more debates than they lose to qualify for elimination debates. Thus I like the seventh round because it seperates, to be proverbially uncouth, the women/men from the boys/girls in the 3-3 bracket. . I know some people don't like the way it means some teams will get four negs/affs and think its unfair. It's not unfair, because its random. You COULD win four debates before round seven. In fact, that's basically required at 6 round tournaments. With seven rounds you get an extra shot at it. You COULD get better at being aff (policy teams) or neg (K teams). And, elims sides are random anyway. So who cares Another thing I like about round seven is that it gives 3-3 teams an elim-like enviroment (side choosing decisions, specific strategies, high tension) with only one judge and within the format of elims. Even if you lose, it has many of the elements of an elim, including the guarantee of another debate (partials) SOON if you win. Plus, since most big tournaments would only go to partial triple octofinals, many of the top teams who are likely to have to debate all day Monday would get a break Sunday evening after round seven. If that seems unfair, well, get better. Become one of the top teams. The seven round, all 4-3 clears format caters so much to mid-level teams its not so bad that it gives one advantage to top-level teams. It also gives top levels teams an incentive (besides the Copeland race) to work hard in a 5-1 or 6-0 debate, i.e., a bye in partials. And, for coaches with teams all various levels, a partial would allow our second, third, or fourth teams to get the full attention of coaching staffs for at least one elim--something that they probably don't experience now because the more senior, advanced teams are diverting resources--something that the advanced team don't suffer once the more junior teams are eliminated in the first or second elim. The last thing I like about this seven round format that would probably include partials method is that partial triples means that 4-3 teams are more likely get a winnable elimination debate before facing the 7-0, 6-1 crowd. One of the hardest things to do is to go from getting to elims to winning elims, especially when you spend all your time losing elims (trust me, I know. I never won a single of the few doubles rounds I ever debated in. That sucked). Often, its just annual or in season attrition by higher caliber teams that bumps a doubles team into the octos and beyond. So that's my pitch for that. Sorry if I repeated what other have said. It doesn't even entirely solve the humaness issue by a longshot, especially for judges. But it reduces the exhaustion of teams not clearing and the top caliber teams, gives more teams a shot at reaching elims and even winning some elim debates, and makes diversity in the bracket more likely. Yes, prep time for that evening elim on Sunday will probably have to be limited to an hour or less. But it seems worth it. Many people will be able to go bed Sunday night proud to have cleared, sad to have lost, and able to sleep soundly knowing their tournament was successful but is now over. Mick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/6c7081f5/attachment.htm From micksouders at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 00:42:07 2008 From: micksouders at gmail.com (Michael Souders) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:42:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wrong on math Message-ID: <899735480810222242y5680742q1b3069fbc816198e@mail.gmail.com> I said something that was wrong. In a seven round tournament, the 4-3s and above should compromise exactly or close to exactly half of the teams (pullups and other things account for some deviance). So my comment about half the field clearing being excessive was quite silly. Mick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/26cbe02e/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Oct 23 00:49:57 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:49:57 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Wrong on math References: <899735480810222242y5680742q1b3069fbc816198e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5F9C15C11F2A4364A2E29E9406BF6BCB@whitman.edu> an additional argument for 7 round tournaments: round 7 does not have side constraints so the powering is usually quite on target. in round 8 (or round 6), side constraints frequently cause mismatches in round 8. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: Michael Souders Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:42 PM To: edebate Subject: [eDebate] Wrong on math I said something that was wrong. In a seven round tournament, the 4-3s and above should compromise exactly or close to exactly half of the teams (pullups and other things account for some deviance). So my comment about half the field clearing being excessive was quite silly. Mick -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20081022/dba3cb12/attachment.htm From velcrowe at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 01:40:24 2008 From: velcrowe at gmail.com (Chris Crowe) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:40:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 8 Prelims Makes a Better Debater... Message-ID: <623f2fe20810222340l435f855ck6ac618eb1d8ff266@mail.gmail.com> Hey All, This is just one comment that doesn't even necessarily answer/assume a lot of the arguments for scaling back, but 8 preliminary debates made me a drastically better debater, and probably also more accurately placed me in the doubles. For example, DeLo and I were 5-1 a LOT after 6 debates, with pretty good points. That could put us fairly high in the bracket. We turned that 5-1 record into a robust 5-3 record probably more than any team in history, which often put us in the bottom half of the bracket. There are a bunch of progressive hurdles in debate, and one of them is turning a 5-3 record into a 6-2 or better record (and the next is obviously consistently winning an elim). Those 7th and 8th debates, although sometimes awkwardly paired because of side constraints, etc., were where I learned tons when I was a "bubble" debater. As a side note, watching elims (whether I was in them earlier or not), were the single greatest learning experience I had. I can't for the life of me figure out why more debaters don't do this on their own volition, or are not required by their coaches. I think the declining audiences has very little to do with overall tournament structure, and more to do with laziness on the part of non-clearing or early-exiting teams, leaving the tournament early, or partying a lot the night before or the night of. At tournaments like Wake, there are somewhere around 140 teams that are not in the quarters, but these debates sometimes draw ten or so spectators? Quarters are in the middle of the day. There's no excuse. I'm pretty sure this puts me in the camp of "if debates from prep to post-round are so much longer, than be more militant about start times instead of getting rid of some debates." -Crowe -- Christopher Crowe University of Wyoming -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/84811f24/attachment.htm From mardigras23 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 01:41:33 2008 From: mardigras23 at hotmail.com (Aaron Kall) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:41:33 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] some comments re tournament rounds structure Message-ID: aside from a few outliers, it seems the majority of people think 5 elims on monday is too many. many people also think six prelims aren't enough. 7 prelims and breaking to doubles is the best compromise i've seen thus far. i don't think the unequal side problem is a big deal at all. While I don't know the Aff./Neg. win-loss percentage on this or any recent topic, it seems about equal or close enough to it. kritiks and multiple negative CPs have negated many of the Aff. advantages like infinite prep and speaking first/last. Also, any ADV./DA will likely even out over the course of the year. Just have the computer decide the sides in round 7 so we don't have to waste time flipping coins. doubles on Sunday and four elims on Monday. i could take or leave banquets. if there aren't easily accessible food options, maybe a banquet makes sense. if there are, it's probably a waste of money from a host and participant perspective. we are often too tired to enjoy banquets and it's often difficult to hear what's happening. i liked the year that Harvard just put out a list of the Top Speakers. it seems most people would prioritize one extra debate over banquets. i think friday night, time between rounds, waiting for decision time, sunday night, and potentially monday night leaves plenty of time for socializing. so for me, the best compromise and most humane scenario would involve 4 presets on saturday (that were done based on careful pre-tournament rankings), 5/6 lag-powered, round 7 power-matched, doubles on sunday, and octas-finals on monday. i think saturdays at the Clay and Northwestern are two of the best days of debate because of the 4 presets- i wish more tournaments would preset the first four rounds. careful rankings/pods based on previous tournament results are probably just as fair as speaker points and other pull-ups/downs that would ensue if rounds 3 and 4 were power-matched or lag-powered. presets and the release of pairings on friday night allows prep work that night, which saves prep and time on saturday. we are usually done by 8 p.m. on these nights. experimentation is good- it would be good if a major tournament like Northwestern could try the above or a similiar 7 round scenario so we could compare it to the status quo and Wake's 6 round format. aaron _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081023/7ecbd9f1/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 06:26:25 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:26:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <524839830810230426r469006f3gee4e39691831578e@mail.gmail.com> RE: #s 2 & 4 -- where Ross references a backchannel I sent. #2 -- I'm wasn't suggesting or implying that there should be no finals. I was pointing out that finals only impacts 7 people and that if you are usually in the finals you have a good chance of winning the Copeland, which is obviously a very prestigious award. It's a good reward for your stamina, abilities, and preparation. Maybe Ross is suggesting that the final debate happens so late that the quality of the debates and/or the decisions is significantly diminished -- maybe, but I haven't heard anyone making that claim. If this is a significant problem, then, yes, it needs to be addressed. The GSU 3am thing seems to be outside the norm. Based on my memory, there was basically an hour of prep time before each debate (including some of the prelims). Cutting that prep time to 30 minutes would have ended everything by 1 am. # 4- Sure, it would be nice of finals had large audiences, but even if they start at 9pm, audiences (at least at most tournaments) will probably be limited. Most people who do not expect to be in late elims travel home on Monday. I guess part of the experiment is to see if (significantly) more people watch elim debates. I think # 8 is great. Though I have no specific data to back it up, I do think that decision-making times have started to increase over the last two years. I also perceive that they were of this length about 10 years ago, but that we went through a period of time in between where at least most decisions came in much faster (I realize "most" doesn't help on elim day because even one long decision slows the whole thing down). I certainly think that there is a growing expectation on the parts of debaters that all relevant evidence be read by the judge(s) after the debate. While this model has merit, it does at least appear to be slowing down tournaments -- perhaps too much. (Re)creating a norm of a reasonable decision-making time (an our or so depending on when the debate ends) seems quite desirable. Certainly, all of the large national tournaments do not need to be the same. Some could have 6 prelims and doubles, others could have 8 prelims and ocotos, others could have 8 prelims and doubles,others could have 7 prelims and doubles, and others could could have 6 prelims and quads, some could have 6 prelims and octocs with unlimited decision-making time (I think there are only 4 tournaments that have 5 varsity elims in one day and run late into the night). Variety can be good. On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Ross Smith wrote: > The following are not meant to be exhaustive of the subject, but merit > consideration. > > 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the > 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if > you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful > inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of > educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%. > Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be. > > 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes > next to no difference to the Copeland? > > 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social > time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That > ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The > words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all > coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? > > 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we > were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night > elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people > participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I > envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to > debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few > people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision > relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which > have known starting times. > > 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It > helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final > round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even > use elims to determine the winner? S > > 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament. > > 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of > 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected > overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long > ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on > those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us. > Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and > severe unfairness in side assignment. > > 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge > decision time and post-round discussion time. > > 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the > quantity of debates you are in. > > 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a > fair demand? > > -- > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -- 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/20081023/b310b59e/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Thu Oct 23 01:04:52 2008 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:04:52 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <49001404.5070002@wfu.edu> No offense from Josh and none intended toward Josh. He has always been a good person. The only args of his (which I separate from him as a person (I hope I am allowed to have bad args, too!)) which I was "hostile" to at all were the analogies of McCain//Obama and "poor" or "middle class". These were , in my opinion, underexplained. Writ large, my post was not a "reply to Josh" in particular -- I just replied to a bunch of stuff. In particular, my comments about coaches who might not have considered how to make the most of the tournament were directed not at Josh, but to the abstract coach at large who might think that an extra debate round (absent pre-tround coaching, good decision, etc.) was a be all end all for the education of their students. On 10/23/2008 12:24 AM, Josh wrote: > Obviously, I have done something to offend Ross, obviously not my > intention. I made multiple Ross friendly caveats...and tried very > hard to be measured and careful. I have no idea why my arguments were > dismissed out of hand and little idea why the reaction included hostility. > > I will literally concede this debate rather than continue to piss Ross > off, I have that much respect for him. > > BTW, I am also a huge Obama supporter and have been doing lots of > things in Ann Arbor and in other places to debunk Mccain attacks etc. > It was both written in a soft way and even said in joking > tone.....apologies for whatever I did to piss you off. > > Josh > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith > wrote: > > Big picture. > > OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a > highly educational experience for your debaters that is worth the > money in three days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A > couple of hints: if they do not clear in either division (that's > why there are at least 40 teams clearing, Hoe), have them watch > and record rounds. Go back home and have them give speeches as if > they were in that round. Have them record their own rounds. Have > them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE > MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted > here at the top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims > (claims, no warrants were provided). > > Other rebuttalish stuff: > > 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong. > 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different > and better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and > getting back to school. > 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and > participate in the to-and-for of an elim round, and totally > exhausted coaches/judges who have questionable safety when driving > and questionable decision making skills when coaching or judging > are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that the exhaustion > does spill over into the next day and the day after when students > miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do > the same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when > are folks really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By > Wednesday? How often are people sick? > 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. > Just the raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what > I get when the facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity. > 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end > before midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our > Monday schedule). Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and > others be "good practice" (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) > for an absurd event like the NDT has become. > 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to > me) thing I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to > respond by accusing him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE > THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A > BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS > FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.??? > > > > > > On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote: > > I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross > has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his > tournament and that any tournament director should run > whatever tournament they want to run. But, as I seem to be > the "disagreeer" > 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did > when the > 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable > content if > you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful > inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the > decision are of > educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts > only 25%. > Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used > to be. > JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they > are currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry > picking. However, its true 6 is better than it used to > be.....but 8 is still better. > 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since > finals makes > next to no difference to the Copeland? > JBH: Is that another proposal? > 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks > good social > time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the > year. That > ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins > it. The > words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all > coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? > JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 > more debates. All of that could happen on the > net/edebate/wherever and I would send just as many congrats > letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more > valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions > that include careful inspection of evidence, and post-round > discussion of the decision are of educational value." In > addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a > long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. > People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I > suspect most of the non-director coaches move on to work. > The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh > 120 more debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As > much as I would sometime love to win coach of the year...I > would probably understand getting it without Greg Achten > making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the fantasy > work in which I won). > 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching > elims we > were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and > late night > elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 > people > participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I > envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well > suited to > debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few > people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I > envision > relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of > which > have known starting times. > JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for > monday leave when the tickets come up...the people who leave > tuesday watch rounds...one, two, three, or whatever. I doubt > very seriously that finals grows in audience much more with > the change.....people start partying and play poker and hang > out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of > people would watch substantially more rounds if only there > were less prelims. > 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an > audience. It > helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The > final > round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why > do we even > use elims to determine the winner? S > JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim > debaters? When was the final round ever the best round of any > tournament. In addition, and perhaps most important, the NDT > is even more of an endurance contest....having a few > tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last day is > probably a good thing. > 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the > tournament. > JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed > something here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent > argument....of course, my point is still those rounds would be > good for the unlucky/not as talented 30% > 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's > Shirley of > 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected > overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky > not so long > ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but > forced it on > those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good > for us. > Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a > banquet and > severe unfairness in side assignment. > JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans > banquet, or the sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options > that have been suggested. > 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim > judge > decision time and post-round discussion time. > JBH: agreed > > 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the > quantity of debates you are in. > JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more > watching either way. > > 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? > What is a > fair demand? > JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and > coaches and judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? > This is Mccain v Obama here. > Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the > Shirley is whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have > always been supportive of debate in ways most people only wish > to be......I may disagree this once..but it happens, > Josh > > -- > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > -- > 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 > > > -- 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 FijiPapabear at aol.com Thu Oct 23 08:31:11 2008 From: FijiPapabear at aol.com (FijiPapabear at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:31:11 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Interesting article from one of the best political writers in Florida Message-ID: Thought this article would be interesting fodder with all the adhom election bashing. (_http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece_ (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece) ) Five reasons not to write off John McCain's candidacy By _Adam C. Smith_ (http://www.tampabay.com/writers/article380298.ece) , Times Political Editor In print: Thursday, October 23, 2008 ____________________________________ Story Tools (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece#email) _E-mail this story_ (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece#email) (http://www.sptimes.com/letters/) _Contact the editor_ (http://www.sptimes.com/letters/) (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece#) _Print this story_ (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece#) (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece#comments) _Comment on this story_ (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece#comments) Social Bookmarking (http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece&title=Don't count out McCain too fast&bodytext=) _Digg_ (http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece&title=Don't count out McCain too fast&bodytext=) (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece) _Facebook_ (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867 006.ece) (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece&title=Don't count out McCain too fast) _Stumbleupon_ (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece&title=Don't count out McCain too fast) (http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece&title=Don't count out McCain too fast) _Reddit_ (http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article8 67006.ece&title=Don't count out McCain too fast) (http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece&title=Don't count out McCain too fast) _Del.icio.us_ (http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece&title=Don't count out McCain too fast) (http://www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?popoff=1&u=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article867006.ece) _Newsvine_ (http://www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?popoff=1&u=http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/na tional/article867006.ece) ADVERTISEMENT (http://oasc08024.247realmedia.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/www.sptimes.com/@Middle?x) Campaign 2008 Look at the electoral map with less than two weeks to go, and the picture could hardly look more grim for Sen. John McCain. He's playing defense in a host of states he can't afford to lose ? from Florida to Virginia to Indiana ? and polls show his options dwindling fast for capturing enough states to reach the necessary 270 electoral votes. But 12 days is still a lot of time, and so far almost nothing about this election has been predictable. 1. The primaries told us something. If there's one thing we learned from those hard-fought party battles, it's that McCain closes strong and Obama doesn't. McCain capitalized on momentum from some early wins to take control of the race by mid February, but Obama followed primary wins with losses and didn't claim the nomination until June. Now, a number of state and national polls show a tightening race. 2. Polls aren't gospel. Question marks on polling this year: hidden racism; the increasing number of Americans refusing to talk to pollsters; the growing number of voters not getting polled because they use only cell phones; how polling models factor in infrequent voters who may not show up on Election Day. On Wednesday, a national Associated Press poll had Obama up by one point, while a Fox News poll had him up nine. 3. Complacency. Obama is relying heavily on big turnout by young voters and other groups who typically don't vote in large numbers. The more that conventional wisdom coalesces around the idea that Obama will win, the less motivated many Obama voters will be to turn out. Hence Obama's mantra lately is to remind supporters about Hillary Rodham Clinton's big upset: "Remember New Hampshire." 4. Pennsylvania. Polls show Obama with a double digit lead in the Keystone State, but the McCain campaign insists Obama is underperforming in key Democratic parts of Pennsylvania and they could eke out a victory. If McCain wins those 21 electoral votes, that could put him in the White House. 5. Obama hasn't closed the sale. Despite his vast advantages in TV and organizational spending in battleground states, many polls show he has not crossed the threshold of 50 percent support. There's every reason to think last-minute deciders could break McCain's way. **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/7d28e146/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 09:17:38 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:17:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Humaness In-Reply-To: <12a4de8d0810221753x793c625cyab4d944a229ef2a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <12a4de8d0810221753x793c625cyab4d944a229ef2a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <524839830810230717l17ddaca5uc6fc9c95a8f73ec7@mail.gmail.com> I'd prefer to sleep some before I died. I appreciate sleep more now as I've gotten older. I just don't know if the plan solves the problem (and it has some DAs). Last year, I went back to the Sheraton after day one of the Harvard tournament between 9 & 10 pm. People were camped out all over the lobby preparing for the next day. I was up late in the restraunt/bar area that night waiting for Rich to send me a patch for the TRPC to deal with 9 category judge placement (this was the first time the TRPC was used for 9 category judge placement in a regular tournament). By the time I had the patch and had it downloaded and installed it was close to 1am. I went back through the lobby to head up to my room and there were almost as many people there as there were at 10pm -- most seemed to be researching and talking about arguments for the next day. I imagine a similar # of people were camped out in their rooms doing the same. I'm sure some others were sleeping and that some others were socializing. If you try to use a hotel internet network on Friday or Saturday night at any tournament (even past 1am), you will note a similar problem -- well over 100 people online and slowing down the network. A substantial number of people value preparation over sleep, even if they get out of the tournament plenty early on any number of days. This seems to be the root of the problem -- not late night Mondays. And with so much on the line now for rounds 5 & 6, an elim now on Sunday, (and no advanced pairing that can be used to prioritize preparation -- as there is for some or all of Saturday's debates and elims), it seems to me that there will be more pressure to push even hard/stay up even later on Saturday night. With 16 fewer teams and 24 fewer judges obligated for Monday, more will get to sleep in on Monday. That is beneficial (though it trades-off with the goal of having more people watch debates). On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Scott Phillips wrote: > > > Is this for real? Walk it off, you can sleep when your dead. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/ef732304/attachment.htm From mschnall at gmx.net Thu Oct 23 09:40:33 2008 From: mschnall at gmx.net (Matt Schnall) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:40:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: <004e01c93517$ab595c50$c011140a@Bingham.com> References: <004e01c93517$ab595c50$c011140a@Bingham.com> Message-ID: <490054A1.26574.FAE66C2@mschnall.gmx.net> Math police here. 133% of 6 is 8. Not more than 8. Going from 5 to 8 would be adding 60%. Put another way, when you go down by 25%, you need to go up by 33% to make it up (because it is 33% of a smaller number). Imagine how Wall Street feels. It should therefore be accurate that 6 "long" (33% longer) rounds occupy the same amount of time as 8 "short" rounds. If this is the the appropriate comparison, it would still be important to ask whether the pre-round prep and post-round disclosure that have been added to those six rounds are more valuable, less valuable or equally valuable when compared with having two additional rounds. Educational value is not necessarily proportional to time spent. The comparison also will not necessarily come out the same for teams that have different resources to access or different approaches that accentuate or diminish the importance of pre-round preparation. I'm not in touch enough with current practice to have a sense of how those comparisons would resolve, but a few comments indicate that at least some people might prefer a reasonable limitation on the pre- and post-round activities rather than fewer rounds. That is particularly true of the elimination round schedule, where there is a discrepancy between the experiences of clearing and non-clearing teams. As Ross points out, non-clearing teams can learn a lot from watching the elim debates. But those teams derive at most a limited and diffuse educational benefit from additional pre-round preparation and many/most of them are not even present for post-round critiques (particularly when decisions take a long time). -- Matt Ross wrote: > The following are not meant to be exhaustive of the subject, but merit > consideration. > > 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the > 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if > you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful > inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of > educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%. > Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be. > > 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes > next to no difference to the Copeland? > > 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social > time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That > ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The > words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all > coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? > > 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we > were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night > elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people > participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I > envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to > debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few > people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision > relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which > have known starting times. > > 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It > helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final > round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even > use elims to determine the winner? S > > 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament. > > 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of > 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected > overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long > ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on > those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us. > Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and > severe unfairness in side assignment. > > 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge > decision time and post-round discussion time. > > 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the > quantity of debates you are in. > > 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a > fair demand? > > -- > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate Matthew D. Schnall Boston, Massachusetts mschnall at gmx.net From paulj567 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 23 09:45:14 2008 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] JP and Sleeping In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <223319.88354.qm@web53502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> > > b) Getting done earlier on Sunday does not = more rest. > You can get done at 7PM sunday night or 1030PM sunday night, > directors/coaches of teams that have cleared are staying up > the same amount. If they go to the bar they go to the bar > as soon as they get back. If they prefer to cut evidence > they'll do it all night. I have seen few directors that > say "i'm just gonna work an hour and be done with > it." Bottom line is the people you are trying to save > rest for with a more humane schedule (directors of the teams > late into monday) are staying up until the wee hours. Do > you really think everyone goes to bed earlier if we get out > earlier on sunday night? Would JP go to bed at 9PM on > sunday with your teams debating the next day, just because > he got let out of the tournament early. > Lets be clear about this-regardless JP would be asleep. Then you would go into his room to print. While in there printing, you would realize that JP had turned the heat up, so that it was blazingly hot. You, having to print a lot of stuff, would go move the thermostat down. Somehow, JP would immediately sense this, sleeptalk to you and tell you to move it back, and then immediately fall back asleep while you roasted like a turkey on a spit. Any moves towards the thermostat would immediately pseudo-wake up JP again. These are the facts. They are indisputable. PJ From dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Thu Oct 23 09:45:32 2008 From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:45:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure Message-ID: This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with both sides. One solution that everybody would like is to make the rounds go faster without compromising prep and decision times. I have two ideas on the subject, and I wonder what the community thinks about them. First, we could release the pairings for rounds five and six on Saturday evening at 10PM, after most people are done with dinner. This would not keep people from staying up all night working, but it might at least mean that they are well-prepared to begin both rounds punctually, with minimal time between the two. I wonder if the community sees this as a useful innovation? Second, we could reshape the post-round discussion following elims. As it is, the minority judges usually speak first, telling the winners why they really lost, then the majority judges tell the losers that in fact they really lost, and everyone sits and listens and argues about it all. This can take upwards of forty-five minutes after contentious debates. I propose something like this: after the decision is announced, each judge delivers a brief summary decision, lasting no more than 2 minutes. If the winning team wishes to discuss specifics with any of the judges, convention will allow them to go first, ask their questions, demand amplification from the dissenters, whatever. Once they are satisfied, it will not be considered discourteous or otherwise inappropriate if one or both of the winning debaters excuse themselves from further discussion and get on with prepping for the next round. Given this new convention, I think that tournaments would be justified in pushing the schedule considerably faster on elim day. This is especially true at the increasing number of tournaments where the elim bracket is published Sunday night. I would be very interested in community input on either of these schemes, as we might try to implement one or both at Harvard this year. dp From vikeenan at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 09:53:13 2008 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:53:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: <49001404.5070002@wfu.edu> References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu> <49001404.5070002@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Just a little alternate perspective - This isn't just a Wake issue or a National Tournament issue. If you're unfamiliar with the peculiarities of most Northeast regional tournaments, we tend to stick to 2 day tournaments, which results is the same exhausting days for 6 prelims and everyone driving home. It's the only way our students with jobs and no class choice (and many of them novice) can participate, not to mention the number of coaches with have with "day jobs" (little things like lawyers and non-profit ceo's). Our days typically run 5 prelims on Saturday, 1 prelim Sunday, followed by elims with usually at least one (if not more) divisions in some variation of octos. Yes, we're crazy. But we also had 45 teams in novice last weekend at West Point and 35 teams in novice this weekend at West Conn, and we established that 2-days are what our community needs, so the question is where do we go from here. The issues of safety (because we DO drive everywhere to these tournaments), of retention of learning in round 5, of post round educational opportunities, of simple humanity, not to mention the ability to see each other occasionally in a non-competitive light (in 8-3-5 world we even squeezed a party in on Friday or Sat night), are important. They are important as ends in themselves, and in our regional goals of retention. And this needs to be balanced with getting the most "bang for your buck" as dollars become tighter and our team and regional needs become more competitively diverse. So there is part of me that deeply understands what Ross is trying to do and is supportive of it. Our own regional conversation will probably result in a few "experiments" at our regional tournaments next year, trying to build a better schedule. And that's the only way to test if new practices will ultimately meet our goals - to test them out. Ross isn't alone in this initiative or in his concerns. I will say though, as a side note, one of the reasons we go to tournaments such as Wake is the 8 rounds and who those 8 rounds could be against (okay, and the comparitively leisurely schedule). Our region can be very insular, and our students need exposure to diversity of argumentation AND judging. It is two less rounds of practical experience at that, and my post rebuttal redo impression of Russel is probably not the same educational experience. It just seems to me that the extra rounds as well as the quality of competition are what make it worth the investment to attend. I also think Stefan, and others on edebate, highlight certain community practices that would result in at least not solving the sleep/exhaustion problem. I think I'm probably with the 7 rounders on this if we want to compromise - Sunday may run a little later, but Monday is more humane. I'm still in favor of more rounds for ALL debaters, but perpetuating the idea of "suck it up" on Monday doesn't seem the ideal world either, even if I think it's "only" 32 debaters. -VIK On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Ross Smith wrote: > No offense from Josh and none intended toward Josh. He has always been a > good person. > > The only args of his (which I separate from him as a person (I hope I am > allowed to have bad args, too!)) which I was "hostile" to at all were > the analogies of McCain//Obama and "poor" or "middle class". These were > , in my opinion, underexplained. > > Writ large, my post was not a "reply to Josh" in particular -- I just > replied to a bunch of stuff. In particular, my comments about coaches > who might not have considered how to make the most of the tournament > were directed not at Josh, but to the abstract coach at large who might > think that an extra debate round (absent pre-tround coaching, good > decision, etc.) was a be all end all for the education of their students. > > > On 10/23/2008 12:24 AM, Josh wrote: > > Obviously, I have done something to offend Ross, obviously not my > > intention. I made multiple Ross friendly caveats...and tried very > > hard to be measured and careful. I have no idea why my arguments were > > dismissed out of hand and little idea why the reaction included > hostility. > > > > I will literally concede this debate rather than continue to piss Ross > > off, I have that much respect for him. > > > > BTW, I am also a huge Obama supporter and have been doing lots of > > things in Ann Arbor and in other places to debunk Mccain attacks etc. > > It was both written in a soft way and even said in joking > > tone.....apologies for whatever I did to piss you off. > > > > Josh > > > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith > > wrote: > > > > Big picture. > > > > OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a > > highly educational experience for your debaters that is worth the > > money in three days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A > > couple of hints: if they do not clear in either division (that's > > why there are at least 40 teams clearing, Hoe), have them watch > > and record rounds. Go back home and have them give speeches as if > > they were in that round. Have them record their own rounds. Have > > them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE > > MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted > > here at the top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims > > (claims, no warrants were provided). > > > > Other rebuttalish stuff: > > > > 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong. > > 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different > > and better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and > > getting back to school. > > 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and > > participate in the to-and-for of an elim round, and totally > > exhausted coaches/judges who have questionable safety when driving > > and questionable decision making skills when coaching or judging > > are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that the exhaustion > > does spill over into the next day and the day after when students > > miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do > > the same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when > > are folks really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By > > Wednesday? How often are people sick? > > 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. > > Just the raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what > > I get when the facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity. > > 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end > > before midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our > > Monday schedule). Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and > > others be "good practice" (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) > > for an absurd event like the NDT has become. > > 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to > > me) thing I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to > > respond by accusing him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE > > THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A > > BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS > > FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.??? > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote: > > > > I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross > > has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his > > tournament and that any tournament director should run > > whatever tournament they want to run. But, as I seem to be > > the "disagreeer" > > 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did > > when the > > 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable > > content if > > you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful > > inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the > > decision are of > > educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts > > only 25%. > > Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used > > to be. > > JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they > > are currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry > > picking. However, its true 6 is better than it used to > > be.....but 8 is still better. > > 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since > > finals makes > > next to no difference to the Copeland? > > JBH: Is that another proposal? > > 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks > > good social > > time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the > > year. That > > ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins > > it. The > > words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all > > coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? > > JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 > > more debates. All of that could happen on the > > net/edebate/wherever and I would send just as many congrats > > letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more > > valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions > > that include careful inspection of evidence, and post-round > > discussion of the decision are of educational value." In > > addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a > > long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. > > People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I > > suspect most of the non-director coaches move on to work. > > The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh > > 120 more debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As > > much as I would sometime love to win coach of the year...I > > would probably understand getting it without Greg Achten > > making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the fantasy > > work in which I won). > > 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching > > elims we > > were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and > > late night > > elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 > > people > > participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I > > envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well > > suited to > > debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a > few > > people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I > > envision > > relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of > > which > > have known starting times. > > JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for > > monday leave when the tickets come up...the people who leave > > tuesday watch rounds...one, two, three, or whatever. I doubt > > very seriously that finals grows in audience much more with > > the change.....people start partying and play poker and hang > > out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of > > people would watch substantially more rounds if only there > > were less prelims. > > 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an > > audience. It > > helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The > > final > > round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why > > do we even > > use elims to determine the winner? S > > JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim > > debaters? When was the final round ever the best round of any > > tournament. In addition, and perhaps most important, the NDT > > is even more of an endurance contest....having a few > > tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last day is > > probably a good thing. > > 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the > > tournament. > > JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed > > something here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent > > argument....of course, my point is still those rounds would be > > good for the unlucky/not as talented 30% > > 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's > > Shirley of > > 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected > > overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky > > not so long > > ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but > > forced it on > > those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good > > for us. > > Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a > > banquet and > > severe unfairness in side assignment. > > JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans > > banquet, or the sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options > > that have been suggested. > > 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim > > judge > > decision time and post-round discussion time. > > JBH: agreed > > > > 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of > the > > quantity of debates you are in. > > JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more > > watching either way. > > > > 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? > > What is a > > fair demand? > > JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and > > coaches and judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? > > This is Mccain v Obama here. > > Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the > > Shirley is whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have > > always been supportive of debate in ways most people only wish > > to be......I may disagree this once..but it happens, > > Josh > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > > > > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081023/88a49d98/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 23 09:53:08 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:53:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Humaness References: <12a4de8d0810221753x793c625cyab4d944a229ef2a2@mail.gmail.com> <524839830810230717l17ddaca5uc6fc9c95a8f73ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB2B@castor.richmond.edu> Wake is getting crushed in this debate. Really crushed. This is easy. At least drop to 7 before you go down to 6! Seriously--what's wrong with 8 rounds and Octos? Wake can fight the trend that forced doubles on Ga State and Kentucky. What's wrong with no final round? If you want a 2 and 1/2 day tournament with six debates and lots of out-rounds, App State is around the corner. If you want 8 rounds in a 3 day tournament (and a tiny chance to have some good out-rounds), you go to Wake. 25% more debates outweighs. This is how our debaters improve and get a chance to hear from high quality judges. Still no real answer except some BS about rounds taking a little longer. Rounds do not take longer if strict start times and coaching limits are enforced (like you all usually do). An NDT Champion Director telling programs with no scholarships, no graduate assistants, and few debaters with high school experience to go home and practice more (or watch more), is sick and twisted. Ross, were you serious about that or just tired? You do remember that there are novices out there (or students who started as novices) who need to debate more than they need to watch. If I told my team we were staying home to practice and get better, they would laugh at me and probably drive down to Wake on their own. By the way, we run an 8 round tournament with almost 100 teams and it is humane--there is also time to coach and socialize. You have been there--the varsity teams are not as strong overall, but they need time to prepare and receive coaching just the same. We do not do a banquet because our region decided the cost was too high and that money would be better spent elsewhere. That saves us time and people actually socialize more Sun night. When we do have 5 out-rounds on Monday, it only effects those teams in finals (and we always offer to house those people Monday night for safety). Our debaters like to watch out rounds (and do it a lot), but we travel to debate as much as possible, not just to watch and clap for the top few teams. When we are at the tournament, we watch out-rounds. The costs and the need to attend classes usually keep us from staying that last night. Look, it is a little unnerving to post on this topic given the reactions thus far. No one wants to alienate a host before coming over for the weekend. On the other hand, IF YOU ASK ALL THE DEBATERS WHO WILL COMPETE AT THIS TOURNAMENT, A MAJORITY WILL SAY 8 ROUNDS IS BETTER. Pass around a survey at the tournament and ask this 1: Do you expect to clear? 2. Do you favor more prelims than 6? I still think this experiment will die or change after this year. We cater to the first-rounds too much as it is. For folks who are used to getting first rounds, it is hard to think outside of the bubble, but THOSE TWO EXTRA PRELIMS ARE KEY FOR US---those are usually our best experiences of the tournament. PLEASE HEAR THAT--re-read that last sentence. Sincerely, Kevin ps--I have debated in the final round at wake, coached the finalists at wake, coached squads who have cleared 3 teams and coached teams who have never cleared. From 16 years of attending this wonderful tournament, EIGHT PRELIM ROUNDS CAN WORK. WE MODEL THE UR TOURNAMENT ON THE WAKE TOURNAMENT. Don't let one experience at Georgia State for a top team ruin a huge percentage of the debates for everyone else. This was the last change I thought I would ever see--I always thought Wake looked out for the little folks...we'll see. pss--Harvard is keeping 8 and I bet it will be a great tournament as always. From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 23 09:53:36 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:53:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure References: Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB2C@castor.richmond.edu> I for one, love these solutions, especially the "decision-time" shortener. releasing 5 & 6 is a little frightening (everyone stays up all night?), but probably a good idea as well. Thanks, Dallas. kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Dallas Perkins Sent: Thu 10/23/2008 10:45 AM To: edebate; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Cc: ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with both sides. One solution that everybody would like is to make the rounds go faster without compromising prep and decision times. I have two ideas on the subject, and I wonder what the community thinks about them. First, we could release the pairings for rounds five and six on Saturday evening at 10PM, after most people are done with dinner. This would not keep people from staying up all night working, but it might at least mean that they are well-prepared to begin both rounds punctually, with minimal time between the two. I wonder if the community sees this as a useful innovation? Second, we could reshape the post-round discussion following elims. As it is, the minority judges usually speak first, telling the winners why they really lost, then the majority judges tell the losers that in fact they really lost, and everyone sits and listens and argues about it all. This can take upwards of forty-five minutes after contentious debates. I propose something like this: after the decision is announced, each judge delivers a brief summary decision, lasting no more than 2 minutes. If the winning team wishes to discuss specifics with any of the judges, convention will allow them to go first, ask their questions, demand amplification from the dissenters, whatever. Once they are satisfied, it will not be considered discourteous or otherwise inappropriate if one or both of the winning debaters excuse themselves from further discussion and get on with prepping for the next round. Given this new convention, I think that tournaments would be justified in pushing the schedule considerably faster on elim day. This is especially true at the increasing number of tournaments where the elim bracket is published Sunday night. I would be very interested in community input on either of these schemes, as we might try to implement one or both at Harvard this year. dp _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From cramhelwich at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 10:09:37 2008 From: cramhelwich at gmail.com (David Cram Helwich) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:09:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] scheduling: two counterplans Message-ID: <52ace93c0810230809j2c087418nfaf992b06e1664ab@mail.gmail.com> I would prefer that Wake have 8 rounds this year, but it is not my tournament. Ross might well be right, it is his tournament, and he certainly has the right to see how this experiment goes. The Deacons could schedule a debate/bowling tournament, and we would probably still go. I can think of two potential options that folks have not yet discussed: 1. Double elim bracket: Top 16 clear to a 'championship bracket' to determine the tournament winner, seeds 17-32 clear to a 'consolation bracket' to determine the consolation winner. This could be combined with a number of permuations of 6, 7, or 8 round prelim structures * advs: cuts an elim, preserves the same number of paneled debates, does not add to the room burden for the tourney host, and allows the same # of teams to get 'elim experience' * da's: 'consolation' isn't 2. Nestled Elims: Clear the top 32 to an elim bracket after either 6 or 7 rounds, but still schedule a 'bonus' round for the rest of the field during the first elim * advs: solves the time crunch issue, allows non-clearing teams to still get valuable debate rounds * da's: judge shortage, no audiences for doubles, people may not take the 'bonus round' seriously Gary knows better than I whether we can add 36 judges the elim/bonus round. If not, this is a non-starter. However, I suspect that there are a large number of highly preferred judges to have small commitments that might be amenable to judging the first elim. Loosening 'preference' in favor of 'mutuality' during the 'bonus round' would probably help a bit, too. Dallas, as usual, makes good arguments. dch umn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/97226180/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 10:14:53 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:14:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Tournament Structure In-Reply-To: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB2C@castor.richmond.edu> References: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB2C@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <524839830810230814lf1a1e0dj840f769de4738be9@mail.gmail.com> The common reaction to releasing pairings for any day the day before is that "people will stay up all night." This was the initial primary reaction that I got when I continually pushed people on releasing the elim pairings Sunday night (a practice that had long been common at national high school tournaments run by high schools). These are my arguments: 1) It is more difficult and more time consuming to prepare for many potential elim debates than it is to prepare for 1 elim debate and your projected elim bracket. If find myself getting more sleep since this practice has become more common - -you can make sure your bases are covered for the first elim, think about what can wait until sides are determined, figure out who from your program may or may not be judging or debating so that daylight hours can be used productively, prioritize getting cards cut during the day on Monday if you expect/realistically hope to be around for awhile. 2) Releasing the bracket helps teams with a limited number of coaches who cannot practically make sure the team is prepared for multiple potential debates in the morning. 3) People already stay up as late as they possibly can. 4) A lot of coaches waste a lot of time trying to figure out the bracket and some are better at it than others. This puts everyone on the same playing field. I had never really thought of releasing rounds 5 & 6 before because I thought it was nice to have one night "off," but when I saw people working so hard at Harvard last year on Saturday night, it made me think that they were probably preparing for many debates they wouldn't have that weekend (or at least Sunday am), and that if I had simply given them the pairing at 10am they may have gone to sleep by 1am. On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > > > releasing 5 & 6 is a little frightening (everyone stays up all night?), but > probably a good idea as well. > > Thanks, Dallas. > > > > ________________________________ > > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Dallas Perkins > Sent: Thu 10/23/2008 10:45 AM > To: edebate; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU > Cc: ceda-l at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure > > > > This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with both sides. > > One solution that everybody would like is to make the rounds go faster > without compromising prep and decision times. > > I have two ideas on the subject, and I wonder what the community thinks > about them. > > First, we could release the pairings for rounds five and six on Saturday > evening at 10PM, after most people are done with dinner. This would not > keep people from staying up all night working, but it might at least mean > that they are well-prepared to begin both rounds punctually, with minimal > time between the two. I wonder if the community sees this as a useful > innovation? > > Second, we could reshape the post-round discussion following elims. As it > is, the minority judges usually speak first, telling the winners why they > really lost, then the majority judges tell the losers that in fact they > really lost, and everyone sits and listens and argues about it all. This > can take upwards of forty-five minutes after contentious debates. I > propose something like this: after the decision is announced, each judge > delivers a brief summary decision, lasting no more than 2 minutes. If the > winning team wishes to discuss specifics with any of the judges, > convention will allow them to go first, ask their questions, demand > amplification from the dissenters, whatever. Once they are satisfied, it > will not be considered discourteous or otherwise inappropriate if one or > both of the winning debaters excuse themselves from further discussion and > get on with prepping for the next round. Given this new convention, I > think that tournaments would be justified in pushing the schedule > considerably faster on elim day. This is especially true at the > increasing number of tournaments where the elim bracket is published > Sunday night. > > I would be very interested in community input on either of these schemes, > as we might try to implement one or both at Harvard this year. > > dp > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- 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/20081023/ce2e2f57/attachment.htm From dylan.keenan at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 10:16:13 2008 From: dylan.keenan at gmail.com (Dylan Keenan) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:16:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu> Message-ID: On a less contentious note, I'm glad to see Wake is bringing back the 100 point scale. I thought it worked extremely well last year. -dylan On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Josh wrote: > Obviously, I have done something to offend Ross, obviously not my > intention. I made multiple Ross friendly caveats...and tried very hard to > be measured and careful. I have no idea why my arguments were dismissed out > of hand and little idea why the reaction included hostility. > > I will literally concede this debate rather than continue to piss Ross off, > I have that much respect for him. > > BTW, I am also a huge Obama supporter and have been doing lots of things in > Ann Arbor and in other places to debunk Mccain attacks etc. It was both > written in a soft way and even said in joking tone.....apologies for > whatever I did to piss you off. > > Josh > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith wrote: > >> Big picture. >> >> OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a highly >> educational experience for your debaters that is worth the money in three >> days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple of hints: if they do >> not clear in either division (that's why there are at least 40 teams >> clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go back home and have >> them give speeches as if they were in that round. Have them record their own >> rounds. Have them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE >> MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted here at the >> top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims (claims, no warrants were >> provided). >> >> Other rebuttalish stuff: >> >> 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong. >> 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different and >> better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and getting back to >> school. >> 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and participate in >> the to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted coaches/judges who >> have questionable safety when driving and questionable decision making >> skills when coaching or judging are not red herrings. Not to mention the >> fact that the exhaustion does spill over into the next day and the day after >> when students miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches >> do the same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when are >> folks really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By Wednesday? How >> often are people sick? >> 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. Just the >> raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what I get when the >> facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity. >> 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end before >> midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our Monday schedule). >> Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others be "good practice" >> (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd event like the NDT has >> become. >> 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to me) thing >> I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to respond by accusing >> him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT >> WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF >> ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO >> RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.??? >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote: >> >>> I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has >>> earned the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that any >>> tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to run. But, >>> as I seem to be the "disagreeer" >>> 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the >>> 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if >>> you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful >>> inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of >>> educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%. >>> Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be. >>> JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are >>> currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. However, >>> its true 6 is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still better. >>> 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes >>> next to no difference to the Copeland? >>> JBH: Is that another proposal? >>> 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social >>> time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That >>> ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The >>> words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all >>> coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? >>> JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more debates. >>> All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I would send just >>> as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more >>> valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include >>> careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision >>> are of educational value." In addition the "social events are good" thing >>> flew the coop a long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. >>> People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of >>> the non-director coaches move on to work. >>> The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more >>> debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would sometime >>> love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand getting it >>> without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the >>> fantasy work in which I won). >>> 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we >>> were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night >>> elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people >>> participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I >>> envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to >>> debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few >>> people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision >>> relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which >>> have known starting times. >>> JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday leave >>> when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch rounds...one, >>> two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that finals grows in >>> audience much more with the change.....people start partying and play poker >>> and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people >>> would watch substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims. >>> 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It >>> helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final >>> round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even >>> use elims to determine the winner? S >>> JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When was >>> the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In addition, and >>> perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an endurance >>> contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last >>> day is probably a good thing. >>> 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament. >>> JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something >>> here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my point is >>> still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as talented 30% >>> 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of >>> 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected >>> overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long >>> ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on >>> those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us. >>> Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and >>> severe unfairness in side assignment. >>> JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or the >>> sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested. >>> 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge >>> decision time and post-round discussion time. >>> JBH: agreed >>> >>> 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the >>> quantity of debates you are in. >>> JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more watching >>> either way. >>> >>> 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a >>> fair demand? >>> JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches and >>> judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain v Obama >>> here. >>> Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley is >>> whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been supportive >>> of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may disagree this >>> once..but it happens, >>> Josh >>> >>> -- >>> 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 < >>> http://www.debatescoop.org/> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CEDA-L mailing list >>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >>> >>> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dylan Keenan Debate Coach Barkley Forum Emory University dylan.keenan at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/01196007/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Thu Oct 23 10:59:36 2008 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:59:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Framing the conversation - Mananging time at tournaments Message-ID: <01a901c93528$590c6bc0$0b254340$@edu> Will opened this conversation by asking folks to look at tournament schedules. I understand why the Wake change to six prelims is a big part of this conversation, but as Vik, Aaron and others have mentioned this conversation also needs to be about the importance of looking for innovation across tournament schedules. Our default tournament model is requiring more and more time over the three days of competition. If you disagree I would ask you to consider when you leave for a tournament in the morning and when you return at the end of the day. This is in addition to the late-night work that Stefan spoke about. Our days are growing longer. This is a real concern and there isn't a single answer to the problem. We do ourselves a disservice to say that this was a problem at one tournament. What is great is that there isn't any requirement or need for a one-size fits all solution. Much as Kevin and Ross can run tournaments differently - we need to be encouraging tournaments to run in innovative ways that best serve their participants. I think we all appreciate our collective hesitation to change and I saw it up close when we moved the Nichols tournament from 8 to 7 prelims a few years ago. I also saw it this summer when Jon and I spent a great deal of time trying to finally move the Cali swing away from New Years Eve. Change is hard, but there is a need for our community to reflect on how the changing nature of our competition rounds (including its pre and post round time) are changing our tournament experiences. The number of rounds is one important element. So is pre-round prep, judge decision time, and oral critique time. The speech time in rounds aren't any longer, but the expansion of time in these other areas has taken place and one place where we need to look when deciding how tournaments should be managed. I know we at the Nichols this year will be looking closely at how long it takes rounds to be started, decided and announced. Folks are welcome to provide Ross feedback to his tournament, but this question is so much larger. The folks at Wake always do a lot to make their schedule work, but we need to look at every one of our calendars and ask how we can improve on providing an educational and competitive experience that isn't also unreasonable. As satisfying as it is to say "sleep is unnecessary" that isn't a productive part of this conversation. It is far more productive to emphasize the importance of a certain quality in our debates or our experiences. I encourage folks to share their perspectives on how these days can work better. Ross is suggesting a different schedule, Dallas has talked about adjusting post-round decisions and Kevin argues for another schedule altogether. Please share your perspectives and experiences. There is no single motion to pass or fail. This is all about having a conversation about improving tournament practice across the board. We have a lot more to talk about as a community, but this is an important start. (Don't also forget to look back and read Gary's email about MPJ. Time to talk about that soon as well.) 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/20081023/e030bcaa/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 11:31:31 2008 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:31:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Framing the conversation - Mananging time at tournaments In-Reply-To: <01a901c93528$590c6bc0$0b254340$@edu> References: <01a901c93528$590c6bc0$0b254340$@edu> Message-ID: <524839830810230931n783b457t22cc9d55b0501e13@mail.gmail.com> In a way, debating (including preparing, coaching, judging, deciding, explaining, listening) for 20+ hours a day for three days on the weekend seems odd. However, consider for a minute the entire amount of time devoted to preparing for debates for the entire season. Imagine a debater or coach that puts in 500 hours of preparation over the season (some obviously put in a lot more and some less). When does such preparation occur? It occurs late at night after a full-day of class or work. It occurs in downtime between classes and late at night. It occurs on "free weekends." It occurs after the kids go to bed and you've finished your day job. Basically, being involved in debate requires most to sustain incredibly long days many days of the week through at least 7 months of the year. I think this has a few implications: 1) To many, most tournament days aren't that much longer than many days. Think of how many debaters have left the debate office at 3am. This is less "abnormal" than it may appear. 2) People have a hard-time "recovering" after the tournament not just because the tournament is long but because they have struggled all week to prepare for the tournament. This is probably why they get sick as much as anything else. Many people simply put (almost) everything they have into preparing for a given tournament, so when it is over they are wiped-out. 3) When there are fewer debates, people are involved in more preparation/per debate -- less stuff gets used. Some of the more emphatic cases for 8 are made by a younger generation -- maybe they just want to debate as much as they can given how much time they have invested in preparation. 4) When people put so much into preparing, it is not surprising that they also invest so much time in judging and explaining decisions. In a debate where you take a long time to decide, I think it is natural for you to want to talk about the details of your evaluation with the debaters. If you are a debater who cut 1K cards before a tournament, is is natural for you to want the judge to carefully consider them. I'm trying to take sides in 6 v. 8, but only pointing out that the tiresome nature of tournaments is not that removed from the tiresome nature of the activity -- it is simply consistent with it. Even starting in HS, we have lab for 12-14 hours a day. It's not that big of a jump for a day of a major national tournament to be 20 hours. On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Gordon Stables wrote: > Will opened this conversation by asking folks to look at tournament > schedules. I understand why the Wake change to six prelims is a big part of > this conversation, but as Vik, Aaron and others have mentioned this > conversation also needs to be about the importance of looking for innovation > across tournament schedules. > > > > Our default tournament model is requiring more and more time over the three > days of competition. If you disagree I would ask you to consider when you > leave for a tournament in the morning and when you return at the end of the > day. This is in addition to the late-night work that Stefan spoke about. Our > days are growing longer. This is a real concern and there isn't a single > answer to the problem. We do ourselves a disservice to say that this was a > problem at one tournament. > > > > What is great is that there isn't any requirement or need for a one-size > fits all solution. Much as Kevin and Ross can run tournaments differently ? > we need to be encouraging tournaments to run in innovative ways that best > serve their participants. > > > > I think we all appreciate our collective hesitation to change and I saw it > up close when we moved the Nichols tournament from 8 to 7 prelims a few > years ago. I also saw it this summer when Jon and I spent a great deal of > time trying to finally move the Cali swing away from New Years Eve. > > > > Change is hard, but there is a need for our community to reflect on how > the changing nature of our competition rounds (including its pre and post > round time) are changing our tournament experiences. > > > > The number of rounds is one important element. So is pre-round prep, judge > decision time, and oral critique time. The speech time in rounds aren't any > longer, but the expansion of time in these other areas has taken place and > one place where we need to look when deciding how tournaments should be > managed. I know we at the Nichols this year will be looking closely at how > long it takes rounds to be started, decided and announced. > > > > Folks are welcome to provide Ross feedback to his tournament, but this > question is so much larger. The folks at Wake always do a lot to make their > schedule work, but we need to look at every one of our calendars and ask how > we can improve on providing an educational and competitive experience that > isn't also unreasonable. As satisfying as it is to say "sleep is > unnecessary" that isn't a productive part of this conversation. It is far > more productive to emphasize the importance of a certain quality in our > debates or our experiences. > > > > I encourage folks to share their perspectives on how these days can work > better. Ross is suggesting a different schedule, Dallas has talked about > adjusting post-round decisions and Kevin argues for another schedule > altogether. Please share your perspectives and experiences. There is no > single motion to pass or fail. This is all about having a conversation about > improving tournament practice across the board. > > > > We have a lot more to talk about as a community, but this is an important > start. > > > > (Don't also forget to look back and read Gary's email about MPJ. Time to > talk about that soon as well.) > > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Debate Coach, Harvard Debate (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/6c7ffb8f/attachment.htm From gonza310 at msu.edu Thu Oct 23 11:34:39 2008 From: gonza310 at msu.edu (Joshua Gonzalez) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:34:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I concur completely with the alternative post-round proposal. This is also another area in which Ross is an innovator, given that he usually makes the judges on the top of the decision go first if he's on the bottom.... Beyond speeding up the way that decisions are DELIVERED, I think it's also vitally important to consider ideas to speed up the way that decisions are MADE. I've taken plenty of time for my own decisions in the past, but I just can not fathom how it is that any debate round that can't be decided in 45 minutes suddenly becomes clear after 90. When it is commonplace for judges to take a five minute break during their decision on account of exhaustion, something has to give. Josh Gonzalez -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Dallas Perkins Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 10:46 AM To: edebate; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Cc: ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with both sides. One solution that everybody would like is to make the rounds go faster without compromising prep and decision times. I have two ideas on the subject, and I wonder what the community thinks about them. First, we could release the pairings for rounds five and six on Saturday evening at 10PM, after most people are done with dinner. This would not keep people from staying up all night working, but it might at least mean that they are well-prepared to begin both rounds punctually, with minimal time between the two. I wonder if the community sees this as a useful innovation? Second, we could reshape the post-round discussion following elims. As it is, the minority judges usually speak first, telling the winners why they really lost, then the majority judges tell the losers that in fact they really lost, and everyone sits and listens and argues about it all. This can take upwards of forty-five minutes after contentious debates. I propose something like this: after the decision is announced, each judge delivers a brief summary decision, lasting no more than 2 minutes. If the winning team wishes to discuss specifics with any of the judges, convention will allow them to go first, ask their questions, demand amplification from the dissenters, whatever. Once they are satisfied, it will not be considered discourteous or otherwise inappropriate if one or both of the winning debaters excuse themselves from further discussion and get on with prepping for the next round. Given this new convention, I think that tournaments would be justified in pushing the schedule considerably faster on elim day. This is especially true at the increasing number of tournaments where the elim bracket is published Sunday night. I would be very interested in community input on either of these schemes, as we might try to implement one or both at Harvard this year. dp _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Oct 23 11:37:22 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:37:22 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] two further comments on tournament schedules Message-ID: 1. I think much of the exhaustion at tournaments comes from forcing debaters and coaches to wake up well before they are used to. I get that people have differing schedules but 8am starts mean we have to get up at 6/6:30am. how many of you wake up at that time on a regular basis? now--how about west coasters at an east coast tournament. how many of you wake up at 3/3:30am on a regular basis? speaking for myself: I can handle 16 hour days--I can't when I am forced to get up hours before I normally do. 2. one of the slowdowns for teams and thus the tournament: re-filing cards and moving tubs around. if the community moves toward paperless--things will substantially speed up (you don't need to do refiling--it remains filed on your laptop and obviously no tubs, you just walk to your round). our squad is now leaving for dinner at night 30 to 45 minutes earlier than we used to. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/295699e7/attachment.htm From veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 11:48:45 2008 From: veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com (Veronica Guevara) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:48:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Framing the conversation - Mananging time at tournaments In-Reply-To: <01a901c93528$590c6bc0$0b254340$@edu> References: <01a901c93528$590c6bc0$0b254340$@edu> Message-ID: I appreciate a lot of what Gordon has to say here. I largely agree with a lot of it. Yes, as we get older we need and want more sleep and the tournament experience has become increasingly grueling but this isn't driven by the amount of rounds. It's driven by debate, its practitioners and the competitive nature of the beast. You can have 6, 7 or 8 rounds and the following things will still be true at the end of the weekend: (1) Debaters/coaches will be exhausted from staying up late until ridiculous hours of the morning and waking up far earlier than they ever would for class for 3 days straight. It's been a long time since just updates were good enough, I knew many a person who would stay up until after the Lexis Nexis reset at 2 AM to do their updates -- that's insanity -- I knew and most importantly, they knew it was insanity, but folks do what they do. Socializing/"networking" take up the rest of the evening. These are personal choices people make about how they spend their time at tournaments. No tournament change will mandate folks to go to bed so that they're better debaters and judges. What incentive does a hired critic have to cut the party early to get a good 6-8 hours before judging in the morning. (2) Few debaters will voluntarily see elims. I'm with Crowe on this one...I don't get it, I just don't get it. I'd get up at any time to see Corey Stoughton and Lesley Wexler kick ass. There was a whole lot I couldn't follow as a frosh, but it was awesome to see. Still, debaters aren't motivated to go. No matter how early or late folks get back to the hotel, Sunday night those who don't debate on Monday will be up and around until all hours as will the critics on those panels I read Ross's post last night just before I went to bed and I was truly moved. A debate world where folks are well rested, debating at their best and making decisions with all cognitive faculties in place. One where we put aside competitive concerns to save the human spirit or what's left of it in debate, anyways, where we expand the pedagogical mission past the debate rounds themselves. It's sad, but I just think that the alt here no solve-o. There's even a risk that 6 rounds makes it worse as each round represents more of the tournament results, there's zero room for error. You can usually give up 2 debates off the top to some circumstances: One as your A draw in presets and another that's a bad bounce (could beat that team but you're better on the other side of the debate, a rough critic or critic that's not best suited for this particular side/strat, etc). That means most teams are 4-2 going into it -- now there's no room for error, at all, for the rest of the tournament. You can come back from 2 losses when there are 8 rounds. If you're in the 0-2 or 1-2 bracket (and sometimes ok teams end up there --I've seen many a team that I've rooted for come out of the 0-2 or 1-2 bracket to go 5-3) then your tournament is feeling pretty much over before Day 2 and that's a very ugly debate world to debate in. It's not just hard for debaters but its really difficult for coaches who are trying to keep folks motivated through the entire gauntlet. When your teams act like/feel like their tournament is over before the 2nd day, it makes for a longer, more exhausting, more stressful, weekend on the whole (longer than 6 hours at a tournament would feel). I'm not a fan of 7 round tournaments (side equalization problems, the flip is always a clusterf@&*$, etc) but I would take 7 rounds ANY day before 6. It's a cost consideration, it's an education question, it's a squad morale issue. We may not have caught up to our ideals here and mandating more rest, less work with less rounds will just give more people time to obsess about rounds that happened or will happen or won't happen, which is just insane, and for the less competitively driven, it will mean more time socializing, staying up, and otherwise affecting their decision making abilities the next day. We run ourselves into the ground at tournaments less out of necessity and more out of a masochistic urge to leave ourselves spent at the end of the weekend -- the number of debates is irrelevant to that question. I'm down for reform on this issue but I think we're making some pretty radical "mindset shift" args here, and well, those never really solve. Veronica M. Guevara Weber State University Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 08:59:36 -0700From: stables at usc.eduTo: edebate at ndtceda.com; ceda-l at ndtceda.comSubject: [eDebate] Framing the conversation - Mananging time at tournaments Will opened this conversation by asking folks to look at tournament schedules. I understand why the Wake change to six prelims is a big part of this conversation, but as Vik, Aaron and others have mentioned this conversation also needs to be about the importance of looking for innovation across tournament schedules. Our default tournament model is requiring more and more time over the three days of competition. If you disagree I would ask you to consider when you leave for a tournament in the morning and when you return at the end of the day. This is in addition to the late-night work that Stefan spoke about. Our days are growing longer. This is a real concern and there isn?t a single answer to the problem. We do ourselves a disservice to say that this was a problem at one tournament. What is great is that there isn?t any requirement or need for a one-size fits all solution. Much as Kevin and Ross can run tournaments differently ? we need to be encouraging tournaments to run in innovative ways that best serve their participants. I think we all appreciate our collective hesitation to change and I saw it up close when we moved the Nichols tournament from 8 to 7 prelims a few years ago. I also saw it this summer when Jon and I spent a great deal of time trying to finally move the Cali swing away from New Years Eve. Change is hard, but there is a need for our community to reflect on how the changing nature of our competition rounds (including its pre and post round time) are changing our tournament experiences. The number of rounds is one important element. So is pre-round prep, judge decision time, and oral critique time. The speech time in rounds aren?t any longer, but the expansion of time in these other areas has taken place and one place where we need to look when deciding how tournaments should be managed. I know we at the Nichols this year will be looking closely at how long it takes rounds to be started, decided and announced. Folks are welcome to provide Ross feedback to his tournament, but this question is so much larger. The folks at Wake always do a lot to make their schedule work, but we need to look at every one of our calendars and ask how we can improve on providing an educational and competitive experience that isn?t also unreasonable. As satisfying as it is to say ?sleep is unnecessary? that isn?t a productive part of this conversation. It is far more productive to emphasize the importance of a certain quality in our debates or our experiences. I encourage folks to share their perspectives on how these days can work better. Ross is suggesting a different schedule, Dallas has talked about adjusting post-round decisions and Kevin argues for another schedule altogether. Please share your perspectives and experiences. There is no single motion to pass or fail. This is all about having a conversation about improving tournament practice across the board. We have a lot more to talk about as a community, but this is an important start. (Don?t also forget to look back and read Gary?s email about MPJ. Time to talk about that soon as well.) Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D.Director of Debate and ForensicsAnnenberg School for CommunicationUniversity of Southern CaliforniaOffice: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913http://usctrojandebate.com _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081023/89fe7c92/attachment-0001.htm From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu Thu Oct 23 11:51:16 2008 From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:51:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure References: Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6E73@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I am intrigued by both of Dallas' suggestions. On releasing pairings for Rounds 5/6 early, I think it is easy to justify sleep when you know you are ready for the debate the next morning than when you are trying to be ready for one of several debates that could occur. Friday pairing release helps make Saturday more humane, and knowing the bracket Sunday night helps with Monday. I'm not sure that making Sat night the exception is useful. On decisions, I think the having the dissenter go last is coherent, given the model of how court decisions are structured. I think that judges, all of whom were pretty much former debaters, should be able to show the structure of their decision and highlight the key points in 6 minutes or less (that's all the rebuttalists get). Two minutes might be too tight in some cases. I really think the norms of the basic decision + winning team is free to leave and losing team can stick around and chat would be helpful. Two logistical concerns are whether the judges need to leave to help coach and whether the losing team needs to pack up to make room. Some solutions to these problems would make Dallas' suggest a real time saver. I also agree with Josh G that some decisions take too long. It is easy to have the process be timeless, even though we expect debaters to treat issues thoroughly under MUCH more time pressure. I am a repeat offender in this area, but there are others with far 'longer' rap sheets than I. I think the norm of growing impatience is better than a hard "decide now" dictate, particularly if a decision has been delayed by another judge taking off with the evidence or something. Here's something radical enough that I'm not even sure I support it: I wonder if we would be better served by a norm where debaters give the judges access to a small number of contested cards before the round is over. That would change the activity some, and perhaps too much, but I think there are lots of decisions where it's hard to think through the resolution of other issues until after a couple of central issues related to evidence are resolved. Even giving this privilege for 3 cards (yours or opponents) might increase the quality of debate, quality of decisions, and speed of decisions. Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments) ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Dallas Perkins Sent: Thu 10/23/08 9:45 AM To: edebate; EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU Cc: ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Structure This is a very interesting discussion. I agree with both sides. One solution that everybody would like is to make the rounds go faster without compromising prep and decision times. I have two ideas on the subject, and I wonder what the community thinks about them. First, we could release the pairings for rounds five and six on Saturday evening at 10PM, after most people are done with dinner. This would not keep people from staying up all night working, but it might at least mean that they are well-prepared to begin both rounds punctually, with minimal time between the two. I wonder if the community sees this as a useful innovation? Second, we could reshape the post-round discussion following elims. As it is, the minority judges usually speak first, telling the winners why they really lost, then the majority judges tell the losers that in fact they really lost, and everyone sits and listens and argues about it all. This can take upwards of forty-five minutes after contentious debates. I propose something like this: after the decision is announced, each judge delivers a brief summary decision, lasting no more than 2 minutes. If the winning team wishes to discuss specifics with any of the judges, convention will allow them to go first, ask their questions, demand amplification from the dissenters, whatever. Once they are satisfied, it will not be considered discourteous or otherwise inappropriate if one or both of the winning debaters excuse themselves from further discussion and get on with prepping for the next round. Given this new convention, I think that tournaments would be justified in pushing the schedule considerably faster on elim day. This is especially true at the increasing number of tournaments where the elim bracket is published Sunday night. I would be very interested in community input on either of these schemes, as we might try to implement one or both at Harvard this year. dp _______________________________________________ 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/20081023/a03f6b2c/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 12:21:49 2008 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:21:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Decision Times Message-ID: I for one do think we should "compromise" decision times. The length of decision times in most debates is far beyond what it needs to be and is typically so for a couple of outliers. The decision-making time is typically not for the post-round discussion, which is totally useful (and, would be to observers if they stuck around for it), but for the evaluation of evidence. This evaluation is typically unassociated with the content of the debate, but is rather a reconstruction of the debate round entirely. Fact checking evidence to verify competing claims is one things; re-reading evidence that is uncontested to determine if you like it well enough to vote on it is another. We're getting awfully close to decisions that take as long as the rounds, and that is ridiculous. Enforce decision-making time. As an aside, I dont think that this is an "alternate package" CP to 6 rds. I like 6 rds. I think local tournaments should go to 8 and major nationals should go to 6. I also like Ozzy's losers' bracket, but disagree that it should be renamed. We should have one and it should be called that. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/52b19fbb/attachment.htm From spring.sarah at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 12:23:25 2008 From: spring.sarah at gmail.com (Sarah Spring) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:23:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Tournaments - another proposal Message-ID: In the spirit of Gordon and other's plea for a more feasible tournament schedule, I'd like to bring up another point that I see at work here. The obsession with evidence. Hanson's point is valid, moving all that paper takes a lot of time. I'll be more radical. I think we should reconsider Ross' proposal of open-source as part of the solution Why is that we assume that we have to stay up all night? The reward for being the most unhealthy is winning. Our activity actively promotes not sleeping for weeks and basically becoming fastened to our computers. I've been there, bleary eyed at 4 in the morning many times. But often, it makes me question why we do this? The teams that hire the most unhealthy coaches, who are most able to abuse their bodies often do the best. Why do we reward this practice? Debate should reward debating. Also, this drives good people out of the activity. Good coaches are told they cannot be either successful parents or successful academics because of the necessity of massive debate time commitments. You have to be a full time debate jock to really have a successful team. While this could be fulfilling for some, it is entirely not sustainable. This is a community where we should understand people who have lives, and not reward those who give up all else to cut the biggest file. What motivates judges that call for 50 cards after each debate? Debate has become an activity that rewards debating second to a ridiculous standard of having massive amounts of evidence. Why not just have each team set down a pile of cards at the beginning of the round and the judge read each teams evidence and decide whose is better. That would certainly speed things up. Debate should be about debating, not how many cards you have about "CAFTA" or whatever ridiculous politics DA is out there. Why Open-source? Because it eliminates the necessity of this ridiculous expectation. Yes, if we let people out of the prelims earlier they will just stay up later cutting more ev. Let's just stop it. Have smart coaches, smart debaters who don't have to sacrifice their health to win debates. I know this is crazy, but I think it would be fruitful. I know there is a lot of resistance to the idea of Open-source and I also am unwilling to get into the long discussion of its feasibility. But, this is clearly a solution to the problem we have discussed here. Sarah Spring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/4c519442/attachment.htm From proudsavage at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 12:51:04 2008 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:51:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] sarah spring---the voice of reason Message-ID: <9b5963440810231051j5e83eda2jfedc464be1b5362a@mail.gmail.com> while i really like being a full time "debate jock" shes just right... -- Stephen M. Davis Towson University Debate Coach proudsavage at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/7bf31fc2/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 12:54:32 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:54:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Help YOURS by getting a free laser printer Message-ID: <9368bc9b0810231054i5cdcce6xf1af5a1cfd2412a1@mail.gmail.com> Hello, Our non profit organization has recently signed up for a free color laser printer from xerox, its a really fast phaser printer and it comes with a three year service agreement, you simply have to print 2000 pages a month and report to them on it. I imagine many of you could do that with ease. Buy your supplies from them and print 2000 pages a month and there is no catch. There is however a referral program. For each of you who signs up for this program our non profit gets $200 in supply credit. So basically you get nearly $1300 worth of high speed color laser printer fo FREE *AND* help support youth entrepreneurial efforts to create a healthier Baltimore. If you are in the market for a free laser printer it seems like a win win to me. Below is the information about the program, for us to get the referral please enter 769380 into the referral id field in the application. The organization I work for, Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems(YOURS) is committed to building a network of community owned business and services that empower Baltimore youth to be the catalyst for economic and political empowerment. We currently run in school, after school, entrepreneurial, and debate programs that work together to teach youth how to turn their ideas into plans into programs that promote youth centered social change. We do good work, help us out by getting a free printer. Andy Ellis Managing Director Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems 822 W.36th Street Baltimore MD 21211 www.bmoreyours.org *Andy Ellis* is a valued member of Xerox FreeColorPrinters and thought your organization would benefit from the program, too. The Xerox FreeColorPrinters program provides FREE, high-performance color printersto businesses, non-profits, religious organizations, and schools with a need for color printing. The application takes just a few minutes and our program is risk-free! Member Benefits: ($1,258 value) - *Xerox Phaser? 8560 color printer* (free shipping included) - *Three-year service agreement* - *Membership in our exclusive online community*?offering tools, templates, members-only promotions, and more! - Access to *toll-free telephone and e-mail support* - Offered direct from Xerox, since 1999! Learn more about the FreeColorPrinter programand how to enhance your organization's image. Visit our application formto apply now for the program. Please be sure to include Andy Ellis's Referral ID *(769380)* in the appropriate application field. Thank you The FreeColorPrinters Team Xerox Corporation http://www.FreeColorPrinters.com (c)2008 Xerox Corporation. All rights reserved. Xerox(R) and WorkCentre(R) are trademarks of Xerox Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. Xerox values your privacy. If you would like to read the Xerox Online Privacy Policy, please visit www.xerox.com/privacy. For more information about privacy via postal mail, write to: Xerox Marketing Manager, 26600 SW Parkway Avenue, MS 7060-630, Wilsonville, OR 97070. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/d3270b4e/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 12:59:11 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:59:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu> References: <48FFE3C0.5060903@wfu.edu> <48FFF994.9070802@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Hello All, Ross and I had a very nice phone conversation last night....We both agree with two premises: 1. The tournament day is way too long 2. It is very hard to know what to value. Most of this discussion is about different valid concerns that all have different unrelated impacts. For instance, we want to find a way to BOTH reward competition and also create the best environment for learning. We desire both to make sure the best and brightest shine and that the young and learning get opportunities to test their mettle. We want to be able to cut lots of cards and also have a chance to socially recognize peers who deserve recognition. The real question, is how to reconcile the desire for a more humane tournament day with the many things we try to accomplish with our "national" tournaments. I am not sure there is a solution that will salve everyone's various needs and desires. One option is for people to try different experiments (like Wake going to 6 rounds) but to survey extensively during the tournament and after the tournament to see what the majority of coaches, judges, and participants feel. A good follow up would be for the other "national" tournaments to try different methods (Dallas and others had very interesting exciting proposals). In addition, if those other tournaments followed up with coordinated surveys (with Wake) we might be able to generate meaningful data about what people value more/most when it comes to what we try to accomplish with tournaments. Anyway, I certainly have made enough 15 hour van trips to be pretty empathetic to a shorter tournament day. I just want to make sure that our solutions to the longer tournament day do the best job of accomplishing the most important goals we value. Josh On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith wrote: > Big picture. > > OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a highly > educational experience for your debaters that is worth the money in three > days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple of hints: if they do > not clear in either division (that's why there are at least 40 teams > clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go back home and have > them give speeches as if they were in that round. Have them record their own > rounds. Have them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE > MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted here at the > top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims (claims, no warrants were > provided). > > Other rebuttalish stuff: > > 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong. > 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different and > better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and getting back to > school. > 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and participate in the > to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted coaches/judges who have > questionable safety when driving and questionable decision making skills > when coaching or judging are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that > the exhaustion does spill over into the next day and the day after when > students miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do the > same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when are folks > really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By Wednesday? How often > are people sick? > 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. Just the > raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what I get when the > facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity. > 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end before > midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our Monday schedule). > Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others be "good practice" > (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd event like the NDT has > become. > 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to me) thing > I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to respond by accusing > him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT > WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF > ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO > RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.??? > > > > > > On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote: > >> I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has earned >> the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that any >> tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to run. But, >> as I seem to be the "disagreeer" >> 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the >> 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if >> you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful >> inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of >> educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%. >> Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be. >> JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are currently >> operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. However, its true 6 >> is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still better. >> 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes >> next to no difference to the Copeland? >> JBH: Is that another proposal? >> 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social >> time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That >> ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The >> words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all >> coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? >> JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more debates. >> All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I would send just >> as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more >> valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include >> careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision >> are of educational value." In addition the "social events are good" thing >> flew the coop a long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. >> People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of >> the non-director coaches move on to work. >> The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more >> debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would sometime >> love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand getting it >> without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the >> fantasy work in which I won). >> 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we >> were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night >> elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people >> participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I >> envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to >> debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few >> people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision >> relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which >> have known starting times. >> JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday leave >> when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch rounds...one, >> two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that finals grows in >> audience much more with the change.....people start partying and play poker >> and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people >> would watch substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims. >> 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It >> helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final >> round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even >> use elims to determine the winner? S >> JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When was >> the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In addition, and >> perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an endurance >> contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last >> day is probably a good thing. >> 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament. >> JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something >> here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my point is >> still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as talented 30% >> 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of >> 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected >> overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long >> ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on >> those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us. >> Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and >> severe unfairness in side assignment. >> JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or the >> sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested. >> 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge >> decision time and post-round discussion time. >> JBH: agreed >> >> 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the >> quantity of debates you are in. >> JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more watching >> either way. >> >> 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a >> fair demand? >> JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches and >> judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain v Obama >> here. >> Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley is >> whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been supportive >> of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may disagree this >> once..but it happens, >> Josh >> >> -- >> 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 < >> http://www.debatescoop.org/> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CEDA-L mailing list >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >> >> > -- > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/645c7b6b/attachment.htm From glueboy1 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 14:09:39 2008 From: glueboy1 at hotmail.com (john foy) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:09:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament Scheduling Wouldn't appear to be the real problem here Message-ID: I?d prefer 8 rounds over 6 as well. Of more concern to me is the issue that?s not being discussed and may be without remedy, the unreasonable demands of debate itself. Look, if kids and coaches are working and debating 15-20 hours a day at tournaments and coming home sleep-deprived zombies; if kids are working so hard on debate during the week and on non-travel weekends that they get sick or fall behind in classes; if coaches and debaters are now basically working all year long during almost all their free time on debate, then probably the problem isn?t the number of prelims we have at Wake in 2008. I don?t really have any suggestions for dealing with this problem, but it does point to troubling priorities. Debaters and coaches lives are innately valuable and good and this should be reflected in their priorities. Their health is more important than debate. Their academic future is more important than debate. OUR lives are more important than and bigger than debate. If we as a community have a telos that values competition so highly that we can?t see the value of ourselves and others but instead prioritize building up our arsenals of information that?s a problem for us. It seems like all of us like to think that debate is this tool that humans use to achieve certain goals, but these descriptions (and my own experience) indicate that humans are really working for debate as an institution and sometimes to our own detriment. That?s crazy. John Foy Assistant Coach Weber State University _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081023/2faac473/attachment.htm From sharris at ku.edu Thu Oct 23 14:21:43 2008 From: sharris at ku.edu (Harris, Scott L) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:21:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9632C3DAB675864EB0A9B7724D85DB79065E48AD@MAILBOXSEVEN.home.ku.edu> Shortening the season by a couple of months would help a great deal. It doesn't make much sense to me that debate has a season that lasts so much longer than any sport. -----Original Message----- From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Josh Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:59 PM To: Ross Smith Cc: edebate; ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure Hello All, Ross and I had a very nice phone conversation last night....We both agree with two premises: 1. The tournament day is way too long 2. It is very hard to know what to value. Most of this discussion is about different valid concerns that all have different unrelated impacts. For instance, we want to find a way to BOTH reward competition and also create the best environment for learning. We desire both to make sure the best and brightest shine and that the young and learning get opportunities to test their mettle. We want to be able to cut lots of cards and also have a chance to socially recognize peers who deserve recognition. The real question, is how to reconcile the desire for a more humane tournament day with the many things we try to accomplish with our "national" tournaments. I am not sure there is a solution that will salve everyone's various needs and desires. One option is for people to try different experiments (like Wake going to 6 rounds) but to survey extensively during the tournament and after the tournament to see what the majority of coaches, judges, and participants feel. A good follow up would be for the other "national" tournaments to try different methods (Dallas and others had very interesting exciting proposals). In addition, if those other tournaments followed up with coordinated surveys (with Wake) we might be able to generate meaningful data about what people value more/most when it comes to what we try to accomplish with tournaments. Anyway, I certainly have made enough 15 hour van trips to be pretty empathetic to a shorter tournament day. I just want to make sure that our solutions to the longer tournament day do the best job of accomplishing the most important goals we value. Josh On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Ross Smith wrote: Big picture. OVERVIEW: If you cannot figure out, as a coach, how to get a highly educational experience for your debaters that is worth the money in three days at WFU, ask me for hints. Or do not come. A couple of hints: if they do not clear in either division (that's why there are at least 40 teams clearing, Hoe), have them watch and record rounds. Go back home and have them give speeches as if they were in that round. Have them record their own rounds. Have them redo speeches from those rounds. Jeepers. the"POOR AND THE MIDDLE CLASS" unwarranted jive analogy needs to be highlighted here at the top as one of the most ridiculous all time claims (claims, no warrants were provided). Other rebuttalish stuff: 1) The SQ is not an alt. 20+ hour days are wrong. 2) Being there in person, alert, awake, is qualitatively different and better for experiencing elim rounds, banquet speeches, and getting back to school. 3) Totally exhausted students, who cannot appreciate and participate in the to-and-for of an elim round, and totally exhausted coaches/judges who have questionable safety when driving and questionable decision making skills when coaching or judging are not red herrings. Not to mention the fact that the exhaustion does spill over into the next day and the day after when students miss classes or undereperform in school and teachers/coaches do the same. Question: after a tournament that ends on a Monday, when are folks really "recovered" and up and running at full speed? By Wednesday? How often are people sick? 4) I give 25%/33% FACTS and Josh calls it "cherry picking." Nope. Just the raw numbers. Low hanging fruit, perhaps, but that's what I get when the facts are on my side. How about it? Quality/quantity. 5) NDT will probably model our elim day before long, and end before midnight (unless someone has a compelling arg against our Monday schedule). Therefore, no reason to have our tournament and others be "good practice" (by abusing people and ending at 2 am) for an absurd event like the NDT has become. 6) The McCain thing is one of the dumbest and most offensive (to me) thing I have had directed my way on edebate. Hoe expects me to respond by accusing him of advocating debate socialism? WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED A TOURNAMENT WITH A WINNER. I AM NOW TAKING A BRIEF TIME OUT FROM MY OTHER JOB OF ARRANGING OBAMA RIDES TO POLLS FOR A TERRITORY OF A MILLION PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THROW AWAY B.S.??? On 10/22/2008 11:10 PM, Josh wrote: I hate to be "arguing" with Ross, in that I really think Ross has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his tournament and that any tournament director should run whatever tournament they want to run. But, as I seem to be the "disagreeer" 1) Debates now take 33% more time to conduct than they did when the 8-round format was popularized (they have 33% more valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of educational value), yet going from 6 to 8 prelims subtracts only 25%. Or, going from 5 to 8 adds 33%. 6 prelims now is what 8 used to be. JBH: This is true, but true of an 8 round tournament as they are currently operated so the 33% argument is kind of cherry picking. However, its true 6 is better than it used to be.....but 8 is still better. 2) Stefan: let's just stop the tournament after semis since finals makes next to no difference to the Copeland? JBH: Is that another proposal? 3) Banquets are rare, but they matter. Our activity lacks good social time, good celebratory time. We honor a national coach of the year. That ceremony is meaningful, and not just for the person who wins it. The words spoken in praise resound and reflect on the efforts of all coaches. The words inspire and celebrate. "Just words"?? JBH: I agree, the question was do they matter as much as 2 more debates. All of that could happen on the net/edebate/wherever and I would send just as many congrats letters to whoever won. As you said above "they have more valuable content if you think pre-round prep, judge decisions that include careful inspection of evidence, and post-round discussion of the decision are of educational value." In addition the "social events are good" thing flew the coop a long time ago. Most coaches go prep if they have a team in. People like free food. Coaches like being recognized but I suspect most of the non-director coaches move on to work. The real question is does the banquet social value outweigh 120 more debate rounds for the unlucky 60 (or whatever). As much as I would sometime love to win coach of the year...I would probably understand getting it without Greg Achten making fun of me in front of the 300 people (in the fantasy work in which I won). 4) Audiences matter. Most of us learned a lot from watching elims we were not good enough to be in. Excessive prelim schedules and late night elim rounds result in tiny elim audiences. Stefan says only 7 people participate in the final round. That does not sound good to me. I envision big audiences for doubles in classrooms that are well suited to debate (as opposed to early morning cramped hotel rooms with a few people watching, half of whom fall asleep in the neg block). I envision relatively well rested people watching the Monday elims all of which have known starting times. JBH: This is a red herring, the people who book tickets for monday leave when the tickets come up...the people who leave tuesday watch rounds...one, two, three, or whatever. I doubt very seriously that finals grows in audience much more with the change.....people start partying and play poker and hang out or watch rounds...The problem is never that a bunch of people would watch substantially more rounds if only there were less prelims. 5) High quality elims matter. Especially when there is an audience. It helps the audience learn more, and helps the competitors. The final round should be the best round in the tournament. If not, why do we even use elims to determine the winner? S JBH: Do they matter as much as 120 rounds to non-elim debaters? When was the final round ever the best round of any tournament. In addition, and perhaps most important, the NDT is even more of an endurance contest....having a few tournaments that are equally as rigorous on the last day is probably a good thing. 6) We will have at least 40 teams in elims, 30% or so of the tournament. JBH: ? did you expand to triples? I might just have missed something here...All 4-2s? If so, thats a decent argument....of course, my point is still those rounds would be good for the unlucky/not as talented 30% 7) There really seem to be two leaders as alts: this year's Shirley of 6/doubles and the alt of 8/octas. The 8/octas was rejected overwhelmingly by the community at Ga. State and at Kentucky not so long ago: people clamorred for an extra elim round and all but forced it on those tournaments. Maybe folks are ready to rethink that. Good for us. Let's think. 7 rounds has problems of scheduling with a banquet and severe unfairness in side assignment. JBH: No, that assumes the sq isnt an alt, or the sq sans banquet, or the sq w/7, or the sq until semis, all options that have been suggested. 8) Surprised no one has commented on the rules regarding elim judge decision time and post-round discussion time. JBH: agreed 9) Total quality of the experience is not solely a function of the quantity of debates you are in. JBH: Clever but I suspect its not mutually exclusive with more watching either way. 10) Judges and coaches matter. A lot. What do we ask of them? What is a fair demand? JBH: Again, does making the night better for the 8 teams and coaches and judges ow the impact on the poor and middle class? This is Mccain v Obama here. Anyway, there was no real discussion of this - I realize the Shirley is whatever you want it to be.....Thats cool, you have always been supportive of debate in ways most people only wish to be......I may disagree this once..but it happens, Josh -- 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 _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l -- 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/2e70cdb2/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Oct 23 16:06:46 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:06:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Tournaments - another proposal Message-ID: <1224796006.4900e7668e9b2@webmail.grandecom.net> Another proposal: Let's ban politics disads and elections disads from rounds. That way we can all get some sleep. I suspect 99% of the staying up until 5:00 a.m. cutting cards has to do with having to answer back these absurd positions. Let's face it, the topic proper has been researched out by mid-october. Now all the stress is on elections disads and answers. Starting November 4th, YOU (a collective You, because I don't waste time on them) will all have to rush to jam together a new "lame duck/legacy" disad. This requires that WE have to stay up until 4:00 cutting stupid blippy cards to answer back a bunch of other stupid blippy cards. Come January 19th, YOU will, AGAIN!, have to cut a bunch of new "Obama's first 100 days agenda" disad. To which, WE will have to stay up until 4:00 a.m on Saturday night/Sunday morning, cutting more stupid answers to stupid "Sheboegon Daily Herald in '09" cards. We could all have a much more relaxed time if we discussed the mertis of the topic rather than having to update the politcs disads du jour. Scott From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 16:13:35 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:13:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Tournaments - another proposal In-Reply-To: <1224796006.4900e7668e9b2@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1224796006.4900e7668e9b2@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: First of all we ran the Obama 100 days/honeymoon da already at UK (in response to the plan doesnt pass in the current session). Second, banning arguments is pretty close to the worst thing we can do as educators ever. If you look through the 1000s of posts I have written about, for instance, the performance arguments - I have never once said ban any arguments...Its the opposite of what we are about and stand for. Third, all case and DA construction is equally silly at the impact level...if you can PROVE its silly you win....we go for impact D and smart take outs to absurd internal links and impacts all the time. Fourth, link and internal link work on politics is good....I dont really want to spend a ton of time explaining why...but yes, a percentage of coaches hate on politics when politics work is often better and more logical than affirmative advantage work...what you are really decrying is the absurdity of the impact environment. Anyway, thats my take, Josh On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:06 PM, wrote: > > Another proposal: Let's ban politics disads and elections disads from > rounds. > That way we can all get some sleep. > > I suspect 99% of the staying up until 5:00 a.m. cutting cards has to do > with > having to answer back these absurd positions. Let's face it, the topic > proper > has been researched out by mid-october. Now all the stress is on elections > disads and answers. Starting November 4th, YOU (a collective You, because I > don't waste time on them) will all have to rush to jam together a new > "lame > duck/legacy" disad. This requires that WE have to stay up until 4:00 > cutting > stupid blippy cards to answer back a bunch of other stupid blippy cards. > Come > January 19th, YOU will, AGAIN!, have to cut a bunch of new "Obama's first > 100 > days agenda" disad. To which, WE will have to stay up until 4:00 a.m on > Saturday night/Sunday morning, cutting more stupid answers to stupid > "Sheboegon > Daily Herald in '09" cards. We could all have a much more relaxed time if > we > discussed the mertis of the topic rather than having to update the politcs > disads du jour. > > Scott > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/5c8c678d/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 23 16:33:03 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:33:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure References: <9632C3DAB675864EB0A9B7724D85DB79065E48AD@MAILBOXSEVEN.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB30@castor.richmond.edu> Other possibilities.... 1) Hidden Out-Rounds. Have doubles and octos during rounds 7 and 8. Once 8 prelims are over, you are in Quarters. Not hard to do--sometimes 1 judge is more preferred than 3. 2) TEN PRELIMS--straight to semis or finals. More debates for everyone. Kevin ________________________________ From: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Harris, Scott L Sent: Thu 10/23/2008 3:21 PM To: Josh; Ross Smith Cc: edebate; ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure Shortening the season by a couple of months would help a great deal. It doesn't make much sense to me that debate has a season that lasts so much longer than any sport. From christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 16:39:33 2008 From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com (Christopher Thomas) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:39:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Scott Elliot's Proposal About the Topic Message-ID: <2d622bfb0810231439xb240f82nbf80bc08575097d8@mail.gmail.com> "We could all have a much more relaxed time if we discussed the mertis of the topic rather than having to update the politics disads du jour." the UTSA squad would greatly appreciate it if the community could please start talking about the topic more....come on, it is getting ridiculous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/773dd01a/attachment.htm From mardigras23 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 16:45:18 2008 From: mardigras23 at hotmail.com (Aaron Kall) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:45:18 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Scott Elliot's Proposal About the Topic In-Reply-To: <2d622bfb0810231439xb240f82nbf80bc08575097d8@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d622bfb0810231439xb240f82nbf80bc08575097d8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: the topic is politics. the reason subsidies exist is politics. doesn't seem like a good idea to ban the topic (maybe to some it is).aaronDate: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:39:33 -0500From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.comTo: eDebate at www.ndtceda.comSubject: [eDebate] Scott Elliot's Proposal About the Topic"We could all have a much more relaxed time if wediscussed the mertis of the topic rather than having to update the politics disads du jour." the UTSA squad would greatly appreciate it if the community could please start talking about the topic more....come on, it is getting ridiculous. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081023/c9fd7069/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Oct 23 16:49:18 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (lacyjp) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:49:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] JP and Sleeping In-Reply-To: <223319.88354.qm@web53502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <223319.88354.qm@web53502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4900F15E.6040306@wfu.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/cb09a38f/attachment.htm From scottyp431 at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 16:49:55 2008 From: scottyp431 at gmail.com (Scott Phillips) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:49:55 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Scott Elliot's Proposal About the Topic Message-ID: <12a4de8d0810231449s35908d36t5515c173e6631a09@mail.gmail.com> *Lloyd *: Flo, like the TV show. Uh, what is the politics disad Du Jour? *Flo, Waitress #1 *: It's the politics disad of the Day. *Lloyd *: Mmmm. That sounds good. I'll have that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/a8079d68/attachment.htm From repkowil at msu.edu Thu Oct 23 16:54:31 2008 From: repkowil at msu.edu (William J Repko) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:54:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Reactions to these threads Message-ID: Good Discussion so far. Some reactions: 1. Forum Conversation is also happening on the cedablog ? in fact more discussion of the MPJ/mutuality conversation is happening there. Now is a good time figure out how to use that site (administrator?s code, etc). Positive externalities ensue. While it's new and different, doesn?t it make structural sense for the organization to have a channel for discussions of this sort ?... Your participation (at that site) aids that effort. (http://cedadebate.org) 2. About 6 v. 8 a) Ross = right about history. B. Hall once posted an anecdote about how it was shocking when Zarefsky took 20 minutes to decide the semis of the NDT (b/c it took so *long*). Much has changed -- as nearly all NDT semis take much longer than 20 minutes to decide. The point is not the specific issue of decision length -- it's the broader idea that we're currently using a schedule that is well-designed for 1983. Over the ensuing 25 years, when GOOD evolutions have been suggested (more feedback, more pre-round prep, etc), the remedy has been to slightly lengthen the day. Something probably has to give. If so, then the meta-question is whether the change should come in practice or in scheduling. Wake, at a minimum, seems a very positive experiment. b) My own experience I remember the first time we went to Cal (6 rd tourney). As a card-carrying member of the "debate-all-the-time, being-nuts-is-good" club, I shared the reservations that are currently being placed on the table. ...However, I was shocked at how much I enjoyed the 6 round format. I was shocked at how much THE STUDENTS enjoyed it. I was shocked at how much it improved everyone's mood. The slight tweak I'd recommend to Kevin's call for a referendum is to consider having said referendum AFTER we've lived through the world of 2 less debates. The hidden upsides might surprise us. c) Quality of Process/Life. I don't judge as well at the end of long days. I don't coach as well either. My debaters debate considerably worse in rounds 5 and 8. I attribute much of this to exhaustion. Try the following experiment -- look for little moments of exhaustion that can reasonably be attributed to lengthy days. When I have looked for this, I've noticed: my own irritation at the little things and (bad) hasty decisions by judges or debaters that are looking for some way to shorten the marathon. This is particularly true during elim # 5... but is not untrue for prelim #8. d) Phillips says: "Walk it off"... My concern is "drive it off". It sounds like one of those annoying high-ground appeals -- but the truth is that safe driving may well be the most important part of my job. Driving back from UK (conventional 8 rd. schedule) was not safe. A long Sat, Sun, and Monday all contributed to that. e) The specific context of Wake Concerns that 25% fewer debates hurts the development of younger debaters are understandable. But, I think some of these reservations do not contextualize as well to the WFU tourney -- here's why: 1. Wake is clearing at least 20% of the frosh-soph pool -- maybe as much as a full octa, and almost certainly all of the 3-3 teams (with this composition). The return/expansion of this separate elim bracket is only feasible in a world where CLASSROOMS (instead of conference rooms) are in play. Scheduling the 1st wave of elims on the campus facilitates this. I would add that the community needs mechanisms to "positively track" younger students from schools of all sizes. An elim of any kind generates exposure and hallway buzz. I feel the conversation has, up to this point, under-estimated how Ross's scheduling adjustment has facilitated the growth of these "break-out" divisions. 2. Wake has qualification procedures -- making it, overall, less of a "developmental" pool. MSU -- for the first time since 1996 -- is taking only two teams to the WFU tourney. That's b/c we have only two teams that fulfilled their "must break at two tourneys requirement". To the extent that I am concerned about 25% fewer debates, it's a developmental concern for our teams that are currently not able to clear in varsity divisions. Those teams, however, don't pass the entry hoop. I am not writing to rail against those requirements -- they're a necessary evil for a very popular tourney. And, I do understand that not all teams have to meet those requirements (two team guarantee, etc). But, if there were a spectrum, WFU's entry requirements slightly tilt the composition of the pool away from "developmental" and slightly towards "the most experienced teams that participating schools can possibly bring". To make a long story short -- I'd err towards supporting an 8 rd tourney when it is a novice/JV division. Quantity is at a higher premium. But, when the pool is less-developmental, quality may be at a higher premium. "Quality" means a lot of things but likely includes items that make the day longer (pre-round prep, longer decisions, longer oral critiques, etc). Given that the composition of the WFU tourney is ultimately somewhat heterogeneous -- expansion of breakout divisions, coupled with sacrifices that allow for (time consuming) "quality of debate issues" to continue seems to be a pretty good permutation. -- Will From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu Thu Oct 23 17:08:02 2008 From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:08:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Reactions to these threads References: Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6E75@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I want to echo one point Will just made - the importance of the expanded fr/so breakout. This feature of Wake is really exciting to me - not just because we often pair frosh with sophomores, but because it has the potential to be even more than 8 teams, depending on entries. One great thing about major tournaments is the availability of several more excellent judges than are needed for elim slots. Having some of those judges coaching & judging in breakout rounds seems a great idea. I also have another suggestion for a future breakout experiment - a C team breakout. Right now, up to 6 C teams can qualify to the NDT. Last year, as is often the case, they had VERY minimal rounds against each other. In the absence of a late reason round robin (which would be extremely cool), the option of designating a likely applicant C team as eligible for even a semis deep breakout would provide some good head to head data for voters to consider. Of course, some C teams clear regularly anyway, but there are lots of them missing on points while consistently winning 4 or 5 rounds. Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments) ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of William J Repko Sent: Thu 10/23/08 4:54 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Reactions to these threads Good Discussion so far. Some reactions: 1. Forum Conversation is also happening on the cedablog - in fact more discussion of the MPJ/mutuality conversation is happening there. Now is a good time figure out how to use that site (administrator's code, etc). Positive externalities ensue. While it's new and different, doesn't it make structural sense for the organization to have a channel for discussions of this sort ?... Your participation (at that site) aids that effort. (http://cedadebate.org ) 2. About 6 v. 8 a) Ross = right about history. B. Hall once posted an anecdote about how it was shocking when Zarefsky took 20 minutes to decide the semis of the NDT (b/c it took so *long*). Much has changed -- as nearly all NDT semis take much longer than 20 minutes to decide. The point is not the specific issue of decision length -- it's the broader idea that we're currently using a schedule that is well-designed for 1983. Over the ensuing 25 years, when GOOD evolutions have been suggested (more feedback, more pre-round prep, etc), the remedy has been to slightly lengthen the day. Something probably has to give. If so, then the meta-question is whether the change should come in practice or in scheduling. Wake, at a minimum, seems a very positive experiment. b) My own experience I remember the first time we went to Cal (6 rd tourney). As a card-carrying member of the "debate-all-the-time, being-nuts-is-good" club, I shared the reservations that are currently being placed on the table. ...However, I was shocked at how much I enjoyed the 6 round format. I was shocked at how much THE STUDENTS enjoyed it. I was shocked at how much it improved everyone's mood. The slight tweak I'd recommend to Kevin's call for a referendum is to consider having said referendum AFTER we've lived through the world of 2 less debates. The hidden upsides might surprise us. c) Quality of Process/Life. I don't judge as well at the end of long days. I don't coach as well either. My debaters debate considerably worse in rounds 5 and 8. I attribute much of this to exhaustion. Try the following experiment -- look for little moments of exhaustion that can reasonably be attributed to lengthy days. When I have looked for this, I've noticed: my own irritation at the little things and (bad) hasty decisions by judges or debaters that are looking for some way to shorten the marathon. This is particularly true during elim # 5... but is not untrue for prelim #8. d) Phillips says: "Walk it off"... My concern is "drive it off". It sounds like one of those annoying high-ground appeals -- but the truth is that safe driving may well be the most important part of my job. Driving back from UK (conventional 8 rd. schedule) was not safe. A long Sat, Sun, and Monday all contributed to that. e) The specific context of Wake Concerns that 25% fewer debates hurts the development of younger debaters are understandable. But, I think some of these reservations do not contextualize as well to the WFU tourney -- here's why: 1. Wake is clearing at least 20% of the frosh-soph pool -- maybe as much as a full octa, and almost certainly all of the 3-3 teams (with this composition). The return/expansion of this separate elim bracket is only feasible in a world where CLASSROOMS (instead of conference rooms) are in play. Scheduling the 1st wave of elims on the campus facilitates this. I would add that the community needs mechanisms to "positively track" younger students from schools of all sizes. An elim of any kind generates exposure and hallway buzz. I feel the conversation has, up to this point, under-estimated how Ross's scheduling adjustment has facilitated the growth of these "break-out" divisions. 2. Wake has qualification procedures -- making it, overall, less of a "developmental" pool. MSU -- for the first time since 1996 -- is taking only two teams to the WFU tourney. That's b/c we have only two teams that fulfilled their "must break at two tourneys requirement". To the extent that I am concerned about 25% fewer debates, it's a developmental concern for our teams that are currently not able to clear in varsity divisions. Those teams, however, don't pass the entry hoop. I am not writing to rail against those requirements -- they're a necessary evil for a very popular tourney. And, I do understand that not all teams have to meet those requirements (two team guarantee, etc). But, if there were a spectrum, WFU's entry requirements slightly tilt the composition of the pool away from "developmental" and slightly towards "the most experienced teams that participating schools can possibly bring". To make a long story short -- I'd err towards supporting an 8 rd tourney when it is a novice/JV division. Quantity is at a higher premium. But, when the pool is less-developmental, quality may be at a higher premium. "Quality" means a lot of things but likely includes items that make the day longer (pre-round prep, longer decisions, longer oral critiques, etc). Given that the composition of the WFU tourney is ultimately somewhat heterogeneous -- expansion of breakout divisions, coupled with sacrifices that allow for (time consuming) "quality of debate issues" to continue seems to be a pretty good permutation. -- Will _______________________________________________ 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/20081023/74ca3100/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Oct 23 17:15:19 2008 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:15:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Tournaments - another proposal In-Reply-To: References: <1224796006.4900e7668e9b2@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <1224800119.4900f777aefee@webmail.grandecom.net> Now we have the final piece of evidence for why eight rounds are bad--it obviously destroys any sense of humor and the ability to detect sarcasm. Get some sleep Josh. Scott Quoting Josh : > First of all we ran the Obama 100 days/honeymoon da already at UK (in > response to the plan doesnt pass in the current session). > > Second, banning arguments is pretty close to the worst thing we can do as > educators ever. If you look through the 1000s of posts I have written > about, for instance, the performance arguments - I have never once said ban > any arguments...Its the opposite of what we are about and stand for. > > Third, all case and DA construction is equally silly at the impact > level...if you can PROVE its silly you win....we go for impact D and smart > take outs to absurd internal links and impacts all the time. > > Fourth, link and internal link work on politics is good....I dont really > want to spend a ton of time explaining why...but yes, a percentage of > coaches hate on politics when politics work is often better and more logical > than affirmative advantage work...what you are really decrying is the > absurdity of the impact environment. > > Anyway, thats my take, > > Josh > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 5:06 PM, wrote: > > > > > Another proposal: Let's ban politics disads and elections disads from > > rounds. > > That way we can all get some sleep. > > > > I suspect 99% of the staying up until 5:00 a.m. cutting cards has to do > > with > > having to answer back these absurd positions. Let's face it, the topic > > proper > > has been researched out by mid-october. Now all the stress is on elections > > disads and answers. Starting November 4th, YOU (a collective You, because I > > don't waste time on them) will all have to rush to jam together a new > > "lame > > duck/legacy" disad. This requires that WE have to stay up until 4:00 > > cutting > > stupid blippy cards to answer back a bunch of other stupid blippy cards. > > Come > > January 19th, YOU will, AGAIN!, have to cut a bunch of new "Obama's first > > 100 > > days agenda" disad. To which, WE will have to stay up until 4:00 a.m on > > Saturday night/Sunday morning, cutting more stupid answers to stupid > > "Sheboegon > > Daily Herald in '09" cards. We could all have a much more relaxed time if > > we > > discussed the mertis of the topic rather than having to update the politcs > > disads du jour. > > > > Scott > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 17:26:10 2008 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:26:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ceda forum forum In-Reply-To: <48FFFCA0.50808@wfu.edu> References: <48FF9EB5.5010709@wfu.edu> <9a7f6f740810221924q5673c2a5m7c30e8854e1d60cb@mail.gmail.com> <48FFFCA0.50808@wfu.edu> Message-ID: I could not agree more with Ross here (and I guess this references what Sarah is referring to in her post as well). My debaters are in all likelihood going to get 2 less debates at Wake (sorry Josh & Casey). The flip side of that is more sleep for them on Sunday night and maybe an easier drive back on Monday. Maybe they will function slightly better in class on Tuesday, maybe not. Does that suck a little for them? Yeah. Wake is one of the few tournaments where my varsity debaters don't have to spend time coaching/prepping/hand-holding our novices and probably sacrificing their own performance for "the good of the team". However, the flip side of 6 rounds for me is 1) having to judge 6 debates instead of 8, 2) getting more sleep, 3) driving back at a reasonable time and a reasonable speed on Monday, 4) spending time with my kid on Monday evening instead of arriving back after she goes to bed, 5) not being a zombie in the classes I need to teach on Tuesday. These things make me feel like a better mom, a better coach, a better judge, a better educator, and a better human. Given that most of my debaters spend 4 years max in the activity and then move on to (more important?) things, and I am the one who needs to keep doing this year after year, I'll weigh the risk of my burnout more heavily than the relatively small harm of 2 less rounds. Coaches need to protect their health and sanity too (let alone their personal relationships). A coach who has slept, who does not need a caffeine IV by noon, who has eaten something somewhat healthy and has taken longer than 15 minutes to do it, who has been able to socialize with friends, is a better coach. Debaters who have done all those things definitely debate better and have an overall better experience at a tournament. God knows the people who run tournaments deserve a break, some sleep, and a chance to eat and socialize too. I debated at Wake on the Indian Country topic--2001, the year it dropped to 6 rounds so that we could have public debates on terrorism and related issues and come together as a community around an event that we were all still struggling to understand. I don't remember missing the last two rounds. I do remember being glad that we had so many diverse perspectives and levels of understanding and perception there. I was proud of our community at that tournament. I think there are several ways that the community could address quality of life issues, but I think that Wake's move to address them is a good and important one. It would be a shame to lose valuable members of our community--perhaps people with different perspectives from the average "debate jock"--because they decided that the debate lifestyle was not compatible with their personal life or health. Danielle Verney O'Gorman Navy Debate _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081023/eb8aeaef/attachment.htm From ralph.paone at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 17:40:03 2008 From: ralph.paone at gmail.com (Ralph Paone) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:40:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Towson CL or somebody with cites? Message-ID: <86f9bd6d0810231540o401f357ewd00bc128fd8ac97@mail.gmail.com> I'm trying to get the cites to the new thing Towson CL did in the out rounds of UK. Towson? Wake GL? Back channel plz, ralph ralph.paone at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/a8848aa6/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Oct 23 18:26:33 2008 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:26:33 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Reactions to these threads References: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6E75@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: <126DDF052F134CB5A337C6294E1B609C@whitman.edu> [eDebate] Reactions to these threadsc team breakout = great idea. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: Morris, Eric R Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:08 PM To: William J Repko ; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reactions to these threads I want to echo one point Will just made - the importance of the expanded fr/so breakout. This feature of Wake is really exciting to me - not just because we often pair frosh with sophomores, but because it has the potential to be even more than 8 teams, depending on entries. One great thing about major tournaments is the availability of several more excellent judges than are needed for elim slots. Having some of those judges coaching & judging in breakout rounds seems a great idea. I also have another suggestion for a future breakout experiment - a C team breakout. Right now, up to 6 C teams can qualify to the NDT. Last year, as is often the case, they had VERY minimal rounds against each other. In the absence of a late reason round robin (which would be extremely cool), the option of designating a likely applicant C team as eligible for even a semis deep breakout would provide some good head to head data for voters to consider. Of course, some C teams clear regularly anyway, but there are lots of them missing on points while consistently winning 4 or 5 rounds. Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of William J Repko Sent: Thu 10/23/08 4:54 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Reactions to these threads Good Discussion so far. Some reactions: 1. Forum Conversation is also happening on the cedablog - in fact more discussion of the MPJ/mutuality conversation is happening there. Now is a good time figure out how to use that site (administrator's code, etc). Positive externalities ensue. While it's new and different, doesn't it make structural sense for the organization to have a channel for discussions of this sort ?... Your participation (at that site) aids that effort. (http://cedadebate.org) 2. About 6 v. 8 a) Ross = right about history. B. Hall once posted an anecdote about how it was shocking when Zarefsky took 20 minutes to decide the semis of the NDT (b/c it took so *long*). Much has changed -- as nearly all NDT semis take much longer than 20 minutes to decide. The point is not the specific issue of decision length -- it's the broader idea that we're currently using a schedule that is well-designed for 1983. Over the ensuing 25 years, when GOOD evolutions have been suggested (more feedback, more pre-round prep, etc), the remedy has been to slightly lengthen the day. Something probably has to give. If so, then the meta-question is whether the change should come in practice or in scheduling. Wake, at a minimum, seems a very positive experiment. b) My own experience I remember the first time we went to Cal (6 rd tourney). As a card-carrying member of the "debate-all-the-time, being-nuts-is-good" club, I shared the reservations that are currently being placed on the table. ...However, I was shocked at how much I enjoyed the 6 round format. I was shocked at how much THE STUDENTS enjoyed it. I was shocked at how much it improved everyone's mood. The slight tweak I'd recommend to Kevin's call for a referendum is to consider having said referendum AFTER we've lived through the world of 2 less debates. The hidden upsides might surprise us. c) Quality of Process/Life. I don't judge as well at the end of long days. I don't coach as well either. My debaters debate considerably worse in rounds 5 and 8. I attribute much of this to exhaustion. Try the following experiment -- look for little moments of exhaustion that can reasonably be attributed to lengthy days. When I have looked for this, I've noticed: my own irritation at the little things and (bad) hasty decisions by judges or debaters that are looking for some way to shorten the marathon. This is particularly true during elim # 5... but is not untrue for prelim #8. d) Phillips says: "Walk it off"... My concern is "drive it off". It sounds like one of those annoying high-ground appeals -- but the truth is that safe driving may well be the most important part of my job. Driving back from UK (conventional 8 rd. schedule) was not safe. A long Sat, Sun, and Monday all contributed to that. e) The specific context of Wake Concerns that 25% fewer debates hurts the development of younger debaters are understandable. But, I think some of these reservations do not contextualize as well to the WFU tourney -- here's why: 1. Wake is clearing at least 20% of the frosh-soph pool -- maybe as much as a full octa, and almost certainly all of the 3-3 teams (with this composition). The return/expansion of this separate elim bracket is only feasible in a world where CLASSROOMS (instead of conference rooms) are in play. Scheduling the 1st wave of elims on the campus facilitates this. I would add that the community needs mechanisms to "positively track" younger students from schools of all sizes. An elim of any kind generates exposure and hallway buzz. I feel the conversation has, up to this point, under-estimated how Ross's scheduling adjustment has facilitated the growth of these "break-out" divisions. 2. Wake has qualification procedures -- making it, overall, less of a "developmental" pool. MSU -- for the first time since 1996 -- is taking only two teams to the WFU tourney. That's b/c we have only two teams that fulfilled their "must break at two tourneys requirement". To the extent that I am concerned about 25% fewer debates, it's a developmental concern for our teams that are currently not able to clear in varsity divisions. Those teams, however, don't pass the entry hoop. I am not writing to rail against those requirements -- they're a necessary evil for a very popular tourney. And, I do understand that not all teams have to meet those requirements (two team guarantee, etc). But, if there were a spectrum, WFU's entry requirements slightly tilt the composition of the pool away from "developmental" and slightly towards "the most experienced teams that participating schools can possibly bring". To make a long story short -- I'd err towards supporting an 8 rd tourney when it is a novice/JV division. Quantity is at a higher premium. But, when the pool is less-developmental, quality may be at a higher premium. "Quality" means a lot of things but likely includes items that make the day longer (pre-round prep, longer decisions, longer oral critiques, etc). Given that the composition of the WFU tourney is ultimately somewhat heterogeneous -- expansion of breakout divisions, coupled with sacrifices that allow for (time consuming) "quality of debate issues" to continue seems to be a pretty good permutation. -- Will _______________________________________________ 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/20081023/5cc58cca/attachment.htm From lifer-hat at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 18:33:13 2008 From: lifer-hat at hotmail.com (bandana organizer) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:33:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure In-Reply-To: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB30@castor.richmond.edu> References: <9632C3DAB675864EB0A9B7724D85DB79065E48AD@MAILBOXSEVEN.home.ku.edu> <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB30@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: > From: kkuswa at richmond.edu > > Other possibilities.... > > 1) Hidden Out-Rounds. Have doubles and octos during rounds 7 and 8. Once 8 prelims are over, you are in Quarters. Not hard to do--sometimes 1 judge is more preferred than 3. > > 2) TEN PRELIMS--straight to semis or finals. More debates for everyone. These two are very similar, and to the "losers pool" as well. Since some of these rounds are a kind of "bonus" for teams that didn't do well enough to break, and since that bonus is meant to increase education, it might be worthwhile for these rounds to try and match teams from different regions, or at least teams who haven't seen other teams from each other's schools in a prior prelim. _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 23 18:50:09 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:50:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Reactions to these threads References: Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB32@castor.richmond.edu> yes, good discussion, A few additional comments regarding 6 v. 8. 1) "Longer days" since 1983 is not an argument for 6 rounds unless you make the elitist assumption that out-round structure has to stay the same. In that sense, Josh's analogy to McCain's tax policy is apt....take more money from the lower and middle classes in order to give more time (resources) to the wealthy. This will trickle down because low and middle teams will have the privilege of watching the best without being so tired. At Wake, between one-third and half of Sunday will be devoted to elims. In the past, all of Sunday was devoted to all of the participants. That shift has to be justified independently from the "days are too long" argument. 2) I think the frosh/soph break-out is great too, but shouldn't those teams be watching the real out-rounds? :) You might find that the same schools in out-rounds (with a few exceptions) are the schools in the break-out. You might be surprised how many first years and sophomores are debating with juniors or seniors at smaller schools that do not have multiple younger debaters with high school experience that are not already on teams in the regular out-rounds. Again, I like the break-out--BUT THIS COULD HAPPEN WITH 8 PRELIMS. It is NOT a reason that 6 prelims is any better. 3) SOME 6 rounds tournaments are great--we attend a bunch of them every year (although the cost for the 6 rounders we attend is much less than Wake's version because of the extra night in the hotel) and enjoy them. Gonzaga is on the Wake model and we love that tournament because of the hosting, the competition, and the judging. Gonzaga, though, is a strong regional tournament, not the NDT/CEDA of the first semester. It is different when a national tournament that draws in all of the top teams decides to go to 6. There are multiple reasons the Capital Catholic National tournament is not around now, but one reason is that six rounds were not enough to justify all the costs for national travel. 4) Safety is being used here is a really dangerous way...are you really leaving the safety of the squad and driving to the variable of 6 vs. 8 rounds? That's terrible. If that is true, you should not attend any 8 round tournaments. Will, you should not have driven back from Ky if it was dangerous or if you felt like it was dangerous. Pull over and sleep or make sure you have two drivers in every vehicle. The issues of safety are massive and I could not agree more that it is the most important factor of attending tournaments and debating/coaching responsibly. THAT IS EXACTLY WHY SAFETY SHOULD NOT BE DEPLOYED AS SOME random variable justifying 6 rounds over 8. Fuck that--it's irresponsible as shit to think to yourself ON ANY level that your safety is less optimum based on 8 prelims. At that point you either refuse to attend that tournament OR you make plans to address the situation... What are those plans? These are things to think about REGULARLY whether the tournament is 9 rounds and quarters, 5 rounds plus two banquets and a coronation for the top team, 7 rounds and partials, etc. etc. Let me repeat: The issues of safety are massive and I could not agree more that it is the most important factor of attending tournaments and debating/coaching responsibly. A) Driving or Flying: You should arrange your schedule to refrain from long drives if you can avoid them by flying. This raises other travel issues and team size questions, but it is important to think about. You have to recognize that all driving entails risks...you cannot make driving prefectly safe no matter what you do. Assuming that your drive is going to be OK because you just came from a tournament that "only" had 6 prelims is a terrible and dangerous misconception. B) Number and Quality of drivers: this is HUGE--who are your drivers? are they safe? how qualified are they? how much experience do they have? how many rounds are they judging? how much sleep do they get before and during a tournament? how many hours are they expected to drive? how many hours in a row? and (hopefully not) are your drivers debating (if so, how many rounds did they debate and how much sleep did they get before the tournaments)? If some of your drivers are students, you should not force them to wake up and watch out-rounds when they do not clear. C) Policy on driving: Do you have resources set aside for any time that the driver needs to stop and sleep? You should. Whether it's early in the evening or late at night, your drivers and students should always be ready and willing to pull over a find a place to sleep if need be. Do the debaters know that rushing home to make a test is NOT AN ARGUMENT in the face of a tired driver? Do all the debaters know that driving safely is more important than any other aspect of the tournament? Have you talked to all your drivers and discussed what to do in various driving circumstances? D) Is your vehicle safe? Who is reponsible for the upkeep of your vehicle? Do you drive 15 passenger vans (found unsafe for human cargo)? How many eligible drivers are in each vehicle? What does it mean to be eligible? What about driving in bad weather--when do you pull over and what is the policy? Obviously, this issue goes much further than the few points and questions raised here. The bottom line is that playing the safety card in favor of 6 rounds is not right...look, 8 rounds and only finals would be "safer" than Wake's current schedule--are they now liable for decisions involving length of drive, when a team leaves a tournament, number of drivers in a vehicle, etc.? Why does safety apply to prelims but not to excessively long elim decisions? Please don't conflate these issues because it adds even more risk to something that we need to think about all the time (at least more than we do now) anyway. 5) Human time. Daisy and I have been talking and it is not like 6 rounds at Wake will magically make all of us human--it's that this is a tournament where she can concentrate on her varsity team and that it will be a less sleep-deprived weekend from their perspective. Fair enough. All of our squads approach novice, jv, and varsity differently and these are factors to consider. Wake is a varsity tournament--one of the best of the year. How many of those do you attend? As far as human time goes (and I think Daisy would agree), attending 3 tournaments with 8 prelims would be less exhausting, taxing, demanding than attending 4 tournaments with 6 prelims. If we only went to 8 round tournaments, we could attend fewer tournaments overall. In other words, we are willing to make the arrangements for safety concerns and prepare to lose some sleep for Wake Forest at 8 rounds and skip a 6-rounder along the way, but it is harder to justify the reverse. Debates, ultimately, are what we seek as a debate team. 6) Will--your debaters that enjoyed the 6 rounds tournament more--did they clear? :) Again--if there is a crisis as a result of long days in debate, why not shrink the number of elims, enforce a 30 minute decision time per round (train the judges to make shorter decisions)....I bet if you forced judges to decide after 15 minutes that they would decide about 95% or more the same way they would decide if they had an hour, limit oral decisions like Dallas suggests (judges could be asked to write additional comments down if necessary), go to hidden out-rounds, etc. 7) Why does this matter? GOOD PRELIMS AT WAKE ARE OUR LIFEBLOOD--we live on those rounds--we look forward to them all semester, we work hard to have a chance to go 4-4 and perhaps still be alive Sunday afternoon or evening, we talk about those debates all December and we use those rounds to strategize and prepare for the second semester. Feedback from two additional awesome judges (I can tell you what we learned in rounds 7 and 8 every year and it's always more intense and meaningful than anything we learn watching out-rounds--mainly because we were making the arguments and we were directly debating). Yes, we will happily clap for the out-round participants (and maybe sneak in ourselves this year given some recent hard work by the squad), but we will still sorely miss ROUND THE SEVEN AND ROUND THE EIGHT at the Shirley. kevin From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Oct 23 18:55:46 2008 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:55:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure References: <9632C3DAB675864EB0A9B7724D85DB79065E48AD@MAILBOXSEVEN.home.ku.edu><3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB30@castor.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <3BD2E59AB8926F468357627C6C0EB84405C5AB34@castor.richmond.edu> sure...no disagreement. we talked a bit a few years ago about ONLY clearing the teams at the bottom of the bracket (you have to lose at least 5 rounds to clear) because those are really the teams that need the extra debates. The team that loses would advance in elims....so, if the seeds hold up, the teams in finals will have lost every round. At that point, someone has to win who is 0-12. great stuff--regional matching would help as well. not sure this is a good solution for wake--maybe for a novice division somewhere. kevin ps--seriously, hidden out-rounds are not a bad idea. the time consumed by the first "out-round" is usually less and mutually preferred judging could make sure those rounds had solid judges. You want three-judges? Win your hidden out-round. ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of bandana organizer Sent: Thu 10/23/2008 7:33 PM To: edebate Subject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure > From: kkuswa at richmond.edu > > Other possibilities.... > > 1) Hidden Out-Rounds. Have doubles and octos during rounds 7 and 8. Once 8 prelims are over, you are in Quarters. Not hard to do--sometimes 1 judge is more preferred than 3. > > 2) TEN PRELIMS--straight to semis or finals. More debates for everyone. These two are very similar, and to the "losers pool" as well. Since some of these rounds are a kind of "bonus" for teams that didn't do well enough to break, and since that bonus is meant to increase education, it might be worthwhile for these rounds to try and match teams from different regions, or at least teams who haven't seen other teams from each other's schools in a prior prelim. _________________________________________________________________ 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 From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 20:52:01 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:52:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> Message-ID: basically, lacy sucks @ debate. still no defense of the many problems with fact check "authentication" already mentioned. the website link to "israelinsider thinks obama is a muslim" merely is an article citing the AP photo of his indonesian school record where he was registered in school as a muslim. that's THE AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD that you're referring to. you can believe he's a muslim today or not from that AP SCHOOL RECORD. http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D 21 months ago: This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana) don't go all in on your stupid muslim indict of the israeli insider destruction of the fact check analysis. IT'S A FACT, MORON. OBAMA'S FATHER LISTED ISLAM FOR OBAMA'S RELIGION ON THE SCHOOL RECORD PHOTOGRAPHED BY THE AP WIRE. i think this is what debater's call a "TURN". lacy is trying to indict the integrity of a website who is not so mesmerized by obama that they feel in their hearts of belief that even mentioning the AP photo is a form of disloyalty to the new savior of the american left. citing the AP photo and not ignoring it bolsters the perception of the newspaper israeli-insider. lacy never even heard of the AP photo because he's high in obamaland. what are you an anti-semite? trying to attack a jewish newspaper with bogus allegations that israelinsider extrapolated from the AP PHOTO SHOWING ISLAM FOR BARACK'S RELIGION that barack is still a muslim. please, show that quote or go back to your little league ad-homs. on your second point, not so good flow boy, oohhh --- israelinsider insinuates that that factcheck had a conflict of interest with the BARACK FISA CAGLIOSTRO. well, when they state the conflict of interest in plain english, you have to refute that statement to make an argument unless you're a novice who doesn't even know what an argument is: http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. see, dipshit, obama worked for the foundation that confirmed his birth certificate. that's what debaters who know what an argument is call a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. to point that out makes israelinsider a really bad source. ooohhh -- keep it up, you're making the mccain campaign look like a bunch of right wing wackos...good job debate boy... ---------------------------------------- > Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:02:54 -0400 > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > > > You really have nothing better than the Israeli Insider? No wonder > McCain is smart enough not to make this argument. > > The Israeli Insider, while arguing that a "bad camera timestamp" > invalidates Obama's birth certificate, also believes Obama is a Muslim: > http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 > > They also think that Factcheck's Annenberg funding somehow creates a > conflict of interest: > http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm (Uh...yeah. > Don't go all in on that one.) > > > > Old Strega wrote: >> maybe somebody will believe me like you believe fact check. >> >> let's try a different quote from the article that made you switch from arguing in favor of obama's birth certificate to ad hominem. i thought you were capable of defending of arguments: >> >> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >> >> The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign.... >> >> Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night. >> >> No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to >> >> FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software. >> >> If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008. >> >> Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time. >> >> Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair. >> >> It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." >> >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> >>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400 >>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>> >>> Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. >>> >>> >>> Old Strega wrote: >>> >>>> you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your point. >>>> >>>> that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid. >>>> >>>> why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth? >>>> >>>> you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. >>>> >>>> if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice. >>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 >>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>> >>>>> Group it: You're proving my point. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. >>>>>> >>>>>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. >>>>>> >>>>>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. >>>>>> >>>>>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? >>>>>> >>>>>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? >>>>>> >>>>>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? >>>>>> >>>>>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. >>>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ From MWBRYANT at aol.com Thu Oct 23 20:57:33 2008 From: MWBRYANT at aol.com (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:57:33 EDT Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics Message-ID: Could you go slobber somewhere else? Don't forget to listen to Michael Savage for your next "superior" argument..... In a message dated 10/23/2008 9:52:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, oldstrega at hotmail.com writes: basically, lacy sucks @ debate. still no defense of the many problems with fact check "authentication" already mentioned. the website link to "israelinsider thinks obama is a muslim" merely is an article citing the AP photo of his indonesian school record where he was registered in school as a muslim. that's THE AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD that you're referring to. you can believe he's a muslim today or not from that AP SCHOOL RECORD. http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D 21 months ago: This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana) don't go all in on your stupid muslim indict of the israeli insider destruction of the fact check analysis. IT'S A FACT, MORON. OBAMA'S FATHER LISTED ISLAM FOR OBAMA'S RELIGION ON THE SCHOOL RECORD PHOTOGRAPHED BY THE AP WIRE. i think this is what debater's call a "TURN". lacy is trying to indict the integrity of a website who is not so mesmerized by obama that they feel in their hearts of belief that even mentioning the AP photo is a form of disloyalty to the new savior of the american left. citing the AP photo and not ignoring it bolsters the perception of the newspaper israeli-insider. lacy never even heard of the AP photo because he's high in obamaland. what are you an anti-semite? trying to attack a jewish newspaper with bogus allegations that israelinsider extrapolated from the AP PHOTO SHOWING ISLAM FOR BARACK'S RELIGION that barack is still a muslim. please, show that quote or go back to your little league ad-homs. on your second point, not so good flow boy, oohhh --- israelinsider insinuates that that factcheck had a conflict of interest with the BARACK FISA CAGLIOSTRO. well, when they state the conflict of interest in plain english, you have to refute that statement to make an argument unless you're a novice who doesn't even know what an argument is: http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. see, dipshit, obama worked for the foundation that confirmed his birth certificate. that's what debaters who know what an argument is call a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. to point that out makes israelinsider a really bad source. ooohhh -- keep it up, you're making the mccain campaign look like a bunch of right wing wackos...good job debate boy... **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/4d741462/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 21:07:18 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:07:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dallas already told you that you're "it don't matter if obama was born in kenya" argument was a pile of shit. you made a bad argument and dropped out. now, you're coming on with ad-homs just like lacy. if you can't debate, cry. that's the edebate standard. i'd rather slobber than broadcast bogus citizenship legal claims as if i were smart and some kind of expert instead full of hot air. if the age of obama's mother when he was born in kenya don't matter, then how come mr. barack FISA cagliostro ain't making that argument in court, big guy? why the measley motion to dismiss? i bet you slobbered all over cagliostro's vote for FISA. bear's a FISA kind of guy who masturbates wearing faith-based initiative condoms to make good on cagliostro's support of abstinence. ________________________________ > From: MWBRYANT at aol.com > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:57:33 -0400 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Could you go slobber somewhere else? Don't forget to listen to Michael Savage for your next "superior" argument..... > > > > In a message dated 10/23/2008 9:52:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, oldstrega at hotmail.com writes: > basically, lacy sucks @ debate. > > still no defense of the many problems with fact check "authentication" already mentioned. > > the website link to "israelinsider thinks obama is a muslim" merely is an article citing the AP photo of his indonesian school record where he was registered in school as a muslim. that's THE AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD that you're referring to. you can believe he's a muslim today or not from that AP SCHOOL RECORD. > > http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D > > 21 months ago: This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana) > > don't go all in on your stupid muslim indict of the israeli insider destruction of the fact check analysis. IT'S A FACT, MORON. OBAMA'S FATHER LISTED ISLAM FOR OBAMA'S RELIGION ON THE SCHOOL RECORD PHOTOGRAPHED BY THE AP WIRE. i think this is what debater's call a "TURN". lacy is trying to indict the integrity of a website who is not so mesmerized by obama that they feel in their hearts of belief that even mentioning the AP photo is a form of disloyalty to the new savior of the american left. citing the AP photo and not ignoring it bolsters the perception of the newspaper israeli-insider. lacy never even heard of the AP photo because he's high in obamaland. > > what are you an anti-semite? trying to attack a jewish newspaper with bogus allegations that israelinsider extrapolated from the AP PHOTO SHOWING ISLAM FOR BARACK'S RELIGION that barack is still a muslim. please, show that quote or go back to your little league ad-homs. > > on your second point, not so good flow boy, oohhh --- israelinsider insinuates that that factcheck had a conflict of interest with the BARACK FISA CAGLIOSTRO. well, when they state the conflict of interest in plain english, you have to refute that statement to make an argument unless you're a novice who doesn't even know what an argument is: > > http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 > > FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. > > see, dipshit, obama worked for the foundation that confirmed his birth certificate. that's what debaters who know what an argument is call a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. to point that out makes israelinsider a really bad source. ooohhh -- keep it up, you're making the mccain campaign look like a bunch of right wing wackos...good job debate boy... > > > > > ________________________________ > Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001> _________________________________________________________________ Stay organized with simple drag and drop from Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_102008 From MWBRYANT at aol.com Thu Oct 23 21:43:23 2008 From: MWBRYANT at aol.com (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:43:23 EDT Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics Message-ID: In a message dated 10/23/2008 10:07:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, oldstrega at hotmail.com writes: dallas already told you that you're "it don't matter if obama was born in kenya" argument was a pile of shit. you made a bad argument and dropped out. now, you're coming on with ad-homs just like lacy. if you can't debate, cry. that's the edebate standard. i'd rather slobber than broadcast bogus citizenship legal claims as if i were smart and some kind of expert instead full of hot air. if the age of obama's mother when he was born in kenya don't matter, then how come mr. barack FISA cagliostro ain't making that argument in court, big guy? why the measley motion to dismiss? i bet you slobbered all over cagliostro's vote for FISA. bear's a FISA kind of guy who masturbates wearing faith-based initiative condoms to make good on cagliostro's support of abstinence. Look, I'm not debating you. No one is. We're laughing at you. You seem to think that you're winning some sort of a debate. Sure. You win. You remind me of Rush Limbaugh or Mike Savage, so in love with your own thoughts that you win everytime. We'll let everyone decide for themselves who has been engaged in the most clearly obvious form of "masturbation." Better yet, we'll let the American voter decide. That's what really frustrates you the most - no matter how hard you jerk, you can't quite make it, can you? It's growing hard to revel in any hatred of you. I'm stuck on pitying you. Congratulations on your stupendous victory! **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/1b797484/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 22:41:37 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:41:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] bear endorses obama, endorses FISA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: surveillance good, privacy bad. obama = god. ________________________________ > From: MWBRYANT at aol.com > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:43:23 -0400 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > In a message dated 10/23/2008 10:07:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, oldstrega at hotmail.com writes: > dallas already told you that you're "it don't matter if obama was born in kenya" argument was a pile of shit. you made a bad argument and dropped out. now, you're coming on with ad-homs just like lacy. if you can't debate, cry. that's the edebate standard. i'd rather slobber than broadcast bogus citizenship legal claims as if i were smart and some kind of expert instead full of hot air. if the age of obama's mother when he was born in kenya don't matter, then how come mr. barack FISA cagliostro ain't making that argument in court, big guy? why the measley motion to dismiss? > > i bet you slobbered all over cagliostro's vote for FISA. bear's a FISA kind of guy who masturbates wearing faith-based initiative condoms to make good on cagliostro's support of abstinence. > > Look, I'm not debating you. No one is. We're laughing at you. You seem to think that you're winning some sort of a debate. Sure. You win. You remind me of Rush Limbaugh or Mike Savage, so in love with your own thoughts that you win everytime. We'll let everyone decide for themselves who has been engaged in the most clearly obvious form of "masturbation." Better yet, we'll let the American voter decide. That's what really frustrates you the most - no matter how hard you jerk, you can't quite make it, can you? It's growing hard to revel in any hatred of you. I'm stuck on pitying you. Congratulations on your stupendous victory! > > > > > > ________________________________ > Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001> _________________________________________________________________ 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 Thu Oct 23 22:43:49 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:43:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bear, you said "is that all you got?". and then you made an argument. nobody is debating now but at one point, you TRIED to debate. it looks like your resorting to pity of me because your argument about natural born citizenship was fucking stupid as stupid get. ________________________________ > From: MWBRYANT at aol.com > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:43:23 -0400 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > In a message dated 10/23/2008 10:07:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, oldstrega at hotmail.com writes: > dallas already told you that you're "it don't matter if obama was born in kenya" argument was a pile of shit. you made a bad argument and dropped out. now, you're coming on with ad-homs just like lacy. if you can't debate, cry. that's the edebate standard. i'd rather slobber than broadcast bogus citizenship legal claims as if i were smart and some kind of expert instead full of hot air. if the age of obama's mother when he was born in kenya don't matter, then how come mr. barack FISA cagliostro ain't making that argument in court, big guy? why the measley motion to dismiss? > > i bet you slobbered all over cagliostro's vote for FISA. bear's a FISA kind of guy who masturbates wearing faith-based initiative condoms to make good on cagliostro's support of abstinence. > > Look, I'm not debating you. No one is. We're laughing at you. You seem to think that you're winning some sort of a debate. Sure. You win. You remind me of Rush Limbaugh or Mike Savage, so in love with your own thoughts that you win everytime. We'll let everyone decide for themselves who has been engaged in the most clearly obvious form of "masturbation." Better yet, we'll let the American voter decide. That's what really frustrates you the most - no matter how hard you jerk, you can't quite make it, can you? It's growing hard to revel in any hatred of you. I'm stuck on pitying you. Congratulations on your stupendous victory! > > > > > > ________________________________ > Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001> _________________________________________________________________ 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 wendecooper at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 23:01:48 2008 From: wendecooper at gmail.com (Wende Cooper) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:01:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Mailing list Message-ID: Please remove me from the edebate mailing list. Thank you! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/a0f0dfcf/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 23:03:34 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:03:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: <49013161.2040705@wfu.edu> References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> <49013161.2040705@wfu.edu> Message-ID: off one. to prove natural born citizenship, you need a fact producing entity further removed than a "separate organization" funded by the SAME foundation that obama used to work for. you're the one that cited "conflict of interest" as a problem with insraelinside and now you're splitting hairs. the anneberg foundation funded the factcheck report that "authenticated" obama's birth certificate. obama worked for a separate division of the anneberg foundation. you'd think that the sole report on which the case for obama's natural born citizenship rests could be verified by a third party completely removed from any affiliation with obama's past. how come no THIRD PARTY organization completely removed from obama has verified obama's hawaiian birth certificate? looks like typical obama incest to me. off two. the first link you provided was to the AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD which does list obama's religion as ISLAM. now, you provide another link about wool in sheep's clothing. great, you tricked me. nice switch. i haven't read every israelinsider article. i don't care if obama is muslim or a stupid christian who "opposes 8 more years of bush" but wants to keep the faith baised initiatives. yeah, lacy, faith based iniatives were the only good part of the bush administration that we need to keep except more stupid abstinence programs because sex is bad. and by the way, that one sheep's clothing article doesn't exactly answer all of the detailed arguments that destroy the fact check analysis. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/971/both-mccain-and-obama-favor-expanding-faith-based-initiatives In July 2008, Sen. Obama announced his plan to establish a new, "reinvigorated" President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "The new name will reflect a new commitment," Obama said. "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart -- it will be a critical part of my administration." What exactly is his administration likely to do to foster government partnerships with faith-based organizations? bush is bad except theocratic EVANGELICAL FAITH-BASED INIATITIVES WHICH FISA CAGLIOSTRO OBAMA WANTS TO KEEP...great, you've moved past the ad-homs but where's you're defense of FISA. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:22:25 -0400 y> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > > > > 1. Annenberg & Obama: If you had some research, you'd realize this > argument is silly. > > Obama did not work for the board of Factcheck. > > Yes, Annenberg funds both the Chicago Annenberg Challenge & Factcheck. > > Those are separate organizations. > > How Obama's employment on the board of a separate organization creates a > conflict of interest is beyond me. > > Plus, the head of Annenberg backs McCain, so if anything they have an > opposite bias. > http://almoderate.com/2008/10/13/mccains-own-ties-to-annenberg-and-william-ayers/ > > > > 2. "Obama is a Muslim." > > The Israeli Insider seems very interested in proving that Obama is & was > a Muslim. > > (I don't know why this is a indictment of Obama, but they seem to think > it is.) > > "Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?" > http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm > "the legacy of dissimulation about his long-concealed identity is about > to come crashing down around the ears of Barack Hussein Obama," > > > Old Strega wrote: >> basically, lacy sucks @ debate. >> >> still no defense of the many problems with fact check "authentication" already mentioned. >> >> the website link to "israelinsider thinks obama is a muslim" merely is an article citing the AP photo of his indonesian school record where he was registered in school as a muslim. that's THE AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD that you're referring to. you can believe he's a muslim today or not from that AP SCHOOL RECORD. >> >> http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D >> >> 21 months ago: This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana) >> >> don't go all in on your stupid muslim indict of the israeli insider destruction of the fact check analysis. IT'S A FACT, MORON. OBAMA'S FATHER LISTED ISLAM FOR OBAMA'S RELIGION ON THE SCHOOL RECORD PHOTOGRAPHED BY THE AP WIRE. i think this is what debater's call a "TURN". lacy is trying to indict the integrity of a website who is not so mesmerized by obama that they feel in their hearts of belief that even mentioning the AP photo is a form of disloyalty to the new savior of the american left. citing the AP photo and not ignoring it bolsters the perception of the newspaper israeli-insider. lacy never even heard of the AP photo because he's high in obamaland. >> >> what are you an anti-semite? trying to attack a jewish newspaper with bogus allegations that israelinsider extrapolated from the AP PHOTO SHOWING ISLAM FOR BARACK'S RELIGION that barack is still a muslim. please, show that quote or go back to your little league ad-homs. >> >> on your second point, not so good flow boy, oohhh --- israelinsider insinuates that that factcheck had a conflict of interest with the BARACK FISA CAGLIOSTRO. well, when they state the conflict of interest in plain english, you have to refute that statement to make an argument unless you're a novice who doesn't even know what an argument is: >> >> http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 >> >> FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. >> >> see, dipshit, obama worked for the foundation that confirmed his birth certificate. that's what debaters who know what an argument is call a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. to point that out makes israelinsider a really bad source. ooohhh -- keep it up, you're making the mccain campaign look like a bunch of right wing wackos...good job debate boy... >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> >>> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:02:54 -0400 >>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>> >>> >>> You really have nothing better than the Israeli Insider? No wonder >>> McCain is smart enough not to make this argument. >>> >>> The Israeli Insider, while arguing that a "bad camera timestamp" >>> invalidates Obama's birth certificate, also believes Obama is a Muslim: >>> http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 >>> >>> They also think that Factcheck's Annenberg funding somehow creates a >>> conflict of interest: >>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm (Uh...yeah. >>> Don't go all in on that one.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Old Strega wrote: >>> >>>> maybe somebody will believe me like you believe fact check. >>>> >>>> let's try a different quote from the article that made you switch from arguing in favor of obama's birth certificate to ad hominem. i thought you were capable of defending of arguments: >>>> >>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >>>> >>>> The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign.... >>>> >>>> Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night. >>>> >>>> No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to >>>> >>>> FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software. >>>> >>>> If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008. >>>> >>>> Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time. >>>> >>>> Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair. >>>> >>>> It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400 >>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>> >>>>> Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your point. >>>>>> >>>>>> that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth? >>>>>> >>>>>> you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. >>>>>> >>>>>> if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice. >>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 >>>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Group it: You're proving my point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. >>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>>>>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From p.rappmund at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 23:11:18 2008 From: p.rappmund at gmail.com (Phil Rappmund) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:11:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Available for hire-- Harvard, 8 rds Message-ID: Will be at Harvard and available for hire for up to a full judge commitment. Don't need transportation or housing; backchannel with an offer (p.rappmund at gmail.com or philip.rappmund at brooklaw.edu) if interested. Phil Rappmund formerly, Vanderbilt U From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 23:15:50 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:15:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CAGLIOSTRO'S FISA BETRAYAL Message-ID: is that all you got, bear? obama = god. doesn't matter how bad he sells the fuck out. can't take a hint? obama not = god, obama = fraud. huh? he lulled you into FISA GOOD. what are you? a fucking big brother moron? http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0602408 Obama's FISA Betrayal By Matthew Rothschild, June 24, 2008 Barack Obama?s rightward sprint is nowhere more obvious than in his betrayal on the FISA bill. This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant. The ACLU says it represents ?an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans.? Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: ?Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay.? Here?s what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill ?allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home.? But it doesn?t protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that. Obama said it ?firmly reestablishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance.? But the ACLU notes that the bill ?permits only minimal court oversight. The FISA Court only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what, or where will actually be tapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment.? What?s more, in the incredibly rare instances where the FISA Court denies a warrant to the President, under the new bill the President can go ahead and do the wiretapping anyway while the appeals process continues, a process that the ACLU says can take two months. Russ Feingold calls the idea that this is a good compromise ?a farce? and ?political cover.? Says Feingold: ?Anybody who claims this is an OK bill, I really question if they?ve even read it.? Has Obama? If not, that?s a problem. And if he has, and still approves of it, that?s an even bigger one. _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Oct 23 23:45:54 2008 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:45:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 8-3-5 Message-ID: <9368bc9b0810232145k7dfc97ahcc70b2de82564bb5@mail.gmail.com> At one point ross said what about four day tournaments, you dont want those do you, well actually kinda. What if a few times a semester there was a four day tournament. 8 rounds big clearing pool. I would love to spend 4 days in winston salem. Or atlanta. The immediate problem is the cost of an extra day in hotel food, and travel costs, plus increased class time missed Or Carolton Or chicago/austin The next problem is the availability of classroom space. In the status quo configuration 4 day tournaments do not work, 3 day tournaments work for some but are more exhausting and demanding as you get into late outrounds. The problem though is not really the once monthly bid circuit, because if that was all people had to travel, they could endure the weekend. The problem is that in between the bid tournaments there are a dizzying array of regional tournaments that most teams and coaches travel to as well. In order to keep in line with ceda points requirements the current format is to cram 6 rounds three divisons and octos out-outrounds in to two or three days. The way these tournaments are cost effective is because you can drive a lot of teams to a regional tournament for the cost of one or two teams at a national tournament. But while the debater to dollar ratio at the regional level is better, the coaching burdens are multiplied by every team benefiting from the economic of regionalism. Coaches travel nearly every weekend for months and exhaustion mounts on exhaustion. What if the non national competition where less costly, less grueling, and more frequent. What if a one day option existed? 3 rounds sems in divisions 2 presets and a powered round? How many of you would take teams to the Kansas City Scrimmage, at most you have to have one nights hotel, how bout dallas, la, new york, atlanta, baltimore...many of you could do it with no hotel. For many places the six team requirement wouldnt be a problem, the round requirement would be the problem but if it where not, say at 3 round tournaments you could count your top four teams instead of two ? this would put a points incentive behind supporting scrimmages. Sunday would be what monday is to school, rest and health. Novices wio may not have already scheduled their lives around debate would be able to try it out without having to take the whole weekend off from family,school, work and life. A lot more people will debate if they have to give one day a weekend instead of two. Hotel cost savings are quite signifigant. Let me be clear the NUMBER ONE complaint i encounter while trying to encourage former budl students to debate is that they do not have the time to give up whole weekends every weekend. The number of people having access to low per dollar rounds is signifignat. If the constitution can be amended to encourage one day tournaments a lot of the pressure put on students and coaches and budgets can be relieved. If two day tournaments can run at 5 rounds and that reasonable schedule can be points incetivized people will follow. loss of rounds is bad for education...it is...but in a model where 3 and 5 round tournaments are encouraged there are 8 potential prelims(or 11 if you want to go to two scrimmages) at the regional levle and more possible outround opportunities with an extra day or two off. and im sure the math is off, but i think more studnets get access to more rounds and costs and time demands are decreased.And coaches and studets get a sunday at home from time to time. Which takes us back to the national tournamnets The teams looking to the ndt are traveling to really big tournaments that are really important, and schools are spending serious resources on these tournaments, ga state, kentucky, harvard, the swings, west georgia, wake, chicago/austin. Perhaps it is worth taking that extra day on occasion to let their record and not their points determine who makes outrounds. 8 Rounds with 4 days twice a semester (To me harvard an kentucky as intense breaks is good). Cost savings from the one day tournaments can be shifted to cover the hotel costs of the fourth day, and if its twice a smester and one day tournaments take pressure off of monday classes 4 times a month then the monday schedule is ultimatly less hit by adding the tuesday. Now you may be saying dont destroy the regions for the ndt we all ready spend to many resources there. Two scrimmages a month costs less than what one regional tournament costs and lets you bring as many students as you can as far as you can and you can encourage growth of the team by offering a one day option. You could also attend a two day tournament a month And a National 3/4 day tournament. I think it encourages regional growth and allows the process (wins and losses) that we use to determine the outcome (wins and losses) to let teams who can "get 5" to have the opportunity to debate twice a semester. This will help regional teams and younger teams who are often 5-3 with points, and to be pointed national tournament success helps with program devlopment. It also encourages new particpants, local growth, more humane schedules, and when it is working a lot more rounds. It requires a few things 1) Amendment to point and sanctioniong clauses to encourage particpation in one day tournaments, a suggested incentive is to allow four teams to count for 3 rounds and outrounds. Also allow points for debates amogst schools as long as 5 other schools are debating. 2) An Incentive for 5 rounds to be the norm at two day tournaments, 3 teams count at 5 round tournamnet for example. 3) A Willingness to try a one day model amongst programs. 4) A wilinning nes sto host one day tournaments and get local schools to come 5)Extra classrooms ona monday twice a semster.... Perhaps five takes a tournament at the begining of a fall break, i dont know the class room solution, but another hotel night from everyone at the tournamnet (a 25-33 percent increase in your room nights) is some leverage. Hesters recent post highlights a further possibility for getting access to resources that could help differ the cost,maybe its worth paying a little more in tournanet entry fees to know that if your team goes 5-3 they will be debating on monday. The rest is doable. We just need to back down from the of 6-8 norm. We need to recall an old number "8-3-5" and apply instead of to speach times to tournamnet structures. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/6e55b033/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Oct 23 23:50:17 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:50:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis In-Reply-To: <48FDF2B2.7000202@wfu.edu> References: <48FDF2B2.7000202@wfu.edu> Message-ID: the old lacy switch. conflict of interest was a bad alley to run up. so, now we switch the subject to the martin case in hawaii. at least lacy is now off the desperation ad-hominem tactic. i don't care about martin and his theory. that's why i started with berg and is you is or is you ain't born in kenya? the hawaiian lawsuit calling for FISA cagliostro's birth certificate is less appealling to me than berg, the former deputy assistant attorney general of the state of pennsylvania. but for the uneducated in barack biography problems, here's martin's theory. there are 3 lawsuits against cagliostro BLACKED OUT BY THE MEDIA and martin's demand for the VAULT COPY OF OBAMA'S birth certificate is the latest to which lacy refers in his last post after losing the conflict of interest debate: http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/ ---------------------------------------- > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:18:10 -0400 > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > > Thats why he's visiting his "sick" grandmother in Hawaii. > > Its a cover to go and "fix" his birth certificate problems. > > On 10/21/2008 10:55 AM, Old Strega wrote: >> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >> >> the key quote: >> >> Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. >> >> But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. >> >> But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. >> >> Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? >> >> The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 00:05:50 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:05:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis In-Reply-To: References: <48FDF2B2.7000202@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Please stop this, what possible good are you doing? As I said at the beginning of the whole thing - what in the world is it accomplishing...You are just making everyone get angry for no reason. Nobody is debating you because its pointless, you dont care what anyone says. Best case, you proved your point, we all learned our lesson, you win Worst case, you have an obsessive compulsive thing going on where even if nobody responds you keep yelling and yelling and yelling. As I said years ago, you were a great guy, what the hell is causing all this? Seriously, I am sure you hate me too (given your flip out on my several years ago) but I really don't hate you....Just want you to get over whatever is causing you to flip out on people all the time. Josh On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > the old lacy switch. > > conflict of interest was a bad alley to run up. so, now we switch the > subject to the martin case in hawaii. at least lacy is now off the > desperation ad-hominem tactic. > > i don't care about martin and his theory. that's why i started with berg > and is you is or is you ain't born in kenya? > > the hawaiian lawsuit calling for FISA cagliostro's birth certificate is > less appealling to me than berg, the former deputy assistant attorney > general of the state of pennsylvania. > > but for the uneducated in barack biography problems, here's martin's > theory. there are 3 lawsuits against cagliostro BLACKED OUT BY THE MEDIA > and martin's demand for the VAULT COPY OF OBAMA'S birth certificate is the > latest to which lacy refers in his last post after losing the conflict of > interest debate: > > http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/ > > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:18:10 -0400 > > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > > > > Thats why he's visiting his "sick" grandmother in Hawaii. > > > > Its a cover to go and "fix" his birth certificate problems. > > > > On 10/21/2008 10:55 AM, Old Strega wrote: > >> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm > >> > >> the key quote: > >> > >> Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the > Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of > Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long > form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame > claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the > State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the > State Department's Passport application requirements. > >> > >> But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be > President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" > as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are > multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own > relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days > after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded > as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their > report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more > correctly, conflicted in their interests. > >> > >> But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a > passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed > out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth > is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee > of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking > into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was > looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" > (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was > photographed. > >> > >> Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins > ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck > inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth > contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? > >> > >> The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship > well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or > another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born > citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another > country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So > why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his > passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether > there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on > file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and > whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate > and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe > about his birth? > >> > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > _________________________________________________________________ > When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/9a14beb3/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Oct 24 00:17:16 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:17:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> <49013161.2040705@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <49015A5C.40406@wfu.edu> You posted a back-channel. Good job. Are you really willing to vote for McCain on "Israeli Insider says Obama's birth certificate is bad," "Obama favors faith based initiatives," and "Obama voted for the FISA compromise?" Faith-based bad isn't offense -- You posted a link claiming both McCain & Obama support them. As for FISA, where is your proof that McCain will reverse Obama's vote? Oh...Martin's lawsuit? He's the guy who thought Obama went to Hawaii to clear up his birth certificate issue. Now his website claims his father is the "communist" Frank Marshall Davis. ps -- Factcheck *is* a third party organization with absolutely no ties to Obama. Annenberg funded projects are about as connected as federally funded elections. Old Strega wrote: > off one. > > to prove natural born citizenship, you need a fact producing entity further removed than a "separate organization" funded by the SAME foundation that obama used to work for. you're the one that cited "conflict of interest" as a problem with insraelinside and now you're splitting hairs. the anneberg foundation funded the factcheck report that "authenticated" obama's birth certificate. obama worked for a separate division of the anneberg foundation. > > you'd think that the sole report on which the case for obama's natural born citizenship rests could be verified by a third party completely removed from any affiliation with obama's past. > > how come no THIRD PARTY organization completely removed from obama has verified obama's hawaiian birth certificate? > > looks like typical obama incest to me. > > off two. the first link you provided was to the AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD which does list obama's religion as ISLAM. now, you provide another link about wool in sheep's clothing. great, you tricked me. nice switch. i haven't read every israelinsider article. > > i don't care if obama is muslim or a stupid christian who "opposes 8 more years of bush" but wants to keep the faith baised initiatives. yeah, lacy, faith based iniatives were the only good part of the bush administration that we need to keep except more stupid abstinence programs because sex is bad. > > and by the way, that one sheep's clothing article doesn't exactly answer all of the detailed arguments that destroy the fact check analysis. > > http://pewresearch.org/pubs/971/both-mccain-and-obama-favor-expanding-faith-based-initiatives > > In July 2008, Sen. Obama announced his plan to establish a new, "reinvigorated" President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "The new name will reflect a new commitment," Obama said. "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart -- it will be a critical part of my administration." What exactly is his administration likely to do to foster government partnerships with faith-based organizations? > > bush is bad except theocratic EVANGELICAL FAITH-BASED INIATITIVES WHICH FISA CAGLIOSTRO OBAMA WANTS TO KEEP...great, you've moved past the ad-homs but where's you're defense of FISA. > > > ---------------------------------------- > >> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:22:25 -0400 >> > y> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >> >> >> >> 1. Annenberg & Obama: If you had some research, you'd realize this >> argument is silly. >> >> Obama did not work for the board of Factcheck. >> >> Yes, Annenberg funds both the Chicago Annenberg Challenge & Factcheck. >> >> Those are separate organizations. >> >> How Obama's employment on the board of a separate organization creates a >> conflict of interest is beyond me. >> >> Plus, the head of Annenberg backs McCain, so if anything they have an >> opposite bias. >> http://almoderate.com/2008/10/13/mccains-own-ties-to-annenberg-and-william-ayers/ >> >> >> >> 2. "Obama is a Muslim." >> >> The Israeli Insider seems very interested in proving that Obama is & was >> a Muslim. >> >> (I don't know why this is a indictment of Obama, but they seem to think >> it is.) >> >> "Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?" >> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm >> "the legacy of dissimulation about his long-concealed identity is about >> to come crashing down around the ears of Barack Hussein Obama," >> >> >> Old Strega wrote: >> >>> basically, lacy sucks @ debate. >>> >>> still no defense of the many problems with fact check "authentication" already mentioned. >>> >>> the website link to "israelinsider thinks obama is a muslim" merely is an article citing the AP photo of his indonesian school record where he was registered in school as a muslim. that's THE AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD that you're referring to. you can believe he's a muslim today or not from that AP SCHOOL RECORD. >>> >>> http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D >>> >>> 21 months ago: This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana) >>> >>> don't go all in on your stupid muslim indict of the israeli insider destruction of the fact check analysis. IT'S A FACT, MORON. OBAMA'S FATHER LISTED ISLAM FOR OBAMA'S RELIGION ON THE SCHOOL RECORD PHOTOGRAPHED BY THE AP WIRE. i think this is what debater's call a "TURN". lacy is trying to indict the integrity of a website who is not so mesmerized by obama that they feel in their hearts of belief that even mentioning the AP photo is a form of disloyalty to the new savior of the american left. citing the AP photo and not ignoring it bolsters the perception of the newspaper israeli-insider. lacy never even heard of the AP photo because he's high in obamaland. >>> >>> what are you an anti-semite? trying to attack a jewish newspaper with bogus allegations that israelinsider extrapolated from the AP PHOTO SHOWING ISLAM FOR BARACK'S RELIGION that barack is still a muslim. please, show that quote or go back to your little league ad-homs. >>> >>> on your second point, not so good flow boy, oohhh --- israelinsider insinuates that that factcheck had a conflict of interest with the BARACK FISA CAGLIOSTRO. well, when they state the conflict of interest in plain english, you have to refute that statement to make an argument unless you're a novice who doesn't even know what an argument is: >>> >>> http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 >>> >>> FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. >>> >>> see, dipshit, obama worked for the foundation that confirmed his birth certificate. that's what debaters who know what an argument is call a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. to point that out makes israelinsider a really bad source. ooohhh -- keep it up, you're making the mccain campaign look like a bunch of right wing wackos...good job debate boy... >>> >>> ---------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>>> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:02:54 -0400 >>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>> >>>> >>>> You really have nothing better than the Israeli Insider? No wonder >>>> McCain is smart enough not to make this argument. >>>> >>>> The Israeli Insider, while arguing that a "bad camera timestamp" >>>> invalidates Obama's birth certificate, also believes Obama is a Muslim: >>>> http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 >>>> >>>> They also think that Factcheck's Annenberg funding somehow creates a >>>> conflict of interest: >>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm (Uh...yeah. >>>> Don't go all in on that one.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> maybe somebody will believe me like you believe fact check. >>>>> >>>>> let's try a different quote from the article that made you switch from arguing in favor of obama's birth certificate to ad hominem. i thought you were capable of defending of arguments: >>>>> >>>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >>>>> >>>>> The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign.... >>>>> >>>>> Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night. >>>>> >>>>> No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to >>>>> >>>>> FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software. >>>>> >>>>> If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008. >>>>> >>>>> Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair. >>>>> >>>>> It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400 >>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>>> >>>>>> Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice. >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 >>>>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Group it: You're proving my point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. >>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>>>>>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ >>> >>> >>> >>> > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 Fri Oct 24 00:18:07 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:18:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis In-Reply-To: References: <48FDF2B2.7000202@wfu.edu> Message-ID: not exactly true. lacy keeps attempting to make arguments. i have stopped "yelling" many a time. bear tried to argue but was so bad he joined you. we have another fellow arguing that the berg case was filed in the wrong court. ARE YOU SAYING THAT TOURNAMENT TALK IS ALL YOU CARE TO HEAR SO THAT'S ALL EVERYBODY WANTS TO HEAR? josh = everybody so josh = good cop. basically, you're saying in backwards psychoanalyst speak, "josh, the robot, doesn't have an opinion on whether obama is qualified to be president and that the possibility of obama's fraudulent candidacy doesn't matter". that i "was a good guy" is crap and stupid and edebate posts don't capture shit and you should know better. you're an obsessive compulsive edebate topic cop who only wants to hear what pleases your ear. "wrong forum" has never been effective. ________________________________ > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:05:50 -0400 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com > > Please stop this, what possible good are you doing? As I said at the beginning of the whole thing - what in the world is it accomplishing...You are just making everyone get angry for no reason. Nobody is debating you because its pointless, you dont care what anyone says. > > Best case, you proved your point, we all learned our lesson, you win > > Worst case, you have an obsessive compulsive thing going on where even if nobody responds you keep yelling and yelling and yelling. > > As I said years ago, you were a great guy, what the hell is causing all this? Seriously, I am sure you hate me too (given your flip out on my several years ago) but I really don't hate you....Just want you to get over whatever is causing you to flip out on people all the time. > > Josh > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > the old lacy switch. > > conflict of interest was a bad alley to run up. so, now we switch the subject to the martin case in hawaii. at least lacy is now off the desperation ad-hominem tactic. > > i don't care about martin and his theory. that's why i started with berg and is you is or is you ain't born in kenya? > > the hawaiian lawsuit calling for FISA cagliostro's birth certificate is less appealling to me than berg, the former deputy assistant attorney general of the state of pennsylvania. > > but for the uneducated in barack biography problems, here's martin's theory. there are 3 lawsuits against cagliostro BLACKED OUT BY THE MEDIA and martin's demand for the VAULT COPY OF OBAMA'S birth certificate is the latest to which lacy refers in his last post after losing the conflict of interest debate: > > http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/ > > > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:18:10 -0400 >> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis >> >> Thats why he's visiting his "sick" grandmother in Hawaii. >> >> Its a cover to go and "fix" his birth certificate problems. >> >> On 10/21/2008 10:55 AM, Old Strega wrote: >>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >>> >>> the key quote: >>> >>> Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. >>> >>> But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. >>> >>> But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. >>> >>> Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? >>> >>> The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? >>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> > _________________________________________________________________ > When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/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 Fri Oct 24 00:31:36 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:31:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis In-Reply-To: References: <48FDF2B2.7000202@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Wrong forum isnt the point at all, as I said POST all you want, I asked you to stop posting while there are still two maybe three people that remember you when you were not this crazed screaming person that has gotten to where people literally groan when you de-cloak. I dare you to find three people on edebate who think anything you say is credible.....the sad thing, is even if you win you lose because you have taken everyone who might have been an ally and made everyone HATE even seeing your name, How does this help you? Help whatever your cause is? Help Mccain or whoever you support? Josh On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > not exactly true. lacy keeps attempting to make arguments. > > i have stopped "yelling" many a time. bear tried to argue but was so bad > he joined you. we have another fellow arguing that the berg case was filed > in the wrong court. ARE YOU SAYING THAT TOURNAMENT TALK IS ALL YOU CARE TO > HEAR SO THAT'S ALL EVERYBODY WANTS TO HEAR? josh = everybody so josh = > good cop. > > basically, you're saying in backwards psychoanalyst speak, "josh, the > robot, doesn't have an opinion on whether obama is qualified to be president > and that the possibility of obama's fraudulent candidacy doesn't matter". > > that i "was a good guy" is crap and stupid and edebate posts don't capture > shit and you should know better. > > you're an obsessive compulsive edebate topic cop who only wants to hear > what pleases your ear. "wrong forum" has never been effective. > > > > > ________________________________ > > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:05:50 -0400 > > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > > CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com > > > > Please stop this, what possible good are you doing? As I said at the > beginning of the whole thing - what in the world is it accomplishing...You > are just making everyone get angry for no reason. Nobody is debating you > because its pointless, you dont care what anyone says. > > > > Best case, you proved your point, we all learned our lesson, you win > > > > Worst case, you have an obsessive compulsive thing going on where even if > nobody responds you keep yelling and yelling and yelling. > > > > As I said years ago, you were a great guy, what the hell is causing all > this? Seriously, I am sure you hate me too (given your flip out on my > several years ago) but I really don't hate you....Just want you to get over > whatever is causing you to flip out on people all the time. > > > > Josh > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > > > the old lacy switch. > > > > conflict of interest was a bad alley to run up. so, now we switch the > subject to the martin case in hawaii. at least lacy is now off the > desperation ad-hominem tactic. > > > > i don't care about martin and his theory. that's why i started with berg > and is you is or is you ain't born in kenya? > > > > the hawaiian lawsuit calling for FISA cagliostro's birth certificate is > less appealling to me than berg, the former deputy assistant attorney > general of the state of pennsylvania. > > > > but for the uneducated in barack biography problems, here's martin's > theory. there are 3 lawsuits against cagliostro BLACKED OUT BY THE MEDIA > and martin's demand for the VAULT COPY OF OBAMA'S birth certificate is the > latest to which lacy refers in his last post after losing the conflict of > interest debate: > > > > http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------- > >> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:18:10 -0400 > >> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > >> > >> Thats why he's visiting his "sick" grandmother in Hawaii. > >> > >> Its a cover to go and "fix" his birth certificate problems. > >> > >> On 10/21/2008 10:55 AM, Old Strega wrote: > >>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm > >>> > >>> the key quote: > >>> > >>> Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the > Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of > Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long > form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame > claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the > State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the > State Department's Passport application requirements. > >>> > >>> But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be > President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" > as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are > multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own > relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days > after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded > as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their > report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more > correctly, conflicted in their interests. > >>> > >>> But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a > passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed > out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth > is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee > of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking > into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was > looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" > (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was > photographed. > >>> > >>> Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins > ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck > inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth > contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? > >>> > >>> The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. > citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one > passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a > natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen > of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign > citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign > looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it > was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth > certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it > contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed > certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us > to believe about his birth? > >>> > >>> _________________________________________________________________ > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > > _________________________________________________________________ > > When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/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/20081024/95d72250/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Oct 24 00:37:43 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:37:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: <49015A5C.40406@wfu.edu> References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> <49013161.2040705@wfu.edu> <49015A5C.40406@wfu.edu> Message-ID: i'm not voting for mccain. i simply called for mccain campaign and other right wing advocates to introduce obama's birth certificate into the national discussion. the blackout is hideous. i'm not voting. the presidential candidates are nearly identical except abortion. the neoconservatives have captured both parties. obama is republican lite supporting WAR in afghanistan, TAX CUTS for the middle class and RELIGION via faith based iniatives. the democrats haven't truly won an election in 28 years given ross perot handed clinton his victory. so the democrats decided to copy the three pillars of neoconservative philososphy with a half-black candidate and bring the anti-clinton social movements of the late 90's back into the fold of mainstream politics. sorry but faith based iniatitives are a gross continuation of bush and FISA makes obama a joke. if you "believe" in obama it doesn't matter how much he votes for bush surveillance or copies his neocon pillars, because obama = god and there's no need to question all of the similarities to bush. that's some of what i mean by a "liberal version of the orwellian nightmare". obama is an opportunist who knows the country is ready to switch parties but at the same time he's ready to capitalize on enhanced presidential powers of the previous administration, i.e. the vote for FISA. 8 years ago, i predicted that George W. Bush would reach the lowest approval ratings in history beating Richard Nixon. i was proven right over time even though the vast majority of edebaters defended bush and doubted bush would beat nixon for worst approval ratings. i said W = WORST president ever. but i get no credit from amnesiacs who just want to run tournaments. in the tradition of mort sahl, i will attack all presidential candidates. obama is not the answer to bush. the birth certificate, the FISA vote, and faith-based iniatitives are all signs that we are on the brink of an even more sinister, liberal version of the orwellian nightmare because moveon.org and the remnants of the anti-clintonistas have been absorbed into the mainstream of party politics. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:17:16 -0400 > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > > You posted a back-channel. Good job. > > Are you really willing to vote for McCain on "Israeli Insider says > Obama's birth certificate is bad," "Obama favors faith based > initiatives," and "Obama voted for the FISA compromise?" > > Faith-based bad isn't offense -- You posted a link claiming both McCain > & Obama support them. > > As for FISA, where is your proof that McCain will reverse Obama's vote? > > Oh...Martin's lawsuit? He's the guy who thought Obama went to Hawaii to > clear up his birth certificate issue. Now his website claims his father > is the "communist" Frank Marshall Davis. > > > ps -- Factcheck *is* a third party organization with absolutely no ties > to Obama. Annenberg funded projects are about as connected as federally > funded elections. > > Old Strega wrote: >> off one. >> >> to prove natural born citizenship, you need a fact producing entity further removed than a "separate organization" funded by the SAME foundation that obama used to work for. you're the one that cited "conflict of interest" as a problem with insraelinside and now you're splitting hairs. the anneberg foundation funded the factcheck report that "authenticated" obama's birth certificate. obama worked for a separate division of the anneberg foundation. >> >> you'd think that the sole report on which the case for obama's natural born citizenship rests could be verified by a third party completely removed from any affiliation with obama's past. >> >> how come no THIRD PARTY organization completely removed from obama has verified obama's hawaiian birth certificate? >> >> looks like typical obama incest to me. >> >> off two. the first link you provided was to the AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD which does list obama's religion as ISLAM. now, you provide another link about wool in sheep's clothing. great, you tricked me. nice switch. i haven't read every israelinsider article. >> >> i don't care if obama is muslim or a stupid christian who "opposes 8 more years of bush" but wants to keep the faith baised initiatives. yeah, lacy, faith based iniatives were the only good part of the bush administration that we need to keep except more stupid abstinence programs because sex is bad. >> >> and by the way, that one sheep's clothing article doesn't exactly answer all of the detailed arguments that destroy the fact check analysis. >> >> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/971/both-mccain-and-obama-favor-expanding-faith-based-initiatives >> >> In July 2008, Sen. Obama announced his plan to establish a new, "reinvigorated" President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "The new name will reflect a new commitment," Obama said. "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart -- it will be a critical part of my administration." What exactly is his administration likely to do to foster government partnerships with faith-based organizations? >> >> bush is bad except theocratic EVANGELICAL FAITH-BASED INIATITIVES WHICH FISA CAGLIOSTRO OBAMA WANTS TO KEEP...great, you've moved past the ad-homs but where's you're defense of FISA. >> >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> >>> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:22:25 -0400 >>> >> y> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >> >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Annenberg & Obama: If you had some research, you'd realize this >>> argument is silly. >>> >>> Obama did not work for the board of Factcheck. >>> >>> Yes, Annenberg funds both the Chicago Annenberg Challenge & Factcheck. >>> >>> Those are separate organizations. >>> >>> How Obama's employment on the board of a separate organization creates a >>> conflict of interest is beyond me. >>> >>> Plus, the head of Annenberg backs McCain, so if anything they have an >>> opposite bias. >>> http://almoderate.com/2008/10/13/mccains-own-ties-to-annenberg-and-william-ayers/ >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. "Obama is a Muslim." >>> >>> The Israeli Insider seems very interested in proving that Obama is & was >>> a Muslim. >>> >>> (I don't know why this is a indictment of Obama, but they seem to think >>> it is.) >>> >>> "Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?" >>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm >>> "the legacy of dissimulation about his long-concealed identity is about >>> to come crashing down around the ears of Barack Hussein Obama," >>> >>> >>> Old Strega wrote: >>> >>>> basically, lacy sucks @ debate. >>>> >>>> still no defense of the many problems with fact check "authentication" already mentioned. >>>> >>>> the website link to "israelinsider thinks obama is a muslim" merely is an article citing the AP photo of his indonesian school record where he was registered in school as a muslim. that's THE AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD that you're referring to. you can believe he's a muslim today or not from that AP SCHOOL RECORD. >>>> >>>> http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D >>>> >>>> 21 months ago: This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana) >>>> >>>> don't go all in on your stupid muslim indict of the israeli insider destruction of the fact check analysis. IT'S A FACT, MORON. OBAMA'S FATHER LISTED ISLAM FOR OBAMA'S RELIGION ON THE SCHOOL RECORD PHOTOGRAPHED BY THE AP WIRE. i think this is what debater's call a "TURN". lacy is trying to indict the integrity of a website who is not so mesmerized by obama that they feel in their hearts of belief that even mentioning the AP photo is a form of disloyalty to the new savior of the american left. citing the AP photo and not ignoring it bolsters the perception of the newspaper israeli-insider. lacy never even heard of the AP photo because he's high in obamaland. >>>> >>>> what are you an anti-semite? trying to attack a jewish newspaper with bogus allegations that israelinsider extrapolated from the AP PHOTO SHOWING ISLAM FOR BARACK'S RELIGION that barack is still a muslim. please, show that quote or go back to your little league ad-homs. >>>> >>>> on your second point, not so good flow boy, oohhh --- israelinsider insinuates that that factcheck had a conflict of interest with the BARACK FISA CAGLIOSTRO. well, when they state the conflict of interest in plain english, you have to refute that statement to make an argument unless you're a novice who doesn't even know what an argument is: >>>> >>>> http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 >>>> >>>> FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. >>>> >>>> see, dipshit, obama worked for the foundation that confirmed his birth certificate. that's what debaters who know what an argument is call a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. to point that out makes israelinsider a really bad source. ooohhh -- keep it up, you're making the mccain campaign look like a bunch of right wing wackos...good job debate boy... >>>> >>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>>>> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:02:54 -0400 >>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You really have nothing better than the Israeli Insider? No wonder >>>>> McCain is smart enough not to make this argument. >>>>> >>>>> The Israeli Insider, while arguing that a "bad camera timestamp" >>>>> invalidates Obama's birth certificate, also believes Obama is a Muslim: >>>>> http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 >>>>> >>>>> They also think that Factcheck's Annenberg funding somehow creates a >>>>> conflict of interest: >>>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm (Uh...yeah. >>>>> Don't go all in on that one.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> maybe somebody will believe me like you believe fact check. >>>>>> >>>>>> let's try a different quote from the article that made you switch from arguing in favor of obama's birth certificate to ad hominem. i thought you were capable of defending of arguments: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night. >>>>>> >>>>>> No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to >>>>>> >>>>>> FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008. >>>>>> >>>>>> Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400 >>>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice. >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 >>>>>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Group it: You're proving my point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. >>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>>>>>>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>> You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. >>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/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 oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Oct 24 00:43:05 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:43:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis In-Reply-To: References: <48FDF2B2.7000202@wfu.edu> Message-ID: just sounds like psycho sympathy talk, josh. i don't give a fuck what people think. if you think i ever did, you miss the point. come on, admit there are more edebate people than you could possibly ever know what they're all thinking? what do you confirm among your buds and the elite? stroube is a "SCREAMING FREAK". you act like this is a big struggle for me and i just want to be heard. ________________________________ > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:31:36 -0400 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com > > Wrong forum isnt the point at all, as I said POST all you want, > > I asked you to stop posting while there are still two maybe three people that remember you when you were not this crazed screaming person that has gotten to where people literally groan when you de-cloak. I dare you to find three people on edebate who think anything you say is credible.....the sad thing, is even if you win you lose because you have taken everyone who might have been an ally and made everyone HATE even seeing your name, > > How does this help you? Help whatever your cause is? Help Mccain or whoever you support? > > Josh > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Old Strega wrote: > y > not exactly true. lacy keeps attempting to make arguments. > > i have stopped "yelling" many a time. bear tried to argue but was so bad he joined you. we have another fellow arguing that the berg case was filed in the wrong court. ARE YOU SAYING THAT TOURNAMENT TALK IS ALL YOU CARE TO HEAR SO THAT'S ALL EVERYBODY WANTS TO HEAR? josh = everybody so josh = good cop. > > basically, you're saying in backwards psychoanalyst speak, "josh, the robot, doesn't have an opinion on whether obama is qualified to be president and that the possibility of obama's fraudulent candidacy doesn't matter". > > that i "was a good guy" is crap and stupid and edebate posts don't capture shit and you should know better. > > you're an obsessive compulsive edebate topic cop who only wants to hear what pleases your ear. "wrong forum" has never been effective. > > > > > ________________________________ >> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:05:50 -0400 >> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis >> CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com >> >> Please stop this, what possible good are you doing? As I said at the beginning of the whole thing - what in the world is it accomplishing...You are just making everyone get angry for no reason. Nobody is debating you because its pointless, you dont care what anyone says. >> >> Best case, you proved your point, we all learned our lesson, you win >> >> Worst case, you have an obsessive compulsive thing going on where even if nobody responds you keep yelling and yelling and yelling. >> >> As I said years ago, you were a great guy, what the hell is causing all this? Seriously, I am sure you hate me too (given your flip out on my several years ago) but I really don't hate you....Just want you to get over whatever is causing you to flip out on people all the time. >> >> Josh >> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Old Strega wrote: >> >> the old lacy switch. >> >> conflict of interest was a bad alley to run up. so, now we switch the subject to the martin case in hawaii. at least lacy is now off the desperation ad-hominem tactic. >> >> i don't care about martin and his theory. that's why i started with berg and is you is or is you ain't born in kenya? >> >> the hawaiian lawsuit calling for FISA cagliostro's birth certificate is less appealling to me than berg, the former deputy assistant attorney general of the state of pennsylvania. >> >> but for the uneducated in barack biography problems, here's martin's theory. there are 3 lawsuits against cagliostro BLACKED OUT BY THE MEDIA and martin's demand for the VAULT COPY OF OBAMA'S birth certificate is the latest to which lacy refers in his last post after losing the conflict of interest debate: >> >> http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------- >>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:18:10 -0400 >>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis >>> >>> Thats why he's visiting his "sick" grandmother in Hawaii. >>> >>> Its a cover to go and "fix" his birth certificate problems. >>> >>> On 10/21/2008 10:55 AM, Old Strega wrote: >>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >>>> >>>> the key quote: >>>> >>>> Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. >>>> >>>> But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. >>>> >>>> But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. >>>> >>>> Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? >>>> >>>> The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? >>>> >>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/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 oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Oct 24 00:43:41 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:43:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] does josh have a political opinion or is he just a discussion monitor? Message-ID: _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 00:45:29 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:45:29 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis In-Reply-To: References: <48FDF2B2.7000202@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Yes, psycho-sympathy talk No, the question was "what do you get out of it" since nobody gives a shit, and you dont give a shit. I might not know what 100% are thinking, but in this one instance, I bet if we took a poll it would be 99% this is crazy. Josh On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > just sounds like psycho sympathy talk, josh. > > i don't give a fuck what people think. if you think i ever did, you miss > the point. > > come on, admit there are more edebate people than you could possibly ever > know what they're all thinking? > > what do you confirm among your buds and the elite? stroube is a > "SCREAMING FREAK". > > you act like this is a big struggle for me and i just want to be heard. > > > ________________________________ > > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:31:36 -0400 > > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > > CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com > > > > Wrong forum isnt the point at all, as I said POST all you want, > > > > I asked you to stop posting while there are still two maybe three people > that remember you when you were not this crazed screaming person that has > gotten to where people literally groan when you de-cloak. I dare you to > find three people on edebate who think anything you say is credible.....the > sad thing, is even if you win you lose because you have taken everyone who > might have been an ally and made everyone HATE even seeing your name, > > > > How does this help you? Help whatever your cause is? Help Mccain or > whoever you support? > > > > Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > y > > not exactly true. lacy keeps attempting to make arguments. > > > > i have stopped "yelling" many a time. bear tried to argue but was so bad > he joined you. we have another fellow arguing that the berg case was filed > in the wrong court. ARE YOU SAYING THAT TOURNAMENT TALK IS ALL YOU CARE TO > HEAR SO THAT'S ALL EVERYBODY WANTS TO HEAR? josh = everybody so josh = > good cop. > > > > basically, you're saying in backwards psychoanalyst speak, "josh, the > robot, doesn't have an opinion on whether obama is qualified to be president > and that the possibility of obama's fraudulent candidacy doesn't matter". > > > > that i "was a good guy" is crap and stupid and edebate posts don't > capture shit and you should know better. > > > > you're an obsessive compulsive edebate topic cop who only wants to hear > what pleases your ear. "wrong forum" has never been effective. > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > >> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:05:50 -0400 > >> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > >> CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com > >> > >> Please stop this, what possible good are you doing? As I said at the > beginning of the whole thing - what in the world is it accomplishing...You > are just making everyone get angry for no reason. Nobody is debating you > because its pointless, you dont care what anyone says. > >> > >> Best case, you proved your point, we all learned our lesson, you win > >> > >> Worst case, you have an obsessive compulsive thing going on where even > if nobody responds you keep yelling and yelling and yelling. > >> > >> As I said years ago, you were a great guy, what the hell is causing all > this? Seriously, I am sure you hate me too (given your flip out on my > several years ago) but I really don't hate you....Just want you to get over > whatever is causing you to flip out on people all the time. > >> > >> Josh > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Old Strega wrote: > >> > >> the old lacy switch. > >> > >> conflict of interest was a bad alley to run up. so, now we switch the > subject to the martin case in hawaii. at least lacy is now off the > desperation ad-hominem tactic. > >> > >> i don't care about martin and his theory. that's why i started with > berg and is you is or is you ain't born in kenya? > >> > >> the hawaiian lawsuit calling for FISA cagliostro's birth certificate is > less appealling to me than berg, the former deputy assistant attorney > general of the state of pennsylvania. > >> > >> but for the uneducated in barack biography problems, here's martin's > theory. there are 3 lawsuits against cagliostro BLACKED OUT BY THE MEDIA > and martin's demand for the VAULT COPY OF OBAMA'S birth certificate is the > latest to which lacy refers in his last post after losing the conflict of > interest debate: > >> > >> http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/ > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------- > >>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:18:10 -0400 > >>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > >>> > >>> Thats why he's visiting his "sick" grandmother in Hawaii. > >>> > >>> Its a cover to go and "fix" his birth certificate problems. > >>> > >>> On 10/21/2008 10:55 AM, Old Strega wrote: > >>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm > >>>> > >>>> the key quote: > >>>> > >>>> Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the > Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of > Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long > form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame > claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the > State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the > State Department's Passport application requirements. > >>>> > >>>> But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be > President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" > as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are > multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own > relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days > after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded > as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their > report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more > correctly, conflicted in their interests. > >>>> > >>>> But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a > passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed > out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth > is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee > of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking > into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was > looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" > (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was > photographed. > >>>> > >>>> Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins > ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck > inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth > contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? > >>>> > >>>> The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. > citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one > passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a > natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen > of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign > citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign > looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it > was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth > certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it > contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed > certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us > to believe about his birth? > >>>> > >>>> _________________________________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/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/20081024/8ba2384c/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Oct 24 00:46:23 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:46:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis In-Reply-To: References: <48FDF2B2.7000202@wfu.edu> Message-ID: take a poll, asshole? ________________________________ > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:45:29 -0400 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis > CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com > > Yes, psycho-sympathy talk > > No, the question was "what do you get out of it" since nobody gives a shit, and you dont give a shit. > > I might not know what 100% are thinking, but in this one instance, I bet if we took a poll it would be 99% this is crazy. > > Josh > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > just sounds like psycho sympathy talk, josh. > > i don't give a fuck what people think. if you think i ever did, you miss the point. > > come on, admit there are more edebate people than you could possibly ever know what they're all thinking? > > what do you confirm among your buds and the elite? stroube is a "SCREAMING FREAK". > > you act like this is a big struggle for me and i just want to be heard. > > > ________________________________ >> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:31:36 -0400 >> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis >> CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com >> >> Wrong forum isnt the point at all, as I said POST all you want, >> >> I asked you to stop posting while there are still two maybe three people that remember you when you were not this crazed screaming person that has gotten to where people literally groan when you de-cloak. I dare you to find three people on edebate who think anything you say is credible.....the sad thing, is even if you win you lose because you have taken everyone who might have been an ally and made everyone HATE even seeing your name, >> >> How does this help you? Help whatever your cause is? Help Mccain or whoever you support? >> >> Josh >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Old Strega wrote: >> y >> not exactly true. lacy keeps attempting to make arguments. >> >> i have stopped "yelling" many a time. bear tried to argue but was so bad he joined you. we have another fellow arguing that the berg case was filed in the wrong court. ARE YOU SAYING THAT TOURNAMENT TALK IS ALL YOU CARE TO HEAR SO THAT'S ALL EVERYBODY WANTS TO HEAR? josh = everybody so josh = good cop. >> >> basically, you're saying in backwards psychoanalyst speak, "josh, the robot, doesn't have an opinion on whether obama is qualified to be president and that the possibility of obama's fraudulent candidacy doesn't matter". >> >> that i "was a good guy" is crap and stupid and edebate posts don't capture shit and you should know better. >> >> you're an obsessive compulsive edebate topic cop who only wants to hear what pleases your ear. "wrong forum" has never been effective. >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >>> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:05:50 -0400 >>> From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis >>> CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com >>> >>> Please stop this, what possible good are you doing? As I said at the beginning of the whole thing - what in the world is it accomplishing...You are just making everyone get angry for no reason. Nobody is debating you because its pointless, you dont care what anyone says. >>> >>> Best case, you proved your point, we all learned our lesson, you win >>> >>> Worst case, you have an obsessive compulsive thing going on where even if nobody responds you keep yelling and yelling and yelling. >>> >>> As I said years ago, you were a great guy, what the hell is causing all this? Seriously, I am sure you hate me too (given your flip out on my several years ago) but I really don't hate you....Just want you to get over whatever is causing you to flip out on people all the time. >>> >>> Josh >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Old Strega wrote: >>> >>> the old lacy switch. >>> >>> conflict of interest was a bad alley to run up. so, now we switch the subject to the martin case in hawaii. at least lacy is now off the desperation ad-hominem tactic. >>> >>> i don't care about martin and his theory. that's why i started with berg and is you is or is you ain't born in kenya? >>> >>> the hawaiian lawsuit calling for FISA cagliostro's birth certificate is less appealling to me than berg, the former deputy assistant attorney general of the state of pennsylvania. >>> >>> but for the uneducated in barack biography problems, here's martin's theory. there are 3 lawsuits against cagliostro BLACKED OUT BY THE MEDIA and martin's demand for the VAULT COPY OF OBAMA'S birth certificate is the latest to which lacy refers in his last post after losing the conflict of interest debate: >>> >>> http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------- >>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:18:10 -0400 >>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] inconsistencies undermine factcheck analysis >>>> >>>> Thats why he's visiting his "sick" grandmother in Hawaii. >>>> >>>> Its a cover to go and "fix" his birth certificate problems. >>>> >>>> On 10/21/2008 10:55 AM, Old Strega wrote: >>>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >>>>> >>>>> the key quote: >>>>> >>>>> Rather than asking the hard questions of Obama himself, or even the Obama campaign, or even requesting additional documents from the State of Hawaii in the public interest (they said they "tried" to ask about the long form but failed to get an answer), FactCheck falls back on the rather lame claim that the short form has "enough information to be acceptable to the State Department" and goes so far as to include a footnote linking to the State Department's Passport application requirements. >>>>> >>>>> But isn't that bar set a bit too low for the man who wants to be President, especially as you can be a citizen without being "natural born" as article two of the Constitution require, especially when there are multiple reports coming from Kenya -- including several from Obama's own relatives -- that he was actually born in Kenya and came to Hawaii only days after birth, apparently at his mother's insistence that he would be recorded as being born in the USA? Apparently not too low for FactCheck. From their report it would appear that they are not interested or, perhaps more correctly, conflicted in their interests. >>>>> >>>>> But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. >>>>> >>>>> Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? >>>>> >>>>> The issue has never been whether or not Obama can prove U.S. citizenship well enough to get a passport. He gets around just fine, on one passport or another. The issues are where he was born, whether he is a natural born citizen under the Constitution, whether he ever was a citizen of another country, and, if so, whether he ever renounced that foreign citizenship. So why exactly was someone associated with Obama's campaign looking into his passport files? A suspicious mind might speculate that it was to see whether there was already a certificate of live birth (or a birth certificate) on file in the passport office and/or to see which data it contained and whether ALL data matched up with what was on the photographed certificate and to ensure that all data matched up with what Obama wants us to believe about his birth? >>>>> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/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 _________________________________________________________________ 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 lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Oct 24 00:58:54 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:58:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> <49013161.2040705@wfu.edu> <49015A5C.40406@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <4901641E.6030903@wfu.edu> I guess I'm a "pragmatist." Even if abortion is the only difference, to me its one worth supporting Obama. (And...a good reason for Pro-Life people to support McCain.) Given no realistic alternative, I'd rather have a liberal orwellian than a socially conservative orwellian. What type of candidate could you support? Old Strega wrote: > i'm not voting for mccain. > > i simply called for mccain campaign and other right wing advocates to introduce obama's birth certificate into the national discussion. the blackout is hideous. > > i'm not voting. the presidential candidates are nearly identical except abortion. the neoconservatives have captured both parties. obama is republican lite supporting WAR in afghanistan, TAX CUTS for the middle class and RELIGION via faith based iniatives. > > the democrats haven't truly won an election in 28 years given ross perot handed clinton his victory. so the democrats decided to copy the three pillars of neoconservative philososphy with a half-black candidate and bring the anti-clinton social movements of the late 90's back into the fold of mainstream politics. > > sorry but faith based iniatitives are a gross continuation of bush and FISA makes obama a joke. if you "believe" in obama it doesn't matter how much he votes for bush surveillance or copies his neocon pillars, because obama = god and there's no need to question all of the similarities to bush. > > that's some of what i mean by a "liberal version of the orwellian nightmare". obama is an opportunist who knows the country is ready to switch parties but at the same time he's ready to capitalize on enhanced presidential powers of the previous administration, i.e. the vote for FISA. > > 8 years ago, i predicted that George W. Bush would reach the lowest approval ratings in history beating Richard Nixon. i was proven right over time even though the vast majority of edebaters defended bush and doubted bush would beat nixon for worst approval ratings. i said W = WORST president ever. but i get no credit from amnesiacs who just want to run tournaments. in the tradition of mort sahl, i will attack all presidential candidates. obama is not the answer to bush. the birth certificate, the FISA vote, and faith-based iniatitives are all signs that we are on the brink of an even more sinister, liberal version of the orwellian nightmare because moveon.org and the remnants of the anti-clintonistas have been absorbed into the mainstream of party politics. > > > From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 01:13:06 2008 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:13:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: References: <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> <49013161.2040705@wfu.edu> <49015A5C.40406@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Ok, so the point you are trying to persuade us of, is....drum roll please..... Don't vote Ok, got it, Josh On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > i'm not voting for mccain. > > i simply called for mccain campaign and other right wing advocates to > introduce obama's birth certificate into the national discussion. the > blackout is hideous. > > i'm not voting. the presidential candidates are nearly identical except > abortion. the neoconservatives have captured both parties. obama is > republican lite supporting WAR in afghanistan, TAX CUTS for the middle class > and RELIGION via faith based iniatives. > > the democrats haven't truly won an election in 28 years given ross perot > handed clinton his victory. so the democrats decided to copy the three > pillars of neoconservative philososphy with a half-black candidate and bring > the anti-clinton social movements of the late 90's back into the fold of > mainstream politics. > > sorry but faith based iniatitives are a gross continuation of bush and FISA > makes obama a joke. if you "believe" in obama it doesn't matter how much > he votes for bush surveillance or copies his neocon pillars, because obama = > god and there's no need to question all of the similarities to bush. > > that's some of what i mean by a "liberal version of the orwellian > nightmare". obama is an opportunist who knows the country is ready to > switch parties but at the same time he's ready to capitalize on enhanced > presidential powers of the previous administration, i.e. the vote for FISA. > > 8 years ago, i predicted that George W. Bush would reach the lowest > approval ratings in history beating Richard Nixon. i was proven right > over time even though the vast majority of edebaters defended bush and > doubted bush would beat nixon for worst approval ratings. i said W = WORST > president ever. but i get no credit from amnesiacs who just want to run > tournaments. in the tradition of mort sahl, i will attack all > presidential candidates. obama is not the answer to bush. the birth > certificate, the FISA vote, and faith-based iniatitives are all signs that > we are on the brink of an even more sinister, liberal version of the > orwellian nightmare because moveon.org and the remnants of the > anti-clintonistas have been absorbed into the mainstream of party politics. > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:17:16 -0400 > > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > > > > You posted a back-channel. Good job. > > > > Are you really willing to vote for McCain on "Israeli Insider says > > Obama's birth certificate is bad," "Obama favors faith based > > initiatives," and "Obama voted for the FISA compromise?" > > > > Faith-based bad isn't offense -- You posted a link claiming both McCain > > & Obama support them. > > > > As for FISA, where is your proof that McCain will reverse Obama's vote? > > > > Oh...Martin's lawsuit? He's the guy who thought Obama went to Hawaii to > > clear up his birth certificate issue. Now his website claims his father > > is the "communist" Frank Marshall Davis. > > > > > > ps -- Factcheck *is* a third party organization with absolutely no ties > > to Obama. Annenberg funded projects are about as connected as federally > > funded elections. > > > > Old Strega wrote: > >> off one. > >> > >> to prove natural born citizenship, you need a fact producing entity > further removed than a "separate organization" funded by the SAME foundation > that obama used to work for. you're the one that cited "conflict of > interest" as a problem with insraelinside and now you're splitting hairs. > the anneberg foundation funded the factcheck report that "authenticated" > obama's birth certificate. obama worked for a separate division of the > anneberg foundation. > >> > >> you'd think that the sole report on which the case for obama's natural > born citizenship rests could be verified by a third party completely removed > from any affiliation with obama's past. > >> > >> how come no THIRD PARTY organization completely removed from obama has > verified obama's hawaiian birth certificate? > >> > >> looks like typical obama incest to me. > >> > >> off two. the first link you provided was to the AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL > RECORD which does list obama's religion as ISLAM. now, you provide > another link about wool in sheep's clothing. great, you tricked me. > nice switch. i haven't read every israelinsider article. > >> > >> i don't care if obama is muslim or a stupid christian who "opposes 8 > more years of bush" but wants to keep the faith baised initiatives. yeah, > lacy, faith based iniatives were the only good part of the bush > administration that we need to keep except more stupid abstinence programs > because sex is bad. > >> > >> and by the way, that one sheep's clothing article doesn't exactly answer > all of the detailed arguments that destroy the fact check analysis. > >> > >> > http://pewresearch.org/pubs/971/both-mccain-and-obama-favor-expanding-faith-based-initiatives > >> > >> In July 2008, Sen. Obama announced his plan to establish a new, > "reinvigorated" President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood > Partnerships. "The new name will reflect a new commitment," Obama said. > "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization > chart -- it will be a critical part of my administration." What exactly is > his administration likely to do to foster government partnerships with > faith-based organizations? > >> > >> bush is bad except theocratic EVANGELICAL FAITH-BASED INIATITIVES WHICH > FISA CAGLIOSTRO OBAMA WANTS TO KEEP...great, you've moved past the ad-homs > but where's you're defense of FISA. > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------- > >> > >>> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:22:25 -0400 > >>> > >> y> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > >> > >>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 1. Annenberg & Obama: If you had some research, you'd realize this > >>> argument is silly. > >>> > >>> Obama did not work for the board of Factcheck. > >>> > >>> Yes, Annenberg funds both the Chicago Annenberg Challenge & Factcheck. > >>> > >>> Those are separate organizations. > >>> > >>> How Obama's employment on the board of a separate organization creates > a > >>> conflict of interest is beyond me. > >>> > >>> Plus, the head of Annenberg backs McCain, so if anything they have an > >>> opposite bias. > >>> > http://almoderate.com/2008/10/13/mccains-own-ties-to-annenberg-and-william-ayers/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2. "Obama is a Muslim." > >>> > >>> The Israeli Insider seems very interested in proving that Obama is & > was > >>> a Muslim. > >>> > >>> (I don't know why this is a indictment of Obama, but they seem to think > >>> it is.) > >>> > >>> "Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?" > >>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm > >>> "the legacy of dissimulation about his long-concealed identity is about > >>> to come crashing down around the ears of Barack Hussein Obama," > >>> > >>> > >>> Old Strega wrote: > >>> > >>>> basically, lacy sucks @ debate. > >>>> > >>>> still no defense of the many problems with fact check "authentication" > already mentioned. > >>>> > >>>> the website link to "israelinsider thinks obama is a muslim" merely is > an article citing the AP photo of his indonesian school record where he was > registered in school as a muslim. that's THE AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD > that you're referring to. you can believe he's a muslim today or not from > that AP SCHOOL RECORD. > >>>> > >>>> http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D > >>>> > >>>> 21 months ago: This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, > 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the > registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic > school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry > Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and > shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ > Tatan Syuflana) > >>>> > >>>> don't go all in on your stupid muslim indict of the israeli insider > destruction of the fact check analysis. IT'S A FACT, MORON. OBAMA'S > FATHER LISTED ISLAM FOR OBAMA'S RELIGION ON THE SCHOOL RECORD PHOTOGRAPHED > BY THE AP WIRE. i think this is what debater's call a "TURN". lacy is > trying to indict the integrity of a website who is not so mesmerized by > obama that they feel in their hearts of belief that even mentioning the AP > photo is a form of disloyalty to the new savior of the american left. > citing the AP photo and not ignoring it bolsters the perception of the > newspaper israeli-insider. lacy never even heard of the AP photo because > he's high in obamaland. > >>>> > >>>> what are you an anti-semite? trying to attack a jewish newspaper with > bogus allegations that israelinsider extrapolated from the AP PHOTO SHOWING > ISLAM FOR BARACK'S RELIGION that barack is still a muslim. please, show > that quote or go back to your little league ad-homs. > >>>> > >>>> on your second point, not so good flow boy, oohhh --- israelinsider > insinuates that that factcheck had a conflict of interest with the BARACK > FISA CAGLIOSTRO. well, when they state the conflict of interest in plain > english, you have to refute that statement to make an argument unless you're > a novice who doesn't even know what an argument is: > >>>> > >>>> > http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 > >>>> > >>>> FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg > Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially > given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg > Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of > papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including > public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that > project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. > >>>> > >>>> see, dipshit, obama worked for the foundation that confirmed his birth > certificate. that's what debaters who know what an argument is call a > CONFLICT OF INTEREST. to point that out makes israelinsider a really bad > source. ooohhh -- keep it up, you're making the mccain campaign look like > a bunch of right wing wackos...good job debate boy... > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:02:54 -0400 > >>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > >>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > >>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> You really have nothing better than the Israeli Insider? No wonder > >>>>> McCain is smart enough not to make this argument. > >>>>> > >>>>> The Israeli Insider, while arguing that a "bad camera timestamp" > >>>>> invalidates Obama's birth certificate, also believes Obama is a > Muslim: > >>>>> > http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 > >>>>> > >>>>> They also think that Factcheck's Annenberg funding somehow creates a > >>>>> conflict of interest: > >>>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm (Uh...yeah. > >>>>> Don't go all in on that one.) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Old Strega wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> maybe somebody will believe me like you believe fact check. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> let's try a different quote from the article that made you switch > from arguing in favor of obama's birth certificate to ad hominem. i > thought you were capable of defending of arguments: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs > and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of > Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos > resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily > Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's > case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a > litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies > that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama > campaign.... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different > aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and > idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than > seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when > the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 > seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a > serious and thorough examination to > >>>>>> > >>>>>> FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which > can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading > tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that > FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying > about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even > checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the > correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of > professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the > date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article > ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with > the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the > same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published > photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between > the camera's time and the real time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude > and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the > circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the > skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the > purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low > resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily > Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to > the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and > mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this > document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and > query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this > whole affair. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report > under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would > expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving > the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. > Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from > factcheck.org." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ---------------------------------------- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400 > >>>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > >>>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >>>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Old Strega wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your > point. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth > certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth > make the mccain campaign look stupid. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't > have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it > were ultimate truth? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your > defense of fact check like a novice. > >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 > >>>>>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > >>>>>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > >>>>>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Group it: You're proving my point. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Old Strega wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm > and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama > birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying > to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the > second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start > characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of > the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, > the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already > anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down > periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan > word. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious > from his backtracking insults. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up > with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is > impacted by berg vs. obama? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged > "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama > website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of > submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the > berg case? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the > berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate > forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the > door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as > the coup attempted by the bush administration. > >>>>>>>>>> > _________________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > >>>>>>>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> 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/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> _________________________________________________________________ > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> _________________________________________________________________ > >>>> You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. > >>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. > >> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/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 > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081024/33070232/attachment.htm From antonucci23 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 24 01:50:04 2008 From: antonucci23 at yahoo.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:50:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Registering at CEDA Forum Message-ID: <322415.35794.qm@web65504.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> I don't get what's up with the registration code? Somebody probably already posted this, and I probably missed it because I'm unsmart; apologies for wasted bandwidth, but... Some people might appreciate concise directions on registration. Forum structure is great; clearly obsoletes this one - just need guidance to switch over. Should I give a person some money or something? kthxbye From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Oct 24 02:17:34 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:17:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Registering at CEDA Forum In-Reply-To: <322415.35794.qm@web65504.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <322415.35794.qm@web65504.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4901768E.3020404@wfu.edu> I read the tutorial about using cedadebate.org, but I don't know who to contact for a registration code. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks! --JP Lacy lacyjp at wfu.edu Michael Antonucci wrote: > I don't get what's up with the registration code? > > Somebody probably already posted this, and I probably missed it because I'm unsmart; apologies for wasted bandwidth, but... > > Some people might appreciate concise directions on registration. Forum structure is great; clearly obsoletes this one - just need guidance to switch over. > > Should I give a person some money or something? > > kthxbye > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > From privethedge at yahoo.com Fri Oct 24 07:11:58 2008 From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:11:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: <4901641E.6030903@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <25034.15773.qm@web50911.mail.re2.yahoo.com> HI, Whoa......."...the vast majority of edebaters defended Bush......" Are you insane? There was exactly one person on edebate defending Bush back then, and that was me - and I was pilloried for it. And, I won't even defend Bush anymore (why I voted for Kerry in 2004) because the guy is the blithering moron everyone on this list told me he was - it just took me a bit to reach that conclusion....So, don't overstate the record - there wasn't a vast amount of anyone defending Bush. "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 Fri, 10/24/08, JP Lacy wrote: From: JP Lacy Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics To: "Old Strega" Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 1:58 AM I guess I'm a "pragmatist." Even if abortion is the only difference, to me its one worth supporting Obama. (And...a good reason for Pro-Life people to support McCain.) Given no realistic alternative, I'd rather have a liberal orwellian than a socially conservative orwellian. What type of candidate could you support? Old Strega wrote: > i'm not voting for mccain. > > i simply called for mccain campaign and other right wing advocates to introduce obama's birth certificate into the national discussion. the blackout is hideous. > > i'm not voting. the presidential candidates are nearly identical except abortion. the neoconservatives have captured both parties. obama is republican lite supporting WAR in afghanistan, TAX CUTS for the middle class and RELIGION via faith based iniatives. > > the democrats haven't truly won an election in 28 years given ross perot handed clinton his victory. so the democrats decided to copy the three pillars of neoconservative philososphy with a half-black candidate and bring the anti-clinton social movements of the late 90's back into the fold of mainstream politics. > > sorry but faith based iniatitives are a gross continuation of bush and FISA makes obama a joke. if you "believe" in obama it doesn't matter how much he votes for bush surveillance or copies his neocon pillars, because obama = god and there's no need to question all of the similarities to bush. > > that's some of what i mean by a "liberal version of the orwellian nightmare". obama is an opportunist who knows the country is ready to switch parties but at the same time he's ready to capitalize on enhanced presidential powers of the previous administration, i.e. the vote for FISA. > > 8 years ago, i predicted that George W. Bush would reach the lowest approval ratings in history beating Richard Nixon. i was proven right over time even though the vast majority of edebaters defended bush and doubted bush would beat nixon for worst approval ratings. i said W = WORST president ever. but i get no credit from amnesiacs who just want to run tournaments. in the tradition of mort sahl, i will attack all presidential candidates. obama is not the answer to bush. the birth certificate, the FISA vote, and faith-based iniatitives are all signs that we are on the brink of an even more sinister, liberal version of the orwellian nightmare because moveon.org and the remnants of the anti-clintonistas have been absorbed into the mainstream of party politics. > > > _______________________________________________ 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/20081024/73dbda2a/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Fri Oct 24 08:13:58 2008 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 06:13:58 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by John Carroll Univers Message-ID: <035310320BF24B1EAED9244BB0E791C3@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:John Carroll Univ - Austin J. Freeley Starts:12/5/2008 Ends:12/7/2008 Hosted by: John Carroll Univers Contact: Brent Brossmann Address: 20700 North Park Blvd, University Heights Phone: 216-397-4365 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Oct 24 08:42:32 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:42:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: <25034.15773.qm@web50911.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <4901641E.6030903@wfu.edu> <25034.15773.qm@web50911.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: edebaters -- ones who participated in the discussion. it was me vs. you and several others. check the archives. i did have andy ellis and few others parlaying the case against the iraq war before it happened when just like now no one seemed to care. now everybody cares about a candidate who using the same stance i took to make him immune from his support of idiot bush's warantless wiretapping. the "anti-bush" obama people look the other way because they BELIEVE.... thanks for verifying. remember, i predicted bush would reach lowest approval ratings ever. hyland laughed at me. i'm crazy again, in the tradition of mort sahl who attacked nixon and JFK equally... ________________________________ > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:11:58 -0700 > From: privethedge at yahoo.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com; lacyjp at wfu.edu > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > HI, Whoa......."...the vast majority of edebaters defended Bush......" Are you insane? There was exactly one person on edebate defending Bush back then, and that was me - and I was pilloried for it. And, I won't even defend Bush anymore (why I voted for Kerry in 2004) because the guy is the blithering moron everyone on this list told me he was - it just took me a bit to reach that conclusion....So, don't overstate the record - there wasn't a vast amount of anyone defending Bush. > > "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 Fri, 10/24/08, JP Lacy wrote: > From: JP Lacy > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > To: "Old Strega" > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Friday, October 24, 2008, 1:58 AM > > > I guess I'm a "pragmatist." > > Even if abortion is the only difference, to me its one worth supporting > Obama. (And...a good reason for Pro-Life people to support McCain.) > > Given no realistic alternative, I'd rather have a liberal orwellian than > a socially conservative orwellian. > > What type of candidate could you support? > > > > Old Strega wrote: >> i'm not voting for mccain. >> >> i simply called for mccain campaign and other right wing advocates to > introduce obama's birth certificate into the national discussion. the > blackout is hideous. >> >> i'm not voting. the presidential candidates are nearly identical > except abortion. the neoconservatives have captured both parties. obama is > republican lite supporting WAR in afghanistan, TAX CUTS for the middle class and > RELIGION via faith based iniatives. >> >> the democrats haven't truly won an election in 28 years given ross > perot handed clinton his victory. so the democrats decided to copy the three > pillars of neoconservative philososphy with a half-black candidate and bring the > anti-clinton social movements of the late 90's back into the fold of > mainstream politics. >> >> sorry but faith based iniatitives are a gross continuation of bush and > FISA makes obama a joke. if you "believe" in obama it doesn't > matter how much he votes for bush surveillance or copies his neocon pillars, > because obama = god and there's no need to question all of the similarities > to bush. >> >> that's some of what i mean by a "liberal version of the orwellian > nightmare". obama is an opportunist who knows the country is ready to > switch parties but at the same time he's ready to capitalize on enhanced > presidential powers of the previous administration, i.e. the vote for FISA. >> >> 8 years ago, i predicted that George W. Bush would reach the lowest > approval ratings in history beating Richard Nixon. i was proven right over > time even though the vast majority of edebaters defended bush and doubted bush > would beat nixon for worst approval ratings. i said W = WORST president ever. > but i get no credit from amnesiacs who just want to run tournaments. in the > tradition of mort sahl, i will attack all presidential candidates. obama is > not the answer to bush. the birth certificate, the FISA vote, and faith-based > iniatitives are all signs that we are on the brink of an even more sinister, > liberal version of the orwellian nightmare because moveon.org and the remnants > of the anti-clintonistas have been absorbed into the mainstream of party > politics. >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Oct 24 08:56:09 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:56:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] josh hoe on "not voting" In-Reply-To: References: <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> <49013161.2040705@wfu.edu> <49015A5C.40406@wfu.edu> Message-ID: THINK. you have been using your "wisdom" about me and what goes good on edebate to skirt the issue. being a pop psychologist myself, i think actually, in the closet, you want to participate but you're afraid of where your answers or non-answers to questions not allowed in the mainstream media might lead you. and by the way, the edebate sheep might think i'm crazy but the berg vs. obama website that www.obamacrimes.com has got 51 million hits. edebate is too mainstream, conservative political culture to even consider berg vs. obama worthy news. no wonder they're buying the democrats replication of the neocon 3 pillars: WAR in afghanistan, TAX CUTS for the middle class, and RELIGION through faith based initiatives and abstinence. they want 8 more years of a new, half black bush savior. is it not a problem, mr. debate social hygeine, that the anneburg foundation which obama worked for is behind the "authentication" of his birth certificate and like magic the whole mass media and BELIEVERS like you BELIEVE fact check of the anneburg foundation? why do you believe fact check that obama was born in hawaii and not his paternal grandmother and two half-siblings that he was born in kenya? why wouldn't obama have a true third party verify his birth certificate? seems bit shady like rezko and all the connections to the chicago political racket. does this not lend at least a fraction of credence to the various analyses that the birth certificate is a forgery? if you support obama and are going to vote for him, then i encourage you to push his campaign to have his birth certificate verified by multiple third party FORENSIC EXPERTS just like a person with cancer would get multiple medical evaluations before proceeding with chemotherapy. if you just want to believe and call those who question "crazy" and leverage the debate culture stereotypes to dodge the issue, go ahead. ________________________________ > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:13:06 -0400 > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > CC: lacyjp at wfu.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com > > Ok, so the point you are trying to persuade us of, is....drum roll please..... > > Don't vote > > > Ok, got it, > > Josh > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Old Strega wrote: > > i'm not voting for mccain. > > i simply called for mccain campaign and other right wing advocates to introduce obama's birth certificate into the national discussion. the blackout is hideous. > > i'm not voting. the presidential candidates are nearly identical except abortion. the neoconservatives have captured both parties. obama is republican lite supporting WAR in afghanistan, TAX CUTS for the middle class and RELIGION via faith based iniatives. > > the democrats haven't truly won an election in 28 years given ross perot handed clinton his victory. so the democrats decided to copy the three pillars of neoconservative philososphy with a half-black candidate and bring the anti-clinton social movements of the late 90's back into the fold of mainstream politics. > > sorry but faith based iniatitives are a gross continuation of bush and FISA makes obama a joke. if you "believe" in obama it doesn't matter how much he votes for bush surveillance or copies his neocon pillars, because obama = god and there's no need to question all of the similarities to bush. > > that's some of what i mean by a "liberal version of the orwellian nightmare". obama is an opportunist who knows the country is ready to switch parties but at the same time he's ready to capitalize on enhanced presidential powers of the previous administration, i.e. the vote for FISA. > > 8 years ago, i predicted that George W. Bush would reach the lowest approval ratings in history beating Richard Nixon. i was proven right over time even though the vast majority of edebaters defended bush and doubted bush would beat nixon for worst approval ratings. i said W = WORST president ever. but i get no credit from amnesiacs who just want to run tournaments. in the tradition of mort sahl, i will attack all presidential candidates. obama is not the answer to bush. the birth certificate, the FISA vote, and faith-based iniatitives are all signs that we are on the brink of an even more sinister, liberal version of the orwellian nightmare because moveon.org and the remnants of the anti-clintonistas have been absorbed into the mainstream of party politics. > > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:17:16 -0400 >> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >> >> You posted a back-channel. Good job. >> >> Are you really willing to vote for McCain on "Israeli Insider says >> Obama's birth certificate is bad," "Obama favors faith based >> initiatives," and "Obama voted for the FISA compromise?" >> >> Faith-based bad isn't offense -- You posted a link claiming both McCain >> & Obama support them. >> >> As for FISA, where is your proof that McCain will reverse Obama's vote? >> >> Oh...Martin's lawsuit? He's the guy who thought Obama went to Hawaii to >> clear up his birth certificate issue. Now his website claims his father >> is the "communist" Frank Marshall Davis. >> >> >> ps -- Factcheck *is* a third party organization with absolutely no ties >> to Obama. Annenberg funded projects are about as connected as federally >> funded elections. >> >> Old Strega wrote: >>> off one. >>> >>> to prove natural born citizenship, you need a fact producing entity further removed than a "separate organization" funded by the SAME foundation that obama used to work for. you're the one that cited "conflict of interest" as a problem with insraelinside and now you're splitting hairs. the anneberg foundation funded the factcheck report that "authenticated" obama's birth certificate. obama worked for a separate division of the anneberg foundation. >>> >>> you'd think that the sole report on which the case for obama's natural born citizenship rests could be verified by a third party completely removed from any affiliation with obama's past. >>> >>> how come no THIRD PARTY organization completely removed from obama has verified obama's hawaiian birth certificate? >>> >>> looks like typical obama incest to me. >>> >>> off two. the first link you provided was to the AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD which does list obama's religion as ISLAM. now, you provide another link about wool in sheep's clothing. great, you tricked me. nice switch. i haven't read every israelinsider article. >>> >>> i don't care if obama is muslim or a stupid christian who "opposes 8 more years of bush" but wants to keep the faith baised initiatives. yeah, lacy, faith based iniatives were the only good part of the bush administration that we need to keep except more stupid abstinence programs because sex is bad. >>> >>> and by the way, that one sheep's clothing article doesn't exactly answer all of the detailed arguments that destroy the fact check analysis. >>> >>> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/971/both-mccain-and-obama-favor-expanding-faith-based-initiatives >>> >>> In July 2008, Sen. Obama announced his plan to establish a new, "reinvigorated" President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "The new name will reflect a new commitment," Obama said. "This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart -- it will be a critical part of my administration." What exactly is his administration likely to do to foster government partnerships with faith-based organizations? >>> >>> bush is bad except theocratic EVANGELICAL FAITH-BASED INIATITIVES WHICH FISA CAGLIOSTRO OBAMA WANTS TO KEEP...great, you've moved past the ad-homs but where's you're defense of FISA. >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------- >>> >>>> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:22:25 -0400 >>>> >>> y> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>> >>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Annenberg & Obama: If you had some research, you'd realize this >>>> argument is silly. >>>> >>>> Obama did not work for the board of Factcheck. >>>> >>>> Yes, Annenberg funds both the Chicago Annenberg Challenge & Factcheck. >>>> >>>> Those are separate organizations. >>>> >>>> How Obama's employment on the board of a separate organization creates a >>>> conflict of interest is beyond me. >>>> >>>> Plus, the head of Annenberg backs McCain, so if anything they have an >>>> opposite bias. >>>> http://almoderate.com/2008/10/13/mccains-own-ties-to-annenberg-and-william-ayers/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. "Obama is a Muslim." >>>> >>>> The Israeli Insider seems very interested in proving that Obama is & was >>>> a Muslim. >>>> >>>> (I don't know why this is a indictment of Obama, but they seem to think >>>> it is.) >>>> >>>> "Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?" >>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm >>>> "the legacy of dissimulation about his long-concealed identity is about >>>> to come crashing down around the ears of Barack Hussein Obama," >>>> >>>> >>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>> >>>>> basically, lacy sucks @ debate. >>>>> >>>>> still no defense of the many problems with fact check "authentication" already mentioned. >>>>> >>>>> the website link to "israelinsider thinks obama is a muslim" merely is an article citing the AP photo of his indonesian school record where he was registered in school as a muslim. that's THE AP INDONESIAN SCHOOL RECORD that you're referring to. you can believe he's a muslim today or not from that AP SCHOOL RECORD. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D >>>>> >>>>> 21 months ago: This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana) >>>>> >>>>> don't go all in on your stupid muslim indict of the israeli insider destruction of the fact check analysis. IT'S A FACT, MORON. OBAMA'S FATHER LISTED ISLAM FOR OBAMA'S RELIGION ON THE SCHOOL RECORD PHOTOGRAPHED BY THE AP WIRE. i think this is what debater's call a "TURN". lacy is trying to indict the integrity of a website who is not so mesmerized by obama that they feel in their hearts of belief that even mentioning the AP photo is a form of disloyalty to the new savior of the american left. citing the AP photo and not ignoring it bolsters the perception of the newspaper israeli-insider. lacy never even heard of the AP photo because he's high in obamaland. >>>>> >>>>> what are you an anti-semite? trying to attack a jewish newspaper with bogus allegations that israelinsider extrapolated from the AP PHOTO SHOWING ISLAM FOR BARACK'S RELIGION that barack is still a muslim. please, show that quote or go back to your little league ad-homs. >>>>> >>>>> on your second point, not so good flow boy, oohhh --- israelinsider insinuates that that factcheck had a conflict of interest with the BARACK FISA CAGLIOSTRO. well, when they state the conflict of interest in plain english, you have to refute that statement to make an argument unless you're a novice who doesn't even know what an argument is: >>>>> >>>>> http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 >>>>> >>>>> FactCheck itself, as a project primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation, hardly fits the bill of being a disinterested party, especially given Obama's four year stint as founding chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, currently being investigated due to its massive withholding of papers which document the catestrophic failure of the project, including public funds wasted under Obama's leadership, and his relations in that project with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. >>>>> >>>>> see, dipshit, obama worked for the foundation that confirmed his birth certificate. that's what debaters who know what an argument is call a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. to point that out makes israelinsider a really bad source. ooohhh -- keep it up, you're making the mccain campaign look like a bunch of right wing wackos...good job debate boy... >>>>> >>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:02:54 -0400 >>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You really have nothing better than the Israeli Insider? No wonder >>>>>> McCain is smart enough not to make this argument. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Israeli Insider, while arguing that a "bad camera timestamp" >>>>>> invalidates Obama's birth certificate, also believes Obama is a Muslim: >>>>>> http://israelinsider.ning.com/channels/page/show?id=2018399%3APage%3A430 >>>>>> >>>>>> They also think that Factcheck's Annenberg funding somehow creates a >>>>>> conflict of interest: >>>>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm (Uh...yeah. >>>>>> Don't go all in on that one.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> maybe somebody will believe me like you believe fact check. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> let's try a different quote from the article that made you switch from arguing in favor of obama's birth certificate to ad hominem. i thought you were capable of defending of arguments: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Annenberg Political Factcheck website has published photographs and an analysis of what it says is the "original birth certificate" of Barack Hussein Obama II. While the physical document depicted in the photos resemble the document image previously scanned and published by the Daily Kos website and Obama's own "Fight the Smears" site in June, FactCheck's case for authenticity and its claims to objectivity are undermined by a litany of process flaws, conflicts of interest and factual inconsistencies that raise doubts about its motives and methods of those of the Obama campaign.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Factcheck.org posted 9 photographs of what it claimed were different aspects of Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth", all in less than optimal and idiosyncratic lighting conditions. All of them were taken over a less than seven minute period on March 12, 2008 from 10:40:18 to 10:47:02 at night. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No wonder FactCheck sufficed left it a vague "spend some time" when the duration of the entire photography session took 6 minutes and 44 seconds. Talk about: "Wham, bam, thank you, Obama!" Does that sound like a serious and thorough examination to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FactCheck will need to explain these hard chronological facts, which can be verified from the published photos by anyone with an EXIF reading tool, publically available on the net and as part of graphics software. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the embedded graphical information is correct, it means that FactCheck is lying about doing the photo session "recently" and may be lying about much more, since it would be implausible that "FactCheck" was even checking facts about the birth certificate in March 2008. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Factcheck may try to argue that the photographer "forgot" to set the correct time. But that would further illuminate the shoddy level of professionalism in disregarding the need for exact documentation of the date, a carelessness echoed in the introductory remarks of its article ("recently" is not a fact, especially when it is not clearly associated with the location of the photo shoot ? where the documents "reside" is hardly the same thing). If so, FactCheck would also need to show some other published photos published with the same camera that show an identical offset between the camera's time and the real time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Exactly for such reasons -- the lack of professionalism, exactitude and transparency concerning the provenance of this paper and the circumstances of the photographic session -- the reasonable demand from the skeptics -- who were initially made suspicious by the fact that the purported certificate image was published first (initially in relatively low resolution and only later in high resolution) in the far-left partisan Daily Kos blog -- has always been that the paper certificate must be subjected to the scrutiny of objective media or document forensics specialists, and mainstream journalists who can ask the hard question not just about this document image or that document image but examine it for themselves and query Obama himself about the many lingering mysteries and evasions in this whole affair. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is striking, too, that Newsweek reprints the FactCheck report under the organizational byline without the minimal scrutiny that one would expect from a serious news magazine. In effect it is an advertorial serving the interests of the Obama campaign, not an objective piece of journalism. Indeed, at the end there is a credit: "Republished with permission from factcheck.org." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:15:14 -0400 >>>>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Keep trying. Someone is bound to believe you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> you try to debate. lose the debate. now, losing proves your point. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that's awesome. those who take seriously obama's birth certificate and don't BELIEVE in the fact check report as ultimate truth make the mccain campaign look stupid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> why don't you just keep typing irrelevant responses now you don't have a defense of the fact check report, you yourself, presented as if it were ultimate truth? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> you keep making the obama believers look like bad debaters. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> if you type the last word, you win even though backed out of your defense of fact check like a novice. >>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:58:46 -0400 >>>>>>>>>> From: lacyjp at wfu.edu >>>>>>>>>> To: oldstrega at hotmail.com >>>>>>>>>> CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Group it: You're proving my point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Old Strega wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> when you can't keep up with the line by line, resort to sarcasm and group think tactics. you sound like irving kristol. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> lacy tried to present the "be all and end all" of the obama birth certificate controversy. the fact check report. lacy was trying to keep up with the debate and answer line by line and then he ran into the second line critique of that report and he grew suddenly silent and start characterizing his opponent as "crazy". this is a predictable strategy of the coming obama administration. there will be those who believe in obama, the right-minded, and those who question obama, the wing nuts. already anti-obama websites like the larry sinclair site are being shut down periodically by pro-obama hack squads. believe is a scary campaign slogan word. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> belief supercedes argument for people like lacy as is obvious from his backtracking insults. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> the question is why couldn't lacy or any edebater so far keep up with the line by line on the obama birth certificate controversy as it is impacted by berg vs. obama? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> we know that the obama website has a copy of an alleged "authentic" birth certificate on its website but why doesn't the obama website have a defense of his motion to dismiss in berg vs. obama in lieu of submitting that birth certificate? why is the obama website dodging the berg case? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> why isn't the mainstream media asking FREE PASS OBAMA about the berg vs. obama and the reasoning behind the motion to dismiss? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> when a candidate is given a FREE PASS on a birth certificate forgery that his followers believe to be true that is bad news and opens the door to a liberal version of the orwellian nightmare just as frightening as the coup attempted by the bush administration. >>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>>>>>>>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> _________________________________________________________________ >>>>> You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. >>>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> When your life is on the go?take your life with you. >>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/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 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ 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 jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Fri Oct 24 09:12:35 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:12:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] HOW TO REGISTER AT CEDA FORUM -- Re: Registering at CEDA Forum In-Reply-To: <322415.35794.qm@web65504.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <322415.35794.qm@web65504.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9BFF9A2A-439E-4667-A5CA-5983882DB0CF@wichita.edu> Hello everyone: I'm sorry for the delay in sending out this information. We encourage all directors, coaches, debaters and interested alums to sign up and use the CEDA site. I will post a longer note about using the site later today. We have sent the registration code to all active coaches on our email list. Please obtain the code from them. The registration code is not meant to deter folks from signing up. Please, sign up. We just want to limit spam and other non-debate- related posts. If you did not receive the code this morning, or if you have trouble registering, please email me and I will try to help. Jeff On Oct 24, 2008, at 1:50 AM, Michael Antonucci wrote: > I don't get what's up with the registration code? > > Somebody probably already posted this, and I probably missed it > because I'm unsmart; apologies for wasted bandwidth, but... > > Some people might appreciate concise directions on registration. > Forum structure is great; clearly obsoletes this one - just need > guidance to switch over. > > Should I give a person some money or something? > > kthxbye > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Fri Oct 24 09:25:05 2008 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:25:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA SITE INFO Message-ID: <4F7743D6-F783-45EC-B469-55BF93C98554@wichita.edu> All coaches, debaters and interested alums should register at the site. Once you are registered, you'll be able to: * access/post/reply on all of the ceda-related sites like, topic.cedebate.org (for topic deliberations) groups.cedadebate.org (so you can create your own group for discussion), and many other subdomain sites on the way. * post forum topics and reply to most other posts on the main site. * post tournament info, updates, and any other info at the site (see Emporia under the forum--we posted the pairings when eDebate was down). * the site is the location of all of the CEDA-related business. * pay CEDA dues and online entry fees for CEDA Nationals (plus, we hope to enable online fee payment for ANY TOURNAMENT THAT WOULD LIKE TO USE IT). In addition, the site uses * RSS, so you can quickly get updates on a forum topic or any other site-wide info (you've got to start using this if you don't) * Social bookmarking * Newsletter, for quick dissemination of information * Open source code, so we can expand it any time we want. Once you register, please read the first post on the main page "USING THIS SITE." The best advice for anyone that posts: "Open rich editor" in the body of the message to create the correct formatting. From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Oct 24 09:42:06 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:42:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics In-Reply-To: <4901641E.6030903@wfu.edu> References: <48FE96E6.5030904@wfu.edu> <48FE9AC2.50006@wfu.edu> <48FFE95E.3060500@wfu.edu> <49013161.2040705@wfu.edu> <49015A5C.40406@wfu.edu> <4901641E.6030903@wfu.edu> Message-ID: be aware that obama is willing to compromise the traditional liberal position on abortion and just like he's picking colin powell and other republicans for his cabinet he could pick fringe conservative judges to the court who could be responsible for overruling roe v. wade. i could support, possibly, a ron paul libertarian with a different position on abortion but even ron paul's political discussion is so oversimplified. kucinich is interesting but a terrible politician. i found hillary more compelling than obama, mostly because she was not given a free pass in the media and was not so gung ho like the obama camp in using bush administration tactics to prevent the media from even asking the questions. hillary did raise rezko and his defense of rezko against tenants who did not have sufficient air conditioning. some say rezko is talking now in the pen. hillary did not have brzezinski as her chief foreign policy advisor. uh oh, possible 4 years and out just like carter who created al-qaeda with brzezinski in the famous afghan trap. brzezinski is also known for his quote detailing the scenario for 9-11 in advance of 9-11. michelle obama sat on the CFR. they're fucking puppets and that's it. nothing magic and special to believe in and possibly obama was born in kenya and the CFR and the policy elite are willing to shred article 2 of the constitution to instate him as their puppet who will bring major segments of the anti-war movement into the fold of mainstream politics. i believe i have a clever argument not found even in the comments of the berg vs. obama website discussions. hillary was also not parading a war in afghanistan as some kind of good war that we can win as if it won't involve dragging pakistan into the fray with a possible increase in attacks on india and afghanistan. this whole "obama had the judgment to oppose the iraq war" and now he's for FISA and a new war in afghanistan is a load of shit and i can't believe major segments of the anti-war movement have fallen for it. actually, i can. remember, what lacan said to the may 68ers. he told them they were looking for a father. and the same can be said of the major segments of the anti-war movement who have gone over to obama and falling for his campaign's flagrant mass media manipulations. they were children screaming "not against the war" so much a for a father figure to emerge so they can believe again and have hope in politics. hillary has a lot of problems, too, but consensus was that she was a better debater and to tell the truth as a trained debater myself obama is not that great a rhetorician. he too often repeats buzzwords from the mainstream media and his 130 IQ stands out like when mccain pointed out that obama claimed he'll return to iraq if al-qaeda is found there. mccain further pointed out that al-qaeda was in iraq with the question being does that mean obama is not going to withdraw troops. obama's miserable stump speech non-answer was "i got news for you, john mccain, al-qaeda wasn't in iraq until george bush invaded." sorry but that type of non-argument which you find repeating shows me that obama is actually not very bright at all and reflective of someone with a 130 IQ with intelligence testing in parantheses. obama is a GREAT rhetorician for people with low intelligence and watch too much television. in the history of american politics, he does not rank with MLK, JFK or any of the other great speakers whose choice of words showed individuality and who demonstrated speech composition skills from before the television era. his only greatness is his ability to get disenfranchised folks to believe in him through manipulation which is the scary part because already he has utilized that belief to turn anti-war democrats into republican lite and get them to believe in warantless wiretapping because the messiah says it good now when he runs the show. mark my words. there is going to be problems with obama spying on citizens and crushing dissent. his non-argument defense of FISA is a sign of bad things to come. he's not even a shade of MLK. if you can't see it your blind. just like the people on this list-serv who didn't want to hear me refute the case for the iraq war as a quagmire and bush as an attempted coup. ---------------------------------------- > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:58:54 -0400 > From: lacyjp at wfu.edu > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > > I guess I'm a "pragmatist." > > Even if abortion is the only difference, to me its one worth supporting > Obama. (And...a good reason for Pro-Life people to support McCain.) > > Given no realistic alternative, I'd rather have a liberal orwellian than > a socially conservative orwellian. > > What type of candidate could you support? > > > > Old Strega wrote: >> i'm not voting for mccain. >> >> i simply called for mccain campaign and other right wing advocates to introduce obama's birth certificate into the national discussion. the blackout is hideous. >> >> i'm not voting. the presidential candidates are nearly identical except abortion. the neoconservatives have captured both parties. obama is republican lite supporting WAR in afghanistan, TAX CUTS for the middle class and RELIGION via faith based iniatives. >> >> the democrats haven't truly won an election in 28 years given ross perot handed clinton his victory. so the democrats decided to copy the three pillars of neoconservative philososphy with a half-black candidate and bring the anti-clinton social movements of the late 90's back into the fold of mainstream politics. >> >> sorry but faith based iniatitives are a gross continuation of bush and FISA makes obama a joke. if you "believe" in obama it doesn't matter how much he votes for bush surveillance or copies his neocon pillars, because obama = god and there's no need to question all of the similarities to bush. >> >> that's some of what i mean by a "liberal version of the orwellian nightmare". obama is an opportunist who knows the country is ready to switch parties but at the same time he's ready to capitalize on enhanced presidential powers of the previous administration, i.e. the vote for FISA. >> >> 8 years ago, i predicted that George W. Bush would reach the lowest approval ratings in history beating Richard Nixon. i was proven right over time even though the vast majority of edebaters defended bush and doubted bush would beat nixon for worst approval ratings. i said W = WORST president ever. but i get no credit from amnesiacs who just want to run tournaments. in the tradition of mort sahl, i will attack all presidential candidates. obama is not the answer to bush. the birth certificate, the FISA vote, and faith-based iniatitives are all signs that we are on the brink of an even more sinister, liberal version of the orwellian nightmare because moveon.org and the remnants of the anti-clintonistas have been absorbed into the mainstream of party politics. >> >> >> > _________________________________________________________________ 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 malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com Fri Oct 24 10:32:33 2008 From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:32:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Obama's birth certificate Message-ID: I haven't been following this at all, outside of a few posts, so maybe others have already brought this up- who cares if he was born in america? it's a stupid outdated constitutional requirement that was only created to avoid and heir to the crown of england from becoming president and trying to put america back under british rule. who cares if he is lying? he is lying to become president-let me tell you something, both candidates lie constantly to become president. Its actually a constitutional requirement that you lie your ass off if you want to be president. and he's only lying to skirt an arbitrary, meaningless rule. Which means his great character flaw is that he has sound judgement to fly in the face of arbitrary, meaningless rules. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081024/85670ec4/attachment.htm From pgk at philkerpen.com Fri Oct 24 10:41:51 2008 From: pgk at philkerpen.com (Phil Kerpen) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:41:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? Message-ID: <001f01c935ef$0915f6a0$3acb820a@us.mst.net> Am willing to keep it running as long as it is useful and needed, but if everyone is migrating to this new CEDA site, it's worth asking if eDebate has become obsolete. It puts a huge strain on my server. ------------------------ Phil Kerpen www.philkerpen.com Cell: 202.285.9714 Fax: 202.478.0343 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/9092c435/attachment.htm From rwgallow at samford.edu Fri Oct 24 10:55:37 2008 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:55:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Samford Looking to Hire Full Commitment at John Carroll Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30D3A7CB1@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> We'll pay $30 a round, in cash, at the tournament. Please contact me with details. RG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/920ea135/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Fri Oct 24 11:26:55 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:26:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? In-Reply-To: <001f01c935ef$0915f6a0$3acb820a@us.mst.net> Message-ID: <229378.79617.qm@web30005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, it is still needed. If the new CEDA site is taking over, it will take some time for everyone to make a transition...as long as edebate will stay up over the weekend of tournaments...Also, I'm not exactly sure the new site IS taking over...nor necessarily should...So far I see the CEDA site as more informational on CEDA business, but that could change...could someone else take over edebate management if there are server problems on Phil's end? Phil Kerpen wrote: Is eDebate still needed? Am willing to keep it running as long as it is useful and needed, but if everyone is migrating to this new CEDA site, it's worth asking if eDebate has become obsolete. It puts a huge strain on my server. ------------------------ Phil Kerpen www.philkerpen.com Cell: 202.285.9714 Fax: 202.478.0343 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/0bf2d3f0/attachment.htm From mharris02 at drury.edu Fri Oct 24 12:07:16 2008 From: mharris02 at drury.edu (Martin Harris) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:07:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? Message-ID: <451372279EE24E4992ED27B99AC5577304A882F6@EXVS1.drury.edu> I think JT hit the nail on the head with that cite being primarily devoted to business. I mean, if edebate went away we would miss all the deep, insightful, meaningful banter about whether Obama is a citizen, and McCain assaulted his mom (I heard rumors, I DEMAND A DNA TEST). Look, he won't comply to my reasonable request to prove he isn't a mother raper and a father stabber. He must be guilty!!!!! Martin Harris Systems Engineer - Desktop Architecture Drury University-Technology Services Office: 417-873-7848 Fax: 417-873-7835 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/62d95011/attachment.htm From KempA at hutchcc.edu Fri Oct 24 12:07:56 2008 From: KempA at hutchcc.edu (Andrew Kemp) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:07:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] bear endorses obama, endorses FISA In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4901BA9D.1DBA.003E.0@hutchcc.edu> Does anyone know who this Old Strega guy is? For someone so pissed about Obama's birth certificate, I find it odd he won't even tell us who he is. >>> Old Strega 10/23/2008 10:41 PM >>> surveillance good, privacy bad. obama = god. ________________________________ > From: MWBRYANT at aol.com > Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:43:23 -0400 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] lacy and obama group think tactics > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com > > In a message dated 10/23/2008 10:07:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, oldstrega at hotmail.com writes: > dallas already told you that you're "it don't matter if obama was born in kenya" argument was a pile of shit. you made a bad argument and dropped out. now, you're coming on with ad-homs just like lacy. if you can't debate, cry. that's the edebate standard. i'd rather slobber than broadcast bogus citizenship legal claims as if i were smart and some kind of expert instead full of hot air. if the age of obama's mother when he was born in kenya don't matter, then how come mr. barack FISA cagliostro ain't making that argument in court, big guy? why the measley motion to dismiss? > > i bet you slobbered all over cagliostro's vote for FISA. bear's a FISA kind of guy who masturbates wearing faith-based initiative condoms to make good on cagliostro's support of abstinence. > > Look, I'm not debating you. No one is. We're laughing at you. You seem to think that you're winning some sort of a debate. Sure. You win. You remind me of Rush Limbaugh or Mike Savage, so in love with your own thoughts that you win everytime. We'll let everyone decide for themselves who has been engaged in the most clearly obvious form of "masturbation." Better yet, we'll let the American voter decide. That's what really frustrates you the most - no matter how hard you jerk, you can't quite make it, can you? It's growing hard to revel in any hatred of you. I'm stuck on pitying you. Congratulations on your stupendous victory! > > > > > > ________________________________ > Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001> _________________________________________________________________ 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 -- Email scanned by DoubleCheck http://www.nmgi.com/doublecheck/ From newstrega at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 18:10:49 2008 From: newstrega at gmail.com (Gregory House) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:10:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] If Al-Queda wants McCain to win the election old strega is making their argument Message-ID: <627a863f0810241610h547e0b6fs1fa171f349e6c1f9@mail.gmail.com> It really matters not a whit the TRUTH of any of this, its a about memes at war. No one cares if jack stroube is saying that obama is a muslim, nor do they really care if he can marshall an array of websites No one would let palin or mcain or campaign operatives say it Nor does any one really care what some african news source says in a world where debaters are so decried the irony (or perhaps the game) is built on the "its printed you have to answer it" mentality that disconnects debate in the first place. No one who doesn't believe that barak is a muslim non citizen is going to be convinced by websites they havent heard of reporting about investigation in countries they only know on a globe or a geoography test. But who could make storoube's argument with his evidence and have an effect? Well what if Usama Bin Laden puts out a video that says something like the following. America. Four years ago i spoke to you about your evil ways and suggested that your future and your lives lie in the hands of your conversion to islam. The last four years have proven to be much the way we have predicted them. We said you will not succeed in destroying the muhajiadeen in afghanistan and you have not. We have said that your troops will continue to die in iraq. They have. We told you that the war against the zionest state would intensify...it has..We told you your greed would destroy you and your recent market collapses indiacte that there we where right as well. We said you would convert to islam alas you have not...Or have you. You are afterall about to elect an african muslim from kenya as your president. True followers of allah around the world are waiting to see if america will truly elect a muslim as their president. We cannot believe your corrupt media has allowed it to go unknown that Obama is a muslim, and was born in kenya. But we consider him a brother and have the evidence to prove it. ... Maybe, that would sway the election. But maybe not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/7cd02bb4/attachment.htm From lifer-hat at hotmail.com Fri Oct 24 20:26:10 2008 From: lifer-hat at hotmail.com (bandana organizer) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:26:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? In-Reply-To: <001f01c935ef$0915f6a0$3acb820a@us.mst.net> References: <001f01c935ef$0915f6a0$3acb820a@us.mst.net> Message-ID: Regarding CEDA forum signup: "Get a secret login code from your director" is a really bad way to run mailing list signup. For instance, Pittsburgh probably can't participate in discussions, because they aren't involved with CEDA this year. It also turns each coach into a possible point of failure for technical reasons. Coaches have enough on their plate; they don't also need CEDA board administration duties. If administering this list is becoming a burden, we might move to google groups, which offers both web and mail delivery. ________________________________ > From: pgk at philkerpen.com > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:41:51 -0400 > Subject: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? > > > Am willing to keep it running as long as it is useful and needed, but if everyone is migrating to this new CEDA site, it's worth asking if eDebate has become obsolete. It puts a huge strain on my server. > > ------------------------ > Phil Kerpen > www.philkerpen.com > Cell: 202.285.9714 > Fax: 202.478.0343 _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From MWBRYANT at aol.com Fri Oct 24 21:02:20 2008 From: MWBRYANT at aol.com (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:02:20 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Is eDebate still needed? Message-ID: **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/35791934/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: MWBRYANT at aol.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:01:47 EDT Size: 4643 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/35791934/attachment.eml From odekirk.scott at gmail.com Fri Oct 24 22:01:10 2008 From: odekirk.scott at gmail.com (scott odekirk) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:01:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 4 rounds for sale at harvard Message-ID: <724663690810242001w53d42bd3r46c23c4b9b91b7b6@mail.gmail.com> highest bidder... odekirk isu debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/be99dc79/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Fri Oct 24 22:39:24 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Is eDebate still needed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <535153.8963.qm@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Although this message was childish in tone (perhaps sarcastic) it does raise a good point, how do people such as alum, former debaters and coaches access the site. I know lots of people that like to check out the archives just to see what's going on in debate. Is there a way? If not, then keep edebate and lay off Jarman...he's a busy guy MWBRYANT at aol.com wrote: --------------------------------- Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ??? check it out! From: MWBRYANT at aol.com Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:01:47 EDT Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? To: lifer-hat at hotmail.com Yes, I think eDebate is still needed. At least for me. I like to stay at least a little connected to the debate community. I followed the directions to ask for a registration code, extended by Dr. Jarman, and got no message back. I am forced to conclude that the CEDA Forum is not an open forum. I am willing to obey the standards and have no problem with even a moderated forum. I guess that's not enough to justify the risk of letting me in. Mike Bryant In a message dated 10/24/2008 9:27:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, lifer-hat at hotmail.com writes: Regarding CEDA forum signup: "Get a secret login code from your director" is a really bad way to run mailing list signup. For instance, Pittsburgh probably can't participate in discussions, because they aren't involved with CEDA this year. It also turns each coach into a possible point of failure for technical reasons. Coaches have enough on their plate; they don't also need CEDA board administration duties. If administering this list is becoming a burden, we might move to google groups, which offers both web and mail delivery. --------------------------------- Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ??? check it out! _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081024/7a5243be/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Fri Oct 24 22:43:39 2008 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] 2 rounds for Wake Message-ID: <169206.75690.qm@web30008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I can hire out for 2 rounds, cash 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/20081024/693d7436/attachment.htm From MWBRYANT at aol.com Sat Oct 25 00:41:01 2008 From: MWBRYANT at aol.com (MWBRYANT at aol.com) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:41:01 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Is eDebate still needed? Message-ID: In a message dated 10/24/2008 11:39:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jtedebate at yahoo.com writes: Although this message was childish in tone (perhaps sarcastic) it does raise a good point, how do people such as alum, former debaters and coaches access the site. I know lots of people that like to check out the archives just to see what's going on in debate. Is there a way? If not, then keep edebate and lay off Jarman...he's a busy guy Well, I'm sorry if I don't live up to your stringent maturity standards, JT. But, if the busy Dr. Jarman is going to invite debate alums to join, he might at least respond to them when they send him a request for information. As you state, this seems like a rationale for keeping edebate. Remember, the list was borne from a specific attempt to exclude people. **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics ? check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081025/7d8b4097/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Sat Oct 25 01:27:47 2008 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:27:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is eDebate still needed? In-Reply-To: <001f01c935ef$0915f6a0$3acb820a@us.mst.net> References: <001f01c935ef$0915f6a0$3acb820a@us.mst.net> Message-ID: <4902BC63.1000507@wfu.edu> eDebate & CEDA-L are still useful to me -- even for administrative announcements. It is far easier (for me) to get email than it is to log on to a forum. Web forums are snazzy, but until mobile tech catches up, email still rules. Plus, I like hearing from Bear & Stroube when they have something to say. --JP Phil Kerpen wrote: > > Am willing to keep it running as long as it is useful and needed, but > if everyone is migrating to this new CEDA site, it's worth asking if > eDebate has become obsolete. It puts a huge strain on my server. > > ------------------------ > Phil Kerpen > _www.philkerpen.com_ > Cell: 202.285.9714 > Fax: 202.478.0343 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sat Oct 25 10:28:23 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:28:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] is edebate still needed? Message-ID: in my opinion, obviously yes, especially if the CEDA site is not committed to free speech in the vein of kerpen. the free speech component of kerpen's site made possible the rove petition read by kucinich on the floor of the house that was hatched on this website by the discussions like the one i recently introduced. in the lead up to the iraq war when i kept argument and information running into this site against the poor case of the bush administration, i had 3 different email accounts shut down possibly by partisans of the bush administration who were trying to silence dissent. jackattack7 at hotmail.com, schizoliberation at hotmail.com and i can't remember the third. even had a little visit from the FBI. kerpen allowed me to register a new email address each time. i'm not sure the CEDA site would maintain kerpen's commitment to free speech which is a fundamental idea of debate despite the professional debate enclaves that still believe in censorship. in the electronic age this site meets a rare but critical function and i'm not sure the debate community realizes how important electronic free speech is. given my research of the internet and an obama trend towards similar electronic erasure of dissent experienced by foes like larry sinclair, kerpen's site will be invaluable to counter "the liberal version of the orwellian nightmare". i'm most often negative and elusive but i must thank kerpen for doing what not many people would do especially given that i know for a fact that he has received legal threats and a lot of flack for allowing my controversial style a space to be enacted. edebate is a free speech cover that makes silencing me when i'm ready to rant difficult for the powers that be whether they are republican or democrat. not to mention, kerpen's edebate idea has been plain genius and has transformed the debate community in so many ways over the years. after i get started in posting out of respect for those who do not want too many politically minded emails in their boxes, i try to reduce the flow so that kerpen's free speech list serv can still be viable for those who want to just get the tournament information. ALTHOUGH, PLEASE, REMEMBER A GREAT FUNCTION OF THE EMAIL SYSTEM IS THAT YOU CAN BLOCK MY EMAIL ADDRESS OR ANYONEELSE ARGUING THESE THREADS or YOU CAN BLOCK EDEBATE AND SCAN THE ARCHIVES. is it possible that kerpen's server load could be reduced by more donations to purchase more server space? _________________________________________________________________ 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 oldstrega at hotmail.com Sat Oct 25 10:58:28 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:58:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] throw grandma under the bus? Message-ID: it's one thing to throw your reverend under the bus, but your grandma...that's just wrong. lock grandma up and don't let her talk otherwise you might have to insult her memory. and the two half-siblings that agree with grandma on barack free pass FISA cagliostro obama's birth in kenya. berg case reconvenes on november 7, 2008. tick tock tick tock tick tock. http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78931 But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release. "This has been a real sham he's pulled off for the last 20 months," Berg told Savage. "I'll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States." He said the telephone call was from Obama's paternal grandmother affirming she "was in the delivery room in Kenya when he was born Aug. 4, 1961. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Oct 25 11:48:13 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:48:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] not saying cagliostro is a muslim Message-ID: in fact, i think he's a stupid christian who threw his reverend under the bus showing characteristic disloyalty i find repugnant. try to peg me and lose. born in kenya NOT= obama's muslim. please, site one example of me calling obama a muslim. the ASSOCIATED PRESS school record (brought into this discussion by lacy and not me) does exist which lists his religion as a muslim when he was young but i never concluded that the AP school record means that obama is a muslim today. the argument is "born in kenya, now a christian, republican lite modelling the three pillars of neoconservatism laid out by kristol which in this case would be WAR in afghanistan, TAX CUTS for the middle class and RELIGION through faith-based initiatives and abstinence programs.\ not saying cagliostro is the anti-bush, but a new and improved and possibly even more dangerous version of the orwellian nightmare. if you can read, i recently attacked FISA cagliostro's appointment of brzezinski as his chief foreign policy advisor and michelle obama's relationship to the CFR. contrary to your attempt to smear my attack on free pass obama's birth certificate, i have concluded the opposite that OBAMA IS NOT A MUSLIM BUT A CHRISTIAN PUPPET OF THE POLICY ELITE WHO SERVES THE FUNCTION OF ABSORBING ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT FORCES INTO MAINSTREAM POLITICS FURTHER REDUCING THE SPACE FOR DISSENT. in fact, obama actually benefits from the muslim allegations because they distract from his connections to the chicago syndicate and to the foreign policy establishmet. so you have starry-eyed obama believers like you defending him from charges of being a muslim while in a daze about his puppetry under the old guard neoliberals who have appropriated much neocon doctrine in their bid to regain power after a long drought. cagliostro gets to keep all the moveon.org and dailykos morons who need a father figure so they can have hope in politics which is more important than losing the right-wackos palin is stirring that would have never voted for cagliostro any way. _________________________________________________________________ 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 alfred.snider at uvm.edu Sat Oct 25 12:09:07 2008 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:09:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Why was the Phil K. edebate list born? Message-ID: <490352B3.6080101@uvm.edu> Hello from Lima, Peru, where I am sitting in the airport. I, and my school, stopped sponsoring this list because my chair advised me (as did my dean) that based on the iresponsible and childish postings that existed that the University of Vermont would be better off not being involved with it. Would your university want to sponsor the kind of stuff you have seen here in the last six months? I agreed, Phil took it on, and I support his efforts, both personaly and financially. I do sponsor our Northeast debate lisrtserv and a UDL listserv. Still. In my opinion, policy debate is not the whole of CEDA. CEDA is a subset. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Sat Oct 25 12:16:48 2008 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:16:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] throw grandma under the bus? Message-ID: why should voters care that obama was listed by his father as a muslim at a school he attended in indonesia? why should they even care that obama may have been born in kenya before immediately emigrating to hawaii? do either of these make him less qualified in any practical sense to serve as president? aren't we right to suspect this as yet another distraction from the abysmal state of the economy? very soon, we're likely to see thousands of good ballots thrown out due to discrepancies: a mismatched record, a missing driver's license, and so on. will we now start throwing out good candidates on such grounds as well? in any case, i didn't peg you as someone who'd try to win on a technicality, jack. _________________________________________________________________ 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/20081025/ea00e5bb/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sat Oct 25 12:29:25 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:29:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] tuna wrong on free speech Message-ID: sorry, tuna but your university is childish or should i say overly "paternalistic". i don't think the vermont model is very good at all where a director allows his superiors to tell him and MOSTLY tell his students what is childish and what forums they can participate in. if tuna were a true free speech advocate and a debate coach of high esteem, he would have been able to convince the university of vermont that they were wrong for adopting the guise of "paternalism" protecting his students from what they deem "childish". you'd think tuna would know about the slippery slope of restrictions on "childish" postings. not only does tuna not divorce himself from his university's paternalism but even worse he takes on that guise for himself in trying to mobilize the pure space of non-childish valuable debate discussion that he is sure he could define for everyone because he is old and more wise than upstart youngsters who stray from the path of adult debating. dipshit, it's impossible to define what is childish and what is not childish without venturing down the road of censorship. we've had this discussion before and you always look more childish than the "childish" partipants you aim to suppress through your fascist ideas about speech restrictions. perhaps, tuna, naked lunch should be taken off the shelves again, and lady chatterly's lover and any childish fiction not endorsed by the paternalistic universtiy of vermont or at least your debate students should be discouraged from reading that material because you are unwilling to defend their rights to read whatever they choose. tuna is a prime example of the pawn in the censorship game who concedes into the grey area of the slippery slope. i encourage all debate programs completely committed to free speech to follow the opposite example of tuna and stand up for their students's rights. personally, on the issue of free speech, i think tuna is a coward and terrible example for debate programs. _________________________________________________________________ You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298556/direct/01/ From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sat Oct 25 13:06:53 2008 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:06:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans sanchez Message-ID: 1) you can't preserve the constitution by subverting Article 2 outlining natural born citizenship as requirement for the presidency. much less can you believe those who aim to restore the constitution through such subversion which is compounded by the vote for warrantless wiretapping and a total lie by obama that FISA allows for complete judicial review. it's one thing to vote for warrantless wiretapping but totally disgusting to spin it as something else so that you're moveon.org folk suddenly become advocates of the george Worst president bush police state. FISA is ugly but free pass cagliostro breezed through the media with a total bullshit lie about what his vote in favor really is. i'm sick and tired of the fucking idiots supporting obama allowing him to get away with his bogus FISA spin as if his charismatic personality outweighs. 8 more years of warrantless wiretapping euphemistically spun by cagliostro. fucking great. in the spirit of the comedian mort sahl, i will fight cagliostro to the end. i don't care if they shut down oldstrega at hotmail.com. i will get another account. born in kenya means obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. you are wrong to characterize article 2 of the constitution as a technicality since that analysis could be cross-applied to any provision of the constitution like the first amendment. same slippery slope as in the critique of tuna's ideas about censorship good. 2) with the birth certificate not allowed to be analyzed by mulitple forensic experts but only the anneburg foundation which obama worked for for 4 years, the transparency and public accountability talk through which cagliostro has gained the belief of the anti-war movement and anti-establishment forces becomes completely hollow and a possible means for even greater policing than under the bush administration. NOW, warrantless wiretapping, a new war in afghanistan and faith-based iniatives have become palatable to groups which previously opposed all 3 issues because of the mystifying deployment of the obama personality. the media free pass is also frightening with the suppression of berg vs. obama and anything which could sting cagliostro. dissent will reach an all-time low since 9-11 and carrying over into the first two years of the obama administration until the SUBTLE policing becomes more transparent and tiny portions of the movements that challenged the WTO at the end of clinton break off from obama's spell binding lies and realize he is a puppet of the foreign policy establishment and a total fraud. can't you see that the bush administration went too far with their attempted coup and that bush lite might allow for the most sinister dreams of the bush administration to be more fully realized through more efficient means and a more charismatic leader who is a puppet of the council on foreign relations? brzezinski was responsible for creating al-qaeda with the afghan trap. now, obama under brzezinski's tutelage is going to wipe them out and not create a pakistan disaster. that's real fucking compelling. brzezinski good. what a file. the critical approaches on obama out there mostly miss the boat lacking the sophistication necessary to get the heart of the washington beltway's embrace of mr. obama. i am devising and calling for novel critiques of obama that realize that the muslim allegations play into his favor and trace his relationships to the chicago syndicate and the policy elite. 3) the forgery of the hawiian birth certificate is criminal. plus, the manufacture of the short-form birth certificate analyzed by fact check may have involved a watergate style break-in which casts further doubts on cagliostro's claims that he aims to restore constitutional rights attacked by the bush administration: http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/13075.htm But the repeated references to State Department requirements for a passport take on a new significance in the light of the recognition, pointed out by an Israel Insider reader, that this "new" certificate of live birth is recorded as being photographed on March 12, 2008, and a contract employee of an Obama advisor -- allegedly a former CIA agent -- was caught breaking into Obama's passport files on March 14, 2008. Indeed, his passport file was looked at twice before--both times BEFORE this "certification of live birth" (not "certificate of birth," as FactCheck sloppily calls it) was photographed. Shades of Watergate dirty tricks! Were those passport file break-ins ever investigated or prosecuted? Is it coincidental then that FactCheck inexplicably and repeatedly points out that this certificate of live birth contains all data required by the State Dept. to receive a passport? _________________________________________________________________ When your life is on the go?take your life with you. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/ From pinkballoon at hotmail.com Sat Oct 25 13:16:40 2008 From: pinkballoon at hotmail.com (Nicholas A. Thomas) Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:16:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Berg case thrown out and more In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Update--the case has been thrown out: http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081025_Judge_rejects_Montco_lawyer_s_bid_to_have_Obama_removed_from_ballot.html Also notice the nice touch from the bottom of the story: "Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge rejects Montco lawyer's bid to have Obama removed from ballot By MICHAEL HINKELMAN Philadelphia Daily News hinkelm at phillynews.com 215-854-2656 A federal judge in Philadelphia last night threw out a complaint by a Montgomery County lawyer who claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was not qualified to be president and that his name should be removed from the Nov. 4 ballot. Philip J. Berg alleged in a complaint filed in federal district court on Aug. 21 against Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Berg claimed that the Democratic presidential standardbearer is not even an American citizen but a citizen of Indonesia and therefore ineligible to be president. He alleged that if Obama was permitted to run for president and subsequently found to be ineligible, he and other voters would be disenfranchised. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick had denied Berg's request for a temporary restraining order on Aug. 22 but had not ruled on the merits of the suit until yesterday. Obama and the Democratic National Committee had asked Surrick to dismiss Berg's complaint in a court filing on Sept. 24. They said that Berg's claims were "ridiculous" and "patently false," that Berg had "no standing" to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for president because he had not shown the requisite harm to himself. Surrick agreed. In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg's allegations of harm were "too vague and too attenuated" to confer standing on him or any other voters. Surrick ruled that Berg's attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were "frivolous and not worthy of discussion." The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did "not constitute an injury in fact" and Berg's arguments to the contrary "ventured into the unreasonable." For example, Berg had claimed that Obama's nomination deprived citizens of voting for Sen. Hillary Clinton in November. (Berg backed Clinton in the primaries.) Berg could not be reached for comment last night. Obama was born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, and the campaign posted a document issued by Hawaii on its Web site, fight thesmears.com, confirming his birth there. Berg said in court papers that the image was a forgery. The nonpartisan Web site FactCheck.org examined the original document and said it was legitimate. Further, a birth announcement in the Aug. 13, 1961, Honolulu Advertiser listed Obama's birth there on Aug. 4. * -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for Phillip J. Berg, he has the backing of Astrology! http://www.popmodal.com/video/114/Phillip-J-Berg-Lawsuit-Against-Obama-Astrology [Berg] sure had luck and the \"gods on his side. It was filed during an Ashwini nakshatra and a Vriddhi Yoga. Now the scriptures tell us that any activity begun on Aswini will lead to victory. \"The Yoga is Vriddhi (Growth) -- intelligent, opportunistic and discerning; life constantly improves with age.\" But that's mere "ad hominem" humor. More seriously: 1.) Berg is a former H. Clinton supporter (mere coincidence--she can't control all her followers), who once called for Obama to withdraw his candidacy because of his association with Rev. Wright (I guess being a natural-born citizen didn't bother him back then): http://www.diatribune.com/blog/philip-j-berg-esq 2.) In 2001, Berg asked that Justices O'Connor, Scalia, and Thomas (why those three?) be disbarred for their decisions in Bush v. Gore: http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5348 3.) In 2007, Berg filed a RICO lawsuit against President Bush and VP Cheney for 9-11 crimes (no, not POST-9-11 crimes, but for 9-11 crimes). He even wrote to other nations asking that they help in the arrests (obviously the DOJ wasn't going to help out): http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0701/S00076.htm Also, last April, just to be polite or sporting I guess, Senators McCaskill, Obama, and Clinton, among others, passed a resolution stating in no uncertain terms that John McCain III was eligible to run for the Presidency. Awfully considerate of them: http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/NextGenBlog/?p=50 Last point, which I sincerely mean as a question. If Obama were elected and took office, and *then* it was "proven" that he wasn't a natural-born citizen, would it not still take an impeachment to remove him from office? No other legal mechanism exists, right? Courts wouldn't just "nullify" the election--they'd follow the constitutional procedure for removing a President from office, no? Certainly "fraud" about one's nationality would constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor," but that's still different from Congress having the political will (and the citizens giving the right poll numbers) to go through with impeachment. If it violated a constitutional Amendment and not enough of the public or Congress cared, would it matter? (It certainly hasn't mattered enough over the last 7 years with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, or 10th Amendments, has it?) Nicholas A. Thomas, PhD Rhetoric (formerly Assistant Policy Debate Coach, CSULB) Department of Communication Arts & Sciences Pennsylvania State University nat129 at psu.edu -------------------------------------------------- From: "Old Strega" Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 11:58 AM To: Subject: [eDebate] throw grandma under the bus? > > it's one thing to throw your reverend under the bus, but your > grandma...that's just wrong. > > lock grandma up and don't let her talk otherwise you might have to insult > her memory. > > and the two half-siblings that agree with grandma on barack free pass FISA > cagliostro obama's birth in kenya.