From debate at ou.edu Wed Apr 1 07:51:31 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:51:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA30@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Or you can just call it cheating. Someone ranked my team 26 and then reversed most of the order of most of the teams to probably help particular teams. I had a team go 5-2 at WGA and make it to Octos at CEDA and they did not get a 2nd round at the NDT. I looked at the rankings. If you rank to help specific teams, is that cheating? Should you lose your voting rights if it is obvious you were cheating to help certain teams? Or is it just unethical, and everyone loves this system? I dont get it and i dont get how someone thinks they can get away with it. This is not educational, and its not fair to my team who deserved to be at the NDT. Even if the other rankings would not have balanced out in our favor, there was still injustice and blatant cheating in someone rankings. Shouldnt they be called out. This the second time the AT-Large Ranking system plays favors. I am sure you remember the other! Fess Up Cheaters! massey From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Wed Apr 1 09:12:56 2009 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:12:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Videos from CEDA/NDT Message-ID: If anyone recorded the outrounds of these tournaments, we would love to have a copy for training purposes. Please let me know if/where you may have posted them or how I can get a copy. Thanks in advance, Kris Willis AppState Debate _________________________________________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/a553584d/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 09:31:38 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:31:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] feedback on twitter and other tech things Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904010731s2420264bi94b53886805e3558@mail.gmail.com> some time during the ndt i changed our teams twitter feed to an ndt twitter thread and started updating all the info i could get my hands on and asking others to do the same by tagging their ndt tweets with "#ndt" the # is the twitter tagging tool and lets you see all the things that are about that regardless of who you are ollowing and who is following you, i also posted a bracket as a google spreadsheet which allowed real time updates and ongoing chat room style conversation...neither of these things where planned out in advance and where simply thing i realized because of the alternate use time mpj provides some judges....i wonder what people thought, think, or envision for such an idea...this evening i will put out more information about how i think thi could work for future ndt's or other tournaments but i wanted to start a discussion and get some feedback on how people thought the experiment worked....here is my brief response...it is easy enough to allow the users to dissemeinate the information that the tab room is to busy to send out in real time, everybody knows bits of this information and by combining what we have all know nd have recorded on our computers we can create a information system which is 1 part helpful for teams there 1 part informative for people following at home and 1 part fun....1 thing i didnt do which i could have was to send out through debate twit the info that was being posted by the tab room, it was not my intention to create competing information channels, though it may have had that appearence this weekend....anyway thoughts nd feedback would be appreciated... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/1174507b/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Wed Apr 1 09:36:35 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:36:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Accepting it! Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA36@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> So from what I understand, thats just how it works. Some have different reasons, which are good and bad. I guess i take back the "unethical" and I do not know the underlying reasons. I totally disagree on whatever they are. So my accusations are probably wrong. However, I do see how some might view the way people rank as cheating. I am sorry for the explosion. My team should have been at the NDT and districts should not have been held against them. This person could have ranked them a 22 or 23 and it would not have mattered. peace massey From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Apr 1 10:00:25 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:00:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] thanks to joel and the horns Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB23B@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> joel, you've helped to make texas a huge part of the debate landscape and it was awesome to see you and the horns bring us all to austin and host a TOP-NOTCH NATIONAL DEBATE TOURNAMENT! congratulations on the tournament, the twenty-plus year streak of teams at the ndt, and thanks for a great event, all the way from the breakfast tacos to the hightower speech to the bat warnings! sincerely, kevin spider debate From sarahtp73 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 1 10:05:41 2009 From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.com (Sarah Partlow) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:05:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] thanks to joel and the horns In-Reply-To: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB23B@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB23B@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <222697.37691.qm@web31608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I want to add my thanks. We had a great time! Sarah Idaho State ________________________________ From: "Kuswa, Kevin" To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:00:25 AM Subject: [eDebate] thanks to joel and the horns joel, you've helped to make texas a huge part of the debate landscape and it was awesome to see you and the horns bring us all to austin and host a TOP-NOTCH NATIONAL DEBATE TOURNAMENT! congratulations on the tournament, the twenty-plus year streak of teams at the ndt, and thanks for a great event, all the way from the breakfast tacos to the hightower speech to the bat warnings! sincerely, kevin spider debate _______________________________________________ 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/20090401/b1e76b04/attachment.htm From p.rappmund at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 10:32:17 2009 From: p.rappmund at gmail.com (Phil Rappmund) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:32:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Thanks Message-ID: Many thanks to UT and the Longhorns for a great tournament experience. Big ups to KU and Wake (yeah D6!) and congrats to my alma mater (Go 'Dores!) for a solid tournament run. Until next time, Phil Rappmund p.s. You guys all thought ag was boring? Just wait til you see what we got in store for next year's topic paper.. muhahaha From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Wed Apr 1 10:36:23 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:36:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] thanks to joel and the horns In-Reply-To: <222697.37691.qm@web31608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB23B@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> <222697.37691.qm@web31608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ditto. Thanks! Wyoming Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:05:41 -0700 From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.com To: kkuswa at richmond.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] thanks to joel and the horns I want to add my thanks. We had a great time! Sarah Idaho State From: "Kuswa, Kevin" To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009 9:00:25 AM Subject: [eDebate] thanks to joel and the horns joel, you've helped to make texas a huge part of the debate landscape and it was awesome to see you and the horns bring us all to austin and host a TOP-NOTCH NATIONAL DEBATE TOURNAMENT! congratulations on the tournament, the twenty-plus year streak of teams at the ndt, and thanks for a great event, all the way from the breakfast tacos to the hightower speech to the bat warnings! sincerely, kevin spider debate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/360bc624/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 11:02:02 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:02:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] D7=power conference Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904010902w4ebc1d1bs9605dcaf66f3e51@mail.gmail.com> basketball and debate do a lot of schedule sharing...basketball likes to keep a running stat about which conference is performing how...d7 had more teams in quarters of the ndt than d3, d6, d1, d8 and all the other power conferences...go conference usa(in some years)/d7 northwestern makes d7 tied for lead...but still...go d7 congrats to matt kevin deven dayvon towson umw and all the coaches...im proud to be from d7... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/cb6db55a/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Wed Apr 1 11:27:16 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:27:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Alternative Debate Workshop! Call of the Loon! Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA40@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Dates June 12-21, 2009 (during NFL Nats) The Call of The Loon! You can?t have a Revolution in a hotel room! The idea for an alternative debate workshop has spawned from the previous slogan. I have been teaching at workshops for many years, and I have always felt constrained by the way your traditional workshop functions. The rush to put out files, have lectures and produce practice debates does not seem to function very well when trying to learn alternative styles of debate. Now when I say ?alternative?, I mean in content and form. Debate is changing, and you should not get caught refusing to change. Debate is also what we make it, and that is why I think we need a workshop so people can exchange ideas, methods and strategies for debating differently. I am willing to share all of the knowledge we have gained about debating differently at OU with those who wish to attend. I hope others will share some of their knowledge with me. To make sure this happens, I have made an agreement for Toni Nielsen (from Cal Fullerton) to also be on staff. This is exciting because she has much to teach me. If you want to not debate the traditional ?policy? style of debate, you should consider attending. The cost will be 750.00. This includes home-cooked food, three meals a day, and other evening snacks. The location is Loon Lake, in upstate New York. The lodging will be very rustic with a focus on minimal ecological impact. If coaches would like to attend with students, we will have a coaches guest fee. (this depends on space) This is for college debaters on only. You must be at least 18 years of age for liability reasons. A few of the things we will discuss! How to debate framework! The tricks of the perm! The Flow (gameboard)! To do or not to do! Constructing critical affirmative and negative arguments! Utilizing specific authors in debate ? Nietzsche, Agamben, Churchill (had to throw that in), Heidegger, Potter! The point of the workshop is for you to leave with knowledge that nobody can take away from you. Knowledge that is in your head, not on paper. You will leave with stuff on paper, but the how to is what is most important. I cant say more about how excited I am for this workshop. Don?t settle for that K lab at the other workshops, come share your knowledge at camp focused on finding the bets methods to engage in your own style of debate. You should not try and fit a square peg in around hole, you never have to fit into a hole in the first place. Not everyone is made for policy debate with plans and counter-plans, come to the Call of the Loon so you can define your own style of debate. For questions concerning content of the workshop, contact: soonerdebate at gmail.com For questions about the administration of the camp ? (paying etc) contact: nicole.colston at gmail.com We only have 15 more slots available. The camp can only have 20 students. (not and advertising ploy, -- the truh) Peace Jackie Massey PS - Obviously we will do things like hiking, maybe camping, backpacking, bonfires, fishing, smores and games such as scrabble, risk, and axis and allies. From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 11:48:32 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:48:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! In-Reply-To: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA30@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> References: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA30@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Message-ID: <39c09a80904010948y1cdb18a3x5645480533601dae@mail.gmail.com> this has got to be some kind of joke - your pre-district rankings were every bit as crazy at least regarding clay and jumbles - o u know the 8th or 9th best team at the D3 tournament lol the day jackie massey calls everyone ELSE cheaters ... On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Massey, Jackie B. wrote: > Or you can just call it cheating. > > Someone ranked my team 26 and then reversed most of the order of most of > the teams to probably help particular teams. > > I had a team go 5-2 at WGA and make it to Octos at CEDA and they did not > get a 2nd round at the NDT. I looked at the rankings. > > If you rank to help specific teams, is that cheating? > > Should you lose your voting rights if it is obvious you were cheating to > help certain teams? > > Or is it just unethical, and everyone loves this system? > > I dont get it and i dont get how someone thinks they can get away with it. > This is not educational, and its not fair to my team who deserved to be at > the NDT. > Even if the other rankings would not have balanced out in our favor, there > was still injustice and blatant cheating in someone rankings. > Shouldnt they be called out. > > This the second time the AT-Large Ranking system plays favors. I am sure > you remember the other! > > Fess Up Cheaters! > > > massey > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090401/68f6afb7/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Wed Apr 1 11:51:03 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:51:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! In-Reply-To: <39c09a80904010948y1cdb18a3x5645480533601dae@mail.gmail.com> References: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA30@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu>, <39c09a80904010948y1cdb18a3x5645480533601dae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA45@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> all i have to say to you is FRAMEWORK... since thats all you could say as a debater... ________________________________________ From: bandana martin [drmosbornesq at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:48 AM To: Massey, Jackie B. Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! this has got to be some kind of joke - your pre-district rankings were every bit as crazy at least regarding clay and jumbles - o u know the 8th or 9th best team at the D3 tournament lol the day jackie massey calls everyone ELSE cheaters ... On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Massey, Jackie B. > wrote: Or you can just call it cheating. Someone ranked my team 26 and then reversed most of the order of most of the teams to probably help particular teams. I had a team go 5-2 at WGA and make it to Octos at CEDA and they did not get a 2nd round at the NDT. I looked at the rankings. If you rank to help specific teams, is that cheating? Should you lose your voting rights if it is obvious you were cheating to help certain teams? Or is it just unethical, and everyone loves this system? I dont get it and i dont get how someone thinks they can get away with it. This is not educational, and its not fair to my team who deserved to be at the NDT. Even if the other rankings would not have balanced out in our favor, there was still injustice and blatant cheating in someone rankings. Shouldnt they be called out. This the second time the AT-Large Ranking system plays favors. I am sure you remember the other! Fess Up Cheaters! massey _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed Apr 1 11:52:06 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:52:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADI 2009 Dates? Message-ID: <1238604726.49d39bb678cfe@webmail.grandecom.net> I am trying to plan a high school camp. I do not want it to conflict with ADI's dates. Does anyone have the dates for this year's ADI? Scott Elliott From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 11:53:58 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:53:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! In-Reply-To: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA45@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> References: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA30@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> <39c09a80904010948y1cdb18a3x5645480533601dae@mail.gmail.com> <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA45@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Message-ID: <39c09a80904010953t50dd3fc2v31479fc752dd9607@mail.gmail.com> i sure could say it pretty! 699.5 points eat it <3 On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Massey, Jackie B. wrote: > all i have to say to you is > > FRAMEWORK... since thats all you could say as a debater... > ________________________________________ > From: bandana martin [drmosbornesq at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:48 AM > To: Massey, Jackie B. > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! > > this has got to be some kind of joke - your pre-district rankings were > every bit as crazy at least regarding clay and jumbles - o u know the 8th or > 9th best team at the D3 tournament lol > > the day jackie massey calls everyone ELSE cheaters ... > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Massey, Jackie B. debate at ou.edu>> wrote: > Or you can just call it cheating. > > Someone ranked my team 26 and then reversed most of the order of most of > the teams to probably help particular teams. > > I had a team go 5-2 at WGA and make it to Octos at CEDA and they did not > get a 2nd round at the NDT. I looked at the rankings. > > If you rank to help specific teams, is that cheating? > > Should you lose your voting rights if it is obvious you were cheating to > help certain teams? > > Or is it just unethical, and everyone loves this system? > > I dont get it and i dont get how someone thinks they can get away with it. > This is not educational, and its not fair to my team who deserved to be at > the NDT. > Even if the other rankings would not have balanced out in our favor, there > was still injustice and blatant cheating in someone rankings. > Shouldnt they be called out. > > This the second time the AT-Large Ranking system plays favors. I am sure > you remember the other! > > Fess Up Cheaters! > > > massey > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090401/9d498e39/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Wed Apr 1 12:14:48 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:14:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! In-Reply-To: <39c09a80904010948y1cdb18a3x5645480533601dae@mail.gmail.com> References: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA30@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu>, <39c09a80904010948y1cdb18a3x5645480533601dae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA49@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> I checked on your D3 Ranking! I ranked you 8th and you got 7th? How is that crazy? Trinity is who i did injustice to if anyone. Sounds like I might be good in vegas! I picked 6 of the 10. Two of the ones i had picked in the top 10 dropped out of the tournament. Here is my transparency! My rankings on the far right. 1. Trinity BE, 8-0 (20) 15 2. UTD BR, 7-1 (18) 3 3. UCO SS, 6-2 (17) 6 4. WSU BR, 6-2 (17) 14 5. Baylor CM, 5-2 (17) 7 6. Trinity BH, 5-3 (17) 23 7. Missouri State FW, 5-3 8 8. UTSA MT, 5-3 (13) 16 9. Kansas KQ 5 10. UCO CH 1 ________________________________________ From: bandana martin [drmosbornesq at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:48 AM To: Massey, Jackie B. Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! this has got to be some kind of joke - your pre-district rankings were every bit as crazy at least regarding clay and jumbles - o u know the 8th or 9th best team at the D3 tournament lol the day jackie massey calls everyone ELSE cheaters ... On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Massey, Jackie B. > wrote: Or you can just call it cheating. Someone ranked my team 26 and then reversed most of the order of most of the teams to probably help particular teams. I had a team go 5-2 at WGA and make it to Octos at CEDA and they did not get a 2nd round at the NDT. I looked at the rankings. If you rank to help specific teams, is that cheating? Should you lose your voting rights if it is obvious you were cheating to help certain teams? Or is it just unethical, and everyone loves this system? I dont get it and i dont get how someone thinks they can get away with it. This is not educational, and its not fair to my team who deserved to be at the NDT. Even if the other rankings would not have balanced out in our favor, there was still injustice and blatant cheating in someone rankings. Shouldnt they be called out. This the second time the AT-Large Ranking system plays favors. I am sure you remember the other! Fess Up Cheaters! massey _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 12:30:16 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:30:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! In-Reply-To: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA49@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> References: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA30@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> <39c09a80904010948y1cdb18a3x5645480533601dae@mail.gmail.com> <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA49@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Message-ID: No offense to my alma mater but ranking UTD (semis at Harvard) 3d seems a bit loopy, I once had a team that was 5-3 at Kentucky and Wake and didnt get a second round...I certainly understand how frustrating that can be. Josh On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Massey, Jackie B. wrote: > I checked on your D3 Ranking! > > I ranked you 8th and you got 7th? How is that crazy? Trinity is who i did > injustice to if yone. > > Sounds like I might be good in vegas! > > I picked 6 of the 10. Two of the ones i had picked in the top 10 dropped > out of the tournament. > > > Here is my transparency! > My rankings on the far right. > > 1. Trinity BE, 8-0 (20) 15 > 2. UTD BR, 7-1 (18) 3 > 3. UCO SS, 6-2 (17) 6 > 4. WSU BR, 6-2 (17) 14 > 5. Baylor CM, 5-2 (17) 7 > 6. Trinity BH, 5-3 (17) 23 > 7. Missouri State FW, 5-3 8 > 8. UTSA MT, 5-3 (13) 16 > 9. Kansas KQ 5 > 10. UCO CH 1 > ________________________________________ > From: bandana martin [drmosbornesq at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 11:48 AM > To: Massey, Jackie B. > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Incomeptency and 2ND Round rankings! > > this has got to be some kind of joke - your pre-district rankings were > every bit as crazy at least regarding clay and jumbles - o u know the 8th or > 9th best team at the D3 tournament lol > > the day jackie massey calls everyone ELSE cheaters ... > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Massey, Jackie B. debate at ou.edu>> wrote: > Or you can just call it cheating. > > Someone ranked my team 26 and then reversed most of the order of most of > the teams to probably help particular teams. > > I had a team go 5-2 at WGA and make it to Octos at CEDA and they did not > get a 2nd round at the NDT. I looked at the rankings. > > If you rank to help specific teams, is that cheating? > > Should you lose your voting rights if it is obvious you were cheating to > help certain teams? > > Or is it just unethical, and everyone loves this system? > > I dont get it and i dont get how someone thinks they can get away with it. > This is not educational, and its not fair to my team who deserved to be at > the NDT. > Even if the other rankings would not have balanced out in our favor, there > was still injustice and blatant cheating in someone rankings. > Shouldnt they be called out. > > This the second time the AT-Large Ranking system plays favors. I am sure > you remember the other! > > Fess Up Cheaters! > > > massey > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090401/fda1ee7d/attachment.htm From john_fritch at hotmail.com Wed Apr 1 13:38:29 2009 From: john_fritch at hotmail.com (John Fritch) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:38:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 1st and 2nd round at-large rankings Message-ID: 1st and 2nd round balloting results can be found at: http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/NDT/ViewAnnouncements.aspx?MsID=12 It should be noted that on the 2nd round ballots, the rankings of Tim O'Donnel and Sarah Parlow-Leferve have been reversed. Tim's rankings show up under Sarah's name and vice versa. John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/794a01ee/attachment.htm From dark_hallway15 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 1 14:02:53 2009 From: dark_hallway15 at yahoo.com (Isaac Peck) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] CEDA/NDT Finals and Video Recordings Message-ID: <997879.33744.qm@web37307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi, I'm looking for the video of CEDA Finals and potentially the video of the NDT Final Round. ? My interests are purely educational. ? I understand certain constraints apply and I would honestly be interested in watching ALL the video feed we got from these tournaments, but given the circumstances, I would be grateful for any help in this regard. ? Isaac -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/3857e5d8/attachment.htm From Oguevara at weber.edu Wed Apr 1 14:17:14 2009 From: Oguevara at weber.edu (OMAR GUEVARA) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:17:14 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Accepting it! Message-ID: <49D3695A020000F700043DBE@campusvs.weber.edu> I hope all rankers understand how important the second round ranking process is, and that they take the time and consideration to considers other as they themselves would want their teams treated. CEDA-NDT debate (thanks Kevin for correcting my terminology :) has been getting really competitive since ther merger, and that process continues to accelerate. While I don't want to take a specific public position on whether Oklahoma B should or been in or out, I was shocked that a team whom had been debating together all year with a 61% win record was excluded. Back in the DAY, it was 55% to get in - you were golden. Serious reality check, at least for me. And probably some of you as well. So please committee members, continue to do they best job you can. OG PS: Thanks Texas for a great time! One of my favorite NDTs ever...and I've been to 17! It was awesome to see so many old friends again after such a long, long time... Omar G. Guevara II Director of Forensics & Instructor of Communication Weber State University Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408 PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM >>> "Massey, Jackie B." 04/01/09 8:39 AM >>> So from what I understand, thats just how it works. Some have different reasons, which are good and bad. I guess i take back the "unethical" and I do not know the underlying reasons. I totally disagree on whatever they are. So my accusations are probably wrong. However, I do see how some might view the way people rank as cheating. I am sorry for the explosion. My team should have been at the NDT and districts should not have been held against them. This person could have ranked them a 22 or 23 and it would not have mattered. peace massey _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From bk2nocal at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 14:42:20 2009 From: bk2nocal at gmail.com (Sue Peterson) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:42:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ADI 2009 Dates? In-Reply-To: <1238604726.49d39bb678cfe@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1238604726.49d39bb678cfe@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <417507f50904011242i666323e8p633b555bd7b6ee3e@mail.gmail.com> Scott et al... I am sure that Adam and Sylvia Symonds will have info out on ADI soon, but for those of you looking for dates, there is a facebook page set up for ADI 2009 that has a link to the webpage or you can just go to: http://www.public.asu.edu/~asymonds/ Hope to see you all there! --Sue Sue Peterson, Director of Speech and Debate at CSU Chico sepeterson at csuchico.edu 530-898-4771 "Girl Effect, n. The powerful social and economic change brought about when girls have the opportunity to participate in their society." http://www.girleffect.org/#/home/ ?In teaching you cannot see the fruit of a day?s work. It is invisible and remains so, maybe for twenty years.? ? Jacques Barzun On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:52 AM, wrote: > I am trying to plan a high school camp. I do not want it to conflict with > ADI's > dates. Does anyone have the dates for this year's ADI? > > > Scott Elliott > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/dd20a7a2/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 15:22:11 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:22:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] D7=power conference In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0904010902w4ebc1d1bs9605dcaf66f3e51@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0904010902w4ebc1d1bs9605dcaf66f3e51@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70904011322x4f5469e6ya4c05634b55e3282@mail.gmail.com> congrats to D7, Towson and Mary Washington! a special shout-out to Adrienne Brovero (Wake and D6 alum, and Copeland winner herself) and Tim O'Donnell (Wake and D6 alum) for leading Mary Washington the furthest it's ever been at the NDT with a lil' lucknext season, D6 hopes to make it FIVE years in a row (and ELEVEN of the last fourteen years) having at least one team in the final round. hester 2009/4/1 Andy Ellis > basketball and debate do a lot of schedule sharing...basketball likes to > keep a running stat about which conference is performing how...d7 had more > teams in quarters of the ndt than d3, d6, d1, d8 and all the other power > conferences...go conference usa(in some years)/d7 northwestern makes d7 tied > for lead...but still...go d7 congrats to matt kevin deven dayvon towson umw > and all the coaches...im proud to be from d7... > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090401/85334f16/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Apr 1 17:38:14 2009 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to our competitors Message-ID: <49D3ECD6.9070400@wfu.edu> I've received some e-mail and facebook praise (thanks!). I want to issue a broader reply. Maybe it's just too obvious to state, but I've rarely been a person of few words (once you get me going) . . . . Thank you competitors. Every one of you, coach and debater, who face our teams and push our teams to think harder, research deeper, get outside of our narrower confines. You pose questions to our coaching, without which questions we could not learn and improve. On occasion, hopefully rare, we do not reciprocate or we fail to appreciate. When we (being human) are at our worst we might denigrate. I hope and trust not, but know that we mean not. We can't do it without you. What are the best debates you have judged or debated in? They are closely contested. They reflect a commitment to excellence. That atttribute can never be one sided. We are at our worst and best when we put everything we have into a debate and come up on the short end. But who gave us the opportunity to be triumphant and feel that the win was meaningful in the first place? Our competitors. Thank you. -- 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 blakejohnson at urbandebate.org Wed Apr 1 18:24:48 2009 From: blakejohnson at urbandebate.org (Blake Johnson) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:24:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Spread the word: urban debate pro bono deferral fellowship Message-ID: <7c50ea8f0904011624y5e6e7adelbf437806584c7445@mail.gmail.com> Friends, Please share this email with any former debaters you know at law school... I am writing on behalf of the the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL) to tell you about a pro bono public interest fellowship the NAUDL is offering to associates who are deferring their start dates. We are looking for former debaters who are 3Ls who had placements at firms that have been deferred to apply for this fellowship The NAUDL, based in Chicago, builds and supports academic debate programs for urban students across the country. Academic debate is an activity with a strong affinity for the law. Participating students spend hundreds of hours learning about and discussing complex policy issues as they learn the ins and outs of law making and government. To be successful, debaters must master skills such as advanced research, often in law reviews; communication; persuasion and advocacy; critical thinking and problem solving; and a variety of other skills relevant to the legal profession. Unfortunately, this activity has rarely been available to students of color and women in urban schools until urban debate. The NAUDL, in partnership with many law firms and law schools across the country, brings debate to a generation of diverse students. We are all familiar with the fact that students in urban schools often may not otherwise be prepared for college, law school, and the legal profession. But through debate, students raise their test scores, GPAs, and interest in school, and subsequently enter college at a rate near 75%. They also gain an affinity with the legal process and connections with supporters of urban debate who are lawyers, paving the way for entering the legal profession. We are seeking deferred associations for pro bono work centered on legal research and writing, advocacy, non-profit governance issues, and policy development. Please see the attached to learn more. If you believe a recent hire at your firm might be interested in this fellowship, or if you would like to learn more, please contact Eric Tucker at the NAUDL at EricTucker at urbandebate.org or 312-771-1816. -- Blake Johnson Executive Director Bay Area Urban Debate League www.baudl.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/741a9e20/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Urban Debate Advocacy Fellowship 05.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 163754 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/741a9e20/attachment.pdf From spmancuso at aol.com Wed Apr 1 19:35:32 2009 From: spmancuso at aol.com (Steve Mancuso) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:35:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Russia Topic Paper (again) Message-ID: <8CB814210D85380-12F4-26B7@WEBMAIL-DG12.sim.aol.com> We have a pretty solid group of folks who are working on the Russia topic paper, but we could always use more help. If you are interesting in helping us over the next two weeks, let me know and I'll get you caught up. Steve Mancuso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090401/3839e8b0/attachment.htm From beth.skinner at gmail.com Thu Apr 2 09:24:46 2009 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:24:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA and NDT Thanks and Congrats Message-ID: <4550c7380904020724i30b8c6cfndb56687f2be09164@mail.gmail.com> Lots of folks in Pocatello and Austin did great work hosting. It helps everyone to have a more relaxed end to their season when all the logistics work smoothly and that was the case in both places. A daunting amount of work goes into creating the appearance of ease so thanks to Sarah and Joel, their students, fans and administrations for setting high standards for future nationals. Special thanks also to the tabroom staff at each tournament. These folks know how much nationals means for everyone from the newest novice to the debater finishing her career. The care, precision and efficiency of the folks who take on this responsibility is something we can all appreciate. Congrats to everyone who competed. Only those who deserve it get to go to nationals. Even if you're a brand new debater and didn't win a single ballot, your coach decided that your talent and promise justified spending thousands of dollars to get you there. You did something to demonstrate that talent. Special appreciation to the debaters who have given so much of themselves to attaining excellence in this activity. Sometimes all that giving makes us less than we could be in terms of caring and respect for others but 2009 shows thats not always the case. Oklahoma and Kansas were at the top of their games this last month and its nice to see good people do well. Beth p.s. looking forward to 2010 in the Bay Area -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090402/c13a5f0d/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Thu Apr 2 10:49:23 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:49:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Exciting News -- 2010 Lakeland District Debate Tournament Message-ID: <524839830904020849w2ace1f80v3c3d08e9592009e@mail.gmail.com> I just came from a meeting with the Superintendent, and thanks to the generous financial support of the district and some fundraising, I am excited to announce that THE 2010 LAKELAND DISTRICT DEBATE TOURNAMENT WILL BE ABSOLUTELY FREE! The district, at its own expense, will also be providing three free all you can eat meals to participants, including students and coaches, on the weekend - Friday dinner, Saturday lunch, Saturday dinner. Given that we pushed the building use to the absolute limit this year, and anticipate growth in the tournament thanks to the elimination of all fees, we will also be expanding to use the Middle School next year for L-D, PF and the regional qualifier we simultaenously host (the middle school is on the same road as the high school -- about 1/2 mile down the street). Anyhow, I really hope you can make it. The district is very excited about this event. We take pride in a well-run tournament, and we are currently a semifinals qualifier to the TOC in policy. As previously announced, next year we will also be providing plaques to all participants that are currently TOC qualified and that will be engraved with their names and "TOC Qualifier 2010." The dates for the Tournament are February 26-8, 2010 (remaining policy elims -- likely quarters on -- through finals -- on Sunday). -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Founder & Editor, Politicsarguments.com (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090402/6fbab435/attachment.htm From natej33 at gmail.com Thu Apr 2 11:21:04 2009 From: natej33 at gmail.com (Nate Johnson) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:21:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Hire at TOC Message-ID: Hi, I was wondering if anyone needed a judge or someone to cut cards at the TOC. Thanks, Nate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090402/3ea272f2/attachment.htm From baltimoredebate at gmail.com Thu Apr 2 15:06:31 2009 From: baltimoredebate at gmail.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 16:06:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History Message-ID: <722d7390904021306s1203be31id9602e048c170de0@mail.gmail.com> You know what debate community? I need some info. For the past three years of my participation in college debate, I have come to realize something. I know very little about Black History in debate (outside of people randomly talking to each other about it, or mere myths that are perpetuated over time) So I want you all to help me out with some names and programs of some folks who have won the awards listed at the bottom. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Black Top Speakers at CEDA: Elizabeth Jones, UofL, 2004 Dayvon Love, Towson, 2009 Black Top Speakers at the NDT: ??? First Black Person to Win CEDA: Rashad Evans with Sarah Holbrook, West Georgia, (dont know year) All Black Team Champions at CEDA: Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper, Towson, 2008 Black Champions at the NDT: ??? First All Black Team to Qualify for NDT: ??? First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at CEDA: ??? First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at NDT: ??? Also, it would be useful if someone knows the first black top speakers and teams at these tournaments as well (since they're so prestigious): West Georgia Harvard Wake Forest "Northwestern" Cal Swings West Georgia JV/Novice Nats Kentucky Thank you and any info is much appreciated. -- Adam J. Jackson Towson Debate...All Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090402/399876ce/attachment.htm From sjsnider at ksu.edu Thu Apr 2 15:19:13 2009 From: sjsnider at ksu.edu (Sarah Jane Green) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:19:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History In-Reply-To: <722d7390904021306s1203be31id9602e048c170de0@mail.gmail.com> References: <722d7390904021306s1203be31id9602e048c170de0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: While I agree with you Adam, that there is a lack of knowledge about Black History in debate, there are quite a few influential and interesting characters who do not meet your litmus test of being "top speaker" or "winning the NDT or CEDA". Hotep X debated for Brown University in the 1970's. Hotep X wasn't his real name, but he used that name to mystify his white opponents by pretending to be a black muslim in the early 70's. Word on the street is that it really made some people afraid of him. He was in semi-finals at the NDT although he was not a member of an "all black" team. My knowledge goes dead for a little while, there is a big gap in what I know. I might be mistaken, but I think Cleopatra Jones from the University of Vermont was the first black woman to earn a top 10 speaker award at CEDA Nats. Shanara Reid, who never debated with a black partner, or even had the opportunity to qualify for the NDT was incredibly influential in the history of black debate in the late 90's and continues today. She was the first black woman to debate on the last day of CEDA Nationals. While these accomplishments are all great, one thing Shanara and Cleo both reminded me of, was that they didn't want to be the "best black women" in debate, they would settle for just being remembered as great debaters regardless.......... There are particularly a lot of black women in debate who get lost in the shuffle as they never represented top speaker, or a championship team but in their own way definitely influenced debate. It is perhaps these stories that you might find the most interesting. I hope you find what you are looking for. Sarah 2009/4/2 Adam Jackson : > You know what debate community? I need some info. > For the past three years of my participation in college debate, I have come > to realize something. > I know very little about Black History in debate (outside of people randomly > talking to each other about it, or mere myths that are perpetuated over > time) > So I want you all to help me out with some names and programs of some folks > who have won the awards listed at the bottom. Please correct me if I'm > wrong. > Black Top Speakers at CEDA: > Elizabeth Jones, UofL, 2004 > Dayvon Love, Towson, 2009 > Black Top Speakers at the NDT: > ??? > First Black Person to Win CEDA: > Rashad Evans with Sarah Holbrook, West Georgia, (dont know year) > All Black Team Champions at CEDA: > Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper, Towson, 2008 > > Black Champions at the NDT: > ??? > First All Black Team to Qualify for NDT: > ??? > First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at CEDA: > ??? > First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at NDT: > ??? > Also, it would be useful if someone knows the first black top speakers and > teams at these tournaments as well (since they're so prestigious): > West Georgia > Harvard > Wake Forest > "Northwestern" > Cal Swings > West Georgia > JV/Novice Nats > Kentucky > > Thank you and any info is much appreciated. > -- > Adam J. Jackson > Towson Debate...All Day > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From oguevara at hotmail.com Thu Apr 2 15:24:24 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 14:24:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History In-Reply-To: References: <722d7390904021306s1203be31id9602e048c170de0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Steve Clemmons and NCP, Weber State NDT 1995 (maybe 1996 - first year of the merger) 4-4, 14 ballots. FIRST team to really push race and ethnicity issues in college debate. With Bear at the helm and the legendary Bill Shanahan as the field coach and ADOF, they made alot of teams cringe with Space Traders. DD could tell you more, but old Steve was quite a debater back in the day. Actually you can't talk about the his-her story of Black participation in college debate (esp. out west), without talking about Steve...in the words of HST...he was the trouble we were always looing for :). OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM > Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:19:13 -0500 > From: sjsnider at ksu.edu > To: baltimoredebate at gmail.com > CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History > > While I agree with you Adam, that there is a lack of knowledge about > Black History in debate, there are quite a few influential and > interesting characters who do not meet your litmus test of being "top > speaker" or "winning the NDT or CEDA". > > Hotep X debated for Brown University in the 1970's. Hotep X wasn't his > real name, but he used that name to mystify his white opponents by > pretending to be a black muslim in the early 70's. Word on the street > is that it really made some people afraid of him. He was in > semi-finals at the NDT although he was not a member of an "all black" > team. > > My knowledge goes dead for a little while, there is a big gap in what > I know. I might be mistaken, but I think Cleopatra Jones from the > University of Vermont was the first black woman to earn a top 10 > speaker award at CEDA Nats. > > Shanara Reid, who never debated with a black partner, or even had the > opportunity to qualify for the NDT was incredibly influential in the > history of black debate in the late 90's and continues today. She was > the first black woman to debate on the last day of CEDA Nationals. > > While these accomplishments are all great, one thing Shanara and Cleo > both reminded me of, was that they didn't want to be the "best black > women" in debate, they would settle for just being remembered as great > debaters regardless.......... > > There are particularly a lot of black women in debate who get lost in > the shuffle as they never represented top speaker, or a championship > team but in their own way definitely influenced debate. It is perhaps > these stories that you might find the most interesting. > > I hope you find what you are looking for. > > Sarah > > 2009/4/2 Adam Jackson : > > You know what debate community? I need some info. > > For the past three years of my participation in college debate, I have come > > to realize something. > > I know very little about Black History in debate (outside of people randomly > > talking to each other about it, or mere myths that are perpetuated over > > time) > > So I want you all to help me out with some names and programs of some folks > > who have won the awards listed at the bottom. Please correct me if I'm > > wrong. > > Black Top Speakers at CEDA: > > Elizabeth Jones, UofL, 2004 > > Dayvon Love, Towson, 2009 > > Black Top Speakers at the NDT: > > ??? > > First Black Person to Win CEDA: > > Rashad Evans with Sarah Holbrook, West Georgia, (dont know year) > > All Black Team Champions at CEDA: > > Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper, Towson, 2008 > > > > Black Champions at the NDT: > > ??? > > First All Black Team to Qualify for NDT: > > ??? > > First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at CEDA: > > ??? > > First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at NDT: > > ??? > > Also, it would be useful if someone knows the first black top speakers and > > teams at these tournaments as well (since they're so prestigious): > > West Georgia > > Harvard > > Wake Forest > > "Northwestern" > > Cal Swings > > West Georgia > > JV/Novice Nats > > Kentucky > > > > Thank you and any info is much appreciated. > > -- > > Adam J. Jackson > > Towson Debate...All Day > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _________________________________________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090402/e6719226/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Apr 2 16:42:43 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 17:42:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History In-Reply-To: References: <722d7390904021306s1203be31id9602e048c170de0@mail.gmail.com> , Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB25D@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Adam, yes, clemmons key. also, had the privilege of working with Andre Hylton and Will Griffin at Dartmouth. They were a VERY strong team on the south asia topic, often overshadowed by dartmouth's top team of sklaver and lovitt because they were historically sick (came back their senior years after winning ndt to not drop a ballot at kentucky). Anyway, Will and Andre were solid--maybe 12th first round or so. Will may have single-handedly re-invigorated the "case press" into the case pimp. do with that what you may. they ran a "clean up the ganges river" aff. For your purposes (it seems by your questions), they reached the quarters of the ndt---I believe losing to wake (fledderman and grant). They did not deploy white face (totally awesome btw) and instead opted for a russia DA. still, though, Clemmons and Palo-Coburn key. looking forward to talking some more stuff with you in the future. kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of omar guevara [oguevara at hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:24 PM To: sjsnider at ksu.edu; baltimoredebate at gmail.com Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History Steve Clemmons and NCP, Weber State NDT 1995 (maybe 1996 - first year of the merger) 4-4, 14 ballots. FIRST team to really push race and ethnicity issues in college debate. With Bear at the helm and the legendary Bill Shanahan as the field coach and ADOF, they made alot of teams cringe with Space Traders. DD could tell you more, but old Steve was quite a debater back in the day. Actually you can't talk about the his-her story of Black participation in college debate (esp. out west), without talking about Steve...in the words of HST...he was the trouble we were always looing for :). OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM > Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:19:13 -0500 > From: sjsnider at ksu.edu > To: baltimoredebate at gmail.com > CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History > > While I agree with you Adam, that there is a lack of knowledge about > Black History in debate, there are quite a few influential and > interesting characters who do not meet your litmus test of being "top > speaker" or "winning the NDT or CEDA". > > Hotep X debated for Brown University in the 1970's. Hotep X wasn't his > real name, but he used that name to mystify his white opponents by > pretending to be a black muslim in the early 70's. Word on the street > is that it really made some people afraid of him. He was in > semi-finals at the NDT although he was not a member of an "all black" > team. > > My knowledge goes dead for a little while, there is a big gap in what > I know. I might be mistaken, but I think Cleopatra Jones from the > University of Vermont was the first black woman to earn a top 10 > speaker award at CEDA Nats. > > Shanara Reid, who never debated with a black partner, or even had the > opportunity to qualify for the NDT was incredibly influential in the > history of black debate in the late 90's and continues today. She was > the first black woman to debate on the last day of CEDA Nationals. > > While these accomplishments are all great, one thing Shanara and Cleo > both reminded me of, was that they didn't want to be the "best black > women" in debate, they would settle for just being remembered as great > debaters regardless.......... > > There are particularly a lot of black women in debate who get lost in > the shuffle as they never represented top speaker, or a championship > team but in their own way definitely influenced debate. It is perhaps > these stories that you might find the most interesting. > > I hope you find what you are looking for. > > Sarah > > 2009/4/2 Adam Jackson : > > You know what debate community? I need some info. > > For the past three years of my participation in college debate, I have come > > to realize something. > > I know very little about Black History in debate (outside of people randomly > > talking to each other about it, or mere myths that are perpetuated over > > time) > > So I want you all to help me out with some names and programs of some folks > > who have won the awards listed at the bottom. Please correct me if I'm > > wrong. > > Black Top Speakers at CEDA: > > Elizabeth Jones, UofL, 2004 > > Dayvon Love, Towson, 2009 > > Black Top Speakers at the NDT: > > ??? > > First Black Person to Win CEDA: > > Rashad Evans with Sarah Holbrook, West Georgia, (dont know year) > > All Black Team Champions at CEDA: > > Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper, Towson, 2008 > > > > Black Champions at the NDT: > > ??? > > First All Black Team to Qualify for NDT: > > ??? > > First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at CEDA: > > ??? > > First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at NDT: > > ??? > > Also, it would be useful if someone knows the first black top speakers and > > teams at these tournaments as well (since they're so prestigious): > > West Georgia > > Harvard > > Wake Forest > > "Northwestern" > > Cal Swings > > West Georgia > > JV/Novice Nats > > Kentucky > > > > Thank you and any info is much appreciated. > > -- > > Adam J. Jackson > > Towson Debate...All Day > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. Download FREE now! From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Apr 2 20:29:12 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 21:29:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History In-Reply-To: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB25D@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <722d7390904021306s1203be31id9602e048c170de0@mail.gmail.com> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB25D@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: Ummmm let us not forget Emory had the team of Bailey and Ghali in NDT finals twice, Josh On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > Adam, > > yes, clemmons key. > > also, had the privilege of working with Andre Hylton and Will Griffin at > Dartmouth. They were a VERY strong team on the south asia topic, often > overshadowed by dartmouth's top team of sklaver and lovitt because they were > historically sick (came back their senior years after winning ndt to not > drop a ballot at kentucky). > > Anyway, Will and Andre were solid--maybe 12th first round or so. Will may > have single-handedly re-invigorated the "case press" into the case pimp. do > with that what you may. they ran a "clean up the ganges river" aff. > > For your purposes (it seems by your questions), they reached the quarters > of the ndt---I believe losing to wake (fledderman and grant). They did not > deploy white face (totally awesome btw) and instead opted for a russia DA. > > still, though, Clemmons and Palo-Coburn key. > > looking forward to talking some more stuff with you in the future. > > kevin > > > > ________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf > Of omar guevara [oguevara at hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:24 PM > To: sjsnider at ksu.edu; baltimoredebate at gmail.com > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History > > Steve Clemmons and NCP, Weber State NDT 1995 (maybe 1996 - first year of > the merger) 4-4, 14 ballots. FIRST team to really push race and ethnicity > issues in college debate. With Bear at the helm and the legendary Bill > Shanahan as the field coach and ADOF, they made alot of teams cringe with > Space Traders. DD could tell you more, but old Steve was quite a debater > back in the day. > > Actually you can't talk about the his-her story of Black participation in > college debate (esp. out west), without talking about Steve...in the words > of HST...he was the trouble we were always looing for :). > > OG > > > Omar G Guevara II > Director of Forensics > Department of Communication > College of Arts & Humanities > Weber State University > Ogden, Utah > > 801.626.6220 (Office) > 801.668.6910 (Cell) > > Oguevara at hotmail.com > Oguevara at weber.edu > > > PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM < > http://www.weberdebate.com/> > > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:19:13 -0500 > > From: sjsnider at ksu.edu > > To: baltimoredebate at gmail.com > > CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History > > > > While I agree with you Adam, that there is a lack of knowledge about > > Black History in debate, there are quite a few influential and > > interesting characters who do not meet your litmus test of being "top > > speaker" or "winning the NDT or CEDA". > > > > Hotep X debated for Brown University in the 1970's. Hotep X wasn't his > > real name, but he used that name to mystify his white opponents by > > pretending to be a black muslim in the early 70's. Word on the street > > is that it really made some people afraid of him. He was in > > semi-finals at the NDT although he was not a member of an "all black" > > team. > > > > My knowledge goes dead for a little while, there is a big gap in what > > I know. I might be mistaken, but I think Cleopatra Jones from the > > University of Vermont was the first black woman to earn a top 10 > > speaker award at CEDA Nats. > > > > Shanara Reid, who never debated with a black partner, or even had the > > opportunity to qualify for the NDT was incredibly influential in the > > history of black debate in the late 90's and continues today. She was > > the first black woman to debate on the last day of CEDA Nationals. > > > > While these accomplishments are all great, one thing Shanara and Cleo > > both reminded me of, was that they didn't want to be the "best black > > women" in debate, they would settle for just being remembered as great > > debaters regardless.......... > > > > There are particularly a lot of black women in debate who get lost in > > the shuffle as they never represented top speaker, or a championship > > team but in their own way definitely influenced debate. It is perhaps > > these stories that you might find the most interesting. > > > > I hope you find what you are looking for. > > > > Sarah > > > > 2009/4/2 Adam Jackson : > > > You know what debate community? I need some info. > > > For the past three years of my participation in college debate, I have > come > > > to realize something. > > > I know very little about Black History in debate (outside of people > randomly > > > talking to each other about it, or mere myths that are perpetuated over > > > time) > > > So I want you all to help me out with some names and programs of some > folks > > > who have won the awards listed at the bottom. Please correct me if I'm > > > wrong. > > > Black Top Speakers at CEDA: > > > Elizabeth Jones, UofL, 2004 > > > Dayvon Love, Towson, 2009 > > > Black Top Speakers at the NDT: > > > ??? > > > First Black Person to Win CEDA: > > > Rashad Evans with Sarah Holbrook, West Georgia, (dont know year) > > > All Black Team Champions at CEDA: > > > Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper, Towson, 2008 > > > > > > Black Champions at the NDT: > > > ??? > > > First All Black Team to Qualify for NDT: > > > ??? > > > First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at CEDA: > > > ??? > > > First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at NDT: > > > ??? > > > Also, it would be useful if someone knows the first black top speakers > and > > > teams at these tournaments as well (since they're so prestigious): > > > West Georgia > > > Harvard > > > Wake Forest > > > "Northwestern" > > > Cal Swings > > > West Georgia > > > JV/Novice Nats > > > Kentucky > > > > > > Thank you and any info is much appreciated. > > > -- > > > Adam J. Jackson > > > Towson Debate...All Day > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > ________________________________ > Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet > Explorer 8. Download FREE now!< > http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090402/b5ef13ec/attachment.htm From i_pastrana at yahoo.com Thu Apr 2 22:00:18 2009 From: i_pastrana at yahoo.com (Israel Pastrana) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 20:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History Message-ID: <52572.84157.qm@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi Adam, I appreciated your question?though like Sarah I?m also skeptical about how representative the experiences of the most successful debaters would be of a broader (and much longer) ?Black History in debate?.?In addition to Sarah?s suggestion, I?d also add that you think about other sites where black debate history was made.? In the early to mid 1940s, while black civil rights organizations like the Civil Rights Congress and NAACP campaigned for a double victory against the forces of racism at home and abroad, HBCU?s sponsored a number of inter-collegiate debates where students discussed pressing, and perhaps even anxiety producing issues such as race, empire, and colonialism.? For instance, check out the scene described in the California Eagle, at the time the largest black newspaper on the West Coast: Lincoln Students to Debate British on Empire April 19 New York?Cambridge University of England will send a debating team against Lincoln University of Oxford Pa., under the sponsorship of the United Negro College Fund here on Saturday afternoon, April 19, at Times Hall 240 West 44th street, William J. Trent Jr., executive director of the Fund, announced yesterday. The British will oppose the resolution that ?the formal dissolution of the British Empire would contribute to the maintenance of world peace.? Coming two days after the Fund launches its nation-wide appeal for $1,300,000 to meet current operating costs in 33 Negro private colleges, the international debate will focus attention upon the preparation these colleges are giving the 30,000 students attending them. Lincoln is the oldest Negro college in American and Cambridge is the second oldest institution in England. The Cambridge men arrived here on Mach 21 to engage 19 American universities in debate on an assortment of subjects.? Through the cooperation of the Institute for International Education, the Fund was able to arrange for them to meet the Lincoln team shortly before the return voyage to England on April 21. The British team comprises of Nan S. Lloyd 26, of Natal, Union of South Africa, student in economics; and William Richmond, 28, of Cambridge, student in history.? Lincoln?s two men will be selected from among these three students: James Young, 22, Newark, junior in pre-law; Gayride Wilmore, 25, of Philadelphia, senior in theology; and Abdool Marraj, 20, of Demarara, British Guinea, sophomore in pre-law. I never followed up on this, so I don?t know whether Abdool made the team or not, but I wonder what role his ?situated knowledge? of British colonialism and empire would have played in the debate.? In a time when anti-discrimination measures were enacted only as a wartime necessity, and when those same necessities could be interpreted to justify the mass incarceration of ethnic Japanese, that a debate over these issues and between these individuals took place at all speaks to the transformative and transgressive power of the activity. Hope this helps, Israel Pastrana Ph.D. student, history department University of California, San Diego From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Apr 2 23:15:05 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:15:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] puppet: stop filling admin w RIAA insiders Message-ID: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/obama-stop-fill.html _________________________________________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090402/c49f54c6/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 00:14:58 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 01:14:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] just throwing this out there... Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904022214rbaca5e3pf24144eae53e2071@mail.gmail.com> over the last semester i have realized that no matter how frustrated debate had me last summer its still where my home is, so i am looking for a place to work ...what i am looking for is a place that can pay me enough to live like an adult in the place where the university is and provides classes at the university and health insurance as a benefit...if you think thats an outlandish request, so be it, if you are at or know of a school that has such a position, or think something can be worked out, lemme know...there are some things i am considering right now, but i thought i would expand my field of possibilities and see whats out there... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/20ae0584/attachment.htm From rwgallow at samford.edu Fri Apr 3 02:04:18 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 02:04:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Go Vegetarian: Send the Sacred Cow of the States Counterplan Out to Pasture (Title blatantly ripped off from an old DRG exchange on counterplans) Every year about this time I begin to work on the Baylor Briefs for the high school topic as well as get ready for the upcoming Samford Debate Institute. As I began to delve into the poverty topic, I got excited about Affirmative possibilities. I found articles about: *Poverty and Immigration *Social Services in segregated areas with concentrations of poverty *Full Service Community Schools for Low-Income Children *Faith based legal services as bolstering legal benefits for those in poverty And then I quickly realized the obvious. None of this matters. None of these affs are strategic, no negative team will ever research any of them, nor will they learn about any of this literature, because all of it will be obsolete when the 1nc says The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all relevant territories should implement the mandates of the affirmative plan It?s time to put the sacred cow out to pasture. The states counterplan devastates education and the benefits of in-depth, topic specific research. The arguments in favor of it are weak, shallow, and protected mainly by about a decade of presumed legitimacy and the negative?s ability to spew off 15 answers to protect it. For my overview, I?ll make three arguments. First, the states counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. As a result, it not only devastates the educational benefits students get when debating such a topic, it also severely limits the range of topics that people will consider to be ?debatable? at the collegiate level. This argument has particular salience every year when it comes to the topic selection process, because many people will not vote for certain resolutions because the states counterplan eviscerates these resolutions. Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature base to answer it. The answers in the literature to the states counterplan frequently consist of attacking the lack of uniformity on the state level, hence justifying the action on the federal level. In the world of the Lopez CP, not even the notion that something is currently considered to be a federal only activity protects the aff. I?ve seen federal nuclear policy, federal transportation policy, and federal lands policies Lopez?d back to the states. Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? in the resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To paraphrase Will Repko on the consult counterplan, ?would anyone go to an academic conference and defend a paper entitled: ?The States Counterplan: providing in-depth education to generations of policy debaters??? This paper title is far more persuasive: ?The States Counterplan: shielding negative teams from topic specific research for over a decade.? First, the counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. Education is best served by the requirement that debaters do research on a variety of different subjects. To some extent, this requires getting rid of arguments that allow the negative to win without doing such research. The incentives for either side to learn about the vast majority of social services related to poverty will quickly be undermined by the mere existence of the counterplan. Negative teams will have their short-cut, and they will take it. Most will probably cut a handful of cards on ?states can do legal services? or ?states can solve immigration.? But that will be the depth of the negative research necessary to beat the few teams that stray outside the ?exclusively in federal domain? literature. I suspect we will see a lot of military aff?s and aff?s dealing with federal agencies to try to carve out some narrow warrant for why the USFG is necessary in this instance. The topic will be conceptually very large (any social service for poverty), but practically very narrow (only social services that have an overwhelming federal government warrant). There is nothing inherently wrong with those affirmatives, but they shouldn?t be the only functionally viable affirmatives allowed on the topic. While seemingly very broad, the high school poverty topic is in fact very narrow. The enormous hurdle of overcoming the states counterplan will stunt the development of many affirmatives before they even get started. There is also probably merit to a ?chilling? argument that even if there may be some answers deep in the literature on one of these affirmatives to the states counterplan, the overwhelming hurdle states creates prevents that research to begin with. It would be better to simply draw a line and say that 50 state counterplans are illegitimate. While there are certainly some benefits to the discussion of states versus feds in any area, the notion that the negative gets to wish away the entire 1ac in one fell swoop seems extremely problematic. I can cite the obvious litany list of -this is utopian -there is no literature at all pretending that all the states would do this at the same time -they have zero solvency advocate -they gut topic specific education by recycling the tired federal/states arguments year after year -they eliminate 95% plus of affirmative cases in one swoop -they destroy incentives for people to research huge areas of the literature on poverty?meaning students never engage in or learn about such literature -it isn?t reciprocal: the federal government is one agent, they get 50 plus (considering they get states + territories + DC, and they also probably FIAT?d devolution by an actor of the USFG?the Supreme Court?to get there in the first place). At the same time, spewing off the litany list seems less persuasive than just pointing out the overall damage the mere existence of the states counterplan does to the way we debate topics. Instead of encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the states cp forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty literature. Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow literature base to research the topic to get around that blasted ?federal government? warrant. Maybe it?s time we learned about more. We are losing something here, and we are losing the in-depth understanding about issues that are important for our students to learn about, especially in trying economic times. Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature base to answer it. The magical ?FIAT wand? is incredibly synergistic with the states counterplan, in that it wishes away the answers that most ?rational policy-makers? in the real world cite to the logic of having the states do the plan. There may be more to the ?rational policy-maker can?t assume others will act? argument than we give it credit for. Can you imagine this statement being made on the Senate floor, ?Senators, there is no need for us to take this action today, because all 50 states are about to unanimously act in a way they never have before, and the Supreme Court will validate this, because all 50 states will cite the Michigan v Long precedent insulating the action in their state constitutions from federal strike down. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this policy as it is unnecessary for us to act upon this.? You?d never see that statement because it is preposterous. The states counterplan debates we get into are so far removed from real world policy-making as to strain credulity. The world of debate we have created with the states counterplan is incredibly at odds with the literature based world that debate rests upon for its arguments. I?m not saying that clever teams don?t find ways to answer the states counterplan. I have no doubt that the brilliant debate teachers who work at camps across the country will come up with solutions to the problem not predicated in debate theory. But to do so, they have to create a world far removed from the core of the debate about whether or not social services for poverty are justified. Even in my limited research, there is a robust literature on a variety of potential social services for poverty. However, it is very likely that this literature will never be tapped even to a limited degree by most students at debate institutes this summer because the states counterplan can solve all those affs. Additionally, so few judges seem willing to take a stand against the states counterplan that debaters are chilled from conducting such research in the first place. This argument shapes the world of debate arguments by shutting off huge areas of research before it even begins. The literature base and the use of the states counterplan in debates simply doesn?t match up. Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? in the resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To begin with, the federalism disad provides those benefits. People can research the question of federalism related to all of these issues by running a disad. Ah, but federalism is a bad disad on its own. The link isn?t very good, the uniqueness is bad, the internal link is worse. Federalism only works well when melded with its ever powerful ally that robs the affirmative of all their case advantages. The hot ?federalism da? works a lot better when the 2nr can parrot out the following about a hundred times in a season, ?Counterplan solves 100% of the case, any risk, [sqwak] any risk, [sqwak] any risk Polly says any risk ? If we get tired of hearing that same debate, we may need to set the alarm clock and wake up from the world where states allows students to do the same thing, over and over again, on this topic. One argument that is kind of tough to answer is that the benefits of researching federalism in various areas around the globe is pretty strong. But we do that all the time. Every single year (at least on domestic topics), we have students do all the updates on ?Afghan federalism good, Iraqi federalism good, Russian federalism good, Nigerian federalism good, etc.? We rarely do research on whether or not legal services for the poor are beneficial, necessary, cost-effective, etc. Instead of recycling the same old generics, we can have more robust debates specific to the topic. What is more interesting is why do we keep protecting the states counterplan? It radically influences case selection on every topic, it radically influences the way we select topics, it radically influences everything we do. Is it so radical to just throw this baby out with the bath water? One of my favorite song lyrics is from the Police?s ?Wrapped Around Your Finger.? The line goes, ?I will turn your face to alabaster, when you find your servant is your master.? Our creation, the states counterplan, dictates too much of our thinking about affirmatives, about topics, and about what kind of arguments we allow in debate. Eliminating the states counterplan from the equation frees up our thinking in new and different directions. A little thought experiment is how much time you will spend on camps talking about areas like ?legal services,? ?education,? ?immigration,? etc to students you teach at camp this summer? If the primary focal point will be ?make sure we have a card saying that states can do ?x,?? then we are short-circuiting the education possible on these subjects. I think a much better pedagogical model would be multiple seminars on ?answering legal cases,? ?answering education cases,? ?answering immigration cases,? etc. Our students would get the benefits of strategizing and researching about multiple different facets of the poverty topic, as opposed to the tried and true, states and federalism cocktail. Will this mean the aff wins more? Probably so. But in an era of all the other kinds of neg ground available (a world of competing interpretations on T, a world of high magnitude disads that turn the case, a world of PIC?s, a world of Kritiks), are we really giving the negative too little ground by getting rid of the states counterplan? Our education has gotten lazy and fat on the red meat diet of the states counterplan. Go vegetarian. Get rid of the sacred cow. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/28fbe220/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Fri Apr 3 02:45:12 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:45:12 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 2009-10 Topic Process Update Message-ID: <39c1ac890904030045j42025f53kcd948914fc3130cc@mail.gmail.com> Greetings all. Consistent with the constitutionally modified process of a few years ago, the CEDA Topic Selection Committee is accepting controversy papers for the next two weeks (through Saturday April 18th). This is an extension of the older process that required all papers be submitted before CEDA and the NDT. This adjustment has helped us gain additional papers from the community and we hope to again have some great community input. As part of the new ceda website, the topic process is now hosted at http://topic.cedadebate.org/ You will find guidelines to help author a controversy paper as well as all of the key deadlines and explanations of the process. The updated list of the committee and our email addresses are also available at that site. We have also added archives of papers submitted on previous topics. We hope this can make it easier for individuals to update and revise earlier work. A full explanation of all dates and the entire process, for example, can be found at http://topic.cedadebate.org/?q=Topic+Process The guidelines outline all of the constitutional mandates on topic selection. We are soliciting papers of all 'types' (i.e., domestic, international, legal, etc.). Members of the committee have volunteered to work on a number of controversies, but we can always use help from the community. Last year's topic, for example, was authored by volunteers from the community. We hope to get such strong contributions again this year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gordon Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Apr 3 02:51:20 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 03:51:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Message-ID: <49D5BFF8.3030000@wfu.edu> To me, the best argument against the states counterplan is: There is no entity with the power to decide between state & federal action. Likewise with international fiat. Assuming that position is inane because the choice does not exist. Why do we need to get further into educational or fairness concerns? The choice posed by the counterplan is silly because no entity has the power to choose between the plan and the counterplan. That is the real damage done by the states counterplan: Voting negative rejects the plan for a reason nobody should consider. Its not just literature, or aff ground, or anything else, its real world choice. The fact that the states could do the plan better can't disprove that the USFG should, because that comparison does not exist to any real policy maker. If you actually find an entity with the power to choose between fiating the Federal Government and the States, please let me know! Non-logical choices lead to bad debates. We shouldn't found debate on nonsense. My solution? Win more theory debates. Tides will change if affs are right that 50 state fiat doesn't exist. --JP Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > > Go Vegetarian: Send the Sacred Cow of the States Counterplan Out to > Pasture > > (Title blatantly ripped off from an old DRG exchange on counterplans) > > Every year about this time I begin to work on the Baylor Briefs for > the high school topic as well as get ready for the upcoming Samford > Debate Institute. As I began to delve into the poverty topic, I got > excited about Affirmative possibilities. > > I found articles about: > > *Poverty and Immigration > > *Social Services in segregated areas with concentrations of poverty > > *Full Service Community Schools for Low-Income Children > > *Faith based legal services as bolstering legal benefits for those in > poverty > > And then I quickly realized the obvious. > > None of this matters. None of these affs are strategic, no negative > team will ever research any of them, nor will they learn about any of > this literature, because all of it will be obsolete when the 1nc says? > > The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all relevant territories > should implement the mandates of the affirmative plan? > > It?s time to put the sacred cow out to pasture. The states counterplan > devastates education and the benefits of in-depth, topic specific > research. The arguments in favor of it are weak, shallow, and > protected mainly by about a decade of presumed legitimacy and the > negative?s ability to spew off 15 answers to protect it. > > For my overview, I?ll make three arguments. > > First, the states counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic > topics. As a result, it not only devastates the educational benefits > students get when debating such a topic, it also severely limits the > range of topics that people will consider to be ?debatable? at the > collegiate level. This argument has particular salience every year > when it comes to the topic selection process, because many people will > not vote for certain resolutions because the states counterplan > eviscerates these resolutions. > > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature > base to answer it. The answers in the literature to the states > counterplan frequently consist of attacking the lack of uniformity on > the state level, hence justifying the action on the federal level. In > the world of the Lopez CP, not even the notion that something is > currently considered to be a federal only activity protects the aff. > I?ve seen federal nuclear policy, federal transportation policy, and > federal lands policies Lopez?d back to the states. > > Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? in the > resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To > paraphrase Will Repko on the consult counterplan, ?would anyone go to > an academic conference and defend a paper entitled: ?The States > Counterplan: providing in-depth education to generations of policy > debaters??? This paper title is far more persuasive: ?The States > Counterplan: shielding negative teams from topic specific research for > over a decade.? > > First, the counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. > Education is best served by the requirement that debaters do research > on a variety of different subjects. To some extent, this requires > getting rid of arguments that allow the negative to win without doing > such research. The incentives for either side to learn about the vast > majority of social services related to poverty will quickly be > undermined by the mere existence of the counterplan. Negative teams > will have their short-cut, and they will take it. Most will probably > cut a handful of cards on ?states can do legal services? or ?states > can solve immigration.? But that will be the depth of the negative > research necessary to beat the few teams that stray outside the > ?exclusively in federal domain? literature. > > I suspect we will see a lot of military aff?s and aff?s dealing with > federal agencies to try to carve out some narrow warrant for why the > USFG is necessary in this instance. The topic will be conceptually > very large (any social service for poverty), but practically very > narrow (only social services that have an overwhelming federal > government warrant). > > There is nothing inherently wrong with those affirmatives, but they > shouldn?t be the only functionally viable affirmatives allowed on the > topic. While seemingly very broad, the high school poverty topic is in > fact very narrow. The enormous hurdle of overcoming the states > counterplan will stunt the development of many affirmatives before > they even get started. There is also probably merit to a ?chilling? > argument that even if there may be some answers deep in the literature > on one of these affirmatives to the states counterplan, the > overwhelming hurdle states creates prevents that research to begin with. > > It would be better to simply draw a line and say that 50 state > counterplans are illegitimate. While there are certainly some benefits > to the discussion of states versus feds in any area, the notion that > the negative gets to wish away the entire 1ac in one fell swoop seems > extremely problematic. I can cite the obvious litany list of? > > -this is utopian > > -there is no literature at all pretending that all the states would do > this at the same time > > -they have zero solvency advocate > > -they gut topic specific education by recycling the tired > federal/states arguments year after year > > -they eliminate 95% plus of affirmative cases in one swoop > > -they destroy incentives for people to research huge areas of the > literature on poverty?meaning students never engage in or learn about > such literature > > -it isn?t reciprocal: the federal government is one agent, they get 50 > plus (considering they get states + territories + DC, and they also > probably FIAT?d devolution by an actor of the USFG?the Supreme > Court?to get there in the first place). > > At the same time, spewing off the litany list seems less persuasive > than just pointing out the overall damage the mere existence of the > states counterplan does to the way we debate topics. Instead of > encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the states cp > forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty > literature. > > Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with > every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow > literature base to research the topic to get around that blasted > ?federal government? warrant. Maybe it?s time we learned about more. > We are losing something here, and we are losing the in-depth > understanding about issues that are important for our students to > learn about, especially in trying economic times. > > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature > base to answer it. The magical ?FIAT wand? is incredibly synergistic > with the states counterplan, in that it wishes away the answers that > most ?rational policy-makers? in the real world cite to the logic of > having the states do the plan. > > There may be more to the ?rational policy-maker can?t assume others > will act? argument than we give it credit for. Can you imagine this > statement being made on the Senate floor, ?Senators, there is no need > for us to take this action today, because all 50 states are about to > unanimously act in a way they never have before, and the Supreme Court > will validate this, because all 50 states will cite the Michigan v > Long precedent insulating the action in their state constitutions from > federal strike down. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this > policy as it is unnecessary for us to act upon this.? > > You?d never see that statement because it is preposterous. The states > counterplan debates we get into are so far removed from real world > policy-making as to strain credulity. The world of debate we have > created with the states counterplan is incredibly at odds with the > literature based world that debate rests upon for its arguments. > > I?m not saying that clever teams don?t find ways to answer the states > counterplan. I have no doubt that the brilliant debate teachers who > work at camps across the country will come up with solutions to the > problem not predicated in debate theory. But to do so, they have to > create a world far removed from the core of the debate about whether > or not social services for poverty are justified. > > Even in my limited research, there is a robust literature on a variety > of potential social services for poverty. However, it is very likely > that this literature will never be tapped even to a limited degree by > most students at debate institutes this summer because the states > counterplan can solve all those affs. Additionally, so few judges seem > willing to take a stand against the states counterplan that debaters > are chilled from conducting such research in the first place. This > argument shapes the world of debate arguments by shutting off huge > areas of research before it even begins. The literature base and the > use of the states counterplan in debates simply doesn?t match up. > > Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? in the > resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To begin > with, the federalism disad provides those benefits. People can > research the question of federalism related to all of these issues by > running a disad. > > Ah, but federalism is a bad disad?on its own. The link isn?t very > good, the uniqueness is bad, the internal link is worse. Federalism > only works well when melded with its ever powerful ally that robs the > affirmative of all their case advantages. The hot ?federalism da? > works a lot better when the 2nr can parrot out the following about a > hundred times in a season, ?Counterplan solves 100% of the case, any > risk, [sqwak] any risk, [sqwak] any risk?Polly says any risk?? If we > get tired of hearing that same debate, we may need to set the alarm > clock and wake up from the world where states allows students to do > the same thing, over and over again, on this topic. > > One argument that is kind of tough to answer is that the benefits of > researching federalism in various areas around the globe is pretty > strong. But we do that all the time. Every single year (at least on > domestic topics), we have students do all the updates on ?Afghan > federalism good, Iraqi federalism good, Russian federalism good, > Nigerian federalism good, etc.? We rarely do research on whether or > not legal services for the poor are beneficial, necessary, > cost-effective, etc. Instead of recycling the same old generics, we > can have more robust debates specific to the topic. > > What is more interesting is why do we keep protecting the states > counterplan? It radically influences case selection on every topic, it > radically influences the way we select topics, it radically influences > everything we do. Is it so radical to just throw this baby out with > the bath water? > > One of my favorite song lyrics is from the Police?s ?Wrapped Around > Your Finger.? The line goes, ?I will turn your face to alabaster, when > you find your servant is your master.? Our creation, the states > counterplan, dictates too much of our thinking about affirmatives, > about topics, and about what kind of arguments we allow in debate. > Eliminating the states counterplan from the equation frees up our > thinking in new and different directions. > > A little thought experiment is how much time you will spend on camps > talking about areas like ?legal services,? ?education,? ?immigration,? > etc to students you teach at camp this summer? If the primary focal > point will be ?make sure we have a card saying that states can do > ?x,?? then we are short-circuiting the education possible on these > subjects. I think a much better pedagogical model would be multiple > seminars on ?answering legal cases,? ?answering education cases,? > ?answering immigration cases,? etc. Our students would get the > benefits of strategizing and researching about multiple different > facets of the poverty topic, as opposed to the tried and true, states > and federalism cocktail. > > Will this mean the aff wins more? Probably so. But in an era of all > the other kinds of neg ground available (a world of competing > interpretations on T, a world of high magnitude disads that turn the > case, a world of PIC?s, a world of Kritiks), are we really giving the > negative too little ground by getting rid of the states counterplan? > > Our education has gotten lazy and fat on the red meat diet of the > states counterplan. Go vegetarian. Get rid of the sacred cow. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From dylan.keenan at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 07:57:44 2009 From: dylan.keenan at gmail.com (Dylan Keenan) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 08:57:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: <49D5BFF8.3030000@wfu.edu> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> <49D5BFF8.3030000@wfu.edu> Message-ID: I strongly agree with what Ryan has written and I?ll add a few thoughts of my own. 1. There are a variety of ways to test beyond simply the disad. You can condition federal funding on mandatory state action, or conversely offer a block grant and let the states write the details of the policy. Both of these seem pretty pertinent to poverty and other domestic topics. They resolve JP?s concern about the logic of decision-making and preserve affirmative ground because the state response in these situations is often problematic and because the mechanisms are common enough to receive robust criticism, such as disads and solvency arguments, in the literature. 2. Why exactly is testing important for that matter? Utopian fiat and world government also test the plan in a sense. In fact, any negative strategy which competes is a test of something about the aff or the the topic. The point is that tests should be realistic, in that (a) the affirmative can strategically innovate within mainstream topic literature to respond to the CP and (b) it reflects the actual tradeoffs faced by real policy makers which are used to create better policy. Testing is good when you?re testing something useful in a useful way. It?s questionable if the states CP meets these criteria. 3. States promotes a troubling model of decision-making. I love the politics DA. Strategically I think it is awesome. But when it?s coupled with the states CP it says ?Don?t act. There?s someone else who can do it and you can avoid blame?. Basically it turns the topic decision-making into responsibility-shirking. 4. The requirement for a solvency advocate should bound best policy option considerations. A few examples: Lopez nuclear power, Devolve power to regulate CAFOS but isolated to that one instance. These are truly terrible ideas. Nuclear power is federal because only the feds have the massive infrastructure and control over interstate commerce of nuclear material. Devolving one regulatory power for absolutely no reason other than avoiding a disad would shred court credibility and raise many legal battles and massive uncertainty. But these proposals are also so absurd that they aren?t discussed anywhere (FYI, this is true of pretty much every K ever, not to mention Trainer?s de-dev arguments, but that?s another subject). My point is that frequently states, and more so, Lopez, are not the best policy, but the absurdity of the proposal makes it un-researchable and thus in evidence-dependent debate, it becomes impossible to prove a bad idea actually is bad. Under the guise of testing optimal agency we have strayed so far from real-world tests that we end up reaching a flawed conclusion. On another note, congratulations to Wake GL and Kansas BJ, two awesome teams and four wonderful people. Of course, they already know my thoughts on 50 state fiat. -dylan On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:51 AM, JP Lacy wrote: > To me, the best argument against the states counterplan is: > > There is no entity with the power to decide between state & federal > action. Likewise with international fiat. > > Assuming that position is inane because the choice does not exist. > > Why do we need to get further into educational or fairness concerns? > > The choice posed by the counterplan is silly because no entity has the > power to choose between the plan and the counterplan. > > That is the real damage done by the states counterplan: Voting negative > rejects the plan for a reason nobody should consider. > > Its not just literature, or aff ground, or anything else, its real world > choice. > > The fact that the states could do the plan better can't disprove that > the USFG should, because that comparison does not exist to any real > policy maker. > > If you actually find an entity with the power to choose between fiating > the Federal Government and the States, please let me know! > > Non-logical choices lead to bad debates. We shouldn't found debate on > nonsense. > > My solution? Win more theory debates. Tides will change if affs are > right that 50 state fiat doesn't exist. > > --JP > > > Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > > > > Go Vegetarian: Send the Sacred Cow of the States Counterplan Out to > > Pasture > > > > (Title blatantly ripped off from an old DRG exchange on counterplans) > > > > Every year about this time I begin to work on the Baylor Briefs for > > the high school topic as well as get ready for the upcoming Samford > > Debate Institute. As I began to delve into the poverty topic, I got > > excited about Affirmative possibilities. > > > > I found articles about: > > > > *Poverty and Immigration > > > > *Social Services in segregated areas with concentrations of poverty > > > > *Full Service Community Schools for Low-Income Children > > > > *Faith based legal services as bolstering legal benefits for those in > > poverty > > > > And then I quickly realized the obvious. > > > > None of this matters. None of these affs are strategic, no negative > > team will ever research any of them, nor will they learn about any of > > this literature, because all of it will be obsolete when the 1nc says? > > > > The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all relevant territories > > should implement the mandates of the affirmative plan? > > > > It?s time to put the sacred cow out to pasture. The states counterplan > > devastates education and the benefits of in-depth, topic specific > > research. The arguments in favor of it are weak, shallow, and > > protected mainly by about a decade of presumed legitimacy and the > > negative?s ability to spew off 15 answers to protect it. > > > > For my overview, I?ll make three arguments. > > > > First, the states counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic > > topics. As a result, it not only devastates the educational benefits > > students get when debating such a topic, it also severely limits the > > range of topics that people will consider to be ?debatable? at the > > collegiate level. This argument has particular salience every year > > when it comes to the topic selection process, because many people will > > not vote for certain resolutions because the states counterplan > > eviscerates these resolutions. > > > > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature > > base to answer it. The answers in the literature to the states > > counterplan frequently consist of attacking the lack of uniformity on > > the state level, hence justifying the action on the federal level. In > > the world of the Lopez CP, not even the notion that something is > > currently considered to be a federal only activity protects the aff. > > I?ve seen federal nuclear policy, federal transportation policy, and > > federal lands policies Lopez?d back to the states. > > > > Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? in the > > resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To > > paraphrase Will Repko on the consult counterplan, ?would anyone go to > > an academic conference and defend a paper entitled: ?The States > > Counterplan: providing in-depth education to generations of policy > > debaters??? This paper title is far more persuasive: ?The States > > Counterplan: shielding negative teams from topic specific research for > > over a decade.? > > > > First, the counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. > > Education is best served by the requirement that debaters do research > > on a variety of different subjects. To some extent, this requires > > getting rid of arguments that allow the negative to win without doing > > such research. The incentives for either side to learn about the vast > > majority of social services related to poverty will quickly be > > undermined by the mere existence of the counterplan. Negative teams > > will have their short-cut, and they will take it. Most will probably > > cut a handful of cards on ?states can do legal services? or ?states > > can solve immigration.? But that will be the depth of the negative > > research necessary to beat the few teams that stray outside the > > ?exclusively in federal domain? literature. > > > > I suspect we will see a lot of military aff?s and aff?s dealing with > > federal agencies to try to carve out some narrow warrant for why the > > USFG is necessary in this instance. The topic will be conceptually > > very large (any social service for poverty), but practically very > > narrow (only social services that have an overwhelming federal > > government warrant). > > > > There is nothing inherently wrong with those affirmatives, but they > > shouldn?t be the only functionally viable affirmatives allowed on the > > topic. While seemingly very broad, the high school poverty topic is in > > fact very narrow. The enormous hurdle of overcoming the states > > counterplan will stunt the development of many affirmatives before > > they even get started. There is also probably merit to a ?chilling? > > argument that even if there may be some answers deep in the literature > > on one of these affirmatives to the states counterplan, the > > overwhelming hurdle states creates prevents that research to begin with. > > > > It would be better to simply draw a line and say that 50 state > > counterplans are illegitimate. While there are certainly some benefits > > to the discussion of states versus feds in any area, the notion that > > the negative gets to wish away the entire 1ac in one fell swoop seems > > extremely problematic. I can cite the obvious litany list of? > > > > -this is utopian > > > > -there is no literature at all pretending that all the states would do > > this at the same time > > > > -they have zero solvency advocate > > > > -they gut topic specific education by recycling the tired > > federal/states arguments year after year > > > > -they eliminate 95% plus of affirmative cases in one swoop > > > > -they destroy incentives for people to research huge areas of the > > literature on poverty?meaning students never engage in or learn about > > such literature > > > > -it isn?t reciprocal: the federal government is one agent, they get 50 > > plus (considering they get states + territories + DC, and they also > > probably FIAT?d devolution by an actor of the USFG?the Supreme > > Court?to get there in the first place). > > > > At the same time, spewing off the litany list seems less persuasive > > than just pointing out the overall damage the mere existence of the > > states counterplan does to the way we debate topics. Instead of > > encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the states cp > > forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty > > literature. > > > > Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with > > every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow > > literature base to research the topic to get around that blasted > > ?federal government? warrant. Maybe it?s time we learned about more. > > We are losing something here, and we are losing the in-depth > > understanding about issues that are important for our students to > > learn about, especially in trying economic times. > > > > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature > > base to answer it. The magical ?FIAT wand? is incredibly synergistic > > with the states counterplan, in that it wishes away the answers that > > most ?rational policy-makers? in the real world cite to the logic of > > having the states do the plan. > > > > There may be more to the ?rational policy-maker can?t assume others > > will act? argument than we give it credit for. Can you imagine this > > statement being made on the Senate floor, ?Senators, there is no need > > for us to take this action today, because all 50 states are about to > > unanimously act in a way they never have before, and the Supreme Court > > will validate this, because all 50 states will cite the Michigan v > > Long precedent insulating the action in their state constitutions from > > federal strike down. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this > > policy as it is unnecessary for us to act upon this.? > > > > You?d never see that statement because it is preposterous. The states > > counterplan debates we get into are so far removed from real world > > policy-making as to strain credulity. The world of debate we have > > created with the states counterplan is incredibly at odds with the > > literature based world that debate rests upon for its arguments. > > > > I?m not saying that clever teams don?t find ways to answer the states > > counterplan. I have no doubt that the brilliant debate teachers who > > work at camps across the country will come up with solutions to the > > problem not predicated in debate theory. But to do so, they have to > > create a world far removed from the core of the debate about whether > > or not social services for poverty are justified. > > > > Even in my limited research, there is a robust literature on a variety > > of potential social services for poverty. However, it is very likely > > that this literature will never be tapped even to a limited degree by > > most students at debate institutes this summer because the states > > counterplan can solve all those affs. Additionally, so few judges seem > > willing to take a stand against the states counterplan that debaters > > are chilled from conducting such research in the first place. This > > argument shapes the world of debate arguments by shutting off huge > > areas of research before it even begins. The literature base and the > > use of the states counterplan in debates simply doesn?t match up. > > > > Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? in the > > resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To begin > > with, the federalism disad provides those benefits. People can > > research the question of federalism related to all of these issues by > > running a disad. > > > > Ah, but federalism is a bad disad?on its own. The link isn?t very > > good, the uniqueness is bad, the internal link is worse. Federalism > > only works well when melded with its ever powerful ally that robs the > > affirmative of all their case advantages. The hot ?federalism da? > > works a lot better when the 2nr can parrot out the following about a > > hundred times in a season, ?Counterplan solves 100% of the case, any > > risk, [sqwak] any risk, [sqwak] any risk?Polly says any risk?? If we > > get tired of hearing that same debate, we may need to set the alarm > > clock and wake up from the world where states allows students to do > > the same thing, over and over again, on this topic. > > > > One argument that is kind of tough to answer is that the benefits of > > researching federalism in various areas around the globe is pretty > > strong. But we do that all the time. Every single year (at least on > > domestic topics), we have students do all the updates on ?Afghan > > federalism good, Iraqi federalism good, Russian federalism good, > > Nigerian federalism good, etc.? We rarely do research on whether or > > not legal services for the poor are beneficial, necessary, > > cost-effective, etc. Instead of recycling the same old generics, we > > can have more robust debates specific to the topic. > > > > What is more interesting is why do we keep protecting the states > > counterplan? It radically influences case selection on every topic, it > > radically influences the way we select topics, it radically influences > > everything we do. Is it so radical to just throw this baby out with > > the bath water? > > > > One of my favorite song lyrics is from the Police?s ?Wrapped Around > > Your Finger.? The line goes, ?I will turn your face to alabaster, when > > you find your servant is your master.? Our creation, the states > > counterplan, dictates too much of our thinking about affirmatives, > > about topics, and about what kind of arguments we allow in debate. > > Eliminating the states counterplan from the equation frees up our > > thinking in new and different directions. > > > > A little thought experiment is how much time you will spend on camps > > talking about areas like ?legal services,? ?education,? ?immigration,? > > etc to students you teach at camp this summer? If the primary focal > > point will be ?make sure we have a card saying that states can do > > ?x,?? then we are short-circuiting the education possible on these > > subjects. I think a much better pedagogical model would be multiple > > seminars on ?answering legal cases,? ?answering education cases,? > > ?answering immigration cases,? etc. Our students would get the > > benefits of strategizing and researching about multiple different > > facets of the poverty topic, as opposed to the tried and true, states > > and federalism cocktail. > > > > Will this mean the aff wins more? Probably so. But in an era of all > > the other kinds of neg ground available (a world of competing > > interpretations on T, a world of high magnitude disads that turn the > > case, a world of PIC?s, a world of Kritiks), are we really giving the > > negative too little ground by getting rid of the states counterplan? > > > > Our education has gotten lazy and fat on the red meat diet of the > > states counterplan. Go vegetarian. Get rid of the sacred cow. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20090403/7ed373f6/attachment.htm From richardgarner at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 10:01:00 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:01:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0904030801w151df58cy3ae0149224aecc14@mail.gmail.com> (1) "What is more interesting is why do we keep protecting the states counterplan?" I think that this question is more important than the amount of time Ryan spends on this question, though he begins to answer it with his discussion of the federalism disadvantage. Let me reframe the question this way: What kind of political practice does this focus on the States CP valorize? And I think Ryan is correct that it is precisely the discussion of slick, fun foreign wars and bloody conflicts that debate has trained has us to see as interesting and crucial, whereas questions of poverty, and domestic policy in general, are seen as mundane. The States CP allows us to talk about Afghani devloution and Russian Oblast fragmentation, instead of poverty reduction, &c. I think that, if those who want to Defeat the States CP desire to succeed, the discussion should maybe begin from the point that it's probably true that most debaters/debate coaches want to/enjoy debating this type of political objectivization. There is a whole series of practices that this concept finds its roots in, a whole series of valorized discourses it authorizes, and it is in and against these that the criticism of the States CP will come to bear; I don't think theory alone will accomplish this goal, but only a re-definition and enriching of the terms under which theories are organized, not just fairness but education. (2) I was going to leave this as a snarky post-script, but Dylan discusses parenthetically proposals "so absurd that they aren't discussed anywhere (FYI, this is true of pretty much every K ever, not to mention Trainer's de-dev arguments, but that's another subject)." I think, contra Dylan, you'll probably find precisely the communal resources, at least in things like the languages of 'impact comparison' and the perspective on political chocies, in critique that are necessary to question the politics of the States CP, and you'll probably also find the same impulse to run critiques is the one that does not like at all what tools such as the States CP do to political discussions. (Also, Ted Trainer is extensively discussed in the literature, especially among ecologists, even if that discussion is somewhat obscure; all critiques have answers, they just need to be given the same research as any other argument.) In any case, the argument is simple: the critique as a conceptual tool probably owes a substantial part of its existence to its ability to open up precisely just the types of spaces of discussion that the States CP operates to deny. (3) Opportunity cost. I'm open to this perspective, but doesn't it beg the question of what position the judge adopts. Certainly grassroots movements or political think-tanks, among others, are presented with an opportunity cost decision to focus resources on producing policy ideas for either states or federal government. Not that that answers the literature argument, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows this idea better. RG 2009/4/3 Galloway, Ryan W. > > Go Vegetarian: Send the Sacred Cow of the States Counterplan Out to > Pasture > > (Title blatantly ripped off from an old DRG exchange on counterplans) > > Every year about this time I begin to work on the Baylor Briefs for the > high school topic as well as get ready for the upcoming Samford Debate > Institute. As I began to delve into the poverty topic, I got excited about > Affirmative possibilities. > > I found articles about: > > *Poverty and Immigration > > *Social Services in segregated areas with concentrations of poverty > > *Full Service Community Schools for Low-Income Children > > *Faith based legal services as bolstering legal benefits for those in > poverty > > And then I quickly realized the obvious. > > None of this matters. None of these affs are strategic, no negative team > will ever research any of them, nor will they learn about any of this > literature, because all of it will be obsolete when the 1nc says > > The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all relevant territories > should implement the mandates of the affirmative plan > > It s time to put the sacred cow out to pasture. The states counterplan > devastates education and the benefits of in-depth, topic specific research. > The arguments in favor of it are weak, shallow, and protected mainly by > about a decade of presumed legitimacy and the negative s ability to spew off > 15 answers to protect it. > > For my overview, I ll make three arguments. > > First, the states counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. > As a result, it not only devastates the educational benefits students get > when debating such a topic, it also severely limits the range of topics that > people will consider to be debatable at the collegiate level. This > argument has particular salience every year when it comes to the topic > selection process, because many people will not vote for certain > resolutions because the states counterplan eviscerates these resolutions. > > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature base to > answer it. The answers in the literature to the states counterplan > frequently consist of attacking the lack of uniformity on the state level, > hence justifying the action on the federal level. In the world of the Lopez > CP, not even the notion that something is currently considered to be a > federal only activity protects the aff. I ve seen federal nuclear policy, > federal transportation policy, and federal lands policies Lopez d back to > the states. > > Third, the benefits of testing the federal government in the resolution > with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To paraphrase Will Repko > on the consult counterplan, would anyone go to an academic conference and > defend a paper entitled: The States Counterplan: providing in-depth > education to generations of policy debaters? This paper title is far more > persuasive: The States Counterplan: shielding negative teams from topic > specific research for over a decade. > > First, the counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. > Education is best served by the requirement that debaters do research on a > variety of different subjects. To some extent, this requires getting rid of > arguments that allow the negative to win without doing such research. The > incentives for either side to learn about the vast majority of social > services related to poverty will quickly be undermined by the mere existence > of the counterplan. Negative teams will have their short-cut, and they will > take it. Most will probably cut a handful of cards on states can do legal > services or states can solve immigration. But that will be the depth of > the negative research necessary to beat the few teams that stray outside the > exclusively in federal domain literature. > > I suspect we will see a lot of military aff s and aff s dealing with > federal agencies to try to carve out some narrow warrant for why the USFG is > necessary in this instance. The topic will be conceptually very large (any > social service for poverty), but practically very narrow (only social > services that have an overwhelming federal government warrant). > > There is nothing inherently wrong with those affirmatives, but they > shouldn t be the only functionally viable affirmatives allowed on the > topic. While seemingly very broad, the high school poverty topic is in fact > very narrow. The enormous hurdle of overcoming the states counterplan will > stunt the development of many affirmatives before they even get started. > There is also probably merit to a chilling argument that even if there may > be some answers deep in the literature on one of these affirmatives to the > states counterplan, the overwhelming hurdle states creates prevents that > research to begin with. > > It would be better to simply draw a line and say that 50 state counterplans > are illegitimate. While there are certainly some benefits to the discussion > of states versus feds in any area, the notion that the negative gets to wish > away the entire 1ac in one fell swoop seems extremely problematic. I can > cite the obvious litany list of > > -this is utopian > > -there is no literature at all pretending that all the states would do this > at the same time > > -they have zero solvency advocate > > -they gut topic specific education by recycling the tired federal/states > arguments year after year > > -they eliminate 95% plus of affirmative cases in one swoop > > -they destroy incentives for people to research huge areas of the > literature on poverty meaning students never engage in or learn about such > literature > > -it isn t reciprocal: the federal government is one agent, they get 50 > plus (considering they get states + territories + DC, and they also probably > FIAT d devolution by an actor of the USFG the Supreme Court to get there in > the first place). > > At the same time, spewing off the litany list seems less persuasive than > just pointing out the overall damage the mere existence of the states > counterplan does to the way we debate topics. Instead of encouraging > understanding of issues related to poverty, the states cp forces everyone > involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty literature. > > Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with > every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow literature > base to research the topic to get around that blasted federal government > warrant. Maybe it s time we learned about more. We are losing something > here, and we are losing the in-depth understanding about issues that are > important for our students to learn about, especially in trying economic > times. > > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature base to > answer it. The magical FIAT wand is incredibly synergistic with the > states counterplan, in that it wishes away the answers that most rational > policy-makers in the real world cite to the logic of having the states do > the plan. > > There may be more to the rational policy-maker can t assume others will > act argument than we give it credit for. Can you imagine this statement > being made on the Senate floor, Senators, there is no need for us to take > this action today, because all 50 states are about to unanimously act in a > way they never have before, and the Supreme Court will validate this, > because all 50 states will cite the Michigan v Long precedent insulating the > action in their state constitutions from federal strike down. Therefore, I > urge my colleagues to reject this policy as it is unnecessary for us to act > upon this. > > You d never see that statement because it is preposterous. The states > counterplan debates we get into are so far removed from real world > policy-making as to strain credulity. The world of debate we have created > with the states counterplan is incredibly at odds with the literature based > world that debate rests upon for its arguments. > > I m not saying that clever teams don t find ways to answer the states > counterplan. I have no doubt that the brilliant debate teachers who work at > camps across the country will come up with solutions to the problem not > predicated in debate theory. But to do so, they have to create a world far > removed from the core of the debate about whether or not social services for > poverty are justified. > > Even in my limited research, there is a robust literature on a variety of > potential social services for poverty. However, it is very likely that this > literature will never be tapped even to a limited degree by most students at > debate institutes this summer because the states counterplan can solve all > those affs. Additionally, so few judges seem willing to take a stand > against the states counterplan that debaters are chilled from conducting > such research in the first place. This argument shapes the world of debate > arguments by shutting off huge areas of research before it even begins. The > literature base and the use of the states counterplan in debates simply > doesn t match up. > > Third, the benefits of testing the federal government in the resolution > with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To begin with, the > federalism disad provides those benefits. People can research the question > of federalism related to all of these issues by running a disad. > > Ah, but federalism is a bad disad on its own. The link isn t very good, > the uniqueness is bad, the internal link is worse. Federalism only works > well when melded with its ever powerful ally that robs the affirmative of > all their case advantages. The hot federalism da works a lot better when > the 2nr can parrot out the following about a hundred times in a season, > Counterplan solves 100% of the case, any risk, [sqwak] any risk, [sqwak] > any risk Polly says any risk If we get tired of hearing that same debate, > we may need to set the alarm clock and wake up from the world where states > allows students to do the same thing, over and over again, on this topic. > > One argument that is kind of tough to answer is that the benefits of > researching federalism in various areas around the globe is pretty strong. > But we do that all the time. Every single year (at least on domestic > topics), we have students do all the updates on Afghan federalism good, > Iraqi federalism good, Russian federalism good, Nigerian federalism good, > etc. We rarely do research on whether or not legal services for the poor > are beneficial, necessary, cost-effective, etc. Instead of recycling the > same old generics, we can have more robust debates specific to the topic. > > What is more interesting is why do we keep protecting the states > counterplan? It radically influences case selection on every topic, it > radically influences the way we select topics, it radically influences > everything we do. Is it so radical to just throw this baby out with the > bath water? > > One of my favorite song lyrics is from the Police s Wrapped Around Your > Finger. The line goes, I will turn your face to alabaster, when you find > your servant is your master. Our creation, the states counterplan, dictates > too much of our thinking about affirmatives, about topics, and about what > kind of arguments we allow in debate. Eliminating the states counterplan > from the equation frees up our thinking in new and different directions. > > A little thought experiment is how much time you will spend on camps > talking about areas like legal services, education, immigration, etc > to students you teach at camp this summer? If the primary focal point will > be make sure we have a card saying that states can do x, then we are > short-circuiting the education possible on these subjects. I think a much > better pedagogical model would be multiple seminars on answering legal > cases, answering education cases, answering immigration cases, etc. > Our students would get the benefits of strategizing and researching about > multiple different facets of the poverty topic, as opposed to the tried and > true, states and federalism cocktail. > > Will this mean the aff wins more? Probably so. But in an era of all the > other kinds of neg ground available (a world of competing interpretations on > T, a world of high magnitude disads that turn the case, a world of PIC s, a > world of Kritiks), are we really giving the negative too little ground by > getting rid of the states counterplan? > > Our education has gotten lazy and fat on the red meat diet of the states > counterplan. Go vegetarian. Get rid of the sacred cow. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090403/f2b7edd5/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Apr 3 10:18:02 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:18:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ede warner is "the key" Message-ID: in my history of black c-x debate, i don't know if calling keys is the best idea but ede was the 'best competitor' with the set-up y'all got going on. he challenged the process of debate to the max and his arguments, in my opinion, went unanswered. the inability of the debate community to offer more than token opportunities for blacks despite their inclusive liberal rhetoric drove ede, 'the key', elsewhere. hypocrisy and a lack of critical thinking ability amongst the collegiate debate community is the 'key argument' from the 'key figure' in black debate history. ede's posts in the edebate archives are partial proof of the 'key failures' of c-x over the years. cull those and show me the good answers to ede's arguments? ede don't need a teleprompter cuz he can speak for himself and ede ain't a yes man. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/abff1aef/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 10:29:58 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:29:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> <49D5BFF8.3030000@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <524839830904030829s72a8cecbqba93fbfb774815f@mail.gmail.com> The arguments that Ryan, JP, and Dylan make are all very persuasive to me. I do, however, think that there is at least one, and maybe three, arguments in its defense. Breadth. As noted by Ryan, this social services/poverty topic is an incredbily large topic. One of the primary arguments made in defense of this broad wording at the topic meeting was that the states counterplan and federal "justification" arguments would effectively narrow it. The voting was close enough that I do not think that a resolution of this breadth would have made it on the final ballot without many people being reassured that the negative's states cp would reign the topic in. In a word of such broad topics, especially very broad high school topics, I think that this argument is at least difficult to overcome. Fiat. I don't have a great articulation of this argument, but the basic idea is that since the advantages aren't intrinsic to federal action, the affirmative really couldn't claim its advantages absent its ability to "fiat" state action. To adequately discusse the general merits of state vs. federal action, the negative should be able to use state fiat to fiat solvency for the non-intrinsic advantages the same way that the affirmative is. Reality. Social/domestic issues are generally not addressed at the federal level. They *can be,* but most of the action of the action occurs at the state level and there is certainly a reasonable, "real world" argument as to why those issues should be addressed at that level. In all of the articles that you read on the poverty topic, there are way more advocates for state and local action than federal action. I will add one caveat: One potential solution is to strip USFG from at least some domestic resolutions. Say "nearly all" states (I know "nearly all" brings baggage, but something along that lines may work). This also elimates the politics DA, which may be getting old for some And, it would be good to get rid of the politics DA at least for a year on domestic topics because in modern risk calculus (small percentage risk of extinction o/wing domestic deaths), there is no way that people are going to run many of the cases that Ryan describes even without a states counterplan (though we could probably find other big impact generics to replace politics -- inflaiton, housing markets). On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Dylan Keenan wrote: > I strongly agree with what Ryan has written and I?ll add a few thoughts of > my own. > > > > 1. There are a variety of ways to test beyond simply the disad. You > can condition federal funding on mandatory state action, or conversely offer > a block grant and let the states write the details of the policy. Both of > these seem pretty pertinent to poverty and other domestic topics. They > resolve JP?s concern about the logic of decision-making and preserve > affirmative ground because the state response in these situations is often > problematic and because the mechanisms are common enough to receive robust > criticism, such as disads and solvency arguments, in the literature. > > 2. Why exactly is testing important for that matter? Utopian fiat and > world government also test the plan in a sense. In fact, any negative > strategy which competes is a test of something about the aff or the the > topic. The point is that tests should be realistic, in that (a) the > affirmative can strategically innovate within mainstream topic literature to > respond to the CP and (b) it reflects the actual tradeoffs faced by real > policy makers which are used to create better policy. Testing is good when > you?re testing something useful in a useful way. It?s questionable if the > states CP meets these criteria. > > 3. States promotes a troubling model of decision-making. I love the > politics DA. Strategically I think it is awesome. But when it?s coupled with > the states CP it says ?Don?t act. There?s someone else who can do it and you > can avoid blame?. Basically it turns the topic decision-making into > responsibility-shirking. > > 4. The requirement for a solvency advocate should bound best policy > option considerations. A few examples: Lopez nuclear power, Devolve power to > regulate CAFOS but isolated to that one instance. These are truly terrible > ideas. Nuclear power is federal because only the feds have the massive > infrastructure and control over interstate commerce of nuclear material. > Devolving one regulatory power for absolutely no reason other than avoiding > a disad would shred court credibility and raise many legal battles and > massive uncertainty. But these proposals are also so absurd that they aren?t > discussed anywhere (FYI, this is true of pretty much every K ever, not to > mention Trainer?s de-dev arguments, but that?s another subject). My point is > that frequently states, and more so, Lopez, are not the best policy, but the > absurdity of the proposal makes it un-researchable and thus in > evidence-dependent debate, it becomes impossible to prove a bad idea > actually is bad. Under the guise of testing optimal agency we have strayed > so far from real-world tests that we end up reaching a flawed conclusion. > > > > On another note, congratulations to Wake GL and Kansas BJ, two awesome > teams and four wonderful people. Of course, they already know my thoughts on > 50 state fiat. > > > > -dylan > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 3:51 AM, JP Lacy wrote: > >> To me, the best argument against the states counterplan is: >> >> There is no entity with the power to decide between state & federal >> action. Likewise with international fiat. >> >> Assuming that position is inane because the choice does not exist. >> >> Why do we need to get further into educational or fairness concerns? >> >> The choice posed by the counterplan is silly because no entity has the >> power to choose between the plan and the counterplan. >> >> That is the real damage done by the states counterplan: Voting negative >> rejects the plan for a reason nobody should consider. >> >> Its not just literature, or aff ground, or anything else, its real world >> choice. >> >> The fact that the states could do the plan better can't disprove that >> the USFG should, because that comparison does not exist to any real >> policy maker. >> >> If you actually find an entity with the power to choose between fiating >> the Federal Government and the States, please let me know! >> >> Non-logical choices lead to bad debates. We shouldn't found debate on >> nonsense. >> >> My solution? Win more theory debates. Tides will change if affs are >> right that 50 state fiat doesn't exist. >> >> --JP >> >> >> Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: >> > >> > Go Vegetarian: Send the Sacred Cow of the States Counterplan Out to >> > Pasture >> > >> > (Title blatantly ripped off from an old DRG exchange on counterplans) >> > >> > Every year about this time I begin to work on the Baylor Briefs for >> > the high school topic as well as get ready for the upcoming Samford >> > Debate Institute. As I began to delve into the poverty topic, I got >> > excited about Affirmative possibilities. >> > >> > I found articles about: >> > >> > *Poverty and Immigration >> > >> > *Social Services in segregated areas with concentrations of poverty >> > >> > *Full Service Community Schools for Low-Income Children >> > >> > *Faith based legal services as bolstering legal benefits for those in >> > poverty >> > >> > And then I quickly realized the obvious. >> > >> > None of this matters. None of these affs are strategic, no negative >> > team will ever research any of them, nor will they learn about any of >> > this literature, because all of it will be obsolete when the 1nc says? >> > >> > The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all relevant territories >> > should implement the mandates of the affirmative plan? >> > >> > It?s time to put the sacred cow out to pasture. The states counterplan >> > devastates education and the benefits of in-depth, topic specific >> > research. The arguments in favor of it are weak, shallow, and >> > protected mainly by about a decade of presumed legitimacy and the >> > negative?s ability to spew off 15 answers to protect it. >> > >> > For my overview, I?ll make three arguments. >> > >> > First, the states counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic >> > topics. As a result, it not only devastates the educational benefits >> > students get when debating such a topic, it also severely limits the >> > range of topics that people will consider to be ?debatable? at the >> > collegiate level. This argument has particular salience every year >> > when it comes to the topic selection process, because many people will >> > not vote for certain resolutions because the states counterplan >> > eviscerates these resolutions. >> > >> > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature >> > base to answer it. The answers in the literature to the states >> > counterplan frequently consist of attacking the lack of uniformity on >> > the state level, hence justifying the action on the federal level. In >> > the world of the Lopez CP, not even the notion that something is >> > currently considered to be a federal only activity protects the aff. >> > I?ve seen federal nuclear policy, federal transportation policy, and >> > federal lands policies Lopez?d back to the states. >> > >> > Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? in the >> > resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To >> > paraphrase Will Repko on the consult counterplan, ?would anyone go to >> > an academic conference and defend a paper entitled: ?The States >> > Counterplan: providing in-depth education to generations of policy >> > debaters??? This paper title is far more persuasive: ?The States >> > Counterplan: shielding negative teams from topic specific research for >> > over a decade.? >> > >> > First, the counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. >> > Education is best served by the requirement that debaters do research >> > on a variety of different subjects. To some extent, this requires >> > getting rid of arguments that allow the negative to win without doing >> > such research. The incentives for either side to learn about the vast >> > majority of social services related to poverty will quickly be >> > undermined by the mere existence of the counterplan. Negative teams >> > will have their short-cut, and they will take it. Most will probably >> > cut a handful of cards on ?states can do legal services? or ?states >> > can solve immigration.? But that will be the depth of the negative >> > research necessary to beat the few teams that stray outside the >> > ?exclusively in federal domain? literature. >> > >> > I suspect we will see a lot of military aff?s and aff?s dealing with >> > federal agencies to try to carve out some narrow warrant for why the >> > USFG is necessary in this instance. The topic will be conceptually >> > very large (any social service for poverty), but practically very >> > narrow (only social services that have an overwhelming federal >> > government warrant). >> > >> > There is nothing inherently wrong with those affirmatives, but they >> > shouldn?t be the only functionally viable affirmatives allowed on the >> > topic. While seemingly very broad, the high school poverty topic is in >> > fact very narrow. The enormous hurdle of overcoming the states >> > counterplan will stunt the development of many affirmatives before >> > they even get started. There is also probably merit to a ?chilling? >> > argument that even if there may be some answers deep in the literature >> > on one of these affirmatives to the states counterplan, the >> > overwhelming hurdle states creates prevents that research to begin with. >> > >> > It would be better to simply draw a line and say that 50 state >> > counterplans are illegitimate. While there are certainly some benefits >> > to the discussion of states versus feds in any area, the notion that >> > the negative gets to wish away the entire 1ac in one fell swoop seems >> > extremely problematic. I can cite the obvious litany list of? >> > >> > -this is utopian >> > >> > -there is no literature at all pretending that all the states would do >> > this at the same time >> > >> > -they have zero solvency advocate >> > >> > -they gut topic specific education by recycling the tired >> > federal/states arguments year after year >> > >> > -they eliminate 95% plus of affirmative cases in one swoop >> > >> > -they destroy incentives for people to research huge areas of the >> > literature on poverty?meaning students never engage in or learn about >> > such literature >> > >> > -it isn?t reciprocal: the federal government is one agent, they get 50 >> > plus (considering they get states + territories + DC, and they also >> > probably FIAT?d devolution by an actor of the USFG?the Supreme >> > Court?to get there in the first place). >> > >> > At the same time, spewing off the litany list seems less persuasive >> > than just pointing out the overall damage the mere existence of the >> > states counterplan does to the way we debate topics. Instead of >> > encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the states cp >> > forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty >> > literature. >> > >> > Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with >> > every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow >> > literature base to research the topic to get around that blasted >> > ?federal government? warrant. Maybe it?s time we learned about more. >> > We are losing something here, and we are losing the in-depth >> > understanding about issues that are important for our students to >> > learn about, especially in trying economic times. >> > >> > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature >> > base to answer it. The magical ?FIAT wand? is incredibly synergistic >> > with the states counterplan, in that it wishes away the answers that >> > most ?rational policy-makers? in the real world cite to the logic of >> > having the states do the plan. >> > >> > There may be more to the ?rational policy-maker can?t assume others >> > will act? argument than we give it credit for. Can you imagine this >> > statement being made on the Senate floor, ?Senators, there is no need >> > for us to take this action today, because all 50 states are about to >> > unanimously act in a way they never have before, and the Supreme Court >> > will validate this, because all 50 states will cite the Michigan v >> > Long precedent insulating the action in their state constitutions from >> > federal strike down. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this >> > policy as it is unnecessary for us to act upon this.? >> > >> > You?d never see that statement because it is preposterous. The states >> > counterplan debates we get into are so far removed from real world >> > policy-making as to strain credulity. The world of debate we have >> > created with the states counterplan is incredibly at odds with the >> > literature based world that debate rests upon for its arguments. >> > >> > I?m not saying that clever teams don?t find ways to answer the states >> > counterplan. I have no doubt that the brilliant debate teachers who >> > work at camps across the country will come up with solutions to the >> > problem not predicated in debate theory. But to do so, they have to >> > create a world far removed from the core of the debate about whether >> > or not social services for poverty are justified. >> > >> > Even in my limited research, there is a robust literature on a variety >> > of potential social services for poverty. However, it is very likely >> > that this literature will never be tapped even to a limited degree by >> > most students at debate institutes this summer because the states >> > counterplan can solve all those affs. Additionally, so few judges seem >> > willing to take a stand against the states counterplan that debaters >> > are chilled from conducting such research in the first place. This >> > argument shapes the world of debate arguments by shutting off huge >> > areas of research before it even begins. The literature base and the >> > use of the states counterplan in debates simply doesn?t match up. >> > >> > Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? in the >> > resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated. To begin >> > with, the federalism disad provides those benefits. People can >> > research the question of federalism related to all of these issues by >> > running a disad. >> > >> > Ah, but federalism is a bad disad?on its own. The link isn?t very >> > good, the uniqueness is bad, the internal link is worse. Federalism >> > only works well when melded with its ever powerful ally that robs the >> > affirmative of all their case advantages. The hot ?federalism da? >> > works a lot better when the 2nr can parrot out the following about a >> > hundred times in a season, ?Counterplan solves 100% of the case, any >> > risk, [sqwak] any risk, [sqwak] any risk?Polly says any risk?? If we >> > get tired of hearing that same debate, we may need to set the alarm >> > clock and wake up from the world where states allows students to do >> > the same thing, over and over again, on this topic. >> > >> > One argument that is kind of tough to answer is that the benefits of >> > researching federalism in various areas around the globe is pretty >> > strong. But we do that all the time. Every single year (at least on >> > domestic topics), we have students do all the updates on ?Afghan >> > federalism good, Iraqi federalism good, Russian federalism good, >> > Nigerian federalism good, etc.? We rarely do research on whether or >> > not legal services for the poor are beneficial, necessary, >> > cost-effective, etc. Instead of recycling the same old generics, we >> > can have more robust debates specific to the topic. >> > >> > What is more interesting is why do we keep protecting the states >> > counterplan? It radically influences case selection on every topic, it >> > radically influences the way we select topics, it radically influences >> > everything we do. Is it so radical to just throw this baby out with >> > the bath water? >> > >> > One of my favorite song lyrics is from the Police?s ?Wrapped Around >> > Your Finger.? The line goes, ?I will turn your face to alabaster, when >> > you find your servant is your master.? Our creation, the states >> > counterplan, dictates too much of our thinking about affirmatives, >> > about topics, and about what kind of arguments we allow in debate. >> > Eliminating the states counterplan from the equation frees up our >> > thinking in new and different directions. >> > >> > A little thought experiment is how much time you will spend on camps >> > talking about areas like ?legal services,? ?education,? ?immigration,? >> > etc to students you teach at camp this summer? If the primary focal >> > point will be ?make sure we have a card saying that states can do >> > ?x,?? then we are short-circuiting the education possible on these >> > subjects. I think a much better pedagogical model would be multiple >> > seminars on ?answering legal cases,? ?answering education cases,? >> > ?answering immigration cases,? etc. Our students would get the >> > benefits of strategizing and researching about multiple different >> > facets of the poverty topic, as opposed to the tried and true, states >> > and federalism cocktail. >> > >> > Will this mean the aff wins more? Probably so. But in an era of all >> > the other kinds of neg ground available (a world of competing >> > interpretations on T, a world of high magnitude disads that turn the >> > case, a world of PIC?s, a world of Kritiks), are we really giving the >> > negative too little ground by getting rid of the states counterplan? >> > >> > Our education has gotten lazy and fat on the red meat diet of the >> > states counterplan. Go vegetarian. Get rid of the sacred cow. >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Founder & Editor, Politicsarguments.com (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/f8a6742d/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 10:36:19 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:36:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: <17bee7eb0904030801w151df58cy3ae0149224aecc14@mail.gmail.com> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> <17bee7eb0904030801w151df58cy3ae0149224aecc14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10904030836g3de2e118wd3797186430f1fd9@mail.gmail.com> Seven comments about this State CP discussion. 1. Bracketing out theories about the illuminati, at least one actor has the ability to directly choose between Federal and State action: the debate judge. This is roughly the same number of actors who have the ability to dictate Congressional/Presidential cooperation to get a particular law passed & signed, not to mention funded, implemented, and upheld in perpetuity. Although I like the 'no single actor' argument because negatives often answer it poorly, I don't see it as a silver bullet in the abstract. 2. People would bank more of their 2nr?s on case defense if case defense were rewarded more, relative to CP?s. Instead, judges reconsider 1ac evidence that has been poorly extended or not extended at all, prefer that evidence over smart analytic arguments, etc., while having relatively lower standards for negative performance on counter agent CP?s. There are reasons for this, and perhaps even good reasons, but I think the solution lies more in privileging case debate than in banning classes of counterplans outright (not exactly sure such a ban has been proposed). 3. Fritch used to judge in a way which made it very easy for affirmative to win that a CP wasn?t legitimate and very hard for the affirmative to elevate this objection to voting issue status. If the judging pool were filled with such judges, I think these concerns about state CP?s would be greatly lessened. 4. ?Argument not the team? takes the bite out of theory objections to a CP. Thus, it should perhaps lower the threshold for what it takes to beat a CP on theory. Don?t get me wrong ? I think the 1ar should engage, line by line, the justifications proposed by the negative for their counterplans. But, when they do, judges should be willing to exclude a CP from the round, without prejudice toward the same type of CP in the next round (when perhaps the aff didn?t engage the theory debate as completely). It is possible to beat back the negative?s ?10 reasons why States CP?s are critical? in under 1 minute provided that (a) some of them were terrible (b) the judge was willing to let this debate resolve fairly and (c) the debater was confident enough about (b) that they were comfortable going all in on the theory objection as their 1ar response to the CP, and then heading off to the next page. 5. The solution in #3 is great, because it means negatives would feel less comfortable going into the 1nc with ?only? a state CP to refute the case (thus encouraging research) but also negatives could feel ?more? comfortable going into a 2nr with the state CP instead of the case debate (assuming the aff was good on the case and bad on the CP) instead of worrying that the judge would be there to lend the aff a hand. 6. Fiat durability is part of the issue here as well. In time, the states could surely develop redundant nuclear safety expertise. But, given the inefficiencies of that approach, the system would probably gravitate back toward the federal government. Attitudinal inherency doesn?t have to lock in rollback (after all, some body of government did just vote for the plan/c-plan), but using fiat to bracket out discussions of what might happen next makes it hard for affirmatives to bank on many of the best solvency deficits. You never know how strongly the judge will be committed to durable fiat. 7. I agree with Ricky that many debaters privilege certain types of impacts, but I disagree that the K is an effective solution to these problems. Although I think a lot of the K literature is very interesting and important, in actual K debates judges often encourage clash avoidance (side stepping through minimal distinctions), let people wiggle out of impact turns, encourage new and hidden alternatives, allow implicit framework arguments (like ?rep?s first?) to dramatically refocus the rounds, etc. The generalized ambiguity about how K rounds are to be resolved leads to considerable inconsistency from round to round. That inconsistency appears to favor certain teams over others (which ones? It depends on the point of view of the observer), and makes hyper specific strategies against particular K?s ineffective, while they should be extremely effective. A more positive spin on the same phenomenon would be ?when there are no rules, the better debater always wins.? (which sounds fine, but it?s nice when the weaker debater can sometimes win through hard work and preparation). In this way, the post structural orientation of some K?s and many K friendly critics tends to disincentivize K debating. (I would be happy to brainstorm friendly solutions to this problem with anyone who shares my assessment in broad terms). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/11fc9552/attachment.htm From richardgarner at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 11:12:56 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:12:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: <6bd35ee10904030836g3de2e118wd3797186430f1fd9@mail.gmail.com> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> <17bee7eb0904030801w151df58cy3ae0149224aecc14@mail.gmail.com> <6bd35ee10904030836g3de2e118wd3797186430f1fd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0904030912y38898f1aja29f9e41b50964a0@mail.gmail.com> "I agree with Ricky that many debaters privilege certain types of impacts, but I disagree that the K is an effective solution to these problems." Let me rephrase: I don't think that critique is a solution to this problem. My argument is that debate operates as a larger discursive structure whose concepts valorize or disallow certain discourses, and that this valorization tends toward an overall objectivization (organization of objects of analysis via practice and discourse) that privileges questions of externally oriented national policy (and thus, ultimately, geopolitics) measured by a discourse of utilitarianism. Whether or not this is a good or a bad thing, or why this is the case, debate likes/wants/desires/prefers/chooses to be this way, and has developed an aresenal of concepts designed to stabilize this focus. The States CP is one of these tools, and one of the primary ones. In this sense, critiques per se are not a solution to the States CP tout court, unless by that one means that they, and this is an empirical question, refocus debate on questions of nonutilitarian political choices, or produce subjective positions that have been able to open up political discussion that operate outside this central circuity of evaluation. In this sense, the critique has already been an answer to the States CP, and an effective one. What the critique has done is posed questions about what it means to debate, and what debate's proper coordinates are, on the level of a theory that pluralizes and enriches the calcified concepts of education, fairness, political action, government policymaking, and jurisdiction (five seconds of a topicality violation when I was in high school). The greater depth into which these questions can be analyzed in debate today versus ten years ago is undeniable, even shocking (despite the often extremely well-justified wishes of many that these discussion would go away ... and I judge more framework debates than most). It is precisely at this level that critiques have provided conceptual tools that might be useful in advancing a slightly different standard of policymaking, though I think the real value is in focusing not on what the stakes are re: States CP, but where the stakes are located. RG p.s. I would also like to add, that one of the problems of the discussion might be that there is no unified theory of action that can allow for certain CPs while excluding others that we do want; we can make the arguments a la a series of justifications, but there is no strong conceptual differentiation that does not allow for both possibilities to exist. For example, it may be that opportunity cost allows for such a conceptual organization, but it seems like opportunity cost also negates the conceptual validity of the politics disadvantage. Most people are unprepared to accept such collateral damage. p.p.s. I think that an answer to Stefan's arguments would be: 1) Dylan's argument re: block grants, etc, which would look much more like the literature and restrict the actor to the FG, and 2) abandoning the States CP would force policy-area specific CP choices, which would increase the depth of debates re: the negative's approach to research, whereas there is currently no incentive to research these areas at all because the States CP is an option. 2009/4/3 Eric Morris > Seven comments about this State CP discussion. > > > > 1. Bracketing out theories about the illuminati, at least one actor has > the ability to directly choose between Federal and State action: the debate > judge. This is roughly the same number of actors who have the ability to > dictate Congressional/Presidential cooperation to get a particular law > passed & signed, not to mention funded, implemented, and upheld in > perpetuity. Although I like the 'no single actor' argument because negatives > often answer it poorly, I don't see it as a silver bullet in the abstract. > 2. People would bank more of their 2nr?s on case defense if case > defense were rewarded more, relative to CP?s. Instead, judges reconsider 1ac > evidence that has been poorly extended or not extended at all, prefer that > evidence over smart analytic arguments, etc., while having relatively lower > standards for negative performance on counter agent CP?s. There are reasons > for this, and perhaps even good reasons, but I think the solution lies more > in privileging case debate than in banning classes of counterplans outright > (not exactly sure such a ban has been proposed). > 3. Fritch used to judge in a way which made it very easy for > affirmative to win that a CP wasn?t legitimate and very hard for the > affirmative to elevate this objection to voting issue status. If the judging > pool were filled with such judges, I think these concerns about state CP?s > would be greatly lessened. > 4. ?Argument not the team? takes the bite out of theory objections to a > CP. Thus, it should perhaps lower the threshold for what it takes to beat a > CP on theory. Don?t get me wrong ? I think the 1ar should engage, line by > line, the justifications proposed by the negative for their counterplans. > But, when they do, judges should be willing to exclude a CP from the round, > without prejudice toward the same type of CP in the next round (when perhaps > the aff didn?t engage the theory debate as completely). It is possible to > beat back the negative?s ?10 reasons why States CP?s are critical? in under > 1 minute provided that (a) some of them were terrible (b) the judge was > willing to let this debate resolve fairly and (c) the debater was confident > enough about (b) that they were comfortable going all in on the theory > objection as their 1ar response to the CP, and then heading off to the next > page. > 5. The solution in #3 is great, because it means negatives would feel > less comfortable going into the 1nc with ?only? a state CP to refute the > case (thus encouraging research) but also negatives could feel ?more? > comfortable going into a 2nr with the state CP instead of the case debate > (assuming the aff was good on the case and bad on the CP) instead of > worrying that the judge would be there to lend the aff a hand. > 6. Fiat durability is part of the issue here as well. In time, the > states could surely develop redundant nuclear safety expertise. But, given > the inefficiencies of that approach, the system would probably gravitate > back toward the federal government. Attitudinal inherency doesn?t have to > lock in rollback (after all, some body of government did just vote for the > plan/c-plan), but using fiat to bracket out discussions of what might happen > next makes it hard for affirmatives to bank on many of the best solvency > deficits. You never know how strongly the judge will be committed to durable > fiat. > 7. I agree with Ricky that many debaters privilege certain types of > impacts, but I disagree that the K is an effective solution to these > problems. Although I think a lot of the K literature is very interesting and > important, in actual K debates judges often encourage clash avoidance (side > stepping through minimal distinctions), let people wiggle out of impact > turns, encourage new and hidden alternatives, allow implicit framework > arguments (like ?rep?s first?) to dramatically refocus the rounds, etc. The > generalized ambiguity about how K rounds are to be resolved leads to > considerable inconsistency from round to round. That inconsistency appears > to favor certain teams over others (which ones? It depends on the point of > view of the observer), and makes hyper specific strategies against > particular K?s ineffective, while they should be extremely effective. A more > positive spin on the same phenomenon would be ?when there are no rules, the > better debater always wins.? (which sounds fine, but it?s nice when the > weaker debater can sometimes win through hard work and preparation). In this > way, the post structural orientation of some K?s and many K friendly critics > tends to disincentivize K debating. (I would be happy to brainstorm friendly > solutions to this problem with anyone who shares my assessment in broad > terms). > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090403/ba2473fe/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 12:18:31 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:18:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: <17bee7eb0904030912y38898f1aja29f9e41b50964a0@mail.gmail.com> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> <17bee7eb0904030801w151df58cy3ae0149224aecc14@mail.gmail.com> <6bd35ee10904030836g3de2e118wd3797186430f1fd9@mail.gmail.com> <17bee7eb0904030912y38898f1aja29f9e41b50964a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10904031018y5d9e3308q5b68b20a346ccba6@mail.gmail.com> 1. Identifying current practices as 'calcified' is not equivalent to refuting them. To critique a concept is not to refute it, but at most to propose a line of inquiry. Judges should encourage direct refutation of critiques, and often judging privileges indirect refutation and discourages direct refutation. It should thus be unsurprising that few debaters select direct refutation. I don't ask that K debates go away - I would like to see them decided more consistently. I suggest a degree of calcification is thus good, since it makes it easier to train debaters what they should be looking for when they cut cards about a particular K. 2. Few arguments disenfranchise undergraduate research as much as the K as currently practiced - particularly due to the ambiguities of how debate rounds will be decided. It should be much easier to (a) get people to offer their cites (including first word/last word) as is the expectation for academic work in other settings (b) get mileage from attacking the assumptions behind a particular book or article - which often have a far stronger link to the K than the K often does to the case and (c) describe in fair detail the alternative framework assumptions under which the K is operating to anticipate which arguments 'count' and why. Creating a norm where attacking the K directly is a better path to victory would increase greatly the number of people who attempted that approach. I should note that there are some judges who will give counter evidence to the K a great deal of weight, but many do not. Like policy arguments, there are lots of practices that have the combined effect of protecting K's as strong strategic options. 3. Evaluation of a particular debate may (and should!) draw upon arguments about whether a particular argument is 'good for debate', but individual round decisions should focus more on answering the question at hand (who won THIS debate) than the broader question (invoking a strong bias against the states CP, or the K, etc.). 4. I'm not willing to concede either that (a) no states CP's are opportunity costs or (b) no politics disads are opportunity costs. In the latter case, I think it depends on the link. I do think any 'unified theory of action' is a formula for calcification. But, I'm not opposed to calcification per se. 5. I do think that theory arguments which oppose not ALL states counterplans, but certain types of fiat (uniformity) which negate much of the lit base, might be a way forward. This PIC-based approach to theory debating has won a lot of rounds, particularly on topicality. On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Richard A. Garner wrote: > "I agree with Ricky that many debaters privilege certain types of impacts, > but I disagree that the K is an effective solution to these problems." > > Let me rephrase: I don't think that critique is a solution to this problem. > My argument is that debate operates as a larger discursive structure whose > concepts valorize or disallow certain discourses, and that this valorization > tends toward an overall objectivization (organization of objects of analysis > via practice and discourse) that privileges questions of externally oriented > national policy (and thus, ultimately, geopolitics) measured by a discourse > of utilitarianism. Whether or not this is a good or a bad thing, or why this > is the case, debate likes/wants/desires/prefers/chooses to be this way, and > has developed an aresenal of concepts designed to stabilize this focus. The > States CP is one of these tools, and one of the primary ones. > > In this sense, critiques per se are not a solution to the States CP tout > court, unless by that one means that they, and this is an empirical > question, refocus debate on questions of nonutilitarian political choices, > or produce subjective positions that have been able to open up political > discussion that operate outside this central circuity of evaluation. In this > sense, the critique has already been an answer to the States CP, and an > effective one. > > What the critique has done is posed questions about what it means to > debate, and what debate's proper coordinates are, on the level of a theory > that pluralizes and enriches the calcified concepts of education, fairness, > political action, government policymaking, and jurisdiction (five seconds of > a topicality violation when I was in high school). The greater depth into > which these questions can be analyzed in debate today versus ten years ago > is undeniable, even shocking (despite the often extremely well-justified > wishes of many that these discussion would go away ... and I judge more > framework debates than most). > > It is precisely at this level that critiques have provided conceptual tools > that might be useful in advancing a slightly different standard of > policymaking, though I think the real value is in focusing not on what the > stakes are re: States CP, but where the stakes are located. > > RG > > p.s. I would also like to add, that one of the problems of the discussion > might be that there is no unified theory of action that can allow for > certain CPs while excluding others that we do want; we can make the > arguments a la a series of justifications, but there is no strong conceptual > differentiation that does not allow for both possibilities to exist. For > example, it may be that opportunity cost allows for such a conceptual > organization, but it seems like opportunity cost also negates the conceptual > validity of the politics disadvantage. Most people are unprepared to accept > such collateral damage. > > p.p.s. I think that an answer to Stefan's arguments would be: 1) Dylan's > argument re: block grants, etc, which would look much more like the > literature and restrict the actor to the FG, and 2) abandoning the States CP > would force policy-area specific CP choices, which would increase the depth > of debates re: the negative's approach to research, whereas there is > currently no incentive to research these areas at all because the States CP > is an option. > > > > 2009/4/3 Eric Morris > >> Seven comments about this State CP discussion. >> >> >> >> 1. Bracketing out theories about the illuminati, at least one actor >> has the ability to directly choose between Federal and State action: the >> debate judge. This is roughly the same number of actors who have the ability >> to dictate Congressional/Presidential cooperation to get a particular law >> passed & signed, not to mention funded, implemented, and upheld in >> perpetuity. Although I like the 'no single actor' argument because negatives >> often answer it poorly, I don't see it as a silver bullet in the abstract. >> 2. People would bank more of their 2nr?s on case defense if case >> defense were rewarded more, relative to CP?s. Instead, judges reconsider 1ac >> evidence that has been poorly extended or not extended at all, prefer that >> evidence over smart analytic arguments, etc., while having relatively lower >> standards for negative performance on counter agent CP?s. There are reasons >> for this, and perhaps even good reasons, but I think the solution lies more >> in privileging case debate than in banning classes of counterplans outright >> (not exactly sure such a ban has been proposed). >> 3. Fritch used to judge in a way which made it very easy for >> affirmative to win that a CP wasn?t legitimate and very hard for the >> affirmative to elevate this objection to voting issue status. If the judging >> pool were filled with such judges, I think these concerns about state CP?s >> would be greatly lessened. >> 4. ?Argument not the team? takes the bite out of theory objections to >> a CP. Thus, it should perhaps lower the threshold for what it takes to beat >> a CP on theory. Don?t get me wrong ? I think the 1ar should engage, line by >> line, the justifications proposed by the negative for their counterplans. >> But, when they do, judges should be willing to exclude a CP from the round, >> without prejudice toward the same type of CP in the next round (when perhaps >> the aff didn?t engage the theory debate as completely). It is possible to >> beat back the negative?s ?10 reasons why States CP?s are critical? in under >> 1 minute provided that (a) some of them were terrible (b) the judge was >> willing to let this debate resolve fairly and (c) the debater was confident >> enough about (b) that they were comfortable going all in on the theory >> objection as their 1ar response to the CP, and then heading off to the next >> page. >> 5. The solution in #3 is great, because it means negatives would feel >> less comfortable going into the 1nc with ?only? a state CP to refute the >> case (thus encouraging research) but also negatives could feel ?more? >> comfortable going into a 2nr with the state CP instead of the case debate >> (assuming the aff was good on the case and bad on the CP) instead of >> worrying that the judge would be there to lend the aff a hand. >> 6. Fiat durability is part of the issue here as well. In time, the >> states could surely develop redundant nuclear safety expertise. But, given >> the inefficiencies of that approach, the system would probably gravitate >> back toward the federal government. Attitudinal inherency doesn?t have to >> lock in rollback (after all, some body of government did just vote for the >> plan/c-plan), but using fiat to bracket out discussions of what might happen >> next makes it hard for affirmatives to bank on many of the best solvency >> deficits. You never know how strongly the judge will be committed to durable >> fiat. >> 7. I agree with Ricky that many debaters privilege certain types of >> impacts, but I disagree that the K is an effective solution to these >> problems. Although I think a lot of the K literature is very interesting and >> important, in actual K debates judges often encourage clash avoidance (side >> stepping through minimal distinctions), let people wiggle out of impact >> turns, encourage new and hidden alternatives, allow implicit framework >> arguments (like ?rep?s first?) to dramatically refocus the rounds, etc. The >> generalized ambiguity about how K rounds are to be resolved leads to >> considerable inconsistency from round to round. That inconsistency appears >> to favor certain teams over others (which ones? It depends on the point of >> view of the observer), and makes hyper specific strategies against >> particular K?s ineffective, while they should be extremely effective. A more >> positive spin on the same phenomenon would be ?when there are no rules, the >> better debater always wins.? (which sounds fine, but it?s nice when the >> weaker debater can sometimes win through hard work and preparation). In this >> way, the post structural orientation of some K?s and many K friendly critics >> tends to disincentivize K debating. (I would be happy to brainstorm friendly >> solutions to this problem with anyone who shares my assessment in broad >> terms). >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20090403/7fa943e5/attachment.htm From blackdebateguy at hotmail.com Fri Apr 3 12:24:35 2009 From: blackdebateguy at hotmail.com (Douglas Dennis) Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:24:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History In-Reply-To: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB25D@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: What about Hotep X? DD On 4/2/09 2:42 PM, "Kuswa, Kevin" wrote: > Adam, > > yes, clemmons key. > > also, had the privilege of working with Andre Hylton and Will Griffin at > Dartmouth. They were a VERY strong team on the south asia topic, often > overshadowed by dartmouth's top team of sklaver and lovitt because they were > historically sick (came back their senior years after winning ndt to not drop > a ballot at kentucky). > > Anyway, Will and Andre were solid--maybe 12th first round or so. Will may > have single-handedly re-invigorated the "case press" into the case pimp. do > with that what you may. they ran a "clean up the ganges river" aff. > > For your purposes (it seems by your questions), they reached the quarters of > the ndt---I believe losing to wake (fledderman and grant). They did not > deploy white face (totally awesome btw) and instead opted for a russia DA. > > still, though, Clemmons and Palo-Coburn key. > > looking forward to talking some more stuff with you in the future. > > kevin > > > > ________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of > omar guevara [oguevara at hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:24 PM > To: sjsnider at ksu.edu; baltimoredebate at gmail.com > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History > > Steve Clemmons and NCP, Weber State NDT 1995 (maybe 1996 - first year of the > merger) 4-4, 14 ballots. FIRST team to really push race and ethnicity issues > in college debate. With Bear at the helm and the legendary Bill Shanahan as > the field coach and ADOF, they made alot of teams cringe with Space Traders. > DD could tell you more, but old Steve was quite a debater back in the day. > > Actually you can't talk about the his-her story of Black participation in > college debate (esp. out west), without talking about Steve...in the words of > HST...he was the trouble we were always looing for :). > > OG > > > Omar G Guevara II > Director of Forensics > Department of Communication > College of Arts & Humanities > Weber State University > Ogden, Utah > > 801.626.6220 (Office) > 801.668.6910 (Cell) > > Oguevara at hotmail.com > Oguevara at weber.edu > > > PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM > > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:19:13 -0500 >> From: sjsnider at ksu.edu >> To: baltimoredebate at gmail.com >> CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History >> >> While I agree with you Adam, that there is a lack of knowledge about >> Black History in debate, there are quite a few influential and >> interesting characters who do not meet your litmus test of being "top >> speaker" or "winning the NDT or CEDA". >> >> Hotep X debated for Brown University in the 1970's. Hotep X wasn't his >> real name, but he used that name to mystify his white opponents by >> pretending to be a black muslim in the early 70's. Word on the street >> is that it really made some people afraid of him. He was in >> semi-finals at the NDT although he was not a member of an "all black" >> team. >> >> My knowledge goes dead for a little while, there is a big gap in what >> I know. I might be mistaken, but I think Cleopatra Jones from the >> University of Vermont was the first black woman to earn a top 10 >> speaker award at CEDA Nats. >> >> Shanara Reid, who never debated with a black partner, or even had the >> opportunity to qualify for the NDT was incredibly influential in the >> history of black debate in the late 90's and continues today. She was >> the first black woman to debate on the last day of CEDA Nationals. >> >> While these accomplishments are all great, one thing Shanara and Cleo >> both reminded me of, was that they didn't want to be the "best black >> women" in debate, they would settle for just being remembered as great >> debaters regardless.......... >> >> There are particularly a lot of black women in debate who get lost in >> the shuffle as they never represented top speaker, or a championship >> team but in their own way definitely influenced debate. It is perhaps >> these stories that you might find the most interesting. >> >> I hope you find what you are looking for. >> >> Sarah >> >> 2009/4/2 Adam Jackson : >>> You know what debate community? I need some info. >>> For the past three years of my participation in college debate, I have come >>> to realize something. >>> I know very little about Black History in debate (outside of people randomly >>> talking to each other about it, or mere myths that are perpetuated over >>> time) >>> So I want you all to help me out with some names and programs of some folks >>> who have won the awards listed at the bottom. Please correct me if I'm >>> wrong. >>> Black Top Speakers at CEDA: >>> Elizabeth Jones, UofL, 2004 >>> Dayvon Love, Towson, 2009 >>> Black Top Speakers at the NDT: >>> ??? >>> First Black Person to Win CEDA: >>> Rashad Evans with Sarah Holbrook, West Georgia, (dont know year) >>> All Black Team Champions at CEDA: >>> Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper, Towson, 2008 >>> >>> Black Champions at the NDT: >>> ??? >>> First All Black Team to Qualify for NDT: >>> ??? >>> First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at CEDA: >>> ??? >>> First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at NDT: >>> ??? >>> Also, it would be useful if someone knows the first black top speakers and >>> teams at these tournaments as well (since they're so prestigious): >>> West Georgia >>> Harvard >>> Wake Forest >>> "Northwestern" >>> Cal Swings >>> West Georgia >>> JV/Novice Nats >>> Kentucky >>> >>> Thank you and any info is much appreciated. >>> -- >>> Adam J. Jackson >>> Towson Debate...All Day >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > ________________________________ > Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet > Explorer 8. Download FREE > now! MSN55C0701A> > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From bendabiri at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 13:05:54 2009 From: bendabiri at gmail.com (Ben Dabiri) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:05:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] finals round of ceda Message-ID: <9da771770904031105s3e551eb5ue9b89f0d444b5c71@mail.gmail.com> so when do we get to see the "watts-crush"? i heard there were at least three cameras in that round, yet not one of them has made it to the intertubes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/28b5508b/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 13:15:01 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:15:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] finals round of ceda In-Reply-To: <9da771770904031105s3e551eb5ue9b89f0d444b5c71@mail.gmail.com> References: <9da771770904031105s3e551eb5ue9b89f0d444b5c71@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904031115x35a1543bp7f28caef48af78c9@mail.gmail.com> its in the process, towson tech people processing them... On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Ben Dabiri wrote: > so when do we get to see the "watts-crush"? i heard there were at least > three cameras in that round, yet not one of them has made it to the > intertubes. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090403/5b23ddda/attachment.htm From matt.paz at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 13:19:05 2009 From: matt.paz at gmail.com (Matt Paz) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:19:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] just throwing this out there... In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0904022214rbaca5e3pf24144eae53e2071@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0904022214rbaca5e3pf24144eae53e2071@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ummmm... finish school and contact us later stop being a debate leach and a two faced liar GET A JOB!!! 2009/4/3 Andy Ellis > over the last semester i have realized that no matter how frustrated debate > had me last summer its still where my home is, so i am looking for a place > to work ...what i am looking for is a place that can pay me enough to live > like an adult in the place where the university is and provides classes at > the university and health insurance as a benefit...if you think thats an > outlandish request, so be it, if you are at or know of a school that has > such a position, or think something can be worked out, lemme know...there > are some things i am considering right now, but i thought i would expand my > field of possibilities and see whats out there... > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090403/6e064725/attachment.htm From matt.paz at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 13:22:30 2009 From: matt.paz at gmail.com (Matt Paz) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:22:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] just throwing this out there... In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0904022214rbaca5e3pf24144eae53e2071@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: and if you weren't on edebate so much, you might have a job. On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Matt Paz wrote: > ummmm... finish school and contact us later > stop being a debate leach and a two faced liar > GET A JOB!!! > > 2009/4/3 Andy Ellis > >> over the last semester i have realized that no matter how frustrated >> debate had me last summer its still where my home is, so i am looking for a >> place to work ...what i am looking for is a place that can pay me enough to >> live like an adult in the place where the university is and provides classes >> at the university and health insurance as a benefit...if you think thats an >> outlandish request, so be it, if you are at or know of a school that has >> such a position, or think something can be worked out, lemme know...there >> are some things i am considering right now, but i thought i would expand my >> field of possibilities and see whats out there... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20090403/27056c28/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 3 13:35:25 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:35:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3174B78F3@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Message-ID: <402292.27160.qm@web53506.mail.re2.yahoo.com> There is a pedagogically and competitively sound version of the states counterplan, and it is the one that has a single state do something and then uses the actual evidence about you know, state experimentation, modelling, and such to, hey, i don't know, debate what the thing would actually look like in relationship to the actual literature that hardworking debaters and coaches find about a particular plan. Proponents of the states counterplan claim that we need it to test federal key warrants. That is all well and good. I agree. But the most ardent supporters of the states counterplan want it both ways- they want to claim the counterplan's legitimacy by making reference to its necessity to test the resolutional agent while simultaneously deploying the counterplan in such a way that it has no relationship to the debate in the literature about how exactly such a thing as the plan would be done at the state level. Example: States spending disads are often read against states counterplans, but the states counterplan is often able to get out of these with 2NC counterplans, or just building an end to balanced budget amendments into the counterplan, or whatnot. That the states don't actually have the money to implement the plan isn't consider a real impediment. In what world is "not having the money" not a relevant and useful question for deciding on a particular course of action? Certainly we behave as though the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is constrained by these concerns-- spending disads, reverse spending disads, and interest rate disads all relate to this concern. Whats even more ironic is that the 2NC counterplans or anticipatory 1NC Cp planks exist to beat say, a state politics or some such thing. And yet the net benefit to the counterplan is almost always politics. So let me get this straight: the negative, by virtue of having won a computer assigned coin flip, gets to wish away a number of valid concerns simply by virtue of being negative when it is questionable whether their own net benefit to the counterplan virtuously tests the necessity of the federal action? i'm probably ok with the politics disad at the end of the day but then you need to consider the fact that if IT is a relevant test of the aff, then the DAs to the cp are relevant tests too. CERTAINLY we might consider at least limiting the fiat of the counterplan to not include planks which moot questions of the "federal key" warrant assumed in the literature. For example, if you have good ev that the Courts would rollback the states counterplan because it violated federal jurisdiction, it seems to me that this plank out to be clearly theoretically illegitimate because it essentially grants the affirmative's premise: yes, the federal government is key, but WHAT IF IT WAS NOT. What question do we think this is answering? What educational benefit is possibly provided? And sense no one votes on education anymore, its just not fair. Debaters write affs based on what exists in the literature. The literature seems to indicate there is a debate about whether or not the court would strike down the counterplan. The aff sets off for GSU with their aff, comfortable against the states counterplan because the court would not allow it. the negative has the court not grant cert to the challenge and says "look, this tests WHETHER YOU HAVE A FEDERAL KEY WARRANT". That does not make any damn sense to me. The uniformity thing is a good target to aim at, but the extra planks that make the debate about something which is assumed nowhere in the literature base seem to me to be the first things that need to go. PJ --- On Fri, 4/3/09, Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > From: Galloway, Ryan W. > Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 2:04 AM > Go Vegetarian: Send the Sacred Cow of the States > Counterplan Out to Pasture > > (Title blatantly ripped off from an old DRG exchange on > counterplans) > > Every year about this time I begin to work on the Baylor > Briefs for the high school topic as well as get ready for > the upcoming Samford Debate Institute. As I began to delve > into the poverty topic, I got excited about Affirmative > possibilities. > > I found articles about: > > *Poverty and Immigration > > *Social Services in segregated areas with concentrations of > poverty > > *Full Service Community Schools for Low-Income Children > > *Faith based legal services as bolstering legal benefits > for those in poverty > > And then I quickly realized the obvious. > > None of this matters. None of these affs are strategic, no > negative team will ever research any of them, nor will they > learn about any of this literature, because all of it will > be obsolete when the 1nc says? > > The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all relevant > territories should implement the mandates of the affirmative > plan? > > It?s time to put the sacred cow out to pasture. The > states counterplan devastates education and the benefits of > in-depth, topic specific research. The arguments in favor > of it are weak, shallow, and protected mainly by about a > decade of presumed legitimacy and the negative?s ability > to spew off 15 answers to protect it. > > For my overview, I?ll make three arguments. > > First, the states counterplan guts in-depth education on > domestic topics. As a result, it not only devastates the > educational benefits students get when debating such a > topic, it also severely limits the range of topics that > people will consider to be ?debatable? at the collegiate > level. This argument has particular salience every year > when it comes to the topic selection process, because many > people will not vote for certain resolutions because the > states counterplan eviscerates these resolutions. > > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the > literature base to answer it. The answers in the literature > to the states counterplan frequently consist of attacking > the lack of uniformity on the state level, hence justifying > the action on the federal level. In the world of the Lopez > CP, not even the notion that something is currently > considered to be a federal only activity protects the aff. > I?ve seen federal nuclear policy, federal transportation > policy, and federal lands policies Lopez?d back to the > states. > > Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? > in the resolution with the states counterplan are vastly > overstated. To paraphrase Will Repko on the consult > counterplan, ?would anyone go to an academic conference > and defend a paper entitled: ?The States Counterplan: > providing in-depth education to generations of policy > debaters??? This paper title is far more persuasive: > ?The States Counterplan: shielding negative teams from > topic specific research for over a decade.? > > First, the counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic > topics. Education is best served by the requirement that > debaters do research on a variety of different subjects. To > some extent, this requires getting rid of arguments that > allow the negative to win without doing such research. The > incentives for either side to learn about the vast majority > of social services related to poverty will quickly be > undermined by the mere existence of the counterplan. > Negative teams will have their short-cut, and they will take > it. Most will probably cut a handful of cards on ?states > can do legal services? or ?states can solve > immigration.? But that will be the depth of the negative > research necessary to beat the few teams that stray outside > the ?exclusively in federal domain? literature. > > I suspect we will see a lot of military aff?s and aff?s > dealing with federal agencies to try to carve out some > narrow warrant for why the USFG is necessary in this > instance. The topic will be conceptually very large (any > social service for poverty), but practically very narrow > (only social services that have an overwhelming federal > government warrant). > > There is nothing inherently wrong with those affirmatives, > but they shouldn?t be the only functionally viable > affirmatives allowed on the topic. While seemingly very > broad, the high school poverty topic is in fact very narrow. > The enormous hurdle of overcoming the states counterplan > will stunt the development of many affirmatives before they > even get started. There is also probably merit to a > ?chilling? argument that even if there may be some > answers deep in the literature on one of these affirmatives > to the states counterplan, the overwhelming hurdle states > creates prevents that research to begin with. > > It would be better to simply draw a line and say that 50 > state counterplans are illegitimate. While there are > certainly some benefits to the discussion of states versus > feds in any area, the notion that the negative gets to wish > away the entire 1ac in one fell swoop seems extremely > problematic. I can cite the obvious litany list of? > > -this is utopian > > -there is no literature at all pretending that all the > states would do this at the same time > > -they have zero solvency advocate > > -they gut topic specific education by recycling the tired > federal/states arguments year after year > > -they eliminate 95% plus of affirmative cases in one swoop > > -they destroy incentives for people to research huge areas > of the literature on poverty?meaning students never engage > in or learn about such literature > > -it isn?t reciprocal: the federal government is one > agent, they get 50 plus (considering they get states + > territories + DC, and they also probably FIAT?d devolution > by an actor of the USFG?the Supreme Court?to get there > in the first place). > > At the same time, spewing off the litany list seems less > persuasive than just pointing out the overall damage the > mere existence of the states counterplan does to the way we > debate topics. Instead of encouraging understanding of > issues related to poverty, the states cp forces everyone > involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty literature. > > > Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and > grapples with every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned > off to a narrow literature base to research the topic to get > around that blasted ?federal government? warrant. Maybe > it?s time we learned about more. We are losing something > here, and we are losing the in-depth understanding about > issues that are important for our students to learn about, > especially in trying economic times. > > Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the > literature base to answer it. The magical ?FIAT wand? > is incredibly synergistic with the states counterplan, in > that it wishes away the answers that most ?rational > policy-makers? in the real world cite to the logic of > having the states do the plan. > > There may be more to the ?rational policy-maker can?t > assume others will act? argument than we give it credit > for. Can you imagine this statement being made on the > Senate floor, ?Senators, there is no need for us to take > this action today, because all 50 states are about to > unanimously act in a way they never have before, and the > Supreme Court will validate this, because all 50 states will > cite the Michigan v Long precedent insulating the action in > their state constitutions from federal strike down. > Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this policy as it > is unnecessary for us to act upon this.? > > You?d never see that statement because it is > preposterous. The states counterplan debates we get into > are so far removed from real world policy-making as to > strain credulity. The world of debate we have created with > the states counterplan is incredibly at odds with the > literature based world that debate rests upon for its > arguments. > > I?m not saying that clever teams don?t find ways to > answer the states counterplan. I have no doubt that the > brilliant debate teachers who work at camps across the > country will come up with solutions to the problem not > predicated in debate theory. But to do so, they have to > create a world far removed from the core of the debate about > whether or not social services for poverty are justified. > > Even in my limited research, there is a robust literature > on a variety of potential social services for poverty. > However, it is very likely that this literature will never > be tapped even to a limited degree by most students at > debate institutes this summer because the states counterplan > can solve all those affs. Additionally, so few judges seem > willing to take a stand against the states counterplan that > debaters are chilled from conducting such research in the > first place. This argument shapes the world of debate > arguments by shutting off huge areas of research before it > even begins. The literature base and the use of the states > counterplan in debates simply doesn?t match up. > > Third, the benefits of testing the ?federal government? > in the resolution with the states counterplan are vastly > overstated. To begin with, the federalism disad provides > those benefits. People can research the question of > federalism related to all of these issues by running a > disad. > > Ah, but federalism is a bad disad?on its own. The link > isn?t very good, the uniqueness is bad, the internal link > is worse. Federalism only works well when melded with its > ever powerful ally that robs the affirmative of all their > case advantages. The hot ?federalism da? works a lot > better when the 2nr can parrot out the following about a > hundred times in a season, ?Counterplan solves 100% of the > case, any risk, [sqwak] any risk, [sqwak] any risk?Polly > says any risk?? If we get tired of hearing that same > debate, we may need to set the alarm clock and wake up from > the world where states allows students to do the same thing, > over and over again, on this topic. > > One argument that is kind of tough to answer is that the > benefits of researching federalism in various areas around > the globe is pretty strong. But we do that all the time. > Every single year (at least on domestic topics), we have > students do all the updates on ?Afghan federalism good, > Iraqi federalism good, Russian federalism good, Nigerian > federalism good, etc.? We rarely do research on whether or > not legal services for the poor are beneficial, necessary, > cost-effective, etc. Instead of recycling the same old > generics, we can have more robust debates specific to the > topic. > > What is more interesting is why do we keep protecting the > states counterplan? It radically influences case selection > on every topic, it radically influences the way we select > topics, it radically influences everything we do. Is it so > radical to just throw this baby out with the bath water? > > One of my favorite song lyrics is from the Police?s > ?Wrapped Around Your Finger.? The line goes, ?I will > turn your face to alabaster, when you find your servant is > your master.? Our creation, the states counterplan, > dictates too much of our thinking about affirmatives, about > topics, and about what kind of arguments we allow in debate. > Eliminating the states counterplan from the equation frees > up our thinking in new and different directions. > > A little thought experiment is how much time you will spend > on camps talking about areas like ?legal services,? > ?education,? ?immigration,? etc to students you > teach at camp this summer? If the primary focal point will > be ?make sure we have a card saying that states can do > ?x,?? then we are short-circuiting the education > possible on these subjects. I think a much better > pedagogical model would be multiple seminars on ?answering > legal cases,? ?answering education cases,? > ?answering immigration cases,? etc. Our students would > get the benefits of strategizing and researching about > multiple different facets of the poverty topic, as opposed > to the tried and true, states and federalism cocktail. > > Will this mean the aff wins more? Probably so. But in an > era of all the other kinds of neg ground available (a world > of competing interpretations on T, a world of high magnitude > disads that turn the case, a world of PIC?s, a world of > Kritiks), are we really giving the negative too little > ground by getting rid of the states counterplan? > > Our education has gotten lazy and fat on the red meat diet > of the states counterplan. Go vegetarian. Get rid of the > sacred cow. > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 14:16:34 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:16:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] just throwing this out there... In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0904022214rbaca5e3pf24144eae53e2071@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904031216k4301b8e7jcebd9e71c9f660c1@mail.gmail.com> To the folks who have provided helpful information, thank you, and keep it coming...to the random haters...do what you like On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Matt Paz wrote: > ummmm... finish school and contact us later > stop being a debate leach and a two faced liar > GET A JOB!!! > > 2009/4/3 Andy Ellis > >> over the last semester i have realized that no matter how frustrated >> debate had me last summer its still where my home is, so i am looking for a >> place to work ...what i am looking for is a place that can pay me enough to >> live like an adult in the place where the university is and provides classes >> at the university and health insurance as a benefit...if you think thats an >> outlandish request, so be it, if you are at or know of a school that has >> such a position, or think something can be worked out, lemme know...there >> are some things i am considering right now, but i thought i would expand my >> field of possibilities and see whats out there... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20090403/5281728f/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 14:52:47 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:52:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History In-Reply-To: References: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB25D@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: Sarah started with Hotep, Josh On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Douglas Dennis wrote: > What about Hotep X? > > DD > > > On 4/2/09 2:42 PM, "Kuswa, Kevin" wrote: > > > Adam, > > > > yes, clemmons key. > > > > also, had the privilege of working with Andre Hylton and Will Griffin at > > Dartmouth. They were a VERY strong team on the south asia topic, often > > overshadowed by dartmouth's top team of sklaver and lovitt because they > were > > historically sick (came back their senior years after winning ndt to not > drop > > a ballot at kentucky). > > > > Anyway, Will and Andre were solid--maybe 12th first round or so. Will > may > > have single-handedly re-invigorated the "case press" into the case pimp. > do > > with that what you may. they ran a "clean up the ganges river" aff. > > > > For your purposes (it seems by your questions), they reached the quarters > of > > the ndt---I believe losing to wake (fledderman and grant). They did not > > deploy white face (totally awesome btw) and instead opted for a russia > DA. > > > > still, though, Clemmons and Palo-Coburn key. > > > > looking forward to talking some more stuff with you in the future. > > > > kevin > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of > > omar guevara [oguevara at hotmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:24 PM > > To: sjsnider at ksu.edu; baltimoredebate at gmail.com > > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History > > > > Steve Clemmons and NCP, Weber State NDT 1995 (maybe 1996 - first year of > the > > merger) 4-4, 14 ballots. FIRST team to really push race and ethnicity > issues > > in college debate. With Bear at the helm and the legendary Bill Shanahan > as > > the field coach and ADOF, they made alot of teams cringe with Space > Traders. > > DD could tell you more, but old Steve was quite a debater back in the > day. > > > > Actually you can't talk about the his-her story of Black participation in > > college debate (esp. out west), without talking about Steve...in the > words of > > HST...he was the trouble we were always looing for :). > > > > OG > > > > > > Omar G Guevara II > > Director of Forensics > > Department of Communication > > College of Arts & Humanities > > Weber State University > > Ogden, Utah > > > > 801.626.6220 (Office) > > 801.668.6910 (Cell) > > > > Oguevara at hotmail.com > > Oguevara at weber.edu > > > > > > PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM < > http://www.weberdebate.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:19:13 -0500 > >> From: sjsnider at ksu.edu > >> To: baltimoredebate at gmail.com > >> CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History > >> > >> While I agree with you Adam, that there is a lack of knowledge about > >> Black History in debate, there are quite a few influential and > >> interesting characters who do not meet your litmus test of being "top > >> speaker" or "winning the NDT or CEDA". > >> > >> Hotep X debated for Brown University in the 1970's. Hotep X wasn't his > >> real name, but he used that name to mystify his white opponents by > >> pretending to be a black muslim in the early 70's. Word on the street > >> is that it really made some people afraid of him. He was in > >> semi-finals at the NDT although he was not a member of an "all black" > >> team. > >> > >> My knowledge goes dead for a little while, there is a big gap in what > >> I know. I might be mistaken, but I think Cleopatra Jones from the > >> University of Vermont was the first black woman to earn a top 10 > >> speaker award at CEDA Nats. > >> > >> Shanara Reid, who never debated with a black partner, or even had the > >> opportunity to qualify for the NDT was incredibly influential in the > >> history of black debate in the late 90's and continues today. She was > >> the first black woman to debate on the last day of CEDA Nationals. > >> > >> While these accomplishments are all great, one thing Shanara and Cleo > >> both reminded me of, was that they didn't want to be the "best black > >> women" in debate, they would settle for just being remembered as great > >> debaters regardless.......... > >> > >> There are particularly a lot of black women in debate who get lost in > >> the shuffle as they never represented top speaker, or a championship > >> team but in their own way definitely influenced debate. It is perhaps > >> these stories that you might find the most interesting. > >> > >> I hope you find what you are looking for. > >> > >> Sarah > >> > >> 2009/4/2 Adam Jackson : > >>> You know what debate community? I need some info. > >>> For the past three years of my participation in college debate, I have > come > >>> to realize something. > >>> I know very little about Black History in debate (outside of people > randomly > >>> talking to each other about it, or mere myths that are perpetuated over > >>> time) > >>> So I want you all to help me out with some names and programs of some > folks > >>> who have won the awards listed at the bottom. Please correct me if I'm > >>> wrong. > >>> Black Top Speakers at CEDA: > >>> Elizabeth Jones, UofL, 2004 > >>> Dayvon Love, Towson, 2009 > >>> Black Top Speakers at the NDT: > >>> ??? > >>> First Black Person to Win CEDA: > >>> Rashad Evans with Sarah Holbrook, West Georgia, (dont know year) > >>> All Black Team Champions at CEDA: > >>> Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper, Towson, 2008 > >>> > >>> Black Champions at the NDT: > >>> ??? > >>> First All Black Team to Qualify for NDT: > >>> ??? > >>> First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at CEDA: > >>> ??? > >>> First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at NDT: > >>> ??? > >>> Also, it would be useful if someone knows the first black top speakers > and > >>> teams at these tournaments as well (since they're so prestigious): > >>> West Georgia > >>> Harvard > >>> Wake Forest > >>> "Northwestern" > >>> Cal Swings > >>> West Georgia > >>> JV/Novice Nats > >>> Kentucky > >>> > >>> Thank you and any info is much appreciated. > >>> -- > >>> Adam J. Jackson > >>> Towson Debate...All Day > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet > > Explorer 8. Download FREE > > now!< > http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037 > > MSN55C0701A> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20090403/8c942015/attachment.htm From hathman at hotmail.com Fri Apr 3 15:43:10 2009 From: hathman at hotmail.com (_ _) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 13:43:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Emory Matt Senghas & Stephen Weil Message-ID: Hey there, anyone with their contact info. or the debaters themselves backchannel me I have a couple questions. Jeremy "Hath" Morioka Folsom Lake Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/77f5bfe5/attachment.htm From asymonds at asu.edu Fri Apr 3 16:17:07 2009 From: asymonds at asu.edu (Adam Symonds) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:17:07 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ADI Seeks Fellows Message-ID: The ADI is seeking fellows for the 2009 institute. The position is open to students currently in their second or third year of college debate who will be competing next year and who have a track record of success on the national level. The ADI Fellows serve in a number of capacities at the institute, but essentially are assistants to the lab instructors, though the fellows are also given time for individual research and practice debates with other fellows judged by the faculty. Fellows receive a tuition remission for the institute, free housing at the Twin Palms Hotel as well as a stipend of $200. Fellows in previous years have included participants in elimination rounds of CEDA Nationals and the NDT, 1st round recipients, and CEDA and NDT National Champions. ADI fellowships are an excellent way to get a great jump on the topic by working with some of the top debaters and coaches in the country while using the outstanding library facilities at Arizona State University. The dates for the ADI will be July 27-August 9. Interested students should email me with their contact information, debate background, an attached letter or recommendation from a coach, and a brief statement explaining why you'd like to be a fellow at the ADI. If you have any questions about the ADI or the fellows program, email me at asymonds at asu dot edu or call me at 480-294-9067. We will accept applications until May 1st. Adam Symonds Director of Forensics, Arizona State University Director Arizona Debate InstituteADI website: www.public.asu.edu/~asymonds/index.html ADI 2009 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/group.php?gid=74808980618 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/ef687e1c/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Fri Apr 3 16:49:20 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:49:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History References: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB25D@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <0BE63F47CD59486A95721182ED8AC168@whitman.edu> othal lakey from whitman. he is now a christian methodist bishop. he was definitely a successful debater and he either qualified for the ndt or was one our top two teams in 1957 when whitman qualified to the ndt. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: Josh Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 12:52 PM To: Douglas Dennis Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com ; Kuswa,Kevin ; baltimoredebate at gmail.com ; sjsnider at ksu.edu Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History Sarah started with Hotep, Josh On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Douglas Dennis wrote: What about Hotep X? DD On 4/2/09 2:42 PM, "Kuswa, Kevin" wrote: > Adam, > > yes, clemmons key. > > also, had the privilege of working with Andre Hylton and Will Griffin at > Dartmouth. They were a VERY strong team on the south asia topic, often > overshadowed by dartmouth's top team of sklaver and lovitt because they were > historically sick (came back their senior years after winning ndt to not drop > a ballot at kentucky). > > Anyway, Will and Andre were solid--maybe 12th first round or so. Will may > have single-handedly re-invigorated the "case press" into the case pimp. do > with that what you may. they ran a "clean up the ganges river" aff. > > For your purposes (it seems by your questions), they reached the quarters of > the ndt---I believe losing to wake (fledderman and grant). They did not > deploy white face (totally awesome btw) and instead opted for a russia DA. > > still, though, Clemmons and Palo-Coburn key. > > looking forward to talking some more stuff with you in the future. > > kevin > > > > ________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of > omar guevara [oguevara at hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:24 PM > To: sjsnider at ksu.edu; baltimoredebate at gmail.com > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History > > Steve Clemmons and NCP, Weber State NDT 1995 (maybe 1996 - first year of the > merger) 4-4, 14 ballots. FIRST team to really push race and ethnicity issues > in college debate. With Bear at the helm and the legendary Bill Shanahan as > the field coach and ADOF, they made alot of teams cringe with Space Traders. > DD could tell you more, but old Steve was quite a debater back in the day. > > Actually you can't talk about the his-her story of Black participation in > college debate (esp. out west), without talking about Steve...in the words of > HST...he was the trouble we were always looing for :). > > OG > > > Omar G Guevara II > Director of Forensics > Department of Communication > College of Arts & Humanities > Weber State University > Ogden, Utah > > 801.626.6220 (Office) > 801.668.6910 (Cell) > > Oguevara at hotmail.com > Oguevara at weber.edu > > > PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM > > > > > > >> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:19:13 -0500 >> From: sjsnider at ksu.edu >> To: baltimoredebate at gmail.com >> CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History >> >> While I agree with you Adam, that there is a lack of knowledge about >> Black History in debate, there are quite a few influential and >> interesting characters who do not meet your litmus test of being "top >> speaker" or "winning the NDT or CEDA". >> >> Hotep X debated for Brown University in the 1970's. Hotep X wasn't his >> real name, but he used that name to mystify his white opponents by >> pretending to be a black muslim in the early 70's. Word on the street >> is that it really made some people afraid of him. He was in >> semi-finals at the NDT although he was not a member of an "all black" >> team. >> >> My knowledge goes dead for a little while, there is a big gap in what >> I know. I might be mistaken, but I think Cleopatra Jones from the >> University of Vermont was the first black woman to earn a top 10 >> speaker award at CEDA Nats. >> >> Shanara Reid, who never debated with a black partner, or even had the >> opportunity to qualify for the NDT was incredibly influential in the >> history of black debate in the late 90's and continues today. She was >> the first black woman to debate on the last day of CEDA Nationals. >> >> While these accomplishments are all great, one thing Shanara and Cleo >> both reminded me of, was that they didn't want to be the "best black >> women" in debate, they would settle for just being remembered as great >> debaters regardless.......... >> >> There are particularly a lot of black women in debate who get lost in >> the shuffle as they never represented top speaker, or a championship >> team but in their own way definitely influenced debate. It is perhaps >> these stories that you might find the most interesting. >> >> I hope you find what you are looking for. >> >> Sarah >> >> 2009/4/2 Adam Jackson : >>> You know what debate community? I need some info. >>> For the past three years of my participation in college debate, I have come >>> to realize something. >>> I know very little about Black History in debate (outside of people randomly >>> talking to each other about it, or mere myths that are perpetuated over >>> time) >>> So I want you all to help me out with some names and programs of some folks >>> who have won the awards listed at the bottom. Please correct me if I'm >>> wrong. >>> Black Top Speakers at CEDA: >>> Elizabeth Jones, UofL, 2004 >>> Dayvon Love, Towson, 2009 >>> Black Top Speakers at the NDT: >>> ??? >>> First Black Person to Win CEDA: >>> Rashad Evans with Sarah Holbrook, West Georgia, (dont know year) >>> All Black Team Champions at CEDA: >>> Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper, Towson, 2008 >>> >>> Black Champions at the NDT: >>> ??? >>> First All Black Team to Qualify for NDT: >>> ??? >>> First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at CEDA: >>> ??? >>> First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at NDT: >>> ??? >>> Also, it would be useful if someone knows the first black top speakers and >>> teams at these tournaments as well (since they're so prestigious): >>> West Georgia >>> Harvard >>> Wake Forest >>> "Northwestern" >>> Cal Swings >>> West Georgia >>> JV/Novice Nats >>> Kentucky >>> >>> Thank you and any info is much appreciated. >>> -- >>> Adam J. Jackson >>> Towson Debate...All Day >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > ________________________________ > Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet > Explorer 8. Download FREE > now! MSN55C0701A> > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/d5f6ca65/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 17:19:01 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 18:19:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Black Debate History In-Reply-To: <0BE63F47CD59486A95721182ED8AC168@whitman.edu> References: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB25D@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> <0BE63F47CD59486A95721182ED8AC168@whitman.edu> Message-ID: KU had a really great fella in the 80s - havent seen him since then....I think his name was Ofray Hall or something similar but he was good and super nice....someone hopefully can fill that in, josh On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Jim Hanson wrote: > othal lakey from whitman. > > he is now a christian methodist bishop. > > he was definitely a successful debater and he either qualified for the ndt > or was one our top two teams in 1957 when whitman qualified to the ndt. > > jim :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > *From:* Josh > *Sent:* Friday, April 03, 2009 12:52 PM > *To:* Douglas Dennis > *Cc:* edebate at ndtceda.com ; Kuswa,Kevin ; > baltimoredebate at gmail.com ; sjsnider at ksu.edu > *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History > > Sarah started with Hotep, > > Josh > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Douglas Dennis > wrote: > >> What about Hotep X? >> >> DD >> >> >> On 4/2/09 2:42 PM, "Kuswa, Kevin" wrote: >> >> > Adam, >> > >> > yes, clemmons key. >> > >> > also, had the privilege of working with Andre Hylton and Will Griffin at >> > Dartmouth. They were a VERY strong team on the south asia topic, often >> > overshadowed by dartmouth's top team of sklaver and lovitt because they >> were >> > historically sick (came back their senior years after winning ndt to not >> drop >> > a ballot at kentucky). >> > >> > Anyway, Will and Andre were solid--maybe 12th first round or so. Will >> may >> > have single-handedly re-invigorated the "case press" into the case pimp. >> do >> > with that what you may. they ran a "clean up the ganges river" aff. >> > >> > For your purposes (it seems by your questions), they reached the >> quarters of >> > the ndt---I believe losing to wake (fledderman and grant). They did not >> > deploy white face (totally awesome btw) and instead opted for a russia >> DA. >> > >> > still, though, Clemmons and Palo-Coburn key. >> > >> > looking forward to talking some more stuff with you in the future. >> > >> > kevin >> > >> > >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On >> Behalf Of >> > omar guevara [oguevara at hotmail.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 4:24 PM >> > To: sjsnider at ksu.edu; baltimoredebate at gmail.com >> > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >> > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History >> > >> > Steve Clemmons and NCP, Weber State NDT 1995 (maybe 1996 - first year of >> the >> > merger) 4-4, 14 ballots. FIRST team to really push race and ethnicity >> issues >> > in college debate. With Bear at the helm and the legendary Bill >> Shanahan as >> > the field coach and ADOF, they made alot of teams cringe with Space >> Traders. >> > DD could tell you more, but old Steve was quite a debater back in the >> day. >> > >> > Actually you can't talk about the his-her story of Black participation >> in >> > college debate (esp. out west), without talking about Steve...in the >> words of >> > HST...he was the trouble we were always looing for :). >> > >> > OG >> > >> > >> > Omar G Guevara II >> > Director of Forensics >> > Department of Communication >> > College of Arts & Humanities >> > Weber State University >> > Ogden, Utah >> > >> > 801.626.6220 (Office) >> > 801.668.6910 (Cell) >> > >> > Oguevara at hotmail.com >> > Oguevara at weber.edu >> > >> > >> > PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM < >> http://www.weberdebate.com/> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:19:13 -0500 >> >> From: sjsnider at ksu.edu >> >> To: baltimoredebate at gmail.com >> >> CC: edebate at www.ndtceda.com >> >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Black Debate History >> >> >> >> While I agree with you Adam, that there is a lack of knowledge about >> >> Black History in debate, there are quite a few influential and >> >> interesting characters who do not meet your litmus test of being "top >> >> speaker" or "winning the NDT or CEDA". >> >> >> >> Hotep X debated for Brown University in the 1970's. Hotep X wasn't his >> >> real name, but he used that name to mystify his white opponents by >> >> pretending to be a black muslim in the early 70's. Word on the street >> >> is that it really made some people afraid of him. He was in >> >> semi-finals at the NDT although he was not a member of an "all black" >> >> team. >> >> >> >> My knowledge goes dead for a little while, there is a big gap in what >> >> I know. I might be mistaken, but I think Cleopatra Jones from the >> >> University of Vermont was the first black woman to earn a top 10 >> >> speaker award at CEDA Nats. >> >> >> >> Shanara Reid, who never debated with a black partner, or even had the >> >> opportunity to qualify for the NDT was incredibly influential in the >> >> history of black debate in the late 90's and continues today. She was >> >> the first black woman to debate on the last day of CEDA Nationals. >> >> >> >> While these accomplishments are all great, one thing Shanara and Cleo >> >> both reminded me of, was that they didn't want to be the "best black >> >> women" in debate, they would settle for just being remembered as great >> >> debaters regardless.......... >> >> >> >> There are particularly a lot of black women in debate who get lost in >> >> the shuffle as they never represented top speaker, or a championship >> >> team but in their own way definitely influenced debate. It is perhaps >> >> these stories that you might find the most interesting. >> >> >> >> I hope you find what you are looking for. >> >> >> >> Sarah >> >> >> >> 2009/4/2 Adam Jackson : >> >>> You know what debate community? I need some info. >> >>> For the past three years of my participation in college debate, I have >> come >> >>> to realize something. >> >>> I know very little about Black History in debate (outside of people >> randomly >> >>> talking to each other about it, or mere myths that are perpetuated >> over >> >>> time) >> >>> So I want you all to help me out with some names and programs of some >> folks >> >>> who have won the awards listed at the bottom. Please correct me if I'm >> >>> wrong. >> >>> Black Top Speakers at CEDA: >> >>> Elizabeth Jones, UofL, 2004 >> >>> Dayvon Love, Towson, 2009 >> >>> Black Top Speakers at the NDT: >> >>> ??? >> >>> First Black Person to Win CEDA: >> >>> Rashad Evans with Sarah Holbrook, West Georgia, (dont know year) >> >>> All Black Team Champions at CEDA: >> >>> Dayvon Love and Deven Cooper, Towson, 2008 >> >>> >> >>> Black Champions at the NDT: >> >>> ??? >> >>> First All Black Team to Qualify for NDT: >> >>> ??? >> >>> First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at CEDA: >> >>> ??? >> >>> First Black Team to Qualify for Elimination Rounds at NDT: >> >>> ??? >> >>> Also, it would be useful if someone knows the first black top speakers >> and >> >>> teams at these tournaments as well (since they're so prestigious): >> >>> West Georgia >> >>> Harvard >> >>> Wake Forest >> >>> "Northwestern" >> >>> Cal Swings >> >>> West Georgia >> >>> JV/Novice Nats >> >>> Kentucky >> >>> >> >>> Thank you and any info is much appreciated. >> >>> -- >> >>> Adam J. Jackson >> >>> Towson Debate...All Day >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet >> > Explorer 8. Download FREE >> > now!< >> http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037 >> > MSN55C0701A> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > eDebate mailing list >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090403/39671078/attachment.htm From timmonsa at greenhill.org Fri Apr 3 14:05:42 2009 From: timmonsa at greenhill.org (Timmons, Aaron) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:05:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Can you sound good AND cover? Message-ID: All, I am looking for some videos of past debaters that were competitively successful yet had a balance of technical ability AND still understood the value of persuasion. There have been great ones over the years that have had that balance. High schools students have a two or three year span of who they see as ?the great ones?. That perspective is limited. I would like to use the videos/DVD to show them others that have come before. While this list is CERTAINLY not exclusive, a few folks in recent years that come to mind include: Andy Ryan (I know someone has a copy of his speech given in the quarters of the NDT in 2001 against West Georgia that may have been the best 2AR I have seen. A copy of that gets you $100!) Tristan Morales Michael Klinger Ara Lovitt Kate Shuster Mike Gottlieb Alex Berger Ryan Goodman Ryan Sparacino Corey Rayburn Josh Branson Stacy Nathan Randy Luskey I know this leave a bunch of people out that I didn?t see personally. My intent is not to offend. Rather it is an attempt so I could get my young folks to model the balance of tech vs. persuasion. Make other suggestions if you have them. I will pay for costs of duplication. If you are in possession of (or know who I can contact) please email me at timmonsa at greenhill.org. If I get several videos I will donate copies to the NDCA. Thanks in advance. Aaron Timmons Greenhill School From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 01:40:45 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 01:40:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Can you sound good AND cover? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c09a80904032340w7796c606w4003e1882cdc4bb0@mail.gmail.com> mike kearney o wait u said cover and sound good .. nvm On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Timmons, Aaron wrote: > All, > > I am looking for some videos of past debaters that were competitively > successful yet had a balance of technical ability AND still understood the > value of persuasion. There have been great ones over the years that have had > that balance. High schools students have a two or three year span of who > they see as ?the great ones?. That perspective is limited. I would like to > use the videos/DVD to show them others that have come before. > > While this list is CERTAINLY not exclusive, a few folks in recent years > that come to mind include: > > Andy Ryan (I know someone has a copy of his speech given in the quarters of > the NDT in 2001 against West Georgia that may have been the best 2AR I have > seen. A copy of that gets you $100!) > Tristan Morales > Michael Klinger > Ara Lovitt > Kate Shuster > Mike Gottlieb > Alex Berger > Ryan Goodman > Ryan Sparacino > Corey Rayburn > Josh Branson > Stacy Nathan > Randy Luskey > > I know this leave a bunch of people out that I didn?t see personally. My > intent is not to offend. Rather it is an attempt so I could get my young > folks to model the balance of tech vs. persuasion. Make other suggestions > if you have them. > > I will pay for costs of duplication. If you are in possession of (or know > who I can contact) please email me at timmonsa at greenhill.org. > > If I get several videos I will donate copies to the NDCA. > > Thanks in advance. > > Aaron Timmons > Greenhill School > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090404/4fa321aa/attachment.htm From bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 4 12:45:40 2009 From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 10:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] SUMMER DEBATE camps? Message-ID: <862324.15088.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Hello, Everyone I was wondering if there are any job openings for summer high school debate camps starting in june if possible. Please back channel me on this with dates and dead lines. Thank you Deven Cooper Towson speech and Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090404/a64b7de5/attachment.htm From stephanieeisenberg at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 13:14:17 2009 From: stephanieeisenberg at gmail.com (Stephanie Eisenberg) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:14:17 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] SUMMER DEBATE camps? In-Reply-To: <862324.15088.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <862324.15088.qm@web65408.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I am also interested in job openings at summer debate camps/institutes. If anyone who has any info could backchannel me along with Deven, that'd be great. Thanks, Stephanie Eisenberg SFSU Debate On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Deven wrote: > Hello, Everyone > > I was wondering if there are any job openings for summer high school debate > camps starting in june if possible. Please back channel me on this with > dates and dead lines. Thank you > > Deven Cooper > Towson speech and Debate > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090404/32f64f1b/attachment.htm From Pacedebate at aol.com Sat Apr 4 13:41:06 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:41:06 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Message-ID: If you really want to make a difference then you need to think about the place you can have the biggest impact. I believe there are three key areas. First, summer debate institutes. For many high school students a majority of their ideas about debate are formulated during the summer. If you work at one of these institutes I implore you to not teach debaters the states counterplan or if you feel it is your educational obligation to teach it at least subject it to a very rigorous test of the solvency advocate for the counterplan. Certainly on next year's high school topic (poverty) there will be advocates for state action to deal with poverty. I'm skeptical that any of those advocates will express a preference for uniform action by all 50 states and relevant territories. Again, I have a strong preference for institutes removing the states cp from the entire curriculum and I suggest those of you who are instructors to just refuse to teach it. Second, as teachers. Teach your students (high school or college) your favorite theory argument against the states cp and help them learn how to actually win these arguments in debates. Many of the arguments expressed by others are sufficient reason to reject the states cp but debaters rarely go for these arguments in debates. Third, as judges. If the aff goes for "cp doesn't solve" hold the negative to the same solvency burden that the affirmative has. If the aff has cards that the federal government can solve certain problems then the neg should be required to read evidence that advocates their counterplan which means if the cp does 50 state and territories fiat then they need an advocate for that type of action. Failure to have said advocate should be evaluated not as a "solvency deficit" but as a "100% solvency deficit". It is unfair to expect the affirmative to detail and evidence solvency deficits to a counterplan that, as others in this thread have noted, is completely absent from the literature. I'll conclude with a final comment about summer debate institutes because I believe that to be the most significant area where people can make a difference. What happens at summer institutes truly shapes each generation of debaters. Summer institute directors need to seriously contemplate the role of their "institute". Are they really an educational arena as their brochures suggest? At any moment in time could a teacher from a high school walk in to a labroom and could the "instruction" being received be justified as truly educational? Or are these programs really just big debate strategy sessions where students are taught cheap tricks by coaches who are really training students to be the debaters they want on their college squads in the future. Lately, I'm sad to report, the trend has been toward cheap tricks and bad arguments. Each of you that works at a summer institute can make a genuine difference in that. I truly hope you will approach your lab with the idea that you are there to teach the students in your group about the substance of the topic. Ryan Galloway is 100% correct when he says: "Instead of encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the states cp forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty literature. Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow literature base to research the topic to get around that blasted ?federal government? warrant. Maybe it?s time we learned about more. We are losing something here, and we are losing the in-depth understanding about issues that are important for our students to learn about, especially in trying economic times." Please, please, please this summer make a commitment to teaching your students about the substance of poverty not the sham of the states counterplan. Thanks, Tim Mahoney Director of Debate, St. Mark's School of Texas 10600 Preston Road Dallas, TX 75230 214-346-8141 214-734-3673 cell 425-740-9130 fax **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090404/220b590d/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 14:37:58 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:37:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For years I pushed the "no solvency author" assumes the 50 states acting in concert in labs as a means to consistently beat the States CP...Unfortunately, Kamal and Harris found all these cards from this National Association that drafts uniform state legislation that kind of called this into question. I still think its insane to say that any federal public policy advocate has any reasonable need to write responses to this CP so it makes it reallllllly hard for an aff to debate the Topic as intended....I know for a fact it always comes down to the cases that have a USFG offensive warrant not what needs to be done to solve poverty. Personally, I agree with most everyone on the "State CP = death of poverty topic" tip......not hard to agree with this...I do have a few questions for the extremely far right "don't teach the State CP" version of this: First, doesn't this kind of sellout many of our deepest held beliefs about letting the best argument win the day and let debate lead theory? Second, how does one get practice beating the states CP on a topic where people will 100% run the state CP when we don't even "introduce it" at camps etc. Seems to me most of us got our hard opinions about this CP after decades of debating it.....Removing it only means less well thought out answers and discussion among judging pools on how best to defeat it. Third, isn't the problem more related to a very normal judging philosophy that accepts things "like the plan" as solvency evidence for the plan? Generally, 99% of judges think if the solvency evidence is CLOSE that is all the negative needs. This year Aaron about went insane because NONE (as in ZERO) of the cards about the make a quid pro quo with china trading IPR for getting rid of cotton subsidies were actually about that particular quid pro quo but because judges saw China, IPR, and lift Subsidies they looked the other way on solvency every time. Two years ago the entire court topic ended up where you could hardly win an affirmative debate because of the low solvency standards for what constituted a solvency card on the constitutional conventions counter-plan. Honestly, I blame judge looseness on solvency requirements MUCH more than I do debaters running the actor CPs. We all know its ABSURD that the 50 states in unison do a public policy action that they have NEVER really ever done but 99% say "A-OK." Josh On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM, wrote: > If you really want to make a difference then you need to think about the > place you can have the biggest impact. I believe there are three key areas. > First, summer debate institutes. For many high school students a > majority of their ideas about debate are formulated during the summer. If > you work at one of these institutes I implore you to not teach debaters the > states counterplan or if you feel it is your educational obligation to teach > it at least subject it to a very rigorous test of the solvency advocate for > the counterplan. Certainly on next year's high school topic (poverty) there > will be advocates for state action to deal with poverty. I'm skeptical that > any of those advocates will express a preference for uniform action by all > 50 states and relevant territories. Again, I have a strong preference for > institutes removing the states cp from the entire curriculum and I suggest > those of you who are instructors to just refuse to teach it. > Second, as teachers. Teach your students (high school or college) your > favorite theory argument against the states cp and help them learn how to > actually win these arguments in debates. Many of the arguments expressed by > others are sufficient reason to reject the states cp but debaters rarely go > for these arguments in debates. > Third, as judges. If the aff goes for "cp doesn't solve" hold the negative > to the same solvency burden that the affirmative has. If the aff has cards > that the federal government can solve certain problems then the neg should > be required to read evidence that advocates their counterplan which means if > the cp does 50 state and territories fiat then they need an advocate for > that type of action. Failure to have said advocate should be evaluated not > as a "solvency deficit" but as a "100% solvency deficit". It is unfair to > expect the affirmative to detail and evidence solvency deficits to a > counterplan that, as others in this thread have noted, is completely absent > from the literature. > > I'll conclude with a final comment about summer debate institutes because I > believe that to be the most significant area where people can make a > difference. What happens at summer institutes truly shapes each generation > of debaters. Summer institute directors need to seriously contemplate the > role of their "institute". Are they really an educational arena as their > brochures suggest? At any moment in time could a teacher from a high school > walk in to a labroom and could the "instruction" being received be justified > as truly educational? Or are these programs really just big debate strategy > sessions where students are taught cheap tricks by coaches who are really > training students to be the debaters they want on their college squads in > the future. Lately, I'm sad to report, the trend has been toward cheap > tricks and bad arguments. Each of you that works at a summer institute can > make a genuine difference in that. I truly hope you will approach your lab > with the idea that you are there to teach the students in your group about > the substance of the topic. > Ryan Galloway is 100% correct when he says: > "Instead of encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the > states cp forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty > literature. > Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with > every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow literature > base to research the topic to get around that blasted ?federal government? > warrant. Maybe it?s time we learned about more. We are losing something > here, and we are losing the in-depth understanding about issues that are > important for our students to learn about, especially in trying economic > times." > > Please, please, please this summer make a commitment to teaching your > students about the substance of poverty not the sham of the states > counterplan. > > Thanks, > > Tim Mahoney > Director of Debate, St. Mark's School of Texas > 10600 Preston Road > Dallas, TX 75230 > 214-346-8141 > 214-734-3673 cell > 425-740-9130 fax > > > ------------------------------ > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession > . > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090404/d26b4d6d/attachment.htm From gacggc at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 14:43:10 2009 From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:43:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8371758b0904041243g1092ca67xcb82d97b4207d6b6@mail.gmail.com> Tim, it is extremely bad advice to "implore" teachers at summer institutes to "not teach debaters the states counterplan," since there is no doubt that the students will be hearing the states argument a lot. It is hard to believe anyone would advocate not teaching as a solution to dealing with an argument. Also, as Stefan mentioned, the states counterplan has the rather useful effect of limiting an extremely large topic to those areas where there is a particular warrant for federal action. At the topic meeting, this issue was brought up when people voiced concern as to the breadth of the resolution, and it was pointed out that with states as a tool for the neg, the aff would have to be quite selective in choosing an aff. So the states cp was considered as a necessary limiting tool, allowing for this particular wording (if we throw out the states cp, the discussions at the high school topic meeting would be necessarily focused on adding in additional limiters). As to whether states destroys the case debate, this is often true, but it seems less true when it comes to anti-poverty legislation. There are many job-creation programs that have been created by the federal government particularly because states dont have the money to step in, and yet those states need the jobs. State funding disads will not be hard to come by next year. Also, while concepts such as federalism are old-hat to coaches, they are news to high school debaters. Same with politics. These issues will not go away from the political discourse just by ignoring them in high school debate rounds; therefore students will be ill-served by coaches who refuse to teach these fundamental args. It is understandable why coaches and debaters want to innovate; it is much more fun to craft an entirely new approach to an arg than to have a kid run states/federalism or states/politics. But such a bread-and-butter approach gives the young debater a reasonable way to learn the game, and to get sufficient grounding from which to branch out. AT Ryan: 1) "First, the states counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics." The states cp does not seem to uniquely gut the case debate in comparison to any other agent cp. It seems this arg applies to all agent cps, including ones with a single actor (executive order, etc). The better arg is that 50 state fiat is not symmetrical to federal action - however there are in fact anti-poverty programs in all 50 states, so it may depend on the particular aff. 2) "Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature base to answer it." You're right about Lopez, but there will be no need to devolve authority to the states when it comes to poverty. So the Lopez-based disads don't seem to apply this year. 3) "Third, the benefits of testing the federal government in the resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated" Again, this arg seems to apply to any agent c/p. If you toss all of these out, you privilege the status of the federal govt - and even the particular branch of the federal gov't the aff chooses. So you'd also eliminate the courts c/p; executive orders; refs, etc. Anticipating that you might say this is good, one can also make the same arg against a PIC which avoids doing the aff in a particular area, or avoids doing a part of the aff - each of these "classical" cps decreases the need to discuss the case. (Actually all cps decrease the need to discuss the case - so you're arg is a more general "cp bad" position.") 4) "the counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. " That also could be said about almost any cp. It could also be said about almost any K... and perhaps the K, with its shift in the discussion framework, is more effective at gutting case-specific education. 5) "I suspect we will see a lot of military aff s and aff s dealing with federal agencies to try to carve out some narrow warrant for why the USFG is necessary in this instance. " I agree. That was my thought when we were discussing this at the Topic Meeting. This does not seem bad to me; there are still a large number of affs - and the rez becomes functionally much more easily navigated. You say these affs shouldnt be the only functionally viable affs - but it is always the case that good affs = all affs - unstrategic affs; your focus on states doesn't seem warranted. It is difficult to defend such a vanilla approach to debate - but remember there was a time when the state cp was wildly innovative, and it forced people to rethink their approach to the aff, and concentrate on areas where there was a particular need for federal action. This still does not seem to be an irrelevant of bad requirement when thinking about federal action. David Glass On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM, wrote: > If you really want to make a difference then you need to think about the > place you can have the biggest impact. I believe there are three key areas. > First, summer debate institutes. For many high school students a majority of > their ideas about debate are formulated during the summer. If you work at > one of these institutes I implore you to not teach debaters the states > counterplan or if you feel it is your educational obligation to teach it at > least subject it to a very rigorous test of the solvency advocate for the > counterplan. Certainly on next year's high school topic (poverty) there will > be advocates for state action to deal with poverty. I'm skeptical that any > of those advocates will express a preference for uniform action by all 50 > states and relevant territories. Again, I have a strong preference for > institutes removing the states cp from the entire curriculum and I suggest > those of you who are instructors to just refuse to teach it. > Second, as teachers. Teach your students (high school or college) your > favorite theory argument against the states cp and help them learn how to > actually win these arguments in debates. Many of the arguments expressed by > others are sufficient reason to reject the states cp but debaters rarely go > for these arguments in debates. > Third, as judges. If the aff goes for "cp doesn't solve" hold the negative > to the same solvency burden that the affirmative has. If the aff has cards > that the federal government can solve certain problems then the neg should > be required to read evidence that advocates their counterplan which means if > the cp does 50 state and territories fiat then they need an advocate for > that type of action. Failure to have said advocate should be evaluated not > as a "solvency deficit" but as a "100% solvency deficit". It is unfair to > expect the affirmative to detail and evidence solvency deficits to a > counterplan that, as others in this thread have noted, is completely absent > from the literature. > > I'll conclude with a final comment about summer debate institutes because I > believe that to be the most significant area where people can make a > difference. What happens at summer institutes truly shapes each generation > of debaters. Summer institute directors need to seriously contemplate the > role of their "institute". Are they really an educational arena as their > brochures suggest? At any moment in time could a teacher from a high school > walk in to a labroom and could the "instruction" being received be justified > as truly educational? Or are these programs really just big debate strategy > sessions where students are taught cheap tricks by coaches who are really > training students to be the debaters they want on their college squads in > the future. Lately, I'm sad to report, the trend has been toward cheap > tricks and bad arguments. Each of you that works at a summer institute can > make a genuine difference in that. I truly hope you will approach your lab > with the idea that you are there to teach the students in your group about > the substance of the topic. > Ryan Galloway is 100% correct when he says: > "Instead of encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the > states cp forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty > literature. > Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with every > domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow literature base to > research the topic to get around that blasted "federal government" warrant. > Maybe it's time we learned about more. We are losing something here, and we > are losing the in-depth understanding about issues that are important for > our students to learn about, especially in trying economic times." > > Please, please, please this summer make a commitment to teaching your > students about the substance of poverty not the sham of the states > counterplan. > > Thanks, > > Tim Mahoney > Director of Debate, St. Mark's School of Texas > 10600 Preston Road > Dallas, TX 75230 > 214-346-8141 > 214-734-3673 cell > 425-740-9130 fax > > > ________________________________ > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From kkuswa at richmond.edu Sat Apr 4 15:10:32 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:10:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: <8371758b0904041243g1092ca67xcb82d97b4207d6b6@mail.gmail.com> References: , <8371758b0904041243g1092ca67xcb82d97b4207d6b6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB292@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> The best answer is to stop voting for topics with the USFG as agent. The states CP is an unfortunate (maybe) effect of the USFG agent on a domestic topic. The position is not that tough to answer, however, and the aff should learn how to defend the USFG if that is their agent. If the aff falls prey to the CP, you at least know what is coming and can get ready...it is also possible to impact turn the absurd net benefits. I agree with the arguments that there are better ways to approach the poverty topic (Ryan's post is really helpful on this), but censorship is not the right path... We will teach the states CP (COME TO THE UR CAMP or send your students to the UR camp http://debate.richmond.edu/outreach/index.html) as a means to answer the states CP. In the meantime, question your agent next time the topic gets worded. kevin ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of David Glass [gacggc at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 3:43 PM To: Pacedebate at aol.com Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Tim, it is extremely bad advice to "implore" teachers at summer institutes to "not teach debaters the states counterplan," since there is no doubt that the students will be hearing the states argument a lot. It is hard to believe anyone would advocate not teaching as a solution to dealing with an argument. Also, as Stefan mentioned, the states counterplan has the rather useful effect of limiting an extremely large topic to those areas where there is a particular warrant for federal action. At the topic meeting, this issue was brought up when people voiced concern as to the breadth of the resolution, and it was pointed out that with states as a tool for the neg, the aff would have to be quite selective in choosing an aff. So the states cp was considered as a necessary limiting tool, allowing for this particular wording (if we throw out the states cp, the discussions at the high school topic meeting would be necessarily focused on adding in additional limiters). As to whether states destroys the case debate, this is often true, but it seems less true when it comes to anti-poverty legislation. There are many job-creation programs that have been created by the federal government particularly because states dont have the money to step in, and yet those states need the jobs. State funding disads will not be hard to come by next year. Also, while concepts such as federalism are old-hat to coaches, they are news to high school debaters. Same with politics. These issues will not go away from the political discourse just by ignoring them in high school debate rounds; therefore students will be ill-served by coaches who refuse to teach these fundamental args. It is understandable why coaches and debaters want to innovate; it is much more fun to craft an entirely new approach to an arg than to have a kid run states/federalism or states/politics. But such a bread-and-butter approach gives the young debater a reasonable way to learn the game, and to get sufficient grounding from which to branch out. AT Ryan: 1) "First, the states counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics." The states cp does not seem to uniquely gut the case debate in comparison to any other agent cp. It seems this arg applies to all agent cps, including ones with a single actor (executive order, etc). The better arg is that 50 state fiat is not symmetrical to federal action - however there are in fact anti-poverty programs in all 50 states, so it may depend on the particular aff. 2) "Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature base to answer it." You're right about Lopez, but there will be no need to devolve authority to the states when it comes to poverty. So the Lopez-based disads don't seem to apply this year. 3) "Third, the benefits of testing the federal government in the resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated" Again, this arg seems to apply to any agent c/p. If you toss all of these out, you privilege the status of the federal govt - and even the particular branch of the federal gov't the aff chooses. So you'd also eliminate the courts c/p; executive orders; refs, etc. Anticipating that you might say this is good, one can also make the same arg against a PIC which avoids doing the aff in a particular area, or avoids doing a part of the aff - each of these "classical" cps decreases the need to discuss the case. (Actually all cps decrease the need to discuss the case - so you're arg is a more general "cp bad" position.") 4) "the counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. " That also could be said about almost any cp. It could also be said about almost any K... and perhaps the K, with its shift in the discussion framework, is more effective at gutting case-specific education. 5) "I suspect we will see a lot of military aff s and aff s dealing with federal agencies to try to carve out some narrow warrant for why the USFG is necessary in this instance. " I agree. That was my thought when we were discussing this at the Topic Meeting. This does not seem bad to me; there are still a large number of affs - and the rez becomes functionally much more easily navigated. You say these affs shouldnt be the only functionally viable affs - but it is always the case that good affs = all affs - unstrategic affs; your focus on states doesn't seem warranted. It is difficult to defend such a vanilla approach to debate - but remember there was a time when the state cp was wildly innovative, and it forced people to rethink their approach to the aff, and concentrate on areas where there was a particular need for federal action. This still does not seem to be an irrelevant of bad requirement when thinking about federal action. David Glass On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM, wrote: > If you really want to make a difference then you need to think about the > place you can have the biggest impact. I believe there are three key areas. > First, summer debate institutes. For many high school students a majority of > their ideas about debate are formulated during the summer. If you work at > one of these institutes I implore you to not teach debaters the states > counterplan or if you feel it is your educational obligation to teach it at > least subject it to a very rigorous test of the solvency advocate for the > counterplan. Certainly on next year's high school topic (poverty) there will > be advocates for state action to deal with poverty. I'm skeptical that any > of those advocates will express a preference for uniform action by all 50 > states and relevant territories. Again, I have a strong preference for > institutes removing the states cp from the entire curriculum and I suggest > those of you who are instructors to just refuse to teach it. > Second, as teachers. Teach your students (high school or college) your > favorite theory argument against the states cp and help them learn how to > actually win these arguments in debates. Many of the arguments expressed by > others are sufficient reason to reject the states cp but debaters rarely go > for these arguments in debates. > Third, as judges. If the aff goes for "cp doesn't solve" hold the negative > to the same solvency burden that the affirmative has. If the aff has cards > that the federal government can solve certain problems then the neg should > be required to read evidence that advocates their counterplan which means if > the cp does 50 state and territories fiat then they need an advocate for > that type of action. Failure to have said advocate should be evaluated not > as a "solvency deficit" but as a "100% solvency deficit". It is unfair to > expect the affirmative to detail and evidence solvency deficits to a > counterplan that, as others in this thread have noted, is completely absent > from the literature. > > I'll conclude with a final comment about summer debate institutes because I > believe that to be the most significant area where people can make a > difference. What happens at summer institutes truly shapes each generation > of debaters. Summer institute directors need to seriously contemplate the > role of their "institute". Are they really an educational arena as their > brochures suggest? At any moment in time could a teacher from a high school > walk in to a labroom and could the "instruction" being received be justified > as truly educational? Or are these programs really just big debate strategy > sessions where students are taught cheap tricks by coaches who are really > training students to be the debaters they want on their college squads in > the future. Lately, I'm sad to report, the trend has been toward cheap > tricks and bad arguments. Each of you that works at a summer institute can > make a genuine difference in that. I truly hope you will approach your lab > with the idea that you are there to teach the students in your group about > the substance of the topic. > Ryan Galloway is 100% correct when he says: > "Instead of encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the > states cp forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty > literature. > Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with every > domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow literature base to > research the topic to get around that blasted "federal government" warrant. > Maybe it's time we learned about more. We are losing something here, and we > are losing the in-depth understanding about issues that are important for > our students to learn about, especially in trying economic times." > > Please, please, please this summer make a commitment to teaching your > students about the substance of poverty not the sham of the states > counterplan. > > Thanks, > > Tim Mahoney > Director of Debate, St. Mark's School of Texas > 10600 Preston Road > Dallas, TX 75230 > 214-346-8141 > 214-734-3673 cell > 425-740-9130 fax > > > ________________________________ > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. > _______________________________________________ > 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 hallbrad at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 15:11:02 2009 From: hallbrad at gmail.com (Brad Hall) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:11:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While I am sympathetic and in large agreement with the anti-states CP group, I don't think "no solvency advocate" is at all the appropriate argument to channel this argument through. I don't have a fully thought through alternative (Galloway's appeals to topic education and fairness are good enough for me), but my objections to the requirement of a solvency advocate are: 1. The standard for what counts as a solvency advocate lacks a universal understanding. It's difficult to isolate what exactly constitutes a solvency advocate and is often merely a self-serving interpretation. Plans and counterplans are sometimes mix and match from different authors or articles. Affirmative cases frequently have no exact advocate for the plan wording, but are Josh and others willing to vote neg on this theory argument? Similarly, how many permutations have you ever heard a solvency advocate for? If the neg has a solvency advocate for their counterplan, would you reject the do both permutation merely because it has no solvency advocate? 2. Eliminates some germane CP's. Uniqueness or advantage counterplans almost never have solvency advocates, but maybe people are willing to throw those out. However, the best genre of counterplan in my opinion would often fail to meet this test: the plan specific PIC. Almost no one objects in their judging philosophies to a PIC specific to the aff, but how many of those actually have explicit solvency advocates? Many of these CP's are just intuitive and make the aff pay for putting something silly in their plan. Example: KU's new aff in the semis vs. Cal did two things basically: it rescinded wheat subsidies and changed PL480's requirements for the distribution of food aid by removing the requirement that food aid be procured only from American farmers. During that debate, I wrote a quick but germane strategy to exclude the change in food aid distribution with a politics disad, a protectionism disad about the backlash from American farmers, and a solvency argument that Congress wouldn't actually authorize local food aid procurement even if the option were made available (thus no solvency deficit). To me, this type of CP is what debate is all about: the net benefits -- aside from maybe politics -- are about the topic, it's plan specific, and (in this instance) it makes the aff pay for including a possibly extra topical plank in their plan. But it had no solvency advocate, so is it not a legitimate CP? 3. Not limiting given today's research methods. It is increasingly possibly to find a solvency advocate for ludicrous CP's like WOMP, call it Persia instead of Iran, don't use all capital letters, etc. Some will say "those don't have solvency advocates," but 1) I'm sure solvency advocates exist for some CP's that most people think are unfair, and 2) refer back to #1 -- if the neg has a card that "every instance of capital letters should be replaced" or "we should never refer to the country as Iran in diplomatic negotiations, we should always refer to them as Persia," isn't that as much of a solvency advocate as many affs have? David Heidt once proposed that the neg solvency advocate had to "match" the level of aff solvency advocacy. I've already argued that this might leave open the door for the states CP if the aff has no solvency advocate either, but it seems like the fact that this standard would change on an (affirmative) case-by-case basis reveals the flaws with relying on it. The states CP isn't more fair or more educational in Rd 5 just because the aff didn't have a solvency advocate. Rather, we should look for a slightly more universal standard about what is best for debate and not rely on such a narrow theory argument. Brad On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Josh wrote: > For years I pushed the "no solvency author" assumes the 50 states acting in > concert in labs as a means to consistently beat the States > CP...Unfortunately, Kamal and Harris found all these cards from this > National Association that drafts uniform state legislation that kind of > called this into question. I still think its insane to say that any federal > public policy advocate has any reasonable need to write responses to this CP > so it makes it reallllllly hard for an aff to debate the Topic as > intended....I know for a fact it always comes down to the cases that have a > USFG offensive warrant not what needs to be done to solve poverty. > > Personally, I agree with most everyone on the "State CP = death of poverty > topic" tip......not hard to agree with this...I do have a few questions for > the extremely far right "don't teach the State CP" version of this: > > First, doesn't this kind of sellout many of our deepest held beliefs about > letting the best argument win the day and let debate lead theory? > > Second, how does one get practice beating the states CP on a topic where > people will 100% run the state CP when we don't even "introduce it" at camps > etc. Seems to me most of us got our hard opinions about this CP after > decades of debating it.....Removing it only means less well thought out > answers and discussion among judging pools on how best to defeat it. > > Third, isn't the problem more related to a very normal judging philosophy > that accepts things "like the plan" as solvency evidence for the plan? > Generally, 99% of judges think if the solvency evidence is CLOSE that is all > the negative needs. This year Aaron about went insane because NONE (as in > ZERO) of the cards about the make a quid pro quo with china trading IPR for > getting rid of cotton subsidies were actually about that particular quid pro > quo but because judges saw China, IPR, and lift Subsidies they looked the > other way on solvency every time. Two years ago the entire court topic > ended up where you could hardly win an affirmative debate because of the low > solvency standards for what constituted a solvency card on the > constitutional conventions counter-plan. Honestly, I blame judge looseness > on solvency requirements MUCH more than I do debaters running the actor > CPs. We all know its ABSURD that the 50 states in unison do a public policy > action that they have NEVER really ever done but 99% say "A-OK." > > Josh > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM, wrote: > >> If you really want to make a difference then you need to think about the >> place you can have the biggest impact. I believe there are three key areas. >> First, summer debate institutes. For many high school students a >> majority of their ideas about debate are formulated during the summer. If >> you work at one of these institutes I implore you to not teach debaters the >> states counterplan or if you feel it is your educational obligation to teach >> it at least subject it to a very rigorous test of the solvency advocate for >> the counterplan. Certainly on next year's high school topic (poverty) there >> will be advocates for state action to deal with poverty. I'm skeptical that >> any of those advocates will express a preference for uniform action by all >> 50 states and relevant territories. Again, I have a strong preference for >> institutes removing the states cp from the entire curriculum and I suggest >> those of you who are instructors to just refuse to teach it. >> Second, as teachers. Teach your students (high school or college) your >> favorite theory argument against the states cp and help them learn how to >> actually win these arguments in debates. Many of the arguments expressed by >> others are sufficient reason to reject the states cp but debaters rarely go >> for these arguments in debates. >> Third, as judges. If the aff goes for "cp doesn't solve" hold the negative >> to the same solvency burden that the affirmative has. If the aff has cards >> that the federal government can solve certain problems then the neg should >> be required to read evidence that advocates their counterplan which means if >> the cp does 50 state and territories fiat then they need an advocate for >> that type of action. Failure to have said advocate should be evaluated not >> as a "solvency deficit" but as a "100% solvency deficit". It is unfair to >> expect the affirmative to detail and evidence solvency deficits to a >> counterplan that, as others in this thread have noted, is completely absent >> from the literature. >> >> I'll conclude with a final comment about summer debate institutes because >> I believe that to be the most significant area where people can make a >> difference. What happens at summer institutes truly shapes each generation >> of debaters. Summer institute directors need to seriously contemplate the >> role of their "institute". Are they really an educational arena as their >> brochures suggest? At any moment in time could a teacher from a high school >> walk in to a labroom and could the "instruction" being received be justified >> as truly educational? Or are these programs really just big debate strategy >> sessions where students are taught cheap tricks by coaches who are really >> training students to be the debaters they want on their college squads in >> the future. Lately, I'm sad to report, the trend has been toward cheap >> tricks and bad arguments. Each of you that works at a summer institute can >> make a genuine difference in that. I truly hope you will approach your lab >> with the idea that you are there to teach the students in your group about >> the substance of the topic. >> Ryan Galloway is 100% correct when he says: >> "Instead of encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the >> states cp forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty >> literature. >> Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with >> every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow literature >> base to research the topic to get around that blasted ?federal government? >> warrant. Maybe it?s time we learned about more. We are losing something >> here, and we are losing the in-depth understanding about issues that are >> important for our students to learn about, especially in trying economic >> times." >> >> Please, please, please this summer make a commitment to teaching your >> students about the substance of poverty not the sham of the states >> counterplan. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tim Mahoney >> Director of Debate, St. Mark's School of Texas >> 10600 Preston Road >> Dallas, TX 75230 >> 214-346-8141 >> 214-734-3673 cell >> 425-740-9130 fax >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession >> . >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Brad Hall hallbrad at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090404/44795509/attachment.htm From gacggc at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 15:38:27 2009 From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 16:38:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8371758b0904041338v12b60b93kd39ce6df02305e8d@mail.gmail.com> just to emphasize one point: consider next year's high school resolution without the states cp for a second; it is huge. really really really huge; in the world of the states cp however there are still interesting aff areas where states would not be strategic, where you can also actually discuss poverty On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Brad Hall wrote: > While I am sympathetic and in large agreement with the anti-states CP group, > I don't think "no solvency advocate" is at all the appropriate argument to > channel this argument through. I don't have a fully thought through > alternative (Galloway's appeals to topic education and fairness are good > enough for me), but my objections to the requirement of a solvency advocate > are: > > 1. The standard for what counts as a solvency advocate lacks a universal > understanding. It's difficult to isolate what exactly constitutes a solvency > advocate and is often merely a self-serving interpretation. Plans and > counterplans are sometimes mix and match from different authors or articles. > Affirmative cases frequently have no exact advocate for the plan wording, > but are Josh and others willing to vote neg on this theory argument? > > Similarly, how many permutations have you ever heard a solvency advocate > for? If the neg has a solvency advocate for their counterplan, would you > reject the do both permutation merely because it has no solvency advocate? > > 2. Eliminates some germane CP's. Uniqueness or advantage counterplans almost > never have solvency advocates, but maybe people are willing to throw those > out. However, the best genre of counterplan in my opinion would often fail > to meet this test: the plan specific PIC. Almost no one objects in their > judging philosophies to a PIC specific to the aff, but how many of those > actually have explicit solvency advocates? Many of these CP's are just > intuitive and make the aff pay for putting something silly in their plan. > > Example: KU's new aff in the semis vs. Cal did two things basically: it > rescinded wheat subsidies and changed PL480's requirements for the > distribution of food aid by removing the requirement that food aid be > procured only from American farmers. During that debate, I wrote a quick but > germane strategy to exclude the change in food aid distribution with a > politics disad, a protectionism disad about the backlash from American > farmers, and a solvency argument that Congress wouldn't actually authorize > local food aid procurement even if the option were made available (thus no > solvency deficit). > > To me, this type of CP is what debate is all about: the net benefits -- > aside from maybe politics -- are about the topic, it's plan specific, and > (in this instance) it makes the aff pay for including a possibly extra > topical plank in their plan. But it had no solvency advocate, so is it not a > legitimate CP? > > 3. Not limiting given today's research methods. It is increasingly possibly > to find a solvency advocate for ludicrous CP's like WOMP, call it Persia > instead of Iran, don't use all capital letters, etc. Some will say "those > don't have solvency advocates," but 1) I'm sure solvency advocates exist for > some CP's that most people think are unfair, and 2) refer back to #1 -- if > the neg has a card that "every instance of capital letters should be > replaced" or "we should never refer to the country as Iran in diplomatic > negotiations, we should always refer to them as Persia," isn't that as much > of a solvency advocate as many affs have? > > David Heidt once proposed that the neg solvency advocate had to "match" the > level of aff solvency advocacy. I've already argued that this might leave > open the door for the states CP if the aff has no solvency advocate either, > but it seems like the fact that this standard would change on an > (affirmative) case-by-case basis reveals the flaws with relying on it. The > states CP isn't more fair or more educational in Rd 5 just because the aff > didn't have a solvency advocate. Rather, we should look for a slightly more > universal standard about what is best for debate and not rely on such a > narrow theory argument. > > Brad > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Josh wrote: >> >> For years I pushed the "no solvency author" assumes the 50 states acting >> in concert in labs as a means to consistently beat the States >> CP...Unfortunately, Kamal and Harris found all these cards from this >> National Association that drafts uniform state legislation that kind of >> called this into question.? I still think its insane to say that any federal >> public policy advocate has any reasonable need to write responses to this CP >> so it makes it reallllllly hard for an aff to debate the Topic as >> intended....I know for a fact it always comes down to the cases that have a >> USFG offensive warrant not what needs to be done to solve poverty. >> >> Personally, I agree with most everyone on the "State CP = death of poverty >> topic" tip......not hard to agree with this...I do have a few questions for >> the extremely far right "don't teach the State CP" version of this: >> >> First, doesn't this kind of sellout many of our deepest held beliefs about >> letting the best argument win the day and let debate lead theory? >> >> Second, how does one get practice beating the states CP on a topic where >> people will 100% run the state CP when we don't even "introduce it" at camps >> etc.? Seems to me most of us got our hard opinions about this CP after >> decades of debating it.....Removing it only means less well thought out >> answers and discussion among judging pools on how best to defeat it. >> >> Third, isn't the problem more related to a very normal judging philosophy >> that accepts things "like the plan" as solvency evidence for the plan? >> Generally, 99% of judges think if the solvency evidence is CLOSE that is all >> the negative needs.? This year Aaron about went insane because NONE (as in >> ZERO) of the cards about the make a quid pro quo with china trading IPR for >> getting rid of cotton subsidies were actually about that particular quid pro >> quo but because judges saw China, IPR, and lift Subsidies they looked the >> other way on solvency every time.? Two years ago the entire court topic >> ended up where?you could hardly win an affirmative debate because of the low >> solvency standards for what constituted a solvency card on the >> constitutional conventions counter-plan.? Honestly, I blame judge looseness >> on solvency requirements MUCH more than I do debaters running the?actor >> CPs.? We all know its ABSURD that the 50 states in unison?do a public policy >> action that they have NEVER really ever done but 99%?say "A-OK." >> >> Josh >> >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM, wrote: >>> >>> If you really want to make a difference then you need to think about the >>> place you can have the biggest impact. I believe there are three key areas. >>> First, summer debate institutes. For many high school students a >>> majority?of their ideas about debate are formulated during the summer. If >>> you work at one of these institutes I implore you to not teach debaters the >>> states counterplan or if you feel it is your educational obligation to teach >>> it at least subject it to a very rigorous test of the solvency advocate for >>> the counterplan. Certainly on next year's high school topic (poverty) there >>> will be advocates for state action to deal with poverty. I'm skeptical that >>> any of those advocates will express a preference for uniform action by all >>> 50 states and relevant territories. Again, I have a strong preference for >>> institutes removing the states cp from the entire curriculum and I suggest >>> those of you who are instructors to just refuse to teach it. >>> Second, as teachers. Teach your students (high school or college) your >>> favorite theory argument against the states cp and help them learn how to >>> actually win these arguments in debates. Many of the arguments expressed by >>> others are sufficient reason to reject the states cp but debaters rarely go >>> for these arguments in debates. >>> Third, as judges. If the aff goes for "cp doesn't solve" hold the >>> negative to the same solvency burden that the affirmative has. If the aff >>> has cards that the federal government can solve certain problems then?the >>> neg should be required to read evidence that advocates their counterplan >>> which means if the cp does 50 state and territories fiat then they need an >>> advocate for that type of action. Failure to have said advocate should be >>> evaluated not as a "solvency deficit" but as a "100% solvency deficit". It >>> is unfair to expect the affirmative to detail and evidence solvency deficits >>> to a counterplan that, as others in this thread have noted, is completely >>> absent from the literature. >>> >>> I'll conclude with a final comment about summer debate institutes because >>> I believe that to be the most significant area where people can make a >>> difference. What happens at summer institutes truly shapes each generation >>> of debaters. Summer institute directors need to seriously contemplate the >>> role of their "institute". Are they really an educational arena as their >>> brochures suggest? At any moment in time could a teacher from a high school >>> walk in to a labroom and could the "instruction" being received be justified >>> as truly educational? Or are these programs really just big debate strategy >>> sessions where students are taught cheap tricks by coaches who are really >>> training students to be the debaters they want on their college squads in >>> the future. Lately, I'm sad to report, the trend has been toward cheap >>> tricks and bad arguments. Each of you that works at a summer institute can >>> make a genuine difference in that. I truly hope you will approach your lab >>> with the idea that you are there to teach the students in your group about >>> the substance of the?topic. >>> Ryan Galloway is 100% correct when he says: >>> "Instead of encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the >>> states cp forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty >>> literature. >>> Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with >>> every domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow literature >>> base to research the topic to get around that blasted ?federal government? >>> warrant.? Maybe it?s time we learned about more.? We are losing something >>> here, and we are losing the in-depth understanding about issues that are >>> important for our students to learn about, especially in trying economic >>> times." >>> >>> Please, please, please this summer make a commitment to?teaching your >>> students about the substance of poverty not the sham of the states >>> counterplan. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tim Mahoney >>> Director of Debate, St. Mark's School of Texas >>> 10600 Preston Road >>> Dallas, TX 75230 >>> 214-346-8141 >>> 214-734-3673 cell >>> 425-740-9130 fax >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > > -- > Brad Hall > hallbrad at gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From kade.olsen at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 18:06:31 2009 From: kade.olsen at gmail.com (Kade Olsen) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 19:06:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Message-ID: <38c34f90904041606k52d7d65fr8673886fcedd582a@mail.gmail.com> Galloway's and Dylan's theory arguments are clearly sufficient to beat just about anybody going for the states CP. All that is really required is that teams go for theory on the aff. I guess everyone is petrified of going for theory? The only real concern is that going for theory in the 1ar (given the block is likely to make 10-12 arguments) is likely to take up a lot of the time that the 1ar should spend on the cp. So what? Have the 2ac do some speed drills, make the block spend a fair amount of time extending the cp (4-5 min)? And then spend 1:30-2:00 min extending theory and you should be fine. More efficient 1ars could spend 1:10 on theory and then extend a states da for 30-40 secs. Didn't this happend with consult cp's or something? I think I have been involved in maybe 2 debates in the last 4 years inovling one. This obviously shouldn't just apply to the states cp. Most theoreticially questionable counterplans exist because its really easy to push around the aff. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090404/ac75986f/attachment.htm From Pacedebate at aol.com Sat Apr 4 19:55:34 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 20:55:34 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Message-ID: I wanted to start my responses to the various posts with two caveats: 1) I'm really speaking more about the high school community. I'm less concerned with college debate practice given that I see it, particularly national circuit ndt competition, primarily as a game for people who decide to do this instead of playing XBox or whatever. Not to say there isn't educational value to debate in college but my perspective is necessarily more focused on high school debate. Given the high school environment I think we should be uniquely concerned with tying debate practices to educational goals. 2) Even my high school perspective is an exclusive one focusing primarily on high school students who attend summer institutes and compete on the national circuit. So when I say "many high school students" those few folks willing to wade through all this will know that I'm speaking about a particular group of students and what practices I think will benefit them. Now some line by line.... In a message dated 4/4/2009 1:38:21 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jbhdb8 at gmail.com writes: Personally, I agree with most everyone on the "State CP = death of poverty topic" tip......not hard to agree with this...I do have a few questions for the extremely far right "don't teach the State CP" version of this: First, doesn't this kind of sellout many of our deepest held beliefs about letting the best argument win the day and let debate lead theory? This is why I started with the caveat about high school. 10 years of coaching high school debate has radically changed my beliefs about this notion. Summer institutes and the work done there dominate the high school scene. There are a number of reasons why this is the case but the primary one is the large number of very successful debaters that receive little to no coaching during the season. Very few people who haven't coached high school debate can understand how truly dominating the presence of camp work is during the season. Relative to the number of debates that take place in high school there is very little argument innovation. It isn't uncommon to find teams reading verbatim their camp aff at season ending tournaments. What they leave camp with is what they have. What they learn at camp is a large portion of the knowledge they will use during the season. Second, how does one get practice beating the states CP on a topic where people will 100% run the state CP when we don't even "introduce it" at camps etc. Seems to me most of us got our hard opinions about this CP after decades of debating it.....Removing it only means less well thought out answers and discussion among judging pools on how best to defeat it. For the next few years people would run it. Just like people still run Ashtar - the states cp will never totally disappear but if it isn't taught at camps it will become less and less common. And, I didn't say don't teach people how to beat the states cp. It's quite possible to talk about how to defeat an argument without including that in a camp curriculum as a core argument. As I stated, each instructor should definitely spend time talking about their favorite theory argument to beat the states cp. If several camps didn't teach it but did teach how to beat it this argument would be substantially less common next year. **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090404/ba45cb07/attachment.htm From bratt at capitol-debate.com Sat Apr 4 20:13:33 2009 From: bratt at capitol-debate.com (bratt at capitol-debate.com) Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:13:33 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] High School Debate Coach Job Opening - Full Time Message-ID: <20090404181333.8cce6020757326d78a2cd7ce56dd3822.698e256872.wbe@email.secureserver.net> Capitol Debate in partnership with the Howard County School System is hiring a full time coach for its high school debate teams in Howard County, Maryland. Howard County Maryland High School Debate Teams practice together as a consortium of schools: Centennial, River Hill, Glenelg, Mt. Hebron, Oakland Mills, Howard, Wilde Lake, and several other high schools including McDonogh. We started the year with about 24 students traveling nationally to Wake, GDS, Bronx, Capitol Debate, Glenbrooks, Ohio Valley, MBA, Pennsbury, Harvard, Lakeland, and Woodward and we will have about 44 students that travel with us nationally next year. 2 of our teams from Centennial advanced to elimination rounds at JV Nationals at Woodward with one of the students receiving 9th speaker. Capitol Debate in partnership with the Howard County School System oversees the debate teams. Capitol Debate is looking to hire a full time coach for the Howard County teams starting in August 2009. As an employee of Capitol Debate, the person will: Coach the Varsity and Novice teams Oversee strategy and evidence production Travel to Debate Tournaments with Teams Run Debate Practices Listen to practice Debates & Redos Teach Workshops during school year for Middle School Debate Help with running the program Other duties of a debate coach The ideal candidate is someone that has experience successfully coaching on the National level. We are not seeking a satellite coach but instead someone that can move to this area to coach full time. Having a reliable means of transportation is important. Salary dependent on experience. Howard County Maryland is situated between Washington, D.C. and Baltimore. We are about 30 minutes outside of Baltimore and 45 minutes outside of DC. To apply for this position, please send a cover letter that details your success coaching debate on the national level, salary requirements, resume, and 3 names that can serve as references to: Capitol Debate Human Resources 10770 Folkestone Way Woodstock, Maryland 21163 Or Email to: hr at capitol-debate.com I will be at NDCA and TOC if you have questions. We will be requiring in person interviews in Howard County Maryland. Ronald Bratt Founder Capitol Debate http://www.capitol-debate.com bratt at capitol-debate.com From Pacedebate at aol.com Sat Apr 4 21:19:30 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:19:30 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Message-ID: In a message dated 4/4/2009 1:43:25 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, gacggc at gmail.com writes: Tim, it is extremely bad advice to "implore" teachers at summer institutes to "not teach debaters the states counterplan," I'm asking institute directors and people who work with high school students to think about the educational goals of their teaching. I'm asking these folks to contemplate this question: "What is my educational aim when I'm teaching the states counterplan?" In reality, I would like this to be at the forefront of every summer debate camp/institute regardless of the arguments taught. It wouldn't take much of a mindset shift to create a substantial and beneficial change in the high school community. If folks opt for the counterplan advocated by Paul Johnson earlier in this thread I don't really have a huge issue with that. I do think we need to go cold turkey and break the habit of the states counterplan but I believe the state counterplans that are truly reflected in the literature to be educationally defensible counterplans. The counterplan that lopez's and uniform fiats states and relevant territories isn't educationally defensible. Is there some gray area between those extremes? Probably. If summer staff thought about education instead of the most strategic arguments possible would my student's summer experience be better? Definitely. since there is no doubt that the students will be hearing the states argument a lot. This is just a bad inevitability argument. This might be true at the college level although it is possible the generation of debaters we shape now could change that. However, in high school this inevitability argument really isn't true. The reason why some of the bad arguments that exist on the high school circuit survive the first few tournaments is because some lab leader at camp sat down and wrote a bunch of blocks and spent time explaining to their labbies the "tricks" to make these arguments viable. It is hard to believe anyone would advocate not teaching as a solution to dealing with an argument. I didn't say don't teach i said teach how to answer it not how to run it. Just like we do with a huge swathe of other arguments. Print out the file called backfile check go over all the bad arguments in it with your students and how to beat them and then move on. Don't conclude by making it a core part of the curriculum any more than people make spark a part of their core curriculum. Also, as Stefan mentioned, the states counterplan has the rather useful effect of limiting an extremely large topic to those areas where there is a particular warrant for federal action. At the topic meeting, this issue was brought up when people voiced concern as to the breadth of the resolution, and it was pointed out that with states as a tool for the neg, the aff would have to be quite selective in choosing an aff. So the states cp was considered as a necessary limiting tool, allowing for this particular wording (if we throw out the states cp, the discussions at the high school topic meeting would be necessarily focused on adding in additional limiters). Yes, I get that people did that. I'm arguing that is a bad way to think about debate. I believe Ryan Galloway effectively impact turned this and no one has really created any meaningful response. Galloway says that the states counterplan means a huge swathe of the literature is ignored and people basically responded in three ways 1) suck it up and go for theory 2) the federalism da is educational (oh sure, that really outweighs the points galloway made and by the way you can still run this educational argument even if you don't have the states cp 3) it's inevitable. The reasons why poverty should be debated next year are almost completely eviscerated by the existence of the states cp. If you have even the slightest doubt about this please reread the topic paper _http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/poverty08.pdf_ (http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmanager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/poverty08.pdf) There is a reasonable section of the paper devoted to the states counterplan and potential aff defenses. In fact, there is a quite a good card included that "should" defeat any states cp. Read it and make a realistic assessment of how debates will shake down. The neg makes 90%, if not more, of those affs go away by fiat and even the few that it doesn't completely remove are borderline non topical (the federal control of interest rates type aff's) and can in many instances be solved by other state actions. The states counterplan creates an ugly, uneducational race to the bottom. I know that most of the aff's that really attempt to deal with poverty can be done by the states so I choose an aff that has a mechanism the states don't have jurisdiction over. The neg then lopez's that power away OR has the states act to solve poverty in some other way. So the only solution is for the aff to find, generally weak, internal links to international advantages. While most, if not all, the people on this list know exactly how this will shake down in college I don't think as many realize how truly dreadful this will make the poverty topic on the high school scene. As to whether states destroys the case debate, this is often true, but it seems less true when it comes to anti-poverty legislation. There are many job-creation programs that have been created by the federal government particularly because states dont have the money to step in, and yet those states need the jobs. State funding disads will not be hard to come by next year. Yeah, those state funding DA's really won a lot of debates for the aff this year. Next year the neg will get to leverage politics, spending and federalism against the state spending da. Also, while concepts such as federalism are old-hat to coaches, they are news to high school debaters. Same with politics. These issues will not go away from the political discourse just by ignoring them in high school debate rounds; therefore students will be ill-served by coaches who refuse to teach these fundamental args. The majority of summer institute instructors are not teaching a version of the states counterplan that is anywhere near what occurs in "political discourse". I'm going to stop here. I read most of the rest of Dr. Glass's responses to be little more than "there are other bad arguments" Yep, that's true. I agree with the others who said that counterplans/alternatives should be held to a very high standard as to what constitutes a solvency advocate - if you don't have an advocate for your particular version of action then it should be assessed as zero solvency. T It is understandable why coaches and debaters want to innovate; it is much more fun to craft an entirely new approach to an arg than to have a kid run states/federalism or states/politics. But such a bread-and-butter approach gives the young debater a reasonable way to learn the game, and to get sufficient grounding from which to branch out. AT Ryan: 1) "First, the states counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics." The states cp does not seem to uniquely gut the case debate in comparison to any other agent cp. It seems this arg applies to all agent cps, including ones with a single actor (executive order, etc). The better arg is that 50 state fiat is not symmetrical to federal action - however there are in fact anti-poverty programs in all 50 states, so it may depend on the particular aff. 2) "Second, the states counterplan thrives by distorting the literature base to answer it." You're right about Lopez, but there will be no need to devolve authority to the states when it comes to poverty. So the Lopez-based disads don't seem to apply this year. 3) "Third, the benefits of testing the federal government in the resolution with the states counterplan are vastly overstated" Again, this arg seems to apply to any agent c/p. If you toss all of these out, you privilege the status of the federal govt - and even the particular branch of the federal gov't the aff chooses. So you'd also eliminate the courts c/p; executive orders; refs, etc. Anticipating that you might say this is good, one can also make the same arg against a PIC which avoids doing the aff in a particular area, or avoids doing a part of the aff - each of these "classical" cps decreases the need to discuss the case. (Actually all cps decrease the need to discuss the case - so you're arg is a more general "cp bad" position.") 4) "the counterplan guts in-depth education on domestic topics. " That also could be said about almost any cp. It could also be said about almost any K... and perhaps the K, with its shift in the discussion framework, is more effective at gutting case-specific education. 5) "I suspect we will see a lot of military aff s and aff s dealing with federal agencies to try to carve out some narrow warrant for why the USFG is necessary in this instance. " I agree. That was my thought when we were discussing this at the Topic Meeting. This does not seem bad to me; there are still a large number of affs - and the rez becomes functionally much more easily navigated. You say these affs shouldnt be the only functionally viable affs - but it is always the case that good affs = all affs - unstrategic affs; your focus on states doesn't seem warranted. It is difficult to defend such a vanilla approach to debate - but remember there was a time when the state cp was wildly innovative, and it forced people to rethink their approach to the aff, and concentrate on areas where there was a particular need for federal action. This still does not seem to be an irrelevant of bad requirement when thinking about federal action. David Glass On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM, wrote: > If you really want to make a difference then you need to think about the > place you can have the biggest impact. I believe there are three key areas. > First, summer debate institutes. For many high school students a majority of > their ideas about debate are formulated during the summer. If you work at > one of these institutes I implore you to not teach debaters the states > counterplan or if you feel it is your educational obligation to teach it at > least subject it to a very rigorous test of the solvency advocate for the > counterplan. Certainly on next year's high school topic (poverty) there will > be advocates for state action to deal with poverty. I'm skeptical that any > of those advocates will express a preference for uniform action by all 50 > states and relevant territories. Again, I have a strong preference for > institutes removing the states cp from the entire curriculum and I suggest > those of you who are instructors to just refuse to teach it. > Second, as teachers. Teach your students (high school or college) your > favorite theory argument against the states cp and help them learn how to > actually win these arguments in debates. Many of the arguments expressed by > others are sufficient reason to reject the states cp but debaters rarely go > for these arguments in debates. > Third, as judges. If the aff goes for "cp doesn't solve" hold the negative > to the same solvency burden that the affirmative has. If the aff has cards > that the federal government can solve certain problems then the neg should > be required to read evidence that advocates their counterplan which means if > the cp does 50 state and territories fiat then they need an advocate for > that type of action. Failure to have said advocate should be evaluated not > as a "solvency deficit" but as a "100% solvency deficit". It is unfair to > expect the affirmative to detail and evidence solvency deficits to a > counterplan that, as others in this thread have noted, is completely absent > from the literature. > > I'll conclude with a final comment about summer debate institutes because I > believe that to be the most significant area where people can make a > difference. What happens at summer institutes truly shapes each generation > of debaters. Summer institute directors need to seriously contemplate the > role of their "institute". Are they really an educational arena as their > brochures suggest? At any moment in time could a teacher from a high school > walk in to a labroom and could the "instruction" being received be justified > as truly educational? Or are these programs really just big debate strategy > sessions where students are taught cheap tricks by coaches who are really > training students to be the debaters they want on their college squads in > the future. Lately, I'm sad to report, the trend has been toward cheap > tricks and bad arguments. Each of you that works at a summer institute can > make a genuine difference in that. I truly hope you will approach your lab > with the idea that you are there to teach the students in your group about > the substance of the topic. > Ryan Galloway is 100% correct when he says: > "Instead of encouraging understanding of issues related to poverty, the > states cp forces everyone involved to narrow and obscure areas of poverty > literature. > Everyone who researches, teaches about, leans about, and grapples with every > domestic topic is intentionally cordoned off to a narrow literature base to > research the topic to get around that blasted "federal government" warrant. > Maybe it's time we learned about more. We are losing something here, and we > are losing the in-depth understanding about issues that are important for > our students to learn about, especially in trying economic times." > > Please, please, please this summer make a commitment to teaching your > students about the substance of poverty not the sham of the states > counterplan. > > Thanks, > > Tim Mahoney > Director of Debate, St. Mark's School of Texas > 10600 Preston Road > Dallas, TX 75230 > 214-346-8141 > 214-734-3673 cell > 425-740-9130 fax > > > ________________________________ > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090404/b1dee125/attachment.htm From Pacedebate at aol.com Sat Apr 4 21:22:20 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:22:20 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Message-ID: In a message dated 4/4/2009 2:10:56 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, kkuswa at richmond.edu writes: I agree with the arguments that there are better ways to approach the poverty topic (Ryan's post is really helpful on this), but censorship is not the right path... It's not censorship it's about prioritizing what arguments summer institutes will teach. There are a number of arguments that the summer institutes will choose not to discuss this summer. I'm just advocating that the states cp be put in the same dustbin where whole rez currently resides. **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090404/7500d396/attachment.htm From Pacedebate at aol.com Sat Apr 4 21:26:16 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 22:26:16 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Message-ID: In a message dated 4/4/2009 2:56:04 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, gacggc at gmail.com writes: just to emphasize one point: consider next year's high school resolution without the states cp for a second; it is huge. really really really huge; in the world of the states cp however there are still interesting aff areas where states would not be strategic, where you can also actually discuss poverty 3 off and the case. Politics, Spending, Federalism, the case. The neg will be fine. T **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090404/ce6bcb58/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Sun Apr 5 02:09:19 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 00:09:19 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] be sure to send in results to jon for final ndt rankings report Message-ID: <689EC11969924B418C64528418B611F3@hansonjbPC> if you are a tournament director/tab person for a tournament that hasn't already, please send in the electronic results files to jon by thursday, april 9. instructions are at: http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/DebatePointsHelp.aspx jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090405/6bc0650b/attachment.htm From gacggc at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 06:37:55 2009 From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:37:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8371758b0904050437lec781feva82183703739d2cf@mail.gmail.com> by the way, the Cap K (among many other Ks) will be in force this coming year, and will also allow the neg to avoid specific discussion of poverty and particular programs to ameliorate that poverty, in favor of the usual, much broader discussion of political frameworks. do you also want to implore institute teachers to stop teaching the K, in a year when capitalism is under particular scrutiny? On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM, wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/4/2009 2:56:04 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > gacggc at gmail.com writes: > > just to emphasize one point:? consider next year's high school > resolution without the states cp for a second; it is huge.? really > really really huge;? in the world of the states cp however there are > still interesting aff areas where states would not be strategic, where > you can also actually discuss poverty > > 3 off and the case. > > Politics, Spending, Federalism, the case. > > The neg will be fine. > > > T > ________________________________ > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From mharris02 at drury.edu Sun Apr 5 07:04:14 2009 From: mharris02 at drury.edu (Martin Harris) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 07:04:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Message-ID: <451372279EE24E4992ED27B99AC5577304A88534@EXVS1.drury.edu> I haven't read all the thread so some might be redundant but I am pretty sure half isn't so I decided to chime in anyway. I have long hated the states counterplan. Two of the things that have annoyed me most are probably the seeming incongruence between arguing that states are flexible and solutions should be local and then fiating uniform 50 state action. How is 50 states doing the same thing local and flexible? I understand this is not the NECESSARY way to run the cplan, but a way I see it the most. And the second is the way the counterplan seems to BE federal action but tries and pretend like it isn't. From a political science standpoint, I think fiat bypasses the main debate and kind of makes federalism acontextual and ahistoric. Historically, the reason a federal government was required at times was to fill in on protecting rights in the absence of state action. I think confederalism was tried twice in this country and lost both times (revolutionary war period and civil war period). Confederalism also wasn't all that hot for the german confederacy pre the treaty of Westphalia and the establishment of the Nation-State. Debate frequently short circuits in depth philosophic investigation though for the quick easy sound bite. Which leads to the part I have never seen outside practice rounds at a debate institute about 6 years ago (not saying people don't say it, but not as common knowledge as say Spark I suspect). If people are looking for new and funky ways to answer states, I think they should explore a state's rights K. A lab Heather and I led at the Jayhawk Debate Institute that Ozzy and Will Jensen were in on the mental health topic wrote an argument that said states rights is a code word for racism (yeah, in case you have missed it through the years, Oz is familiar with running Ks, he just decided to stop doing it). It is an argument I first encountered when studying the Carter Reagan election when Carter said, I am from the south, I KNOW what Reagan MEANS when he says it is a "state right." Don't get it twisted, this isn't an OMG, they said state's rights, they lose juhdggge. It had a couple of implications. First, the literature you base your theoretical argument on is divorced in practice for the Machiavellian politicians that put it into praxis. You think it is coincidental that people like John Ashcroft support state's rights and ALSO find their "southern" heros to be people like Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis but not Martin Luther King? This means either the precedent set by the counterplan further enables people to fully engage in their ability to actualize racist policy REGARDLESS of whether the PLAN is racist, or, the literature you base your federalism argument on is theoretical but unfounded in the real world. That is, Calibresi might fully believe he is right in the abstract, but in practice that just ain't the way it works. The latter being especially true if one does a histography of say policies supported under the rubric of state's rights, or the inconsistency in theory practiced by agents like the Supreme Court. For example, the manner in which agents will ignore state's rights on issues like GLBT marriage and adoption where they are happy to drop the Federal hammer. With links between poverty and racism, I think this could be an EXTREMELY strong argument against the States cplan. While I agree with a lot of what I read of Tim's views, I also think one of the ways to shift argument style is to ramp up the cost of running the predictable. New, interesting, creative, unique offense against arguments goes a long way to make people get back to looking at the specific literature instead of grabbing for the generic. One of the things I think used to be powerful about the nuclearism position Texas was common for running at least in the mid 90s was the way it deterred some for just tacking on the nuclear war impact. It made people think about other ways to terminalize their disads other than omnicide. A worthwhile endeavor I suspect, although I have some friends that certainly disagree. Martin Harris Systems Engineer - Desktop Architecture Drury University - Technology Services 900 N Benton Ave Springfield, Missouri 65802 office: 417-873-7848 fax: 417-873-7835 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090405/7ac3312f/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 07:57:33 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904050557k486842a9m63b80dc49c4b22ae@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andy Ellis Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM Subject: Final round video To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following the video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. As we where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and hey who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it had fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could stream it we should as gordon announced before the round started....paraphrasing now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny then but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that they not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that the round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work that i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want to post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want to be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it but not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090405/12e8e13a/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Apr 5 10:17:11 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:17:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback Message-ID: <49D885270200009300027FF3@mymail.kckcc.edu> Andy, You are correct that the CEDA leadership asked you to tape the Final Round, and we asked if you would be so kind to provide us with a copy of that round. I know Gordon was coordinating this with you, and given my lack of voice that evening I nodded a lot in agreement. : ) Two days ago I received a few inquiries in our intent to post given the concern of some who might show up in the video. Before you posted to edebate the first time, I emailed the tournament committee/Big 5 officers based on the emails I had received. That includes the 1st VP (Gordon), 2nd VP (Sue), Exec Secretary (Jeff), Treasurer (ML), and incoming 2nd VP (Mike). I am waiting on feedback from these officers. I am also sitting in a Wyoming hotel waiting for I80 to open so we can hopefully finish our drive to Oregon for Community College Debate Nationals which begins tomorrow evening. Soon as it opens I have a 17 hour drive. Please forgive if a response is not immediate in the next couple days. I know we are all busy, some of us still have a season going on, but I can assure you we are giving this our attention. Thank you for taping the round. When all is said and done I know we will all benefit from the educational ability to use these videos. Please stay tuned. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President >>> Andy Ellis 04/05/09 7:57 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andy Ellis Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM Subject: Final round video To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following the video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. As we where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and hey who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it had fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could stream it we should as gordon announced before the round started....paraphrasing now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny then but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that they not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that the round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work that i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want to post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want to be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it but not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Apr 5 10:18:03 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:18:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback Message-ID: <49D8855B0200009300027FF9@mymail.kckcc.edu> Andy, You are correct that the CEDA leadership asked you to tape the Final Round, and we asked if you would be so kind to provide us with a copy of that round. I know Gordon was coordinating this with you, and given my lack of voice that evening I nodded a lot in agreement. : ) Two days ago I received a few inquiries in our intent to post given the concern of some who might show up in the video. Before you posted to edebate the first time, I emailed the tournament committee/Big 5 officers based on the emails I had received. That includes the 1st VP (Gordon), 2nd VP (Sue), Exec Secretary (Jeff), Treasurer (ML), and incoming 2nd VP (Mike). I am waiting on feedback from these officers. I am also sitting in a Wyoming hotel waiting for I80 to open so we can hopefully finish our drive to Oregon for Community College Debate Nationals which begins tomorrow evening. Soon as it opens I have a 17 hour drive. Please forgive if a response is not immediate in the next couple days. I know we are all busy, some of us still have a season going on, but I can assure you we are giving this our attention. Thank you for taping the round. When all is said and done I know we will all benefit from the educational ability to use these videos. Please stay tuned. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President >>> Andy Ellis 04/05/09 7:57 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andy Ellis Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM Subject: Final round video To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following the video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. As we where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and hey who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it had fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could stream it we should as gordon announced before the round started....paraphrasing now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny then but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that they not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that the round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work that i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want to post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want to be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it but not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks From Pacedebate at aol.com Sun Apr 5 11:08:09 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:08:09 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan Message-ID: In a message dated 4/5/2009 5:38:13 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, gacggc at gmail.com writes: by the way, the Cap K (among many other Ks) will be in force this coming year, and will also allow the neg to avoid specific discussion of poverty and particular programs to ameliorate that poverty, in favor of the usual, much broader discussion of political frameworks. do you also want to implore institute teachers to stop teaching the K, in a year when capitalism is under particular scrutiny? The capitalism K is also vulnerable to the lack of a solvency advocate. It would certainly be a good move for debate if summer institutes taught that the K should actually have a link to the plan instead of relying on the lame you are part of the capitalist system so obviously your plan is capitalist. I also think the bigger issue is the huge lack of diversity in the way the kritik is taught. Despite a huge diversity of kritikal literature on this year's topic the K on this topic was 80% cap bad and 15% heidegger. The question for me can always be decided by tying what is being taught to an educational goal. Is there a defense of teaching questions of socialism vs the status quo? Of course. Is there a legitimate defense of the way the K is taught at most summer institutes? Probably not. On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:26 PM, wrote: > > > In a message dated 4/4/2009 2:56:04 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > gacggc at gmail.com writes: > > just to emphasize one point: consider next year's high school > resolution without the states cp for a second; it is huge. really > really really huge; in the world of the states cp however there are > still interesting aff areas where states would not be strategic, where > you can also actually discuss poverty > > 3 off and the case. > > Politics, Spending, Federalism, the case. > > The neg will be fine. > > > T > ________________________________ > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > **************Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a recession. (http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090405/9052cf44/attachment.htm From paulstrait at hotmail.com Sun Apr 5 11:09:50 2009 From: paulstrait at hotmail.com (Paul Strait) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:09:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Re-thinking the States Counterplan (ans garner) Message-ID: RG: >(3) Opportunity cost. I'm open to this perspective, but doesn't it beg the >question of what position the judge adopts. Certainly grassroots movements >or political think-tanks, among others, are presented with an opportunity >cost decision to focus resources on producing policy ideas for either states >or federal government. Not that that answers the literature argument, but >I'd be interested to hear from someone who knows this idea better. LPS: The States CP (along with every other alternative agent CP) fails in this respect. If you are actually interested in the question of whether some particular grassroots movement, think-tank, or activist should support federal action or state action, the last thing you would want to do is bracket off the question of whether or not the federal government or the state governments are actually likely to say yes. Since fiat does precisely that, debates in which fiated federal action is compared to fiated state action are useless at answering this question. -- L. Paul Strait ******************************** Doctoral Student, Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California ******************************** Cell: 202-270-6397 "When, for example, an aristocracy... throws away its privileges with a sublime disgust and sacrifices itself to an extravagance of its own moral feelings, that is corruption" -F. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, #258 _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090405/979d0a0f/attachment.htm From zachrtw at googlemail.com Sun Apr 5 11:30:50 2009 From: zachrtw at googlemail.com (Zach Round The World) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 11:30:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0904050557k486842a9m63b80dc49c4b22ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0904050557k486842a9m63b80dc49c4b22ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <807961fa0904050930v2dc83f59t4d43f1d03d528911@mail.gmail.com> Long time lurker, reading lots of posts, but never posting, but this makes me so mad I have to post. Post the stinking videos! I'm an ex-debater who still likes to follow along with what is going on in debate and I'm very confused not to mention sad. I read the listserv and was at nationals last year to watch, and was there for the big conflict, but this year I wasn't, so because I wasn't there personally I don't get to watch the rounds? Bullshit! The idea that a national championship would not be taped and displayed for all to see is stupid. The idea that it could be recorded and a someone could say ?I don't want to appear in it? and you actually listen to them is absurd and makes me very sad. What other collegiate competition would be this way? These were public performances in a public place where anyone could attend. I know everyone is walking on egg shells after the bill blow up last year, but no one should have the ability to keep these videos from being posted. This is really egregious considering that many of the attendants are from publicly funded institutions. Courts have up he idea that video taping in public is protected under the first amendment. CEDA you are really being reactionary and short sited. This is PUBLIC SPEAKING folks. If you don't want to be taped DON'T compete. Your reasonable expectation of privacy went right out the door when you joined. Let's me be clear, anyone can be recorded in a public place, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. I can follow you around all the time and record every second of your life outside of your house and post it to Youtube, and you have zero recourse to stop me. You don't own your imagine. That one or two people could say ?I don't want to be on the net? and let them have the final say is stupid. This is 2009 people, everything is being recorded, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Can you imagine a basketball team in the NCAA refusing to be televised? Anyways that's my 2 cents. I'll go back to lurking in the shadows, and hopefully never see anything else that makes me want to post. Zach Ferris Wichita State Debate 1994-1996 On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Andy Ellis > Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM > Subject: Final round video > To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" > > > hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has > some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. > > We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following the > video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. As we > where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private > educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and hey > who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of > nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the > offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it had > fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could stream > it we should as gordon announced before the round started....paraphrasing > now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from > ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny then > but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the > tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community > service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that they > not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that the > round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work that > i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want to > post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want to > be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational > purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it but > not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From stevendamico at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 12:29:46 2009 From: stevendamico at gmail.com (Steven D'Amico) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:29:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback In-Reply-To: <807961fa0904050930v2dc83f59t4d43f1d03d528911@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0904050557k486842a9m63b80dc49c4b22ae@mail.gmail.com> <807961fa0904050930v2dc83f59t4d43f1d03d528911@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Debaters are not NCAA basketball players. Debate teams are not regularly televised and schools do not get paid for TV rights by major broadcast networks. Debate memorabilia and advertising agreements are not revenue sources for universities. Debaters never signed any informed consent agreeing that their image can be distributed on public airwaves and Internets. NCAA players waive these rights with informed legal paperwork. Their interests are protected by entire college athletic programs. NCAA players at the top programs even go through media training, and are prepared for being in the spotlight. Debaters are much less prepared to be under public scrutiny, especially when we are often times defending things which we disagree with, or are very objectionable to the public at large (nuclear war good, cap bad, etc). Allowing debaters to "opt out" seems like the least we can do given the unforeseen consequences of exposing oneself to the public. In sum, NCAA players know what they are getting into. They consent to their image being used for an advertising apparatus, and have people who help them prepare for such engagements. There are people who help protect them when things go wrong. These are structures and policies we don't have in debate (nor is it feasible). Steve D'Amico On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Zach Round The World < zachrtw at googlemail.com> wrote: > Long time lurker, reading lots of posts, but never posting, but this > makes me so mad I have to post. > > Post the stinking videos! I'm an ex-debater who still likes to follow > along with what is going on in debate and I'm very confused not to > mention sad. I read the listserv and was at nationals last year to > watch, and was there for the big conflict, but this year I wasn't, so > because I wasn't there personally I don't get to watch the rounds? > Bullshit! The idea that a national championship would not be taped > and displayed for all to see is stupid. The idea that it could be > recorded and a someone could say ?I don't want to appear in it? and > you actually listen to them is absurd and makes me very sad. What > other collegiate competition would be this way? These were public > performances in a public place where anyone could attend. I know > everyone is walking on egg shells after the bill blow up last year, > but no one should have the ability to keep these videos from being > posted. This is really egregious considering that many of the > attendants are from publicly funded institutions. Courts have up he > idea that video taping in public is protected under the first > amendment. CEDA you are really being reactionary and short sited. This > is PUBLIC SPEAKING folks. If you don't want to be taped DON'T compete. > Your reasonable expectation of privacy went right out the door when > you joined. Let's me be clear, anyone can be recorded in a public > place, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. I can follow > you around all the time and record every second of your life outside > of your house and post it to Youtube, and you have zero recourse to > stop me. You don't own your imagine. That one or two people could say > ?I don't want to be on the net? and let them have the final say is > stupid. This is 2009 people, everything is being recorded, and there > is nothing you can do to stop it. Can you imagine a basketball team in > the NCAA refusing to be televised? Anyways that's my 2 cents. I'll go > back to lurking in the shadows, and hopefully never see anything else > that makes me want to post. > > Zach Ferris > Wichita State Debate 1994-1996 > > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Andy Ellis > > Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM > > Subject: Final round video > > To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" > > > > > > hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has > > some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. > > > > We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following the > > video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. As > we > > where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private > > educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and > hey > > who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of > > nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the > > offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it > had > > fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could > stream > > it we should as gordon announced before the round started....paraphrasing > > now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from > > ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny > then > > but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the > > tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community > > service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that > they > > not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that > the > > round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work > that > > i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want to > > post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want > to > > be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational > > purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it > but > > not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20090405/052b618d/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Sun Apr 5 13:45:57 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:45:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback Message-ID: <5a6e2a80904051145s2b133160t24a77cb976626a@mail.gmail.com> Safety of the participants- The caveat of opt-out was advocated in the NDT meetings about documentary rights because of at least one student at the time had gone to court to protect themselves from a stalker. There was a court-recognized need for safety against displaying public images of this student. While the particulars of this student were not discussed, the possibility of any participant (coach, judge, student, etc) in witness protection programs, students with legal issues, and stalking were all listed as potential reasons to let students opt-out. I cannot speak to the motivations of the CEDA committee members in the opt-out provision, but it too sounds like a good idea. Yes, you might be legally correct that you can follow someone around and take pictures/videos of them. Our organization made a choice to not just be legal, but to try to factor in concerns of the participants as well. I too would like to see it again and show it to my debaters who were not in attendance. Zach, glad to hear that you are still following - waiting is a small price to pay. Justin Green From zachrtw at googlemail.com Sun Apr 5 13:53:51 2009 From: zachrtw at googlemail.com (Zach Round The World) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:53:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0904050557k486842a9m63b80dc49c4b22ae@mail.gmail.com> <807961fa0904050930v2dc83f59t4d43f1d03d528911@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <807961fa0904051153i9e49090q48dd12e5b54a2001@mail.gmail.com> Good spread on CEDA vs. Basketball, but it fails to miss the point, that was an example, not the crux of my argument. Those are all things that are the way they are because of the media attention that basketball gets today. They were not the rules that filming of basketballl games started under. And for almost everything else my answer is "why not?" -Debate teams do not produce revenue for schools. Why not? They produce money for the staff, what about debate camps? You telling me that a debate camp isn't a revune stream? -Debate teams are not followed by entire communities outside of the university. But they are. Go to Youtube and look at how many deabtes are online. Look at me I'm 15 years out of having any connection to any program. -Debate teams are not regularly televised and schools do not get paid for televised debates by networks. Debaters never signed any informed consent agreeing that their image can be distributed on public airwaves and Internets. NCAA players waive these rights with informed legal paperwork. Their interests are protected by entire college athletic (and legal) structures absent from debate. 1) why not? 2) I can promise that you waived those rights to the school when you were admited. Anything you do while representing your school is something they have say over, not you. Just like when you attend a major league game by simpling buying the ticket you give them to right to se your image for any thing they want. -Debate teams are often not supported by school administration. 1_) Why not? Oh maybe because they won't let themselves be taped and get some attention to the program. 2) Often? You mean there are more deabte teams that get NO funding from the school then do? Amazing, where are those stats? -The vast majority of debaters do not get significant scholarships to compete. Claim data warrant, that's how we did it when I debated, has that changed? -Debaters do not have drug tests. 1) Why not? 2) Too many would fail 3) What does this have to do with anything, they test me at my job, does that mean I can be filmed now? -Debaters do no have an extreme code of conduct anything close to what the NCAA does. Why not? They could. I didn't know that common sense was one of those things that could be codified. -Debate stars are not public figures like NCAA stars. 1) Why not, oh that's right they won' tlet themselves be taped so therefore they can't become public figures. That's not my fault, maybe you need a better PR department. Even my lowely self was interviewed by university paper and city papers. No bright line here. Then again what are you trying to hide? -The top debaters do not get drafted by a professional debate league. No but they do try to get drafted into grad school. -Most people do not find what the NCAA does objectionable, many people, believe it or not, hate what we do. So the way to get people to stop hating you is to stop them from watching you? Only by shining the light of day onto CEDA's dark little secrets can you hope to win over people. You are still close minded and not looking at the big picture. -etc etc etc Um let's seem what else, people worried about how they look on TV? Grow up, put on your big boy shorts and debate. At the level of a nation championship if you are not worring about how you look you shouldn't be national champion. If there is anything you might say that could look bad is someone else saw it 1,5,or 10 years from now, don't say it. I said some pretty crazy stuff when i was debating for Carson (Big T Technocracy anyone?) But I will stand by anything I said in any debate round that I was ever end. I said it, I meant it. Just because it's switch side debate doesn't mean you can't be true to yourself. We aren't talking about prime time TV, we are talking about posting videos to youtube. I'm willing to bet there is a good chance that every single person in the final round has already been on youtube at some point and time. I don't buy the arguement that debate forces you to defend things that are objectionable. You don't argue that nuke war is good because someone is forcing you to, you do it because it's easier then answering the line by line. Show me the argument that can be made where the ONLY way to win is to say nuke war good. The easiest answer to Towson is to say racism good, and that africans are an inferior race (you know those cards are out there) but most would never say it beacuse you would have to have no soul to stoop that low to win. So I ask this.... Say I show up to nationals next year with a camera, sit out of the way of everyone and quitely sit and record the event. Am I going to be kicked out? On what grounds? Is CEDA not a public event? I make a recording and I post it, you going to sue me? Send a cease and desist letter? I said no way in hell. It's much better to be open and up front, and say every second of ever round will be recorded, posted, and kept up for ever and ever. And if you can't live with that, maybe you should be debating. I'm sorry i really had no intention of saying anything after my first post, but your reply was so childish and condisending that it really got my blood boiling. Zach On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Steven D'Amico wrote: > Zach, > > I think you are unaware of some the reasons for the policy. Most > importantly, I believe there was a legal concern over privacy. It's not just > about what happened last year. > > Let's count the other ways we are not like the NCAA, because I think they > explain why your rant was not very well informed. > > -Debate teams do not produce revenue for schools. > -Debate teams are not followed by entire communities outside of the > university. > -Debate teams are not regularly televised and schools do not get paid for > televised debates by networks. Debaters never signed any informed consent > agreeing that their image can be distributed on public airwaves and > Internets. NCAA players waive these rights with informed legal paperwork. > Their interests are protected by entire college athletic (and legal) > structures absent from debate. > -Debate teams are often not supported by school administration. > -The vast majority of debaters do not get significant scholarships to > compete. > -Debaters do not have drug tests. > -Debaters do no have an extreme code of conduct anything close to what the > NCAA does. > -Debate stars are not public figures like NCAA stars. > -The top debaters do not get drafted by a professional debate league. > -Most people do not find what the NCAA does objectionable, many people, > believe it or not, hate what we do. > -etc etc etc > > Simply put, debaters should not have to worry that 10 years down the line a > video of them defending spark will surface when they are trying to get a > government job, running for public office, or doing anything else that has a > routine background check. > > They shouldn't be forced to be on television. You don't prepare for a debate > event like you would being on video. I don't know if you've ever been on TV, > but trust me, whenever I go on, I spend hours thinking about how I look. > Debaters should not have to deal with that if they don't want to. > > There have also been debaters who requested to be left out of videos because > of safety concerns. (use your imagination on this one, I'm not going into > details). > > Best, > > Steve D'Amico > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Zach Round The World > wrote: >> >> Long time lurker, reading lots of posts, but never posting, but this >> makes me so mad I have to post. >> >> Post the stinking videos! I'm an ex-debater who still likes to follow >> along with what is going on in debate and I'm very confused not to >> mention sad. I read the listserv and was at nationals last year to >> watch, and was there for the big conflict, but this year I wasn't, so >> because I wasn't there personally I don't get to watch the rounds? >> Bullshit! ?The idea that a national championship would not be taped >> and displayed for all to see is stupid. The idea that it could be >> recorded and a someone could say ?I don't want to appear in it? and >> you actually listen to them is absurd and makes me very sad. What >> other collegiate competition would be this way? These were public >> performances in a public place where anyone could attend. I know >> everyone is walking on egg shells after the bill blow up last year, >> but no one should have the ability to keep these videos from being >> posted. This is really egregious considering that many of the >> attendants are from publicly funded institutions. Courts have up he >> idea that video taping in public is protected under the first >> amendment. CEDA you are really being reactionary and short sited. This >> is PUBLIC SPEAKING folks. If you don't want to be taped DON'T compete. >> Your reasonable expectation of privacy went right out the door when >> you joined. Let's me be clear, anyone can be recorded in a public >> place, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. I can follow >> you around all the time and record every second of your life outside >> of your house and post it to Youtube, and you have zero recourse to >> stop me. You don't own your imagine. That one or two people could say >> ?I don't want to be on the net? and let them have the final say is >> stupid. This is 2009 people, everything is being recorded, and there >> is nothing you can do to stop it. Can you imagine a basketball team in >> the NCAA refusing to be televised? Anyways that's my 2 cents. I'll go >> back to lurking in the shadows, and hopefully never see anything else >> that makes me want to post. >> >> Zach Ferris >> Wichita State Debate 1994-1996 >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Andy Ellis wrote: >> > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Andy Ellis >> > Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM >> > Subject: Final round video >> > To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" >> > >> > >> > hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has >> > some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. >> > >> > We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following >> > the >> > video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. >> > As we >> > where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private >> > educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and >> > hey >> > who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of >> > nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the >> > offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it >> > had >> > fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could >> > stream >> > it we should as gordon announced before the round >> > started....paraphrasing >> > now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from >> > ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny >> > then >> > but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the >> > tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community >> > service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that >> > they >> > not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that >> > the >> > round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work >> > that >> > i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want >> > to >> > post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want >> > to >> > be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational >> > purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it >> > but >> > not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > eDebate mailing list >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 14:14:53 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:14:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Reflections on ndt twitter experiment Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904051214l753a9f65p204e148e830d95ab@mail.gmail.com> http://bmoreyours.org/2009/04/reflections-on-debatetwit-and-the-ndt-tech-experiments/ comment there...thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090405/ff46b46b/attachment.htm From stevendamico at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 14:29:28 2009 From: stevendamico at gmail.com (Steven D'Amico) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 15:29:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback In-Reply-To: <807961fa0904051153i9e49090q48dd12e5b54a2001@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0904050557k486842a9m63b80dc49c4b22ae@mail.gmail.com> <807961fa0904050930v2dc83f59t4d43f1d03d528911@mail.gmail.com> <807961fa0904051153i9e49090q48dd12e5b54a2001@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Zach, I think you should really back off the ad-homs. It comes off pretty disrespectful for someone concerned with the public image of debate. If you think that me pointing out that debate is not like the NCAA is childish, I most certainly apologize for the egregious violation of edebate etiquette. I'm not going to do the edebate line by line. That's soooo 2004. You make a few fair points, but I think you miss the broader issue at stake: There are legal consequences when an organization such as CEDA writes an official policy addressing student privacy, the distribution of video material, etc. These are not issue taken as lightly as you seem to imply with your "why nots." We could have a long discussion about why debate is not like the NCAA, why debate isn't seen as important as basketball, etc, but it doesn't really matter. CEDA must protect itself. As an organization with limited resources, a policy like this most certainly achieves that goal without incurring many negative drawbacks besides you not being able to see the CEDA final round fast enough. In my opinion: students should have the ability to not be recorded if they prefer not to. Justin's example is really only the tip of the iceberg of the negative consequences of your suggestion. I had a debater who if he was required to be filmed would probably have quit the activity. He was very very good ( a 1st rounder). He was not only distracted by the camera, but also extremely uncomfortable with it. Why? I don't know. It was just his hangup. Should he have been pushed out? No. I also fully invite you to come to explain to my novices why any person should be able to walk into their first debate with a camera and post it online for all eternity. If you want to kill the activity, allowing that behavior is a good way to start. Best, On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Zach Round The World wrote: > Good spread on CEDA vs. Basketball, but it fails to miss the point, > that was an example, not the crux of my argument. Those are all things > that are the way they are because of the media attention that > basketball gets today. They were not the rules that filming of > basketballl games started under. And for almost everything else my > answer is "why not?" > > -Debate teams do not produce revenue for schools. > Why not? They produce money for the staff, what about debate camps? > You telling me that a debate camp isn't a revune stream? > > -Debate teams are not followed by entire communities outside of the > university. > But they are. Go to Youtube and look at how many deabtes are online. > Look at me I'm 15 years out of having any connection to any program. > > -Debate teams are not regularly televised and schools do not get paid > for televised debates by networks. Debaters never signed any informed > consent agreeing that their image can be distributed on public > airwaves and Internets. NCAA players waive these rights with informed > legal paperwork. Their interests are protected by entire college > athletic (and legal) structures absent from debate. > 1) why not? 2) I can promise that you waived those rights to the > school when you were admited. Anything you do while representing your > school is something they have say over, not you. Just like when you > attend a major league game by simpling buying the ticket you give them > to right to se your image for any thing they want. > > -Debate teams are often not supported by school administration. > 1_) Why not? Oh maybe because they won't let themselves be taped and > get some attention to the program. 2) Often? You mean there are more > deabte teams that get NO funding from the school then do? Amazing, > where are those stats? > > -The vast majority of debaters do not get significant scholarships to > compete. > Claim data warrant, that's how we did it when I debated, has that changed? > > -Debaters do not have drug tests. > 1) Why not? 2) Too many would fail 3) What does this have to do with > anything, they test me at my job, does that mean I can be filmed now? > > -Debaters do no have an extreme code of conduct anything close to what > the NCAA does. > Why not? They could. I didn't know that common sense was one of those > things that could be codified. > > -Debate stars are not public figures like NCAA stars. > 1) Why not, oh that's right they won' tlet themselves be taped so > therefore they can't become public figures. That's not my fault, maybe > you need a better PR department. Even my lowely self was interviewed > by university paper and city papers. No bright line here. Then again > what are you trying to hide? > > -The top debaters do not get drafted by a professional debate league. > No but they do try to get drafted into grad school. > > -Most people do not find what the NCAA does objectionable, many > people, believe it or not, hate what we do. > So the way to get people to stop hating you is to stop them from > watching you? Only by shining the light of day onto CEDA's dark little > secrets can you hope to win over people. You are still close minded > and not looking at the big picture. > -etc etc etc > > Um let's seem what else, people worried about how they look on TV? > Grow up, put on your big boy shorts and debate. At the level of a > nation championship if you are not worring about how you look you > shouldn't be national champion. If there is anything you might say > that could look bad is someone else saw it 1,5,or 10 years from now, > don't say it. I said some pretty crazy stuff when i was debating for > Carson (Big T Technocracy anyone?) But I will stand by anything I said > in any debate round that I was ever end. I said it, I meant it. Just > because it's switch side debate doesn't mean you can't be true to > yourself. > > We aren't talking about prime time TV, we are talking about posting > videos to youtube. I'm willing to bet there is a good chance that > every single person in the final round has already been on youtube at > some point and time. > > I don't buy the arguement that debate forces you to defend things that > are objectionable. You don't argue that nuke war is good because > someone is forcing you to, you do it because it's easier then > answering the line by line. Show me the argument that can be made > where the ONLY way to win is to say nuke war good. The easiest answer > to Towson is to say racism good, and that africans are an inferior > race (you know those cards are out there) but most would never say it > beacuse you would have to have no soul to stoop that low to win. > > So I ask this.... > Say I show up to nationals next year with a camera, sit out of the way > of everyone and quitely sit and record the event. > Am I going to be kicked out? On what grounds? Is CEDA not a public event? > I make a recording and I post it, you going to sue me? Send a cease > and desist letter? > I said no way in hell. > > It's much better to be open and up front, and say every second of ever > round will be recorded, posted, and kept up for ever and ever. And if > you can't live with that, maybe you should be debating. > > I'm sorry i really had no intention of saying anything after my first > post, but your reply was so childish and condisending that it really > got my blood boiling. > > > > Zach > > > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Steven D'Amico > wrote: > > Zach, > > > > I think you are unaware of some the reasons for the policy. Most > > importantly, I believe there was a legal concern over privacy. It's not > just > > about what happened last year. > > > > Let's count the other ways we are not like the NCAA, because I think they > > explain why your rant was not very well informed. > > > > -Debate teams do not produce revenue for schools. > > -Debate teams are not followed by entire communities outside of the > > university. > > -Debate teams are not regularly televised and schools do not get paid for > > televised debates by networks. Debaters never signed any informed consent > > agreeing that their image can be distributed on public airwaves and > > Internets. NCAA players waive these rights with informed legal paperwork. > > Their interests are protected by entire college athletic (and legal) > > structures absent from debate. > > -Debate teams are often not supported by school administration. > > -The vast majority of debaters do not get significant scholarships to > > compete. > > -Debaters do not have drug tests. > > -Debaters do no have an extreme code of conduct anything close to what > the > > NCAA does. > > -Debate stars are not public figures like NCAA stars. > > -The top debaters do not get drafted by a professional debate league. > > -Most people do not find what the NCAA does objectionable, many people, > > believe it or not, hate what we do. > > -etc etc etc > > > > Simply put, debaters should not have to worry that 10 years down the line > a > > video of them defending spark will surface when they are trying to get a > > government job, running for public office, or doing anything else that > has a > > routine background check. > > > > They shouldn't be forced to be on television. You don't prepare for a > debate > > event like you would being on video. I don't know if you've ever been on > TV, > > but trust me, whenever I go on, I spend hours thinking about how I look. > > Debaters should not have to deal with that if they don't want to. > > > > There have also been debaters who requested to be left out of videos > because > > of safety concerns. (use your imagination on this one, I'm not going into > > details). > > > > Best, > > > > Steve D'Amico > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Zach Round The World > > wrote: > >> > >> Long time lurker, reading lots of posts, but never posting, but this > >> makes me so mad I have to post. > >> > >> Post the stinking videos! I'm an ex-debater who still likes to follow > >> along with what is going on in debate and I'm very confused not to > >> mention sad. I read the listserv and was at nationals last year to > >> watch, and was there for the big conflict, but this year I wasn't, so > >> because I wasn't there personally I don't get to watch the rounds? > >> Bullshit! The idea that a national championship would not be taped > >> and displayed for all to see is stupid. The idea that it could be > >> recorded and a someone could say ?I don't want to appear in it? and > >> you actually listen to them is absurd and makes me very sad. What > >> other collegiate competition would be this way? These were public > >> performances in a public place where anyone could attend. I know > >> everyone is walking on egg shells after the bill blow up last year, > >> but no one should have the ability to keep these videos from being > >> posted. This is really egregious considering that many of the > >> attendants are from publicly funded institutions. Courts have up he > >> idea that video taping in public is protected under the first > >> amendment. CEDA you are really being reactionary and short sited. This > >> is PUBLIC SPEAKING folks. If you don't want to be taped DON'T compete. > >> Your reasonable expectation of privacy went right out the door when > >> you joined. Let's me be clear, anyone can be recorded in a public > >> place, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. I can follow > >> you around all the time and record every second of your life outside > >> of your house and post it to Youtube, and you have zero recourse to > >> stop me. You don't own your imagine. That one or two people could say > >> ?I don't want to be on the net? and let them have the final say is > >> stupid. This is 2009 people, everything is being recorded, and there > >> is nothing you can do to stop it. Can you imagine a basketball team in > >> the NCAA refusing to be televised? Anyways that's my 2 cents. I'll go > >> back to lurking in the shadows, and hopefully never see anything else > >> that makes me want to post. > >> > >> Zach Ferris > >> Wichita State Debate 1994-1996 > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Andy Ellis > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > From: Andy Ellis > >> > Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM > >> > Subject: Final round video > >> > To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" > >> > > >> > > >> > hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it > has > >> > some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. > >> > > >> > We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following > >> > the > >> > video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. > >> > As we > >> > where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own > private > >> > educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and > >> > hey > >> > who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of > >> > nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot > the > >> > offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape > it > >> > had > >> > fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could > >> > stream > >> > it we should as gordon announced before the round > >> > started....paraphrasing > >> > now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video > from > >> > ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less > funny > >> > then > >> > but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook > the > >> > tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community > >> > service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that > >> > they > >> > not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy > that > >> > the > >> > round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the > work > >> > that > >> > i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want > >> > to > >> > post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i > want > >> > to > >> > be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private > educational > >> > purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see > it > >> > but > >> > not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks > >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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/20090405/f6b49d2b/attachment.htm From cstone387 at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 16:46:16 2009 From: cstone387 at gmail.com (Chris Stone) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:46:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC Work From Sarah Topp Message-ID: Sarah Topp is available for coaching, judging and/or card cutting at the TOC. You can contact her at sarah.topp at gmail.com. From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Apr 5 18:09:25 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:09:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] smoking crack in obamaland Message-ID: sounds like a bush admin "war coalition" spin. sorry charlie, NO STIMULUS MODELING + NO COMBAT TROOPS = SHITTY TRIP. http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/04/no-combat-troops-but-obama-lauds-strong-nato-support-for-war/ President Barack Obama?s attempt to secure firm commitments of significant additional troops from NATO allies to help in the planned escalation in Afghanistan was, by any objective measure, an abject failure. He got no combat troops, and only the most temporary commitments to send police and training personnel to help with the elections. Don?t tell that to the president, however.Today, he lauded the very guarded commitments as ?strong and unanimous support,? and praised NATO members for making a ?strong down payment? in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration has pledged tens of thousands of additional troops for Afghanistan, in addition to massive increases in civilian aid.Between the enthusiastic praise from European leaders and a foreign press falling over itself to cover the visit in a glowing light, it is hard to blame Obama for perceiving the trip as a dramatic success. Yet if one examines the bottom line, the lip service came with very little material support, and leaves the United States in largely the same situation as last week - unilateral escalation and the prospect of, as in Iraq, having to do more and more of the war-fighting on their own. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090405/c64a705d/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Sun Apr 5 20:04:09 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:04:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback In-Reply-To: <49D885270200009300027FF3@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <49D885270200009300027FF3@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <1238979849.49d95509c18f0@webmail.grandecom.net> Look, as usual, I will lay it out in all of its ugliness: I like Andy and Darren is, I now admit, my illegitimate son: Debate, especially, the CEDA NAtional Championship final round is a PUBLIC debate. Let the the damn tape be posted on the the net. If you are so ashamed of this activity, or what the hell you are doing during this activity's climax, get the hell out. Otherwise, let people post the good, the bad and the ugly. Scott Quoting Darren Elliott : > Andy, > > You are correct that the CEDA leadership asked you to tape the Final Round, > and we asked if you would be so kind to provide us with a copy of that round. > I know Gordon was coordinating this with you, and given my lack of voice > that evening I nodded a lot in agreement. : ) Two days ago I received a few > inquiries in our intent to post given the concern of some who might show up > in the video. Before you posted to edebate the first time, I emailed the > tournament committee/Big 5 officers based on the emails I had received. That > includes the 1st VP (Gordon), 2nd VP (Sue), Exec Secretary (Jeff), Treasurer > (ML), and incoming 2nd VP (Mike). I am waiting on feedback from these > officers. I am also sitting in a Wyoming hotel waiting for I80 to open so we > can hopefully finish our drive to Oregon for Community College Debate > Nationals which begins tomorrow evening. Soon as it opens I have a 17 hour > drive. Please forgive if a response is not immediate in the next couple > days. I kn > ow we are all busy, some of us still have a season going on, but I can > assure you we are giving this our attention. Thank you for taping the round. > When all is said and done I know we will all benefit from the educational > ability to use these videos. Please stay tuned. > > thanks, > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA President > > > >>> Andy Ellis 04/05/09 7:57 AM >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Andy Ellis > Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM > Subject: Final round video > To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" > > > hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has > some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. > > We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following the > video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. As we > where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private > educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and hey > who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of > nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the > offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it had > fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could stream > it we should as gordon announced before the round started....paraphrasing > now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from > ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny then > but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the > tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community > service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that they > not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that the > round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work that > i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want to > post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want to > be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational > purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it but > not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > From dark_hallway15 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 5 20:22:42 2009 From: dark_hallway15 at yahoo.com (Isaac Peck) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback Message-ID: <778689.913.qm@web37307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Seriously. ? The FINAL ROUND of Ceda Nationals should be allowed to be recorded and made public. ? It can be conceded that students should have the option to opt out of regular tournament videos without ceding this point.? ? If you make it to the final round of Ceda Nationals, chances are?University newspapers are going to publish your name and the arguments you were making regardless of how you feel.? It's already being done. ? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090405/dc4f5883/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 20:48:25 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:48:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback In-Reply-To: <778689.913.qm@web37307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <778689.913.qm@web37307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904051848t5c9662ebke4090726dda92247@mail.gmail.com> Lemme me make this clear to everybody....i agree it should be posted....its encoding and uploading to google video (slowly i might add-everybody must be trying to download the stewie version of everything i do) but until the ec decides what to do with it will stay private...people who have choosen to opt out are cut out of the video...largely because ceda in my mind issued a policy without a ton of clairity that allows people to opt out...i will send a duplicated copy to ceda nd they can decide if they want to let people opt out...sucks i agree...not my call On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Isaac Peck wrote: > Seriously. > > The FINAL ROUND of Ceda Nationals should be allowed to be recorded and made > public. > > It can be conceded that students should have the option to opt out of > regular tournament videos without ceding this point. > > If you make it to the final round of Ceda Nationals, chances are University > newspapers are going to publish your name and the arguments you were making > regardless of how you feel. It's already being done. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090405/a42c0218/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 21:06:30 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:06:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Video and next year Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904051906n702e0047m47db0bf49b0a9cc5@mail.gmail.com> So while we hash this out let me make a suggestion for next year....the bay area is one of the most active areas in the world for internet media, lets start now to find a company that does this for a living, a startup would be ideal because they would have the greayerst incentive to do it as a donated service(tax write off) and could most benefit from intriducing their service to an avid user community...somebody bigger doesnt need the publicity but someone with something to promote to micro networks of cirulateable power does...that or just have berkley do it...but really there are companies who could do this far more easily, manage the sharing etc....if i come across the right startup ill share... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090405/70f3836c/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Sun Apr 5 21:38:27 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:38:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback Message-ID: <1238985507.49d96b23b1fb7@webmail.grandecom.net> Look, Justin, and everyone esle within this community: this "protect the student" shit, is just that, shit. This is, and SHOULD BE, a public activity. Your arguments for student privacy are absurd. I would love to see those students of Villanova claim they have a right to "privacy" for all of those 3-point bricks thrown in the NCAA final semis. This is really a bunch a bullshit for a bunch of professionals to claim some right to student/institutional privacy regarding elimination rounds of the fucking CEDA National Championship. You may get the "insular must protect children to create a learning/protected autonomy environment" in other tournamnets. But this is the national championship final round. If people are too out of control, then get them the hell out of the final round. By the way, I spoke to a particualar person who was rather advanced in years, and had a vested interest in the final round. He still loved debate, even though he thought the race card was being played excessively. Jeesus, if you are so embarrassed by the final rounds of our National Tournament(s), and what your students are doing during those rounds, we should fold up our collective tent now. I, for one, was almost brought to tears by the aesthetics of the final round. I was proud to be there and I will willingly defend what went on during the final round among the relevant particpants. The appeals to some since of "privacy" are flat out a non starter. Scott From zachrtw at googlemail.com Sun Apr 5 22:40:39 2009 From: zachrtw at googlemail.com (Zach Round The World) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:40:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0904050557k486842a9m63b80dc49c4b22ae@mail.gmail.com> <807961fa0904050930v2dc83f59t4d43f1d03d528911@mail.gmail.com> <807961fa0904051153i9e49090q48dd12e5b54a2001@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <807961fa0904052040v1bfa2928q44674e1b249d5bc5@mail.gmail.com> Clearly my words have had an effect and now others will see the need to push for the publication and recording. I also hope that in time every single second of every single round at CEDA nat's or the NDT make it to the Internet in real time, to be preserved for all time. Everything should be out there, life is messy. I want to see the nasty judge's oral critiques. I want to see a 1ar melt down and cry because they were creamed in the block. I want to see the good and the bad, because that is where the love and the passion and the things that make CEDA/NDT debate great. I will respond to you, simply because it gives me joy to do so, and then I go away and keep my mouth shut. However you choose to respond, feel free. The last word will be yours, I am not a troll. I'm not hiding behind any made up name, I have no political affiliation in CEDA internal politics, nothing to prove, and no one to impress. I lived debate, and I walked away, but I still love debate, and I can still flow. That is not something that happens in my everyday life behind a desk in my 9-5 job. But I follow along, just a little, watch as how things morph and change. Every few years I make it to a college tournament, there are a few people still in the activity who I have contact with ever now and again. Whenever I find a coworker with a kid in debate I ask when the tournament is, if they are looking for judges. They love me. I make tab rooms wet their pants, they are expecting a random community judge, not a high flow ex-college debtor who knows what the hell is going on. Remember that time a long time ago when you actually debated in high school and you got that random college debater as the judge, and you got to run what ever you wanted and talk as fast as you could, and so did the other team? Remember how awesome that was? You may have lost, but it was ok because the decision was fair one. I get to bring that joy into people's lives. That's how I pay back, and it's not much, I have a busy life and debate isn't much of a part of it. In short I am just like a lot of people who debated for a fair while and went out into the real world. Outside of your mom we are your biggest supporters. I freely tell people that a big part of who I am is because of debating in high school and college. If you are turning someone like me away you are shutting the door on debate's biggest asset. With that out of the way let me tell you what I think of your reply and be done with it. > I think you should really back off the ad-homs. It comes off pretty > disrespectful for someone concerned with the public image of debate. If you > think that me pointing out that debate is not like the NCAA is childish, I > most certainly apologize for the egregious violation of edebate etiquette. The ad-homs will most likely stay, fell free not to flow them. They really are just me being pissed off and snarky. The aren't there for disrespect, the idea is humor. I took exception to your tone, and the very robotic reply of the company line. I could care less about edebate etiquette. > I'm not going to do the edebate line by line. That's soooo 2004. You make a > few fair points, but I think you miss the broader issue at stake Clearly I am not ready to leave the model. Is this a framework argument? Should I do a dance now? > There are legal consequences when an organization such as CEDA writes an > official policy addressing student privacy, the distribution of video > material, etc. These are not issue taken as lightly as you seem to imply > with your "why nots." We could have a long discussion about why debate is > not like the NCAA, why debate isn't seen as important as basketball, etc, > but it doesn't really matter. CEDA must protect itself. As an organization > with limited resources, a policy like this most certainly achieves that goal > without incurring many negative drawbacks besides you not being able to see > the CEDA final round fast enough. Then I'm saying that the official CEDA policy is wrong, and if the only reason you are going to get in trouble is because you violate your own rules then you have proven that just like GWB you shouldn't be the decider. This policy is insane, and will do far more harm to debate then anything I can think of, short of allowing the use switchblades in cross-ex. But what is this policy, I can't find any mention of it on the CEDA site. A search of the site comes up with very little about video. Was this something just for the Nat's tournament, maybe this is worse then I feared. Did you actually preemptively censor people from filming debates because you don't want to hurt people's feelings? Really I want to know, did this happen? Is there a copy of that document that I can read? Please back channel if there is, I'm serious I'd love to know. If you are referring to people opting out of the documentary that is something totally different. That is a money making venture, and you are within your right to not be a part of it. The same is not true for individuals and news organizations making recording for posterity, for history, and an learning tool for future debaters. The debator has a right to not be part of a commercal "project", but I still think that they should be recorded. They just wouldn't be able to use it in anything commercial manner. Oh, and I'm not bitcihing about how fast the video is put up, I'm btiching about there is a real chance there won't be a video up. Take your time, just put it up. > In my opinion: students should have the ability to not be recorded if they > prefer not to. Justin's example is really only the tip of the iceberg of the > negative consequences of your suggestion. And in this case I think your opinion is wrong. Your don't have a right to not be filmed, because I have a right to be recorded with you. If i'm debating you and I want to film the round so I can watch my CX and get better I should be able to. oh wait you don't want me to? Too bad, I'm doing it anyways. Life is pain I guess. It's only the tip of the iceburg is you keep acting like it's something wrong, like it's somehting you can control. If recording is a everyday thing then no one can get upset and sue because they were recorded and didn't know it. Stalking is seriously a messed up thing, and my deepest sympathy that such a unfair thing has happened to this person. However for the betterment of the activity the person in question should understand that there will be filming, and if the are in danger then CEDA nats is not a safe place to hide from your stalker. It sucks and it isn't fair, and sometimes it isn't. What would have happened had this person won the damn thing. Would the press release credit the winning team of John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 of State College University? Being recorded at a national tournament should be expected. Also how do the other coaches feel about someone hanging around who is being stalked by a dangerous thug? What gives them the right to others at risk? Imagine if the stalker turned up at nationals with an uzi and decides to take out the ex, and everyone with them. It would be a great time to do it, they know there won't be any cameras. Steve, when I run out of things to say I like go back to source documents, and if you look over the ceda constitution you would see that there is a very real, and clear assumption that you will be recorded. This are assumed to be so fundamental that they aren't spelled out, but called for by the rules. Humor me and read the CEDA constitution XII. Section 8 sub A-B {Emphasis Mine} A. This award is given to the intercollegiate debate program which, over the course of the past academic year, has best advanced the values of debate in the public sphere through sponsorship of one or more public debate activities including international public debates, radio or television debates, public debates on campus or for community groups, and through general promotion of public discourse through diverse for a to promote critical examination of public issues for general audiences. B. Programs seeking this recognition should submit a portfolio including a narrative description of their public debate activities. Programs are also asked to submit supporting materials of their choosing which might include participant lists, publicity and promotional materials, attendance figures, transcripts or recordings (audio, video, CD, etc.), commendations and letters of appreciation, and any other materials that they feel are appropriate. You see, it's an expectation at a very core level that this is a public activity, and you will be in the public eye. If you have a problem with being in the public eye then you fundamentally have a problem with debate. My problem with track and field is because I am fat. Not because I can't run, I just don't want it enough. I have learned to live with that. > I had a debater who if he was required to be filmed would probably have quit > the activity. He was very very good ( a 1st rounder). He was not only > distracted by the camera, but also extremely uncomfortable with it. Why? I > don't know. It was just his hangup. Should he have been pushed out? No. I would have handed little Johnny a copy of the CEDA constitution and told him to read it. And that if he wanted to do it he was going to have a gut check and decide which was he more afraid of, cameras or being a quitter. Man up, there is more to coaching then just driving a van. Debate will change your life, and by coddling this poor kid you may have kept him from having his big break through. You didn't need to push him out, he would have left on his own. Instead of being a first rounder he could of won the damn thing, but now he'll never know. Something like that happened to me, I loved to debate, and I was pretty good at it. I had this major hang up, I hated that they made me go to class and get passing grades. They also didn't like the fact that I smoked weed alot. Really made me uncomfortable talking about my failing grades. I had to quit debate because of it. Now I see how unfair to me that really was, thank you. > I also fully invite you to come to explain to my novices why any person > should be able to walk into their first debate with a camera and post it > online for all eternity. If you want to kill the activity, allowing that > behavior is a good way to start. Again it's called being a coach, you picked the job not me. I'm not a kid person, but maybe you could try it like this. Record them in practice rounds, we did that back in my day, and it wasn't near as easy or fast as today. If they know from day 1 that there is ALWAYS a possibility they can be recorded then it becomes no big deal. You really want me to think that if a novice made it to the finals in the first tournament they ever went to, and a local TV crew was there, and wanted to record the round for a special interest story. You would turn them away because Johnny has butterflies? Throwing up before a round is something everyone should do. I did it more then once. And I don't think I was the only one in the bathroom before my first round. TV camera wouldn't have made me any more nervous, live snakes couldn't have made me more nervous then I already was. As for explaining this to your novices I would be happy to. Back channel me and I'll set up a confrence call on a company line, get a webex thing going. I'll put together a few slides, and we can get done in 5-10 minutes. Depends on how many questions they have. I'm 100% for real, and dead serious. Pick a date and time in the fall, I'll set it up online. I'll send out the 800 number, confrence ID number, and webex URL, and the students can call in and follow along on the computer. I will be totally professional, and good natured about it. You can even record it, just to make sure I don't try and pull a fast one. I mean it. Before you even start, there are no ad-homs in any of the above statements. I would need to know you to be able to attack you. I personally don't know you, I'm sure you are a great person and coach. I am not attacking you, just what you say. I thank you for your thoughts and time. I hope that the majority of people will agree with me and in the future debates will be for the people, not the elites who get to be in the round. As always Zach Robert Benchley - "A dog teaches a boy fidelity, perseverance, and to turn around three times before lying down." On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Steven D'Amico wrote: > Zach, > > I think you should really back off the ad-homs. It comes off pretty > disrespectful for someone concerned with the public image of debate. If you > think that me pointing out that debate is not like the NCAA is childish, I > most certainly apologize for the egregious violation of edebate etiquette. > > I'm not going to do the edebate line by line. That's soooo 2004. You make a > few fair points, but I think you miss the broader issue at stake: > > There are legal consequences when an organization such as CEDA writes an > official policy addressing student privacy, the distribution of video > material, etc. These are not issue taken as lightly as you seem to imply > with your "why nots." We could have a long discussion about why debate is > not like the NCAA, why debate isn't seen as important as basketball, etc, > but it doesn't really matter. CEDA must protect itself. As an organization > with limited resources, a policy like this most certainly achieves that goal > without incurring many negative drawbacks besides you not being able to see > the CEDA final round fast enough. > > In my opinion: students should have the ability to not be recorded if they > prefer not to. Justin's example is really only the tip of the iceberg of the > negative consequences of your suggestion. > > I had a debater who if he was required to be filmed would probably have quit > the activity. He was very very good ( a 1st rounder). He was not only > distracted by the camera, but also extremely uncomfortable with it. Why? I > don't know. It was just his hangup. Should he have been pushed out? No. > > I also fully invite you to come to explain to my novices why any person > should be able to walk into their first debate with a camera and post it > online for all eternity. If you want to kill the activity, allowing that > behavior is a good way to start. > > Best, > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Zach Round The World > wrote: >> >> Good spread on CEDA vs. Basketball, but it fails to miss the point, >> that was an example, not the crux of my argument. Those are all things >> that are the way they are because of the media attention that >> basketball gets today. They were not the rules that filming of >> basketballl games started under. And for almost everything else my >> answer is "why not?" >> >> -Debate teams do not produce revenue for schools. >> Why not? They produce money for the staff, what about debate camps? >> You telling me that a debate camp isn't a revune stream? >> >> -Debate teams are not followed by entire communities outside of the >> university. >> But they are. Go to Youtube and look at how many deabtes are online. >> Look at me I'm 15 years out of having any connection to any program. >> >> -Debate teams are not regularly televised and schools do not get paid >> for televised debates by networks. Debaters never signed any informed >> consent agreeing that their image can be distributed on public >> airwaves and Internets. NCAA players waive these rights with informed >> legal paperwork. Their interests are protected by entire college >> athletic (and legal) structures absent from debate. >> 1) why not? 2) I can promise that you waived those rights to the >> school when you were admited. Anything you do while representing your >> school is something they have say over, not you. Just like when you >> attend a major league game by simpling buying the ticket you give them >> to right to se your image for any thing they want. >> >> -Debate teams are often not supported by school administration. >> 1_) Why not? Oh maybe because they won't let themselves be taped and >> get some attention to the program. 2) Often? You mean there are more >> deabte teams that get NO funding from the school then do? Amazing, >> where are those stats? >> >> -The vast majority of debaters do not get significant scholarships to >> compete. >> Claim data warrant, that's how we did it when I debated, has that changed? >> >> -Debaters do not have drug tests. >> 1) Why not? 2) Too many would fail 3) What does this have to do with >> anything, they test me at my job, does that mean I can be filmed now? >> >> -Debaters do no have an extreme code of conduct anything close to what >> the NCAA does. >> Why not? They could. I didn't know that common sense was one of those >> things that could be codified. >> >> -Debate stars are not public figures like NCAA stars. >> 1) Why not, oh that's right they won' tlet themselves be taped so >> therefore they can't become public figures. That's not my fault, maybe >> you need a better PR department. Even my lowely self was interviewed >> by university paper and city papers. No bright line here. Then again >> what are you trying to hide? >> >> -The top debaters do not get drafted by a professional debate league. >> No but they do try to get drafted into grad school. >> >> -Most people do not find what the NCAA does objectionable, many >> people, believe it or not, hate what we do. >> So the way to get people to stop hating you is to stop them from >> watching you? Only by shining the light of day onto CEDA's dark little >> secrets can you hope to win over people. You are still close minded >> and not looking at the big picture. >> -etc etc etc >> >> Um let's seem what else, people worried about how they look on TV? >> Grow up, put on your big boy shorts and debate. At the level of a >> nation championship if you are not worring about how you look you >> shouldn't be national champion. If there is anything you might say >> that could look bad is someone else saw it 1,5,or 10 years from now, >> don't say it. I said some pretty crazy stuff when i was debating for >> Carson (Big T Technocracy anyone?) But I will stand by anything I said >> in any debate round that I was ever end. I said it, I meant it. ?Just >> because it's switch side debate doesn't mean you can't be true to >> yourself. >> >> We aren't talking about prime time TV, we are talking about posting >> videos to youtube. I'm willing to bet there is a good chance that >> every single person in the final round has already been on youtube at >> some point and time. >> >> I don't buy the arguement that debate forces you to defend things that >> are objectionable. You don't argue that nuke war is good because >> someone is forcing you to, you do it because it's easier then >> answering the line by line. Show me the argument that can be made >> where the ONLY way to win is to say nuke war good. The easiest answer >> to Towson is to say racism good, and that africans are an inferior >> race (you know those cards are out there) but most would never say it >> beacuse you would have to have no soul to stoop that low to win. >> >> So I ask this.... >> Say I show up to nationals next year with a camera, sit out of the way >> of everyone and quitely sit and record the event. >> Am I going to be kicked out? On what grounds? Is CEDA not a public event? >> I make a recording and I post it, you going to sue me? Send a cease >> and desist letter? >> I said no way in hell. >> >> It's much better to be open and up front, and say every second of ever >> round will be recorded, posted, and kept up for ever and ever. And if >> you can't live with that, maybe you should be debating. >> >> I'm sorry i really had no intention of saying anything after my first >> post, but your reply was so childish and condisending that it really >> got my blood boiling. >> >> >> >> Zach >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Steven D'Amico >> wrote: >> > Zach, >> > >> > I think you are unaware of some the reasons for the policy. Most >> > importantly, I believe there was a legal concern over privacy. It's not >> > just >> > about what happened last year. >> > >> > Let's count the other ways we are not like the NCAA, because I think >> > they >> > explain why your rant was not very well informed. >> > >> > -Debate teams do not produce revenue for schools. >> > -Debate teams are not followed by entire communities outside of the >> > university. >> > -Debate teams are not regularly televised and schools do not get paid >> > for >> > televised debates by networks. Debaters never signed any informed >> > consent >> > agreeing that their image can be distributed on public airwaves and >> > Internets. NCAA players waive these rights with informed legal >> > paperwork. >> > Their interests are protected by entire college athletic (and legal) >> > structures absent from debate. >> > -Debate teams are often not supported by school administration. >> > -The vast majority of debaters do not get significant scholarships to >> > compete. >> > -Debaters do not have drug tests. >> > -Debaters do no have an extreme code of conduct anything close to what >> > the >> > NCAA does. >> > -Debate stars are not public figures like NCAA stars. >> > -The top debaters do not get drafted by a professional debate league. >> > -Most people do not find what the NCAA does objectionable, many people, >> > believe it or not, hate what we do. >> > -etc etc etc >> > >> > Simply put, debaters should not have to worry that 10 years down the >> > line a >> > video of them defending spark will surface when they are trying to get a >> > government job, running for public office, or doing anything else that >> > has a >> > routine background check. >> > >> > They shouldn't be forced to be on television. You don't prepare for a >> > debate >> > event like you would being on video. I don't know if you've ever been on >> > TV, >> > but trust me, whenever I go on, I spend hours thinking about how I look. >> > Debaters should not have to deal with that if they don't want to. >> > >> > There have also been debaters who requested to be left out of videos >> > because >> > of safety concerns. (use your imagination on this one, I'm not going >> > into >> > details). >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Steve D'Amico >> > On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Zach Round The World >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Long time lurker, reading lots of posts, but never posting, but this >> >> makes me so mad I have to post. >> >> >> >> Post the stinking videos! I'm an ex-debater who still likes to follow >> >> along with what is going on in debate and I'm very confused not to >> >> mention sad. I read the listserv and was at nationals last year to >> >> watch, and was there for the big conflict, but this year I wasn't, so >> >> because I wasn't there personally I don't get to watch the rounds? >> >> Bullshit! ?The idea that a national championship would not be taped >> >> and displayed for all to see is stupid. The idea that it could be >> >> recorded and a someone could say ?I don't want to appear in it? and >> >> you actually listen to them is absurd and makes me very sad. What >> >> other collegiate competition would be this way? These were public >> >> performances in a public place where anyone could attend. I know >> >> everyone is walking on egg shells after the bill blow up last year, >> >> but no one should have the ability to keep these videos from being >> >> posted. This is really egregious considering that many of the >> >> attendants are from publicly funded institutions. Courts have up he >> >> idea that video taping in public is protected under the first >> >> amendment. CEDA you are really being reactionary and short sited. This >> >> is PUBLIC SPEAKING folks. If you don't want to be taped DON'T compete. >> >> Your reasonable expectation of privacy went right out the door when >> >> you joined. Let's me be clear, anyone can be recorded in a public >> >> place, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. I can follow >> >> you around all the time and record every second of your life outside >> >> of your house and post it to Youtube, and you have zero recourse to >> >> stop me. You don't own your imagine. That one or two people could say >> >> ?I don't want to be on the net? and let them have the final say is >> >> stupid. This is 2009 people, everything is being recorded, and there >> >> is nothing you can do to stop it. Can you imagine a basketball team in >> >> the NCAA refusing to be televised? Anyways that's my 2 cents. I'll go >> >> back to lurking in the shadows, and hopefully never see anything else >> >> that makes me want to post. >> >> >> >> Zach Ferris >> >> Wichita State Debate 1994-1996 >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Andy Ellis >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> > From: Andy Ellis >> >> > Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM >> >> > Subject: Final round video >> >> > To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it >> >> > has >> >> > some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. >> >> > >> >> > We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following >> >> > the >> >> > video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last >> >> > year. >> >> > As we >> >> > where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own >> >> > private >> >> > educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there >> >> > and >> >> > hey >> >> > who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of >> >> > nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot >> >> > the >> >> > offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape >> >> > it >> >> > had >> >> > fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could >> >> > stream >> >> > it we should as gordon announced before the round >> >> > started....paraphrasing >> >> > now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video >> >> > from >> >> > ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less >> >> > funny >> >> > then >> >> > but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook >> >> > the >> >> > tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community >> >> > service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked >> >> > that >> >> > they >> >> > not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy >> >> > that >> >> > the >> >> > round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the >> >> > work >> >> > that >> >> > i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont >> >> > want >> >> > to >> >> > post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i >> >> > want >> >> > to >> >> > be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private >> >> > educational >> >> > purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see >> >> > it >> >> > but >> >> > not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > eDebate mailing list >> >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> eDebate mailing list >> >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Apr 6 01:39:44 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 01:39:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the value of the destruction of NDT debate Message-ID: on the heels of a good backchannel debate w kooz on the topic of the significance of challenging assumptions from inside the prevailing format, i offer these prospectives. the thrust of my invocation of ede warner as a key figure in debate history lends itself to negativity only if one is completely committed to the assumptions of the current framework without reservation. the double-edged sword of the ede warner phenomenon is his assessment of failure and vision of evolution to a superior form. that is a thought-experiment worthy of greater consideration by all debaters. the provisional model will be recent rule changes in the game of cricket which have shortened the game for the purpose of greater public accessibility to the sport. i picked this model from a discussion with a dell technical support tech who explained to me changes in the game of cricket while waiting for a super-slow restart. could ndt c-x team debate change the rules of the game to become more accessible to the public as cricket has? the greatest obstacle to even considering the question is the identity formation of the community which rests upon the current process. habit makes one into a caricature of oneself. some say this psychological impediment is impossible to overcome. i disagree. this obstacle actually points to rapid evolution in contradistinction to the gradualism vaunted by reformers along the lines of william s. burroughs' argument against the darwinian evolution of species. the holding onto the past eventually gives way to avalanches since greater values demand transformation. this is my problem with debate nostalgia. ede was no nostalgist who wanted to just include blacks within the current set of rules and commend their contributions to the activity. ede saw this as a big trap and fought the rules. did ede lose? hell no. inevitability is on ede's side. the key to changing the rules is taking the best of what NDT c-x team debate has to offer and eliminating the worst. the worst is the tag-line drone derived from poor coaching and a lack of exemplars. take the average transcript of a high-speed debate and you will find the speed is cover for repetition of words and ideas. flow spews spread the same ideas out across many pages which i argue is antithetical to the development of rhetorical style. speed is fine so long as you have plenty to say. ancient rhetoric privileged economy of speech and exemplars from competitive debate history and the many more great public speakers share this skill which is no longer cherished by the NDT community as the primary mark of excellence in speaking. the drone-spew is arguably a symptom of filling space for people who don't have enough ideas. transcript analysis of the best recent debates would prove fruitful for evolution. the quality coaches left in the activity could find avenues for improvement which do not come forward in immediate post-round judge critiques. as burroughs used to say about the playback of recordings, "STOP. INCH THE TAPE." this speed "style" which has gained sway is analogous to the five-day cricket game in relation to public accessibility. assume the position of the lay evaluator of even the best NDT debates. possibly, you are amazed by the speed of the speakers. possibly as well, as your untrained ear picks out words and phrases here and there, you notice significant repetition and start to wonder if the professional debater is really saying that much. to hold an audience you have to have action and that's part of the cricket rule changes too. the question becomes how to move the action from the flow to the speech. again, consider transcript analysis. transcripts are not just archives for nostalgia. MLK was a debater whose speech garnered the action to hold any audience. his economy of speech which allowed him to explore the manipulation of tropes is vastly superior to your speeches. models like these should be used, not to merely reaffirm one's identity as a black debater or a debater who values black speakers, but also to establish higher speaking standards. the tag-line drone is fed by the research race which promotes the fear of not having cards. the research race leads to elite powerhouses with the most hired guns and the largest research technology infrastructure. the race should be eliminated because it has led to relatively poor speaking as the standard. this is not an argument against neither quantity nor quality of research which make for great debates. some form of prior disclosure of evidence is needed for the shift to rhetorical style as the flower of competitive debate. the best debates are not only the most competitive debates but the most competitive debates where the nuances of the literature and the issues are explored the most making the end of the year prime for those occasions. the strategy of fooling the opponent by disarming their ability to respond with new evidence is short-sighted for the growth of the activity. breadth is already managed by the existing ginormous research effort undertaken by the community. breadth would hardly suffer from new rules that focus the activity on the interpretation of evidence which is where the thinking happens. we encounter a major psychological impediment, right here. i call it the bill gates microsoft syndrome, the idea of proprietary research that opposes sharing. UDL philanthropy is not the sharing needed for better speaking standards. sharing evidence prior to rounds which would allow the opponents to carefully analyze and develop a more sophisticated response is characterized as a threat to thinking on one's feet. that's a circular argument that begs the question. whether one hears the evidence for the first time in the round or before the round, from the second one first hears that evidence one is thinking on one's feet. thinking on one's feet for longer periods of time allows for better understanding of the nuances of that evidence. one can not anticipate the other team's responses and eventually at some point in the round, regardless of the fact that the evidence has been analyzed before the round, one will have to think on one's feet. the major difference is that the first line responses to the evidence are more refined. there are 8 speeches, not 2. first line responses will also gain greater rhetorical flare from pre-round analysis of evidence. sharing could create another prospect -- the sifting out of all the crappy cards that get read whose taglines don't come close to matching their text and the concentration of debates across the spectrum of the tournaments on the gold in the literature. i know you judges see this as cheating. the debaters who don't research and squat on elite files still won't be the best because they won't understand the context of the literature as well as those who are reading day and night with their hearts committed to comprehension of the resolution. they won't be able to make those devastating uncarded arguments which assess context. sharing does not preclude the fluency in the literature which distinguishes the thinkers in debate from the literate teleprompter readers. possibly, the significant amount of poor evidence tolerated could be regarded as offensive to a community which deems itself intellectual, the flip side of the proprietary disease. and possibly, debate rounds could center around less but sweet cards. i think the elite powerhouses are committed to the research race because they are scared of a world in which critical thinking and a rhetoric of tropes dominate the activity. for this, they should be opposed and defeated. well spoken arguments attached to the skeleton of solid argument strategy have historically proven to be viable public events. keep the strategy and the research. work on speaking or keep your sights low at the level of a good professional debater who can't win in the big arena. parliament and all tuna's stuff is not the answer or raison d'etre for not changing c-x. an issue for another day is the technical construction of the resolutions, a topic ede attacked quite well. it is not difficult to see how the wordings have become like a game of madlibs with certain key phrases like "USFG" "significantly" "one or more of the following areas" etc. surrounded by the words that differentiate the topic area. this method has passed the point of diminishing returns. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/08f49b46/attachment.htm From ewarner at louisville.edu Mon Apr 6 05:29:50 2009 From: ewarner at louisville.edu (Ede Warner) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 06:29:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] the value of the destruction of NDT debate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49D9A15C.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu> Old Strega brought me out of edebate retirement. It's been over a year I believe since my last post. I guess the refusal to remove me from getting the posts finally paid off :-). Two thoughts: 1) Speed is a symptom of a larger problem but not the disease. Attempts to start their as the focus for change has not been persuasive to many, and frankly resistant for most who like "playing the game." I don't think anyone is opposed necessarily to changing the game, but their is a high level of presumption against change without an understanding of how it makes "the game" better. Louisville at the end of this season and at the beginning of next will talk about an ethical system of policy debate for a multicultural democracy and instead of a focus on style alone, we choose to focus on three more targeted areas that we believe are important to effective policy making: the ability to evaluate the credibility of an argument; the ability to maintain an accurate context of arguments; and the ability to generate compassion for those making arguments. We talk about how privilege operates in representative democracies when advocates speak on behalf of constituents to persuade decision makers and the affect that representation can have on specific aspects of persuasion important to sound decision making. If we are successful in the presentation of these ideas, would it change the game? Yes, probably but as much as speed was an evolution of competition, so would the impact on speed relative to acceptance of these arguments. It's very possible to defend a world of speed and challenge our criticisms for example. Our alternative has to be accurate if it is to be persuasive to the larger community and that is our goal: finding an accurate criticism of our game and offering an accurate alternative. The competitive success becomes a measure of our success in that endeavor, but certainly not the only gauge. Even though our students didn't find as much competitive success as we would have liked, the judges response to what we are doing this year has been overwhelmingly positive, leading us to believe that we are moving in the right direction. As far as internal links, this is really more of a power tagging argument. I see our evolution about moving from a criticism that could only embrace destruction of the NDT as THE alternative. But that was the old ville. Much like our women's team, we are evolving towards a new day, that embraces what Old Strega's post talks about, working harder to find not only the valuable nature of NDT policy debate, but to accentuate those values to the public in ways that translate into broader meaningful change as a community with the agency to not just find a public relations angle for additional support of debate, but to impact how decision making proceeds in a representative multicultural democracy. We are a microcosm of that democracy, and we should be the engine of change when it comes to teaching our nation, and perhaps the world, the inherit human nature associated with "policy debate" since that is the only means of decision making that exists in a civil society, with apologies to unrealisitic and unproven calls for dialogue, cooperation, or other non-debate methods of decision making that sound great in theory...but...All that to say, we never had an internal link from speed to the end of debate, but rather, it was about un-covering, dis-covering, re-covering the historical context that creates the legacy, as well as the possibilities: not just regarding what we have done, but more importantly, what our community is capable. Transformation of the NDT, sure you can put Louisville's name down for that...destruction isn't really our thang anymore. Neither are those shorts that Greg Abbott posted of me on Facebook, but that is another story. Back to the laboratory...being a recluse is certainly productive...Until the fall, everyone stay safe, connected, and thinking warm thoughts of one another . With peace, love, and blessings Ede aka Doc aka the guy with the tight red shorts from 1982. Ede Warner, Jr. Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Pan African Studies University of Louisville 435 Strickler Hall 502-852-3522 ewarner at louisville.edu http://uofldebate.com/ >>> From: Old Strega To:, Jay Reed Date: 4/6/2009 2:51 AM Subject: [eDebate] the value of the destruction of NDT debate on the heels of a good backchannel debate w kooz on the topic of the significance of challenging assumptions from inside the prevailing format, i offer these prospectives. the thrust of my invocation of ede warner as a key figure in debate history lends itself to negativity only if one is completely committed to the assumptions of the current framework without reservation. the double-edged sword of the ede warner phenomenon is his assessment of failure and vision of evolution to a superior form. that is a thought-experiment worthy of greater consideration by all debaters. the provisional model will be recent rule changes in the game of cricket which have shortened the game for the purpose of greater public accessibility to the sport. i picked this model from a discussion with a dell technical support tech who explained to me changes in the game of cricket while waiting for a super-slow restart. could ndt c-x team debate change the rules of the game to become more accessible to the public as cricket has? the greatest obstacle to even considering the question is the identity formation of the community which rests upon the current process. habit makes one into a caricature of oneself. some say this psychological impediment is impossible to overcome. i disagree. this obstacle actually points to rapid evolution in contradistinction to the gradualism vaunted by reformers along the lines of william s. burroughs' argument against the darwinian evolution of species. the holding onto the past eventually gives way to avalanches since greater values demand transformation. this is my problem with debate nostalgia. ede was no nostalgist who wanted to just include blacks within the current set of rules and commend their contributions to the activity. ede saw this as a big trap and fought the rules. did ede lose? hell no. inevitability is on ede's side. the key to changing the rules is taking the best of what NDT c-x team debate has to offer and eliminating the worst. the worst is the tag-line drone derived from poor coaching and a lack of exemplars. take the average transcript of a high-speed debate and you will find the speed is cover for repetition of words and ideas. flow spews spread the same ideas out across many pages which i argue is antithetical to the development of rhetorical style. speed is fine so long as you have plenty to say. ancient rhetoric privileged economy of speech and exemplars from competitive debate history and the many more great public speakers share this skill which is no longer cherished by the NDT community as the primary mark of excellence in speaking. the drone-spew is arguably a symptom of filling space for people who don't have enough ideas. transcript analysis of the best recent debates would prove fruitful for evolution. the quality coaches left in the activity could find avenues for improvement which do not come forward in immediate post-round judge critiques. as burroughs used to say about the playback of recordings, "STOP. INCH THE TAPE." this speed "style" which has gained sway is analogous to the five-day cricket game in relation to public accessibility. assume the position of the lay evaluator of even the best NDT debates. possibly, you are amazed by the speed of the speakers. possibly as well, as your untrained ear picks out words and phrases here and there, you notice significant repetition and start to wonder if the professional debater is really saying that much. to hold an audience you have to have action and that's part o f the cricket rule changes too. the question becomes how to move the action from the flow to the speech. again, consider transcript analysis. transcripts are not just archives for nostalgia. MLK was a debater whose speech garnered the action to hold any audience. his economy of speech which allowed him to explore the manipulation of tropes is vastly superior to your speeches. models like these should be used, not to merely reaffirm one's identity as a black debater or a debater who values black speakers, but also to establish higher speaking standards. the tag-line drone is fed by the research race which promotes the fear of not having cards. the research race leads to elite powerhouses with the most hired guns and the largest research technology infrastructure. the race should be eliminated because it has led to relatively poor speaking as the standard. this is not an argument against neither quantity nor quality of research which make for great debates. some form of prior disclosure of evidence is needed for the shift to rhetorical style as the flower of competitive debate. the best debates are not only the most competitive debates but the most competitive debates where the nuances of the literature and the issues are explored the most making the end of the year prime for those occasions. the strategy of fooling the opponent by disarming their ability to respond with new evidence is short-sighted for the growth of the activity. breadth is already managed by the existing ginormous research effort undertaken by the community. breadth would hardly suffer from new rules that focus the activity on the interpretation of evidence which is where the thinking happens. we encounter a major psychological impediment, right here. i call it the bill gates microsoft syndrome, the idea of proprietary research that opposes sharing. UDL philanthropy is not the sharing needed for better speaking standards. sharing evidence prior to rounds which would allow the opponents to carefully analyze and develop a more sophisticated response is characterized as a threat to thinking on one's feet. that's a circular argument that begs the question. whether one hears the evidence for the first time in the round or before the round, from the second one first hears that evidence one is thinking on one's feet. thinking on one's feet for longer periods of time allows for better understanding of the nuances of that evidence. one can not anticipate the other team's responses and eventually at some point in the round, regardless of the fact that the evidence has been analyzed before the round, one will have to think on one's feet. the major difference is that the first line responses to the evidence are more refined. there are 8 speeches, not 2. first line responses will also gain greater rhetorical flare from pre-round analysis of evidence. sharing could create another prospect -- the sifting out of all the crappy cards that get read whose taglines don't come close to matching their text and the concentration of debates across the spectrum of the tournaments on the gold in the literature. i know you judges see this as cheating. the debaters who don't research and squat on elite files still won't be the best because they won't understand the context of the literature as well as those who are reading day and night with their hearts committed to comprehension of the resolution. they won't be able to make those devastating uncarded arguments which assess context. sharing does not preclude the fluency in the literature which distinguishes the thinkers in debate from the literate teleprompter readers. possibly, the significant amount of poor evidence tolerated could be regarded as offensive to a community which deems itself intellectual, the flip side of the proprietary disease. and possibly, debate rounds could center around less but sweet cards. i think the elite powerhouses are committed to the research race because they are scared of a world in which critical thinking and a rhetoric of tr opes dominate the activity. for this, they should be opposed and defeated. well spoken arguments attached to the skeleton of solid argument strategy have historically proven to be viable public events. keep the strategy and the research. work on speaking or keep your sights low at the level of a good professional debater who can't win in the big arena. parliament and all tuna's stuff is not the answer or raison d'etre for not changing c-x. an issue for another day is the technical construction of the resolutions, a topic ede attacked quite well. it is not difficult to see how the wordings have become like a game of madlibs with certain key phrases like "USFG" "significantly" "one or more of the following areas" etc. surrounded by the words that differentiate the topic area. this method has passed the point of diminishing returns. Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry Check it out. ( http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009 ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/66bbf2e0/attachment.htm From kearney.debate at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 09:26:12 2009 From: kearney.debate at gmail.com (Mike Kearney) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:26:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] On a serious note...overfishing??? Message-ID: <9d4609f90904060726u68ba911fn618d8b32d467f333@mail.gmail.com> Anyone get to bust out the greatness that is www.fishnet-usa.com (Nils E. Stolpe)? Of course, the wiki draws a blank and that has everything, right? Can more tournaments make use of the wiki mandatory? Maybe a second semester tournament like Northwestern/Texas? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/f4aa5e91/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Apr 6 10:08:04 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:08:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the value of the destruction of NDT debate In-Reply-To: <49D9A15C.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu> References: <49D9A15C.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu> Message-ID: the argument was not against speed but speed as a cover for repetition of words and ideas spread out across the flow. the resistance of the community to adopting word economy as a historical standard of great speaking and communication is argued as a psychological quirk which commits the community to poor speaking. the game of flow as it now works is actually an anti-rhetorical device. there is persuasion within that set-up but relatively weak given the possibilities. the hint is transcript analysis to discover how much debate speech is irrelevant filler which could be removed. again, speed is not bad so long as you have plenty to say. speed has become a tool for adjusting the community to a relatively small set of ideas introduced in a debate round. repetition as a rhetorical device becomes ineffectual after droning. the modern debater is like the driver who accelerates up to the red light before stopping. transcript analysis will speed up how quickly debaters can process key elements of arguments and a new territory which is variations in the usage of rhetorical tropes. exactitude in the deployment of tropes will increase the efficacy of speechmaking and reduce the current reliance on the luck of random plays. the evidence race is cited as a contributing factor to the spread-ing out of the same ideas. evidence disclosure is offered as the alternative. transcript analysis could either improve speed debate creating an occam's razor for the chaff or help determine the limits of its viability. rewrites in new forms of even the best ndt speeches could launch post-drone models. the kind of rewrite proposed allows for the pause from habit which is a space for beneficial imaginary exercises. this is preliminary and there are other possible tweaks which could improve the game. i encourage debate leaders to adopt the mindset of the administrators in the world of cricket and other sports who have changed the rules of their games in an effort to repair obstacles to public accessibility. this mindset requires a self-reflexive love of 'the game' mired in traditions that are only psychologically 'necessary' and an understanding that rules are by nature not only provisional but determinative of outcomes. put the speeches under a microscope and slowly evaluate them. why are they not really publishable material? why does their value drop to virtually zero when you approach the borderline of professional debate? it's the off-season. there's no need to run to the library just yet. is philistinism the goal of professional debate? Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 06:29:50 -0400 From: ewarner at louisville.edu To: oldstrega at hotmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] the value of the destruction of NDT debate Old Strega brought me out of edebate retirement. It's been over a year I believe since my last post. I guess the refusal to remove me from getting the posts finally paid off :-). Two thoughts: 1) Speed is a symptom of a larger problem but not the disease. Attempts to start their as the focus for change has not been persuasive to many, and frankly resistant for most who like "playing the game." I don't think anyone is opposed necessarily to changing the game, but their is a high level of presumption against change without an understanding of how it makes "the game" better. Louisville at the end of this season and at the beginning of next will talk about an ethical system of policy debate for a multicultural democracy and instead of a focus on style alone, we choose to focus on three more targeted areas that we believe are important to effective policy making: the ability to evaluate the credibility of an argument; the ability to maintain an accurate context of arguments; and the ability to generate compassion for those making arguments. We talk about how privilege operates in representative democracies when advocates speak on behalf of constituents to persuade decision makers and the affect that representation can have on specific aspects of persuasion important to sound decision making. If we are successful in the presentation of these ideas, would it change the game? Yes, probably but as much as speed was an evolution of competition, so would the impact on speed relative to acceptance of these arguments. It's very possible to defend a world of speed and challenge our criticisms for example. Our alternative has to be accurate if it is to be persuasive to the larger community and that is our goal: finding an accurate criticism of our game and offering an accurate alternative. The competitive success becomes a measure of our success in that endeavor, but certainly not the only gauge. Even though our students didn't find as much competitive success as we would have liked, the judges response to what we are doing this year has been overwhelmingly positive, leading us to believe that we are moving in the right direction. As far as internal links, this is really more of a power tagging argument. I see our evolution about moving from a criticism that could only embrace destruction of the NDT as THE alternative. But that was the old ville. Much like our women's team, we are evolving towards a new day, that embraces what Old Strega's post talks about, working harder to find not only the valuable nature of NDT policy debate, but to accentuate those values to the public in ways that translate into broader meaningful change as a community with the agency to not just find a public relations angle for additional support of debate, but to impact how decision making proceeds in a representative multicultural democracy. We are a microcosm of that democracy, and we should be the engine of change when it comes to teaching our nation, and perhaps the world, the inherit human nature associated with "policy debate" since that is the only means of decision making that exists in a civil society, with apologies to unrealisitic and unproven calls for dialogue, cooperation, or other non-debate methods of decision making that sound great in theory...but...All that to say, we never had an internal link from speed to the end of debate, but rather, it was about un-covering, dis-covering, re-covering the historical context that creates the legacy, as well as the possibilities: not just regarding what we have done, but more importantly, what our community is capable. Transformation of the NDT, sure you can put Louisville's name down for that...destruction isn't really our thang anymore. Neither are those shorts that Greg Abbott posted of me on Facebook, but that is another story. Back to the laboratory...being a recluse is certainly productive...Until the fall, everyone stay safe, connected, and thinking warm thoughts of one another. With peace, love, and blessings Ede aka Doc aka the guy with the tight red shorts from 1982. Ede Warner, Jr. Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Pan African Studies University of Louisville 435 Strickler Hall 502-852-3522 ewarner at louisville.edu http://uofldebate.com/ >>> From: Old Strega To: , Jay Reed Date: 4/6/2009 2:51 AM Subject: [eDebate] the value of the destruction of NDT debateon the heels of a good backchannel debate w kooz on the topic of the significance of challenging assumptions from inside the prevailing format, i offer these prospectives. the thrust of my invocation of ede warner as a key figure in debate history lends itself to negativity only if one is completely committed to the assumptions of the current framework without reservation. the double-edged sword of the ede warner phenomenon is his assessment of failure and vision of evolution to a superior form. that is a thought-experiment worthy of greater consideration by all debaters. the provisional model will be recent rule changes in the game of cricket which have shortened the game for the purpose of greater public accessibility to the sport. i picked this model from a discussion with a dell technical support tech who explained to me changes in the game of cricket while waiting for a super-slow restart. could ndt c-x team debate change the rules of the game to become more accessible to the public as cricket has? the greatest obstacle to even considering the question is the identity formation of the community which rests upon the current process. habit makes one into a caricature of oneself. some say this psychological impediment is impossible to overcome. i disagree. this obstacle actually points to rapid evolution in contradistinction to the gradualism vaunted by reformers along the lines of william s. burroughs' argument against the darwinian evolution of species. the holding onto the past eventually gives way to avalanches since greater values demand transformation. this is my problem with debate nostalgia. ede was no nostalgist who wanted to just include blacks within the current set of rules and commend their contributions to the activity. ede saw this as a big trap and fought the rules. did ede lose? hell no. inevitability is on ede's side. the key to changing the rules is taking the best of what NDT c-x team debate has to offer and eliminating the worst. the worst is the tag-line drone derived from poor coaching and a lack of exemplars. take the average transcript of a high-speed debate and you will find the speed is cover for repetition of words and ideas. flow spews spread the same ideas out across many pages which i argue is antithetical to the development of rhetorical style. speed is fine so long as you have plenty to say. ancient rhetoric privileged economy of speech and exemplars from competitive debate history and the many more great public speakers share this skill which is no longer cherished by the NDT community as the primary mark of excellence in speaking. the drone-spew is arguably a symptom of filling space for people who don't have enough ideas. transcript analysis of the best recent debates would prove fruitful for evolution. the quality coaches left in the activity could find avenues for improvement which do not come forward in immediate post-round judge critiques. as burroughs used to say about the playback of recordings, "STOP. INCH THE TAPE." this speed "style" which has gained sway is analogous to the five-day cricket game in relation to public accessibility. assume the position of the lay evaluator of even the best NDT debates. possibly, you are amazed by the speed of the speakers. possibly as well, as your untrained ear picks out words and phrases here and there, you notice significant repetition and start to wonder if the professional debater is really saying that much. to hold an audience you have to have action and that's part of the cricket rule changes too. the question becomes how to move the action from the flow to the speech. again, consider transcript analysis. transcripts are not just archives for nostalgia. MLK was a debater whose speech garnered the action to hold any audience. his economy of speech which allowed him to explore the manipulation of tropes is vastly superior to your speeches. models like these should be used, not to merely reaffirm one's identity as a black debater or a debater who values black speakers, but also to establish higher speaking standards. the tag-line drone is fed by the research race which promotes the fear of not having cards. the research race leads to elite powerhouses with the most hired guns and the largest research technology infrastructure. the race should be eliminated because it has led to relatively poor speaking as the standard. this is not an argument against neither quantity nor quality of research which make for great debates. some form of prior disclosure of evidence is needed for the shift to rhetorical style as the flower of competitive debate. the best debates are not only the most competitive debates but the most competitive debates where the nuances of the literature and the issues are explored the most making the end of the year prime for those occasions. the strategy of fooling the opponent by disarming their ability to respond with new evidence is short-sighted for the growth of the activity. breadth is already managed by the existing ginormous research effort undertaken by the community. breadth would hardly suffer from new rules that focus the activity on the interpretation of evidence which is where the thinking happens. we encounter a major psychological impediment, right here. i call it the bill gates microsoft syndrome, the idea of proprietary research that opposes sharing. UDL philanthropy is not the sharing needed for better speaking standards. sharing evidence prior to rounds which would allow the opponents to carefully analyze and develop a more sophisticated response is characterized as a threat to thinking on one's feet. that's a circular argument that begs the question. whether one hears the evidence for the first time in the round or before the round, from the second one first hears that evidence one is thinking on one's feet. thinking on one's feet for longer periods of time allows for better understanding of the nuances of that evidence. one can not anticipate the other team's responses and eventually at some point in the round, regardless of the fact that the evidence has been analyzed before the round, one will have to think on one's feet. the major difference is that the first line responses to the evidence are more refined. there are 8 speeches, not 2. first line responses will also gain greater rhetorical flare from pre-round analysis of evidence. sharing could create another prospect -- the sifting out of all the crappy cards that get read whose taglines don't come close to matching their text and the concentration of debates across the spectrum of the tournaments on the gold in the literature. i know you judges see this as cheating. the debaters who don't research and squat on elite files still won't be the best because they won't understand the context of the literature as well as those who are reading day and night with their hearts committed to comprehension of the resolution. they won't be able to make those devastating uncarded arguments which assess context. sharing does not preclude the fluency in the literature which distinguishes the thinkers in debate from the literate teleprompter readers. possibly, the significant amount of poor evidence tolerated could be regarded as offensive to a community which deems itself intellectual, the flip side of the proprietary disease. and possibly, debate rounds could center around less but sweet cards. i think the elite powerhouses are committed to the research race because they are scared of a world in which critical thinking and a rhetoric of tropes dominate the activity. for this, they should be opposed and defeated. well spoken arguments attached to the skeleton of solid argument strategy have historically proven to be viable public events. keep the strategy and the research. work on speaking or keep your sights low at the level of a good professional debater who can't win in the big arena. parliament and all tuna's stuff is not the answer or raison d'etre for not changing c-x. an issue for another day is the technical construction of the resolutions, a topic ede attacked quite well. it is not difficult to see how the wordings have become like a game of madlibs with certain key phrases like "USFG" "significantly" "one or more of the following areas" etc. surrounded by the words that differentiate the topic area. this method has passed the point of diminishing returns. Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry Check it out. _________________________________________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/cf025dd5/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 10:42:33 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:42:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Discuss debate video ? On twitter Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904060842w1c51f646x5432fc7a39b2c641@mail.gmail.com> Get your debate twit accounts dusted off debate twit is discussing the video question today @debatetwit #ndt #video are the tags for now -- Sent from my mobile device From sheltonkurt at yahoo.com Mon Apr 6 10:51:22 2009 From: sheltonkurt at yahoo.com (Kurt Shelton) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 08:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Debate Opening at Poly Prep Message-ID: <678027.68693.qm@web31307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Poly Prep is looking for Math and Physics teachers to wants to fill that vacancy with a?debate coach.? The school is in Brooklyn, NY?and I have attached the letter below.? Please contact me or Shawn Watts directly about filling the vacancy. Kurt Shelton ?201-892-0343? sheltonkurt at yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Shawn Watts swatts at PolyPrep.org . I have talked to the school administration.? So far, we have an opening in math and another in physics.? The school is also open to having a coach who just works with the team after school, but isn't a teacher.? A college debater in the area would be perfect for a person just working after school. For someone seeking a teaching position I can tell you that the pay is competitive and comes with health, dental, and TIAA CREF retirement benefits.? The debate position comes with a stipend in addition to the base salary. The team will have 8 returning sophomore/juniors who are dedicated to debate.? They work hard and are very bright.? Each of them are going to at least a 3 week workshop this summer.? So, they'll come in raring to go.? They want to win and the school is absolutely supportive of travel and tournaments.? In the long term, the school is open to offering debate as a class and expanding the program to the middle school as a way to feed the varsity program. We had a good amount of success this year, especially given that none of them had ever done policy before.? Next year, because they'll have had a year of policy under their belts and because they'll all come in having been to a workshop, they'll be much better.? I am looking for someone who is willing to dedicate themselves to building the program and continuing its success.? Please, let anyone and everyone that you think would be interested know that the job is available.? I am hoping to fill the position soon so that I can tell the debaters I have a coach in place for them when I tell them that I am leaving. Thank you all for being so welcoming and supportive of me and Poly's program this year.? I have greatly appreciated your help.? I am sorry to be leaving.? I've never enjoyed working somewhere as much as I've enjoyed Poly.? At the same time, the opportunity to attend Cornell on scholarship is too good to pass up. Thank you all, Shawn Watts Director of Debate Poly Prep Country Day School ?(7... ext. 6580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/54703770/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Mon Apr 6 11:35:56 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:35:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Call for articles: critical perspectives on agriculture Message-ID: Instead of just archiving or throwing away some incredibly interesting research about the relationship of ag policy to society, life, power and capital, now you can turn your 1ACs and 1NCs into essays and articles which we will publish at Shared Sacrifice, an online journal of progressive politics and culture. Arguments should be re-written as academic or political (polemical?) essays; the vast majority of prose should be your own, but you may quote and cite as needed. We'll edit for mechanics, citation protocol, and clarity. Multiple authors welcome. We'd like to devote an entire edition to critical perspectives on agriculture and have plenty of room for whatever articles we get. So please email them to stannard at sharedsacrifice.us by May 1. matt stannard _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/51d4e31a/attachment.htm From sternhag at cord.edu Mon Apr 6 12:05:39 2009 From: sternhag at cord.edu (Fred Sternhagen) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:05:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] reminder: job opening Message-ID: <57DFC12C6BBD9949A4EEAED5FB369441018E109F744D@CORDMAIL.cord.local> You can also find the job description at: http://hr.cord.edu . That is also the site used to submit materials. Use the "Faculty Positions" button. This position includes: 1. full faculty rank 2. a full benefit package a. medical and dental insurance b. college contributions to a retirement account c. a faculty professional funds account of $1,000 a year. [cid:image004.gif at 01C9B6AF.F6AE7450]Fred [cid:image006.gif at 01C9B6AF.F6AE7450] Fred Sternhagen Communication Studies and Theatre Art Department Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 218-299-3731 FAX: 218-299-4256 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/7a474284/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.gif Type: image/gif Size: 73 bytes Desc: image004.gif Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/7a474284/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.gif Type: image/gif Size: 120 bytes Desc: image005.gif Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/7a474284/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2606 bytes Desc: image006.gif Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/7a474284/attachment-0002.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: term contract with forensics-- position description for eDebate 3-16-09.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 24287 bytes Desc: term contract with forensics-- position description for eDebate 3-16-09.rtf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/7a474284/attachment.rtf From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Apr 6 12:23:02 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 12:23:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] grant: "speed is not the disease" Message-ID: appreciating your clarification of ville's current positions, i offer these thoughts. speed was not characterized as a disease or necessarily the problem as explained in the last post. the disease mentioned was proprietary evidence which stands opposed to information sharing and could be the determining factor in the proliferation of crappy evidence read at tournaments. proprietary evidence has been supported by the antiquated microsoft syndrome protecting the fruits of one's labors. the flipside is that the tolerance of poor evidence by a community which deems itself intellectual harms the activity as a disease harms the body. evidence can be viewed as nutrition for debaters in a fast-food nation. why not adjust the scale of the curriculums of collegiate courses of study towards the worst books ever written on the model of NDT debate standards of evidence since everything's proceeding so well with the activity? would debates not be better if reliance on poor evidence was eliminated by information sharing? that's not to mention, the advancement of debate towards delving more into the nuances of the evidence replacing cursory in-round responses prompted by sneak attack strategies. for example, ede's cursory reading of my thread enabled him to gloss over my argument and re-characterize it as an objection to the "speed disease". information sharing is a hot topic with the obama administration which is only appointing RIAA insiders. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/obama-stop-fill.html "Groups such as Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Consumer Electronics Association, the Wikimedia Foundation and, among others, the American Library Association, are demanding Obama to look outside the content industry when filling up his administration... The group are: American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy and Technology, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Consumers Union, EDUCAUSE, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Entertainment Consumers Association, Essential Action, Home Recording Rights Coalition, Internet Archive, Knowledge Ecology International, NetCoalition, Public Knowledge, Special Libraries Association. U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Wikimedia Foundation. end quote debate suffers from the same bad ideas about information that the obama administration does and NDT would profit from examining applications of the recommendations from the information sharing coalition to its own process. information sharing in debate bolsters the requirements for multicultural democracy. proprietary evidence makes fences where fences barricade the participants from the goal of the activity -- the study and practice of communication. propriety and research are not synonymous. the power of the interests in the proprietary evidence racket and their inertia do not answer the argument that this way of thinking is a significant barrier to better speechmaking according to historical standards of economy of words and the execution of tropes. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/d067bb11/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 12:35:55 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:35:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for something to do now that the season is done? Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904061035g681f3748r1140add65645e183@mail.gmail.com> YOURS is a Baltimore MD community organization that is focused on empowering youth as the catalyst for community led urban revitalization. Not only is community led urban revitalization a potently good argument on next year's high school topic, it is also a necessary process for cites trying to survive in the face of economic crisis. If this piques your interest even the slightest bit and you are looking for something to put your energies toward now that the season is over, we have a relativly easy volunteer task that will help you learn about what we can do and us learn about what we can do to better conevey our message. http://bmoreyours.org/2009/04/web-volunteers-needed/ will take you to a link about a way that you can volunteer, simply look through our stuff and give us some feedback. We love the feedback from debaters because in addition to looking at a whole lot of websites in your debate research, you also provide concise and action oriented criticisms....so if you have a moment check it out let us know what you think, and help us use this platform to spread our message of youth led community revitalization in Baltimore and beyond. Here is the link to the main site http://www.bmoreisyours.org. Thank you in advance Andy Ellis Chief Operating Officer Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/dd88d36c/attachment.htm From runlittleman at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 12:45:37 2009 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:45:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 2009-2010 Topic Papers Message-ID: <886dd32a0904061045g381eaff6x4d5e06e25ea71872@mail.gmail.com> I know that several people are working on the Russia topic paper, but i was curious as to what other papers people were currently working on for the upcoming season. It is not my intention to start a debate over these topics already, but rather to determine what ideas are currently out there. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/7a0c5cc9/attachment.htm From scottyp431 at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 15:09:31 2009 From: scottyp431 at gmail.com (Scott Phillips) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:09:31 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] States CP- Voting Issue and Recirprocity Message-ID: <12a4de8d0904061309l4c06ec6cuf36172525728a8c7@mail.gmail.com> 1. Theory arguments must once again become voting issues- it is less judge bias for the negative and more judge bias against theory being a legitimate avenue of argument that has allowed absurd counterplans to proliferate. Many judges will now reject the argument not the team (RANT) without the negative even making that as an argument. This makes pursuing theory have an extremely low ROI for the aff. Particularly the more unconventional their theory argument, such as no solvency advocate or multi actor illegit etc. Ironically, people like Mahoney who dismiss theory in this way have created the problem they now lament. If judges would actually vote on conditionality bad when the negative read 3 counterplans, or PICS bad vs the constitutional amendment CP this wouldn't be a problem. But they don't, and so debaters have evolved to the point where they don't even make theory arguments vs the delay counterplan because they think it will be a waste of their time. The pendulum has swung too far towards the negative, the states cp , while emblematic of this, is by no means close to the worst example. The downside might be proliferation of stupid theory arguments, but a balance will eventually be struck. These absurd counterplans fundamentally alter the nature of other arguments in the debate- bad disads that could be beat on defense and case outweighs are now net benefits to counterplans that solve the case 100%. Simply rejecting the argument creates a system of incentives for the negative to run as many "bad" arguments as they can get away with. It was not so long ago that teams were losing on "dispo bad", the pendulum has swung to far from there, and we should attempt to push it to the middle. 2. Reciprocity must guide theory arguments. The states CP is illegitimate because it is not reciprocal- the affirmative is limited to one agent. The do 500 things including 30 that spike out of your literature based responses to our CP strategy is illegitimate because it is not reciprocal. Kritik alternatives that have everyone withdraw from capitalism are illegitimate because they are not reciprocal. It should be obvious that if the negative is not limited to a (closely) reciprocal action to the affirmative the aff will never be able to prove that their solution is the "best policy option". Likewise when the negative is allowed to critique representations while not being burdened with presenting an alternative way of representing it is difficult for the affirmative to prove their representations are desirable. Other standards like evidence and allegedly objective interpretations of opportunity cost will never EVER provide as clear or as fair a guide as reciprocity. Related to 2- being "non topical" is not a defense of a counterplans theoretical legitimacy in any way,and there can be no logical reason why it would be. Also, agent counterplans are plan inclusive- while in the "real world" a different agent may do something differently and therefore make it a different policy, in debate the nature of negative fiat eliminates this differential. The states CP is only different in how it would be implemented or enforced- 2 areas that are not part of the plan, but are instead an effect of the plan (bracketing off for a second that any time the aff actually has a reason ( never) where a federal agency is needed for the plan that the neg either lopezez that agency or has the states contract them out etc). Furthermore, "literature does not check". This should be obvious given the fact that it exists on anything (especially given the lowering of author qualification standards to zero and the interweb) from the anarchy cp to the world government CP. Because of this, literature as a standard is useless. To use it as a tool to exclude states, legitimizes it as a defense of other absurd cp's that happen to have a card. Random Asides 3. No one has to "justify" the term federal government- this is not South Dakota, and the year is not 1964. The states cp as a "topic limiting" tool fails. Teams read affs that can't beat regular states (rps) and lopez etc let states do anything else. 4. The "1 state" cp is a joke, stop talking about it. It's not a viable alternative, and never will be. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/f18a4260/attachment.htm From sjsnider at ksu.edu Mon Apr 6 15:21:08 2009 From: sjsnider at ksu.edu (Sarah Jane Green) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:21:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Women's Debate Institute- NDCA Dinner Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rae Lynn Schwartz-DuPre Date: Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:08 PM Subject: post to NDT/CEDA list please To: Sarah Jane Green It is not too late to support your future debaters; the women of high school debate. As you might know the Women?s Debate Institute is hosting our second annual Celebrating Our Community dinner to be held on April 18, 2009 at the National Debate Coaches Association high school championship in Las Vegas, NV.? Aimi Hamraie, 2007 NDT winner, will deliver a keynote address.? I hope your debate team will help sponsor this event with us. The NDCA championship is a national invitational ? you can reach out to talented and motivated female high school debaters in a unique and inspirational setting. In return for your donation, we will decorate place settings and tables with University banners, distribute recruitment literature, and feature write-ups of each debate team in the dinner program.? Furthermore, you will publicly be thanked on our website and at the dinner. Last year, our inaugural event was a tremendous success.? Over 80 female high school debaters, coaches, and judges gathered for an evening of dining, relaxing, networking, and celebrating.? Last year our university sponsors included Appalachian State, Fullerton, Gonzaga, James Madison, Trinity, UMKC, Vanderbilt, Weber State, and Whitman and this year we have already added West Georgia, Samford, and others to the list. The WDI and you, as a college debate coach, have a lot in common. The goal of the WDI is to increase the number of women who debate in high school and who go on to debate in college.? Our staff and supporters includes past and current college debaters and coaches:? Leah Castella, Greta Stahl, Tara Tate, Linda Collier, Christine Malumphy, Sarah Glaser, and myself, to name a few. The event is coming up soon so do not miss this great recruiting opportunity. To sponsor the event or get more details, feel free to email me and/or visit http://www.womensdebateinstitute.org/dinner.html Thank you again for your support, Rae Lynn Rae Lynn Schwartz-DuPre, PhD Assistant Professor Department of Communication Western Washington University MS 9162 516 High Street, CF 283 Bellingham, WA 98225-9162 360-650-4212 From antonucci23 at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 15:54:59 2009 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (antonucci23 at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:54:59 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Stroube's thing Message-ID: <0016364ed95a9460180466e91cac@google.com> Mr. Stroube, I am surprised by your newfound commitment to word economy. I agree with your position. Long, rambling sentences and repetitious argument do detract from one's persuasive appeal. If you wrote out a transcript of a competitive CEDA/NDT round, then published a revised economical version, I would read both with keen interest. If you're insisting that other people do this for you, I admit that I find the demand much less interesting than the actual work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/7b67075d/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Apr 6 16:56:21 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 16:56:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans antonucci23 Message-ID: transcripts already exist. if someone will provide with me any ndt final transcription, back when they were transcribed, i will provide an example of the analysis mentioned starting with a concentration on speed as masking for filler. the final rubenstein won with his partner for redlands in san antonio would be great. or how bout a gordon mitchell final assuming they transcribed way back then? if you are genuinely interested, it's not really much work to obtain an existing transcript and compare the quality of the speech to great historical examples like "i have a dream" or numerous others. or possibly we could look at the transcripts and imagine how terrible "i have a dream" would sound if thoughtless NDT habits were intermixed with MLK's mastery of style. of course, i understand the difference in the setting of "i have a dream" and a contest round. style is a mobile skill. c-x debaters can learn from great speeches made in other contexts to improve their own speaking. c-x debaters are curiously ignorant of the history of the art of rhetoric which goes back to ancient egypt reaching high points in the old kingdom, pre-hellenic ancient greece, the italian renaissance and elizabethan england. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Now available on your iPhone or BlackBerry http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Mobile1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/3a57e64c/attachment.htm From Nick.O.Watts-1 at ou.edu Mon Apr 6 17:30:03 2009 From: Nick.O.Watts-1 at ou.edu (Watts, Nick O.) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:30:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Can Judge Rounds at the TOC Message-ID: <7059EA19D7837E44A3BA7DAB464944B3A645178633@XMAIL5.sooner.net.ou.edu> I'm looking to pick up some rounds at the TOC. I already have transportation/housing. Thanks, Nick From brubaie at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 19:16:54 2009 From: brubaie at gmail.com (brian rubaie) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:16:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Inspiring the 2A to go for theory Message-ID: I've followed the discussion about states CPs the whole way through and really enjoyed it. I agree with JP and Kade that 2As have to stand up for themselves. However, the main reason I (and probably others) are reluctant to do so is what Scott accurately termed "judge bias against theory." I wanted to follow Scott's message with a plea to judges to update their philosophy to more accurately reflect their current theory biases. There are few feelings more frustrating than hearing someone say "I will never vote on (X) being bad" after you have devoted time before the tournament and before the round to weighing the risk of making a particular theory argument. If more judges posted their thoughts on *strong* theory biases and 2As decide not to follow along/capitalize then they deserved to lose from the start. Adding detail to a judge philosophy increases the odds that the AFF will take risks and the NEG will adapt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/7d3c9284/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon Apr 6 19:19:05 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:19:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] simonides and the flow Message-ID: i will spare you quoting entire articles but flowing is nothing modern. the flow is a version of the memory palace adapted to the specific purposes of c-x debate. ancient mnemonics have resurfaced in modern scholarship through the work of frances yates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci The Method of Loci is a technique for memorizing many things and has been practiced since classical antiquity. It is a type of mnemonic link system based on places (loci, otherwise known as locations), used most often in cases where long lists of items are concerned. It was taught for many centuries as a part of the curriculum in schools, enabling an orator to easily remember a speech or students to easily remember many things at will. There are different techniques and approaches for the "Method of Loci", and in medieval schools (as in Aristotle, Topics, Bk. 8), "Ars Memoriae" was considered to be equally a part of dialectics as of rhetoric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simonides_of_Ceos The method of loci was said to be invented by Simonides. According to De Oratore by Cicero, Simondies escaped a disaster that destroyed the building where he was having dinner with other dignitaries. He was able to recall the each victim by their positioning around the table. end quote the need to translate the skeleton of mnemonic devices into substance makes NDT speeches clumsy and unnecessarily technical. the incorporation of the flow into the speech is un-rhetorical. this is not an argument against flowing. this is not an argument against flowing. watching primary and presidential debates, one can see the candidates flowing arguments and outlining responses. reference is made to the opponent's arguments without flow jargon. flowspeak also hinders composition by chopping speeches into a logical order. judges are able to construct complete arguments from choppy oratory. composition skills are neglected and subverted to technical ends. instead of intuitively understanding complete arguments from flow fragments, debate speech would gain from judges intuitively applying the arguments to their appropriate places. team Q does not mention "this is my response to case press H" but judge Z and team V know where to mentally apply the answer. team V answers the answer to case press H in the next speech and judge Z has no problem tracing the sequence through the speeches. prior familiarity with evidence by teams and judges helps this model. c-x debate resembles more medieval line by line commentaries of aristotle's logic than any instance of skilled oratory. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/90df07ec/attachment.htm From antonucci23 at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 19:39:16 2009 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 20:39:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Reply to Mr. Stroube re: rhetorical criticism Message-ID: <4a71966c0904061739h15f2a227n7ab0367634003624@mail.gmail.com> "transcripts already exist. if someone will provide with me any ndt final transcription, back when they were transcribed, i will provide an example of the analysis mentioned starting with a concentration on speed as masking for filler. the final rubenstein won with his partner for redlands in san antonio would be great. or how bout a gordon mitchell final assuming they transcribed way back then? " http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/HistoricalLists/NDTBooks/1990WestGeorgiaCollege2.pdf There you go. The transcript starts on page 50 on my version of the PDF. I advised you to make your own transcript because practice may have changed in the intervening two decades. "if you are genuinely interested, it's not really much work to obtain an existing transcript and compare the quality of the speech to great historical examples like "i have a dream" or numerous others. or possibly we could look at the transcripts and imagine how terrible "i have a dream" would sound if thoughtless NDT habits were intermixed with MLK's mastery of style. " I disagree. I find all four debaters in this round rhetorically impressive. I also think that effective rhetoric adjusts to content and context. Directly transposing rhetorical patterns from Pericles' funeral oration into this particular context would, to my ear, sound pompous and misplaced. The "I have a dream" version of Lennon's 1AR would be a rhetorical traffic accident. If you want to prove me wrong through detailed textual analysis - as opposed to imperatives that I make your argument for you - I'm eager to read your improved version. Rewriting this 1AR Stroube-style would impress me, and many would read it carefully. Close reading, in this context, usefully distinguishes an individual willing to work on rhetorical criticism from someone who would just like to make a few passing observations. It's easy to draw sketchy analogies to medievalists because such comparison aren't falsifiable or even really contestable propositions. Improving a Rubinstein 2NR, on the other hand, would be a feat. -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/cca86191/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 19:46:38 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 20:46:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] States CP- Voting Issue and Recirprocity In-Reply-To: <12a4de8d0904061309l4c06ec6cuf36172525728a8c7@mail.gmail.com> References: <12a4de8d0904061309l4c06ec6cuf36172525728a8c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Few comments 1. Totally correct judges do not vote on theory, for the most part....and they should..However, I suspect more judges might if debaters slowed down on the theory blocks so that they are more flowable....Its verrrrrry hard to flow theory super fast (preempt - yes, I am old - but its true). In addition, the way people write theory blocks makes it even LESS likely that the flow is clean because instead of refutation - one team reads a block, the other team reads a block that may or may not cover what was in the initial theory block. The rest of the debate goes something like this: Initiator: They conceded all of our offensive reasons x is illigit, education, fairness, river dancing, and 30 Rock, then about 100 more Responder: Now very slow, they conceded all of our arguments, then listing them all one after another just like before. You can see why, judges sometimes feel uncomfortable voting for or against theory. Because I am old, I feel comfortablle admitting the whole thing is generally a flowing disaster. Now, that said, people actually ran and won a ton of rounds this year on a CP that had China agree to IPR enforcement if the US ended cotton subsidies....not only did it have no precise solvency arguments it also relied on the following da - I cant make this up - but obviously someone did: China believes the US will defend Taiwan now - China will see the plan as appeasement and think it means that they can invade Taiwan - invasion escalates = nuke war Seriously? States is only one of a million ways this works out.....I am a neg flex guy, but these CPs are abominations of strategery over substance. Look all systems break down - there is lot to learn from being strategic but when the stuff you learn starts being less about the real-world of the topic (nobody who writes about the topic would even consider the cp, nobody who had decisionmaking authority would do anything but laugh at the cp). 2. There was a 50 states CP in the old days that was not illigitimate because it was the NON UNIFORMITY of the implementation that made it a debate covered in the literature (should the states INNOVATE or should the Fed nationally implement). I will concede that even this CP was a bit shady on the 50 states all doing something similar to the plan...but at least it was a debate. On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Scott Phillips wrote: > 1. Theory arguments must once again become voting issues- it is less judge > bias for the negative and more judge bias against theory being a legitimate > avenue of argument that has allowed absurd counterplans to proliferate. Many > judges will now reject the argument not the team (RANT) without the negative > even making that as an argument. This makes pursuing theory have an > extremely low ROI for the aff. Particularly the more unconventional their > theory argument, such as no solvency advocate or multi actor illegit etc. > Ironically, people like Mahoney who dismiss theory in this way have created > the problem they now lament. If judges would actually vote on conditionality > bad when the negative read 3 counterplans, or PICS bad vs the constitutional > amendment CP this wouldn't be a problem. But they don't, and so debaters > have evolved to the point where they don't even make theory arguments vs the > delay counterplan because they think it will be a waste of their time. The > pendulum has swung too far towards the negative, the states cp , while > emblematic of this, is by no means close to the worst example. The downside > might be proliferation of stupid theory arguments, but a balance will > eventually be struck. These absurd counterplans fundamentally alter the > nature of other arguments in the debate- bad disads that could be beat on > defense and case outweighs are now net benefits to counterplans that solve > the case 100%. Simply rejecting the argument creates a system of incentives > for the negative to run as many "bad" arguments as they can get away with. > It was not so long ago that teams were losing on "dispo bad", the pendulum > has swung to far from there, and we should attempt to push it to the > middle. > 2. Reciprocity must guide theory arguments. The states CP is illegitimate > because it is not reciprocal- the affirmative is limited to one agent. The > do 500 things including 30 that spike out of your literature based responses > to our CP strategy is illegitimate because it is not reciprocal. Kritik > alternatives that have everyone withdraw from capitalism are illegitimate > because they are not reciprocal. It should be obvious that if the negative > is not limited to a (closely) reciprocal action to the affirmative the aff > will never be able to prove that their solution is the "best policy option". > Likewise when the negative is allowed to critique representations while not > being burdened with presenting an alternative way of representing it is > difficult for the affirmative to prove their representations are desirable. > Other standards like evidence and allegedly objective interpretations of > opportunity cost will never EVER provide as clear or as fair a guide as > reciprocity. > > Related to 2- being "non topical" is not a defense of a counterplans > theoretical legitimacy in any way,and there can be no logical reason why it > would be. Also, agent counterplans are plan inclusive- while in the "real > world" a different agent may do something differently and therefore make it > a different policy, in debate the nature of negative fiat eliminates this > differential. The states CP is only different in how it would be implemented > or enforced- 2 areas that are not part of the plan, but are instead an > effect of the plan (bracketing off for a second that any time the aff > actually has a reason ( never) where a federal agency is needed for the plan > that the neg either lopezez that agency or has the states contract them out > etc). Furthermore, "literature does not check". This should be obvious given > the fact that it exists on anything (especially given the lowering of > author qualification standards to zero and the interweb) from the anarchy cp > to the world government CP. Because of this, literature as a standard is > useless. To use it as a tool to exclude states, legitimizes it as a defense > of other absurd cp's that happen to have a card. > > > > Random Asides > 3. No one has to "justify" the term federal government- this is not South > Dakota, and the year is not 1964. The states cp as a "topic limiting" tool > fails. Teams read affs that can't beat regular states (rps) and lopez etc > let states do anything else. > > 4. The "1 state" cp is a joke, stop talking about it. It's not a viable > alternative, and never will be. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090406/efadfa43/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 20:15:54 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:15:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Inspiring the 2A to go for theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904061815g5c917392u1d530f4cc2c2c31@mail.gmail.com> Quickly then back to cleaning.... Brian is right about judges, but what if the remedy is to let debaters make comments about judges philsophies, instead of relying on the judges solely to self report On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:16 PM, brian rubaie wrote: > I've followed the discussion about states CPs the whole way through and > really enjoyed it. I agree with JP and Kade that 2As have to stand up for > themselves. However, the main reason I (and probably others) are reluctant > to do so is what Scott accurately termed "judge bias against theory." > I wanted to follow Scott's message with a plea to judges to update their > philosophy to more accurately reflect their current theory biases. There are > few feelings more frustrating than hearing someone say "I will never vote on > (X) being bad" after you have devoted time before the tournament and before > the round to weighing the risk of making a particular theory argument. If > more judges posted their thoughts on *strong* theory biases and 2As decide > not to follow along/capitalize then they deserved to lose from the start. > Adding detail to a judge philosophy increases the odds that the AFF will > take risks and the NEG will adapt. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090406/a759bf9e/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Mon Apr 6 21:52:13 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 22:52:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Anyone want to help fight for gay marriage? Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70904061952i3f600bf8jf235f9fab35d8fa@mail.gmail.com> hey folks, a former UWG debater, Kris Bonilla, has decided to legally contest Louisiana's prohibitions on gay marriage. below is a cut & paste of the complaint recently filed. Kris has contacted me asking for help with making his case. if you ever ran a gay rights AFF or have done research on the legal arguments against discrimination against same-sex relationships, your help is requested. you can send me any research you have. Kris specifically asked me for Int'l Law work, but welcomes any research. this may be a chance for you to turn your debate arguments into evidence that can win Louisianans civil rights. hester the complaint: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Kristoffer J. Bonilla and John Thomas Wray, PLAINTIFFS v. Brenda Hurst, Director of the Orleans Parish Office of Marriage Licensing; Darlene W. Smith, State Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics; Dr. Rony Francola, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Public Health; Alan Levine, Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals; and James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, DEFENDANTS Civil Action No. _____________ Number ____________ Section ?____?, Mag. ?_______? COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF NOW COME PLAINTIFFS, Kristoffer J. Bonilla and John Thomas Wray, both persons of the full age of majority, United States citizens, domiciled and residing in the State of Louisiana, who, with respect, represent: 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?1331, this Court has jurisdiction over the action because it arises under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and international treaties, including, but not limited to, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1 2. On April 2, 2009, Petitioners applied for a marriage license at the Orleans Parish Marriage License Office and were denied. The clerk refused to issue a marriage license because both applicants were male and that Louisiana law (Article XII ?15 of the Louisiana Constitution and Louisiana Civil Code Articles 89 and 3520) denies an individual the right to marry if he or she chooses a partner of the same sex. 3. Respondents? refusal to grant the Petitioners a marriage license violates the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment (as applied to Louisiana by the Fourteenth Amendment) by infringing on a fundamental liberty interest, the right to marry, without any compelling government interest. 4. Moreover, the supporting Louisiana provisions run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by curtailing the right to marry based upon a religious interpretation of the nature and purpose of marriage itself. By failing to articulate a legitimate, compelling and secular interest for the restriction on marriage, the State has necessarily established a wholly religious civil institution. Accordingly, Respondents? appeal to the ?sanctity? or religious tradition of marriage does not justify the State?s restriction; it unmasks an independent constitutional objection. 5. Additionally, the Louisiana laws violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Respondents issue marriage licenses in a discriminatory fashion. First, the law 2 discriminates on the basis of sex by restricting men from marrying men and women from marrying women; the right to choose a partner, essential to a meaningful marriage, is encumbered because of the applicant?s sex. Second, it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation by affecting the class of persons not exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex. Accordingly, the only individuals who enjoy the right to marry are those exclusively attracted to members of the opposite sex. Neither rational basis nor substantial or compelling interest supports that limitation. Therefore, regardless of how the class affected is articulated, Louisiana law fails requisite Constitutional scrutiny. 6. Finally, international law, as expressed in the Preamble and Article I ?3 to the U.N. Charter, Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 16 and 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 17, 23, 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, proscribes the actions and laws prompting the instant action. As treaties ratified by the United States Senate, these provisions supersede Louisiana?s marriage restriction. 7. Respondent Brenda Hurst is the Director of the Orleans Parish Office of Marriage Licensing and, as such, is the public official charged with reviewing applications for marriage licenses, insuring compliance with State regulation and issuing licenses to prospective couples. She is sued herein solely in her official capacity. 8. Respondent Darlene W. Smith is the Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics of the State of Louisiana. As Registrar Ms. Smith instructs and supervises local registrars by prescribing and 3 furnishing vital statistic forms, including marriage license forms for use by licensing officials. In addition, she arranges and preserves all registered vital statistics licenses, including marriages, in a comprehensive State index. She is sued herein solely in her official capacity. 9. Respondent Rony Francola, M.D. is the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Public Health for the State of Louisiana. Upon information and belief, Dr. Francola reports to Respondent Levine and is the official responsible for prescribing and furnishing the forms for the application for the license to marry, the certificate of registry of marriage and the marriage certificate. He is sued herein only in his official capacity. 10. Respondent Alan Levine is the Louisiana Secretary for the Department of Health and Hospitals, responsible for enforcing Louisiana laws regulating the licensing of marriage through oversight and control of both the Office of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Records and Statistics. He is sued herein solely in his official capacity. 11. Respondent James D. Caldwell is the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana. As the enforcement officer for the laws of the State, he bears ultimate responsibility and burden to justify Louisiana?s legal restrictions on the right to marry. He is sued herein solely in his official capacity. 4 WHEREFORE, Petitioners request the following relief: 1. That this Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, order a speedy hearing and issue a declaratory judgment holding Art. XII, ?15 of the Louisiana Constitution, Articles 89 and Article 3520 of the Louisiana Civil Code invalid because they are either unconstitutional, illegal under international law, or both. 2. That this Court, pursuant to Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, issue injunctive relief requiring Respondents to issue the Petitioners a marriage license and restraining Respondents from implementing, enforcing or applying the relevant Louisiana provisions. 3. That this Court, pursuant to Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, grant relief previously available through the writ of mandamus to insure that parish clerks and other local officials throughout the State, in performing their duty to issue marriage licenses in their jurisdictions, do so without regard for either the sex or sexual orientation of either applicant. 4. That Petitioners be awarded costs; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. 5 Date _________________________ _ ____________________________ Kristoffer J. Bonilla, pro se 16 Yosemite Drive New Orleans, Louisiana 70131 krisbonilla at gmail.com 504-343-0044 ____________________________ John Thomas Wray, pro se 1805 Esplanade Avenue New Orleans, Louisiana 70116 Johnnyreco911 at hotmail.com 504-616-5350 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/e96a2a5d/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 7 11:08:32 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 09:08:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Inspiring the 2A to go for theory In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0904061815g5c917392u1d530f4cc2c2c31@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <14937.50141.qm@web53503.mail.re2.yahoo.com> www.ratemyadjudicator.com game on! --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Andy Ellis wrote: > From: Andy Ellis > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Inspiring the 2A to go for theory > To: "brian rubaie" > Cc: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 8:15 PM > Quickly then back to cleaning.... > > Brian is right about judges, but what if the remedy is to > let debaters make > comments about judges philsophies, instead of relying on > the judges solely > to self report > On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:16 PM, brian rubaie > wrote: > > > I've followed the discussion about states CPs the > whole way through and > > really enjoyed it. I agree with JP and Kade that 2As > have to stand up for > > themselves. However, the main reason I (and probably > others) are reluctant > > to do so is what Scott accurately termed "judge > bias against theory." > > I wanted to follow Scott's message with a plea to > judges to update their > > philosophy to more accurately reflect their current > theory biases. There are > > few feelings more frustrating than hearing someone say > "I will never vote on > > (X) being bad" after you have devoted time before > the tournament and before > > the round to weighing the risk of making a particular > theory argument. If > > more judges posted their thoughts on *strong* theory > biases and 2As decide > > not to follow along/capitalize then they deserved to > lose from the start. > > Adding detail to a judge philosophy increases the odds > that the AFF will > > take risks and the NEG will adapt. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From davismk13 at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 16:35:49 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:35:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Final ADA Rankings Message-ID: <9a7f6f740904071435o56a05c07o4e97729093571220@mail.gmail.com> Final Overall ADA Rankings 1. Liberty 2. Mary Washington 3. George Mason 4. Clarion 5. James Madison 6. Wayne State 7. Vanderbilt 8. Emory 9. John Carroll 10. Wake Forest Varsity Rankings 1. Liberty 2. Mary Washington 3. Wake Forest 4. James Madison 5. Wayne State 6. Emory 7. George Mason 8. Georgia 9. Vanderbilt 10. West Virginia JV Rankings 1. Liberty 2. Mary Washington 3. George Mason 4. Clarion 5. Wayne State 6. Emory 7. James Madison 8. Appalachian State 9. Samford 10. Miami-Ohio Novice Rankings 1. Liberty 2. Clarion 3. George Mason 4. James Madison 5. Mary Washington 6. John Carroll 7. Vanderbilt 8. Boston College 9. Appalachian State 10. Navy -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From jmgreen at ksu.edu Tue Apr 7 17:20:41 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:20:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] KSU Debate GTA Assistantship Opportunity Message-ID: <5a6e2a80904071520u32a2c211kd1d3ddc686b1c2be@mail.gmail.com> Seniors, your procrastination has finally paid off. With our funding levels higher than expected, KSU is now able to offer an additional Debate GTA spot for the 2009-10 year. Those interested should act quickly. What you get: 1 free tuition in graduate school - Comm Studies is expected, but if you have interest in another field, you can contact us as well - just a little bit trickier process. 2 $10,000 stipend your first year $11,000 your second 3 live in a town with insanely low housing and drinking costs - 16 bars in a 3 block radius from campus 4 hang out with the incredibly enjoyable KSU team What you are expected to do: 1 teach public speaking - you will get TEVALS - great for future teaching situations, you need to be a person who can show up 2 coach the KSU debate team - we graduated ZERO seniors - had 3 teams break at CEDA another at the NDT. We have novice, jv, varsity - politics, politiks, discoursky, project, identity, counterplan, topicality and/or several other yet to be appropriately categorized debaters. You got a specialty, we can use it. You like telling debaters what they can do better and are willing to work with anyone - then you are awesome and we really want you. Our motto is "we help debaters become the best at what they do best, not what we tell them." 3 joke, have fun, enjoy debate - everyone from our best to our least performing debater you will have an opportunity to work with. We are a family. We work hard, and afterwards, play hard and have fun doing both. Grumpy-pants, drama-kingsandqueens, and total slackers won't fit in well. 4 seek your degree Our squad is diverse and we seek more diversity in all of its manifestations. I'd run through the categories, but I don't really like them and we have too many combinations for me to list. Our list of alumni who currently coach/direct: Eric Morris, Eric Marlow, Scott Herndon, Doug Robidoux, and many others. We have several alumns who have gone on to non-debate successes as well. We have landed students at the following graduate schools for PhD in COMM after obtiaining their Master's degrees at KSU........Iowa, Indiana, Texas, Pittsburgh, Northwestern, and that school up the road on I-70 :) We also have had two recent graduates make it into law schools that they would not have gotten into after their undergraduate because they had a Masters Degree and performed well. If you are interested, email (jmgreen at ksu.edu) and the process can get started. On behalf of KSU Debate, Justin Green From scottelliott at grandecom.net Tue Apr 7 18:52:50 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 18:52:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? Message-ID: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I can do that any time. Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) more accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for alternative resolutions. 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy debate" for the past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes in the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear that I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy debate." (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing more that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present evidence and arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that the USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing battle to maintain old style standards for policy debate. If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were finals at CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). In a nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at best. I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is more representative of what we do. 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate as it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, we may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), we are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having been in Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I really do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 rounds of Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to use the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing some sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the middle East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin America. A lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered (at least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, almost by default, we are left with fricking Russia. I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would love to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with becomes an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and policy debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG agent of action is always going to be a non-starter. 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's etc.) 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure unless China and India get on board) 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) 5) Postmodernism; 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) 7. Mass species extinctions; 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of framing college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia (or Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, analysis and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a world in which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just is not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service to our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG policymaking. Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the space to actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we can accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, blah blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah blah. In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be substanitally curtailed. Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce anthropogenically caused global warming. Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes should be substantially enhanced and/or enforced, Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. Scott From scottyp431 at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 19:55:31 2009 From: scottyp431 at gmail.com (Scott Phillips) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:55:31 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Elliot- "Is it time to get away from policy debate" Message-ID: <12a4de8d0904071755h5ed58d39y4b2df6046432471d@mail.gmail.com> * * * McNulty : I got to ask you. If every time Snotboogie would grab the money and run away, why'd you even let him in the game? Witness: What? McNulty : If Snotboogie always stole the money, why'd you let him play? Witness: You got to, this is America, man. * * * * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090407/00936c81/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Tue Apr 7 20:00:39 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:00:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & deregulation of financial institutions. More debate about those decisions would have made them better. I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that are very relevant to our daily lives. I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. Why run from the USFG given that failure? --JP scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about > CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I can > do that any time. > > Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and > shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) more > accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for > alternative resolutions. > > 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy > debate" for the > past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes in > the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear that > I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. > stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement > toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and > yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy debate." > (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address > here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing more > that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present evidence and > arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that the > USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing battle > to maintain old style standards for policy debate. > > If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were finals at > CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). In a > nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at best. > I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is more > representative of what we do. > > 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate as > it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, we > may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions > that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), we > are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having been in > Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I really > do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 rounds of > Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. > > The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to use > the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing some > sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the middle > East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin America. A > lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered (at > least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, almost > by default, we are left with fricking Russia. > > I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would love > to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with becomes > an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and policy > debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. > > Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG agent > of action is always going to be a non-starter. > > 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's etc.) > 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure unless > China and India get on board) > 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the > States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) > 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) > 5) Postmodernism; > 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. > (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) > 7. Mass species extinctions; > 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. > > None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of framing > college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our > students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia (or > Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, analysis > and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a world in > which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just is > not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service to > our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues > full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG > policymaking. > > Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the space to > actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we can > accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. > > As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, blah > blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah blah. > > In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: > > Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be substanitally > curtailed. > > Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce > anthropogenically caused global warming. > > Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes should be > substantially enhanced and/or enforced, > > Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. > > Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. > > Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. > > Scott > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > From droubidoux at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 20:02:11 2009 From: droubidoux at gmail.com (Douglas Roubidoux) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 20:02:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] KSU Debate GTA Assistantship Opportunity In-Reply-To: <5a6e2a80904071520u32a2c211kd1d3ddc686b1c2be@mail.gmail.com> References: <5a6e2a80904071520u32a2c211kd1d3ddc686b1c2be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Not that I mind being mentioned with KSU but I actually went to Wichita State. Jarman needed all the help he could get. Douglas Roubidoux Director of Debate UW Oshkosh On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Justin Green wrote: > Seniors, your procrastination has finally paid off. > > With our funding levels higher than expected, KSU is now able to offer > an additional Debate GTA spot for the 2009-10 year. Those interested > should act quickly. > > What you get: > 1 free tuition in graduate school - Comm Studies is expected, but if > you have interest in another field, you can contact us as well - just > a little bit trickier process. > 2 $10,000 stipend your first year $11,000 your second > 3 live in a town with insanely low housing and drinking costs - 16 > bars in a 3 block radius from campus > 4 hang out with the incredibly enjoyable KSU team > > What you are expected to do: > 1 teach public speaking - you will get TEVALS - great for future > teaching situations, you need to be a person who can show up > 2 coach the KSU debate team - we graduated ZERO seniors - had 3 teams > break at CEDA another at the NDT. We have novice, jv, varsity - > politics, politiks, discoursky, project, identity, counterplan, > topicality and/or several other yet to be appropriately categorized > debaters. You got a specialty, we can use it. You like telling > debaters what they can do better and are willing to work with anyone - > then you are awesome and we really want you. Our motto is "we help > debaters become the best at what they do best, not what we tell them." > 3 joke, have fun, enjoy debate - everyone from our best to our least > performing debater you will have an opportunity to work with. We are > a family. We work hard, and afterwards, play hard and have fun doing > both. Grumpy-pants, drama-kingsandqueens, and total slackers won't > fit in well. > 4 seek your degree > > Our squad is diverse and we seek more diversity in all of its > manifestations. I'd run through the categories, but I don't really > like them and we have too many combinations for me to list. > > Our list of alumni who currently coach/direct: Eric Morris, Eric > Marlow, Scott Herndon, Doug Robidoux, and many others. We have > several alumns who have gone on to non-debate successes as well. We > have landed students at the following graduate schools for PhD in COMM > after obtiaining their Master's degrees at KSU........Iowa, Indiana, > Texas, Pittsburgh, Northwestern, and that school up the road on I-70 > :) We also have had two recent graduates make it into law schools > that they would not have gotten into after their undergraduate because > they had a Masters Degree and performed well. > > If you are interested, email (jmgreen at ksu.edu) and the process can get > started. > > On behalf of KSU Debate, > > Justin Green > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090407/9a146895/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Tue Apr 7 21:31:10 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:31:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper issues. Scott Quoting JP Lacy : > > Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? > > There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have > been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & > deregulation of financial institutions. > > More debate about those decisions would have made them better. > > I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that > are very relevant to our daily lives. > > I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq > war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. > > Why run from the USFG given that failure? > > --JP > > > > > > scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > > Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about > > CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I > can > > do that any time. > > > > Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and > > shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) > more > > accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for > > alternative resolutions. > > > > 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy > > debate" for the > > past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes > in > > the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear > that > > I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. > > stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement > > toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and > > yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy > debate." > > (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address > > here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing > more > > that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present > evidence and > > arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that > the > > USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing > battle > > to maintain old style standards for policy debate. > > > > If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were > finals at > > CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). > In a > > nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at > best. > > I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is > more > > representative of what we do. > > > > 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate > as > > it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, > we > > may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions > > that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), > we > > are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having > been in > > Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I > really > > do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 > rounds of > > Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. > > > > The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to > use > > the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing > some > > sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the > middle > > East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin > America. A > > lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered > (at > > least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, > almost > > by default, we are left with fricking Russia. > > > > I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would > love > > to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with > becomes > > an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and > policy > > debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. > > > > Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG > agent > > of action is always going to be a non-starter. > > > > 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's > etc.) > > 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure > unless > > China and India get on board) > > 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the > > States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) > > 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) > > 5) Postmodernism; > > 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. > > (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) > > 7. Mass species extinctions; > > 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. > > > > None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of > framing > > college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our > > students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia > (or > > Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, > analysis > > and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a > world in > > which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just > is > > not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service > to > > our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues > > full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG > > policymaking. > > > > Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the > space to > > actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we > can > > accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. > > > > As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, > blah > > blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah > blah. > > > > In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: > > > > Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be > substanitally > > curtailed. > > > > Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce > > anthropogenically caused global warming. > > > > Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes > should be > > substantially enhanced and/or enforced, > > > > Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. > > > > Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. > > > > Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > > From lacyjp at wfu.edu Tue Apr 7 21:40:35 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:40:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in Iraq. How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? --JP scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror > straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I > cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community > is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding > these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of > the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper > issues. > > Scott > > Quoting JP Lacy : > > >> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >> >> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >> deregulation of financial institutions. >> >> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >> >> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >> are very relevant to our daily lives. >> >> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >> >> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >> >> --JP >> >> >> >> >> >> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >> >>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>> >> can >> >>> do that any time. >>> >>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>> >> more >> >>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>> alternative resolutions. >>> >>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>> debate" for the >>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>> >> in >> >>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>> >> that >> >>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>> >> debate." >> >>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>> >> more >> >>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>> >> evidence and >> >>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>> >> the >> >>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>> >> battle >> >>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>> >>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>> >> finals at >> >>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>> >> In a >> >>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>> >> best. >> >>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>> >> more >> >>> representative of what we do. >>> >>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>> >> as >> >>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>> >> we >> >>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>> >> we >> >>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>> >> been in >> >>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>> >> really >> >>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>> >> rounds of >> >>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>> >>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>> >> use >> >>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>> >> some >> >>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>> >> middle >> >>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>> >> America. A >> >>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>> >> (at >> >>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>> >> almost >> >>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>> >>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>> >> love >> >>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>> >> becomes >> >>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>> >> policy >> >>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>> >>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>> >> agent >> >>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>> >>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>> >> etc.) >> >>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>> >> unless >> >>> China and India get on board) >>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>> 5) Postmodernism; >>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>> >>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>> >> framing >> >>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>> >> (or >> >>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>> >> analysis >> >>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>> >> world in >> >>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>> >> is >> >>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>> >> to >> >>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>> policymaking. >>> >>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>> >> space to >> >>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>> >> can >> >>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>> >>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>> >> blah >> >>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>> >> blah. >> >>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>> >>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>> >> substanitally >> >>> curtailed. >>> >>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>> >>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>> >> should be >> >>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>> >>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>> >>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>> >>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > > > From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Apr 8 09:10:22 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 10:10:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you? Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... kevin -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM To: scottelliott at grandecom.net Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in Iraq. How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? --JP scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror > straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I > cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community > is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding > these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of > the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper > issues. > > Scott > > Quoting JP Lacy : > > >> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >> >> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >> deregulation of financial institutions. >> >> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >> >> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >> are very relevant to our daily lives. >> >> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >> >> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >> >> --JP >> >> >> >> >> >> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >> >>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>> >> can >> >>> do that any time. >>> >>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>> >> more >> >>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>> alternative resolutions. >>> >>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>> debate" for the >>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>> >> in >> >>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>> >> that >> >>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>> >> debate." >> >>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>> >> more >> >>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>> >> evidence and >> >>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>> >> the >> >>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>> >> battle >> >>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>> >>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>> >> finals at >> >>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>> >> In a >> >>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>> >> best. >> >>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>> >> more >> >>> representative of what we do. >>> >>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>> >> as >> >>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>> >> we >> >>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>> >> we >> >>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>> >> been in >> >>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>> >> really >> >>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>> >> rounds of >> >>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>> >>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>> >> use >> >>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>> >> some >> >>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>> >> middle >> >>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>> >> America. A >> >>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>> >> (at >> >>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>> >> almost >> >>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>> >>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>> >> love >> >>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>> >> becomes >> >>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>> >> policy >> >>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>> >>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>> >> agent >> >>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>> >>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>> >> etc.) >> >>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>> >> unless >> >>> China and India get on board) >>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>> 5) Postmodernism; >>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>> >>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>> >> framing >> >>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>> >> (or >> >>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>> >> analysis >> >>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>> >> world in >> >>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>> >> is >> >>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>> >> to >> >>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>> policymaking. >>> >>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>> >> space to >> >>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>> >> can >> >>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>> >>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>> >> blah >> >>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>> >> blah. >> >>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>> >>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>> >> substanitally >> >>> curtailed. >>> >>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>> >>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>> >> should be >> >>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>> >>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>> >>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>> >>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From tara_l_tate at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 09:19:12 2009 From: tara_l_tate at hotmail.com (Tara Tate) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:19:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDCA Website - ATTN: High School Coaches Message-ID: This email is primarily for any high school coaches on edebate. The NDCA website is undergoing massive overhaul this weekend and will be down for this reconstruction efforts. This **INCLUDES** the intell wiki. Folks will need to plan ahead if they envision needing to grab argument cites/outlines or other services the website offers (such as curriculum materials). Ryan Ricard has graciously downloaded and archived our wiki. You can find it here: https://dl.getdropbox.com/u/210847/ndca-wiki.zip . We should be up and running with an INCREDIBLE website on Monday. We will still be at the same url - http://www.debatecoaches.org. Thanks to Mike Bietz, Bill Batterman, and Ryan Ricard for this make-over. Tara Tate President, NDCA _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090408/99b511f0/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed Apr 8 09:40:49 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:40:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <1239201649.49dcb7717d115@webmail.grandecom.net> Here is the turn JP: under the current method of framing topics, your example would never be chosen. Why? Because the issue is too narrow. The resolution would be framed, Resolved the USFG should substantially reduce its military commitment in Iraq. (By the way a modification, "Resolved: the USFG should substanitally reduce its military commitments" would be preferable to "Resolved: Russia--find a link."). Wouldn't a deeper discussion of, say, 'Resolved: United States hegemony is undesirable' address both Iraq and allow for deeper discussions of the key issues? I think it would open up a lot more space for creative, and topical debates, without having the same old garbage of USFG agent of action issues. Scott Quoting JP Lacy : > Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in > Iraq. > > How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? > > --JP > > > scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > > I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on > Terror > > straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I > > cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate > community > > is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are > avoiding > > these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality > of > > the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of > deeper > > issues. > > > > Scott > > > > Quoting JP Lacy : > > > > > >> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? > >> > >> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have > >> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & > >> deregulation of financial institutions. > >> > >> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. > >> > >> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that > >> are very relevant to our daily lives. > >> > >> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq > >> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. > >> > >> Why run from the USFG given that failure? > >> > >> --JP > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > >> > >>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining > about > >>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. > I > >>> > >> can > >> > >>> do that any time. > >>> > >>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," > and > >>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) > >>> > >> more > >> > >>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for > >>> alternative resolutions. > >>> > >>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college > "policy > >>> debate" for the > >>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic > changes > >>> > >> in > >> > >>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear > >>> > >> that > >> > >>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional > S.H.I.T.S. > >>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The > movement > >>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality > (and > >>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy > >>> > >> debate." > >> > >>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address > >>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing > >>> > >> more > >> > >>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present > >>> > >> evidence and > >> > >>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement > that > >>> > >> the > >> > >>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing > >>> > >> battle > >> > >>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. > >>> > >>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were > >>> > >> finals at > >> > >>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not > there). > >>> > >> In a > >> > >>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at > >>> > >> best. > >> > >>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate > is > >>> > >> more > >> > >>> representative of what we do. > >>> > >>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT > debate > >>> > >> as > >> > >>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa > 1976, > >>> > >> we > >> > >>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate > resolutions > >>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), > >>> > >> we > >> > >>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having > >>> > >> been in > >> > >>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I > >>> > >> really > >> > >>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 > >>> > >> rounds of > >> > >>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. > >>> > >>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to > >>> > >> use > >> > >>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing > >>> > >> some > >> > >>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the > >>> > >> middle > >> > >>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin > >>> > >> America. A > >> > >>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was > covered > >>> > >> (at > >> > >>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, > >>> > >> almost > >> > >>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. > >>> > >>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I > would > >>> > >> love > >> > >>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with > >>> > >> becomes > >> > >>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and > >>> > >> policy > >> > >>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. > >>> > >>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a > USFG > >>> > >> agent > >> > >>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. > >>> > >>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's > >>> > >> etc.) > >> > >>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure > >>> > >> unless > >> > >>> China and India get on board) > >>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the > >>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) > >>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) > >>> 5) Postmodernism; > >>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human > world. > >>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) > >>> 7. Mass species extinctions; > >>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. > >>> > >>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of > >>> > >> framing > >> > >>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues > our > >>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in > Russia > >>> > >> (or > >> > >>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, > >>> > >> analysis > >> > >>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a > >>> > >> world in > >> > >>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy > just > >>> > >> is > >> > >>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service > >>> > >> to > >> > >>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global > issues > >>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG > >>> policymaking. > >>> > >>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the > >>> > >> space to > >> > >>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we > >>> > >> can > >> > >>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. > >>> > >>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, > >>> > >> blah > >> > >>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah > >>> > >> blah. > >> > >>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: > >>> > >>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be > >>> > >> substanitally > >> > >>> curtailed. > >>> > >>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce > >>> anthropogenically caused global warming. > >>> > >>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes > >>> > >> should be > >> > >>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, > >>> > >>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. > >>> > >>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is > desirable. > >>> > >>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. > >>> > >>> Scott > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> eDebate mailing list > >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 11:55:19 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:55:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] rebuttal c-xes Message-ID: the importance of cross-examination in cross-examination debate is diminished by their placement at the front of the debate nullifying the ability of c-x q&a to make an argument that will impact the decision of the debate. many debaters and judges cherish c-x as an art form and unique interactive moment. why are c-xes set up to be ultimately non-decisive? the rebuttals are the speeches that count for the decision and there's no c-x. adding c-x's does not necessarily require lengthening the time of a round since prep-time can be downsized. quiet rebuttal prepping is a waste of good time. _________________________________________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090408/649c8ee8/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 13:02:36 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:02:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lennon 1AR debacle Message-ID: when i get the audio, i will transcribe a more recent final like this year and probably start with one speech for criticism since it is tedious work. the persuasive debate you have mentioned. what would be gained from oratories which survive the test of time and appeal to any 'qualified' listener, i.e. person of intellectual probity? rhetoric. technical jargon can only transmit limited rhetorical power. the beginning of lennon's 1AR: "All the disads become completely irrelevant. All I need to do is win any hint of solving proliferation. We solve an inevitable war by 1996, the most likely nuclear war. He says off the top, there's no indigenous suppliers. First of all, this only occurs with indigenous suppliers. Remember, he's dropping the evidence that says no country has ever caused technology." hmmm, paragon of philistine discourse, the alleged problem. almost nothing meaningful is said. the meaning hinges on familiarity with the evidence. the same issues are debated on the floor of the congress without the flowspeak. "no country has ever caused technology". what the fuck does that mean? tagline substitution for real argument. no explanation of the evidence. the judge will read it after the round. terrible. i feel like i'm listening to the pythia at the oracle of the delphi and i have to know the codes of interpretation to translate the "speech". lennon's tripod is rather sexy, i must say. "no country has ever caused technology" is a perfect example of why this speech has virtually zero value outside the debate community. the drivel has no rhetorical value. let me guess, lennon's speech is full of similar examples. "we solve an inevitable war by 1996, the most likely nuclear war" (sounds like all those religious fanatics who predicted the apocalypse at the millennium and were wrong; what happens when the most likely nuclear war is unlikely). turn antonucci -- this statement is fundamentally ridiculous. we do not solve. perhaps, our plan may solve. the prevention of nuclear war as the primary impact of foreign policy debates has skewed those debates for decades. most of the wars that debaters solve don't happen. arguably, the wars that do happen are the wars that debaters have a knack for not solving with their plans in years prior. the statement is rhetorically weak compared to any line of pericles' funeral oration or MLK's "i have a dream". the stripping down of the context of the argument against proliferation to technical jargon leaves the evidence uninterpreted so the tagline becomes the actual argument. again, there is persuasion but it is limited compared to the superior examples. the setting is different but the knowledge of rhetorical strategy surpasses lennon's speech far and wide. excerpt from MLK's "I have a dream": Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." there's a reason this speech has value for debaters and non-debaters and lennon's speech does not hold water. antonucci needs an answer. my answer is the rules determine this outcome. my psychological guess is that debaters have become afraid of communication. they are hardly prompted to reflect on the word 'communication' and fall prey to the coercion of its operational definition accepted by the majority of the community. this coercive definition accepts "no country has ever caused technology" as a form of communication compared to more pericles or MLK. debate has not always been meaningless to non-debaters. the evolution of NDT-CEDA is unique. rule changes are needed to put the speech back in a speech activity that is dominated by cybernetics. logical forms have done serious harm. tagline debate is a form of logic, reduction of statements to more simple elements. _________________________________________________________________ Quick access to your favorite MSN content and Windows Live with Internet Explorer 8. http://ie8.msn.com/microsoft/internet-explorer-8/en-us/ie8.aspx?ocid=B037MSN55C0701A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090408/82b4c1a7/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Apr 8 13:43:34 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:43:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Videos about the US Universities Debating Championships Message-ID: <49DCF056.6040401@uvm.edu> Eva Sollberger of Seven Days magazine http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/us-universities-fun-documentary-video.html Center for Media & Democracy's extended video of the finals http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/us-universities-fun-documentary-video.html CBS local news report on Friday http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/news-story-about-us-universities.html Best, 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 alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Apr 8 13:59:21 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:59:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What's in a name? Message-ID: <49DCF409.5010900@uvm.edu> Scott Elliott says change the name. It is a little disconcerting because many debate formats debate about policy issues. Some have said to call it "cross examination" debate, others say "research" debate. Yet, other formats have cross ex and not every "policy" debate in CEDA-NDT has evidence. A proper name would make things clearer to those outside but break our link with past debaters who use the policy moniker. I would like to agree with Kevin Kuswa and others that a serious problem is the USFG fetish. Some years ago I wrote a topic paper using the agent "we." By this I would mean those people in the room who were debating about an idea. Not that they should go out and implement some plan, but that for the purposes of this debate they were the objects of persuasion. The term in the worlds format is "This House" which means the same thing as we, as it refers to those gathered in that room. I would prefer we or This House, and as illustrated by the discussion so far, then we could have a choice of agents. Let's face it, USFG does not equal Another concern is the unwillingness to debate the topic. Yes, that is a problem, for preparation, for publicity, for training judges, for bringing in new coaches, for a lot of things. I like the freedom of speech aspects, though. I will be interested in following this discussion. 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 baltimoredebate at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 15:00:51 2009 From: baltimoredebate at gmail.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:00:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? Message-ID: <804C2194-D7A0-4390-A2AB-8747D0B6E0AD@gmail.com> I got a question that may seem silly. Who can point me in the direction of the listing of the schools in each district? From Oguevara at weber.edu Wed Apr 8 15:08:40 2009 From: Oguevara at weber.edu (OMAR GUEVARA) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:08:40 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? Message-ID: <49DCAFE8020000F700044438@campusvs.weber.edu> Jim Hanson has a wonderful map on the united states clearly divided up into districts with neatly colored lines. I have the link saved - but it is home on my computer. If Jim does not post in the 6 hours prior to my return home, I will do so. But his map is outdated now. There are only 8 districts now. 9 and 2 have officially merged, now to be called District X (we're still working out some naming issues). OG Omar G. Guevara II Director of Forensics & Instructor of Communication Weber State University Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408 PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM >>> Adam Jackson 04/08/09 2:01 PM >>> I got a question that may seem silly. Who can point me in the direction of the listing of the schools in each district? _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 15:09:31 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:09:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? In-Reply-To: <804C2194-D7A0-4390-A2AB-8747D0B6E0AD@gmail.com> References: <804C2194-D7A0-4390-A2AB-8747D0B6E0AD@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9a7f6f740904081309p3d5d3c38vbdd0a9f790b992db@mail.gmail.com> I have had a lot of people ask this question. http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ndt-districts.htm Mike On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > I got a question that may seem silly. > > Who can point me in the direction of the listing of the schools in > each district? > _______________________________________________ > 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 catspathat at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 15:23:07 2009 From: catspathat at gmail.com (Abers) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:23:07 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] What's in a name? In-Reply-To: <49DCF409.5010900@uvm.edu> References: <49DCF409.5010900@uvm.edu> Message-ID: While there is clearly a vocal group of debaters who want to distance themselves from the federal government, I think this discussion discounts a lot of debaters who actually like talking about and directing the focus of their speech act towards questions of federal policy. I would absolutely agree that there are problems with the USFG fetish, but the solution proposed to completely eliminate federal government action from the discussion seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Scott Elliott points out that at CEDA people did not want to debate the topic; yes because the topic was agriculture subsidies and everyone just assumed there would be sweet K ground. Shocker, there wasn?t. And by K ground, I don?t just mean affirmatives that exclusively defend federal government action. The problem with the agriculture topic, for the k affirmatives, was the literature discussing alternate ways to view subsidy policy either from different perspectives or in alternate philosophical frameworks wasn?t there. However, frequently this literature does exist and it?s possible to read affirmatives that, rather than explicitly defending federal government action as an act of imagination where congress passes a law etc etc, counter define what the ballot and debater?s relationship to the statement of the resolution should be. I think these affirmatives, like our broiler chicken aff or Towson?s Palestine aff that they read on the Middle East topic, show it?s possible to discuss perspectives on and about different policy actions taken by the federal government without being assimilated into it or whatever while still retaining a (at least somewhat predictable) relationship to the topic that the negative can prepare for. This seems, at least to me, to be the middle ground. Essentially its; here is the resolution, how can you as a debater educationally relate to it. This leaves debaters who want to pursue affirmatives that follow a more traditional rout (though traditional is probably a bad word to use considering I don?t think debate affs in the 1980s had 14 extinction scenarios and probably read a bunch more inherency cards) an avenue to debate how they would like to. Gives ample K aff ground based in ?topic literature.? And preserves debate as a forum for political awareness about what the federal government is doing. Debate is basically the only place, besides possibly the daily show, where I as a student, feel compelled to figure out what exactly the federal government is doing with the money we give them. At risk of starting another debate, we live in a place where individual input can actually affect government proceedings and policy. Don?t we as individuals who support a government have some responsibility to educate ourselves about what that government is doing? If debate is not the place, does not serve this function, why should we even be doing it. Seems like we should be out being real activists. Which, to me, all comes back to, how do we know what to protest, which is where I think the importance of ?policy? in policy debate arises. Abe Corrigan Gonzaga Debate On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Alfred Snider wrote: > Scott Elliott says change the name. > > It is a little disconcerting because many debate formats debate about > policy issues. > > Some have said to call it "cross examination" debate, others say > "research" debate. > > Yet, other formats have cross ex and not every "policy" debate in > CEDA-NDT has evidence. > > A proper name would make things clearer to those outside but break our > link with past debaters who use the policy moniker. > > I would like to agree with Kevin Kuswa and others that a serious problem > is the USFG fetish. > > Some years ago I wrote a topic paper using the agent "we." By this I > would mean those people in the room who were debating about an idea. Not > that they should go out and implement some plan, but that for the > purposes of this debate they were the objects of persuasion. > > The term in the worlds format is "This House" which means the same thing > as we, as it refers to those gathered in that room. > > I would prefer we or This House, and as illustrated by the discussion so > far, then we could have a choice of agents. Let's face it, USFG does not > equal > > Another concern is the unwillingness to debate the topic. Yes, that is a > problem, for preparation, for publicity, for training judges, for > bringing in new coaches, for a lot of things. I like the freedom of > speech aspects, though. > > I will be interested in following this discussion. > > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090408/38271c7d/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Apr 8 16:05:10 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:05:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? References: <804C2194-D7A0-4390-A2AB-8747D0B6E0AD@gmail.com> <9a7f6f740904081309p3d5d3c38vbdd0a9f790b992db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I'll update the map later today. also--if you go to ndt rankings on jon bruschke's site, you can see the actual schools in each district. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------------------------------------------- From: "Mike Davis" Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:09 PM To: "Adam Jackson" Cc: Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? I have had a lot of people ask this question. http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ndt-districts.htm Mike On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > I got a question that may seem silly. > > Who can point me in the direction of the listing of the schools in > each district? > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From richardgarner at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 16:19:43 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:19:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What's in a name? In-Reply-To: References: <49DCF409.5010900@uvm.edu> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0904081419n7e9671f3s8d9dfa96aad3b47b@mail.gmail.com> "because the topic was agriculture subsidies and everyone just assumed there would be sweet K ground. Shocker, there wasn?t." Actually, the topic committee's strategy of critique-inclusive area writing since Indian Country, particularly beginning with the 'withdraw from NATO' part of the Europe topic, has been extremely successful. CAFOs attracted nearly all of the critique-affirmative teams this year; in fact, almost all of the teams that ran critical affirmatives and didn't run CAFOs would have run affs that didn't conform to normative interpretations of the topic in any case. I did not see CEDA Finals, as I was not there. However, my understanding was that OU was aff., and my additional understanding is that they ran CAFOs all year long. I may be wrong. However, their aff was CAFOs, and they usually said subsidizing them was bad. They had a robust theoretical defense of that (see: Marting Heidegger), but if you would have said CAFOs are a good practice, would they have shirked that discussion? Would a negative have taken it up in the first place? I don't know for sure, but I think the answer to both of those questions would generally be 'No.' I only interject because this has been brought up several times, and I doubt the asummptiveness of this assumption. RG On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Abers wrote: > While there is clearly a vocal group of debaters who want to distance > themselves from the federal government, I think this discussion discounts a > lot of debaters who actually like talking about and directing the focus of > their speech act towards questions of federal policy. I would absolutely > agree that there are problems with the USFG fetish, but the solution > proposed to completely eliminate federal government action from the > discussion seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Scott Elliott > points out that at CEDA people did not want to debate the topic; yes because > the topic was agriculture subsidies and everyone just assumed there would be > sweet K ground. Shocker, there wasn?t. And by K ground, I don?t just mean > affirmatives that exclusively defend federal government action. The problem > with the agriculture topic, for the k affirmatives, was the literature > discussing alternate ways to view subsidy policy either from different > perspectives or in alternate philosophical frameworks wasn?t there. However, > frequently this literature does exist and it?s possible to read affirmatives > that, rather than explicitly defending federal government action as an act > of imagination where congress passes a law etc etc, counter define what the > ballot and debater?s relationship to the statement of the resolution should > be. I think these affirmatives, like our broiler chicken aff or Towson?s > Palestine aff that they read on the Middle East topic, show it?s possible to > discuss perspectives on and about different policy actions taken by the > federal government without being assimilated into it or whatever while still > retaining a (at least somewhat predictable) relationship to the topic that > the negative can prepare for. > > > > This seems, at least to me, to be the middle ground. Essentially its; here > is the resolution, how can you as a debater educationally relate to it. This > leaves debaters who want to pursue affirmatives that follow a more > traditional rout (though traditional is probably a bad word to use > considering I don?t think debate affs in the 1980s had 14 extinction > scenarios and probably read a bunch more inherency cards) an avenue to > debate how they would like to. Gives ample K aff ground based in ?topic > literature.? And preserves debate as a forum for political awareness about > what the federal government is doing. Debate is basically the only place, > besides possibly the daily show, where I as a student, feel compelled to > figure out what exactly the federal government is doing with the money we > give them. At risk of starting another debate, we live in a place where > individual input can actually affect government proceedings and policy. > Don?t we as individuals who support a government have some responsibility to > educate ourselves about what that government is doing? If debate is not the > place, does not serve this function, why should we even be doing it. Seems > like we should be out being real activists. Which, to me, all comes back to, > how do we know what to protest, which is where I think the importance of > ?policy? in policy debate arises. > > > Abe Corrigan > > Gonzaga Debate > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Alfred Snider wrote: > >> Scott Elliott says change the name. >> >> It is a little disconcerting because many debate formats debate about >> policy issues. >> >> Some have said to call it "cross examination" debate, others say >> "research" debate. >> >> Yet, other formats have cross ex and not every "policy" debate in >> CEDA-NDT has evidence. >> >> A proper name would make things clearer to those outside but break our >> link with past debaters who use the policy moniker. >> >> I would like to agree with Kevin Kuswa and others that a serious problem >> is the USFG fetish. >> >> Some years ago I wrote a topic paper using the agent "we." By this I >> would mean those people in the room who were debating about an idea. Not >> that they should go out and implement some plan, but that for the >> purposes of this debate they were the objects of persuasion. >> >> The term in the worlds format is "This House" which means the same thing >> as we, as it refers to those gathered in that room. >> >> I would prefer we or This House, and as illustrated by the discussion so >> far, then we could have a choice of agents. Let's face it, USFG does not >> equal >> >> Another concern is the unwillingness to debate the topic. Yes, that is a >> problem, for preparation, for publicity, for training judges, for >> bringing in new coaches, for a lot of things. I like the freedom of >> speech aspects, though. >> >> I will be interested in following this discussion. >> >> Tuna >> >> >> -- >> Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna >> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics >> University of Vermont >> Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA >> Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com >> Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu >> World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ >> World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com >> 802-656-0097 office telephone >> 802-656-4275 office fax >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090408/f2a57239/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Apr 8 16:36:22 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:36:22 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? References: <804C2194-D7A0-4390-A2AB-8747D0B6E0AD@gmail.com> <9a7f6f740904081309p3d5d3c38vbdd0a9f790b992db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5F9B78F1624349C1A43C6EB84AEB0C8C@whitman.edu> I've updated the map (with apologies for my bad computer drawing skills) and included a link to the part of debateresults that shows you the schools in each district. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------------------------------------------- From: "Mike Davis" Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:09 PM To: "Adam Jackson" Cc: Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? I have had a lot of people ask this question. http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ndt-districts.htm Mike On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > I got a question that may seem silly. > > Who can point me in the direction of the listing of the schools in > each district? > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From catspathat at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 16:54:50 2009 From: catspathat at gmail.com (Abers) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:54:50 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] What's in a name? In-Reply-To: <17bee7eb0904081419n7e9671f3s8d9dfa96aad3b47b@mail.gmail.com> References: <49DCF409.5010900@uvm.edu> <17bee7eb0904081419n7e9671f3s8d9dfa96aad3b47b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I somewhat agree with what your saying, I think the teams who read the CAFOs aff turned out a wide variety of extremely good K affs. However, almost no critical authors write articles or book chapters that focus on subsidies. Other than a few exceptions, the majority of the solvency for the K cafos affs actually advocated a number of other solutions that adressed the problems in CAFOs much more directly. My problem with the topic was more how the discussion was bracketed. A truely topical affirmative couldn't even end all support to all factory farms, just those the government lables "cafos," there was also no topical way to discuss the implications of grazing subsidies or the Animal Damage Control program that kills millions of animals at the whim of farmers. My point is maybe there should have been more than 1 area of the 10 area topic that was designed to have K ground. abe On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Richard A. Garner wrote: > "because the topic was agriculture subsidies and everyone just assumed > there would be sweet K ground. Shocker, there wasn?t." > > Actually, the topic committee's strategy of critique-inclusive area writing > since Indian Country, particularly beginning with the 'withdraw from NATO' > part of the Europe topic, has been extremely successful. CAFOs attracted > nearly all of the critique-affirmative teams this year; in fact, almost all > of the teams that ran critical affirmatives and didn't run CAFOs would have > run affs that didn't conform to normative interpretations of the topic in > any case. > > I did not see CEDA Finals, as I was not there. However, my understanding > was that OU was aff., and my additional understanding is that they ran CAFOs > all year long. I may be wrong. However, their aff was CAFOs, and they > usually said subsidizing them was bad. They had a robust theoretical defense > of that (see: Marting Heidegger), but if you would have said CAFOs are a > good practice, would they have shirked that discussion? Would a negative > have taken it up in the first place? I don't know for sure, but I think the > answer to both of those questions would generally be 'No.' > > I only interject because this has been brought up several times, and I > doubt the asummptiveness of this assumption. > > RG > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Abers wrote: > >> While there is clearly a vocal group of debaters who want to distance >> themselves from the federal government, I think this discussion discounts a >> lot of debaters who actually like talking about and directing the focus of >> their speech act towards questions of federal policy. I would absolutely >> agree that there are problems with the USFG fetish, but the solution >> proposed to completely eliminate federal government action from the >> discussion seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Scott Elliott >> points out that at CEDA people did not want to debate the topic; yes because >> the topic was agriculture subsidies and everyone just assumed there would be >> sweet K ground. Shocker, there wasn?t. And by K ground, I don?t just mean >> affirmatives that exclusively defend federal government action. The problem >> with the agriculture topic, for the k affirmatives, was the literature >> discussing alternate ways to view subsidy policy either from different >> perspectives or in alternate philosophical frameworks wasn?t there. However, >> frequently this literature does exist and it?s possible to read affirmatives >> that, rather than explicitly defending federal government action as an act >> of imagination where congress passes a law etc etc, counter define what the >> ballot and debater?s relationship to the statement of the resolution should >> be. I think these affirmatives, like our broiler chicken aff or Towson?s >> Palestine aff that they read on the Middle East topic, show it?s possible to >> discuss perspectives on and about different policy actions taken by the >> federal government without being assimilated into it or whatever while still >> retaining a (at least somewhat predictable) relationship to the topic that >> the negative can prepare for. >> >> >> >> This seems, at least to me, to be the middle ground. Essentially its; here >> is the resolution, how can you as a debater educationally relate to it. This >> leaves debaters who want to pursue affirmatives that follow a more >> traditional rout (though traditional is probably a bad word to use >> considering I don?t think debate affs in the 1980s had 14 extinction >> scenarios and probably read a bunch more inherency cards) an avenue to >> debate how they would like to. Gives ample K aff ground based in ?topic >> literature.? And preserves debate as a forum for political awareness about >> what the federal government is doing. Debate is basically the only place, >> besides possibly the daily show, where I as a student, feel compelled to >> figure out what exactly the federal government is doing with the money we >> give them. At risk of starting another debate, we live in a place where >> individual input can actually affect government proceedings and policy. >> Don?t we as individuals who support a government have some responsibility to >> educate ourselves about what that government is doing? If debate is not the >> place, does not serve this function, why should we even be doing it. Seems >> like we should be out being real activists. Which, to me, all comes back to, >> how do we know what to protest, which is where I think the importance of >> ?policy? in policy debate arises. >> >> >> Abe Corrigan >> >> Gonzaga Debate >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Alfred Snider wrote: >> >>> Scott Elliott says change the name. >>> >>> It is a little disconcerting because many debate formats debate about >>> policy issues. >>> >>> Some have said to call it "cross examination" debate, others say >>> "research" debate. >>> >>> Yet, other formats have cross ex and not every "policy" debate in >>> CEDA-NDT has evidence. >>> >>> A proper name would make things clearer to those outside but break our >>> link with past debaters who use the policy moniker. >>> >>> I would like to agree with Kevin Kuswa and others that a serious problem >>> is the USFG fetish. >>> >>> Some years ago I wrote a topic paper using the agent "we." By this I >>> would mean those people in the room who were debating about an idea. Not >>> that they should go out and implement some plan, but that for the >>> purposes of this debate they were the objects of persuasion. >>> >>> The term in the worlds format is "This House" which means the same thing >>> as we, as it refers to those gathered in that room. >>> >>> I would prefer we or This House, and as illustrated by the discussion so >>> far, then we could have a choice of agents. Let's face it, USFG does not >>> equal >>> >>> Another concern is the unwillingness to debate the topic. Yes, that is a >>> problem, for preparation, for publicity, for training judges, for >>> bringing in new coaches, for a lot of things. I like the freedom of >>> speech aspects, though. >>> >>> I will be interested in following this discussion. >>> >>> Tuna >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna >>> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics >>> University of Vermont >>> Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA >>> Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com >>> Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu >>> World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ >>> World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com >>> 802-656-0097 office telephone >>> 802-656-4275 office fax >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090408/f6e66edf/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 17:25:00 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 18:25:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? In-Reply-To: <5F9B78F1624349C1A43C6EB84AEB0C8C@whitman.edu> References: <804C2194-D7A0-4390-A2AB-8747D0B6E0AD@gmail.com> <9a7f6f740904081309p3d5d3c38vbdd0a9f790b992db@mail.gmail.com> <5F9B78F1624349C1A43C6EB84AEB0C8C@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904081525j2d96b45al9f5126ebf4016876@mail.gmail.com> Just so you know the name district x is taken you will have to choose wac or big sky or is this really one district but not district x On 4/8/09, Jim Hanson wrote: > I've updated the map (with apologies for my bad computer drawing skills) and > included a link to the part of debateresults that shows you the schools in > each district. > > jim :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Mike Davis" > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:09 PM > To: "Adam Jackson" > Cc: > Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? > > I have had a lot of people ask this question. > > http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ndt-districts.htm > > Mike > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Adam Jackson > wrote: >> I got a question that may seem silly. >> >> Who can point me in the direction of the listing of the schools in >> each district? >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > > -- > Dr. Michael Davis > Director of Debate/Assistant Professor > James Madison University > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Sent from my mobile device From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Apr 8 18:12:35 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:12:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? References: <804C2194-D7A0-4390-A2AB-8747D0B6E0AD@gmail.com> <9a7f6f740904081309p3d5d3c38vbdd0a9f790b992db@mail.gmail.com> <5F9B78F1624349C1A43C6EB84AEB0C8C@whitman.edu> <9368bc9b0904081525j2d96b45al9f5126ebf4016876@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80CD26A3BFCD4BD8ADA16228EF0AA5DA@whitman.edu> I thought our district had agreed to northwest rockies but then I'm not really sure. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------------------------------------------- From: "Andy Ellis" Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:25 PM To: "Jim Hanson" ; "Mike Davis" ; "Adam Jackson" ; Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? Just so you know the name district x is taken you will have to choose wac or big sky or is this really one district but not district x On 4/8/09, Jim Hanson wrote: > I've updated the map (with apologies for my bad computer drawing skills) > and > included a link to the part of debateresults that shows you the schools in > each district. > > jim :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Mike Davis" > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:09 PM > To: "Adam Jackson" > Cc: > Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? > > I have had a lot of people ask this question. > > http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ndt-districts.htm > > Mike > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Adam Jackson > wrote: >> I got a question that may seem silly. >> >> Who can point me in the direction of the listing of the schools in >> each district? >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > > -- > Dr. Michael Davis > Director of Debate/Assistant Professor > James Madison University > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Sent from my mobile device From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 18:31:15 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:31:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? In-Reply-To: <80CD26A3BFCD4BD8ADA16228EF0AA5DA@whitman.edu> References: <804C2194-D7A0-4390-A2AB-8747D0B6E0AD@gmail.com> <9a7f6f740904081309p3d5d3c38vbdd0a9f790b992db@mail.gmail.com> <5F9B78F1624349C1A43C6EB84AEB0C8C@whitman.edu> <9368bc9b0904081525j2d96b45al9f5126ebf4016876@mail.gmail.com> <80CD26A3BFCD4BD8ADA16228EF0AA5DA@whitman.edu> Message-ID: District X is not "taken" in any sense conferring institutional legitimacy. matt > From: hansonjb at whitman.edu > To: andy.edebate at gmail.com; davismk13 at gmail.com; baltimoredebate at gmail.com; edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:12:35 -0700 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? > > I thought our district had agreed to northwest rockies but then I'm not > really sure. > > jim :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Andy Ellis" > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:25 PM > To: "Jim Hanson" ; "Mike Davis" ; > "Adam Jackson" ; > Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? > > Just so you know the name district x is taken you will have to choose > wac or big sky or is this really one district but not district x > > On 4/8/09, Jim Hanson wrote: > > I've updated the map (with apologies for my bad computer drawing skills) > > and > > included a link to the part of debateresults that shows you the schools in > > each district. > > > > jim :) > > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Mike Davis" > > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:09 PM > > To: "Adam Jackson" > > Cc: > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? > > > > I have had a lot of people ask this question. > > > > http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ndt-districts.htm > > > > Mike > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Adam Jackson > > wrote: > >> I got a question that may seem silly. > >> > >> Who can point me in the direction of the listing of the schools in > >> each district? > >> _______________________________________________ > >> eDebate mailing list > >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Michael Davis > > Director of Debate/Assistant Professor > > James Madison University > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090408/ed0a9415/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Apr 8 18:56:28 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 19:56:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? In-Reply-To: References: <804C2194-D7A0-4390-A2AB-8747D0B6E0AD@gmail.com> <9a7f6f740904081309p3d5d3c38vbdd0a9f790b992db@mail.gmail.com> <5F9B78F1624349C1A43C6EB84AEB0C8C@whitman.edu> <9368bc9b0904081525j2d96b45al9f5126ebf4016876@mail.gmail.com> <80CD26A3BFCD4BD8ADA16228EF0AA5DA@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904081656m2a1e86a2v5df43fbf35a2aa9e@mail.gmail.com> Well no but I do have copyrigt on the shirt ;) On 4/8/09, matt stannard wrote: > > District X is not "taken" in any sense conferring institutional legitimacy. > > matt > >> From: hansonjb at whitman.edu >> To: andy.edebate at gmail.com; davismk13 at gmail.com; >> baltimoredebate at gmail.com; edebate at www.ndtceda.com >> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 16:12:35 -0700 >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? >> >> I thought our district had agreed to northwest rockies but then I'm not >> really sure. >> >> jim :) >> hansonjb at whitman.edu >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> From: "Andy Ellis" >> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:25 PM >> To: "Jim Hanson" ; "Mike Davis" >> ; >> "Adam Jackson" ; >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? >> >> Just so you know the name district x is taken you will have to choose >> wac or big sky or is this really one district but not district x >> >> On 4/8/09, Jim Hanson wrote: >> > I've updated the map (with apologies for my bad computer drawing skills) >> > >> > and >> > included a link to the part of debateresults that shows you the schools >> > in >> > each district. >> > >> > jim :) >> > hansonjb at whitman.edu >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------- >> > From: "Mike Davis" >> > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:09 PM >> > To: "Adam Jackson" >> > Cc: >> > Subject: Re: [eDebate] What schools are in each District? >> > >> > I have had a lot of people ask this question. >> > >> > http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ndt-districts.htm >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Adam Jackson >> > wrote: >> >> I got a question that may seem silly. >> >> >> >> Who can point me in the direction of the listing of the schools in >> >> each district? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> eDebate mailing list >> >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Dr. Michael Davis >> > Director of Debate/Assistant Professor >> > James Madison University >> > _______________________________________________ >> > eDebate mailing list >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > eDebate mailing list >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > >> >> -- >> Sent from my mobile device >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _________________________________________________________________ > Rediscover Hotmail?: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. > http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates1_042009 -- Sent from my mobile device From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Apr 8 20:12:27 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:12:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice. In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States." I said "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one we bear responsibility for. That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in history. Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the United States should do. Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people don't adequately voice their opinions. It is true that debaters are not the USFG. But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we argue about them? How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq? (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.) If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are those topics compared to what we are missing?) --JP My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide. Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. > > The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you? > > Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? > > This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... > > kevin > > -----Original Message----- > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM > To: scottelliott at grandecom.net > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? > > Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in > Iraq. > > How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? > > --JP > > > scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > >> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror >> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I >> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community >> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding >> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of >> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper >> issues. >> >> Scott >> >> Quoting JP Lacy : >> >> >> >>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >>> >>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >>> deregulation of financial institutions. >>> >>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >>> >>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >>> are very relevant to our daily lives. >>> >>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >>> >>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >>> >>> --JP >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>>> >>>> >>> can >>> >>> >>>> do that any time. >>>> >>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>>> >>>> >>> more >>> >>> >>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>>> alternative resolutions. >>>> >>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>>> debate" for the >>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>>> >>>> >>> in >>> >>> >>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>>> >>>> >>> that >>> >>> >>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>>> >>>> >>> debate." >>> >>> >>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>>> >>>> >>> more >>> >>> >>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>>> >>>> >>> evidence and >>> >>> >>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>>> >>>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>>> >>>> >>> battle >>> >>> >>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>>> >>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>>> >>>> >>> finals at >>> >>> >>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>>> >>>> >>> In a >>> >>> >>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>>> >>>> >>> best. >>> >>> >>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>>> >>>> >>> more >>> >>> >>>> representative of what we do. >>>> >>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>>> >>>> >>> as >>> >>> >>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>>> >>>> >>> we >>> >>> >>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>>> >>>> >>> we >>> >>> >>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>>> >>>> >>> been in >>> >>> >>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>>> >>>> >>> really >>> >>> >>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>>> >>>> >>> rounds of >>> >>> >>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>>> >>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>>> >>>> >>> use >>> >>> >>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>>> >>>> >>> some >>> >>> >>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>>> >>>> >>> middle >>> >>> >>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>>> >>>> >>> America. A >>> >>> >>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>>> >>>> >>> (at >>> >>> >>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>>> >>>> >>> almost >>> >>> >>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>>> >>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>>> >>>> >>> love >>> >>> >>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>>> >>>> >>> becomes >>> >>> >>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>>> >>>> >>> policy >>> >>> >>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>>> >>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>>> >>>> >>> agent >>> >>> >>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>>> >>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>>> >>>> >>> etc.) >>> >>> >>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>>> >>>> >>> unless >>> >>> >>>> China and India get on board) >>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>>> 5) Postmodernism; >>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>>> >>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>>> >>>> >>> framing >>> >>> >>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>>> >>>> >>> (or >>> >>> >>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>>> >>>> >>> analysis >>> >>> >>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>>> >>>> >>> world in >>> >>> >>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>>> >>>> >>> is >>> >>> >>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>>> >>>> >>> to >>> >>> >>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>>> policymaking. >>>> >>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>>> >>>> >>> space to >>> >>> >>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>>> >>>> >>> can >>> >>> >>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>>> >>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>>> >>>> >>> blah >>> >>> >>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>>> >>>> >>> blah. >>> >>> >>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>>> >>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>>> >>>> >>> substanitally >>> >>> >>>> curtailed. >>>> >>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>>> >>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>>> >>>> >>> should be >>> >>> >>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>>> >>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>>> >>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>>> >>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> eDebate mailing list >>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Apr 8 20:27:23 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:27:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <1239201649.49dcb7717d115@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <1239201649.49dcb7717d115@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <49DD4EFB.9060301@wfu.edu> Your argument was: "We are failing to address critical problems facing the world because we keep focusing on the USFG." My argument was: "One critical problem facing the world is the war in Iraq. How does focus on the USFG avoid the issue?" Neither an Iraq topic nor a "US heg = bad" topic are likely. The questions are: What creative debates would we miss about Iraq if we picked a USFG agent? What deeper discussions of key issues are we ignoring? What "garbage" are you talking about that avoids discussion of the war in Iraq? How would a "heg = bad" topic contribute to our understanding of current US policy toward Iraq? --JP scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > Here is the turn JP: under the current method of framing topics, your example > would never be chosen. Why? Because the issue is too narrow. The resolution > would be framed, Resolved the USFG should substantially reduce its military > commitment in Iraq. (By the way a modification, "Resolved: the USFG should > substanitally reduce its military commitments" would be preferable to > "Resolved: Russia--find a link."). > > Wouldn't a deeper discussion of, say, 'Resolved: United States hegemony is > undesirable' address both Iraq and allow for deeper discussions of the key > issues? I think it would open up a lot more space for creative, and topical > debates, without having the same old garbage of USFG agent of action issues. > > Scott > > > Quoting JP Lacy : > > >> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in >> Iraq. >> >> How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? >> >> --JP >> >> >> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >> >>> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on >>> >> Terror >> >>> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I >>> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate >>> >> community >> >>> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are >>> >> avoiding >> >>> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality >>> >> of >> >>> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of >>> >> deeper >> >>> issues. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> Quoting JP Lacy : >>> >>> >>> >>>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >>>> >>>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >>>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >>>> deregulation of financial institutions. >>>> >>>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >>>> >>>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >>>> are very relevant to our daily lives. >>>> >>>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >>>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >>>> >>>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >>>> >>>> --JP >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining >>>>> >> about >> >>>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. >>>>> >> I >> >>>> can >>>> >>>> >>>>> do that any time. >>>>> >>>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," >>>>> >> and >> >>>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>> >>>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>>>> alternative resolutions. >>>>> >>>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college >>>>> >> "policy >> >>>>> debate" for the >>>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic >>>>> >> changes >> >>>> in >>>> >>>> >>>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>>>> >>>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>> >>>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional >>>>> >> S.H.I.T.S. >> >>>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The >>>>> >> movement >> >>>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality >>>>> >> (and >> >>>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>> debate." >>>> >>>> >>>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>>>> >>>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>> >>>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>>>> >>>>> >>>> evidence and >>>> >>>> >>>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement >>>>> >> that >> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>>>> >>>>> >>>> battle >>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>>>> >>>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>>>> >>>>> >>>> finals at >>>> >>>> >>>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not >>>>> >> there). >> >>>> In a >>>> >>>> >>>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>>>> >>>>> >>>> best. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate >>>>> >> is >> >>>> more >>>> >>>> >>>>> representative of what we do. >>>>> >>>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT >>>>> >> debate >> >>>> as >>>> >>>> >>>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa >>>>> >> 1976, >> >>>> we >>>> >>>> >>>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate >>>>> >> resolutions >> >>>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>>>> >>>>> >>>> we >>>> >>>> >>>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>>>> >>>>> >>>> been in >>>> >>>> >>>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>>>> >>>>> >>>> really >>>> >>>> >>>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> rounds of >>>> >>>> >>>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>>>> >>>>> >>>> use >>>> >>>> >>>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>>>> >>>>> >>>> some >>>> >>>> >>>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>>>> >>>>> >>>> middle >>>> >>>> >>>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>>>> >>>>> >>>> America. A >>>> >>>> >>>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was >>>>> >> covered >> >>>> (at >>>> >>>> >>>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> almost >>>> >>>> >>>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>>>> >>>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I >>>>> >> would >> >>>> love >>>> >>>> >>>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>>>> >>>>> >>>> becomes >>>> >>>> >>>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>>>> >>>>> >>>> policy >>>> >>>> >>>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>>>> >>>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a >>>>> >> USFG >> >>>> agent >>>> >>>> >>>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>>>> >>>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>>>> >>>>> >>>> etc.) >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>>>> >>>>> >>>> unless >>>> >>>> >>>>> China and India get on board) >>>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>>>> 5) Postmodernism; >>>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human >>>>> >> world. >> >>>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>>>> >>>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>>>> >>>>> >>>> framing >>>> >>>> >>>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues >>>>> >> our >> >>>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in >>>>> >> Russia >> >>>> (or >>>> >>>> >>>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> analysis >>>> >>>> >>>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>>>> >>>>> >>>> world in >>>> >>>> >>>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy >>>>> >> just >> >>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>>>> >>>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>> >>>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global >>>>> >> issues >> >>>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>>>> policymaking. >>>>> >>>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>>>> >>>>> >>>> space to >>>> >>>> >>>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>>>> >>>>> >>>> can >>>> >>>> >>>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>>>> >>>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>>>> >>>>> >>>> blah >>>> >>>> >>>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>>>> >>>>> >>>> blah. >>>> >>>> >>>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>>>> >>>>> >>>> substanitally >>>> >>>> >>>>> curtailed. >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>>>> >>>>> >>>> should be >>>> >>>> >>>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is >>>>> >> desirable. >> >>>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> eDebate mailing list >>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > > > From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Apr 8 21:22:11 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 22:22:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> answers below. jp is starting to make some fairly horrific claims.... ________________________________________ From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:12 PM To: Kuswa, Kevin Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice. EXACTLY. In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States." WHAT? That is quite a jump. Is this a proposed resolution? There are students debating who are not US citizens, not to mention all the problems associated with personifying the nation-state and imaging that "it" makes single-minded decisions. I said "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one we bear responsibility for. RESPONSIBILITY is not an entity that holds equally across the nation, although, yes, there is an element of complicity in all of us that warrants examining. Would a debate topic that positions debaters as the USFG promote that discussion? Maybe...but not as well as a topic that actually used the "we" pronoun as Tuna suggests or a topic that allowed for a topical avenue for reflection (passive). That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in history. WAR is tragic for many reasons beyond the fact that governments can act in violent ways in the name of "the people." Yes, spectatorship without acknowledgement is a terrible arrangement, but this is not a reason to debate every year under the usfg umbrella. Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the United States should do. OF COURSE--no shit, actually. Having an opinion about the USFG and its policies is crucial--more than crucial--but as debaters we can do that without making the affirmative (or asking the affirmative to) pretend to be an agent that they are not every year. Do not confuse an attempt to diversify the kind of topics we debate with some unattainable argument arena devoid of any consideration of USFG policy. Don't worry, the usfg is not going away and our fixation on federal policy will not go away even if the topic is slightly distinct. What will change with some topic diversity, though, is the inability to think outside governmental action when advocating the resolution and the realization that very good debate is still possible without the standard formula we have adopted for the last decade. Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people don't adequately voice their opinions. "PEOPLE" meaning what individuals exactly in the above sentence? I guess on one level everything is about the opinions of various subject-positions, but someone has internalized the politics DA in perhaps a delusional moment of Rorty-itis. The Iraq War should not be reduced to a lack of expression or some failure in the collective American voice. Trying to express opinions about the war is exactly what justified the first Iraq War through the yellow-ribbon campaign. Patriotism can work in insidious ways, including a co-option of opinions that might be "against the war" but can easily be shifted to "support our troops." "WE" may have believed this monolithic USFG being constituted here (and in our topics) about the location of weapons of mass destruction PRECISELY BECAUSE "we" wanted to express our outrage over the existence of such weapons in the hands of a rogue leader. See what the expression of opinion can yield? It is true that debaters are not the USFG. YOUR arguments do not follow your willingness to admit that debaters are not the usfg. Also, does that mean that an agent that IS the usfg automatically forces an externalization of the agency you confer on the "we"? But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we argue about them? WE should, we do, and we will. Does this mean the resolution should be constructed in the same way year after year? Could we not express our arguments about the USFG without having to defend it as somehow separate from the debaters? In other words, what about switch-side debate? Can the negative defend the externalization of agency into the USFG? How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq? (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.) THIS is not hard to answer at all and the fact you have asked the question in the first place in quite scary. The first answer is provided by your comment earlier in the discussion that the opinions of people might matter. The second answer is a turn: "We" already did this with the concept of "constructive engagement." Moving away from the USFG in this specific context would allow for alternatives to government binaries between diplomacy and sanctions (between negotiation and war). There are a HUGE number of agents (this is number 3) that would be productive to debate in the Iraq context--Iraq (duh), Israel, the UN, social movements, passive voice, Kurdistan, Turkey, al queda, we, this house, Iran, Russia, etc. If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are those topics compared to what we are missing?) WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy, and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. kevin --JP My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide. WOW JP--this is brought on by your own inability to see that "we" is NOT always America. This last little stab at "sitting back in the face of suffering" that uses Rwanda is EXACTLY WHY YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL--you think you are actually contributing to the formation of governmental policy so you ignore all of the horrors happening in front of your own door, your own eyes, you own world. Arlee found this evidence, but it adds weight to the turn and shows why your assumption about American exceptionalism IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ESSENCE OF AMERICAN SUPERIORITY--that there is no alterantive to US action. Thus, when genocide is ignored by the government, folks like you have nothing left in the arsenal except a weak gesture to public opinion and the public sphere--the same opinion that solidifies the "bystanding syndrome." jeeesh. ARLEE--thanks for the card. Genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda are not the result of too little imperial western intervention but on the contrary are the result of such intervention. Charlie Kimber2004, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=538 "How West intervened and fuelled genocide" GENOCIDE IS an overused word, but ten years ago it took place in the tiny African country of Rwanda. Throughout 100 days between 800,000 and one million people were murdered in a country of just six million. The media coverage remembering these events conveys the horror. But much of it also accepts two arguments. The first is that there was something inexplicable about what occurred-or that perhaps this is something uniquely "African". The second argument is that Rwanda shows that sometimes the great powers need to go in to sort out the world. It is put forward as the key example of what could have been "good" humanitarian military intervention. And if it would have been right to go in then, there will be examples when it is right to send troops elsewhere. The claim is apparently made stronger because the United Nations (UN) and the US did deliberately ignore genocide in 1994. As the killing began the UN reduced its peacekeeping force by 90 percent to just 270 troops. Far from questioning what was done, Madeleine Albright, the US ambassador to the UN, wanted the whole lot out. But calls for military force in such circumstances, however well meant, ignore the fact that Rwanda's agony was not a result of too little intervention. It was precisely the product of 100 years of brutal intervention by colonial and imperialist forces. Colonialism sharply separated groups of people in Rwanda-Hutus and Tutsis-and set them against each other. Modern-day capitalism set the conditions for a million dead. As in so many other places suffering from an imperial legacy-such as Ireland, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia-the great powers use divide and rule and then throw up their hands in mock horror at the conflict they have created. Military action in 1994 could only have been carried out directly by the great powers, or with their support through the UN Security Council, or by some regional superpower. Yet these people had prepared the way for the genocide, armed those who carried it out and defended them even as the killings took place. France, Belgium, the US, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt intervened in 1992-4 and made the situation worse. Without them the massacres could never have happened. In 1990 the brutal Rwandan government only survived because of military support from the French and Belgians. This allowed the government to believe that no matter what horrors it carried out the French would go along with it. It was like giving brandy bottles to an alcoholic. Then the European powers watched as the Rwandan regime developed a system of local militias (the interahamwe) in order to create a murder machine. Throughout 1993 more and more of the Rwandan population were armed. Many of the arms were "low-tech weapons" like studded clubs, knives and spears. There were machetes from China and Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Egypt secured a $6 million contract with Rwanda to supply arms, guaranteed by a French bank. Apartheid South Africa supplied $5.9 million of weaponry. The US wanted to curb French influence in central Africa. So it stoked the conflict from the opposite side by channelling weapons to the exiled opposition forces invading from Uganda. The French government continued to supply arms to the Rwandan regime even after the murders began in 1994. In June, two months after the killings began, the French launched a military intervention. "Operation Turquoise", backed by the UN, involved 2,500 men. The government's retreating forces, which had carried out the killings, welcomed the French troops. French soldiers and government officials drove around Rwanda with enormous French flags displayed on their vehicles. On seeing them, desperate Tutsis would come out of hiding only to be killed by Hutu militias while the French did nothing. Military intervention is never carried out by an abstract "force for good". It is done, or not done, by the strong for their own agenda. That is what happened in 1994. "Useful" intervention would have been cancellation of Rwanda's debt, withdrawal of all support for the government, encouragement to democratic forces, an end to arms sales, aid for the impoverished, help to combat AIDS-and it should have started well before 1994. These are the sort of measures needed in Rwanda and every other similar case, not more soldiers. Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. > > The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you? > > Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? > > This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... > > kevin > > -----Original Message----- > From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM > To: scottelliott at grandecom.net > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? > > Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in > Iraq. > > How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? > > --JP > > > scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > >> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror >> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I >> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community >> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding >> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of >> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper >> issues. >> >> Scott >> >> Quoting JP Lacy : >> >> >> >>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >>> >>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >>> deregulation of financial institutions. >>> >>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >>> >>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >>> are very relevant to our daily lives. >>> >>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >>> >>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >>> >>> --JP >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>>> >>>> >>> can >>> >>> >>>> do that any time. >>>> >>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>>> >>>> >>> more >>> >>> >>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>>> alternative resolutions. >>>> >>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>>> debate" for the >>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>>> >>>> >>> in >>> >>> >>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>>> >>>> >>> that >>> >>> >>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>>> >>>> >>> debate." >>> >>> >>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>>> >>>> >>> more >>> >>> >>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>>> >>>> >>> evidence and >>> >>> >>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>>> >>>> >>> the >>> >>> >>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>>> >>>> >>> battle >>> >>> >>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>>> >>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>>> >>>> >>> finals at >>> >>> >>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>>> >>>> >>> In a >>> >>> >>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>>> >>>> >>> best. >>> >>> >>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>>> >>>> >>> more >>> >>> >>>> representative of what we do. >>>> >>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>>> >>>> >>> as >>> >>> >>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>>> >>>> >>> we >>> >>> >>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>>> >>>> >>> we >>> >>> >>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>>> >>>> >>> been in >>> >>> >>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>>> >>>> >>> really >>> >>> >>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>>> >>>> >>> rounds of >>> >>> >>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>>> >>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>>> >>>> >>> use >>> >>> >>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>>> >>>> >>> some >>> >>> >>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>>> >>>> >>> middle >>> >>> >>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>>> >>>> >>> America. A >>> >>> >>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>>> >>>> >>> (at >>> >>> >>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>>> >>>> >>> almost >>> >>> >>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>>> >>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>>> >>>> >>> love >>> >>> >>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>>> >>>> >>> becomes >>> >>> >>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>>> >>>> >>> policy >>> >>> >>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>>> >>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>>> >>>> >>> agent >>> >>> >>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>>> >>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>>> >>>> >>> etc.) >>> >>> >>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>>> >>>> >>> unless >>> >>> >>>> China and India get on board) >>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>>> 5) Postmodernism; >>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>>> >>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>>> >>>> >>> framing >>> >>> >>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>>> >>>> >>> (or >>> >>> >>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>>> >>>> >>> analysis >>> >>> >>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>>> >>>> >>> world in >>> >>> >>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>>> >>>> >>> is >>> >>> >>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>>> >>>> >>> to >>> >>> >>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>>> policymaking. >>>> >>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>>> >>>> >>> space to >>> >>> >>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>>> >>>> >>> can >>> >>> >>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>>> >>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>>> >>>> >>> blah >>> >>> >>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>>> >>>> >>> blah. >>> >>> >>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>>> >>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>>> >>>> >>> substanitally >>> >>> >>>> curtailed. >>>> >>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>>> >>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>>> >>>> >>> should be >>> >>> >>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>>> >>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>>> >>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>>> >>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> eDebate mailing list >>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Apr 8 21:32:41 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 21:32:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] USFG Message-ID: there are other agents like the UN, IMF, NATO, WTO etc. of which the US is a member and certain policies of those agents hinge on the US position. debating those agents would be productive as kuswa has long suggested. opens the door for the USFG CP so you'll never completely get rid of this agent. backing up lacy. USFG is often a good agent to debate if USFG is the agent responsible for a questionable action. in-round advocacy of the cessation of a war can be viewed as amplification of a social movement's demand on the USFG. this approach successfully navigated on many occasions by reed and stetson against statism critiques of lifting the sanctions on iraq breaks down reified notions of state power. "we, the government, demand you, the people." changing the agent to the people in the room is not necessary when the plan is situated as a policy demand. if the demand withstands scrutiny, the judge votes affirmative. we can't personally sign the legislation to withdraw troops from iraq but we can participate in the demand for the president to sign. traditional conceptions of fiat are thrown to the wayside. foucault, the foucault effect, p. 103 The excessive value attributed to the problem of the state is expressed, basically, in two ways: the one form, immediate, affective, and tragic, is the lyricism of the cold monster we see confronting us...But the state, more probably today than at any other time in its history, does not have this unity, this individuality, this rigorous functionality, nor to speak frankly, this importance. Maybe, after all, the state is no more than a composite reality and mythologized abstraction, whose importance is a lot more limited than many of us think. Maybe what is really important for our modernity--that is, for our present, is not so much the statization of society, as the "govermentalization" of the state. http://toprovenothing.blogspot.com/2008/02/foucault-powerknowledge-truth-and-power.html ?I don?t want to say that the State isn?t important; what I want to say is that relations of power, and hence the analysis that must be made of them, necessarily extend beyond the limits of the State. In two senses: first of all because the State, for all the omnipotence of its apparatuses, is far from being able to occupy the whole field of actual power relations, and further because the State can only operate on the basis of other, already existing power relations? (122). _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090408/431ff901/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Apr 8 23:13:55 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 00:13:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> Most important question of mine: What is the difference between these topics: "The USFG should..." & "We think the USFG should..." Once we all grasp the obvious that the debaters are not actually the USFG, how do these topics lead to different debates & different conclusions? I understand that the USFG is not the be all end all to every problem, but what about when it is the primary problem? Iraq is my primary example. That example was a response to the argument that "We can't address important issues because we focus on the USFG." My question was, and still is, "How can we address an important issue like Iraq without arguing about US policy there?" You've listed others with a perspective on the issue, but I'm pretty sure all of them would advocate that the US change its Iraq policy. If you want to shed responsibility for having an opinion about our Iraq policy, you can. But, that "no opinion" vote has consequences for everyone. If you really want to claim "we" are not at war, you can. --JP ps -- Your Rwanda arguments are off base. I never advocated intervention, I advocated a change from the policy we made (thanks for the mind reading.) Yes, its easy to second guess. Your evidence suggests the same. Plus, your evidence replicates the same good old American style of speaking for the world, also repeated by the US , by blaming the French for failed intervention when we could have done something else entirely than rely on more military intervention. pps -- What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the advantages? So far, you've read some links... WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy , and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > answers below. jp is starting to make some fairly horrific claims.... > > ________________________________________ > From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:12 PM > To: Kuswa, Kevin > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? > > Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice. > > EXACTLY. > > In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States." > > WHAT? That is quite a jump. Is this a proposed resolution? There are students debating who are not US citizens, not to mention all the problems associated with personifying the nation-state and imaging that "it" makes single-minded decisions. > > I said "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to > war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war > unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one > we bear responsibility for. > > RESPONSIBILITY is not an entity that holds equally across the nation, although, yes, there is an element of complicity in all of us that warrants examining. Would a debate topic that positions debaters as the USFG promote that discussion? Maybe...but not as well as a topic that actually used the "we" pronoun as Tuna suggests or a topic that allowed for a topical avenue for reflection (passive). > > That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad > reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but > that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in > history. > > WAR is tragic for many reasons beyond the fact that governments can act in violent ways in the name of "the people." Yes, spectatorship without acknowledgement is a terrible arrangement, but this is not a reason to debate every year under the usfg umbrella. > > Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the > United States should do. > > OF COURSE--no shit, actually. Having an opinion about the USFG and its policies is crucial--more than crucial--but as debaters we can do that without making the affirmative (or asking the affirmative to) pretend to be an agent that they are not every year. Do not confuse an attempt to diversify the kind of topics we debate with some unattainable argument arena devoid of any consideration of USFG policy. Don't worry, the usfg is not going away and our fixation on federal policy will not go away even if the topic is slightly distinct. What will change with some topic diversity, though, is the inability to think outside governmental action when advocating the resolution and the realization that very good debate is still possible without the standard formula we have adopted for the last decade. > > Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people > don't adequately voice their opinions. > > "PEOPLE" meaning what individuals exactly in the above sentence? I guess on one level everything is about the opinions of various subject-positions, but someone has internalized the politics DA in perhaps a delusional moment of Rorty-itis. The Iraq War should not be reduced to a lack of expression or some failure in the collective American voice. Trying to express opinions about the war is exactly what justified the first Iraq War through the yellow-ribbon campaign. Patriotism can work in insidious ways, including a co-option of opinions that might be "against the war" but can easily be shifted to "support our troops." > > "WE" may have believed this monolithic USFG being constituted here (and in our topics) about the location of weapons of mass destruction PRECISELY BECAUSE "we" wanted to express our outrage over the existence of such weapons in the hands of a rogue leader. See what the expression of opinion can yield? > > It is true that debaters are not the USFG. > > YOUR arguments do not follow your willingness to admit that debaters are not the usfg. Also, does that mean that an agent that IS the usfg automatically forces an externalization of the agency you confer on the "we"? > > But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes > bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form > concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we > argue about them? > > WE should, we do, and we will. Does this mean the resolution should be constructed in the same way year after year? Could we not express our arguments about the USFG without having to defend it as somehow separate from the debaters? In other words, what about switch-side debate? Can the negative defend the externalization of agency into the USFG? > > How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq? > (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example > of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.) > > THIS is not hard to answer at all and the fact you have asked the question in the first place in quite scary. The first answer is provided by your comment earlier in the discussion that the opinions of people might matter. The second answer is a turn: "We" already did this with the concept of "constructive engagement." Moving away from the USFG in this specific context would allow for alternatives to government binaries between diplomacy and sanctions (between negotiation and war). There are a HUGE number of agents (this is number 3) that would be productive to debate in the Iraq context--Iraq (duh), Israel, the UN, social movements, passive voice, Kurdistan, Turkey, al queda, we, this house, Iran, Russia, etc. > > If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could > eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some > topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are > those topics compared to what we are missing?) > > WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy, and the lis > t goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. > > kevin > > --JP > > My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of > American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of > American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone > else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that > left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide. > > WOW JP--this is brought on by your own inability to see that "we" is NOT always America. This last little stab at "sitting back in the face of suffering" that uses Rwanda is EXACTLY WHY YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL--you think you are actually contributing to the formation of governmental policy so you ignore all of the horrors happening in front of your own door, your own eyes, you own world. Arlee found this evidence, but it adds weight to the turn and shows why your assumption about American exceptionalism IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ESSENCE OF AMERICAN SUPERIORITY--that there is no alterantive to US action. Thus, when genocide is ignored by the government, folks like you have nothing left in the arsenal except a weak gesture to public opinion and the public sphere--the same opinion that solidifies the "bystanding syndrome." jeeesh. > > ARLEE--thanks for the card. > > Genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda are not the result of too little imperial western intervention but on the contrary are the result of such intervention. > > Charlie Kimber2004, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=538 "How West intervened and fuelled genocide" > > GENOCIDE IS an overused word, but ten years ago it took place in the tiny African country of Rwanda. Throughout 100 days between 800,000 and one million people were murdered in a country of just six million. The media coverage remembering these events conveys the horror. But much of it also accepts two arguments. The first is that there was something inexplicable about what occurred-or that perhaps this is something uniquely "African". > > The second argument is that Rwanda shows that sometimes the great powers need to go in to sort out the world. It is put forward as the key example of what could have been "good" humanitarian military intervention. And if it would have been right to go in then, there will be examples when it is right to send troops elsewhere. The claim is apparently made stronger because the United Nations (UN) and the US did deliberately ignore genocide in 1994. > > As the killing began the UN reduced its peacekeeping force by 90 percent to just 270 troops. Far from questioning what was done, Madeleine Albright, the US ambassador to the UN, wanted the whole lot out. But calls for military force in such circumstances, however well meant, ignore the fact that Rwanda's agony was not a result of too little intervention. It was precisely the product of 100 years of brutal intervention by colonial and imperialist forces. > > Colonialism sharply separated groups of people in Rwanda-Hutus and Tutsis-and set them against each other. Modern-day capitalism set the conditions for a million dead. > > As in so many other places suffering from an imperial legacy-such as Ireland, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia-the great powers use divide and rule and then throw up their hands in mock horror at the conflict they have created. Military action in 1994 could only have been carried out directly by the great powers, or with their support through the UN Security Council, or by some regional superpower. > > Yet these people had prepared the way for the genocide, armed those who carried it out and defended them even as the killings took place. France, Belgium, the US, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt intervened in 1992-4 and made the situation worse. Without them the massacres could never have happened. In 1990 the brutal Rwandan government only survived because of military support from the French and Belgians. > > This allowed the government to believe that no matter what horrors it carried out the French would go along with it. It was like giving brandy bottles to an alcoholic. Then the European powers watched as the Rwandan regime developed a system of local militias (the interahamwe) in order to create a murder machine. Throughout 1993 more and more of the Rwandan population were armed. Many of the arms were "low-tech weapons" like studded clubs, knives and spears. There were machetes from China and Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Egypt secured a $6 million contract with Rwanda to supply arms, guaranteed by a French bank. Apartheid South Africa supplied $5.9 million of weaponry. > > The US wanted to curb French influence in central Africa. So it stoked the conflict from the opposite side by channelling weapons to the exiled opposition forces invading from Uganda. The French government continued to supply arms to the Rwandan regime even after the murders began in 1994. > > In June, two months after the killings began, the French launched a military intervention. "Operation Turquoise", backed by the UN, involved 2,500 men. The government's retreating forces, which had carried out the killings, welcomed the French troops. > > French soldiers and government officials drove around Rwanda with enormous French flags displayed on their vehicles. On seeing them, desperate Tutsis would come out of hiding only to be killed by Hutu militias while the French did nothing. > > Military intervention is never carried out by an abstract "force for good". It is done, or not done, by the strong for their own agenda. That is what happened in 1994. "Useful" intervention would have been cancellation of Rwanda's debt, withdrawal of all support for the government, encouragement to democratic forces, an end to arms sales, aid for the impoverished, help to combat AIDS-and it should have started well before 1994. > These are the sort of measures needed in Rwanda and every other similar case, not more soldiers. > > > Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > >> "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. >> >> The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you? >> >> Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? >> >> This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... >> >> kevin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM >> To: scottelliott at grandecom.net >> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >> >> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in >> Iraq. >> >> How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? >> >> --JP >> >> >> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >> >> >>> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror >>> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I >>> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community >>> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding >>> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of >>> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper >>> issues. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> Quoting JP Lacy : >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >>>> >>>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >>>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >>>> deregulation of financial institutions. >>>> >>>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >>>> >>>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >>>> are very relevant to our daily lives. >>>> >>>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >>>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >>>> >>>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >>>> >>>> --JP >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> can >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> do that any time. >>>>> >>>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>>>> alternative resolutions. >>>>> >>>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>>>> debate" for the >>>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> debate." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> evidence and >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> battle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>>>> >>>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> finals at >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In a >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> best. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> representative of what we do. >>>>> >>>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> as >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> we >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> we >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> been in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> really >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> rounds of >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> use >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> some >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> middle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> America. A >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> (at >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> almost >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>>>> >>>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> love >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> becomes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> policy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>>>> >>>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> agent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>>>> >>>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> etc.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> unless >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> China and India get on board) >>>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>>>> 5) Postmodernism; >>>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>>>> >>>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> framing >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> (or >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> analysis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> world in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>>>> policymaking. >>>>> >>>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> space to >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> can >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>>>> >>>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> blah >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> blah. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> substanitally >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> curtailed. >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> should be >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>>>> >>>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> eDebate mailing list >>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> >> >> > > > > From spoon_22 at hotmail.com Thu Apr 9 00:22:25 2009 From: spoon_22 at hotmail.com (Aaron Hardy) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 05:22:25 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless Debate Manual Message-ID: Throughout the year, I've been asked by dozens of people for a rundown of how the Whitman paperless system works. Since there seemed to be a high level of interest, I decided to write a manual. Hopefully, the information in it is useful to anyone considering a switch, or anyone who's just curious about what we're doing. Feel free to send it on to anyone who might find it helpful. The most recent version is posted here: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/tech/paperless-complete-manual.pdf Revisions will likely be forthcoming as people give me feedback or ask me further questions. On a side note, I'm happy to report that Whitman's first year doing paperless has been an unqualified success -- we're happy with how well it's worked, and have no intentions of ever switching back to paper. If anyone has comments, questions, suggestions, etc...about either the manual or paperless in general, please direct them my way. Best, hardy _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Get e-mail storage that grows with you. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Storage1_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090409/83123cf9/attachment.htm From tcram at ku.edu Thu Apr 9 01:14:05 2009 From: tcram at ku.edu (tcram) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 01:14:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] d9 died? Message-ID: <9F03BD778566E24CAD8C9A2213539C9F02E4D9@MAILBOX-33.home.ku.edu> Well I apparently have been living under a rock. I would have clapped harder if I'd known it was the last time... Odie screaming 'District X!!' in a crowded elevator of strangers just won't be the same. TCram From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Apr 9 07:27:15 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 08:27:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C5@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Thanks for continuing the conversation, JP, even though it is not gong too well for you. Two quick points before going to teach, 1. JP says that "USFG should" and "we think that the USFG should" are the same. hahaha. really? 2. JP says that America should stop speaking for the rest of the world. This is a double-turn----in number one, the two statements are not the same because one encourages debaters (who are not the same as "America," no matter how many times JP says it) to speak AS an external instituition and one does not. In other words, JP is going for a giant double-turn. His position boils down to: "use the usfg because we all know we are not the usfg, but we'd like to pretend...in order to stop the sentiment that allows the US to speak for the rest of the world (and let genocide go on without acting)." NONSENSE. the Iraq example was absurd and turned by a blind faith in patriotism (or ignoring patriotism as opinion) and now the Rwanda example provides the impact to continuing to advocate imperial reform. kevin ________________________________________ From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:13 AM To: Kuswa, Kevin Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? Most important question of mine: What is the difference between these topics: "The USFG should..." & "We think the USFG should..." Once we all grasp the obvious that the debaters are not actually the USFG, how do these topics lead to different debates & different conclusions? I understand that the USFG is not the be all end all to every problem, but what about when it is the primary problem? Iraq is my primary example. That example was a response to the argument that "We can't address important issues because we focus on the USFG." My question was, and still is, "How can we address an important issue like Iraq without arguing about US policy there?" You've listed others with a perspective on the issue, but I'm pretty sure all of them would advocate that the US change its Iraq policy. If you want to shed responsibility for having an opinion about our Iraq policy, you can. But, that "no opinion" vote has consequences for everyone. If you really want to claim "we" are not at war, you can. --JP ps -- Your Rwanda arguments are off base. I never advocated intervention, I advocated a change from the policy we made (thanks for the mind reading.) Yes, its easy to second guess. Your evidence suggests the same. Plus, your evidence replicates the same good old American style of speaking for the world, also repeated by the US , by blaming the French for failed intervention when we could have done something else entirely than rely on more military intervention. pps -- What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the advantages? So far, you've read some links... WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy , and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > answers below. jp is starting to make some fairly horrific claims.... > > ________________________________________ > From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:12 PM > To: Kuswa, Kevin > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? > > Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice. > > EXACTLY. > > In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States." > > WHAT? That is quite a jump. Is this a proposed resolution? There are students debating who are not US citizens, not to mention all the problems associated with personifying the nation-state and imaging that "it" makes single-minded decisions. > > I said "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to > war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war > unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one > we bear responsibility for. > > RESPONSIBILITY is not an entity that holds equally across the nation, although, yes, there is an element of complicity in all of us that warrants examining. Would a debate topic that positions debaters as the USFG promote that discussion? Maybe...but not as well as a topic that actually used the "we" pronoun as Tuna suggests or a topic that allowed for a topical avenue for reflection (passive). > > That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad > reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but > that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in > history. > > WAR is tragic for many reasons beyond the fact that governments can act in violent ways in the name of "the people." Yes, spectatorship without acknowledgement is a terrible arrangement, but this is not a reason to debate every year under the usfg umbrella. > > Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the > United States should do. > > OF COURSE--no shit, actually. Having an opinion about the USFG and its policies is crucial--more than crucial--but as debaters we can do that without making the affirmative (or asking the affirmative to) pretend to be an agent that they are not every year. Do not confuse an attempt to diversify the kind of topics we debate with some unattainable argument arena devoid of any consideration of USFG policy. Don't worry, the usfg is not going away and our fixation on federal policy will not go away even if the topic is slightly distinct. What will change with some topic diversity, though, is the inability to think outside governmental action when advocating the resolution and the realization that very good debate is still possible without the standard formula we have adopted for the last decade. > > Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people > don't adequately voice their opinions. > > "PEOPLE" meaning what individuals exactly in the above sentence? I guess on one level everything is about the opinions of various subject-positions, but someone has internalized the politics DA in perhaps a delusional moment of Rorty-itis. The Iraq War should not be reduced to a lack of expression or some failure in the collective American voice. Trying to express opinions about the war is exactly what justified the first Iraq War through the yellow-ribbon campaign. Patriotism can work in insidious ways, including a co-option of opinions that might be "against the war" but can easily be shifted to "support our troops." > > "WE" may have believed this monolithic USFG being constituted here (and in our topics) about the location of weapons of mass destruction PRECISELY BECAUSE "we" wanted to express our outrage over the existence of such weapons in the hands of a rogue leader. See what the expression of opinion can yield? > > It is true that debaters are not the USFG. > > YOUR arguments do not follow your willingness to admit that debaters are not the usfg. Also, does that mean that an agent that IS the usfg automatically forces an externalization of the agency you confer on the "we"? > > But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes > bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form > concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we > argue about them? > > WE should, we do, and we will. Does this mean the resolution should be constructed in the same way year after year? Could we not express our arguments about the USFG without having to defend it as somehow separate from the debaters? In other words, what about switch-side debate? Can the negative defend the externalization of agency into the USFG? > > How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq? > (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example > of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.) > > THIS is not hard to answer at all and the fact you have asked the question in the first place in quite scary. The first answer is provided by your comment earlier in the discussion that the opinions of people might matter. The second answer is a turn: "We" already did this with the concept of "constructive engagement." Moving away from the USFG in this specific context would allow for alternatives to government binaries between diplomacy and sanctions (between negotiation and war). There are a HUGE number of agents (this is number 3) that would be productive to debate in the Iraq context--Iraq (duh), Israel, the UN, social movements, passive voice, Kurdistan, Turkey, al queda, we, this house, Iran, Russia, etc. > > If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could > eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some > topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are > those topics compared to what we are missing?) > > WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy, and the lis > t goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. > > kevin > > --JP > > My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of > American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of > American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone > else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that > left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide. > > WOW JP--this is brought on by your own inability to see that "we" is NOT always America. This last little stab at "sitting back in the face of suffering" that uses Rwanda is EXACTLY WHY YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL--you think you are actually contributing to the formation of governmental policy so you ignore all of the horrors happening in front of your own door, your own eyes, you own world. Arlee found this evidence, but it adds weight to the turn and shows why your assumption about American exceptionalism IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ESSENCE OF AMERICAN SUPERIORITY--that there is no alterantive to US action. Thus, when genocide is ignored by the government, folks like you have nothing left in the arsenal except a weak gesture to public opinion and the public sphere--the same opinion that solidifies the "bystanding syndrome." jeeesh. > > ARLEE--thanks for the card. > > Genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda are not the result of too little imperial western intervention but on the contrary are the result of such intervention. > > Charlie Kimber2004, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=538 "How West intervened and fuelled genocide" > > GENOCIDE IS an overused word, but ten years ago it took place in the tiny African country of Rwanda. Throughout 100 days between 800,000 and one million people were murdered in a country of just six million. The media coverage remembering these events conveys the horror. But much of it also accepts two arguments. The first is that there was something inexplicable about what occurred-or that perhaps this is something uniquely "African". > > The second argument is that Rwanda shows that sometimes the great powers need to go in to sort out the world. It is put forward as the key example of what could have been "good" humanitarian military intervention. And if it would have been right to go in then, there will be examples when it is right to send troops elsewhere. The claim is apparently made stronger because the United Nations (UN) and the US did deliberately ignore genocide in 1994. > > As the killing began the UN reduced its peacekeeping force by 90 percent to just 270 troops. Far from questioning what was done, Madeleine Albright, the US ambassador to the UN, wanted the whole lot out. But calls for military force in such circumstances, however well meant, ignore the fact that Rwanda's agony was not a result of too little intervention. It was precisely the product of 100 years of brutal intervention by colonial and imperialist forces. > > Colonialism sharply separated groups of people in Rwanda-Hutus and Tutsis-and set them against each other. Modern-day capitalism set the conditions for a million dead. > > As in so many other places suffering from an imperial legacy-such as Ireland, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia-the great powers use divide and rule and then throw up their hands in mock horror at the conflict they have created. Military action in 1994 could only have been carried out directly by the great powers, or with their support through the UN Security Council, or by some regional superpower. > > Yet these people had prepared the way for the genocide, armed those who carried it out and defended them even as the killings took place. France, Belgium, the US, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt intervened in 1992-4 and made the situation worse. Without them the massacres could never have happened. In 1990 the brutal Rwandan government only survived because of military support from the French and Belgians. > > This allowed the government to believe that no matter what horrors it carried out the French would go along with it. It was like giving brandy bottles to an alcoholic. Then the European powers watched as the Rwandan regime developed a system of local militias (the interahamwe) in order to create a murder machine. Throughout 1993 more and more of the Rwandan population were armed. Many of the arms were "low-tech weapons" like studded clubs, knives and spears. There were machetes from China and Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Egypt secured a $6 million contract with Rwanda to supply arms, guaranteed by a French bank. Apartheid South Africa supplied $5.9 million of weaponry. > > The US wanted to curb French influence in central Africa. So it stoked the conflict from the opposite side by channelling weapons to the exiled opposition forces invading from Uganda. The French government continued to supply arms to the Rwandan regime even after the murders began in 1994. > > In June, two months after the killings began, the French launched a military intervention. "Operation Turquoise", backed by the UN, involved 2,500 men. The government's retreating forces, which had carried out the killings, welcomed the French troops. > > French soldiers and government officials drove around Rwanda with enormous French flags displayed on their vehicles. On seeing them, desperate Tutsis would come out of hiding only to be killed by Hutu militias while the French did nothing. > > Military intervention is never carried out by an abstract "force for good". It is done, or not done, by the strong for their own agenda. That is what happened in 1994. "Useful" intervention would have been cancellation of Rwanda's debt, withdrawal of all support for the government, encouragement to democratic forces, an end to arms sales, aid for the impoverished, help to combat AIDS-and it should have started well before 1994. > These are the sort of measures needed in Rwanda and every other similar case, not more soldiers. > > > Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > >> "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. >> >> The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you? >> >> Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? >> >> This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... >> >> kevin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM >> To: scottelliott at grandecom.net >> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >> >> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in >> Iraq. >> >> How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? >> >> --JP >> >> >> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >> >> >>> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror >>> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I >>> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community >>> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding >>> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of >>> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper >>> issues. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> Quoting JP Lacy : >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >>>> >>>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >>>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >>>> deregulation of financial institutions. >>>> >>>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >>>> >>>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >>>> are very relevant to our daily lives. >>>> >>>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >>>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >>>> >>>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >>>> >>>> --JP >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> can >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> do that any time. >>>>> >>>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>>>> alternative resolutions. >>>>> >>>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>>>> debate" for the >>>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> debate." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> evidence and >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> battle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>>>> >>>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> finals at >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In a >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> best. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> more >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> representative of what we do. >>>>> >>>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> as >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> we >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> we >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> been in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> really >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> rounds of >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> use >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> some >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> middle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> America. A >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> (at >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> almost >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>>>> >>>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> love >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> becomes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> policy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>>>> >>>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> agent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>>>> >>>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> etc.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> unless >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> China and India get on board) >>>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>>>> 5) Postmodernism; >>>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>>>> >>>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> framing >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> (or >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> analysis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> world in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> is >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> to >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>>>> policymaking. >>>>> >>>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> space to >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> can >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>>>> >>>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> blah >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> blah. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> substanitally >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> curtailed. >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> should be >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>>>> >>>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>>>> >>>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> eDebate mailing list >>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> >> >> > > > > From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Apr 9 08:30:27 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:30:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? Message-ID: <1239283827.49ddf87335340@webmail.grandecom.net> I was never good at the line by line, so I will just cut to the chase. JP's example of the U.S. war in Iraq proves my point. I just do not think the pleathora of arguments he makes are indeed arguments in favor of the current topic selection/drafting process. I AGREE that we should have debated that the USFG should have changed its policy toward Iraq. Yep, you are right. You win this minor point. But, in the end, this is nothing more than a red herring at best, and an argument for changing how we debate at worst. The Pepsi Challenge: Frame the "Get the U.S. out of Iraq" issue as a year long policy topic that would make it through a community vote. It will not happen for the following reasons: 1) it is no longer timely. At best, the only way to debate this now would be as a counter-factual/alternative format resolution (i.e. a proposition of fact as in "we should have not invaded Iraq, etc.) 2) It would not stand up under a year long topic debate (old school CEDA semester long topic...it would have been a great series of debates and would have made for a great Nationals Final round five years ago) My original examples of absolutely fundamental global problems still stand. I will narrow the discussion down to just one--global climate change. Yep, Barak Obama is now proposing that we shoot more pollution into the atmosphere to stop global warming. There are many USFG proposals out there. But, you and I, and I think the rest of the coaches out there, know that it is a waste of time to try to frame a climate change topic under the current USFG agent of action resolution format. Why? because you can never actually debate the root issue with a topical plan that solves. China and India will negate solvency if you focus on an USFG single shot plan. The literature does not support U.S. unilateral action. The way in which the game of policy debate is played means that the Affirmative is at a strategic disadvantage from the jump. Consequently, I do not bother writing a topic paper on the issue. So many problems in the world that need more in depth discussion by our students. However, the focus on single shot policy prescriptions by a government that represents only 300 million out of 6.5 Billion people, reduces these discussions to mere peripheral issues. We end up debating shitty politics debates, stupid PIC's and state counter-plans. For what purpose? So, coaches and judges are "comfortable" shining the turd that is policy debate? Why not be uncomfortable? Why not debate the "whole rez?" Why not have our students focus on depth of arguments and issues rather than focus on technique and strategy? Your point about Iraq is nice. But, even it does not fit within the current model of policy debate resolutions. If you can turn your talents toward finding ways in which USFG single agent/single shot plans can address the issues like climate change, postmodernity, science and technology development, I would love to see it. As it stands now, we end up debating the same stuff every year--we just insert a different jumping off point. Really folks, how is Russia going to be any different from the Mid-East Topic from two years ago or the China topic? Would it be that much different if we inserted Latin America? I think not. I think we are collectively stuck in a rut and it is time we allow ourselves to enter into a state of theoretical chaos. They only loss I can see is that 20 years of PICs and framework files end up being left at the squadroom door. Scott From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Thu Apr 9 09:19:12 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:19:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What's in a name? In-Reply-To: References: <49DCF409.5010900@uvm.edu> Message-ID: <49DE03E0.6050805@uvm.edu> What I am talking about does not eliminate discussions of federal policy. You might decide to use the USFG as your agent, or you might decide to use the WTO or the ICC. "This House" can and does include all of them. It takes the agent out of the topic and puts it in the plan. I agree about debate being a training ground for real activism later. You are spot on. Tuna Abers wrote: > > While there is clearly a vocal group of debaters who want to distance > themselves from the federal government, I think this discussion > discounts a lot of debaters who actually like talking about and > directing the focus of their speech act towards questions of federal > policy. I would absolutely agree that there are problems with the USFG > fetish, but the solution proposed to completely eliminate federal > government action from the discussion seems to throw the baby out with > the bathwater. Scott Elliott points out that at CEDA people did not > want to debate the topic; yes because the topic was agriculture > subsidies and everyone just assumed there would be sweet K ground. > Shocker, there wasn?t. And by K ground, I don?t just mean affirmatives > that exclusively defend federal government action. The problem with > the agriculture topic, for the k affirmatives, was the literature > discussing alternate ways to view subsidy policy either from different > perspectives or in alternate philosophical frameworks wasn?t there. > However, frequently this literature does exist and it?s possible to > read affirmatives that, rather than explicitly defending federal > government action as an act of imagination where congress passes a law > etc etc, counter define what the ballot and debater?s relationship to > the statement of the resolution should be. I think these affirmatives, > like our broiler chicken aff or Towson?s Palestine aff that they read > on the Middle East topic, show it?s possible to discuss perspectives > on and about different policy actions taken by the federal government > without being assimilated into it or whatever while still retaining a > (at least somewhat predictable) relationship to the topic that the > negative can prepare for. > > > > This seems, at least to me, to be the middle ground. Essentially its; > here is the resolution, how can you as a debater educationally relate > to it. This leaves debaters who want to pursue affirmatives that > follow a more traditional rout (though traditional is probably a bad > word to use considering I don?t think debate affs in the 1980s had 14 > extinction scenarios and probably read a bunch more inherency cards) > an avenue to debate how they would like to. Gives ample K aff ground > based in ?topic literature.? And preserves debate as a forum for > political awareness about what the federal government is doing. Debate > is basically the only place, besides possibly the daily show, where I > as a student, feel compelled to figure out what exactly the federal > government is doing with the money we give them. At risk of starting > another debate, we live in a place where individual input can actually > affect government proceedings and policy. Don?t we as individuals who > support a government have some responsibility to educate ourselves > about what that government is doing? If debate is not the place, does > not serve this function, why should we even be doing it. Seems like we > should be out being real activists. Which, to me, all comes back to, > how do we know what to protest, which is where I think the importance > of ?policy? in policy debate arises. > > > Abe Corrigan > > Gonzaga Debate > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Alfred Snider > wrote: > > Scott Elliott says change the name. > > It is a little disconcerting because many debate formats debate about > policy issues. > > Some have said to call it "cross examination" debate, others say > "research" debate. > > Yet, other formats have cross ex and not every "policy" debate in > CEDA-NDT has evidence. > > A proper name would make things clearer to those outside but break our > link with past debaters who use the policy moniker. > > I would like to agree with Kevin Kuswa and others that a serious > problem > is the USFG fetish. > > Some years ago I wrote a topic paper using the agent "we." By this I > would mean those people in the room who were debating about an > idea. Not > that they should go out and implement some plan, but that for the > purposes of this debate they were the objects of persuasion. > > The term in the worlds format is "This House" which means the same > thing > as we, as it refers to those gathered in that room. > > I would prefer we or This House, and as illustrated by the > discussion so > far, then we could have a choice of agents. Let's face it, USFG > does not > equal > > Another concern is the unwillingness to debate the topic. Yes, > that is a > problem, for preparation, for publicity, for training judges, for > bringing in new coaches, for a lot of things. I like the freedom of > speech aspects, though. > > I will be interested in following this discussion. > > 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 ermocito at gmail.com Thu Apr 9 10:03:15 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:03:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Agent/Less debate Message-ID: <6bd35ee10904090803j7f5ef809l7536b1c87085e6cb@mail.gmail.com> I believe that one of the purposes in proposing "agent/less" debate is to shift focus away from USFG policy entirely, and to instead foreground individual agency to the exclusion of broader considerations. My believe is based on at least these factors: a. the pejorative reference to "externalization of agency" in Kuswa's posts (a criticism which most certainly links to Tuna's suggestion of using WTO/ICC/etc.) b. Seeing plenty of debaters who consider the un/desirability of US hegemony (etc.) in the external world as irrelevant to whether the judge should endorse/decline US hegemony (etc.) "in this room" Tuna: What about framing the resolution as "This House" would preclude the inward turn (where debaters consider external events largely irrelevant to the 'real' question at hand, which is some particular philosophy of agency, etc.)? Or, are you saying such an inward turn is desirable? I don't think you are - I think you are calling for a form of debate that still considers external questions to be relevant (e.g. not "secondary" to the 'real' question of agency). In my view, this "inward turn" game (it's not about external reality but our relation to that perceived reality) has been happening and will continue to happen to some degree. The question is whether it continues amongst those who seek to play it (with some 'clash of civilization' debates) or whether the power of the topic process can be captured to foist it onto the rest of us. The call to endorse the inward turn with the legitimacy of the topic process is a curious move, since I thought those playing it now felt that topic committee's endorsement was not relevant. I don't understand how we avoid displacing the so-called "fetish" of the USFG (a rhetorical gesture apparently designed to invoke some sort of normalizing power related to social deviance against those prefer policy debate?) onto a different "fetish" (agency, micropolitics, whatever...). There could be a long discussion about whether such forms of debate have a mutualistic, commensal, or parasitic relationship to USFG-centered policy debate. I've seen enough rounds where two teams that were both opposed to USFG based debate spent time accusing each other of being "more mainstream" to be skeptical about the mutualistic option. If it's either of the other two, there should perhaps be more concern about the long term health of the host. Kuswa: "*why not give it a shot for one year?" *Because a year is a long time. Why not instead host a tournament and declare an alternative topic, perhaps an agentless one related to the NDT/CEDA topic, and see who shows up? Perhaps get many of the teams to agree to have video from such a tournament publicly posted, so that the rest of us could see what you would like us to be doing? Ermo MoState On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Alfred Snider wrote: > What I am talking about does not eliminate discussions of federal > policy. You might decide to use the USFG as your agent, or you might > decide to use the WTO or the ICC. > > "This House" can and does include all of them. It takes the agent out of > the topic and puts it in the plan. > > I agree about debate being a training ground for real activism later. > You are spot on. > > Tuna > > Abers wrote: > > > > While there is clearly a vocal group of debaters who want to distance > > themselves from the federal government, I think this discussion > > discounts a lot of debaters who actually like talking about and > > directing the focus of their speech act towards questions of federal > > policy. I would absolutely agree that there are problems with the USFG > > fetish, but the solution proposed to completely eliminate federal > > government action from the discussion seems to throw the baby out with > > the bathwater. Scott Elliott points out that at CEDA people did not > > want to debate the topic; yes because the topic was agriculture > > subsidies and everyone just assumed there would be sweet K ground. > > Shocker, there wasn?t. And by K ground, I don?t just mean affirmatives > > that exclusively defend federal government action. The problem with > > the agriculture topic, for the k affirmatives, was the literature > > discussing alternate ways to view subsidy policy either from different > > perspectives or in alternate philosophical frameworks wasn?t there. > > However, frequently this literature does exist and it?s possible to > > read affirmatives that, rather than explicitly defending federal > > government action as an act of imagination where congress passes a law > > etc etc, counter define what the ballot and debater?s relationship to > > the statement of the resolution should be. I think these affirmatives, > > like our broiler chicken aff or Towson?s Palestine aff that they read > > on the Middle East topic, show it?s possible to discuss perspectives > > on and about different policy actions taken by the federal government > > without being assimilated into it or whatever while still retaining a > > (at least somewhat predictable) relationship to the topic that the > > negative can prepare for. > > > > > > > > This seems, at least to me, to be the middle ground. Essentially its; > > here is the resolution, how can you as a debater educationally relate > > to it. This leaves debaters who want to pursue affirmatives that > > follow a more traditional rout (though traditional is probably a bad > > word to use considering I don?t think debate affs in the 1980s had 14 > > extinction scenarios and probably read a bunch more inherency cards) > > an avenue to debate how they would like to. Gives ample K aff ground > > based in ?topic literature.? And preserves debate as a forum for > > political awareness about what the federal government is doing. Debate > > is basically the only place, besides possibly the daily show, where I > > as a student, feel compelled to figure out what exactly the federal > > government is doing with the money we give them. At risk of starting > > another debate, we live in a place where individual input can actually > > affect government proceedings and policy. Don?t we as individuals who > > support a government have some responsibility to educate ourselves > > about what that government is doing? If debate is not the place, does > > not serve this function, why should we even be doing it. Seems like we > > should be out being real activists. Which, to me, all comes back to, > > how do we know what to protest, which is where I think the importance > > of ?policy? in policy debate arises. > > > > > > Abe Corrigan > > > > Gonzaga Debate > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Alfred Snider > > wrote: > > > > Scott Elliott says change the name. > > > > It is a little disconcerting because many debate formats debate about > > policy issues. > > > > Some have said to call it "cross examination" debate, others say > > "research" debate. > > > > Yet, other formats have cross ex and not every "policy" debate in > > CEDA-NDT has evidence. > > > > A proper name would make things clearer to those outside but break > our > > link with past debaters who use the policy moniker. > > > > I would like to agree with Kevin Kuswa and others that a serious > > problem > > is the USFG fetish. > > > > Some years ago I wrote a topic paper using the agent "we." By this I > > would mean those people in the room who were debating about an > > idea. Not > > that they should go out and implement some plan, but that for the > > purposes of this debate they were the objects of persuasion. > > > > The term in the worlds format is "This House" which means the same > > thing > > as we, as it refers to those gathered in that room. > > > > I would prefer we or This House, and as illustrated by the > > discussion so > > far, then we could have a choice of agents. Let's face it, USFG > > does not > > equal > > > > Another concern is the unwillingness to debate the topic. Yes, > > that is a > > problem, for preparation, for publicity, for training judges, for > > bringing in new coaches, for a lot of things. I like the freedom of > > speech aspects, though. > > > > I will be interested in following this discussion. > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090409/ca657ce5/attachment.htm From hallbrad at gmail.com Thu Apr 9 11:12:13 2009 From: hallbrad at gmail.com (Brad Hall) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:12:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? In-Reply-To: <1239283827.49ddf87335340@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1239283827.49ddf87335340@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: I think JP's example of Iraq would have been a good topic before the war -- I'm not sure if he's advocating it being a topic now so much as an example of why we need to debate about USFG policy (it is quite a powerful body and implicates even non-citizens in its deliberation and actions). But just to take on your climate example: 1. Many, many advocates exist for unilateral action -- not sure what "literature" you're referring to, but it's certainly not the mainstream of policymakers who all advocate domestic action that will then -- and only then -- make possible a global agreement that includes China and India. There is a strong debate within the non-US international community about the difficulty of a deal at Copenhagen without a strong US commitment before. I debated the energy resolution in 2004-5 and it was an awesome topic -- the aff was not hamstrung by being forced into unilateral action. 2. There are a lot of non-climate advantages to revising energy policy -- for example: the economy (particularly competitiveness), natural security implications of foreign energy dependence, trade, US relations with a litany of countries, US environmental impacts from CO2 emissions, green military. 3. A topic could include the US as an actor but allow the option of cooperative action with China, India, etc. (or pressure a la the China topic). I think you should reconsider writing a topic paper on this if you're actually interested in the issue. The last energy topic was outstanding despite some flaws in the wording (for example, forcing the aff into the sadomasochism K was a real killer for us that year). Brad On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:30 AM, wrote: > I was never good at the line by line, so I will just cut to the chase. > > JP's example of the U.S. war in Iraq proves my point. I just do not think > the > pleathora of arguments he makes are indeed arguments in favor of the > current > topic selection/drafting process. I AGREE that we should have debated that > the > USFG should have changed its policy toward Iraq. Yep, you are right. You > win > this minor point. But, in the end, this is nothing more than a red herring > at > best, and an argument for changing how we debate at worst. > > The Pepsi Challenge: Frame the "Get the U.S. out of Iraq" issue as a year > long > policy topic that would make it through a community vote. > > It will not happen for the following reasons: > > 1) it is no longer timely. At best, the only way to debate this now would > be as > a counter-factual/alternative format resolution (i.e. a proposition of fact > as > in "we should have not invaded Iraq, etc.) > > 2) It would not stand up under a year long topic debate (old school CEDA > semester long topic...it would have been a great series of debates and > would > have made for a great Nationals Final round five years ago) > > > My original examples of absolutely fundamental global problems still stand. > I > will narrow the discussion down to just one--global climate change. > > Yep, Barak Obama is now proposing that we shoot more pollution into the > atmosphere to stop global warming. There are many USFG proposals out there. > But, you and I, and I think the rest of the coaches out there, know that it > is > a waste of time to try to frame a climate change topic under the current > USFG > agent of action resolution format. Why? because you can never actually > debate > the root issue with a topical plan that solves. China and India will > negate > solvency if you focus on an USFG single shot plan. The literature does not > support U.S. unilateral action. The way in which the game of policy debate > is > played means that the Affirmative is at a strategic disadvantage from the > jump. > > Consequently, I do not bother writing a topic paper on the issue. So many > problems in the world that need more in depth discussion by our students. > However, the focus on single shot policy prescriptions by a government that > represents only 300 million out of 6.5 Billion people, reduces these > discussions to mere peripheral issues. We end up debating shitty politics > debates, stupid PIC's and state counter-plans. > > For what purpose? So, coaches and judges are "comfortable" shining the turd > that > is policy debate? Why not be uncomfortable? Why not debate the "whole rez?" > Why > not have our students focus on depth of arguments and issues rather than > focus > on technique and strategy? > > Your point about Iraq is nice. But, even it does not fit within the current > model of policy debate resolutions. If you can turn your talents toward > finding > ways in which USFG single agent/single shot plans can address the issues > like > climate change, postmodernity, science and technology development, I would > love > to see it. As it stands now, we end up debating the same stuff every > year--we > just insert a different jumping off point. > > Really folks, how is Russia going to be any different from the Mid-East > Topic > from two years ago or the China topic? Would it be that much different if > we > inserted Latin America? I think not. I think we are collectively stuck in a > rut > and it is time we allow ourselves to enter into a state of theoretical > chaos. > > They only loss I can see is that 20 years of PICs and framework files end > up > being left at the squadroom door. > > Scott > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Brad Hall hallbrad at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090409/2741b98c/attachment.htm From blakejohnson at urbandebate.org Thu Apr 9 11:34:13 2009 From: blakejohnson at urbandebate.org (Blake Johnson) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:34:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Conor Cleary looking for hire at TOC Message-ID: <7c50ea8f0904090934n706501d0sa7985b70961b56d2@mail.gmail.com> Asked me to report that he is willing to judge/coach/cut cards/whatev. For what it's worth, I can testify that Conor is agreeable, decently humorous, and extremely ticklish. Please direct all inquiries to cleary(at)ou(dot)edu. b -- Blake Johnson Executive Director Bay Area Urban Debate League www.baudl.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090409/34790455/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Apr 9 14:54:36 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:54:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The Agent Message-ID: Look, I know I am going to get skewered for this...Obviously, I think there are some good reasons for a traditional actor. First, uniqueness, its possible to focus on "WE" and USFG - Obviously I dont entirely agree this is a good thing but whatever On most questions of public policy the USFG is an impediment or necessary partner to creating/maintaining meaningful change. Yes, I realize there is a large debate over local versus national change...about individual vs collective change...about social locations...and of course, many people think "pretending you are the USFG" means you have to be racist and genocidal. I also fully realize that debaters are not literally the government. However, it is possible to debate the social context of how you should/ought be most effective as a social agent and in many areas the USFG is an important part of change that goes from round - to judges and participants - to how we relate to questions of public policy as agents outside of debates. There are also many disadvantages to debate purely about social orientation and locations: First, its very hard to judge or debate against many of these claims. I believe....Stressing the "I"....that debate is about four major things (as currently practiced): A) Learning a rigorous method of testing claims (some have called this the search for the Best Policy Option but this undersells the practice - whatever we are talking about be it "we" or "policy" or comparing "rap albums" debate represents a method of teaching refutation and engagement and a search for relative truth) B) Education on a TOPIC (for many people, including me, I see a HUGE benefit in debating different specific topics because it means we examine and learn from the experts or those most directly connected to a particular subject - IMPORTANT CAVEAT - experts can be singers, people who work in the field, from personal experience, and from personal interviews, my argument is NOT that you only learn from big E experts when you research a topic. C) Exploring your personal relationship to debate. Debate does get better when its cannon is tested by debate. Reflexivity is good. For instance, really many of the criticisms of "traditional debate" are really indicts of the ways we evaluate impacts. It would be great for us to be reflexive about the absurdities of hyper-expressing CBA (lack of plan causes X, X = Nuke war, lack of plan causes Y, Y causes nuclear war, ad infinitim) D) Exploring your personal relationship to your social location and expressing and finding a voice to express your interests and agency. Not only does debate teach a method to determine relative truth it can also be space to be an advocate and equally important a social agent for change. These 4 things often contradict and come into conflict. For instance, debating one particular topic in time would prevent people from advocating and discussing what they personally wish to advocate and perhaps trades off with personal examination and reflexivity about debate qua debate. However, it is also true that purely debating "the whatever beast" carries an incrementally large disadvantage of not 1) Being mutually predictable 2) Being falsifiable through mutually accessible sources of research 3) Allowing a meaninful search for relative truth benefit (in other words choosing option D literally trades off with learning the method of testing relative truth traditional debate represents and also doesnt expose the personal proposal of the affirmative to that form and method of testing relative truth). 3) Creating any meaninful role for the negative (this is rarely discussed even in rounds). 4) Prevents the follow on educational effect (what I mean by this is that while I read about particular debate arguments I distinguish, to some extent, between strategery for debate and things I think about what we should really do to fix the problems a topic represents. In other words, while many affirmatives may err on the side of what is strategic to claim for a debate - my research on the subject of that affirmative has follow on effects. Again, what represents evidence is more malleable then my opponants will represent. I have ALWAYS accepted alternative forms of evidence and ALWAYS accepted logic arguments in the face of stupid arguments in cards. So my conclusion has been that the DAs to "that whatever monster" outweigh the DAs to "traditional topics." This does not mean I am immune to or unconcerned with the criticisms of traditional debate...or unwilling to modify thinking. I think if you read any of my arguments five years ago and then read the above you would have to admit I have shifted my thinking in many ways. Now, in terms of USFG - it seems to me, that the more we move away from a stable universally accessible relationship to an external actor we brook the disadvantages mentioned above plus the disadvantage of the USFG being a literal roadblock to actual/real/meaningful social change in most of the areas our topics would discuss (the JP Lacy DA). I am presenting this more as a starting point for discussion then an attempt to get in the usual fights with a bunch of people I respect but disagree with. It is ok if you disagree, say terrible things about what I said, or just mock me...I am more interested in finding new ways to approach this currently. Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090409/31bcee26/attachment.htm From proudsavage at gmail.com Thu Apr 9 15:34:52 2009 From: proudsavage at gmail.com (stephen davis) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:34:52 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] a question. Message-ID: <9b5963440904091334o1e828aa7v38e1d01bee2e4df1@mail.gmail.com> i know that there was some discussion of a database where debate jobs are indexed earlier in the year but i cant seem to find it. if anyone that knows this information or has any other information regarding open positions could please back channel me it would be greatly appreciated. -- Stephen M. Davis Debate Coach 412-480-2391 proudsavage at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090409/6ad40796/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Thu Apr 9 15:47:52 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:47:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] a question. In-Reply-To: <9b5963440904091334o1e828aa7v38e1d01bee2e4df1@mail.gmail.com> References: <9b5963440904091334o1e828aa7v38e1d01bee2e4df1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: This is the link I like to rep up, courtesy of the University of Wyoming: http://www.debatecooperative.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=15b84d3db0547bbf47cff04bffc6a501&f=45 Also, if you play with search terms at higherjobs.com you can find some interesting things.... OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:34:52 -0400 From: proudsavage at gmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] a question. i know that there was some discussion of a database where debate jobs are indexed earlier in the year but i cant seem to find it. if anyone that knows this information or has any other information regarding open positions could please back channel me it would be greatly appreciated. -- Stephen M. Davis Debate Coach 412-480-2391 proudsavage at gmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail?. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=TXT_MSGTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090409/fff90f7f/attachment.htm From hammon69 at msu.edu Thu Apr 9 16:05:31 2009 From: hammon69 at msu.edu (hammon69 at msu.edu) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:05:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Hire at the TOC Message-ID: <20090409170531.15911bul6jglzmsb@mail.msu.edu> If any team is in need of extra help at the TOC I am available to cut strategies and judge.? I debated for 4 years at Michigan State University, coached Pine Crest Highschool for the year, and will be employed as a lab leader at the SDI for the summer.? I can work on any variety of arguments.? Pay is negotiable.? Email me at hammon69 at msu.edu[1] if interested. Links: ------ [1] mailto:hammon69 at msu.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090409/49af5a50/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Apr 9 18:19:37 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:19:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? (More Kuswa-Lacy Stuff) In-Reply-To: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C5@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C5@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <49DE8289.3020007@wfu.edu> 1. I'm not sure where this gets you. If the phrase "X agent should" encourages us to speak as an external institution, then where does that leave the "non-USFG" agent project? With agent less topics? 2. This is only a "double turn" in your mind. To find it persuasive you would have to believe: The statement "The USFG should" is speaking as an external institution. & That speaking as "The USFG" is no different from speaking as "Iraq, Israel, Turkey..." 1. I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should" somehow declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves. Maybe I need a better explanation. 2. I also think the statement "The US Should" is qualitatively different from "another country should." Hypothetical: Next year's topic is Russia. Which of the following is more hegemonic? Which most closely replicates American unilateralism? A group of mostly American students who say "The US should stop pursuing missile defense, because it scares Russia." or A group of mostly American students who say "We think Russia should stop worrying about US missile defense." The second statement is more akin to the style with which the US made decisions about Rwanda than the first: "We think Rwandans should stop fighting, that, or someone else should try to do something." Its easy for Americans to walk around the world thinking they can shed their nationality and all its baggage, imagining themselves part of some cosmopolitan a-national ideal. Its harder to own your nationality. I think we should. Imagine yourself walking around the Hiroshima memorial saying "I am not the same thing as America, I am a debater. I am not the USFG. Don't blame me." Can you really imagine making those statements to someone whose family suffered in that attack? --JP Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > Thanks for continuing the conversation, JP, even though it is not gong too well for you. Two quick points before going to teach, > > 1. JP says that "USFG should" and "we think that the USFG should" are the same. hahaha. really? > > 2. JP says that America should stop speaking for the rest of the world. > > This is a double-turn----in number one, the two statements are not the same because one encourages debaters (who are not the same as "America," no matter how many times JP says it) to speak AS an external instituition and one does not. > > In other words, JP is going for a giant double-turn. His position boils down to: "use the usfg because we all know we are not the usfg, but we'd like to pretend...in order to stop the sentiment that allows the US to speak for the rest of the world (and let genocide go on without acting)." NONSENSE. > > the Iraq example was absurd and turned by a blind faith in patriotism (or ignoring patriotism as opinion) and now the Rwanda example provides the impact to continuing to advocate imperial reform. > > kevin > > ________________________________________ > From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:13 AM > To: Kuswa, Kevin > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? > > Most important question of mine: > > What is the difference between these topics: > > "The USFG should..." > & > "We think the USFG should..." > > Once we all grasp the obvious that the debaters are not actually the > USFG, how do these topics lead to different debates & different > conclusions? > > I understand that the USFG is not the be all end all to every problem, > but what about when it is the primary problem? > > Iraq is my primary example. That example was a response to the argument > that "We can't address important issues because we focus on the USFG." > > My question was, and still is, "How can we address an important issue > like Iraq without arguing about US policy there?" You've listed others > with a perspective on the issue, but I'm pretty sure all of them would > advocate that the US change its Iraq policy. > > If you want to shed responsibility for having an opinion about our Iraq > policy, you can. But, that "no opinion" vote has consequences for > everyone. If you really want to claim "we" are not at war, you can. > > --JP > > ps -- Your Rwanda arguments are off base. I never advocated > intervention, I advocated a change from the policy we made (thanks for > the mind reading.) Yes, its easy to second guess. Your evidence suggests > the same. Plus, your evidence replicates the same good old American > style of speaking for the world, also repeated by the US , by blaming > the French for failed intervention when we could have done something > else entirely than rely on more military intervention. > > > pps -- What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the > USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the > advantages? So far, you've read some links... > > WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy > , and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. > > > > > Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > >> answers below. jp is starting to make some fairly horrific claims.... >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:12 PM >> To: Kuswa, Kevin >> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >> >> Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice. >> >> EXACTLY. >> >> In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States." >> >> WHAT? That is quite a jump. Is this a proposed resolution? There are students debating who are not US citizens, not to mention all the problems associated with personifying the nation-state and imaging that "it" makes single-minded decisions. >> >> I said "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to >> war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war >> unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one >> we bear responsibility for. >> >> RESPONSIBILITY is not an entity that holds equally across the nation, although, yes, there is an element of complicity in all of us that warrants examining. Would a debate topic that positions debaters as the USFG promote that discussion? Maybe...but not as well as a topic that actually used the "we" pronoun as Tuna suggests or a topic that allowed for a topical avenue for reflection (passive). >> >> That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad >> reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but >> that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in >> history. >> >> WAR is tragic for many reasons beyond the fact that governments can act in violent ways in the name of "the people." Yes, spectatorship without acknowledgement is a terrible arrangement, but this is not a reason to debate every year under the usfg umbrella. >> >> Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the >> United States should do. >> >> OF COURSE--no shit, actually. Having an opinion about the USFG and its policies is crucial--more than crucial--but as debaters we can do that without making the affirmative (or asking the affirmative to) pretend to be an agent that they are not every year. Do not confuse an attempt to diversify the kind of topics we debate with some unattainable argument arena devoid of any consideration of USFG policy. Don't worry, the usfg is not going away and our fixation on federal policy will not go away even if the topic is slightly distinct. What will change with some topic diversity, though, is the inability to think outside governmental action when advocating the resolution and the realization that very good debate is still possible without the standard formula we have adopted for the last decade. >> >> Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people >> don't adequately voice their opinions. >> >> "PEOPLE" meaning what individuals exactly in the above sentence? I guess on one level everything is about the opinions of various subject-positions, but someone has internalized the politics DA in perhaps a delusional moment of Rorty-itis. The Iraq War should not be reduced to a lack of expression or some failure in the collective American voice. Trying to express opinions about the war is exactly what justified the first Iraq War through the yellow-ribbon campaign. Patriotism can work in insidious ways, including a co-option of opinions that might be "against the war" but can easily be shifted to "support our troops." >> >> "WE" may have believed this monolithic USFG being constituted here (and in our topics) about the location of weapons of mass destruction PRECISELY BECAUSE "we" wanted to express our outrage over the existence of such weapons in the hands of a rogue leader. See what the expression of opinion can yield? >> >> It is true that debaters are not the USFG. >> >> YOUR arguments do not follow your willingness to admit that debaters are not the usfg. Also, does that mean that an agent that IS the usfg automatically forces an externalization of the agency you confer on the "we"? >> >> But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes >> bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form >> concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we >> argue about them? >> >> WE should, we do, and we will. Does this mean the resolution should be constructed in the same way year after year? Could we not express our arguments about the USFG without having to defend it as somehow separate from the debaters? In other words, what about switch-side debate? Can the negative defend the externalization of agency into the USFG? >> >> How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq? >> (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example >> of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.) >> >> THIS is not hard to answer at all and the fact you have asked the question in the first place in quite scary. The first answer is provided by your comment earlier in the discussion that the opinions of people might matter. The second answer is a turn: "We" already did this with the concept of "constructive engagement." Moving away from the USFG in this specific context would allow for alternatives to government binaries between diplomacy and sanctions (between negotiation and war). There are a HUGE number of agents (this is number 3) that would be productive to debate in the Iraq context--Iraq (duh), Israel, the UN, social movements, passive voice, Kurdistan, Turkey, al queda, we, this house, Iran, Russia, etc. >> >> If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could >> eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some >> topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are >> those topics compared to what we are missing?) >> >> WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy, and the lis >> >> t goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. >> >> kevin >> >> --JP >> >> My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of >> American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of >> American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone >> else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that >> left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide. >> >> WOW JP--this is brought on by your own inability to see that "we" is NOT always America. This last little stab at "sitting back in the face of suffering" that uses Rwanda is EXACTLY WHY YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL--you think you are actually contributing to the formation of governmental policy so you ignore all of the horrors happening in front of your own door, your own eyes, you own world. Arlee found this evidence, but it adds weight to the turn and shows why your assumption about American exceptionalism IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ESSENCE OF AMERICAN SUPERIORITY--that there is no alterantive to US action. Thus, when genocide is ignored by the government, folks like you have nothing left in the arsenal except a weak gesture to public opinion and the public sphere--the same opinion that solidifies the "bystanding syndrome." jeeesh. >> >> ARLEE--thanks for the card. >> >> Genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda are not the result of too little imperial western intervention but on the contrary are the result of such intervention. >> >> Charlie Kimber2004, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=538 "How West intervened and fuelled genocide" >> >> GENOCIDE IS an overused word, but ten years ago it took place in the tiny African country of Rwanda. Throughout 100 days between 800,000 and one million people were murdered in a country of just six million. The media coverage remembering these events conveys the horror. But much of it also accepts two arguments. The first is that there was something inexplicable about what occurred-or that perhaps this is something uniquely "African". >> >> The second argument is that Rwanda shows that sometimes the great powers need to go in to sort out the world. It is put forward as the key example of what could have been "good" humanitarian military intervention. And if it would have been right to go in then, there will be examples when it is right to send troops elsewhere. The claim is apparently made stronger because the United Nations (UN) and the US did deliberately ignore genocide in 1994. >> >> As the killing began the UN reduced its peacekeeping force by 90 percent to just 270 troops. Far from questioning what was done, Madeleine Albright, the US ambassador to the UN, wanted the whole lot out. But calls for military force in such circumstances, however well meant, ignore the fact that Rwanda's agony was not a result of too little intervention. It was precisely the product of 100 years of brutal intervention by colonial and imperialist forces. >> >> Colonialism sharply separated groups of people in Rwanda-Hutus and Tutsis-and set them against each other. Modern-day capitalism set the conditions for a million dead. >> >> As in so many other places suffering from an imperial legacy-such as Ireland, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia-the great powers use divide and rule and then throw up their hands in mock horror at the conflict they have created. Military action in 1994 could only have been carried out directly by the great powers, or with their support through the UN Security Council, or by some regional superpower. >> >> Yet these people had prepared the way for the genocide, armed those who carried it out and defended them even as the killings took place. France, Belgium, the US, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt intervened in 1992-4 and made the situation worse. Without them the massacres could never have happened. In 1990 the brutal Rwandan government only survived because of military support from the French and Belgians. >> >> This allowed the government to believe that no matter what horrors it carried out the French would go along with it. It was like giving brandy bottles to an alcoholic. Then the European powers watched as the Rwandan regime developed a system of local militias (the interahamwe) in order to create a murder machine. Throughout 1993 more and more of the Rwandan population were armed. Many of the arms were "low-tech weapons" like studded clubs, knives and spears. There were machetes from China and Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Egypt secured a $6 million contract with Rwanda to supply arms, guaranteed by a French bank. Apartheid South Africa supplied $5.9 million of weaponry. >> >> The US wanted to curb French influence in central Africa. So it stoked the conflict from the opposite side by channelling weapons to the exiled opposition forces invading from Uganda. The French government continued to supply arms to the Rwandan regime even after the murders began in 1994. >> >> In June, two months after the killings began, the French launched a military intervention. "Operation Turquoise", backed by the UN, involved 2,500 men. The government's retreating forces, which had carried out the killings, welcomed the French troops. >> >> French soldiers and government officials drove around Rwanda with enormous French flags displayed on their vehicles. On seeing them, desperate Tutsis would come out of hiding only to be killed by Hutu militias while the French did nothing. >> >> Military intervention is never carried out by an abstract "force for good". It is done, or not done, by the strong for their own agenda. That is what happened in 1994. "Useful" intervention would have been cancellation of Rwanda's debt, withdrawal of all support for the government, encouragement to democratic forces, an end to arms sales, aid for the impoverished, help to combat AIDS-and it should have started well before 1994. >> These are the sort of measures needed in Rwanda and every other similar case, not more soldiers. >> >> >> Kuswa, Kevin wrote: >> >> >>> "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. >>> >>> The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you? >>> >>> Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? >>> >>> This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... >>> >>> kevin >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM >>> To: scottelliott at grandecom.net >>> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >>> >>> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in >>> Iraq. >>> >>> How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? >>> >>> --JP >>> >>> >>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror >>>> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I >>>> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community >>>> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding >>>> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of >>>> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> Quoting JP Lacy : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >>>>> >>>>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >>>>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >>>>> deregulation of financial institutions. >>>>> >>>>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >>>>> are very relevant to our daily lives. >>>>> >>>>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >>>>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >>>>> >>>>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >>>>> >>>>> --JP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>>>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> do that any time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>>>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> more >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>>>>> alternative resolutions. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>>>>> debate" for the >>>>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>>>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>>>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>>>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> debate." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>>>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> more >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> evidence and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> battle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> finals at >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> In a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> best. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> more >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> representative of what we do. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> as >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> we >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>>>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> we >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> been in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> really >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> rounds of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> use >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> some >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> middle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> America. A >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (at >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> almost >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>>>>> >>>>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> love >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> becomes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> agent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> etc.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> unless >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> China and India get on board) >>>>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>>>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>>>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>>>>> 5) Postmodernism; >>>>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>>>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>>>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>>>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>>>>> >>>>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> framing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>>>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (or >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> analysis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> world in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>>>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>>>>> policymaking. >>>>>> >>>>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> space to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>>>>> >>>>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> blah >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> blah. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> substanitally >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> curtailed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>>>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> should be >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> eDebate mailing list >>>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Apr 9 19:27:05 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:27:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? (More Kuswa-Lacy Stuff) In-Reply-To: <49DE8289.3020007@wfu.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C5@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> <49DE8289.3020007@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904091727y5886d532s7825ef872377d7c1@mail.gmail.com> Sometimes though you can convince someone that they are just the bad part of the usfg with a little masking and deception thown in to explain the good away, and then they stand at the memorial and scream at the other americans about their collective complicity, as if each person did not have a unique historical interaction that brought them to the memorial. On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:19 PM, JP Lacy wrote: > 1. I'm not sure where this gets you. If the phrase "X agent should" > encourages us to speak as an external institution, then where does that > leave the "non-USFG" agent project? With agent less topics? > > 2. This is only a "double turn" in your mind. To find it persuasive you > would have to believe: > > The statement "The USFG should" is speaking as an external > institution. > > & That speaking as "The USFG" is no different from speaking as > "Iraq, Israel, Turkey..." > > > 1. I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should" somehow > declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves. > Maybe I need a better explanation. > > 2. I also think the statement "The US Should" is qualitatively different > from "another country should." > > Hypothetical: Next year's topic is Russia. Which of the following is > more hegemonic? Which most closely replicates American unilateralism? > > A group of mostly American students who say "The US should stop pursuing > missile defense, because it scares Russia." > > or > > A group of mostly American students who say "We think Russia should stop > worrying about US missile defense." > > > The second statement is more akin to the style with which the US made > decisions about Rwanda than the first: "We think Rwandans should stop > fighting, that, or someone else should try to do something." > > Its easy for Americans to walk around the world thinking they can shed > their nationality and all its baggage, imagining themselves part of some > cosmopolitan a-national ideal. Its harder to own your nationality. I > think we should. Imagine yourself walking around the Hiroshima memorial > saying "I am not the same thing as America, I am a debater. I am not the > USFG. Don't blame me." Can you really imagine making those statements to > someone whose family suffered in that attack? > > --JP > > > > > > > Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > > Thanks for continuing the conversation, JP, even though it is not gong > too well for you. Two quick points before going to teach, > > > > 1. JP says that "USFG should" and "we think that the USFG should" are the > same. hahaha. really? > > > > 2. JP says that America should stop speaking for the rest of the world. > > > > This is a double-turn----in number one, the two statements are not the > same because one encourages debaters (who are not the same as "America," no > matter how many times JP says it) to speak AS an external instituition and > one does not. > > > > In other words, JP is going for a giant double-turn. His position boils > down to: "use the usfg because we all know we are not the usfg, but we'd > like to pretend...in order to stop the sentiment that allows the US to speak > for the rest of the world (and let genocide go on without acting)." > NONSENSE. > > > > the Iraq example was absurd and turned by a blind faith in patriotism (or > ignoring patriotism as opinion) and now the Rwanda example provides the > impact to continuing to advocate imperial reform. > > > > kevin > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] > > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:13 AM > > To: Kuswa, Kevin > > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? > > > > Most important question of mine: > > > > What is the difference between these topics: > > > > "The USFG should..." > > & > > "We think the USFG should..." > > > > Once we all grasp the obvious that the debaters are not actually the > > USFG, how do these topics lead to different debates & different > > conclusions? > > > > I understand that the USFG is not the be all end all to every problem, > > but what about when it is the primary problem? > > > > Iraq is my primary example. That example was a response to the argument > > that "We can't address important issues because we focus on the USFG." > > > > My question was, and still is, "How can we address an important issue > > like Iraq without arguing about US policy there?" You've listed others > > with a perspective on the issue, but I'm pretty sure all of them would > > advocate that the US change its Iraq policy. > > > > If you want to shed responsibility for having an opinion about our Iraq > > policy, you can. But, that "no opinion" vote has consequences for > > everyone. If you really want to claim "we" are not at war, you can. > > > > --JP > > > > ps -- Your Rwanda arguments are off base. I never advocated > > intervention, I advocated a change from the policy we made (thanks for > > the mind reading.) Yes, its easy to second guess. Your evidence suggests > > the same. Plus, your evidence replicates the same good old American > > style of speaking for the world, also repeated by the US , by blaming > > the French for failed intervention when we could have done something > > else entirely than rely on more military intervention. > > > > > > pps -- What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the > > USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the > > advantages? So far, you've read some links... > > > > WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and > of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This > unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does > not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of > elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates > about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills > in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, > understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that > are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local > government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement > organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the > critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording > has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for > critical advocacy > > , and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are > components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a > season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground > for the season. > > > > > > > > > > Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > > > >> answers below. jp is starting to make some fairly horrific claims.... > >> > >> ________________________________________ > >> From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:12 PM > >> To: Kuswa, Kevin > >> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? > >> > >> Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice. > >> > >> EXACTLY. > >> > >> In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States." > >> > >> WHAT? That is quite a jump. Is this a proposed resolution? There are > students debating who are not US citizens, not to mention all the problems > associated with personifying the nation-state and imaging that "it" makes > single-minded decisions. > >> > >> I said "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to > >> war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war > >> unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one > >> we bear responsibility for. > >> > >> RESPONSIBILITY is not an entity that holds equally across the nation, > although, yes, there is an element of complicity in all of us that warrants > examining. Would a debate topic that positions debaters as the USFG promote > that discussion? Maybe...but not as well as a topic that actually used the > "we" pronoun as Tuna suggests or a topic that allowed for a topical avenue > for reflection (passive). > >> > >> That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad > >> reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but > >> that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in > >> history. > >> > >> WAR is tragic for many reasons beyond the fact that governments can act > in violent ways in the name of "the people." Yes, spectatorship without > acknowledgement is a terrible arrangement, but this is not a reason to > debate every year under the usfg umbrella. > >> > > >> Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the > >> United States should do. > >> > >> OF COURSE--no shit, actually. Having an opinion about the USFG and its > policies is crucial--more than crucial--but as debaters we can do that > without making the affirmative (or asking the affirmative to) pretend to be > an agent that they are not every year. Do not confuse an attempt to > diversify the kind of topics we debate with some unattainable argument arena > devoid of any consideration of USFG policy. Don't worry, the usfg is not > going away and our fixation on federal policy will not go away even if the > topic is slightly distinct. What will change with some topic diversity, > though, is the inability to think outside governmental action when > advocating the resolution and the realization that very good debate is still > possible without the standard formula we have adopted for the last decade. > >> > >> Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people > >> don't adequately voice their opinions. > >> > >> "PEOPLE" meaning what individuals exactly in the above sentence? I > guess on one level everything is about the opinions of various > subject-positions, but someone has internalized the politics DA in perhaps a > delusional moment of Rorty-itis. The Iraq War should not be reduced to a > lack of expression or some failure in the collective American voice. Trying > to express opinions about the war is exactly what justified the first Iraq > War through the yellow-ribbon campaign. Patriotism can work in insidious > ways, including a co-option of opinions that might be "against the war" but > can easily be shifted to "support our troops." > >> > >> "WE" may have believed this monolithic USFG being constituted here (and > in our topics) about the location of weapons of mass destruction PRECISELY > BECAUSE "we" wanted to express our outrage over the existence of such > weapons in the hands of a rogue leader. See what the expression of opinion > can yield? > >> > >> It is true that debaters are not the USFG. > >> > >> YOUR arguments do not follow your willingness to admit that debaters are > not the usfg. Also, does that mean that an agent that IS the usfg > automatically forces an externalization of the agency you confer on the > "we"? > >> > >> But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes > >> bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form > >> concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we > >> argue about them? > >> > >> WE should, we do, and we will. Does this mean the resolution should be > constructed in the same way year after year? Could we not express our > arguments about the USFG without having to defend it as somehow separate > from the debaters? In other words, what about switch-side debate? Can the > negative defend the externalization of agency into the USFG? > >> > >> How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq? > >> (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example > >> of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.) > >> > >> THIS is not hard to answer at all and the fact you have asked the > question in the first place in quite scary. The first answer is provided by > your comment earlier in the discussion that the opinions of people might > matter. The second answer is a turn: "We" already did this with the > concept of "constructive engagement." Moving away from the USFG in this > specific context would allow for alternatives to government binaries between > diplomacy and sanctions (between negotiation and war). There are a HUGE > number of agents (this is number 3) that would be productive to debate in > the Iraq context--Iraq (duh), Israel, the UN, social movements, passive > voice, Kurdistan, Turkey, al queda, we, this house, Iran, Russia, etc. > >> > >> If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could > >> eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some > >> topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are > >> those topics compared to what we are missing?) > >> > >> WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and > of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This > unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does > not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of > elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates > about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills > in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, > understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that > are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local > government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement > organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the > critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording > has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for > critical advocacy, and the l > is > >> > >> t goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that > the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of > pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. > >> > >> kevin > >> > >> --JP > >> > >> My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of > >> American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of > >> American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone > >> else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that > >> left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide. > >> > >> WOW JP--this is brought on by your own inability to see that "we" is NOT > always America. This last little stab at "sitting back in the face of > suffering" that uses Rwanda is EXACTLY WHY YOUR adherence to the USFG is > GENOCIDAL--you think you are actually contributing to the formation of > governmental policy so you ignore all of the horrors happening in front of > your own door, your own eyes, you own world. Arlee found this evidence, but > it adds weight to the turn and shows why your assumption about American > exceptionalism IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ESSENCE OF AMERICAN > SUPERIORITY--that there is no alterantive to US action. Thus, when genocide > is ignored by the government, folks like you have nothing left in the > arsenal except a weak gesture to public opinion and the public sphere--the > same opinion that solidifies the "bystanding syndrome." jeeesh. > >> > >> ARLEE--thanks for the card. > >> > >> Genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda are not the result of too > little imperial western intervention but on the contrary are the result of > such intervention. > >> > >> Charlie Kimber2004, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=538"How West intervened and fuelled genocide" > >> > >> GENOCIDE IS an overused word, but ten years ago it took place in the > tiny African country of Rwanda. Throughout 100 days between 800,000 and one > million people were murdered in a country of just six million. The media > coverage remembering these events conveys the horror. But much of it also > accepts two arguments. The first is that there was something inexplicable > about what occurred-or that perhaps this is something uniquely "African". > >> > >> The second argument is that Rwanda shows that sometimes the great powers > need to go in to sort out the world. It is put forward as the key example of > what could have been "good" humanitarian military intervention. And if it > would have been right to go in then, there will be examples when it is right > to send troops elsewhere. The claim is apparently made stronger because the > United Nations (UN) and the US did deliberately ignore genocide in 1994. > >> > >> As the killing began the UN reduced its peacekeeping force by 90 percent > to just 270 troops. Far from questioning what was done, Madeleine Albright, > the US ambassador to the UN, wanted the whole lot out. But calls for > military force in such circumstances, however well meant, ignore the fact > that Rwanda's agony was not a result of too little intervention. It was > precisely the product of 100 years of brutal intervention by colonial and > imperialist forces. > >> > >> Colonialism sharply separated groups of people in Rwanda-Hutus and > Tutsis-and set them against each other. Modern-day capitalism set the > conditions for a million dead. > >> > >> As in so many other places suffering from an imperial legacy-such as > Ireland, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia-the great powers use > divide and rule and then throw up their hands in mock horror at the conflict > they have created. Military action in 1994 could only have been carried out > directly by the great powers, or with their support through the UN Security > Council, or by some regional superpower. > >> > >> Yet these people had prepared the way for the genocide, armed those who > carried it out and defended them even as the killings took place. France, > Belgium, the US, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt intervened in 1992-4 > and made the situation worse. Without them the massacres could never have > happened. In 1990 the brutal Rwandan government only survived because of > military support from the French and Belgians. > >> > >> This allowed the government to believe that no matter what horrors it > carried out the French would go along with it. It was like giving brandy > bottles to an alcoholic. Then the European powers watched as the Rwandan > regime developed a system of local militias (the interahamwe) in order to > create a murder machine. Throughout 1993 more and more of the Rwandan > population were armed. Many of the arms were "low-tech weapons" like studded > clubs, knives and spears. There were machetes from China and Kalashnikov > rifles from Russia. Egypt secured a $6 million contract with Rwanda to > supply arms, guaranteed by a French bank. Apartheid South Africa supplied > $5.9 million of weaponry. > >> > >> The US wanted to curb French influence in central Africa. So it stoked > the conflict from the opposite side by channelling weapons to the exiled > opposition forces invading from Uganda. The French government continued to > supply arms to the Rwandan regime even after the murders began in 1994. > >> > >> In June, two months after the killings began, the French launched a > military intervention. "Operation Turquoise", backed by the UN, involved > 2,500 men. The government's retreating forces, which had carried out the > killings, welcomed the French troops. > >> > >> French soldiers and government officials drove around Rwanda with > enormous French flags displayed on their vehicles. On seeing them, desperate > Tutsis would come out of hiding only to be killed by Hutu militias while the > French did nothing. > >> > >> Military intervention is never carried out by an abstract "force for > good". It is done, or not done, by the strong for their own agenda. That is > what happened in 1994. "Useful" intervention would have been cancellation of > Rwanda's debt, withdrawal of all support for the government, encouragement > to democratic forces, an end to arms sales, aid for the impoverished, help > to combat AIDS-and it should have started well before 1994. > >> These are the sort of measures needed in Rwanda and every other similar > case, not more soldiers. > >> > >> > >> Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > >> > >> > >>> "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. > >>> > >>> The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that > in kritiking 101, didn't you? > >>> > >>> Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT > Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? > >>> > >>> This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... > >>> > >>> kevin > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] > On Behalf Of JP Lacy > >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM > >>> To: scottelliott at grandecom.net > >>> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? > >>> > >>> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in > >>> Iraq. > >>> > >>> How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? > >>> > >>> --JP > >>> > >>> > >>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on > Terror > >>>> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit > that I > >>>> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate > community > >>>> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are > avoiding > >>>> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the > mentality of > >>>> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of > deeper > >>>> issues. > >>>> > >>>> Scott > >>>> > >>>> Quoting JP Lacy : > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? > >>>>> > >>>>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could > have > >>>>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & > >>>>> deregulation of financial institutions. > >>>>> > >>>>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes > that > >>>>> are very relevant to our daily lives. > >>>>> > >>>>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the > Iraq > >>>>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. > >>>>> > >>>>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? > >>>>> > >>>>> --JP > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining > about > >>>>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this > post. I > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> can > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> do that any time. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy > debate," and > >>>>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This > would 1) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> more > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility > for > >>>>>> alternative resolutions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college > "policy > >>>>>> debate" for the > >>>>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic > changes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> in > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I > swear > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> that > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional > S.H.I.T.S. > >>>>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The > movement > >>>>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to > topicality (and > >>>>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term > "policy > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> debate." > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to > address > >>>>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are > nothing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> more > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> evidence and > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the > requirement that > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> the > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a > losing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> battle > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that > were > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> finals at > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not > there). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> In a > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a > misnomer at > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> best. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive > debate is > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> more > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> representative of what we do. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT > debate > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> as > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa > 1976, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> we > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate > resolutions > >>>>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on > parades), > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> we > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. > Having > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> been in > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. > But, I > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> really > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge > 200 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> rounds of > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires > us to > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> use > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up > doing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> some > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, > the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> middle > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and > Latin > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> America. A > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was > covered > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> (at > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. > So, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> almost > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I > would > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> love > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up > with > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> becomes > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy > debate, and > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> policy > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why > a USFG > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> agent > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, > CBW's > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> etc.) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a > failure > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> unless > > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> China and India get on board) > >>>>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of > the > >>>>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) > >>>>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) > >>>>>> 5) Postmodernism; > >>>>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human > world. > >>>>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) > >>>>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; > >>>>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current > method of > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> framing > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact > issues our > >>>>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in > Russia > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> (or > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> analysis > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing > a > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> world in > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot > policy just > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> is > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more > service > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> to > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global > issues > >>>>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of > USFG > >>>>>> policymaking. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up > the > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> space to > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than > what we > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> can > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, > blah, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> blah > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, > blah > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> blah. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> substanitally > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> curtailed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially > reduce > >>>>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation > regimes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> should be > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is > desirable. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Scott > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> eDebate mailing list > >>>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >>>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> eDebate mailing list > >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090409/9da0a30c/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Fri Apr 10 00:28:22 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:28:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? (More Kuswa-Lacy Stuff) In-Reply-To: <49DE8289.3020007@wfu.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C5@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DE8289.3020007@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2DF@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Ok, at some point it's going to be better to pull back than to repeat. not quite there yet, but close. for the general outline of a non-usfg approach as well as a number of other ways to contemplate topic wordings with some variety, there is a detailed post here: http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=node/381 more specifics below...but first, Hey, JP, What are you planning on doing tomorrow? Better, yet, JP, what should you do tomorrow? Potential answers: A) stopping the war in afghanistan B) funding stem cell research C) researching some cards about poverty D) typing stuff on edebate E) dusting-off the graduate school folders and sending some stuff off to the committee Next question: "What should the usfg do tomorrow?" Same potential answers: A) stopping the war in afghanistan B) funding stem cell research C) researching some cards about poverty D) typing stuff on edebate E) dusting-off the graduate school folders and sending some stuff off to the committee Obviously the best debates would be ones involving these agents and answers: Resolved: JP Lacy should stop the war in Afghanistan. Resolved: The USFG should cut some cards on the poverty topic. more specifics below.... ________________________________________ From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:19 PM 1. I'm not sure where this gets you. If the phrase "X agent should" encourages us to speak as an external institution, then where does that leave the "non-USFG" agent project? With agent less topics? YOU ARE NOT AGENT-LESS. This is an INCREDIBLE MANIFESTATION OF THE FETISHIZATION AND CULT OF THE USFG AGENT. You really believe that NOT using the USFG dooms us to "agent-less" debates? We have had non-usfg topics before with great success. We can try some diversity once in a while given that debate is an academic competition with some level of creativity required. It is great to debate external institutions every so often---but there are lots of external institutions to select from other than the USFG and there are also ways to incorporate internal agents on the affirmative as well. IF ONLY to convince you and others that "agency" is possible in debate rounds on the affirmative outside the usfg, we should give it a shot. 2. This is only a "double turn" in your mind. To find it persuasive you would have to believe: The statement "The USFG should" is speaking as an external institution. & That speaking as "The USFG" is no different from speaking as "Iraq, Israel, Turkey..." The double-turn does not rely on finding the statements above persuasive. You argue that "speaking for others" is one way american exceptionalism becomes violent and then you argue that we should speak for the USFG. On top of that you argue that debaters are somehow all Americans and that debaters have the responsibility to debate as if they were Americans--except somehow externalized as a giant "We" in the sky. Besides, the statements you use above are tricks. The first one is not accurate because it does not have the "resolved" in front of it. Sure, any of us can (and should) talk about what the usfg should do. That is important. Assuming that a debater saying "this is what the usfg should do" is equivalent to a factual statement advoacting that the USFG take a particular action is not a safe assumption. You have conveniently included the debater's agency, but only as a vehicle to speak the abstract external agent into being. The USFG is no different from other federal governments in terms of the external nature of its agency in the context of a debate round. There are, of course, many other differences between all of the agents mentioned. I do not think, though, that you should presume such an American-centric view of agency in the University, let alone debate. If we cannot debate outside the civic institution that you believe "we" best fall under, we are never going to contribute to any larger sense of democracy or critical thinking (instead we become parrots). Can we not entertain the possibility that some debaters (perhaps all debaters at given times) are not citizens of the US, do not consider themselves Americans, believe that such perspectives can be debated on the negative if necessary, or have adherence to a radically universal or radically localized identity, are against gesturing to the USFG within a certain topic area, etc.? Are these all possibilities you are willing to exclude year after year after year on the affirmative? 1. I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should..." somehow declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves. Maybe I need a better explanation. MAYBE you need to simplify it? "As-if" vs. "not as if." What counterplans are typically available when you say R: the USFG should? States, maybe Executive Order, maybe a different country or consulting a different country? All of these are macro-institutions that no single speaker can claim to fully "be"--there is always a hypothetical, an imaginary, an "as-if." If the resolution is "R: debaters should...," the typical counterplans would be very different and WOULD NOT ALL HAVE THE "AS-IF" ELEMENT. 2. I also think the statement "The US Should" is qualitatively different from "another country should." Hypothetical: Next year's topic is Russia. Which of the following is more hegemonic? Which most closely replicates American unilateralism? A group of mostly American students who say "The US should stop pursuing missile defense, because it scares Russia." or A group of mostly American students who say "We think Russia should stop worrying about US missile defense." THIS EXAMPLE IS A BAD SET-UP that you yourself have linked to genocide. It is hard to believe that this is how you are visualizing the choices. Equating the debate community with "A group of mostly American students" has its own serious problems including the attempt to speak with one voice, but we'll bracket that for a rainy day. More important for our current discussion is the part where you write "who say...." Who are these students talking to? Each other? Judges? Russian officials? News reporters? Russian students? A combination? Come on, JP, you know this kind of audience analysis is necessary when talking about advocacy, agency, and debate. Do not forget to ask, "To what audience?" The answer to that question changes all of the assumptions you are making. if these students are talking to Putin it is very different than talking to a debate judge. Ideally, students would be able to say both of those statements. You ahe excluded the very possibility of the second statement because you are so convinced by the false righteousness of the first one. SECONDLY, YOU HAVE ADDED A "We think" to further confuse the example. The phrase "Students who say we think the USFG should" is different from "students who say the USFG should." You have excluded the "we think" from your first example and added it to the second example. This makes a difference because the preface "we think" is an attempt to convey an idea or a thought-experiment. Without the "we think," the command over either the USFG or the Russian government would be equally declarative (both would be proclamations or attempts to hail outside influences). When you are asked for a report on the debate program or how to improve the research efforts on the debate team, do you respond with what you think the school should do? THIRDLY, why is "Russia" the opposite of the USFG?---wouldn't you be talking about "America" and "Russia" OR the USFG and the Government of Russia? The equation of a national identity category with a government is very dangerous (see the imperialism in the Rwanda example). Certainly there are problems with the Russian government as the agent that would parallel problems with the USFG (externalizing agency, centering federal governmental structure, etc.), but at least the Russian government as an agent would offer some variety, some educational creativity, some attempt to show that debate is not always based on the actions of the usfg projected on top of an inert world. The argument that "speaking as" Russia in a DEBATE ROUND would mimic American exceptionalism and should therefore force the debaters to debate as if they were the USFG is the most backasswards shitbull ever. Ask anyone from Russia if they would be more intrigued by questions of agency concerning the Russian government or about more ways the US could impose itself on Russia AS A DEBATE TOPIC, and your whole assumption would probably be flipped. The second statement is more akin to the style with which the US made decisions about Rwanda than the first: "We think Rwandans should stop fighting, that, or someone else should try to do something." Again, who are you saying this to? Who is the we? AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU GENOCIDAL ARCHITECT, who the F are "Rwandans"???? Your potential topic replicates that national homogenization that forced the ethnic violence to manifest in the first place. STOP YOURSELF, JP. Each post further exposes your growing micro-fascism...do not let it fully consume you--there is still hope. no shit we should talk about what the usfg should do, but not to the exclusion of everything else on the aff, and not because we have to avoid some sort of debater-identity anxiety. You are on the sofa telling the therapist that you keep seeing giant elephants appear in the room but you cannot seem to touch the elephant or speak to the elephant or even ask the elephant to leave. The therapist says, "stop thinking about the elephant" and you say, "the elephant is telling me that I am not thinking about the elephant." In your world, we stop there because it is somehow polite or courteous to continue listening to something that you have conjured up in the first place. Don't ask the elephant how to stop thinking about it. Start or stop thinking about a giraffe if you have to. The Russian government is not the giraffe, the Russian government is not the giraffe, etc. At some point you might even think outside the fictional world of giant anthropomorphic agents all together. Its easy for Americans to walk around the world thinking they can shed their nationality and all its baggage, imagining themselves part of some cosmopolitan a-national ideal. Its harder to own your nationality. I think we should. Imagine yourself walking around the Hiroshima memorial saying "I am not the same thing as America, I am a debater. I am not the USFG. Don't blame me." Can you really imagine making those statements to someone whose family suffered in that attack? THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH THE IRAQ EXAMPLE (which you have conveniently dropped--including all the arguments about patriotism). Your position is the staging of the Saddam statue being taken down in the green zone. Own your nationality, JP--tell us what you are doing to really own your American-ness. We are waiting in antipication....we want to imporve our nationalities as well. This is not cosmopolitanism and you should stop treating it as such. DEBATE IS NOT ONE NATIONALITY AND DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT "AMERICA" MEANS AT A WAR MEMORIAL YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. JP's thought-process allowed the dropping of the bomb in August of 1945 because the USFG thought some other nation-state might get the bomb first and that killing civilians would be a necessary move to prevent a more bloody conflict in the Pacific. The Hiroshima memorial is about guilt-aversion for the collective conscience, not an act of national redemption. In fact, a BETTER way to understand "our" nationality would be to diversity the ways we conceive of agency when we debate. That turns all of your arguments over the long term because we debate different topics every year--if the USFG is too awesome to let go, we can return to the hive for future resolutions. We do not have to give up on ever debating the USFG just because we have one year that is a little different. It is a alot easier for debaters to shed their own location (their own subjectifvity) and pretend to be the USFG than it is for most Americans to shed their national baggage. How many Americans do you think regularly think outside of their national identities to imagine international institutions taking particular actions? When talking about what pedagogical approach would be better for debaters, it seems far more important to ask debaters to defend their own location, their own process of identification, their own standpoint than to pretend that they are the USFG every time. Would you march up to the "victims" you somehow "meet at the memorial" and say, "don't worry, the USFG should substantially apologize to one or more of the living members of the geographic area in Japan decimated by one or more weapons of mass destruction."? OR, do you say, "we have been debating about foreign policy and nuclear weapons and i am sorry about your losses, losses that I may have had a role in as a US citizen"? maybe you don't say anything---regardless, your little memorial afterthought scenario is not applicable to a debate topic wording or our questions about agency. OWN YOURSELF SO THAT YOU CAN MEANINGFULLY OWN YOUR OWN NATIONALITY AS WELL AS OTHER MODES OF IDENTIFICATION. Don't ask what the impact is--you have now brought up Iraq, Rwanda, and Hiroshima in ways that turn your own argument. kevin --JP Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > Thanks for continuing the conversation, JP, even though it is not gong too well for you. Two quick points before going to teach, > > 1. JP says that "USFG should" and "we think that the USFG should" are the same. hahaha. really? > > 2. JP says that America should stop speaking for the rest of the world. > > This is a double-turn----in number one, the two statements are not the same because one encourages debaters (who are not the same as "America," no matter how many times JP says it) to speak AS an external instituition and one does not. > > In other words, JP is going for a giant double-turn. His position boils down to: "use the usfg because we all know we are not the usfg, but we'd like to pretend...in order to stop the sentiment that allows the US to speak for the rest of the world (and let genocide go on without acting)." NONSENSE. > > the Iraq example was absurd and turned by a blind faith in patriotism (or ignoring patriotism as opinion) and now the Rwanda example provides the impact to continuing to advocate imperial reform. > > kevin > > ________________________________________ > From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:13 AM > To: Kuswa, Kevin > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? > > Most important question of mine: > > What is the difference between these topics: > > "The USFG should..." > & > "We think the USFG should..." > > Once we all grasp the obvious that the debaters are not actually the > USFG, how do these topics lead to different debates & different > conclusions? > > I understand that the USFG is not the be all end all to every problem, > but what about when it is the primary problem? > > Iraq is my primary example. That example was a response to the argument > that "We can't address important issues because we focus on the USFG." > > My question was, and still is, "How can we address an important issue > like Iraq without arguing about US policy there?" You've listed others > with a perspective on the issue, but I'm pretty sure all of them would > advocate that the US change its Iraq policy. > > If you want to shed responsibility for having an opinion about our Iraq > policy, you can. But, that "no opinion" vote has consequences for > everyone. If you really want to claim "we" are not at war, you can. > > --JP > > ps -- Your Rwanda arguments are off base. I never advocated > intervention, I advocated a change from the policy we made (thanks for > the mind reading.) Yes, its easy to second guess. Your evidence suggests > the same. Plus, your evidence replicates the same good old American > style of speaking for the world, also repeated by the US , by blaming > the French for failed intervention when we could have done something > else entirely than rely on more military intervention. > > > pps -- What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the > USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the > advantages? So far, you've read some links... > > WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy > , and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. > > > > > Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > >> answers below. jp is starting to make some fairly horrific claims.... >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] >> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:12 PM >> To: Kuswa, Kevin >> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >> >> Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice. >> >> EXACTLY. >> >> In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States." >> >> WHAT? That is quite a jump. Is this a proposed resolution? There are students debating who are not US citizens, not to mention all the problems associated with personifying the nation-state and imaging that "it" makes single-minded decisions. >> >> I said "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to >> war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war >> unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one >> we bear responsibility for. >> >> RESPONSIBILITY is not an entity that holds equally across the nation, although, yes, there is an element of complicity in all of us that warrants examining. Would a debate topic that positions debaters as the USFG promote that discussion? Maybe...but not as well as a topic that actually used the "we" pronoun as Tuna suggests or a topic that allowed for a topical avenue for reflection (passive). >> >> That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad >> reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but >> that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in >> history. >> >> WAR is tragic for many reasons beyond the fact that governments can act in violent ways in the name of "the people." Yes, spectatorship without acknowledgement is a terrible arrangement, but this is not a reason to debate every year under the usfg umbrella. >> >> Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the >> United States should do. >> >> OF COURSE--no shit, actually. Having an opinion about the USFG and its policies is crucial--more than crucial--but as debaters we can do that without making the affirmative (or asking the affirmative to) pretend to be an agent that they are not every year. Do not confuse an attempt to diversify the kind of topics we debate with some unattainable argument arena devoid of any consideration of USFG policy. Don't worry, the usfg is not going away and our fixation on federal policy will not go away even if the topic is slightly distinct. What will change with some topic diversity, though, is the inability to think outside governmental action when advocating the resolution and the realization that very good debate is still possible without the standard formula we have adopted for the last decade. >> >> Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people >> don't adequately voice their opinions. >> >> "PEOPLE" meaning what individuals exactly in the above sentence? I guess on one level everything is about the opinions of various subject-positions, but someone has internalized the politics DA in perhaps a delusional moment of Rorty-itis. The Iraq War should not be reduced to a lack of expression or some failure in the collective American voice. Trying to express opinions about the war is exactly what justified the first Iraq War through the yellow-ribbon campaign. Patriotism can work in insidious ways, including a co-option of opinions that might be "against the war" but can easily be shifted to "support our troops." >> >> "WE" may have believed this monolithic USFG being constituted here (and in our topics) about the location of weapons of mass destruction PRECISELY BECAUSE "we" wanted to express our outrage over the existence of such weapons in the hands of a rogue leader. See what the expression of opinion can yield? >> >> It is true that debaters are not the USFG. >> >> YOUR arguments do not follow your willingness to admit that debaters are not the usfg. Also, does that mean that an agent that IS the usfg automatically forces an externalization of the agency you confer on the "we"? >> >> But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes >> bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form >> concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we >> argue about them? >> >> WE should, we do, and we will. Does this mean the resolution should be constructed in the same way year after year? Could we not express our arguments about the USFG without having to defend it as somehow separate from the debaters? In other words, what about switch-side debate? Can the negative defend the externalization of agency into the USFG? >> >> How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq? >> (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example >> of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.) >> >> THIS is not hard to answer at all and the fact you have asked the question in the first place in quite scary. The first answer is provided by your comment earlier in the discussion that the opinions of people might matter. The second answer is a turn: "We" already did this with the concept of "constructive engagement." Moving away from the USFG in this specific context would allow for alternatives to government binaries between diplomacy and sanctions (between negotiation and war). There are a HUGE number of agents (this is number 3) that would be productive to debate in the Iraq context--Iraq (duh), Israel, the UN, social movements, passive voice, Kurdistan, Turkey, al queda, we, this house, Iran, Russia, etc. >> >> If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could >> eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some >> topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are >> those topics compared to what we are missing?) >> >> WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy, and the lis >> >> t goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. >> >> kevin >> >> --JP >> >> My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of >> American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of >> American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone >> else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that >> left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide. >> >> WOW JP--this is brought on by your own inability to see that "we" is NOT always America. This last little stab at "sitting back in the face of suffering" that uses Rwanda is EXACTLY WHY YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL--you think you are actually contributing to the formation of governmental policy so you ignore all of the horrors happening in front of your own door, your own eyes, you own world. Arlee found this evidence, but it adds weight to the turn and shows why your assumption about American exceptionalism IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ESSENCE OF AMERICAN SUPERIORITY--that there is no alterantive to US action. Thus, when genocide is ignored by the government, folks like you have nothing left in the arsenal except a weak gesture to public opinion and the public sphere--the same opinion that solidifies the "bystanding syndrome." jeeesh. >> >> ARLEE--thanks for the card. >> >> Genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda are not the result of too little imperial western intervention but on the contrary are the result of such intervention. >> >> Charlie Kimber2004, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=538 "How West intervened and fuelled genocide" >> >> GENOCIDE IS an overused word, but ten years ago it took place in the tiny African country of Rwanda. Throughout 100 days between 800,000 and one million people were murdered in a country of just six million. The media coverage remembering these events conveys the horror. But much of it also accepts two arguments. The first is that there was something inexplicable about what occurred-or that perhaps this is something uniquely "African". >> >> The second argument is that Rwanda shows that sometimes the great powers need to go in to sort out the world. It is put forward as the key example of what could have been "good" humanitarian military intervention. And if it would have been right to go in then, there will be examples when it is right to send troops elsewhere. The claim is apparently made stronger because the United Nations (UN) and the US did deliberately ignore genocide in 1994. >> >> As the killing began the UN reduced its peacekeeping force by 90 percent to just 270 troops. Far from questioning what was done, Madeleine Albright, the US ambassador to the UN, wanted the whole lot out. But calls for military force in such circumstances, however well meant, ignore the fact that Rwanda's agony was not a result of too little intervention. It was precisely the product of 100 years of brutal intervention by colonial and imperialist forces. >> >> Colonialism sharply separated groups of people in Rwanda-Hutus and Tutsis-and set them against each other. Modern-day capitalism set the conditions for a million dead. >> >> As in so many other places suffering from an imperial legacy-such as Ireland, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia-the great powers use divide and rule and then throw up their hands in mock horror at the conflict they have created. Military action in 1994 could only have been carried out directly by the great powers, or with their support through the UN Security Council, or by some regional superpower. >> >> Yet these people had prepared the way for the genocide, armed those who carried it out and defended them even as the killings took place. France, Belgium, the US, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt intervened in 1992-4 and made the situation worse. Without them the massacres could never have happened. In 1990 the brutal Rwandan government only survived because of military support from the French and Belgians. >> >> This allowed the government to believe that no matter what horrors it carried out the French would go along with it. It was like giving brandy bottles to an alcoholic. Then the European powers watched as the Rwandan regime developed a system of local militias (the interahamwe) in order to create a murder machine. Throughout 1993 more and more of the Rwandan population were armed. Many of the arms were "low-tech weapons" like studded clubs, knives and spears. There were machetes from China and Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Egypt secured a $6 million contract with Rwanda to supply arms, guaranteed by a French bank. Apartheid South Africa supplied $5.9 million of weaponry. >> >> The US wanted to curb French influence in central Africa. So it stoked the conflict from the opposite side by channelling weapons to the exiled opposition forces invading from Uganda. The French government continued to supply arms to the Rwandan regime even after the murders began in 1994. >> >> In June, two months after the killings began, the French launched a military intervention. "Operation Turquoise", backed by the UN, involved 2,500 men. The government's retreating forces, which had carried out the killings, welcomed the French troops. >> >> French soldiers and government officials drove around Rwanda with enormous French flags displayed on their vehicles. On seeing them, desperate Tutsis would come out of hiding only to be killed by Hutu militias while the French did nothing. >> >> Military intervention is never carried out by an abstract "force for good". It is done, or not done, by the strong for their own agenda. That is what happened in 1994. "Useful" intervention would have been cancellation of Rwanda's debt, withdrawal of all support for the government, encouragement to democratic forces, an end to arms sales, aid for the impoverished, help to combat AIDS-and it should have started well before 1994. >> These are the sort of measures needed in Rwanda and every other similar case, not more soldiers. >> >> >> Kuswa, Kevin wrote: >> >> >>> "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. >>> >>> The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you? >>> >>> Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? >>> >>> This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... >>> >>> kevin >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM >>> To: scottelliott at grandecom.net >>> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >>> >>> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in >>> Iraq. >>> >>> How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? >>> >>> --JP >>> >>> >>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror >>>> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I >>>> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community >>>> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding >>>> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of >>>> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> Quoting JP Lacy : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >>>>> >>>>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >>>>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >>>>> deregulation of financial institutions. >>>>> >>>>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >>>>> are very relevant to our daily lives. >>>>> >>>>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >>>>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >>>>> >>>>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >>>>> >>>>> --JP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>>>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> do that any time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>>>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> more >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>>>>> alternative resolutions. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>>>>> debate" for the >>>>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>>>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>>>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>>>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> debate." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>>>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> more >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> evidence and >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> battle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> finals at >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> In a >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> best. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> more >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> representative of what we do. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> as >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> we >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>>>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> we >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> been in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> really >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> rounds of >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> use >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> some >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> middle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> America. A >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (at >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> almost >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>>>>> >>>>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> love >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> becomes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> policy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> agent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> etc.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> unless >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> China and India get on board) >>>>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>>>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>>>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>>>>> 5) Postmodernism; >>>>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>>>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>>>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>>>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>>>>> >>>>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> framing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>>>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> (or >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> analysis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> world in >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>>>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>>>>> policymaking. >>>>>> >>>>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> space to >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>>>>> >>>>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> blah >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> blah. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> substanitally >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> curtailed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>>>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> should be >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>>>>> >>>>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> eDebate mailing list >>>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > From kkuswa at richmond.edu Fri Apr 10 01:15:40 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:15:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The Agent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2E2@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Thanks, Josh. I like this post and its open tone. The recognition that something like "we" might allow everything JP is struggling to maintain is an important one. There are probably other "learning outcomes" to add to the four listed below (being with friends), but those make sense and so does the struggle over what to do when they are in conflict. On the other hand, I don't think the "whatever thing" would have to be a monster (or at least not a bad monster). I am also not sure it would really be "whatever" by the time deabters formulate their arguments. Also, it is still absurd to say that the USFG is a solvency obstacle to non-USFG topics because such a position implies that we can avoid those problems by simply making the USFG the agent. Again, it's like saying, "we have to debate from the perspective of the usfg because if we don't the usfg will not let us act at all." Do not think about a giraffe. kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Josh [jbhdb8 at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:54 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] The Agent Look, I know I am going to get skewered for this...Obviously, I think there are some good reasons for a traditional actor. First, uniqueness, its possible to focus on "WE" and USFG - Obviously I dont entirely agree this is a good thing but whatever On most questions of public policy the USFG is an impediment or necessary partner to creating/maintaining meaningful change. Yes, I realize there is a large debate over local versus national change...about individual vs collective change...about social locations...and of course, many people think "pretending you are the USFG" means you have to be racist and genocidal. I also fully realize that debaters are not literally the government. However, it is possible to debate the social context of how you should/ought be most effective as a social agent and in many areas the USFG is an important part of change that goes from round - to judges and participants - to how we relate to questions of public policy as agents outside of debates. There are also many disadvantages to debate purely about social orientation and locations: First, its very hard to judge or debate against many of these claims. I believe....Stressing the "I"....that debate is about four major things (as currently practiced): A) Learning a rigorous method of testing claims (some have called this the search for the Best Policy Option but this undersells the practice - whatever we are talking about be it "we" or "policy" or comparing "rap albums" debate represents a method of teaching refutation and engagement and a search for relative truth) B) Education on a TOPIC (for many people, including me, I see a HUGE benefit in debating different specific topics because it means we examine and learn from the experts or those most directly connected to a particular subject - IMPORTANT CAVEAT - experts can be singers, people who work in the field, from personal experience, and from personal interviews, my argument is NOT that you only learn from big E experts when you research a topic. C) Exploring your personal relationship to debate. Debate does get better when its cannon is tested by debate. Reflexivity is good. For instance, really many of the criticisms of "traditional debate" are really indicts of the ways we evaluate impacts. It would be great for us to be reflexive about the absurdities of hyper-expressing CBA (lack of plan causes X, X = Nuke war, lack of plan causes Y, Y causes nuclear war, ad infinitim) D) Exploring your personal relationship to your social location and expressing and finding a voice to express your interests and agency. Not only does debate teach a method to determine relative truth it can also be space to be an advocate and equally important a social agent for change. These 4 things often contradict and come into conflict. For instance, debating one particular topic in time would prevent people from advocating and discussing what they personally wish to advocate and perhaps trades off with personal examination and reflexivity about debate qua debate. However, it is also true that purely debating "the whatever beast" carries an incrementally large disadvantage of not 1) Being mutually predictable 2) Being falsifiable through mutually accessible sources of research 3) Allowing a meaninful search for relative truth benefit (in other words choosing option D literally trades off with learning the method of testing relative truth traditional debate represents and also doesnt expose the personal proposal of the affirmative to that form and method of testing relative truth). 3) Creating any meaninful role for the negative (this is rarely discussed even in rounds). 4) Prevents the follow on educational effect (what I mean by this is that while I read about particular debate arguments I distinguish, to some extent, between strategery for debate and things I think about what we should really do to fix the problems a topic represents. In other words, while many affirmatives may err on the side of what is strategic to claim for a debate - my research on the subject of that affirmative has follow on effects. Again, what represents evidence is more malleable then my opponants will represent. I have ALWAYS accepted alternative forms of evidence and ALWAYS accepted logic arguments in the face of stupid arguments in cards. So my conclusion has been that the DAs to "that whatever monster" outweigh the DAs to "traditional topics." This does not mean I am immune to or unconcerned with the criticisms of traditional debate...or unwilling to modify thinking. I think if you read any of my arguments five years ago and then read the above you would have to admit I have shifted my thinking in many ways. Now, in terms of USFG - it seems to me, that the more we move away from a stable universally accessible relationship to an external actor we brook the disadvantages mentioned above plus the disadvantage of the USFG being a literal roadblock to actual/real/meaningful social change in most of the areas our topics would discuss (the JP Lacy DA). I am presenting this more as a starting point for discussion then an attempt to get in the usual fights with a bunch of people I respect but disagree with. It is ok if you disagree, say terrible things about what I said, or just mock me...I am more interested in finding new ways to approach this currently. Josh From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Apr 10 01:41:59 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:41:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Agents Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904092341h105da73kd147cdee62d279e7@mail.gmail.com> The problem to me is not that the usfg is the agent, its that resolutions bind us exclsuivly to public policy literature. It is odd that ceda is a national communication organization whose practice best seems located in political science...topics about policy written from the english department, the philsophy department, te biology department, the cultural studies department etc also make good polciy debates... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090410/f1b401fd/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Apr 10 02:10:56 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 03:10:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? (More Kuswa-Lacy Stuff) In-Reply-To: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2DF@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C5@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DE8289.3020007@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2DF@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <49DEF100.5070300@wfu.edu> You aren't making sense. From the outset, all I have said is this: 1. The USFG is a good agent to debate about because it causes big problems we should discuss. 2. Americans should not distance themselves from the United States, because doing so disaggregates responsibility for US policy. 3. Some topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are those topics compared to what we are doing now? I still can't discern your answers to any of the 3 arguments I made. I made my arguments as someone to be persuaded. So far, you've responded with arguments without reason. You have said the following with no good warrant (Maybe you can link these statements to the arguments I made. You haven't yet.): "JP's thought-process allowed the dropping of the bomb in August of 1945" "YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL" "YOU GENOCIDAL ARCHITECT, who the F are "Rwandans"???" Your response to one of my most important questions was not helpful at all: Question: I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should..." somehow declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves. Answer: MAYBE you need to simplify it? "As-if" vs. "not as if." What counterplans are typically available when you say R: the USFG should? States, maybe Executive Order, maybe a different country or consulting a different country? All of these are macro-institutions that no single speaker can claim to fully "be"--there is always a hypothetical, an imaginary, an "as-if." If the resolution is "R: debaters should...," the typical counterplans would be very different and WOULD NOT ALL HAVE THE "AS-IF" ELEMENT. Huh? Help me out here. The most important question I asked was never answered at all: Question: What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the advantages? So far, you've read some links... Answer: WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy , and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. I've still got a list of effects of abandoning the USFG, but no impact. --JP Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > Ok, at some point it's going to be better to pull back than to repeat. > > not quite there yet, but close. > > for the general outline of a non-usfg approach as well as a number of other ways to contemplate topic wordings with some variety, there is a detailed post here: http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=node/381 > > more specifics below...but first, > > Hey, JP, What are you planning on doing tomorrow? Better, yet, JP, what should you do tomorrow? > > Potential answers: > > A) stopping the war in afghanistan > B) funding stem cell research > C) researching some cards about poverty > D) typing stuff on edebate > E) dusting-off the graduate school folders and sending some stuff off to the committee > > Next question: "What should the usfg do tomorrow?" > > Same potential answers: > > A) stopping the war in afghanistan > B) funding stem cell research > C) researching some cards about poverty > D) typing stuff on edebate > E) dusting-off the graduate school folders and sending some stuff off to the committee > > Obviously the best debates would be ones involving these agents and answers: > > Resolved: JP Lacy should stop the war in Afghanistan. > > Resolved: The USFG should cut some cards on the poverty topic. > > more specifics below.... > > ________________________________________ > From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:19 PM > > 1. I'm not sure where this gets you. If the phrase "X agent should" > encourages us to speak as an external institution, then where does that > leave the "non-USFG" agent project? With agent less topics? > > YOU ARE NOT AGENT-LESS. This is an INCREDIBLE MANIFESTATION OF THE FETISHIZATION AND CULT OF THE USFG AGENT. You really believe that NOT using the USFG dooms us to "agent-less" debates? We have had non-usfg topics before with great success. We can try some diversity once in a while given that debate is an academic competition with some level of creativity required. It is great to debate external institutions every so often---but there are lots of external institutions to select from other than the USFG and there are also ways to incorporate internal agents on the affirmative as well. > > IF ONLY to convince you and others that "agency" is possible in debate rounds on the affirmative outside the usfg, we should give it a shot. > > 2. This is only a "double turn" in your mind. To find it persuasive you > would have to believe: > > The statement "The USFG should" is speaking as an external > institution. > > & That speaking as "The USFG" is no different from speaking as > "Iraq, Israel, Turkey..." > > The double-turn does not rely on finding the statements above persuasive. You argue that "speaking for others" is one way american exceptionalism becomes violent and then you argue that we should speak for the USFG. On top of that you argue that debaters are somehow all Americans and that debaters have the responsibility to debate as if they were Americans--except somehow externalized as a giant "We" in the sky. > > Besides, the statements you use above are tricks. The first one is not accurate because it does not have the "resolved" in front of it. Sure, any of us can (and should) talk about what the usfg should do. That is important. Assuming that a debater saying "this is what the usfg should do" is equivalent to a factual statement advoacting that the USFG take a particular action is not a safe assumption. You have conveniently included the debater's agency, but only as a vehicle to speak the abstract external agent into being. > > The USFG is no different from other federal governments in terms of the external nature of its agency in the context of a debate round. There are, of course, many other differences between all of the agents mentioned. I do not think, though, that you should presume such an American-centric view of agency in the University, let alone debate. If we cannot debate outside the civic institution that you believe "we" best fall under, we are never going to contribute to any larger sense of democracy or critical thinking (instead we become parrots). Can we not entertain the possibility that some debaters (perhaps all debaters at given times) are not citizens of the US, do not consider themselves Americans, believe that such perspectives can be debated on the negative if necessary, or have adherence to a radically universal or radically localized identity, are against gesturing to the USFG within a certain topic area, etc.? Are these all possibilities you are willing to exclude year after year after year on the affirmative? > > 1. I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should..." somehow > declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves. > Maybe I need a better explanation. > > MAYBE you need to simplify it? "As-if" vs. "not as if." What counterplans are typically available when you say R: the USFG should? States, maybe Executive Order, maybe a different country or consulting a different country? All of these are macro-institutions that no single speaker can claim to fully "be"--there is always a hypothetical, an imaginary, an "as-if." If the resolution is "R: debaters should...," the typical counterplans would be very different and WOULD NOT ALL HAVE THE "AS-IF" ELEMENT. > > 2. I also think the statement "The US Should" is qualitatively different > from "another country should." > > Hypothetical: Next year's topic is Russia. Which of the following is > more hegemonic? Which most closely replicates American unilateralism? > > A group of mostly American students who say "The US should stop pursuing > missile defense, because it scares Russia." > > or > > A group of mostly American students who say "We think Russia should stop > worrying about US missile defense." > > THIS EXAMPLE IS A BAD SET-UP that you yourself have linked to genocide. It is hard to believe that this is how you are visualizing the choices. Equating the debate community with "A group of mostly American students" has its own serious problems including the attempt to speak with one voice, but we'll bracket that for a rainy day. More important for our current discussion is the part where you write "who say...." Who are these students talking to? Each other? Judges? Russian officials? News reporters? Russian students? A combination? Come on, JP, you know this kind of audience analysis is necessary when talking about advocacy, agency, and debate. Do not forget to ask, "To what audience?" The answer to that question changes all of the assumptions you are making. if these students are talking to Putin it is very different than talking to a debate judge. Ideally, students would be able to say both of those statements. You ahe excluded the very possibility of the second statement because you are so convinced by the false righteousness of the first one. > > SECONDLY, YOU HAVE ADDED A "We think" to further confuse the example. The phrase "Students who say we think the USFG should" is different from "students who say the USFG should." You have excluded the "we think" from your first example and added it to the second example. This makes a difference because the preface "we think" is an attempt to convey an idea or a thought-experiment. Without the "we think," the command over either the USFG or the Russian government would be equally declarative (both would be proclamations or attempts to hail outside influences). When you are asked for a report on the debate program or how to improve the research efforts on the debate team, do you respond with what you think the school should do? > > THIRDLY, why is "Russia" the opposite of the USFG?---wouldn't you be talking about "America" and "Russia" OR the USFG and the Government of Russia? The equation of a national identity category with a government is very dangerous (see the imperialism in the Rwanda example). Certainly there are problems with the Russian government as the agent that would parallel problems with the USFG (externalizing agency, centering federal governmental structure, etc.), but at least the Russian government as an agent would offer some variety, some educational creativity, some attempt to show that debate is not always based on the actions of the usfg projected on top of an inert world. The argument that "speaking as" Russia in a DEBATE ROUND would mimic American exceptionalism and should therefore force the debaters to debate as if they were the USFG is the most backasswards shitbull ever. Ask anyone from Russia if they would be more intrigued by questions of agency concerning the Russian government or about more ways the US could impose itself on Russia AS A DEBATE TOPIC, and your whole assumption would probably be flipped. > > The second statement is more akin to the style with which the US made > decisions about Rwanda than the first: "We think Rwandans should stop > fighting, that, or someone else should try to do something." > > Again, who are you saying this to? Who is the we? AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU GENOCIDAL ARCHITECT, who the F are "Rwandans"???? Your potential topic replicates that national homogenization that forced the ethnic violence to manifest in the first place. STOP YOURSELF, JP. Each post further exposes your growing micro-fascism...do not let it fully consume you--there is still hope. > > no shit we should talk about what the usfg should do, but not to the exclusion of everything else on the aff, and not because we have to avoid some sort of debater-identity anxiety. You are on the sofa telling the therapist that you keep seeing giant elephants appear in the room but you cannot seem to touch the elephant or speak to the elephant or even ask the elephant to leave. The therapist says, "stop thinking about the elephant" and you say, "the elephant is telling me that I am not thinking about the elephant." In your world, we stop there because it is somehow polite or courteous to continue listening to something that you have conjured up in the first place. Don't ask the elephant how to stop thinking about it. Start or stop thinking about a giraffe if you have to. The Russian government is not the giraffe, the Russian government is not the giraffe, etc. At some point you might even think outside the fictional world of giant anthropomorphic agents all together. > > Its easy for Americans to walk around the world thinking they can shed > their nationality and all its baggage, imagining themselves part of some > cosmopolitan a-national ideal. Its harder to own your nationality. I > think we should. Imagine yourself walking around the Hiroshima memorial > saying "I am not the same thing as America, I am a debater. I am not the > USFG. Don't blame me." Can you really imagine making those statements to > someone whose family suffered in that attack? > > THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH THE IRAQ EXAMPLE (which you have conveniently dropped--including all the arguments about patriotism). Your position is the staging of the Saddam statue being taken down in the green zone. Own your nationality, JP--tell us what you are doing to really own your American-ness. We are waiting in antipication....we want to imporve our nationalities as well. > > This is not cosmopolitanism and you should stop treating it as such. DEBATE IS NOT ONE NATIONALITY AND DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT "AMERICA" MEANS AT A WAR MEMORIAL YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. JP's thought-process allowed the dropping of the bomb in August of 1945 because the USFG thought some other nation-state might get the bomb first and that killing civilians would be a necessary move to prevent a more bloody conflict in the Pacific. The Hiroshima memorial is about guilt-aversion for the collective conscience, not an act of national redemption. In fact, a BETTER way to understand "our" nationality would be to diversity the ways we conceive of agency when we debate. That turns all of your arguments over the long term because we debate different topics every year--if the USFG is too awesome to let go, we can return to the hive for future resolutions. We do not have to give up on ever debating the USFG just because we have one year that is a little different. It is a alot easier for debaters to shed their own location (their own subjectifvity) and pretend to be the USFG than it is for most Americans to shed their national baggage. How many Americans do you think regularly think outside of their national identities to imagine international institutions taking particular actions? When talking about what pedagogical approach would be better for debaters, it seems far more important to ask debaters to defend their own location, their own process of identification, their own standpoint than to pretend that they are the USFG every time. > > Would you march up to the "victims" you somehow "meet at the memorial" and say, "don't worry, the USFG should substantially apologize to one or more of the living members of the geographic area in Japan decimated by one or more weapons of mass destruction."? > > OR, do you say, "we have been debating about foreign policy and nuclear weapons and i am sorry about your losses, losses that I may have had a role in as a US citizen"? > > maybe you don't say anything---regardless, your little memorial afterthought scenario is not applicable to a debate topic wording or our questions about agency. OWN YOURSELF SO THAT YOU CAN MEANINGFULLY OWN YOUR OWN NATIONALITY AS WELL AS OTHER MODES OF IDENTIFICATION. Don't ask what the impact is--you have now brought up Iraq, Rwanda, and Hiroshima in ways that turn your own argument. > > > kevin > > --JP > > > > > > > Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > >> Thanks for continuing the conversation, JP, even though it is not gong too well for you. Two quick points before going to teach, >> >> 1. JP says that "USFG should" and "we think that the USFG should" are the same. hahaha. really? >> >> 2. JP says that America should stop speaking for the rest of the world. >> >> This is a double-turn----in number one, the two statements are not the same because one encourages debaters (who are not the same as "America," no matter how many times JP says it) to speak AS an external instituition and one does not. >> >> In other words, JP is going for a giant double-turn. His position boils down to: "use the usfg because we all know we are not the usfg, but we'd like to pretend...in order to stop the sentiment that allows the US to speak for the rest of the world (and let genocide go on without acting)." NONSENSE. >> >> the Iraq example was absurd and turned by a blind faith in patriotism (or ignoring patriotism as opinion) and now the Rwanda example provides the impact to continuing to advocate imperial reform. >> >> kevin >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:13 AM >> To: Kuswa, Kevin >> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >> >> Most important question of mine: >> >> What is the difference between these topics: >> >> "The USFG should..." >> & >> "We think the USFG should..." >> >> Once we all grasp the obvious that the debaters are not actually the >> USFG, how do these topics lead to different debates & different >> conclusions? >> >> I understand that the USFG is not the be all end all to every problem, >> but what about when it is the primary problem? >> >> Iraq is my primary example. That example was a response to the argument >> that "We can't address important issues because we focus on the USFG." >> >> My question was, and still is, "How can we address an important issue >> like Iraq without arguing about US policy there?" You've listed others >> with a perspective on the issue, but I'm pretty sure all of them would >> advocate that the US change its Iraq policy. >> >> If you want to shed responsibility for having an opinion about our Iraq >> policy, you can. But, that "no opinion" vote has consequences for >> everyone. If you really want to claim "we" are not at war, you can. >> >> --JP >> >> ps -- Your Rwanda arguments are off base. I never advocated >> intervention, I advocated a change from the policy we made (thanks for >> the mind reading.) Yes, its easy to second guess. Your evidence suggests >> the same. Plus, your evidence replicates the same good old American >> style of speaking for the world, also repeated by the US , by blaming >> the French for failed intervention when we could have done something >> else entirely than rely on more military intervention. >> >> >> pps -- What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the >> USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the >> advantages? So far, you've read some links... >> >> WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy >> , and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. >> >> >> >> >> Kuswa, Kevin wrote: >> >> >>> answers below. jp is starting to make some fairly horrific claims.... >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:12 PM >>> To: Kuswa, Kevin >>> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >>> >>> Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice. >>> >>> EXACTLY. >>> >>> In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States." >>> >>> WHAT? That is quite a jump. Is this a proposed resolution? There are students debating who are not US citizens, not to mention all the problems associated with personifying the nation-state and imaging that "it" makes single-minded decisions. >>> >>> I said "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to >>> war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war >>> unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one >>> we bear responsibility for. >>> >>> RESPONSIBILITY is not an entity that holds equally across the nation, although, yes, there is an element of complicity in all of us that warrants examining. Would a debate topic that positions debaters as the USFG promote that discussion? Maybe...but not as well as a topic that actually used the "we" pronoun as Tuna suggests or a topic that allowed for a topical avenue for reflection (passive). >>> >>> That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad >>> reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but >>> that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in >>> history. >>> >>> WAR is tragic for many reasons beyond the fact that governments can act in violent ways in the name of "the people." Yes, spectatorship without acknowledgement is a terrible arrangement, but this is not a reason to debate every year under the usfg umbrella. >>> >>> > > >>> Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the >>> United States should do. >>> >>> OF COURSE--no shit, actually. Having an opinion about the USFG and its policies is crucial--more than crucial--but as debaters we can do that without making the affirmative (or asking the affirmative to) pretend to be an agent that they are not every year. Do not confuse an attempt to diversify the kind of topics we debate with some unattainable argument arena devoid of any consideration of USFG policy. Don't worry, the usfg is not going away and our fixation on federal policy will not go away even if the topic is slightly distinct. What will change with some topic diversity, though, is the inability to think outside governmental action when advocating the resolution and the realization that very good debate is still possible without the standard formula we have adopted for the last decade. >>> >>> Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people >>> don't adequately voice their opinions. >>> >>> "PEOPLE" meaning what individuals exactly in the above sentence? I guess on one level everything is about the opinions of various subject-positions, but someone has internalized the politics DA in perhaps a delusional moment of Rorty-itis. The Iraq War should not be reduced to a lack of expression or some failure in the collective American voice. Trying to express opinions about the war is exactly what justified the first Iraq War through the yellow-ribbon campaign. Patriotism can work in insidious ways, including a co-option of opinions that might be "against the war" but can easily be shifted to "support our troops." >>> >>> "WE" may have believed this monolithic USFG being constituted here (and in our topics) about the location of weapons of mass destruction PRECISELY BECAUSE "we" wanted to express our outrage over the existence of such weapons in the hands of a rogue leader. See what the expression of opinion can yield? >>> >>> It is true that debaters are not the USFG. >>> >>> YOUR arguments do not follow your willingness to admit that debaters are not the usfg. Also, does that mean that an agent that IS the usfg automatically forces an externalization of the agency you confer on the "we"? >>> >>> But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes >>> bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form >>> concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we >>> argue about them? >>> >>> WE should, we do, and we will. Does this mean the resolution should be constructed in the same way year after year? Could we not express our arguments about the USFG without having to defend it as somehow separate from the debaters? In other words, what about switch-side debate? Can the negative defend the externalization of agency into the USFG? >>> >>> How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq? >>> (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example >>> of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.) >>> >>> THIS is not hard to answer at all and the fact you have asked the question in the first place in quite scary. The first answer is provided by your comment earlier in the discussion that the opinions of people might matter. The second answer is a turn: "We" already did this with the concept of "constructive engagement." Moving away from the USFG in this specific context would allow for alternatives to government binaries between diplomacy and sanctions (between negotiation and war). There are a HUGE number of agents (this is number 3) that would be productive to debate in the Iraq context--Iraq (duh), Israel, the UN, social movements, passive voice, Kurdistan, Turkey, al queda, we, this house, Iran, Russia, etc. >>> >>> If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could >>> eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some >>> topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are >>> those topics compared to what we are missing?) >>> >>> WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy, and the lis >>> >>> t goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. >>> >>> kevin >>> >>> --JP >>> >>> My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of >>> American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of >>> American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone >>> else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that >>> left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide. >>> >>> WOW JP--this is brought on by your own inability to see that "we" is NOT always America. This last little stab at "sitting back in the face of suffering" that uses Rwanda is EXACTLY WHY YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL--you think you are actually contributing to the formation of governmental policy so you ignore all of the horrors happening in front of your own door, your own eyes, you own world. Arlee found this evidence, but it adds weight to the turn and shows why your assumption about American exceptionalism IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ESSENCE OF AMERICAN SUPERIORITY--that there is no alterantive to US action. Thus, when genocide is ignored by the government, folks like you have nothing left in the arsenal except a weak gesture to public opinion and the public sphere--the same opinion that solidifies the "bystanding syndrome." jeeesh. >>> >>> ARLEE--thanks for the card. >>> >>> Genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda are not the result of too little imperial western intervention but on the contrary are the result of such intervention. >>> >>> Charlie Kimber2004, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=538 "How West intervened and fuelled genocide" >>> >>> GENOCIDE IS an overused word, but ten years ago it took place in the tiny African country of Rwanda. Throughout 100 days between 800,000 and one million people were murdered in a country of just six million. The media coverage remembering these events conveys the horror. But much of it also accepts two arguments. The first is that there was something inexplicable about what occurred-or that perhaps this is something uniquely "African". >>> >>> The second argument is that Rwanda shows that sometimes the great powers need to go in to sort out the world. It is put forward as the key example of what could have been "good" humanitarian military intervention. And if it would have been right to go in then, there will be examples when it is right to send troops elsewhere. The claim is apparently made stronger because the United Nations (UN) and the US did deliberately ignore genocide in 1994. >>> >>> As the killing began the UN reduced its peacekeeping force by 90 percent to just 270 troops. Far from questioning what was done, Madeleine Albright, the US ambassador to the UN, wanted the whole lot out. But calls for military force in such circumstances, however well meant, ignore the fact that Rwanda's agony was not a result of too little intervention. It was precisely the product of 100 years of brutal intervention by colonial and imperialist forces. >>> >>> Colonialism sharply separated groups of people in Rwanda-Hutus and Tutsis-and set them against each other. Modern-day capitalism set the conditions for a million dead. >>> >>> As in so many other places suffering from an imperial legacy-such as Ireland, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia-the great powers use divide and rule and then throw up their hands in mock horror at the conflict they have created. Military action in 1994 could only have been carried out directly by the great powers, or with their support through the UN Security Council, or by some regional superpower. >>> >>> Yet these people had prepared the way for the genocide, armed those who carried it out and defended them even as the killings took place. France, Belgium, the US, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt intervened in 1992-4 and made the situation worse. Without them the massacres could never have happened. In 1990 the brutal Rwandan government only survived because of military support from the French and Belgians. >>> >>> This allowed the government to believe that no matter what horrors it carried out the French would go along with it. It was like giving brandy bottles to an alcoholic. Then the European powers watched as the Rwandan regime developed a system of local militias (the interahamwe) in order to create a murder machine. Throughout 1993 more and more of the Rwandan population were armed. Many of the arms were "low-tech weapons" like studded clubs, knives and spears. There were machetes from China and Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Egypt secured a $6 million contract with Rwanda to supply arms, guaranteed by a French bank. Apartheid South Africa supplied $5.9 million of weaponry. >>> >>> The US wanted to curb French influence in central Africa. So it stoked the conflict from the opposite side by channelling weapons to the exiled opposition forces invading from Uganda. The French government continued to supply arms to the Rwandan regime even after the murders began in 1994. >>> >>> In June, two months after the killings began, the French launched a military intervention. "Operation Turquoise", backed by the UN, involved 2,500 men. The government's retreating forces, which had carried out the killings, welcomed the French troops. >>> >>> French soldiers and government officials drove around Rwanda with enormous French flags displayed on their vehicles. On seeing them, desperate Tutsis would come out of hiding only to be killed by Hutu militias while the French did nothing. >>> >>> Military intervention is never carried out by an abstract "force for good". It is done, or not done, by the strong for their own agenda. That is what happened in 1994. "Useful" intervention would have been cancellation of Rwanda's debt, withdrawal of all support for the government, encouragement to democratic forces, an end to arms sales, aid for the impoverished, help to combat AIDS-and it should have started well before 1994. >>> These are the sort of measures needed in Rwanda and every other similar case, not more soldiers. >>> >>> >>> Kuswa, Kevin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. >>>> >>>> The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you? >>>> >>>> Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? >>>> >>>> This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... >>>> >>>> kevin >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM >>>> To: scottelliott at grandecom.net >>>> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >>>> >>>> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in >>>> Iraq. >>>> >>>> How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? >>>> >>>> --JP >>>> >>>> >>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror >>>>> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I >>>>> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community >>>>> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding >>>>> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of >>>>> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper >>>>> issues. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> Quoting JP Lacy : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >>>>>> >>>>>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >>>>>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >>>>>> deregulation of financial institutions. >>>>>> >>>>>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >>>>>> are very relevant to our daily lives. >>>>>> >>>>>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >>>>>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >>>>>> >>>>>> --JP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>>>>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> can >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> do that any time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>>>>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> more >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>>>>>> alternative resolutions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>>>>>> debate" for the >>>>>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>>>>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>>>>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>>>>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> debate." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>>>>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> more >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> evidence and >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> battle >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> finals at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> In a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> best. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> more >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> representative of what we do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> as >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>>>>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> been in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> really >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> rounds of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> use >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> some >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> middle >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> America. A >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> (at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> almost >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> love >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> becomes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> policy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> agent >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> etc.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> unless >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> China and India get on board) >>>>>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>>>>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>>>>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>>>>>> 5) Postmodernism; >>>>>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>>>>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>>>>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>>>>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> framing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>>>>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> (or >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> analysis >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> world in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>>>>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>>>>>> policymaking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> space to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> can >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> blah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> blah. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> substanitally >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> curtailed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>>>>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> should be >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> eDebate mailing list >>>>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> eDebate mailing list >>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > . > > From antonucci23 at gmail.com Fri Apr 10 04:02:07 2009 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:02:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] New Resolutional Formats and Playtesting Message-ID: <4a71966c0904100202u39b89f2do60efc59c9749ae53@mail.gmail.com> The community can debate endlessly about whether or not a non-USFG agent is a good idea for advocacy, or whether or not it will play well. I'm pretty agnostic on the question myself, but I do have a fundamental concern. I don't think that any of the new suggested agent variations have been adequately *playtested* to guarantee that they don't suffer from enormous unseen glitches. My concern probably reveals something about my philosophy of debate; its articulation undoubtedly reveals that I'm an enormous nerd. That said, for any other game that I particularly enjoy or value, I'd be really reluctant to sign off on enormous format variations absent some form of playtesting. For example, I'm really happy to occasionally play a game of "bughouse" chess or play Lexulous (or even Lexiko, haha) instead of Scrabble. I think it would a tremendous error in judgment, however, to replace the standard USCF rules with bughouse rules for an entire year. I would have gladly signed off on Lexulous, but it took some play to figure out that eight-letter racks just feel clunky and wrong. Seven tiles is somehow more natural for anagramming. When new strategy games are rushed to market without adequate playtesting, they usually flop. All the brilliant game designing in the world is simply no substitute for putting a group of uber-competitive players in a room (or classroom building) and seeing how it works out. A single annual topic raises these stakes. While it might be fun to try a new topic at one tournament, most people feel that it would probably be terrible to grind out a full year on a topic rife with glitches. Kevin Kuswa's really smart, but he may not have foreseen some "cheat" that will create an enormous and painful aff skew on some of his proposed topics. The courts topic was, from most accounts, an example of what happens when there's an unforeseen glitch or cheat. Radically experimenting with topics exponentially raises these risks. I lack passionate ideological commitments in either direction on this meta-debate. I think my sentiment's shared, perhaps subconsciously, by a big section of the community, though. There's a sense that it's just too weird or too risky. That sense might be wise, not just knee-jerk conservatism. It doesn't stem from an arrogant conviction that we've determined the best possible debating format, but instead from a humble sense that our argument-predictive tools aren't all that successful. I'd love to see some fresh new topics, but there would have to be some hard-core playtesting first. Some pre-empts: "This has already been playtested! We had different agents and passive voices before!" I don't really know what debate was like for the vast majority of those resolutions. I don't think it's a good analogy, though. Didn't teams essentially affirm the entire resolution then? That built-in expectation probably limited the design of tricky, unbeatable affs that affirm on a very small scale. I also think a number of earlier resolutions had implicit agents. For example, the 91-2 resolution "That one or more United States Supreme Court decisions recognizing a federal Constitutional right to privacy should be overruled." was probably almost exclusively a Supreme Court topic, because of "overruled." I'm open to reports on innovation within these passive voice and alternate-agent topics. Were there innovations or weirdish cases? How did those debates play out? "Worlds." I don't know much about worlds, really, although I'm happy to listen. I have an intuition that teams at Worlds also tend more toward an affirmation of the "whole resolution" as opposed to defense of the most strategically defined individual example of that resolution. I think that a community theoretical consensus might really restrict the range of aff innovation. I'm open to correction on this as well. I want more actual reports, though. They're a lot more helpful (to my thought process, at least) than more sweeping but less easily resolved debates over political theory. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090410/f5ae852e/attachment.htm From beth.skinner at gmail.com Fri Apr 10 09:14:03 2009 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:14:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Directors Only: Travel Budget Survey In-Reply-To: <4550c7380810282151q188cc405kbdd96ef1c867b755@mail.gmail.com> References: <4550c7380810282151q188cc405kbdd96ef1c867b755@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4550c7380904100714l4f196389w6bfe085cd03b7d74@mail.gmail.com> I'm going to analyze the data next week and post the summary by April 25. If you haven't had a chance to fill out the survey yet please take 5 minutes so that we can have better data. Right now n=21. Thanks, Beth ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Beth Skinner Date: Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:51 AM Subject: Directors Only: Travel Budget Survey To: edebate , beth.skinner at gmail.com I'm gathering data on travel budgets and policies in college policy debate programs. If you can take 5 minutes to complete this survey it would help out - it's only 10 questions. I hope that the results will be useful for budget planning and program justification. A summary of the results will be reported on edebate. In order to avoid duplication, I'm asking that only one representative from each program (i.e. the director or their designee) provide info. The survey asks you to identify your program as well as potentially sensitive information (travel budget amount). When the results are released, no particular program's budget numbers will be identified. The purpose in gathering this information is to check correlations between different variables (travel budget to national ranking, for instance). Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. Thanks, Beth http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=3wxP_2besBTQkt85yT6NRmWA_3d_3d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090410/64836c76/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Fri Apr 10 10:05:13 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:05:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? (More Kuswa-Lacy Stuff) In-Reply-To: <49DEF100.5070300@wfu.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C5@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DE8289.3020007@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2DF@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DEF100.5070300@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2E6@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> We are reaching that super-saturation point with JP's comprehension...maybe one or two more.... ________________________________________ From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:10 AM You aren't making sense. YOUR SENSE-MAKING is blinding you to the possibilities of debate. From the outset, all I have said is this: 1. The USFG is a good agent to debate about because it causes big problems we should discuss. WE AGREE (except on the implication that other agents do not cause big problems). Every few years we should have a usfg topic. We can also debate the USFG on the neg. We can also debate about the USFG even if it is not the agent. 2. Americans should not distance themselves from the United States, because doing so disaggregates responsibility for US policy. YOU ARE STUCK ON THE DESCRIPTOR "AMERICAN." This continual attempt to define the debate community as American is far more exceptionalist/imperial than debating about something other than the usfg every so often. THE PRIMARY DISTANCING is not your concern, but it still happens befopre any of the disaggregation you fear on the macro-level. What is this "primary distancing"? It is the idea that the first step of requiring USFG action to be topical is a step eliminating the agency offered by the debaters themselves. ALSO, your argument is more about civic positioning in the world than about debate topics. Does this mean the negative is always anti-American? 3. Some topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are those topics compared to what we are doing now? HOW ARROGANT DO YOU HAVE TO BE to assume that YOU should know exactly what will happen before you can agree to try it. There are other types of topics that are good, would be good, and could even be better than what we have now. Also, you have not justified your approach year after year after year (only in a one-time duel). Don't you trust the debaters to come up with interesting and compelling argumetns on both sides ven if the agent is not the USFG? I still can't discern your answers to any of the 3 arguments I made. GLASSES come in many forms and sizes. I made my arguments as someone to be persuaded. So far, you've responded with arguments without reason. THIS IS A SENTENCE THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE IMPERIAL SCRIBE, "your papers are not in order." Get over your own interpretion for once or maybe twice. You have said the following with no good warrant (Maybe you can link these statements to the arguments I made. You haven't yet.): "JP's thought-process allowed the dropping of the bomb in August of 1945" YES, the thought-process of using a Hiroshima War Memorial as an analogy for US attempts to speak for other countries is dangerous. There is NO LINK to topic writing in your argument, but there is a link to "recognizing complicity" as a means to appease individual guilt. When you add up that guilt-sanitation, you make yourself and others more willing to accept the next Hiroshima (Iraq war #1 and the yellow-ribbon campaign...that's the example you will not touch anymore after you brought it up). You also justify a race over the nation-state at the top--if we can just drop the bomb, we can be the state that tells other country's not to drop their bombs. You preclude thinking about not dropping the bomb AND not invading a series of islands in the Pacific. "YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL" YES, in the context of the Rwanda example that YOU brought up, you were assuming that a lack of USFG action (bystander mentality) was primarily responsible for the killings and genocidal action in the region. This is not exactly the case--in fact it was the same sort of colonial control and imperial logic from Europe that created the divisions between the people in the first place and then instituted mechanisms for mass killing. You do not know this history--you simply believe the narrative of US inaction being the cause because you have already been conditioned to think that the US always has the solution (probably because you have been in debate for so long). What would you have the US do? You phrase is "stop the killing." Do you know how the US tried to "stop the killing" in Vietnam? The military razed villages so there were no more people to kill. In Rwanda, the nation-state borders and attempts to coerce the people into identifying with Rwanda over other ethnic attachments was one of the reasons the violence was so extreme. Your blanket homogenizing of the people in the region into "Rwandans" and your colonial assumption that outside trooops are the best way to solve the problem are the two kinds of thinking that provoked the nightmare in the first place. Your response to one of my most important questions was not helpful at all: Question: I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should..." somehow declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves. Look, JP, whenever you say "X should" and X is something other than you, you are entering into a hypothetical. It's not that hard to grasp. You will help yourself understand if you fill in your question a little better.....saying "the usfg should institute a draft" is a thought-experiment that thinks about an external agent acting that is A) not oneself, and B) not capable of being manipulated (or fiated) no matter what the speaker says (assuming the speaker is a debater in a debate round). Look at it from the other side. If you and I are hanging out--maybe at Cattle Annie's like we have in the past--and you say, "I should go across the street for a pack of smokes," I would not think to myself, "ok, jp, but you have no control over the 'I'," unless I was making some metaphysical point about nicotine. In other words, I would assume that you have control over what you are contemplating that you should do. If you turned to me and said, "I should ride the mechanical bull," I might think to myself that you would never really get on the bull but i would also know it was possible (i was at cattle annie's the year before as well). Finally, if you were to turn to me and say, "I should save all the whales off the coast of the Northwest US," I would know you had entered a hypothetical and I would probably think, "of course JP cannot do that, he must be talking about the government." This is the "stop thinking about a giraffe" argument...the context alwasy changes depending on how you position yourself and who the audience is. Let me ask you a question as a follow-up. Who are you addressing the statement, "The USFG should..." to? What power does the audience you are addressing reasonably possess? The most important question I asked was never answered at all: Question: What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the advantages? So far, you've read some links... THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD ANSWER, especially when combined with the switch-side argument allowing you to maintain usfg discussion on the negative. I would also add that we freeze our ability to plot out change in other contexts and we unnecessarily associate governing with macro-reform. The biggest issue, though, is that year after year we encourage debaters to DE-VALUE what they are actually doing (at the actual time of the debate) in FAVOR of reifying federal government action--the scholarship-fetish DA. The effect of this is to turn debate into a "training day" model that exclusively looks toward certain types of "model-subjectivities" as the universal aim of all debaters and all debate programs. Some models work better for some programs--it is not a surprise to see the same bad arguments being made with increasing ferocity as the writing on the wall becomes more and more visible. This is not much more difficult than the statism position, yet there are still questions about what agency does when it is folded into "the usfg should." ANOTHER GOOD Answer: WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy, and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. I've still got a list of effects of abandoning the USFG, but no impact. Turn the page over--there are quite a few impacts--most of them of your choosing. Oh, and add the one that has been implied all the way through: EDUCATION. kevin --JP Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > Ok, at some point it's going to be better to pull back than to repeat. > > not quite there yet, but close. > > for the general outline of a non-usfg approach as well as a number of other ways to contemplate topic wordings with some variety, there is a detailed post here: http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=node/381 > > more specifics below...but first, > > Hey, JP, What are you planning on doing tomorrow? Better, yet, JP, what should you do tomorrow? > > Potential answers: > > A) stopping the war in afghanistan > B) funding stem cell research > C) researching some cards about poverty > D) typing stuff on edebate > E) dusting-off the graduate school folders and sending some stuff off to the committee > > Next question: "What should the usfg do tomorrow?" > > Same potential answers: > > A) stopping the war in afghanistan > B) funding stem cell research > C) researching some cards about poverty > D) typing stuff on edebate > E) dusting-off the graduate school folders and sending some stuff off to the committee > > Obviously the best debates would be ones involving these agents and answers: > > Resolved: JP Lacy should stop the war in Afghanistan. > > Resolved: The USFG should cut some cards on the poverty topic. > > more specifics below.... > > ________________________________________ > From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 7:19 PM > > 1. I'm not sure where this gets you. If the phrase "X agent should" > encourages us to speak as an external institution, then where does that > leave the "non-USFG" agent project? With agent less topics? > > YOU ARE NOT AGENT-LESS. This is an INCREDIBLE MANIFESTATION OF THE FETISHIZATION AND CULT OF THE USFG AGENT. You really believe that NOT using the USFG dooms us to "agent-less" debates? We have had non-usfg topics before with great success. We can try some diversity once in a while given that debate is an academic competition with some level of creativity required. It is great to debate external institutions every so often---but there are lots of external institutions to select from other than the USFG and there are also ways to incorporate internal agents on the affirmative as well. > > IF ONLY to convince you and others that "agency" is possible in debate rounds on the affirmative outside the usfg, we should give it a shot. > > 2. This is only a "double turn" in your mind. To find it persuasive you > would have to believe: > > The statement "The USFG should" is speaking as an external > institution. > > & That speaking as "The USFG" is no different from speaking as > "Iraq, Israel, Turkey..." > > The double-turn does not rely on finding the statements above persuasive. You argue that "speaking for others" is one way american exceptionalism becomes violent and then you argue that we should speak for the USFG. On top of that you argue that debaters are somehow all Americans and that debaters have the responsibility to debate as if they were Americans--except somehow externalized as a giant "We" in the sky. > > Besides, the statements you use above are tricks. The first one is not accurate because it does not have the "resolved" in front of it. Sure, any of us can (and should) talk about what the usfg should do. That is important. Assuming that a debater saying "this is what the usfg should do" is equivalent to a factual statement advoacting that the USFG take a particular action is not a safe assumption. You have conveniently included the debater's agency, but only as a vehicle to speak the abstract external agent into being. > > The USFG is no different from other federal governments in terms of the external nature of its agency in the context of a debate round. There are, of course, many other differences between all of the agents mentioned. I do not think, though, that you should presume such an American-centric view of agency in the University, let alone debate. If we cannot debate outside the civic institution that you believe "we" best fall under, we are never going to contribute to any larger sense of democracy or critical thinking (instead we become parrots). Can we not entertain the possibility that some debaters (perhaps all debaters at given times) are not citizens of the US, do not consider themselves Americans, believe that such perspectives can be debated on the negative if necessary, or have adherence to a radically universal or radically localized identity, are against gesturing to the USFG within a certain topic area, etc.? Are these all possibilities you are willing to exclude year after year after year on the affirmative? > > 1. I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should..." somehow > declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves. > Maybe I need a better explanation. > > MAYBE you need to simplify it? "As-if" vs. "not as if." What counterplans are typically available when you say R: the USFG should? States, maybe Executive Order, maybe a different country or consulting a different country? All of these are macro-institutions that no single speaker can claim to fully "be"--there is always a hypothetical, an imaginary, an "as-if." If the resolution is "R: debaters should...," the typical counterplans would be very different and WOULD NOT ALL HAVE THE "AS-IF" ELEMENT. > > 2. I also think the statement "The US Should" is qualitatively different > from "another country should." > > Hypothetical: Next year's topic is Russia. Which of the following is > more hegemonic? Which most closely replicates American unilateralism? > > A group of mostly American students who say "The US should stop pursuing > missile defense, because it scares Russia." > > or > > A group of mostly American students who say "We think Russia should stop > worrying about US missile defense." > > THIS EXAMPLE IS A BAD SET-UP that you yourself have linked to genocide. It is hard to believe that this is how you are visualizing the choices. Equating the debate community with "A group of mostly American students" has its own serious problems including the attempt to speak with one voice, but we'll bracket that for a rainy day. More important for our current discussion is the part where you write "who say...." Who are these students talking to? Each other? Judges? Russian officials? News reporters? Russian students? A combination? Come on, JP, you know this kind of audience analysis is necessary when talking about advocacy, agency, and debate. Do not forget to ask, "To what audience?" The answer to that question changes all of the assumptions you are making. if these students are talking to Putin it is very different than talking to a debate judge. Ideally, students would be able to say both of those statements. You ahe excluded the very possibility of the second statement because you are so convinced by the false righteousness of the first one. > > SECONDLY, YOU HAVE ADDED A "We think" to further confuse the example. The phrase "Students who say we think the USFG should" is different from "students who say the USFG should." You have excluded the "we think" from your first example and added it to the second example. This makes a difference because the preface "we think" is an attempt to convey an idea or a thought-experiment. Without the "we think," the command over either the USFG or the Russian government would be equally declarative (both would be proclamations or attempts to hail outside influences). When you are asked for a report on the debate program or how to improve the research efforts on the debate team, do you respond with what you think the school should do? > > THIRDLY, why is "Russia" the opposite of the USFG?---wouldn't you be talking about "America" and "Russia" OR the USFG and the Government of Russia? The equation of a national identity category with a government is very dangerous (see the imperialism in the Rwanda example). Certainly there are problems with the Russian government as the agent that would parallel problems with the USFG (externalizing agency, centering federal governmental structure, etc.), but at least the Russian government as an agent would offer some variety, some educational creativity, some attempt to show that debate is not always based on the actions of the usfg projected on top of an inert world. The argument that "speaking as" Russia in a DEBATE ROUND would mimic American exceptionalism and should therefore force the debaters to debate as if they were the USFG is the most backasswards shitbull ever. Ask anyone from Russia if they would be more intrigued by questions of agency concerning the Russian government or about more ways the US could impose itself on Russia AS A DEBATE TOPIC, and your whole assumption would probably be flipped. > > The second statement is more akin to the style with which the US made > decisions about Rwanda than the first: "We think Rwandans should stop > fighting, that, or someone else should try to do something." > > Again, who are you saying this to? Who is the we? AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU GENOCIDAL ARCHITECT, who the F are "Rwandans"???? Your potential topic replicates that national homogenization that forced the ethnic violence to manifest in the first place. STOP YOURSELF, JP. Each post further exposes your growing micro-fascism...do not let it fully consume you--there is still hope. > > no shit we should talk about what the usfg should do, but not to the exclusion of everything else on the aff, and not because we have to avoid some sort of debater-identity anxiety. You are on the sofa telling the therapist that you keep seeing giant elephants appear in the room but you cannot seem to touch the elephant or speak to the elephant or even ask the elephant to leave. The therapist says, "stop thinking about the elephant" and you say, "the elephant is telling me that I am not thinking about the elephant." In your world, we stop there because it is somehow polite or courteous to continue listening to something that you have conjured up in the first place. Don't ask the elephant how to stop thinking about it. Start or stop thinking about a giraffe if you have to. The Russian government is not the giraffe, the Russian government is not the giraffe, etc. At some point you might even think outside the fictional world of giant anthropomorphic agents all together. > > Its easy for Americans to walk around the world thinking they can shed > their nationality and all its baggage, imagining themselves part of some > cosmopolitan a-national ideal. Its harder to own your nationality. I > think we should. Imagine yourself walking around the Hiroshima memorial > saying "I am not the same thing as America, I am a debater. I am not the > USFG. Don't blame me." Can you really imagine making those statements to > someone whose family suffered in that attack? > > THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING WITH THE IRAQ EXAMPLE (which you have conveniently dropped--including all the arguments about patriotism). Your position is the staging of the Saddam statue being taken down in the green zone. Own your nationality, JP--tell us what you are doing to really own your American-ness. We are waiting in antipication....we want to imporve our nationalities as well. > > This is not cosmopolitanism and you should stop treating it as such. DEBATE IS NOT ONE NATIONALITY AND DEBATE SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT "AMERICA" MEANS AT A WAR MEMORIAL YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. JP's thought-process allowed the dropping of the bomb in August of 1945 because the USFG thought some other nation-state might get the bomb first and that killing civilians would be a necessary move to prevent a more bloody conflict in the Pacific. The Hiroshima memorial is about guilt-aversion for the collective conscience, not an act of national redemption. In fact, a BETTER way to understand "our" nationality would be to diversity the ways we conceive of agency when we debate. That turns all of your arguments over the long term because we debate different topics every year--if the USFG is too awesome to let go, we can return to the hive for future resolutions. We do not have to give up on ever debating the USFG just because we have one year that is a little different. It is a alot easier for debaters to shed their own location (their own subjectifvity) and pretend to be the USFG than it is for most Americans to shed their national baggage. How many Americans do you think regularly think outside of their national identities to imagine international institutions taking particular actions? When talking about what pedagogical approach would be better for debaters, it seems far more important to ask debaters to defend their own location, their own process of identification, their own standpoint than to pretend that they are the USFG every time. > > Would you march up to the "victims" you somehow "meet at the memorial" and say, "don't worry, the USFG should substantially apologize to one or more of the living members of the geographic area in Japan decimated by one or more weapons of mass destruction."? > > OR, do you say, "we have been debating about foreign policy and nuclear weapons and i am sorry about your losses, losses that I may have had a role in as a US citizen"? > > maybe you don't say anything---regardless, your little memorial afterthought scenario is not applicable to a debate topic wording or our questions about agency. OWN YOURSELF SO THAT YOU CAN MEANINGFULLY OWN YOUR OWN NATIONALITY AS WELL AS OTHER MODES OF IDENTIFICATION. Don't ask what the impact is--you have now brought up Iraq, Rwanda, and Hiroshima in ways that turn your own argument. > > > kevin > > --JP > > > > > > > Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > >> Thanks for continuing the conversation, JP, even though it is not gong too well for you. Two quick points before going to teach, >> >> 1. JP says that "USFG should" and "we think that the USFG should" are the same. hahaha. really? >> >> 2. JP says that America should stop speaking for the rest of the world. >> >> This is a double-turn----in number one, the two statements are not the same because one encourages debaters (who are not the same as "America," no matter how many times JP says it) to speak AS an external instituition and one does not. >> >> In other words, JP is going for a giant double-turn. His position boils down to: "use the usfg because we all know we are not the usfg, but we'd like to pretend...in order to stop the sentiment that allows the US to speak for the rest of the world (and let genocide go on without acting)." NONSENSE. >> >> the Iraq example was absurd and turned by a blind faith in patriotism (or ignoring patriotism as opinion) and now the Rwanda example provides the impact to continuing to advocate imperial reform. >> >> kevin >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 12:13 AM >> To: Kuswa, Kevin >> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >> >> Most important question of mine: >> >> What is the difference between these topics: >> >> "The USFG should..." >> & >> "We think the USFG should..." >> >> Once we all grasp the obvious that the debaters are not actually the >> USFG, how do these topics lead to different debates & different >> conclusions? >> >> I understand that the USFG is not the be all end all to every problem, >> but what about when it is the primary problem? >> >> Iraq is my primary example. That example was a response to the argument >> that "We can't address important issues because we focus on the USFG." >> >> My question was, and still is, "How can we address an important issue >> like Iraq without arguing about US policy there?" You've listed others >> with a perspective on the issue, but I'm pretty sure all of them would >> advocate that the US change its Iraq policy. >> >> If you want to shed responsibility for having an opinion about our Iraq >> policy, you can. But, that "no opinion" vote has consequences for >> everyone. If you really want to claim "we" are not at war, you can. >> >> --JP >> >> ps -- Your Rwanda arguments are off base. I never advocated >> intervention, I advocated a change from the policy we made (thanks for >> the mind reading.) Yes, its easy to second guess. Your evidence suggests >> the same. Plus, your evidence replicates the same good old American >> style of speaking for the world, also repeated by the US , by blaming >> the French for failed intervention when we could have done something >> else entirely than rely on more military intervention. >> >> >> pps -- What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the >> USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the >> advantages? So far, you've read some links... >> >> WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy >> , and the list goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. >> >> >> >> >> Kuswa, Kevin wrote: >> >> >>> answers below. jp is starting to make some fairly horrific claims.... >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:12 PM >>> To: Kuswa, Kevin >>> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >>> >>> Use of the term "We" *is* a rhetorical choice. >>> >>> EXACTLY. >>> >>> In the context of the Iraq war, "We" should mean "The United States." >>> >>> WHAT? That is quite a jump. Is this a proposed resolution? There are students debating who are not US citizens, not to mention all the problems associated with personifying the nation-state and imaging that "it" makes single-minded decisions. >>> >>> I said "We are at war" because we live in a country that chose to go to >>> war. We all played a role in that decision. Whether you opposed the war >>> unsuccessfully or supported it, it is a decision our nation made and one >>> we bear responsibility for. >>> >>> RESPONSIBILITY is not an entity that holds equally across the nation, although, yes, there is an element of complicity in all of us that warrants examining. Would a debate topic that positions debaters as the USFG promote that discussion? Maybe...but not as well as a topic that actually used the "we" pronoun as Tuna suggests or a topic that allowed for a topical avenue for reflection (passive). >>> >>> That is what makes the war so tragic: It was started in our name for bad >>> reasons. Individuals can try to distance themselves from ownership, but >>> that gives up our responsibility to fix one of the worst mistakes in >>> history. >>> >>> WAR is tragic for many reasons beyond the fact that governments can act in violent ways in the name of "the people." Yes, spectatorship without acknowledgement is a terrible arrangement, but this is not a reason to debate every year under the usfg umbrella. >>> >>> > > >>> Yes, I am saying that individuals should have an opinion about what the >>> United States should do. >>> >>> OF COURSE--no shit, actually. Having an opinion about the USFG and its policies is crucial--more than crucial--but as debaters we can do that without making the affirmative (or asking the affirmative to) pretend to be an agent that they are not every year. Do not confuse an attempt to diversify the kind of topics we debate with some unattainable argument arena devoid of any consideration of USFG policy. Don't worry, the usfg is not going away and our fixation on federal policy will not go away even if the topic is slightly distinct. What will change with some topic diversity, though, is the inability to think outside governmental action when advocating the resolution and the realization that very good debate is still possible without the standard formula we have adopted for the last decade. >>> >>> Iraq is only one example of the failures of USFG policy when people >>> don't adequately voice their opinions. >>> >>> "PEOPLE" meaning what individuals exactly in the above sentence? I guess on one level everything is about the opinions of various subject-positions, but someone has internalized the politics DA in perhaps a delusional moment of Rorty-itis. The Iraq War should not be reduced to a lack of expression or some failure in the collective American voice. Trying to express opinions about the war is exactly what justified the first Iraq War through the yellow-ribbon campaign. Patriotism can work in insidious ways, including a co-option of opinions that might be "against the war" but can easily be shifted to "support our troops." >>> >>> "WE" may have believed this monolithic USFG being constituted here (and in our topics) about the location of weapons of mass destruction PRECISELY BECAUSE "we" wanted to express our outrage over the existence of such weapons in the hands of a rogue leader. See what the expression of opinion can yield? >>> >>> It is true that debaters are not the USFG. >>> >>> YOUR arguments do not follow your willingness to admit that debaters are not the usfg. Also, does that mean that an agent that IS the usfg automatically forces an externalization of the agency you confer on the "we"? >>> >>> But, when the USFG makes choices that impact each of us, when it makes >>> bad decisions like Iraq or financial deregulation, why shouldn't we form >>> concrete thoughts about what that government should do? Why shouldn't we >>> argue about them? >>> >>> WE should, we do, and we will. Does this mean the resolution should be constructed in the same way year after year? Could we not express our arguments about the USFG without having to defend it as somehow separate from the debaters? In other words, what about switch-side debate? Can the negative defend the externalization of agency into the USFG? >>> >>> How could moving away from the USFG agent improve argument about Iraq? >>> (Yes, that is one example. I picked it because it is a current example >>> of a BIG PROBLEM created by the US.) >>> >>> THIS is not hard to answer at all and the fact you have asked the question in the first place in quite scary. The first answer is provided by your comment earlier in the discussion that the opinions of people might matter. The second answer is a turn: "We" already did this with the concept of "constructive engagement." Moving away from the USFG in this specific context would allow for alternatives to government binaries between diplomacy and sanctions (between negotiation and war). There are a HUGE number of agents (this is number 3) that would be productive to debate in the Iraq context--Iraq (duh), Israel, the UN, social movements, passive voice, Kurdistan, Turkey, al queda, we, this house, Iran, Russia, etc. >>> >>> If you aren't interested in that particular example, how exactly could >>> eliminating the USFG as an agent improve CEDA-NDT debate? (Granted, some >>> topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good are >>> those topics compared to what we are missing?) >>> >>> WE and "we" would not know--the institutional memory of those topics and of the debates that took place before USFG-heg is slowly evaporating. This unknowing is the reason we have to do it--it's about debate. Certainty does not always generate the best debate. Moreover, there are a number of elements that we are potentially missing--new types of research, new debates about fiat, opening up to differnt expressions of advocacy, research skills in new areas, idenitifications with other forms of social change, understanding ways to negotiate the world (especially on a macro-level) that are not overdetermined by the federal government, more attachment to local government, a better connection to personal advocacy and social movement organization, affirmative flexibility in general, recognition of the critical turn on the aff (that took place years ago but the topic wording has not yet caught up with), adding meaning to the notion of topicality for critical advocacy, and the lis >>> >>> t goes on--part of the value here is also that there are components that the debaters could add to the list over the course of a season instead of pre-scripting all the plans and all the negative ground for the season. >>> >>> kevin >>> >>> --JP >>> >>> My other objection to non-US agents is: I really don't like the style of >>> American decision making that "speaks for the world." For a bunch of >>> American University students to come to the conclusion that "Someone >>> else should do X" is exactly the type of residual exceptionalism that >>> left us sitting aside during the Rwandan Genocide. >>> >>> WOW JP--this is brought on by your own inability to see that "we" is NOT always America. This last little stab at "sitting back in the face of suffering" that uses Rwanda is EXACTLY WHY YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL--you think you are actually contributing to the formation of governmental policy so you ignore all of the horrors happening in front of your own door, your own eyes, you own world. Arlee found this evidence, but it adds weight to the turn and shows why your assumption about American exceptionalism IS BEING USED TO JUSTIFY THE ESSENCE OF AMERICAN SUPERIORITY--that there is no alterantive to US action. Thus, when genocide is ignored by the government, folks like you have nothing left in the arsenal except a weak gesture to public opinion and the public sphere--the same opinion that solidifies the "bystanding syndrome." jeeesh. >>> >>> ARLEE--thanks for the card. >>> >>> Genocides like the one that occurred in Rwanda are not the result of too little imperial western intervention but on the contrary are the result of such intervention. >>> >>> Charlie Kimber2004, http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=538 "How West intervened and fuelled genocide" >>> >>> GENOCIDE IS an overused word, but ten years ago it took place in the tiny African country of Rwanda. Throughout 100 days between 800,000 and one million people were murdered in a country of just six million. The media coverage remembering these events conveys the horror. But much of it also accepts two arguments. The first is that there was something inexplicable about what occurred-or that perhaps this is something uniquely "African". >>> >>> The second argument is that Rwanda shows that sometimes the great powers need to go in to sort out the world. It is put forward as the key example of what could have been "good" humanitarian military intervention. And if it would have been right to go in then, there will be examples when it is right to send troops elsewhere. The claim is apparently made stronger because the United Nations (UN) and the US did deliberately ignore genocide in 1994. >>> >>> As the killing began the UN reduced its peacekeeping force by 90 percent to just 270 troops. Far from questioning what was done, Madeleine Albright, the US ambassador to the UN, wanted the whole lot out. But calls for military force in such circumstances, however well meant, ignore the fact that Rwanda's agony was not a result of too little intervention. It was precisely the product of 100 years of brutal intervention by colonial and imperialist forces. >>> >>> Colonialism sharply separated groups of people in Rwanda-Hutus and Tutsis-and set them against each other. Modern-day capitalism set the conditions for a million dead. >>> >>> As in so many other places suffering from an imperial legacy-such as Ireland, India and Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Liberia-the great powers use divide and rule and then throw up their hands in mock horror at the conflict they have created. Military action in 1994 could only have been carried out directly by the great powers, or with their support through the UN Security Council, or by some regional superpower. >>> >>> Yet these people had prepared the way for the genocide, armed those who carried it out and defended them even as the killings took place. France, Belgium, the US, China, Russia, South Africa and Egypt intervened in 1992-4 and made the situation worse. Without them the massacres could never have happened. In 1990 the brutal Rwandan government only survived because of military support from the French and Belgians. >>> >>> This allowed the government to believe that no matter what horrors it carried out the French would go along with it. It was like giving brandy bottles to an alcoholic. Then the European powers watched as the Rwandan regime developed a system of local militias (the interahamwe) in order to create a murder machine. Throughout 1993 more and more of the Rwandan population were armed. Many of the arms were "low-tech weapons" like studded clubs, knives and spears. There were machetes from China and Kalashnikov rifles from Russia. Egypt secured a $6 million contract with Rwanda to supply arms, guaranteed by a French bank. Apartheid South Africa supplied $5.9 million of weaponry. >>> >>> The US wanted to curb French influence in central Africa. So it stoked the conflict from the opposite side by channelling weapons to the exiled opposition forces invading from Uganda. The French government continued to supply arms to the Rwandan regime even after the murders began in 1994. >>> >>> In June, two months after the killings began, the French launched a military intervention. "Operation Turquoise", backed by the UN, involved 2,500 men. The government's retreating forces, which had carried out the killings, welcomed the French troops. >>> >>> French soldiers and government officials drove around Rwanda with enormous French flags displayed on their vehicles. On seeing them, desperate Tutsis would come out of hiding only to be killed by Hutu militias while the French did nothing. >>> >>> Military intervention is never carried out by an abstract "force for good". It is done, or not done, by the strong for their own agenda. That is what happened in 1994. "Useful" intervention would have been cancellation of Rwanda's debt, withdrawal of all support for the government, encouragement to democratic forces, an end to arms sales, aid for the impoverished, help to combat AIDS-and it should have started well before 1994. >>> These are the sort of measures needed in Rwanda and every other similar case, not more soldiers. >>> >>> >>> Kuswa, Kevin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> "We" does not always mean United States--that's your first problem, JP. >>>> >>>> The second problem is that debaters are not the USFG. You learned that in kritiking 101, didn't you? >>>> >>>> Moving away from the USFG agent would be a GOOD MOVE for CEDA-NDT Debate. Besides, why not give it a shot for one year? >>>> >>>> This Iraq argument is just plain absurd.... >>>> >>>> kevin >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:41 PM >>>> To: scottelliott at grandecom.net >>>> Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? >>>> >>>> Critical problem facing the world: We (the United States) are at war in >>>> Iraq. >>>> >>>> How does focus on the US government avoid discussion of this issue? >>>> >>>> --JP >>>> >>>> >>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I agree that we should have debated the U.S. involvement in the War on Terror >>>>> straight up at least two years ago. But, and I am the first to admit that I >>>>> cannot articulate the full extent of the problem, the policy debate community >>>>> is FAILING to address the critical problems facing the world. We are avoiding >>>>> these debates. It is either the topic selection process or, the mentality of >>>>> the community that focuses on USFG that makes us avoid discussions of deeper >>>>> issues. >>>>> >>>>> Scott >>>>> >>>>> Quoting JP Lacy : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Is the US government really irrelevant to current problems? >>>>>> >>>>>> There are some recent blunders by the federal government that could have >>>>>> been avoided by full discussion & debate. Namely, the war in Iraq & >>>>>> deregulation of financial institutions. >>>>>> >>>>>> More debate about those decisions would have made them better. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not willing to give up focus on the USFG when it makes mistakes that >>>>>> are very relevant to our daily lives. >>>>>> >>>>>> I tend to think that our collective inability to really debate the Iraq >>>>>> war in public was an important "cause" of the current problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why run from the USFG given that failure? >>>>>> >>>>>> --JP >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Before the backlashing begins, read it through. I am not complaining about >>>>>>> CEDA/NDT or even calling for the abolition of organizations in this post. I >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> can >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> do that any time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rather, I propose that we get away fromt he concept of "policy debate," and >>>>>>> shift over to "evidenced based" or "research based" debate. This would 1) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> more >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> accurately describe what we do and 2) it opens up the possibility for >>>>>>> alternative resolutions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) I have been observing and participating in 21st Century college "policy >>>>>>> debate" for the >>>>>>> past two years. Like most of you, I believe we are seeing dramatic changes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the activity. Having watched elmination rounds at CEDA nationals, I swear >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I only saw one affirmative case that would meet the traditional S.H.I.T.S. >>>>>>> stock issues...especially in terms of traditional Topicality. The movement >>>>>>> toward critical affirmatives and the use of impact turns to topicality (and >>>>>>> yes, people do win these debates) makes a mockery of the term "policy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> debate." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> (Maybe it should be mocked,however, it is not an issue I want to address >>>>>>> here.)What we now see in at least half of the debate rounds are nothing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> more >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> that Framework debates. Half of the community is wanting to present >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> evidence and >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> arguments on whatever they want, even openly rejecting the requirement that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> USFG should be the agent of action, and the other half fighting a losing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> battle >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> to maintain old style standards for policy debate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you do not believe me, I suggest looking to the two teams that were >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> finals at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> CEDA Nationals this year. (I cannot speak about the NDT. I was not there). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> In a >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> nutshell, telling people that we engage in policy debate is a misnomer at >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> best. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I think explaining what we do as research and evidence intensive debate is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> more >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> representative of what we do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) This, to me, is the more important point. If we describe CEDA/NDT debate >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> as >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> it is, rather than harkening back to the good old days of NDT, circa 1976, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> may very well open ourselves up to new possibilities for debate resolutions >>>>>>> that are more substative. As it stands now (sorry to pee pee on parades), >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> are going to be pretty much stuck with a Russia topic this year. Having >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> been in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Russia during grad school, I think I can figure out a case or two. But, I >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> really >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> do not want to research it, coach it, or (JEEZUS!!!) have to judge 200 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> rounds of >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Russia--world going boom--for the next 8 months. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with policy debate, as it is currently framed, requires us to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> use >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> the USFG as an agent of action. On international topics, we end up doing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> some >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> sort of engagement with a set of countries. We have exhausted China, the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> middle >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> East, Europe, Native Americans. Now we are left with Russia and Latin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> America. A >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> lot of Latin America was covered on the Ag topic. Central Asia was covered >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> (at >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> least by my squad) on both the Middle East topic and the Ag topic. So, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> almost >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> by default, we are left with fricking Russia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I look at all of the international problems facing the planet, and I would >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> love >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> to work on another topic paper. However, each topic area I come up with >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> becomes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> an automatic "fail" because the current way of framing policy debate, and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> policy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> debate resolutions, becomes a non-starter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me give you a list and any coach worth her salt can explain why a USFG >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> agent >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> of action is always going to be a non-starter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Proliferation (uh, Iran and North Korea are just two examples, CBW's >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> etc.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2) Global Climate Change (anything the USFG does will always be a failure >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> unless >>>>>> > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> China and India get on board) >>>>>>> 3) Sexuality (most of these issues are really within the purview of the >>>>>>> States--sometimes state counterplans do have value) >>>>>>> 4) Global poverty/overpopulation (Can the USFG really do anything?) >>>>>>> 5) Postmodernism; >>>>>>> 6) Science and Technology and the status of humanity in a post-human world. >>>>>>> (Again, what can the USFG do unilaterally?) >>>>>>> 7. Mass species extinctions; >>>>>>> 8. The collapse of the global capitalist economy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> None of these topics can be covered in depth under the current method of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> framing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> college policy debate. However, I posit that these are the exact issues our >>>>>>> students should be debating. trying to squeeze these topics with in Russia >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> (or >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Latin America, or China) does not provide for the depth of research, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> analysis >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> and argument that we should be striving for. Our students are facing a >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> world in >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> which the United States Federal Government enacting a one shot policy just >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> is >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> not realistic. I think it would be more realistic, and be of more service >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> our students, if we choose topics that really addressed these global issues >>>>>>> full force, without trying to shoehorn them into the dead format of USFG >>>>>>> policymaking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Switching away from policy debate to evidence based debate opens up the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> space to >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> actually engage in debates that are timely and more in depth than what we >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> can >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> accomplish under the standard "Resolved: the USFG should...." model. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As it stands now, we are pretty much going to be stuck with Russia, blah, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> blah >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> blah....China gets pissed, blah blah blah, nuke war, Fem IR, blah, blah >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> blah. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> In my alternative world, what would resolutions look like: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: the anthropogenic causes of climate change should be >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> substanitally >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> curtailed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: humans, through their institutions, should substantially reduce >>>>>>> anthropogenically caused global warming. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: international non-proliferation or antiproliferation regimes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> should be >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> substantially enhanced and/or enforced, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: global capitalism should be allowed to collapse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Resolved: continued scientific and technological advancement is desirable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a few concrete examples to start the discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scott >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> eDebate mailing list >>>>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> eDebate mailing list >>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > > . > > From kkuswa at richmond.edu Fri Apr 10 11:04:04 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:04:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] New Resolutional Formats and Playtesting In-Reply-To: <4a71966c0904100202u39b89f2do60efc59c9749ae53@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a71966c0904100202u39b89f2do60efc59c9749ae53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2E8@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Antonucci, For a quick report, the 92 topic was still focused on the Supreme Court because its decisions were the object of action, but even the passive voice opened up sapce for some great argumetns that year about topical coutnerplans, other agents of action, and how court decisions might be overruled without using the court. The morgan power and other ways to effect court rulings without using the court (or without exclusively using the court) were great to debate on the aff and the neg. This is all within governmental action for the most part (even though there were a lot of social movement questions and Hollow Hope took on a number of interesting dimensions because it just came out), but it was still refreshing in many ways and gave fiat debates an edge of topic specificity that we have since lost. Seniors that year also had a passive topic in '89 with similar contraints about US policy as the object, but also a lot of interesting debate about other agents of action, even other nation-states, on the aff and the neg. That africa topic was really awesome and shows that you can have good debates without the USFG as the only topical actor. good post, although the full on "games playing" analogy needs more exploration (and could be inaccurate for some). Kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Michael Antonucci [antonucci23 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 5:02 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] New Resolutional Formats and Playtesting The community can debate endlessly about whether or not a non-USFG agent is a good idea for advocacy, or whether or not it will play well. I'm pretty agnostic on the question myself, but I do have a fundamental concern. I don't think that any of the new suggested agent variations have been adequately *playtested* to guarantee that they don't suffer from enormous unseen glitches. My concern probably reveals something about my philosophy of debate; its articulation undoubtedly reveals that I'm an enormous nerd. That said, for any other game that I particularly enjoy or value, I'd be really reluctant to sign off on enormous format variations absent some form of playtesting. For example, I'm really happy to occasionally play a game of "bughouse" chess or play Lexulous (or even Lexiko, haha) instead of Scrabble. I think it would a tremendous error in judgment, however, to replace the standard USCF rules with bughouse rules for an entire year. I would have gladly signed off on Lexulous, but it took some play to figure out that eight-letter racks just feel clunky and wrong. Seven tiles is somehow more natural for anagramming. When new strategy games are rushed to market without adequate playtesting, they usually flop. All the brilliant game designing in the world is simply no substitute for putting a group of uber-competitive players in a room (or classroom building) and seeing how it works out. A single annual topic raises these stakes. While it might be fun to try a new topic at one tournament, most people feel that it would probably be terrible to grind out a full year on a topic rife with glitches. Kevin Kuswa's really smart, but he may not have foreseen some "cheat" that will create an enormous and painful aff skew on some of his proposed topics. The courts topic was, from most accounts, an example of what happens when there's an unforeseen glitch or cheat. Radically experimenting with topics exponentially raises these risks. I lack passionate ideological commitments in either direction on this meta-debate. I think my sentiment's shared, perhaps subconsciously, by a big section of the community, though. There's a sense that it's just too weird or too risky. That sense might be wise, not just knee-jerk conservatism. It doesn't stem from an arrogant conviction that we've determined the best possible debating format, but instead from a humble sense that our argument-predictive tools aren't all that successful. I'd love to see some fresh new topics, but there would have to be some hard-core playtesting first. Some pre-empts: "This has already been playtested! We had different agents and passive voices before!" I don't really know what debate was like for the vast majority of those resolutions. I don't think it's a good analogy, though. Didn't teams essentially affirm the entire resolution then? That built-in expectation probably limited the design of tricky, unbeatable affs that affirm on a very small scale. I also think a number of earlier resolutions had implicit agents. For example, the 91-2 resolution "That one or more United States Supreme Court decisions recognizing a federal Constitutional right to privacy should be overruled." was probably almost exclusively a Supreme Court topic, because of "overruled." I'm open to reports on innovation within these passive voice and alternate-agent topics. Were there innovations or weirdish cases? How did those debates play out? "Worlds." I don't know much about worlds, really, although I'm happy to listen. I have an intuition that teams at Worlds also tend more toward an affirmation of the "whole resolution" as opposed to defense of the most strategically defined individual example of that resolution. I think that a community theoretical consensus might really restrict the range of aff innovation. I'm open to correction on this as well. I want more actual reports, though. They're a lot more helpful (to my thought process, at least) than more sweeping but less easily resolved debates over political theory. From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Fri Apr 10 15:39:43 2009 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:39:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A Community Thank You Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCAF00D6F@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> I would like to take a few bytes for a short thank you to the debate community. I was totally surprised in Pocatello by the Brownlee Award. I've known Don for a long time, as I have also known and respected all of the members of the recipient list. To have my community place me among these exceptional people was a singular honor. So, my thanks to the entire debate community, debaters, new and old, coaches, and directors. As you know, I nearly slipped off to wherever ornery old arguers go last summer. Luckily, I survived and, among many layers demanding celebration, being able to return to the debate community, both CEDA and NDT, was especially worthy of thanks. I will be writing to those of you who wrote lovely and exaggerated letters of recommendation-I appreciate your kindness. It is good to be back-see you out there. skip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090410/5c726dad/attachment.htm From andreareed2007 at gmail.com Fri Apr 10 16:39:51 2009 From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com (Andrea Reed) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:39:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] card cutting job next year? Message-ID: <39E0A690-101F-4185-921E-0EA27A622F6A@gmail.com> Hi everyone, I'm looking for a card cutting/asst coaching job next year. Unfortunately I am having some trouble with this, because unlike official faculty positions, not many people seem to post to edebate about their needs for these other types of coaching. I cut alot of cards and I'm sure any Wake person will highly recommend having me around. If there are teams still out there looking for an asst coach, I am very interested. Thanks, Andrea ps- for any of you out there that lament the loss of women coaches in the activity, here's a chance to keep around one that desperately wants to stay.... I dunno... maybe its the economy or something......................... From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Apr 10 18:59:31 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:59:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? (Even More Kuswa-Lacy Stuff) In-Reply-To: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2E6@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C5@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DE8289.3020007@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2DF@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DEF100.5070300@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2E6@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <49DFDD63.5040402@wfu.edu> STUFF That other people might be interested in: I think these are Kevin's most important arguments: 1. Downsides to the USFG as an agent: Primary distancing: the first step of requiring USFG action to be topical is a step eliminating the agency offered by the debaters themselves. We encourage debaters to DE-VALUE what they are actually doing (at the actual time of the debate) in FAVOR of reifying federal government action--the scholarship-fetish DA. We freeze our ability to plot out change in other contexts and we unnecessarily associate governing with macro-reform. 2. Upside to eliminating the USFG as an agent: We can potentially learn a ton of new important stuff if we abandon the USFG. 1. If there is such a huge difference between saying "The USFG should" and "We think the USFG should," why can't we just let debaters say that? Why do we need to alter our topic structure? I always thought the "We think..." was implied, but that is beside the point. Why make a radical change that few are comfortable with if debaters can already address the issue? Your arguments that "USFG should" topics deny debaters agency also seem to rule out other governmental agents, like Israel, Russia, The UN...Is that your intent? If you are right that we should eliminate topics that read "X agent should..." what topics are left? The passive voice? "This house..."? "We assembled..."? To me, those topics are exactly the view from nowhere & everywhere that typifies the worst in American decision making. 2. The upside to a non-USFG agent: We can learn a ton of new stuff. Make the leap! (Refer to Kevin's list of potential educational benefits below.) I don't like making bandwagon appeals at all, but I think its going to take more than this to persuade the community to change. In this particular context, the audience presumption seems to be against change. Maybe it shouldn't. I'm still not convinced that learning to argue "France should.." doesn't replicate Bush-style unilateralism by ignoring how the US could actually persuade France. STUFF That only Kuswa & I probably care about: Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > 2. Americans should not distance themselves from the United States, > because doing so disaggregates responsibility for US policy. > > YOU ARE STUCK ON THE DESCRIPTOR "AMERICAN." This continual attempt to define the debate community as American is far more exceptionalist/imperial than debating about something other than the usfg every so often. THE PRIMARY DISTANCING is not your concern, but it still happens befopre any of the disaggregation you fear on the macro-level. What is this "primary distancing"? It is the idea that the first step of requiring USFG action to be topical is a step eliminating the agency offered by the debaters themselves. ALSO, your argument is more about civic positioning in the world than about debate topics. Does this mean the negative is always anti-American? > Its the American attempt to shed nationality that bothers me. When confronted with the horrors that America has perpetuated, the response should not be to "don't define me as American." That doesn't help America avoid future blunders, nor does it recognize our particular place in history. Obviously, this has little to do with debate topics, since this argument started when I said "We (The United States) are at war in Iraq." I can't tell my family members who were deployed there "I'm not the United States." That would not help them deal with the situation at all. I did play a role in the decision to go to war. I thought the war was based on a fabrication from the get go, but that really doesn't absolve me. I definitely could have said more and said it better. We made a horrible decision. To me, it is far to easy to wash our hands, blame it all on Bush, and avoid further opinion making because it might be "Patriotic." > 3. Some topics might lend themselves to a different agent, but how good > are those topics compared to what we are doing now? > > HOW ARROGANT DO YOU HAVE TO BE to assume that YOU should know exactly what will happen before you can agree to try it. There are other types of topics that are good, would be good, and could even be better than what we have now. Also, you have not justified your approach year after year after year (only in a one-time duel). Don't you trust the debaters to come up with interesting and compelling argumetns on both sides ven if the agent is not the USFG? > This is the primary barrier to change: People haven't been persuaded that a non-USFG agent would be better. They are worried it might be worse. Filling in some details can't hurt. > "JP's thought-process allowed the dropping of the bomb in August of 1945" > > YES, the thought-process of using a Hiroshima War Memorial as an analogy for US attempts to speak for other countries is dangerous. There is NO LINK to topic writing in your argument, but there is a link to "recognizing complicity" as a means to appease individual guilt. When you add up that guilt-sanitation, you make yourself and others more willing to accept the next Hiroshima (Iraq war #1 and the yellow-ribbon campaign...that's the example you will not touch anymore after you brought it up). You also justify a race over the nation-state at the top--if we can just drop the bomb, we can be the state that tells other country's not to drop their bombs. You preclude thinking about not dropping the bomb AND not invading a series of islands in the Pacific. > My analogy was a criticism of Americans who try to renounce their nationality. It is easy to think about Hiroshima and say "I didn't do that." The reality is that we live in a country that continues to benefit from the post-war order that dropping the bomb created. I don't understand how owning that reality is a means to sanitize guilt. I do understand how hiding your nationality does. > "YOUR adherence to the USFG is GENOCIDAL" > > YES, in the context of the Rwanda example that YOU brought up, you were assuming that a lack of USFG action (bystander mentality) was primarily responsible for the killings and genocidal action in the region. This is not exactly the case--in fact it was the same sort of colonial control and imperial logic from Europe that created the divisions between the people in the first place and then instituted mechanisms for mass killing. You do not know this history--you simply believe the narrative of US inaction being the cause because you have already been conditioned to think that the US always has the solution (probably because you have been in debate for so long). What would you have the US do? You phrase is "stop the killing." Do you know how the US tried to "stop the killing" in Vietnam? The military razed villages so there were no more people to kill. In Rwanda, the nation-state borders and attempts to coerce the people into identifying with Rwanda over other ethnic attachments was one of the reasons the violence was so extreme. Your blanket homogenizing of the people in the region into "Rwandans" and your colonial assumption that outside trooops are the best way to solve the problem are the two kinds of thinking that provoked the nightmare in the first place. > And your contention is that the US could have done nothing at all to stop the genocide? Spectating is a means of colonial control. I don't know where I claimed that outside troops were the best solution. They may have been, but we didn't even consider other options besides "do nothing & hope someone else fixes it." Nearly a million graves testify that the US could have done something better than it actually did. > > Your response to one of my most important questions was not helpful at all: > > Question: I've never quite understood how saying "The USFG should..." somehow declares that the speaker is pretending to be anything but themselves. > > Look, JP, whenever you say "X should" and X is something other than you, you are entering into a hypothetical. It's not that hard to grasp. > > Back to Cattle Annie's: Two hypothetical statements: "You should ride the mechanical bull." "If I were you, I would ride the bull." Aside from the fact that riding a mechanical bull is a terrible idea, I don't see how the first statement places the speaker as "you." On the other hand, the second statement clearly does. > Let me ask you a question as a follow-up. Who are you addressing the statement, "The USFG should..." to? What power does the audience you are addressing reasonably possess? > The same audience that any debate resolution addresses. Among their powers are to believe the statement, reject it, or reserve judgment. > > The most important question I asked was never answered at all: > > Question: What is the advantage to any of the effects of abandoning the USFG you've listed? You make this argument yearly, what exactly are the advantages? So far, you've read some links... > > THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD ANSWER, especially when combined with the switch-side argument allowing you to maintain usfg discussion on the negative. I would also add that we freeze our ability to plot out change in other contexts and we unnecessarily associate governing with macro-reform. > > The biggest issue, though, is that year after year we encourage debaters to DE-VALUE what they are actually doing (at the actual time of the debate) in FAVOR of reifying federal government action--the scholarship-fetish DA. The effect of this is to turn debate into a "training day" model that exclusively looks toward certain types of "model-subjectivities" as the universal aim of all debaters and all debate programs. Some models work better for some programs--it is not a surprise to see the same bad arguments being made with increasing ferocity as the writing on the wall becomes more and more visible. This is not much more difficult than the statism position, yet there are still questions about what agency does when it is folded into "the usfg should." > You are right, & I'll echo the argument Ross makes: We are all policy makers. We make important decisions. Debate is a way to make decisions. We pick the USFG as an agent out of convenience: its relatively accessible, the amount of literature available in the US about Federal Policy is well developed, its easy to understand arguments about the USFG, the USFG makes important and controversial decisions. None of which is to rule out non-USFG agents, just to say that it remains to be proven that they work as well. Plus, I always thought Resolved meant about the same thing as "We Contend," or "We Believe." --JP From antonucci23 at gmail.com Fri Apr 10 19:29:36 2009 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:29:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] New Resolutional Formats and Playtesting In-Reply-To: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2E8@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> References: <4a71966c0904100202u39b89f2do60efc59c9749ae53@mail.gmail.com> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2E8@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <4a71966c0904101729w44ac7aeat27e2ba33c9b07b42@mail.gmail.com> "For a quick report, the 92 topic was still focused on the Supreme Court because its decisions were the object of action, but even the passive voice opened up sapce for some great argumetns that year about topical coutnerplans, other agents of action, and how court decisions might be overruled without using the court. The morgan power and other ways to effect court rulings without using the court (or without exclusively using the court) were great to debate on the aff and the neg. This is all within governmental action for the most part (even though there were a lot of social movement questions and Hollow Hope took on a number of interesting dimensions because it just came out), but it was still refreshing in many ways and gave fiat debates an edge of topic specificity that we have since lost." Using "overrule" as a passive or active limit on the topic hasn't played out as well in recent memory, though. That might actually relevant for the construction of APAR (Agentless, Passive, or Alternate agent Resolutions.) Stripping the agent might really place a premium on counterplans that object to the process implied by the passive verb. I have no doubt that court decisions that "should be overruled" will be constitutionally mandated or distinguished away from in the CP; given actions that "should be legislated" will inevitably be implemented through agency fiat CPs instead. Did anyone run Morgan Power as the aff? Sounds like it. That sounds OK, both ways, from a ground perspective. Good debate there, pretty well-balanced. I think some people might be scared that this sort of resolution would provoke affs that we should "overrule" objectionable Supreme Court rulings by ignoring or deconstructing them, as part of a larger program of anarchy or plain ol' anti-normativity. The ultimate nightmare might be the team who simply indicts the decision in the 1AC, and uses an agentless passive-voice plan text - then clarifies what that might actually mean in the 2AC or later. Do you think APARs should aim to constrain or encourage those sorts of affs? I see the first as a legitimate debate, and the second as an annoying clash-evasive glitch (that I would obviously end up judging 50% of the time, and voting for, and then kicking myself.) I can imagine this 1AC CX already. Yuck. " Seniors that year also had a passive topic in '89 with similar contraints about US policy as the object, but also a lot of interesting debate about other agents of action, even other nation-states, on the aff and the neg. That africa topic was really awesome and shows that you can have good debates without the USFG as the only topical actor. " Wasn't Africa 89 a nightmare for neg prep, though? Looks huge. That's purely anecdotal - you were there and I wasn't, so I'll defer to your opinion. It would be interesting to hear from other people who did Africa 89 as well. I think topics should be constrained to some extent to encourage clash, and I think the analogy between those game rules and legal rules or social taboos an exceptionally poor one. What alternative agent affs were hot? "good post, although the full on "games playing" analogy needs more exploration (and could be inaccurate for some)." I could explain at some length. That would probably be a separate thread. Even if gaming is imperfect as a totalizing metaphor, though, I think it's valid in this particular instance. The format of debate resolutions needs some playtesting, or maybe just extensive data from past resolutions, to take the risk of abandoning a model that may be "calcified" but isn't badly broken. I'm not sure who would object to that metaphor. I know some conflate political relevance with speeches that directly map onto their preferred political positions. I find that position naive. Debate may affect larger advocacy, but it certainly doesn't map isomorphically. That's why fairness considerations should actually trump T impact turns. All of those T impact turns misunderstand the relationship between T and the polity at large. -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090410/2ae68c80/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Sat Apr 11 08:58:59 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:58:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Agents/States/False Dichotomy - "K" and "policy" Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F94774EA61@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> The building blocks of ?anti-K? propaganda?. Here is Ermo on what he calls the ?K? 7. I agree with Ricky that many debaters privilege certain types of impacts, but I disagree that the K is an effective solution to these problems. Although I think a lot of the K literature is very interesting and important, in actual K debates judges often encourage clash avoidance (side stepping through minimal distinctions), let people wiggle out of impact turns, encourage new and hidden alternatives, allow implicit framework arguments (like ?rep?s first?) to dramatically refocus the rounds, etc. The generalized ambiguity about how K rounds are to be resolved leads to considerable inconsistency from round to round. That inconsistency appears to favor certain teams over others (which ones? It depends on the point of view of the observer), and makes hyper specific strategies against particular K?s ineffective, while they should be extremely effective. A more positive spin on the same phenomenon would be ?when there are no rules, the better debater always wins.? (which sounds fine, but it?s nice when the weaker debater can sometimes win through hard work and preparation). In this way, the post structural orientation of some K?s and many K friendly critics tends to disincentivize K debating. (I would be happy to brainstorm friendly solutions to this problem with anyone who shares my assessment in broad terms). I think this where people begin their misunderstanding of debate arguments that do not focus on passing a specific policy proposal from a traditional view of ?is the plan a good or bad idea?? This is where young debaters get pointed in the wrong direction in understanding the notion of debate ?arguments?. They are all arguments. This ?clash avoidance through minimal? distinction seems pretty popular on the ?states counter-plan? or most any other counter-plan strategy. These things that you refer to as ?refocusing rounds? are justified through good evidence and historical examples. What I am saying is these are arguments on why you don?t just look at ?does plan solve? to determine if the policy is good or bad. Its really just all impact debate, and then getting a head start on why the decision calculus is/has/was failing. Look where our world is at today. This idea of having tunnel vision and assuming that a limited decision calculus about ?is the policy a good or bad idea? has failed us. Debate is reflexive of the real world. Realism used to flourish in debate until so many became aware of its failure in IR leading to never ending wars, an economy that was so fat on invisible dollars that the air was going to bleed out at sometime, and we are lucky it has not popped completely. This discussion is not irrelevant to current real world situations, but rather so relevant in how we need a new framework/lens/ideology/ whatever you want to call it, for looking at our policy decisions. The narrow view of ?is the plan a good or bad idea? can only be a focus if you can justify why other thing should not be considered. For many years ethics, values etc. were considered to not be important in policy making, not just in debate but in the places where decisions are made for a statists response. Its kinda like this, the other things besides those things that want to determine ?is the plan a good or bad idea?, control uniqueness. The old methods have failed us. We must not re-arm ourselves in debate or in the oval office with those failing ideologies. Your files have to change. No more reading ?realism good? on a framework debate. You have lost uniqueness on this debate. The ?realism bad? side controls uniqueness, all those things you say are good about ?realism? have proven to fail us in all areas. Environment, economy, poverty, war?. Find one. This is debate also. You cannot continue to at face dismiss arguments that say our ?plan focus? is too narrow. That is what all of these implicit framework arguments are, reasons why the traditional narrow framework has failed us. A> There is no divide, just arguments. B> The ?K? debaters control uniqueness on solvency and impacts, only a risk it can get better, the non-?K? framework has proven to fail us and did not cause the good things to occur their evidence wishes for. If you made it another type of debate, then there would be a problem of not including "policy and government action for change". Your right Swampy, debate is not like it used to be. We have to evolve, otherwise we are defending failing ideologies an philosophies. WAR WAR WAR ? that?s our world right now, and that is a result of the many dominant debate ideologies that people think we need to strap ourselves down to in debate. Let them disappear with the Core Motive Inherency and Minor Repairs. So I might agree that the resolution might be a problem, but it is doing really well as a stand in statue for the ideologies and values behind real-politik that is no longer credible or believable. Peace Massey From kkuswa at richmond.edu Sat Apr 11 10:16:37 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:16:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Is it time to get away from Policy debate? (Even More Kuswa-Lacy Stuff) In-Reply-To: <49DFDD63.5040402@wfu.edu> References: <1239148370.49dbe7525ad8b@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DBF737.6010900@wfu.edu> <1239157870.49dc0c6e57d4e@webmail.grandecom.net> <49DC0EA3.5020400@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E94722D3E70@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD4B7B.1010207@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C0@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DD7603.6070307@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2C5@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DE8289.3020007@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2DF@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DEF100.5070300@wfu.edu> <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9471CBB2E6@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu>, <49DFDD63.5040402@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E950E3F8B24@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> shoot, back on the bull.... Preface: Stuff You do Not Need to Worry About -- whether debating each year with a usfg agent will help resolve genocide. -- whether the latent patriotism of the debate community contributed to the first and second Iraq Wars. -- whether the logic behind events that took place in Iraq, in Rwanda, in Hiroshima, or in Vietnam is a ringing endorsement of always debating about state solutions to problems. -- whether diversity in education matters. keep scrolling.... Phewww! Now that we have bracketed those discussions, we are in the free and clear to pursue the real tofurkey. ________________________________________ From: JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com STUFF That other people might be interested in: I think these are Kevin's most important arguments: 1. Downsides to the USFG as an agent: Primary distancing: the first step of requiring USFG action to be topical is a step eliminating the agency offered by the debaters themselves. We encourage debaters