From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Jan 1 15:20:45 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:20:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] topic wording possibilities (to paper authors)--call for general variety Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E9026CA3155@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Hello edebaters, Happy '09. It looks like interest in writing papers and helping the process is increasing. The debate on ?Grand Strategy? as a resolution focus has been good to see and the backchannel inquiries about other wording options have also been encouraging. What I am trying to do in this post is to continue to categorize some of the *general* ways that topic wording might be diversified to expand or slightly shift the current types of resolutions we have been debating. General variety in the topic wording process is, of course, relative to the specific controversy, the terms used in the literature, and the agent of action. There are probably an infinite number of ways to vary the form the resolution takes and the topic committee has been full of insightful feedback (much of which is reflected in this post), but it may help to get some thoughts from the larger community and controversy paper authors. Preface To begin, changing the resolutional wording structure is not automatically a good move. In fact, many of you are asking, "What's wrong with the topic selection process as it is?" Nothing is wrong with the wording selection process. It works well and it allows the community to vote on controversies generated by anyone who wants to write a paper. It also allows the community to select a wording from a slate of options crafted by the committee with additional wording papers supplementing the original controversy paper. Mancuso, Stables, and many others have done excellent work on getting the larger community involved and improving the process. It is not the case, though, that these topic choices have been spontaneous creations from authors compelled to find the Truth of a controversy. I doubt if we would want those forms of technocratic descriptions in the first place?novices (at least some of them) are still expected to be able to enter the activity from scratch. Regardless, these wording choices are influenced by what authors think the topic committee will accept and what the community has voted for in the past. Investing the time in a topic paper is immense as many of you know from first-hand experience. If you were writing a topic paper about a controversy you find important, would you not take into account the fact that every resolution for over a decade and every choice on the slate of options last year used the "United States Federal Government" as an agent? Bucking that trend would be a big risk even though the community did not actually vote to use that agent (it was the only choice). Maybe the USFG was the best agent according to the Truth of the controversy paper, but maybe it (also) became the best agent through some of the normalizing influences of the process? These comments about the USFG should not be seen as the only place for more diversity in our wording options. Here are some of the elements missing in topic choices over the past 15 years or, in some cases, longer. Specifics These paths are not equally worth pursuing, but they all warrant some degree of thinking. They are ranked roughly in order of possibility/feasibility/support. 1. Non-USFG agents. There is some very strong support for a topic that uses an agent of action other than the US Federal Government. The ?international institutions? area may generate a controversy that yields a non-US option. Calum Matheson has talked recently about a possible NATO agent in his military strategy posts, Vik Keenan has been working on a UN agent in other debate contexts, and there are additional projects underway that have potential. We have had topics in the past that use agents other than the USFG, demonstrated by the list of previous resolutions at the end of this post. I caution, though, that the standards used on this question (ground, research, predictability) are often manipulated slightly to give the USFG the edge. We have debated Europe, China, and other controversies that point to a non-US agent, but we have not had a wording option without the US as agent on any of those topics. It is an uphill climb even though it should be a downhill coast?no educator would praise a discussion?year after year after year?that is purposefully so imperial in terms of the ?Affirmative Subject.? Certainly a non-USFG agent must be defended and this is about a well-written controversy paper and a well-defended wording paper, but there are other pressures and expectations working to limit this area of innovation. 2. Passive voice. Leaving the question of ?By Whom?? open to debate, passive voice may well offer the best place to diversify the construction of the resolution. Putting the resolution in the passive (which could happen for any topic, including those we have had recently) is also a way to include the USFG as one agent among many possibilities. There is room within the passive voice to debate the question of the agent as it relates to the controversy area. Having an option written in the passive voice would not destroy debate--there have been over a dozen passive voice topics in the last 50 years. The community might decide that opening some ground for the affirmative to advocate action (topically) outside the constraints of the USFG could actually bring portions of critical debate closer to the specifics while allowing topicality to matter. And, if so desired, the staunch defenders of the USFG (assuming that the community selects a passive topic) could use counterplans or other forms of agent arguments to try to bring their favorite actor back into the round. 2. b) (or not 2 be) Passive voice theory. We have had passive voice topics in the past, even as recently as the early 1990s. These topics were not over-run by counterplanning in the active voice. On the Africa topic (that US foreign policy should be changed), there were excellent debates about other avenues for changing US foreign policy in the region (France, OAU, UN, NGOs) that emerged from the passive construction but augmented everyone's understanding of the factors in the region. It actually helped to concentrate debates on Africa and policy in Africa instead of generic internal arguments about US politics (these arguments were still available, but they were not dominating of the argument field). The theoretical "problems" associated with the passive voice are not reasons to avoid this type of construction; on the contrary, healthy theory debates involving what counterplans might look like, for example, are demonstrations that we should try a topic in this form?a form that is capable of helping us revisit the meaning of fiat. Topical counterplans with a different agent like the States CP or the Executive Order CP would face different types of competition arguments and solvency burdens. Keep in mind that current theory debates are not so wonderful that we should avoid a shift. Given the wasteland of argumentation contained in most ?A-Spec? debates, the burden should be on the defenders of the current wording, not those willing to experiment with the passive. This also addresses the argument that ?passive voice is a position reserved to the negative.? Maybe, from a skewed perspective, negatives are currently deploying passive voice when they critique statist or neoliberal action, but attacking the USFG is not the same thing as advocating from a passive construction. Moreover, the arguments against a specified agent should not only be available to the negative?this one-sided division constitutes the affirmative debater as a certain type of federal government reformer (the aff bureaucrat) or as a total radical ignoring the requirements of the topic. Some also argue against the passive voice from Korzybski?s theory of English-Prime, or E Prime, which would eliminate most passive voice by expunging the verb ?to be.? Passive is still possible within E-prime, however, and the ?should? verb is also acceptable. Compounding the misapplication of this theory to the wording of the resolution, there are problems with the E Prime semantic paradigm in the first place because it conflates certain uses of the ?to be? verb (identifying something and expressing a condition) with all uses. This is a fruitful place for discussion, but not one that would void the possibilities of a passive resolution altogether. 3. Concise wordings. The wordings are getting longer and longer and they do not really have to grow longer to be better. We can at least ask authors to submit wording options with less than 15 words (or provide us with the most concise option they would be able to defend). Or, less than 20 words...or 10. There is something about brevity and simple elegance that we have lost (and maybe have yet to find in most topics). A beautiful topic does not (always) need dangling jewelry or topicality tattoos like "at least including...," "limited to this and this...," "through at least one and not more than the following...," etc. Shorter topic wording do not have to be too broad and they can have more of a connection to creative thinking and argument flexibility. 4. Deeper topic assumptions that might warrant opening: A) The present tense of "should." We all know that "should" helps to define fiat in a way that "could" or "would" does not. Thus, assuming that we must have the word "should" in any topic, why does it always have to be present tense? Would we entertain a paper about a historical topic--one that says "should have..."? B) The "Resolved :"...this may be too close to the heart of what policy debate is to think about changing, but there are plenty of debates over the meaning of this prefix and the colon that follows it. Maybe a paper on these options could go into the different meanings of a dash, a comma, a colon vs. a semi-colon, although that would be less significant than exploring alternatives to the ?Resolved,? including ?Contend,? ?Believe? or not using a prefix at all. C) Punctuating the sentence. This relates to the function of the "Resolved:", but it might be possible to conclude the statement with a question mark instead of a period, changing the way the affirmative is expected to endorse the topic. 5. Words that are not "in the literature" or "terms of art." The addition of descriptors and other words that are not regularly used in that controversy area might allow for more creativity and interpretation. A slightly different version of this element would look for words that have not been used in previous topics---"sweeping" instead of "substantial," "initiate" instead of "increase," "energize" instead of "establish," etc. Many debaters compete for four or more years--they could have a variety of phrases instead of repetition. In other words, we try to alternate between domestic, international, and legal topics (roughly)--why not alternate some of the other phrases? This can go too far if it removes the connection between research in the field and topicality or solvency, but using a few words that are not ?in the literature? could be a good thing depending on their placement and the terms of art that are included. The elements listed above may or may not be linked to some of the critical and performative turns in debate. The fact that we have experienced a number of theoretical shifts and paradigms in debate recently?influenced by technology, but also by fields of argument?is not hard to demonstrate. Questions surrounding the role and agency of the debater-judge-audience as well as critiques of the assumptions behind certain forms of evidence and certain ways of debating are now abundant. At some point the resolutions should (partially) reflect these turns, at least as much as they can within the parameters given. The fact that the agent has been nothing other than the United States Federal Government since 1995 is not really indicative of the paths being taken in debate since the early 90s. Maybe that is a reason to keep the current formula, but it is probably more of a reason to offer some diversity if possible. Ryan Galloway and others on the Topic Committee have been very open to working through some of these possibilities and have articulated some smart arguments both for and against a number of these options. We really do have a committee and a process that is open to any well-defended controversy or wording paper, making some of these paths very real possibilities. >From Here Think about making some of these jumps when it comes time to write a controversy paper or a wording paper. Think about making some of these jumps when it comes time to vote for one of the options or to provide feedback to the list-serve. Some of these elements are closely related to one another and are tied to questions coming from the controversy itself, but each is distinct enough to warrant independent discussion. There really is not as much consensus and predictability in the community as the topics would have an outside observer conclude. Even if there is some norm for the majority of phrases, over a four year period we should attempt to diversify the possibilities. >From early feedback, the discussion about the grammar of the resolved and seeking out phrases that are explicitly outside of the literature are not the best routes to pursue at this point. Those extreme changes might be possibilities that a certain controversy area could explore down the road, but in the short term the move to a non-USFG agent or a broad topic with a limited number of words would be more likely to guide debates toward the details of the controversy (a positive goal) and to temper our fears of the unknown in the topic writing process. Thank you for reading, Kevin Kuswa U. Richmond ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Kuswa, Kevin [kkuswa at richmond.edu] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:01 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] topic--controversy papers hi all--happy holiday season. enjoying the debate for ceda admin. Ellis, Russell, Elliot, Keenan, M. Davis...quite the panel! this is just a little reminder to consider writing a controversy paper or helping with an existing one. Gordon Stables, Chair of the Committee, has put together a very useful description of the process: http://www.cedatopic.com/topic_process.html Also (and slightly related), we've had a USFG topic for almost twice as long as Bush has been in office...it's time for a change (even if small). It starts with good controversy papers that lay out the possibilities for diverse phrases and wordings. An option for a wording written in the passive voice, for a wording with a non-USFG agent, for a wording with fewer than about twenty words, or for another type of wording off the beaten path is possible, but it will need to be well-defended in a controversy paper, a wording paper, or both. have fun with it! kevin _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate NDT (and CEDA) Topics with some variety in the agent or verb since 1946. 1946-1947 RESOLVED: "That labor should be given a direct share in the management of industry. 1947-1948 RESOLVED: "That a federal world government should be established." 1955-1956 RESOLVED: "That the nonagricultural industries should guarantee their employees an annual wage." 1957-1958 RESOLVED: "That the requirement of membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment should be illegal." 1958-1959 RESOLVED: "That the further development of nuclear weapons should be prohibited by international agreement." 1961-1962 RESOLVED: "That labor organizations should be under the jurisdiction of anti-trust legislation." 1962-1963 RESOLVED: "That the non-communist nations of the world should establish an economic community." 1965-1966 RESOLVED: "That law enforcement agencies in the United States should be given greater freedom in the investigation and prosecution of crime." 1968-1969 RESOLVED: "That executive control of United States foreign policy should be significantly curtailed." 1974-1975 RESOLVED: "That the power of the Presidency should be significantly curtailed." 1977-1978 RESOLVED: "That the United States law enforcement agencies should be given significantly greater freedom in the investigation and/or prosecution of felony crime." 1982-1983 RESOLVED: "That all United States military intervention into the internal affairs of any foreign nation or nations in the Western Hemisphere should be prohibited." 1983-1984 RESOLVED: "That any and all injury resulting from the disposal of hazardous waste in the United States should be the legal responsibility of the producer of that waste." 1985-1986 RESOLVED: "That more rigorous academic standards should be established for all public elementary and/or secondary schools in the United States in one or more of the following areas: language arts, mathematics, natural sciences." 1986-1987 RESOLVED: "That one or more presently existing restrictions on First Amendment freedoms of press and/or speech established in one or more federal court decisions should be curtailed or prohibited." 1988-1989 RESOLVED: "That United States foreign policy toward one or more African nations should be substantially changed." 1991-1992 RESOLVED: "That one or more United States Supreme Court decisions recognizing a federal Constitutional right to privacy should be overruled." 1993-1994 RESOLVED: "That the Commander-in-Chief power of the President of the United States should be substantially curtailed." From uwgdebate at gmail.com Thu Jan 1 16:36:08 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:36:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] debaters interested in law careers at the UWG tournament? Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70901011436u4c6bcc57m89d392fef69eff87@mail.gmail.com> if you are debating or judging at the UWG tournament and are considering a career in the legal field, let me know by responding to this email. as you know, Adorno & Yoss LLC are sponsoring the tournament, and will have representatives at the event over the weekend. i'd like to make sure those who are interested get the info and make the connections they want to. hester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090101/28534dfa/attachment.htm From joe_koehle at yahoo.com Thu Jan 1 17:36:05 2009 From: joe_koehle at yahoo.com (Joe Koehle) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:36:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] ride from lax tomorrow Message-ID: <111685.52057.qm@web50203.mail.re2.yahoo.com> my flight gets in early, the rest of the uwg crew shows up much later...so i'm trying to get a ride, to the tournament hotel OR someplace that just isnt an airport! of course, we can work out compensation joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090101/d8601d28/attachment.htm From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu Thu Jan 1 22:49:35 2009 From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 22:49:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Missouri State looking for a swing partner during Texas Swing Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6F73@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Both tournaments preferable, but please email me if you have someone for either. Open division preferred, although the person is technically JV eligible. Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090101/75a8e350/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Fri Jan 2 18:59:16 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:59:16 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Alan Nichols Updates Message-ID: <39c1ac890901021659x24355390v59c085c2f221d100@mail.gmail.com> Greetings all. We hope you enjoyed New Year's Eve and are ready for the tournament. We will be having registration in the lobby of the Sheraton from 7-9 pm. Our goal is to release pairings by the conclusion of registration. We will do so on edebate and have printed copies available in the lobby. We can only meet this goal, however, if teams have registered and submitted their preferences. If you are having any travel problems (say half of your program is stuck in the snow in Spokane) just let us know and we will work with you. Thanks. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090102/55a04beb/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Fri Jan 2 19:16:16 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:16:16 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Missing USC prefs Message-ID: <39c1ac890901021716m27bbbae0idf864d2d78f47573@mail.gmail.com> This is our current list of all teams who haven't fully submitted preferences. Please contact us if you are having any difficulties with the system. Gordon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adam Symonds Date: Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 5:12 PM Subject: Unfinished prefs To: stables at usc.edu Open Teams: CSUF RaSt CSUF RoSa CSUF BG East LA RR GMU HO GMU MR Harvard BP Kentucky CG Kentucky GG Mary Washington KS Michigan LZ Northwestern BS Northwestern MS Northwestern FW Northwestern FG Northwestern BK Redlands LM SFSU EW JV Teams: Binghamton BC Binghamton FT Cal Poly SLO GY CSUF MT CSUF KS CSUF SW CSUF CP CSUN AS CSUN AW East LA NP GMU GP GMU LJ SFSU GS Western Connecticut BS Western Connecticut GG Adam Symonds Director of Forensics Arizona State University -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090102/24c8d00f/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Fri Jan 2 23:10:56 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 21:10:56 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Pairings - 10 pm Message-ID: <39c1ac890901022110w22f6f21al41e508da04800e4c@mail.gmail.com> All of the teams have entered and we are now adjusting the presets to match the judges and all remaining prefs. We estimate the prefs will be posted here (and printed in the lobby) at 10 pm pst. Thanks. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From stables at usc.edu Sat Jan 3 00:28:38 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 22:28:38 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Pairings - 6:45 am Message-ID: <39c1ac890901022228s229d7812xf314243c54f64537@mail.gmail.com> Sorry for all of the confusion. We attempted to move up the release to tonight but that is not realistic due to a variety of factors. Rather than keep people up tonight and rush the data, we will return to the original schedule and release printed copies in the lobby of the Sheraton and posted on the lists at 6:45 am. Copies will be on campus at 7 am. Thanks for all of your patience and cooperation. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat Jan 3 04:01:10 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 05:01:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The election Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901030201k148ca72p7bfbe1d6851ce47f@mail.gmail.com> I have put my answers into my blog, i will be putting more information about my policies and platforms up there in the next few days. I figure that way if you want to read the long explanations and details you can but it doesn't have to be on edebate. I will continue to add to it up until the election i encourage you to comment and post any responses you have. I don't mean to shift away from the facebook group but if thats not your forum you can still discuss my ideas at the blog without any further ado here is the link http://andyellis76.wordpress.com/ Thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/88fa6a9e/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Sat Jan 3 08:20:45 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 08:20:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Tournament Welcomes Denton's own Trebuchet Message-ID: Colleagues, friends, and family, We here at UNT often have the pleasure of enjoying your wonderful hospitality as we visit many of your campuses. We truly feel that our opportunity to say thank you comes only once a year when we get to host many of you. One of our challenges as a squad is visiting another town and city and trying to experience a little bit of what makes that locale unique, special, and exciting. Every tournament has its landmark goodies, things that are treats for the participants. We at UNT have always tried to integrate the town of Denton and the larger University of North Texas into our college tournament, whether it was using UNT art students as consultants and designers on the trophies we give out or hosting a super-smorgasbord luncheon featuring no less than 30 Denton restaurants for tournament participants. One of the things that characterizes Denton is its truly fabulous music scene. Because of the UNT College of Music, Denton is home to at least 100 bands and has produced superstars which grace the likes of classical symphonies and Guitar Hero playlists alike (and I don't just mean Don Henley from the Eagles, but he is an Alum). Just this past summer, the New York Times Music section did a review of Denton applauding the burgeoning music scene noting its Indie flavor (http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/travel/11cultured.html#). And Paste Magazine named Denton the "Best Music Scene for 2008" (http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2008/11/signs-of-life-2008-best-music-scene---denton-texas.html). These reviews often comment on Denton's live scene and the many bands that make it a dynamic experience. In an ever-evolving attempt to bring the debate community the best of Denton, we are proud to announce that UNT debate will host Denton's own TrebucheT for your listening pleasure at the Holiday Inn January 8th, 2009 (after the final round). TrebucheT often plays Andy's bar, Dan's Silverleaf and Rubber Gloves if you are in town before or after the tournament. For more on the band and a sampling of some of their music, you can visit http://www.myspace.com/trebuchetband. There is a brief video of them playing Ur Moms Bar on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xleTFTuEeAM). We will host a reception in the Holliday Inn ballroom after the final round which will feature TrebucheT (although, there may still be special guests). There will be time to name a champion, grab a bit, and then come and kick back with friends in the Holiday Inn. Frankly we wanted to do something, and most people hate banquets and using a guest suite was never big enough for us. A concert seemed the logical alternative. Drinks, food, and a great live band will be included, please come and join us. This won't take the place of our usual reception after the double-ocatfinals on Wednesday. That will still happen as well. All in all, we look forward to hosting everyone and hope to make this a memorable experience, its just our way of saying, "Thank you." -Brian and all of UNT debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/0e8981af/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Sat Jan 3 08:35:15 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 06:35:15 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Alan Nichols Pairings Message-ID: <39c1ac890901030635v7eef0813s89dd7b2c48bc710d@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to everyone for their patience. The pairings are attached as pdfs and also available on our website http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_1_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_2_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_1_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_2_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Thanks and good luck. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com nce -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_1_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12835 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/f4079f8b/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_1_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 4710 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/f4079f8b/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_2_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12900 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/f4079f8b/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_2_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 4731 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/f4079f8b/attachment-0003.pdf From shahall at comcast.net Sat Jan 3 11:04:07 2009 From: shahall at comcast.net (shahall at comcast.net) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [eDebate] NDT Subscription Dues In-Reply-To: <1502268100.2075051231001956982.JavaMail.root@sz0147a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Message-ID: <1134890657.2075811231002247789.JavaMail.root@sz0147a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> Greetings and Happy New Year: I am writing to remind everyone that the final deadline for subscribing to the NDT is January 15, 2009.? If you wish to participate in the district qualifier, and/or the NDT you must subscribe by that date.? The current amount due is $150.00. I had hoped to provide everyone with an updated list of paid dues but I have been unable to reach James Pratt to get the most recent list of payments made to the AFA website.? I am trying to get that list and will post it as soon as I can. The Debateresults.com site now contains updated information on your subscription status.? When you log into your account you will see a message saying that your dues have been received, or that you have not paid and owe $150.00.? Schools that paid via the AFA website in the month of November are not included in that update because I left my written records of that in Cambridge.? I am in California and will not be back in Cambridge until January 11.? I am also trying to get a list of those schools from Pratt so that I can update that site before my return on January 11. I have also been asked to communicate to anyone who will be subscribing via the AFA website, that you should select the NDT subscription option three times in order for the site to charge you $150.00. If you have not yet paid here are your options: You can pay me directly at the USC or Cal State Fullerton tournaments. You can send a check for $150.00 made out the National Debate Tournament to: 324 Franklin St., Cambridge, MA, 02139 You can pay via the AFA website (only way to pay using a credit card). Sherry Hall NDT Treasurer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/d6896b9a/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Sat Jan 3 11:49:02 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:49:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] KSU seeks Varsity Swing - Texas 2-Step Message-ID: <5a6e2a80901030949y43b98376h39bc258f66838b8a@mail.gmail.com> Flexible on speaker positions. Runs primarily performance/critical arguments. Doesn't appreciate much line-by-line or policy args. Speaker award at every regional tournament she attended (4) - a couple top 5 finishes. Please call if interested - 703-855-6177 Thanks, Justin Green From brian95882 at msn.com Sat Jan 3 13:26:05 2009 From: brian95882 at msn.com (brian schrader) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 19:26:05 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Reminder- Denver Tournament and Invite up on Debateresults Message-ID: Invite up and entries activated on Debateresults. Brian Schrader DU Debate _________________________________________________________________ It?s the same Hotmail?. If by ?same? you mean up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_broad1_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/f99a6d39/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Sat Jan 3 16:27:37 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 14:27:37 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Round 3 pairings Message-ID: <39c1ac890901031427i5d5e4be2w903387c342722a2e@mail.gmail.com> Attached and linked below. Start time 3:00 pm http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_3_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_3_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_3_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12852 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/abe1e92d/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_3_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8290 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/abe1e92d/attachment-0001.pdf From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Sat Jan 3 17:29:57 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 16:29:57 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] come to denver Message-ID: The hospitality is great, the competition is real, and the schedule is Hansonenviable (yes new word). Plus, Denver is easy to get to by almost anything but boat. Some people consider Denver a midwestern city. mjs _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090103/cfd333bc/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Sat Jan 3 20:22:25 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:22:25 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Pairings - Rd 4 Message-ID: <39c1ac890901031822r20f5bbc4y7a48f453fa685b3c@mail.gmail.com> Pairings attached and pasted below. http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_4_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_4_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Records available by clicking the 'real time' link on the tournament calendar on debateresults. Evidence storage in the rooms tonight. Pairings available online and at the Sheraton at 7:00 am, Anyone wanting to judge additional debates for payment should just let me know. Good luck! Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From blain at unt.edu Sun Jan 4 03:19:14 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 03:19:14 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Last minute Judge added at UNT Message-ID: Colleagues, One last judge was added to the pool tonight: Eric Mueller Please rank him. Looking forward to seeing everyone. Weather is looking great so far. Everything shaping up nicely. -Brian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/f3a19095/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 04:11:13 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:11:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Debateresults passwords Message-ID: If you've "cracked" the debateresults passwords and are looking at others' prefs and/or messing with them, please stop. This is a serious ethical lapse and frankly is just dickish behavior. Grow up. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/575be92b/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Sun Jan 4 08:40:16 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 06:40:16 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Round 5 Pairings Message-ID: <39c1ac890901040640y41d8fb15ie44b8cfd932df2b8@mail.gmail.com> Pairings attached and linked below. www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_5_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_5_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Help us out today by turning your ballots in online as soon as your decision is complete. Lunch served after round 5. Good luck! Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_5_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12902 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/ea2e6448/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_5_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9935 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/ea2e6448/attachment-0001.pdf From jmgreen at ksu.edu Sun Jan 4 11:59:52 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:59:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Swing Partner Sought for TX 2-Step Message-ID: <5a6e2a80901040959k67a59c32o459d743c72180ec9@mail.gmail.com> 2 debaters available: 1 a varsity debater likes performance/Critical 2 a JV/Varsity debater who likes a wide variety of arguments - would probably be better in JV, but could go open. Please email if interested. Thanks, Justin Green From stables at usc.edu Sun Jan 4 13:50:02 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:50:02 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Rd 6 Message-ID: <39c1ac890901041150t740cb018q30b1dae133089d16@mail.gmail.com> We would very much like to hire folks to judge debates beyond their commitment in Rd 7 to improve our mutuality. We would happily compensate for folks being willing to help. Just let me know. Pairings attached and linked below http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_6_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_6_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Thanks Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_6_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12841 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/87c44c27/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_6_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9882 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/87c44c27/attachment-0001.pdf From blain at unt.edu Sun Jan 4 16:34:25 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:34:25 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT-- No Prefs yet for the following: 4:30pm Sunday Message-ID: Baylor UCO Kansas (Univ. of) Andrew Jack & Mathew Petersen Missouri State Texas Vamsi Bhadriraju & JD Sanford Texas Kenny Cauthen & Drew McNeil Texas Nick Whitaker & Samin Agha Texas State San Marcos Troy Stone & Ryan Herrera Texas-Dallas Jillay Cluff & Wes Dwyer Texas-Dallas Brittany Leach & Collin Roark Trinity University Wichita State Wyoming Grae Harper & Mike Bausch Augustana Johnson County Kansas (Univ. of) Kai Davis & Seth Winkle Kansas City Kansas C Aaron Thomas & Mike Slinkerd Kansas City Kansas/ Noah Fugate & Charlie Clark Miami (Florida) Lauren Rutledge & Ava Fox Rochester Please work on them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/06cff3e0/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Sun Jan 4 17:29:59 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:29:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Rd 7, dinner and awards info Message-ID: <39c1ac890901041529i33355238s6f81fb2d9d3d9aee@mail.gmail.com> Attached and linked below. http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_7_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Round_7_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf All debates are flip for sides. Sides must be determined by 3:35 pm. Dinner to follow Round 7. Food will be served in Taper Hall. Awards to follow in THH 101. Open doubles and JV Quarters tonight immediately after awards. Good luck to all! Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_7_Open_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 11348 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/24dcb040/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round_7_JV_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10020 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/24dcb040/attachment-0001.pdf From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:07:11 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:07:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2ND Vice President Questions Message-ID: <4960FACF02000093000228E3@mymail.kckcc.edu> Here is the list of questions that were asked of the VP candidates. The agreement was they would all be collected by me then posted here before any candidate had a chance to see another candidate's responses. Some answers may be posted elsewhere. Once I post the list of questions, I will post each candidate's answers individually. Thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded? Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter writing, sending in outsiders, etc., should CEDA provide? Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? 3. What changes in the tournament would you be open to make in order to make it happen? Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive progams at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members? Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor the conference format and if not, why? Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:10:09 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:10:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd VP answers from Scott Elliott Message-ID: <4960FB8102000093000228E7@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded? I disagree with these policies. Let me preface the more detailed answer by explaining a few qualifications. Because I was a lawyer and because I teach 1st Amendment and Communication law courses, I tend to look at all of these issues from a legal perspective first, then I have my personal opinions. There is a distinction between what people this the law is and what the law really is. 1. CEDA should not have a policy prohibiting the videotaping and publication of debates conducted at CEDA Nationals?nor should it condone the censorship of videotaping debates at CEDA sanctioned tournaments. Those policies are absurd and unenforceable given the ability (constitutionally protected) to post material on the internet anonymously. To clarify two points of law on this issue, first, there is no expectation of privacy in the communication acts at tournaments. These are public events hosted by public institutions, with students from public institutions. Second, the ?appropriation of likeness? without permission is a non-starter for a number of reasons. Similar to having your picture taken on a public sidewalk having an argument with a traffic cop, you have no expectation of privacy. As long as the person posting is not deriving financial gain from its publication, you do not have much a of trademark or copyright claim. So, the legal basis for preventing the publication of these public speech acts is on shaky legal ground. My opinion is that these debates should be open to taping. It begs the question of what policy debate is in the first place. Is college policy debate a series of private moments of student self-exploration, or is policy debate supposed to be a serious discussion of policy issues facing the nation. Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent on policy debate. My assumption is that most people would see policy debate?s justification as a serious discussion of policy issues. Save the self-exploration for your therapist. The underlying educational function of policy debate means that we have an obligation to our various ?publics? when we debate. The more ways in which policy debate is transmitted to the public serves the overall educational goals of the organization. There is also a question of insularity. I am troubled by the same people that want absolute freedom of speech for debaters within rounds, but then want to engage in the worst form of censorship?prior restraint?regarding the videotaping of debate rounds. The inconsistency baffles me. 2. No limit on sharing videotapes with anyone?including the news media. If you are embarrassed by the stunts you pull in a debate round, or the language you use, clean up your act or be willing to defend your actions to the public. 3. They can make the claim and you can try to persuade people not to videotape. However, I do not think they have an expectation of privacy. I do not think CEDA should have a policy of banning videotaping. They can forfeit the round if they are in a twist on the issue. One caveat, there may be a claim on religious grounds, but that would be an exception to the principle.. Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter wCEDA has been making several improvements on recruiting and supporting new programs. Without giving a huge list, I will be the first to give credit the Mike Davis, Vik Keenan and M.L. Sandoz for their work on this issue. I think M.L.?s example of Vanderbilt helping the University of Houston serves as a model that can be scaled up. I think that CEDA should be more aggressive in recruiting programs. We need a few things to do this: 1. A new coach training seminar; 2. Evidence made available for new programs; 3. Designation of a mentoring school with incentives for that program to help the new program (reduced fees; etc.); 4. A professionally produced recruiting packet for university administrators. Programs require funding. That requires institutional support. They requires a marketing campaign involving academic and institutional justifications for policy debate. Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? 3. What changes in the tournament would you be open to make in order to make it happen? 1. No. Not important. My program?s value in attending CEDA Nationals has never been based on the NDT. 2 and 3. I would not pursue it unless the majority of the CEDA community voted on the issue. So, how would that vote come down? It is pretty obvious to me why those who NDT teams do not attend CEDA Nationals?it conflicts with their prep for the NDT. The solution, and you all know what it is already, is that CEDA will have to change its Nationals scheduling priorities. This means we would have to guarantee that CEDA would be hosted after the NDT. That is what it will come down to. Consequently, CEDA will further identify itself as an organization that is of secondary importance to the NDT. The whoring out will be virtually complete. If that is the overwhelming desire of CEDA, I guess I will carry out its actions. This means, of course, hosting Nationals sometime in April?which is impossible because we have to host Nationals on some school?s spring break. You folks better think of the logistics of your choices before you make that decision. One alternative suggestion?we suggest that the NDT be run at CEDA Nationals. How would that work? People can still get their Copeland award and still be recognized as an NDT top seed. Then, they participate in CEDA Nationals. No NDT. Now, you all know this is never going to happen. But it does illustrate an important point. Why is it CEDA always has to be the organization that rolls over to the NDT? What has the NDT EVER compromised on in favor of CEDA? Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) I am in favor of electronic participation. The video conferencing for the Topic Committee this summer was an excellent example of how this can be done. Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive programs at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? See my answer on Question #2. A real marketing campaign with a professionally produced brochure package and a mentoring program that rewards existing programs for bring new schools into the organization. Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? The Professionalism Amendment answers most of this issue. So, I will answer that issue here at the same time. The answers to this question will probably demonstrate the distinction between what people think Freedom of Speech means and what FOS really is in the United States. There are some people who think that public debate tournaments are laboratories for students to try anything they wof intellectual inquiry. That is wrong. It is a public forum and standard first amendment law applies. The same people who make these broadstroke pronouncements of absolute freedom start to shy away when confronted with reality. I can give too many examples of ?content-regulation? that will make even the most committed free speech anarchist cringe. If a student wants to engage in self-immolation to protest CAFO?s?do we prevent it or at least punish the act after the fact? I say yes. What about a student reading evidence from some ?expert? who claims that real acts of violence are justified?then proceeds to knock the hell out of the debater from the opposing school? What about defecating on the 1AC and handing it back to the First Affirmative Speaker. There was a QJS article on the Rhetoric of Shit. Does this justify the behavior. What about simulating a rape (Yeah, we know it already happened) to the point that it creates a hostile environment? What about use of racist language in order to humiliate or intimidate an opponent of a protected class (race, religion, gender)? Where do we stand as a community on an unprotected class such as gays, lesbians, and transgenders? Are we going to condone, under absolute FOS, someone humiliating a student because of her sexuality? What about destruction of real property?.tearing up a room, or ripping down a wall map because it has ?evil borders?? There are some clear-cut lines that can be drawn and we should enforce to the point of prior restraint: 1) Obscenity under the current case law (huge leeway); 2) Violence against other persons and against oneself; 3) Acts of intimidation and/or humiliation based on currently identified protected groups; 4) Acts of intimidation and/or humiliation based on a person?s sexuality; 5) Acts of property destruction. Acts censured (not censored) after the fact based on due process under the proposed Professional Responsibility Amendment. Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" I like computers. I like the internet. I like communicating via the internet. The CEDA website is a great start. We need to shift away from edebate to the CEDA website. I would like more content on the website. I would like the caselist to move to the website. I would like to have the Brushke system integrated into the website. I would like to have videos of debate posted on the website. I would like a virtual tour of policy debate available on the website to aid in program recruitment and retention. I would like a lot of the material Tuna has on his WDI website incorporated in to CEDA. And, if he does not like it, we can start from scratch and model his groundbreaking efforts in this area. Regarding the second part of the question. I do not think the organization should be involved in creating videographers out of debaters. We have a lot on our plate already Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. My ideal round: The 1AC presents a plan that is pretty close to being topical, but I am not sure. The case has real would impacts and some critical ground implications. The 1NC presents a conditional counterplan, a case specific disad and then thirty case turns. 2AC runs an add-on to give more weight to the plan minus the c-plan; impact turns the disad, and gets out of the case turns. All hell breaks loose in the block. The 1AR does a stand up series of discoes to get out of the case turns and goes for the impact turns on the disad for the easy win. 2NR goes for the case turns and the impacimpact the impact turns to her own disad. 2AR makes a brilliant time frame and impact analysis. My team is the ideal team. I have a mix of National caliber debaters and debaters who will probably never break at a tournament. The one?s who will never break will gain more from debate over the long run than the debaters who make to finals most weekends. Open to all, but feisty in terms of challenging each other?s assumptions on all aspects of life. Tournament: The Mardi Gras Tournament, of course. A humane schedule, plenty to do after debate rounds. Community. The Community is not edebate, I can tell you that for sure. When I meet people in face to face discussions, the change in attitudes is amazing. There is a reason why we travel to certain tournaments out of our region..it is because we are meeting with members of our extended debate family. We disagree on issues all the time, but we still love to hang out with people that like to argue and that love to show students new ideas and new visions of the world, as it is now or how it could be. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? Free Beer-pong after round 8. I think we officially incorporate some form of Novice and JV division, or break out division. Darren Elliott?s decision this year meant a big difference for my squad. Instead of just two teams traveling to Idaho, we will be bringing four teams. Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? See my previous answers on recruitment. We need more regional schools in order to have a regional circuit. As I noted in my 2nd VP statement. Louisiana went from 10 schools participating in CEDA zero, and now just one. We could travel to eight tournaments within our own state. Now we have to drive all the way to Dallas. Bring back CEDA Regionals. Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members? Directing one or more debate programs for over ten years. Participating and or coaching in debate for almost thirty years. My experience as an attorney and as a professor gives me a unique background to address the emerging challenges. Beat Jason Russell in a beer chug contest in 1996. Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? I can take Gordon Stables in a physical brawl. Sue?not so sure who will win. I think you will be surprised that I work well with others on an interpersonal level. I am usually focused on how to solve a problem, regardless of my personal views on the situation. For example, I worked with Ede Warner this summer during the business meeting. You all know that I will get into it with people on issues on edebate. But, when it comes to getting work done, I sit down with people and try to work out a solution that we can all live with. Another example, I attended the NDT D3 meeting this fall. I did not call for bolwing up the NDT, or anything else. Rather, I tried to help find some workable solutions to problems raised by members of the NDT District. My wife thinks I am quite charming. Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? No. Having the 2nd VP work for two years before becoming President allows for a smoother transition. Watch what happens with Obama in his first 100 days, then ask yourself?wouldn?t it be better if he would have had a little on the job training first? Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor thexclusion. I am worried about people gaming the system. I am not really sure what purpose either regions or conferences serve anymore given that some regions do not hold regional championship tournaments or regional meetings. Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? I think edebate should be abandoned. It served its purpose. We should shift discussions to the CEDA website. Have a student forum section. I think this will also cut down of the conspiracy theorists posting ?Obama is not a real American? garbage every five minutes. Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? Yes. I worked on the original draft of the proposal. I think Gordon Stables and the others that worked on it did fantastic revisions. I have posted my reasons for support in my VP statement and on edebate. In a nutshell, we have to protect the organization first. We have to protect students and we have to protect programs. It is about time that CEDA move to become an association of professionals. Part of being a profession is having enforceable standards of conduct. Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? We should respond as quickly as possible. We should be proactive. I will use the most recent example/debacle. And, if members of the current CEDA organization get defensive, then so be it. Chief and Gordon can jump me in the parking lot at Idaho State in March. When things got out of hand at the conclusion of the Ft. Hays/Towson round, CEDA dropped the ball. In typical insularity fashion?they thought that we could all ?wish it away.? Well, the audacity of hope might get you elected to the Presidency of the United States, but it will not prevent the publication of such a juicy incident. CEDA dropped the ball in three fundamental ways: 1. It did not move to censure the two culpable actors. Silence was not the best option. 2. It did not take any action on claims made by certain individuals regarding the event. My guess is that this failure to take action may have been part of the reason why the mooning video was placed on YouTube. 3. Ft. Hays and Pitt were not informed of the incident. This was a serious error that I believe resulted in the loss of a great program. Jason and Andy talk a good game about public relations. But, I have yet to see any specifics. Here is a specific example of classic public relations failure. A critical aspect of PR is damage control. Our organization?s failure to provide Pitt and Ft. hays with a ?heads-up? on this left the President?s of the respective schools wrong-footed. They had to overreact because the story had spun out of hand before they could do damage control. A letter to the respective schools would have gone a long way toward institutional damage control. The respective schools could have been prepared. More importantly, they would not be able to point the finger back at CEDA. We got scapegoated because we failed to act. Next time, when I am Imperial Ruler of all that is real debate, we will put the ball in the schools? courts. Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? That is the Professional Responsibility Amendment. Please take time to read it. I helped draft those portions that the question seeks answers. The PRA will sanction violations of those listed in this question, after due process. There is an investigation and adjudication procedure. Thfired. Maybe they should be fired. How that report is drafted and sent is covered by the PRA. Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? My priorities in life are as follows. My daughter is first. My wife is second. My debate team is third. Shadow, my Pomeranian is fourth. My family is fifth. Debate is sixth. I have been engaged in the activity since 1981. I have been a member of CEDA since 1984. My only goal is to provide more access of research based debate to as many students as possible. I think CEDA serves a vital function of promoting research based debate. Despite my rhetoric on some issues, I only want CEDA to succeed and to flourish as an organization. I want it to regain it prominence as the Nation?s leading forensics organization. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:11:09 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:11:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd VP answers from Andy Ellis Message-ID: <4960FBBD02000093000228EB@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #1?Taping "Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded?" I believe the policy should be as follows. The default assumption is that during official activities at CEDA nationals you can and likely will be taped and it will potentially be produced and posted by anybody attending, including CEDA. CEDA Nationals is and should be a public event. Individual participants have the opportunity to opt out. An opt out will prevent you from being taped or appearing in any CEDA Video. If it is a public space an agreement to opt out with CEDA does not mean someone will not tape you, that as always wherever you are is largely between you and them, and perhaps the campus, but with friendly video takers it will probably suffice, and for unfriendly vidographers it gives you something more to use. But everybody needs to be vigilant. If there is a video camera on don't forget its on. Don't think it wont get shared. I'm really not sure how you could say its ok to digitize this but dont share this with high school kids(Well ok I have an idea) but still its kinda bizarre. And pretty absurd. I mean really, what better way to want to make high school kids see something than slapping an age verification system on it. Coaches do not and should not be making rules for their team about who can be on video, but thats not ours to legislate. Individuals are the unit that should opt in and out of image control, and exempt "my whole team" wont do, you as a coach can be sure to enforce that rule, but ceda in this instance should deal with individuals. Without a bunch of sanctions that we can't legally back up we can't stop video from coming in. There are litterly 1000s of video photo and audio devices at any ceda nationals we can regulate our own video production, but really don't want the job of clamping down on internet video. Question #2?Emerging Programs "Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter writing, sending in outsiders, etc., should CEDA provide?" I have worked with new and emerging programs at every step of my time in ceda. If i was elected second vice president I would make the direct provision of services to help start up new programs a top priority. New programs do not need letters, or calls from CEDA officers, they need some of the same things we all need, cheap local tournaments with good competition, help strecthing the budget(even if they don't have an official one everybody has one) dedicated coaching, and talented debaters. They also often need help training coaches and new debaters, plans for organizational growth, and budgetary supplements. Almost all of my opponents have experience with emerging programs, and who ever wins i am sure will make this a highlight of their administartion. Mike Davis's work to get the new and emerging program amendment in to law has opened up the membership in radical new ways, but if we can't put together a program that supports new and emerging programs with direct services we wont be able to take advanateg of the opportunities he provides. We need to provide a variety of free and contracted services that can put us to work building new programs. A $5000 package where CEDA directly works with a school interested in debate is not out of the question, neither is one tailored to less. CEDA should provide the following services and resources through a centralized website and through direct on site work : New Program Guides-Real step by step checklists, guides, timlines, and strategies from people who have done it. Coach and Debater Training-Real & Virtual Pooled Resources-Coaching, evidence, judging and more can be bundled together and save costs for everybody. Funding-Not yet but down the road? One Day tournaments-Encourage particpation with flexible tournament structures/ Digital Debate-Get people debating even if they can not leave their campus. New Research into institutional motivations-What russel should chair if he doesnt win this election. Question #3?NDT 1st Rounds at CEDA Nats "Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? 3. What changes in the tournament would you be open to make in order to make it happen?" This is not that high of a priority to me mainly because i think there is very little ceda can do to account for the vast array of reasosn that some first rounds don't attend. I do however think that making ceda better for its own sake will bring more teams of all skill and experience levels to the tournament. Question #4?Electronic Business meetings "How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.)" Absolutly. I think all offical business should take place electronicaly as well as in person(though i think phasing out the current in person meetings is a possibility worth looking in to. There are a lot of forums that could facilitate very effective online meetings , and a lot of their are free. For very little resources we could make the video in the meetings two way and take advanatge of the vast numbers of web cams our members have. Chat exists for people without webcams, and so do a whole lot of other things, the how is the fun part and we will get to it, but it is immenantly doable. The Why is tougherl, but not that tough. Many of us cannont afford either the travel or the time to attend business meetings, if we don't have department or some one to pay for the trip it is one more expense out of pocket, and while particpation in those meetings is worth a lot, its not worth a trip across the country. But organizational business is important to a lot of members and we should encourage particpation, it builds stake and community, and often provides resources the organization never knew it had amongst its members. Furthermore having open forums and transparent virtual meetings, creates a record that can allow members to go back and asseses decisons made by the ec and the membership. In addition to existing business i would encourage ec members to blog, podcast, chat, and what ever else they like on the ceda site. If elected i will host at least one monthly online forum, where i present the work i am doing, and seek feedback, advice, and discussion from members, and i would strongly encourage the other members of the ec to do so. Question #5?Revive Small Programs "What will each of you do to help revive progams at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy?" Several intiatives i have proposed would substaintially benefit small college programs. 1) Localization and flexible tournament sanctioning can decrease costs and reduce travel burdens 2) Resource pooling and member services can stretch a small programs budget 3) An executive director could work to adapt the message ceda promotes to a variety of different type of schools. The thread uniting all of these is that CEDA needs to provide service and leadership that not only creates opportunity for small programs but also provides the direct services they often need in order to function. Administration aporganization come to rest on our time tested ideas of what excites administrators, but we need to rethink what makes debate good, beyond notions of "they wouldnt understand" or " we can't tell them about that" because the excitement we bring to our activity is a powerful sales point and we need to be willing to make it to our administrators. Many in the organization are doing this well all ready and need no help from the organization, but all of us can use the good ideas of others. As a ceda leader i would reach out to the people who have had the most success and seek their stories, these are not trade secrets, other programs succeding help all of us. I over the years have found that those who have successful models for engaging administrators are not only excited to talk and share but are often amazed by the lack of ways to share that knowledge. One of the many information initiatives i would launch would be a directors dialouge, blog and resource corner where amongst other things directors could share their sucesses and failures with administration innovations. Question #6?Content Regulation "Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate?" I do not favor content regulation of ceda debates beyond the laws that exist that always already govern us. Question #7--Convergence "What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?"" CEDA needs a centralized web site that provides content people need and function that people will use. We should from the centralized site push out to as many social networks as we like the content and announcements from the site. I have written more extensivly about this on edebate. Question #8?Ideal Debate World "Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community." The ideal debate round is one where both teams are well prepared to disagree intelligently. The ideal team can make an argument that they enjoy while listening and refining their argument. The ideal squad combines different skills and resources to work together to be greater than the sum of its parts. The ideal tournament is one with good judges, a humane schedule, reasonable accomodations, and competition suited for all particpants. I cringe at the idea of ideal communities, but would say that one in which all particpants can disagree and still come back to do it again. Question #9?Teams Participating at CEDA "What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals?" 1) I would implement my new program and regional revitalization initatives to increase the number of teams participating in debate. 2)Fundraising would be a priority of my administration and one of the key goals would be to provide a pool of support to get new and re-emerging programs to CEDA nats. 3) A long term goal is to bring down the cost of CEDA nationals for all. 4) I would initaiate a dialouge amogst the membership about the date of the tournament and find the solution that worked best for the membership 5)For the nationals that i was responsible for hosting i would seek partnerships with the municipalities that host and reach out to civic and corporate leadership in the area where we are hosting. Question #10?Regional Debate "What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate?" One Day Tournaments Five Round Tournaments Direct Support to New and Emerging Program Focus on two regions per year Create incentives for regions not vested in ceda to be ceda regions recruit and work with qualified"What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members?" I have worked in the debate community as a coach since 1999. I have worked with Big state schools with storied traditions and re-emerging programs, small liberal arts colleges with programs new and old. I have coached in 4 different regions, and worked with students from brand new novices to high school champions. I have coached teams that have won CEDA nationals and teams that are excited just to attend. All of these experiences have given me the opportunity to see how competition and education coexist in a wide variety of settings. Furthermore my experience launching the 20 school middle school debate league in Baltimore and the follow on experience launching the Baltimore College Debate Intiative, have developed my ability to balance competition and education signifigantly. In addition to my debate experience I bring 5 years of non profit program management to my candidacy. By combining the three aspects i can successfully guide CEDA toward organizational growth, better comepetition, and better education. Question #12?Working Well With Others "4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role?" Despite what many may think, I actually work pretty well with others, even if i don't always agree or even like them. When i have a job to do I can put aside disagreements and implement a solution even if i don't agree that it is the best one. The key hint i would give to Gordon and Sue is this: I like to debate, argue, disagree, even fight, to me its part of the brainstorming process, but once you are done with the discussing and you want me to get to work just let me know. I have a lot of respect for Gordon, Sue and all of the leadership of CEDA and am eager to work with them. I have a lot of ideas for how i think the organization can get better, that is the fun of a campaign, but once its time to work, i will consult with Gordon and Sue to figure out what roles they want me to have. If they are interested in impelmenting ideas that i come up with i have no problem handing control over, if they are uninterested or opposed, i will work with them to figure out a way to support their visions and work toward mine when i am the president. Those that really know me, know that i am a hard and committed worker who will selflessly work to get the goal achieved. If the goal is important it may be more important to me than the feelings of the people involved, however if the feelings of the people involved are a key component of achieving the goal, then working together becomes part of completing the project. Question #13?Leadership Structure "Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like?" To put it bluntly CEDA needs to grow up and get a day job. NO im not saying the leadership structure is not grown up or doesnt have day jobs. But what i am saying is that CEDA as on organization maybe does 20 hours of work a week plus signifignat work around certain events. But the mission of the organization is expansive, and simply cannont be fufilled effectivly based on the valient volunteering of the dedicated few. In Order to fufill our mission we need to invest a little bit in the organization. CEDA should hire an executive director. I'm not talking about a $100,000 year john edwards needs a new job type of executive director, i'm talking about 30 k plus benefits for some one to work full time for ceda with salary incentives to get to the 100k salaray eventually. But the simple fact is that despite having 100s of stake holders all over the country the organa 100,000k worth of business management. I for example would think that Gordie Miller would be a great executive Director of CEDA. The Executive Director Should Build the organization, including structres for fundraising and development, programs and services, products, recruiting, as well as all aprropraite business practices. The exact details of the executive directors job is to be negotiated by the ec and commented on by the mebership but thats the begining of an outline. The EC, an over worked bunch of people, already should provide leadership and specfic resources for the vision of the ed, and let the ed be responsible for getting the business stuff done. In turn the ED works for the board, which means there is some sort of checks and balances. The EC loses some power in this setting, it is no longer the final say on all calls, but it is on important ones. There is all sorts of very exciting literature on ways that a board(the ec) intereacts with the hiring and continued employment of an executive director. If any body wants to read it ask me and ill send some links Question #14--Conferences "Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor the conference format and if not, why?" I think Conferences are a great way to go. (If i think that do i not have to explain? or not get to explain? I'll go with the first one) I Like the idea of conferences, there are some connections that cross geographical barriers that could foster better stronger regional communities. And While geography is a good starting point. The line is always harshest when you are on the other side of it. I think Conferences could create their own governing, organizational, fee, benefit and recruiting structures not to mention the ways they could innovate tournaments, coaching, and other debate practice. Sports conferences cost money to be a part of but bring back resources to the school, it is mutually benefical to both particpants (at least it should be). Debate conferences should have the fleibility to follow that model or the regional model currently in effect. I think the first stage in getting to conferences is to make the current regions no longer held together by geograpgy (and exemptions).In other words in the first year of conferences, the only conferences would be the existing regions. During the Second and third years after conference implementation a select number (can't make this decison on my own) would be started. 3 Years After a conference is founded it must be reviewed by the executive committee. If the conference wants to continue to exist (some may not) they have to present a plan to the ec and the community to go forward. This applies to the regions and the charter conferences as well as all new confereces created after the intial process. Question #15--Edebate "Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization?" Edebate as long as it exists should be a place where business is posted. Announcements about CEDA votes, meetings, tournaments, important dates, and awards should all be there. Each executive board member should communicate in this forum or any other within reasonable guidelines enacted by the executive committee. I believe our communication strategy should create internet content centrally and push it out to a variety of different forums our members are familiar with. Edebate for all of its flaws has facilitated some of the most democratic open conversations on the direction and shape of this activity that have ever existed. While the quality is not of the level of publications of previous decade the record of the public open discussion is amazing . It shows us all in some embarrasing moments, and some of our weekest moments as an organization, and a community. But it also shows the true willingness of many in the community to debate when they disagree, and it showsThink about it this way. Would facebook let people do the stuff that phil lets happen? If so would you trade your old stregas for a billion zombie invites? We need to use facebook and edebate and any other social network that people are good at communicating in, but we need to have a centralized information strategy that utilizes these components effectivly. The organization does not need to run edebate any more than it needs to run Facebook. What we do need to do is develop our own information and communication system that is useful enough to members and the public that they have a reason to use it. Question #16?Professionalism Amendment "Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics?" Yes. Even if it does not cover all situations, it is a huge improvement over the status quo and begins to address some of the shortcomings of the current system. We have along way to go to get it right, and we will without a doubt stumble along the way, but as this summer showed we need some mechansm to promote the values we hope we all share. Question #17?Bad Press "How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted?" Proactivly! In the past year we have learned alot about how to respond to bad press. Much of what we have learned is that we are not ready to deal with bad press. After August and Sepetember's press the statements about the press where up on the main CEDA page for a long time. This meant if a user went to the CEDA site not because of bad press but out of interest all they saw was us responding to bad press. Who wants to join that organization. Press releases about bad press should not linger, they should do their job, and then be avialable to those who look, but it should not be how we say hello. We need to proactivly create good information and resources about ourself so when we do have to respond its not the only thing we are saying. Here is a formula that i would use to deal with Bad press: Acknowledgement, Concern, Initiative, Progress, Momentum. Acknowledge the problem, Show Concern for its severity, demonstrate the intiatives put in place to address and prevent reoccurances, explain the progress toward that goal, and highlight the momentum we have to get past it stemming from the good things we do. I would also seek pro bono public relations assistance prior to a crisis so that when time was sensitive we already had the partners and supporters to consult. I think it is essintial to recognize that we are not equipped to manage a major media crisis, or even an embarrassing you tube video. We need to increase our capacity to deal with such things, but we need help from those that do so as a profession. We need to identify people who are in this industry who have a connection to CEDA and see what we can do to create a partnership, that benefits them and helps us to have the professional resources we need. Question #18?Ceda Sanctions "Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom?" Yes. CEDA needs to be able to sanction members and notify member institutions of violations. Its not pleasent and none of us want to do it, but not doing so puts the organization at serious risk, and puts members at serious risk. When Bill Shananahan was fired this summer the president of Ft. Hays indicated that if he had been informed earlier Bill might have been able to keep his job. When the organization has a safehouse mentality members who may have engaged in unprofessional behavior have no incentive to notify their institutions, even if their contract requires it. This creates a culture where things are tolerated and things happen. to our members. If bill can be taken down by an activity the community wouldnt have told on, so can others, and if we as a community encourage a anything goes mentality we are all responsible when someone loses their job. We need as a community to come to an agreement about what standards we will enforce and what sanctions we can take. If we don't have the ability to enact sanctions we have zero ability to enforce behavior stanards that the community agrees upon. A world where there is no way to enforce, is a world where only those that want to comply will. I don't take sanctions lightly and before we get there we need to consult similar organizations, legal professionals, and large groups of the membership, however if we can solidify some standards we have the poetnetial to grow substaintially. Professionalism is i believ a key compoennet in recruiting new people, this doesnt mean we need to wear ties and say sir and maam, but it does mean having standards and practices that are widely agreed upon. Question #19-- wHY "Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization?" I want to be the president of the organization because i think i have the combination of vison, leadership, and experience necessary to take the organization forward. I have been a member of CEDA every year since the merger and i have come to love the work, the mission, and the people. I have been frustrated by the incredible amount of work put in by the leadership and the relativly low buy in the membership has responded to that work with. I want to see CEDA fufill its mission, engage its members and stakeholders, and effectivly utilize its talented leadership in a way that doesnt use them up with little thanks. I think my experience prepares me for this challenge and i look forward to working with each member to make the organization the bets it can be. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:15:42 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:15:42 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd VP answers from Jason Russell Message-ID: <4960FCCE02000093000228EF@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question 1: Video Sharing I?m not opposed to private sharing of video recorded debate content as long as all participants in the recording agree to the recording and its been shared. CEDA should prohibit public posting of debates that occur at CEDA nationals. Question 2: Support for New Programs CEDA should support new programs to the extent that it?s financially feasible. I believe that CEDA should express support to the departmental and university administrations involved in new programs and should provide logistical advice regarding where to find and how to use organizational resources. These resources should include information on finance, tournament procedure and administration, squad administration, best practices, and ?how to? debate research and skills advice. These resources should be bundled into a welcome package for new programs. Question 3: 1st-Rd Attendance at CEDA Nats I?m not concerned that any particular teams attend CEDA nationals. I think CEDA tournament procedures should not be changed to encourage attendance by these teams. I believe that CEDA should retain an ?open attendance? tournament as an alternative to the format used by the NDT. I certainly support teams attending both tournaments, but would not change anything about the national tournament to encourage their attendance. My teams, including any 1st-round at-large bids to the NDT have and will always attend CEDA nationals. Question 4: Electronic Business Meetings I?m for ?em. I think the webcast at the topic meeting last year was a great innovation. We should opt for utilizing facilities that allow more if not all of our official business to be conducted in view by those on the web. Question 5: Funding I?m not certain that CEDA is in a position to directly affect the situation of programs which have lost funding, but CEDA should encourage research into fund-raising strategies and tactics, including survey research directed at those programs that are developing and utilizing successful fund-raising methods. CEDA should also serve as a clearinghouse for ?advertisement? for the debate activity itself, succinctly and clearly demonstrating the value of debate for a university. These resources exist in disparate places on the web and in print today and consolidating this knowledge should be a priority of the organization. Question 6: What Content Regs are Ok? None accept those where the content violates laws or consists of sexual or cultural harassment or violence. Question 7a: Electronic Convergence At its base, this is a question of costs. Everyone wants CEDA to do more, but no one wants to pay more money to the organization. Technological convergence is likely to be a slow process for as long as CEDA is an underfunded organization. We neither charge much nor make much money. Therefore, we?re dependent on the work of volunteers to make improvements in our technological capacity. I would actively seek the support of the more tech savvy members of our community to assist in making improvements and will work with members of the CEDA leadership to adjust to using these new technologies to help our membership get a better product. I?m not tech expert, but I certainly support innovative communication technologies. Question 7b: The Real World Debate is two-sided. I support 100% the real world application of ideas gained from debate; it?s a large principle of the way that I personally teach and practice debate. Debate develops skills in students to communicate their ideas successfully in the form of research and public speaking; I think this is primarily a role performed at the team level, not the organizational level. I do not think that CEDA or the NDT is appropriately involved in picking the way that debate ideas are executed in the real world by its students. The social activism we should be involved in should be in support of education and the promotion of the debate activity itself, not particularized perspectives on aof debate ideas. I consider myself an outspoken advocate of the benefit of debate and education and will use my office to expand my audience for these ideas. Question 8: Ideals My ideal debate round is fun and educational. The students are smart and well-researched and prepared. The judge is competent, engaged, and critical, but helpful. The competition is fierce, but good-natured. My ideal debate team works hard and is intelligent. They?re fun to be around, have unique and innovative ideas, and take debate seriously, but enjoy the people they?re around. My ideal debate squad is large and well-rounded. I like to have students from all walks of life and all levels of experience around. The team works together and supports one another. They?re more like a big family than a club. They are serious, but have a good time with what they?re doing. My ideal tournament is focused on debate. The hotel is close to the tournament site. The tournament has fewer than 8 rounds. The pairings come out quickly after the culmination of the previous debate. Few buildings are used. The tournament starts a little later in the day and ends before 9pm. The level of competition is high. Getting food is simple. Wireless internet is available to all participants. My ideal community is big and diverse. People spend time getting to know one another when they have some downtime. They grab a drink together at night instead of cordoning themselves off to cut cards. Multiple argument styles are as accepted as different impact scenarios to the politics disad. Individuals are welcomed for their differences rather than chastised for them. We feel free to disagree about how we conduct our business, but we do so with respect and an eye toward understanding rather than demonizing others. Debate has many communities; all of them should support one another. Question 9: Attendance at CEDA CEDA should be as cheap and convenient to attend as possible. I believe that we should look into outside financing and sponsorship of the national tournament. When CEDA was hosted at our university a couple of years ago, I know that we found great enthusiasm for financing the tournament by university and private sources. Underwriting the costs of the tournament could help reduce fees. Hotel contracts should be examined from all sides. Multi-year siting and multi-year hotel contracts should be pursued if costs can be lowered as a result. CEDA siting decisions should lean heavily toward ease of travel and lower travel costs when possible. The organization, not the tournament host, should be the primary beneficiary of any hotel rewards. Beyond lowering costs, the entry barriers to CEDA attendance are low. The scheduling of CEDA relative to the NDT will always force some teams to make trade-offs in choosing which tournament to attend. The organization should be cognizant of the NDT?s scheduled dates, but should not make decisions regarding its tournament placement relative to the NDT but for avoiding direct date overlap. Question 10: Regional Debate I honestly believe that the problem for regional debate today lies not in CEDA, but in the NDT?s 1st-Round structure. I believe that this system should be changed and objectified to designate specific tournaments as those that count toward bid allocation and exclude other tournaments from bid relevance. 30-40 teams each year do not attend any regional tournaments for fear of the impact that attending these tournaments may have on their bid sheets. A regional rotating designate system would return these teams, their coaches, and likely some of their satellite teams (2nd or 3rd teams of 1st-round competitors) to the regionals. Until this change is made, CEDA can do little to encourage the return of these teams to the regionals. I have an will continue as CEDA VP to encourage the development of such a system. But for these ?top teams?, regional debate is doing pretty well in most regions not heavily impacted by attrition to parli omind, this is a quality, not a quantity, issue. Question 11: Experience My qualifications are both competitive and academic. I?ve been a member of CEDA for 15 years and actively involved in debate for 20 years. I?ve worked for two CEDA national tournament hosts and was coached and worked for a former CEDA president. I?ve been involved in business and topic meetings for most of the last 7 years. I actively follow and participate in conversations about organizational decision-making. I?ve coached teams of all different shapes and sizes and worked with a variety of different debate personalities. I think the diversity of my experience makes me uniquely capable of speaking to the multi-faceted needs of the membership. Academically, I will be an ABD PhD candidate at the end of spring 2009. I?ve been a representative to the student senate, a grade student association leader, and the director of my GTA teaching section. I?ve published. I?m an active researcher. I?ve taught 60 hours of college courses and teach 6 credit hours a semester at a minimum. I?m both an academic and a coach. The ?dual role? of many of our colleagues is something I feel everyday. While I?ve done some of my most competitive debate work, I?ve also been a day-to-day student and teacher at a major university. This balancing act is a challenge I understand first-hand. Question 12: Stables/Peterson I know both Sue and Gordon well. I work with both of them during the summer at the Arizona Debate Institute. I?ve known Sue since she was a debater and Gordon for the better part of the decade. Things won?t always go off without a hitch, but to demonstrate, while actively opposing the wording of the CEDA professionalism rule, I spent time talking to both Gordon and Sue at length regarding the amendment, its wording, and what could be done to make improvements. Anyone that knows me knows I will fight vociferously for what I believe in and will not hesitate to question the President if I think they?re wrong, but compromising and working with these two individuals is something I would not have any problems with. I consider them both friends and valued colleagues. Question 13: Leadership Structure I don?t think an overhaul of CEDA?s leadership is necessary, but would be open to examining suggestions if they were voiced. Question 14: Conferences I opposed self-selecting conferences because I avoid the frog pond model of debate. I think that there is a value to the mixing that is encouraged by geographic selection. I also believe that there is room for manipulation by individuals who are willing to buy themselves a seat at the CEDA leadership table by divising a dead-letter conference and naming themselves the head of that conference. I also oppose the ability of a conference to basically ?boot? a member because they don?t like their style or content. I think one of the great benefits of debate is odd mixture. I worry that conferences are a way to push us apart as opposed to bringing us together. Their benefits are relatively modest in my opinion compared to their potential costs. Question 15: eDebate I think posting CEDA business to eDebate is fine. I think the organization should also use its own website, as it does now. Surely, discussion via eDebate is also ok. People can talk about debate wherever they want to and CEDA should be involved in those discussions. Question 16: Professionalism I?m for professionalism; I?m opposed to this rule about professionalism. I think it?s telling that the AFA rule was tabled to improve the wording. We should heed their warning. This rule isn?t designed to create professionalism and frankly no rule can create professionalism. We should be professional because we care about debate, not because someone told us to be. Question 17: PR The organization should respond deftly. I don?t think a timetable is warranted and situations should be handled on a case-by-case basis. CEDA needs an in-house PR professional to handle their press. CEDA should be proactive in promoting debate everywhere possible, pushing positive stories about the community and its contributions. The CEDA leadership should be consulted, but ultimately the President?s name should be attached to any official organizational response. CEDA should respond with details and research, not just conjecture and spin. We should use the knowledge that we have of argument to fight for our public image. Question 18: Sanctions/Reporting I?m opposed to sanctions unless unwelcome behaviors are explicitly spelled out. Sexual harassment, for instance, is something CEDA already has the ability to sanction members for. This behavior is also well-established and known to any university employee and thus to CEDA members. ?Verbal harassment? is not a term of art and is unclear. I am opposed to the obscenity standard?s eyeball rule for what does or does not count as sanctionable behavior. Until we can more clearly explain to individuals what behavior they can be sanctioned for, we should not develop rules with sanctions. I support reporting, as long as this reporting is objective and the facts are agreed to by the individuals in question. It?s critical that CEDA get these details right or it could face legal challenges. Even reporting should be used sparingly to retain the value of the impact using the organizations force against its membership. Question 19: Why? I want to be the CEDA president because I want to give back to the organization that has given a lot to me. I?ve benefited from the deft decision-making of CEDA leaders for my professional career and I want to make similar contributions to debate for others. Debate is in my estimation the most valuable academic enterprise available to students and its best and brightest deserve to have their organization run by individuals that care as much about it as the kids do. I love debate, debaters, and debate coaches and want to offer my skills to make debate a better place for them. I want to lead CEDA because I have the idea and voice to help the organization face its greatest difficulties and improve on its biggest strengths. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:20:50 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:20:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd VP answers (Ques 1-10) from Mike Davis Message-ID: <4960FE0202000093000228F3@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded? Response: This is a tricky question because I think what I would like is probably not practical in application in many ways. Let me start by explaining my team policy. We allow anyone to record us during any competition. The reason that I am comfortable with this policy is that I do not believe we should be doing anything in a debate that I would not want my administration to know about. What helps me make this statement is that debate has a great degree of political capital at JMU. We have worked very hard over the past 40 years to make sure debate is well respected and well supported. This allows me to leverage the positive image of debate against any negatives that would appear on tape. I would love it if, as a community, we could adopt that same standard, but I know that not every program is on the same stable ground that we are and could not take that same risk. So for CEDA I would favor an opt out policy of taping. The assumption would be that every debate could be taped unless one of the teams or judges asks that they not be taped. The portions of the debate and post-round discussion that they were not involved in could still be taped, but their portions of the debate could not. The assumption of these recordings would be that they could be distributed for educational, but not commercial uses. One of the most valuable teaching tools for new debaters is showing them rounds I have recorded over the years. I would like to see CEDA take the lead in collecting videos that have been recorded by individuals and distributing them so new programs or smaller programs that are not exposed to a variety of debate styles and arguments could watch them. The biggest problem I currently see is that no policy in regards to taping occurs. We need to have a policy spelled out that specifies rules for recording and distribution. The ad hoc nature of taping and distribution results in conflicts when teams ask not to be taped and when teams release those tapes without consideration for those were recorded. Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter writing, sending in outsiders, etc., should CEDA provide? I have been the chair of the CEDA Development and Retention Committee for four years. I am proud of the modest success that we have had thus far. I was successful in getting the Emerging Program Initiative passed. This initiative gives free CEDA membership and reduced entry fees to any team in their first three years of competition. I was also successful this year in negotiating with the Arizona Debate Institute to provide free access to their evidence for new programs. While those successes are something I am very proud of, they are only the beginning. We need to work harder to develop and sustain new programs. I think right now we are aiming too low when it comes to new programs. As chair of the committee I have asked each regional representative to appoint someone in their region to be in charge of new program development. New program development has to be a regional effort where existing programs help emerging programs survive. As a member of the executive council of CEDA, it would be my number one priority to increase the number of schools parcannot survive unless we increase the number of schools competing and make regional travel a realistic possibility for everyone. I would do everything in my power to expand the scope of emerging programs initiative. We should find ways to get new or struggling programs free housing, discounted travel and scholarship money to attend summer institute. Part of the reason why the regions must be invested in the development of new programs is because of the fact that the initial outreach should be tailored to what that school needs and the climate of regional debate in the region where the new program is located. The CEDA Development and Retention Committee should always write a letter when they hear of a new program (something that I currently do). CEDA should always provide evidence sets for new programs. The CEDA president should send letters to key administrators at the end of each commending the team?s success and encouraging further support of that program. Other than those efforts CEDA, the new school?s region and the Development and Retention Committee should be in constant contact with the new program so that it can be responsive to their needs. Finally, the end goal of new program development should be the eventual appointment of a full time debate coach. Student programs occasionally survive and are often a fantastic starting point for new programs, but the programs which have real staying power are those that employ full time debate coaches. Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? 3. What changes in the tournament would you be open to make in order to make it happen? I honestly could care less if most or all of the NDT First Round Team attend. What I actually care more about is that CEDA Nats is as big as possible. I would certainly encourage First Round Teams to attend, but I do not think that their attendance is any more important than any other team. My biggest concern about making changes to try to bring in First Round Teams could trade off with other teams attending. We should find ways to reduce entry barriers for everyone (not just sixteen team). One of the things I think can be done to make the tournament larger (and probably encourage more First Round Teams to attend) would be to have CEDA after the NDT. While I know this is not always possible due to scheduling issues, I believe that we should push to have CEDA second at least every other year. I will cover more of this on question nine about increasing the number of teams competing at CEDA Nats. Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) I think that increasing participation in our organization in any way possible is an excellent goal. I think that a lot of CEDA business can be conducted virtually. We should move more of our meetings to online formats using things like Illuminate where we can have the value of face to face communication without having to be in the same location. I have significant experience with Illuminate and this free tool would be a great way to conduct much of CEDA?s business. I would also like to see the further utilization of the CEDA website for information sharing. Too much of our information is shared on an ad hoc basis. Those who are on the EC or know someone who is know all of the information while those who are not are often left wondering what happened at our meetings. At a minimum we should post minutes from every meeting. That being said I think that there is still a need for traditional face to face meetings. I know some have called for us to no longer have in person meetings either at NCA or at the traditional summer meeting. I think that these meetings still serve a significant purpose for the organization. My experience with the virtual portion of our summer meetings is that there is not a great deal of virtual participation. There are certainly people who participate (Neil Berch seems to be omnipresent), but for the most part the contributions to those meetings are made by the people in the room. What we need to do instead is lower barriers for participation. As a graduate student I served as a regional representative and received not funding from my school to attend the summer meetings. This was a burden on me, but I was lucky enough to have a supportive spouse with a full time job for most of those years. Not everyone is that lucky. We rely on graduate students to fill our committees and EC positions and we need to find ways that they can attend. The same goes for undergraduates. I got my start with the CEDA EC traveling as an undergraduate to the CEDA summer meeting and the best way to get our students to become coaches who feel a connection to CEDA is to include them in our decision making process earlier. Another method of increasing participation is through the use of regional forums. I would encourage all regional reps to hold meetings that do not just discuss the business for that region, but communicate the important business of CEDA. I would also travel to as many regions as possible and conduct some regional forums of my own. For those regions I could not visit I would encourage other members of the executive council to conduct meetings on my behalf. Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive progams at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? This is probably the hardest question to answer and probably one of our biggest challenges as an organization. In many ways it is much easier to start a new program than it is to revive a previously existing program. I debated at a school that no longer has an active debate program (Syracuse University). The program was cut due to internal politics and even discussing its revival has been an uphill struggle. The first thing we need to do is try to do much more to prevent those schools from leaving in the first place. We need to find ways to create regional debate opportunities so that budgets can go further and so that coaches do not have to be away from home five days for every tournament they travel to. Additionally, like the new program initiative described in the answer to question number one we need an at risk program initiative that help save programs before they disappear. Finally, a CEDA alumni network that actively works to reinvigorate new programs may be our best hope. One thing I have learned as a director the past three years is how quickly a call from a well placed alumni can remedy a potential budget shortfall. We need to work to generate an alumni database that can be used to connect alumni with the school that they debated for to revitalize former programs, protect struggling programs and increase resources for existing programs. Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? The short answer is none. I don?t think as an organization we should be in the business of regulating what happens in a debate. One of the best parts of our activity is that it is one of the few places where the students get to make their own rules. I would worry that any content based restriction would be overly broad and stifle academic freedom. However, I would support any school that wanted to construct rules for their own tournament. Different schools and localities have different rules regarding student conduct. Schools should be able to restrict activities that they feel might jeopardize the future of their program, their ability to host future tournaments or simply that they feel are not appropriate. These criteria should be clearly stated in their invitation so that individual schools can choose whether or not they want to attend. This does not answer the question ohas to restrict illegal activities in debate rounds at the national tournament. Additionally, CEDA would have to negotiate with local hosts to ensure that potential hosts are not placed at risk. It is a delicate balance between academic freedom and the future of our organization. Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" We often do twice as much work as we have to because we pretend that CEDA and the NDT are still two separate organizations. As someone who spent over a dozen hours at NCA in CEDA/AFA/NDT business meetings I can tell you there is quite a bit of overlap in the leadership of each organization. The problem is we still pretend like we are different. CEDA Nats and the NDT are planned with reference to each other, but (with the exception of Kansas City a few years ago and Berkeley next year) there is little cooperation when planning these events. We serve the same constituency, but we pretend like we are different. This leads to us continually reinventing the wheel when we approach changes is our organizations. This question is more specific in that is asks about the electronic eloquence of our organization. I think that Jeff Jarman?s development of the new website is a good step. I would like to see the community use the website to its advantage more that it does. Executive council members, committees and regional representatives should post their reports prior to our business meetings to encourage greater public participation. Our students are often much more familiar with the different communication technologies at our disposal. Bringing the students into the fold by asking them to contribute to our organization is a great way to both increase our students involvement in the organization and allow them to develop marketable talents. I have experience with this at JMU as we have students create our alumni newsletter, materials for our summer institute and our team website. The students who have worked on these projects have been able to use those materials when applying for jobs and internships. This is an effort the could certainly be expanded to CEDA initiatives. Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. I think that one of the real strengths of what we do is the research that is required to compete. My ideal debate round would not be described by the arguments that are present, but instead my ideal debate round is one where the students have done in-depth research on the topic. I could restate my judging philosophy here, but in a nutshell I think debate should challenge students to explore issues at the same depth as they would if they were taking a senior level seminar on the issues they are debating. Many coaches would identify their ideal team as hard working or nationally competitive. While I certainly would like to see those characteristics in my debaters that is not the thing that I prize the most. I did not debate in high school. I discovered debate my freshman year in college and some of my favorite teams are those students who came from the same place I did because they seem to enjoy debating more. My ideal team is one that loves debating. My top team last year was certainly not my most successful, but they were certainly one of my favorites because they truly loved to debate. They loved going to tournaments, talking about debate and their fellow debaters. My ideal two person team is one that has some of the same passion and love of debate that I do. My favorite squad is easy to define. I am sure my debater get tired of hearing me say this because I talk repeateas the place where I wanted to spend my career. There were certainly programs out there with bigger budgets and more experienced debaters. I have heard people say repeatedly that you have to choose between a nationally competitive squad and a full service program that competes at all levels of debate. I refuse to make that choice. Since I have been at JMU we have had teams go 5-3 at national tournaments and in final rounds of all three divisions at regional tournaments. I am lucky in that I am coaching my ideal squad right now and that I am at a university that supported my vision from day one. I think the ideal tournament is one of the harder ones to define because I appreciate the diversity of tournament options that we have. I like the mix of eight round national tournaments, six round three day tournaments, six round two day tournaments and all of the other possible tournament layouts. When I choose our travel schedule I like to try to fin tournaments that will help my students see the diversity of the debate community. That is part of the reason why we tend to travel to multiple regions every year even though there are plenty of tournaments in close proximity. It is not because I love the eight hour drive to Nashville, but it is because certain tournaments demonstrate to my students why I love debate as much as I do. As for the ideal community, I think in many ways we are the ideal community. I disagree with many of the individuals in this community about arguments, the ways they run their programs, the ways they want to write topics, etc. However, the great part about our community is that we can have these disagreements, but I can still consider those individuals friends. We have a community of people who care deeply about the activity and that love of the activity means that intelligent people can disagree, but still agree about the importance of preserving debate for future generations. The one change I would like to see in our community is that I would like to see it be much larger. We need more programs and more teams from those programs. The best way to ensure a diverse and self-sustaining community is to ensure continued growth. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? New program development is the easy answer to this question. See my answers above for more on this. The more programs we have debating the more teams we will have at CEDA Nats. Creating new programs is not enough. We need to find ways to make CEDA Nats affordable for new programs. Finding things like free housing and sharing transportation can decrease entry barriers for new and struggling teams. Additionally, I would like to see CEDA Nats be after the NDT some years. Those years CEDA tends to be slightly larger. It also helps if CEDA and the NDT are in the same geographical region (or even the same city/school) as it eliminates some of the costs that prohibit teams from attending both. While it may not increase attendance at CEDA Nats, I also think we should do whatever we can to encourage rotation of our national tournament across regions of the country. Even if this does not increase the size of the tournament it would allow new teams to attend the tournament. Everyone should be able to drive to CEDA Nats once in a while. Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? I think I am starting to sound like a broken record on this, but new programs are the single best way to encourage regional debate. It is simple math if there are not enough teams in your region to host a regional tournament then those tournaments are not an option. Additionally, regional representatives need to work to designate regional options that might be attractive to members of our community outside of their region. A few teams from outside of the region can make or break a regional tournament. As president I plan on leading by example and attempting to attend tournaments in as many regions as pWe also need some coordination between regions that border each other when it comes to tournament schedules. We should try not compete with each other for potential entrants whenever possible. The establishment of an official national calendar that is constructed by regional representatives would be a good start to this type of coordination. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:21:43 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:21:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd VP answers (Ques 11-19) from Mike Davis Message-ID: <4960FE3702000093000228F7@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members? I believe I may be the only candidate to serve a full term as regional rep. I am currently in my fifth term. I have served on half a dozen committees and have attended every CEDA summer meeting except one since 1994. I know what CEDA is, I understand it?s history and it is because of this context that I want to serve. In addition to my service to CEDA, I am in the perfect position to lead this organization. I have tremendous administrative support from my university and they have promised even more if I am elected. As a tenure track member of our faculty I have access to numerous other faculty members who I can consult about issues important to the organization, a legal department that is willing to provide me with free advice and our Office of Sponsored Programs that is eager to find new sources of funding for the organization. Additionally, I have presented repeatedly in the CEDA division at NCA. I have done this because I believe it is important to support the organization and present the organization as an academic one. Universities are not likely to continue to support debate unless we can demonstrate that our organization is not just a service organization, but that we are an academic one as well. As a director of debate, I am asked to complete many of the same duties as the vice president of our organization is asked to. I have to make monthly reports to our faculty, manage difficult and conflicting personalities, manage a budget and negotiate hotel and car rental contracts. I can bring this experience to my role as vice president. Dave Steinberg once gave me backhanded compliment that I consider one of the nicest things that anyone has ever said about me. Dave said, ?Mike can be a pain in the ass, but he is that way no matter who you are.? I pride myself on the fact that I try to get to know a diverse group of people in our community. I know directors and coaches from coast to coast and I try to learn the names of all of the debaters I come in contact with whether they are top level varsity debaters or brand new novices. The reason I feel that everyone has value in the debate community relates directly to my experience. I have coached at programs where we have had some of the top debaters in the country, programs where we have only had one or two team and programs with dozens of novices. These experienced have helped shaped who I am and how I would lead. Everyone?s experience is important and I can not pretend to understand where each individual is coming from, but I will do my best (whether I am elected or not) to make sure that debate can be the experience that each individual would like it to be. Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? I have worked with Sue and Gordon (as well as Darren and Joe who will be our immediate past presidents for a long time. Sue and I were competitors against each other and have worked together in the CEDA leadership for quite a while. Gordon and I have worked together very closely at the University of Georgia where we were both graduate students. Part of the reason I am running is because I am enthusiastic about the types of changes that both Gordon and Sue have discussed as CEDA moves forward. I also have worked with our treasurer, ML Sandoz, and our executive secretary, Jeff Jarman, for a long time. I am interested in serving this organization because I appreciate the work that these individuals have put into the organization. I know that some people have complained that useful or that the executive council is some sort of secret cabal that makes decisions out of the view of the public. This is an insult to the people who give of themselves to serve this organization. I know that this statement might cost me some votes, but if you think that the individuals who serve CEDA have anything but the best interest of the organization at heart then I?m probably not the person you want to vote for anyway. Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? Maybe. I voted for the change to two year terms that was proposed a few years ago. I think that there is too much learning on the job in our current structure. There are a few ways to solve this problem. The first would be to move to longer term than are currently served. I understand that there were many who felt that we would have a hard time recruiting future vice presidents if this was the case and that may be the case. A better solution (and the one that I would favor) would be the establishment of permanent committees that would take some of the load off of the vice presidents and president. The establishment of the national tournament committee is a good start. We need more committees that can help to create institutional memory. Too often we rely on ML or Kelly to remember how we did things in the past. This is an unfair burden on them and guarantees that each president has to learn on the job. Permanent committees with multi-year appointments would make for a much better solution. That being said ? I do not think the current structure is broken. We should not abandon this structure which has worked for years unless we are sure that the new structure is one that will function more fluidly. Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor the conference format and if not, why? I voted for the conference proposal each time. I saw it as a way to revitalize regional debate by allowing schools to self-associate. I also saw it as a way to encourage new schools to participate. I saw it as a way that existing programs could draw natural alliance with new programs. If Big Ten schools like Iowa, Northwestern, MSU, Michigan, etc have programs then CEDA, along with the regional reps could approach other Big Ten schools about joining their conference. Also, some regions are just not working. There are some regions that have only four or five schools in them. These are not currently viable regions. We need some alternative that would more accurately reflect our current travel patterns. I am not sure if conferences is the only viable solutions, but it was certainly the best one that I had heard in a while. Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? I think we are in a tough spot as an organization when it comes to edebate. I do not think that it should be the primary means of communication for the organization. Attaching CEDA?s name to the URL creates more problems than it is worth. Conducting business on a listserv that allows anonymous posting of whatever slanderous material someone wants to post is not the proper way to conduct business for a professional organization. I know some of you think it is no big deal, but as some who had an anonymous post of me mentioned during a job interview this is a serious concern that we need to address. Additionally, as I understand it Phil does not have much interest in continuing the listserv. He is still willing to do it for now, but it should not be the responsibility of a single individual not associated with the organization to run our professional listserv. We need to start to move towards a more formal means of communication that is run by our national organization. I am not calling for the shuttas an organization we should distance ourselves from it as a formal means of communication. Obviously, CEDA cannot and should not shut down a privately run listserv, but we should find ways to distance ourselves from it professionally. Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? I voted for the amendment. I am not sure that it is the best that we can possibly do and I am sure it will be amended several times in the first few years if passed, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This policy is without question better than the ad hoc policy that currently exists. My university attorney was shocked when I talked with her this summer that as an organization we had not policy that could deal with unprofessional conduct. Whether we like it or not what we do is often examined under a microscope by administrators looking to cut budgets and we cannot pretend like we can do whatever we want to each other with no consequences. We need to have some way to deal with members of our community who refuse to treat each other in a respectful manner. It is simple to say that the current amendment is flawed, but the truth is that the former policy was more flawed as it included an ethics clause with no official process for enforcement. So if anyone says that this amendment is flawed ask yourself is it better than a process where the accused has no due process. Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? I answered this question in part in response to Neil Berch on edebate. Reflecting upon it I think in many ways this is the wrong question. By the time we are painted in a bad light it is often too late. We need to be proactive. The reason I don?t worry about the future of the debate team at JMU is because it is unlikely that a single negative incident would outweigh all of the goodwill that we have on campus. We need to do this for our national organization. We only talk about CEDA to the national media now when we are defending ourselves. We need to have a presence in the media that demonstrates what is good about what we will do. I already have a commitment from our Associate Vice President of Communication and Marketing, in conjunction with other CEDA leaders, to assist in the development of a communication strategy that can work to spread all of the great things that we do. This way when negative light is shed upon us we are already on the offensive. I realize that we certainly cannot predict all of the negative publicity and when it arrives we should be ready. This is one of the permanent committees I discussed above that I would like to see formed. Kathyrn has done a great job with PR, but it is a job that is too much for one person. We need a committee made of individual both in the debate community and alumni who are willing to help out. This committee should be charged with both responding to criticism and proactively pushing the positive image of CEDA. Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? I think that CEDA should be able to sanction its members if the professional conduct amendment passes. We cannot allow members to harass other members and take no action. It places our organization at too much risk. Currently, our constitution allows for sanctioning with no provision for how that sanction is determined. The new conduct policy formalizes that policy and makes it more transparent than the current ad hoc policy. The problem I have with the current process and the reason that suspensions or contacting the host ithat there is no due process. Currently, we can sanction anyone we want without contacting them and allowing them to defend themselves. If the amendment does not pass then I would only vote to send a letter to the accused offender informing them that there were complaints against them. If they refused to respond or respond in an unfavorable manner then I would vote for further action. Ideally, I would like to see CEDA deal with infractions internally and not contact the host institution. When we contact the host we immediately put programs at risk. So if it is a close call I think dealing with things internally might work better. However, we can certainly all image offense so serious that we would contact host institutions or law enforcement. I think it is the job of the president of the organization to report any allegations that are serious enough to rise to level of contacting the host institution. The president is the face of our organization and should be the one to deal with university officials. Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? Why would anyone want to be? It is a thankless job and everyone has different demands that you cannot easily meet. That being said I am willing and excited to serve because of everything that CEDA has given to me. I am a CEDA person. I was a CEDA debater before the merger. I attended the summer conference as an undergraduate. I have only missed a single CEDA Nats in 17 years. I hold those who have served before me in high regard and I would be humbled and honored to serve in the same office. Too many people in our community bemoan the death of debate, but I don?t think we are in as much trouble as many people do. I think the fundamentals of the debate community are strong, but we can only survive if we continue to expand debate opportunities for new programs and new debaters, as well as existing programs and existing debaters. I love debate and I love CEDA. Each year I attend the CEDA national tournament because it reminds me what is great about this activity. Of there are any of you who have lost faith in our community I will do everything in my power to make our organization more responsive to your needs and concerns so that you too will feel the same pride that I do in serving our organization. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:23:21 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:23:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd VP answers (Ques 1-10) from Vik Keenan Message-ID: <4960FE9902000093000228FB@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #1-- Several national tournaments have recently enacted policies that preclude the public posting of video-recorded debates, but allow for "private sharing". Whether that sharing is limited to the college community, or might include interested high school debaters, etc., remains unclear. 1. What is your opinion about having a similar policy for CEDA Nationals? CEDA Nationals should definitely have a ?recording and usage? policy for its tournament, and should make available a sample ?recording consent form? for others running tournaments to use as a source document when creating their own policies. It was my understanding that we had begun discussion of such a policy for CEDA Nats as last summer?s meeting in the hope of having a clear policy for the 2009 tournament. Regardless of individual views on the needed breadth or limits of video recording at CEDA Nats and other tournaments, as our ?product?, and as the only event that the EC has direct authority over, CEDA should establish a policy regarding the distribution of its ?debates? from that particular event, similar to the way other educational and non-profit institutions exercise their rights over their events. 2. What limitations do you think should exist, if any, on sharing video with high school debaters or others outside the CEDA community? I think individual participating schools, who are probably governed by their own university policies, and host schools, who are probably governed by their own events policies, should be given an understanding of how video is to be used, and should be able to establish limitations if the intended use goes beyond ?closed? team usage. I think there has been an assumption of ?personal use? for a long time in our community that has been exceeded by the technology to distribute recorded material. While there is a great educational value to being able to share debates across regions, levels, and time through video, it should always be tempered with the individual needs and limitations of programs and the institutions that fund and support them. As a former high school teacher and coach, I don't think there will be a large uproar if the college debate community had one less influence on the high school debate community based on the decade of feedback I received from my colleagues. Finally, anyone who uses debate videos in a potentially profit generating venue (i.e.: camps), should make that clear to the potential participants. 3. How should such policies intersect with programs who assert their policy is not to allow their debaters to be video-recorded? I think any debater and any program has the right to decide not to be recorded. When I attended a series of the NDT Committee meetings where the original SCTV contracts were discussed, it became apparent that there are a variety of conditions that affect the desirability of filming for individual students. One obvious example is establishing the parameters of when the ?debate? occurs ? for SCTV pre-round prep was the issue of contention, more recently it has been the post-round critiques. Other issues that were discussed included psychological impacts and safety concerns for certain students. As someone who was under 18 when they joined debate in college, I had issues signing my own travel consent forms under university policy, which leads me to believe that we probably haven?t explored all of the implications of filming students who are potentially legal minors. Most importantly, while under no circumstances do I think we have something to hide as an activity, I think protecting the safe space of debate rounds as laboratories of free speech for our students from all our member institutions means protecting them from the misappropriation or miscontextualization of the content of their speeches. A simple example is how a ?politics? debate may be interpreted out of context for one of our students who attends one of the military academies. They debate in uniform, they have long term careers in the armed forces, let alone the immediate five year minimum, and they are not always going to have the luxury of an audience who understands ?commander-in-chief bad? is a block required by switch side debate. Also, as someone who has had a school?s ?no video? policy intentionally ignored this year, I can speak to how difficult it is to ?un-ring the bell? once video has been distributed (and honestly, it wasn?t a bad video, it?s more an issue of principle for us). The only way to ensure that a debate video isn?t published is to not have it in the first place, which is why the right to not be taped should be presented. The issue is more nuanced than free speech and PR, and the policies we create and endorse should recognize that. Anyone who thinks there is a clear brightline or this is a simple issue of freedoms and standing behind what we do is kidding themselves. Question #2-- Assume there is some glimmer of possibility for a program to emerge (students seeking to establish one, a faculty member trying to get it started, etc.). What sort of support, in the form of information, letter writing, sending in outsiders, etc., should CEDA provide? The first kind of support that CEDA should provide is the type of support that is requested, because the answer is NOT the same for all institutions. At a minimum, CEDA should alert potential new programs to the existing types of support we provide: constitutionally waived fees, the backfile project, and the leadership sample documents we have provided in the past. We should also identify the most logistically feasible tournaments for the program based on the calendar for the year. CEDA should ensure that the Regional Representative is aware of the emerging program, and facilitate contact if that has not already occurred. Also, identifying either a local program or a willing electronic mentor to assist the new program with more immediate questions would be beneficial. Finally, if those who are beginning the program feel it would be beneficial, the CEDA EC should write a letter to the significant administrative office for the program (i.e.: student activities, department, President, etc.). In general, it might be advisable for CEDA to have an official ?welcoming? document, letter, or kit for new programs from the EC. Question #3-- Some would like to see CEDA Nationals attended by most or all NDT 1st round teams. 1. Do you think this is an important objective? Honestly, of all of the things we could be focusing on (new programs, more debaters, better PR, debate in a world of emerging technology, the need for professional opportunities, budget cuts, increasing research in our field, diversity, etc), this is probably not my first priority for CEDA. It would be nice to have closer to 16 than 6 First rounds attend, but two (or three) National championships is incredibly expensive, and a lot to ask of programs. And why do we only care about the first rounds? I think the other 50-someodd teams are important too. I'm not the person to ask to acquiesce for the sake of the death drive. 2. What actions would you take to pursue it? I believe the general consensus is that when CEDA occurs after the NDT it does increase attendance by ?NDT? teams because it?s another chance for those who didn?t quite finish the season the way they wanted to. I?m not sure if the data holds up, but I think obviously having CEDA Nats and the NDT in the same city would probably assist the cause by eliminating some travel costs for those teams. I think the recent initiative to confirm CEDA Nats hosts earlier would assist in this as well, and I would hope to have initial bids for the 2012 CEDA Nats by the end of my year as 2VP. These are things that would probably have a positive result in this area, but that would not be the goal. I just happen to think ending the year on the all-inclusive tournament makes competitive and community sense. 3. What changes in the tournament wouI?m not sure changes in CEDA Nats itself would solve the perceived problem, beyond the scheduling issues discussed above. Question #4-- How do you feel about having electronic business meetings to allow those of us who cannot attend nca an opportunity to participate more in ceda? (eg via an online bulletin board, via edebate/ceda-l, etc.) It would be fantastic to have the same electronic access for our membership at NCA that we have during the Summer Meeting. I think a discussion board or blog via the CEDA website would be a good initial start, potentially being updated as we go by the recording secretary. Establishing a video feed would be ideal, but I also think updates from officers posted at the end of each day, in addition to Regional Rep updates would assist in giving more access to those not able to attend. This year I tried a very low-tech implementation of regional involvement and updates because the Northeast was both geographically distant from NCA and the majority of schools were attending a tournament that weekend. I not only sent an update after the EC meeting on Friday to my region, and highlighted agenda items for the following day?s business meeting, but I used my gmail/AIM status message to post what items we were covering in real time in case anyone wanted to indicate an immediate comment or question. I was then able to receive feedback from other directors through both email and chat, and I solicited direct opinions when I thought they were relevant. Additionally, we may want to inquire about the size of the room assigned for both the EC and Business Meetings at NCA by those in charge. I?m not sure we would have had room for video capabilities this year, although it?s one way to encourage community bonding. Question #5-- What will each of you do to help revive programs at smaller colleges who have lost their programs either by funding shortfalls or administration apathy? This is why I emphasized a need to focus on program retention in my original candidate statement, because while I think we?ve made admirable improvements in development initiatives, those don?t necessarily translate to retention measures. The first thing is to identify the specific reasons for individual program loss ?because ameliorating a loss of support is a very different proposition if it?s administrative priority versus fiscal. For programs who have lost funding, perhaps reestablishing them as ?new programs?, creating non travel debate opportunities, or assisting them with increasing funds through hosting would be of assistance. For those who have lost administrative support, perhaps identifying another part of the school to administer the program (department versus student activities) or working with local allies to allow some opportunities for students to regenerate interest through participation would be the starting points. And of course, if all else fails, I can always invite them to join the Coalition. (This is a joke solely for my amusement at Will Baker?s expense). Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? I don?t think CEDA should regulate argument content beyond established evidentiary ethics considerations. Fundamentally, that is not how the activity is perceived in ?CEDA? historically. Debaters can debate about the content issues ? and I?ll double check the profanity K links are in the backfile project. I think there are different educational models that debate can follow, and the history of CEDA is one of open discourse. I think content limitations would be more appropriate in the educational and organizational model that the ADA is founded upon (for the record, it?s rule #6 in their standing rules that says T is a voter, although the criteria for voting on a kritik advocated by the aff are not listed. Uniqueness and alternatives seem to only be a burden of the neg). I think harassment issWhat should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" (Hi Jimbo.) The best place to work with the NDT on the issues of convergence and electronic eloquence are at the topic meeting, which is our only "official" cooperative action and which has seen the most progress in these fields over the last 3 years. Using the Topic Meeting, the CEDA Summer Meeting (and potentially NCA), and the upcoming conference hosted by Wake may be the best option to serve as a "testing ground" in these fields. More students, perhaps using the Presidential Intern model established in 2005, could be involved in the technological production aspects of these existing approaches, rather than simply seen as a "host" duty. I think the biggest obstacle for CEDA programs in this area is that what we are seeing is a reflection of the larger comm community focus - it's departmental and curricular priorities. I think encouraging programs to engage in public debates about issues of importance to their communities, and to explore inter-school electronic debates, as some programs do, may be the best approach within those limitations. One other suggestion would be to target emerging programs or those with reduced budgets to explore electronic production to expand debate opportunities from their school to other campuses. Finally, I think it is important to emphasize the eloquence and production value component of any such initiatives - the point is to develop better skills than most amateur youTube postings, right? Doing production for production's sake is irrelevant unless actual skills are developed. Multiple individuals have advocated positive PR measures for our activity, including promoting debates, advertising our "success stories", and using our awards ceremonies as source material for positive press. These initiatives would also be excellent opportunities to provide production experiences for our community in conjunction with broader goals. Question #8-- Describe your ideal debate round, team, squad, tournament, and community. I think for the role of CEDA 2VP (and eventually 1VP and Pres), my opinion on community is probably the most important. I suppose my ideal debate community would be much like my favorite Coalition bus trips - the Ivy league team, the "private" institution, a Jesuit school, some village hippies, and the City University packing uniqueness updates, Zizek, Heg good, and wacky critical arg du jour learning from each other and enjoying some friendly competition (although, ideally, without the bus). It makes me very fortunate, because in many ways the team(s) I work with already is my ideal squad - valuing new debaters and continuing debaters, and trying to provide opportunities for as many students from as many backgrounds as possible. Every time we have a team party or picture, I am immensely proud of the organizations and students I work with, most of which is possible because of our dedication not only to education and excellence, but to diversity of student experiences and ideas. As for my ideal round - there is a reason I like judging novices, and it's not about my flow. My favorite rounds are the ones where you can literally see the light bulb go off for a debater, where they realize something for the first time. That's the exciting part of this activity year after year. The first time a new strat really works, or a new debater "gets" the game or really learns something - those are the best rounds (although I'll take a well informed K throwdown, or some solid DA internal links any day, as long as no oneMy ideal tournaments have large novice divisions, emerging JV debates, and top level open argumentation (yes, that's 3 divisions). I'm ok without MPJ (I like teaching adaptation), but limited strikes are probably ideal. Time for educational opportunities is important - be it post round discussions, diversity of args, or novice teach-ins. We also need a chance to get to know each other as a community, although I think down time is probably more efficient for that than banquets. In an ideal world, my team needs to do limited navigation at a tournament, but that's just because we're a little unfamiliar with the idea of a proper campus. Question #9-- What would you do to try and increase the number of teams participating at CEDA Nationals? This issue is one of the reasons I volunteered for the reconstituted Hosting Committee this fall at NCA. First, we need early planning to maximize cost options. Second, as mentioned on the NDT question above, timing and travel cost minimization so that70+ teams don?t have to choose between their national championships would also help. Included with that, the overall scheduling conversation that Gordon has suggested needs to be pursued, not just because of the NDT issue, but also because ADA Nationals scheduling can have an effect (and I want bonus points for ADA inclusion twice in my answers even though no one remembered them in the questions). Third, I think Pocatello?s multiple housing options and Berkeley?s discussions related to local transportation are the beginning of the kind of productive and innovative cost reduction strategies offered by hosts that we need to pursue EVERY year, and we need to identify potential hosts we could assist with cost effective ideas. But most importantly, increasing the number of teams actually DEBATING, not only at a National Championship, but over the year, and increasing our membership, are really the important goals, because CEDA is about much more that running a national tournament. The novice break-out this year was one measure instituted to assist programs in justifying CEDA Nats for their budget, but I think CEDA Nats is about more than awards. I think it should be about not only celebrating our community, but allowing our students and our coaches to connect as part of that community. My most important memories from the only CEDA Nats I attended as a debater were not about the rounds I won or lost, but they were about confirming my connection to my peers and celebrating with those I had learned from. Debate should be fun, and CEDA Nats should be a place where we come together and celebrate with each other. I have a simple assumption about debate - you need opponents to have another side. That means no matter the competitive nature of our activity, at some point we need to always remember we need each other. Question #10-- What should CEDA do to revitalize Regional Debate? Oh, where to start? As a preface, I don?t think it should be ?Coalitions for all? (because most of you are not that masochistic). But I do think it requires working together, as I mentioned above. I think it requires targeting new program development to a degree, looking at geography so that existing programs acquire more regional opportunities, which also would guarantee support for the emerging program. I think a larger calendar discussion needs to occur with CEDA ? a process I?m familiar with regionally and would be more than happy to assist with nationally. I think we need to accept that the world of ?merger 2.0? means asking for accountability from the ?National? schedule in how it affects ?regional? schedules ? something that might be possible if the proposal for a ?tournament committee? that was suggested at the NDT Committee meeting at NCA moved forward (and so I?ll add that the NDT Chair nominations should not only include the qualification of TACT, but also of understanding the bigger debate picture, and CEDA should in some sense lobby to be included in this discussion if it comes to pass). Ultimately, I think it will tournaments are nice, but if there are 6 prelims you won?t be able to attract many open teams who are looking for rounds for their District Qualifier, so tweaking schedules can't be the only answer (even if you can go home to your puppy more). I know from the multiple conversations I?ve had at national meetings that my particular regional experiences don?t translate across geography, so other approaches may be needed. It may be as simple as giving existing schools an incentive to host for others (such as Idaho did in preparation for Nationals this year creating a new local debate opportunity); it may be as complicated as working to build entire new programs. Most importantly, I will go on record to say that I think the Regional Rep role should be not only empowered, but encouraged to move debate in their region forward. At NCA it was clarified that the official role of the regional rep was simply a democratic representation guarantee ? I think it needs to be more than that. I think those of us who are fortunate to be in communities where there is strong regional debate have expectations of their rep that fall into the categories of scheduling and program support, and I think one of the most important things that needs to occur over the next 5 years is establishing protocols and procedures for Reps to assist them in this process. From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Jan 4 18:24:02 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:24:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd VP answers (Ques 11-19) from Vik Keenan Message-ID: <4960FEC202000093000228FF@mymail.kckcc.edu> Question #11-- What experience do you have to make you qualified to be in charge of a National Organization that fulfills both academic and competitive needs of its members? I knew that story about taking Ricky and Nate to their very first college tournament would come in handy some day! Kidding. But I have coached my share of successful debaters, either tangentially or directly (some of them even request me), so I get what it means to be ?competitive?. (I also think someday someone should do a study on the ?sports psychology? of competitive debate). I also run a rather large University tournament at NYU for a scholarship program, where all of the competitive parameters are at my discretion. I?ve hosted tournaments, and travel regionally and nationally, so I understand the needs of a variety of programs. I view myself as an educator. I became a debate coach because as a teacher I believed in debate as a unique pedagogical opportunity. Freire was my hero for lesson planning before he was an argument to most of you. Educational goals, curriculum development, and pedagogical techniques so ALL students can learn are what I do. People talk about callings, passions, and vocations, and education is mine. I think we should do MORE with how we promote ourselves as an academic pursuit, and working in University administration gives me a perspective on how to communicate our needs to those who control our resources. (I also have a 5 year stint in project management training just to round out my background in admin, and it would be nice to use it more often). One of my stated goals as CEDA 2VP and beyond is to refocus the coordination of research and professional opportunities for our graduate coaches to make their time in debate seen as professionally beneficial in their larger academic fields. I do also coordinate multiple schools on a regular basis. Seriously, what?s another 80 or so programs and their admins to learn about? I also perform miracles, but only in association with running a debate tournament. (Reserving an entire street in NYC for parking and getting a Giants Super Bowl victory in conjunction with our regional tournament are the latest examples. I'll work on loaves and fishes in conjunction with breakfasts at CEDA Nats). Actually, I think my best qualification is my willingness to listen to others, and to learn from others, because this national organization serves so many types of schools. But there?s another question that speaks more to that point next, so ? Question #12-- 4 of the 5 years that you serve CEDA, 2 as a VP and 2 as a Past President, you have to work well with others who are the actual President. Whichever one of you wins will have to work well as a unit with Gordon Stables and Sue Peterson (the 2 who will assume the Presidency before you). What do you bring to the table to ensure a smooth and complementary leadership role? I think my ability to work well with others, to listen and respect different views and different program needs, and to accept that I need to learn from others are my best qualifications for the role of 2VP and beyond. I believe in first trying to reach consensus through reason. I think diplomacy and tact are the first approaches to creating resolution. This isn?t to say I?m not argumentative occasionally, or I haven?t used an adversarial approach to reach understanding (I am an actual debate coach afterall), but I?m willing to admit when I?m wrong, and I?m willing to try to mend bridges if there has been misunderstanding. I understand the need to talk to people individually when pushing forward and agenda, and I understand when it?s necessary to present a united front for the good of a group, even if it?s not my own personal agenda. I think I?m on the same page as Gordon on a lot of his ideas for the next year (in fact, I?m pretty sure Gordon wishes I would ask his opinion about policy stuff a little bit less). I respect Sue deeply, and usually find myself mentally going ?extend? for points she has made in EC conversations. I don?t think my vision of CEDA is radically different than theirs. For those who would be 2VP after me, I would make sure that my long term goals with the organization are clearly articulated so that implementation wasn?t a surprise. Finally, I will underscore that working with others, and forwarding individual as well as collective goals is essentially what already do as the Assistant Director of the New York Coalition. My entire coaching career has prepared me for working and leading with others (and demonstrating those skills were exactly why I was elected to exec board of the BQCFL when I was a high school coach - even speech people thought I was uniquely good and playing with others to get things accomplished and write new policies that served the best interests of all our member institutions). And if my interactions with you don?t involve hybrid policies or locating the charter bus that is 7 hours late for a tournament in a place including the name "Virginia", I'm usually pretty laid back about most debate issues. Question #13-- Do you feel CEDA should abandon its current leadership structure and move towards another structure? If so, what should the new structure look like? I think it?s more an issue of minor repair. I think the EC needs to be smaller, which redistricting may do inevitably, and which could conceivably alter the larger national dynamic. I think the 5 National officers need to be empowered for some direct action a bit more. I think Regional Reps should have more than a purely democratic function in official regional policy, because program growth initiatives work better on a local level. I think it is a professional job to lead this organization ? but I?m not yet sure a different kind of management structure is what is right for us. There may be a better way to structure our organization, but it?s not a whim, and we?re an organization that actually has the skills to research the pros and cons of alternatives. I would probably not initiate a large restructuring in my leadership position, but I would be willing to consider and support a proposal brought to me that seems to have merit. Question #14-- Recently CEDA has discussed moving from Regions to self-selecting Conferences. Do you favor the conference format and if not, why? Honestly, I'm indifferent with conferences individually, but I recognize they may be needed nationally, which is why I voted in favor of them. I debated and coach is a very geographically blessed area that allows for real regional travel, but I understand why there is a real need for restructuring for others. Honestly, for my program, geography can continue to be destiny, or Andy and I can finally create the I-95 conference. At a minimum, I support all of Jeff?s proposed realignments for regions, because there needs to be some kind of change. Question #15-- Do you favor a continued use of edebate for ceda business and discussion, or should the organization move towards a list serv that is controlled by the organization? I think we do need an official "CEDA" or debate business communication mechanism. This is why I have supported moving certain business to the website discussion boards when possible (such as topic paper conversations). Any change is going to require retraining those of us who are in the habit of checking the edebate archives, or having them emailed to us, and I think we still need to have a space for "community socialization" (and maybe revamped DCA, poker tournament results, and fantasy league requests ...). However, I think "business" needs to be moved to account for the emerging fluidity of electronic communication and its long term implications. This may be as simple as a division between CEDA-L, edebate, and discussion threads, rather than a new communication mechanism. I understand the need to balance freedom of expression and inclusion with our prthink the solution ultimately may not be one source of communication. Question #16-- Do you favor the current amendment before the membership on professionalism and ethics? I certainly favor it more than the AFA version, and I favor having such an amendment in general. I think the current version is sufficient, and as I said in my candidate statement, I think we need to be leaders in this, not followers. I would be willing to revisit and to amend the amendment after it passed if we identify a significant way to improve it, but I don't want to wait to see what other organizations decide for us. I would rather initiate action now. Question #17-- How should CEDA respond and under what time table should CEDA respond in the face of publicity or press that puts the organization in a bad light? Who should be consulted? I think I've discussed some of this on the edebate post related to this topic (Neil's Question: It's 3AM ...http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-December/077119.html), but I'll add that my experience over the past year has been that when possible, preferably we should respond in writing to allow for convenient vetting by the National EC officers and a PR person. The response time should not ever be longer than a week, but preferably as immediate as possible. I think when time allows the entire EC should be consulted, and if time does not allow for that, the entire EC should be informed that an immediate response was required so that they are not caught off guard. At a minimum, an official PR officer and the CEDA President should be the default leaders of the response. More importantly, we should be creating our own press, and we should be identify potential bad PR points to have a response proactively at the ready, rather than "waiting" to see if it's an issue. Question #18-- Should CEDA have the ability to sanction its own members for behavior unbecoming a professional, such as verbal, physical, or sexual harassment? Whether CEDA sanctions the offender or not, should CEDA report complaints to the home institution of the offender and if so, how should that report be made and by whom? 1) Yes for 2/3. 2) Sometimes. Look, we already have a sexual harassment policy (which also needs to be updated a bit) which allows sanctioning to a degree, or at least action to address the issue. In general, I?m a fan of us having a sexual harassment policy where we can ask people to leave so we can encourage our debaters to stay. (And I'm a little disturbed very few other forensics organizations have a similar policy ? in fact I?ve been working with some APDA students who are interested in creating that as their legacy to their activity). I think a policy related to other offenses should involve a tiered system of tournament and school based conversations, investigations, or actions as appropriate that could possibly lead to sanctioning action if the offense were serious enough. I think we should encourage hosts to establish parameters that they feel comfortable with as educators, academics, and hosts to encourage discussions. I don't think it's CEDA's job to report a number of things to an individual's home institution - that should be left to the Director of the program once CEDA has been in contact with that Director regarding the issue, potential further inquiry, and any action. In the case when it is a Director in question, then we may need to examine further action of alerting the individual's home institution (whomever is their "supervisor" or appropriate department) directly, at a minimum indicating that an investigation is under way. I'm not sure what "physical harassment" was meant to encompass, but I'm reasonably sure assault and battery are criminal offenses. Somehow, I think criminal behavior may be something we want to discourage, but depending on where we are, campus security and host institutions may not let it be just up to us. I had 8 years teaching in high schools in Brooklyn - and I've engaged in my share of "conflict resolution", to use an encompassing euphemism. The lesson I learned fare variety of approaches, and engaging in reasonable conversation is the first step, and that having a series of procedures is essential. I think "Verbal Harassment" may be too vague in a speech activity beyond what is encompassed in the other areas (sexual harassment, threat of violence). As I said in a previous question, I support a professional conduct amendment in some manner to clearly articulate CEDA's role and the limits of its authority, in part because it delineates CEDA's jurisdiction/authority better and because it does create reasonable procedures. I think this issue is identifying that there are some things that will not be left to us in the long run anyway, and prioritizing the ways we want to control our own destiny for our members in this area. The EC will not act without authority to do so, but in an ideal world, I think CEDA's organizational structure requires some such authority for the good of our community. Question #19-- Finally, why do you want to be President of the organization? Being nominated at NCA was a bit of a surprise (I was quite insistent that Mike Davis had me confused with someone else when he told me). But as I considered the opportunity and discussed it with others, it seems a natural extension of my increasing involvement in the organization. I'm currently the Regional Rep for the largest Region in CEDA. I have been attending or viewing the Topic Meetings for the past 3 years to understand the process and because I believe our resolutions can be better. I have attended more NDT Committee meetings than some of its members over the past 5 years because I think we need to take action when our organizations have competing policies that hinder participation in the world of the "merger". I want to be CEDA President because I think we are at a point as an organization that we need continue the progress we've made with accountability, while still moving forward with initiatives that encourage the growth of debate. I think this will require building bridges and understanding the needs of many different kinds of programs and schools, and I think I have a willingness to follow through and succeed with that very necessary work, and to take the initiative in creating cross-organizational discussions about policies (a concern for others it seems based on the number of mentions of the NDT is the previous questions). I have a respect for what we do well as an organization, but a recognition of where we can improve, and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater just for the sake of perceived progress. I have seen how much work it takes to be CEDA President, and I recognize that I am in a position professionally to dedicate myself to the position over the next 5 years to accomplish the goals I set forward. I also feel that the immediate future of our organization requires an understanding not only of debate, but of University admin, which I have. Mostly, I really believe in our community, and I would consider it a privilege to work at advancing our goals together. From davismk13 at gmail.com Sun Jan 4 18:30:42 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:30:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Teams Clearing at JMU Message-ID: <9a7f6f740901041630i3b0f3114vf03275105e8d3173@mail.gmail.com> Teams Clearing JMU Invitational Open App State LV 3 JMU CS 4 JMU DL 4 Liberty BH 5 Liberty BP 4 Liberty DG 5 Liberty FW 5 Liberty JS 3 Mary Wash GS 4 Vandy BN 5 WVU NS 5 JV Clarion PS Mary Wash GT Novice Mary Wash HM WVU SZ -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/e37765d2/attachment.htm From Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU Sun Jan 4 20:44:30 2009 From: Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU (Kenneth M. Strange) Date: 04 Jan 2009 21:44:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NEED judging @UTD Message-ID: <146040288@newvixen.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/1f118a54/attachment.txt From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sun Jan 4 21:44:47 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:44:47 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC elim pairings Message-ID: Doubles in open JV in quarters -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open_Doubles_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 10311 bytes Desc: Open_Doubles_2009_Nichols.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/9565e0e5/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JV_Quarters_Nichols_2009.doc Type: application/msword Size: 19968 bytes Desc: JV_Quarters_Nichols_2009.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/9565e0e5/attachment.doc From stables at usc.edu Sun Jan 4 22:16:36 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 20:16:36 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Elim Seeds and Announcements Message-ID: <39c1ac890901042016t78ed7ba7la26b7332db3501b9@mail.gmail.com> The seeds for both the open division and JV division are attached. We do not break brackets. A list of all judges who are judging tomorrow will be posted later tonight. All judges are obligated through the octofinals tomorrow, so please let me know if you are not still available. The full pairings for the varsity octofinals and the JV semifinals will be available tomorrow morning at 7 am. Full packet data and ballots available shortly. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Elim_seeds_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8472 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/f74aa822/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JV_Seeds_Nichols_2009.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 4264 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/f74aa822/attachment-0001.pdf From stables at usc.edu Sun Jan 4 23:48:23 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:48:23 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC E-Packet Message-ID: <39c1ac890901042148n7768a145j9b2c513ace44a761@mail.gmail.com> We have posted the prelim results, top speakers, and team seeds at our website, linked below. http://www.usctrojandebate.com/college_tournaments.html Elim results to follow tonight. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From thejugular at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 00:15:48 2009 From: thejugular at gmail.com (Julian Gagnon) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 22:15:48 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] William DeMougeot Debates at UNT Wireless Access Message-ID: <8064f8240901042215k3841dcd4re70cdfa9a3329557@mail.gmail.com> Friends, We are wireless! Each participant and judge will receive an individual login and password at registration. Please don't share?we're watching you!! *How to connect*: set the SSID to *eaglenet* and turn off WEP encryption. Some operating systems will automatically detect the Eaglenet wireless network and offer to connect to it, with others you may need to scan to find the available networks then select the one you want to connect to. Once you've connected to the wireless network, when you open a web browser to go to a web site, you will be asked to login with your EUID (contend) and password. When you complete the login, you can surf the web. Questions? Email me or ask at the tournament. Julian Gagnon UNT Debate thejugular at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090104/70282487/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Mon Jan 5 02:46:47 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 00:46:47 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Elim Results and Judges for Monday Message-ID: <39c1ac890901050046o7636a2f6s6b105b9b98777a5@mail.gmail.com> Open Doubles UGA CS def. Cal BJ (a) 2-1 Cram*, Buntin, Anders Cal BP (a) def. Kansas SW 3-0 Murillo, Saez, Abelkop Dartmouth AH def. Cal BG (a) 3-0 Walters, P.Johnson, Gonzalez Emory MS advances over Emory IN Emory SW def. Whitman CS (a) 3-0 Durkee, Reed, Clark Gonzaga BC (a) def. Wake CC 3-0 Chestnut, Chalfont, Achten Harvard JP (a) def. Iowa SV 3-0 J.Peterson, Cram Helwich, Turner Harvard RS advances over Harvard KK Wake SS (a) def. Kansas BR 2-1 Strauss, Stahl, Meiches* Michigan St. AW (a) def. Gonzaga HJ 3-0 Lee, Halll, Kall Harvard BP (a) def. North Texas CP 2-1 Odekirk, Spring, Hamraie* West Georgia BS (a) def. Northwestern FW 3-0 B.Johnson, Philips, Gerber Towson CL (a) def. Missouri State FW 3-0 Olsen, Murray, Lacy Mary Washington KW (a) def. Northwestern MS 2-1 Arnett*, Harrigan, Petit Towson HM (a) def. Texas-Dallas BR 2-1, Olney, Topp, Garner Wake GL def. Gonzaga MM (a) 3-0 Hardy, Keenan, Repko JV Quarters Binghamton CF def. CSUN AW (a) 3-0 Alvarez, Litzky, Martin Whitman CF (a) def. Houston GM 3-0 Fitzmeir, Jennings, Turoff George Mason LJ def. SFSU GS (a) 3-0 Holland, Maritato, Pastrana Houston JK advances over Houston FM Judges for tomorrow - Pairings at 7:00 am - Round must begin at 8:00 am All rounds (and all of the evidence from the shuttles) are on the banquet and conference floor of the Sheraton (two floors below the lobby and one floor below the valet parking) Achten Arnett Buntin DeLong Dunn Durkee Fitzmier Gonzalez Grove Hamraie Hardy Harrigan Jennings Johnson, P. Kall Keenan Lacy Lee Murillo Murray Olney Olsen Petit Reed Repko S.Hall Strait Topp Turner Vats Thanks Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From blain at unt.edu Mon Jan 5 08:20:21 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:20:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Weather Report-- UNT Travel Message-ID: Colleagues, Although it was 80 degrees on Saturday, at about 7am it started precipitating a "wintery mix" here in Denton. The temp is hovering around 31 on the ground. We have some sleet and they are predicting ice and ice pellets as possible. PLease take your time and be careful traveling to the dfw area. I know most of you are excellent drivers in all conditions. However, after living here for 6 years, I can say the other people who inhabit the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex are not. The area is typically not prepared to deal with inclement weather, and this is not snow, but ICE. Should you encounter problems, don't hesitate to call me on my cell at 940-453-2359. Tomorrow it is expected to be 57. 68 by eliim day. Cuidado -Brian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/d578eb47/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Mon Jan 5 08:42:17 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 06:42:17 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Open Octos & JV Semis Pairings Message-ID: <39c1ac890901050642ia65b4f3mef0ad8343b7597bd@mail.gmail.com> Rounds start at 8 am. Breakfast served on the conference room level. http://www.usctrojandebate.com/Open_Octas_2009_Nichols.pdf http://www.usctrojandebate.com/JV_semis_2009_Nichols.pdf Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open_Octas_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 4734 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/1ffbb7ec/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JV_semis_2009_Nichols.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 4376 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/1ffbb7ec/attachment-0001.pdf From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Mon Jan 5 08:55:45 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:55:45 +0100 Subject: [eDebate] World Championship Debate Vdeos now available Message-ID: <49621F71.4020505@uvm.edu> Here are videos of some debates from the recently completed World Universities Debating Championships held in Cork, Ireland. 308 teams entered. 32 teams cleared, and 10 of those were from the USA (highest of any country). It was a truly amazing experience with parties, breakfasts, lunches, dinners, singing, dancing and most of all debating -- 9 prelims and then 4 elims with 4 teams in each debate. For those of you who are wondering what this format is like, check out these debates. A topic is announced and they have 15 minutes to prepare by themselves with no coaching from anyone and no Internet. This format of debating is growing quickly in the USA. If you would like to try it for yourself you should plan to attend the United States Universities Debating Championship to be held at the University of Vermont 3-5 April 2009. Registration opens January 14, there is no team cap, and we are expecting a very large draw. We will have judge and debater training before the tournament begins. We wil have meals, parties, and some awesome debates on our beautiful campus. Air connections are easy to Burlington, Vermont (BTV). Find out more at this website or send me an email http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/usu/Welcome.html From Ireland, we have: Final round: This House would ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy. (Oh, those Irish!) http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/wudc-finals-2009-ban-abortion-at-all.html Monash University (Australia), Harvard University (USA), Oxford A & Oxford C (UK) If you would like a different sort of motion, try the quarterfinal round: This House believes that the ICC should prosecute crimes against the democratic process. http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/wudc-quarterfinals-icc-prosecute-crimes.html University College Dublin (Ireland), Nottingham University, Oxford A & Oxford C (UK) If you want to see a debate about war, check out the octafinal debate on: This House would arm militias to fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/wudc-octafinals-arm-militias-against.html Brandeis (USA), Nottngham (UK), Monash (Australia), University College Dublin (Ireland) -- 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 blain at unt.edu Mon Jan 5 10:40:55 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:40:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] No Prefs entered 1/5 10:30am Message-ID: Nothing yet from Texas Vamsi Bhadriraju & JD Sanford Texas-Dallas Brittany Leach & Collin Roark Trinity University Nick Burr & john elson Trinity University Michael Hart & Brendon Bankey Trinity University Emily Hall & Sarah Clemons Trinity University Scott Brown & Alex Moon Rochester Justin Gibson & Eric Meinhardt Rochester Aini Chen & George Weddington Rochester George Weddington & Aini Chen Rochester Claire Maggio & Zheng Wang We admire the passion which these teams display. We will continue to support their wishes to leave the preferences open. I admire their courage in letting their opponents pick their critics. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/716ccf2f/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Jan 5 12:43:41 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:43:41 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Baltimore College Debate Message-ID: <825DCEA4CAB6471B825292F36241D8F4@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Harriet Tubman Debates Starts:2/7/2009 Ends:2/8/2009 Hosted by: Baltimore College Debate Contact: Andy Ellis Address: 1800 n. charles street suite 906 baltimore, md 21218 Phone: 240-285-0843 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 12:45:21 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:45:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Harriet Tubman Debates Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901051045j47dc05b3s7ae36f39709f8904@mail.gmail.com> Here is the invite, enjoy Baltimore College Debate Harriet Tubman Debates Towson University February 7-8 I am excited to invite you all to Baltimore for the last Baltimore College Debate Tournament of the year. We will offer six rounds of competition in three divisions. In prelims the JV and the Varsity division will be combined, and the novice division will be separate. We will have elimination rounds in all three divisions (breakout style in jv) This tournament we are moving to a northeast style schedule with 5 preliminary rounds on Saturday and round 6 and elims on Sunday. We hope this will allow a ful slate of rounds with a reasonable get home time on Sunday. Please enter on debate results by February 1. If we do not have enough teams entered by that date we will cancel the tournament. Hotel options are listed in detail below, if you need help with housing please let us know. If the next CEDA Second Vice President is in attendance we will have a)a small celebration for them b) the opportunity for you to interact with them in an open forum. We are looking forward to good competition, good hospitality, and good community. If you have any questions contact either Andy Ellis or Shawntia Diggs Andy at bmoreyours.org Shawntia at bmoreyours.org See you in February. Andy Ellis-Chief Operating Officer-Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems Shawntia Diggs-Director-Baltimore College Debate 822 W. 36th Street Baltimore MD 21211 ELIGIBILITY & EXPECTATIONS: The tournament is open to any two-person team of undergraduate students. Teams in all divisions will be expected to engage in switch-sides debating. Debaters without partners (mavericks) will be paired up with other debaters with out a partner and will only be allowed to compete without a partner at the discretion of the tournament director . Towson may enter teams and those teams can clear in all divisions. Hybrid teams will be accepted. Novice & JV debaters should meet the CEDA standards for novice eligibility. Varsity is open to any competitor. ENTRIES & FEES: Please enter via debate results. You will receive a confirmation. Entry fees are $35 per team at the tournament. Teams who have purchased a membership can use the credits that come with membership to cover entry fees. FORMAT: All divisions will have 6 preliminary rounds; advancement to elimination rounds will be based on (1) win-loss record, (2) strength of opposition (3) adjusted speaker points, and (4) total speaker points,. Speaker points may be given in .5 increments. The first two rounds will be pre-set. Round 3 will be paired off of round 1 and round 4 & 5 will be paired off of rounds 1-3.Round 6 will be paired off of 1-4 . Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes prep time. Elimination round sides will be determined based on (1) reversing sides from a prelim meeting, (2) individual coin flips. In the Combined JV/Varsity Division Rounds 1 and 2 will be paired within division to the best of our ability. The tournament will use the CEDA Resolution: Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat. The tab room will be open and public, coaches, judges and teams are encouraged to watch and participate in the process. The tournament will seek ADA certification and abide by ADA rules. JUDGES: One judge is required to cover every two teams. One judge covering one team is responsible for 3 rounds. All judges are committed to one round past their teams' elimination. A very limited number of judges may be available for hire through the tournament at $150 per uncovered team. Contact us early if you need help finding judges. Judges should meet the standards of the sanctioning organizations. HOTELS: We provide two primary Hotel options. The La Quinta Inn(Tournament Hotel) on Philadelphia Ct is 15 Minutes from the tournament convenient access to interstates, food and shopping. We have a rate of $99 a night that includes breakfast each morning and free wireless in all rooms. We encourage you to become a member of the La Quinta rewards program, if you use the rewards program your rate over time will decrease by a noticeable amount as the free rooms kick in. Contact the la quinta at 410 574 8100 the block is under Baltimore College Debate. Comfort Inn $79/night, ask for the Towson U Rate. 8801 Loch Raven Blvd, Towson MD, 21286|410-882-0900 While the Comfort Inn is not the tournament hotel it is convenient and many people choose to stay there. If you stay there frequently we encourage you to join the Comfort Inn rewards program. If you have questions about hotels please feel free to contact me at 240-285-0843 TRAVEL: Towson is easily accessible from the I-95 corridor to the north and south and from the I-70 corridor to the west. Towson is 100 miles from Philly, 70 miles from Harrisburg 80 miles from Hagerstown, 60 miles from DC, 70 miles from Wilmington Delaware and less then 50 miles from Bowie and Annapolis. PARKING: Parking is free on weekends as long as it is marked as such, we will post parking maps on edebate and closer to the tournament. FOOD: We will provide snacks, coffee and water throughout the day. Light breakfast and lunch will be provided on Saturday and Sunday. Please let us know any dietary restrictions in advance. Schedule: Saturday 2/7 7:00-7:45 Registration 7:45 Pairings Released for Round 1 & 2 8:00 Round 1 10:00 Round 2 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Round 3 4:00 Round 4 6:30 Round 5 Sunday 2/8 8:00 AM Pairings released 8:30 Round 6 11:30 First Out Round 1:00 Lunch 2:00 The Next one 4:00 Awards 4:30 The one after that 7:00 The Last One -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/426c32db/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 13:38:26 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:38:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire rounds for Emory HS tournament Message-ID: <524839830901051138ie855d9es6ef3066ff95d7d83@mail.gmail.com> January 23rd & 24th. Friday evening & Saturday. # of debates, up to 6, and pay are negotiable Email me if interested -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/c83d4082/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 13:55:11 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:55:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire rounds for Emory HS tournament --- ROUNDS ALREADY HIRED Message-ID: <524839830901051155t32b15366mee13ba8cd8a33648@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/78288f8d/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 19:14:56 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:14:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JMU Final Round Message-ID: <9a7f6f740901051714m47f9ba54t85ab50e3101d720f@mail.gmail.com> Vandy BN defeated Liberty DG on a 2-1 Davis, M., Noerr, Hahn* Congrats to Vanderbilt for being the first varsity champions of 2009. Mary Washington was the first champions of the year winning both the JV and Novice divisions. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/10aaa2a0/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Mon Jan 5 20:39:27 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:39:27 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Basketball Challenge.... Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F5598A5CBD@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> For those attending the tournaments in Dallas, OU Debate offers B-Ball challenge of 4 on 4 to any takers. 2:00 - I think we should have a small tournament of 4 on 4 Jayhawks? can you still play without Cormack? K-State? UTD? anyone? Emory has like 50 people coming, you got any players? peace Massey From berchnorto at msn.com Mon Jan 5 21:00:25 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:00:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JMU Final Round In-Reply-To: <9a7f6f740901051714m47f9ba54t85ab50e3101d720f@mail.gmail.com> References: <9a7f6f740901051714m47f9ba54t85ab50e3101d720f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks to Mike, RJ Green, Donald Bryson, and the JMU debaters for hosting a fantastic tournament. It featured fine competition (including Open debaters playing nicely with novices) and excellent hospitality, and it ran ahead of schedule! Atmosphere was very friendly and nurturing for young debaters as well. Oh, and it was cheap, too! The Mountaineers look forward to the second half of the Swing at Mary Washington (where we stand a good chance of debating the "other" Mountaineers from Appalachian State). Hopefully, next year's Commonwealth Swing (they do need a catchier name) will attract a larger field. It's a great value in budget-tight times (no disrespect intended for the other fine swings)! --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Davis To: edebate Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:14 PM Subject: [eDebate] JMU Final Round Vandy BN defeated Liberty DG on a 2-1 Davis, M., Noerr, Hahn* Congrats to Vanderbilt for being the first varsity champions of 2009. Mary Washington was the first champions of the year winning both the JV and Novice divisions. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/a239565b/attachment.htm From beth.skinner at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 21:03:46 2009 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:03:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Assistantship at Towson Message-ID: <4550c7380901051903o565ab69bw60be85cd009a85ac@mail.gmail.com> Pending state budget approval, we're recruiting for a full-time graduate assistantship coaching debate beginning Fall 2009. It includes 12 hours of graduate level credit (which can be used for any graduate degree at the university) and a stipend (this year it was $6,000) per semester. The deadline to complete an application for admission varies by department but generally fall in February. For a full list of job duties, application or other questions you can backchannel me. Here are some links that might be helpful. Graduate Programs at Towson - http://grad.towson.edu/ Towson Debate - http://www.towson.edu/speechanddebate/ Baltimore Urban Debate League - http://www.budl.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/6ec233f9/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Mon Jan 5 21:44:33 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:44:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Rounds 1 and 2 Message-ID: Attached -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/91c38844/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNT Round 1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 34304 bytes Desc: UNT Round 1.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/91c38844/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNT Round 2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35840 bytes Desc: UNT Round 2.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090105/91c38844/attachment-0001.doc From stables at usc.edu Mon Jan 5 23:21:24 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 21:21:24 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Elim Results Message-ID: <39c1ac890901052121p39b9c214q2b0b4170727a5df9@mail.gmail.com> Open Octos Emory MS (a) def. Georgia CS 3-0 Kall, Hardy, Repko Cal BP def. Towson JM (a) 2-1 Olney, Olsen, Topp* Emory SW (a) def. Harvard JP 2-1 Harrigan, Johnson, Reed* Dartmouth AH (a) vs. Harvard RS 2-1 Keenan, DeLong, Gonzalez* Michigan State AW def. Wake SS (a) Hall, Achten, Vats Mary Washington KS def. Harvard BP (a) 2-1 Lacy, Fitzmier*, Hamraie Wake GL def. Towson CL (a) 3-0 Murray, Buntin, Strait Northwestern FW def. Gonzaga BC 3-0 Turner, Lee, Arnett Quarters Wake GL def. Mary Washington KS (a) 2-1, Strait, Keenan *, Hardy Emory SW def. Dartmouth AH (a) 3-0 Repko, Johnson, Anders Cal BP def. Michigan State AW (a) 2-1 Lee, Chalfont *, Phillips Northwestern FW def. Emory MS (a) 3-0 Lacy, Achten, Strauss Semis Cal BP (a) def. Emory SW 2-1 Buntin, Hill, Murillo* Wake GL (a) def. Northestern FW 2-1 Achten, Lee, Vats* Finals (in progress) Cal BP (a) vs. Wake GL Hill, Lee, Stables JV Semis Whitman FM (a) def. SFSU 3-0 Lai, Durkee, Murillo Binghamton CF def. Houston JK 3-0 Grove, Jennings Finals Binghamton FC def. Whitman FM 2-1 Hill*, Durkee, Turner -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From stables at usc.edu Tue Jan 6 01:40:34 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:40:34 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Finals Message-ID: <39c1ac890901052340i21963441je9a6c7ff13f46caa@mail.gmail.com> Congrats to both teams for a great tournament. The 2009 USC Champion is Wake Forest University GL. They defeated Cal BP on a 2-1 decision (Lee, Hill, Stables*) Travel safe and see many of you at Fullerton tomorrow. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From jmgreen at ksu.edu Tue Jan 6 12:17:39 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:17:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Make Soul (Kansas State) Tournament Hotel Reservations Soon Message-ID: <5a6e2a80901061017r396b2575y57a829443eb1dd2f@mail.gmail.com> We look forward to seeing everyone in Manhattan for the Soul of America Tournament from Friday February 13 to Sunday February 15th, 2009. We have reserved a room block at The Clarion Hotel 530 Richards Drive Manhattan, KS 66502 at a rate of $82/night for double rooms. Ask for the "Kansas State Debate" block in group reservations at (785) 539-531. This block will be held until January 23rd. For those coming in on Thursday night, there are a few rooms also reserved on that night. There is free wireless and a karaoke establishment within walking distance. Please make your reservations very soon. This weekend the Kansas State Men's Basketball team will be playing the Kansas Jayhawks, so hotel rooms are hard to come by. For those wanting to save more on money you can try: Motel 6 Manhattan, KS - www.motel6.com - (785) 537-1022 Super 8 Manhattan - www.super8.com - (785) 537-8468 Econo Lodge - www.econolodge.com - (785) 539-5391 For those seeking more luxury: Holiday Inn at the Campus (785) 539-7531 Many, many other quality hotels are in Manhattan. A couple of reasons to attend.... 1 Quality debates for younger people 2 Swing partners can break 3 Improve an NDT bubble team's record 4 Practice for districts 5 Aggieville for the coaches - shuttles will be provided. On behalf of Kansas State Debate, Justin Green From rickydeck at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 12:52:53 2009 From: rickydeck at gmail.com (Ricky Deck) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:52:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Attn: Vandy BN Message-ID: <6ae7c1540901061052m171f28c2sea2dd2e77af6133@mail.gmail.com> Please Email me back for Cite Requests...Thanks Ricky Deck JMU Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/b18ae47a/attachment.htm From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 13:13:15 2009 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:13:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Vehicle Information (Or, "You will have to walk to our tournament if you don't read this") Message-ID: Due to the Global War on Terror and the sheer awesomeness of the US Naval Academy, we will only be able to get you access to the Yard if we have vehicle information for each vehicle traveling on the Yard. If you or your institution own your vehicle, we will need the following: Name of Driver Drivers License Number and State State Vehicle is Licensed in License Plate Number Vehicle Model, Year, and Color If you are renting the vehicle we will only need: Name of Driver Drivers License Number and State But you will need to have the rental agreement with you in the vehicle for the gate guards to inspect. If you are bringing a bus (here's looking at you, Mike Hall!), just let me know the name of the bus company in addition to the name of the driver and the drivers license number and state.PLEASE HAVE THIS INFORMATION TO ME (at verney at usna.edu) NO LATER THAN 5 PM JANUARY 13! It takes a while to obtain the passes and if we can't get you a pass, you can't drive onto the Yard which will be a logistical nightmare for you and for me. Thanks, Danielle Verney O'Gorman Navy Debate _________________________________________________________________ Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/c1e1719d/attachment.htm From ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu Tue Jan 6 13:50:57 2009 From: ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu (Sandoz, M L) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:50:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] What are the NDT dates this year? Message-ID: <2152.129.59.250.146.1231271457.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu> ------------------------------------------------- Sandoz, M L Director of Debate Vanderbilt University Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu From dave at miami.edu Tue Jan 6 15:14:37 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:14:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Hurricane Debates (and hotel info) Message-ID: Today's weather in the Gables: 78 degrees, fair with slight breeze We hope you will join us in Miami for this year's Hurricane Debates on January 30-February 1. Come for the weather, the pastelitos, rice and beans, Caribbean chicken and pork, healthy (and unhealthy) snacks, excellent debate competition, efficient tab room and more. Make hotel reservations NOW! I know it seems expensive, but this is Miami at peak season! You won't do better on Hotels.com Holiday Inn, University of Miami 1350 S Dixie Hwy Coral Gables, FL 33146 (305) 667-5611 http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/miaum Rate is $119, Code is UMD You may also wish to check: Best Miami Hotel 5959 SW 71st Street Miami, FL, 33143 866-539-8430 David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/34f0488b/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue Jan 6 15:54:01 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:54:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Re-Post 2nd VP Answers 6 and 7 from Vik Keenan Message-ID: <49637E990200009300022B0F@mymail.kckcc.edu> In the formatting, it looks like Vik's answers to 6 and 7 copied over with one running into the other. Apologies to Vik. Here are her answers to 6 and 7 correctly formatted. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President Question #6-- Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate? I don?t think CEDA should regulate argument content beyond established evidentiary ethics considerations. Fundamentally, that is not how the activity is perceived in ?CEDA? historically. Debaters can debate about the content issues ? and I?ll double check the profanity K links are in the backfile project. I think there are different educational models that debate can follow, and the history of CEDA is one of open discourse. I think content limitations would be more appropriate in the educational and organizational model that the ADA is founded upon (for the record, it?s rule #6 in their standing rules that says T is a voter, although the criteria for voting on a kritik advocated by the aff are not listed. Uniqueness and alternatives seem to only be a burden of the neg). I think harassment issues are separate from content issues. Question #7-- What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying "implications?" (Hi Jimbo.) The best place to work with the NDT on the issues of convergence and electronic eloquence are at the topic meeting, which is our only "official" cooperative action and which has seen the most progress in these fields over the last 3 years. Using the Topic Meeting, the CEDA Summer Meeting (and potentially NCA), and the upcoming conference hosted by Wake may be the best option to serve as a "testing ground" in these fields. More students, perhaps using the Presidential Intern model established in 2005, could be involved in the technological production aspects of these existing approaches, rather than simply seen as a "host" duty. I think the biggest obstacle for CEDA programs in this area is that what we are seeing is a reflection of the larger comm community focus - it's departmental and curricular priorities. I think encouraging programs to engage in public debates about issues of importance to their communities, and to explore inter-school electronic debates, as some programs do, may be the best approach within those limitations. One other suggestion would be to target emerging programs or those with reduced budgets to explore electronic production to expand debate opportunities from their school to other campuses. Finally, I think it is important to emphasize the eloquence and production value component of any such initiatives - the point is to develop better skills than most amateur youTube postings, right? Doing production for production's sake is irrelevant unless actual skills are developed. Multiple individuals have advocated positive PR measures for our activity, including promoting debates, advertising our "success stories", and using our awards ceremonies as source material for positive press. These initiatives would also be excellent opportunities to provide production experiences for our community in conjunction with broader goals. From blain at unt.edu Tue Jan 6 16:14:42 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:14:42 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Round 3 Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/d775eebf/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNT- Round 3.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 36352 bytes Desc: UNT- Round 3.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/d775eebf/attachment.obj From Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU Tue Jan 6 16:19:14 2009 From: Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU (Kenneth M. Strange) Date: 06 Jan 2009 17:19:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Still Need to hire judging for UTD Message-ID: <146179784@newvixen.Dartmouth.EDU> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/9c6d8be8/attachment.txt From thejugular at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 16:50:49 2009 From: thejugular at gmail.com (Julian Gagnon) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:50:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] unt tournament parking Message-ID: <8064f8240901061450p1be215e1t654f439a21845ece@mail.gmail.com> parking ticket fyi if you parked at a meter today and received a ticket it is being treated as a warning. DO NOT PARK AT A METERED SPOT TOMORROW OR YOU WILL BE TICKETED!! julian gagnon parking cop unt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/8571d9eb/attachment.htm From luvmarissa at hotmail.com Tue Jan 6 16:55:22 2009 From: luvmarissa at hotmail.com (Marissa Silber) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:55:22 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Graduate Assistantship at The University of Florida - Coach Debate and Study in Any Academic Department Message-ID: Debate Graduate Assistantship at The University of Florida Coach Debate and Study in Any Academic Department ****Apply soon---Graduate Admission Deadlines Approaching Quickly!!!!!**** The University of Florida Speech and Debate Team would like to invite candidates to apply for a graduate coaching/teaching assistantship to work with our policy debate program beginning fall 2009. The position would not require any teaching, just assisting with the debate program. However, teaching opportunities may be available for additional funding. Because there is no graduate program in Speech Communication at UF, assistantships can be awarded to either MA or PhD students studying in any academic department! There is also the potential for using the assistantship?s tuition waiver to cover a portion of Law School tuition if the student is enrolled in a joint degree program. The assistantship includes a full-time (9 credit hours per semester) tuition waiver, a salary stipend, graduate student health insurance, and a tournament travel stipend. The Graduate Assistant coach is expected to supervise and provide models for research and argument writing, oversee practice debates and speaking drills, manage research assignments, judge at and travel to at least three tournaments per semester. Kellie Roberts, our Director of Forensics, takes care of most of the administrative responsibilities such as travel arrangements and paperwork, so your responsibilities are much more focused on coaching the debaters. Candidates are required to complete the admission application for the department they are interested in studying in by the department?s deadline (go to UF?s homepage at www.ufl.edu to link to academic departments and the graduate school). Please complete this process soon as several departments? application deadlines are fast approaching. In order to apply for the assistantship, please supply Kellie Roberts with the following information no later than February 1, 2009. Please email Kellie at robertsk at ufl.edu with the following information: your name, address, email, phone number, name of school you completed your Bachelors Degree at and Major. Please also include contact information for three references as well as a one page coaching philosophy statement. This statement should include information about your coaching style and goals for a small yet competitive program like ours that is tailored to all levels of policy debate. If you are interested in more information about graduate assistantships with the University of Florida Debate Team, feel free to contact Marissa Silber, Policy Debate Coach, at silber at ufl.edu _________________________________________________________________ Life on your PC is safer, easier, and more enjoyable with Windows Vista?. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032870/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/713a586b/attachment.htm From lukephill at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 17:16:48 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:16:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Judging for West Georgia Message-ID: We pay well and in cash. (Well maybe not as well as the speaker awards, but your not eligible for that anyway). Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/fa1b0033/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Tue Jan 6 17:16:06 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:16:06 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Round 4 Message-ID: Please start by 6:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/b3bf8452/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNT- Round 4.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36352 bytes Desc: UNT- Round 4.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/b3bf8452/attachment.doc From runlittleman at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 19:55:38 2009 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:55:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UMW pairings 1-4 Message-ID: <886dd32a0901061755g6046500ekc666279bce346e8b@mail.gmail.com> University of Mary Washington -- Open Policy Mary Washington 1/7/2009 through 1/9/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 1 -- START TIME: 8:00 Clarion University BS West Virginia Univer SZ Combs 2 Ryan, Nick Clarion University CR West Virginia Univer CP Combs 114 Bond, Slade Clarion University FF James Madison AW Combs 215 Bender, Cole Clarion University PS Appalachian State LV Combs 213 Green, Rj Clarion University SZ Mary Washington SS Combs 112 Nagy, John James Madison CS Liberty University BH Combs 236 Noerr, Rob Liberty University AJ Mary Washington AS Combs 111 Mcdaniel, Mylind Liberty University DG James Madison DL Combs 214 Willis, Kris Liberty University FW Mary Washington HM Combs 4 Lyle, Jim Liberty University GT Mary Washington GT Combs 1 Godbey, Samantha West Virginia Univer NS Liberty University ET Combs 3 O'donnell, Tim West Virginia Univer PW Liberty University BP Combs 237 Jansen, Sean University of Mary Washington -- Open Policy Mary Washington 1/7/2009 through 1/9/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 2 -- START TIME: ASAP Appalachian State LV West Virginia Univer PW Combs 237 Bond, Slade James Madison AW Clarion University BS Combs 2 Santmyer, Katie James Madison DL Clarion University FF Combs 215 Ryan, Nick Liberty University BH West Virginia Univer NS Combs 3 Green, Rj Liberty University BP Clarion University SZ Combs 112 Mcdaniel, Mylind Liberty University ET Clarion University CR Combs 114 Jansen, Sean Mary Washington AS Liberty University FW Combs 4 Godbey, Samantha Mary Washington GT Liberty University DG Combs 214 Noerr, Rob Mary Washington HM Clarion University PS Combs 213 Nagy, John Mary Washington SS James Madison CS Combs 236 Bender, Cole West Virginia Univer CP Liberty University AJ Combs 111 Lyle, Jim West Virginia Univer SZ Liberty University GT Combs 1 Willis, Kris University of Mary Washington -- Open Policy Mary Washington 1/7/2009 through 1/9/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 3 -- START TIME: 1:00 Clarion University BS James Madison DL Combs 215 Godbey, Samantha Clarion University CR Liberty University BH Combs 3 Mcdaniel, Mylind Clarion University FF Liberty University BP Combs 111 Santmyer, Katie Clarion University PS Mary Washington AS Combs 4 Bender, Cole Clarion University SZ Liberty University ET Combs 114 Bond, Slade James Madison CS West Virginia Univer CP Combs 112 Ryan, Nick Liberty University AJ Appalachian State LV Combs 237 Noerr, Rob Liberty University DG West Virginia Univer SZ Combs 1 Jansen, Sean Liberty University FW Mary Washington GT Combs 214 Willis, Kris Liberty University GT James Madison AW Combs 2 Lyle, Jim West Virginia Univer NS Mary Washington SS Combs 236 Hall, Heather West Virginia Univer PW Mary Washington HM Combs 213 Hall, Michael University of Mary Washington -- Open Policy Mary Washington 1/7/2009 through 1/9/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 4 -- START TIME: 3:30 Appalachian State LV Liberty University FW Combs 111 Jansen, Sean James Madison AW West Virginia Univer NS Combs 236 Ryan, Nick James Madison DL Liberty University GT Combs 2 Noerr, Rob Liberty University BH Clarion University SZ Combs 114 Santmyer, Katie Liberty University BP Clarion University PS Combs 4 Bond, Slade Liberty University ET James Madison CS Combs 112 Lyle, Jim Mary Washington AS West Virginia Univer PW Combs 213 Hall, Heather Mary Washington GT Clarion University BS Combs 215 Bender, Cole Mary Washington HM Liberty University AJ Combs 237 Godbey, Samantha Mary Washington SS Clarion University CR Combs 3 Santmyer, Katie West Virginia Univer CP Liberty University DG Combs 1 Green, Rj West Virginia Univer SZ Clarion University FF Combs 214 Nagy, John From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 22:00:25 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:00:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] open courseware consortium-good option for ceda? Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901062000u78cdd662r2ff80f94500dcbf6@mail.gmail.com> Hello: http://www.ocwconsortium.org/how-to-join/how-to-join.html This is the link for the open course ware consortium, open course ware is open source educational material, free...this is an incredible resource and a movement of some magnitude. I have spent a decent amount of time learning from here and have found it hugely helpful, but perhaps its a model for a ceda collaborative intiative...institutions with curriculuims can join the consortium and people all around the world can take advanatge, we have a wide number of innovative educators who could put together a whole series of courses from begining debate to running a team to whatever else, its not without some work. but it is a perfect colaborative platform that could allow us to easily teach debate to everybody around the world all the time...DEBATE U? Check it out...use it for you...but think about how it could help all of us as you are. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/0c2db3db/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Tue Jan 6 22:04:08 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:04:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Rounds 5 and 6 + Novice Partial Semis--- 8 and 10:30 am tomorrow/ Hard Copies also at Hotel Message-ID: After Round 6-- Lunch in GAB!!! For pairing in pdf, excel, word, and html doument click here.. Pairing is also attached. Thanks, UNT Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/645b83af/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UNT Rounds 5-6 + Novice Partial Semis.doc Type: application/msword Size: 49152 bytes Desc: UNT Rounds 5-6 + Novice Partial Semis.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/645b83af/attachment.doc From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Tue Jan 6 23:33:37 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 21:33:37 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CSUF pairings rds 1 and 2 Message-ID: Attached -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42978 bytes Desc: JVRd1.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/3d9f5de0/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42541 bytes Desc: JVRd2.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/3d9f5de0/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rd1Open.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 44218 bytes Desc: Rd1Open.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/3d9f5de0/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rd2Open.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45051 bytes Desc: Rd2Open.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090106/3d9f5de0/attachment-0003.pdf From rtews at weber.edu Wed Jan 7 12:58:16 2009 From: rtews at weber.edu (Richard TEWS) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:58:16 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Val Browning RR at Weber State transportation Message-ID: <496498D7.CBB7.003E.0@weber.edu> The RR is quickly coming up and I have yet to hear from anyone about transportation from the Salt Lake City airport. If you are attending the Val Browning Round Robin and you would like a free ride from the airport and back please email me ASAP so that I can make arrangements. Richard Tews Assisitant Director of Forensics Department of Communications Weber State University Office PH: 801-626-6438 From BOpsata at dvc.edu Wed Jan 7 14:58:32 2009 From: BOpsata at dvc.edu (Opsata, Becky) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:58:32 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Scott Nobles passes away Message-ID: <459F0B7C85731C449AF880D6FEABE743085DBEDE@diamond.4cd.net> Dr. W. Scott Nobles recently passed away. He was the winner of the first NDT, my coach at Macalester, a total character, and a great guy. His obituary is posted here: http://www.legacy.com/startribune/obituaries.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonID=122205155 Even in death he still is supporting debate. The scholarship fund at Macalester that is mentioned in the obit goes to help debaters pay for the cost of college. Dr. Becky Opsata Director of Forensics Diablo Valley College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090107/edc61918/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Wed Jan 7 16:39:49 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:39:49 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Fullerton round 3 pairings Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRd3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 43260 bytes Desc: OpenRd3.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090107/c47eed1b/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40638 bytes Desc: JVRd3.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090107/c47eed1b/attachment-0001.pdf From maffiemd at muohio.edu Wed Jan 7 19:06:56 2009 From: maffiemd at muohio.edu (Mike Maffie) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:06:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Cornell Tournament Invitation Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: The Cornell Forensics Society cordially invites you to attend the 2009 Cornell Debate Tournament, to be held Saturday, February 14th and Sunday, February 15th. This year's tournament will be CEDA and SAMBA (Society Advocating More and Better Argumentation) sanctioned and will offer: Rookie, Novice, Junior Varsity, and Open divisions of policy debate as well as a World's Format / British Parliamentary division. We will follow CEDA policies on sexual harassment as well as the definition of Novice debaters. The topic will be the official CEDA/NDT 2008-2009 Topic for all policy divisions. Rounds will take place in the buildings around the Ag Quad. Entries: We request that you enter the tournament using debateresults.com. Tournament registration via debateresults.com will be open within a couple of hours of the release of this invitation, and will close on Thursday, February 12th at 5:00 p.m EST. Registration: Registration will be in the tournament hotel lobby on Friday, February 13th from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Judging: Please provide one judge with a full commitment to cover two teams. Entry fees will be $70 for each covered team, and $150 for each uncovered team. Divisions: We will offer Rookie, Novice, JV, and Varsity divisions. Each will have 6 preliminary rounds, followed by the appropriate number of elimination rounds based on how many teams end up entering the tournament. Cornell teams may enter the tournament, but will not participate in elimination rounds. The rounds for British Parliamentary will be determined by the number of entries, with at least 5 preliminary rounds. Tab: Mike Maffie and Tony Liao will be running the tab room for policy debate. Tuna Snider will be running the World's/BP tab. Parking: There will likely be some parking available on Tower Rd., or also in the J Lot right next to Kennedy Hall (It's a gravel lot right off Tower Road) Saturday, February 14th: 7:00am-8:00 Late Registration, Warren Hall, room 145. Donuts, coffee, bagels, etc. will be available. Pairings will be released at 8:00 a.m., rounds start at 8:30 a.m. There will be 5 preliminary rounds on Saturday, with lunch and dinner provided. Sunday February 9th Pairings will be released at 8:00 a.m., rounds start at 8:30 a.m. Donuts, Coffee, Bagels will be available, and lunch will be provided. Elimination rounds continue after awards as appropriate/necessary. Beautiful and detailed maps of the campus are available at http://www.cornell.edu/maps/. http://www.cornell.edu/img/maps/large.pdf For further information please contact the Assistant Director of Forensics, Mike Maffie at mdm283 at cornell.edu or call his cell at 937-626-6803. We look forward to hosting you this year in Ithaca! Sincerely, Sam Nelson Director of Forensics Mike Maffie Assistant Director of Forensics Chris Langone Assistant Debate Coach Tony Liao Graduate Debate Assistant Mike Maffie Assistant Director of Forensics Cornell University 201 Kennedy Hall mdm283 at cornell.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090107/09e1dccb/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Wed Jan 7 20:26:18 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:26:18 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CSUF round 4 Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRd4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 43251 bytes Desc: OpenRd4.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090107/1bbe2e5b/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40290 bytes Desc: JVRd4.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090107/1bbe2e5b/attachment-0001.pdf From blain at unt.edu Wed Jan 7 21:59:21 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:59:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 8 am Judges- UNT Elims Message-ID: Judges needed at 8am Archer, Max Atchison, Jarrod Brennan, Eli Brooks, Hunter Burk, Chris Crowe, Chris Davis, James Gordon, Malcolm Green, Justin Heidt, David Herndon, Scott Johnson, Spencer Jordan, Todd Mahoney, Tim Maurer, Sam Morris, Eric Mueller, Eric Naputi, Tiara Newnam, Bill Russell, Jason Samuel, Phil Scott Gottbrecht Smith, Ross Stannard, matt Teri Easley Thiele, Chris Tiffee, Sean Varda, Scott Vega, Matt Zisman, Ruth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090107/7ee5c4aa/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Jan 7 23:21:34 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:21:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] My nationals Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901072121m9c80a73r929b12d5cfac9fa3@mail.gmail.com> So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA nationals. Here is what mine might look like. It would be in Baltimore. The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that takes you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything you need is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, slots, cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could get CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i would like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for both days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who you know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes if there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination rounds, and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. I would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... Prelims. There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work with the city and the local business community to form a partnership that uses the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a socially just goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that 20,000 could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes schools or buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would be renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for community groups. After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where CEDA college debaters could work with high school students and a space where local college students could do internship projects for the organization. Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and office space by the city/developer/ etc. The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city would probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you feel kinda like you where on a campus. Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social goals, without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build small amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in other words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money with a 20 k match. There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led up to it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with students (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also the platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, money is available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good web platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and hopefully be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video people, t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to pay them, but thats a good investment on our part. There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the convention center. Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the internet, and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms would be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because its first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, im looking to get more return out of our investment. Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If CEDA had an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that many more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we can do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) the planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a hotel. If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the idea, work with me to make it realistic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/7dc0e145/attachment.htm From jmill12 at mail.rochester.edu Thu Jan 8 00:27:12 2009 From: jmill12 at mail.rochester.edu (Gordie Miller) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:27:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rochester needs JV swing for UTD Message-ID: <49659cc0.2cf.e2e.13594@mail.rochester.edu> Hi all, out unt swing with ou has ended, Therefore we ask a jv debater to join forces with the yellow jackets. We're here in TX, have fees and judging covered. We'll be at the elims of the DeMougeot tommorow and of course i'll be monitoring my email. Thanks Gordie And thanks to Brian and the UNT crew. This tournament is sweet. the digs are choice, hospitality first rate, and very welcoming to us yankees. You should really consider adding this tournament next year. From adri.debate at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 05:57:28 2009 From: adri.debate at gmail.com (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:57:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UMW Rd 6 Pairings Message-ID: <50704d760901080357u1c32eebcta53f1d4ae5abe45a@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Davis Date: Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:00 PM Subject: To: "Adrienne F. Brovero" University of Mary Washington -- Open Policy Mary Washington 1/7/2009 through 1/9/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 6 -- START TIME: ASAP Clarion University BS West Virginia Univer PW Combs 114 Nagy, John Clarion University FF Liberty University ET Combs 4 Green, Rj Clarion University PS Liberty University FW Combs 236 O'donnell, Tim Clarion University SZ West Virginia Univer CP Combs 237 Hall, Michael James Madison CS Liberty University AJ Combs 2 Bond, Slade James Madison DL Clarion University CR Combs 1 Bender, Cole Liberty University BH Mary Washington AS Combs 214 Willis, Kris Liberty University BP James Madison AW Combs 215 Noerr, Rob Liberty University DG Mary Washington HM Combs 112 Mcdaniel, Mylind Mary Washington GT West Virginia Univer SZ Combs 213 Lyle, Jim Mary Washington SS Appalachian State LV Combs 111 Godbey, Samantha West Virginia Univer NS Liberty University GT Combs 3 Jansen, Sean -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -- Adrienne F. Brovero Debate Coach UMW Debate 540-654-2128 "Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive." -John F. Kennedy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/bd92d796/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Thu Jan 8 07:41:15 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:41:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Octas Open and JV Quarters Pairings Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open Octas JV Quarters.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 156649 bytes Desc: Open Octas JV Quarters.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/8f8261a0/attachment.pdf From blain at unt.edu Thu Jan 8 08:13:21 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:13:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Open Packet Resent Message-ID: This is also available http://comm.unt.edu/debate.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/5d75a32c/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open_Elim_Results_and_Speakers.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 311461 bytes Desc: Open_Elim_Results_and_Speakers.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/5d75a32c/attachment-0001.pdf From blain at unt.edu Thu Jan 8 08:20:05 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:20:05 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT- Novice Packet Message-ID: Also available at http://comm.unt.edu/debate.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/0e35c41b/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Novice_Packet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 299175 bytes Desc: Novice_Packet.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/0e35c41b/attachment.pdf From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Thu Jan 8 09:01:00 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:01:00 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CSUF Rd 5 pairings Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39598 bytes Desc: JVRd5.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/bb04fc3c/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rd5Open.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 43922 bytes Desc: Rd5Open.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/bb04fc3c/attachment-0003.pdf From louiedebate at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 11:21:56 2009 From: louiedebate at hotmail.com (Louie Petit) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:21:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Octa finals Results - Quarter Pairings Message-ID: Octas Results and pairings attached.. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/b330841f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open Octas JV Quarters.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 156649 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/b330841f/attachment.pdf From louiedebate at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 11:39:57 2009 From: louiedebate at hotmail.com (Louie Petit) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:39:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Open Octos Results - Quarters Pairings- *For Real* Message-ID: sorry about the last post-- wrong attachment. I blame Martin Osborn. Louie _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/aeecb858/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Octos Results_Quarters Pairings.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 303307 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/aeecb858/attachment-0001.pdf From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 12:42:09 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:42:09 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Open Octos Results - Quarters Pairings- *For Real* In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c09a80901081042l37034131sa7664bcd147841e9@mail.gmail.com> lol On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Louie Petit wrote: > sorry about the last post-- wrong attachment. > > I blame Martin Osborn. > > Louie > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live? Hotmail(R): Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. See how it > works. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090108/f209585d/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Thu Jan 8 13:17:41 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:17:41 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CSUF rd 6 pairings Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRd6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 44330 bytes Desc: OpenRd6.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/44d85dc9/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39674 bytes Desc: JVRd6.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/44d85dc9/attachment-0001.pdf From louiedebate at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 16:02:41 2009 From: louiedebate at hotmail.com (Louie Petit) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:02:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Open Quarter/JV Semi Final Results - pairings as well Message-ID: once again blame Martin Osborn(e) is there are any problems _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/71d4acf8/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Quarter Final results - semis pairings - JV Semis - finals.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 423418 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/71d4acf8/attachment-0001.pdf From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 16:06:17 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:06:17 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Open Quarter/JV Semi Final Results - pairings as well In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c09a80901081406o3a6be769h539ed67f745ec90f@mail.gmail.com> u mean like wtf are u tryin to say problems? On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Louie Petit wrote: > once again blame Martin Osborn(e) is there are any problems > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live? Hotmail(R): Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. Check it > out. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/1f8f51e7/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu Jan 8 16:47:43 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:47:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Andy's Nationals Message-ID: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 Step: The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with regards to the following as well. How would you do it differently or similarly? 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. If I were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would definitely be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall under the first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on abandoning the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids to host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor a bold move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may be dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid process is important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR reasons, get a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. And it saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. This year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have never been to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing debate Region. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will give CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU and this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid due in large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they were willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it convenient for people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important one. 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are very misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, any convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament staff, misc bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are not making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the current budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved from the notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. The goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to reduce the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per team. We have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team fees that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the organization as they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as opposed to $50 per school, and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for the first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal was to have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that would be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make CEDA affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for the programs competing. 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate the current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something like you envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore hosts yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more successful and would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship between debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA nationals. Here is what mine might look like. It would be in Baltimore. The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that takes you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything you need is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, slots, cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could get CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i would like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for both days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who you know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes if there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination rounds, and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. I would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... Prelims. There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work with the city and the local business community to form a partnership that uses the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a socially just goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that 20,000 could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes schools or buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would be renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for community groups. After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where CEDA college debaters could work with high school students and a space where local college students could do internship projects for the organization. Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and office space by the city/developer/ etc. The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city would probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you feel kinda like you where on a campus. Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social goals, without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build small amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in other words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money with a 20 k match. There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led up to it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with students (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also the platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, money is available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good web platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and hopefully be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video people, t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to pay them, but thats a good investment on our part. There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the convention center. Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the internet, and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms would be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because its first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, im looking to get more return out of our investment. Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If CEDA had an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that many more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we can do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) the planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a hotel. If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the idea, work with me to make it realistic. From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 17:06:11 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:06:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Andy's Nationals In-Reply-To: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> Sadly for any amongst you looking for an exciting edebate clash, im filing most of this under Darrens first inclination "what it might look like" I had a vision of what CEDA nationals could look like and i thought it worth sharing. If elected i would be excited to work toward it. But the presidency of CEDA is not a dictatorship. If the membership was not supportive of the move, didnt want to vote on the bid, or hopefully had ideas that altered it to make it better, i would happily work collaboratively with the ec and the community to support the desire of the organization. But lets not pretend that presidents don't seek and assist bid submitters. I recognize the money is not workable in the current set up but i believe we can cut/shift/fund alot of the current costs, especially if working in an environment the president knows well. My goal is to make CEDA nationals as affordable as possible and most of my plans are in line with that goal. The reason it is difficult to do the same thing for JV novice Nationals is because it is not put on by a large national organization. YOURS and the Towson University foundation both provide 501 C3 status to the event but not the same way ceda would. The bargaining power of a national organization with colleges all over the nation as its membership is simply higher than a sub-account of university foundation or small startup non profit. On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 Step: > > The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with regards > to the following as well. How would you do it differently or similarly? > > 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. If I > were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would definitely > be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall under the > first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on abandoning > the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids to > host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor a bold > move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may be > dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid process is > important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR reasons, get > a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. And it > saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. This > year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have never been > to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing > debate Regio > n. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will give > CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU and > this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid due in > large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they were > willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it convenient for > people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important one. > > 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are very > misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, any > convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament staff, misc > bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are not > making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the current > budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved from the > notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our > expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. The > goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to reduce > the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per team. We > have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team fees > that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the organization as > they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as > opposed to $50 per school, > and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for the > first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal was to > have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that would > be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make CEDA > affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for the > programs competing. > > 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points > above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate the > current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something like you > envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore hosts > yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more successful and > would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship between > debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA President > > > ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA > nationals. > Here is what mine might look like. > > It would be in Baltimore. > > The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its > connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that takes > you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you > really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything you > need > is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, slots, > cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could get > CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the > convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i would > like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for both > days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who you > know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes if > there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination rounds, > and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. I > would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay > hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. > > The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... > > Prelims. > > There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in > that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work with > the city and the local business community to form a partnership that uses > the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a socially > just > goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that > 20,000 > could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes schools or > buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: > > The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would be > renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was > easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for > community groups. > After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where CEDA > college debaters could work with high school students and a space where > local college students could do internship projects for the organization. > Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and office > space by the city/developer/ etc. > > The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city > would > probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you feel > kinda like you where on a campus. > > Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... > > Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social goals, > without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build small > amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in other > words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money with > a > 20 k match. > > There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and > friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led up > to > it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with students > (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also the > platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, money is > available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good web > platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal > (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. > > I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and hopefully > be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video people, > t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to pay > them, but thats a good investment on our part. > > There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a > community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the > convention > center. > > Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the > internet, > and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms > would > be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because its > first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, im > looking to get more return out of our investment. > Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If CEDA had > an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that many > more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. > > > > Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we can > do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) the > planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into > affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the > social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a hotel. > > If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the idea, > work with me to make it realistic. > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/2ace9f66/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Thu Jan 8 17:38:54 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:38:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Oklahoma Wins UNT's JV Division Message-ID: Congrats to OU (Cornman and Thornhill) who won a 3-0 Decision over Louisiana-Lafayette (Cantu and Matis) to be named JV Champions at this year's William DeMougeot Debates. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/100d5635/attachment.htm From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Thu Jan 8 19:15:07 2009 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 19:15:07 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UT Dallas Tournament -- Judge Prefs Active Message-ID: Greetings from Dallas, Entered teams may now enter judge preference information via the debateresults website. Please complete the entry of your prefs by 5:00 PM central time on Friday. We will close prefs at that time. Tournament registration will begin at 6:00 PM and end at 9:00 PM tomorrow (Friday). We plan to release the pairings for rounds 1 and 2 at 10:00PM or soon thereafter. All activities on Friday will occur at the Crowne Plaza hotel on Alpha Road. If you absolutely need to make any adjustments to your entry information, then please contact Scott Herndon during Friday registration or via email scott.herndon at utdallas.edu I hate to say this, but this place is getting to me. I think I'm getting the fear. -- Dr. Gonzo From louiedebate at hotmail.com Thu Jan 8 19:17:00 2009 From: louiedebate at hotmail.com (Louie Petit) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 19:17:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Semis results Message-ID: Open Semis Emory MS (aff) v. Trinity University BE Emory advances on a 3-0. Theile, C. Sammules, P. Tiffee, Sean Wichita State (neg) v. Texas BoSc Wichita State advances on a 2-1. Atchison, J. *Davis, J. Girouard, Mike Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/98387ab1/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Thu Jan 8 20:41:56 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:41:56 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CSUF open elim bracket Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Fullerton Bracket.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 55296 bytes Desc: Fullerton Bracket.xls Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/9f1af887/attachment.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenElimSeeds.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 53934 bytes Desc: OpenElimSeeds.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/9f1af887/attachment.pdf From blain at unt.edu Thu Jan 8 21:13:52 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:13:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wichita Wins 2009 DeMougeot!!! Emory Nabs runners-up spot! Message-ID: In the final round, Wichita (Matt Coleman and Eric Robinson) on the negative defeated Emory (Scott Movens and Megan Swenson) who were on the affirmative. The panel of Jarod Atchison, Spencer Johnson and Chris Thiele were unanimous in their decision. Congratulations to Wichita, Emory, and everyone who attended. All results at www.comm.unt.edu/debate Thanks everyone for your cooperation. See you in Dallas! -Brian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/ef8f3ecf/attachment.htm From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Thu Jan 8 21:15:36 2009 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:15:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UT Dallas Tournament -- Judge Prefs Active #2 Message-ID: We've added a few more hired judges. Please adjust your pref accordingly. If have already completed your prefs, then please go back and rank these new judges. Thanks. Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ "If you believe everything you read, you better not read." -- Japanese Proverb From berchnorto at msn.com Thu Jan 8 21:43:40 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 22:43:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] thanks to UMW and others Message-ID: On behalf of the WVU Debate team, I want to thank Tim O'Donnell, Adrienne Brovero, and the entire Mary Washington squad for a fantastic second half to the inaugural Commonwealth Swing. Our delegation found the tournament to be everything they want in a debate tournament. And thanks to our compatriots from Liberty, Clarion, JMU, and Vanderbilt for an incredibly pleasant week! The combination of competition and community was most excellent! I only hope more join us next year. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/902599f3/attachment.htm From commgradstudent08 at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 22:17:05 2009 From: commgradstudent08 at gmail.com (J K) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:17:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Selling Rounds for George Mason Message-ID: <5088761a0901082017l53091f30ta121e87302153de7@mail.gmail.com> I got 6 rounds of judging available to sell for the George Mason tournament. Let me know if you are interested---John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090108/e384bd60/attachment.htm From gregachten at berkeley.edu Thu Jan 8 23:26:17 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:26:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Fullerton Octafinal Judges Message-ID: <34203.137.151.175.176.1231478777.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> The following judges are needed for the 8:00 AM debate at the Fullerton tournament. All varsity and JV elims will begin at 8:00 AM. Judges needed are: Hardy, Jennings, Walters, Reed, Arnett, Anders, Vats, Lacy, Hall, T. Cram, Fitzmier, Buntin, Hamraie, Vats, Perkins, Olsen, Hanson, Murray, Turner, Lee, Gonzalez, Topp, Hill, Koehle, Harigan, Battocletti, Garner, Saez. All other judges are on standby in case someone gets too drunk tonight and oversleeps (Jennings). The JV debates tomorrow are: CSUN vs UNLV and Western Connecticut vs SFSU. See you all tomorrow! Greg From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Thu Jan 8 23:30:08 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 00:30:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] poverty/social services HS topic for 08-9 Message-ID: <524839830901082130l4936e52epf8a16bbacc15fe08@mail.gmail.com> The NFHS announced today that poverty is the winning topic for next year. The resolution is: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States. -- 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/20090109/555d6fd7/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Fri Jan 9 11:33:21 2009 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:33:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] WestGA judging - Emory needs Message-ID: <411080.2253.qm@web62003.mail.re1.yahoo.com> pay in cash at tournament. thanks in advance. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/17473e8c/attachment.htm From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 12:10:29 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:10:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Tournament Updates Message-ID: Looking forward to seeing y'all next week! A few reminders - 1. Judging - The tournament is 7 rounds. Judging requirements are one team = 4 rounds, 2 teams = 7 rounds, 3 teams = 11 rounds, 4 teams = 14 and so on. Please finalize your judging this weekend so we can get prefs out next week. Sorry, the tournament is not able to offer any hired judges. 2. Catering - finalize your numbers and meat consumption preferences so we can feed you all appropriately. 3. Novice/JV - We're trying this out, if you intend to come please register so we can figure out if these divisions will make it. 4. Varsity - . A few spots left - come learn about law school,eat good food and win $$. Cash prizes for the top ten speakers and the tournament champion. Cool trophies for other speakers and team awards. 5. Worst in Forensics - doing those again this year, come ready to make fun of your opponents, judges, etc. Josh Hoe is currently the all - time WIF champion so the bar is set, was it 3 WIFies and an honorable mention last year?? Let us know if you need any travel/hotel advice or have any questions about the tournament! Sarah From dave at miami.edu Fri Jan 9 12:57:34 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:57:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Come to Miami! Message-ID: We are looking forward to a great tournament and sincerely hope you will be a part of it. Make your reservations TODAY and let us know so we can make plans. Thanks! The hotel information is: Holiday Inn, University of Miami 1350 S Dixie Hwy Coral Gables, FL 33146 (305) 667-5611 http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/miaum Rate is $119, Code is UMD David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/498a47ce/attachment.htm From brubaie at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 13:22:35 2009 From: brubaie at gmail.com (brian rubaie) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:22:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD wireless setup Message-ID: UTD Participants: If you will need wireless at the UTD tournament we advise before reaching campus you go to the website listed below for step by step instructions on how to connect. It is not difficult to connect to our wireless, but better safe than sorry. http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/cats/network/airutd/guest/winxp/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/f946b1f5/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 14:45:02 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 15:45:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Tournament Updates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Its true, I do have 3 wif's and an honorable mention.....Its always nice to know you are definatively the worst in something I guess. In the spirit of awful forensics, :) Josh On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Sarah Holbrook wrote: > Looking forward to seeing y'all next week! A few reminders - > > 1. Judging - The tournament is 7 rounds. Judging requirements are one > team = 4 rounds, 2 teams = 7 rounds, 3 teams = 11 rounds, 4 teams = 14 > and so on. Please finalize your judging this weekend so we can get > prefs out next week. Sorry, the tournament is not able to offer any > hired judges. > > 2. Catering - finalize your numbers and meat consumption preferences > so we can feed you all appropriately. > > 3. Novice/JV - We're trying this out, if you intend to come please > register so we can figure out if these divisions will make it. > > 4. Varsity - . A few spots left - come learn about law school,eat good > food and win $$. Cash prizes for the top ten speakers and the > tournament champion. Cool trophies for other speakers and team awards. > > 5. Worst in Forensics - doing those again this year, come ready to > make fun of your opponents, judges, etc. Josh Hoe is currently the all > - time WIF champion so the bar is set, was it 3 WIFies and an > honorable mention last year?? > > Let us know if you need any travel/hotel advice or have any questions > about the tournament! > Sarah > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090109/8bd3f539/attachment.htm From SpeerMik at Berkeleyprep.org Fri Jan 9 15:06:51 2009 From: SpeerMik at Berkeleyprep.org (Speer, Mike) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:06:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Card cutting for Emory and Harvard HS Tournaments Message-ID: <1E08D200E9759F40B04E77C415A9E92901745ED1@BPEXCHANGE03.accounts.berkeleyprep.org> Berkeley Prep in Tampa is looking to hire some help writing arguments and cutting updates for the Emory and Harvard Tournaments. If you are interesting in taking advantage of this opportunity please back channel me speermik at berkeleyprep.org It is possible that this role could expand into an assistant coach position. Mike Speer Technology Director Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 4811 Kelly Road Tampa, FL 33615 Office 813-885-1673 Cellular 813-777-4298 "Berkeley puts people in the world who make a positive difference." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/9be8e01a/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Fri Jan 9 16:52:19 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:52:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Andy's Nationals In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> References: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1231541539.4967d523098f2@webmail.grandecom.net> I think my suggestion of free beer pong after round eight has been excluded from this discussion and it makes me feels sad. Scott Quoting Andy Ellis : > Sadly for any amongst you looking for an exciting edebate clash, im filing > most of this under Darrens first inclination "what it might look like" > I had a vision of what CEDA nationals could look like and i thought it worth > sharing. If elected i would be excited to work toward it. > > But the presidency of CEDA is not a dictatorship. If the membership was not > supportive of the move, didnt want to vote on the bid, or hopefully had > ideas that altered it to make it better, i would happily > work collaboratively with the ec and the community to support the desire of > the organization. But lets not pretend that presidents don't seek and assist > bid submitters. > > I recognize the money is not workable in the current set up but i believe we > can cut/shift/fund alot of the current costs, especially if working in > an environment the president knows well. My goal is to make CEDA nationals > as affordable as possible and most of my plans are in line with that goal. > > The reason it is difficult to do the same thing for JV novice Nationals is > because it is not put on by a large national organization. YOURS and the > Towson University foundation both provide 501 C3 status to the event but not > the same way ceda would. The bargaining power of a national organization > with colleges all over the nation as its membership is simply higher than a > sub-account of university foundation or small startup non profit. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > > > Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 Step: > > > > The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with regards > > to the following as well. How would you do it differently or similarly? > > > > 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. If I > > were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would definitely > > be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall under > the > > first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on abandoning > > the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids to > > host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor a > bold > > move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may be > > dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid process is > > important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR reasons, get > > a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. And it > > saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. > This > > year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have never > been > > to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing > > debate Regio > > n. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will give > > CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU and > > this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid due in > > large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they were > > willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it convenient for > > people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important one. > > > > 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are very > > misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, any > > convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament staff, > misc > > bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are not > > making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the current > > budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved from > the > > notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our > > expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. The > > goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to > reduce > > the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per team. We > > have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team fees > > that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the organization > as > > they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as > > opposed to $50 per school, > > and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for the > > first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal was to > > have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that would > > be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make CEDA > > affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for the > > programs competing. > > > > 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points > > above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate the > > current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something like > you > > envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore > hosts > > yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more successful > and > > would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship between > > debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? > > > > chief > > > > Darren Elliott > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > CEDA President > > > > > > ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA > > nationals. > > Here is what mine might look like. > > > > It would be in Baltimore. > > > > The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its > > connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that takes > > you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you > > really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything you > > need > > is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, slots, > > cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could get > > CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the > > convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i would > > like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for both > > days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who you > > know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes if > > there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination rounds, > > and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. I > > would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay > > hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. > > > > The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... > > > > Prelims. > > > > There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in > > that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work with > > the city and the local business community to form a partnership that uses > > the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a socially > > just > > goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that > > 20,000 > > could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes schools or > > buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: > > > > The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would be > > renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was > > easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for > > community groups. > > After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where CEDA > > college debaters could work with high school students and a space where > > local college students could do internship projects for the organization. > > Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and office > > space by the city/developer/ etc. > > > > The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city > > would > > probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you feel > > kinda like you where on a campus. > > > > Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... > > > > Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social goals, > > without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build small > > amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in other > > words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money with > > a > > 20 k match. > > > > There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and > > friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led up > > to > > it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with students > > (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also the > > platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, money is > > available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good web > > platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal > > (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. > > > > I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and hopefully > > be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video people, > > t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to pay > > them, but thats a good investment on our part. > > > > There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a > > community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the > > convention > > center. > > > > Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the > > internet, > > and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. > > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms > > would > > be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because its > > first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, im > > looking to get more return out of our investment. > > Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If CEDA had > > an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that many > > more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. > > > > > > > > Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we can > > do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) the > > planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into > > affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the > > social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a hotel. > > > > If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the idea, > > work with me to make it realistic. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CEDA-L mailing list > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 18:00:55 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:00:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Andy's Nationals In-Reply-To: <1231541539.4967d523098f2@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> <1231541539.4967d523098f2@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901091600m26ba583gb270712b244b9062@mail.gmail.com> Im sure scott can find a bear pong game during or after round 8, my plan did not say anything about not using prefs On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:52 PM, wrote: > I think my suggestion of free beer pong after round eight has been excluded > from > this discussion and it makes me feels sad. > > Scott > > > Quoting Andy Ellis : > > > Sadly for any amongst you looking for an exciting edebate clash, im > filing > > most of this under Darrens first inclination "what it might look like" > > I had a vision of what CEDA nationals could look like and i thought it > worth > > sharing. If elected i would be excited to work toward it. > > > > But the presidency of CEDA is not a dictatorship. If the membership was > not > > supportive of the move, didnt want to vote on the bid, or hopefully had > > ideas that altered it to make it better, i would happily > > work collaboratively with the ec and the community to support the desire > of > > the organization. But lets not pretend that presidents don't seek and > assist > > bid submitters. > > > > I recognize the money is not workable in the current set up but i believe > we > > can cut/shift/fund alot of the current costs, especially if working in > > an environment the president knows well. My goal is to make CEDA > nationals > > as affordable as possible and most of my plans are in line with that > goal. > > > > The reason it is difficult to do the same thing for JV novice Nationals > is > > because it is not put on by a large national organization. YOURS and the > > Towson University foundation both provide 501 C3 status to the event but > not > > the same way ceda would. The bargaining power of a national organization > > with colleges all over the nation as its membership is simply higher than > a > > sub-account of university foundation or small startup non profit. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Darren Elliott > wrote: > > > > > Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 Step: > > > > > > The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with > regards > > > to the following as well. How would you do it differently or > similarly? > > > > > > 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. > If I > > > were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would > definitely > > > be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall > under > > the > > > first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on > abandoning > > > the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids > to > > > host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor a > > bold > > > move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may > be > > > dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid > process is > > > important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR reasons, > get > > > a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. And > it > > > saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. > > This > > > year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have never > > been > > > to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing > > > debate Regio > > > n. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will > give > > > CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU > and > > > this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid > due in > > > large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they > were > > > willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it convenient > for > > > people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important > one. > > > > > > 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are very > > > misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, any > > > convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament staff, > > misc > > > bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are > not > > > making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the > current > > > budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved > from > > the > > > notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our > > > expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. > The > > > goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to > > reduce > > > the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per team. > We > > > have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team > fees > > > that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the > organization > > as > > > they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as > > > opposed to $50 per school, > > > and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for > the > > > first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal was > to > > > have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that > would > > > be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make > CEDA > > > affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for > the > > > programs competing. > > > > > > 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points > > > above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate > the > > > current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something > like > > you > > > envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore > > hosts > > > yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more > successful > > and > > > would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship > between > > > debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? > > > > > > chief > > > > > > Darren Elliott > > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > > > CEDA President > > > > > > > > > ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA > > > nationals. > > > Here is what mine might look like. > > > > > > It would be in Baltimore. > > > > > > The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its > > > connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that > takes > > > you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you > > > really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything you > > > need > > > is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, > slots, > > > cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could > get > > > CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the > > > convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i > would > > > like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for both > > > days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who > you > > > know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes > if > > > there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination > rounds, > > > and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. I > > > would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay > > > hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. > > > > > > The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... > > > > > > Prelims. > > > > > > There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in > > > that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work > with > > > the city and the local business community to form a partnership that > uses > > > the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a socially > > > just > > > goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that > > > 20,000 > > > could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes > schools or > > > buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: > > > > > > The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would > be > > > renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was > > > easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for > > > community groups. > > > After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where > CEDA > > > college debaters could work with high school students and a space where > > > local college students could do internship projects for the > organization. > > > Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and office > > > space by the city/developer/ etc. > > > > > > The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city > > > would > > > probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you > feel > > > kinda like you where on a campus. > > > > > > Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... > > > > > > Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social > goals, > > > without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build > small > > > amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in > other > > > words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money > with > > > a > > > 20 k match. > > > > > > There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and > > > friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led > up > > > to > > > it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with > students > > > (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also > the > > > platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, money > is > > > available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good > web > > > platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal > > > (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. > > > > > > I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and > hopefully > > > be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video > people, > > > t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to > pay > > > them, but thats a good investment on our part. > > > > > > There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a > > > community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the > > > convention > > > center. > > > > > > Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the > > > internet, > > > and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. > > > > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms > > > would > > > be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because > its > > > first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, im > > > looking to get more return out of our investment. > > > Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If CEDA > had > > > an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that > many > > > more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we > can > > > do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) > the > > > planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into > > > affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the > > > social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a > hotel. > > > > > > If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the > idea, > > > work with me to make it realistic. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CEDA-L mailing list > > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/80c2796e/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 18:04:19 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 19:04:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Andy's Nationals In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0901091600m26ba583gb270712b244b9062@mail.gmail.com> References: <49662E2F0200009300022DAA@mymail.kckcc.edu> <9368bc9b0901081506x70bd0f43t5aa880dcc9b5ece8@mail.gmail.com> <1231541539.4967d523098f2@webmail.grandecom.net> <9368bc9b0901091600m26ba583gb270712b244b9062@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901091604t6b302edam611bcd3ac9dfec8@mail.gmail.com> pardon me. BEER pong. Though im sure bear pong would be interesting as well. On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > Im sure scott can find a bear pong game during or after round 8, my plan > did not say anything about not using prefs > > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:52 PM, wrote: > >> I think my suggestion of free beer pong after round eight has been >> excluded from >> this discussion and it makes me feels sad. >> >> Scott >> >> >> Quoting Andy Ellis : >> >> > Sadly for any amongst you looking for an exciting edebate clash, im >> filing >> > most of this under Darrens first inclination "what it might look like" >> > I had a vision of what CEDA nationals could look like and i thought it >> worth >> > sharing. If elected i would be excited to work toward it. >> > >> > But the presidency of CEDA is not a dictatorship. If the membership was >> not >> > supportive of the move, didnt want to vote on the bid, or hopefully had >> > ideas that altered it to make it better, i would happily >> > work collaboratively with the ec and the community to support the desire >> of >> > the organization. But lets not pretend that presidents don't seek and >> assist >> > bid submitters. >> > >> > I recognize the money is not workable in the current set up but i >> believe we >> > can cut/shift/fund alot of the current costs, especially if working in >> > an environment the president knows well. My goal is to make CEDA >> nationals >> > as affordable as possible and most of my plans are in line with that >> goal. >> > >> > The reason it is difficult to do the same thing for JV novice Nationals >> is >> > because it is not put on by a large national organization. YOURS and >> the >> > Towson University foundation both provide 501 C3 status to the event but >> not >> > the same way ceda would. The bargaining power of a national organization >> > with colleges all over the nation as its membership is simply higher >> than a >> > sub-account of university foundation or small startup non profit. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Darren Elliott >> wrote: >> > >> > > Just a couple quick thoughts/questions from sunny Texas and the 2 >> Step: >> > > >> > > The other candidates should feel free to state their opinion with >> regards >> > > to the following as well. How would you do it differently or >> similarly? >> > > >> > > 1. You say below, if elected, your Nationals would be in Baltimore. >> If I >> > > were to vote for you and you won, does that mean Baltimore would >> definitely >> > > be the site for CEDA in your year as President? Or does that fall >> under >> > the >> > > first statement, "what it might look like"? Or do you plan on >> abandoning >> > > the long standing tradition of allowing member schools to submit bids >> to >> > > host CEDA that are voted on by the Executive Council? Some may favor >> a >> > bold >> > > move and a yes response would persuade them in your favor. Others may >> be >> > > dissuaded by a significant change in course. One reason the bid >> process is >> > > important, is to ensure schools, who might need to host for PR >> reasons, get >> > > a shot to put forth a bid. When OU hosted, it was a PR advantage. >> And it >> > > saved CEDA a ton of money thanks to the generosity of President Boren. >> > This >> > > year, Idaho State was chosen for 2 major factors. First, we have >> never >> > been >> > > to the Rocky Mountain Region and it was important to support a growing >> > > debate Regio >> > > n. Second, they have a donor who has given their program, and will >> give >> > > CEDA Nationals a significant sum of money. It was important for ISU >> and >> > > this donor to host CEDA this year. The committee voted for that bid >> due in >> > > large part to those factors. Berkley won next years bid because they >> were >> > > willing to do both the NDT and CEDA, back-to-back, making it >> convenient for >> > > people going to both. So for many, the bid process is an important >> one. >> > > >> > > 2. Your figures about CEDA Nationals making 20-30,000 dollars are >> very >> > > misleading. Once we pay out catering for the receptions, trophies, >> any >> > > convention space cost at the hotel, pay for the hired tournament >> staff, >> > misc >> > > bills, the Journal, etc. the amount usually about breaks even. We are >> not >> > > making a profit. Those figures also do not take into account the >> current >> > > budget model CEDA is trying to follow. A couple years ago we moved >> from >> > the >> > > notion that CEDA should have to make enough money to pay all of our >> > > expenses, putting us at the mercy if the tournament's size each year. >> The >> > > goal was to make us financially stable off of membership dues, AND to >> > reduce >> > > the cost to attend CEDA. Your figures assume $100 entry fees per >> team. We >> > > have moved beyond that model, and in the future hope to charge team >> fees >> > > that just cover the costs of the tournament, not running the >> organization >> > as >> > > they previously have. This means we charge $150 for membershio now as >> > > opposed to $50 per school, >> > > and we plan to reduce the cost of entry fees for CEDA Nationals for >> the >> > > first time in the history of the National Tournament. If your goal >> was to >> > > have all the above costs absorbed by local Baltimore businesses, that >> would >> > > be great. But it would seem to be a reason to continue with the "make >> CEDA >> > > affordable" model we are moving towards, and reducing entry fees for >> the >> > > programs competing. >> > > >> > > 3. A final thought. Your ideas below are great and grand. My points >> > > above are not to deny your passion or vision. They were to illuminate >> the >> > > current structure. But I do wonder if you could pull off something >> like >> > you >> > > envision, by doing this through the Novice/JV Nationals that Baltimore >> > hosts >> > > yearly. It seems like a yearly commitment might be even more >> successful >> > and >> > > would have greater long term benefits, and an on-going relationship >> between >> > > debate and the Baltimore community. WHat do you think? >> > > >> > > chief >> > > >> > > Darren Elliott >> > > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC >> > > CEDA President >> > > >> > > >> > > ANDY ELLIS WROTE:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > > >> > > So one of the key roles of a ceda president is to coordinate a CEDA >> > > nationals. >> > > Here is what mine might look like. >> > > >> > > It would be in Baltimore. >> > > >> > > The hotel would be downtown at the harbor. Perhaps the new hilton (its >> > > connected to the convention center and next to a light rail stop that >> takes >> > > you too and from the airport-we will run an evidence shuttle) you >> > > really shouldn't have to rent a car if you dont want to, everything >> you >> > > need >> > > is at the harbor, food, drink, aquarium, science center, shopping, >> slots, >> > > cool neighborhoods... Camden yards is right next door perhaps we could >> get >> > > CEDA nats night at Camden yards... The out rounds would be held at the >> > > convention center. They would be open to the public. If possible i >> would >> > > like to charge for ticket packages, perhaps $10 per day or $15 for >> both >> > > days. We can't fill it, but i bet alot of you could convince folks who >> you >> > > know on the eastern seaboard to come up. It would be great in my eyes >> if >> > > there where people not from the tournament watching our elimination >> rounds, >> > > and i think we have more power to make it happen then we think we do. >> I >> > > would even try to arrange alumni packages at the hotels if say the jay >> > > hawks wanted to bring a large contingent. >> > > >> > > The hospitality could be hooked up and the scene can't be beat... >> > > >> > > Prelims. >> > > >> > > There are dozens of college campuses....but i am less interested in >> > > that(though could definitely arrange it), instead i would like to work >> with >> > > the city and the local business community to form a partnership that >> uses >> > > the investment debate programs make in ceda nationals toward a >> socially >> > > just >> > > goal. CEDA nationals makes about 20 to 30 thousand, in my vision that >> > > 20,000 >> > > could be CEDApartnership stake in the renovation of vacant homes >> schools or >> > > buildings. For that investment CEDA would get the following: >> > > >> > > The First occupant of the buildings would be CEDA nationals. It would >> be >> > > renovated in a way that worked for the tournament but was >> > > easily transformable into affordable housing and/or office space for >> > > community groups. >> > > After CEDA nationals CEDA would get community space for a center where >> CEDA >> > > college debaters could work with high school students and a space >> where >> > > local college students could do internship projects for the >> organization. >> > > Otherwise the space would be utilized for affordable housing and >> office >> > > space by the city/developer/ etc. >> > > >> > > The renovation of course would be cause for a celebration and the city >> > > would >> > > probably close the street and throw some kind of party and make you >> feel >> > > kinda like you where on a campus. >> > > >> > > Habitat for Humanity would be a good CEDA partner perhaps... >> > > >> > > Once we have this as our goal- using our enterprise toward social >> goals, >> > > without sacrificing our enterprise- it becomes a lot easier to build >> small >> > > amounts of guaranteed capital investment into matching grants...in >> other >> > > words...if we can guarantee that we can raise 20 k we can raise money >> with >> > > a >> > > 20 k match. >> > > >> > > There would be a webpage for CEDA nationals that was functional and >> > > friendly. It would have been a two year collaborative project that led >> up >> > > to >> > > it, where tech talented people in the community collaborated with >> students >> > > (high school and college) to build the site that people need(but also >> the >> > > platform for the future). As long as there is education going on, >> money is >> > > available...the point agin being that using something we need (a good >> web >> > > platform for our national tournament) in the service of a social goal >> > > (teaching tech skills on a big project ) kinda just makes more sense. >> > > >> > > I would work with networks of youth non profits in Baltimore and >> hopefully >> > > be able to get photographers, events workers, ballot runners, video >> people, >> > > t shirt designers, and everything else under the sun, we might have to >> pay >> > > them, but thats a good investment on our part. >> > > >> > > There is something about the prelims working with and not just in a >> > > community that will drive people out to see the out rounds at the >> > > convention >> > > center. >> > > >> > > Oh yeah, the whole thing would be broadcast live at least over the >> > > internet, >> > > and who knows maybe on CSPAN, or something more exciting. >> > > >> > > Don't get me wrong, I'm not forgetting about debate, in fact the rooms >> > > would >> > > be configured more ideally for debate than any other location, because >> its >> > > first use would be debate. I am not looking to sacrifice what we do, >> im >> > > looking to get more return out of our investment. >> > > Accessibility ? Actually that works better in my model as well. If >> CEDA had >> > > an idea of how many rooms needed to be "accessible" that would be that >> many >> > > more accessible rooms on that block...see how this works. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Now this is gonna take organizing, money, work, and commitment. But we >> can >> > > do it and we should want to do it...Its good for people(the prelims) >> the >> > > planet (don't have to rent a car and transforming brownfields into >> > > affordable housing) and profit (the elims and the money that funds the >> > > social projects) and it would be the most fun place to ever have a >> hotel. >> > > >> > > If you like the idea but think its unrealistic, don't stop liking the >> idea, >> > > work with me to make it realistic. >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > CEDA-L mailing list >> > > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/db9cc223/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 23:27:43 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:27:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JV/Novice Nationals Update Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901092127j14b57ad8h192aaf85a0ea14e7@mail.gmail.com> We have a hotel deal signed, and the invite will be up later tonight. In the meantime we need everybody's help in order to lower the costs of the tournament. Starting tonight at 1 am Eastern time JV/Novice nats will be competing in the Ideablob competition. If we receive the most votes between now and a week from now we will qualify for the "elim rounds" which begin on the 22nd. If we qualify for the elims and we get the most votes from the 22nd to the end of the month then we win $10 k to fund the tournament. $7000 of that will go to directly lower the cost and increase the quality of the tournament, $3000 will go toward the youth teams that will be assisting with planning and running the tournament. The $7000 we get will allow us to cover 75 per cent of the costs of the tournament and lower fees to $25 per team. Y ou can vote in three simple steps 1) go to www.ideablob.com register an account (its quick takes at most 5 minutes) 2) find the jv novice nats entry http://ideablob.com/ideas/4235-Run-a-national-debate-tournamen 3) Vote, once you have voted let us know send me an email. (please only vote once, they know you have a gmail account a hot mail account and a billion others, if they think you are cheating they will eliminate all of your votes) Once you have voted you can track the progress by catching up and checking in at ideablob.com We will need the help of the whole community in order to win this contest but if we can come together we can lower costs and improve the tournament for all of us. Here are some ideas about how you can help after you have voted 1) ask your friends to vote, share it on facebook, its easy take 5 minutes when folks are at your house, ask them to vote. 2) once you have gotten all of your debaters to vote, get your classes to vote 3)contact me for flyers, button code, and other promotional goodies. This is a god way that a little collaboration can help the whole community please help support an affordable JV/Novice nats for everybody. 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/20090110/03102a26/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Jan 9 23:30:13 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:30:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Voting is open Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901092130j31557c4ancc9222c82f22c6ab@mail.gmail.com> one qucik correction. Voting goes between now and the 14th and then a 3rd sprint round starts next week...lets try to get in this week.! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/7943d48b/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Fri Jan 9 23:35:37 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 23:35:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD: round 1 & 2 pairings Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F4097@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Are attached. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/4459547f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 6803 bytes Desc: Round1.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/4459547f/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Round2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 6822 bytes Desc: Round2.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/4459547f/attachment-0001.pdf From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Fri Jan 9 23:44:48 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 23:44:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] FOR REAL: UTD Pairings Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F4098@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Sorry about that. Louie was giving me advice on pairings to edebate. Here are the UTD Pairings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/50a4411c/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Round 1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45700 bytes Desc: UTD Round 1.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/50a4411c/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Round 2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45833 bytes Desc: UTD Round 2.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090109/50a4411c/attachment-0001.pdf From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 11:45:15 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:45:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Help get better judges for JV Novice nationals Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901100945y5971c68cqa21d4617b2f525c1@mail.gmail.com> We are trying to raise funds to help JV/Novice Nationals run better. One of the things we will do with the raised funds is hire high quality critics and pay other critics to extend their commitments in later rounds to make sure preferences work well. If you want better prefs then take 5 minutes go to http://ideablob.com/ideas/4235-Run-a-national-debate-tournamen register and vote then pass it on to your friends It is in your hands, if we dont get enough votes in the next few days then we will have to beg critics, you don't want a begged critic in round 7 you want a preffed and paid critic...so help us out -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/35703d98/attachment.htm From meeisenstadt at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 12:22:20 2009 From: meeisenstadt at gmail.com (Michael Eisenstadt) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:22:20 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Fullerton Results Message-ID: <523152010901101022j54a3d04br6466dc319960070c@mail.gmail.com> Can anyone post the Fullerton packet/results? -- Michael Eisenstadt Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum President UNLV Class of 2011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/a962d47c/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sat Jan 10 14:20:38 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:20:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 3 Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F4099@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Here is the round 3 pairing. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/fae6b413/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Round 3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45793 bytes Desc: UTD Round 3.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/fae6b413/attachment.pdf From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Sat Jan 10 14:51:24 2009 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:51:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need one extra round at GMU Message-ID: Navy needs one round at GMU--if you've got an extra lying around, let me know. We'll pay you $25 in cash money for it. Danielle Verney O'Gorman Navy Debate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/2e19a345/attachment.htm From louiedebate at hotmail.com Sat Jan 10 16:04:34 2009 From: louiedebate at hotmail.com (Louie Petit) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:04:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Advice for Jarman about the pairings Message-ID: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1580085741.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg that is all... sorry I did not have the words to explain the advice ***images is not meant to offend anyone and is CLEARLY a joke amongst friends*** _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/63778823/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sat Jan 10 17:56:23 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:56:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 4 Pairings Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F409B@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Attached. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/4eea081d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Round 4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45822 bytes Desc: UTD Round 4.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/4eea081d/attachment.pdf From max.o.archer at gmail.com Sat Jan 10 19:40:49 2009 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:40:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Viking Debates Entry Reminder Message-ID: <1944fe1d0901101740p446ef8c6q887b739997fab750@mail.gmail.com> Hi everyone. The hotel block for the Viking Debates at Augustana College is set to close Thursday, January 16. Right now the entries are low, so if you have interest in attending, please make your reservations soon. Invite reposted below. Max Archer Director of Debate Augustana College 24 November 2008 Dear Community, The Augustana Debate Union and the Department of Communication Studies are pleased to invite you and your colleagues to attend the 2009 Viking Debates at Augustana College. This year's edition of the Viking Debates will be held on Friday, January 30, Saturday, January 31 and Sunday, February 1, 2009 in Rock Island, IL. The tournament will include three divisions of debate on the 2008-2009 CEDA/NDT topic, have six (6) high quality preliminary rounds in Open and clear to an appropriate number of elimination rounds in each division. All rounds will be held on the campus of Augustana College. We have every intention of making this tournament as comfortable and enjoyable as possible. Breakfast and lunch will provided on Saturday. We are committed to providing high quality competition, hospitality, awards and tournament administration. If there is anyway we can better accommodate you, please to not hesitate to let us know. Please accept our invitation and join us for a grand time of competitive debates. We look forward to hosting you in Rock Island. Sincerely, Max Archer, Director of Debate Augustana College (o) 309-794-7717 (c) 281-381-7328 maxarcher at augustana.edu REGISTRATION: We will accept entries for the tournament through Tuesday, January 27 at 5:00 pm CST. Entries may be made at at www.debateresults.com. If there are any entry problems, please contact Max Archer at maxarcher at augustana.edu or by phone at (309) 794-7717. Registration will take place in Old Main 19 on Friday, January 30 from 2:30-3:30pm. DIVISIONS: We plan to host three (3) divisions of debate this year. The open division is open to any undergraduate student with eligibility. The Junior Varsity and Novice divisions are open to anyone who meets the CEDA eligibility standards for junior or novice participation. In the event that there are an insufficient number of teams entered in a division, arrangements will be made by the Tournament Director and Tab Room staff to accommodate all participants. While it is unlikely, one or more teams from Augustana might compete at the tournament to ensure an even number of teams and to prevent a bye from being assigned. However, no Augustana team will compete in elimination rounds. Awards will be given in each division to elimination round participants and an appropriate number of recognized speakers. JUDGING: Each school should provide a qualified judge to cover your judging commitments. One(1) team requires three (3) rounds of judging, two (2) teams require six (6) rounds of judging. There will be few (if any) judges available for hire at the rate of $100/uncovered team, but you should let us know well in advance if you need to hire judges. Because extra judging is limited in the Quad Cities area, we would prefer your judges rather than take your money. Each judge is obligated to cover their school's commitment through the first elimination round, or one round beyond your team's elimination. All judges should enter their philosophy at www.debateresults.com prior to the beginning of the tournament. Each judge will assignment a win to one and only one team and a loss to one and only one team. The judge will also rank each debater 1 to 4 and rate each debater 0-30 using half points. Each judge will have a maximum of two hours and forty-five (2:45) minutes from the official start time of the debate to record a decision for that debate. A judged assigned by the tab room to a particular debate is responsible for the submission of a correctly completed ballot at the conclusion of that debate. Failure on the part of the judge to comply with these rules may result in a decision by the tab room staff and may also result in penalties being imposed upon the judge's school. FORMAT AND RULES: We will use the 9-3-6 format, with ten minutes preparation time per team. Rounds 1-2 will be preset. The rest will be powered. Debate teams consist of two persons two from the same school. Hybrid teams are acceptable, and may advance to elimination rounds. In the event of illness, a single debater may debate two (2) rounds alone but will not be allowed to advance to elimination debates. Unless the teams have met previously in the preliminary rounds, sides in elimination debates will be determined by coin flip or an agreement by both teams. The tournament will NOT break brackets in elimination rounds. TAB ROOM STAFF AND TOURNAMENT ADMINISTRATION: Justin Green of Kansas State University has agreed to direct the operations of the tabulation room. Mr. Green and the Tournament Director will resolve any tournament administration problems that arise. Current and former Augustana students will be available throughout the tournament to run ballots, give directions and generally provide any needed assistance. FEES: Entry fees are $85/team for all divisions. This includes trophies, tournament supply expenses, and hospitality. Checks should be made out to "Augustana College." HOUSING: We have reserved a block of rooms at the La Quinta Inn-Moline Airport. La Quinta has guaranteed a hotel block with doubles for $79/night and kings for $69/night. Reservations should be made by contacting the La Quinta Inn Central Reservation Center by phone at 1-866-527-1498. Identify yourself as part of the "Viking Debate" party, Confirmation Number 673GRSVGP . All final details pertaining to your stay should be coordinated directly with the Moline hotel staff, whom you may contact by phone at (309) 762-9008 . The block closes on January 16, 2009 ? please make reservations soon. All participants are strongly encouraged to stay at the tournament hotel. Pairings will be released at the tournament hotel and on campus. SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION: The tournament will follow the CEDA guidelines on sexual harassment and discrimination. 2009 Viking Debates TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Friday, January 30 2:30-3:30PM Registration, Old Main 19 4:30-7:00PM Round One 7:00-9:00PM Round Two Saturday, January 31 8:00AM Pairings released at hotel and on campus 9:00-11:00AM Round Three 11:00-1:00PM Round Four 1:00-2:00PM Lunch 2:00-4:00PM Round Five 4:30-6:30PM Round Six Sunday, February 1 8:00AM Pairings released at hotel and on campus 9:00-11:00AM First Elimination Debate 11:30AM Awards Assembly 12:00PM Elimination Debates Continue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/fdf7b060/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sat Jan 10 21:03:40 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:03:40 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CSUF Prelim Results Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PrelimPacket.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 119713 bytes Desc: PrelimPacket.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/a5155111/attachment.pdf From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sat Jan 10 22:03:21 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:03:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 5 & 6 Pairings Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F409C@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Attached. Hopefully from the UTD tournament. If not, email Louie Petit. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/7f9e7d59/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Round 5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45810 bytes Desc: UTD Round 5.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/7f9e7d59/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Round 6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45752 bytes Desc: UTD Round 6.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/7f9e7d59/attachment-0001.pdf From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Sat Jan 10 22:27:57 2009 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:27:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 5 & 6 Pairings - REVISION FOR J.V. DIVISION SOON Message-ID: The pairings for Round 5 & in the JV division contain an error. We are working to fix the error and repair the rounds. We will post a correct version of the round 5 & 6 pairings for the JV division to eDebate in the very near future. I apologize for the delay. The Open division pairings for round 5 and 6 are correct. The Open division pairings for round 5 and 6 will not be affected by this change. Chris Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ "If you believe everything you read, you better not read." -- Japanese Proverb From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sat Jan 10 23:19:34 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:19:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD JV ROUND 6 Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F409D@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> A new pairing for JV Round 6 will be available in the morning. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/9dc77770/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 03:38:01 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:38:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JV/Novice Nats Invitation Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901110138w30052fa7je2a15a04921ecd65@mail.gmail.com> http://jvnovnats09.wordpress.com/ Debate results will be uploaded this week. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/6f32051f/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sun Jan 11 08:59:23 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:59:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 6 JV Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F409E@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Here is the new round 6 pairing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/c6d7d339/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Round 6 JV.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 38995 bytes Desc: UTD Round 6 JV.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/c6d7d339/attachment-0001.pdf From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sun Jan 11 10:03:55 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:03:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Full UTD Round 6 pairing Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F409F@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Jackie needed a new file type. A text file is attached. Or, try this for the old pairing: http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/12718402 And, this for the new pairing: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/28566982/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/6667ca1f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Full Round 6.rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 38802 bytes Desc: UTD Full Round 6.rtf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/6667ca1f/attachment.obj From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sun Jan 11 10:19:53 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:19:53 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Baltimore College Debate Message-ID: <4D1431E2B3C3494EBF19B1B39FAE0180@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Junior Varsity/Novice Nationals at Towson Starts:3/7/2009 Ends:3/9/2009 Hosted by: Baltimore College Debate Contact: Andy Ellis Address: 1800 n. charles street suite 906 baltimore, md 21218 Phone: 240-285-0843 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Junior Varsity Nationals with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles Novice Nationals with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 10:28:25 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:28:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JV Novice nationals at Towson enabled on debate results Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901110828x1d83a6b6y9c19c6736a7ee08c@mail.gmail.com> That last message was the announcement, i just signed on from the BCD account because that is the one i have. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/0894579b/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Sun Jan 11 15:42:14 2009 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 13:42:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] UTD RD. 7 pairings? Message-ID: <616400.27576.qm@web110602.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Can someone post a copy??? Thanks. W. James Taylor ("JT") Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University ***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University. The contents are the sole opinion of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/6ce112c8/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Sun Jan 11 16:11:53 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:11:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] We we please get some info from UTD? Message-ID: <496A6EA9.9000406@uvm.edu> Other than joking football posts or suggestive posts without pairings there is very little for those of us at home trying to follow events. I understand it is round 7 and JV doubles now. It would be nice to see those pairings. 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 jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sun Jan 11 19:45:41 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:45:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Elim Info Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F40A0@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> UTD Elims OPEN: Double Octas Baylor CM & Oklahoma BY UCO CH & UTSA MT Emory BP (aff) & UCO SS Emory GH (aff) & Trinity BH Georgetown HZ & Wake Forest CC KU KQ & Minnesota CH KU KS & Wichita BR Kansas State MZ & Kansas JP North Texas CP & UMKC AG Oklahoma GW & Emory MS Samford BG & Baylor LR Texas AW & Oklahoma KT Texas BoSc & Wyoming BH Texas CM & Trinity BE Wichita CR & Minnesota NP Wyoming AP & Emporia FL JUNIOR: Partial Doubles Kansas DW over Vermont (3-0) JUNIOR: OCTAS Central Oklahoma DE & JCCC/KSU HM Central Oklahoma XX & Louisiana Lafayette CM Houston JK & Minnesota HT UMKC BB & Oklahoma KZ UMKC BB & Miami (FL) FR Oklahoma CT & Kansas DW Oklahoma NW & KCKCC FS Samford CL & KCKCC CT NOVICE: Semis Louisiana Lafayette SW over Kansas State Miami (FL) HR over Louisiana Lafayette NOVICE: Finals Louisiana Lafayette SW (aff) & Miami (FL) HR -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/003e6769/attachment.htm From rpaone at fas.harvard.edu Sun Jan 11 20:11:04 2009 From: rpaone at fas.harvard.edu (Ralph Paone) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:11:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lost LG phone charger at Fullerton (paging Kansas SW) Message-ID: <86f9bd6d0901111811j540c362cl3da3dfe620febf6a@mail.gmail.com> Did somebody accidentally pick up my LG phone charger at Fullerton? It was last seen in the doubles round between Harvard RS and Kansas SW. Stone, Karlson mentioned that you thought your partner grabbed it by accident? Did that happen? Really do not want to pay for a new one. I will however pay cost of shipping. thanks, peace, -ralph -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/7a785846/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Sun Jan 11 21:57:48 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:57:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Judges needed for morning elim debate at UTD Message-ID: <5a6e2a80901111957v494a873ck8993c4be9fb6c73b@mail.gmail.com> The following Judges are needed for Outrounds of UTD "Fear and Loathing" for check-in at 9:15 - round at 9:30. Awards at high noon in the ballroom on 1st floor of hotel Brackets to follow shortly. Antonucci Atchison Brennan Brooks, H Cleary Congden Cram-Helwich Crowe Davis, J Dipiazza Elliot. Darren Evans Galloway Gordon Gottbrecht Heidt Lansford Luechtenfeld Marlow Matheson Maurer Morris, E Paul Pennington Petit Reed, JV Register Richter Russell Samuels Smith, R Strange Thiele, C Tripe-Roberst Winfrey Zisman From jmgreen at ksu.edu Sun Jan 11 22:09:56 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:09:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] JV quarterfinals schedule - UTD Fear and Loathing Message-ID: <5a6e2a80901112009x44885d2docadd53badad6f4d4@mail.gmail.com> Judge assignments released in the morning. Seed 1 Oklahoma CT (Aff) v Samford CL 4 Louisiana-Lafayette v Oklahoma NW 3 Minnesota HT v UMKC BB 2 JCCC/KSU HM (Aff) v UMKC BE From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Sun Jan 11 22:12:11 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:12:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD: Open Octa Pairing Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F40A1@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> OPEN PAIRINGS 9:30 AM In Seed Order 1. North Texas CP versus Texas AW 2. Wichita CR versus Wake CC 3. Emory GH versus Kansas JP 4. Central Oklahoma SS versus Samford BG 5. Baylor CM versus Wyoming AP 6. Wichita BR versus Texas CM 7. Central Oklahoma CH versus Texas BoSc 8. Oklahoma GW versus Kansas KQ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/b08aa9dd/attachment.htm From twoan318 at gmail.com Sun Jan 11 23:34:44 2009 From: twoan318 at gmail.com (Tansy Woan) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:34:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] eDebate Digest, Vol 40, Issue 14 Cal BP Message-ID: Hey, if cal BP could backchannel me i'd greatly appreciate it - thanks =] On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:59 AM, wrote: > Send eDebate mailing list submissions to > edebate at www.ndtceda.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Fullerton Results (Michael Eisenstadt) > 2. UTD Round 3 (Jeffrey Jarman) > 3. Need one extra round at GMU (Danielle Verney) > 4. Advice for Jarman about the pairings (Louie Petit) > 5. UTD Round 4 Pairings (Jeffrey Jarman) > 6. Viking Debates Entry Reminder (Max Archer) > 7. CSUF Prelim Results (Bruschke, Jon) > 8. UTD Round 5 & 6 Pairings (Jeffrey Jarman) > 9. UTD Round 5 & 6 Pairings - REVISION FOR J.V. DIVISION SOON > (Burk, Christopher R) > 10. UTD JV ROUND 6 (Jeffrey Jarman) > 11. JV/Novice Nats Invitation (Andy Ellis) > 12. UTD Round 6 JV (Jeffrey Jarman) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:22:20 -0800 > From: "Michael Eisenstadt" > Subject: [eDebate] Fullerton Results > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <523152010901101022j54a3d04br6466dc319960070c at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Can anyone post the Fullerton packet/results? > > -- > Michael Eisenstadt > Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum > President > UNLV Class of 2011 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/a962d47c/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:20:38 -0600 > From: Jeffrey Jarman > Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 3 > To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F4099 at Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Here is the round 3 pairing. > Jeff > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/fae6b413/attachment-0001.htm > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: UTD Round 3.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 45793 bytes > Desc: UTD Round 3.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/fae6b413/attachment-0001.pdf > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:51:24 -0500 > From: Danielle Verney > Subject: [eDebate] Need one extra round at GMU > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > Navy needs one round at GMU--if you've got an extra lying around, let me > know. We'll pay you $25 in cash money for it. > > Danielle Verney O'Gorman > Navy Debate > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/2e19a345/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 16:04:34 -0600 > From: Louie Petit > Subject: [eDebate] Advice for Jarman about the pairings > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > > http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/1580085741.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg > > > that is all... sorry I did not have the words to explain the advice > > > ***images is not meant to offend anyone and is CLEARLY a joke amongst > friends*** > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. > > http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/63778823/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:56:23 -0600 > From: Jeffrey Jarman > Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 4 Pairings > To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F409B at Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Attached. > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/4eea081d/attachment-0001.htm > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: UTD Round 4.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 45822 bytes > Desc: UTD Round 4.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/4eea081d/attachment-0001.pdf > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:40:49 -0600 > From: "Max Archer" > Subject: [eDebate] Viking Debates Entry Reminder > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <1944fe1d0901101740p446ef8c6q887b739997fab750 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hi everyone. > > The hotel block for the Viking Debates at Augustana College is set to close > Thursday, January 16. Right now the entries are low, so if you have > interest in attending, please make your reservations soon. > > Invite reposted below. > > Max Archer > Director of Debate > Augustana College > > 24 November 2008 > > > > Dear Community, > > > > The Augustana Debate Union and the Department of Communication Studies are > pleased to invite you and your colleagues to attend the 2009 Viking Debates > at Augustana College. This year's edition of the Viking Debates will be > held on Friday, January 30, Saturday, January 31 and Sunday, February 1, > 2009 in Rock Island, IL. The tournament will include three divisions of > debate on the 2008-2009 CEDA/NDT topic, have six (6) high quality > preliminary rounds in Open and clear to an appropriate number of > elimination > rounds in each division. All rounds will be held on the campus of > Augustana > College. > > > > We have every intention of making this tournament as comfortable and > enjoyable as possible. Breakfast and lunch will provided on Saturday. We > are committed to providing high quality competition, hospitality, awards > and > tournament administration. If there is anyway we can better accommodate > you, please to not hesitate to let us know. > > > > Please accept our invitation and join us for a grand time of competitive > debates. We look forward to hosting you in Rock Island. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Max Archer, Director of Debate > > Augustana College > > (o) 309-794-7717 > > (c) 281-381-7328 > > maxarcher at augustana.edu > > > > REGISTRATION: We will accept entries for the tournament through Tuesday, > January 27 at 5:00 pm CST. Entries may be made at at > www.debateresults.com. > If there are any entry problems, please contact Max Archer at > maxarcher at augustana.edu or by phone at (309) 794-7717. Registration will > take place in Old Main 19 on Friday, January 30 from 2:30-3:30pm. > DIVISIONS: We plan to host three (3) divisions of debate this year. The > open division is open to any undergraduate student with eligibility. The > Junior Varsity and Novice divisions are open to anyone who meets the CEDA > eligibility standards for junior or novice participation. In the event > that there are an insufficient number of teams entered in a division, > arrangements will be made by the Tournament Director and Tab Room staff to > accommodate all participants. While it is unlikely, one or more teams from > Augustana might compete at the tournament to ensure an even number of teams > and to prevent a bye from being assigned. However, no Augustana team will > compete in elimination rounds. Awards will be given in each division to > elimination round participants and an appropriate number of recognized > speakers. > JUDGING: Each school should provide a qualified judge to cover your judging > commitments. One(1) team requires three (3) rounds of judging, two (2) > teams require six (6) rounds of judging. There will be few (if any) judges > available for hire at the rate of $100/uncovered team, but you should let > us > know well in advance if you need to hire judges. Because extra judging is > limited in the Quad Cities area, we would prefer your judges rather than > take your money. Each judge is obligated to cover their school's > commitment > through the first elimination round, or one round beyond your team's > elimination. All judges should enter their philosophy at > www.debateresults.com prior to the beginning of the tournament. > Each judge will assignment a win to one and only one team and a loss to one > and only one team. The judge will also rank each debater 1 to 4 and rate > each debater 0-30 using half points. Each judge will have a maximum of two > hours and forty-five (2:45) minutes from the official start time of the > debate to record a decision for that debate. A judged assigned by the tab > room to a particular debate is responsible for the submission of a > correctly > completed ballot at the conclusion of that debate. Failure on the part of > the judge to comply with these rules may result in a decision by the tab > room staff and may also result in penalties being imposed upon the judge's > school. > > FORMAT AND RULES: We will use the 9-3-6 format, with ten minutes > preparation > time per team. Rounds 1-2 will be preset. The rest will be powered. > Debate > teams consist of two persons two from the same school. Hybrid teams are > acceptable, and may advance to elimination rounds. In the event of > illness, > a single debater may debate two (2) rounds alone but will not be allowed to > advance to elimination debates. Unless the teams have met previously in > the preliminary rounds, sides in elimination debates will be determined by > coin flip or an agreement by both teams. The tournament will NOT break > brackets in elimination rounds. > > TAB ROOM STAFF AND TOURNAMENT ADMINISTRATION: Justin Green of Kansas State > University has agreed to direct the operations of the tabulation room. Mr. > Green and the Tournament Director will resolve any tournament > administration > problems that arise. Current and former Augustana students will be > available throughout the tournament to run ballots, give directions and > generally provide any needed assistance. > FEES: Entry fees are $85/team for all divisions. This includes trophies, > tournament supply expenses, and hospitality. Checks should be made out to > "Augustana College." > HOUSING: We have reserved a block of rooms at the La Quinta Inn-Moline > Airport. La Quinta has guaranteed a hotel block with doubles for $79/night > and kings for $69/night. Reservations should be made by contacting the La > Quinta Inn Central Reservation Center by phone at 1-866-527-1498. > Identify > yourself as part of the "Viking Debate" party, Confirmation Number > 673GRSVGP > . All final details pertaining to your stay should be coordinated directly > with the Moline hotel staff, whom you may contact by phone at (309) > 762-9008 > . The block closes on January 16, 2009 ? please make reservations soon. > All > participants are strongly encouraged to stay at the tournament hotel. > Pairings > will be released at the tournament hotel and on campus. > SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION: The tournament will follow the CEDA > guidelines on sexual harassment and discrimination. > > 2009 Viking Debates > TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE > Friday, January 30 > > 2:30-3:30PM Registration, Old Main 19 > > 4:30-7:00PM Round One > > 7:00-9:00PM Round Two > > > > Saturday, January 31 > > 8:00AM Pairings released at hotel and on campus > > 9:00-11:00AM Round Three > > 11:00-1:00PM Round Four > > 1:00-2:00PM Lunch > > 2:00-4:00PM Round Five > > 4:30-6:30PM Round Six > > > > Sunday, February 1 > > 8:00AM Pairings released at hotel and on campus > > 9:00-11:00AM First Elimination Debate > > 11:30AM Awards Assembly > > 12:00PM Elimination Debates Continue > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/fdf7b060/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:03:40 -0800 > From: "Bruschke, Jon" > Subject: [eDebate] CSUF Prelim Results > To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > < > F7DA7E5896B79D4F8F7D01E5062D6988018598B45AF0 at SFEXCH4.AD.FULLERTON.EDU> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: PrelimPacket.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 119713 bytes > Desc: PrelimPacket.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/a5155111/attachment-0001.pdf > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:03:21 -0600 > From: Jeffrey Jarman > Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 5 & 6 Pairings > To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F409C at Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Attached. > Hopefully from the UTD tournament. If not, email Louie Petit. > > Jeff > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/7f9e7d59/attachment-0001.htm > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: UTD Round 5.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 45810 bytes > Desc: UTD Round 5.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/7f9e7d59/attachment-0002.pdf > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: UTD Round 6.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 45752 bytes > Desc: UTD Round 6.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/7f9e7d59/attachment-0003.pdf > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:27:57 -0600 > From: "Burk, Christopher R" > Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 5 & 6 Pairings - REVISION FOR J.V. > DIVISION SOON > To: > Message-ID: > < > D023AA2BEB27D145B710BA7FDC814DCE014608FA at UTDEVS08.campus.ad.utdallas.edu> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > The pairings for Round 5 & in the JV division contain an error. We are > working to fix the error and repair the rounds. We will post a correct > version of the round 5 & 6 pairings for the JV division to eDebate in the > very near future. I apologize for the delay. > > The Open division pairings for round 5 and 6 are correct. The Open division > pairings for round 5 and 6 will not be affected by this change. > > > > Chris > > Christopher Burk > Director of Debate > University of Texas at Dallas > www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ > > "If you believe everything you read, you better not read." -- Japanese > Proverb > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:19:34 -0600 > From: Jeffrey Jarman > Subject: [eDebate] UTD JV ROUND 6 > To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F409D at Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > A new pairing for JV Round 6 will be available in the morning. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090110/9dc77770/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:38:01 -0500 > From: "Andy Ellis" > Subject: [eDebate] JV/Novice Nats Invitation > To: edebate > Message-ID: > <9368bc9b0901110138w30052fa7je2a15a04921ecd65 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > http://jvnovnats09.wordpress.com/ > > Debate results will be uploaded this week. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/6f32051f/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 08:59:23 -0600 > From: Jeffrey Jarman > Subject: [eDebate] UTD Round 6 JV > To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F409E at Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Here is the new round 6 pairing. > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/c6d7d339/attachment.htm > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: UTD Round 6 JV.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 38995 bytes > Desc: UTD Round 6 JV.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090111/c6d7d339/attachment.pdf > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > End of eDebate Digest, Vol 40, Issue 14 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/6e9795c7/attachment.htm From todonnel at umw.edu Mon Jan 12 10:42:44 2009 From: todonnel at umw.edu (Timothy O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:42:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Inauguration Debate Series - January 19th at the Smithsonian Message-ID: <496B2CB7020000BD00080392@umwgw.umw.edu> Greetings! This coming Monday (January 19th) six college debate teams will debate the priorities of the Obama administration at the Museum of Natural History as part of the inaugural weekend festivities. The event is free and open to the public and all who will be in the area are encouraged to attend. The official release with further details from the Smithsonian is copied below. All the best, - Tim newsdesk.si.edu Press Room of the Smithsonian Institution PRESS RELEASE - Jan. 7, 2009 Smithsonian Hosts ?Great Debaters? in Inaugural Debate Series Jan. 19 (http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/nmaahc_great_debaters.htm) Six college debate teams from across the country will come to the Smithsonian to discuss the priorities of the new Obama administration and debate issues such as the economy, foreign policy and climate change. The program marks the 100th anniversary of the first debates between Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and the historic inauguration of America?s first African American President. The Inaugural Debate Series will take place Monday, Jan. 19, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Baird Auditorium at the National Museum of Natural History. The debate series features six teams with some of the nation?s top collegiate debaters, including schools with close historical ties to the real-life ?great debaters? depicted in the 2007 film of the same name starring Denzel Washington. Teams participating in the debate include Michigan State University, Wake Forest University, the University of Mary Washington and the University of Southern California, as well as two schools representing Historically Black Colleges and Universities?Fayetteville State University and Voorhees College. The debates are presented by the National Museum of African American History and Culture in cooperation with the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the Debate Consortium, with support from the Presidential Inaugural Committee. The Debate Consortium was formed to help African American colleges and universities develop the capacity to field high-quality debate on crucial public policy issues. The students will debate some of the most important issues confronting the new Obama administration, from energy and climate change to health care, the economy and foreign policy. The series will feature three debates, each approximately 75 minutes in length. The first debate on energy and climate change, from 9:30 to 11 a.m., has Michigan State University against Wake Forest University, two schools that represent the pinnacle of intercollegiate debate?both having won the National Debate Tournament, America?s most historic and prestigious national debate championship, in the past three years. The second debate, from 11:10 a.m. to 1 p.m., features the University of Mary Washington and USC arguing health care and the economy. USC was host to Wiley College in the ?Great Debate? of 1935 (although the film substitutes Harvard for USC). The most famous member of the Wiley team?the distinguished civil rights leader James L. Farmer Jr.?concluded his long career as a professor of history at the University of Mary Washington. The third debate, from 2:10 to 3:30 p.m., on foreign policy, features Fayetteville State University versus Voorhees College, two Historically Black Colleges and Universities that are committed to making the virtues of a debate education central to their educational mission. The National Museum of African American History and Culture was established in 2003 by an Act of Congress, making it the 19th Smithsonian Institution museum. It is the only national museum devoted exclusively to the documentation of African American life, art, history and culture. The Smithsonian Board of Regents, the governing body of the Institution, voted in January 2006 to build the museum on a five-acre site on the National Mall. The Constitution Avenue site is adjacent the Washington Monument and across the street from the Smithsonian?s National Museum of American History. For more information about the museum, please visit nmaahc.si.edu or call Smithsonian information at (202) 633-1000, (202) 633-5285 (TTY). # # # SI-6-2009 Timothy M. O'Donnell Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Speech University of Mary Washington 1201 William St., #25 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 todonnel at umw.edu (540) 654-1252 (office) (540) 654-1569 (fax) From lukephill at gmail.com Mon Jan 12 11:04:22 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:04:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Debate Tournament Reminders Message-ID: We look forward to seeing all of you in February for the Owen L. Coon but wanted to send out a couple of quick reminders.1) The hotel reservation date is fast approaching, please secure your rooms at the Orrington soon. Remember to identify yourself as an attendee of Owen L. Coon Memorial Debates when making your reservation. The cut-off date for your reservations is Friday, January 16. 2) We are quickly approaching our team cap. If you plan on joining us in Evanston next month please enter on debatersults.com as soon as possible so that we have an accurate idea of how much space to secure on campus. We are working hard to ensure that the OLC will be a great experience for all, but need your help on accurate numbers to work on that. 3) Judging reminder. We will be moving to 7 rounds of competition this year. However, some judges are entered for an 8 round commitment. While we appreciate the effort of these judges constraints of the space time continuum will not allow for that arrangement to work. The judging requirement is 4 rounds per team entered. Please let me know if you have any questions. lukephill at gmail dot com Best, Luke and Dan Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/8818d4bb/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Mon Jan 12 11:25:43 2009 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:25:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] NU - Emory looking for judging References: Message-ID: <501299.11656.qm@web62008.mail.re1.yahoo.com> We pay in cash at the tournament. We are interested in even 1 or 2 rounds if you have them. Thanks in advance. e ________________________________ From: Luke Hill To: Daniel J. Fitzmier ; edebate at www.ndtceda.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:04:22 PM Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Debate Tournament Reminders We look forward to seeing all of you in February for the Owen L. Coon but wanted to send out a couple of quick reminders. 1) The hotel reservation date is fast approaching, please secure your rooms at the Orrington soon. Remember to identify yourself as an attendee of Owen L. Coon Memorial Debates when making your reservation. The cut-off date for your reservations is Friday, January 16. 2) We are quickly approaching our team cap. If you plan on joining us in Evanston next month please enter on debatersults.com as soon as possible so that we have an accurate idea of how much space to secure on campus. We are working hard to ensure that the OLC will be a great experience for all, but need your help on accurate numbers to work on that. 3) Judging reminder. We will be moving to 7 rounds of competition this year. However, some judges are entered for an 8 round commitment. While we appreciate the effort of these judges constraints of the space time continuum will not allow for that arrangement to work. The judging requirement is 4 rounds per team entered. Please let me know if you have any questions. lukephill at gmail dot com Best, Luke and Dan Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/c0177035/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Mon Jan 12 12:11:35 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:11:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Inauguration Debate Series - January 19th at the Smithsonian In-Reply-To: <496B2CB7020000BD00080392@umwgw.umw.edu> References: <496B2CB7020000BD00080392@umwgw.umw.edu> Message-ID: Kudos to Tim and the University of Mary Washington for pulling off this historic event! It should generate some extremely positive publicity for the debate community. --Neil Berch West Virginia University> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:42:44 -0500> From: todonnel at umw.edu> To: ceda-l at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com> Subject: [CEDA-L] Inauguration Debate Series - January 19th at the Smithsonian> > Greetings! > > This coming Monday (January 19th) six college debate teams will debate> the priorities of the Obama administration at the Museum of Natural> History as part of the inaugural weekend festivities. The event is free> and open to the public and all who will be in the area are encouraged to> attend. > > The official release with further details from the Smithsonian is copied> below.> > All the best, > > - Tim> > > > newsdesk.si.edu> Press Room of the Smithsonian Institution> > PRESS RELEASE - Jan. 7, 2009> > Smithsonian Hosts ?Great Debaters? in Inaugural Debate Series Jan. 19> (http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/nmaahc_great_debaters.htm)> > Six college debate teams from across the country will come to the> Smithsonian to discuss the priorities of the new Obama administration> and debate issues such as the economy, foreign policy and climate> change. The program marks the 100th anniversary of the first debates> between Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Martin Luther> King, Jr. Day and the historic inauguration of America?s first African> American President. The Inaugural Debate Series will take place Monday,> Jan. 19, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Baird Auditorium at the National> Museum of Natural History.> > The debate series features six teams with some of the nation?s top> collegiate debaters, including schools with close historical ties to the> real-life ?great debaters? depicted in the 2007 film of the same name> starring Denzel Washington.> > Teams participating in the debate include Michigan State University,> Wake Forest University, the University of Mary Washington and the> University of Southern California, as well as two schools representing> Historically Black Colleges and Universities?Fayetteville State> University and Voorhees College. The debates are presented by the> National Museum of African American History and Culture in cooperation> with the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and> Universities and the Debate Consortium, with support from the> Presidential Inaugural Committee.> > The Debate Consortium was formed to help African American colleges and> universities develop the capacity to field high-quality debate on> crucial public policy issues.> > The students will debate some of the most important issues confronting> the new Obama administration, from energy and climate change to health> care, the economy and foreign policy. The series will feature three> debates, each approximately 75 minutes in length.> > The first debate on energy and climate change, from 9:30 to 11 a.m., has> Michigan State University against Wake Forest University, two schools> that represent the pinnacle of intercollegiate debate?both having won> the National Debate Tournament, America?s most historic and prestigious> national debate championship, in the past three years. > > The second debate, from 11:10 a.m. to 1 p.m., features the University of> Mary Washington and USC arguing health care and the economy. USC was> host to Wiley College in the ?Great Debate? of 1935 (although the film> substitutes Harvard for USC). The most famous member of the Wiley> team?the distinguished civil rights leader James L. Farmer> Jr.?concluded his long career as a professor of history at the> University of Mary Washington.> > The third debate, from 2:10 to 3:30 p.m., on foreign policy, features> Fayetteville State University versus Voorhees College, two Historically> Black Colleges and Universities that are committed to making the virtues> of a debate education central to their educational mission. > > The National Museum of African American History and Culture was> established in 2003 by an Act of Congress, making it the 19th> Smithsonian Institution museum. It is the only national museum devoted> exclusively to the documentation of African American life, art, history> and culture. The Smithsonian Board of Regents, the governing body of the> Institution, voted in January 2006 to build the museum on a five-acre> site on the National Mall. The Constitution Avenue site is adjacent the Washington Monument and across the street from the Smithsonian?s> National Museum of American History. For more information about the> museum, please visit nmaahc.si.edu or call Smithsonian information at> (202) 633-1000, (202) 633-5285 (TTY).> > # # #> > SI-6-2009> > > Timothy M. O'Donnell> Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Speech> University of Mary Washington> 1201 William St., #25> Fredericksburg, VA 22401> todonnel at umw.edu> (540) 654-1252 (office)> (540) 654-1569 (fax)> _______________________________________________> CEDA-L mailing list> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/c6074ea0/attachment.htm From Pacedebate at aol.com Mon Jan 12 12:34:08 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:34:08 EST Subject: [eDebate] Mile High Classic - rounds available Message-ID: if you are going to this tournament and need a hired judge drop me a backchannel. I have a full commitment available. thanks, Tim Mahoney **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/bf3f9d8b/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Mon Jan 12 13:02:44 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 14:02:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking to Hires Rounds for GMU Message-ID: <9a7f6f740901121102x2373ba8t8e0829358e92d5e7@mail.gmail.com> I am looking to hire a few rounds for GMU. Even one or two would help. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/0690e381/attachment.htm From shahall at comcast.net Mon Jan 12 15:49:59 2009 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:49:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Subscriptions Message-ID: <008a01c974ff$b76dd200$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> Hi All -- I believe I now have an accurate list of all of the schools that have paid their subscription dues to the NDT for the 2008-2009 school year. The deadline for subscribing to the NDT for this year if you wish to participate in the district qualifier and/or attend the NDT is this Thursday, January 15, 2009. Please check the list. This list includes everyone that paid on the website via pay-pal through this afternoon. If you paid on the AFA website and are not on this list, please write me back immediately. It would be helpful if you could include your electronic receipt. If you paid via check and think that I should have received it by now, please let me know that. Mike Davis was listed as having paid via pay-pal without a school affiliation. I have credited that money to James Madison. Please let me know if this is incorrect. If you still need to pay you can pay via the AFA website. You will need to select subscribe to the NDT three times in order for the system to charge you the correct amount. You can also send a check to my home made payable to "the National Debate Tournament" for $150.00 to 324 Franklin St., Cambridge, MA 02139. Thanks, Sherry NDT 2008-2009 Subscribers Baylor University Binghamton University Boston College California Polytechnic University California State University @ Chico California State University @ Fullerton California State University @ Northridge Cameron University Case Western Reserve University City University of New York Clarion College Columbia University Concordia College Dartmouth College East Los Angeles College Eastern New Mexico University Emory University Emporia University George Mason University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia State University Gonzaga University Harvard University Idaho State University Illinois College Illinois State University James Madison University John Carroll University Johnson County Community College Kansas City Kansas Community College Kansas State University Liberty University Macalaster College Marist College Methodist University Michigan State University Missouri State University New York University Northwestern University Pepperdine University Redlands Sacramento State University Samford University San Francisco State University Southern Methodist University Towson University Trinity University United States Naval Academy University of California @ Berkeley University of California @ Los Angeles University of Central Oklahoma University of Denver University of Florida University of Georgia University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Mary Washington University of Miami - Ohio University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri @ Kansas City University of Nevada @ Las Vegas University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Pittsburgh University of Richmond University of Rochester University of Southern California University of Texas @ Austin University of Texas @ Dallas University of Texas @ San Antonio University of Tulsa University of Vermont University of West Georgia Vanderbilt University Wake Forest University Weber State West Virginia Western Connecticut State University Whitman College Wichita State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/8b911a5a/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Mon Jan 12 17:47:47 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:47:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Results Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED98438503E0F40A2@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Elims and speakers attached. Minn v. OU in JV Finals. Open Semis Wichita BR v. Wake CC UNT CP v. Wyoming AP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/50cc891c/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Open Elims.pdf.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 58163 bytes Desc: UTD Open Elims.pdf.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/50cc891c/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD JV Elims.pdf.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49985 bytes Desc: UTD JV Elims.pdf.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/50cc891c/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Novice Elims.pdf.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 13289 bytes Desc: UTD Novice Elims.pdf.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/50cc891c/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UTD Speakers.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 219751 bytes Desc: UTD Speakers.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/50cc891c/attachment-0003.pdf From debate at ou.edu Mon Jan 12 18:48:08 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:48:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] West Georgia Hotel... Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F5598A5CCB@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Who can help me with this? massey From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu Mon Jan 12 23:31:47 2009 From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:31:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Hired Judging for West Georgia & Berkeley Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899ECE6F91@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> We are looking, and we pay cash. Please backchannel if interested! Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna GMAIL:ermocito at gmail.com (please use for large attachments) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/40235d91/attachment.htm From crb012000 at utdallas.edu Tue Jan 13 00:31:01 2009 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:31:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Results - Finals in Open and JV Message-ID: Open UNT over Wake Forest, 3-0. JV Minn over OU, 3-0. Congrats to both squads. Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ "If you believe everything you read, you better not read." -- Japanese Proverb From paulj567 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 13 01:00:40 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:00:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: job call Message-ID: <207387.57168.qm@web53512.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Just a friendly reminder- the University of Iowa has an excellent debate job available for the 2009-2010 school year. The A. Craig Baird Debate Forum has a rich history, and our current staff of coaches and team of debaters are ecstatic at the prospect of adding another coach to an already talented crew. The deadline for applying for this job is Feb. 1st. I have attached the PDF for the job call. If you have questions, feel free to contact me or any of the staff here at the U of I, including our coordinator of forensics (paul-bellus at uiowa.edu) and director of the A Craig Baird Debate Forum (david-hingstman at uiowa.edu). Again, the deadline is Feb. 1st, twenty days from today. So if you haven't applied yet, there is still time! -Paul Johnson Phd Student and Assistant Debate Coach, University of Iowa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Debate Job Ad.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 122655 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090112/2ad7ce00/attachment.pdf From carrolltondebate at gmail.com Tue Jan 13 08:03:25 2009 From: carrolltondebate at gmail.com (Joseph Carver) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:03:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking Judging for Barkley Forum Message-ID: Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart is seeking to hire someone for judging at Emory's Barkley Forum.Price is negotiable. We are not looking for additional coaching etc so persons requiring hotel and airfare don't fit the bill. If you are interested please respond to jcarver at carrollton.org. Thank you. Thanks Joe Carver Dir of Debate Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090113/3d7b816c/attachment.htm From veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com Tue Jan 13 10:20:26 2009 From: veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com (Veronica Guevara) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:20:26 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Val Browning Round Robin Attendees: Final Update for Participants & Coaches Message-ID: We are all prepared to have you in Ogden this weekend. The weather forecast looks all clear for the entirety of your stay and the hospitality pantries have been fully stocked in anticipation of your arrival. We have a few final reminders for round robin participants 1. Smoking Policy: The tournament hotel is owned by Hilton, as such, there are no smoking rooms. Please observe this policy. The hotel will charge steep cleaning fees for any room that they have determined has been smoked in at any point during your stay. The hotel has asked that we smoke outside, on the North side of the building, and we have been assured you will not be bothered there. Those are the doors right outside the elevators just outside the Bonaventure Room, which is the hospitality reception room where lunches and dinners will be served. For coaches, you are welcome to enjoy the hospitality basement at the Guevara's home where the Utah Clean Air Act is not enforced. 2. No Decision Disclosure: This year, in the interest of maintaining a humane schedule and providing some sense of anticipation for the awards ceremony, we are emulating the Kentucky Round Robin model . After rounds, critics will turn in sealed ballots instead of discussing their decision. The ballots should give a written reason for decision and will be copied for the participants to read. The decisions will be read aloud at the awards ceremony and the round robin champion will be announced. 3. Transportation: We offer airport pick up and drop off, as well as a shuttle for coaches from the tournament hotel to the hospitality basement and back. For airport transportation, email Richard Tews at rtews at weber.edu with your itinerary. For transportation for coaches during the tournament, call Rich at (801) 391-6614. 4. All Meals Are Provided: We've maintained our entry fees and added two dinners to our offerings. The hotel has a pretty extensive breakfast selection every morning in the hotel lounge and we will be providing lunches and dinners on Saturday and Sunday in the Bonaventure Room. The only food purchasing you will have to do will be on travel days. 5. Schedule: Friday -- January 16, 2009 Registration: 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM Hotel Lobby (pairings released at registration) Saturday -- January 17, 2009 Round 1: 8:30 AM Start Time Round 2: 11:00 AM Start Time Lunch: 1:15 PM in the Bonaventure Room (Lobby Level) Round 3: 2:30 PM Start Time Round 4: 5:00 PM Start Time Dinner: 7:30 PM in the Bonaventure Room Sunday -- January 18, 2009 Round 5: 10:30 AM Start Time Lunch: 1:00 PM in the Bonaventure Room Round 6: 2:00 PM Start Time Flip for 7: 4:00 PM (4:15 PM deadline for side confirmation) Round 7: 4:30 PM Start Time Awards Ceremony Dinner: 7:00 PM in the Bonaventure Room If you need anything else before you arrive or during your stay, just let me know. See you all in 3 days! Weber State University Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408 www.weberdebate.com _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090113/30bf7b74/attachment.htm From blain at unt.edu Tue Jan 13 15:14:31 2009 From: blain at unt.edu (Lain, Brian) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:14:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Tournament-- Feedback request Message-ID: We hope everyone enjoyed their time in Texas and are able to get some much needed rest this week. As most of you know, the DeMougeot Tournament is very important to us at UNT. If you have feedback suggestions, comments, or criticisms please send a quick reply note to this email. In fact, just a simple list of "liked" "didn't like" would be very useful to us as we try to improve the tournament. If I didn't get a chance to tell you, thank you for coming. It was truly our pleasure. -Brian and UNT debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090113/fdf20f61/attachment.htm From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Tue Jan 13 15:40:25 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:40:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Tournament Updates Message-ID: Please finalize all entries and judging tonight. I'll turn off online changes at noon tomorrow, hopefully have prefs up tonight. Remember - its only 7 debates, Jackie Massey you cannot actually judge 8 prelims, sorry. Sarah From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Tue Jan 13 16:37:18 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:37:18 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Appalachian State Message-ID: Name:American Debate Association (ADA Nationals) Starts:3/13/2009 Ends:3/15/2009 Hosted by: Appalachian State Contact: Kris Willis Address: ASU Box 32039 Phone: 828-262-8371 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From commgradstudent08 at gmail.com Tue Jan 13 17:49:21 2009 From: commgradstudent08 at gmail.com (J K) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:49:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Cornell Hotel? Message-ID: <5088761a0901131549l22f909ach44e35ceb5239ef59@mail.gmail.com> Any update on the hotel situation for the Cornell tournament? Just trying to finalize plans---John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090113/93464afe/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Jan 13 19:17:05 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] sylabi for debate classes Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901131717h5e4c55fdga57159f3f41dc2f6@mail.gmail.com> I am in the process of cataloging links to debate class syllabuses, i have found many of them on the web, and am in the process of finding more, but if folks could send me the links for their class i would appreciate it. As the list gets together i will publish it, amongst other places to the ceda web site...presenting the information basically will be easy, getting it in a really user friendly format will take a while, any way send me the links for what you would like me to include -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090113/4cf90c9b/attachment.htm From cramhelwich at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 01:20:52 2009 From: cramhelwich at gmail.com (David Cram Helwich) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:20:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to UNT and UTD (and USC and CSUF) Message-ID: <52ace93c0901132320p75f56a3fq3c25e31386896aba@mail.gmail.com> The Golden Gophers send a hearty thank you to the (Mean Green) Eagles, Comets, Trojans (even if they are PAC-10 ;) and Titans for taking the time to host us over their winter breaks. We enjoyed the unique aspects of each tourney as well as the consistently _excellent_ hospitality offered by each set of hosts.. THANK YOU ALL! dch & eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/577185df/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Jan 14 03:03:21 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:03:21 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] hiring judge for berkeley tournament Message-ID: <0E79D601E3FA41FDBA529A4ED0258FB5@whitman.edu> I will pay $30 per round and we can use a full commitment judge. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/6af4a777/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Wed Jan 14 07:31:19 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:31:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Packet Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED984385044AA8A65@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> The files were too big to post on edebate. I've attached them to posts on the CEDA forum for Fear and Loathing in Dallas. You can find the tournament and packet available at http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=forum/71 If other tournaments would like a similar forum, just let me know. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/a8c8b750/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 07:34:50 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:34:50 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to UNT and UTD In-Reply-To: <52ace93c0901132320p75f56a3fq3c25e31386896aba@mail.gmail.com> References: <52ace93c0901132320p75f56a3fq3c25e31386896aba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The Pokes enthusiastically agree with the Gophers' thanks to UTD and UNT. The work put in to host these huge tournaments was enormous. Not only did they offer doubles-level open divisions and large, competitive JV and novice divisions, but both tournaments set a new standard in hospitality--very important during a holiday break swing. All this for what turned out for us to be basically the price of a single tournament. Thanks!!! matt crowe jamie sam mike grae kateri kristen Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:20:52 -0600From: cramhelwich at gmail.comTo: edebate at ndtceda.comSubject: [eDebate] Thanks to UNT and UTD (and USC and CSUF)The Golden Gophers send a hearty thank you to the (Mean Green) Eagles, Comets, Trojans (even if they are PAC-10 ;) and Titans for taking the time to host us over their winter breaks. We enjoyed the unique aspects of each tourney as well as the consistently _excellent_ hospitality offered by each set of hosts..THANK YOU ALL!dch & eli _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/570a937c/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed Jan 14 08:53:43 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:53:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Mardi Gras Debate Tournament In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1231944823.496dfc77f1eec@webmail.grandecom.net> Dear Colleagues: If you are planning on coming down to the Mardi Gras Tournament, please send me some information so I can make arrangements. Scott Elliott University of Louisiana From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Jan 14 09:48:43 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:48:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] cfp--critical food Message-ID: <143D98DF496421488EB9BC87D999BD3E904344F702@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> thought some folks here might be interested... ________________________________________ From: cultstud-l-bounces at lists.comm.umn.edu [cultstud-l-bounces at lists.comm.umn.edu] On Behalf Of Andrew Opel [aopel at fsu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 10:06 AM To: cultstud-l at lists.comm.umn.edu Subject: [cultstud-l] CFP - Critical Food Studies Call for Papers Food, Culture and the Environment: Communicating About What We Eat Call for manuscripts for special issue of Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture Volume #4, Issue #2 (2010) Co-Editors: Andy Opel, Florida State University; Jose? Johnston, University of Toronto; Richard Wilk, Indiana University Every day, humans literally eat the world. Our most intimate, daily contact with the natural world comes in the form of the food we eat and the liquids we drink. The environmental, political, and social implications of our food choices ripple across the planet, shaping ecosystems, our bodies and the actual genetic structure of plants and animals. In recent years, discourses have emerged that renew our attention to food as a site of cultural struggle where language, power and politics influence what we eat and how we eat it. Labels such as ?natural,? ?organic,? ?free-range,? and ?cruelty-free? direct our attention back to the food production process, reconnecting us to the environmental and industrial systems that produce and distribute our food. >From the ?slow food? movement to concepts such as the locavore, food miles, low-carbon diet, edible schoolyard and community supported agriculture, food is attaining new levels of public awareness in-part through new discursive formations. Global grassroots activists and authors such as Michael Pollan, Marion Nestle, Carlo Petrini, Wendell Berry and Vandana Shiva have been unpacking the political and cultural dimensions of our food choices, serving up a buffet of issues and debates in need of scholarly attention. We invite researchers worldwide who are working in the topic area of food and culture to submit manuscripts that analyze the meanings of food in the discourses of the media, commercial culture, social movements, and public policy. How is language used to reveal and/or elide food production processes? What are the popular images of food, how are they produced and what do they tell us about our farms, our diets and our politics? How is food being used to advance environmental agendas? What do food labels tell us about the food we eat? What are the social justice components of our food and how are these connected to environmental justice? How are grassroots movements responding to corporate food production and distribution? These are examples of the questions that may be addressed in this special issue of Environmental Communication. We seek manuscripts that analyze language, media representations, historical contexts, material and economic conditions, institutional settings, political initiatives, practices of resistance, and/or the theoretical significance of discursive formations surrounding food. All methodologies are appreciated and welcomed. Essays will be selected to be academically sound, intellectually innovative, and conceptually relevant to communication about food. Manuscripts should be formatted in Microsoft Word in a PC-compatible version (Mac users, please utilize the most current versions of Word and end your file names in ?.doc?) and submitted electronically as attachments. E-mail messages to which manuscripts are attached should contain all authors? name and affiliations. They should indicate a corresponding author, and include name, affiliation, e-mail address, postal address, and voice and fax telephone numbers for that person. Manuscripts should include an abstract of 150 words or less, including a list of five suggested key words. Manuscripts should be prepared in 12-point font, should be double-spaced throughout, and should not exceed 8,000 words including references. The journal adheres to APA Style. Manuscripts must not be under review elsewhere or have appeared in any other published form. Upon notification of acceptance, authors must assign copyright to Taylor and Francis and provide copyright clearance for any copyrighted material. For further details on manuscript submission, please refer to the ?Instructions for authors? on the journal?s website. The journal is published in English, and manuscripts must be submitted in English. Please see the journal website (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/17524032.asp) for manuscript guidelines. Manuscripts should be emailed to aopel at fsu.edu by August 31, 2009. Please disseminate this CFP to any colleagues that might be interested. Andy Opel, Ph.D. Associate Professor Media Production Area Head Department of Communication Florida State University PO Box 3062664 University Center Bldg C Tallahassee, FL 32306-2664 (W): 850-644-8768 (C): 850-322-3349 www.andyopel.net _______________________________________________ CULTSTUD-L mailing list: CULTSTUD-L at lists.comm.umn.edu http://lists.comm.umn.edu/mailman/listinfo/cultstud-l From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 13:16:11 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:16:11 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Packet In-Reply-To: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED984385044AA8A65@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> References: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED984385044AA8A65@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> Message-ID: <39c09a80901141116r1154248fv2f8ebfd0da7691b2@mail.gmail.com> congratulations to Wake Carlotti and Crichton there's worse fates than second! On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Jeffrey Jarman wrote: > The files were too big to post on edebate. I've attached them to posts > on the CEDA forum for Fear and Loathing in Dallas. > > You can find the tournament and packet available at > http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=forum/71 > > If other tournaments would like a similar forum, just let me know. > > Jeff > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090114/d6d397c1/attachment.htm From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Wed Jan 14 13:27:47 2009 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:27:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UTSA needs Baylor Judging Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCAC1EC36@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> Hello folks--UTSA needs 8 to 12 rounds of judging at Baylor. We offer $30 per rounds cash at site. Thanks, skip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/b85147a7/attachment.htm From carolg at harker.org Wed Jan 14 14:19:44 2009 From: carolg at harker.org (Carol Green) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:19:44 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Harker tournament registration now open (March 6-8) In-Reply-To: <524839830901140549l35ec2a0rd636c34a2594b933@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Tournament information can be found at: http://www.joyoftournaments.com/ca/harker/info.asp?p=1 Policy judges interested in being hired should contact Scott Phillips at scottp at harker.org Lincoln-Douglas judges interested in being hired should contact Adam Nelson at adamn at harker.org 9 th Annual Harker Invitational The Howard & Diana Nichols TOC Qualifying Tournament at the Semifinals Level in Public Forum and Lincoln-Douglas Debate as well as Top 6 Qualifier in Student Congressional Debate March 6-8, 2009, San Jose, CA. ? Beak and Talon Public Forum Round Robin begins March 8th. ? Dear Colleagues: On Friday, March 6 through Sunday, March 8, The Harker School will host the 9th Annual Harker Invitational - a national debate tournament that offers Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, Policy, and Student Congressional Debate. We are happy to announce that Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum debate semifinalists will receive a TOC-qualifying leg. Top Six finalists in Student Congressional Debate will also receive a TOC-qualifying leg. We will offer one division of Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Policy, and Student Congress. Top non-advancing novice entries in Public Forum and Policy will compete in separate novice elimination rounds. There will also be recognition for top novice speakers in Public Forum and Policy debate. Please make sure to note any novice entries when registering. The Harker School is located in San Jose, California, just 10 minutes from nearby San Jose International Airport and 35 minutes from San Francisco International. We offer a very competitive tournament, good food, and a fine set of awards, viz., speaker awards for both LD and Public Forum debaters, and elimination round trophies for all events. PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Scheduling has been planned to give teams flexibility in travel and to allow for local teams to compete in respective events. Public Forum will be held Friday and Saturday while Student Congress will be held on Sunday. Students may double enter in Public Forum and Student Congress. Lincoln-Douglas and Policy will be held Friday through Sunday as in previous years. 2. We are excited to announce that judges in Lincoln-Douglas Debate will be assigned on the basis of mutual preference. Please see the judging information page for details 3. With travel costs on the rise, and with the understanding that the educational experience in improved by a diversity of competition, we are pleased to announce that entry and judging fees will be waived for the first Public Forum and Policy team from each school attending the tournament from out-of-state. We will once again offer a limited number of complimentary student housing spaces for competitors traveling from out of state to the tournament. Sign up early as these spaces fill up quickly. Student housing requests must be received no later than February 20th and may close early if spaces fill up. Additional information can be received by emailing the coaching staff at forensics at harker.org or by calling the respective directors below. We look forward to seeing you on the West Coast this spring. We will do our best to make your stay with us as enjoyable as possible. If you are a team with financial other logistical concerns, please contact us as soon as possible so we can attempt to make your entry possible. Sincerely, Carol Green Director of Public Forum, Student Congress, Individual Events, and Model UN carolg at harker.org 408.345.9655 Adam Nelson Director of Lincoln-Douglas and Mock Trial adamn at harker.org 408.345.9235 Scott Phillips Director of Policy Debate scottp at harker.org 408.345.9216 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/dc5c4b0e/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Wed Jan 14 14:35:11 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:35:11 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] still looking for berkeley judging Message-ID: <26BEDF974889491883145F7B55DBBCFC@whitman.edu> $30 per round or $240 for a full commitment. we need about 1 full judge more. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/cb777cbf/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 14:54:35 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:54:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UWG Tournament - judge philosophy for Andrew Baird Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70901141254l372e20f5td12a380d141e7afd@mail.gmail.com> the following is the judging philosophy for Andrew Baird. he's in grad school at UWG now, but debated for FSU, as well as judging for them. Andrew Baird: I generally will put the most weight on solvency when making a decision on a round. That is not to say that I am not open to hearing critiques, theory, or topicality arguments. It is important that these arguments be impacted effectively, the more teeth the argument has when it is crystallized obviously the more likely I am to vote for it. The same can be said for when I am assessing a counter plan. When it comes down to the end of a round if there is a unique reason to vote for a counter plan that comes along with any sort of unique dis-ad that is going to hold a lot of weight on the solvency flow then I'll pick it up. Rate of delivery is more or less a none issue. If you can fill out the flow then more power too you. As you can probably tell I am a pretty traditional style judge. I will vote up a performance though if it is adequately explained as to why the rhetoric is valid in round, more importantly why the rhetoric has unique advantages over more traditional policy style. Finally as for T, it will be considered. A lot more so if the affirmative is obviously not with in the realm of topicality. But I'm not going scrap the whole flow and vote on a T argument solely as long as the affirmative is more or less topical. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/8b137f85/attachment.htm From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 15:18:03 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:18:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UWG - Novice Help Message-ID: We have 4 novice debaters attending this weekend and we're trying to make sure it's an educational experience for them so we need some volunteers. Please email me if you or any of your judges are willing to be a Novice Mentor ? let them watch/flow a debate with you while you judge, speak with them during and after to help them get the most out of it. Thanks to the other folks who have already volunteered. Thanks Sarah From maffiemd at muohio.edu Wed Jan 14 15:30:17 2009 From: maffiemd at muohio.edu (Mike Maffie) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:30:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Cornell Hotel Information Message-ID: <89B5F592-9549-4E27-B07A-A163E95F99AF@muohio.edu> Thank you all for being patient while we worked out a hotel arrangement for the tournament. Here is the information for the tournament hotel: Country Inn and Suites 1100 Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (right across Ithaca College). The Hotel is about 4 miles away from the Cornell campus. It has wireless internet, a pool, etc. To make a reservation, please contact Terry in sales at, (607)-256-1100. When you are checking inn, mention you are part of the Cornell Debate block. We were able to book 25 room, 20 Queen suites and 5 King suites. The hotel informed us the queen rooms include two queen beds and a pull out double bed. These room could sleep up to 6 people per room. The king suites are able to sleep fewer, at most 4. Each room is $109 per night. The deadline for our block is Monday, February 2, 2009. Please do not overbook. If you have any questions, feel free to contact either Sam Nelson, smn33 at cornell.edu or myself, mike maffie, mdm283 at cornell.edu. We look forward to seeing you in Ithaca! Sam Nelson Director of Forensics Mike Maffie Assistant director of forensics Chris Langone Graduate Student Assistant Tony Liao Graduate Student Assistant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/049a33ac/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Wed Jan 14 15:36:19 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:36:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Hurricane Debates Message-ID: Looking forward to hosting you in sunny and warm South Florida! Please enter! Hotel information (they will complain, but still have rooms....) Holiday Inn, University of Miami 1350 S Dixie Hwy Coral Gables, FL 33146 (305) 667-5611 http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/miaum Rate is $119, Code is UMD David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/557b8693/attachment.htm From maffiemd at muohio.edu Wed Jan 14 16:46:47 2009 From: maffiemd at muohio.edu (Mike Maffie) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:46:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Additional Rooms at the Cornell Tournament Message-ID: There are 15 rooms available at another hotel, the Best Western. Here is the information: Best Western University Inn East Hill Plaza Ithaca, NY 14850 Fax: 607-272-1518 Phone: 607-272-6100 www.bestwesternuniversityinnithaca.com They are under the group name "CU Debate". The group discount is available for February 13th and 14th. The cost is $89/night. The cut off date for this hotel is February, 1st, 2009. Note, this is one day earlier than the previous hotel. Thanks, Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/244bf011/attachment.htm From andreareed2007 at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 18:01:11 2009 From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com (Andrea Reed) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:01:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] job postings? Message-ID: <3F853B33-3969-4931-AD63-2CFCD0452CB2@gmail.com> I remember some people asking about it last year... but is there a central place where debate job listings are posted? Looking for next year.... Andrea From oguevara at hotmail.com Wed Jan 14 18:06:55 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:06:55 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] job postings? In-Reply-To: <3F853B33-3969-4931-AD63-2CFCD0452CB2@gmail.com> References: <3F853B33-3969-4931-AD63-2CFCD0452CB2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Matt Stannard has a great web page: http://www.debatecooperative.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=0ce8037bf4622c91947a86f28e8c595d&f=45 Also, higher ed jobs.com allows you to search by forensics and debate - although you'll get many hits in criminal forensics... Good luck. OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM > From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com> To: edebate at ndtceda.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:01:11 -0500> Subject: [eDebate] job postings?> > I remember some people asking about it last year... but is there a > central place where debate job listings are posted?> > Looking for next year....> > Andrea > _______________________________________________> eDebate mailing list> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/2692e8b4/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 18:34:39 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:34:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for an old('92) CEDA publication Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901141634m438e508aq66e0c74f0babb55d@mail.gmail.com> Program Development: A Guide for New Programs in CEDA Debate," Developed in conjunction with the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) 1992 I found this listed as part of someone's CV. It is not on any official CEDA site and a google search turns up nothing. Does anybody have a copy or know how i can get one? Thanks Andy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/e8ebd58a/attachment.htm From lukephill at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 19:42:45 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:42:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern-- Waitlist and Hotel update Message-ID: Sorry for the barrage of updates. We are once again dutifully preparing in Evanston for a great event and we are really looking forward to having you all in town. 1) We are going to begin the process of adding teams from the wait list soon. In order to accommodate as many squads as possible we would urge all squads to update their entry information to reflect the teams that will actually be attending the tournament. This will give us a better idea of how many rooms we will need and how many teams we can move from the wait list. If people could do this by Thursday evening it would be a great help. 2) Be sure to update total party size and diet restrictions on the debateresults entry page, this helps plan for food allocation and many other issues. 3) Hotels- we have been informed that the Orrington has sold out our block of rooms. We are in the process of securing the Hilton Garden Inn and Best Western down the street from the Orrington at the same rate. We will send an email to edebate once those rates have been set up with full contact information. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns I can help with. Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090114/50eaf9af/attachment.htm From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Wed Jan 14 22:48:27 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:48:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Prefs Message-ID: Prefs are ready to go on debateresults. Due by 3 pm Friday Email me with any changes, questions or problems. Sarah From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Thu Jan 15 09:47:18 2009 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:47:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Drivers--a list of those who will NOT be walking to the tournament Message-ID: Everyone who's not on this list better bundle up because it's going to be cold. Also, email your info to me ASAP as my deadline has been extended to 5 pm TODAY. Thanks. In the order of people I like best (just kidding, except for maybe the first one): Thomas O'Gorman Richard Sampson Hunter Beaton Judy Goss (need your plate number) Jonathan Paul Andrew Barnes Blake Abbot Jake Weiner (this is your stuff from last year, hopefully it hasn't changed?) Scott Berry Tim O'Donnell Terrell Taylor Matt Struth Nathaniel Delano Sean Slattery Cameron MacLeod Andrew Wolf Jamie Downing David Steinberg Jacob Richter Kevin Kuswa Kelly Congdon Mark Arnold Bary Hausrath Kenny Hanson Erika Thomas Noriaki Tajima Samantha Godbey Melynda McDaniel Elizabeth Wiley Patrick Waldinger John Katsulas Max Archer RJ Green Mike Davis Joe Keeton Army (as long as you're in a DOD van with a military driver, you're good) Special props to Max Archer who wins the award for "first in"--his email was sent 38 minutes after my edebate post. Looking forward to seeing everyone! _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090115/18e2767a/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Thu Jan 15 11:23:44 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:23:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] US Universities Nationals Registration is Open Message-ID: <496F7120.9050309@uvm.edu> Registration information and comprehensive data about the tournament are now available at: http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/usu/Register.html As of January 15 2009 registration is open. Registration will close on March 25 2009. Basic Data: Team Cap: None until we reach 150 teams. N-1 judging. Consensus adjudication, oral adjudication. Special discounts for teams from beyond North America. Non-USA teams can win the tournament but only a USA team can be crowned USA National Champion. Fees: $85 per team. Bulk discounts (10 or more) available with negotiation. A limited number of judges are available at $100 each. All checks payable to ?UVM Debate.? You get: Debate briefing, judge training by Neill Harvey-Smith, six debates, two breakfasts, two lunches, awesome trophies, Saturday break night social, Sunday night survivor party, coach business/dinner, SWAG bag of freebies, shuttles from tournament hotel to campus & socials, restaurant coupons for town, snacks and surprises. Email your entry to: alfred.snider at uvm.edu Include: 1.Contact name, email, telephone. 2.Number of teams, complete names for each. 3.Judges, complete names, short experience explanation. GET ROOMS EARLY AT THE WINDJAMMER. SPECIAL RATES AND SHUTTLES FROM OTHER THAN THE WINDJAMMER CANNOT BE PROVIDED. Reservations can be made toll free at 1-800-371-1125. Please refer to Group # 405086. Please contact Doug McSweeney, Sales Manager, at 802-651-0638 or via email at doug at windjammergroup.com. YOU MUST BE IN BURLINGTON AND REGISTERED BY NOON FRIDAY APRIL 3 2009. Also, several new invitations to other tournaments in this format are now available at: http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/usu/Invites/Invites.html Let me know if yopu have questions or issues. ACS -- 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 crb012000 at utdallas.edu Thu Jan 15 11:59:24 2009 From: crb012000 at utdallas.edu (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 11:59:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Two more awards from the Texas Two Step Message-ID: I should have mentioned earlier: 1. Oklahoma Giglio & Watts won the Best Two Steppers Award for the 2009 Texas Two Step. This traveling trophy is awarded by the UNT and UTD squads to the team that gains the highest total of varsity prelim wins at both tournaments. Oklahoma GW won this year with 12 total prelim wins. Congratulations to Oklahoma! 2. Cornell HK was 4-3 in the Open Division at UT Dallas. They missed clearing to Doubles on points. Congratulations to Cornell HK for securing a winning record. Thank you to all who attended. Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ From repkowil at msu.edu Thu Jan 15 13:32:27 2009 From: repkowil at msu.edu (repkowil at msu.edu) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:32:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Why you should come to the Inauguration Debates Message-ID: <20090115143227.60171184105jcv2j@mail.msu.edu> If you are in the DC area, consider stopping by the Inauguration Debate event (on Monday). Here's the case in favor of attending: 1. It's a National Holiday, so you might not have work/classes. 2. It's an opportunity for our community to represent ourselves to the outside (non-debate) world. That's a task for more than just the debaters -- our audience is an extension of that. 3. It's kinda cool. This is more than just a debate about the Obama administration. It is an extension of an ongoing effort to try an encourage new schools into our activity. Organizers are specifically using this event to encourage debate activities amongst Historically Black Colleges and Universities that have seen support for their debate programs decline in recent years. Be there to meet people as they begin to venture in our community. 4. Aren't you curous who, from the non-debate world, will show-up ?... Better put, who is our audience right now ?... What could that audience become ?... 5. More than one ex-debater has said that they plan to show-up, so there could be something of a reunion-effect. At a minimum, reunions intrigue. If you can't attend, but know of DC debate alums that might want to attend (but d/n follow this listserv), pass on the word. Tell them Ross Smith will be there -- everyone knows Ross. Times-locations can be found from Tim's post earlier this week: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-January/077367.html Take it easy, Will -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090115/16b03fea/attachment.htm From lukephill at gmail.com Thu Jan 15 14:42:52 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:42:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Updates- Overflow Hotel Message-ID: If you cannot get rooms at the Orrington there are two overflow options we have arranged. 1) The Hilton Garden Inn- 1818 Maple Ave, Evanston, IL 60201. The group code is NDE. 2) The Best Western University Plaza, 1501 Sherman Ave, Evanston, IL 60201. Ask for the Northwestern University Debate Tournament rate. Both rates should be 115 for a double double or king set up for up to 4 people. We will be running evidence and people shuttles from both of the overflow hotels. They are also within a short walk of the Orrington. Registration, some tournament rounds and elimination rounds will all be held at the Orrington. Please let me know if you encounter any problems. Best, LH Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090115/d5371818/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Jan 15 15:12:59 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:12:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Mary Washington Message-ID: <6957B8B3183344519A68AA3A95936B22@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:District VII at the University of Mary Washington Starts:2/20/2009 Ends:2/22/2009 Hosted by: Mary Washington Contact: Tim O'Donnell Address: 1301 College Ave. Phone: 540-760-4542 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: District VII Open Policy with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu Jan 15 16:29:19 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:29:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Swing partner for Baylor needed Message-ID: <496F646002000093000232D8@mymail.kckcc.edu> KCKCC seeks a swing partner for the Baylor tournament. We are flexible on the division. Depending on the swinger, we can figure out division as I have an odd number comprised of people with both JV and Open experience. Thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Thu Jan 15 17:26:06 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:26:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Pref Sheet Changes Message-ID: Judge drop, no Stephen Davis. Double check your prefs sheets for adjusted numbers. Sarah From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Thu Jan 15 20:32:10 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:32:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Final Updates Message-ID: 1. Registration - On campus at the Honor's House from 7 - 10pm Directions - Turn North out of hotel onto Hwy 27/Park Street (from Jameson that's a right, from Hampton/Holiday Inn that's a left). Follow to light at Maple Street, turn left. Immediately after the 4th stoplight turn right into Honor's House parking lot. The house is a large white house with a big lawn between the 4th and 5th stoplights on the far end of campus. If you've been to the tournament 100 times and you know what the bypass is then get on it, take it to Maple street, turn right. The Honor's house would be between the first and second stoplights coming onto campus from that direction. If you are at another hotel location email me for help or ask the front desk, its a small town. 2. Prefs - These teams have missing or incomplete prefs. Please finalize by 3pm tomorrow. Vanderbilt Towson Northwestern BP Richmond North Texas Missouri State HH and HS Kentucky DS and GO From luvmarissa at hotmail.com Fri Jan 16 07:51:19 2009 From: luvmarissa at hotmail.com (Marissa Silber) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:51:19 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Need to hire some VERY last minute West Georgia judging - PLEASE HELP! Message-ID: Unfortunately I received the dreaded "I am sick and can't travel" phone call this morning from my judge Gerald K. (I hope he feels better) and now I am short enough judges to cover Florida's commitment this weekend at West Georgia. At the bare minimum, I need to hire 3 rounds of judging to cover our commitment - although if you want to get hired for more rounds than the 3 rounds I need so I now don't have to judge all 7, my sanity would be forever grateful and I would be more than glad to make that happen. Please email me back ASAP if you can pick up at least 1 round for us - we will pay you 30 dollars a round (It will probably be check since it is so last minute at this point but i will try and get cash). Please let me know if you can help! I really appreciate it in advance - I really don't want to have to leave one of my teams here because of this! Thanks, Marissa luvmarissa at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090116/abf51b24/attachment.htm From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Fri Jan 16 10:34:46 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:34:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Incomplete WestGa Prefs Message-ID: Pretty close to complete - These teams have started but need to finalize numbers - North Texas - both teams Towson - both teams Pref entry closes at 3pm Thanks Sarah From shahall at comcast.net Fri Jan 16 12:21:04 2009 From: shahall at comcast.net (Sherry Hall) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:21:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Subscriptions Message-ID: <013b01c97807$317d76e0$6c02a8c0@PowerspecPc> I just received the updated list from the AFA that includes everyone who paid their NDT subscription fees on the AFA website and that sent checks to me this week. I believe that this is the final list of schools that have subscribed and are thus eligibile to participate in the District Qualification Tournaments and the National Debate Tournament for this year. If you believe that you have paid and are not on this list, please email me immediately. Thanks, Sherry Hall Treasurer NDT 2008-2009 Subscribers Appalachian State University Arizona State University Baylor University Binghamton University Boston College California Polytechnic University California State University @ Chico California State University @ Fullerton California State University @ Northridge Cameron University Case Western Reserve University City University of New York Clarion College Columbia University Concordia College Cornell University Dartmouth College East Los Angeles College Eastern New Mexico University Emory University Emporia University Florida State University George Mason University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia State University Gonzaga University Harvard University Idaho State University Illinois College Illinois State University James Madison University John Carroll University Johnson County Community College Kansas City Kansas Community College Kansas State University Liberty University Macalaster College Marist College Methodist University Michigan State University Missouri State University New York University Northwestern University Pepperdine University Redlands Sacramento State University Samford University San Francisco State University Southern Methodist University Stanford University Towson University Trinity University United States Military Academy United States Naval Academy University of California @ Berkeley University of California @ Los Angeles University of Central Oklahoma University of Denver University of Florida University of Georgia University of Houston University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Louisiana @ Lafayette University of Louisville University of Mary Washington University of Miami - Ohio University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri @ Kansas City University of Nevada @ Las Vegas University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Oklahoma University of Pittsburgh University of Richmond University of Rochester University of Southern California University of Texas @ Austin University of Texas @ Dallas University of Texas @ San Antonio University of Tulsa University of Vermont University of West Georgia University of Wyoming Vanderbilt University Wake Forest University Wayne State University Weber State West Virginia Western Connecticut State University Whitman College Wichita State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090116/24d13637/attachment.htm From spowers at usc.edu Fri Jan 16 13:14:40 2009 From: spowers at usc.edu (Shawn Powers) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:14:40 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CSIS's PONI Debates the Issues (PDTI) blog Message-ID: <36A4FE48-B4C2-4AFE-8F7A-8027A1568B66@usc.edu> Hi All, Here is a plug for the recently launched CSIS's PONI (Project on Nuclear Issues) Debates the Issues (PDTI) blog, located on the World Wide Web at < http://forums.csis.org/poni/ >. As far as I can tell, this is an all-you-need-to-know on nuclear issues website and a tremendous resource for research and staying up to date with nuclear news. Two former debaters are involved in the effort: Chris Jones and Jessica Yeats. Forwarded from recently promoted to Research Assistant on the PONI project, Chris Jones: > I wanted to write to inform you about CSIS's PONI Debates the Issues > (PDTI) blog that went live yesterday. Given debaters propensity for > talking about nuclear weapons, albeit perhaps a bit less on an > agricultural subsidies topic, the blog can serve as an excellent > resource for keeping up to date on important nuclear developments > and get involved in debate and discussion with people from all > across the nuclear community. The blog will also feature an "Ask > the Ambassador" section where blog members can submit questions to > Ambassador Linton Brooks and see his response. Additionally, the > blog will feature the"PONI Reference Desk" which will provide links > to important nuclearinformation. To join the blog simply go to http://forums.csis.org/poni/ > and registration is located in the left column. You can also sign > up to have updates sent directly to your e-mail through our > FeedBurner service. See you all soon./CJ sp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090116/917d610b/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Fri Jan 16 18:44:01 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:44:01 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 14th Annual Val Browning Round Robin @ Weber State - Pairings Message-ID: 14th Annual Val Browning Round Robin @ Weber State University January 17th-18th, 2009 Hampton Inn & Suites, Historic Downtown Ogden Saturday, January 17th Round 1 (Round STARTS at 8:30 AM) Room Affirmative Negative Critic 304 Denver v. Gonzaga Cheek, RyanOlympic Board Room Weber v. Fullerton Crowe, Chris204 Whitman v. Idaho State Dunn, IzakWeber Room Wyoming v. Columbia Dekeyzer, Aaron Round 2 (Round STARTS ay 11:00 AM) Room Affirmative Negative Critic 304 Columbia v. Denver Dunn, Izak204 Fullerton v. Whitman Klosterboer, NichelleWeber Room Gonzaga v. Wyoming Montano, FrankOlympic Board Room Idaho State v. Weber Hardy, Aaron Round 3 (Round STARTS at 2:30 PM) Room Affirmative Negative Critic 204 Columbia v Fullerton Cheek, Ryan304 Gonzaga v. Idaho State Foy, JohnOlympic Board Room Weber v. Denver Dekeyzer, AaronWeber Room Wyoming v. Whitman Tews, Richard Round 4 (Round STARTS at 5:00 PM) Room Affirmative Negative Critic Weber Room Denver v. Wyoming Guevara, Veronica304 Fullerton v. Gonzaga Hardy, Aaron204 Idaho State v. Columbia Schrader, BrianOlympic Board Room Whitman v. Weber Montano, Frank Sunday, January 18th Round 5 (Round STARTS at 10:30 AM) Room Affirmative Negative Critic Weber Room Gonzaga v. Weber Nielson, ToniOlympic Board Room Idaho State v. Denver Crowe, Chris 304 Wyoming v. Fullerton Dunn, Izak204 Whitman v. Columbia Foy, John Round 6 (Round STARTS at 2:00 PM) Room Affirmative Negative Critic 304 Denver v. Whitman Nielson, ToniOlympic Board Room Fullerton v. Idaho State Montano, Frank 204 Columbia v. Gonzaga Crowe, Chris Weber Room Weber v. Wyoming Odekirk, Scott Round 7 (Round STARTS at 4:30 PM) -- FLIP FOR SIDES no later than 400 PM-- Room Affirmative Negative Critic 204 Gonzaga v. Whitman Schrader, Brian304 Wyoming v Idaho State Nielson, Toni Olympic Board Room Denver v. Fullerton Guevara, Omar Weber Room Columbia v. Weber Klosterboer, Nichelle Important Announcements Lunch in the Bonaventure Room @ 1:15 PM on Saturday, and 1:00 PM on Sunday Dinner in the Bonaventure Room @ 7:30 PM on Saturday, and 7:00 PM Sunday Politics, Sports, and the largest private collection of HST artwork in Northern Utah at the Coach?s and Judge?s Lounge (open all weekend!): Call 801-391-6614 for a free ride anytime (please leave the driving to us!) and enter through the backyard rear entrance. DO NOT KNOCK on the front door and wake up Omarcito or Amaia J. A social evening for our competitors! Saturday night after Round 4. Call 435-650-3635 for more information and a free ride (don?t drive, we insist on it!) Respect our friends at the Hampton Inn & Suites, and Respect those who work at Ogden?s finest downtown hotel. Do not smoke in your room. Do not smoke in the lobby. Do not smoke ANYWHERE but outside and on the north-side of the building. Do not expect any mercy if you violate this common sense and completely obvious policy. JUDGES: Please do not disclose your decision at then end of the round. Results will be read at the award ceremony on Sunday night. Weber State University Debate, The Department of Communication, and The College of Arts & Humanities at Weber State University would like to thank the Val Browning Foundation for their continued support of excellence in competitive academic debate. The Val Browning Round Robin is the nation?s second oldest intercollegiate round robin, established in 1994. Over the past 14 years, the ?Val? (as it is commonly known in the collegiate debate community) has drawn some of the finest college debate in the nation. Please read more about the history of the Val Browning Round Robin at: www.weberdebate.com/valbrowningrr.htm Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090116/c5b3278f/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Fri Jan 16 18:45:47 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:45:47 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 14th Annual Val Browning Round Robin - Pairings (Attachment) Message-ID: Open the attachment for a cleaner read. My best, 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 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090116/91383898/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Val Browning Pairings 2009.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 39936 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090116/91383898/attachment.obj From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Fri Jan 16 19:07:50 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:07:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 14th Annual Val Browning Round Robin @ Weber State - Pairings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c09a80901161707p48dd674cp46087bde8c107efe@mail.gmail.com> good luck to this year's participants! - ozzy, Val Browning RR '04/05 (5-3, missed on points obv) On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:44 PM, omar guevara wrote: > *14th Annual Val Browning Round Robin @ Weber State University* > > January 17th-18th, 2009 > > Hampton Inn & Suites, Historic Downtown Ogden > > > > > > > > *Saturday, January 17th* > > > > Round 1 (Round STARTS at 8:30 AM) > > > > *Room* *Affirmative* > *Negative* *Critic* > > 304 Denver v. > Gonzaga Cheek, Ryan > Olympic Board Room Weber v. > Fullerton Crowe, Chris > 204 Whitman v. > Idaho State Dunn, Izak > Weber Room Wyoming v. Columbia > Dekeyzer, Aaron > > Round 2 (Round STARTS ay 11:00 AM) > > > > *Room* *Affirmative* > *Negative* *Critic* > > 304 Columbia v. > Denver Dunn, Izak > 204 Fullerton v. > Whitman Klosterboer, Nichelle > Weber Room Gonzaga v. Wyoming > Montano, Frank > Olympic Board Room Idaho State v. Weber > Hardy, Aaron > > Round 3 (Round STARTS at 2:30 PM) > > > > *Room* *Affirmative* > *Negative* *Critic* > > 204 Columbia v > Fullerton Cheek, Ryan > 304 Gonzaga v. > Idaho State Foy, John > Olympic Board Room Weber v. Denver > Dekeyzer, Aaron > Weber Room Wyoming v. > Whitman Tews, Richard > > Round 4 (Round STARTS at 5:00 PM) > > > > *Room* *Affirmative* > *Negative* *Critic* > > Weber Room Denver v. > Wyoming Guevara, Veronica > 304 Fullerton v. > Gonzaga Hardy, Aaron > 204 Idaho State v. > Columbia Schrader, Brian > Olympic Board Room Whitman v. Weber > Montano, Frank > > > *Sunday, January 18th* > > > Round 5 (Round STARTS at 10:30 AM) > > > > *Room* *Affirmative* > *Negative* *Critic* > > Weber Room Gonzaga v. > Weber Nielson, Toni > Olympic Board Room Idaho State v. Denver > Crowe, Chris > 304 Wyoming v. > Fullerton Dunn, Izak > 204 Whitman v. > Columbia Foy, John > > > Round 6 (Round STARTS at 2:00 PM) > > > > *Room* *Affirmative* > *Negative* *Critic* > > 304 Denver v. > Whitman Nielson, Toni > Olympic Board Room Fullerton v. Idaho > State Montano, Frank > 204 Columbia v. > Gonzaga Crowe, Chris > Weber Room Weber v. > Wyoming Odekirk, Scott > > Round 7 (Round STARTS at 4:30 PM) -- FLIP FOR SIDES no later > than 400 PM-- > > > > *Room* *Affirmative* > *Negative* *Critic* > > 204 Gonzaga v. > Whitman Schrader, Brian > 304 Wyoming v > Idaho State Nielson, Toni > Olympic Board Room Denver v. Fullerton > Guevara, Omar > > Weber Room Columbia v. Weber > Klosterboer, Nichelle > > > > > > > > *Important Announcements* > > * * > > 1. Lunch in the *Bonaventure Room* @ 1:15 PM on Saturday, and 1:00 PM > on Sunday > 2. Dinner in the *Bonaventure Room* @ 7:30 PM on Saturday, and 7:00 PM > Sunday > 3. Politics, Sports, and the largest private collection of HST artwork > in Northern Utah at the Coach's and Judge's Lounge (open all weekend!): Call > *801-391-6614* for a *free ride* anytime (please leave the driving to > us!) and enter through the backyard rear entrance. *DO NOT KNOCK* on > the front door and wake up Omarcito or Amaia J. > 4. A social evening for our competitors! Saturday night after Round 4. > Call 435-650-3635 for more information and a free ride (don't drive, we > insist on it!) > 5. Respect our friends at the Hampton Inn & Suites, and Respect those > who work at Ogden's finest downtown hotel. Do *not* smoke in your > room. Do *not* smoke in the lobby. Do *not* smoke ANYWHERE but outside > and on the north-side of the building. Do *not* expect any mercy if you > violate this common sense and completely obvious policy. > 6. *JUDGES: Please do not disclose your decision at then end of the > round*. Results will be read at the award ceremony on Sunday night. > > > > > > > > > > Weber State University Debate, The Department of Communication, and The > College of Arts & Humanities at Weber State University would like to thank > the Val Browning Foundation for their continued support of excellence in > competitive academic debate. The Val Browning Round Robin is the nation's > second oldest intercollegiate round robin, established in 1994. Over the > past 14 years, the "Val" (as it is commonly known in the collegiate debate > community) has drawn some of the finest college debate in the nation. Please > read more about the history of the Val Browning Round Robin at: > > > > www.weberdebate.com/valbrowningrr.htm > > > Omar G Guevara II > Director of Forensics > Department of Communication > College of Arts & Humanities > Weber State University > Ogden, Utah > > 801.626.6220 (Office) > 801.668.6910 (Cell) > > Oguevara at hotmail.com > Oguevara at weber.edu > > > PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090116/789ecce1/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Jan 17 11:56:02 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:56:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need Navy Judging Message-ID: <9a7f6f740901170956u34e1ebdt48f6b7e466b5d696@mail.gmail.com> Does anyone have some rounds for sale at Navy? Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090117/cae8c532/attachment.htm From luvmarissa at hotmail.com Sat Jan 17 13:50:17 2009 From: luvmarissa at hotmail.com (Marissa Silber) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:50:17 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Job Opening: Director of Debate - University of Florida Message-ID: Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have about the position. Marissa Silber University of Florida Dial Center for Written & Oral Communication Position Vacancy Director of Debate/Speech Lecturer Position: Full time faculty position with benefits. This will be an annual renewable term contract position. Master?s degree required for appointment. Position begins Fall semester, 2009. Duties & Responsibilities: Individual will be responsible for directing the policy debate program, coaching and traveling with the debaters to regional and national tournaments, coordinating duties for debate graduate assistant/s, hosting the annual Gator Invitational Debate Tournament, establishing recruiting initiatives, organizing research efforts for the team, and perform some minor administrative duties. Teaching duties will include 3-6 credits/semester from such courses as: Argumentation, Public Speaking, Speaking & Writing in the Disciplines (Prelaw, Public Leadership, Political Science), selected upper division oral and/or written communication courses, and other courses in the candidate?s area of specialty. Summer school teaching for additional compensation is possible pending funding. Participation in Center projects and involvement in college-wide activities is also expected. Selection Criteria: 1. Must demonstrate excellence in classroom teaching. Graduate assistantships or adjunct teaching appointments are appropriate. 2. Must demonstrate preparation and experience in teaching public speaking or other related oral or written communication courses. 3. Must demonstrate ability to coach college level policy debate. 4. Must possess Master?s degree in Speech Communication or related field (for example: Journalism, English, Political Science, Law, etc) completed by August 16, 2009. Salary & Benefits: Salary is dependent on qualification and level of experience. UF provides several retirement plan choices and a health insurance package with a family coverage option for a nominal fee. Also offered are a variety of supplemental plans. Additionally, after 6 months of employment, the Employee Education Program is available for those interested in pursuing additional graduate work. This program covers tuition for many courses offered at UF. The UF Speech & Debate Team: The 30+ member integrated Speech and Debate team at UF shares an annual travel budget averaging $37,000 each year. This financial support comes from several sources including student activities fees, administration, and a very supportive group of alumni. At present there are no scholarships available to our students and, because we are funded in part by UF?s student government, we are a walk-on team. However, students from high school programs continue to seek us out and on average there are four active policy teams on the squad. The team travels extensively during the academic year to regional and national tournaments. The team is associated with the following organizations: NDT, CEDA, and AFA-NIET. For more information see http://www.cwoc.ufl.edu/debate/. The Dial Center: 13 full-time and 15 part-time faculty or graduate teaching/coaching assistants. Five faculty members comprise our writing division while the remainder teach courses in oral communication. While no major currently exists in our program, we do offer a minor in Communication Studies and teach over 1200 students each semester who are required to take our courses for their varied majors. For more information regarding the Center, go to our webpage at www.cwoc.ufl.edu. Deadlines: Applications will be accepted until March 1, 2009. File review will begin immediately. Application: Refer to jobs.ufl.edu, position #00007018, for required on-line application. Then, send letter of application, resume, transcripts and three letters of recommendation to: Kellie W. Roberts, Director University of Florida Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication PO Box 112032 Gainesville, FL 32611 phone: 352/392-5421 x22 FAX: 352/392-5420 e-mail: robertsk at ufl.edu _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090117/c33bfbe3/attachment.htm From danielle.wiese at gmail.com Sat Jan 17 17:44:24 2009 From: danielle.wiese at gmail.com (Danielle Wiese) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:44:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking Cites: Fear of Death Message-ID: <640092800901171544h45128112g6e74bbc0f609acaa@mail.gmail.com> Hey folks- I have a student working on a senior thesis project and I'd like to pass along to him some citations for death anxiety/fear of death bad (he's been reading a lot of Ernest Becker) Thanks much for the help. Danielle Wiese -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090117/c2831549/attachment.htm From npaqueo at gmu.edu Sat Jan 17 19:29:05 2009 From: npaqueo at gmu.edu (Niccolo Cortes Paqueo) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:29:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] List of teams clearing at the George Mason Tournament Message-ID: Teams Clearing in Open: JMU CF (Shruti Chaganti and Tori Federwisch) JCU LS (Andy Labuza and Chris Schroeder) Mary Washington DS (Nathaniel Delano and Ben Saunders) Mary Washington GS (Amanda Gardner and Andrew Snyder-Beattie) Mary Washington SS (Sean Slattery and Peter Susko) Rutgers CP (Kevin Cenac and Chris Pinho) Teams Clearing in JV: Mary Washington GL (Aff)v. JMU ES Teams Clearing in Novice: Clarion FF (Briana Fierst and Nichole Flick) Clarion PS (Braden Picardi and Emily Salim) JMU AW (Tuba Ahmed and Mark Waugh) JCU NV (Katie Nowak and CHris Vasquez) Liberty AE (Joshua Armstrong and Maria Eller) Liberty CS (Min Cho and Jake Shelton) Liberty DT (Melanie Darling and Beau Troxclair) Liberty KT (Hannah Krieg and Tiera Thompson) Liberty LT (Kate Lacaze and Chelsea Thompson) All Judges are obligated 1 round past their teams' elimination from the tournament. From racastremus at gmail.com Sun Jan 18 09:54:54 2009 From: racastremus at gmail.com (Tom Gliniecki) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:54:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga HJ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Could one of you contact me please? I have a cite request. -Tom MSU Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090118/f61dcd61/attachment.htm From johntheempire at gmail.com Sun Jan 18 18:47:31 2009 From: johntheempire at gmail.com (John Cook) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:47:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Cite Requst: Trinity BH - Tragic Farmer Message-ID: <5bfb770b0901181647l25671057k9f1f6151fadaa4bc@mail.gmail.com> Could you all respond with the cites for your "tragic farmer" argument (particularly the block card about university participants) from round 5 of UTD against Baylor CM? If you would rather post them to the wiki, that would be actually be preferable. Thanks, John Cook. johntheempiregmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090118/8b2dec06/attachment.htm From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Sun Jan 18 20:15:43 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:15:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judges - West Georgia Octas Message-ID: 7am - Panels released, rooms open, coffee, etc. 8am - Octas Begin Judges - Mancuso Ed Lee Hays Watson Josh Gonzalez James Herndon Scott Harris Calum Matheson John Turner Eric Morris Aaron Kall Heather Walters Galloway Keenan Kade Olsen JP Lacy Martin Osborn Harrigan Hamraie From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Sun Jan 18 20:18:50 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:18:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga - Teams Clearing Message-ID: 7am - Panels released, rooms open, coffee, etc. All rounds Humanities second floor 8am - Octas Begin In Order - 1. Kansas BJ 2. Emory SW 3. Georgia CS 4. Emory IP 5. Wake CC 6. Oklahoma GW 7. North Texas CP 8. Dartmouth AH 9. Wake SS 10.Miss State FW 11.Oklahoma KT 12. Northwestern MS 13. Wake MS 14. Georgia BL 15. Samford BG 16. Georgia HW From brittleach17 at gmail.com Sun Jan 18 21:20:39 2009 From: brittleach17 at gmail.com (Brittany Leach) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:20:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Cite Request: UTSA MT Message-ID: Hey, Can I get the cites to the heteronormativity/counter-publics argument you two broke at UNT, and any other new neg args that aren't on the wiki? Thanks, Brittany Leach -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090118/1dd5d41f/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Sun Jan 18 22:44:36 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:44:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Val Browning Round Robin @ Weber State, Final Results Message-ID: We just finished the reading of the ballots at the award banquet: 1. University of Wyoming (Sam/Jamie) 6-1 2. Gonzaga University (Jim/Paul) 6-1 3. Columbia University (Shree/John) 5-2 Not receiving an award, but posting a winning record: 4. Weber State University (Stacy/Shola) 5-2 Speaker Awards: 5. Tyler Warner, University of Denver 4. Stacy Dawson, Weber State University 3. Spencer Jaynk, Whitman College 2. Jamie Cheek, University of Wyoming And your TOP Speaker at the 2009 Val Browning Round Robin...... 1. SAM ALLEN from the University of Wyoming!! The coach of the year award went to Brian Schrader from the University of Denver. The Browning, along with all of us, foundation would like to thank Brian for his years of service to our community. Congrats to the Cowboys for winning their third Val in the past five years! Good Times in Ogden, 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 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090118/01a777eb/attachment.htm From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Sun Jan 18 23:22:05 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 00:22:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Val Browning Round Robin @ Weber State, Final Results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c09a80901182122o6d21d6d5sc61259fb6ed7e41f@mail.gmail.com> congratulations to wyoming ozzy p.s. weber ss i feel for ya! On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:44 PM, omar guevara wrote: > We just finished the reading of the ballots at the award banquet: > > 1. University of Wyoming (Sam/Jamie) 6-1 > 2. Gonzaga University (Jim/Paul) 6-1 > 3. Columbia University (Shree/John) 5-2 > > Not receiving an award, but posting a winning record: > > 4. Weber State University (Stacy/Shola) 5-2 > > Speaker Awards: > > 5. Tyler Warner, University of Denver > 4. Stacy Dawson, Weber State University > 3. Spencer Jaynk, Whitman College > 2. Jamie Cheek, University of Wyoming > > And your TOP Speaker at the 2009 Val Browning Round Robin...... > > 1. SAM ALLEN from the University of Wyoming!! > > The coach of the year award went to Brian Schrader from the University of > Denver. The Browning, along with all of us, foundation would like to thank > Brian for his years of service to our community. > > Congrats to the Cowboys for winning their third Val in the past five years! > > Good Times in Ogden, > > 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 > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. Check it out. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/320f7049/attachment.htm From christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 11:16:12 2009 From: christopher.scott.thomas at gmail.com (Christopher Thomas) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:16:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Coaches Message-ID: <2d622bfb0901190916k376571fcr26487d39a84044da@mail.gmail.com> Could one of the coaches from Baylor back Channel me when possible.Thank you in advance. -- Christopher Thomas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/9fce90f2/attachment.htm From kenrjohnson at msn.com Mon Jan 19 11:18:53 2009 From: kenrjohnson at msn.com (Ken Johnson) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:18:53 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Extra Rooms @ UMass Tournament -- Do you want them? Message-ID: I'm going to drop a few rooms @ the Econo Lodge @ Umass unless somebody else wants rooms at the block rate. Lemme know, Ken Rochester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/7488cd96/attachment.htm From mphall at liberty.edu Mon Jan 19 14:21:16 2009 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:21:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Judging Message-ID: <17328617EA180D4AAEFC0852B21B61F4063B51465F@LUEMS01VS.University.liberty.edu> We have extra judging available if anyone needs it. mph [cid:image003.jpg at 01C97A49.9226FE00] Michael P. Hall Director of Debate Liberty University 1971 University Blvd. Lynchburg, VA 24502 Ph: (434) 582-2080 Fx: (434) 582-2113 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/18498bbd/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2676 bytes Desc: image003.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/18498bbd/attachment.jpg From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 14:43:07 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:43:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Packet Message-ID: packet attached -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Packet.txt Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/27d6705e/attachment.txt From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 14:52:33 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:52:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Elim Results Message-ID: ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS Kansas (univ. Of) BJ (Aff) defeated Georgia HW 3-0 Kall, Keenan, Galloway, Emory SW (Aff) defeated Samford BG 3-0 Gonzalez, Morris, Walters, H Georgia CS advances over Georgia BL Wake Forest MS (Neg) defeated Emory IP 3-0 Watson, Matheson, Turner, Northwestern MS (Neg) defeated Wake Forest CC 3-0 Osborn, Olsen, Mancuso, S Oklahoma GW Advances Over Oklahoma KT North Texas (univ.) CP (Aff) defeated Missouri State FW 2-1 Lacy, Harrigan, *Hamraie, Wake Forest SS (Neg) defeated Dartmouth AH 2-1 Lee, *Herndon, Harris, QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Kansas (univ. Of) BJ (Neg) defeated Wake Forest SS 3-0 Morris, Er Herndon, J Osborn North Texas (univ.) CP (Aff) defeated Emory SW 2-1 Harris, *Watson, H Whitmore, Oklahoma GW (Aff) defeated Georgia CS 2-1 *Hamraie, Petit, Hill Wake Forest MS (Aff) defeated Northwestern MS 2-1 Matheson, Lee, *Olsen SEMIFINAL ROUND - Underway Wake Forest MS & Kansas (univ. Of) BJ Herndon, J Lee, Ed Watson, Ha North Texas (univ.) CP Oklahoma GW Gonzalez, Harris, Sc Koehle, Jo From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Jan 19 15:12:37 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:12:37 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] seeking judging for northwestern Message-ID: <93A9AC579DEA4500B39AE2683FACCA94@whitman.edu> we need judging at northwestern. I am paying $30 per round. please email me. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/c412bab5/attachment.htm From christy.webster at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 16:32:17 2009 From: christy.webster at gmail.com (Christy Webster) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:32:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] John Carroll Novice Case Sites Message-ID: <59b051810901191432h32879725s5f63f06ef70af1ef@mail.gmail.com> Can someone from John Carroll please back channel me with the plan text and cites for your Novice team JCU NV (Katie Nowak and CHris Vasquez)'s Aff or post the sites to the wiki for the Aff(s) they are running / ran at GMU? I don't see them on the wiki. Thanks. -- Best, Christy Webster Army Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/2444af3e/attachment.htm From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 18:06:50 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:06:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Finals Message-ID: In the final lap of the race for the ridiculous novelty check - Kansas v. North Texas Gonzalez, Lacy, Lundeen From james.maritato at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 20:33:03 2009 From: james.maritato at gmail.com (James Maritato) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:33:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Elections/Winter Ballot Results? Message-ID: Anyone know when we can expect these? Thanks, -JM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/c243c071/attachment.htm From jrlyle at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 20:58:19 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:58:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion interested in judging for Navy Message-ID: <25fd497f0901191858m657af993t1f48c2edd1e3b7d1@mail.gmail.com> Pay cash. Let me know if interested. Jim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090119/1ded9f2b/attachment.htm From stevendamico at gmail.com Mon Jan 19 21:10:00 2009 From: stevendamico at gmail.com (Steven D'Amico) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 22:10:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion interested in judging for Navy In-Reply-To: <25fd497f0901191858m657af993t1f48c2edd1e3b7d1@mail.gmail.com> References: <25fd497f0901191858m657af993t1f48c2edd1e3b7d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I have rounds. What you need? D'Amico On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 9:58 PM, James Lyle wrote: > Pay cash. Let me know if interested. > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090119/962f84e1/attachment.htm From debatekorea at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 01:22:38 2009 From: debatekorea at hotmail.com (Jason Jarvis) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:22:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Seoul National University, Tenure Track PHD jobs In-Reply-To: <1232435883.59518365@192.168.1.70> References: <1232435883.59518365@192.168.1.70> Message-ID: Seoul National University seeks two people for tenure track jobs. the application deadline has passed, but they are still reviewing applications. Contact them (not me) directly about the job. The announcement is attached in the PDF. Jason Jarvis KDI School Seoul, Korea Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:18:03 +0900 Subject: SNU Communications/Debate Opening From: ehumphrey at idebate.org To: loganimal at gmail.com; debatekorea at hotmail.com Hey Logan, Here's the job announcement for the SNU position I talked about. They're looking at hiring two (potentially three) tenure-track professors, with one professor also responsible for heading a debate program. Jason, I don't know if you know anyone who is interested-- but I spoke with the dean of SNU last month, and I believe they're still reviewing applications for this. Best wishes, Elizabeth Elizabeth Humphrey IDEA Program Coordinator www.idebate.org phone from Korea: 02.2646.7659 ext. 157 phone from outside Korea: (+82) 2.2646.7659 ext. 157 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090120/458253d7/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SNU Job Announcement.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49342 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090120/458253d7/attachment.pdf From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Tue Jan 20 07:22:26 2009 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 07:22:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NWstrn Judging for UTSA Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCAD73E63@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> UTSA is seeking four rounds of judging at Northwestern. We are offering $30 per round, cash at tournament. skip eno -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090120/05b2beae/attachment.htm From tomogorman at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 13:31:47 2009 From: tomogorman at gmail.com (Thomas O'Gorman) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:31:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Entry and Prefs Message-ID: <462619de0901201131s45ae5b61t5e4b9e0f271342a0@mail.gmail.com> Entry on debate results will close tomorrow at 3 p.m. If you need to enter after that please send me an email at tomogorman at gmail.com Prefs will be active some time early in the afternoon of Thursday and will stay open through 10 a.m. on Friday. Hope to see y'all soon. "[T]he way to make your fate your choice is to choose it, fearlessly, your lungs drinking the air. It makes the gods ashamed." -- Elizabeth Cook, Achilles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090120/18f819d4/attachment.htm From sholbrook.debate at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 14:11:54 2009 From: sholbrook.debate at gmail.com (Sarah Holbrook) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:11:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Ga Final Results & Speaker Awards Message-ID: Thanks to everyone for joining us in Carrollton, we enjoyed hosting you. Thanks also to Adorno & Yoss for their incredible support of our tournament and college debate in general. Their generosity allowed us to offer outstanding hospitality to all participants and cash prizes to the top ten speakers and the tournament champion. They were also on hand during the tournament to speak to interested debaters about law school/careers in general and opportunities available with their firm. We look forward to working with them in the future and thank them again for their support of college debate! Congrats to Kansas, tournament champion and recipients of two giant novelty checks for sweeping top speaker and winner. We promise your real checks are in the mail! Congrats to North Texas for a great tournament, they gave Kansas a serious run for the money in the finals. Speakers - 1. Brett Bricker - Kansas - $1000 2. Stephen Weil - Emory - $900 3. Kuntal Cholera - UNT - $800 4. Nate Johnson - Kansas - $700 5. Rob Mulholland - Northwestern - $600 6. Seungwon Chung - Wake - $500 7. Doowon Chung - Wake - $400 8. Logan Gramzinski - Samfiord - $300 9. RJ Giglio - Oklahoma - $200 10. Stephanie Spies - Northwesten - $100 11. Nick Watts - Oklahoma 12. Brittney Cambre - Georgia 13. Caroline Harkins - Dartmouth 14. Adam Schmidt - Georgia 15. Pradeep Pramanik - Emory 16. Matt Senghas - Emory 17. Carlos Maza - Wake 18. Shane Avidan - Dartmouth 19. Mike Lacy - Georgia 20. Lauren Sabino - Wake OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS Kansas (univ. Of) BJ (Aff) defeated Georgia HW 3-0 Kall, Keenan, Galloway, Emory SW (Aff) defeated Samford BG 3-0 Gonzalez, Morris, Walters, H Georgia CS advances over Georgia BL Wake Forest MS (Neg) defeated Emory IP 3-0 Watson, Matheson, Turner, Northwestern MS (Neg) defeated Wake Forest CC 3-0 Osborn, Olsen, Mancuso, S Oklahoma GW Advances Over Oklahoma KT North Texas (univ.) CP (Aff) defeated Missouri State FW 2-1 Lacy, Harrigan, *Hamraie, Wake Forest SS (Neg) defeated Dartmouth AH 2-1 Lee, *Herndon, Harris, QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Kansas (univ. Of) BJ (Neg) defeated Wake Forest SS 3-0 Morris, Er Herndon, J Osborn North Texas (univ.) CP (Aff) defeated Emory SW 2-1 Harris, *Watson, H Whitmore, Oklahoma GW (Aff) defeated Georgia CS 2-1 *Hamraie, Petit, Hill Wake Forest MS (Aff) defeated Northwestern MS 2-1 Matheson, Lee, *Olsen SEMIFINAL ROUND - Kansas defeats Wake Forest MS - Herndon, J Lee, Ed Watson, Ha North Texas CP defeats Oklahoma GW Gonzalez, Harris, Sc Koehle, Jo Finals - Kansas defeats North Texas - Gonzalez, Lacy, Lundeen From gregachten at berkeley.edu Tue Jan 20 14:40:11 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:40:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Cal Tournament Entries Closing Message-ID: <55514.98.207.95.29.1232484011.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> If you are planning on attending the Cal tournament and have yet to register at debateresults.com, please do so today. I plan to close our entries and activate judge prefs tonight. I think that everyone who I talked to that was planning on coming has entered, but I just wanted to be certain. Greg From jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu Tue Jan 20 15:06:24 2009 From: jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu (Patterson, J W) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:06:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC QUALS: WHITMAN, WESTMINSTER, BRONX Message-ID: NOTE: NEW HOTEL FOR THE 2009 TOC HOLIDAY INN NORTH 1950 Newtown Pike PHONE: 859--233--0512 Room Rate: $95+ tax /per night (up to 4 in a room) WHITMAN Jim Hanson, director of the Whitman University invitational, has certified the TOC qualifiers for 2009. Whitman is a TOC qualifier in both Policy and LDat the finals level. POLICY Dakota Alcantara-Comacho and Stephanie Permut, Mercer IS.(WA) Katie Mcconell and Deidre Nelms, Boise, (ID) LINCOLN DOUGLAS Lizzie Sivitz, Bainbridge, (WA) Lauren Greenawalt, Bainbridge, (WA) WESTMINSTER Jenny Heidt, director of the Westminster invitational, has certified the TOC qualifiers for 2009. Westminster is a TOC qualifier in Policy at the final level. POLICY Adam Kostrinsky & Sean Robinson, Chattahoochee High School, (GA) + Megan Cambre & Richie Choy -- Chattahoochee High School, (GA} BRONX THE NEW YORK CITY INVITATIONAL (BRONX SCIENCE) Jon Cruz, director of the New York City Invitational at the Bronx High School of Science, has certified the 2008 TOC qualifiers. The New York City Invitational is a TOC qualifier in Lincoln-Douglas debate at the quarterfinal level, policy debate at the semifinal level, Public Forum debate at the quarterfinal level (given its field size), and Student Congress at the Top Six level. LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE Jake Nebel, Trinity Prep (FL) Paul Tyger, Strake Jesuit (TX) Daniel Garber, Mountain View (CA) Nikita Lalwani, Scarsdale (NY) Christian Keil, Lakeville South (MN) Ken Hershey, Scarsdale (NY) Tess McNulty, Millburn (NJ) Alex Bores, Hunter College (NY) POLICY DEBATE Mia Kunst & Alexandra Evans, Georgetown Day (DC) Nikhil Bontha & Robert Baldwin, Newburgh Free (NY) Jamiluddin Ahmed & Joshua Gonzalez, University (NJ) Lee Quinn & Gabrielle Tandet, Mountain Brook (AL) PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE William Schreiber & Amanda Claire Grayson, Mountain Brook (AL) Daniel Ehrlich & James Krellenstein, Paul D. Schreiber (NY) Max Elder & Luke Elder, Manchester Essex (MA) Itai Farhi & Tom Niblock, Walt Whitman (MD) Jeanine Sinanan-Singh & Jonathan Friedman, Trinity Prep (FL) Jackson Popkin & Ryan Smith, Regis (NY) Drew Marconi & Alex Powers, Regis (NY) Michael Gaffney & Charles Mahoney, Chaminade (NY) STUDENT CONGRESS Drew Vollmer, Walt Whitman (MD) Alex Smyk, Ridge (NJ) Joseph Perretta, Christopher Columbus (FL) Jessica Sheehan, Walt Whitman (MD) Vincent Sayseng, Iona Prep (NY) Ryan Terrell, Cypress Bay (NY) JW Patterson, TOC Founder From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Tue Jan 20 17:39:28 2009 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:39:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Preliminary ADA announcement Message-ID: Hello friends, I will be sending the official invitation in the next day or two, but I wanted to send a message to begin the process and give some information up front. The tournament will start on Friday the 13th and run through Sunday the 16th. A detailed schedule will follow. Boone is a beautiful place to live and visit and I would encourage you to see more than just the campus when you come. To many times we travel on tournaments and never get to enjoy the beauty and wonders that may be right around us. Therefore we would like to officially invite all of you to the Pre-tournament events below. Because of the nature of the ski trip and hikes, early reservation commitments would be nice. The hikes will take place as some have already committed to coming, but unless there are enough requests for the ski trip we will have to cancel. Thursday, March 12th Pre-tournament Hike to Scenic Destination within Watauga County. We will be leaving at two separate times to accommodate groups different arrival times and schedules. We will coordinate these times with those interested in the hike. If you are interested, please contact Mariam Willis @ razianwillis at hotmail.com Pre-tournament Ski Trip. At your own expense (although with a substantial discount) we will also be hosting a trip to the Sugar Mountain Ski Resort for a day of snowboarding, skiing and tubbing. You can look at the resort at http://www.skisugar.com. Please contact us quickly so we can make appropriate reservations with the resort if you want to come. Please contact Mariam Willis @ razianwillis at hotmail.com There has also been rumor of a football game between Liberty and JMU. If this does in fact happen, I will send the details for a large crowd to observe as I am sure it will be entertaining.Sincerely,Kris and Mariam Willis _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090120/8e8f080c/attachment.htm From jrwatchtower at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 18:47:13 2009 From: jrwatchtower at gmail.com (john rief) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:47:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pitt Needs 3 Rounds At Navy - Please Backchannel Message-ID: <65f6da530901201647x642c075ald2995dcb3c88209d@mail.gmail.com> Let me know if you are bringing extra judging or are willing to offer some rounds at Navy (we need 3). We will pay generously. Best, John Rief Associate Director of Debate William PItt Debating Union jrwatchtower at gmail.com jjr21 at pitt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090120/84e3d7df/attachment.htm From danielle.wiese at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 18:58:11 2009 From: danielle.wiese at gmail.com (Danielle Wiese) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 19:58:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking one more cite: Zizek Message-ID: <640092800901201658h49855a28s7e698d1cadeb7e60@mail.gmail.com> Ok, so my request for "fear of death" cites was totally productive. So I hope you'll forgive another request, but I can't think of a better group to ask. I need choose a Zizek reading (or two) for a senior honors student who has read little Zizek, but wants to know "what Zizek thinks about capitalism and Marx?" What would you pick? Thanks for the advice. Danielle Wiese Grand Valley State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090120/319a207e/attachment.htm From jrwatchtower at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 20:26:31 2009 From: jrwatchtower at gmail.com (john rief) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:26:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pitt's Navy Rounds Covered Message-ID: <65f6da530901201826w515a994h805c36a774cb1573@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to all for the fast responses! JR -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090120/acb67445/attachment.htm From christy.webster at gmail.com Tue Jan 20 21:06:41 2009 From: christy.webster at gmail.com (Christy Webster) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:06:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Up to 6 rounds of Navy Jugding for Sale Message-ID: <408242E3-5452-4518-A0CF-A96CBFFBF953@gmail.com> 6 rounds for sale. Let me know if your in need. Christy Webster Army Debate Sent from my iPhone From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 00:14:33 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 01:14:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Petition the Obama Administration to enable comments on the whitehouse.gov website Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901202214y63b25b89j2c24953bb547b069@mail.gmail.com> The obama administration has launched an exciting new website for the whitehouse, it has some features we have come to expect from the most wired campaign in history like you tube videos, email announcements, and a blog. Unfortunatly the admin has decided to launch the blog without comments enabled. comments would allow the public to debate, discuss, and share resources related to postings. As a community of people interested in debate and policy we should lend our voices to help create a unique opportunity for particapatory democracy, if you think this is a worthwhile goal you can sign the petition here http://www.petitiononline.com/whtehse/petition.html spread it to anybody you know and lets see how we can get the network to emerge and grow. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/1c41b156/attachment.htm From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 08:47:17 2009 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:47:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Prefs Message-ID: Hey folks, please finalize and double-check your Baylor entries/judging. I am hoping to enable the prefs by 3pm today. Thanks, we look forward to seeing you in Waco this weekend. Weather Outlook: Friday low 80s, clouds. Saturday/Sunday, 60s, clear. Monday high 70s, clouds/showers. The Bears _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/fd973f1e/attachment.htm From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 10:01:26 2009 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:01:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Hotel Info...Please reserve soon Message-ID: Because the cut-off date for the great rate of $63.75 a night for a double room at the hotels is Feb. 20th and quickly approaching, I wanted to get this information to you now ahead of the official invite. The LaQuinta is the tournament hotel and the Sleep Inn is in the same parking lot. The Best Western and Country Inn are 1 block down the road and they are in the same parking lot. The Hotels below have all agreed to $63.75 a night but also have a cut-off date of Feb. 20th. If you miss this date, the rooms will likely go over $100.00 a night as Boone is a tourist town and the tournament is during the peak travel time for Skiing etc. So PLEASE RESERVE YOUR ROOMS QUICKLY. Tournament Hotel: (102 rooms combined) LaQuinta Inns & Suites 165 Highway 105 Ext Boone, NC 28607 828-262-1234 Ask for Brenda Fisher, General Manager, $63.75 rate. www.LQ.com Sleep Inn (This is in the same parking lot as the LaQuinta) 163 Hwy 105 Extension Boone, NC, US, 28607 Phone: (828) 262-0020 Fax: (828) 262-9818 $63.75 rate Best Western Feb. 20th $63.75 (50 rooms combined) 840 E. King Street (Hwy. 421) Boone, NC 28607 (828) 266-1100 ? Fax: (828) 266-1115 Toll Free (888) 573-0408 Country Inn & Suites By Carlson, Boone, NC 818 East King Street , Boone NC 28607 Reservations: (888) 201-1746 US Toll Free Telephone: (828) 264-4234 Fax: (828) 264-4104 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/d116def9/attachment.htm From max.o.archer at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 10:14:28 2009 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:14:28 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Viking Debates at Augustana College - Call for Judges Message-ID: <1944fe1d0901210814m5ed4ed09r6c6cc491e0a98edc@mail.gmail.com> Hi everyone. It looks like we are going to need extra judging to make judge preferences work at the Augustana tournament. If you have extra rounds you are willing to donate or hire, please let me know. Thanks, Max Archer Director of Debate Augustana College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/1cd3b2bd/attachment.htm From nwhitaker at mail.utexas.edu Wed Jan 21 12:38:39 2009 From: nwhitaker at mail.utexas.edu (nwhitaker at mail.utexas.edu) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:38:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Open partner needed for Berkeley Message-ID: <20090121123839.s1iibjnwv4gk4w48@webmail.utexas.edu> Hi everyone, My partner is unable to make it to the Berkeley tournament this weekend, but I'd still like to debate if possible. If any other squads have a debater in open who needs a partner and might be interested in a hybrid team, please let me know. Thanks, Nick Whitaker University of Texas From tomogorman at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 14:05:55 2009 From: tomogorman at gmail.com (Thomas O'Gorman) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:05:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Announcements Message-ID: <462619de0901211205y41e985fs9342368377718a08@mail.gmail.com> Entry is closed, give me an email, tomogorman at gmail.com, if you have any changes. Prefs will be open early tomorrow.We could use some extra rounds to make the prefs work. If anyone is willing to judge an extra prelim or two please let me know. We pay $25/round. Thanks, Tom O'Gorman Navy Debate Husband "[T]he way to make your fate your choice is to choose it, fearlessly, your lungs drinking the air. It makes the gods ashamed." -- Elizabeth Cook, Achilles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/d99ce9ac/attachment.htm From infinite.monad at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 14:31:07 2009 From: infinite.monad at gmail.com (iz: -ak) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:31:07 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Much thanks to the Val Message-ID: Thanks to the hosts of the Val Browning Round Robin for a great weekend! The weather was nice, the food (prime rib) delicious, the competition freaky, and the hospitality nonpareil. Everything happened at the hotel, and all the food was provided by the tournament, so flip flops were in vogue in the heart of northern Utah's abyssal winter. Nobody makes you feel quite at home like the Guevaras, and they use *their* home to pull it off (and yes, Omar's basement is happenin'). Special thanks to Veronica for making the tournament happen and freeing up Omar's time to hang out with all of us; and Tews also deserves special recognition for shuttling us all around to various hospitalities and even bringing me coffee at some point. Also, I would thank John Foy (Glueboy), but it would only come off as biased. loves the OG, izak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/064801cf/attachment.htm From brian95882 at msn.com Wed Jan 21 14:55:15 2009 From: brian95882 at msn.com (brian schrader) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:55:15 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to Weber for a great weekend. Message-ID: The Weber RR is always one of the best tournaments of the year both in terms of debate and hospitality. This year was no exception. Thanks to Omar and the Weber crew for a great weekend! DU Debate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/e3765abf/attachment.htm From anders.debate at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 15:09:57 2009 From: anders.debate at gmail.com (Eli Anders) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:09:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judge at the Harvard HS Tournament! Message-ID: Hello! The Harvard Debate Council seeks judges for the 35th Annual HarvardNational Invitational Forensics Tournament, to be held February 14-16, 2009 (the Saturday - Monday of President's Day Weekend). Details about the tournament are available at www.harvard-debate.org. Please check the schedule ( http://harvard-debate.org/view_schedule.aspx) of the event you would like to judge to determine your availability prior to contacting us. We seek judges for the following events: *(1) Policy / Team / Cross-Examination Debate. * This year, there will be two divisions: Varsity, with 7 preliminary rounds, and Junior Varsity with 6. To judge in this event, you must have participated in policy debate either as a competitor or a judge at the high school or college level, and be approved by the tournament directors. Compensation: If you are available to judge only a few rounds, we will hire you for $15/round judged. Judges who commit to being available for all 7 Varsity prelims (or all 6 JV prelims plus JV Doubles on Sunday night) will be paid $150. We have a special need for judging Monday morning for the Varsity Doubles/JV Octas, so judges who commit to being available for all of the prelims plus the first elim Monday morning will be paid $200. All payment is on the condition that you show up on time for each of your rounds, fill in ballots correctly, hand ballots in promptly, and do not in otherwise impede the tournament's administration. If you are especially qualified and would like to judge elimination rounds on Monday, we may be able to work out a special compensation package for you. Housing is limited and only available to extremely qualified judges who can judge all preliminary rounds and several early outrounds. *(2) Junior Varsity Lincoln Douglas Debate. *We offer 6 preliminary rounds of JV LD on Saturday and Sunday, as well as the Triple Octafinals on Sunday evening. To judge in this event, you must have participated in LD either as a competitor or as a judge at the high school level. Compensation is $15/round judged. You must show up to pick up your ballot 30 minutes before the scheduled start time of each round you are judging. If you are especially qualified, and the tournament directors determine there is a need, we may request that you judge Varsity LD and not JV LD. At this time, however, we seek only individuals who are willing to judge JV LD. *(3) Public Forum Debate. *We offer 6 preliminary rounds of PF on Saturday and Sunday. *No prior experience in debate is necessary*. We are hiring a limited number of PF judges. Compensation is $15/round judged. For more information about Public Forum Debate (its format, how it is judged, etc.), please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_forum_debate and http://www. harvard-debate.org/downloads/HHS2004/Download_20.doc. If you are interested, please send an email to harvardhsdebate at gmail.comwith the following information: Subject: JUDGE FOR (event that you are interested in judging: CX, JVLD, PF) 1. Name 2. Email 3. Cell Phone Number 4. Event (CX, JVLD, PF) 5. Rounds you would be available to judge (consult schedule at http://www. harvard-debate.org/view_schedule.aspx. Note that each event has a different schedule, so you should put down which preliminary rounds for your preferred event you are available to judge.) 6. Relevant experience (both high school and college participation and judging experience) 7. High schools you cannot judge due to conflicts (participating school list available at http://www.harvard-debate.org/view_files.aspx) We will send confirmation emails upon receipt of your application, with more information to follow. If you have any questions, feel free to email us at harvardhsdebate at gmail.com. Also, please feel free to forward this email to any and all interested parties. Thank you, Eli Anders Harvard Debate Council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/e1f5b741/attachment.htm From christy.webster at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 16:50:46 2009 From: christy.webster at gmail.com (Christy Webster) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:50:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JMU Cites Please Message-ID: <59b051810901211450g66e29aadpdaa266b8439f49ff@mail.gmail.com> Hey Mike Davis et all, Can we please get the tags and cites for the shells of your Ex O CP, O'Bama Stimulus Good DA, and Implicit/Explicit Subsidies T that were run at GMU? -- Best, Christy Army Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/f8dcf7cf/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed Jan 21 17:39:02 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:39:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Let's start a fight.... Message-ID: <1232581142.4977b216e5682@webmail.grandecom.net> First, let me say that I think Matt Stannard's and Gordon Mitchell's independent treatment(s)of Hicks and Greene regarding switch side debate rock. Both articles reaffirmed my personal commitment to debate--and switch side debate in particular. However, my reading of the Hick and Greene article has me at a loss. It really does. I think people are taking them out of contaxt. Not as an ethical lapse, but just as a misreading. Why? because, like an idiot, I read, and re-read the conclusion of the Hicks and Greene article. It seems pretty clear that although the authors give a historical analysis of how policy/switch side debate can be co-opted by forces most would argue are oppressive; their conclusion is a DEFENSE of switch side debate. Let me be clear. I am a supporter of switch side debate for many of the reasons articulated by both Stannard and Mitchell et. al.; But I have seen too many debate rounds in which the Hicks and Greene article is misquoted----and I have seen too many articles that appear to misinterpret their conclusion. This creates two problems. First, it creates an easy straw-person to strike down. Second, the misappropriation fo Hicks and Greene's HISTORICAL analysis is being used to advoacte arguements that are contrary to the Hicks and Greene article's actual conclusions. In other words, I think the assertion that Hicks and Greene would conclude that "switch side debate is bad" is out of context and is not consistent with the conclusions they draw. It matters because people lose topicality debates and other "personal advocacy" debates every weekend because of the the strategic use of this article. Let me just give one of the clearest quotes from Hick and Greene to illustrate my Point. I honestly do not understand how anyone, ANYONE, can misinterpret the conclusions of Hicks and Greene on this point: "Reading Muir alongside Dennis Day, we can appreciate the explicit transformation of debate into an ethical pedagogy. Debate training, without the requirement to debate both sides, locates the act of public argument too closely to the personal convictions of the speaker. The gap created by debating both sides between the embodied speech act and his/her convictions makes possible the emergence of debate as the proper method of adjudicating disputes in a democratic culture. Debating both sides transforms the student-debater by developing a post-conventional morality / one capable of making moral judgments based on reason and not authority or personal convictions. In this way, the debating both sides controversy pre-figures how a deliberative theory of democracy requires a moral theory of the subject to prepare that subject for the transformational potential associated with the ?gentle force of the better argument?." The rest of their conclusions are consistent with this quote. There is a danger that the Dick(s) Cheney's of thw world will recruit debaters, but I think Hicks and Greene conclude in favor of switch side debate. Scott Elliott, Ph.D., J.D. UL-Lafayette. From debate at ou.edu Wed Jan 21 18:56:15 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F5598A5CF6@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> I have a question and trying to find a community opinion. If one team wins the toss, how should these scenarios play out. Do you have to commit to an affirmative before the other team chooses negative? Is it okay to say We could run a new aff or an old aff. or do you have to say the exact affirmative you would run? The key question, do you have to commit to a specific affirmative before the other team chooses their side? Does that take away the reciprocity the team stuck with aff would have in relation to the coin toss? peace jackie From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 19:40:53 2009 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:40:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? In-Reply-To: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F5598A5CF6@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> References: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F5598A5CF6@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Message-ID: We found ourselves in this situation recently. We initially said we had both a new and existing aff we could read, lost the toss, and then decided to read the current (Not New One) and disclosed. My preference would be a community that doesn't have to disclose the "new aff" but one that would at least commit to reading a new or existing one. My one recognition would be that if we were the negative, we would prep the old aff anyway so it might not make much difference. But I would prefer that one team not have potentially even more leverage in a flip situation or dare I say, even fake a new affirmative to try and get the other team to chose to read their own affirmative. Kris > From: debate at ou.edu > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:15 -0600 > Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? > > I have a question and trying to find a community opinion. > > If one team wins the toss, how should these scenarios play out. > > Do you have to commit to an affirmative before the other team chooses negative? > > Is it okay to say > > We could run a new aff or an old aff. > > or do you have to say the exact affirmative you would run? > > > > The key question, do you have to commit to a specific affirmative before the other team chooses their side? Does that take away the reciprocity the team stuck with aff would have in relation to the coin toss? > > peace > > jackie > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?:?more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/d081d954/attachment.htm From rwgallow at samford.edu Wed Jan 21 19:42:03 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:42:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E30D3A7E15@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Jackie raises some good questions, and I think it is a good time of the year to discuss them. I'll give my 2 cents, and then raise another question. My general reaction is that the team that wins the toss should not get to strategize "after the toss." This was honestly something I had never thought of until Shawn & Naveen were about to flip against the Fort years ago, and they wanted to talk to Shanahan and make sure both sides knew the AFF, plan, advantages, etc. Apparently people were winning the toss, going and strategizing till 5 minutes before the round, and doing things like "new plan, one new advantage" long after the toss happened. To not give too much of a strategic advantage to the team that wins the toss, I think all the disclosure should be on the table before the toss. Thus, my reaction to disclosure is to say that each team should disclose their plan, advantages, etc. before the toss under the logic of "if you are aff, will you run x, y, z." It is fine before the toss to say "if we are aff we will run a new case," or "if we are aff we will run cotton, but it's a new plan with one new advantage and doha." The team winning the toss already gets a strategic advantage, they shouldn't get to multiply the advantage by shielding some elements of disclosure. And if the neg forgets to ask for the plan or advantages before the coin toss--honestly that's too bad. I'm guided by Karla Leeper's line in her run for the NDT finals, "before you flip negative, you should know what aff we're running." I've made that mistake as a coach before (forgot to ask for the plan before we flipped neg and wanted to run a word pic). I'll take the blame (sorry Clark & Nick) and say coaches and teams should know in advance. The danger of the "we could run a new aff or an old aff" is the advantage of post-flip strategizing as well as the multiplicity of what is an "old aff." I don't think disclosure is "we're going to run an aff that someone on our squad of 15 teams has run at some point this year." That is the same as saying "we're running something that is on the case list." Bottom line: team that wins the toss gets an advantage anyway: they get to choose their side, which can be a tremendous strategic advantage depending on the circumstances (panel, how good are we on one side, what args the other team runs, etc). They shouldn't get to multiply that advantage with: "if we win the toss we could run a new aff, an old aff, or an aff another team on our squad runs." Then, post flip strategizing goes to the side that won the toss, and they might tell you 5 minutes before the debate what you are debating. All the cards should be on the table before the flip. However, this is solely my opinion, and I am eager to hear other's thoughts. New topic. What is a new aff. on this topic? Near as I can tell, all the commodities have been run at this point (with UNT's new wheat aff I think a version of all 10 have been run). If your squad hasn't run a commodity, can you call "new aff?" If it's a new version of a commodity you've run, can you say "new aff" or do you have to say "new version of fish?" What is a "new version" of the case? Does it have to have a new plan, or are new advantages sufficient? Is a "new plan" one that switches around a comma or two to deny the neg team the ability to see the plan before the debate? It might be good to resolve these questions before the high-intensity end of the year debates. rg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/b91e6a83/attachment.htm From richardgarner at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 21:28:19 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:28:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? In-Reply-To: References: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F5598A5CF6@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0901211928p2aa87a1bm695e0c3dedd4557b@mail.gmail.com> 1. You can only hedge in very narrow situations, i.e., if it's the loser's choice (we'll go negative if you run your X aff or we'll go aff. and run a new aff.) ... maybe; subject to #2. 2. You have to say new aff or specify old aff (and which, plan, advantages, etc) before the flip; a team needs to prep new aff strategies, generally, and a team you're flipping against (i.e., in an elimination round) probably requires you to prep for their old aff, too, anyway. If you call new aff., you have to run one. 3a. If someone on your team has run the same commodity, but its a substantially different aff. (substantially = 90%; here, that 10% percent might be 'fish prices low'), then "new aff" is fine...maybe. 3b. If its mostly different, but not totally, tough call. I say, "Fish with Japanese relations old advantage, the rest is new". People specify that someone on the team has run an aff because it's new to them, but they sort of deserve to break it as a "new aff" if it's _their_ new version/research. 3c. Last year Harvard had a new aff at the NDT which consisted of a new plan text, and a new advantage. The country was still Iran, with one (two?) new advantages stemming from the new plan text, and one (two?) old advantages that the new plan still solved. Disclosure was "new aff, still Iran, still proliferation, the rest is new," or something like that. 3d. When the topic writes the plan text, new advantages or plan changes are essentially new affs. The conception of what a "new aff" is seems to have been outpaced by events. However, it's still a new aff for that team even if someone else has run it somewhere else (so, wheat is still a new aff. to everyone else in the country except UNT and whoever else has run it). RG On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kris Willis wrote: > We found ourselves in this situation recently. We initially said we had > both a new and existing aff we could read, lost the toss, and then decided > to read the current (Not New One) and disclosed. > My preference would be a community that doesn't have to disclose the "new > aff" but one that would at least commit to reading a new or existing one. > My one recognition would be that if we were the negative, we would prep the > old aff anyway so it might not make much difference. > But I would prefer that one team not have potentially even more leverage in > a flip situation or dare I say, even fake a new affirmative to try and get > the other team to chose to read their own affirmative. > Kris > > > > > > > > From: debate at ou.edu > > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:15 -0600 > > Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? > > > > I have a question and trying to find a community opinion. > > > > If one team wins the toss, how should these scenarios play out. > > > > Do you have to commit to an affirmative before the other team chooses > negative? > > > > Is it okay to say > > > > We could run a new aff or an old aff. > > > > or do you have to say the exact affirmative you would run? > > > > > > > > The key question, do you have to commit to a specific affirmative before > the other team chooses their side? Does that take away the reciprocity the > team stuck with aff would have in relation to the coin toss? > > > > peace > > > > jackie > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live? Hotmail(R):?more than just e-mail. Check it out. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/0cfb79b2/attachment.htm From brycedietrich at hotmail.com Wed Jan 21 21:41:50 2009 From: brycedietrich at hotmail.com (bryce dietrich) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 03:41:50 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Judging for Sale (Saturday Only) Message-ID: I am willing to judge all day Saturday at Northwestern. Let me know if you are interested. Bryce Dietrich (Former UMKC Debater/Coach) brycedietrich at hotmail.com --------------------- Bryce Dietrich brycedietrich at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/cce5ec37/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Wed Jan 21 21:47:32 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:47:32 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? The Ian Beier Switch Message-ID: <497797F40200009300023706@mymail.kckcc.edu> Any team coached by Ian Beier should have to dislose before the flip that IF they run a NEW AFF in the 1AR, it will be NEW and not an Aff ever run in a 1AR by any of his teams before. If they have run it in the 1AC before however, I dont think its really new. chief PS--Darren Hicks totally supports switch side debate. Quit reading his cards to the contrary. The other Elliott is right on this one. Hicks judged me so many times, I still have nightmares. Im sure he does as well. From ianedebate at gmail.com Wed Jan 21 22:50:20 2009 From: ianedebate at gmail.com (Ian Beier) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:50:20 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? The Ian Beier Switch Message-ID: <93ac16710901212050i10127b3dnf1bf3e16d0de774b@mail.gmail.com> rest assured that the new aff will be on the resolution. We will disclose what resolution we will defend in the 1ar. Beyond that we cannot guarantee anything. Critical thinking anyone? Ian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090121/b5a17daf/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 21 23:41:09 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:41:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? In-Reply-To: <17bee7eb0901211928p2aa87a1bm695e0c3dedd4557b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <796869.53609.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Also, on a related note: can we make it a sort of community norm that you not just change the plan in a cosmetic, immaterial way just so you can say "new plan" before a debate? we have no way to enforce this, of course. but its just a dick move, and pretty much bush league. so how about we not do it? Thanks, Paul Johnson --- On Wed, 1/21/09, Richard A. Garner wrote: > From: Richard A. Garner > Subject: Re: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 9:28 PM > 1. You can only hedge in very narrow situations, i.e., if > it's the loser's > choice (we'll go negative if you run your X aff or > we'll go aff. and run a > new aff.) ... maybe; subject to #2. > > 2. You have to say new aff or specify old aff (and which, > plan, advantages, > etc) before the flip; a team needs to prep new aff > strategies, generally, > and a team you're flipping against (i.e., in an > elimination round) probably > requires you to prep for their old aff, too, anyway. If you > call new aff., > you have to run one. > > 3a. If someone on your team has run the same commodity, but > its a > substantially different aff. (substantially = 90%; here, > that 10% percent > might be 'fish prices low'), then "new > aff" is fine...maybe. > 3b. If its mostly different, but not totally, tough call. I > say, "Fish with > Japanese relations old advantage, the rest is new". > People specify that > someone on the team has run an aff because it's new to > them, but they sort > of deserve to break it as a "new aff" if it's > _their_ new version/research. > 3c. Last year Harvard had a new aff at the NDT which > consisted of a new plan > text, and a new advantage. The country was still Iran, with > one (two?) new > advantages stemming from the new plan text, and one (two?) > old advantages > that the new plan still solved. Disclosure was "new > aff, still Iran, still > proliferation, the rest is new," or something like > that. > 3d. When the topic writes the plan text, new advantages or > plan changes are > essentially new affs. The conception of what a "new > aff" is seems to have > been outpaced by events. However, it's still a new aff > for that team even if > someone else has run it somewhere else (so, wheat is still > a new aff. to > everyone else in the country except UNT and whoever else > has run it). > > RG > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kris Willis > wrote: > > > We found ourselves in this situation recently. We > initially said we had > > both a new and existing aff we could read, lost the > toss, and then decided > > to read the current (Not New One) and disclosed. > > My preference would be a community that doesn't > have to disclose the "new > > aff" but one that would at least commit to > reading a new or existing one. > > My one recognition would be that if we were the > negative, we would prep the > > old aff anyway so it might not make much difference. > > But I would prefer that one team not have potentially > even more leverage in > > a flip situation or dare I say, even fake a new > affirmative to try and get > > the other team to chose to read their own affirmative. > > Kris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: debate at ou.edu > > > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > > > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:15 -0600 > > > Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? > > > > > > I have a question and trying to find a community > opinion. > > > > > > If one team wins the toss, how should these > scenarios play out. > > > > > > Do you have to commit to an affirmative before > the other team chooses > > negative? > > > > > > Is it okay to say > > > > > > We could run a new aff or an old aff. > > > > > > or do you have to say the exact affirmative you > would run? > > > > > > > > > > > > The key question, do you have to commit to a > specific affirmative before > > the other team chooses their side? Does that take away > the reciprocity the > > team stuck with aff would have in relation to the coin > toss? > > > > > > peace > > > > > > jackie > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > eDebate mailing list > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > ------------------------------ > > Windows Live? Hotmail(R):?more than just e-mail. > Check it > out. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Thu Jan 22 00:42:16 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:42:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? In-Reply-To: <796869.53609.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <796869.53609.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49781548.5080501@wfu.edu> I think the basic rule "disclose what you would expect on the other side" works. Avoid disclosure you would be frustrated with & we'll all be fine. There are many circumstances where an affirmative is rightly "in flux" until the 1ac begins. I don't want disclosure to limit the potential for evolution. Last minute changes during pre round prep, or during the 1ac are part of that evolution. Debaters should adapt to the situation at hand. If a 1ac spikes out of your best strategy, you should be ready to beat them on that "spike." Anticipate and prepare for changes. Honestly, I take all pre-coinflip disclosure with a grain of salt. I don't expect the aff to read the plan text they disclose. I expect them to think a move or two ahead to avoid the latest, best negative strategy. They should do that if you think debate is about finding the best ideas. If you aren't prepared for plan changes, then you're doing it wrong. I won't get into cosmetic plan changes except to say that debaters should be prepared to re-write important counterplans during a debate. The best argument evolution happens during debates, not during the pre-round prep. --JP Paul Johnson wrote: > Also, on a related note: > > can we make it a sort of community norm that you not just change the plan in a cosmetic, immaterial way just so you can say "new plan" before a debate? we have no way to enforce this, of course. but its just a dick move, and pretty much bush league. so how about we not do it? > > Thanks, > Paul Johnson > > > --- On Wed, 1/21/09, Richard A. Garner wrote: > > >> From: Richard A. Garner >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? >> To: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 9:28 PM >> 1. You can only hedge in very narrow situations, i.e., if >> it's the loser's >> choice (we'll go negative if you run your X aff or >> we'll go aff. and run a >> new aff.) ... maybe; subject to #2. >> >> 2. You have to say new aff or specify old aff (and which, >> plan, advantages, >> etc) before the flip; a team needs to prep new aff >> strategies, generally, >> and a team you're flipping against (i.e., in an >> elimination round) probably >> requires you to prep for their old aff, too, anyway. If you >> call new aff., >> you have to run one. >> >> 3a. If someone on your team has run the same commodity, but >> its a >> substantially different aff. (substantially = 90%; here, >> that 10% percent >> might be 'fish prices low'), then "new >> aff" is fine...maybe. >> 3b. If its mostly different, but not totally, tough call. I >> say, "Fish with >> Japanese relations old advantage, the rest is new". >> People specify that >> someone on the team has run an aff because it's new to >> them, but they sort >> of deserve to break it as a "new aff" if it's >> _their_ new version/research. >> 3c. Last year Harvard had a new aff at the NDT which >> consisted of a new plan >> text, and a new advantage. The country was still Iran, with >> one (two?) new >> advantages stemming from the new plan text, and one (two?) >> old advantages >> that the new plan still solved. Disclosure was "new >> aff, still Iran, still >> proliferation, the rest is new," or something like >> that. >> 3d. When the topic writes the plan text, new advantages or >> plan changes are >> essentially new affs. The conception of what a "new >> aff" is seems to have >> been outpaced by events. However, it's still a new aff >> for that team even if >> someone else has run it somewhere else (so, wheat is still >> a new aff. to >> everyone else in the country except UNT and whoever else >> has run it). >> >> RG >> >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kris Willis >> wrote: >> >> >>> We found ourselves in this situation recently. We >>> >> initially said we had >> >>> both a new and existing aff we could read, lost the >>> >> toss, and then decided >> >>> to read the current (Not New One) and disclosed. >>> My preference would be a community that doesn't >>> >> have to disclose the "new >> >>> aff" but one that would at least commit to >>> >> reading a new or existing one. >> >>> My one recognition would be that if we were the >>> >> negative, we would prep the >> >>> old aff anyway so it might not make much difference. >>> But I would prefer that one team not have potentially >>> >> even more leverage in >> >>> a flip situation or dare I say, even fake a new >>> >> affirmative to try and get >> >>> the other team to chose to read their own affirmative. >>> Kris >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: debate at ou.edu >>>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com >>>> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:15 -0600 >>>> Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? >>>> >>>> I have a question and trying to find a community >>>> >> opinion. >> >>>> If one team wins the toss, how should these >>>> >> scenarios play out. >> >>>> Do you have to commit to an affirmative before >>>> >> the other team chooses >> >>> negative? >>> >>>> Is it okay to say >>>> >>>> We could run a new aff or an old aff. >>>> >>>> or do you have to say the exact affirmative you >>>> >> would run? >> >>>> >>>> The key question, do you have to commit to a >>>> >> specific affirmative before >> >>> the other team chooses their side? Does that take away >>> >> the reciprocity the >> >>> team stuck with aff would have in relation to the coin >>> >> toss? >> >>>> peace >>>> >>>> jackie >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> eDebate mailing list >>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> Windows Live? Hotmail(R):?more than just e-mail. >>> >> Check it >> out. >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 EMarlow at uco.edu Thu Jan 22 00:49:10 2009 From: EMarlow at uco.edu (Eric Marlow) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:49:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? The Ian Beier Switch In-Reply-To: <497797F40200009300023706@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <497797F40200009300023706@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <18B8F2010B91E144BC6EB64508D710130498D91EAC@EXCHANGE.uco.local> Having debated and coached with D. Hicks, I am sure that Chief is right...he still has nightmares about it. Peace, Marlow ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Darren Elliott [delliott at kckcc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:47 PM To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? The Ian Beier Switch Any team coached by Ian Beier should have to dislose before the flip that IF they run a NEW AFF in the 1AR, it will be NEW and not an Aff ever run in a 1AR by any of his teams before. If they have run it in the 1AC before however, I dont think its really new. chief PS--Darren Hicks totally supports switch side debate. Quit reading his cards to the contrary. The other Elliott is right on this one. Hicks judged me so many times, I still have nightmares. Im sure he does as well. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is moving to a new Internet address. All e-mail addresses and Web sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and Web sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 01:51:17 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:51:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Let's start a fight... Message-ID: Can we all agree that no one care about this article and/or any number of other framework cards as a result of their being stupid and irrelevant? Has ANY debate been resolved because of the quality of the "limits good" or "rules = biopower" evidence? I contend no. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/bc601bca/attachment.htm From lexdevil at mindspring.com Thu Jan 22 07:25:53 2009 From: lexdevil at mindspring.com (Lexy Green & John Seal) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:25:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] Judges needed at Stanford HS Invitational Message-ID: <15353064.1232630753387.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> College Prep is looking to hire Policy and LD judges for the Stanford Invitational February 6-9. Generous compensation and lodging available. Lexy From richardgarner at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 07:36:42 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:36:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? In-Reply-To: <49781548.5080501@wfu.edu> References: <796869.53609.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <49781548.5080501@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0901220536g24d3baddm4da724a86f31ed39@mail.gmail.com> Gonna have to disagree w/ JP here: > Honestly, I take all pre-coinflip disclosure with a grain of salt. I > don't expect the aff to read the plan text they disclose. I expect them > to think a move or two ahead to avoid the latest, best negative > strategy. > That's actually sounds like fairly text-book cheating to me. Aff: discloses plan (etc). Neg: preps for an hour. Aff reads: new plan (etc). That = cheating. Yes a debate is always evolving, but you have to specify the grey areas, at least, or SAY EXPLICITLY the plan might change, etc., so the neg. can include in their preround prep the necessity of flexibility. As to PJ's comment, I think he doesn't so much care about changing the plan text as he cares about people taking to too much advantage of cosmetic changes. Here, again, the grey area specification seems to solve. RG > Paul Johnson wrote: > > Also, on a related note: > > > > can we make it a sort of community norm that you not just change the plan > in a cosmetic, immaterial way just so you can say "new plan" before a > debate? we have no way to enforce this, of course. but its just a dick move, > and pretty much bush league. so how about we not do it? > > > > Thanks, > > Paul Johnson > > > > > > --- On Wed, 1/21/09, Richard A. Garner wrote: > > > > > >> From: Richard A. Garner > >> Subject: Re: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? > >> To: edebate at ndtceda.com > >> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 9:28 PM > >> 1. You can only hedge in very narrow situations, i.e., if > >> it's the loser's > >> choice (we'll go negative if you run your X aff or > >> we'll go aff. and run a > >> new aff.) ... maybe; subject to #2. > >> > >> 2. You have to say new aff or specify old aff (and which, > >> plan, advantages, > >> etc) before the flip; a team needs to prep new aff > >> strategies, generally, > >> and a team you're flipping against (i.e., in an > >> elimination round) probably > >> requires you to prep for their old aff, too, anyway. If you > >> call new aff., > >> you have to run one. > >> > >> 3a. If someone on your team has run the same commodity, but > >> its a > >> substantially different aff. (substantially = 90%; here, > >> that 10% percent > >> might be 'fish prices low'), then "new > >> aff" is fine...maybe. > >> 3b. If its mostly different, but not totally, tough call. I > >> say, "Fish with > >> Japanese relations old advantage, the rest is new". > >> People specify that > >> someone on the team has run an aff because it's new to > >> them, but they sort > >> of deserve to break it as a "new aff" if it's > >> _their_ new version/research. > >> 3c. Last year Harvard had a new aff at the NDT which > >> consisted of a new plan > >> text, and a new advantage. The country was still Iran, with > >> one (two?) new > >> advantages stemming from the new plan text, and one (two?) > >> old advantages > >> that the new plan still solved. Disclosure was "new > >> aff, still Iran, still > >> proliferation, the rest is new," or something like > >> that. > >> 3d. When the topic writes the plan text, new advantages or > >> plan changes are > >> essentially new affs. The conception of what a "new > >> aff" is seems to have > >> been outpaced by events. However, it's still a new aff > >> for that team even if > >> someone else has run it somewhere else (so, wheat is still > >> a new aff. to > >> everyone else in the country except UNT and whoever else > >> has run it). > >> > >> RG > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kris Willis > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> We found ourselves in this situation recently. We > >>> > >> initially said we had > >> > >>> both a new and existing aff we could read, lost the > >>> > >> toss, and then decided > >> > >>> to read the current (Not New One) and disclosed. > >>> My preference would be a community that doesn't > >>> > >> have to disclose the "new > >> > >>> aff" but one that would at least commit to > >>> > >> reading a new or existing one. > >> > >>> My one recognition would be that if we were the > >>> > >> negative, we would prep the > >> > >>> old aff anyway so it might not make much difference. > >>> But I would prefer that one team not have potentially > >>> > >> even more leverage in > >> > >>> a flip situation or dare I say, even fake a new > >>> > >> affirmative to try and get > >> > >>> the other team to chose to read their own affirmative. > >>> Kris > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: debate at ou.edu > >>>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com > >>>> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:15 -0600 > >>>> Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? > >>>> > >>>> I have a question and trying to find a community > >>>> > >> opinion. > >> > >>>> If one team wins the toss, how should these > >>>> > >> scenarios play out. > >> > >>>> Do you have to commit to an affirmative before > >>>> > >> the other team chooses > >> > >>> negative? > >>> > >>>> Is it okay to say > >>>> > >>>> We could run a new aff or an old aff. > >>>> > >>>> or do you have to say the exact affirmative you > >>>> > >> would run? > >> > >>>> > >>>> The key question, do you have to commit to a > >>>> > >> specific affirmative before > >> > >>> the other team chooses their side? Does that take away > >>> > >> the reciprocity the > >> > >>> team stuck with aff would have in relation to the coin > >>> > >> toss? > >> > >>>> peace > >>>> > >>>> jackie > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> eDebate mailing list > >>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > >>>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> Windows Live? Hotmail(R):?more than just e-mail. > >>> > >> Check it > >> out.< > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009 > > > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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/20090122/f2627bb3/attachment.htm From gordonm at pitt.edu Thu Jan 22 08:17:41 2009 From: gordonm at pitt.edu (Mitchell, Gordon Roger) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:17:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rap for Favreau Message-ID: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-mippq7hms why? http://blogospolitikos.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/isocrates-lineage-i/ * * * Gordon R. Mitchell Associate Professor of Communication Director, William Pitt Debating Union University of Pittsburgh CL 1117, 4200 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: (412) 624-8531 Fax: (412) 624-1878 http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/ From davismk13 at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 08:46:18 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:46:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need Judging for Navy Message-ID: <9a7f6f740901220646i6aba11aam6790a35865106f29@mail.gmail.com> JMU could use 4-6 rounds of judging for Navy. We pay in cash. Let me know if you will be there and can help out. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/89c4e058/attachment.htm From tomogorman at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 09:18:17 2009 From: tomogorman at gmail.com (Thomas O'Gorman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:18:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Prefs Message-ID: <462619de0901220718gc4de3feuc6bf263cab66ed8e@mail.gmail.com> Navy Prefs are open. Will keep them open till 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. Please place at least 12 judges in each of categories 1 through 4. You may place 3 strikes as 6s. Remainder and conflicts to go in category 5; (GMU OR you may have more conflicts than there are 5s, if so you can start using up some of your 4s as well). Prefs are open for all divisions. Also there are a handful of judges that are jv/novice or novice only, so those pref sheets will be slightly different. Email me with any questions or problems. Tom O'Gorman Navy Debate "[T]he way to make your fate your choice is to choose it, fearlessly, your lungs drinking the air. It makes the gods ashamed." -- Elizabeth Cook, Achilles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/28b3b1de/attachment.htm From tara_l_tate at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 09:50:51 2009 From: tara_l_tate at hotmail.com (Tara Tate) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:50:51 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2009 NDCA Championships Message-ID: Registration is now open for the 2009 NDCA Championships in Las Vegas, NV. The tournament dates are April 18-20, 2009. Please go to www.joyoftournaments.com to register. The tournament will be hosting Policy, LD, and PF. So far, early registration includes nine states. It also includes the following policy players thus far: Winners of Blake, University of Michigan, Golden Desert, Dowling, Marquette, Grapevine, New Trier The top three speakers at MBA Top speakers of Ohio Valley, Marquette, Dowling, Blake, Golden Desert Finalist of The 2008 Glenbrooks, New Trier Based on verbal commitments from folks, it appears that are LD and PF pools will be very strong as well! We would also love to extend a personal invite to our college colleagues. In years past, this has been a fantastic venue for us to bridge our two communities together. It is also the perfect time of the year to start solidifying your recruits! See you in Las Vegas in April! Tara Tate President, NDCA GBS _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?:?more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/6a67c0f5/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu Thu Jan 22 10:00:58 2009 From: jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu (Patterson, J W) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:00:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC QUALS: KCSCC, Manchester, PENN Message-ID: NOTE: NEW HOTEL FOR THE 2009 TOC HOLIDAY INN NORTH 1950 Newtown Pike PHONE: 859--233--0512 Room Rate: $95+ tax /per night (up to 4 in a room) KANSAS CITY KANSAS COMMUNITY COLLEGE Darren Elliott, Director of the Kansas City Kansas Community College Invitational has certified the 2009 TOC qualifiers. KCKCC is a TOC Qualifier in Policy at the Semi-finals level. POLICY Weston Watts and Sierra Shear, Heritage Hall, (OK) Brad Bolman and Lewis Sharp,Pembrook,(KA) Ben Goosen and Jeanette Shultz, Washburn Rural, (KA) John Block and Menghan Zhao, Little Rock Central, (AR) UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Chris Palmer, Director of the University of Pennsylvania invitational, has certified the TOC qualifiers for 2009. Penn is a TOC qualifier in Public Forum at the Quarter-Finals level and Student Congress at the top six level. PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE Patrick Cooney & Andrew Shanahan Regis NY Will Haynes & Christian Chessman Suncoast FL Drew Marconi & Alex Powers Regis NY Valerie Pratt & Will Dungan Randolph-Macon VA Rahman Haq & Josh Elkin Cold Spring Harbor NY Jackson Popkin & Ryan Smith Regis NY Ben Vander & Alex Subhiyah Harriton PA Lindsay Young & Deanna Steffy McDowell PA *Mark Andriola & Joseph Eddy Regis NY STUDENT CONGRESS Amitav Chakraborty Stuyvesant NY Fred DeRitis St. Joseph's PA Amanda DeStefano Suncoast FL Harlan Downs-Tepper Stuyvesant NY Bo Lint Suncoast FL Shaina Sklar Unionville FL MANCHESTER Jonathan Peele, director of the Manchester Essex Invitational , has certified the TOC qualifiers for 2009. Manchester is a TOC qualifier in Public Forum at the quarter finals level, and in Lincoln Douglas at the semi-finals level PUBLIC FORUM Mark Andriola and Matt McNierney, Regis HS, New York Drew Marconi and Alex Powers, Regis HS, New York Brian Cronin and Shane Regan, Regis HS, New York Meredith Potter and Caleb Frye, Pinecrest HS, North Carolina Rob Hurd and Aseem Mehta Needham HS, Massachusetts Linda Kinstler and Hannah Galin, Lexington HS, Massachusetts Ted Mateoc and Cara Eckholm, Hunter College HS, New York Itai Farhi and Tom Niblock of Walt Whitman HS, Maryland LINCOLN-DOUGLAS Coulter King of Regis HS, New York David Winer of Walt Whitman HS, Maryland Matt Dunay of Bronx HS of Science, New York Perry Green of Walt Whitman HS, Maryland Stefanie Rohde, Walt Whitman HS, Maryland JW Patterson TOC Founder -- From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 11:27:51 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:27:51 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Let's start a fight... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c09a80901220927g5a17605esf55e01a69fa4e4cb@mail.gmail.com> you, my friend, are out to lunch <3 On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Jason Russell wrote: > Can we all agree that no one care about this article and/or any number of > other framework cards as a result of their being stupid and irrelevant? Has > ANY debate been resolved because of the quality of the "limits good" or > "rules = biopower" evidence? I contend no. > J > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/0f0e418e/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 12:08:30 2009 From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:08:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Let's start a fight... Message-ID: Oz- in all fairness, you were one of the best, if not the best, debaters your senior year. I'm sure you could win plenty of FW debates with no evidence. No one cares about your hicks and green cards as long as you gots the skillz to pay da billz malgor _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/093faec8/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 13:02:35 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:02:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? The Ian Beier Switch In-Reply-To: <18B8F2010B91E144BC6EB64508D710130498D91EAC@EXCHANGE.uco.local> References: <497797F40200009300023706@mymail.kckcc.edu> <18B8F2010B91E144BC6EB64508D710130498D91EAC@EXCHANGE.uco.local> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901221102v75e5386ax33f69eaeefdc0a60@mail.gmail.com> Just Checking...but is the standard we are employing to decide this Hicks and Greene question "would the author support the use of their work?" seems if that is the case then a whole lot more than just that article comes under scrutiny... On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Eric Marlow wrote: > Having debated and coached with D. Hicks, I am sure that Chief is > right...he still has nightmares about it. > > Peace, > Marlow > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of Darren Elliott [delliott at kckcc.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:47 PM > To: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com; edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? The Ian Beier Switch > > Any team coached by Ian Beier should have to dislose before the flip that > IF they run a NEW AFF in the 1AR, it will be NEW and not an Aff ever run in > a 1AR by any of his teams before. If they have run it in the 1AC before > however, I dont think its really new. > > chief > > PS--Darren Hicks totally supports switch side debate. Quit reading his > cards to the contrary. The other Elliott is right on this one. Hicks > judged me so many times, I still have nightmares. Im sure he does as well. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > **ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is > moving to a new Internet address. All e-mail addresses and Web > sites are now available at uco.edu. All e-mail addresses and Web > sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009. > > **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This e-mail (including any attachments) may > contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any > unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090122/94b98c79/attachment.htm From corupt524 at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 14:26:05 2009 From: corupt524 at gmail.com (Corey Turoff) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:26:05 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Stanford Judging, February 6-9 Message-ID: Hello everyone, Stanford University is looking for highly qualified Policy an LD judges for the weekend of February 6-9, with varsity rounds in both divisions running Saturday thru Monday. We pay extremely well as far as high school tournaments go and provide housing at the tournament hotel. In addition, the tournament provides some of your meals in between rounds. Please email me back at SNFI2007 at gmail.com if you are going to be in the area and are interested. Thanks, Corey Turoff From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 14:32:47 2009 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:32:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Prefs Active Message-ID: The online prefs can be completed until 2pm Friday....see you in lovely Waco this weekend! The Bears _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?:?more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/55227733/attachment.htm From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 14:40:55 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:40:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNI seeking Debate GTAs for Fall 2009 Message-ID: This is a repost of our earlier call. Cate will be at Northwestern, so if you would like to speak to someone in person, she would be the person to talk with. Kelsey will be at CEDA Nats and would be a great resource as well. The University of Northern Iowa Forensics Team is looking for M.A. students. We will have one debate position, for Fall 2009. We compete in NDT/CEDA policy debate. The UNI forensics team enjoys broad departmental support, allowing students to develop their coaching, teaching, and scholarly skills. The Communication Studies Masters program typically has 40-50 active students, including forensics GTAs. As a GTA, you would have many opportunities to work with students, travel, and help run tournaments, all while earning a M.A. in a two-year program. Our Department of Communication Studies offers an array of specialties: Communication Education, General Communication, Mass Communication, Organizational Communication, Organizational Communication-Human Resources, Performance Studies, and Public Relations. The department is particularly strong in feminist theory and gender studies, media studies, and performance studies. Nationally recognized scholars in visual rhetoric, pedagogy, and theatre of the oppressed, and feminist theory are available for students to work with. There are 22 graduate faculty members, and because the M.A. is the terminal degree in the department, you would have the opportunity to work closely with these professors. Many forensic GTAs leave the program with publications because of the support of faculty. The department includes many former coaches and competitors, as well as the Director of the National Debate Tournament, Dr. John Fritch, who is our Department Chair. As a UNI Forensics GTA, you would receive a full tuition waiver, plus a competitive stipend, as well as having teaching opportunities. The Cedar Falls/Waterloo area is a great collegiate environment, with offerings in culture, athletics, and outdoor activities, as well as an affordable place to live. Recent UNI M.A. graduates have been quite successful. Several graduates are in collegiate coaching positions and Ph.D. programs. If you are interested in learning more about our program, feel free to contact me, Dr. Katherine Lavelle, Director of Forensics at Katherine.lavelle at uni.edu or at my office phone, 319-273-7200. I will be at Augustana and D4's districts this semester; it would be a pleasure to meet with you in person. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Two of our directors, Dr. Catherine Palczewski and Ms. Kelsey Harr, are also excellent resources. . We also have information on our departmental website about our graduate program, which you can access at www.chfa.uni.edu/comstudy/graduate/Katherine L. Lavelle _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/dd160e38/attachment.htm From generalzodis2vp at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 14:53:05 2009 From: generalzodis2vp at gmail.com (General Zod) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:53:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] VIDEO ADDRESS FROM THE NEW CEDA 2VP Message-ID: Check out your new 2VP's address on the issues facing CEDA here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ExLnzPnlg4 Thanks -GZ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/d654c493/attachment.htm From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 15:05:47 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:05:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNI seeking Debate GTAs for Fall 2009 Message-ID: This is a repost of our earlier call. Cate will be at Northwestern, so if you would like to speak to someone in person, she would be the person to talk with. Kelsey will be at CEDA Nats and would be a great resource as well. The University of Northern Iowa Forensics Team is looking for M.A. students. We will have one debate position, for Fall 2009. We compete in NDT/CEDA policy debate. The UNI forensics team enjoys broad departmental support, allowing students to develop their coaching, teaching, and scholarly skills. The Communication Studies Masters program typically has 40-50 active students, including forensics GTAs. As a GTA, you would have many opportunities to work with students, travel, and help run tournaments, all while earning a M.A. in a two-year program. Our Department of Communication Studies offers an array of specialties: Communication Education, General Communication, Mass Communication, Organizational Communication, Organizational Communication-Human Resources, Performance Studies, and Public Relations. The department is particularly strong in feminist theory and gender studies, media studies, and performance studies. Nationally recognized scholars in visual rhetoric, pedagogy, and theatre of the oppressed, and feminist theory are available for students to work with. There are 22 graduate faculty members, and because the M.A. is the terminal degree in the department, you would have the opportunity to work closely with these professors. Many forensic GTAs leave the program with publications because of the support of faculty. The department includes many former coaches and competitors, as well as the Director of the National Debate Tournament, Dr. John Fritch, who is our Department Chair. As a UNI Forensics GTA, you would receive a full tuition waiver, plus a competitive stipend, as well as having teaching opportunities. The Cedar Falls/Waterloo area is a great collegiate environment, with offerings in culture, athletics, and outdoor activities, as well as an affordable place to live. Recent UNI M.A. graduates have been quite successful. Several graduates are in collegiate coaching positions and Ph.D. programs. If you are interested in learning more about our program, feel free to contact me, Dr. Katherine Lavelle, Director of Forensics at Katherine.lavelle at uni.edu or at my office phone, 319-273-7200. I will be at Augustana and D4's districts this semester; it would be a pleasure to meet with you in person. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Two of our directors, Dr. Catherine Palczewski and Ms. Kelsey Harr, are also excellent resources. . We also have information on our departmental website about our graduate program, which you can access at www.chfa.uni.edu/comstudy/graduate/Katherine L. Lavelle Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. See how it works. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/ddce6c49/attachment.htm From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Thu Jan 22 15:05:54 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:05:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNI seeking Debate GTAs for Fall 2009 Message-ID: This is a repost of our earlier call. Cate will be at Northwestern, so if you would like to speak to someone in person, she would be the person to talk with. Kelsey will be at CEDA Nats and would be a great resource as well. The University of Northern Iowa Forensics Team is looking for M.A. students. We will have one debate position, for Fall 2009. We compete in NDT/CEDA policy debate. The UNI forensics team enjoys broad departmental support, allowing students to develop their coaching, teaching, and scholarly skills. The Communication Studies Masters program typically has 40-50 active students, including forensics GTAs. As a GTA, you would have many opportunities to work with students, travel, and help run tournaments, all while earning a M.A. in a two-year program. Our Department of Communication Studies offers an array of specialties: Communication Education, General Communication, Mass Communication, Organizational Communication, Organizational Communication-Human Resources, Performance Studies, and Public Relations. The department is particularly strong in feminist theory and gender studies, media studies, and performance studies. Nationally recognized scholars in visual rhetoric, pedagogy, and theatre of the oppressed, and feminist theory are available for students to work with. There are 22 graduate faculty members, and because the M.A. is the terminal degree in the department, you would have the opportunity to work closely with these professors. Many forensic GTAs leave the program with publications because of the support of faculty. The department includes many former coaches and competitors, as well as the Director of the National Debate Tournament, Dr. John Fritch, who is our Department Chair. As a UNI Forensics GTA, you would receive a full tuition waiver, plus a competitive stipend, as well as having teaching opportunities. The Cedar Falls/Waterloo area is a great collegiate environment, with offerings in culture, athletics, and outdoor activities, as well as an affordable place to live. Recent UNI M.A. graduates have been quite successful. Several graduates are in collegiate coaching positions and Ph.D. programs. If you are interested in learning more about our program, feel free to contact me, Dr. Katherine Lavelle, Director of Forensics at Katherine.lavelle at uni.edu or at my office phone, 319-273-7200. I will be at Augustana and D4's districts this semester; it would be a pleasure to meet with you in person. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Two of our directors, Dr. Catherine Palczewski and Ms. Kelsey Harr, are also excellent resources. . We also have information on our departmental website about our graduate program, which you can access at www.chfa.uni.edu/comstudy/graduate/Katherine L. Lavelle Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. See how it works. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/9306e001/attachment.htm From tomogorman at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 15:18:18 2009 From: tomogorman at gmail.com (Thomas O'Gorman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:18:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Prefs Announcement 2 Message-ID: <462619de0901221318u2307d380u31043d7f147737fa@mail.gmail.com> Kelly Young is no longer available to judge. If you have the chance please make any necessary changes in your prefs. Thanks, Tom "[T]he way to make your fate your choice is to choose it, fearlessly, your lungs drinking the air. It makes the gods ashamed." -- Elizabeth Cook, Achilles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/bcc9518f/attachment.htm From rickydeck at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 16:43:06 2009 From: rickydeck at gmail.com (Ricky Deck) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:43:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Paging Georgia State: Cite Request Message-ID: <6ae7c1540901221443p6a18c607v29e969d59fae4351@mail.gmail.com> Could you please email me. I have a quick cite request.... thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/d958ea82/attachment.htm From rickydeck at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 17:06:38 2009 From: rickydeck at gmail.com (Ricky Deck) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:06:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Cite Request Message-ID: <6ae7c1540901221506g18ace916t5ba8cdd22fd7f94f@mail.gmail.com> Please Email me Back. Thanks Ricky Deck Jmu Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/fbd7440b/attachment.htm From rickydeck at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 17:30:26 2009 From: rickydeck at gmail.com (Ricky Deck) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:30:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Liberty-Cite Request Message-ID: <6ae7c1540901221530r124d4039gf9e69ea73d4d1a8a@mail.gmail.com> Please Backchannel me. Ricky Deck JMU Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/9cd0ccba/attachment.htm From tomogorman at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 19:57:21 2009 From: tomogorman at gmail.com (Thomas O'Gorman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:57:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Registration Announcement Message-ID: <462619de0901221757qadf4a9fma8878bcf45a413ae@mail.gmail.com> Registration tonight and tomorrow is at the hotel; the Best Western at 2520 Riva Road, Annapolis Maryland. 149 is in the rearmost building of the Best Western on the north side. You will need to stop by tomorrow in order to pick up your car pass, or else you wont be able to drive on the Yard. Getting into the Yard you should take Gate 8. Which is on Bowyer Road just east of its intersection with Wainwright Road. Here is a mapfor directions from the hotel. The buildings are the same as always; Rickover, Maury, and Sampson. Except that this year that central gathering area is being refurbished so the Tab will be in Rickover along with the food and with Varsity. JV and Novice will be in Maury and Sampson. Any questions ask at Reg. See you tomorrow, Tom O'Gorman Navy Debate PS map link if scrubbed; http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=2520+Riva+Rd,+Annapolis,+Maryland+21401&daddr=Bowyer+Rd&hl=en&geocode=%3BFeLrUgId6MRw-w&mra=pe&mrcr=0&sll=38.984674,-76.521185&sspn=0.06952,0.11055&ie=UTF8&ll=38.985433,-76.495056&spn=0.034759,0.055275&t=h&z=14 "[T]he way to make your fate your choice is to choose it, fearlessly, your lungs drinking the air. It makes the gods ashamed." -- Elizabeth Cook, Achilles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/f5015138/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Thu Jan 22 20:58:23 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:58:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Election Results Message-ID: <222D946018ACA2498D1BC87ED984385044AA8AAB@Poseidon.las.wichita.edu> 44 ballots were submitted. Thanks to everyone who agreed to stand for election. One amendment was on the ballot. The professional conduct amendment passes 32-11. Congrats to the following newly elected officers: 2nd VP: Mike Davis, JMU. Topic Committee: Dave Arnett, Berkeley. Mid America regional rep: Terri Easley, JCCC. Southeast regional rep: David Steinberg, Miami (FL). Southeast central regional rep: Ryan Galloway, Samford. West regional rep: Kristin Hamilton Tudor, Sacramento State. East Central regional rep: Brent Brossmann, John Carroll. Northwest regional rep: Derek Beuscher, Puget Sound. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/9c67f498/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Jan 22 21:59:17 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:59:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Election Results Message-ID: <1232683157.4979409516b9b@webmail.grandecom.net> Thank F******ing God! (Assuming I believed). I can now spend the next three years laughing. The CEDA "community" never lets me down and always meets my expectations. Scott From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 22:43:57 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:43:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Election Results Message-ID: Ok, WTF is wrong w Scott Elliott? I cant even tell if he's mad or happy. Congrats to Mike for 2nd VP and to all of the other candidates and winners. 44 votes? That's not many. People should be more involved in matters that pertain to their professional life. Dont be a buncha idiots. Our turnout is lower than local elections. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/44d581fc/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 22:50:18 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:50:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Election Results In-Reply-To: <1232683157.4979409516b9b@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1232683157.4979409516b9b@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901222050p1eb520f9pae4457272252026c@mail.gmail.com> I think its great that of the 120 schools that have participated in ceda this year (or at least show up on debate results) 32 of them voted for a professionalism amendment that will regulate the rest of them with a ridiculously shallow mandate. Why didnt people vote...they didn't know..they didnt care..either way we are left with a toothy amendment that no one wants to enforce, and has no mandate. Meanwhile congratulations to Mike, I have worked with him alot over the last several years, and i think he will do a great job. On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:59 PM, wrote: > Thank F******ing God! (Assuming I believed). > > I can now spend the next three years laughing. The CEDA "community" never > lets > me down and always meets my expectations. > > > Scott > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090122/eb4eb8a1/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Jan 22 23:03:31 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:03:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Election Results Message-ID: <1232687011.49794fa3a0c50@webmail.grandecom.net> Russell..as obtuse as always. Congrats to Mike Davis. My agenda got passed---anyone other than Andy and Jason was elected. And, I get to stay on the outside, critiquing the absurdity of CEDA. I will sleep well tonight. Scott p.s. This means I am haaaappppyyyy wiiiiitttthhhh the results, Jason. From james.maritato at gmail.com Thu Jan 22 23:24:09 2009 From: james.maritato at gmail.com (James Maritato) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:24:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks for the results -- and for kneeling before Zod. Message-ID: Nuff said. Congrats to the winners. Consolation prize is the home version of "CEDA." -JM(-GZ) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/fd544764/attachment.htm From blakejohnson at urbandebate.org Fri Jan 23 02:29:29 2009 From: blakejohnson at urbandebate.org (Blake Johnson) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 00:29:29 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Let's Start a Fight Message-ID: <7c50ea8f0901230029k2546818bg1ef80905f39a6d2e@mail.gmail.com> Oz, Malgor You both define "senior year" in a really convenient way. 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/20090123/5f74df2f/attachment.htm From mharris02 at drury.edu Fri Jan 23 06:07:51 2009 From: mharris02 at drury.edu (Martin Harris) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:07:51 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Let's Start a fight... Message-ID: <451372279EE24E4992ED27B99AC5577303258A68@EXVS1.drury.edu> Don't half ass it. The reason one reads evidence to support the only right proper framework is because that is what the framework asks for. You know, research, evidence, work.... I mean, good god, this ain't parli. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/84cd1772/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Fri Jan 23 13:07:37 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:07:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Scheduled in Second Life - February 4 Message-ID: <497A1579.20801@uvm.edu> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 23, 2009 UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT AND ST. JOHN?S UNIVERSITY TO PARTICIPATE IN SECOND LIFE VIRTUAL DEBATE The Lawrence Debate Union of he University of Vermont will be participating in the first formal academic debate conducted in a virtual online environment. In cooperation with the St. John?s University Debate Society, LDU members will debate in the online environment Second Life on February 4th at 8:00PM ET. This is the first competitive academic debate conducted between two university debate programs within the Second Life environment. The debate will be held on Emgeetee Island, a series of virtual classrooms created and maintained by Dr. Charles Wankel, Associate Professor of Management in the Tobin College of Business at St. John?s University. The debate will feature four debaters and will be on the topic of limiting tenure for University faculty. At the end of the debate, judgment and critique by debating experts will follow, and then the floor will be open for comments and questions from the virtual audience. Attending the debate is as easy as establishing an account and downloading the Second Life software, which is available at http://www.secondlife.com. Those unfamiliar with the Second Life environment are encouraged to spend time becoming familiar with the program before the date of the debate. For those already established in Second Life, the SURL for the debate is http://slurl.com/secondlife/Emgeetee/110/154/24. Clicking on the link will transport you to the debate venue where you will be able to see and hear the debate live if you have the Second Life software installed. Contact Alfred Snider at alfred.snider at uvm.edu or Steve Llano at llanos at stjohns.edu -- 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 mardigras23 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 14:48:11 2009 From: mardigras23 at hotmail.com (Aaron Kall) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 20:48:11 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Lindsay Harrison argued Nken v. Mukasey before the Supreme Court Today Message-ID: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/?s=nken _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/7cd771f9/attachment.htm From mphall at liberty.edu Fri Jan 23 15:39:58 2009 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:39:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need Northwestern Judging Message-ID: <3096AC9E-5C74-4BDF-A144-67B3E8B4CE84@liberty.edu> Looking for 8 rounds. We pay $30/round cash at the tourney. mph From glueboy1 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 15:51:26 2009 From: glueboy1 at hotmail.com (john foy) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:51:26 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] selling northwestern rounds Message-ID: Selling 6 rounds. Let me know if you're interested. John Foy _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail??more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/7cdc8b3e/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 16:43:21 2009 From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:43:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] let's start a fight Message-ID: Oh blake I'll take embracing success (5th year) over fearing failure (sitting out 4th yr). oooooo snap! still your loving brother malgor _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/d860a930/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com Fri Jan 23 16:48:02 2009 From: malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com (M G) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:48:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ceda election Message-ID: apathetic voting block allows legislation fostering excessive authority to pass. i can't think of any micro or macro political examples of this happening throughout history.... when does the new amendment regulating content pass? _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/add27c0b/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Jan 23 17:34:57 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:34:57 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? In-Reply-To: <17bee7eb0901220536g24d3baddm4da724a86f31ed39@mail.gmail.com> References: <796869.53609.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com><49781548.5080501@wfu.edu><17bee7eb0901220536g24d3baddm4da724a86f31ed39@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <958478456-1232753760-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1131681827-@bxe023.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> I don't disagree at all that the aff should definitely say if they intend to change their plan. We follow the same policy. I just start with the presumption that the aff can change, up until the moment they read the plan text. Things change, even with the best of intentions. Cosmetic plan changes: Good test for "newness" -- does the new plan alter the negative strategy in any way? If not, not really new. --JP Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "Richard A. Garner" Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:36:42 To: Subject: Re: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure? _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From tomogorman at gmail.com Fri Jan 23 22:21:23 2009 From: tomogorman at gmail.com (Thomas O'Gorman) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 23:21:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Rounds 3 and 4 Message-ID: <462619de0901232021j12885601wc1005036fd1eadbd@mail.gmail.com> Pairings Attached. "[T]he way to make your fate your choice is to choose it, fearlessly, your lungs drinking the air. It makes the gods ashamed." -- Elizabeth Cook, Achilles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/0931a362/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Navy Round 3 and 4.doc Type: application/msword Size: 42496 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/0931a362/attachment.doc From gregachten at berkeley.edu Fri Jan 23 23:46:03 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:46:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley pairings round 1 and 2; open division Message-ID: <62322.72.254.110.187.1232775963.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRound1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49592 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/7b8622b6/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRound2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49750 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/7b8622b6/attachment-0001.pdf From gregachten at berkeley.edu Fri Jan 23 23:47:31 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:47:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Berkely JV and Novice pairings rds 1 and 2 Message-ID: <62330.72.254.110.187.1232776051.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRound1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42843 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/4369266d/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRound2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45594 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/4369266d/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceRound1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42831 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/4369266d/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceRound2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 47280 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/4369266d/attachment-0003.pdf From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sat Jan 24 00:07:41 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:07:41 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley pairings Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/62d2d7cb/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRound1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49593 bytes Desc: OpenRound1.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/62d2d7cb/attachment-0002.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRound2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49751 bytes Desc: OpenRound2.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090123/62d2d7cb/attachment-0003.pdf From veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com Sat Jan 24 14:21:35 2009 From: veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com (Veronica Guevara) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:21:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Debating at WSCA anyone? Message-ID: Hi folks, We're making some travel decisions this week. We could provide an open team at WSCA. We were wondering if anyone else was considering going and if there was a possibility we could have this tournament make like we did last year. If you are considering Western States, could you let us know. Maybe we can work in concert like we did in previous years to get a coalition of schools since many of us have to be there anyways for the conference. We'd like to know your thoughts on that asap...thanks! Veronica M. Guevara Weber State University Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408 www.weberdebate.com _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/bd8a12a1/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sat Jan 24 16:18:17 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:18:17 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Berkelely round 3 Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRd3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49733 bytes Desc: OpenRd3.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/c7e16226/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceRd3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 43477 bytes Desc: NoviceRd3.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/c7e16226/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd3.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42237 bytes Desc: JVRd3.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/c7e16226/attachment-0002.pdf From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sat Jan 24 20:04:02 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:04:02 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley round 4 Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Jvrd4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 43196 bytes Desc: Jvrd4.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/d7a2e416/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRd4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 50950 bytes Desc: OpenRd4.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/d7a2e416/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceRd4.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45528 bytes Desc: NoviceRd4.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/d7a2e416/attachment-0002.pdf From tomogorman at gmail.com Sat Jan 24 20:39:03 2009 From: tomogorman at gmail.com (Thomas O'Gorman) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:39:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Octofinal Pairings Message-ID: <462619de0901241839l4773760cu1d8aca6dd1715e89@mail.gmail.com> Easy print version as attachment. ** *ROUNDS BEGIN AT 8:30 IN RICKOVER; IF YOU ARE NOT JUDGING AND ALL YOUR TEAMS ARE ELIMINTATED YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE* *VARSITY* 1. Mary Washington KS ? advances without debating 2. Liberty University DG (flip) v. Mary Washington GS: Lacy, Waldinger, Hanson ? Rickover 205 3. Pittsburgh LS (flip) v. GMU HO: D'Amico, Paul, Aurelio ? Rickover 206 4. Wake Forest MZ (flip) v. Case Western MW: Lind, Nagy, Jones ? Rickover 207 5. Richmond FL (flip) v. Wayne State GH: Bowman, Green, Grimm ? Rickover 208 6. James Madison DL (flip) v. Liberty GT: Brovero, Bellon, Thomas ? Rickover 209 7. Trinity BH (flip) v. Liberty BH: Weiner, Hahn, Packer ? Rickover 210 8. Georgetown MR (flip) v. Georgia HP: Katsulas, Willis, Patrice ? Rickover 211 *JUNIOR VARSITY* 1. Wayne State KS ? advances without debating 2. Mary Washington DS ? advances without debating 3. Liberty BP ? advances without debating 4. Trinity CH ? advances without debating 5. GMU JL ? advances without debating 6. Liberty AJ ? advances without debating 7. Mary Washington GT (neg) v. Wayne State DM: Angat, Lyle, Arnold ? Rickover 230 8. Clarion CR (flip) v. JMU ES: Ryan, Halydier, Abbott ? Rickover 203 *NOVICE* 1. Liberty DT ? advances without debating 2. JMU AW ? advances without debating 3. Liberty AE (aff) v. App. State AH: Davis, Paqueo, Collins ? Rickover 223 4. Liberty AH (flip) v. GMU MS: Webster, Coleman, Ford ? Rickover 224 5. Liberty LT (neg) v. Clarion FF: O'Donnell, Barnes, Macleod ? Rickover 235 6. Mary Washington HM (flip) v. Clarion PS: Manino, Dunn, Bender ? Rickover 229 7. BC BF (flip) v. Mary Washington AS: Heather Hall, Ayers, Rubino ? Rickover 212 8. Liberty KT (flip) v. Army DH: Noerr, Downing, Archer ? Rickover 213 "[T]he way to make your fate your choice is to choose it, fearlessly, your lungs drinking the air. It makes the gods ashamed." -- Elizabeth Cook, Achilles -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/548a7e14/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Navy Octofinals.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29184 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/548a7e14/attachment.doc From cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu Sun Jan 25 03:57:36 2009 From: cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu (Cameron T. Norris) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:57:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern MS - Cite request Message-ID: <3bf818490901250157x40ba3119qcf9434d317ff2559@mail.gmail.com> Could one of you email me back? I have a cite request. Thanks, -- Cameron Norris cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/af155f21/attachment.htm From twoan318 at gmail.com Sun Jan 25 12:08:05 2009 From: twoan318 at gmail.com (Tansy Woan) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:08:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley BP - Cite Request Message-ID: Hey, Can someone email me back? I have a cite request. Thanks! Tansy Woan On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send eDebate mailing list submissions to > edebate at www.ndtceda.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Debating at WSCA anyone? (Veronica Guevara) > 2. Berkelely round 3 (Bruschke, Jon) > 3. Berkeley round 4 (Bruschke, Jon) > 4. Navy Octofinal Pairings (Thomas O'Gorman) > 5. Northwestern MS - Cite request (Cameron T. Norris) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:21:35 -0700 > From: Veronica Guevara > Subject: [eDebate] Debating at WSCA anyone? > To: > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > Hi folks, > > We're making some travel decisions this week. We could provide an open > team at WSCA. We were wondering if anyone else was considering going and if > there was a possibility we could have this tournament make like we did last > year. If you are considering Western States, could you let us know. > > Maybe we can work in concert like we did in previous years to get a > coalition of schools since many of us have to be there anyways for the > conference. We'd like to know your thoughts on that asap...thanks! > > > > > Veronica M. Guevara > > Weber State University > Department of Communication > 1605 University Circle > Ogden, UT 84408 > > www.weberdebate.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009 > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/bd8a12a1/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:18:17 -0800 > From: "Bruschke, Jon" > Subject: [eDebate] Berkelely round 3 > To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > < > F7DA7E5896B79D4F8F7D01E5062D69880186B01D3B48 at SFEXCH4.AD.FULLERTON.EDU> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: OpenRd3.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 49733 bytes > Desc: OpenRd3.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/c7e16226/attachment-0003.pdf > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: NoviceRd3.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 43477 bytes > Desc: NoviceRd3.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/c7e16226/attachment-0004.pdf > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: JVRd3.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 42237 bytes > Desc: JVRd3.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/c7e16226/attachment-0005.pdf > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:04:02 -0800 > From: "Bruschke, Jon" > Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley round 4 > To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > < > F7DA7E5896B79D4F8F7D01E5062D69880186B01D3B49 at SFEXCH4.AD.FULLERTON.EDU> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Jvrd4.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 43196 bytes > Desc: Jvrd4.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/d7a2e416/attachment-0003.pdf > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: OpenRd4.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 50950 bytes > Desc: OpenRd4.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/d7a2e416/attachment-0004.pdf > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: NoviceRd4.pdf > Type: application/pdf > Size: 45528 bytes > Desc: NoviceRd4.pdf > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/d7a2e416/attachment-0005.pdf > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:39:03 -0500 > From: "Thomas O'Gorman" > Subject: [eDebate] Navy Octofinal Pairings > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Cc: Tom O'Gorman > Message-ID: > <462619de0901241839l4773760cu1d8aca6dd1715e89 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Easy print version as attachment. > ** > *ROUNDS BEGIN AT 8:30 IN RICKOVER; IF YOU ARE NOT JUDGING AND ALL YOUR > TEAMS > ARE ELIMINTATED YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE* > > > > *VARSITY* > > > > 1. Mary Washington KS ? advances without debating > > > > 2. Liberty University DG (flip) v. Mary Washington GS: Lacy, Waldinger, > Hanson ? Rickover 205 > > > > 3. Pittsburgh LS (flip) v. GMU HO: D'Amico, Paul, Aurelio ? Rickover 206 > > > > 4. Wake Forest MZ (flip) v. Case Western MW: Lind, Nagy, Jones ? Rickover > 207 > > > > 5. Richmond FL (flip) v. Wayne State GH: Bowman, Green, Grimm ? Rickover > 208 > > > > 6. James Madison DL (flip) v. Liberty GT: Brovero, Bellon, Thomas ? > Rickover > 209 > > > > 7. Trinity BH (flip) v. Liberty BH: Weiner, Hahn, Packer ? Rickover 210 > > > > 8. Georgetown MR (flip) v. Georgia HP: Katsulas, Willis, Patrice ? Rickover > 211 > > > > *JUNIOR VARSITY* > > > > 1. Wayne State KS ? advances without debating > > > > 2. Mary Washington DS ? advances without debating > > > > 3. Liberty BP ? advances without debating > > > > 4. Trinity CH ? advances without debating > > > > 5. GMU JL ? advances without debating > > > > 6. Liberty AJ ? advances without debating > > > > 7. Mary Washington GT (neg) v. Wayne State DM: Angat, Lyle, Arnold ? > Rickover 230 > > > > 8. Clarion CR (flip) v. JMU ES: Ryan, Halydier, Abbott ? Rickover 203 > > > > *NOVICE* > > > > 1. Liberty DT ? advances without debating > > > > 2. JMU AW ? advances without debating > > > > 3. Liberty AE (aff) v. App. State AH: Davis, Paqueo, Collins ? Rickover 223 > > > > 4. Liberty AH (flip) v. GMU MS: Webster, Coleman, Ford ? Rickover 224 > > > > 5. Liberty LT (neg) v. Clarion FF: O'Donnell, Barnes, Macleod ? Rickover > 235 > > > > 6. Mary Washington HM (flip) v. Clarion PS: Manino, Dunn, Bender ? Rickover > 229 > > > > 7. BC BF (flip) v. Mary Washington AS: Heather Hall, Ayers, Rubino ? > Rickover 212 > > > > 8. Liberty KT (flip) v. Army DH: Noerr, Downing, Archer ? Rickover 213 > > "[T]he way to make your fate your choice is to choose it, fearlessly, your > lungs drinking the air. It makes the gods ashamed." -- Elizabeth Cook, > Achilles > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/548a7e14/attachment-0001.htm > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Navy Octofinals.doc > Type: application/msword > Size: 29184 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090124/548a7e14/attachment-0001.doc > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:57:36 -0600 > From: "Cameron T. Norris" > Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern MS - Cite request > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <3bf818490901250157x40ba3119qcf9434d317ff2559 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Could one of you email me back? I have a cite request. > > Thanks, > > -- > Cameron Norris > cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/af155f21/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > End of eDebate Digest, Vol 40, Issue 30 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/2c53255b/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sun Jan 25 09:54:49 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 07:54:49 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley round 5 Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 42033 bytes Desc: JVRd5.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/b34dfe9e/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRd5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 50007 bytes Desc: OpenRd5.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/b34dfe9e/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceRd5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 43073 bytes Desc: NoviceRd5.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/b34dfe9e/attachment-0002.pdf From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sun Jan 25 14:01:33 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:01:33 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley round 6 Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRd6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 49830 bytes Desc: OpenRd6.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/ea9fdcfe/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45639 bytes Desc: JVRd6.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/ea9fdcfe/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceRd6.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45130 bytes Desc: NoviceRd6.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/ea9fdcfe/attachment-0002.pdf From veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com Sun Jan 25 17:54:46 2009 From: veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com (Veronica Guevara) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:54:46 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Val Browning Round Robin Photos Message-ID: For pictures from this year's Val Browning Round Robin: http://www.weberdebate.com/valbrowningrr.htm Veronica M. Guevara Weber State University Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Ogden, UT 84408 www.weberdebate.com _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/9e68ddb1/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sun Jan 25 18:36:01 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:36:01 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley elim bracket Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ElimBracket.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 51064 bytes Desc: ElimBracket.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/d8eca7a7/attachment.pdf From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 25 18:53:07 2009 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:53:07 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Elims & Speakers Message-ID: Open Quarters UCO HS v UCO CS UMKC AG v Texas CM Davis Gagnon Atchison UNLV CC v Trinity BE Evans DiPiazza Thiele UTSA MT v Wayne State PP Vega Gordon Naputi JV Quarters Houston JK v KCKCC CT Elliot S. Massey Halley Louisiana-Lafayette CM v KCKCC FS Abbas Howard Patterson UMKC BE v Oklahoma CT Kissinger Tiffee Martin Oklahoma KZ v Texas BG Arellano Elliot D. Burk Open Speakers 1. Spurlock- UCO 2. Casey- UCO 3. Henry- UCO 4. Thomas- UTSA 5. Carr-Lee- UNLV 6. Spomer- UCO 7. Cochran- UNLV 8. Garcia- UMKC 9. McNeil- Texas 10. Montee- UTSA _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/257e7369/attachment.htm From Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU Sun Jan 25 20:34:17 2009 From: Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU (Kenneth M. Strange) Date: 25 Jan 2009 21:34:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Dartmouth Round Robin Message-ID: <147423422@newvixen.Dartmouth.EDU> The tab sheet for the Dartmouth Round Robin is attached. It is a word document and may not be readable for all. I'll send it again as a pdf later. In case it can't be read, here are the main results: Team Results: 1st Northwestern 5-1 2nd Cal-Berkeley 4-2 3rd Wake Forest 3-3 343.5 Dartmouth 3-3 341 Speakers 1st Brett Bricker 172.5 2nd Seth Gannon 172 3rd Alex Lamballe 171.5 114.5 Tripp Rebrovick 171.5 114 57 7 ranks Caroline Harkins 171.5 114 57 11 ranks Within a few days, round reports will be put on the wiki. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: '09 TAB.doc Type: application/msword Size: 31232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/210b41c7/attachment-0001.doc From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sun Jan 25 20:37:25 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:37:25 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley Results Sheets Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ResultsOpen.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 67498 bytes Desc: ResultsOpen.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/7927174d/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceResults.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 52068 bytes Desc: NoviceResults.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/7927174d/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVResults.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 50211 bytes Desc: JVResults.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/7927174d/attachment-0002.pdf From gregachten at berkeley.edu Sun Jan 25 21:53:33 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:53:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley Judge List for Quarterfinals Message-ID: <56233.136.152.167.31.1232942013.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> The following judges will be needed for the quarterfinal round at 9:00 AM. All elims are in the Oakland Convention Center rooms attached to the 2nd floor of the Oakland Marriott. Pairings will be released at 8:00 AM in room 201 in the Convention Center. Chalfant Chestnut Hester Holbrook Blake Johnson McBride Murillo Olney Pointer Stables Orion Steele Strait From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Sun Jan 25 22:14:26 2009 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:14:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor 9am Semis/Judges Message-ID: Open Semis UCO HS v Texas CM (flip) Wayne State PP v Trinity BE (flip) JV Semis Louisiana-Lafayette CM v Houston JK (flip) Oklahoma CT v Texas BG (flip) Judges for the 9am Round: Atchison, J. Beier, I. Davis, J. Elliot, S. Greenwalt, D. Kissinger, I. Marlow, E. Massey, J. Naputi, T. Patterson, R. Smith, R. Varda, S. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/d8d063d9/attachment.htm From adam.abelkop at gmail.com Sun Jan 25 23:48:08 2009 From: adam.abelkop at gmail.com (Adam Abelkop) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 23:48:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Missing Dell Power Cord at Berkeley? Message-ID: <17e56e560901252148j533654f3m66c9c48d7b4d01aa@mail.gmail.com> As we were leaving, the Iowa folks found a Dell power cord in our room (125). I'll give it to Achten tomorrow. -Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090125/f14b41ea/attachment.htm From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Mon Jan 26 12:08:24 2009 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:08:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Finals Message-ID: Open Texas CM (Aff) v Trinity BE Davis, Smith, Varda JV Oklahoma CT (Aff) v Louisiana-Lafayette CM Greenwalt, Kissinger, Patterson _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090126/e282fb43/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon Jan 26 12:55:32 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:55:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New Argument mapping Website Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901261055u6f3934c8h82b10bf6497ca1e2@mail.gmail.com> Thought this was kinda cool and some folks may want to check it out, its an online service that maps arguments....its new and in its very early stages but still ....worth playing with and if you like it enough help them develop it http://www.amap.org.uk/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090126/4f16e0dc/attachment.htm From jrwatchtower at gmail.com Mon Jan 26 19:53:52 2009 From: jrwatchtower at gmail.com (john rief) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:53:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pitt Looking to Hire 4 Rounds at Northwestern Message-ID: <65f6da530901261753v480459adv184a34e27db1aa58@mail.gmail.com> Please contact me asap if you have any extra rounds you want to sell. Will pay $30.00 per round. Thanks, John Rief WPDU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090126/652899f5/attachment.htm From luvmarissa at hotmail.com Mon Jan 26 21:13:19 2009 From: luvmarissa at hotmail.com (Marissa Silber) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 03:13:19 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Deadline extended - Graduate Assistantship at University of Florida - study in any academic department Message-ID: For those of you interested in graduate studies in any academic department at the University of Florida, the deadline to apply for the debate assistantship has been extended until March 1, 2009 (this is the same date as the deadline to apply for the Director of Debate position). Please note that the individual academic departments have their own application deadlines that you must meet, many of which are before March 1st. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me!Marissa Silber Below is the original post: Debate Graduate Assistantship at The University of Florida Coach Debate and Study in Any Academic Department ****Apply soon---Graduate Admission Deadlines Approaching Quickly!!!!!**** The University of Florida Speech and Debate Team would like to invite candidates to apply for a graduate coaching/teaching assistantship to work with our policy debate program beginning fall 2009. The position would not require any teaching, just assisting with the debate program. However, teaching opportunities may be available for additional funding. Because there is no graduate program in Speech Communication at UF, assistantships can be awarded to either MA or PhD students studying in any academic department! There is also the potential for using the assistantship?s tuition waiver to cover a portion of Law School tuition if the student is enrolled in a joint degree program. The assistantship includes a full-time (9 credit hours per semester) tuition waiver, a salary stipend, graduate student health insurance, and a tournament travel stipend. The Graduate Assistant coach is expected to supervise and provide models for research and argument writing, oversee practice debates and speaking drills, manage research assignments, judge at and travel to at least three tournaments per semester. Kellie Roberts, our Director of Forensics, takes care of most of the administrative responsibilities such as travel arrangements and paperwork, so your responsibilities are much more focused on coaching the debaters. Candidates are required to complete the admission application for the department they are interested in studying in by the department?s deadline (go to UF?s homepage at www.ufl.edu to link to academic departments and the graduate school). Please complete this process soon as several departments? application deadlines are fast approaching. In order to apply for the assistantship, please supply Kellie Roberts with the following information no later than February 1, 2009. Please email Kellie at robertsk at ufl.edu with the following information: your name, address, email, phone number, name of school you completed your Bachelors Degree at and Major. Please also include contact information for three references as well as a one page coaching philosophy statement. This statement should include information about your coaching style and goals for a small yet competitive program like ours that is tailored to all levels of policy debate. If you are interested in more information about graduate assistantships with the University of Florida Debate Team, feel free to contact Marissa Silber, Policy Debate Coach, at silber at ufl.edu _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090127/a0a552b5/attachment.htm From jrwatchtower at gmail.com Tue Jan 27 07:49:01 2009 From: jrwatchtower at gmail.com (john rief) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:49:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pitt Northwestern Rounds Covered Message-ID: <65f6da530901270549v31797efaq75702539bc3e5a55@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to all who responded. JR -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090127/ed14a5db/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Tue Jan 27 09:11:02 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:11:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Anchors Aweigh! Message-ID: On behalf of the WVU Debate Team, I'd like to thank Danielle Verney O'Gorman, Tom O'Gorman, and the Navy debaters for a fantastic tournament. Our group enjoyed the competition (what a tough JV division!), the hospitality, the military precision with which the tournament ran, and the community. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090127/57a5c499/attachment.htm From maffiemd at muohio.edu Tue Jan 27 09:27:50 2009 From: maffiemd at muohio.edu (Mike Maffie) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:27:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Cornell Tournament Hotel Reminder Message-ID: <09830684-968A-4831-BE9A-D6E3AC6C68D5@muohio.edu> Just a reminder, the hotel block for the Cornell tournament will be closing soon. The deadline for Country Inn and Suites is February 2nd, and the deadline for the Best Western is February 1st. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Mike Maffie, mdm283 at cornell.edu We look forward to seeing you in Ithaca in a few weeks. Sincerely, Sam Nelson Director of Forensics Mike Maffie Assistant Director of Forensics Chris Langone Graduate Student Assistant Tony Liao Graduate Student Assistant From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue Jan 27 11:25:10 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:25:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JV/Novice Nationals Message-ID: <9368bc9b0901270925n17faeff9w4b3c612bbbbcf3d5@mail.gmail.com> Just a reminder...the deadline for the hotel block is coming Feb 2nd ...if you have issues with this please let me know now, as i will be very limited in my ability to address your issues after the deadline...i will however remind you alot between now and then, need the hotel information? go to http://jvnovnats09.wordpress.com/complete-invitation/hotel-information/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090127/16acb3f9/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Tue Jan 27 14:08:23 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:08:23 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by California Message-ID: <8B23C098C6C84E1A845BA46192A7670A@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:District 1 Tourney Starts:2/27/2009 Ends:3/1/2009 Hosted by: California Contact: Address: Phone: 510-684-8120 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: NDT qualifier with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters State Championship with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From meeisenstadt at gmail.com Tue Jan 27 15:19:23 2009 From: meeisenstadt at gmail.com (Michael Eisenstadt) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:19:23 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Tournament Message-ID: <523152010901271319g6a90ef7cm468a90c76b8a9eb4@mail.gmail.com> On behalf the UNLV debate team, we would like to thank Baylor for an awesome time in Waco. The hospitality was top notch, the food was great, and the tournament ran smoothly. On that note, is there a way I could obtain the results packet for the tournament? Thank you so much! Michael Eisenstadt -- Michael Eisenstadt Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum President UNLV Class of 2011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090127/4782039d/attachment.htm From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Tue Jan 27 16:21:00 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:21:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Let's Start a Fight In-Reply-To: <7c50ea8f0901230029k2546818bg1ef80905f39a6d2e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7c50ea8f0901230029k2546818bg1ef80905f39a6d2e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <39c09a80901271421m4f2cf18do13eeb59ef22ef275@mail.gmail.com> blake, u always defined ... everything ... in a really convenient way oz p.s. sorry about the delay i was movin On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Blake Johnson wrote: > Oz, Malgor > > You both define "senior year" in a really convenient way. > > b > > -- > Blake Johnson > Executive Director > Bay Area Urban Debate League > www.baudl.org > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090127/dfa4eab7/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 27 21:57:39 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 19:57:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Iowa Job Deadline Message-ID: <744731.81720.qm@web53510.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Just a reminder from your friendly neighborhood clash of civilizations judge that the deadline for applications for the University of Iowa coaching position is February 1st. Any questions email Paul-Bellus at uiowa.edu -PJ U Iowa From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Wed Jan 28 00:10:54 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:10:54 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Iowa Job Deadline In-Reply-To: <744731.81720.qm@web53510.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <744731.81720.qm@web53510.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <39c09a80901272210m57f14e5fyf26e8380be0378ce@mail.gmail.com> :heart: friendly neighborhood clash of civilizations judges On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Just a reminder from your friendly neighborhood clash of civilizations > judge that the deadline for applications for the University of Iowa coaching > position is February 1st. Any questions email Paul-Bellus at uiowa.edu > > -PJ > U Iowa > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090127/f130f67d/attachment.htm From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 09:38:39 2009 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:38:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy would like to hire 3 rounds at Northwestern Message-ID: We'd pay $30/round in cash. Let me know if you're interested, to this email or verney at usna.edu. Danielle Verney O'Gorman Navy Debate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail??more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/678ef368/attachment.htm From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 09:38:45 2009 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:38:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Finals Results Message-ID: Open: Texas CM defeated Trinity BE on a 2-1 decision, R. Smith & J. Davis on top, with Varda sitting out. JV: Louisiana Lafayette defeated Oklahoma CT on a 2-1 decision, R. Patterson & I. Kissinger on top, with Greenwalt sitting out. Congrats to the finalists, and special thanks to the UCO folks who stayed late to help with judging, even with the ice storm moving in. I think the Johnson County crew finally made it back to Kansas City today...wow. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?:?more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/ef4e44b1/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Jan 28 11:03:08 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:03:08 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Appalachian State Message-ID: Name:American Debate Association (ADA Nationals) Starts:3/13/2009 Ends:3/15/2009 Hosted by: Appalachian State Contact: Kris Willis Address: ASU Box 32039 Phone: 828-262-8371 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 11:07:53 2009 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:07:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Invitation Message-ID: Below is the Official Invitation to this years ADA National Debate Tournament. We are working diligently with the ADA executive team in an attempt to cut costs as much as we can. It is also attached for easy download and print. We welcome all to Boone and look forward to Hosting You in March!! 2009 American Debate Association National Championship Tournament Invitation January 20, 2009 Dear Colleague, On behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Debate Association, Appalachian State University is pleased to invite you to participate in the twenty-second annual American Debate Association National Championship Tournament on March 13th-15th. The tournament is sanctioned by CEDA and will abide by CEDA's policy on sexual harassment. Our goal is to host a competently managed tournament with all three divisions of debate. As has been past practice, the tournament tab room will be run by independent administration and Rich Edwards has agreed to manage this effort. This year's tournament will feature six preliminary rounds and an appropriate number of elimination rounds of debate in three divisions. The tournament will be conducted in accordance with the rules of the American Debate Association. A copy of these rules is available upon request. They will also be distributed in the pre-tournament booklet. Tournament entries must be received by March 9th, 2009. Entries after that date are subject to campus room availability. Please note that hotel reservations must be made by February 20th, 2009 to guarantee the special rate. We hope you will plan to enter teams in all three divisions. This year we will use the Bruschke tournament entry system. Fees will be $50.00 per participant (debater, judge or coach). Observers may attend for $50.00 per person (an observer is any person attending the tournament that is not debating or judging at least two preliminary rounds or officially providing service to the tournament). We provide dinner on Friday, breakfast and lunch on Saturday, breakfast and banquet lunch on Sunday and extensive snacks in our hospitality room. This means low food costs for your teams attending the tournament. The tournament also provides outstanding awards, including sweepstakes awards for all three divisions, traveling trophies for the top speaker in each division and first place teams and team awards for all teams reaching the elimination rounds. Kris Willis Mariam Willis Brent Brossman Rich Edwards Tournament Hosts President, ADA Tournament Director 22nd ADA Championship Tournament March 13-15, 2009 Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina Format: The debate topic for the tournament will be the national policy topic: Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat. Time limits for speeches are 9-3-6 with ten minutes of preparation time. There will be six preliminary rounds. Rounds one and two will be pre-set. Rounds three through six will be power matched. Three divisions of debate will be offered: novice, junior varsity, and varsity. Mutual preference judging, per the ADA rules, will be employed by the tournament. An appropriate number of elimination rounds will be offered in accordance with the ADA rules and based on the size of the tournament. Entries: Enter as many teams as you like in each of the three divisions. If entries exceed room availability, latecomers may be restricted to two teams per school per division of debate. Eligibility for participation in the division is governed by the ADA rules. 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR DEBATE DIVISIONS-- Tournaments will define eligibility for particular divisions of debate in the following ways: A. Varsity Debate--open to all students; B. Junior Varsity Debate 1. Open only to students who are competing in their first two academic years of intercollegiate debate beyond the novice level. 2. Progression during the year. Debaters competing in JV must progress to open or varsity debate: a. if they advance to the final round of three JV, open, or varsity tournaments (no matter where) in which there are 20 or more teams in the division, or b. if they qualify to attend the National Debate Tournament 3. ADA Nationals. The aforementioned progression requirement based on advancing to the final rounds of three junior varsity, open, or varsity tournaments does not apply to ADA Nationals and Round Robins. A. Novice Debate--This division is designed for debaters who are truly in their first year of competitive debate or who have so little previous experience that they are functionally first-year debaters. 1. Eligibility. This division is open to debaters who: a. have no more than a combined total of 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas and policy debate prior to the current academic year of which no more than 18 rounds can be policy debate. b. have competed in the novice division in a previous year but have not advanced into the elimination rounds at two tournaments. 2. Forced progression into the JV division in the middle of the academic year does not count against the two years of JV eligibility ADA Nationals. The aforementioned progression requirement based on advancing to the final rounds of three novice, junior varsity, open, or varsity tournaments does not apply to ADA Nationals or Round Robins for which participants are invited based on the current year's record of competition. B. Any program director seeking an exemption from the above standards shall submit a request to the Vice President who, in conjunction with the Executive Committee or subcommittee thereof, shall rule upon it. Appeals, once granted, may be revoked based on tournament performance. 2. ADA Nationals. For the purposes of the ADA National tournament only, a debate team is defined as the two-person team that begins the first rounds of the tournament and who debate together throughout the course of the tournament. If one of the debaters of a team cannot debate in any given round, that round will be forfeited. Teams that forfeit rounds will be given average speaker points, but are ineligible to clear to elimination rounds if speaker points are the determining factor for their clearing. Debaters who forfeit rounds are ineligible for speaker awards Entry: Please enter the tournament by March 9th, 2009 using the Bruschke Entry System (www.debateresults.com or http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/index.aspx). After that date e-mail or phone entries must be sent directly to Kris Willis (kristopherwillis at hotmail.com; 828-719-7705). Entries after this date are subject to campus room availability. Enter early as our room space may be limited. Judging: Each school should provide a qualified judge for each one or two teams entered in the tournament. A judge will be responsible to cover three preliminary rounds and at least one elimination round for each team entered. All judges will be required to judge through the quarter final elimination round or one round after your last team is eliminated whichever occurs later. Some hired judging may be available at the rate of $25.00 per round. ADA rules stipulate that all judges must "1) have attained a baccalaureate degree or 2) have no remaining intercollegiate debate eligibility and be enrolled in their last year of undergraduate studies. Tournament directors may make individual exceptions to this rule in the case of persons who enrolled in their last two semesters of undergraduate study and are no longer competing in intercollegiate debate. Undergraduate students are eligible to judge for a maximum of two semesters. Any person who judges at an ADA tournament forfeits the right to compete in any ADA tournament thereafter." All judges should post their judge philosophy to the Bruschke website by March 9th, 2009. Fees: Entry fees are $50 per participant (debater and judges), $50.00 for an observer (anyone not debating or judging). Sorry, but all our costs are going directly to the cost of the tournament. Make checks payable to the American Debate Association. Extra banquet tickets may be purchased for $25 per person (for persons attending the banquet only, such as parents). Drops after March 10th will still be assessed the entry fee. Hotel Accommodations: Tournament Hotel: LaQuinta Inns & Suites 165 Highway 105 Ext Boone, NC 28607 828-262-1234 Ask for Brenda Fisher, General Manager, $63.75 rate. www.LQ.com Sleep Inn (This is in the same parking lot as the LaQuinta) 163 Hwy 105 Extension Boone, NC, US, 28607 Phone: (828) 262-0020 Fax: (828) 262-9818 $63.75 rate Best Western Feb. 20th $63.75 (50 rooms combined) 840 E. King Street (Hwy. 421) Boone, NC 28607 (828) 266-1100 ? Fax: (828) 266-1115 Toll Free (888) 573-0408 Country Inn Feb. 20th Country Inn & Suites By Carlson, Boone, NC 818 East King Street , Boone NC 28607 Reservations: (888) 201-1746 US Toll Free Telephone: (828) 264-4234 Fax: (828) 264-4104 Comfort Suites (NC052) 1184 SR 105, Boone, NC, US, 28607 Phone: (828) 268-0099 Fax: (828) 268-0023 Rates: Thursday & Sunday: 73.75 Queen Double Friday & Saturday 109.00 Queen Double ASU DEBATE: LAST DATE Feb. 20th Transportation: Airports: If you are flying to the tournament, the closest option is the Greensboro airport approximately 1 hours and 15 minute drive to Boone. Charlotte airport is approximately 2 hours and Raleigh is approximately 3 hours and 15 minutes to Boone. Please let us know if you need any assistance making travel arrangements. 22nd Annual ADA Championship Tournament TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Thursday, March 12th Pre-tournament Hike to Scenic Destination within Watauga County. We will be leaving at two separate times to accommodate groups different arrival times and schedules. We will coordinate these times with those interested in the hike. If you are interested, please contact Mariam Willis @ razianwillis at hotmail.com Pre-tournament Ski Trip. At your own expense (although with a substantial discount) we will also be hosting a trip to the Sugar Mountain Ski Resort for a day of snowboarding and skiing. Please contact us quickly so we can make appropriate reservations with the resort if you want to come. Please contact Mariam Willis @ razianwillis at hotmail.com There has also been rumor of a football game between Liberty and JMU. If this does in fact happen, I will send the details for a large crowd to observe. Registration at the LaQuita from 8-10pm in the Conference room. Friday, March 13th 9:00 am-12:00 pm Lobby, Raley Hall Registration (Lunch on your own) 1:00pm Round One 3:30pm Round Two 5:30pm Dinner (provided) 6:30pm Round Three Saturday, March 14th 8:00am Pairings and Continental Breakfast 9:00am Round Four 11:30am Round Five 1:30pm Lunch (provided) (Sponsored by Lowe?s Hardware and Georgia Pacific) 2:30pm Round Six *6:00pm First Elimination Round (If Necessary ? we will have an elimination round if there is going to be 5 or more rounds of elimination in a division) Sunday, March 15th 8:00am First Elimination Round 11:00am Awards Banquet (Broyhill) 1:30pm Elimination Rounds Continue Kris Willis and Mariam Willis Co-Directors of Debate Appalachian State University _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail??more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/11d53fcf/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2009 American Debate Association National Championship Tournament Invitation.doc Type: application/msword Size: 40448 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/11d53fcf/attachment.doc From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Wed Jan 28 11:48:07 2009 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:48:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Navy Rounds are hired! Message-ID: Thanks! _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/1c71c51f/attachment.htm From max.o.archer at gmail.com Wed Jan 28 11:51:12 2009 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:51:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Viking Debates Announcements Message-ID: <1944fe1d0901280951v6f5296a4o6db21c75ee720d45@mail.gmail.com> Hi Everyone. We are looking forward to hosting you in Rock Island this weekend. Please finalize your entries by 2pm this afternoon (Wednesday). Prefs are active, but any changes should be directed to myself (max.o.archer at gmail.com) and the Tab Room Director, Justin Green (jmgreen at ksu.edu). Stay tuned for more announcements. Max Archer Director of Debate Augustana College 309-794-7717 (o) 281-381-7328 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/69172515/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Jan 28 14:05:05 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:05:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Madison Cup Invite Message-ID: <9a7f6f740901281205h5c2b03a1ib88c34b0ee637c27@mail.gmail.com> Some of you have already received this. If so, sorry for the duplication. Please spread the word. January 15, 2009 On behalf of the James Madison Center and JMU Debate we are pleased and excited to invite you to compete for the Madison Cup at the seventh annual "James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizens Forum" on *Wednesday, March 18, 2009*. The James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizens Forum is a unique inter-collegiate debate competition, which combines the excitement and challenge of tournament competition with the relevance and empowerment of a public audience and audience participation. It is also one of the showcase events of our university's James Madison Day Celebration. *2009 Topic:* Resolved: That coal based technologies, including "clean coal" technologies, should not be included in our nation's energy future. *Other cool and unique features:* *$15,000.00 in prize money *Debating and competing in front of public audiences *No entry fees *Continental breakfast, snacks and lunch provided *Video web-cast *Great PR for your debate program The tournament details are enclosed with this letter. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to hosting you in March! Mike Davis, Ph. D. Pete Bsumek, Ph.D. Director of Debate Director, Madison Cup Debates School of Comm. Studies School of Comm. Studies James Madison University James Madison University (O) 540-568-7308 (O) 540-568-3386 (E-mail) davismk at jmu.edu (E-mail) bsumekpk at jmu.edu * * * * * * * * *Background: *Timed to coincide with the centennial of James Madison University in mid-March, "The James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizen Forum" centers on an important question facing American democracy. The James Madison Center at James Madison University sponsors the event in the spirit of James Madison's ideal that a republican democracy is healthy only when informed and civil debate thrives. The final round will be broadcast live on the World Wide Web. Last year's debate featured teams from Brown University, Cornell University, George Mason University, James Madison University, Johns Hopkins University, Liberty University, Piedmont College, Towson University, Vanderbilt University, University of Mary Washington, University of Richmond, Wake Forest University, and Yale University. *Eligible Participants:* Each school may enter one two-person team. The debate is open to *undergraduate* students who are in good standing at their respective institutions. Second teams will be considered on a case-by-case basis, if space permits. *Competition Format:* The debate uses a "long table" format. *This is a public debate. *Last year there was an audience of around 500 people for the final round, preliminary rounds were smaller (audiences of 20-30 people). * *The "long table" format features three (two person) teams on each side of the question. Speeches start with the affirmative and alternate between the affirmative and negative throughout the debate. Teams are randomly assigned to sides and speaker positions. In other words, if a team is selected to be the first affirmative, they will give the first two affirmative speeches in the debate. The first and last speeches on each side of the question are uninterruptible. Any member of the opposing team may interrupt the speeches in the middle of the debate in order to ask the speaker to yield to a question. Speakers are not required to answer these questions (although not answering questions may cause the audience to think that the speaker is "dodgy"). *Please see the example format below for more information. You can view last year's final round at: * http://www.jmu.edu/orgs/debate/madisonCup/index.html *Jury Adjudication Procedure:* A three to seven member panel, or jury, will adjudicate the debate. Juries will be comprised of local residents, students, professors, distinguished JMU alumni, and special invited guests. At the completion of the debate, the panel will adjourn to discuss, deliberate and decide upon the winners as a group. The jury votes for (2-person) teams, not sides of the question. In other words, first place could go to an affirmative team, while second place could be awarded to a negative team. ** * * * * *Tournament Procedures:* * * ***Number of rounds: This year we will offer *two preliminary rounds of debate and one final round.* * * ***Switch side debate: Each team will debate at least once on the affirmative and once on the negative. *Side & position: Sides (affirmative or negative), and positions (first affirmative team, first negative team, second affirmative team, etc) for the preliminary debates will be determined by random drawing. *Judging: Judges will rank teams 1-6 in each preliminary debate, and assign each team quality points based on a thirty-point scale (1-30). *Advancing to the final round: The six teams with the lowest total ranks will advance to the final round. Quality points will be used to break ties. *Sides and Speaking Positions in the final round: Sides and speaking positions in the final round will be based on seeding after the preliminary rounds. For example, the first seeded team will choose their "side and position," then the second seed will choose "side and position," and so on. * * *Public Participation:* While the jury deliberates, the floor will be opened for audience comments and speeches. An award for the best floor speech will be presented. Local newspapers, politicians, and the general public are invited. *Awards:* The first place team will leave with the Madison Cup?a very nice traveling trophy. Once again this year there is a $15,000.00 purse of prize money. All participants in the final round will be recognized with awards. Prize money will be awarded as follows: 1st place: $5000.00 donation to your debate program 2nd place: $3000.00 donation to your debate program 3rd place: $2000.00 donation to your debate program 4th?6th place: $1000.00 donation to your debate program 7th-10th place: $500.00 donation to your debate program *Entry:* There are no entry fees. We can accommodate a field of 30 teams. Entry is on a first come, first serve basis. The first 18 teams to enter are guaranteed a spot in the field, after that we will accept teams, if we can generate a field divisible by 4 or 6. *Deadline for entry is February 15th. *This is necessary so we can determine how many debates there will be in each round. Send school info, team info (first and last names of debaters) and requests for additional teams to: Dr. Mike Davis, * * * * * * *Lodging:* We have reserved a block of hotel rooms at the newly renovated Best Western Inn of Harrisonburg (formerly the Guest House Inn). The Best Western Inn is located at exit 247A off of I-81. Go east on Highway 33?the hotel is on the right side of the road. The phone number for the Best Western is 540-433-6089. The rate for 1-4 people per room is $54.00 + tax. *This special tournament rate will be available until March 3.* When calling the Best Western Inn please ask for Gini Boyers, and mention that you are attending the Madison Cup debates at JMU. *Travel: *James Madison University is located in Harrisonburg, VA, which is two hours southwest of Washington, D.C. on I-81. If you plan to fly consider Dullas and Washington National/Reagan Airports in Washington DC (2 hours away), Richmond airport (2 hours away), Charlottesville airport (one hour away) and the Shenandoah Regional Airport (15 minutes away). *We will arrange transport from Shenandoah and Charlottesville, we'll do our best to work with you from the others.* *Schedule:* Wednesday, March 18, 2009: James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizens Forum 7:30 AM: Pick up at the Best Western or Warsaw Street Parking Deck (no parking on campus) 8:00 AM registration and Announcements 8:30 AM: Preliminary debate round 1 11:00 AM Preliminary debate round 2 1:00 PM Lunch 2:30PM: Madison Day Ceremonies (announcement of the final round participants) 5:00 PM: Final round (followed by the presentation of the Madison Cup) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Example Debate Format:* The 2004 final round proceeded as follows. 1st Affirmative Speech (Wake Forest #1): (4 minutes) uninterrupted 1st Negative Speech (George Mason #1): (4 minutes) uninterrupted 2nd Affirmative Speech (Wake Forest #2): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 2nd Negative Speech (George Mason #2): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 3rd Affirmative Speech (Georgetown # 1): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 3rd Negative Speech (James Madison #1): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 4th Affirmative Speech (Georgetown #2): (5 minutes) The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 4th Negative Speech (James Madison #2): (5 minutes) The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 5th Affirmative Speech (Mary Washington #1): (5 minutes) The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 5th Negative Speech (Towson #1): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 6th Affirmative Speech (Mary Washington #2): (4 minutes) Uninterrupted 6th Negative Speech (Towson University #2): (4 minutes) Uninterrupted -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/25e7229a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Madiosn Cup Invite 09.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17325 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/25e7229a/attachment.bin From kade.olsen at gmail.com Wed Jan 28 14:43:13 2009 From: kade.olsen at gmail.com (Kade Olsen) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:43:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Dartmouth RR Scouting/Cites Message-ID: <38c34f90901281243r36e59677r544ebcc68ba4d765@mail.gmail.com> I think I have put up everything we scouted. I think we only missed a round or two. There are a number of "we promise we'll put up the cites" in the scouting info. That trick worked on a few of our 1st years. If you did make such promises to our gullible 1st years, please put up the cites. Kade -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/2cb46d71/attachment.htm From akbiotech at comcast.net Wed Jan 28 14:46:10 2009 From: akbiotech at comcast.net (Dr Arthur Kyriazis MScE) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:46:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] eDebate Digest, Vol 40, Issue 29 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4980C412.5040702@comcast.net> re lindsay harrison her bigger accomplishment was writing an important amicus brief for the NAACP in the critical sentencing case of Kimbrough v US, which was decided in favour of the defendants-appellants, and which liberalized re-sentencing procedures after Booker v. US, further destroying the sentencing guideline structure in the federal system and resulting in potentially new sentences or trials for more than 20,000 federal inmates. it's a big deal, actually. --art kyriazis From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Wed Jan 28 14:47:09 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:47:09 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Dartmouth RR Scouting/Cites In-Reply-To: <38c34f90901281243r36e59677r544ebcc68ba4d765@mail.gmail.com> References: <38c34f90901281243r36e59677r544ebcc68ba4d765@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <39c09a80901281247v659c8dud2a7fe99123bab4c@mail.gmail.com> lol what bastards On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Kade Olsen wrote: > I think I have put up everything we scouted. I think we only missed a > round or two. > > There are a number of "we promise we'll put up the cites" in the scouting > info. That trick worked on a few of our 1st years. If you did make such > promises to our gullible 1st years, please put up the cites. > > > Kade > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090128/a4c01301/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Wed Jan 28 17:55:22 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:55:22 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] DEBATE ASSISTANTSHIPS IN LAS VEGAS!!! Message-ID: IT'S NOT TOO LATE? The Department of Communication Studies at UNLV has a "rolling" deadline for admission to our M.A. program and assistantship positions. Please consider graduate school and coaching at UNLV. There are several key selling points associated with our program and school: 1) You can get in on the ground floor of a great new program. Our squad has the right attitude, work ethic, and will to win. Our students are all good people, appreciative, and wonderful to work with. Also, we have a large new scholarship endowment and are attracting some of the best recruits in America to UNLV. The explicit goal of our squad is to become a national powerhouse. We are a growing program, and as a coach in this new program, you have the ability to shape the future of our team. 2) You can get a free M.A. in our top-notch Communication Studies program. You can concentrate in Rhetoric or Interpersonal Communication. My expertise is in rhetoric, so I'll go into detail about that portion of the department (although I can provide information on other aspects of the department at your request). We have six key faculty in rhetoric alone. These faculty members include the current editor of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, a past editor of the Quarterly Journal of Speech, the past president of NCA, the president of the Rhetoric Society of America, as well as several bright up-and-coming faculty members who are set to be rock stars in the discipline. 3) You'd get to go to school in Vegas, baby.... 4) Your degree is essentially free AND you'd earn a $10,000 per year stipend.. The money-making opportunities don't end there. You would also have the opportunity to: a) Earn an extra $3000 in the summer semester teaching a brief summer class b) Earn a good deal of extra money working at our summer HS institute (starting this summer--2009) c) When traveling with us you get the full meal stipend (often up to $50 per day), whatever you don't spend you get to keep. d) When traveling with us you get to hire out for any rounds not needed to cover our commitment. 5) UNLV offers our GAs deeply discounted health insurance 6) You would have the opportunity to gain teaching experience as well as coaching experience. 7) We're a privately funded program, so there is no need to ever worry about budget cuts or state financial troubles taking our budget. 8) We debate at every major national tournament in America, we travel in style, we fly most places, we (almost) always stay in the tournament hotel, etc. 9) Our team has an unprecedented level of institutional support. The former dean of our college was a high school debater. The Chair of the Department of Communication Studies was a coach at Kansas, Iowa State, and Emporia State University. The entire Department of Communication Studies (in which our program is "housed") is deeply supportive of our program. 10) Great things are on the immediate horizon for debate in Las Vegas. Aside from the re-birth of the UNLV debate program, local high school debate is undergoing an unprecedented expansion. The 2007-8 NFL Nationals was held here in Las Vegas with the opening ceremonies held right here on the UNLV campus. We will host NDCA nationals in April 2009 (and potentially again in the future). There already are 2 TOC bid tournaments held in the Las Vegas Valley. We're starting a summer high school debate institute this summer, and in addition, Las Vegas is an integral part of the Urban Debate League's national expansion plan. For further information, please feel free to contact me via email or phone, Jake Jacob Thompson, Ph.D. Director, Sanford I. Berman Debate Forum Assistant Professor In Residence Greenspun College of Urban Affairs Department of Communication Studies University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 45052 Las Vegas, NV 89154-4502 office (702) 895-3474 fax (702) 895-4805 cell (702) 809-9670 Rebel Debate on the web: www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090128/d75cf4f2/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Wed Jan 28 18:45:49 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:45:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Ice Storms and Baylor Thanks Message-ID: <4980A7DD0200009300023B86@mymail.kckcc.edu> So we left Baylor Monday afternoon, made it as far as OKC. Ice and snow like crazy. Monday night they couldnt even clean the roads at all. So we stayed the night. Tuesday no one in OKC touched the roads all day--except the 2 snow plows that turned over. The lack of people and traffic was surreal. Everything was closed--schools, churches, businesses, even gas stations and restaurants. So we stayed the night--again! Around 3am they started clearing things. We left OKC (and JCCC left Norman) about 10am this morning. Back to KC finally tonight. What a trip--like another Texas swing but only one tournament in 6 days! Be careful out there folks. It aint worth the risk to get home early. Tomorrow (less than 24 hours at home) we leave for Augustana--hopefully the roads will be good to us. But thanks to the Baylor Bears. A free tournament (we needed it with the 2 extra nights of hotel rooms), great food and hospitality, and the Baylor people were always open to requests and needs. Congrats to Louisiana Lafayette and Texas. Also to Trinity--2 great tournament showings thousands of miles apart in the same weekend. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Jan 28 22:20:24 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:20:24 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by West Georgia Message-ID: <274D7B8AE3A943449A0E13DFA67C08C9@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:CEDA SE/SEC & D6 NDT Qualifier Starts:2/27/2009 Ends:3/1/2009 Hosted by: West Georgia Contact: Michael Hester Address: 65 King Drive, Carrollton, GA 30116 Phone: 770-362-9435 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From lukephill at gmail.com Thu Jan 29 08:57:24 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:57:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NORTHWESTERN TOURNAMENT- INTERNET AND FOOD Message-ID: Hopefully the two things you cannot live without at a tournament caught your attention. As the Northwestern tournament draws closer we continue to work to make Evanston a fun and enjoyable space to host a great tournament. Once again we need your help to do that. 1) Update your information on debateresults. Many squads still have not entered dietary information or the total number of people in their party. We plan on providing 6 complete meals at the tournament and need accurate numbers from you to make sure we all get to eat. 2) Internet Access- If you have people in your entourage who are not listed as a judge or a participant I need to know who they are by the end of business today (Jan 29). We must assign each individual a unique access code and our IT department is calling for names. You cannot share your access codes and it will be a generally cleaner process during the tournament if everyone has their own code. Please let me know if you have any questions or anything I can do to help you with arrangements in Evanston. Best, Luke and Dan Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090129/287cc05d/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Thu Jan 29 10:16:07 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:16:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Brett Bricker is a rich man In-Reply-To: <2e0f7ba70901210958x1b0e94bfp9eb88586385af4f8@mail.gmail.com> References: <2e0f7ba70901210958x1b0e94bfp9eb88586385af4f8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70901290816p4d34bfbey245a63918d7a1928@mail.gmail.com> pics of the winners and their big novelty checks can be found at: http://www.westga.edu/~honors/extendeddegrees/debatepics.htm hester On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM, michael hester wrote: > he wins the parlay - top speaker and along with Nate Johnson, the > tournament - and earns $1500. with his 4th place speaker award ($700), Nate > earned $1200. leaving a debate tournament $2700 richer than when you left > home and it's not the UNLV tournament? not bad for a weekend's work. > congrats to KU. Rock Chalk indeed. > > thanks to everyone who joined us this past weekend. we had a blast hosting > yall and look forward to doing it again. > > hester > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090129/68fb09e6/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Thu Jan 29 10:31:23 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:31:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Jackson Hole or SLC? Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F55AA3A5A0@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Some input from those who make the drive. Is it easier to drive from Jackson Hole, WY to Pocatello or from Salt Lake City? Who makes this drive? Whats your opinion? Tickets to Pocatello are 600 while Jackson Hole has them around 210.00 thanks in advance jackie From repkowil at msu.edu Thu Jan 29 10:35:31 2009 From: repkowil at msu.edu (repkowil at msu.edu) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:35:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Hotel deadline for Frosh-Soph Nats Approaching Message-ID: <20090129113531.1388250f66o1qker@mail.msu.edu> 1. Please read the message below 2. Please consider joining us in East Lansing -- strong judging and an excellent opportunity for your ounger debaters to improve/develop. Hotel info from Greta follows: Just a reminder - the hotel block reserved for Freshmen/Sophomore Nationals at MSU expires on February 4th.? If you still need to make reservations, rooms are available at the Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center at a rate of $94 per night (+ tax).? This includes the cost of internet.? Parking is $5/night.? Rooms are reserved under "MSU Debate Team", and reservations can be made by calling (800) 875-5090. We are anticipating a strong pool of both competitors and judges.? If you have any questions about the tournament, please contact Greta Stahl at greta.stahl at gmail.com We hope to see you in East Lansing this March! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090129/d2c0d337/attachment.htm From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Thu Jan 29 10:36:28 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:36:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky seeks Northwestern judging Message-ID: We will pay $30 per round cash. If interested please contact me at resolt2 at email.uky.edu. Roger Solt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090129/d506924c/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Thu Jan 29 11:37:10 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:37:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Jackson Hole or SLC? In-Reply-To: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F55AA3A5A0@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> References: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F55AA3A5A0@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> Message-ID: Well I am shocked the tickets to Jackson Hole are that cheap. When Veronica and I are not being debate people, we're ghost town people There isn't a range in the Western Wasatch that we don't really, really well. And I've got to tell you - you MIGHT get lucky and have a beautiful drive over - but if the weather is at all bad (even a slight rain or snow), you'll find that road very narrow, very windy, very dark, and potentially very dangerous. The price is tempting, but the drive could be a major problem. Just my 2 cents. OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM > From: debate at ou.edu> To: edebate at ndtceda.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:31:23 -0600> Subject: [eDebate] Jackson Hole or SLC?> > Some input from those who make the drive.> > Is it easier to drive from Jackson Hole, WY to Pocatello or from Salt Lake City?> > Who makes this drive?> > Whats your opinion? > > Tickets to Pocatello are 600 while Jackson Hole has them around 210.00> > thanks in advance> > jackie> _______________________________________________> eDebate mailing list> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail??more than just e-mail. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_howitworks_012009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090129/a2ea60e5/attachment.htm From max.o.archer at gmail.com Thu Jan 29 14:02:31 2009 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:02:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Viking Debates Announcements Message-ID: <1944fe1d0901291202s267afee8q4ac0db140cc24ec8@mail.gmail.com> Hi everyone. We are looking forward to hosting you this weekend in the Quad Cities. As of a few minutes ago, the weather seems quite reasonable for this time of year. Each day will be partly cloudy with a 10% chance of precipitation. Tomorrow (Friday) the high is 20, the low is 11. Saturday the high is 35, the low is 24. Sunday the high is 32, the low is 15. Luckily all of the debates are in one building, so that should minimize your exposure to the weather. Judge Preferences are active on debateresults. Please complete your prefs by 9AM CST tomorrow (Friday). We are low on judging, but will do everything we can to make sure all judges are mutual. The JV and Novice divisions will be collapsed together. We will have break out elimination debates for novices during Open and JV elims. When you arrive on campus, please park either on 7th Avenue, west (uphill) from Old Main. You can also park in Lot E (at the corner of 38th street and 7th avenue, next to Centennial Hall). Registration is in the Debate Union, Old Main 19. Registration will begin at 2:30pm. Round One will begin at 4:30pm. Please keep in mind that Friday classes are in session in Old Main until 4:00pm. Please be mindful of the Augustana students and instructors in the building by keeping your noise to a minimum. There will be Augustana students (conveniently identified by their Augustana apparel) present to assist you moving your evidence. Please don't use the very old, malfunction prone elevators (unless you wish to be trapped inside). If you have any questions, concerns or last minute changes, please call my cell phone at 281-381-7328 or email me at max.o.archer at gmail.com Looking forward to hosting you, Max Archer Director of Debate Augustana College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090129/2e0ddf79/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Thu Jan 29 14:38:33 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:38:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Soul Hotel Reservations (KSU Tournament) - make them soon (ASAP) Message-ID: <5a6e2a80901291238p462ca5dwc5e2acc7da5e2dfd@mail.gmail.com> Looking forward to having you all in Manhattan. If you have not already made hotel arrangements, I encourage you to. We have a block rate of $82/night - all doubles, free wireless. Clarion - 785-587-5572 - ask for Marin. You should ask for her upon calling. They have just extended our room block. Block group of KSU Debate. Below follows an email I sent to edebate that many apparently did not get... Feel free to ask with any questions or concerns. On behalf of KSU Debate, Justin Green We look forward to seeing everyone in Manhattan for the Soul of America Tournament from Friday February 13 to Sunday February 15th, 2009. We have reserved a room block at The Clarion Hotel 530 Richards Drive Manhattan, KS 66502 at a rate of $82/night for double rooms. Ask for the "Kansas State Debate" block in group reservations at (785) 539-531. This block will be held until January 23rd. For those coming in on Thursday night, there are a few rooms also reserved on that night. There is free wireless and a karaoke establishment within walking distance. Please make your reservations very soon. This weekend the Kansas State Men's Basketball team will be playing the Kansas Jayhawks, so hotel rooms are hard to come by. For those wanting to save more on money you can try: Motel 6 Manhattan, KS - www.motel6.com - (785) 537-1022 Super 8 Manhattan - www.super8.com - (785) 537-8468 Econo Lodge - www.econolodge.com - (785) 539-5391 For those seeking more luxury: Holiday Inn at the Campus (785) 539-7531 Many, many other quality hotels are in Manhattan. A couple of reasons to attend.... 1 Quality debates for younger people 2 Swing partners can break 3 Improve an NDT bubble team's record 4 Practice for districts 5 Aggieville for the coaches - shuttles will be provided. On behalf of Kansas State Debate, Justin Green From debate at ou.edu Thu Jan 29 15:48:50 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:48:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Info! Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677F55AA3A5A6@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> I have a few questions! What is the tournament hotel? Are there out-rounds at the hotel! Thanks, Jackie From repkowil at msu.edu Thu Jan 29 16:06:21 2009 From: repkowil at msu.edu (repkowil at msu.edu) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:06:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The system I intend to use for first-round balloting Message-ID: <20090129170621.14587c1fgjkxo09p@mail.msu.edu> * * * A few people have asked about the ?system? that I intend to use for determining the first-rounds. Attached is a document that explains the system that I intend to use this year. A few caveats: 1.??????? It uses data from last year ? so as to avoid the appearance that I may be trying to sway the upcoming vote. 2.??????? I was not a voter last year ? so if you didn?t care for how you finished in last year?s balloting, this document had nothing to do with that. 3.??????? I am not entirely wed to this system ?for 2008-9 voting ? I am posting (in part) b/c I believe that this system can be tweaked and improved upon. Gordon Stables, in particular, has a more advanced system for calculating the impact of regional tourneys that ? frankly ? is more advanced than I comprehend. I would be open to non-bombastic critiques of this system that are designed to improve the quality of my voting. 4.??????? My other motivation in posting is transparency. If School A wants to know the damn system that I intend to use, I think they have a reasonable right to know. I can envision this decreasing the ?shock? of finding out that you narrowly missed. I can envision this even helping schools to roughly ?know where they stand? heading into the closing tourneys of the 2008-9 campaign. 5.??????? This document excludes data (from 2007-8) for MSU teams. 6.??????? I think the two strengths of this system are that: a)??????? It weights wins and losses. Losing 5 times to the Copeland Winner is ? in fact ? different than losing 5 times to ?an applicant?. b)?????? It weights wins and losses of non-applicants. Each year -- for a host of reasons ? some competitive teams do not apply. Wins or losses to those teams should, in my opinion, still be considered in an applicant's resume. 7.??????? Nothing in this post means that I intend to divulge the precise breakdown of how I vote for first-rounds in 2008-9. 8.??????? I intend to use a different system for second-round balloting. That system involves ?weighting? wins and losses, but places more emphasis on the applicants results against teams that have qualified for the NDT. The rest is attached. Best, Will -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090129/5312929c/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bid Analysis 2008 edebate.doc Type: application/msword Size: 73216 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090129/5312929c/attachment.doc From davismk13 at gmail.com Fri Jan 30 10:41:52 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:41:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JMU Needs Judging at Northwestern Message-ID: <9a7f6f740901300841w4fda07f0teb54bf2e99c243f7@mail.gmail.com> I need a round or two (pay $25 cash per round). Let me know if you can help out. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090130/a976f302/attachment.htm From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Fri Jan 30 10:58:25 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:58:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky has its Northwestern judging Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090130/9732c7f7/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Fri Jan 30 11:32:56 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:32:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Info! Message-ID: <4982E5680200009300023D1B@mymail.kckcc.edu> Jackie et al, I expect to have the invite posted this weekend with the tournament hotels being able to take reservations beginning Monday. The Tournament staff has the invite and are making final adjustments. The main tournament hotel will be the Red Lion Pocatello. All pre-tournament functions, receptions, and Elims day 2 will take place here. The overflow hotel will be the Holiday Inn. As I said, both should be ready to accept reservations next week once the invite is up. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President >>> "Massey, Jackie B." 01/29/09 3:48 PM >>> I have a few questions! What is the tournament hotel? Are there out-rounds at the hotel! Thanks, Jackie _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Fri Jan 30 13:59:16 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:59:16 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Judging - Prefs Message-ID: <498307B4.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> A couple of quick reminders about judging for Northwestern. 1) Since there are SEVEN prelims, no one can be in the pool for more than SEVEN rounds. Please check. 2) The judging obligation is 4 rounds per team (based on invite and Luke's e-mail). I'm interpreting that to mean that if you have 2 teams it is 8 (not 7), 3 teams is 12, and so forth. 3) If you have constraints, in addition to entering them in Bruschke, feel free to communicate them directly to me. 4) I would like to open up the mutual pref by Wednesday noon. It works MUCH better if the judging pool is essentially frozen at that time. Please work to finalize all of your judging by Tuesday night. If you are hiring judges from other schools, please send me that info in an e-mail message as well. THANKS We will be using ORDINAL ranking of the judges for Northwestern. GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090130/a334f1d4/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Fri Jan 30 18:10:21 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:10:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff to this topic? But run on previous topic? Message-ID: <5a6e2a80901301610gc852868i61b35c136d8ab25b@mail.gmail.com> Kansas State has encountered 2 different schools who have run the same (nearly all=90%) aff as they did in years previous. team 1: One school was very upfront "we are going to run the same aff that "x" team did 2 years ago". team 2: Another said "it's new" and said a very similar aff that 1 of the members had run before. In neither of the instances did the exact text of the resolution have much to do with the argument advanced. In other words, the resolution excluded "insert similar subject here" in very similar manners. The resolution was talked about very little. Is there a need to disclose affs that are very similar to previous topics? curious if my very minor degree of angst with team 2 is shared by others, Justin Green From basaindon at yahoo.com Fri Jan 30 19:14:53 2009 From: basaindon at yahoo.com (Brent Saindon) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:14:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] The system I intend to use for first-round balloting In-Reply-To: <20090129170621.14587c1fgjkxo09p@mail.msu.edu> Message-ID: <640991.28797.qm@web65414.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Will: Please do not let this discourage you. There are a lot of different factors that go into these decisions. However, I get the sense that you are a little uncomfortable with your ability to make a judgment, so you would rather put in the the hands of the numbers. My understanding is that the bid application process is only a guide, and that ultimately, it is up to the individual that we hold in high esteem to make a difficult call. I do not think this method will eliminate the feeling that people believe you are unfair (z.b. any conversation on the BCS process). A couple of factors that I can think of: 1) some debate teams are much better than their record suggests, perhaps because budget constraints make them travel more regionally. 2) some debate teams start really slow, only to pick up steam at the end (see: Arizona Cardinals), and perhaps one ought to value developing into a better debater over the course of the year. 3) sometimes matchup problems can get the best of you. You can be great against 99% of the people, but a middle of the pack team just has your number and you debate a lot. You can say that you have to be better than everyone, but that is not true of any team. Anyone that has deabted really has the team they dread to debate for whatever reason. 4) Judge variations probably only have an effect at the margin, but they will have some. How many times have you looked at a packet, looked at a surprise win, then looked at the judge and go "it figures." Do you have judging tiers to add a level of fairness to the clearly subjective decisions being made there? 5) This seems like a lot of work to come to largely the same conclusions as others do, or so you seem to believe. If the results are pretty standard, then why bother? Do you trust your judgment? Besides, can't you spend all that time you crunch numbers playing Wii? I know that this matters to a lot of folks (and it used to matter to me), but at some point, you have to trust that your experience and judgment are enough. As the last page indicates, you have not been able to eliminate subjectivity, just move it to a different place and hide it behind statistics (i.e. the numbers of debaters within each tier, the point scales for the tiers, etc.) Good luck. I hope you find what works for you. Brent Saindon repkowil at msu.edu wrote: /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";} A few people have asked about the ?system? that I intend to use for determining the first-rounds. Attached is a document that explains the system that I intend to use this year. A few caveats: 1.????????????????????? It uses data from last year ? so as to avoid the appearance that I may be trying to sway the upcoming vote. 2.????????????????????? I was not a voter last year ? so if you didn?t care for how you finished in last year?s balloting, this document had nothing to do with that. 3.????????????????????? I am not entirely wed to this system ???for 2008-9 voting ? I am posting (in part) b/c I believe that this system can be tweaked and improved upon. Gordon Stables, in particular, has a more advanced system for calculating the impact of regional tourneys that ? frankly ? is more advanced than I comprehend. I would be open to non-bombastic critiques of this system that are designed to improve the quality of my voting. 4.????????????????????? My other motivation in posting is transparency. If School A wants to know the damn system that I intend to use, I think they have a reasonable right to know. I can envision this decreasing the ?shock? of finding out that you narrowly missed. I can envision this even helping schools to roughly ?know where they stand? heading into the closing tourneys of the 2008-9 campaign. 5.????????????????????? This document excludes data (from 2007-8) for MSU teams. 6.????????????????????? I think the two strengths of this system are that: a)????????????????????? It weights wins and losses. Losing 5 times to the Copeland Winner is ? in fact ? different than losing 5 times to ?an applicant?. b)?????????????????? It weights wins and losses of non-applicants. Each year -- for a host of reasons ? some competitive teams do not apply. Wins or losses to those teams should, in my opinion, still be considered in an applicant's resume. 7.????????????????????? Nothing in this post means that I intend to divulge the precise breakdown of how I vote for first-rounds in 2008-9. 8.????????????????????? I intend to use a different system for second-round balloting. That system involves ?weighting? wins and losses, but places more emphasis on the applicants results against teams that have qualified for the NDT. The rest is attached. Best, Will _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090130/c76e0609/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Fri Jan 30 19:15:18 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:15:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] New Aff to this topic? But run on previous topic? Message-ID: <498351C60200009300023D67@mymail.kckcc.edu> Happened to us recently as well. Before the round my team went in and asked. Came out and said "they are running new". I asked my team what subsidies had this school run on the topic. We isolated 4. I went in and asked team and coach does the 1AC in this round talk about any subsidies you have talked about before. The answer was "no specific subsidies are mentioned in the 1AC and we are just now putting it together". They did look hurried and I took that last part to mean, we'd rather finish this then answer questions. So I retreated to the hallway assuming it would be brand new and likely weird. I told my team that if they ran an aff that wasnt really new to make an ethics argument in the round. 1AC was an exact argument not only run on both sides of the topic by this school in multiple years but was run on the AFF this year at another tournament against us. My team was pissed--made their ethics argument and ended up winning on some other stuff. I thought it was shady to say the least. Same tournament another team discloses their advantage. Says its just poverty, no death cited in the 1AC, poverty in general and nothing else. No other case impacts--we asked. We continued to probe knowing at other tournaments they had really run an advantage that mentioned poverty but was all about ethics and morality. They held firm on poverty only despite the probing. Most of the 1AC was the ethics and the 2AC, 1AR and 2AR were all about ethics and poverty was said 3 times. I flowed the whole debate. Poverty was not the only advantage/impact to the 1AC. We were smart enough to run a CP that solved all the aff--even their ethics silliness. But again, seemed shady at the least and was frustrating. I share Justin's angst here. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President >>> Justin Green 01/30/09 6:10 PM >>> Kansas State has encountered 2 different schools who have run the same (nearly all=90%) aff as they did in years previous. team 1: One school was very upfront "we are going to run the same aff that "x" team did 2 years ago". team 2: Another said "it's new" and said a very similar aff that 1 of the members had run before. In neither of the instances did the exact text of the resolution have much to do with the argument advanced. In other words, the resolution excluded "insert similar subject here" in very similar manners. The resolution was talked about very little. Is there a need to disclose affs that are very similar to previous topics? curious if my very minor degree of angst with team 2 is shared by others, Justin Green _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From bdelo77 at gmail.com Fri Jan 30 20:06:10 2009 From: bdelo77 at gmail.com (Brian DeLong) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:06:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Rounds for Sale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <37E24558-8EF1-442D-9AC4-192CAC6E7390@gmail.com> 2 Rounds for sale. From dave at miami.edu Fri Jan 30 20:57:30 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:57:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Hurricane Debates Rounds 3 and 4 Message-ID: Breakfast at 9ish... lunch on us after round 4, with entertainment! Round 3 Open, 10 am aff neg room judge Bard BE UF KU COM 4027 Richter, N. FSU PR UF ST COM 4053 Smith, R. Miami BG Navy AF COM 4051 Silber, M Navy PS UF MR COM 4028 Voth, B Vancy AW Wake BM COM 3055 Bowers, J Round 4 Open, 12:30 pm aff neg room judge UF KU Miami BG COM 4051 Verney-O'Gorman UF MR FSU PR COM 4053 Cusick, C UF ST Navy PS COM 4028 Roubidoux, D Navy AF Vandy AW COM 3055 Kish, G Wake BM Bard BE COM 4027 Larey, J Round 3 Novice, 10 am aff neg room judge USF BT Wisc. IL COM 2055 Prieur, J Vandy CG USF OS COM 3032 Larey, J Miami AM UF EL COM 3033 Rosen, A SMU MR Miami LW COM 3053 Cusick, C Wisc. BV Vandy OW COM 4026 Izquierdo, J USF CF Miami MR COM 4029 Kish, G Round 4 Novice, 12:30 pm aff neg room judge UF EL Vandy CG COM 3032 Prieur, J Miami LW USF CF COM 4029 Mader, S Miami MR Wisc. BV COM 4026 Rosen, A USF OS SMU MR COM 3053 Izquierdo, J Vandy OW USF BT COM 2055 Richter, N Wisc IL Miami AM COM 3033 Silber, M David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090130/33f410eb/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Fri Jan 30 21:08:08 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:08:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Hurricane Debates Rounds 3 and 4 second try Message-ID: Sorry about the formatting... remember breakfast 9ish, lunch after round 4 Round 3 Open, 10 am aff neg room judge Bard BE UF KU COM 4027 Richter, N. FSU PR UF ST COM 4053 Smith, R. Miami BG Navy AF COM 4051 Silber, M Navy PS UF MR COM 4028 Voth, B Vancy AW Wake BM COM 3055 Bowers, J Round 4 Open, 12:30 pm aff neg room judge UF KU Miami BG COM 4051 Verney-O'Gorman UF MR FSU PR COM 4053 Cusick, C UF ST Navy PS COM 4028 Roubidoux, D Navy AF Vandy AW COM 3055 Kish, G Wake BM Bard BE COM 4027 Larey, J Round 3 Novice, 10 am aff neg room judge USF BT Wisc. IL COM 2055 Prieur, J Vandy CG USF OS COM 3032 Larey, J Miami AM UF EL COM 3033 Rosen, A SMU MR Miami LW COM 3053 Cusick, C Wisc. BV Vandy OW COM 4026 Izquierdo, J USF CF Miami MR COM 4029 Kish, G Round 4 Novice, 12:30 pm aff neg room judge UF EL Vandy CG COM 3032 Prieur, J Miami LW USF CF COM 4029 Mader, S Miami MR Wisc. BV COM 4026 Rosen, A USF OS SMU MR COM 3053 Izquierdo, J Vandy OW USF BT COM 2055 Richter, N Wisc IL Miami AM COM 3033 Silber, M David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090130/514fed97/attachment.htm From antonucci23 at gmail.com Fri Jan 30 21:33:36 2009 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:33:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging Blog Message-ID: <4a71966c0901301933k3c300cd9jbe51993029be9153@mail.gmail.com> If, through whatever coincidence, I end up judging one of your debates, you should probably check out: http://debateballots.blogspot.com/ I'm attempting to post ballots with detailed RFDs for all of the rounds I judge. My record will be imperfect, and I apologize in advance. You may see some useful commentary, though. Previous decisions may also shed some light on whatever criteria I try to apply - I think stare decisis is a slightly better guide than the misleading boilerplate everyone puts on their philosophies ("vote on anything until I don't, blah blah blah.") It's mostly HS ballots now, but that will change. If I'm a strike, delete and move on. :) -- 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/20090130/02227b85/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat Jan 31 15:30:23 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 15:30:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Steve Hunt of Lewis and Clark Message-ID: <49846E8F0200009300023DB4@mymail.kckcc.edu> Please contact me or someone with his info. thanks, chief From sarahtp73 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 31 16:02:54 2009 From: sarahtp73 at yahoo.com (Sarah Partlow) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:02:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] judging at northwestern Message-ID: <819277.23955.qm@web31608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> We would like to hire some judging for northwestern. We pay $30 a round cash. Please let me know if you have rounds to sell. Thanks Sarah PartlowLefevre Idaho State -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090131/85716818/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Sat Jan 31 20:50:13 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:50:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Augustana Judges needed in the morning for 9 AM debate Message-ID: <5a6e2a80901311850g72467d13oc67c91a0e7e805ac@mail.gmail.com> brown schraeder hodges spring stout short foote hamilton pham cram helwich stanley green gordon hingstman elliot bush thomas palczewski From dave at miami.edu Sat Jan 31 20:53:35 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:53:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Hurricane Debates Eliminiation Round participants and Judges Message-ID: Breakfast 8:30am Quarterfinals begin at 9:00 am Awards to follow Open Quarterfinals Vandy AW vs. Florida ST Advancing into semifinals without debating: Florida MR Navy PS Wake BM Novice Quarterfinals USF BT vs. SMU MR Advancing into semifinals without debating: Vandy CG Vandy OW Wisconsin-Oshkosh BV Judges for Quarterfinals Cusick Larey Mader McCaffrey Silber Voth David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090131/b9e241e0/attachment.htm From max.o.archer at gmail.com Sat Jan 31 20:53:40 2009 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:53:40 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Augustana Teams Clearing Message-ID: <1944fe1d0901311853w61fb0d6fn5969ecb145b32f68@mail.gmail.com> Pairings at School at 8AM Rounds Start at 9AM Open (Wins) Iowa DV (3) K-State AF (4) K-State DR (4) Miami VW (5) Minnesota CP (5) UMKC BB (4) Northwestern FG (5) JV (Wins) ISU/KSU (4) Illinois State HS (3) KCKCC FN (5) KCKCC ST (3) Minnesota HS (4) Minneosta KS (6) Wayne State JM (5) Novice Finals Capital MN vs. Illinois State AL -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090131/ec6c605c/attachment.htm