From bobjordan at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 09:23:21 2009 From: bobjordan at gmail.com (Bob Jordan) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:23:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] National Champion on Big Brother 11 Message-ID: <91c7dd4a0907010723w7ce30558tae89ee7cdc15b8d7@mail.gmail.com> http://www.cbs.com/primetime/big_brother/bio/ronnie_11/bio.php?season=11 Does anyone recognize Ronnie? He is a Star Wars collector and national champion in speech & debate. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090701/54a79cf0/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Wed Jul 1 11:23:44 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:23:44 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 16th Val Browing RR + Idaho State - New Dates & The Best VALUE in Debate Land!! Message-ID: 16th Annual Val Browning Round Robin October 21-22 (Wed/Thursday), 2009 Please Note: We?re doing a SWING with Idaho State (October 24-26). We?re taking on the Great Recession of 2009 with COST SAVINGS that can?t be ignored!! Buy ONE plane ticket, stay for TWO tournament!! Check out all the FREE stuff: 1. NO entry fees for teams OUTSIDE of our district!! 2. FREE pickup from the airport, and transportation to and from Ogden and Pocatello. 3. FREE banquet meals during the Val Browning. 4. FREE hospitality with all the amenities. 5. FREE hotel rooms at the Val for out of district teams!! Ok, I get it stuff is FREE, but why should I bring my competitive team to the Val? 1. Because we?re the second oldest Round Robin in the country. 2. Because a round robin is a unique pedagogical format that is typically reserved only for the most "elite" members of our community. 3. Because the competition will be very good and the judging will be great ? check out many of our happy Val alums at: http://www.weberdebate.com/valbrowningrr.htm 4. Because Glen Frappier will be our tab room director. 5. Because we have BOTH the Martin Osborne and Izak Dunn seals of approval!! Veronica will be posting an invitation in the next couple of weeks, but start thinking about the INCREDIBLE value of spending one WONDERFUL week with us in October! 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 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090701/28f2702f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 16th Annual Val Browning Round Robin.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 26112 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090701/28f2702f/attachment.obj From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Wed Jul 1 11:25:03 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:25:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] in defense of lost causes Message-ID: (arrg, my previous post was erased in transit - wasn't trying to make any deep point by leaving a post titled 'the big lie' blank.) _ in reply to, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-June/079077.html _ if you're unwilling to respond to legitimate counter-arguments to your thesis on iran, then you're guilty of the very 'bogus pretense' you accuse me of, jack. what's more, reese erlich's article is dated the 29th, so i couldn't have posted it before monday. (you missed the boat on this one; no shame in admitting it when you're wrong.) _ stroube cites a two sentence-long snippet from an interview with foucault that he apparently translated himself to refute my claim that foucault was never a structuralist. nevertheless, when i cited a much longer passage to demonstrate the importance of marxism on foucauldian praxis, it was reduced to "foucault's mentioning the proletariat and exploitation in a quotation". (foucault does more than merely mention the proletariat, of course; he places it firmly in the driver's seat of all revolutionary struggle, arguing that any struggle against power enters as a natural ally of the proletariat - a fairly significant proposition for an alleged post-marxist.) why the double-standard in reading the two excerpts? why do you have no problem ascribing the utmost significance to foucault's 'death-bed clarification' that heidegger was his biggest philosophical influence, yet a famous conversation with deleuze is discarded as tangential? (...is the only real difference that *i* cited one while *you* cited the other, jack?) in any case, the foucault quotation hardly helps to characterize foucualt as 'a conventional structuralist': what other structuralist from that era analyzed 'the birth of structuralism in terms of the structure itself'? and for foucault to say he adopted 'a structuralist *style*' _is consistent_ with his self-characterization to rabinow and dreyfus: while "he agreed that he was never a structuralist", he was perhaps "not as resistant to the seductive advances of structuralist vocabulary as he might have been" (page xii, beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, 1983). (i'm NOT saying one has to agree with foucault's self-assessment here; it's quite possible he's eschewing a label that suits him. but shouldn't the fact that he never considered himself a structuralist be our starting-point? ...or do we not have to concern ourselves with what foucault said about what he wrote because there are 'many foucaults'? ...can we now appreciate the slippery slope we risk when we begin with the notion of a foucault that's okay with contradicting himself? we can throw out statements like foucault's 'death-bed clarification', for example, on the grounds that 'that's just what *that* foucault thought on that particular day'.) when read against foucault's (almost stroube-esque!) 'forward to english readers' in front of 'the order of things' (1966), the matter is somewhat settled as it now lays, "In France, certain half-witted 'commentators' persist in labeling me a 'structuralist'. I have been unable to get into their tiny minds that I have used none of the methods, concepts, or key terms that characterize structural analysis." _ (i like civility, but i've been willing to let it slide at times if there's substance underneath. i've defended jack stroube's passion to others for nearing a decade on the presumption that there was a method in the madness. i'm no longer convinced of that. and perhaps i do owe those who've been on the receiving end of his rants an apology. still, no one is sadder than me to see him as a lost cause.) _________________________________________________________________ Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090701/23b54349/attachment.htm From EMarlow at uco.edu Wed Jul 1 11:44:36 2009 From: EMarlow at uco.edu (Eric Marlow) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:44:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UCO welcomes new coaches!!! Message-ID: <18B8F2010B91E144BC6EB64508D71013071A312826@EXCHANGE.uco.local> It is my great pleasure to welcome several new members to the coaching staff at the University of Central Oklahoma. Joining us as the new Assistant Director of Debate is Jeff Roberts. We are ecstatic to add such a diverse thinker and outstanding young coach to the team. Jeff looks to make our already K intense coaching staff even more kritikally diverse. Halli Tripe Roberts will also be helping out in a less official capacity, but we are really excited about having her mind here as well. The energy level around these two is already breeding excitement about the coming season! We are also welcoming two other assistants. Andy Casey will be moving from debating to coaching and we are delighted to get to hold on to him. Most of you already know that Andy is one of the hardest working people in the game and I am thrilled to be able to add him to the coaching staff. Additionally, former UCO debater from way back, Cissy Sullivan will be joining us as an assistant coach. Cissy was a savvy strategist and a very successful debater and we are excited about the perspectives she will bring to strategy sessions. Going from two coaches to five is a giant step for us this year!!! I can't tell you how incredible it is to have this kind of institutional support in this economic climate. I am personally indebted to our dean and the university president. I look forward to what all these diverse minds can produce for our teams. Very Exciting!!! Marlow Eric Marlow Director of Debate University of Central Oklahoma **Bronze+Blue=Green** The University of Central Oklahoma is Bronze, Blue, and Green! Please print this e-mail only if absolutely necessary! **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090701/e74af0fb/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5675 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090701/e74af0fb/attachment.jpg From eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com Wed Jul 1 13:33:57 2009 From: eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com (Judson Eldredge) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 13:33:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] National Champion on Big Brother 11 In-Reply-To: <91c7dd4a0907010723w7ce30558tae89ee7cdc15b8d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <91c7dd4a0907010723w7ce30558tae89ee7cdc15b8d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm pretty sure this is the guy. Ronnie Talbott was a member of the 2009 Ohio University team that won the Pi Kappa Delta National Tournament combined team sweepstakes. Individually, he placed: 2nd in Broadcast Journalism 4th in Dramatic Interpretation 11th in Prose interpretation 29th in Poetry Interpretation So, definitely not a national champion debater in the sense I think of it, but I can see how in his world it might be legit to claim the title. At least its not totally fabricated like the last reality show "Professional Basketball Player" that I looked up, who would more accurately have been classified as "Unemployed Dude That Lives With His Parents". http://www.coms.ohiou.edu/ohio-speaking-bobcats-place-10th-at-national-championship Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:23:21 -0500 From: bobjordan at gmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] National Champion on Big Brother 11 http://www.cbs.com/primetime/big_brother/bio/ronnie_11/bio.php?season=11 Does anyone recognize Ronnie? He is a Star Wars collector and national champion in speech & debate. _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090701/c0e7b3d2/attachment.htm From mstruth at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 19:08:54 2009 From: mstruth at gmail.com (Matt Struth) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:08:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Wordings Message-ID: Maybe I missed this, but when is the vote on topic wordings? -Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090701/6c665fab/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 1 21:10:28 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:10:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Topic Wordings Message-ID: <304325.39900.qm@web53501.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I think its at... YOUR MOM O'CLOCK! wicked burn. --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Matt Struth wrote: > From: Matt Struth > Subject: [eDebate] Topic Wordings > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 7:08 PM > Maybe I missed this, but when is the > vote on topic wordings? > -Matt > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From bobjordan at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 06:34:37 2009 From: bobjordan at gmail.com (Bob Jordan) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:34:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] National Champion on Big Brother 11 In-Reply-To: References: <91c7dd4a0907010723w7ce30558tae89ee7cdc15b8d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <91c7dd4a0907020434s65085ee8p64508e43ad947d6b@mail.gmail.com> http://forums.jokersupdates.com/jshows/bigbrotherusa/bb11houseguest/ronnie.php That appears to be the guy. Thanks! On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Judson Eldredge < eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com> wrote: > > I'm pretty sure this is the guy. > > Ronnie Talbott was a member of the 2009 Ohio University team that won the > Pi Kappa Delta National Tournament combined team sweepstakes. > > Individually, he placed: > 2nd in Broadcast Journalism > 4th in Dramatic Interpretation > 11th in Prose interpretation > 29th in Poetry Interpretation > > So, definitely not a national champion debater in the sense I think of it, > but I can see how in his world it might be legit to claim the title. At > least its not totally fabricated like the last reality show "Professional > Basketball Player" that I looked up, who would more accurately have been > classified as "Unemployed Dude That Lives With His Parents". > > > http://www.coms.ohiou.edu/ohio-speaking-bobcats-place-10th-at-national-championship > > ------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:23:21 -0500 > From: bobjordan at gmail.com > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] National Champion on Big Brother 11 > > http://www.cbs.com/primetime/big_brother/bio/ronnie_11/bio.php?season=11 > Does anyone recognize Ronnie? He is a Star Wars collector and national > champion in speech & debate. > > ------------------------------ > Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. See how. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090702/74d22574/attachment.htm From privethedge at yahoo.com Thu Jul 2 08:22:42 2009 From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 06:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Debate Coach Position Opening - Washington/Lee High School, Arlington, VA Message-ID: <785865.3329.qm@web50905.mail.re2.yahoo.com> HI, Washington and Lee High School in Arlington, VA, is looking for a policy debate coach for the '09-'10 school year. ? They have a core group of four policy debates there who are second year debaters, but who are very hardworking, very dedicated, and who are seeking to travel nationally, etc. They are also favorable to expanding the program.?I have no other information about the position, but if you contact me, I will be able to put you in touch with their head coach who can go over those particulars with you. ? Duane Hyland "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by??its collision with error." John S. Mill ? President Barack Obama: "So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial...uh..." (Politico5/29/09)? Boy..do I feel safe...... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090702/60b1fe0b/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Thu Jul 2 08:52:11 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:52:11 +0200 Subject: [eDebate] Help Iraq Debate Message-ID: <4A4CBB8B.1050901@uvm.edu> Hello supporters of debating. I am working with some Iraq debaters to promote debating in Iraq. I feel a special burden to assist our brave brothers and sister in Iraq to try and improve their society through debate. It is easy for us to take for granted the debating communities we have, but we should not foret about others for which it is not so easy. The spearhead for this is Muhammad Duhoki who has organized a group called Iraq Debate. Muhammad received training in Korea from Jason Jarvis and others at the Asian Debate Institute and at the Korea Development Institute. Muhammad has been back in Iraq for a while now and is acting very vigorously to train debaters and create debating networks. He took a group to Qatar recently for a competition and the Iraqis did quite well. He is also coming to the Serbian Debate Camp to be held later this month. http://www.iraqdebate.org/ Iraq Debate has several teams now registered to attend the World Universities Debating Championships to be held in December-January in Antalya, Turkey. He has teams and enthusiasm and some financial support, but he is just a bit short and the time draws near to pay up or drop out. If you would like to help Iraq Debate it would be greatly apprciated. I have personally made a financial commitment of $300 and will help sponsor them. I chalenge you to do as much if not more. If you would like to find out how you can donate, please email him for details at muhammad at iraqdebate.org We need to act soon and they need our help now in order to attend worlds. Future projects involve a debate workshop in Iraq featuring instruction in Arabic, Kurdish and English to be held in the fall. Muhammad and I will be reporting more on this in the future. Hee is some text from their website. "Mission: 1. Iraq Debate?s mission is to promote debate culture among Iraqis, especially Students across the universities and schools, to provide them with the modern concepts of analysis and communication skills so that they can meet the challenges which face Iraq. Iraq's challenges and diversity means that it can and should be a leader in Debate Education and Research. 2. Promoting the value of Education. 3. Showing Iraq's unique cultures and civilization to the world. 4. Promoting a sense of community. 5. Promoting Peace through dialogue and understanding." -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 14:07:09 2009 From: matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com (Matt Gerber) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:07:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UCO Welcomes new coaches!!! Message-ID: The Bronchos are indeed the big winners here...Halli & Jeff are two of the best young coaches in the business (former Bears of course), and now they will only live 4 short hours from home (Waco TX! The 254!). We are also looking forward to seeing Cissy and Andy on the circuit next year. Gerber & the Bears _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090702/a481bb31/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Jul 2 14:10:55 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 15:10:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] UCO Welcomes new coaches!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats to the Bronchos on the slew of new coaches. Special congrats to Cissy who was on the team when I was debating at UCO and who, I believe, has a daughter currently debating for the Bronchos. Josh On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Matt Gerber wrote: > The Bronchos are indeed the big winners here...Halli & Jeff are two of the > best young coaches in the business (former Bears of course), and now they > will only live 4 short hours from home (Waco TX! The 254!). We are also > looking forward to seeing Cissy and Andy on the circuit next year. > > Gerber & the Bears > > ------------------------------ > 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/20090702/57eb4580/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 18:00:40 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:00:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans gerbil on iran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: pent-up anger doesn't answer CIA involvement. both are possible. anger is necessary to be manipulated. if there was no problems with the current regime, it would be difficult to turn an uprising into a soft coup. the snippet is totally non-responsive and, frankly, stupid after going 6 or 7 lines deep with hester. no response to tracing of twitter accounts to israel. no response to on balance hammond evidence saying that CIA involvement likely -- there is no proof obama suspended bush's CIA iran destabilization plans. there are so many facets of the CIA involvement already presented from multiple sources that "paranoiac" would need a case by case analysis to have any credibility. to me, non-responses are drops. gerbil's first line was mousavi good with no defense of his orchestration of the beirut attacks or the executions inside iran when he ran the bloodiest administration post-shah. that kind of debating is rather slimy -- to enter a conversation where certain arguments have already been made and make an entry you can't even defend. Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans gerbil on iran From: james.farr at richmond.edu Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:46:25 -0400 CC: oldstrega at hotmail.com To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com point in fact, kevin explicitly responded to the argument in question approximately three days ago in an e-mail entitled "for the unnoteworthy 35%": "where we may disagree is that i don't think this *whole* thing is just a smoke-and-mirrors western media production. even if the CIA and its ilk have been instigating protests (and i agree that's fairly easy to assume based on the historical record), that doesn't mean there isn't *also *a LOT of pent up anger with the current regime (or whatever the hell else teen angst and rising expextations are directed against) that is part of this too. while it has to be 51% to win an election, if 35% of the populace is upset, that can still cause a regime serious headaches. the unrest may have catalyzed around the elections (or been lit afire by western propagandistic efforts to foment revolt), but the longer it goes on, the more it becomes about issues larger than one election." additionally, in addressing the specific evidence you selected to make the "CIA psychologically meddling" claim, i believe kevin explicitly addressed it (even if only dismissive in tone) as "a bit paranoiac". you've had three (or 2.5) days to catch his succinct rebut (however pathetic you may think it to be) to your conspiracy theory which makes non-falsifiable claims. after all, the key warrant for the CIA-Mossad-destabilization link evidence is that Obama hasn't publicaly declared the end to a program which is a) 'covert' (whatever that means) or b) would merely vindicate the paranoiac claims by the Iranian President that the West is 'out to get them.' but i suppose your right; nobody died, 35% of the iranian population was duped by an ingenious plot by the U.S. government and the lunar landing was staged. fucking crackpots, seriously. grow up, you're supposed to be a role model for me. On Jun 30, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Old Strega wrote:you're impossible to debate. you're slimy. you're a prick. you have fun being one. you cry when you get called names for being evasive. you're prick for the sake of being a prick. you refuse to answer arguments. you appear incapable. you're going to push this on and on with evasion after evasion but i'm done because you're terrible and wasting my time. after many posts demanding WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER A BASIC QUESTION you finally try to answer. that's an asshole. you don't know how to debate well. that's why you didn't do well at any tournaments. i don't care about being friendly to people like you. i have no respect for your intelligence. why should i? not only can you not debate but you refuse to learn. how many lines of argumentation are we going to go through on iran where YOU DROP COMPLETELY THE ROLE OF THE CIA AND THE MOSSAD? only a really stupid person would keep "debating" without answering that. every statement you just made has already been defeated 10 times over by the US imperialism turns on psychologically manipulating the protesters. all you are doing is adding confusion. that's annoying beyond. you do have a chance to answer the CIA involvement in the coup. i've tried 10 times now to get you to but if you chose to do so, then either your sincerity or your intelligence must be in serious question. i've tried every time but you refuse to answer and you just spew irrelevant arguments that are all completely SUBSUMED. Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. Check it out._______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090702/a710d47c/attachment.htm From kenrjohnson at msn.com Thu Jul 2 18:11:43 2009 From: kenrjohnson at msn.com (Ken Johnson) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 17:11:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Welcome new U of R coaches Message-ID: Thank you to all who applied. We had a number of qualified applicants and appreciate your time and patience. Chris Lattuca and Buddy Khan will be joining Gordie Miller and myself for the next year. Congratulations! Ken Rochester Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090702/5c4d3adb/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 18:47:25 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:47:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] victory+ Message-ID: 1) hallelujah, gerbil has decided to cease from misrepresenting my literary debate style and has joined the herd with righteous indignation. gerbil also now works with christian groups to speak out against R movies with violence to further showboat his conversion. chalk one up for the alienation-effect. i now consider you returned to the anus from which the doctor removed you. historical anecdote on the side -- the king of invective may have been william savage landor who crafted his in latin and is a favorite of nietzsche and poe. 2) not so fast, in your segue into the anti-stroube camp or the "stroube lost cause" camp, you say that previously you felt you could explain similar attacks on other individuals. the problem is, mr. strategist extraordinaire, the only difference between this attack and the other attacks is that you were the culprit. or was it the FUCK YOUs that pushed you over the threshold? not buying it. something slimy and strategically unsound about your sudden indignation but definitely a safe play coming out of the shark's tank. i find a truly disingenuous quality to your entire approach of which this god awful move is a paragon. 3) what's up with your mawkish streak? trying to call me by name to create the human effect. the email title: "whose side are you on?" sounds weak like you're calling for help. presenting me as a lost cause (because i stooped to schlack gerbil) and then pathetically claiming you're the saddest of them all that this terrible day has finally come. nice pity. learn that in the anti-R movie, christian group you're sporting. no violence in pity which flies in civil discourse being discreet. just ask nietzsche. are you really that inexperienced and stupid to hurl that sheit? it as if my invective is an automatic justifier for the most disgusting parts of your personality. not buying it. gerbil, mawkish slime. 4) iran -- your terms are not acceptable. you can't hop onto the thread and eventually post a znet article with no analysis of what has been said. that's called being an asshole. you need to backtrack through the arguments that have taken place and come up with your own defense of the soft coup. you started with mousavi good and backed out. you have no strategy. you're just trying to get a word in. coming in late after a compelling case has been made requires more argument structure on your part to be of any value. throwing shit at the wall is boring as it is useless. ironically, what the made the conversation with hester good was a commitment on both our parts to a basic, unspoken argument structure that we both learned as debaters, coaches and judges. i'm not sure gerbil advanced very far in argument. his posts are littered with non-responses, misdirects, failed cross-apps, and drops. 90% of debating gerbil would require disentangling your confusion which surpasses any other i've seen on edebate. for someone with a gross inability to argue strategically, you talk alot. there are two choices for some a poor debater who won't put down the microphone. ignore or raise the price. i don't think gerbil thought anyone would raise the price. i think gerbil was taking for granted his insurance policy of largely being ignored. 5) also, curious how your email content got deleted in transit. did you really mean to say that you accidentally deleted right before you pressed send? a mawkish post with just a title that says "The Big Lie" and no content actually fits gerbil's description dead on. scrambling for strategy in the shark's tank. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090702/bddb186c/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 20:48:23 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:48:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] in the guppy tank Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079095.html _ jackattack: "the problem is, mr. strategist extraordinaire, the only difference between this attack and the other attacks is that you were the culprit." i actually considered that, i really did, before writing that last parenthetical paragraph. the real difference is that in those other attacks (even the ones on me) i flowed you as, if not winning, at least advancing a good argument. (by 'good', i mean sound.) in this instance (and in my could-well-be-wrong opinion), you *substituted* invective for substance - and the intensity of the invectives rose as the substance gradually disappeared. that indicates vacuity to me, and it makes me rethink your previous engagements: were you picking your targets with the same ouija board that picked me and then getting lucky on soft opponents? ...anyway, i titled the post 'in defense of lost causes' both because it's a title of a zizek book (which i fancied would aggravate you) but also because i'm conflicted. the figure of the troll *is* useful; i like the idea of someone around who takes it to be their role to persistently negate/refute everything i say and continually mock any claim i have on being authoritative. that's healthy. but that someone has to be egalitarian with their hatred and coolly rational in their thinking, else their refutations become useless. it was not the 'fuck yous'. call me 'pissboy' as much as you like, but have a reason, is all i'm asking. proclaim that i enjoy sticking gerbils in my anus for sexual enjoyment - fine; but be winning the debate when you do so. on iran and structuralism, it was not even a wash. the drunken baffoon who swings at the air is funny for a minute, but after that, becomes starkly pathetic. "you need to backtrack through the arguments that have taken place and come up with your own defense of the soft coup. you started with mousavi good and backed out. you have no strategy." zizek started with 'mousavi good' - he doesn't speak for me; he can defend himself: http://communism.blogsport.de/2009/06/24/izek-on-iran/ what i wanted to emphasize was western liberals'/leftists' misrecognition of genuinely courageous iranian protesters. this wasn't a failed '53; it was an attempt at a peaceful '79. cynicism should give in to solidarity, and in this, you're on the wrong side. i defend a recount by an independent authority; i argue against anyone who stereotypes the protesters as zionist stooges: that's my 'strat' and it's a successful one because it's true. 'whose side are you on?' were the last words of reese erlich's article, was all that subject-heading was about. (ask questions before you guess wrong, my old coach used to say.) as i'm forced to repeat, his article is dated the 29th, so i couldn't have interjected it earlier in the conversation; and since he thoroughly refutes your thesis point-by-point, you'd have to respond to his arguments regardless of who posted them (i.e., me). i also don't recall you responding to the preliminary analysis of the voting figures by chatham house and the institute of iranian studies at the university of st. andrews: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf perhaps ahmadinejad won, but irregularities of that sort call for a recount, and none of that responds to the basic idea that people should be allowed to protest nonviolently in public, whatever the result. if your argument was so 'well-structured' and 'compelling', then it shouldn't be so difficult for you to answer the above. by the way, i'm relatively confident that the charge of confusion/obfuscation applies more to your posts than mine, but even though i have to go through piles of crap to reach a coherent sentence, i don't make that charge, since it's often an argument of the weak (e.g., 'foucault is gibberish') i'm writing in the king's english, replying to every clause i can, so learn you some skills. oh, being right helps too. "5)... also, curious how your email content got deleted in transit. did you really mean to say that you accidentally deleted right before you pressed send? a mawkish post with just a title that says "The Big Lie" and no content actually fits gerbil's description dead on. scrambling for strategy in the shark's tank." this evidences your paranoiac need to concot conspiracy theories when you have no data which contradicts the simpler explanation - a personal example of what's fatally debilitating with your foreign policy 'analysis'. what chomsky says about u.s. idealogues - that the crimes of our enemies are declared as atrocities and our atrocities are lowered to minor crimes - is true of you, but in reverse: you're willing to believe anything negative about the u.s. or israel on the slimiest evidence, while ahmadinejad becomes a folk-hero. my problem with this *isn't* that it attaches negative conotations to all u.s. and israeli actions - that's an unqualified good. my problem is that it makes every world event about the u.s. and israel; then when independent, spontaneous actors try to take matters into their own hands - say, a mass protest movement in iran - paranoiacs like you (racistly!) assume that (perhaps a majority of) the people of iran are acting on behalf of the imperialists. to paraphrase zizek in citing badiou, that's how a truth-event gets misrecognized. (i really did write up a post, clicked send, and it came out blank on edebate. when i looked in my 'sent' folder, however, it was blank there too, so i guess the problem was on my end. why would i intentionally send along a blank only to write a full response out the following day? again, vacuity. stroube's last sentence applies more to himself, again sadly.) _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090702/075b4e12/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Thu Jul 2 22:04:16 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jarman, Jeffrey) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:04:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [Cross Examination Debate Association newsletter] July 2009 Ballot In-Reply-To: <1246590051-318-pow.jeffjarman@cgi0802.yourhostingaccount.com> References: <1246590051-318-pow.jeffjarman@cgi0802.yourhostingaccount.com> Message-ID: <42558793D89D414BB16A72C7F4CAFACD050159B685@exchange-01.ad.wichita.edu> This went to everyone subscribed at the CEDA website. I'm posting it here in case we missed a few people. Please let me know if you have trouble with the site or if you have questions. If you are not a member, but want to vote, you can pay dues online under the link for PAY! Membership dues are $150. Jeff Cross Examination Debate Association newsletter: July 2009 Ballot The current CEDA ballot is now available. All ballots are due no later than midnight (central), Thursday, July 16. Schools that have paid their membership dues (or are emerging programs) are eligible to vote. If you have trouble accessing the ballot, please let me know. You must be registered at the site AND you must be identified as a voting member in order to access the ballot. All information can be found under the BUSINESS menu on the CEDA web site. Under the BUSINESS menu, select Vote Here [ http://cedadebate.org/?q=node/894 ] to cast your ballot. Select Amendments up for vote [ http://cedadebate.org/?q=passed_amendments ] to read the text of the Awards Amendment. Select Resolution Choices [ http://cedadebate.org/?q=node/893 ] to read the three resolutions submitted by the topic committee. The site will automatically send you a copy of your ballot. I will follow up with an additional confirmation. If you have questions, please ask. Jeff From jmgreen at ksu.edu Thu Jul 2 22:45:06 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:45:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Awards Amendment on the CEDA Ballot Message-ID: <5a6e2a80907022045r3c2ca691ifa233355f33a937d@mail.gmail.com> After reading the new amendment on the ballot, there appear to be two major changes. Let me preface the rest of this post with a note that it is highly likely that I am missing other changes. To intentionally sound like a broken record, I would appreciate the advocate(s) of this amendment to speak-out on its behalf. First, the addition of the Public Advocate Award. While somewhat vague, I think this is a good idea. I am not sure who we would nominate and it could bring some marginal notoriety to CEDA as well as honoring someone who might be worthwhile. Second, the change from "Scholastic All-Americans" to "National Debate Scholar". I am vehemently opposed to this amendment. To say that any debater is a "National Debate Scholar" appears redundant. After winning the award, we would have to explain "this is the equivalent of being an Academic All American".This change undermines the ability of our squad to go to our administration and publicize the combination of competitive and academic successes. Our Department Chair, Dean, President, School Paper, and numerous professors picked up on the fact that we had 6 debaters of various Scholastic All-American distinctions. I hope that other squads were able to do the same. As a Director who requires their squad members maintain a 3.0 GPA or else face probation, this was both re-assuring and valuable to the political capital of our squad. While I agree with the change in the amendment that increases the GPA to achieve the highest rank, the name change hinders our efforts in on-campus lobbying. As of now, KSU will vote no to this amendment. The addition of a Public Advocate Award will unfortunately not overwhelm the advocacy benefits our squad derives from the label "Scholastic All-American". As an aside...Rather than lump all of the changes in the awards into one amendment, it might better allow the community to express their interest and more readily see the changes, if the different decisions within the amendment were separated as separate votes. Looking forward to further discussion, Justin Green From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 22:53:38 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 22:53:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] victory+ Message-ID: thanks gerbil. "guppy tank" -- is that what you used to call the out rounds at tournaments where the better debaters get to keep debating or was the guppy tank the final round or was it a speaker award? i always thought a guppy was someone who never accomplished one iota in their debate career and then appeared on edebate along with some of those who had under the pretense that they were in the same league. read a bunch of foucault and derrida and you're in like flynn. nobody will notice your unpolished argumentation skills. you proved all the points. glad you dropped the pity critique shows your struggling with that problem and proves your inveterate lack of strategy. your mawkish slime: "still, no one is sadder than me to see him as a lost cause." given these tendencies which you can't explain, your renditions of my style must have been the dilutest vitriol ever. please, stick to civil discourse at the exclusion of insults. trust me, that's your alley. you're trying to slime your way out of it. you say that this time i crossed the line to pure invective which is, frankly, a lie and almost impossible to prove. gerbil is a FUCKING LIAR. BUT...BUT in your slimy disgust, you went further than that. "i'm no longer convinced of that. and perhaps i do owe those who've been on the receiving end of his rants an apology." your statement implies that you decided any invective is too much invective. you really sound like in your struggles that you "decided" to brandish the sword of civil, upright discourse to which you have alluded numerously. i hope all my culprits accept your sweeping blanket apologies. FUCKING LYING again, you PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT. or do you just have a really hard time knowing what it exactly is that you're saying? slime, slime, gerbil slime. since you basically said any invective is bad and ALL ALL ALL my victims deserve apologies, then there is no other conclusion than you changed your mind because the invective was aimed at you. definitely suspect, disingenuous, and uncompelling. you received a severe whipping with my best targeted invective yet. the FUCK YOUs throttled your sense of dignity and you broke down with a miserable post in which you express the most immature pity. your worst post yet is a good example of your post quality especially highlighted by its near indefensibility. this would be a really bad time to have to back out of another unsure argument choice given that's the problem being exposed right now. how many atrocious posts is a former loser debater allowed to make before gerbil deserves to get schlacked? one more BIG PROBLEM, lil kid. http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-June/079076.html i admitted my stupidity in judging jon's lecture harshly for not citing marx earlier on, and apologized for an 'unwarranted hyperbolic tone' - so keep up, old man. if my posts of late lack substance, then how did i force you to apologize for your STUPID commentary on sharp's video. personally, i think the insults were necessary leaving lil room for you to slime your way out. tough sell for you given your own admission of the strength of my arguments leading up to your histrionics. also, your inability to follow basic argument structure (ironically, a dropped argument) where you keep misdirecting is best countered by collapsing down to a few arguments. the more arguments made against you the more confusion you can produce. this paring down of argument quantity was a good strategic choice on my part. yes, i make fewer arguments against you but that's because you're not very good. yes, those arguments contain my sharpest invective yet but that because you're my worst opponent yet posing for something you never were and never will be. you have no pedigree in debate and your posts are most indicative of your lack of talent. your lack of talent is evident in your sentimentality, your lack of confidence in a condemning psychological portrait and your having to apologize for poorly judging sharp's video to name a few examples. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090702/018088ef/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Jul 3 00:12:33 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:12:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] how gerbil won iran Message-ID: he proved the obvious. gerbil summoned the genius to prove that the discontent in iran was not purely the manipulation of the CIA and the mossad. again, he's waxing mawkish with sympathy for the protesters. he beat a ghost argument that never existed. he completely missed the whole argument but HE WON. we'll break down the argument into smallest parts for gerbil brain. i'm not going to re-debate this. alleging that you won a ghost argument further proves your deliberate confusion. you will find all of these elements in the hester discussion. the elements are barely touched and most of them unaddressed by gerbil who tried to twist the discussion up a bunch of dead end roads. by the way, if you suddenly start answering these arguments, you're only proving that you already LOST IRAN because you beat a ghost argument of your own imagination. why should i re-debate this when you concocted a ghost argument to declare victory? you'd be proving you're so confusing you got yourself confused. i can't wait til our next area of debate so you can basically drop the whole argument and declare victory. your only option is really to accept ghost victory and move on. sorry, gerbil. got an airforce jacket handy? 1) ahmadinejad won. the petras, friedman and the leverett evidence -- never answered. as hester says, "friedman is solid". hard not to conclude that US was, at least, partially involved with the superior evidence siding with ahmadinejad. chatham house has no definitive smoking gun that enough fraud took place to hand the victory to mousavi. friedman and leverett take this into account. the fraud claims also curiously underplay the role of US imperialism in iraq and afghanistan in strengthening the hardliners in demographic areas outside tehran where ahmadinejad crushed mousavi. unanswered. no comparative evidence that takes into account the responses to chatham house. friedman has an intelligence background. he's no wacko. ****to this, you demand a recount. what? DUMBFUCK, THERE WAS A RECOUNT THAT MEETS US STANDARDS. 10%. another retraction in the wings or did you misspeak confusing the issue? you really are a FUCKING LIAR.**** 2) the claim that mousavi won and the instigation of protests of a rigged election mimics georgia and ukraine colored revolutions. suspicions include:mousavi declaring victory the day before the election on the georgia and ukraine model.more than likely phony letter from the interior ministry claiming mousavi won--see robert fisk. 3) if mousavi did receive money from the national endowment for democracy or other US conduits and is himself a US stooge, then the goal was to channel pent up anger into a soft coup that would spread the discontent beyond the 30 or so %. this didn't happen. tehran remained the epicenter. 4) challenging the election that ahmadinejad won to destabilize iran, unnecessarily puts the protesters at risk of brutal repression. the soft coup was a bad idea and backfired. the hardliners used its failure to consolidate power and now the US bargaining position is way weaker. imperial projection in afghanistan will continue to strengthen ahmadinejad in the rural areas where he crushed mousavi. curious blindspot/contradiction in the anti-ahmadinejad camp. 5) the twitter accounts that produced 30,000 tweets on the day of the election were traced to israeli email accounts. the email accounts have been listed and no one has proven the accusation false. israel already conducted cell phone misinformation campaigns in lebanon and gaza. i never said the protesters were COMPLETELY duped by the US but given unanswered twitter arguments some allegations of state brutality may have been misinformation designed to swell the rallies to the point of a soft coup. anyone who trusts twitter when the origination of tweets is not guaranteed to be authentic is susceptible to being duped even if they have legitimate gripes with their government. again, the twitter strategy was never claimed to be the magic formula for creating discontent in iran where there was none. the twitter strategy was designed to spread the discontent from 30 or so % to the majority. many of the iranians using twitter during the protests were first timers susceptible to this type of manipulation. facebook was also used for manipulation. group all 5 subpoints. paranoid sources takes out -- conspiracy theory. case closed. gerbil wins and he's not whitewashing the obama CIA. _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090703/2177d60f/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Fri Jul 3 02:38:54 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:38:54 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Awards Amendment on the CEDA Ballot References: <5a6e2a80907022045r3c2ca691ifa233355f33a937d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I respectfully agree with justin. scholastic all-american is what it should be called (for the reasons justin notes below--not to mention continuity--they are something I advertise). further, the current criteria is better than the suggested new one (the new one requires junior standing instead of sophomore--cutting out community college debaters; personally, I would have it say "competed at least two years counting the current year"--as it should reward students who are committed to the activity--not who just make it to their junior or even sophomore year in school). public advocate award good idea. separating it out, I would support that--but not with the change in the scholastic all-american. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------------------------------------------- From: "Justin Green" Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:45 PM To: Subject: [eDebate] Awards Amendment on the CEDA Ballot After reading the new amendment on the ballot, there appear to be two major changes. Let me preface the rest of this post with a note that it is highly likely that I am missing other changes. To intentionally sound like a broken record, I would appreciate the advocate(s) of this amendment to speak-out on its behalf. First, the addition of the Public Advocate Award. While somewhat vague, I think this is a good idea. I am not sure who we would nominate and it could bring some marginal notoriety to CEDA as well as honoring someone who might be worthwhile. Second, the change from "Scholastic All-Americans" to "National Debate Scholar". I am vehemently opposed to this amendment. To say that any debater is a "National Debate Scholar" appears redundant. After winning the award, we would have to explain "this is the equivalent of being an Academic All American".This change undermines the ability of our squad to go to our administration and publicize the combination of competitive and academic successes. Our Department Chair, Dean, President, School Paper, and numerous professors picked up on the fact that we had 6 debaters of various Scholastic All-American distinctions. I hope that other squads were able to do the same. As a Director who requires their squad members maintain a 3.0 GPA or else face probation, this was both re-assuring and valuable to the political capital of our squad. While I agree with the change in the amendment that increases the GPA to achieve the highest rank, the name change hinders our efforts in on-campus lobbying. As of now, KSU will vote no to this amendment. The addition of a Public Advocate Award will unfortunately not overwhelm the advocacy benefits our squad derives from the label "Scholastic All-American". As an aside...Rather than lump all of the changes in the awards into one amendment, it might better allow the community to express their interest and more readily see the changes, if the different decisions within the amendment were separated as separate votes. Looking forward to further discussion, Justin Green _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From stables at usc.edu Fri Jul 3 02:55:59 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 09:55:59 +0200 Subject: [eDebate] Awards Amendment on the CEDA Ballot In-Reply-To: <5a6e2a80907022045r3c2ca691ifa233355f33a937d@mail.gmail.com> References: <5a6e2a80907022045r3c2ca691ifa233355f33a937d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <39c1ac890907030055v13dba8fbj1d7dd5d3b4aa0d09@mail.gmail.com> Justin, Thanks for the good feedback. It always helps to get differing perspectives, especially when I should apologize for not providing the justification for the amendment in a more timely fashion. I am the author of this amendment and it is the result of several years of trying to resolve problems with our current awards. This had roots in the 2008 CEDA summer business meetings when working groups were specifically assigned to look at the structural aspects of our organizational and begin to suggest changes. I should thank that whole working group for their help in this effort. I would note the flaws are probably my mistakes in writing the amendment. This is an omnibus awards amendment precisely because our amendments are typically added, or modified, in an ad hoc fashion. Combining the items into a single amendment is an effort to have a clear series of standards across the awards. I included the original and modified texts on the ceda website to make sure folks could review the changes, but in short: 1) The Speaker of the Year award would be renamed the Public Advocate award. This isn't a new award, but one that has been given out for the last several years (Nate Silver won it last year). In our recent discussions it became noticeable that nominations were recognizing a broad range of contributors for their argumentative contributions, but having the award narrowed to a 'speaker' created some confusion. Would a university president who pushed for debate throughout their career be such a nominee? How about a community organizer who worked to enhance access to social services? In these, and many other cases, keeping the criteria similar to that as originally proposed but changing the name reduces confusion. Hopefully, this change will encourage members to nominate other great individuals, outside our immediate community, who are great practitioners of the skills we value. 2) Academic All Americans - Justin is correct to point out that this is the largest area of change. Each year there is substantial confusion among coaches and students alike about the two sets of All-American awards. Not only do the names (Academic All-American and All-American team) sound familiar but there are real questions about student eligibility for both awards. Before someone writes back with their own view of how this 'should' or 'did' proceed let me encourage folks to review the texts. The language of the awards is unclear, so each year the CEDA 1st VP and the awards committee have to decide if students should be eligible for both and if not, which is the hierarchy for each program among many areas of confusion. At the same time, I believe the turnout for nominations for the the academic all-american awards is low when compared to the overall deep pool of talented students in our activity. Even though the award allows larger number of students, it is structured in such a way to discourage nominations. I wanted to make it clear that every student competing for a CEDA program who meets these academic standards would be eligible. Shifting it to a national debate scholar title becomes an honor roll of sorts for our community. I appreciate Justin's concern about this renaming, but I believe it speaks to the larger problem. The Academic All-American awards are functionally not exclusive from one student to another. We could, and should, recognize 1000 students if they earned over a 3.5 and competed during a season. That should be the goal, but I know that the problems in current language dissuade applications and also fail to recognize our highest academic achievements. I believe a 'National Debate Scholar' designation, complete with press release on the eve of CEDA Nationals, would be a useful means of allowing our members to rightfully tout their academic accomplishments. The final aspect of the national debate scholar restructuring is that it, while still allowing every student who could have been on the AAA team now, also has higher tiers of awards. Today we give lots of awards for competition and do much to differentiate among the types of competitive awards, but there is no time in debate where we stop and ask if there any students who are truly exceptional in the classroom. I envisioned the highest tiers of the academic awards functioning like those at commencement ceremonies, if we have 20 (or 200) students who have the highest tier of GPA while competing I would like to individually recognize those students. Thanks for the note. I am not sure how quickly I can respond, but I am happy to answer questions. 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 On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Justin Green wrote: > After reading the new amendment on the ballot, there appear to be two > major changes. ?Let me preface the rest of this post with a note that > it is highly likely that I am missing other changes. ?To intentionally > sound like a broken record, I would appreciate the advocate(s) of this > amendment to speak-out on its behalf. > > First, the addition of the Public Advocate Award. ?While somewhat > vague, I think this is a good idea. ?I am not sure who we would > nominate and it could bring some marginal notoriety to CEDA as well as > honoring someone who might be worthwhile. > > Second, the change from "Scholastic All-Americans" to "National Debate > Scholar". ?I am vehemently opposed to this amendment. ?To say that any > debater is a "National Debate Scholar" appears redundant. ?After > winning the award, we would have to explain "this is the equivalent of > being an Academic All American".This change undermines the ability of > our squad to go to our administration and publicize the combination of > competitive and academic successes. ?Our Department Chair, Dean, > President, School Paper, and numerous professors picked up on the fact > that we had 6 debaters of various Scholastic All-American > distinctions. ?I hope that other squads were able to do the same. ?As > a Director who requires their squad members maintain a 3.0 GPA or else > face probation, this was both re-assuring and valuable to the > political capital of our squad. ?While I agree with the change in the > amendment that increases the GPA to achieve the highest rank, the name > change hinders our efforts in on-campus lobbying. > > As of now, KSU will vote no to this amendment. ?The addition of a > Public Advocate Award will unfortunately not overwhelm the advocacy > benefits our squad derives from the label "Scholastic All-American". > > As an aside...Rather than lump all of the changes in the awards into > one amendment, it might better allow the community to express their > interest and more readily see the changes, if the different decisions > within the amendment were separated as separate votes. > > Looking forward to further discussion, > > Justin Green > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From jmgreen at ksu.edu Fri Jul 3 10:17:07 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:17:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Awards Amendment on the CEDA Ballot In-Reply-To: <39c1ac890907030055v13dba8fbj1d7dd5d3b4aa0d09@mail.gmail.com> References: <5a6e2a80907022045r3c2ca691ifa233355f33a937d@mail.gmail.com> <39c1ac890907030055v13dba8fbj1d7dd5d3b4aa0d09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5a6e2a80907030817q4397b8a5g292ea4b2bde60300@mail.gmail.com> Gordon, Thanks for the thorough response. As an aside from the value of the amendment debate - Let your post serve as clarification - if a student qualifies to be an "Academic/Scholastic All American" or a "National Debate Scholar" - they may win the award. There may be 1000 of these. However, there are only 30 total "All-Americans". Students may win both. Every other change in the amendment - Creating a single document so that the process directions are in one place and a clarification of what the "Speaker of the Year Award" means probably does not require a vote; this is more of a clarification than need for a vote. Anyone who thinks that this is part of a conspiracy should join a Jesse Ventura (www.dailymotion.com/video/x50j7f_jesse-ventura-debates-the-911-consp_news). I also don't see why the President/presenter of the Academic All-American award winners could not simply say "let's give a special round of applause to those debaters that have a GPA above 3.75." Just ask for the GPAs in the award nomination process - this might be done already. The crux of my argument revolves around the renaming. The only part of this Amendment the President cannot unilaterally change. Our school benefits from awards named similar to that of NCAA Awards. Our administrators are familiar with the term "Academic/Scholastic All-Americans"; they have never heard the term "National Debate Scholar". They know there is a difference between Academic All-American and All-American. (I find it strange that Directors of Debate cannot figure this out). Although not every school is blessed/cursed with a strong presence of athletics (like KSU or USC), I imagine the vast majority of administrators are familiar with these terms as well. Thanks for reading, Justin Green From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Jul 3 14:37:26 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 14:37:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why is obama keen on cheney's signing statement strategy? Message-ID: i hope specter goes independent in defiance of both parties and keeps his seat. obama has now added 7 signing statements despite questions whether the cheney trend is in violation of constitutional principles. sure seems like he's snubbing his constituencies. obama should completely rescind using signing statements instead of pretending to oppose them. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/27/obama-issues-statement-on_n_221821.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123688875576610955.html Democrats often criticized the Bush White House for its use of the presidential signing statement, a means by which the president can reject provisions of a bill he deems unconstitutional without vetoing the entire legislation. Now the approach is back.President Barack Obama, after signing into law a $410 billion budget bill on Wednesday, declared five provisions in the bill to be unconstitutional and non-binding, including one that would effectively restrict U.S. troop deployments under U.N. command and another aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.The move came two days after Mr. Obama ordered a review of his predecessor's signing statements and said he would rein in the use of such declarations."As I announced this past Monday, it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for Presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections," Mr. Obama said in the statement.Democrats, and some Republicans, complained that former President George W. Bush abused the signing statement by declaring that he would ignore congressional intent on more than 1,200 sections of bills, easily a record. Critics at the time said that if the president had constitutional questions, he should veto the bill and demand a correction.Mr. Bush's successor showed Wednesday that he isn't averse to using the same methods."We're having a repeat of what Democrats bitterly complained about under President Bush," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Pa.), who drafted legislation to nullify Mr. Bush's signing statements. He added that if Mr. Obama "wants to pick a fight, Congress has plenty of authority to retaliate." _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090703/7cdfa8eb/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Fri Jul 3 20:09:17 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:09:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] mawkish gerbils outrun jackmoud stroubejad Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079099.html http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079100.html _ "by the way, if you suddenly start answering these arguments, you're only proving that you already LOST..." hah, now there's someone interested in the search for truth. what's funny is i was at first criticized for moving onto other things when i didn't respond quickly enough for jack ("you're running to the next bullshit." - http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-June/079062.html) and now i'm accused of butting into the conversation midstream. pick a side, man. "i never said the protesters were COMPLETELY duped by the US..." good. ...where's the analogy to '53 again? "challenging the election that ahmadinejad won to destabilize iran, unnecessarily puts the protesters at risk of brutal repression." it's not for YOU to decide what's necessary based on your incredibly vast geostrategic knowledge - it's for THEM to decide. they're not infants and you're not in loco parentis; you're in no position to either put them at risk or protect them. when people take to the streets to protest, risking their own lives at the hands of a brutally repressive regime, and at least 20 of them die, it's not your place to say, 'it's not it worth, idiots; mousavi is a western stooge; get back in your homes'. that's what i felt compelled to disagree with. you can count ballots in your backyard all day for all i care, but don't disrespect the protesters who took bullets for liberties you take for granted. tying up some loose-ends on iran: ahmadinejad probably did win - it'd be difficult to fake 62%, even with the irregularities found. (since that is not what our argument was about, why cite evidence which shows this and call it 'unanswered'? again, you don't want to debate a living person, but beat up on a strawman.) nevertheless, the call to have an independent body recount the numbers would be important as a check on future shenanigans. twitter may've played a role in manipulating the western press, but wasn't significant in organizing protests; that's why your own source on the 30,000 israeli 'tweets' points out that the bulk of them were in english. (someone told me to set my location to tehran, for example, because it'd prevent the authorities there from determining who was and wasn't in-country; i don't have a twitter account though.) -- erlich writes, "I witnessed tens of thousands of mostly young people coming out into the streets in spontaneous campaign rallies in the days leading up to the election ? most of whom had never heard of Twitter. They shared a common joy not only campaigning for reformist Mirhossein Mousavi, but in being able to freely express themselves for the first time in many years. When the government announced an overwhelming victory for hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad only two hours after the polls closed, people became furious. Over the next few days, hundreds of thousands of Iranians poured into the streets in Tehran and cities around the country. They organized silent marches through word of mouth and phone calls since the government had shut down text messaging just prior to the election. Contrary to popular perception, these gatherings included women in chadors, workers and clerics ? not just the Twittering classes. Spontaneous marches took place in south Tehran, a decidedly poorer section of town and supposedly a stronghold for Ahmadinejad. Iranians initially protested what they perceived as massive vote fraud, but that quickly evolved as the protests grew in size and breadth. In the week after the June 14 election, millions of Iranians vented 30 years of pent up anger at a repressive system. Iranian youth particularly resented President Ahmadinejad?s support for religious militia attacks on unmarried young men and women walking together and against women not covering enough hair with their hijab. Workers resented the 24 percent annual inflation that robbed them of real wage increases. Independent trade unionists had been fighting for decent wages and for the right to organize. ... The mass movement that sprang forth in the past few weeks has been 30 years in coming. It?s not a Twitter Revolution, nor even a 'velvet revolution' like those in Eastern Europe. It?s a genuine Iranian mass movement made up of students, workers, women, and middle class folks. It may not be strong enough to topple the system today but is sowing the seeds for future struggles." : http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/author/reeseerlich/ erlich also responds to hammond on-point, "Hammond cites my book The Iran Agenda and my interview on Democracy Now to show that the Bush Administration was training and funding ethnic minorities in an effort to overthrow the Iranian government in 2007. All the arguments are by analogy and implication. *Neither the above two authors, nor anyone else of whom I am aware, offers one shred of evidence that the Obama Administration has engineered, or even significantly influenced, the current demonstrations*." (asteriks-mine) but that would never stop a stroube from knowing the real truth (i.e., engaging in wild, paranoiac speculation), "i think the hope was to oust ahmadinejad with a minimal investment of CIA funds because there are no other viable options. as in past orchestrated coups like the '53, these things have to happen quick. ...i think obama is desperate. ... he doesn't have the experience to lead on foreign policy where he is being bombarded by conflicting interests. he needs a breakthrough. the mousavi trick didn't work." : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-June/079028.html no wonder you're such an expert on assholes, what with all the talking you do out of your own. "if my posts of late lack substance, then how did i force you to apologize for your STUPID commentary on sharp's video." yes, but see, that's what people with substance do - admit when they're wrong. marx is a good way to introduce foucault, especially on this topic, and to me he is 'the elephant in the room'; but not every foucault lecture should be judged on my preference. that's a decent point, but one you've over-repeated, given that i already conceded it. you shot out about thirty crappy arguments, and one happen to stick - you were obviously a very successful debater. but you're also guilty of phrasing 'links of omission' in hyperbolic terms, jack; i bring up marx, and you counter with heidegger & nietzsche out of nowhere, for an example. it is fun to let loose with a little invective now and again. perhaps i have been too uptight. there's nothing sentimental, however, about not being wrong. you looked out at the iranian protesters, and you said 'ah, the u.s. is up to its old tricks again'. wrong. you cutely held up your two sentence quotation from a foucault interview you 'roughly translated' yourself, and still couldn't show foucault was a conventional structuralist. wrong again. the enormous influence marx had on foucault's writings - here you had to be wrong to the point of slf-contradiction, as you'd previously hammered others over the head with this influence. you even managed to be wrong on zizek, which takes amazing skill - that's like throwing a series of darts at a globe and not hitting a body of water. ...so to recap, wrong on iran, wrong on foucault, and bad for america: jackmoud stroubejad. "...your lack of confidence in a condemning psychological portrait..." so you're saying i should just condemn you outright and anything less is a lack of confidence on my part? hah, self-hatred much? no, i concede that it is more difficult for me to turn someone i used to respect into an enemy. plus, you're really not as bad as all that stroubes. perhaps i've been a bit harsh on you, considering that i should know my insults count more than yours. but do you really want to be just a jester? even when orson welles went on celebrity roasts, no one took him seriously. i think you're a great guy. i wish we had more time to hang out. stay cool over the summer. p.s., i'm not sure three years in high school counts for a 'debate career', but thanks for the leg up. p.p.s., was going to send along some notes on that zizek lecture (before the helter skelter riff on iran) and would appreciate any commentary you have to offer. _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090703/11b5d3f4/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sat Jul 4 15:40:54 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 15:40:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] how gerbil won iran Message-ID: thanks for finally trying to answer the basic skeleton of the argument for the soft coup, you proved how you lost iran before you claimed victory. if you had beaten the soft coup like you claimed, there would be no reason to finally start chipping away at the basic skeleton. you had one choice which was to accept ghost-victory and you did that by finally trying to answer the dropped arguments. the other ghost victory scenario of just quitting ended up being unpalatable to you since obviously you hadn't won. plus, you're a "last word" kind of gerbil. holding off on iran and refusing your poor terms of engagement proved to be a solid tactic since i induced you to claim victory when you had lost. you didn't follow the in-depth discussion with hester and just tried to whitewash the CIA without engaging the majority of the basic premises. posting links won't do when cards have been extracted from other articles and analysis extrapolated from the cards. there is no reason for me to re-debate subpoints you refused to answer before putting on the flight jacket and landing on the aircraft carrier. i would being catering to the gerbil slime. one thing ************what's up with your intelligent demand for a recount?******** why did you lie and imply there wasn't a recount when there was one?**** i didn't see your admission that you blatantly lied about the recount. you're really slimy. i think that part of your email got deleted in transmission. arrggghhh. again, it's really too late to deal with your slimy lie. you had an opportunity and you missed it which is a recurring thread. but if you do concoct a justification, more evidence of the slime. funny how you reduce the 1989 TOC champion and second speaker to a 3 year high school debater. i have a partial claim to be a national champion, guppy. also, second at GBS. actually, having been excluded from debating my junior year for the majority of my junior year, those accomplishments were quite extraordinary seeing as i didn't have the exposure and judge name recognition of many of my competitors. i went to 5 national tournaments the following senior year. bowed out in quarters at bronx to another team from the same school. GBN was with a sophomore -- quarters. emory -- doubles losing to omar and jerry. i'll take that career. TTOC champion as a sophomore. excuse me, what's your pedigree, guppy tank queen? and what are your plans after edebate? _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090704/b5ee6ee5/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Sat Jul 4 22:34:54 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 22:34:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] killer gerbil Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079106.html _ stroubejad: "funny how you reduce the 1989 TOC champion and second speaker to a 3 year high school debater. i have a partial claim to be a national champion, guppy." i was talking about myself, silly bean. oh but you're right: i'm technically joining the call for a RE-recount. many news-outlets do however refer to the one already conducted as a 'partial recount'... http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Iran-holds-partial-recount-of-votes--deploys-riot-police/482903 ...and since the first recount wasn't done by an independent ruling body (unless you consider the guardian council one), then it doesn't meet an acceptable standard given the likely irregularities. prospects don't seem bright, anyway; the real gerbil, ahmadinejad, won iran. _ http://th09.deviantart.net/fs40/300W/i/2009/021/3/1/Gerbil_Hope_2009_by_thekillergerbil.jpg _________________________________________________________________ Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090704/c4656504/attachment.htm From catspathat at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 23:18:24 2009 From: catspathat at gmail.com (Abers) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:18:24 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] how gerbil won iran In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: you are an embarrassment to yourself and the community. -abe On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Old Strega wrote: > thanks for finally trying to answer the basic skeleton of the argument > for the soft coup, you proved how you lost iran before you claimed victory. > if you had beaten the soft coup like you claimed, there would be no reason > to finally start chipping away at the basic skeleton. you had one choice > which was to accept ghost-victory and you did that by finally trying to > answer the dropped arguments. the other ghost victory scenario of just > quitting ended up being unpalatable to you since obviously you hadn't won. > plus, you're a "last word" kind of gerbil. holding off on iran and > refusing your poor terms of engagement proved to be a solid tactic since i > induced you to claim victory when you had lost. you didn't follow the > in-depth discussion with hester and just tried to whitewash the CIA without > engaging the majority of the basic premises. posting links won't do when > cards have been extracted from other articles and analysis extrapolated from > the cards. > > there is no reason for me to re-debate subpoints you refused to answer > before putting on the flight jacket and landing on the aircraft carrier. i > would being catering to the gerbil slime. > > one thing ************what's up with your intelligent demand for a > recount?******** why did you lie and imply there wasn't a recount when there > was one?**** i didn't see your admission that you blatantly lied about the > recount. you're really slimy. i think that part of your email got > deleted in transmission. arrggghhh. > > again, it's really too late to deal with your slimy lie. you had an > opportunity and you missed it which is a recurring thread. but if you do > concoct a justification, more evidence of the slime. > > funny how you reduce the 1989 TOC champion and second speaker to a 3 year > high school debater. i have a partial claim to be a national champion, > guppy. also, second at GBS. actually, having been excluded from > debating my junior year for the majority of my junior year, those > accomplishments were quite extraordinary seeing as i didn't have the > exposure and judge name recognition of many of my competitors. i went to > 5 national tournaments the following senior year. bowed out in quarters at > bronx to another team from the same school. GBN was with a sophomore -- > quarters. emory -- doubles losing to omar and jerry. i'll take that > career. TTOC champion as a sophomore. > > excuse me, what's your pedigree, guppy tank queen? and what are your > plans after edebate? > > ------------------------------ > 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/20090704/abf2bf04/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun Jul 5 05:44:12 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 05:44:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] how gerbil almost 100% whitewashed the CIA Message-ID: i consider this debate finished until further evidence comes to light either advancing or denying the allegations of a CIA plot. i believe at this point there is sufficient cause to question the official position of the US government that the CIA's hands are completely clean. when further evidence comes to light, i will post and prove to what lengths (including psychological operations) gerbil has gone to 100% whitewash the CIA. i believe that placing stricter standards for burden of proof on evil ahmadinejad than the CIA by people like reese erlich is based in trickery. these con artists are worried that no definitive evidence has yet surfaced linking the CIA to perpetrating claims of a stolen election but not worried that a stolen election was advertised with no definitive evidence of theft. the CIA can quickly stage an election hoax but its opponents in the past have had to wait for their SNAFUs to come to light through research and questioning. at the outset of most CIA interventions, illusion prevails through this shell game. through its media manipulation the CIA almost always has a leg up in creating skepticism about its possible involvement deploying theories of plausible deniability particularly amenable to the misinformed mainstream. gerbil's only advantage in this debate so far has been derived from institutionalized cheating which creates a time-lag between CIA plots and the gradual documentation of those plots. leveraging that time-lag has always been a key component of CIA psychological operations to ridicule allegations in the meantime. gerbil probably would have (based on his use of reese erlich) defended the CIA in 1953 in the weeks following the coup from similar allegations leveraging the lack of definitive evidence. he probably would have done the same with the installment of pinochet in chile. mousavi's history of murder puts in company with the shah and pinochet. the official goal of US foreign policy is to destabilize iran and apparently gerbil is in some sort of alignment with that goal and the intelligence agents currently in operation to achieve that goal. any form of cheating including misinformation on a debate list serves that end. the foreign policy of regime change in iran through psychological operations and armed resistance initiated by the neocons and continued by obama has backfired and weakened US influence in the region. as further evidence of CIA involvement comes to light, US influence could be setback below the level of dubya for the remainder of the obama administration closing the historical window of opportunity. the failed soft coup which required a massive assault of misinformation in the mainstream media at home is a key moment in the development of obama's foreign policy which may be falling apart. should the CIA with authorization from the president be allowed to perpetrate such a large-scale hoax which undermines legitimate debate at home hampering democracy in the name of democracy? gerbil sounds like mccain, kissinger, wolfowitz, and all those demonizing ahmadinejad to proceed with hard coup plans in the wake of the soft coup failure. their statements on the protesters are interchangeable except gerbil's greater degree of histrionic sentimentality. honestly, i prefer mccain, kissinger and wolfowitz for not disguising their true motives. the foreign policy elite has an erection the size of babel over the co-option of many progressive, leftist and other gerbils by the version of the story told on the corporate, mainstream media which has been reduced to a mouthpiece for the war state. as many of gerbil's links show, we have groups formerly opposed to the role of the mainstream media in positively framing US foreign policy, now, being influenced to defend the corporate media from criticism of its iran coverage. the allegations of a CIA plot do not deny agency to those who rose against ahmadinejad prior to the election. rather, the allegations of a CIA plot simply demonstrate the similarities between mousavi's declaration of victory the day before the election and the CIA inspired colored revolutions of Georgia and Ukraine. mousavi attempted to gain the majority he did not have but needed to oust ahmadinejad. completely denying any possibility of a US liaison with the opposition candidate on enemy territory is ridiculous especially a candidate like mousavi with iran-contra links to the US policy establishment (apparently reese erlich is weak on the reagan years). was the forged letter passed out to the protesters which triggered the massive rallies crafted by the CIA or the mossad who clearly have that capability? robert fisk refused to chastise that scenario. gerbil, your goal is not to debate but to confuse. to confuse you utilize elements of debate making half-arguments and misdirections in an attempt to redefine the terms of the argument ground already staked out. you care more about the audience's perception of the CIA than about debating. after listening to you on iran, you don't even get the sense that you are defending the CIA because you have completely twisted the question into "ahmadinejad bad" and "sympathy for the protesters good". this attempt to skew the debate in a different direction away from the CIA's involvement introduces question as to your motives. you have defended the CIA without mentioning the CIA which is very CIA-esque. it is not that you are defending the CIA but how you are defending the CIA that raises suspicion about your motives. i don't think you liked the direction of the discussion with hester in which hester didn't try to whitewash the CIA as you're doing. unlike gerbil, hester was rather conciliatory and open to the likelihood of CIA involvement. the outcome of that discussion was not good for those with vested interests in misinformation. you entered late with a link to zizek, no arguments of your own and went piecemeal from there. despite only presenting piecemeal defenses of the CIA which were mostly posted links with no analysis of your own, you claimed victory for your CIA whitewash anyway. if you had your way, we wouldn't even be debating the CIA soft coup anymore. we'd reframe the debate exclusively around the iran protesters. stroube's not attacking the CIA because he's defending ahmadinejad and dismissing the protesters. gerbil's not defending the CIA because he's attacking ahmadinejad and acknowledging the protesters. clever but uncompelling. you underestimate the power of debate rationality to expose your deliberate confusion. let's look at your mission accomplished statement and then your "strategy". http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079096.html "call me 'pissboy' as much as you like, but have a reason, is all i'm asking. proclaim that i enjoy sticking gerbils in my anus for sexual enjoyment - fine; but be winning the debate when you do so. on iran and structuralism, it was not even a wash." there were key areas of the likely CIA's involvement which you had left unanswered when you claimed victory in that statement. i seized the opportunity and outlined the trap. if you indeed you were winning, you shouldn't have to answer dropped arguments. if you, suddenly, started to answer those arguments, then your boast of winning iran must have been erroneous. suddenly, you agreed that ahmadinejad won but still did not answer the similarities between mousavi's declaration of victory the night before the election and CIA inspired declarations of a stolen election in georgia and the ukarine. and did not answer the likelihood of a letter passed out to protesters from the interior ministry claiming that mousavi won being a forgery -- robert fisk. if mousavi clearly lost by your own admission, i don't see why a random recount of 10% which is the same kind of recount conducted in the US and other western democracies would not be sufficient. seems imperialist to impose a revolutionary standard of a third party recount on iran. at least a double standard. you posted a link on twitter with no analysis of your own about the counter-claims that twitter was likely manipulated by foreign intelligence along the lines of israeli SMS manipulations in gaza and lebanon. and no analysis of the speculation linking the email accounts that spawned the tweets to israel. plus the link contradicts your own previous defense of the US state dep't requesting twitter not shut down for maintenance because they are key to the protests. the state dep't intervention at this juncture was fishy like gerbil. in your own words: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-June/079063.html "You've been critical of the obama administration's interferences; do you similarly disappove of the state department's request to twitter that it not shut down monday for routine maintaince so that people in iran could continue to use the service to organize protests and spread information?" don't confuse those recaps for continuing the debate. you need to address the overarching question : why did you need to respond to key dropped arguments when you were so clearly winning? expect from gerbil a retreat to psychological tactics akin to the "lost cause" formulation that aim to isolate and denigrate anyone who questions the mainstream media's version of the protests as 100% unmanipulated by foreign intelligence. expect from gerbil a lack of seriousness and cynicism. possibly some of his weirdest confusion yet could rear its head in his next post. why is gerbil so adamantly committed to whitewashing even the possibility of the CIA's involvement in the soft coup? hmmm... _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090705/0bede4f2/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 5 16:41:03 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Does anyone realize.... Message-ID: <867038.33527.qm@web53510.mail.re2.yahoo.com> that the primary piece of impact evidence we read for the most popular advantage is FIFTEEN YEARS OLD? That Khalilzhad card is really, really old. It is older than some people you are instructing at camp this summer. Moreover, many of the fundamental scenarios it describes have happened. The US has "exercised leadership" in the Middle East. Many security analysts now believe thinking in terms of "hostile global rivals" is an outmoded sentiment that needs updating for an increasingly globalized and fragmented world. In 1994, it was still unclear whether or not the collapse of Communism would take in Russia. We were only fifteen years out from the LAST uprising in Iran. We had just fought a very successful war in the Middle East, instead of a couple iffy ones. NATO was still considered the most important of all international institutions. Its easy to find evidence that the United States needs to maintain a position of leadership in the world at large. Moreover, this evidence is plentiful even from dates AFTER 1994. As a community we pride ourself on rigorously testing arguments, examining the quality of their argumentation, and refining them as we go along. Perhaps we can begin to read a different piece of evidence in the 1AC--one that, you know, assumes the world we live in, and not one that we need to fire our DeLorean up to 88 mph to see? Old Man Rant Over. From dylan.keenan at gmail.com Sun Jul 5 16:54:29 2009 From: dylan.keenan at gmail.com (Dylan Keenan) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:54:29 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Does anyone realize.... In-Reply-To: <867038.33527.qm@web53510.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <867038.33527.qm@web53510.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Agreed. Khalilzad IS outdated and ridiculous. But while we're on this train let's get rid of a) The M?sz?ros capitalism cards from 1995. b) The McWhorter managerialism cards from 1992. c) The Foucault biopower impact card form History of Sexuality (mid 70s I think) and all derivatives thereof. Cause you know, not only has war not happened but the growth of global capitalism, trade, and technology have improved everything else as well. On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > that the primary piece of impact evidence we read for the most popular > advantage is FIFTEEN YEARS OLD? > > That Khalilzhad card is really, really old. It is older than some people > you are instructing at camp this summer. > > Moreover, many of the fundamental scenarios it describes have happened. The > US has "exercised leadership" in the Middle East. Many security analysts now > believe thinking in terms of "hostile global rivals" is an outmoded > sentiment that needs updating for an increasingly globalized and fragmented > world. > > In 1994, it was still unclear whether or not the collapse of Communism > would take in Russia. We were only fifteen years out from the LAST uprising > in Iran. We had just fought a very successful war in the Middle East, > instead of a couple iffy ones. NATO was still considered the most important > of all international institutions. > > Its easy to find evidence that the United States needs to maintain a > position of leadership in the world at large. Moreover, this evidence is > plentiful even from dates AFTER 1994. As a community we pride ourself on > rigorously testing arguments, examining the quality of their argumentation, > and refining them as we go along. Perhaps we can begin to read a different > piece of evidence in the 1AC--one that, you know, assumes the world we live > in, and not one that we need to fire our DeLorean up to 88 mph to see? > > Old Man Rant Over. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090705/a7fa6469/attachment.htm From acasey3 at uco.edu Sun Jul 5 17:28:51 2009 From: acasey3 at uco.edu (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:28:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Does anyone realize.... Message-ID: <6528705.1246832931387.JavaMail.acasey3@uco.edu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090705/bd9b59bc/attachment.htm From leaderdb8 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 5 17:50:22 2009 From: leaderdb8 at hotmail.com (Paul Leader) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 16:50:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] old cards Message-ID: What bothered me most, during my three year experimental return to college coaching--was this very thing. I kept waiting for someone to just take the five seconds necessary to make that very argument--"the card is 15 years old, the geopolitical world has changed drastically, thus the card is rubbish." No one ever did, those of you out there debating now--try it sometime with the "older" coaches still judging, and, chances are--the card will "go away" as far as their decision calculus. Paul Leader re-retired DeaconHawk, RedHound _________________________________________________________________ Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090705/50a36246/attachment.htm From sheltonkurt at yahoo.com Sun Jul 5 18:01:13 2009 From: sheltonkurt at yahoo.com (Kurt Shelton) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 16:01:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] chris burk 's email Message-ID: <425868.6399.qm@web31301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Does anyone have Chris Burk's email? Kurt Shelton Rutgers/ JUDL ?201-892?0343? sheltonkurt at yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090705/5eb4db6f/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 5 20:14:02 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Does anyone realize.... Message-ID: <985250.93076.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I would love for more debaters to refuse to take for granted the claims in many of the seminal impact cards, in both policy and critical debates. --- On Sun, 7/5/09, Dylan Keenan wrote: > From: Dylan Keenan > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Does anyone realize.... > To: "Paul Johnson" > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009, 4:54 PM > Agreed. Khalilzad IS outdated and > ridiculous. > > But while we're on this train let's get rid of > > a) The M?sz?ros capitalism cards from 1995. > b) The McWhorter managerialism cards from 1992. > c) The Foucault biopower impact card form History of > Sexuality (mid 70s I think) and all derivatives thereof. > > > Cause you know, not only has war not happened but the > growth of global capitalism, trade, and technology have > improved everything else as well. > > > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Paul Johnson > wrote: > > > > that the primary piece of impact evidence we read for the > most popular advantage is FIFTEEN YEARS OLD? > > > > That Khalilzhad card is really, really old. It is older > than some people you are instructing at camp this summer. > > > > Moreover, many of the fundamental scenarios it describes > have happened. The US has "exercised leadership" > in the Middle East. Many security analysts now believe > thinking in terms of "hostile global rivals" is an > outmoded sentiment that needs updating for an increasingly > globalized and fragmented world. > > > > > In 1994, it was still unclear whether or not the collapse > of Communism would take in Russia. We were only fifteen > years out from the LAST uprising in Iran. We had just fought > a very successful war in the Middle East, instead of a > couple iffy ones. NATO was still considered the most > important of all international institutions. > > > > > Its easy to find evidence that the United States needs to > maintain a position of leadership in the world at large. > Moreover, this evidence is plentiful even from dates AFTER > 1994. As a community we pride ourself on rigorously testing > arguments, examining the quality of their argumentation, and > refining them as we go along. Perhaps we can begin to read a > different piece of evidence in the 1AC--one that, you know, > assumes the world we live in, and not one that we need to > fire our DeLorean up to 88 mph to see? > > > > > Old Man Rant Over. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > -- > > > From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Sun Jul 5 20:21:44 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 20:21:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] problem solved: khalilzad author indict/independent voter Message-ID: We live in a vastly different geopolitical context; Khalilzhad is ridiculously outdated: vote to institute new community standard on evidence quality. _ Johnson '09. (Paul Elliott. Ph.D. candidate at the University of Iowa. July 5th. eDebate archives: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079110.html.) _ Does anyone realize.... that the primary piece of impact evidence we read for the most popular advantage is FIFTEEN YEARS OLD? That Khalilzhad card is really, really old. It is older than some people you are instructing at camp this summer. Moreover, many of the fundamental scenarios it describes have happened. The US has "exercised leadership" in the Middle East. Many security analysts now believe thinking in terms of "hostile global rivals" is an outmoded sentiment that needs updating for an increasingly globalized and fragmented world. In 1994, it was still unclear whether or not the collapse of Communism would take in Russia. We were only fifteen years out from the LAST uprising in Iran. We had just fought a very successful war in the Middle East, instead of a couple iffy ones. NATO was still considered the most important of all international institutions. It[']s easy to find evidence that the United States needs to maintain a position of leadership in the world at large. Moreover, this evidence is plentiful even from dates AFTER 1994. As a community we pride ourself [sic] on rigorously testing arguments, examining the quality of their argumentation, and refining them as we go along. Perhaps we can begin to read a different piece of evidence in the 1AC--one that, you know, assumes the world we live in, and not one that we need to fire our DeLorean up to 88 mph to see? _ _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090705/087938c8/attachment.htm From malgor.debate at gmail.com Sun Jul 5 22:26:44 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:26:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Does anyone realize.... Message-ID: Dear Dylan- Your inability to distinguish between the contextual claims of the Zad 95 hegemony card and a kritik impact card is quite telling. I could give you a quick summary contrasting the two, but we both know it wouldn't help. As far as impact claims that are clearly false (assuming a policy oriented argument, in which an objective statement is made about probable outcomes of specific political decisions. This being different from a structural claim about possible correlations between ideological beliefs and political events), can we add economic collapse to the list? I mean, at least we can say hegemony has not completely collapsed, so maybe an extreme drop would cause international conflict. We do, however, know that even the most powerful economic shock recorded since WW2 (and arguably EVER) has not directly contributed to international tension, much less nuclear exchange. malgor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090705/c3884dfe/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 12:04:07 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:04:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] UWG Tournament - The Song Remains the Same Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70907061004w16b1a32eod2112dfd19c48651@mail.gmail.com> Our college tournament is scheduled for our regular time slot of MLK weekend, which will be January 16-18, 2010. Cary Ichter and Adorno & Yoss have been very pleased with the connections they made in the debate community (since our tournament, they have established employment relationships with Ross Andre and Dan Davis) and have already told me they look forward to supporting our tournament again next year. Thus, we expect to offer the same quality and quantity of monetary speaker awards & first-rate hospitality. (i'm already working on working out the kinks that caused delays in checks being mailed out last year and that problem will be alleviated) We look forward to hosting you again in '10. hester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/610e0367/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 14:49:08 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:49:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me Message-ID: I am traditionally a list lover, however, I have to admit to having a TON of problems with this topic the more I do research on the area. ** *Resolution 3: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the following ways: -- Ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty -- Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and restricting the use of its nuclear weapons --A substantial reduction in the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal --Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons --A substantial decrease in the operational readiness of its nuclear weapons.* ** My first objection is that parts are accidental (the list isnt bound by a common generic theme) and certain parts of this topic are different enough to make a squad looking for common generics to have problems. I have always believed that lists are good when they are unified and debate out poorly when they are an attempt to shoe horn "cases" into a list. This is the latter IMHO. I supect you will say Deterrence DA applies to all of these things and thats probably so although I suspect operational readiness might have some interesting holes to expose in that one. ** Second, the declartory policy arm arguably makes sense but is kind of confusing and certainly not using a term of art ** *Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and restricting the use of its nuclear weapons * Reductions are force structure policy NOT declatory policy. Declatory policy is NOT reductions....Even establishing NWFZones is not a reduction in the weapons or the use of weapons per se. I get that the topic says reducing the use of its weapons...but what the hell does that mean. Either all declarations are a use of nuclear weapons meaning all changes of declatory policy reduce and restrict that use....OR it means actual reductions and restrictions of deployments. In other words, its a confusing and unnecessary distinction (I assume you didnt want people to be able to increase uses of weapons through declatory policy but if the current policy is a use I am not sure if that is a meaningful distinction). Third, this is the real big problem: *Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons * Guess what, the real life version of this was announced in principle as agreed to yesterday, minor modification affs become pretty sweet and hard to beat I suspect. I also had more than enough CTBT and its never ending sack of add-ons that were each more absurd than the one before (testing causes the center of the earth to warm accounting for global warming was one such gem) Anyway, just thinking out loud and there hasnt been much topic discussion going on...... Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/c26aa64b/attachment.htm From jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu Mon Jul 6 15:22:11 2009 From: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu (Joel Rollins) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:22:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Topic Three is problematic to me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D575A7C-187A-4883-94FA-FEE52F6949BF@mail.utexas.edu> Oddly, I agree with Josh. Topic 3 seems like a mess and the uniqueness debate is way too aff for my taste. On Jul 6, 2009, at 2:49 PM, Josh wrote: > I am traditionally a list lover, however, I have to admit to having > a TON of problems with this topic the more I do research on the area. > > Resolution 3: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should > substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the > following ways: > -- Ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear > Test Ban Treaty > -- Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing > and restricting the use of its nuclear weapons > --A substantial reduction in the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal > --Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with > Russia that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear > weapons > --A substantial decrease in the operational readiness of its > nuclear weapons. > > My first objection is that parts are accidental (the list isnt > bound by a common generic theme) and certain parts of this topic > are different enough to make a squad looking for common generics to > have problems. I have always believed that lists are good when > they are unified and debate out poorly when they are an attempt to > shoe horn "cases" into a list. This is the latter IMHO. I supect > you will say Deterrence DA applies to all of these things and thats > probably so although I suspect operational readiness might have > some interesting holes to expose in that one. > > Second, the declartory policy arm arguably makes sense but is kind > of confusing and certainly not using a term of art > > Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and > restricting the use of its nuclear weapons > > Reductions are force structure policy NOT declatory policy. > Declatory policy is NOT reductions....Even establishing NWFZones is > not a reduction in the weapons or the use of weapons per se. I get > that the topic says reducing the use of its weapons...but what the > hell does that mean. Either all declarations are a use of nuclear > weapons meaning all changes of declatory policy reduce and restrict > that use....OR it means actual reductions and restrictions of > deployments. In other words, its a confusing and unnecessary > distinction (I assume you didnt want people to be able to increase > uses of weapons through declatory policy but if the current policy > is a use I am not sure if that is a meaningful distinction). > > Third, this is the real big problem: > > Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia > that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons > > Guess what, the real life version of this was announced in > principle as agreed to yesterday, minor modification affs become > pretty sweet and hard to beat I suspect. > > I also had more than enough CTBT and its never ending sack of add- > ons that were each more absurd than the one before (testing causes > the center of the earth to warm accounting for global warming was > one such gem) > > Anyway, just thinking out loud and there hasnt been much topic > discussion going on...... > > Josh > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 15:38:16 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:38:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An addendum, my whine about the CTBT was not the point of the post....yes, I realize it is certainly topical under topic one for sure. Thanks to Joshua G for making me clarify. Josh On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Josh wrote: > I am traditionally a list lover, however, I have to admit to having a TON > of problems with this topic the more I do research on the area. > ** > *Resolution 3: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should > substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the following > ways: > -- Ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban > Treaty > -- Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and > restricting the use of its nuclear weapons > --A substantial reduction in the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal > --Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that > at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons > --A substantial decrease in the operational readiness of its nuclear > weapons.* > ** > My first objection is that parts are accidental (the list isnt bound by a > common generic theme) and certain parts of this topic are different enough > to make a squad looking for common generics to have problems. I have always > believed that lists are good when they are unified and debate out poorly > when they are an attempt to shoe horn "cases" into a list. This is the > latter IMHO. I supect you will say Deterrence DA applies to all of these > things and thats probably so although I suspect operational readiness might > have some interesting holes to expose in that one. > ** > Second, the declartory policy arm arguably makes sense but is kind of > confusing and certainly not using a term of art > ** > *Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and > restricting the use of its nuclear weapons * > > Reductions are force structure policy NOT declatory policy. Declatory > policy is NOT reductions....Even establishing NWFZones is not a reduction in > the weapons or the use of weapons per se. I get that the topic says reducing > the use of its weapons...but what the hell does that mean. Either all > declarations are a use of nuclear weapons meaning all changes of declatory > policy reduce and restrict that use....OR it means actual reductions and > restrictions of deployments. In other words, its a confusing and > unnecessary distinction (I assume you didnt want people to be able to > increase uses of weapons through declatory policy but if the current policy > is a use I am not sure if that is a meaningful distinction). > > Third, this is the real big problem: > > *Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that > at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons * > > Guess what, the real life version of this was announced in principle as > agreed to yesterday, minor modification affs become pretty sweet and hard to > beat I suspect. > > I also had more than enough CTBT and its never ending sack of add-ons that > were each more absurd than the one before (testing causes the center of the > earth to warm accounting for global warming was one such gem) > > Anyway, just thinking out loud and there hasnt been much topic discussion > going on...... > > Josh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/ad0f1934/attachment.htm From gonza310 at msu.edu Mon Jul 6 16:11:18 2009 From: gonza310 at msu.edu (Joshua Gonzalez) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:11:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favor of #3, just making an un- clever aside. That having been said, I'm not arguing against topic #3 either...I haven't done enough research yet to have an opinion that I would be comfortable defending. best, other Josh (Wake) On Jul 6, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Josh wrote: > An addendum, my whine about the CTBT was not the point of the > post....yes, I realize it is certainly topical under topic one for > sure. > > Thanks to Joshua G for making me clarify. > Josh > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Josh wrote: > I am traditionally a list lover, however, I have to admit to having > a TON of problems with this topic the more I do research on the area. > > Resolution 3: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should > substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the > following ways: > -- Ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test > Ban Treaty > -- Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing > and restricting the use of its nuclear weapons > --A substantial reduction in the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal > --Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with > Russia that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear > weapons > --A substantial decrease in the operational readiness of its nuclear > weapons. > > My first objection is that parts are accidental (the list isnt bound > by a common generic theme) and certain parts of this topic are > different enough to make a squad looking for common generics to have > problems. I have always believed that lists are good when they are > unified and debate out poorly when they are an attempt to shoe horn > "cases" into a list. This is the latter IMHO. I supect you will > say Deterrence DA applies to all of these things and thats probably > so although I suspect operational readiness might have some > interesting holes to expose in that one. > > Second, the declartory policy arm arguably makes sense but is kind > of confusing and certainly not using a term of art > > Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and > restricting the use of its nuclear weapons > > Reductions are force structure policy NOT declatory policy. > Declatory policy is NOT reductions....Even establishing NWFZones is > not a reduction in the weapons or the use of weapons per se. I get > that the topic says reducing the use of its weapons...but what the > hell does that mean. Either all declarations are a use of nuclear > weapons meaning all changes of declatory policy reduce and restrict > that use....OR it means actual reductions and restrictions of > deployments. In other words, its a confusing and unnecessary > distinction (I assume you didnt want people to be able to increase > uses of weapons through declatory policy but if the current policy > is a use I am not sure if that is a meaningful distinction). > > Third, this is the real big problem: > > Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia > that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons > > Guess what, the real life version of this was announced in principle > as agreed to yesterday, minor modification affs become pretty sweet > and hard to beat I suspect. > > I also had more than enough CTBT and its never ending sack of add- > ons that were each more absurd than the one before (testing causes > the center of the earth to warm accounting for global warming was > one such gem) > > Anyway, just thinking out loud and there hasnt been much topic > discussion going on...... > > Josh > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090706/6d8d14d3/attachment.htm From malgor.debate at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 16:30:53 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:30:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] oddly enough, i agree with Josh Message-ID: Mark it 8, dude. I'm tired of lists, but even if lists were the cat's pajamas, this one is lacking. It is better than the Europe topic, a topic meeting that I am pretty sure consisted of a list of policies slightly related to europe taped to a dartboard, after which a monkey through darts at said board. Those items were then compiled into a resolution. Sorry, back to the issue at hand. The russia thing is scary. Yes, the aff has to at least offer the nuclear reduction....but they can ask for anything they want in exchange for it. KU is salivating at the prospect of thirty five new NDT affs. I understand that 3 is both bigger and smaller-yes it articulates exactly what affs are topical (sort of, there will still be annoying, unrelated, non-universal T debates), but it also adds relatively unrelated ground. and the uniqueness concern of Hoe in light of the agreement yesterday is valid. The way Uniqueness debates are evaluated means any aff running this case is at a huge advantage. CEDA nationals on the China topic came down to "pressure now." Is that what we want again? A whole year of Observation 4 nuclear agreements now? Last random thing-I have done 7 resolutions. Treaties-Ag. Of those, only 1 had no element of a list (fossil fuels). Treaties, Europe, Courts, Ag, and Middle East were all pretty explicit lists. China had elements of a list (harms areas listed out). Some were good, some were bad. But can we recall a time. Now some of you might remember this....in the great long-long ago. There were these debates about something called "topicality." it was a concept that part of debate is understanding and comparing the analytic usefulness of certain terms and definition. It forced us to think about how differing opinions of words can effect the substance of our activity. It even meant that your skill level changed the boundaries of the topic (the better you are at T, the more flexible you can be on the aff....fossil fuels is a good example. Sometimes when we were aff we had a cap, sometimes we didn't....) I LIKE the idea that your skill can change the boundaries of the resolution. Now we all share so many stories about the terrible T debates we judge (when they actually occur). Is it any wonder debaters don't know how to debate topicality anymore? Debating procedure is not educationally bankrupt, it has tangible application to real world situations, ESPECIALLY in the policy-making and legal fields. Knowing how to stretch the boundaries of what you can and cannot do is a good thing. Yes i remember those days, though there weren't many of them. Sometimes I wish we could go back to the long-long ago. Back when we taught students about debating things. Remember when we weren't scared to debate things? God those were the days. As much as I want to vote for a list just so CTBT affs don't have to debate topicality....no thanks. I can think of better criterion to organize an entire season around. much love malgor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/dd244b98/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 17:22:37 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:22:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] oddly enough, i agree with Josh In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am still thinking about the Russia problem in relation to one and two...obviously its a problem for all three resolutions its just explicitly referenced in three. Josh On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Malcolm Gordon wrote: > Mark it 8, dude. > > I'm tired of lists, but even if lists were the cat's pajamas, this one is > lacking. It is better than the Europe topic, a topic meeting that I am > pretty sure consisted of a list of policies slightly related to europe taped > to a dartboard, after which a monkey through darts at said board. Those > items were then compiled into a resolution. Sorry, back to the issue at > hand. > > The russia thing is scary. Yes, the aff has to at least offer the nuclear > reduction....but they can ask for anything they want in exchange for it. KU > is salivating at the prospect of thirty five new NDT affs. > > I understand that 3 is both bigger and smaller-yes it articulates exactly > what affs are topical (sort of, there will still be annoying, unrelated, > non-universal T debates), but it also adds relatively unrelated ground. and > the uniqueness concern of Hoe in light of the agreement yesterday is valid. > The way Uniqueness debates are evaluated means any aff running this case is > at a huge advantage. CEDA nationals on the China topic came down to > "pressure now." Is that what we want again? A whole year of Observation 4 > nuclear agreements now? > > Last random thing-I have done 7 resolutions. Treaties-Ag. Of those, only > 1 had no element of a list (fossil fuels). Treaties, Europe, Courts, Ag, > and Middle East were all pretty explicit lists. China had elements of a > list (harms areas listed out). Some were good, some were bad. > > But can we recall a time. Now some of you might remember this....in the > great long-long ago. There were these debates about something called > "topicality." it was a concept that part of debate is understanding and > comparing the analytic usefulness of certain terms and definition. It > forced us to think about how differing opinions of words can effect the > substance of our activity. It even meant that your skill level changed the > boundaries of the topic (the better you are at T, the more flexible you can > be on the aff....fossil fuels is a good example. Sometimes when we were aff > we had a cap, sometimes we didn't....) I LIKE the idea that your skill can > change the boundaries of the resolution. > > Now we all share so many stories about the terrible T debates we judge > (when they actually occur). Is it any wonder debaters don't know how to > debate topicality anymore? Debating procedure is not educationally > bankrupt, it has tangible application to real world situations, ESPECIALLY > in the policy-making and legal fields. Knowing how to stretch the > boundaries of what you can and cannot do is a good thing. > > Yes i remember those days, though there weren't many of them. Sometimes I > wish we could go back to the long-long ago. Back when we taught students > about debating things. Remember when we weren't scared to debate things? > God those were the days. As much as I want to vote for a list just so CTBT > affs don't have to debate topicality....no thanks. I can think of better > criterion to organize an entire season around. > > much love > > malgor > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090706/aa5ba2df/attachment.htm From jmarty at comm.umass.edu Mon Jul 6 17:49:56 2009 From: jmarty at comm.umass.edu (Jillian Marty) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:49:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Professor Arrested In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A527F94.4040105@comm.umass.edu> Some people wanted me to post this to edebate-- they don't have it. My prayers go out to Eddie and his family. http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/whas11-topstories-090706-uofl-arson.155519f9.html From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 18:22:44 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:22:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The Russia Problem Message-ID: Hey, Hmmm, so 3 for sure makes modifications to the US Russia Proposal T -- Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons but it would have to include whatever a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons "is." The question then becomes if either Topic One or Two creates any meaningful limit to affirmatives that do modifications to the new Russia agreement. *Resolution 1: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially change its nuclear posture to be more consistent with its nuclear disarmament commitments. * Resolution 1 would allow any modification that made US posture more consistent with disarmament committments T (as long as you could win that the modification was a substantial change in our posture). So this becomes a procedural question about what will be included in the new agreement *Resolution 2: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal. * Resolution 2 would allow modifications that either reduced the size of the arsenal or went beyond the agreement to restrict roles and or missions....this seems MUCH more likely to allow small modifications affirmatives - As long as you could claim that the modification reduced and restricted the roles and/or missions of the US nuclear weapons arsenal you are probably T. I think this means its fairly easy depending on what roles and missions means in its most limited form. So, now that I think about it its possible one and three are the most limited in regards to the Russia agreement. I am sure this came up at the topic committee (that the renegotiation of START could happen etc) what did everyone conclude in regards to the resolutional wordings on the question of "what if it happens" Josh On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Josh wrote: > *First, what are the possible areas of the topics:* > * * > *1. Force Structure Policy * > > This is types of weapons and numbers of weapons - areas of concern would be > numerical reductions, eliminating classes of weapons etc. > > *2. Declaratory Policy* > > Its what we declare we will do with weapons - negative security guarantess > in general, no first use or no first strike pledges, Nuclear Weapons Free > Zones etc. > > *3. Operational Policy * > > This is nuclear safety and targeting and level of alert > > *4. Non-proliferation Policy* > > Includes all arms control agreements (ctbt, fissile material cut offs, NPT > negotiations), Disarmament, and BMD > > **** As an aside, I would STRONGLY suggest you start thinking about each > area as our goal by GSU is to have a generic approach that covers each area. > > *So when you look at the topics:* > > *Resolution 1: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should > substantially change its nuclear posture to be more consistent with its > nuclear disarmament commitments. * > > **The first question for this is what are our nuclear disarmament > committments. Article 4 of the NPT is clearly one - how was this > operationalized at the topic committee Whit and AK? > > *Resolution 2: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should > substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or > substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear > weapons arsenal. * > > **This is Force Structure (size) ONLY or Force structure and Declatory > Policy and Operational Policy or Declatory and Operational Policy (roles > and/or missions)...I am pretty sure this excludes Non Prolif policy > (although advantages might deal with non proliferation credibility. > > * Resolution 3: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should > substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the following > ways: > -- Ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban > Treaty > -- Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and > restricting the use of its nuclear weapons > --A substantial reduction in the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal > --Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that > at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons > --A substantial decrease in the operational readiness of its nuclear > weapons.* > > ** I will be honest, I hate this topic, first its totally accidental why > all these cases/areas are together. Second, declartory policy doesnt reduce > weapons it restricts the ways in which weapons are used. Third, why are arm > two and three any different since reductions are forced into declatory > policy. Fourth, negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement > with Russia just happened. I guess this topic most directly engages > operational policy but those are the cases that I think will have NOTHING to > do with the rest of the cases (GENERIC ground doesnt apply across all of > these). > > I personally would likely vote for two because its more limited...but I > like one ok as long as there are good definitions of what the US nuclear > disarmament committments are. > > Obviously, everyone needs to discuss and vote, eventually send me your vote > and I will tally and send in the ballots as usual, > > Josh > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/14706127/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 18:25:49 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:25:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Professor Arrested In-Reply-To: <4A527F94.4040105@comm.umass.edu> References: <4A527F94.4040105@comm.umass.edu> Message-ID: I am not religious, but all my thoughts and feelings go out to Doctor Warner and his family. Josh On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Jillian Marty wrote: > > Some people wanted me to post this to edebate-- they don't have it. > > My prayers go out to Eddie and his family. > > > http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/whas11-topstories-090706-uofl-arson.155519f9.html > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090706/af376400/attachment.htm From dgm2109 at columbia.edu Mon Jul 6 20:14:48 2009 From: dgm2109 at columbia.edu (David Marks) Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:14:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kernoff on Khalilzad Message-ID: >From Josh Kernoff: SHORT SUMMARY FOR 99% WHO DON?T REALLY CARE: Who cares its from 1995. Only thing that changed was details. Not overall ?structure? of international system ? which is what Kzad is about. He says ?US Leadership solves security dilemmas?. And he gives examples to support that. Some details of those examples has changed ? but not changed sufficiently to change the fact that, US leadership solves security dilemmas. ONE FOOTNOTE FIRST: The main problem is nobody has an internal link to ?Khalilzad?? That?s noted, and yes, I agree there are many times the card is used ?inappropriately? because the aff/neg didn?t prove they got to ?US withdrawal? or ?end of US engagement?. ONE SECOND FOOTNOTE FINALLY: I probably misspelled and ungrammaticalized something here? whatever.. read one of Kade?s posts?. His are worse? FINAL FOOTNOTE: I might get bored and not respond to responses to this? sorry? I?m sure there?s only about 3 of you out there who?ve gotten this far anyway. LONG VERSION FOR 1% WHO CARE: Most people I speak to about this get really upset about how old the Khalilzad card is. I think that misses the point. YES ? it is correct to say that some details have changed and are outdated. Yes, it doesn?t account for the Iraq War, when describing what Iraq would do. But that article, and the card, are not about specific policy details or even specific outcomes. The 1995 article was a general defense of a grand strategy of leadership and engagement. It was not so interested in particular policy instruments in particular situations, as an overall posture of global engagement, rather than offshore balancing or isolationism. Consequentially, it was also not so interested in any one particular outcome of the US withdrawing from the world, as the overall trend of events. I doubt Khalilzad would say he was even 90% sure that every single scenario would come to fruition. Rather, it was using examples to demonstrate a general theory of the consequences of global withdrawal. It is said that the geopolitical landscape of the world has CHANGED DRAMATICALLY ? well, sort of. Yes, there have been significant events in Iran, North Korea, Russia, and all over the world, that matter for millions of peoples lives. BUT ? has the balance of power (particularly, with regard to the US, as a consequences of its power or engagement with the world) substantially changed? No ? not in the terms that Khalilzad is really interested in. Yes, some countries have risen and fallen in incremental measures ? but the US is still far and away the global hegemon ? and it is still heavily engaged, globally. And nobody has waged a serious challenge on US leadership. (If you want to argue ?US is no longer the hegemon? ? I?ll refer you to the Brooks/Wohlforth cards? if you still aren?t convinced, our differences may be irreconcilable). The point ? is that although specifics have changed (leaders, small countries capabilities, etc), the main things Khalilzad focuses on (that US engagement provides a public good of security, that solves security dilemmas by allowing other states to free ride, and avoid militarizing, starting arms races, creating security vacuums, blah blah ) ? that stuff hasn?t changed. Or ? There has yet to be an argument about what about it has changed? or maybe it has, and I?ll address it here: PJ Says: ?Moreover, many of the fundamental scenarios it describes have happened. The US has "exercised leadership" in the Middle East. ? That?s why the Israel Disad hasn?t happened (except the Netanyahu part) and we haven?t seem rapid arms racing or pre-emptive/preventive attacks in the middle east. The argument would go, US withdrawal would cause the security fears surrounding Iran, Israel, etc to prompt arms racing and conflict. PJ: ?Many security analysts now believe thinking in terms of "hostile global rivals" is an outmoded sentiment that needs updating for an increasingly globalized and fragmented world.? Well ? some do. Mabye most/all do. But that?s more an issue of focus than of descriptive accuracy. Most security analysis say that?s because the main threat America faces isn?t from nation states, because, they just don?t have the capacity to mess with us?. Which is why we ought focus on under privileged issues such as ?soft? or ?human? security threats, or non-traditional ?security? threats (eg: terrorism, proliferation). AND that all is occurring in a world of US leadership ? the counterfactual of ?how would we think of these things in a world where the US withdrew from the world? has yet to be tested since the end of the Cold War. PJ: ?In 1994, it was still unclear whether or not the collapse of Communism would take in Russia. We were only fifteen years out from the LAST uprising in Iran. We had just fought a very successful war in the Middle East, instead of a couple iffy ones. NATO was still considered the most important of all international institutions.? Details that all may be true, but don?t undermine his ?security dilemma? argument which still holds true in Europe, the Middle East, Asia. There are PLENTY of scholars who think US withdrawal would be devastating for EU unity, Asian stability, and Middle East stability. PJ: ?Its easy to find evidence that the United States needs to maintain a position of leadership in the world at large. Moreover, this evidence is plentiful even from dates AFTER 1994.? 1995? but true. I agree ? all the debaters should continue cutting heg cards. And they do. But ? I still think they should read Khalilzad instead of Kagan or whatever other card-of-the-week they found. Why? The short card (copied below) is just an abbreviation of the larger card (copied below). It?s a quick reference, to arguments that are still true, because they were not about details, but about generalities. And although some details that are a part of those general theories/principles may have changed, they have NOT changed sufficiently to explain why ?US ENGAGEMENT DOESN?T SOLVE SECURITY DILEMMA??. PJ: ?As a community we pride ourself on rigorously testing arguments, examining the quality of their argumentation, and refining them as we go along. Perhaps we can begin to read a different piece of evidence in the 1AC--one that, you know, assumes the world we live in, and not one that we need to fire our DeLorean up to 88 mph to see?? Who needs a time machine!?!?!??! Cards ? for reference (not sure if something got cut out of the long one?) I apologize in advance if it did? small khalilzad Zalmay Khalilzad, (Former Assist Prof of Poli Sci at Columbia), 1995 Spring, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2; P. 84 Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. big khalilzad Zalmay Khalilzad, (Former Assist Prof of Poli Sci at Columbia), 1995 Spring, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2; Pg. 84 What might happen to the world if the United States turned inward? Without the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), rather than cooperating with each other, the West European nations might compete with each other for domination of East-Central Europe and the Middle East. In Western and Central Europe, Germany -- especially since unification -- would be the natural leading power. Either in cooperation or competition with Russia, Germany might seek influence over the territories located between them. German efforts are likely to be aimed at filling the vacuum, stabilizing the region, and precluding its domination by rival powers. Britain and France fear such a development. Given the strength of democracy in Germany and its preoccupation with absorbing the former East Germany, European concerns about Germany appear exaggerated. But it would be a mistake to assume that U.S. withdrawal could not, in the long run, result in the renationalization of Germany's security policy. The same is also true of Japan. Given a U.S. withdrawal from the world, Japan would have to look after its own security and build up its military capabilities. China, Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia already fear Japanese hegemony. Without U.S. protection, Japan is likely to increase its military capability dramatically -- to balance the growing Chinese forces and still-significant Russian forces. This could result in arms races, including the possible acquisition by Japan of nuclear weapons. Given Japanese technological prowess, to say nothing of the plutonium stockpile Japan has acquired in the development of its nuclear power industry, it could obviously become a nuclear weapon state relatively quickly, if it should so decide. It could also build long-range missiles and carrier task forces. With the shifting balance of power among Japan, China, Russia, and potential new regional powers such as India, Indonesia, and a united Korea could come significant risks of preventive or proeruptive war. Similarly, European competition for regional dominance could lead to major wars in Europe or East Asia. If the United States stayed out of such a war -- an unlikely prospect -- Europe or East Asia could become dominated by a hostile power. Such a development would threaten U.S. interests. A power that achieved such dominance would seek to exclude the United States from the area and threaten its interests-economic and political -- in the region. Besides, with the domination of Europe or East Asia, such a power might seek global hegemony and the United States would face another global Cold War and the risk of a world war even more catastrophic than the last. In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis might seek to acquire, perhaps by purchase, their own nuclear weapons. If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S. and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and other oilimporting nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either Iran or Iraq would bring the rest of the Arab Middle East under its influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power. Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the Arabs and the Israelis. The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East Asia, Europe, and the Persian Gulf would harm the economy of the United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe would force major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these regions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments might be high. The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and means for their delivery. Already several rogue states such as North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood of their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the security of every nation in the world, including the United States, would be harmed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/e49bf0a8/attachment.htm From edebate at omriceren.com Mon Jul 6 22:39:23 2009 From: edebate at omriceren.com (edebate at omriceren.com) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:39:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Does anyone realize.... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A52C36B.1040609@omriceren.com> On 7/5/2009 8:26 PM, Malcolm Gordon wrote: > We do, however, know that even the most powerful economic shock recorded > since WW2 (and arguably EVER) has not directly contributed to > international tension, much less nuclear exchange. I'm not sure that's a particularly tenable claim. The decline of the US's relative economic position has caused China to diversify their dollar holdings, potentially undermining the American financial system. The situation has been described by STRATFOR as "just one of many U.S.-Chinese tensions likely to arise amid the global recession." Economic contractions in Central America, coupled with swine flu, have left the drug trade as quite literally the only growth industry in Mexico. Even assuming that Mexico won't become a failed state - a less than sound assumption - the situation has brought intense domestic populist pressures to bear on American politicians. DPA describes the crisis one of "rising tension between Mexico and the US." Economic motivations are forcing Russia to more aggressively market its anti-aircraft missiles, including the advanced S-300 system that they've been under intense pressure not to sell to Iran. The situation has now reached the point where Russia is demanding that Israel purchase the missiles to keep them out of Iran's hands. If the missiles are to be installed in Iran, Israel might forgo the 2010 deadline that Netanyahu gave Obama and move immediately. An Israel do-or-die attack on Iran would certainly rise to the level of "tension." And of course, the decline in oil prices has destabilized the Iranian regime and undermined the populist base that kept hardliners in power. The resulting overreaction by the regime has triggered one of Central Asia's worst geopolitical crises since the Carter administration. And yet I still find myself thinking that the least defensible part of this email is the "and arguably EVER" part that, in contrast to the muddleheadedness displayed elsewhere, is simply, straightforwardly, and demonstrably wrong. Regads, Omri. -- -------------- Four Lads Who Shook The World --- Inscription on the Dooley Statue in Liverpool -------------- From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 06:32:57 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:32:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Lakeland Tournament & RR -- Registration open Message-ID: <524839830907070432x658634c3lfd5c0920935dfd72@mail.gmail.com> To HS Coaches: Registration for the free 2010 Lakeland Tournament is open at Joy of Tournaments. Simply visit http://www.lakelandtournament.org to register. We are planning a RR in the city. If you are interested in attending, please let me know. To College Coaches: We are planning a RR in Times Square on February 24th & 25th. If you are interested in visiting the city, recruiting some students, and judging a debate, please let me know. To Someone: If you are on NDCA-L, please forward this message since I can't seem to get myself back on the listserv. -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090707/b070b11d/attachment.htm From luaghingagain at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 12:03:25 2009 From: luaghingagain at gmail.com (Guido Randazzo) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:03:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7f357fc80907071003x5426d5ccoaa7b4630fe80e77f@mail.gmail.com> I think I am in favor of resolution #3, although admittedly I haven't done much research into the specific wordings (i.e. all our "disarmament commitments"). At first glance, however, resolution #1 is unappealing. It seems very vague. The disarmament pillar of the NPT seems like the most obvious example, but is it the only? Is there a list? I don't really know. My greater concern is that it is overly limiting. Would taking our weapons off hair trigger alert be consistent with our *disarmament* commitment? Would no-first use? Would CTBT? I don't understand how it could, seeing as how those policies are not disarmament policies (since they don't decrease the number of nukes). I think those are important affs to have; to have a nuclear weapons topic that can't discuss Declaratory Policy/Operational Policy seems like a waste. However it is also broad. For example, if we stop researching nanotech nuclear triggers or hafnium bombs, we've become more consistent with our disarmament commitments. The weapons possibly considered nuclear that the U.S. has and is developing is rather large. To me, this resolution makes these affs T. I believe both resolution #2 and #3 solve this concern. My reading of resolution #2 solves some of these concerns. It allows changes in declaratory policy (no first use, etc.) but does not allow changes in Operational policy. Admittedly I am also confused by the two "and/or" splices. It seems very confusingly worded. I don't completely get some of the objections to resolution #3. First, the list does not seem like a random hodge-podge at all. Ratification of CTBT is advocated by pretty much everyone who favors nuclear disarm. Adoption of declaratory policies are also huge parts of the lit (No first use, etc.). Same with operational readiness. All of this stuff is super-duper related, since its all about nuclear weapons. Moreover, most people who talk in the context of reducing our nukes talk in the context of doing it with Russia. To not allow the aff to do this would be lame. For the aff's under res #3 the advantage areas for all the affs are pretty much the same. Prolif advantage, accidental launch, terrorists stole my nukes, I mean the list is not very long. This is in large part where the generic ground comes from. The generic ground is pretty similar for all the affs -- for instance, almost every DA against a substantial unilateral reduction is a DA against reducing along with Russia. Many DAs (i.e. "allied prolif") apply to all the affs. There is obviously an absurd number of CPs, most of them with highly similar themes/actions, to all the affs. I don't think there is a case that has nothing to do with the rest of the cases. Of course there will certainly be Black Swan cases that we simply can't predict, but resolution #3 is no more vulnerable to that than resolution #1 or 2. Uniqueness problems with Russia? Perhaps. I have seen at least 10 articles that say "if we go any lower than what we just agreed to, we're in big trouble." And there's always the uniqueness CP and the unilat CP. In my mind there's a big difference in capping the number of nukes at 1600 and capping the number of nukes at less than 1,000, and I believe there is plenty of ev in the lit to back that up. I'm not worried about the number of affs when I'm neg any more than I'm worried about the obscene number of neg positions when I'm aff. That being said I support resolution 3. Nick Brown Vandy Debate On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Josh wrote: > I am traditionally a list lover, however, I have to admit to having a TON > of problems with this topic the more I do research on the area. > ** > *Resolution 3: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should > substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the following > ways: > -- Ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban > Treaty > -- Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and > restricting the use of its nuclear weapons > --A substantial reduction in the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal > --Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that > at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons > --A substantial decrease in the operational readiness of its nuclear > weapons.* > ** > My first objection is that parts are accidental (the list isnt bound by a > common generic theme) and certain parts of this topic are different enough > to make a squad looking for common generics to have problems. I have always > believed that lists are good when they are unified and debate out poorly > when they are an attempt to shoe horn "cases" into a list. This is the > latter IMHO. I supect you will say Deterrence DA applies to all of these > things and thats probably so although I suspect operational readiness might > have some interesting holes to expose in that one. > ** > Second, the declartory policy arm arguably makes sense but is kind of > confusing and certainly not using a term of art > ** > *Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and > restricting the use of its nuclear weapons * > > Reductions are force structure policy NOT declatory policy. Declatory > policy is NOT reductions....Even establishing NWFZones is not a reduction in > the weapons or the use of weapons per se. I get that the topic says reducing > the use of its weapons...but what the hell does that mean. Either all > declarations are a use of nuclear weapons meaning all changes of declatory > policy reduce and restrict that use....OR it means actual reductions and > restrictions of deployments. In other words, its a confusing and > unnecessary distinction (I assume you didnt want people to be able to > increase uses of weapons through declatory policy but if the current policy > is a use I am not sure if that is a meaningful distinction). > > Third, this is the real big problem: > > *Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that > at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons * > > Guess what, the real life version of this was announced in principle as > agreed to yesterday, minor modification affs become pretty sweet and hard to > beat I suspect. > > I also had more than enough CTBT and its never ending sack of add-ons that > were each more absurd than the one before (testing causes the center of the > earth to warm accounting for global warming was one such gem) > > Anyway, just thinking out loud and there hasnt been much topic discussion > going on...... > > Josh > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090707/578bce25/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 14:03:24 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:03:24 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me In-Reply-To: <7f357fc80907071003x5426d5ccoaa7b4630fe80e77f@mail.gmail.com> References: <7f357fc80907071003x5426d5ccoaa7b4630fe80e77f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Nick (Guido), I think your analysis of #1 is a bit off, I would suggest it was by far the most broad of the three topics (by far the most broad). The topic reads: Resolution 1: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially change its nuclear posture to be more consistent with its nuclear disarmament commitments. There are many things that might be more consistent with our nuclear disarmament committments that arent even things you would necessarily associate with the topic area for instance nuclear sharing committments etc. In addition, all the cases topical under 2 and 3 are likely topical under one. NFU and CTBT are both things we have pledged or have signed on to as part of our NPT committments (negative security assurances and article 4)..Part of our NP committments include Operational Policy (although I think this is the place an affirmative is most likely to run case of the week bad affs). The rest of what you say is probably just a difference of opinion, I personally prefer 2 so far, Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090707/e3450172/attachment.htm From searwr6 at wfu.edu Tue Jul 7 14:59:12 2009 From: searwr6 at wfu.edu (searwr6) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:59:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic three is problematic to me Message-ID: <4A53A910.4090804@wfu.edu> I agree with Nick's concerns about #1. However, I think 2, and not 3, is the best alternative. It provides a more predictable mechanism: affs must either reduce the size of the arsenal, or the salience of nuclear weapons for strategic planning purposes, or both. Arguably, an aff such as de-alert would be topical under this interpretation, because it would reduce the role nuclear play in national security. That isn't clear cut, but I think that's a good thing. Healthy T debates are educational, fun, and haven't played much of a role in the past few topics. I think it would be good to have one for a change that, as Malgor said, allows the aff and neg to adjust the scope of the topic based on their topicality skills. I disagree that 3 is not a random hodge podge. It is, and the assertion that its all "super duper related since its all about nuclear weapons" is just plain wrong. That's like saying the Lebanon aff on Middle East was super-duper related to Iran since they're in the same region of the world. No, no, no. 3 includes changes in force structure, force posture, bilateral agreements, and treaties. Each of these, in of itself, is a huge area of discussion, with incredibly different mechanisms and implications. That the advantage areas will be similar remains to be proven, and isn't a reason the topic will be manageable. Proliferation, and how best to combat it, is not a small debate, and your neg to the aff that attempts to solve it by unilaterally cutting our weapons, as opposed to the one that does so through subtle changes in declaratory policy will have to be different, or you will lose. Moreover, DA links from one area of the topic are not only not applicable to other affs, they often directly contradict, creating huge problems for teams that prepare for the season by trying to compile generics. This is most clearly true for the Russia aff, which I consider problematic enough to void the entire resolution. Bilateral arms control agreements are very different from unilateral reductions, and writing both into the topic deprives the neg of important cp and DA ground, while also pushing them towards the fringe of the debate by making generic "nukes good" arguments the only stable ground. It would be much better, I think, to have some debates about the /way/ we disarm, than solely about whether or not we need every last nuke. Topic 3 makes that nearly impossible. And yes, I realize there are cards that say the new arms control agreement didn't jack deterrence, or whatever. That's not the issue, although it would be nice if the year started off without one of the big affs already in the process of being done. The issue is whether people will tack tiny modifications onto that, and claim large advantages off of them that aren't related to nuclear weapons in the least. This will happen if resolution 3 wins. In response, people will probably resort to things like condition cps, which are stupid and horrible, but perhaps appropriate in this situation. This is not a question of the "number of affs," but of predictability, and what kind of debates we want to be having. -Sears From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 15:10:30 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:10:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me In-Reply-To: References: <7f357fc80907071003x5426d5ccoaa7b4630fe80e77f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Nick et al, Someone just mentioned an interesting point about topic one (backchannel) which might actually make a huge difference on our different interpretations of topic one....It is my assumption that: "should substantially change its nuclear posture" Is broad because my understanding was the topic committee felt that things like CTBT etc would "change posture." However, if posture refers to Declaratory Policy, Force Structure, and Operational policy but not the Non-Proliferation policy areas that do not explicity also deal with Declaratory, Force Structure, and Op Policies topic one becomes much more limited. Could someone who was at the topic committee meeting or is on the committee clarify on why people felt exclusively Non Proliferation Policy affs were topical under topic 1? Josh On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Josh wrote: > Nick (Guido), > > I think your analysis of #1 is a bit off, I would suggest it was by far the > most broad of the three topics (by far the most broad). The topic reads: > > Resolution 1: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should > substantially change its nuclear posture to be more consistent with its > nuclear disarmament commitments. > > There are many things that might be more consistent with our nuclear > disarmament committments that arent even things you would necessarily > associate with the topic area for instance nuclear sharing committments > etc. In addition, all the cases topical under 2 and 3 are likely topical > under one. > > NFU and CTBT are both things we have pledged or have signed on to as part > of our NPT committments (negative security assurances and article 4)..Part > of our NP committments include Operational Policy (although I think this is > the place an affirmative is most likely to run case of the week bad affs). > > The rest of what you say is probably just a difference of opinion, I > personally prefer 2 so far, > > Josh > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090707/1c14d35b/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Tue Jul 7 15:48:15 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 16:48:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] chip schwabb Message-ID: please contact me asap. thanks. David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, Lecturer in Communication Studies University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 FLW 3015 305-284-5553 204-385-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/ From dave at miami.edu Tue Jul 7 17:10:41 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:10:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] middle school debate camps Message-ID: Do you offer debate camp for middle schoolers? We offered a speech and argument skills camp for elemiddle kids in early June, and I am receiving some inquiries from parents looking for similar programs. Thanks. Let me know if I can refer people to you. ds David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, Lecturer in Communication Studies University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 FLW 3015 305-284-5553 204-385-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/ From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Tue Jul 7 19:04:14 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:04:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] wayback machine Message-ID: (-- sorry for the clutter; just tying up loose ends --) when a former debater puts forward a bunch of arguments (and persists in name-calling), but then qualifies it all by saying 'don't confuse this with continuing the debate', it's a safe bet their position is rather weak and they're attempting to defray further exposure. below is a case-in-point: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079109.html j.s.: "after listening to you on iran, you don't even get the sense that you are defending the CIA..." there's a reason for that, jack - because i'm not. why concoct some gerbil- bashing 'hermeneutics of suspicion' when the fact is i'm not defending the enemy? "as further evidence of CIA involvement comes to light..." but you haven't presented any evidence! so far you've got the following: robert fisk didn't immediately burst out laughing or shout 'that's absurd!', and the bush administration had a program to destabilize iran which we don't know the obama administration officially ended. not one shred of evidence showing the c.i.a. was behind this. not one. "why is gerbil so adamantly committed to whitewashing even the possibility of the CIA's involvement in the soft coup?" of course it's possible. it's also possible that china tried to orchestrate a soft coup, or that the election was stolen, or that mousavi is a martian. ...the practical question is, what knowledge from reliable sources can help us move from the possible to the plausible, and from there to the likely or even the actual? you're now teetering between possible and plausible; you're nowhere near likely or what actually happened. "gerbil probably would have (based on his use of reese erlich) defended the CIA in 1953 in the weeks following the coup from similar allegations leveraging the lack of definitive evidence." you mean would i assume u.s. state-planners are behind all power plays in world affairs without any evidence? you're right, i wouldn't. obviously, we've got different criteria of adequacy here. and if an instance arose where there was no evidence of interference, but the u.s. did interfere, then i'd be wrong. i accept that. for better or worse, i don't pretend to know things i don't know. my point is the alternative is far worse. why don't you pretend to know that the c.i.a. ousted the honduran president, for example? are you 'whitewashing possibilities' there? ...and why can't you accept that the c.i.a. is just a front for the illuminati who meet to pick the leaders of all nations on a quarterly basis? do you see the slope you're slipping down? "suddenly, you agreed that ahmadinejad won but still did not answer the similarities between mousavi's declaration of victory the night before the election and CIA inspired declarations of a stolen election in georgia and the ukarine." gee, that's spooky. i've never once heard of a candidate declaring they'd won before the election results were in, unless there was a c.i.a. coup in the works. got me there. (erlich also criticizes the comparison - more on him below.) "if mousavi clearly lost by your own admission, i don't see why a random recount of 10% which is the same kind of recount conducted in the US and other western democracies would not be sufficient." because the real issue (as i've been repeating since this argument began) is not which candidate won, but whether basic 'democratic' conventions - such as the right to protest and the impartiality of electoral officials - will become normal in iranian politics. that's why i care more about the fact that people were demonstrating than whichever candidate they were demonstrating for; that's why i care more about a ruling body that's not the guardian council doing the recount than whether the election is proved to be stolen. the institution of norms is more important to me than contingent factors like candidates and results. (this isn't necessarily a pro- 'democracy' (whatever that means) stance, by the way; it's this same distinction which allows badiou to distinguish between the formal and the empirical corruption of democracy.) "...your own previous defense of the US state dep't requesting twitter not shut down..." see, this is why you get things twisted, jack. i never defended the u.s. state department; i *asked you a question* as to whether *you* thought that request was an interference in iran's internal affairs. if it was, then why not focus on criticizing that, instead of shadowy c.i.a. scenarios of which you have no evidence? you never answered my question directly, but my hunch was that foreign meddling which makes the mainstream papers isn't as sexy as the stuff you cull from conspiro-blogs. "why did you need to respond to key dropped arguments when you were so clearly winning?" i needed to show that they didn't matter to anything i was saying, since you apparently required such a showing, that's all. a word about reese erlich. he is a well-respected journalist cited *by your own authors*. he has dedicated decades of his life to reporting on things like the c.i.a.'s crimes against iran. yet you accuse him of 'trickery' because he states matter-of-factly that there's no evidence of any c.i.a. involvement in this event. quote, "these con artists [e.g., reese erlich] are worried that no definitive evidence has yet surfaced linking the CIA to perpetrating claims of a stolen election". he's a 'con artist' because he waits for evidence before he makes accusatory claims? how many comrades are you willing to toss off the bus in order to keep up the appearance that you weren't wrong on iran? _ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/Waybackmachine3.png _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090707/f3e14389/attachment.htm From asymonds at asu.edu Tue Jul 7 20:43:13 2009 From: asymonds at asu.edu (Adam Symonds) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:43:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Second ADI Deadline Approaching Message-ID: Greetings all, There's still time to sign up to come join us in Tempe or the Arizona Debate Institute! July 15 marks the deadline for the end of our regular tuition rate. Details are available at www.public.asu.edu/~asymonds . There are many reasons why ADI is a great way to get ready for the 2009-2010 debate season: The Faculty: The ADI is proud to have some of the best debate coaches in the United States on our faculty. They are an experienced group of debate educators dedicated to helping make you a better debate. Record of Success: The success of our alumni proves the ADI works. ADI students have achieved success at all levels, enjoying local, regional and national successes. Graduates of our program have consistently gone on to achieve much success in college debate. Value: The ADI is one of the best values among college summer debate institutes. Compare our costs to the costs of other college debate institutes and you will find we are the most cost-effective institute in the nation. Curriculum: ADI utilizes various modes of instruction including lectures, group-discussion, stop-start practice debates, speaking drills, and a six-round tournament judged by qualified critics. Facilities: ADI is housed at the Twin Palms Hotel in Tempe, Arizona. The hotel offers many amenities including daily maid services, access to ASU?s world-class workout complex, a pool, and a free shuttle service. Why stay in a dorm when you can stay in a comfortable hotel? The hotel is directly adjacent to the ASU campus and is a short walk to all of ASU world renowned libraries, as well as many of Tempe?s fine eating establishments. ADI on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=74808980618&ref=ts -- Adam Symonds Director of Forensics Arizona State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090707/4dc0fd55/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 7 22:58:47 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:58:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Beware the Ideas of.....July? Message-ID: <144944.7233.qm@web53509.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I don't necessarily think 2 is the most limiting of the resolutions. Perhaps it seems to be so, if we maintain a very limited understanding of what counts as a reduction and a restriction (the first term being, I think, quite I bit more stable than the second). Perhaps there is an element of "term of artness" that has missed me. But under 2, what counts as a restriction on a role or mission is not explicitly stipulated. Moreover, the topic committee explicitly listed one of its criterion for topic selection as "multilateralism", and, it seems, part of why people seem so excited for this topic is because its time for "the Aff to rise again". With those two understandings in hand, under resolution two we are looking at a fairly large list of actions that could easily include multilateral actions, and perhaps more multilateral actions than are present under resolutions one and three. After all, both of those resolutions at least limit multilateralism to Russia. On the other hand, if multilateral agreements constitute a sort of restriction on the role and mission of nuclear weapons (raise your hand if you think we'll debate the CTBT under resolution two), then under resolution 2 we're looking at multilateral/bilateral agreements with countries besides Russia. In backchannel, Will pointed out to me that the committee thought about a bilateral cuts aff with China, but decided it wasn't very good. Probably true, but how many not so good affs have nevertheless been written and then tormented teams all year because only a few teams ran it, and so it proceeded unmolested throughout the year just under the radar screen? How many other proposals are out there for this sort of thing (NWFZ's, additional IAEA protocols, etc)? I am trying to think of what happened the last time we had a fairly vague resolution and the way the community T policing went down. I recsontructed briefly the following history: Subsidies- it was fairly clear what was called for here. Minimal T debating. Middle East- fairly healthy debate over the meaning of constructive engagement, eventually the community settled on some sort of QPQ standard but intelligent holdouts argued both that the QPQ could be more expansive than envisioned and also that a QPQ was not necessary. Courts- fairly straightforward. Overrule was a bad word for debate, but not for the T side of things--it was fairly straightforward. China- another year where the topic didn't end up being great for the aff, but where it was fairly clear that the aff needed to be mean to china and the neg could be nice to them. opportunities for interventions to expand what counted as "pressure" ie the EASA aff met with limited success. I thought it was sort of crazy that NU DD's aff that basically erected an economic alliance against China could lose on T, though. Substantial was in some ways the most important word on this resolution by the end of the year. being aff wasn't that fun, though "pressure now" helped. Energy- Ahhh! A true bellwether. On this topic, we had "reduce fossil fuel consumption". Aside from the burden mixing problem which resulted in teams just shoehorning caps into their plan text, the aff was given fairly wide latitude to do stuff because the resolution wasn't framed around a proper term of art. Good topic, though. Unless you were aff. So actually, the past doesn't tell us much, except that when terms of art are vague/imprecise, the aff may get some latitude as long as they agree to always do some things. IF you think that Topic 2 is the most limiting resolution, you have faith in judges to vote on T and negative teams to police affs. While the Indian Country topic was not the best topic ever in many ways, one thing you can say about it is that the T cards were pretty clear about what counted as increasing federal control. I am not so sure that we will have such a brightline this upcoming year. Interesting stuff. PJ From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 23:19:03 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 00:19:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Giants in the Tubes..... Message-ID: <524839830907072119la28a757j944b47138e0c7bf2@mail.gmail.com> In case you missed it, it is worth nothing that many of debate's most competitively successful coaches can now be found delivering lectures that will be of use/benefit to just about anyone. These lectures are freely available. Where can you find these? Plan Debate -- Covering Gonzaga, Kentucky, some Emory, some North Texas, some Capitol (forthcoming), and maybe some others -- http://www.planetdebate.com/media Emory - http://endi.gaforensics.org/ Dartmouth - http://ddw09.wikispaces.com/Lectures CAL -- http://cndi.wikispaces.com/Lectures Georgetown -- http://georgetowndebateseminar.wikispaces.com/lectures "Giant" Highlights -- Adrienne Brovero -- Debating Politics 2009 -- http://www.planetdebate.com/media/view/120 Roger Solt -- Debating Theory -- http://www.planetdebate.com/media/view/117 Sherry Hall -- The State Action Doctrine and Federal Solutions to Poverty -- http://www.planetdebate.com/media/view/109 Ross Smith -- Shaping the Debate and Rebuttal Strategies (and many more lectures) -- http://www.planetdebate.com/media/view/104 David Heidt -- Poverty Topic Intro -- http://www.planetdebate.com/media/view/83 Melissa Wade -- Developing Your C-X Skills -- http://www.planetdebate.com/media/view/78 Ed Lee -- Answering the States Counterplan -- http://www.planetdebate.com/media/view/115 Josh Branson -- Theory and 50 State Fiat -- http://georgetowndebateseminar.wikispaces.com/theorylecture Jonathan Paul -- The 2AC -- http://georgetowndebateseminar.wikispaces.com/2AC2AR Dave Arnett -- Counterplans -- http://cndi.wikispaces.com/Counterplans+Lecture Ken Strange -- Intro to Topicality -- http://ddw09.wikispaces.com/Intro+to+Topicality+by+Ken+Strange+on+June+26 This is just but a small sample of the upwards of 80 incredibly useful lectures that are delivered by a number of high school coaches, college debaters, and college coaches that can now be found online for free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090708/40969a58/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Jul 7 23:47:52 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 23:47:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] finally, gerbil admits to whitewashing the CIA Message-ID: gerbil is a fucking liar and a piece of shit prick. he says he's not defending the CIA but then spends the rest of his post defending the CIA. why? why do you love playing the anti-debate liar? if you're not defending the CIA, then what the fuck are you doing, moron? your position is the CIA was not involved. you are proving you're flagrant undebate-ability. why do you remain on edebate if your job is to confuse and frustrate debating? http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079137.html j.s.: "after listening to you on iran, you don't even get the sense that you are defending the CIA..." there's a reason for that, jack - because i'm not. why concoct some gerbil- bashing 'hermeneutics of suspicion' when the fact is i'm not defending the enemy? " endquote apparently, mr. confusion's new position is that he doesn't have to defend the CIA because the CIA wasn't involved. that's a circular argument, lil kid. i refuse to allow you to obfuscate the argument ground which was the basis of the discussion with hester. the original argument was that the election was not stolen and that the media hoax that it was stolen most likely originated with the CIA. you have agreed that the election was not stolen from mousavi but presented no counter-version of how the hoax was perpetrated. good job, guppy, thanks for helping on plausibility. you're the best. your defenses of the CIA, in your own words, that lead up to your conclusion that the protests were 100% unmanipulated by the CIA: "of course it's possible. it's also possible that china tried to orchestrate a soft coup, or that the election was stolen, or that mousavi is a martian. ...the practical question is, what knowledge from reliable sources can help us move from the possible to the plausible, and from there to the likely or even the actual? you're now teetering between possible and plausible; you're nowhere near likely or what actually happened." "you mean would i assume u.s. state-planners are behind all power plays in world affairs without any evidence? you're right, i wouldn't. obviously, we've got different criteria of adequacy here. and if an instance arose where there was no evidence of interference, but the u.s. did interfere," then i'd be wrong." "i've never once heard of a candidate declaring they'd won before the election results were in, unless there was a c.i.a. coup in the works. got me there."endquote that's called defending the CIA against allegations of a soft coup, dipshit...you really were a loser debater weren't you? if you're last post was not more of the CIA-esque confusion you are accused of then what the fuck is it? just admit it, your job is to wash the CIA hands clean of any "plausible" involvement in the stolen election hoax despite millions of dollars of CIA funding specifically earmarked for iran as part of an official policy to destabilize the iranian government and despite mousavi's links to the CIA through the iran-contra scandal. nice try, asshole. seems like you're not only whitewashing what you call the "enemy" but trying to totally rewrite their history eliminating the massive funding the "enemy" has received in recent years for iran in order to confuse the issue of "plausibility". what a fucking prick. you're so into deploying confusion you've confused yourself about what the words "enemy" and "defend" mean. it's pretty clear what you're up to. you're going to need much better confusion than "i'm not defending the CIA" to get out of this one. no wonder it took you over 2 days to respond. you're running out of options. _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090707/8cfef5b5/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Jul 8 01:06:28 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 01:06:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] erlich's fishy, close friendship with cronkite Message-ID: reese erlich is gerbil's main source denying the "twitter revolution" and any possibility of CIA involvement. without reese erlich, gerbil would have no plausible defense of the CIA. yeah, erlich worked for ramparts through the vietnam war, a magazine which was a known enemy to the CIA. but what happened after that? is it possible that he could have joined the establishment in the 70s like many of the anti-establishment folks of the 60s? one clue is erlich's close relationship with walter cronkite, possibly the biggest CIA asset ever in broadcasting. i believe that gerbil has deliberately misrepresented his source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese_Erlich Erlich worked with Walter Cronkite on four public radio documentaries. Cronkite has written, ?Reese Erlich is a great radio producer and a great friend.?[3] when erlich was at ramparts, the journalism quoted below must have been common knowledge. what would could have driven erlich to so befriend the "enemy" a la gerbil? i don't know but his "journalism" that whitewashes the CIA is starting to wreak of CIA shit. perhaps, erlich's plausible denials of CIA involvement in iran are as credible as plausible denials of his close friendship with spymaster cronkite: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976662/posts In her 1979 book Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and Her Washington Post Empire, investigative journalist Deborah Davis reports that CIA co-founder Allen Dulles brokered a deal between the Washington Post and CBS News in 1948. Through this arrangement, the Washington Post became sole owner of all CBS radio and TV outlets in our nation's capital. The Post's CBS affiliate WTOP-TV hired Cronkite in 1950, giving him his first job in television. Allen Dulles -- who served as Director of Central Intelligence from 1953-61 -- carefully nurtured his ties with the two media companies he had brought together. Davis writes: "The Post men continued to see Paley and Cronkite every Christmas at a dinner given by Allen Dulles at a private club called the Alibi. ... in the middle of downtown Washington..."Investigative reporter Carl Bernstein wrote in 1977: "CBS was unquestionably the CIA's most valuable broadcasting asset. CBS President William Paley and Allen Dulles enjoyed an easy working and social relationship. Over the years, the network provided cover for CIA employees... Paley?s designated contact for the Agency was Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News between 1954 and 1961. ... [CBS News president Richard] Salant... continued many of his predecessor's practices..."Sig Mickelson was Cronkite's first mentor at CBS. Richard Salant appointed Cronkite anchorman for CBS evening news in 1962. In my last column, "How the CIA Lost Vietnam", I recounted Cronkite's infamous conduct following the communist Tet Offensive of 1968. American and South Vietnamese forces hadrouted the enemy. North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin later wrote in his memoirs: "Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise. ... Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence..."Cronkite reported the opposite. "We are mired in stalemate," he told Americans on February 27, 1968. America's only hope, said Cronkite, was to "negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who... did the best they could". Cronkite's message reached Hanoi loud and clear. The communists understood that Cronkite spoke for official Washington. In their darkest hour, he gave them hope. They resolved to fight on. Nearly 30,000 American soldiers would die in Vietnam over the next five years. Then Nixon ended the war with the Paris Peace Accords of January 17, 1973. South Vietnam was safe. As long as Nixon remained in office, the communists did not dare break the treaty. But the press had another trick up its sleeve; Watergate. Early Watergate reports in the Washington Post aroused little interest. Then Cronkite stepped in. ?The story was fading from the papers and we thought we needed to revive it", Cronkite told PBS?s Frontline in 1996. Under Cronkite?s direction, CBS News aired a twenty-two-minute, two-part summary of the Watergate scandal in October 1972. It rekindled the scandal, forcing President Nixon'sresignation on August 8, 1974. Predictably, North Vietnam invaded the South in December 1974. Saigon fell on April 30, 1975. Cronkite's CIA connection surfaced briefly during the Congressional Pike Committee hearings of 1975-76. CBS correspondent Daniel Schorr, who covered the hearings, later wrote: "A former CBS correspondent, Sam Jaffe, said that the CIA had gotten him a job at CBS and that the list of current and former journalist-spies included Walter Cronkite. Cronkite heatedly denied that..."In theory, I see no reason why journalists should avoid helping the CIA in matters of national interest. But who defines the national interest? The tragic story of Walter Cronkite teaches us that CIA spymasters may be poor judges at best. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090708/569db575/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Wed Jul 8 02:38:20 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:38:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] this post is 100% unmanipulated by the CIA Message-ID: in reply to, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079141.html _ you really have a penchant for self-serving characterizations of your opponents based on meaningless, random factors: if i respond in two days, it must be because i'm having trouble coming up with answers (not that i'm, you know, busy or something), but if i respond overnight, it'll probably be because i'm desperate to immediately refute what i must secretly know to be the truth. such attacks work *too well* - that is, they apply to all possible behavior. if i reply later than usual, or earlier than usual, or as per usual, there's a potential yarn to be spun about how it proves an argument that, in fact, is completely unrelated to such irrelevant details. this ability to tell stories, while a skill highly coveted by fiction authors, may be bad form for an honest debater, but it's certainly an errorenous way to interpret world events. "your position is the CIA was not involved." no. my position is i have heard no reliable evidence they were, which has remained my position since reading your exchange with hester. so, you are guilty of misrepresentation. "apparently, mr. confusion's new position is that he doesn't have to defend the CIA because the CIA wasn't involved. that's a circular argument, lil kid." no. saying there's no evidence the c.i.a. was involved is *not* a defense, anymore than saying there's no evidence north korea was involved would be a defense of kim jong-il's dictatorship. so, you have failed to point out a circular argument. you also dropped my 'reductio ad absurdum' retort: by your own logic, aren't you guilty of 'whitewashing the possibility' that the c.i.a. was involved in outsing the honduran president? or was involved in the death of michael jackson? or is actually a front for the illuminati? if merely saying there's insufficient evidence to support an accusation is a defense of whomever the accusation targets, then you're defending the c.i.a. as well from all those above charges. so, why do you love the c.i.a. so much?, is the real question. "...despite millions of dollars of CIA funding specifically earmarked for iran as part of an official policy to destabilize the iranian government and despite mousavi's links to the CIA through the iran-contra scandal." having past links to the c.i.a. doesn't mean acting in concert with any and all future c.i.a. programs (a lesson us panamanians learned due to the handiwork of one general manuel noriega). mousavi's involvement in iran-contra doesn't prove anything. similarly, having a foreign policy goal of destabilizing a particular regime doesn't mean orchestrating any and all destablizations that happen to befall that regime. the c.i.a.'s having a budget on iran doesn't prove anything either. these are your only two warrants and they barely get you to 'plausible' - still very far from 'likely' and farther still from 'what really happened'. "if you're not defending the CIA, then what the fuck are you doing, moron?" i'm demonstrating that you misrepresent people's arguments and fail as a debater. i was also speaking in defense of the iranian protesters who you were unjustifiably and insensitively treating as dupes. "the original argument was that the election was not stolen and that the media hoax that it was stolen most likely originated with the CIA. you have agreed that the election was not stolen from mousavi but presented no counter-version of how the hoax was perpetrated." ah finally, a logical argument. first, i disagree that the most likely source for the popularizing of the allegations of a stolen election was the c.i.a. because, as you've shown, there's no evidence that the c.i.a. was so involved. second, my 'counter-version' is what we all saw happen, so i don't feel any need to fill in plot-holes with conspiracy theories, since, at present, i don't see any gaps. here i follow reese erlich's account, which i've quoted multiple times, and hasn't been successfully refuted. to recap, many if not most mousavi supporters went to bed thinking their candidate had won, and when ahmadinejad won by a landslide, they cried fraud. given the predispositions of the mass media outlets we're discussing, they were inclined to believe these supporters and mousavi above ahmadinejad and his supporters. i'd also mention in passing two contributing factors: one, people took to the streets and were beaten down, and two, these outlets were censored by the regime. also, you're use of the word 'hoax' is inaccurate. a hoax is 'a *deliberate* attempt to deceive a group of people into believing that something is real *when the hoaxster knows it is not*'. there is no evidence of any hoax, since you haven't shown us that anyone deliberately deceived anyone about the election results - which is to say, i take mousavi and his supporters, as well as obama and his goverment, at their respective words, unless it's demonstrated otherwise. contrary to defending imperialists, it's my belief that wild paranoiac speculation hurts the anti-imperialist cause. they've done enough horrific things which are in the historical record; we don't need to be in the business of writing fictions. we also shouldn't overlook the 'irreducible moment' in mass protest; these were the largest protests since '79, and nothing can take that away. "why do you remain on edebate if your job is to confuse and frustrate debating?" a question better asked of the man in the mirror, jack. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090708/1be6db59/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Wed Jul 8 02:50:17 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 02:50:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] erlich's fishy, close friendship with cronkite Message-ID: add 'guilt by association' to your list of academic crimes. 'A is a good friend of B and B is an asset to C, therefore if C is evil, A must be too' is fallacious. and why didn't your author - jeremy hammond - reject erlich as a source as you have? in truth, however, hammond didn't say what you're saying either: http://hammond.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/06/28/reese-elrich-responds-to-fpj-on-iran-election-article/ "I merely theorized the possibility and documented a pattern of behavior that suggests this possibility shouldn't be dismissed. The headline of my article was notably a question, not a statement of fact...". "There is no evidence ... of U.S. meddling in the Iranian election." that's hammond's position. that's erlich's position. that's my position. that's NOT your position. so, get off the crazy train. _________________________________________________________________ Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090708/713170e3/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Jul 8 09:28:38 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:28:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] erlich fishy like gerbil Message-ID: nice misquote on hammond. your doctoring the evidence fish face. where's the erlich response to the CIA funding targeted iran. the hammond quote you chose to elide given your addiction to deliberate confusion. why you lie in every post, asshole? what hammond has said, mr. fucking asshole misquote, is that contrary to your whitewash, the CIA LIKELY was involved in the election and obama's continuation of the massive bush funding is his big reason: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14095 One might be tempted to argue that the strategy for regime change implemented under the Bush administration that including funding for propaganda, support for Iranian dissident groups, and backing for anti-regime militants and terrorists has changed under the new administration of President Barack Obama. There is no evidence, many have pointed out, of U.S. meddling in the Iranian election.But then, neither is there any clear indication that Obama ever revoked the policy strategy implemented under Bush. The most likely scenario is that Obama has put the military option favored by some in the Bush administration on the back burner in favor of other means to carry out a change of regime in Iran.Whatever the case may be, given the record of U.S. interference in the state affairs of Iran and clear policy of regime change, it certainly seems possible, even likely, that the U.S. had a significant role to play in helping to bring about the recent turmoil in an effort to undermine the government of the Islamic Republic. _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090708/438678b2/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Jul 8 10:25:51 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:25:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] fishy gerbil Message-ID: sure are soft in your denials about deliberate confusion and what that might entail? no answer to the circular argument. "i'm not defending the CIA because the CIA was not involved". dismissing hammond on the likelihood of CIA involvement is defending the CIA. you are going to great lengths to RULE OUT that likelihood. using extreme standards of burden of proof to disqualify hammond's calculation of LIKELY CIA involvement is very CIA-esque. you have an almost perfect argument. this technique has been used on every single occasion of the laundry list of CIA black ops including coups to dismiss the allegations during the time-lag due to a lack of definitive evidence. gerbil just graduated from the school of CIA whitewashing scoring As in his class on plausible deniability. no answer to the time-lag theory, of course there's no definitive evidence of the CIA soft coup in the weeks following the election but that does not mean there are ZERO signs, as hammond says, pointing to that LIKELIHOOD. according to hammond, it is way premature to rule out the LIKELIHOOD of CIA involvement and 100% whitewash the CIA a la gerbil. misrepresenting hammond as retracting his statement is very CIA-esque. he merely defends his statement from its misrepresentation by reese erlich, your source. CIA plots are never documented definitively in the moment. always takes time. why leverage the time-lag and misrepresent evidence in the process if you're not part of some deliberate confusion? of course, hammond can not provide definitive evidence in the immediate aftermath but he can take a different position than fishy erlich and gerbil which is to claim that the LIKELIHOOD of CIA involvement is preposterous singling out anyone who believes there is sufficient cause to question the TV soap opera. fishy erlich and fishy gerbil are making the same arguments as kissinger, wolfowitz and mccain on iran. they're not aligned with the protesters. they're aligned with the US foreign policy elite. it's plain fishy how they deploy generic conspiracy theory critiques to create plausible deniability and purify the TV headlines. mousavi's prior relationship to the CIA is circumstantial. millions of dollars to the CIA to destabilize iran is circumstantial. by the way, erlich implies that the election was stolen contesting that ahmadinejad won. i will repeat because you couldn't answer the first time. erlich uses fishy standards of evidentiary burden of proof where no definitive evidence is necessary to call an election stolen but definitive evidence is necessary to deduce the LIKELY involvement of the CIA in perpetrating the hoax. what's up with the double-standard? why would erlich promote such an inaccurate view that you yourself can't even pretend has merit? why should we take him seriously on his adamant denial of the LIKELY role of the CIA when he is spreading the propaganda that mousavi won? what happened on TV is not objective and impartial coverage as gerbil implies in his so called "counter version" of the hoax. iran experts, some of whom do work for the CIA, under the umbrella of western media coverage have failed to tell the whole story. the question is why and why does gerbil feign pretense to the "objectivity" of media in his exhausting effort to protect the CIA from its LIKELY involvement: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090629_real_struggle_iran_and_implications_u_s_dialogue The key to understanding the situation in Iran is realizing that the past weeks have seen not an uprising against the regime, but a struggle within the regime. Ahmadinejad is not part of the establishment, but rather has been struggling against it, accusing it of having betrayed the principles of the Islamic Revolution. The post-election unrest in Iran therefore was not a matter of a repressive regime suppressing liberals (as in Prague in 1989), but a struggle between two Islamist factions that are each committed to the regime, but opposed to each other.The demonstrators certainly included Western-style liberalizing elements, but they also included adherents of senior clerics who wanted to block Ahmadinejad?s re-election. And while Ahmadinejad undoubtedly committed electoral fraud to bulk up his numbers, his ability to commit unlimited fraud was blocked, because very powerful people looking for a chance to bring him down were arrayed against him.The situation is even more complex because it is not simply a fight between Ahmadinejad and the clerics, but also a fight among the clerical elite regarding perks and privileges ? and Ahmadinejad is himself being used within this infighting. The Iranian president?s populism suits the interests of clerics who oppose Rafsanjani; Ahmadinejad is their battering ram. But as Ahmadinejad increases his power, he could turn on his patrons very quickly. In short, the political situation in Iran is extremely volatile, just not for the reason that the media portrayed.Rafsanjani is an extraordinarily powerful figure in the establishment who clearly sees Ahmadinejad and his faction as a mortal threat. Ahmadinejad?s ability to survive the unified opposition of the clergy, election or not, is not at all certain. But the problem is that there is no unified clergy. The supreme leader is clearly trying to find a new political balance while making it clear that public unrest will not be tolerated. Removing ?public unrest? (i.e., demonstrations) from the tool kits of both sides may take away one of Rafsanjani?s more effective tools. But ultimately, it actually could benefit him. Should the internal politics move against the Iranian president, it would be Ahmadinejad ? who has a substantial public following ? who would not be able to have his supporters take to the streets. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090708/f651ae3c/attachment.htm From evelyn.spruce at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 11:38:57 2009 From: evelyn.spruce at gmail.com (Evelyn Spruce) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:38:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Concerns with Resolution Two Message-ID: ?Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.? I write to express concerns with the above resolution. In particular, I believe its grammatical unsoundness suffices to justify its rejection. First, the comma separating arsenal and the first ?and/or? (?weapons arsenal, and/or substantially?) is inappropriate. Hacker, Strunk and White, the Chicago Manual of Style, and the Government Printing Office Style Manual specify that commas should only be used with lists of three or more items (the debate over serial commas does not apply here). Even if it was vague or ambiguous without the comma, the proceeding clause should have been revised into an independent clause. Simply rewriting the resolution to read ?and/or it should substantially? would have satisfied both the desire for a rigorous resolution and the demands of competent writing. Second, the use of ?and/or? is stylistically wanting. While ?and/or? is an informal expression, I think the need for crafting an adequate resolution provides leeway. But this ?leeway? has boundaries, and I submit that the use of ?and/or? twice in the same list item exceeds them. The second ?and/or? appears unnecessary. The wording paper on ?mission? claims that ?[r]oles are the broad policy themes and missions are the specific tasks that carry out the roles.? If this assertion is correct, then to restrict the role of the U.S.?s nuclear weapons arsenal requires restricting its missions. That the restriction be ?substantial? suggests that the converse is also true. I am not qualified to make sweeping content-related indicts of the resolution, so even if ?and/or? is not needless insofar as it provides a choice between restricting the role, mission, or both, it is stylistically unsound. These grammar and style-related improprieties are sufficient to disqualify the resolution without any content considerations. Adopting this resolution would not comport with the debate community?s commitment to improving education. The chosen resolution will be widely circulated outside of the debate community: programs will submit the resolution to their administrations for publication in college newspapers and debaters will include the resolution on written statements for graduate schools or potential jobs. I concede that not every program or debater will share information in this fashion, but some will. Even if this resolution is content-superior to the other two, that will be unknown to individuals outside the debate community. All they will read is a grammatically imprudent resolution. These grammar and style errors may deter prospective new debaters: if I was completely unfamiliar with resolutions, this wording would make me reconsider participating. My criticism of the grammar and style of this resolution should not be construed as support for either of the other two. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090709/a1160441/attachment.htm From mstruth at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 13:18:15 2009 From: mstruth at gmail.com (Matt Struth) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:18:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] In Defense of 3 Message-ID: This post will serve to defend topic three as the best choice for next year?s topic, and will provide reasons why the two alternatives should be less preferred. Thanks to Josh and others for getting the ball rolling on topic discussion. Resolution 1 reads ?Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially change its nuclear posture to be more consistent with its nuclear disarmament commitments.? We?re worried this resolution is missing words. Nuclear disarmament commitments to whom? There is no limiting term of art in the resolution to answer this conundrum. While we appreciate that sometimes a little vagueness is good for T debates, we think this goes beyond being a little vague to being a giant structural flaw. If this rez said ?nuclear disarmament commitments under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty? we might be more in tune with this resolution. Without that though, 1 allows virtually anything (maybe posture is a limiting word, but I doubt it). One last thing before looking at two- if you have ever liked the option of going for T against a K aff, vote 3. I?m sure there are debaters salivating at the prospect of going for ?the USFG has disarmament commitments to me and other citizens,? but personally this scares me. As someone who was always a fan of predictable limits, I found comfort knowing I could usually beat the arg that the colon means the rez is about we debaters not the government. Resolution 1 justifies a slew of ridiculous K affs. Resolution 2 reads ?Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.? Unlike Sears, we tend to view this resolution as more unlimiting than three, and as having no common ground to tie the aff to, or at best similar ground as what is provided under topic 3. Sears argues that it provides better healthy t debates which can adjust the scope of the resolution. However, missions functionally makes everything topical under three topical under two. The following is taken from the topic blog: ?What is a "nuclear mission"? A specific task for a nuclear weapon, unlike a "goal" like deterrence or a "role" like deterring an enemy or supporting an ally. A mission would be to eliminate a target or to be survivable when our arsenal is under attack or fire back when attacked, etc. Federation of American Scientists wrote in 2005 a report called "Missions for American Nuclear Weapons After the Cold War." It is definitely a term of art; the DoD writes about the missions of their nuclear weapons. I returned to the list of wanted affs. My current tentative wording is very short. Quantitative cuts are clearly a reduction in missions. We might still have a broad goal or role of deterring Russia, but targeting and other missions would be restricted. Minimum deterrence (restricting counter-force) is explicitly cited in the paper. Going to zero eliminates missions altogether. Alert status and NFU would both restrict the mission to surviving a nuclear attack and responding. There's good contextual evidence for that. KUSWA: sometimes these articles say "missions" plural or the overarching "mission" similar -- does this affect wording? MANCUSO: I prefer plurality b/c it emphasizes the sense of a particular task. The singular "mission" seems to be synonymous with "goal" or "role." One CSIS paper referred to "the nuclear mission" again and again, speaking about deterrence. Plural allows the aff to restrict things that are count-able and measurable. For instance, if our goal/role/mission is to deter, does cutting our nuclear weapons to 1000 lessen that "mission"? Not really, it's still our goal. The CTBT would presumably reduce our credibility and would then be topical under goal/role/mission, would the aff's credibility turns then make them non-topical? So missions plural allows us to get to tangible, countable entities. 2000 weapons targeted at Russia/China before, and 1000 after -- missions have been reduced, no matter what the President's mindset or agenda is.? Plank one ?substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal? is functionally equivalent to plank 3 of topic three, and those T debates about the size of the reduction will be the same under either topic. Plank two ?and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role? has the same funky wording problems that plank two of topic three has: role would include deterrence postures, like NFU, and NWFZ that would have to also reduce the role, much like ?reducing the use of its nuclear weapons? decrease in operational readiness is also topical under this part. Plank three ?and/or missions of its nuclear weapons?, allows for the smaller disarm cases, as the topic committee discussed ?MANCUSO: cutting warheads would reduce the number of missions? with the same modifier as plank one. Plank three also allows for the Russia concern to be topical under the blog discussion ?MANCUSO: SORT and treaties that required negotiation would limit the mission of the arsenal if it includes development and production of weapons?. It also means that the same bilateral discussion would be topical under two. The CTBT part of topic three is arguably topical under topic two?s 2nd and third planks, depending on how you look at it which, which may support the ?T, is good you should debate it out claims?, but in large part the community will likely determine that CTBT is topical. In short, topic two concerns me, because it enables everything in topic three to be topical, with the added vagueness of the term missions, which the topic committee attempted to hammer out what it means, and seems like it has no meaning. Good for T debates? Maybe, but good for people to understand exactly what they are debating when they first look at the resolution? Probably not. Answering the criticisms of three: 1) Unity-?parts are accidental (the list isn?t bound by a common generic theme) and certain parts of this topic are different enough to make a squad looking for common generics to have problems. ? Nick Brown, already did a decent job answering this point, that all of the affs under res 3 have the same advantage areas, which means you get the same ground on topic two or three, with a more predictable list of what is and what isn?t topical. This helps smaller schools and programs be more prepared for a variety of debates, since it clearly lays out the aff ground. But isn?t it too limiting? No- topic three still allows for the same creativity that topic 2 would allow while still making it slightly more limited. 2) Bad wording in declatory policy ? We agree the wording to this plank is awkward. Josh says it is ?certainly not using a term of art (already explained above why we think this ?links? more to rez 1).? It?s probably true that reduce/restrict wasn?t the best word combo. But there are definitions of reduce that allow this plank to make sense, and contextual evidence about declatory policy will probably help define the limits of this topic. Also, we?re not sure what the implications of this criticism are- are you concerned this will make this plank too limiting? Moreover the second plank of topic two seems to share a similar problem, without much of the same concern. 3) ?The lost art of T debating? There are a few things that should be pointed out here, first, no one loves a good T / theory debate like I do, considering most of my strategic arguments were ASPEC, Consult, or T. Malcom Gordon argued ?I LIKE the idea that your skill can change the boundaries of the resolution.? Yes some of us can love a good T debate, but let?s go even farther back in time, a great great long-long ago, where there was lots of case debate. Topicality gives debaters too much of a crutch to lean on, and I understand the need for it, but topic three lets us engage in what we want to do, debate about the merits of the plan, debate is supposed to improve our ability to make policy decisions, not to help write the next Merriam Webster?s dictionary definition. We also disagree that lists outright limit good T debates, remember the Middle East topic, where there were plenty of good QPQ good/bad debates, nothing about a list inhibits those types of debates, rather the list helps create a more narrow focus for smaller / newer schools to engage the community. We also don?t think that putting faith in judges to pull the trigger on questionably topical aff?s is the way to go, as more and more the community is defaulting to an interpretation of reasonability, rather than competing interpretations, while most judges think that they are fairly unbiased, do you really think you wouldn?t think the CTBT is reasonably topical under topic 1 or 2? I also don?t think 2 produces significantly better T debates, other than debates over the terms: ?Role? ?And/or? ?missions?. That?s what I?m looking forward to another year of the dumb debates over the meaning of the term ?and/or?. Yeah for a topic that has two of them?. Under topic three you still get the T debates over the terms ?substantially reduce? which is in both 2 and 3 versus ?substantially change? which is in 1, ?reduce? and ?restrict? both in 2, and ?operational readiness? 4) Russia and uniqueness. Josh and Nick have already pointed out this is inevitable. Russia is probably topical under 2 and definitely topical under 1. 3 is potentially (and probably) the most limiting in regards to Russia, because it spells out what you have to do. Malgor says ?CEDA nationals on the China topic came down to "pressure now." Is that what we want again? A whole year of Observation 4 nuclear agreements now?? It?s too late. When we voted for a relevant topic, we guaranteed this. Obama is changing nuclear posture. This affects every rez. Bigger picture: why are we hating on aff ground? Generic non-uniques aren?t even the beginning of a check on the ridiculous things we let negs do. Also, read specific links: generic non-uniques won?t matter if you don?t read generic links. Nick Brown says ?I have seen at least 10 articles that say "if we go any lower than what we just agreed to, we're in big trouble." And there's always the uniqueness CP and the unilat CP. In my mind there's a big difference in capping the number of nukes at 1600 and capping the number of nukes at less than 1,000, and I believe there is plenty of ev in the lit to back that up.? We agree completely. Our research backs this up too. I personally think the Russia deal makes neg ground better (once/if it happens in December) because the link ground for ?below 1,000? is so much better than 1,000-1,6000. Minor modifications: The Russia plank says ?Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons.? That means after the deal, under rez three, you have to have ANOTHER ROUND OF CUTS. We?re pretty sure that?s not a minor repair- that actually requires the aff to do something daring and powerful with regards to US nuclear posture. It?s also the reason rez 3 is best for dealing with this Russia business. And does everyone forget about ?Solvency Advocates?? any aff that negotiates a bilateral treaty with Russia will have to win that Russia will accept that treaty, and most of the things Russia wants are things the US doesn?t want, like restrictions on NMD, TNW?s, Iran policy, nato enlargement, things which there are great negative arguments for. Furthermore, the negotiations will likely be long and complicated, making it hard to win that Russia says yes. However, there will be a time when the treaty has been negotiated but not implemented, topic three has the better shot at limiting those affs, because of the phrase ?negotiate and implement? an aff to just implement won?t ?negotiate?, giving better T ground for the neg under the third topic. -Matt Struth and Nick Ryan (if anything in this post doesn't make sense, we each blame the other person) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090709/03718935/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Jul 9 15:00:21 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:00:21 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Concerns with Resolution Two--Topic Committee Members? References: Message-ID: <2EFCC06D3A944EDAA01E5273524F433C@whitman.edu> related to the below-- why wasn't the resolution written this way? ?Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce and/or restrict the role and/or size of its nuclear weapons arsenal.? 1. cleaner, simpler 2. the word "missions" is problematic any topic committee members want to explain? I am curious. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: Evelyn Spruce Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 9:38 AM To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Concerns with Resolution Two ?Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.? I write to express concerns with the above resolution. In particular, I believe its grammatical unsoundness suffices to justify its rejection. First, the comma separating arsenal and the first ?and/or? (?weapons arsenal, and/or substantially?) is inappropriate. Hacker, Strunk and White, the Chicago Manual of Style, and the Government Printing Office Style Manual specify that commas should only be used with lists of three or more items (the debate over serial commas does not apply here). Even if it was vague or ambiguous without the comma, the proceeding clause should have been revised into an independent clause. Simply rewriting the resolution to read ?and/or it should substantially? would have satisfied both the desire for a rigorous resolution and the demands of competent writing. Second, the use of ?and/or? is stylistically wanting. While ?and/or? is an informal expression, I think the need for crafting an adequate resolution provides leeway. But this ?leeway? has boundaries, and I submit that the use of ?and/or? twice in the same list item exceeds them. The second ?and/or? appears unnecessary. The wording paper on ?mission? claims that ?[r]oles are the broad policy themes and missions are the specific tasks that carry out the roles.? If this assertion is correct, then to restrict the role of the U.S.?s nuclear weapons arsenal requires restricting its missions. That the restriction be ?substantial? suggests that the converse is also true. I am not qualified to make sweeping content-related indicts of the resolution, so even if ?and/or? is not needless insofar as it provides a choice between restricting the role, mission, or both, it is stylistically unsound. These grammar and style-related improprieties are sufficient to disqualify the resolution without any content considerations. Adopting this resolution would not comport with the debate community?s commitment to improving education. The chosen resolution will be widely circulated outside of the debate community: programs will submit the resolution to their administrations for publication in college newspapers and debaters will include the resolution on written statements for graduate schools or potential jobs. I concede that not every program or debater will share information in this fashion, but some will. Even if this resolution is content-superior to the other two, that will be unknown to individuals outside the debate community. All they will read is a grammatically imprudent resolution. These grammar and style errors may deter prospective new debaters: if I was completely unfamiliar with resolutions, this wording would make me reconsider participating. My criticism of the grammar and style of this resolution should not be construed as support for either of the other two. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20090709/683f9787/attachment.htm From malgor.debate at gmail.com Thu Jul 9 17:50:08 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 17:50:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] missions Message-ID: I agree with Jim. The word missions is problematic. Its best, most limiting interpretations (the ones that exclude specific country/region affs) are met by the word roles. In fact, the only distinction i can find between missions and roles is that you can misinterpret mission to include hyperspecific tasks for nuclear weapons. Fortunately, that interpretation of missions is so underlimiting I am hard pressed to think of a scenario in which teams don't consistently win against said hyperspecific affs. This harps back to my original sentiments on 2 vs 3-it is a robust T debate that will dictate the direction of the topic. Those topics are always fun (on fossil fuels 'must have a cap' won the battle, and on middle east qpq won the battle for the most part). It is a poor word choice (that conclusion is based on all the evidence i have compiled, there could certainly be some as-yet-unfound distinctions between mission and role), but one we can survive. It is not a deal breaker. Think of it this way-if your rationale for rejecting 2 is that there are some terms that maybe interpreted in ways that are completely unlimiting and unmanageable, you have just made the justification for judges rejecting that interpretation. The assertion that "judges are defaulting to reasonability" seems strange given this topic, where the limits arg for the neg on missions is going to make it very difficult for the aff to win "reasonability." the questionably topical affirmatives that might cause negs to lose T debates on reasonability (ps, if you are neg and keep losing T on reasonability when you go for it.....do more practice debates) are most likely reasonable and predictable (CTBT is a good example of this: sure, there are some decent reasons it might not be topical under 2, but this isn't an aff that is going to jack your neg ground, or create an unfair burden). Also, your fear of and/or T debates....well i judged over 100 debates on the middle east topic, i can't recall one that was decided on and/or. Inclusive is exclusive was the dumb one that some teams (see: WFU) actually won debates on. The notion that because advantage areas are largely the same makes three manageable is funny to me. If advantage area was the only way we needed to limit topics, then why have mechanisms? Community consensus seems to be decidedly against the idea that advantage area is a better limiter than mechanisms. But if advantage areas are the way you want to limit the topic, you have to reject 3. The inclusion of a bilateral treaty with russia that, as worded, explicitly allows things not related to nuclear policy is not a good thing for the neg: "Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons" As long as the outcome of the negotiation changes posture AND the negotiation includes a reduction in numbers, the aff is topical. There is no word the neg can rely on to limit the aff from offering completely non-nuclear incentives to achieve Russia's saying yes, or asking Russia for non-nuclear related items to complete the treaty. Then the aff gets new advantage areas, which you claim is the best way to limit a topic. You might be able to win that these affs are checked by at least, if you interpret at least to mean only.... Under 2 this is not a problem because, first off, affs might not be able to do multilateral action. Making an offer would run the risk that the aff does not reduce the role and/or mission. This could be a deal breaker for some people, but I am only talking about specific affs. Any aff that implemented an already negotiated agreement would be topical (for instance, CTBT we have negotiated but not ratified. Ratification, however, ensures the aff has an immediate reduction). So, multilateralism is likely allowed, but not negotiations. I don't think this is a major concern. Modeling is not an unwinnable argument for me, and if you don't think you can win modeling, there are very strong unilateral affs that teams will have no problem defending. Second, if you do think all multilat agreements are topical under 2, the neg has more flexibility to prevent extraneuous offers because the resolution does not explicitly contain the term "at least." My views on multilateralism also point to another problem i have with some of your justifications for rejecting 2-i think we are taking the topic blog comments as gospel truth, when in fact they may not be. Even since the meeting there has been a lot of research done. As of right now we are all just talking about potential ways the aff could be topical. Here is a good example, a quote you used: Plank three ?and/or missions of its nuclear weapons?, allows for the smaller disarm cases, as the topic committee discussed ?MANCUSO: cutting warheads would reduce the number of missions? with the same modifier as plank one. Plank three also allows for the Russia concern to be topical under the blog discussion ?MANCUSO: SORT and treaties that required negotiation would limit the mission of the arsenal if it includes development and production of weapons?. It also means that the same bilateral discussion would be topical under two. The CTBT part of topic three is arguably topical under topic two?s 2nd and third planks, depending on how you look at it which, which may support the ?T, is good you should debate it out claims?, but in large part the community will likely determine that CTBT is topical. I don't agree that negotiations inherently limit the mission of the weapons-the outcome of negotiations do. I don't think the only way CTBT can be topical is to argue it reduces our credibility. In fact, if that's the only way to be topical affs will likely lose to the deterrence DA. My suggestion is that people assume that mission and role are synonyms when they are thinking about 2, until someone produces conclusive evidence that provides a distinction between them. Ok, my 15 minutes of typing are done, got another wave of lab evidence to sort through. Sorry i didn't get into the "line by line" points you had on why three was kickass, but most of what I said gets to these concerns. malgor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090709/41dd895e/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Jul 9 18:02:39 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 18:02:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] more iran media misinfo--use of saudi airspace Message-ID: in the tradition of erlich and cronkite. on the tails of the coup, i would say the grand spirit of misinformation is in the air to cause as many headaches for iran as possible forming a trend. add john bolton to gerbil's list of foreign policy heroes. go ahead pick it apart CIA whitewash boy, you're so good at your job: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14289 Because the Times story was so important and because the implications of a ?Saudi nod? to Israeli military over-flight en route to bomb Teheran or Iranian targets could potentially unleash a Holy War within the one-billion strong Muslim world, I decided to probe more deeply. What emerged was quite different from the Times account. I contacted very reliable sources with extensive involvement in Saudi Arabia and who have been reliable in the past, to ask whether the Times story of a secret agreement with Israel over bombing Iran was accurate. The answer I got back was revealing. The Times itself cited a denial statement from the Saudi Government, but in a way to leave the impression it was not serious, merely covering up the truth of the Times story of collusion between Israeli intelligence and the Saudi Kingdom. According to this Saudi inside confidential source, however, ?not only have we denied it, it would be absolute political suicide to even contemplate letting the Israelis cross our airspace!? That corresponded with my knowledge of years of quiet diplomatic dialogue between, yes, even Ahmedinejad and the Saudi Royal family. Indeed, it was reportedly largely due to agreement between Iran?s Ahmedinejad and the Saudi King Abdullah, during a personal meeting in Riyadh in March 2007, that agreement was reached to try to create lessening of tensions between Sunni and Shiite muslim groups in Iraq. Those talks had more to do, according to on-the-ground reports, with the dramatic falloff in killings in Iraq than General Petraeus? infamous ?surge? strategy. Who is behind the Times? The Times of London is one of the world?s best known newspapers. In its better times, during the First and even Second World Wars, it was the newspaper of record of Britain, comparable to what the New York Times also once was in the United States. The Times in those days was one of the most influential propaganda instruments of a little-known and extremely influential elite group that called itself the Round Table, as in King Arthur?s legendary Knights of the Round Table. The Round Table group, initially created out of the will of British mining magnate and inciter of the 1899 Boer War, Sir Cecil Rhodes, played a key role in manipulating British pubic opinion into going to war in 1914 against the German ?Hun,? in a fruitless attempt to save the ?English way of life? as they saw it, to save the declining British Empire. Since the newspaper came into financial difficulties in the early 1980?s, its then-owners, the Astor family, sold it and Australian media czar Rupert Murdoch bought it, placing it under his News Corporation International which also owns the New York Post, the San Antonio Star, the Hollywood 20th Century Fox studios, the right-wing neo-conservative Fox News TV network and until recently the flagship of US neo-conservative William Kristol, the Weekly Standard. In 2007 Murdoch added the prestigious Wall Street Journal to his stable. The Board of Directors of Murdoch?s News Corp. holding company, owners of the Times of London, is also interesting. It includes, in addition to Murdoch as Chairman and CEO, also former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, the very conservative and very controversial friend of Britain?s Tony Blair, who split EU opposition to the 2003 Iraq War by backing Blair and Bush. Murdoch?s board also includes Andrew Knight of J. Rothschild Capital Management, the financial holding of Jacob Lord Rothschild, the head of the British branch of the legendary financial family. It also includes Viet D. Dinh who served as an Assistant Attorney General of the United States from 2001 to 2003, under George W. Bush, and who was the chief architect of the USA PATRIOT Act. To put it mildly, Murdoch?s News Corp. has a distinct political or geopolitical profile. It is clearly in the neo-conservative war hawk camp. It clearly backed Tony Blair, who according to London sources, owed his job to the backing of Murdoch?s Sun tabloid newspaper in the UK, a paper better known for sensational stories than for serious analysis. That puts the ?impartiality? of Blair today as official ?Envoy of the Quartet? on the Middle East, the Quartet being the motley combination of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and Russia. The controversial John Bolton It is also notable that in its story of the ?Saudi nod to Israel,? Murdoch?s Times chose to cite the infamous former Bush UN ?acting? Ambassador, neo-conservative John Bolton, who told the Times that it was ?entirely logical? for the Israelis to use Saudi airspace. The Times wrote, ?Bolton, who has talked to several Arab leaders, added: ?None of them would say anything about it publicly but they would certainly acquiesce in an over-flight if the Israelis didn?t trumpet it as a big success.? Arab states would condemn a raid when they spoke at the UN but would be privately relieved to see the threat of an Iranian bomb removed, he said.? John Bolton was one of the founding members of the pro-war Project for the New American Century think-tank along with Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld and most of the prominent neo-conservative hawks of the Bush Administration. As well, Bolton is alleged to be a member of the ultra-secretive Council for National Policy which brings the Rev. Moon cult, the Church of Scientology and the ultra-religious Christian Right under one neat political umbrella, the heart of the George W. Bush right-wing political machine. As Bush Administration State Department official, Bolton was accused by his associates of helping fake intelligence on Niger yellowcake uranium sales to Saddam Hussein?s Iraq, a faked intelligence report, aided by Tony Blair?s good offices, that was falsely cited by Secretary of State Colin Powell as justification for the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq. This time it seems that the same Bolton and Rupert Murdoch?s Times of London are again in bed together, this time in an effort to drive a wedge of distrust across the Muslim oil-producing world by planting disinformation about an agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israeli military intelligence that never existed. Cui Bono? By planting a false story that Saudi Arabia?s worst opponent, Israel, is now its closest friend, allied with the Netanyahu government against Iran, the false story spreads and sows distrust that functions along the classic lines of Roman military strategy: divide and conquer. Whatever internal disagreement in foreign policy between the regime of Iran?s Shiite President, Ahmedinejad and the Sunni Saudi Kingdom, more likely the case is that the Saudis ? no matter how much they disapproved of Iran?would always side with a fellow Muslim before they would side with Israel or the US. The Iranian leaders come to Saudi Arabia often; they don?t hate each other according to well-informed reports from the region. There appears to be a split within the Obama Administration over Iran policy. However if Biden represents the hawk faction that finds an Israeli military strike an ?option? the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen has just warned on national TV, notably on Murdoch?s Fox News TV that any attack against Iran would be "very destabilizing.? Mullen was quoted by AFP as saying, ?I've been one who has been concerned about a strike on Iran for some time, because it could be very destabilizing, and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren't predictable." F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090709/153f543d/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 9 20:23:12 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 18:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] missions Message-ID: <161452.28551.qm@web53508.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Your analogy to the energy topic proves precisely the point you are arguing against. The sharp contrast between the topic wording and the literature base in that case resulted in a series of affirmatives that were afraid of losing on "T means a cap" and so added a cap to their plan, even though almost no one in the literature base assumed that a number of affs which everyone ought to have been debating were debating. So you had the curious case of a CAFE aff or an RPS that included a cap, even though almost no one who professionally researches and writes in these areas believed that they needed to be pared with a cap. The result was a community arguing in ways that registered a major disconnect with what the literature in the field argued ought to occur. Under the rubric of reasonability, who would argue that we ought not to have debated CAFE or RPS on the fossil fuels topic? (And I know you beat me on Gotta Have a Cap at Wake, so I assure you, my desire for the topic to connect with the literature base is a demand I'm comfortable with universalizing.) QPQ mostly worked out on the ME topic. That was awesome. And great. "constructive engagement" seemed to be a better term of art than "reduce consumption". This doesn't really mean that trust can be extended to the community at all times. That sort of empirical reductio doesn't really hold much water. Remember, under three the governing phrase is "The United States Federal Government should substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the following ways". I am pretty sure "change its nuclear posture" combined with "negotiation AND implementation" means there's something that will always be held in common with the affs there. Nuclear posture means that anything included in negotiations would have to be something covered under "nuclear posture". So I think offering to reduce human rights pressure on Russia or something wouldn't count as changing our nuclear posture. Anything extra the aff does would be limited to something extra in the area of -duhn duh duhn duh- nuclear posture. Which seems to encompass anything we could define under role/missions. On the other hand, if you are right about past topics, that means we'll always have hold outs (Harvard's excellent non QPQ aff on the ME, teams on the energy topic that refused to include a cap {b/c doing so meant losing to the PIC out of the cap counterplan and having to go for the "fuck" K}) and under the second topic these hold outs can expand to a wider panoply of multilateral options with different countries and organizations because they aren't specifically outlined in the resolution, unlike in Resolutions 1 and 3. Now I too must get back to the business of camp. Best, PJ --- On Thu, 7/9/09, Malcolm Gordon wrote: > From: Malcolm Gordon > Subject: [eDebate] missions > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Thursday, July 9, 2009, 5:50 PM > I agree with Jim.? The word missions > is problematic.? Its best, most limiting interpretations > (the ones that exclude specific country/region affs) are met > by the word roles.? In fact, the only distinction i can > find between missions and roles is that you can misinterpret > mission to include hyperspecific tasks for nuclear > weapons.? > > > Fortunately, that interpretation of missions is so > underlimiting I am hard pressed to think of a scenario in > which teams don't consistently win against said > hyperspecific affs.? This harps back to my original > sentiments on 2 vs 3-it is a robust T debate that will > dictate the direction of the topic.? Those topics are > always fun (on fossil fuels 'must have a cap' won > the battle, and on middle east qpq won the battle for the > most part). > > > It is a poor word choice (that conclusion is based on all > the evidence i have compiled, there could certainly be some > as-yet-unfound distinctions between mission and role), but > one we can survive.? It is not a deal breaker.? > > > Think of it this way-if your rationale for rejecting 2 is > that there are some terms that maybe interpreted in ways > that are completely unlimiting and unmanageable, you have > just made the justification for judges rejecting that > interpretation.? The assertion that "judges are > defaulting to reasonability" seems strange given this > topic, where the limits arg for the neg on missions is going > to make it very difficult for the aff to win > "reasonability."? the questionably topical > affirmatives that might cause negs to lose T debates on > reasonability (ps, if you are neg and keep losing T on > reasonability when you go for it.....do more practice > debates) are most likely reasonable and predictable (CTBT is > a good example of this:? sure, there are some decent > reasons it might not be topical under 2, but this isn't > an aff that is going to jack your neg ground, or create an > unfair burden). > > > Also, your fear of and/or T debates....well i judged over > 100 debates on the middle east topic, i can't recall one > that was decided on and/or.? Inclusive is exclusive was the > dumb one that some teams (see: WFU) actually won debates > on. > > > The notion that because advantage areas are largely the > same makes three manageable is funny to me.? If advantage > area was the only way we needed to limit topics, then why > have mechanisms?? Community consensus seems to be decidedly > against the idea that advantage area is a better limiter > than mechanisms. But if advantage areas are the way you want > to limit the topic, you have to reject 3.? The inclusion of > a bilateral treaty with russia that, as worded, explicitly > allows things not related to nuclear policy is not a good > thing for the neg: > > > "Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral > agreement with Russia that > at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear > weapons" > > As long as the outcome of the negotiation changes posture > AND the negotiation includes a reduction in numbers, the aff > is topical.? There is no word the neg can rely on to limit > the aff from offering completely non-nuclear incentives to > achieve Russia's saying yes, or asking Russia for > non-nuclear related items to complete the treaty.? Then the > aff gets new advantage areas, which you claim is the best > way to limit a topic.? You might be able to win that these > affs are checked by at least, if you interpret at least to > mean only....? > > > Under 2 this is not a problem because, first off, affs > might not be able to do multilateral action.? Making an > offer would run the risk that the aff does not reduce the > role and/or mission.? This could be a deal breaker for some > people, but I am only talking about specific affs.? Any aff > that implemented an already negotiated agreement would be > topical (for instance, CTBT we have negotiated but not > ratified.? Ratification, however, ensures the aff has an > immediate reduction).? > > > So, multilateralism is likely allowed, but not > negotiations.? I don't think this is a major concern.? > Modeling is not an unwinnable argument for me, and if you > don't think you can win modeling, there are very strong > unilateral affs that teams will have no problem defending. > > > Second, if you do think all multilat agreements are topical > under 2, the neg has more flexibility to prevent extraneuous > offers because the resolution does not explicitly contain > the term "at least." > > > My views on multilateralism also point to another problem i > have with some of your justifications for rejecting 2-i > think we are taking the topic blog comments as gospel truth, > when in fact they may not be.? Even since the meeting there > has been a lot of research done.? As of right now we are > all just talking about potential ways the aff could be > topical.? Here is a good example, a quote you used: > > > Plank three ?and/or missions of its nuclear weapons?, > allows for the smaller > > disarm cases, as the topic committee discussed ?MANCUSO: > cutting warheads > > would reduce the number of missions? with the same > modifier as plank one. > > Plank three also allows for the Russia concern to be > topical under the blog > > discussion ?MANCUSO: SORT and treaties that required > negotiation would limit > > the mission of the arsenal if it includes development and > production of > > weapons?. It also means that the same bilateral > discussion would be topical > > under two. The CTBT part of topic three is arguably topical > under topic > > two?s 2nd and third planks, depending on how you look at > it which, which may > > support the ?T, is good you should debate it out > claims?, but in large part > > the community will likely determine that CTBT is topical. > > > I don't agree that negotiations inherently limit the > mission of the weapons-the outcome of negotiations do.? I > don't think the only way CTBT can be topical is to argue > it reduces our credibility.? In fact, if that's the > only way to be topical affs will likely lose to the > deterrence DA.? > > > My suggestion is that people assume that mission and role > are synonyms when they are thinking about 2, until someone > produces conclusive evidence that provides a distinction > between them.? > > Ok, my 15 minutes of typing are done, got another wave of > lab evidence to sort through.? Sorry i didn't get into > the "line by line" points you had on why three was > kickass, but most of what I said gets to these concerns. > > > malgor > > > > > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Fri Jul 10 04:57:27 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:57:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] john bolton is the phantom menace Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079146.html : "...of course there's no definitive evidence of the CIA soft coup in the weeks following the election...". good, we agree. hammond, erlich, and i are proud to have you back on team reality. thanks for a vigorous discussion. _ p.s., for the record, i didn't engage in "doctoring the evidence", nor did i "misquote" hammond: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079145.html - those are spurious charges, which jack would retract if he took any care in what he writes. i also didn't drop the argument from circularity, despite jack's claim that i did so; i responded to it specifically, and by name, right here: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079143.html - noting that simply saying there's a lack of evidence does not qualify as a defense of anybody. i'm glad jack now agrees with my rationale. nor did i imply that western media coverage has been impartial or in any way attempt to "purify the TV headlines" - quite the contrary: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079143.html - "given the predispositions of the mass media outlets we're discussing, they were inclined to believe [mousavi's] supporters and mousavi above ahmadinejad and his supporters." the explanation provided by their bias, however, diminishes the necessity of an orchestrated hoax. nor am i guilty of "dismissing hammond". i'm in complete agreement with him - except that i prefer the term 'plausible' to 'likely' (as 'likely' to me connotes 'probable', not merely 'consistent with past history') and i go a step farther than him, not simply affirming iranians' right to peaceably protest, but also affirming their revolutionary courage in itself. despite the fact that i join erlich in criticizing those who nominalized this mass protest as inauthentic, he did misrepresent hammond and should have retracted his characterization when his error was exposed in good faith. (i guess some people would rather persist in error than surrender their bullshit rhetorical posture. ...seems there's a bit of that going around these days.) p.p.s., on a personal note to jack, please do not put quotes around statements i don't make. the sentence "i'm not defending the CIA because the CIA was not involved" is yours, not mine - yet you attributed it to me. that's a misquote, which is a practice i know you to oppose. _ http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.05.12.PhantomMenace-X.gif _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090710/6f0ddf4c/attachment.htm From spmancuso at aol.com Fri Jul 10 11:27:43 2009 From: spmancuso at aol.com (Steve Mancuso) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:27:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] topic wording trasncripts Message-ID: <8CBCF927C6FFFB5-B58-22D@WEBMAIL-MY11.sysops.aol.com> I wanted to remind everyone of the valuable resource of the transcripts from the topic committee meetings. The Wake Forest debaters who produced them did an outstanding job. They are virtually verbatim. You will find there answers to some of your questions about why certain words were chosen, what we thought certain words meant etc.? The link is: http://topic.cedadebate.org/ Briefly: I like the term "missions" the best, by a considerable margin. It refers to the specific tasks undertaken by nuclear weapons. It is tangible and measurable. Banning counterforce targeting restricts the specific tasks of the nuclear arsenal, quantitative reductions proportionately cut the tasks as well. One of the missions is "survival from a first strike" so plans that lower the alert status would restrict this mission, as would declarations of no first use. To me, the problem with "roles" is that it has several kinds of meanings. Some are very broad, like "deterrence" or "defend the nation" which the affirmative might have a difficult time they substantially reduce. There are other definitions of "role" that equate it to specific tasks - which means "missions".? No one at the committee meetings seemed willing to defend the former, broader defintions as viable.? We included both "roles" and "missions" as a compromise.? We spent quite a bit of time hashing this out in detail, so the transcripts should be very enlightening. The initial resolution that I proposed was: The USFG should substantially restrict the missions of its nuclear arsenal.? If you have any additional questions feel free to backchannel me. Steve Mancuso NDT Topic Rep. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090710/ba80213e/attachment.htm From michael_hagan at hotmail.com Fri Jul 10 12:00:29 2009 From: michael_hagan at hotmail.com (michael_hagan at hotmail.com) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:00:29 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Vacation reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090710/d070aa83/attachment.htm From postmaster at boxbe.com Fri Jul 10 12:04:03 2009 From: postmaster at boxbe.com (postmaster at boxbe.com) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] eDebate Digest, Vol 46, Issue 9 (Action Required) Message-ID: <502688905.101951.1247245443223.JavaMail.prod@app004.boxbe.com> Dear sender, This message serves as notification that you will not receive any more courtesy notices from our members for two days. Messages you have sent will remain in a lower priority queue for our member to review at their leisure. Future messages will be more likely to be viewed if you are on our member's priority Guest List. Thank you, drmikefain at aol.com About Boxbe This courtesy notice is part of a free service to make email more reliable and useful. Boxbe (http://www.boxbe.com) uses your existing social network and that of your friends to keep your inbox clean and make sure you receive email from people who matter to you. Boxbe: Say Goodbye to Email Overload Visit http://www.boxbe.com/how-it-works?tc=213618248_1645748341 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090710/b6c04b53/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com Subject: eDebate Digest, Vol 46, Issue 9 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:00:03 -0500 Size: 1702 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090710/b6c04b53/attachment.eml From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Fri Jul 10 15:58:57 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:58:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2009 Ulrich Debate Tournament Invitation - In-Reply-To: <8CBCF927C6FFFB5-B58-22D@WEBMAIL-MY11.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CBCF927C6FFFB5-B58-22D@WEBMAIL-MY11.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: July 10, 2009 Dear Colleagues: The University of Northern Iowa is pleased to invite you and your students to our annual Ulrich Season Opener Debate Tournament. As usual, we will offer 8 rounds of competition in open and JV, as well as a novice workshop and 4-6 rounds of competition. We will also develop a comprehensive case list available throughout the tournament on the open case list. We hope that you and your squad will join us in Cedar Falls from September 19-21, 2009. You will find many of our traditional amenities at the UNI tournament this year, including: -Breakfast all three days -Centralized competition buildings -Free parking on campus and at the tournament hotel -Free wireless at the Ramada Inn and on campus -Out rounds held at the tournament hotel. You will be a skywalk away from your rooms, at a rate of $79.00 per night for double rooms. Two aspects of the tournament of our tournament will be different this year. First, we will be providing lunch on Sunday. Second, due to a variety of considerations, we are extending the start time between rounds by 15 minutes (see tournament schedule below). We will have ballot runners and tables at each building, and hope that this change will help students and coaches with preparation for rounds. Please join us for the Ulrich this September. Our squad looks forward to hosting you and your program on our campus. Please contact me via email or phone if you have any questions. Please direct all email questions to uniforensics at gmail.com I will be on campus regularly starting August 14. All the best, Kate Dr. Katherine L. Lavelle Director of Forensics (319) 273-7200 katherine.lavelle at uni.edu or uniforensics at gmail.com LOGISTICS!! UNI HOTEL INFORMATION: The Tournament Hotel for the UNI tournament will be the Ramada Inn and Convention Center, at 4th and Commercial in Waterloo (just a 15 minute drive to UNI). There is free wireless internet access at the tournament hotel and convention center. Registration for the debate tournament (Friday, September 18) and release of debate pairings each morning will occur at the Ramada Inn. Please contact the Ramada Inn directly for reservations: (319) 233-7560. When making reservations SPEAK ONLY to the front desk manager or assistant manager. They are available Monday 8am-5pm, Tuesday through Friday 8am-10pm, and Saturday 6 am-2pm. If they are not available leave a detailed voicemail message and they will return your call ASAP. If there are problems, ask to speak to Sandy Thomas, the director of sales and marketing. The tournament rate is a flat $79.00 per room. When you call, tell them you are attending the ?UNI Season Opener? Debate Tournament. The hotel is only guaranteeing the availability of our block through September 11. Please plan on staying at the Ramada, as we need to use the block of rooms to maintain affordable access to the Convention Center (which helps keep our costs low). For questions about the Ramada's tax exemption policy please call the Ramada and ask for Sandy Thomas. For more information on the Ramada or for driving directions please visit their website: www.ramadawaterloo.com (please do NOT use the web site or the Ramada 800 number to make reservations?it will only create confusion). If you have to consolidate or drop rooms, please let Sandy Thomas know ASAP, so that other teams are able to use those rooms in our block. If you have any trouble with the hotel, please let Kate Lavelle know. Sandy Thomas is our primary contact at the Ramada Inn and is happy to help you solve any issues that may arise. Feel free to contact her directly at (319) 236-9502 or via email: sthomas at ramadawaterloo.com. ENTRY INFORMATION As in past years we will be offering an open, junior varsity, and novice division in policy debate. Given any viability for a novice-only division, we will not collapse the novice and JV divisions. We also will be offering a flexible novice workshop during rounds 1-4. For those who need a little help, they will workshop for rounds 1-2, and then have 6 rounds of debate. For those who want a little more help, they will workshop for rounds 1-4, and then have 4 rounds of debate. As in the past, we anticipate compiling an exhaustive list of each school's affirmative and negative arguments, and distributing a printed or electronic copy of the case list to each school attending the tournament, with a preliminary list distributed along with pairings on day 2. We are delighted to again start the season by using the joint CEDA-NDT policy topic. The time limits will be 9-3-6, with 10 minutes of preparation time per team. Deadline: The entry deadline is Wednesday, September 16, at 4:00 pm, CST. Use the Bruschke webpage: http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/index.aspx Fees: This year the registration fee will be $85.00 per team. When you register ? please indicate the number of vegetarians, vegans, or other dietary needs of your squad. We will be pre-ordering the food, so we want to be able to get an accurate count on your menu needs. Judging: Each school is expected to provide qualified judges to accompany their teams. Each school is responsible for providing four rounds of judging for each team entered. All judges are committed through the second elimination round, or one round beyond when their team is eliminated (whichever happens later). Judges should be able to cover a school's commitment despite potential scheduling constraints (for example, a judge committed for 8 rounds who restricts him/herself to the JV division is not mathematically useful for all 8 rounds and will not count as an 8 round judge). We don't have a very large pool of hired judges that are available in Cedar Falls/Waterloo, so please try to find someone rather than hiring from us. If you do need to hire a judge, the fee will be $100.00 per team. If you must hire a judge from us, please give us at least two week's advance notice to try to locate someone. If you have extra judges available from your school, please let us know--we will almost certainly hire them for as many rounds as they want to work. We are open to using a mutually preferred judging system, but that is contingent on the size and flexibility of our judging pool. Regardless, preference sheets will be available at the tournament registration on Friday night. We will make every effort to have strikes go into effect in round one, and guarantee that they will be in effect by round three. Preferences will take effect in round 4. All judges at the tournament are expected to render a decision where they indicate one, and only one, team that won the round (did the better job of debating). Judges' ballots not adhering to this principle will be "corrected" by the tab room through use of a coin flip. No round will take longer than 2 hours and 30 minutes from the reading of the 1AC until the judge signs the ballot. Elimination rounds: We WILL clear half of the field in each division, as long as those teams have (at least) a .500 record. In order for this to work, all judges must be committed through the first two elimination debates and available to judge during partials. Depending on the number of rounds in partials, we may hold the first elim round on Sunday night instead of Monday morning. We will let the tournament know when the first elim round will be as soon as we have a clear idea of the number of teams breaking. We will not break brackets in elimination rounds. We plan on using side equalization in elimination rounds. Awards: Awards will be provided to all teams participating in the elimination rounds, and to the top speakers in each division. Unusual situations: We believe in maximizing the competitive opportunities for eligible students. Thus, if two schools each have an extra debater, we would allow a combined team from two institutions to compete in the preliminary rounds of the tournament, and would allow those individuals to be eligible to receive speaker awards and advance to elimination rounds according to CEDA rules for hybrid teams. UNI IS SMOKE FREE ? We are a smoke free campus. This means in addition to no smoking in the building, you may not smoke on the campus grounds. We will have signs up by the doors to remind you of the regulation, as well as providing directions to the nearest legal smoking area. We appreciate participants following the regulations last year, and hope to continue such excellent behavior this year. Lang Hall is close to the edge of campus. UNI Transportation Information By Air: Waterloo/Cedar Falls is served by Northwest Airline. If you don't mind small prop jets, this airport might offer the best rates. The Cedar Rapids airport is approximately an hour from Cedar Falls, offering jet service by most major carriers. Other airports used by tournament participants in the past have included Des Moines, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Moline, IL, and Chicago. Ground Transportation: If you are flying, we encourage you to make van or mini-van reservations early. Due to on-campus regulations regarding university vehicles, we will not be able to provide local transportation. However, the area taxis operate at reasonable rates, and many of the local hotels offer airport transportation. By Car: From Chicago, take the Northwest Tollway (I-90) to U.S. 20. From Central Illinois or the Quad Cities, take I-80 to I-380 to U.S. 20. From Des Moines, take I35 North to US20 East. From Minnesota, take I35 to U.S. 218 south. Parking: Parking at the structure across the street from the Ramada is free, and you should have no problem parking on-campus on Saturday or Sunday. UNI Team Policy Debate Schedule: Friday, September 19 7:00 - 10:00 p.m. Registration and Coaches Reception, Ramada Inn Waterloo. Saturday, September 20 7:00 a.m. Pairings Released, Rounds 1 & 2, Ramada Inn Waterloo & electronically on Edebate 7:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast, UNI Campus, LANG HALL 8:00 a.m. Round 1 Required Starting Time 10:45 a.m. Round 2 Required Starting Time All Round 1 ballots should be in. 1:30 p.m. Lunch, All Round 2 ballots should be in 2:45 p.m. Round 3 Required Starting Time 5:30 p.m. Round 4 Required Starting Time, All Round 3 ballots should be in. 8:00 p.m. All Round 4 ballots should be in Sunday, September 21 7:00 a.m. Pairings Released, Rounds 5 & 6, Ramada Inn Waterloo, Edebate release 7:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast, UNI Campus, LANG HALL 8:00 a.m. Round 5 Required Starting time 10:45 a.m. Round 6 Required Starting time, All Round 5 ballots should be in 1:30 p.m. Lunch. All Round 6 ballots should be in 2:45 p.m. Round 7 Required Starting Time 5:00 p.m. All ballots should be in from Round 7. Pairings Released, ASAP. 6:45 p.m. Round 8 Required Starting Time 9:15 p.m. All ballots should be turned into tab. POTENTIALLY first partial debate A list of teams participating in elimination rounds and the judges and standby judges will be posted at the Ramada Inn Waterloo and on Edebate as soon as possible after the conclusion of Round 8. Monday, September 22 -- We have adhered to the following general elimination round schedule, pretty much forever: 7:00 a.m. Pairings Released, Ramada Inn Waterloo, side-equalization con-flip 7:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast, Waterloo Convention Center 8:00 a.m. First Elimination Round Required Starting Time, Waterloo Convention Center 11:00 a.m. Speaker awards, awards for first elimination round Noon Second Elimination Round Required Starting Time 3:00 p.m. Third Elimination Round Required Starting Time 6:00 p.m. Fourth Elimination Round Required Starting Time 9:00 p.m. Final Elimination Round Required Starting Time REMINDER: We will be using Lang Hall as the tournament headquarters location. We appreciate the efforts people made during the tournament to protect this space. Once again we ask that tournament participants DO NOT MOVE THE TECHNOLOGY CARTS IN LANG HALL, TOUCH THE CARTS, OR PLACE FOOD AND DRINK NEAR THESE CARTS. Our squad will cover the carts on Friday night and remove them on Sunday night. If there is damage to the carts, the UNI Forensics team must pay for the damages out of our travel budget. Eligibility Requirements: Open: Any undergraduate student meeting AFA eligibility requirements (don?t forget?those rules have recently changed, consult the AFA web site for more information) may participate in the Open Division. 8 preliminary rounds, and elimination rounds occur as described above. Junior Varsity and Novice: These divisions will be restricted to students meeting CEDA eligibility requirements. If folks are interested, we will have a novice workshop during the first 2-4 rounds, and then novice debates during rounds 3 or 5-8. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Spread the word when you add celeb photos to your e-mails. Check it out. http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_celebrity_photos1_072009&cat=celebrity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090710/d0fbe914/attachment.htm From malgor.debate at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 16:18:52 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:18:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] missions Message-ID: I must disagree with a few of your characterizations, Paul. Most importantly, the way you are reading resolution three that allows it to limit out random bilateral russia affs. "The United States Federal Government should substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the following ways" This is the governing phrase, how could I disagree? And if it were the only thing relevant, it might be enough to limit out the strange bilateral affs. (resolved: usfg should substantially change its nuclear posture; this would certainly exclude non-posture related concerns as extra topical). Unfortunately, the resolution actually qualifies what constitutes said change with the phrase "in one or more of the following ways." It is a particular statement that anything that meets one of the listed actions is considered a substantial change in nuclear posture. Therefore the additional qualifying phrase of: "Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons" means that any aff that meets that sentence is, by definition, a substantial change in its nuclear posture. So any aff that negotiates and implements a bilateral agreement with Russia that "at least" includes a substantial reduction in weapons is topical. "at least" is a floor, not a ceiling. There is nothing in that sentence that prevents affirmatives from adding things not related to nuclear posture, because the resolution has already dictated that as long as the deal contains a reduction in weapons, the negotiated and implemented deal meets the threshold. if the plank read "negotiation and implementation of a bilateral "arms control" agreement with Russia that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons", then I would agree with you. The resolution would then say the agreement must exlusively be an arms control deal. That qualification, however, does not exist. As far as your concern that topicality will often exclude things it would be nice to debate under a resolution....I agree, topicality tends to exclude affirmatives, as that is its purpose. But no topic will contain all the salient issues because competitive equity is a consideration. FMCT is a good example, it is just as important in the literature as CTBT, but likely even harder to win as topical under any resolution but 1 (even then it will be difficult to prove its a substantial change in posture). On the treaties topic, we didn't debate law of the sea, or CEDAW, or the treaty on rights of the child, or landmines, etc. On the courts topic, there were a littany of big cases that didn't get in (I was a HUGE advocate of putting Terry v Ohio in the resolution...get it, huge...cause i'm fat...). This is inevitable and a very subjective voting determination for coaches. Your last point, about holdouts, is also inevitable. But 2 provides very compelling negative interpretations that will limit these affs out. If they are going to be so effective as to make even the most unlimiting interpretation acceptable under 2, they will under 3 as well. Once we've crossed into that threshold, the difference is lost on me as to which would be worse. I also agree with Mancuso, while we might be afraid because missions and roles are largely redundant, it's not a deal-breaker as much as a reason we shouldn't be scared that the addition of missions will explode the topic. Especially since there is good evidence that defines missions in a way that excludes hyperspecific country affs (don't retaliate against brazil if they nuke us, for instance). I understand people like 3 because it lists a few affs, so it will help in preparation. But no one has given an example of affs that will be extremely unpredictable under topic 2. I have only heard examples of how topic 3 allows interpretations that are very justified under the wording of the resolution and very unlimiting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090710/b309d46f/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Fri Jul 10 18:24:24 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:24:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] missions Message-ID: <20090710182424.1954398zfw2bj0rs@webmail.grandecom.net> I and some pretty good debaters (who will go unnamed to protect their reputations) were sitting around reading the new topics choices. When we saw the "bilateral agreement with Russia" section in Topic 3, they started laughing so much the beer came out of their nose(s). The First three cases we came up with: Negoiate the Artic Resources treaty..and, btw, cut some U.S. nukes. Negotiate a new Fishing Treaty and, btw, get rid of some U.S. nukes; obtain an agreement with Russia to reduce IRAN's nuclear weapons (or North Korea.), and btw, get rid of a few old U.S. nukes. Well, if you vote for Russia/Topic three, you reap what you sow. Scott From ermocito at gmail.com Fri Jul 10 20:08:51 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:08:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] missions In-Reply-To: <20090710182424.1954398zfw2bj0rs@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <20090710182424.1954398zfw2bj0rs@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10907101808y589d831fy7b9866db9b435cd5@mail.gmail.com> Wouldn't the CP to negotiate any of these deals without the nukes part, plus disads linked to that part, make such affirmatives unstrategic? In most cases, probably - and, if there's evidence saying that other issues need to be bundled with US nukes, perhaps those debates SHOULD be had. If the cards are good, you'd probably have to deal with it as a CP on the other two topics. Ermo p.s. Curious about which part of your anecdote would represent a threat to the reputation of a pretty good debater... On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 6:24 PM, wrote: > I and some pretty good debaters (who will go unnamed to protect their > reputations) were sitting around reading the new topics choices. When > we saw the "bilateral agreement with Russia" section in Topic 3, they > started laughing so much the beer came out of their nose(s). The First > three cases we came up with: Negoiate the Artic Resources treaty..and, > btw, cut some U.S. nukes. Negotiate a new Fishing Treaty and, btw, get > rid of some U.S. nukes; obtain an agreement with Russia to reduce > IRAN's nuclear weapons (or North Korea.), and btw, get rid of a few > old U.S. nukes. > > Well, if you vote for Russia/Topic three, you reap what you sow. > > 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/20090710/6e0b4101/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Sat Jul 11 10:56:52 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:56:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] missions Message-ID: <713431.41233.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Malcolm, I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, we always assume that extra topicality is a crime. This is true of any resolution. Why would it not be true of this one? The resolution says that negotiating and implementing a bilateral agreement that at least cuts is a way of changing our nuclear posture. Of course it is! There is no other way to phrase this. It doesn't mean that you can add anything to Russia willy nilly. It says "at least" because there are numerous negotiating tactics and tools that relate to our nuclear posture. The topic committee probably wanted the resolution to reflect the literature (quite a notion, that!). An aff that negotiated a deep cut, got russia to make a deep cut, and also stopped pressuring Russia on separatism or something would not be topical because we would make a deep cut (that changes our nuclear posture) and we'd stop giving Russia flak about ethnic separatism (thats not related to nuclear posture). Your view holds the topic to be a commanding monolith, uttering absolute truth in the form of strict syllogism with a flaw: US must change its nuclear posture One way to do this is to negotiate an agreement with Russia that at least makes a deep cut in nuclear arms. Therefore, any agreement with Russia that at least makes a deep cut is a change in nuclear posture. But we have a missing middle term: that the intent of the resolution is to DEFINE "nuclear posture" as opposed to simply give an example. Lets be clear: any agreement that results in a deep cut is, definitionally, a change in our nuclear posture. But the resolution says "change its nuclear posture" not "change its foreign policy towards russia". That is, the second statement does not DEFINE nuclear posture, it merely gives an example of a thing which is a change in nuclear posture, but does not exclusively define it as such. one can imagine many more affs that offer things related to our nuclear posture. On the other hand, a US action which does not change our nuclear posture just isn't topical, because the resolution says "change nuclear posture" then gives an example (an aff that negotiated and implemented a deep cut, and included more stuff, more stuff MODIFIED BY nuclear posture). You have lots of faith in the community to keep the multilateral stuff out under 2. History demonstrates its unlikely, because contextual evidence, when ambiguous, leads to a less restrictive topic with debate idiosyncracies (adding a cap, for example, under energy) as opposed to a more limited topic. That means more than just Russia is in play under 2. NWFZ,s China, etc. I feel we have probably reached a stasis point, and people are eager for more Stroube-Sanchez uselessness. Best, PJ --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Malcolm Gordon wrote: > From: Malcolm Gordon > Subject: [eDebate] missions > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 4:18 PM > I must disagree with a few of your > characterizations, Paul.? Most importantly, the way you are > reading resolution three that allows it to limit out random > bilateral russia affs.? > > "The United States Federal Government should > substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of > the following ways"? > > > This is the governing phrase, how could I disagree?? And > if it were the only thing relevant, it might be enough to > limit out the strange bilateral affs.? (resolved: usfg > should substantially change its nuclear posture; this would > certainly exclude non-posture related concerns as extra > topical).? Unfortunately, the resolution actually qualifies > what constitutes said change with the phrase "in one or > more of the following ways."? It is a particular > statement that anything that meets one of the listed actions > is considered a substantial change in nuclear posture. > > > Therefore the additional qualifying phrase of:? > > "Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral > agreement with Russia that > > at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear > weapons" > > means that any aff that meets that sentence is, by > definition, a substantial change in its nuclear posture.? > So any aff that negotiates and implements a bilateral > agreement with Russia that "at least" includes a > substantial reduction in weapons is topical.? "at > least" is a floor, not a ceiling.? There is nothing in > that sentence that prevents affirmatives from adding things > not related to nuclear posture, because the resolution has > already dictated that as long as the deal contains a > reduction in weapons, the negotiated and implemented deal > meets the threshold.? > > > if the plank read "negotiation and implementation of a > bilateral "arms control" agreement with Russia > that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear > weapons", then I would agree with you.? The resolution > would then say the agreement must exlusively be an arms > control deal.? That qualification, however, does not > exist. > > > As far as your concern that topicality will often exclude > things it would be nice to debate under a resolution....I > agree, topicality tends to exclude affirmatives, as that is > its purpose.? But no topic will contain all the salient > issues because competitive equity is a consideration.? FMCT > is a good example, it is just as important in the literature > as CTBT, but likely even harder to win as topical under any > resolution but 1 (even then it will be difficult to prove > its a substantial change in posture).? On the treaties > topic, we didn't debate law of the sea, or CEDAW, or the > treaty on rights of the child, or landmines, etc.? On the > courts topic, there were a littany of big cases that > didn't get in (I was a HUGE advocate of putting Terry v > Ohio in the resolution...get it, huge...cause i'm > fat...).? This is inevitable and a very subjective voting > determination for coaches. > > > Your last point, about holdouts, is also inevitable.? But > 2 provides very compelling negative interpretations that > will limit these affs out.? If they are going to be so > effective as to make even the most unlimiting interpretation > acceptable under 2, they will under 3 as well.? Once > we've crossed into that threshold, the difference is > lost on me as to which would be worse. > > > I also agree with Mancuso, while we might be afraid because > missions and roles are largely redundant, it's not a > deal-breaker as much as a reason we shouldn't be scared > that the addition of missions will explode the topic.? > Especially since there is good evidence that defines > missions in a way that excludes hyperspecific country affs > (don't retaliate against brazil if they nuke us, for > instance). > > > I understand people like 3 because it lists a few affs, so > it will help in preparation.? But no one has given an > example of affs that will be extremely unpredictable under > topic 2.? I have only heard examples of how topic 3 allows > interpretations that are very justified under the wording of > the resolution and very unlimiting. > > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From tcram at ku.edu Sat Jul 11 16:10:15 2009 From: tcram at ku.edu (tcram) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:10:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] missions References: <713431.41233.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9F03BD778566E24CAD8C9A2213539C9F02E52A@MAILBOX-33.home.ku.edu> I write this as a resolution 3 agnostic who is simultaneously worried about this Russia business but also seriously disappointed at the final shape of resolution 2. So I have a series of questions for Paul, though I invite any Rez 3 supporters to join in if they have any insights. Is multilaterialism inevitable under any of the resolutions? Topic 3 people say 'well at least we only get Russia. Topic 2 is bilateral accords with China, NWFZs, etc etc.' If the wordings of 1 and 2 allow such shenanigans, why wouldn't planks 3 and 5 of Topic 3 allow it as well? Saying 'those affs wouldn't be changes in posture' is confusing when the rez simultaneously suggests negotiated cuts with another country are topical. What consequences do the words 'negotiate and implement' have in terms of the aff's relationship between solvency and topicality? If Russia ultimately says no and the plan reverts to the status quo, is it an untopical affirmative because it did not achieve a change in nuclear posture (policies governing the role, mission, and size of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal)? Does the aff have to guarantee a deep cut on their side regardless of what Russia does? Does the aff get to fiat Russian acceptance to get around these problems? Is the aff bound to implement any changes Russia offers during the negotiation process? What consequences do the words 'negotiate and implement' have in terms of counterplan competition? 'Offering' on the middle east created a mess for what we typically consider to be competitive 'plan-minus' counterplans. To an extent, this was an interesting direction for debates because the topic was fundamentally concerned about diplomacy, but is this something we want to revisit as a subset of a much larger resolution with so much other stuff going on? This also taps into whether there's really common ground on this topic beyond advantage areas (a very weak argument, as Malgor has shown). Lastly, on this most recent question of whether the resolution is a syllogism (Malgor) or whether there is a governing phrase(Paul). I really want Paul to be right about this because I think it would solve most of my concerns with the possible limits of Russia, but I'm struck by the vagueness of this statement: (PJ)"It says "at least" because there are numerous negotiating tactics and tools that relate to our nuclear posture. The topic committee probably wanted the resolution to reflect the literature (quite a notion, that!)." What are these numerous tactics and tools that the US can offer that are both in the literature while also being limited to changes in nuclear posture? If reflecting the literature is a virtue, why do you interpret a topic in a way that excludes the two most salient issues in US/Russia arms negotiations? NATO expansion and NMD are both outside the scope of 'nuclear posture' in a definitional sense but are the core Russian concerns and is also the first things to roll of the tounges of anyone who is talking or writing about possible bilateral agreements with Russia. It seems 'you gotta change posture' has taken on the figure of your much maligned 'you gotta have a cap.' Just some questions. Answer, clarify or ignore at your leisure. -Travis Cram -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Paul Johnson Sent: Sat 7/11/2009 10:56 AM To: Malcolm Gordon Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] missions Malcolm, I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, we always assume that extra topicality is a crime. This is true of any resolution. Why would it not be true of this one? The resolution says that negotiating and implementing a bilateral agreement that at least cuts is a way of changing our nuclear posture. Of course it is! There is no other way to phrase this. It doesn't mean that you can add anything to Russia willy nilly. It says "at least" because there are numerous negotiating tactics and tools that relate to our nuclear posture. The topic committee probably wanted the resolution to reflect the literature (quite a notion, that!). An aff that negotiated a deep cut, got russia to make a deep cut, and also stopped pressuring Russia on separatism or something would not be topical because we would make a deep cut (that changes our nuclear posture) and we'd stop giving Russia flak about ethnic separatism (thats not related to nuclear posture). Your view holds the topic to be a commanding monolith, uttering absolute truth in the form of strict syllogism with a flaw: US must change its nuclear posture One way to do this is to negotiate an agreement with Russia that at least makes a deep cut in nuclear arms. Therefore, any agreement with Russia that at least makes a deep cut is a change in nuclear posture. But we have a missing middle term: that the intent of the resolution is to DEFINE "nuclear posture" as opposed to simply give an example. Lets be clear: any agreement that results in a deep cut is, definitionally, a change in our nuclear posture. But the resolution says "change its nuclear posture" not "change its foreign policy towards russia". That is, the second statement does not DEFINE nuclear posture, it merely gives an example of a thing which is a change in nuclear posture, but does not exclusively define it as such. one can imagine many more affs that offer things related to our nuclear posture. On the other hand, a US action which does not change our nuclear posture just isn't topical, because the resolution says "change nuclear posture" then gives an example (an aff that negotiated and implemented a deep cut, and included more stuff, more stuff MODIFIED BY nuclear posture). You have lots of faith in the community to keep the multilateral stuff out under 2. History demonstrates its unlikely, because contextual evidence, when ambiguous, leads to a less restrictive topic with debate idiosyncracies (adding a cap, for example, under energy) as opposed to a more limited topic. That means more than just Russia is in play under 2. NWFZ,s China, etc. I feel we have probably reached a stasis point, and people are eager for more Stroube-Sanchez uselessness. Best, PJ --- On Fri, 7/10/09, Malcolm Gordon wrote: > From: Malcolm Gordon > Subject: [eDebate] missions > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Friday, July 10, 2009, 4:18 PM > I must disagree with a few of your > characterizations, Paul.? Most importantly, the way you are > reading resolution three that allows it to limit out random > bilateral russia affs.? > > "The United States Federal Government should > substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of > the following ways"? > > > This is the governing phrase, how could I disagree?? And > if it were the only thing relevant, it might be enough to > limit out the strange bilateral affs.? (resolved: usfg > should substantially change its nuclear posture; this would > certainly exclude non-posture related concerns as extra > topical).? Unfortunately, the resolution actually qualifies > what constitutes said change with the phrase "in one or > more of the following ways."? It is a particular > statement that anything that meets one of the listed actions > is considered a substantial change in nuclear posture. > > > Therefore the additional qualifying phrase of:? > > "Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral > agreement with Russia that > > at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear > weapons" > > means that any aff that meets that sentence is, by > definition, a substantial change in its nuclear posture.? > So any aff that negotiates and implements a bilateral > agreement with Russia that "at least" includes a > substantial reduction in weapons is topical.? "at > least" is a floor, not a ceiling.? There is nothing in > that sentence that prevents affirmatives from adding things > not related to nuclear posture, because the resolution has > already dictated that as long as the deal contains a > reduction in weapons, the negotiated and implemented deal > meets the threshold.? > > > if the plank read "negotiation and implementation of a > bilateral "arms control" agreement with Russia > that at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear > weapons", then I would agree with you.? The resolution > would then say the agreement must exlusively be an arms > control deal.? That qualification, however, does not > exist. > > > As far as your concern that topicality will often exclude > things it would be nice to debate under a resolution....I > agree, topicality tends to exclude affirmatives, as that is > its purpose.? But no topic will contain all the salient > issues because competitive equity is a consideration.? FMCT > is a good example, it is just as important in the literature > as CTBT, but likely even harder to win as topical under any > resolution but 1 (even then it will be difficult to prove > its a substantial change in posture).? On the treaties > topic, we didn't debate law of the sea, or CEDAW, or the > treaty on rights of the child, or landmines, etc.? On the > courts topic, there were a littany of big cases that > didn't get in (I was a HUGE advocate of putting Terry v > Ohio in the resolution...get it, huge...cause i'm > fat...).? This is inevitable and a very subjective voting > determination for coaches. > > > Your last point, about holdouts, is also inevitable.? But > 2 provides very compelling negative interpretations that > will limit these affs out.? If they are going to be so > effective as to make even the most unlimiting interpretation > acceptable under 2, they will under 3 as well.? Once > we've crossed into that threshold, the difference is > lost on me as to which would be worse. > > > I also agree with Mancuso, while we might be afraid because > missions and roles are largely redundant, it's not a > deal-breaker as much as a reason we shouldn't be scared > that the addition of missions will explode the topic.? > Especially since there is good evidence that defines > missions in a way that excludes hyperspecific country affs > (don't retaliate against brazil if they nuke us, for > instance). > > > I understand people like 3 because it lists a few affs, so > it will help in preparation.? But no one has given an > example of affs that will be extremely unpredictable under > topic 2.? I have only heard examples of how topic 3 allows > interpretations that are very justified under the wording of > the resolution and very unlimiting. > > > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 katzm3 at rpi.edu Sat Jul 11 16:55:33 2009 From: katzm3 at rpi.edu (Max Katz) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:55:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] missions In-Reply-To: <20090710182424.1954398zfw2bj0rs@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <20090710182424.1954398zfw2bj0rs@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <89c3a390907111455l3081ea04tb1dcc27ae87dae3a@mail.gmail.com> All of those cases would be extra-topical since the first sentence of the resolution says "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially change its nuclear posture..." A fishing treaty would not substantially change the US's nuclear posture and would thus be outside of the scope of the resolution (extra-topical). It's the same as any other resolution - all of them say "The USFG should do X" and we consider to be extra-topical any plan plank which does not do X. Max Katz Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics, Class of 2011 On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:24 PM, wrote: > I and some pretty good debaters (who will go unnamed to protect their > reputations) were sitting around reading the new topics choices. When > we saw the "bilateral agreement with Russia" section in Topic 3, they > started laughing so much the beer came out of their nose(s). The First > three cases we came up with: Negoiate the Artic Resources treaty..and, > btw, cut some U.S. nukes. Negotiate a new Fishing Treaty and, btw, get > rid of some U.S. nukes; obtain an agreement with Russia to reduce > IRAN's nuclear weapons (or North Korea.), and btw, get rid of a few > old U.S. nukes. > > Well, if you vote for Russia/Topic three, you reap what you sow. > > 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/20090711/e2ff1fc3/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 18:57:00 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:57:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] missions In-Reply-To: <9F03BD778566E24CAD8C9A2213539C9F02E52A@MAILBOX-33.home.ku.edu> References: <713431.41233.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9F03BD778566E24CAD8C9A2213539C9F02E52A@MAILBOX-33.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10907121657n49c2b82ei6a708f83db3ae053@mail.gmail.com> I prefer resolution 3 for its relative assurance of solid affirmative ground. It's easier to defend a huge, straight down the middle case if trying to be topical means usually makes you topical. If a lot of teams choose to defend one of a few cases, it means you can be substantively prepared in a higher percentage of debates. There will always be teams who run to the margins or decline to be topical at all. I like having a topic that incentivizes running one of a few big cases, even if the enforcement mechanism isn't fully predictable. I could make arguments about why any of the three topics could be larger, and despite attending the topic committee meetings, I'm not fully confident about how the community will come down on certain issues. Thus, I'm more included to vote for what a topic solidly protects than what it excludes, as the latter seems to vary throughout the year. That said, I'm concerned about affirmatives which preclude single targets, countries, and regions under topic 2. I don't trust "substantial" T to behave consistently, and topic 2 depends heavily upon that T argument. I don't see any benefits that would overwhelm pushing dealerting and CTBT into the 'maybe' zone. I'm not sure that topic 1 is considerably better, but I do think the question of what disarm commitments we've made (with all NPT signatories, for example) is at least an evidence-heavy discussion. Big cases can probably find lots of cards explaining how they move us in the direction of disarm commitments. I think judges behave more predictably with contextual evidence than with short definitions. I hope that people who have a big problem with some part of topic 3 will at least put topic 1 ahead of topic 2. Here's some dialogue with T-Cram. Although some of it reflects other points people have made, I have some time constraints today. T-Cram: "Is multilaterialism inevitable under any of the resolutions? Topic 3 people say 'well at least we only get Russia. Topic 2 is bilateral accords with China, NWFZs, etc etc.' If the wordings of 1 and 2 allow such shenanigans, why wouldn't planks 3 and 5 of Topic 3 allow it as well? Saying 'those affs wouldn't be changes in posture' is confusing when the rez simultaneously suggests negotiated cuts with another country are topical." Ermo: Given the possibility of negotiation failure (I don't see a basis for fiating the other parties to a treaty under any of these topic wordings), there is at least an effects T hurdle to any case. Topic 3 clears that hurdle for Russia by specifically including it. I don't feel there is enough consensus on this sort of effects topicality to preclude it on any topic. Certainly, the negative will have the "just run Russia" argument if an affirmative tries another country under topic 3, but that's just one defensive argument. T-Cram: "What consequences do the words 'negotiate and implement' have in terms of the aff's relationship between solvency and topicality? If Russia ultimately says no and the plan reverts to the status quo, is it an untopical affirmative because it did not achieve a change in nuclear posture (policies governing the role, mission, and size of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal)?" Ermo: I think the intent of the wording is to make sure that you have to implement that which is agreed to, and opposed to negotiation without implementation or implementation without regard to successful negotiation. Obviously, if negotiations fails, there is no agreement. If an affirmative takes some unilateral actions in a direction as an act of good faith and then negotiates for a position farther in the same direction (yes, I've seen cards advocating that strategy), they are probably at very little risk. They have some shield against extra-T on the Russia stuff, and yet could probably meet another of the list options as well. T-Cram: "Does the aff have to guarantee a deep cut on their side regardless of what Russia does? Does the aff get to fiat Russian acceptance to get around these problems? Is the aff bound to implement any changes Russia offers during the negotiation process?" Ermo: Maybe, no, and probably not. The former is probably a community issue, and the latter probably hinges upon the plan wording and evidence read by either side about Russia's counter offer. I don't really see any unique basis for the fiating Russia interpretation, and it would be a substantial departure from prior practice. Not promising that no one will try, but I don't think the wording makes it necessary, which means deference to limiting interpretations will be a problem for those teams. T-Cram: "What consequences do the words 'negotiate and implement' have in terms of counterplan competition? 'Offering' on the middle east created a mess for what we typically consider to be competitive 'plan-minus' counterplans. To an extent, this was an interesting direction for debates because the topic was fundamentally concerned about diplomacy, but is this something we want to revisit as a subset of a much larger resolution with so much other stuff going on? This also taps into whether there's really common ground on this topic beyond advantage areas (a very weak argument, as Malgor has shown)." Ermo: On the Middle East topic, the double offer perm was pretty effective unless the negative had a very sophisticated argument. I might say that CP's that handle that perm well deserve serious consideration. I'm comfortable with the directionality imposed by the two more generic components of the list topic for keeping the negative manageable (without imposing a precise list of cases, for sure). I'm not convinced the word substantially does much in topic 2, which means there could be cases that said "remove city X from targeting because they have this cool museum or some important artifacts". This concern is compounded by concerns that the specific missions for particular weapons are classified. T-Cram: "What are these numerous tactics and tools that the US can offer that are both in the literature while also being limited to changes in nuclear posture? If reflecting the literature is a virtue, why do you interpret a topic in a way that excludes the two most salient issues in US/Russia arms negotiations? NATO expansion and NMD are both outside the scope of 'nuclear posture' in a definitional sense but are the core Russian concerns and is also the first things to roll of the tounges of anyone who is talking or writing about possible bilateral agreements with Russia. It seems 'you gotta change posture' has taken on the figure of your much maligned 'you gotta have a cap.'" These are REALLY good questions, but they are also community prediction questions since they hinge on the intersection of two separate parts of the topic. I would tend to think an agreement which included NMD or NATO expansion in a deal that included changes in our nuclear posture would be a deal that changed our nuclear posture and thus met the stem. See the above part about whether having an initial unilateral component would make the affirmative safer on topicality. Whether there is a strong enough lit base to protect such a plan against CP's to make unilateral changes to NMD and NATO is another question, because the negative should be able to use such CP's to focus the debate back to nuclear posture if they wish. I suspect the number of plans with enough literature support to fight back against such CP's will be a manageable number, but any firm prediction made before we even start debating is less than fully certain. Ermo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090712/ae277237/attachment.htm From malgor.debate at gmail.com Sun Jul 12 22:28:43 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:28:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] missions Message-ID: anyone who was concerned about the quality of resolution 3 should have their minds made up now-Ermo supports it, so you know there has to be something fatally wrong with it! malgor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090712/b084b1cc/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Sun Jul 12 23:30:30 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:30:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bidirectionality and Res's 2 and 3 Message-ID: <5a6e2a80907122130h2f57767bt9b14293a3d306d81@mail.gmail.com> Not much of a fan of 1 - still not sure which way we are going to vote. One quirk of note for res 2 and 3. The parts that are potentially troublying Resolution 2 - "Reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal" Resolution 3 - "a substantial reduction inthe size of its nuclear weapons arsenal" Both of these resolutions seem to allow for an Aff to blow up nuclear weapons. While not widely supported, this might throw a wrinkle into expected negative ground. Resolution 1 avoids this problem because of the stipulation that the aff be in line with disarmament treaties. Spark, mini-nuke a terrorist, attack China/North Korea, test weapon(s), transverse the fantasy by blowing up a weapon, blowing up an asteroid are all ways to engage in "A substantial reduction in the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal" Res 3 OR even more dangerously "reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal" Res 2. Not psyched about this possibility. Justin Green From maffiemd at muohio.edu Mon Jul 13 10:51:13 2009 From: maffiemd at muohio.edu (Mike Maffie) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:51:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Call for Hosts-British Debate Tour of the United States References: <47540.208.31.47.188.1246112995.squirrel@webmail.cornell.edu> Message-ID: <7AA873A0-21EA-4398-A8CA-A37D2A2CCCED@muohio.edu> Forward from Sam Nelson: Begin forwarded message: > From: Samuel Mayer Nelson > Date: June 27, 2009 10:29:55 AM EDT > To: "mdm283 at cornell.edu" > Subject: [Fwd: Call for Hosts-British Debate Tour of the United > States] > > Dear Mike: > > Can you post this to Edebate? Thanks. > > Best, > > Sam > > ---------------------------- Original Message > ---------------------------- > Subject: Call for Hosts-British Debate Tour of the United States > From: "Minch, Kevin" > > Colleagues: > > If you are receiving this e-mail it is because you have either (1) > previously hosted the British national team in a CIDD-sponsored > tour, (2) > have an active speech or debate program near a previous or likely > host, or > (3) strike me as someone who might be interested in this sort of > thing :-) > My apologies to those for whom this is a duplicate, or to those who > have > already responded, but I wanted a list other potential hosts could > see to > forge co-hosting arrangements. > > At any rate, I have reposted the call that went out to various > listservs > and bulletin boards in May. If you have any questions about the > process > for bidding or hosting, please let me know. Please share with us the > relevant bid information and date restrictions as soon as is > convenient, > but no later than August 21st! > > Thanks! > > > > Kevin Minch, Director > Truman Institute > Truman State University > 100 E. Normal > 110 Baldwin Hall > Kirksville, MO 63501 > (660) 785-5677 > > > The Committee for International Discussion and Debate of the National > Communication Association > Announces a Tour of the United States by the British National > Debating Team > > Approximate dates: late September to mid November, 2009. > > If you are interested in hosting the British debaters, please > contact the > tour director by no later than August 21st! > Kevin Minch > Truman State University > kminch at truman.edu > (660) 785-5677 > Fee: The fee for hosting the British team is $800.00. Hosts also > provide, at minimum, lodging, meals, and local transportation. > How to Bid: To place a bid to host the team, please send the > following > information: > School or organization name: > Contact name and address: (must include summer contact information) > Telephone and email: (fall and summer) > Desired dates-please include several dates, in your order of > preference: > (also include dates that are out of the question) > Local airport: (if there is more than one option, please indicate > this.) > Other schools that might share the stop: > > > Suggestions for prospective hosts... > > Include the debate in conjunction with special on-campus or > community event. > Find other schools in the area who are also interested in hosting > (each > school will still pay the hosting fee-but there is a discount of > $100 for > every school who joins in. The big benefit it that it allows you to > share > hosting costs and makes scheduling easier and sites more attractive). > > Please contact the tour director with any questions or ideas > pertaining to > this year's tour. > > Note: For those who are unable to host the British in fall, please be > advised that the CIDD will host the Japanese team during the spring > semester. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090713/b8c4d93a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090713/b8c4d93a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090713/b8c4d93a/attachment-0001.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 13 12:10:52 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] missions Message-ID: <144157.51774.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I dont really have much to add, except that I feel like analogy between "change posture" and "gotta have a cap" is faulty because of the way that the literature in the field addresses both issues. Adding a cap was an artificial movement created as a result of bizarre yet comprehensible (in some ways) community behavior on T. On the other hand, changing our posture is considered as something intimately related to the question of negotiations, offers, etc. So I would say that to the extent that the literature helps to resolve that question, it makes for better debates that reflect the reality in the field, not a moment where debate artifice impinges upon our process of building models for how policymaking ought to occur over a particular issue. Substantial has been a good limiting word when things are quantifiable (fossil fuel consumption, economic pressure on China), and a really bad one when its remains somewhat amorphous and ephemeral (Indian Country). This year's issue is more like the latter, because you are allowed affs that do more than cuts in weapons (that would be more easily quantifiable). Under 3 "declaratory policy" seems to fix most of these problems, which is unclear under 2. PJ --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Eric Morris wrote: > From: Eric Morris > Subject: Re: [eDebate] missions > To: > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 6:57 PM > I prefer resolution 3 for its relative > assurance of solid affirmative ground. It's easier to > defend a huge, straight down the middle case if trying to be > topical means usually makes you topical. If a lot of teams > choose to defend one of a few cases, it means you can be > substantively prepared in a higher percentage of debates. > There will always be teams who run to the margins or decline > to be topical at all. I like having a topic that > incentivizes running one of a few big cases, even if the > enforcement mechanism isn't fully predictable. > > > I could make arguments about why any of the three topics > could be larger, and despite attending the topic committee > meetings, I'm not fully confident about how the > community will come down on certain issues. Thus, I'm > more included to vote for what a topic solidly protects than > what it excludes, as the latter seems to vary throughout the > year. > > > That said, I'm concerned about affirmatives which > preclude single targets, countries, and regions under topic > 2. I don't trust "substantial" T to behave > consistently, and topic 2 depends heavily upon that T > argument. I don't see any benefits that would overwhelm > pushing dealerting and CTBT into the 'maybe' zone. > I'm not sure that topic 1 is considerably better, but I > do think the question of what disarm commitments we've > made (with all NPT signatories, for example) is at least an > evidence-heavy discussion. Big cases can probably find lots > of cards explaining how they move us in the direction of > disarm commitments. I think judges behave more predictably > with contextual evidence than with short definitions. I hope > that people who have a big problem with some part of topic 3 > will at least put topic 1 ahead of topic 2. > > > Here's some dialogue with T-Cram. Although some of it > reflects other points people have made, I have some time > constraints today. > > T-Cram: "Is multilaterialism inevitable under any of > the resolutions? ?Topic 3 people say 'well at least we > only get Russia. Topic 2 is bilateral accords with China, > NWFZs, etc etc.' ?If the wordings of 1 and 2 allow such > shenanigans, why wouldn't planks 3 and 5 of Topic 3 > allow it as well? ?Saying 'those affs wouldn't be > changes in posture' is confusing when the rez > simultaneously suggests negotiated cuts with another country > are topical." > > > Ermo: Given the possibility of negotiation failure (I > don't see a basis for fiating the other parties to a > treaty under any of these topic wordings), there is at least > an effects T hurdle to any case. Topic 3 clears that hurdle > for Russia by specifically including it. I don't feel > there is enough consensus on this sort of effects topicality > to preclude it on any topic. Certainly, the negative will > have the "just run Russia" argument if an > affirmative tries another country under topic 3, but > that's just one defensive argument. > > > T-Cram: "What consequences do the words 'negotiate > and implement' have in terms of the aff's > relationship between solvency and topicality? ?If Russia > ultimately says no and the plan reverts to the status quo, > is it an untopical affirmative because it did not achieve a > change in nuclear posture (policies governing the role, > mission, and size of the U.S. nuclear weapons > arsenal)?" > > > Ermo: I think the intent of the wording is to make sure > that you have to implement that which is agreed to, and > opposed to negotiation without implementation or > implementation without regard to successful negotiation. > Obviously, if negotiations fails, there is no agreement. If > an affirmative takes some unilateral actions in a direction > as an act of good faith and then negotiates for a position > farther in the same direction (yes, I've seen cards > advocating that strategy), they are probably at very little > risk. They have some shield against extra-T on the Russia > stuff, and yet could probably meet another of the list > options as well. > > > T-Cram: "Does the aff have to guarantee a deep cut on > their side regardless of what Russia does? ?Does the aff > get to fiat Russian acceptance to get around these problems? > ?Is the aff bound to implement any changes Russia offers > during the negotiation process?" > > > Ermo: Maybe, no, and probably not. The former is probably a > community issue, and the latter probably hinges upon the > plan wording and evidence read by either side about > Russia's counter offer. I don't really see any > unique basis for the fiating Russia interpretation, and it > would be a substantial departure from prior practice. Not > promising that no one will try, but I don't think the > wording makes it necessary, which means deference to > limiting interpretations will be a problem for those teams. > > > > T-Cram: "What consequences do the words 'negotiate > and implement' have in terms of counterplan competition? > ?'Offering' on the middle east created a mess for > what we typically consider to be competitive > 'plan-minus' counterplans. ?To an extent, this was > an interesting direction for debates because the topic was > fundamentally concerned about diplomacy, but is this > something we want to revisit as a subset of a much larger > resolution with so much other stuff going on? ?This also > taps into whether there's really common ground on this > topic beyond advantage areas (a very weak argument, as > Malgor has shown)." > > > Ermo: On the Middle East topic, the double offer perm was > pretty effective unless the negative had a very > sophisticated argument. I might say that CP's that > handle that perm well deserve serious consideration. I'm > comfortable with the directionality imposed by the two more > generic components of the list topic for keeping the > negative manageable (without imposing a precise list of > cases, for sure). I'm not convinced the word > substantially does much in topic 2, which means there could > be cases that said "remove city X from targeting > because they have this cool museum or some important > artifacts". This concern is compounded by concerns that > the specific missions for particular weapons are classified. > > > > T-Cram: "What are these numerous tactics and tools > that the US can offer that are both in the literature while > also being limited to changes in nuclear posture? ?If > reflecting the literature is a virtue, why do you interpret > a topic in a way that excludes the two most salient issues > in US/Russia arms negotiations? ?NATO expansion and NMD are > both outside the scope of 'nuclear posture' in a > definitional sense but are the core Russian concerns and is > also the first things to roll of the tounges of anyone who > is talking or writing about possible bilateral agreements > with Russia. ?It seems 'you gotta change posture' > has taken on the figure of your much maligned 'you gotta > have a cap.'" > > > These are REALLY good questions, but they are also > community prediction questions since they hinge on the > intersection of two separate parts of the topic. I would > tend to think an agreement which included NMD or NATO > expansion in a deal that included changes in our nuclear > posture would be a deal that changed our nuclear posture and > thus met the stem. See the above part about whether having > an initial unilateral component would make the affirmative > safer on topicality. > > > Whether there is a strong enough lit base to protect such a > plan against CP's to make unilateral changes to NMD and > NATO is another question, because the negative should be > able to use such CP's to focus the debate back to > nuclear posture if they wish. I suspect the number of plans > with enough literature support to fight back against such > CP's will be a manageable number, but any firm > prediction made before we even start debating is less than > fully certain. > > > Ermo > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From privethedge at yahoo.com Mon Jul 13 13:13:41 2009 From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Washington and Lee Coaching Job - Resend Info Message-ID: <82904.46385.qm@web50912.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi, Everyone who contacted me for the W&L job, can you resend your contact e-mails to me? The e-mail I sent out to the teacher over there hit his spam filter and was deleted. But, he really wants the information. If you'd rather send stuff to him directly (like your resume) then contact me, and I'll give you his address but I don't want to publicly post it. ? Thanks, Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by??its collision with error." John S. Mill ? President Barack Obama: "So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial...uh..." (Politico5/29/09)? Boy..do I feel safe...... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090713/96d21900/attachment.htm From BOpsata at dvc.edu Mon Jul 13 19:14:07 2009 From: BOpsata at dvc.edu (Opsata, Becky) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:14:07 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Diablo Valley College Invitation Oct 23-25, 2009 Message-ID: <459F0B7C85731C449AF880D6FEABE743085DC34E@diamond.4cd.net> Hello Forensics Colleagues. I am attaching the invitation for the Diablo Valley College Tournament for Oct 23-25. Feel free to contact me with questions! Dr. Becky Opsata Diablo Valley College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090713/048e3370/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2009 Diablo Valley College college invite.doc Type: application/msword Size: 38400 bytes Desc: 2009 Diablo Valley College college invite.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090713/048e3370/attachment.doc From kel1773 at msn.com Mon Jul 13 19:48:05 2009 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:48:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wayne State Motor City Classic--October 24-26, 2009 Message-ID: Greetings-- The 2009 annual Motor City Classic will be held October 24-26 at Wayne State in Detroit. As in most years, highlights include: *housing at the Hyatt Regency Dearborn *8 rounds of competition in open/JV and 6 in Novice *ADA, CEDA and NDT sanctioned & 1/2 field clears to outrounds, making it a nice last qualifier for Wake entry *The city's finest Mediterranean and deep-dish pizza for tournament meals More details and a formal invite will come out shortly. Kelly Kelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090713/59bf8ad1/attachment.htm From tcram at ku.edu Mon Jul 13 20:39:34 2009 From: tcram at ku.edu (tcram) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:39:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] missions References: <144157.51774.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9F03BD778566E24CAD8C9A2213539C9F02E52B@MAILBOX-33.home.ku.edu> (PJ) I dont really have much to add, except that I feel like analogy between "change posture" and "gotta have a cap" is faulty because of the way that the literature in the field addresses both issues. Adding a cap was an artificial movement created as a result of bizarre yet comprehensible (in some ways) community behavior on T. On the other hand, changing our posture is considered as something intimately related to the question of negotiations, offers, etc. So I would say that to the extent that the literature helps to resolve that question, it makes for better debates that reflect the reality in the field, not a moment where debate artifice impinges upon our process of building models for how policymaking ought to occur over a particular issue. (/PJ) Perhaps my initial point was not made clear. I truly do get that it is annoying when debate artifice overrides the nature that policy issues are discussed in the literature. ?Gotta have a cap? is a fine example of this. However, when you make your argument that ?change in posture? means a topical aff can only deal with negotiating postures, tools and incentives that are related to changes in nuclear posture, you have committed the same flaw by interpreting a topic in a manner that creates a better debate limit while simultaneously excluding issues that (albeit not ?posture? in a strict sense) are inextricably linked to arms reduction negotiations between the United States and Russia (NATO and NMD offered as initial examples). Smells like a ?good for debate/bad for lit? interp to me. I don?t have much interest or time in keeping this up but I do thank Ermo for his thoughtful responses. It just seems odd . Last year brought back intrinsicness perms on DAs and made growth bad en vogue. Now we think topics that say the US should reduce its nuclear arsenal somehow allows for consult aff?s with China or the neg winning topicality by way of solvency. It?s like a parallel bizarro world of debate. -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Paul Johnson Sent: Mon 7/13/2009 12:10 PM To: Eric Morris Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] missions I dont really have much to add, except that I feel like analogy between "change posture" and "gotta have a cap" is faulty because of the way that the literature in the field addresses both issues. Adding a cap was an artificial movement created as a result of bizarre yet comprehensible (in some ways) community behavior on T. On the other hand, changing our posture is considered as something intimately related to the question of negotiations, offers, etc. So I would say that to the extent that the literature helps to resolve that question, it makes for better debates that reflect the reality in the field, not a moment where debate artifice impinges upon our process of building models for how policymaking ought to occur over a particular issue. Substantial has been a good limiting word when things are quantifiable (fossil fuel consumption, economic pressure on China), and a really bad one when its remains somewhat amorphous and ephemeral (Indian Country). This year's issue is more like the latter, because you are allowed affs that do more than cuts in weapons (that would be more easily quantifiable). Under 3 "declaratory policy" seems to fix most of these problems, which is unclear under 2. PJ --- On Sun, 7/12/09, Eric Morris wrote: > From: Eric Morris > Subject: Re: [eDebate] missions > To: > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 6:57 PM > I prefer resolution 3 for its relative > assurance of solid affirmative ground. It's easier to > defend a huge, straight down the middle case if trying to be > topical means usually makes you topical. If a lot of teams > choose to defend one of a few cases, it means you can be > substantively prepared in a higher percentage of debates. > There will always be teams who run to the margins or decline > to be topical at all. I like having a topic that > incentivizes running one of a few big cases, even if the > enforcement mechanism isn't fully predictable. > > > I could make arguments about why any of the three topics > could be larger, and despite attending the topic committee > meetings, I'm not fully confident about how the > community will come down on certain issues. Thus, I'm > more included to vote for what a topic solidly protects than > what it excludes, as the latter seems to vary throughout the > year. > > > That said, I'm concerned about affirmatives which > preclude single targets, countries, and regions under topic > 2. I don't trust "substantial" T to behave > consistently, and topic 2 depends heavily upon that T > argument. I don't see any benefits that would overwhelm > pushing dealerting and CTBT into the 'maybe' zone. > I'm not sure that topic 1 is considerably better, but I > do think the question of what disarm commitments we've > made (with all NPT signatories, for example) is at least an > evidence-heavy discussion. Big cases can probably find lots > of cards explaining how they move us in the direction of > disarm commitments. I think judges behave more predictably > with contextual evidence than with short definitions. I hope > that people who have a big problem with some part of topic 3 > will at least put topic 1 ahead of topic 2. > > > Here's some dialogue with T-Cram. Although some of it > reflects other points people have made, I have some time > constraints today. > > T-Cram: "Is multilaterialism inevitable under any of > the resolutions? ?Topic 3 people say 'well at least we > only get Russia. Topic 2 is bilateral accords with China, > NWFZs, etc etc.' ?If the wordings of 1 and 2 allow such > shenanigans, why wouldn't planks 3 and 5 of Topic 3 > allow it as well? ?Saying 'those affs wouldn't be > changes in posture' is confusing when the rez > simultaneously suggests negotiated cuts with another country > are topical." > > > Ermo: Given the possibility of negotiation failure (I > don't see a basis for fiating the other parties to a > treaty under any of these topic wordings), there is at least > an effects T hurdle to any case. Topic 3 clears that hurdle > for Russia by specifically including it. I don't feel > there is enough consensus on this sort of effects topicality > to preclude it on any topic. Certainly, the negative will > have the "just run Russia" argument if an > affirmative tries another country under topic 3, but > that's just one defensive argument. > > > T-Cram: "What consequences do the words 'negotiate > and implement' have in terms of the aff's > relationship between solvency and topicality? ?If Russia > ultimately says no and the plan reverts to the status quo, > is it an untopical affirmative because it did not achieve a > change in nuclear posture (policies governing the role, > mission, and size of the U.S. nuclear weapons > arsenal)?" > > > Ermo: I think the intent of the wording is to make sure > that you have to implement that which is agreed to, and > opposed to negotiation without implementation or > implementation without regard to successful negotiation. > Obviously, if negotiations fails, there is no agreement. If > an affirmative takes some unilateral actions in a direction > as an act of good faith and then negotiates for a position > farther in the same direction (yes, I've seen cards > advocating that strategy), they are probably at very little > risk. They have some shield against extra-T on the Russia > stuff, and yet could probably meet another of the list > options as well. > > > T-Cram: "Does the aff have to guarantee a deep cut on > their side regardless of what Russia does? ?Does the aff > get to fiat Russian acceptance to get around these problems? > ?Is the aff bound to implement any changes Russia offers > during the negotiation process?" > > > Ermo: Maybe, no, and probably not. The former is probably a > community issue, and the latter probably hinges upon the > plan wording and evidence read by either side about > Russia's counter offer. I don't really see any > unique basis for the fiating Russia interpretation, and it > would be a substantial departure from prior practice. Not > promising that no one will try, but I don't think the > wording makes it necessary, which means deference to > limiting interpretations will be a problem for those teams. > > > > T-Cram: "What consequences do the words 'negotiate > and implement' have in terms of counterplan competition? > ?'Offering' on the middle east created a mess for > what we typically consider to be competitive > 'plan-minus' counterplans. ?To an extent, this was > an interesting direction for debates because the topic was > fundamentally concerned about diplomacy, but is this > something we want to revisit as a subset of a much larger > resolution with so much other stuff going on? ?This also > taps into whether there's really common ground on this > topic beyond advantage areas (a very weak argument, as > Malgor has shown)." > > > Ermo: On the Middle East topic, the double offer perm was > pretty effective unless the negative had a very > sophisticated argument. I might say that CP's that > handle that perm well deserve serious consideration. I'm > comfortable with the directionality imposed by the two more > generic components of the list topic for keeping the > negative manageable (without imposing a precise list of > cases, for sure). I'm not convinced the word > substantially does much in topic 2, which means there could > be cases that said "remove city X from targeting > because they have this cool museum or some important > artifacts". This concern is compounded by concerns that > the specific missions for particular weapons are classified. > > > > T-Cram: "What are these numerous tactics and tools > that the US can offer that are both in the literature while > also being limited to changes in nuclear posture? ?If > reflecting the literature is a virtue, why do you interpret > a topic in a way that excludes the two most salient issues > in US/Russia arms negotiations? ?NATO expansion and NMD are > both outside the scope of 'nuclear posture' in a > definitional sense but are the core Russian concerns and is > also the first things to roll of the tounges of anyone who > is talking or writing about possible bilateral agreements > with Russia. ?It seems 'you gotta change posture' > has taken on the figure of your much maligned 'you gotta > have a cap.'" > > > These are REALLY good questions, but they are also > community prediction questions since they hinge on the > intersection of two separate parts of the topic. I would > tend to think an agreement which included NMD or NATO > expansion in a deal that included changes in our nuclear > posture would be a deal that changed our nuclear posture and > thus met the stem. See the above part about whether having > an initial unilateral component would make the affirmative > safer on topicality. > > > Whether there is a strong enough lit base to protect such a > plan against CP's to make unilateral changes to NMD and > NATO is another question, because the negative should be > able to use such CP's to focus the debate back to > nuclear posture if they wish. I suspect the number of plans > with enough literature support to fight back against such > CP's will be a manageable number, but any firm > prediction made before we even start debating is less than > fully certain. > > > Ermo > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From scottelliott at grandecom.net Tue Jul 14 13:06:13 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:06:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Article related to Topic 3 Message-ID: <20090714130613.18301o58edcz7uhh@webmail.grandecom.net> This may be of interest: Russia says no Iran sanctions for START deal: report Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:44am EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+] MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia will not agree to tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program in exchange for a new nuclear arms cuts deal with Washington, Interfax news agency quoted a foreign ministry source as saying Tuesday. Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama's nuclear adviser suggested that progress on a U.S.-Russian nuclear arms pact could help persuade Moscow to be more cooperative on Iran. "There are no reasons to link these issues or count on Russia being more cooperative in toughening sanctions against Iran if there is progress in talks with the United States on further cuts in strategic offensive weapons," the source said. Russia is negotiating a new nuclear arms cuts deal with the United States to replace the 1991 START-1 pact, which expires in December. It is also involved in international efforts to persuade Iran to give up its uranium enrichment program. The sharp tone of the Russian comments contrasted with the positive mood that dominated last week during Obama's visit to Moscow aimed at "resetting" thorny bilateral ties. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev committed themselves during the talks to working on the new START pact despite outstanding disagreements over U.S. plans to deploy elements of an anti-missile system in Europe. Obama has said that the European elements of the missile shield will not be needed if Iran halts what the West argues is a military program to create its own nuclear bomb. Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has been reluctant to allow strong sanctions against Iran and has praised Obama for promising to pursue direct dialogue with Iranian leaders. Obama's special assistant for arms control, Gary Samore, made his comments about the potential for a change in Russia's stance at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies last week. "If we make concessions on strategic nuclear issues the Russians are much more willing to be cooperative when it comes to Iran," Samore told experts. A Kremlin source told Reuters that the exchange of remarks over START and Iran did not indicate any change in the overall atmosphere of Russia-U.S. contacts. "It was nothing more than an exchange of remarks over a specific suggestion," the source said. (Writing by Oleg Shchedrov; Editing by Lin Noueihed) From alitzky at gmail.com Tue Jul 14 13:35:48 2009 From: alitzky at gmail.com (Alexis Litzky) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:35:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] SFSU/CCSF Golden Gate Season Opener Message-ID: <3BB82E25-0BD4-495B-9787-9ACBB6C17F14@gmail.com> San Francisco State University and City College of San Francisco are pleased to host the second annual Golden Gate Season Opener at the SFSU campus, September 18-20, 2009. A full invitation can be viewed and downloaded at www.sfstateforensics.com . We recognize the current economic realities facing many programs, as accommodations and travel are increasingly expensive in already tight budgets. However, we are also committed to providing a quality, full- service tournament for our students. Our tournament hotel is the Hyatt Regency in Burlingame, and is a quick ride to the SFSU campus. The cut-off date for the Hyatt hotel block is September 4, 2009, so please make your reservations as soon as possible to guarantee your rooms. Thanks, Alexis Litzky - SFSU Kristina Whalen - CCSF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090714/2cac8da1/attachment.htm From kel1773 at msn.com Tue Jul 14 15:23:58 2009 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:23:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 7th annual Conference in citizenship studies, Wayne State, April 8-10, 2010 Message-ID: Networks--The 7th Annual Conference in Citizenship Studies, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI April 8-10, 2010 Call for Papers I'm passing along the call for papers/panels for Wayne State's Center of Citizenship Studies' annual conference. I thought the conference theme of "networks", particularly social networks, might be of great interest to the forensics community. See the description here and the attached for more details on submitting. Citizenship requires networks and networks can confer citizenship. The theme of the 2010 conference of the Center for the Study of Citizenship explores the similarities and the tensions between networks and citizenship in the past, present, and future. It also considers how networks have shaped citizenship and how citizenship has influenced the development of networks. Noted scholar Yochai Benkler (Harvard University and author of The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom) will give the keynote speech. Kelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090714/93cbad1b/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CFP_Final_with_links.doc Type: application/msword Size: 33792 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090714/93cbad1b/attachment.doc From kel1773 at msn.com Tue Jul 14 15:34:10 2009 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:34:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking graduate assistants in Individual Events & Policy Debate for Fall 2010 Message-ID: Hello-- We currently have two openings for individual events coaches and two policy debate graduate assistants for next year. The Department of Communication at Wayne State University has both MA and PhD programs in Communication Studies, Film Studies and Journalism. The assistantships are very generous and competitive. You receive tuition waiver, monthly stipend, health and dental insurance (because of the strength of the graduate union, you receive the exact same benefits as faculty), no teaching requirements (although you can in the summer for extra money), opportunities to earn extra money working at our debate institute and a potential monthly housing stipend. In total, we have seven coaches associated with the program: 2 directors, 3 debate assistants and 2 IE assistants. Our programs are regionally and nationally competitive and well supported by our university and alumni. Learn more at: http://www.comm.wayne.edu/ and http://www.gradschool.wayne.edu/index.asp Please contact me at Kelly.young at wayne.edu or my office 313-577-2953 if you are interested. Deadline for application is January 15. Thanks, Kelly Kelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090714/e9d85aa6/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Wed Jul 15 11:16:28 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:16:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 'the soft fibres of the brain' Message-ID: or, cap bad foucault-style. _ http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-June/079067.html http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-June/079071.html wanted to add an excerpt from 'discipline and punish' to the ones already cited above relating the respective projects of foucault and marx. pages 220-1: "If the economic take-off of the West began with the techniques that made possible the accumulation of capital, it might perhaps be said that the methods for administering the accumulation of [workers] made possible a political take-off in relation to the traditional, ritual, costly, violent forms of power, which soon fell into disuse and were superseded by a subtle, calculated technology of subjection. In fact, the two processes - the accumulation of [workers] and the accumulation of capital - cannot be separated; it would not have been possible to solve the problem of the accumulation of [workers] without the growth of an apparatus of production capable of both sustaining them and using them; conversely, the techniques that made the cumulative multiplicity of [workers] useful accelerated the accumulation of capital. At a less general level, the technological mutations of the apparatus of production, the division of labor and the elaboration of the disciplinary techniques sustained an ensemble of very close relations (cf. Marx, Capital, vol. I, chapter XIII and the very interesting analysis in Guerry [sic] and Deleule). Each makes the other possible and necessary; each provides a model for the other. The disciplinary pyramid constituted the small cell of power within which the separation, coordination and supervision of tasks was imposed and made efficient; and analytical partitioning of time, gestures, and bodily forces constituted an operational schema that could easily be transferred from the groups to be subjected to the mechanisms of production; the massive projection of military methods onto industrial organization was an example of this modeling of the division of labor following the model laid by the schemata of power. But, on the other hand, the technical analysis of the process of production, its 'mechanical' breaking-down, were projected onto the labor force whose task it was to implement it: the constitution of those disciplinary machines in which the individual forces they bring together are composed into a whole and therefore increased is the effect of this projection. Let us say that discipline is the unitary technique by which the body is reduced as a 'political' force at the least cost and maximized as a useful force. The growth of a capitalist economy gave rise to the specific modality of disciplinary power, whose general formulas, techniques of submitting forces and bodies, in short, 'political anatomy', could be operated in the most diverse political regimes, apparatuses or institutions." in other words, capitalism spawns disciplinary techniques which then can take on a life of their own (e.g., be transposed to other areas of social life). a disorderly multitude enters at point A, and the panoptic schema turns out an organized multiplicity (an army, a workforce, or whatever) at point Z. it's the capitalist imperative that made the need for this process so urgent: "each makes the other possible and necessary; each provides a model for the other". bottom-line: discipline cuts costs. why crack skulls when you can control what's inside them? 'A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas; ... this link is all the stronger in that we do not know of what it is made and we believe it to be our own work; despair and time eat away the bonds of iron and steel, but they are powerless against the habitual union of ideas, they can only tighten it still more; and on the soft fibres of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires' : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Michel_Antoine_Servan (1767) _ p.s., gu?ry and deleule's 'the productive body' (1972) hasn't yet made it into english, though there's a forthcoming translation on the way. _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090715/205819fe/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Wed Jul 15 13:35:11 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:35:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topical plans, the poverty topic, and the "federal poverty threshold" as a poor standard Message-ID: <524839830907151135y18b53d84m6c9e2ec228ce5927@mail.gmail.com> http://www.planetdebate.com/blogs/view/334 -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090715/90adb3d6/attachment.htm From Jeffrey.Jarman at wichita.edu Wed Jul 15 16:01:13 2009 From: Jeffrey.Jarman at wichita.edu (Jarman, Jeffrey) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:01:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic voting reminder Message-ID: <42558793D89D414BB16A72C7F4CAFACD0506F837F4@exchange-01.ad.wichita.edu> The deadline to vote for the 2009 - 2010 resolution is TOMORROW at midnight (central). You must have an account at the CEDA website AND be authorized to vote. If you need to pay your CEDA dues in order to vote, you can do that on the site, too. Please let me know if you have trouble accessing the site. Jeff From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Jul 15 16:42:17 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:42:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] bad birth certificate day: military orders revoked on challenge Message-ID: just a snippet about the "victory". got give stroube some credit on his bold pre-election challenge which was completely slighted by gerbil and the boyz. i'm with paglia. the b-word certificate handling by obama is a lil fishy. please, please, read on and don't be an obama dupe. there should be dancing in the streets b/c obama is the biggest joke president ever: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104009 A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders."We won! We won before we even arrived," she said with excitement. "It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate ? and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order!"She continued, "They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons ? just revoked."A hearing on the questions raised by Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, an engineer who told WND he wants to serve his country in Afghanistan, was scheduled for July 16 at 9:30 a.m."As an officer in the armed forces of the United States, it is [my] duty to gain clarification on any order we may believe illegal. With that said, if President Obama is found not to be a 'natural-born citizen,' he is not eligible to be commander-in-chief," he told WND only hours after the case was filed... Before news of the orders being revoked were reported, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."Named as defendants in the case are Col. Wanda Good, Col. Thomas Macdonald, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Obama, described as "de facto president of the United States." _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090715/b3648ce8/attachment.htm From alitzky at sfsu.edu Wed Jul 15 16:52:31 2009 From: alitzky at sfsu.edu (Alexis Litzky) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:52:31 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] SFSU/CCSF Golden Gate Season Opener In-Reply-To: <3BB82E25-0BD4-495B-9787-9ACBB6C17F14@gmail.com> References: <3BB82E25-0BD4-495B-9787-9ACBB6C17F14@gmail.com> Message-ID: San Francisco State University and City College of San Francisco are pleased to host the second annual Golden Gate Season Opener at the SFSU campus, September 18-20, 2009. A full invitation can be viewed and downloaded at www.sfstateforensics.com. We recognize the current economic realities facing many programs, as accommodations and travel are increasingly expensive in already tight budgets. However, we are also committed to providing a quality, full-service tournament for our students. Our tournament hotel is the Hyatt Regency in Burlingame, and is a quick ride to the SFSU campus. The cut-off date for the Hyatt hotel block is *September 4, 2009*, so please make your reservations as soon as possible to guarantee your rooms. Thanks, Alexis Litzky - SFSU Kristina Whalen - CCSF -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090715/9412c000/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Thu Jul 16 13:32:04 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:32:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Brace yourself for what I'm about to say next." Message-ID: piggybacking on stroube's "bold pre-election challenge" to obama's "fishy" b-certificate, here's another bombshell from the hard-working journalists at worldnetdaily.com : "Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date"(!). -- http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88439 : "This is not some idle talk. He is already born, and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of presidents. He is what you call 'Ivy League.' You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. ... It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black, so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America." .gerbil and the boyz. http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-marx.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_qbsoYoeCNf4/SaiSgGG3usI/AAAAAAAAA24/n24IIWRRj3s/s320/Obama+Soviet.jpg http://goatmilk.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/obama-socialist1.jpg _________________________________________________________________ Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090716/a38a25c9/attachment.htm From debate.gsu at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 14:07:16 2009 From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:07:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 2009 GSU College Tournament Invitation Message-ID: We haven't put the tournament on the Bruschke site yet, but the invitation can be found at: http://www.gsudebate.org/events_at_gsu/gsu_national_college_debate.html. There have been some major changes to the tournament, so please check it out. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090716/c25fe0ae/attachment.htm From mstruth at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 15:05:41 2009 From: mstruth at gmail.com (Matt Struth) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:05:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging Elims Message-ID: Should judges talk to the winning or losing team first in elims? I get why it is the way it is now, but I've heard several debaters and coaches say they'd be happier if judges addressed the winning team first, giving them time to leave / prepare for their next round (if they choose to do so). Or why not ask the debaters before the round what they'd prefer? I could be way off-base here, I'm just curious about the community's thoughts.-Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090716/abc72e4e/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Thu Jul 16 15:25:16 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:25:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 2009 GSU College Tournament Invitation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F01A9564A92@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Quick question in regards to the 7 round "norm." Is it really the community norm to make a larger percentage of each tournament's time devote itself to out-round competitors while shrinking the competition for the majority of the field by over 10 percent (from 8 to 7 rounds)? What are the remaining 8-round tournaments? NDT, Harvard, Richmond...others? Thanks-we're trying to maximize # of debates for our teams. Kevin From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Joe Bellon Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 3:07 PM To: e debate Subject: [eDebate] 2009 GSU College Tournament Invitation We haven't put the tournament on the Bruschke site yet, but the invitation can be found at: http://www.gsudebate.org/events_at_gsu/gsu_national_college_debate.html. There have been some major changes to the tournament, so please check it out. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090716/426dc44d/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu Fri Jul 17 11:05:06 2009 From: jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu (Jarman, Jeffrey) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:05:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Announcement Message-ID: <42558793D89D414BB16A72C7F4CAFACD0506F8380B@exchange-01.ad.wichita.edu> Resolution Two (Size, Role, Mission) was selected as the topic for the 2009 ? 2010 season. The awards amendment passes. A complete breakdown of voting and a list of the school that voted is below. RESOLUTION VOTE 66 ballots were submitted. The first count of first-place votes was: Res 1 (Posture): 18 votes Res 2 (Size, Role, Mission): 23 votes Res 3 (List): 25 votes So, Res 1 was dropped, and its votes were transferred to Res 2 & 3. The second count of first-place votes was: Res 2: 35 votes Res 3: 30 votes So, Res 2 wins with a majority of the first-place votes. Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal. AMENDMENT Passes on a vote of 31-21. LIST OF SCHOOLS THAT VOTED AppState Arizona State University Augustana College binghamton university Boston College Cal California State University Northridge CSU Fullerton CUNY Dartmouth College Emory University Fayetteville State University George Mason University George Washington University Georgetown University Georgia State University Gonzazga University Harvard Idaho State University JCCC JMU John Carroll University Kansas State University Liberty University Louisiana Lafayette Macalester College Marist College Michigan State University Missouri State Northwestern Univeristy Pepperdine University Puget Sound Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute richmond Sac State Samford University San Francisco State University Texas The University of Michigan Trinity University U Northern Iowa UMKC University of Central Oklahoma University of Florida University of Georgia University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Mary Washington University of Miami University of Minnesota University of North Texas University of Oklahoma University of Pittsburgh University of Rochester University of Texas at Dallas university of west georgia UNLV USC UW Oshkosh Wake Forest Wayne State University West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Whitman College Wichita State Wyoming From vikeenan at gmail.com Fri Jul 17 11:32:21 2009 From: vikeenan at gmail.com (V I Keenan) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:32:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 2009 GSU College Tournament Invitation Message-ID: on a related note to Kevin's post ... If 7 rounds becomes the norm, doesn't that functionally increase the minimum number of tournaments that an individual debater would need to attend in order to be eligible to participate in the District Qualifier? Previously, a debater could attend 4 8-round tournaments and be eligible, but if there are not four such tournaments, that results in a 5th tournament. (This is not a hypothetical - Wake and NW's changes last year AFTER we had budgeted our schedule resulted in such a calculation problem). Not all students debate every weekend. Many work or have other commitments or simply have balance in their lives. Not all programs are focused on "open" debate (In the hybrid discussion I keep hearing that those "lone" debaters at emerging programs should just pull up an unsuspecting novice for Districts ... because clearly emerging programs have the money to now attend an extra tournament at minimum). Sometimes there is an odd number of open debaters, or rotating partnerships, or someone studying abroad, and the 32 round rule exists for those circumstances. Just because students make these choices they should not be precluded from the last regional tournament they have access to in the year (the District Qualifier). Functionally requiring an increase in the number of tournaments individual students need to attend at a minimum will be the "hidden" expense on top of a world of rising travel costs. If folks are on board with the 7 round norm then it might be worth reevaluating the round commitment requirements in the NDT standing rules to reflect current tournament structures, assuming the same logic of tournament attendance still applies. Just a thought. -VIK Vik Keenan Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges 212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090717/b5ce7d78/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Fri Jul 17 12:26:42 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:26:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kansas State Welcomes new Additions Message-ID: <5a6e2a80907171026j3f4af79g7263336c2810fe49@mail.gmail.com> Please join me in congratulating - Cade Hamilton. It is now official; he will be an Assistant Director of Debate for the Wildcats. His endless positive enthusiasm and warm personality have already allowed him to settle nicely into the summer life of Manhattan and the KSU debate team. We thank the many fine candidates who inquired and applied for the job. We would also like to welcome Joe Koehle to the KSU family. Joe's versatility, experience, and down-to-earth personality are all appreciated and needed. We find ourselves extremely lucky as one member of the WGLF leaves the debate community for law school (we love you James Thomas), another will join us in the Fall. On behalf of KSU debate, Justin Green From kkuswa at richmond.edu Fri Jul 17 12:50:34 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:50:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 2009 GSU College Tournament Invitation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F01A9564BAC@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Good post, Vik. Something to consider. Wayne, UNI, Ceda Nats, and NJDDT are all 8 prelims as well-thanks for the info from everyone. kevin From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of V I Keenan Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 12:32 PM To: EDEBATE Subject: Re: [eDebate] 2009 GSU College Tournament Invitation on a related note to Kevin's post ... If 7 rounds becomes the norm, doesn't that functionally increase the minimum number of tournaments that an individual debater would need to attend in order to be eligible to participate in the District Qualifier? Previously, a debater could attend 4 8-round tournaments and be eligible, but if there are not four such tournaments, that results in a 5th tournament. (This is not a hypothetical - Wake and NW's changes last year AFTER we had budgeted our schedule resulted in such a calculation problem). Not all students debate every weekend. Many work or have other commitments or simply have balance in their lives. Not all programs are focused on "open" debate (In the hybrid discussion I keep hearing that those "lone" debaters at emerging programs should just pull up an unsuspecting novice for Districts ... because clearly emerging programs have the money to now attend an extra tournament at minimum). Sometimes there is an odd number of open debaters, or rotating partnerships, or someone studying abroad, and the 32 round rule exists for those circumstances. Just because students make these choices they should not be precluded from the last regional tournament they have access to in the year (the District Qualifier). Functionally requiring an increase in the number of tournaments individual students need to attend at a minimum will be the "hidden" expense on top of a world of rising travel costs. If folks are on board with the 7 round norm then it might be worth reevaluating the round commitment requirements in the NDT standing rules to reflect current tournament structures, assuming the same logic of tournament attendance still applies. Just a thought. -VIK Vik Keenan Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges 212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090717/2ff09971/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Jul 17 18:09:26 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:09:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] fishy gerbil's idol cheney linked to bhutto assassination? Message-ID: i don't think so. conspiracy theory from russia. no definitive evidence has linked cheney. only speculation so far which loses to generic plausible deniability -- the langley syndrome. cheney is whitewashed according to same standards that whitewash obama's CIA in iran. mainstream news is objective, thus accurate. intelligence agencies do not secretly conduct events from behind the scenes and if they do, rarely. the best thing is never to question the possibility of CIA meddling especially in a few cases precisely chosen because apathy is the prize of the gerbil team. the evidence is poor -- source indict takes out. back to gerbil's adornian "administered world" curiously in love with plausible deniability when it comes to the CIA. http://www.russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-07-14/CIA_linked_to_Benazir_Bhutto_s_assassination.html According to investigative journalist and RT contributor Wayne Madsen, ?This assassination team may have targeted politicians in other countries. One name mentioned was former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who may have been a victim of this program. The other name is Jonas Savimbi, the former Angolan UNITA leader, who may have outlived his usefulness as far as Mr Cheney is concerned.? _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090717/12e31703/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sun Jul 19 13:13:39 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:13:39 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by CSU Fullerton Message-ID: <313AF9F6FE57409FB6B9FA9379631387@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:CSUF Winter Tourney -- Berkeley replacement Starts:1/22/2010 Ends:1/25/2010 Hosted by: CSU Fullerton Contact: Address: PO Box 6868, Fullerton, CA 92834 Phone: 714-223-1838 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice Policy 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 stannardmatt at hotmail.com Sun Jul 19 14:21:24 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:21:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The Wayne Callaway Policy Debates at UWyo Message-ID: Dear Colleague: We?re pleased to invite you to the 2009 B. Wayne Callaway Policy Debates, taking place Saturday and Sunday, September 26-27, here at the University of Wyoming. THE TOURNAMENT IS ABSOLUTELY FREE. There are no entry fees. We only ask that teams cover their judging commitments and volunteer to judge 1-2 extra rounds. We will offer six rounds of NDT/CEDA debate on the 2009-10 resolution: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal. ...with appropriate elimination rounds, in open division, with breakouts if warranted in novice and junior divisions. We will recognize an appropriate number of individual speakers at the tournament. Times will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes of preparation time per team. One judge covers two debate teams. We ask all judges to volunteer to judge one or two rounds beyond their commitment, since entries are free of charge. Lodging: The tournament hotel is the Ramada Inn. This is a football weekend and rooms are extremely difficult to find for less than $100. the Ramada is offering tournament participants a block rate of $79.00, $89.00, or $99.00 for two, three, or four people, a rate which includes two free breakfasts. The block expires a week before the tournament begins. Their address is 2313 Soldier Springs Road, and their phone number is (307) 742-6611. Please make sure they know you are entering the Wayne Callaway Debates on Sept. 26-27 (since we are hosting a parli/ie tournament a week later and we don?t want to confuse the folks at the hotel). Please let Matt Stannard know if you have any problems securing reservations. You are not required to stay at this hotel, but if you want to search for a better deal, please do so right away. The entire state of Wyoming (which admittedly isn't as many people as Gordon Stables passes every morning on his way to work) supports UW football. Entering the tournament: Entries will soon be enabled on the debateresults.com site (aka the ?Bruschke Site?). We will post to edebate when the entries are enabled. Please have your judges list their donated as well as regularly obligated rounds. Directions to Laramie, Hotel, Tournament, etc.: Maps and travel information will be sent to the directors and coaches of every team entering the tournament. Schedule: Saturday, Sept. 26: 9:00 AM Round One (all debates will take place in the Classroom Building) 1:00 PM Round Two 4:00 PM Round Three 7:00 PM Round Four Sunday, Sept. 28: 9:00 AM Round Five 1:00 PM Round Six 4:00 PM First Elimination Round Announcement of Awards and Further Elimination Rounds to Follow _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Store, access, and share your photos. See how. http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090719/d93704a8/attachment.htm From jaipaulrekhi at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 18:40:59 2009 From: jaipaulrekhi at gmail.com (Jaipaul Rekhi) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 16:40:59 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Open Challenge 09- Sam Iola Message-ID: thanks for forwarding this Jaipaul- too lazy to create an edebate account. open challenge 09 i want to issue an open challenge to any currently active member of college or hs debate (current participant/debater, not coach or assistant coach or someone who was a debater but is now a rich lawyer/hedge fund manager/etc.- obviously if you are a college debater but a hs coach, you qualify). basically, im envisioning a best of three heads up challenge. 1st- heads up debate with judges to be decided later and obviously mutually agreed upon. 2nd- heads up nl holdem. 3rd- a game of the challengers choice- gin, backgammon, chess, whatever. but i would need to be informed ahead of time with enough time to prepare since it is the challengers choice. i want to do this for a few reasons, but most notably, i really have no desire to do actual formal debating anymore (and to my redlands no longer has a team), but i love competing for money in any discipline, and i know alot of debaters feel the same way. my proposition is that this competition be a minimum of $150 with a maximum surprise wager of $1000. if someone offers me particularly interesting odds or other terms (which are all negotiable), than higher stakes could be worked out. but i have no desire to set something up for less than $150. also- i think this would be a really cool way to mix debate in as a skill game with other games of skill that, like debate, require certain elements of controlled luck. if anyone is interested in this please email me at @ siolapokaplaya at gmail.com or samuel.iola at redlands.edu. -sam iola -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090719/a7ff34d3/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sun Jul 19 19:11:23 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:11:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Georgia State Message-ID: Name:GSU National College Debate Tournament Starts:9/19/2009 Ends:9/21/2009 Hosted by: Georgia State Contact: Address: PO Box 4000, Atlanta, GA 30302-4000 Phone: 678-624-7544 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Junior Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Open 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 bdelo77 at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 19:29:26 2009 From: bdelo77 at gmail.com (Brian DeLong) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:29:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Question for Laptop Only Teams Message-ID: <1B84A32B-50B7-465F-8B25-19D1816E18F2@gmail.com> I'm unofficially trying to crunch some numbers on how much it would cost for our team to go laptop only. For the third laptop, what would be a general expectation on screen size? Netbooks are cheep, a larger laptop increases the price by about 100-200 dollars. I wouldn't think reading from a smaller 3rd laptop during the round would be much of a problem, but my lack of experience in this area has brought me to you all. 2ndly, speed wise - are there very many hangups with ram/ processing speed with the current lower end laptops? I assume they all have the ability to run multiple open word documents and folders without too many problems. Thanks From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sun Jul 19 20:18:48 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:18:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Northern Iowa (Univ.) Message-ID: <2A64666854D04951AB927F4B8D30FD3C@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:UNI Ulrich Season Opener Starts:9/19/2009 Ends:9/21/2009 Hosted by: Northern Iowa (Univ.) Contact: Katherine Lavelle Address: 334 Lang, Cedar Rapids, IA 50614-0139 Phone: 319-273-2714 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Junior Varsity with 8 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From hallbrad at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 20:32:26 2009 From: hallbrad at gmail.com (Brad Hall) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:32:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Sad News Message-ID: Posted on behalf of Dr. Allan Louden (louden at wfu.edu): I am very sorry to share the news that Ross Smith passed away around 6 pm Sunday from a massive heart attack. The loss to our community is obvious to all who were friends with Ross. There are no details yet, but I or others from the Wake Forest Program will share them as we know more. I am in Greece but am in contact with folks in Winston-Salem and will be in touch as appropriate. -- Brad Hall hallbrad at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090719/53b67892/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 20:36:31 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 18:36:31 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] RIP Ross Smith Message-ID: There are many better people to say what they feel about Ross than me, I just want to say that my whole heart goes out to every Deamon Deac tonight, to his family, and to all of us who will miss Ross terribly. Thanks for everything Ross you were truly the best, a giant, and had a huge impact on me and on debate, Shock doesnt cover my feelings, RIP, Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090719/19c0d4bc/attachment.htm From dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Sun Jul 19 21:24:17 2009 From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:24:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Ross Smith Message-ID: One of the greatest coaches in the history of academic debate in America has left us at a terribly young age. Our thoughts go out to the entire Wake Forest Debate Family. dp From david-hingstman at uiowa.edu Sun Jul 19 22:00:39 2009 From: david-hingstman at uiowa.edu (Hingstman, David) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:00:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Ross Smith Message-ID: He was as enthusiastic, friendly, and generous a forensic educator and competitor as we have ever known. He will be sorely missed. Dr. Dave From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sun Jul 19 22:54:33 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:54:33 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Ross Smith Message-ID: I really can't say how much I'll miss Ross, or how much I admired him. He and I should have been natural enemies, as different in style are argument choice we were, but I loved the guy, and never had a conversation with him where the betterment of our greater community wasn't at the bottom of our heart. He was always such a constant, setting the standard of excellence for everyone. Truly one of the greats our activity has ever seen. Jon Attention: Cal State Fullerton's area code and prefix are now 657-278. The Fullerton campus and most of the Irvine campus phone and fax numbers now begin with 657-278 followed by the current extension number. From spmancuso at aol.com Sun Jul 19 23:29:21 2009 From: spmancuso at aol.com (Steve Mancuso) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:29:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ross Smith Message-ID: <8CBD709C974D78C-F50-952@webmail-dd16.sysops.aol.com> Ross Smith stood for progress, integrity, excellence, teaching, and dedication. His profound influence in these areas will be sustained through the enormous network of debaters and coaches he has mentored. And I'm so sad for having lost such a true friend tonight. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090720/fff5195b/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 23:43:48 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:43:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ross Smith Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70907192143o50707902x18efe123b07aeef0@mail.gmail.com> As the current chair of District VI, my heart goes out to the family of Ross Smith. All of his loved ones are in my thoughts and prayers. The best chair our district ever had - heck, we only let him opt out because we felty guilty for leaning on him so much. Since the time I first entered college debate in 1989, no individual has done more to influence our activity than Ross Smith. "I heart D6" was inspired by Ross' words and enacted by his works. Sad to see him leave us, but ever grateful for what he left us. Dr. Michael Hester Associate Dean, Honors College & Dircector of Debate University of West Georgia From kkuswa at richmond.edu Mon Jul 20 08:34:12 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:34:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ross Smith In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F01DEC0FAAC@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> It has been an honor to know Ross for the past twenty some years, for he has always been a gentle giant, a lover of debate, a tough and honorable competitor, and someone who deeply deeply cared about the community. Who else never backed down from a good argument but also had one of the kindest souls in the activity? He will be missed immensely. Our thoughts go out to his family and friends, Wake Forest and the entire debate community. Sincerely, Kevin Kuswa Richmond Debate From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Mon Jul 20 09:04:33 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:04:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wyoming entries enabled Message-ID: Entries for the Wayne Callaway Policy Debates are enabled at http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/Index.aspx. If there are enough novice competitors we could have a separate division of 4 or 6 rounds; let me know if you plan on bringing novices. We'll likely have some argumentation students. matt _________________________________________________________________ Bing? brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MLOGEN_Local_Local_Restaurants_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090720/ed279fcf/attachment.htm From michael_hagan at hotmail.com Mon Jul 20 12:03:23 2009 From: michael_hagan at hotmail.com (michael_hagan at hotmail.com) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:03:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Vacation reply In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090720/e32a8162/attachment.htm From leaderdb8 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 20 13:22:22 2009 From: leaderdb8 at hotmail.com (Paul Leader) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:22:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Ross Smith Message-ID: I was stunned to open my email just now and read this horribly sad news. I remember VERY fondly the two years I spent in Winston-Salem as a fellow graduate student with Ross. My heart goes out to his family, and the WFU debate family. I miss you already Ross. Paul Leader _________________________________________________________________ Bing? brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MLOGEN_Local_Local_Restaurants_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090720/b2f2ee23/attachment.htm From forensics at lacitycollege.edu Mon Jul 20 14:51:35 2009 From: forensics at lacitycollege.edu (LACC Forensics) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:51:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] First amendment law Message-ID: Can anyone put me in contact with a scholar on first amendment law as it relates college newspapers? Thanks Ken Sherwood Los Angeles City College From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 15:18:39 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:18:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: [Fwd: Ross Smith Arrangements] In-Reply-To: <4A64CF7F.7090905@wfu.edu> References: <4A64CF7F.7090905@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <524839830907201318y69d7c50dhc8082fe254dd6901@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Virginia Bannigan Date: Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:11 PM Subject: [Fwd: Ross Smith Arrangements] To: Stefan Bauschard , Timothy O'Donnell < todonnel at umw.edu>, dperkins at fas.harvard.edu I'm sure this is posted somewhere (or will be soon), but here it is in case you want to share with edebate or something? Visitation will be at Salem Funeral Home (downtown W-S) from 6-8 on Wed, July 22. The service will be at 11am on Thursday July 23rd in Wait Chapel on Wake Forest Campus with a reception to follow immediately in the Old Law Library, 2nd Floor, Carswell Hall Internment will be at 2pm at Salem Cemetery. The obituary will be available tomorrow at www.journalnow.com -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090720/74952caa/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Jul 20 17:17:52 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:17:52 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Arizona State Message-ID: <2CA4AE09ACCD4A83BBDCD67DC3BD4096@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Arizona State Starts:1/16/2010 Ends:1/18/2010 Hosted by: Arizona State Contact: Adam Symonds Address: Phone: 480-965-5147 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): False Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified 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 jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Jul 20 17:21:17 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:21:17 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Gonzaga Message-ID: Name:The Jesuit Invitational Starts:9/12/2009 Ends:9/15/2009 Hosted by: Gonzaga Contact: Glen Frappier Address: Phone: 509-323-6663 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 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 gordonm at pitt.edu Mon Jul 20 22:54:51 2009 From: gordonm at pitt.edu (Mitchell, Gordon Roger) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:54:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ross Message-ID: A fresh idea, a spreading smile; always time to just chat awhile. He savored talk, coaxed it with care; on the road, at the bar, or in mountain air. He painted debate with zest and precision; an eye for detail, a big-picture vision. The canvas was human, so others could share; his life as art, a form most rare. From Kelly.McDonald at asu.edu Tue Jul 21 00:19:26 2009 From: Kelly.McDonald at asu.edu (Kelly McDonald) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:19:26 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] On line memorial for Ross at WFU's website Message-ID: <3920DC962E323A46B40D415ADC1CD6C24BE407376F@EX10.asurite.ad.asu.edu> Here is a link to university's site that has a nice write up on Ross: http://www.wfu.edu/news/release/2009.07.20.r.php Wake also has a guest book for people to leave memories and thoughts about Ross: http://www.wfu.edu/wowf/guest/smith/index.php Kelly M. McDonald, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Communication School of Letters and Sciences Arizona State University - Downtown Campus 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 300 Phoenix AZ 85004-0694 Office: 345 University Center Direct line: (602) 496-0652 Fax: (602) 496-0655 Email: kelly.mcdonald at asu.edu http://sls.asu.edu/ From rwgallow at samford.edu Tue Jul 21 14:20:29 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:20:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New Debater Born Message-ID: Madeline Smith Williams was born in Birmingham around 1PM today...She weighs 7 lbs. and 7 oz. Daddy says that Abi and little Maddy are doing great. RG From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Jul 22 01:59:45 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:59:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Cheney's Secret Program Message-ID: <9368bc9b0907212359x2933b576o328170680b228e43@mail.gmail.com> http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090722/f1b8aecb/attachment.htm From edebate at anumbersgame.net Wed Jul 22 15:28:35 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:28:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Planned speaker point scale changes? Message-ID: <739f03b0907221328j3e3908ccy97330c7f29948899@mail.gmail.com> Georgia State is moving to a 100-point speaker point scale next year. This will make them the third large [*] tournament to use a non-standard scale. I have put up some charts of how changing the scale affected point distributions at Wake and USC: http://code.google.com/p/anumbersgame/wiki/SpeakerPointScale Summary: Changing the scale helped differentiate performances, but judges didn't use the whole range of points. At Wake (100-point scale), points clustered around multiples of 5. At USC (30-point scale, finer granularity), points clustered around the old half-point scale. Question: Are any other tournament directors planning on switching point scales? If you considered doing so, but decided not to, what stopped you? If you are switching, why did you choose the scale you chose? [*] Two other (smaller) tournaments changed speaker point granularity since '03-'04: the Weber State round robin used a granularity of 0.1 at their '08-'09 tournament, and the Northern Illinois tournament seems to have changed from the usual half-point granularity to a full-point granularity for their '05-'06 tournament. From stables at usc.edu Wed Jul 22 19:05:48 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:05:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] In Recognition: Ross K. Smith Message-ID: <39c1ac890907221705u774d3065xa28e76f5e181f45b@mail.gmail.com> *In Recognition: Ross K. Smith* Earlier this week the college debate community lost one of its most accomplished and influential coaches, leaders, mentors, and friends. Ross Kennedy Smith passed away on July 19, 2009, but his influence will be felt for many years. In the shock of the last few days the debate community has paused and reflected on the ways in which Ross influenced us all. The tremendous outpouring of condolences and memories is a testament to how many lives Ross touched. As representatives of the three largest collegiate policy debate organizations we take this moment to remember a coaching legend. For the last quarter century Ross, as Director of Debate, and Alan Louden, as Director of Forensics, embodied the Wake Forest University Debate team. As we celebrate Ross, we also celebrate the remarkable partnership of these two remarkable forensics educators. Together they defined a standard of excellence for all debate programs. It is not always easy to highlight their accomplishments in isolation of each other, because they both exemplify such modesty. Today we celebrate their partnership as we remember Ross. A Wake graduate himself (?82, ?84), Ross started coaching the Demon Deacons in the fall of 1984 as he began one of the most significant coaching careers in the history of intercollegiate debate. As the Director of Debate at Wake Forest, Ross left his mark as a deeply committed and incredibly successful coach. His list of accomplishments is long and well-known. He coached the 1997 and 2008 National Debate Tournament National Champions, the 2006 and 2009 NDT 2nd place teams, was named National Coach of the Year in 1994 and 1998, and District VI Coach of the Year in 2000 and 2006. In Best of the Decade polling he was named Best Judge of the 1990's and Second Best Coach of the 1990's. He qualified more teams to the elimination rounds of the National Debate Tournament than any other coach in the last decade. As remarkable as this list of accomplishments is, it only begins to appreciate his energy and his passion as an educator. Ross was a tireless advocate for bringing the very best from policy debate. A brilliant teacher, Ross was a mentor to Wake students of all competitive abilities. With leadership from Al and Ross the Wake Forest debate program has influenced hundreds of undergraduate and graduate students. Many fields owe a debt of thanks for the talented young professionals that learned from Ross. It is almost impossible, for example, to find a debate program untouched by Wake graduates. Regardless of when they were involved with the team or if they were an undergraduate competitor or a graduate teaching assistant, these students fondly recall the influence Ross has on their development. Marcia Tierksy (WFU Class of ?94) explains, "Ross was a remarkable person. He was a great mentor and a brilliant innovator. I know that I would not be the person that I am today without Ross's influence, and I could easily name 50 other people who could say the same. Ross had a great gift for making those who debated for him better. Better debaters, better thinkers, better speakers, and better people. There are no words for how much he is missed." His influence was not just limited to those enrolled as students at Wake Forest. Ross saw competition not as a way to divide people, but as an opportunity to teach all those around him. Many of those who have shared their memories in recent days are those who competed against Ross and his Wake teams. Dan Shalmon (Berkeley, ?04) shared what is was like to compete against Wake Forest, "Debate coaches are intensely competitive people. Rivalries can become intense, personal and mean. Races for the Copeland Award, which recognizes the best team of the course of a season can become downright ugly. Such races usually are waged between two, or at most three teams?. Ross was a mentor to me and my teammates. He was also the coach of the team we contended for the Copeland with most closely. Our race came right down the wire; our debates with Wake were exceedingly close and often infuriatingly so. Ross was always - and I mean without fail - friendly and supportive." Ed Panetta, the Director of Forensics at the University of Georgia, himself a former Wake debate graduate assistant, noted this same experience of coaching against Ross, "While his teams were very competitive -- he didn't project a sense of being competitive with his professional colleagues. This is a gift that fewer and fewer coaches exhibit. When Georgia was in the finals of the (1997) NDT against Wake Forest we spent most of the debate together sharing fun memories. And, he was very gracious in victory. In fact, he was the only person left to help me move [our] evidence from the ballroom that night after the dust settled." Debate coaches and students spend a great deal of time together during the competition season, much of it at three day competitions, known as tournaments. Never content to direct countless tabulation rooms at other schools? tournaments and host the largest regular season tournament each year, Ross always worked tirelessly to make tournaments better. As the hosts of the ?Dixie? (now renamed as the ?Franklin Shirley?) college debate tournament, Ross was a driving force in improving the way that debate tournaments operate. Ross had as much influence as anyone in the last quarter-century in improving their operation. His willingness to take risks and experiment with new practices brought many of the innovations that today the debate community takes for granted. Everything from the basic time limits for each speech, the scale used to evaluate the way in individual debaters are judged, use of precise and accurate schedules, greater transparency in pre-tournament disclosure, and groundbreaking use of computer tabulation software were innovations developed at Wake Forest. He strove to provide great competition and legendary hospitality. It is not surprising that the annual Wake tournament was selected as the best tournament of the both the 1980s and 1990s. The humane and professionally managed tournament attracted the very best in college policy debate and is a positive memory for everyone who attended as a coach or competitor. Ross also influenced many more students by directing Wake?s summer debate institutes for high school students, organizing public debates and teaching Debate and Advocacy at Wake Forest. His high school summer workshop and early season national high school tournament provided high quality instruction and competitive experiences for thousands of high school students from across the nation. He also edited more than twenty volumes of the "Debater's Research Guide", the most widely respected annual guide to the policy literature and arguments surrounding each year's national high school debate topics. His service includes leadership at the national level of intercollegiate debate organizations. He served as the District IV representative to the National Debate Tournament for several terms and served on the national topic selection committee. Ross was a leading voice in making the merger of the NDT and CEDA communities possible, a tremendous step forward in the integration of our debate community. In just the last few months he played an active role in The National Development Conference on Debate, hosted at Wake Forest. He served as a member of the Best Practices Committee, a group that continued the spirit of his labors. He was a vocal and enthusiastic advocate at this forum, just as he had been his entire career. Ross saw debate as something that was not limited to just tournament competitions. He founded the Open Source Debate Foundation, which has as its mission the connection of the research and analytic capacities of the academic debate community and its graduates to the wider political and policy communities. He cofounded DebateScoop, a community blog devoted to coverage of campaign debates led by the nation?s leading debate and political communication scholars. He was active in local Democratic Party politics, including running for the Board of Education Forsyth County, NC, in 2006. He also taught regularly at the Ben Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Initiative, a U.S. Department of State-sponsored program that brought hundreds of high school students from around the world to Wake Forest for study of civic activism. In recognition of his exemplary service, he was named the 2009 recipient of the George Ziegelmueller Award. The award, named for the longtime coach at Wayne State University, is presented to a faculty member who has distinguished himself or herself in the communication profession while coaching teams to competitive success at the National Debate Tournament. Ziegelmueller?s son, Bill (?91), debated at Wake Forest. Al Louden, himself a recipient of the award in 2000, presented the award. "The Ziegelmueller award is the top award presented by the National Debate Tournament, which recognizes long-term career contributions to the national debate community, akin to a lifetime achievement award ? In Ross? case, his competitive success, coupled with being widely recognized as the leading innovator for debate practice in the country, contributed to his selection." The generational nature of academic debate lends to a sometimes fleeting institutional memory. Students and coaches pass through each year. Some influence others as a judge, others host competitions, and still fewer truly become mentors to the next generation of talented students. Ross not only thrived in each of these roles, he set a standard for others to follow. Bill Ziegelmueller?s college debate partner, Mark Grant (?93, ?95), expresses how Ross lives on in those he touched. Ross's passion, intelligence, wit, willingness to challenge contemporary thinking, and kindness won't be forgotten. Ross changed the world around him for the better, in ways varying from as personal as helping troubled students to as vast as improving the quality of debates in countless places and ways. Those of us still here already miss you terribly, but beneath that, are overwhelmed by how you positively touched our lives. Coach, teacher, boss, friend, I am deeply thankful for the time you had with us. Every person who has passed through debate in the last quarter-century has been influenced by Ross. Dallas Perkins, the Director of Debate at Harvard University described Ross as ?one of the most highly respected judges in history? and ?One of the greatest coaches in the history of academic debate in America has left us at a terribly young age.? At this truly sad moment we face the future and the change that will come. This will be all the more difficult because of how important Ross was in difficult times. When circumstances warranted change, Ross was not afraid to act decisively. Within weeks of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 Ross broke with traditional tournament format to provide opportunities for extended discussions of issues affecting the nation and world following the attacks during the Franklin Shirley tournament?s public debate-ins. The process of making this happen was challenging and it required motivating an entire community to adjust its practices. Appropriately, Ross voiced the challenge, "Look folks, there are thousands of people who WANT TO HEAR YOU. They are calling on you to debate in a way that answers their real need for something beyond the drumbeat of the media and the administration. Will you answer their call?" For the last twenty-five years Ross answered the call with a sense of joy and energy that inspired us all. We are better for having had the pleasure of knowing him. His pioneering contributions advanced our competition practices and our activity's pedagogy single him out as a true visionary who will be dearly missed. Today we begin the difficult task of moving forward, inspired by his legacy and answering that call. It will be very difficult to experience tournament competition without him. His influence, however, will last as long as we honor his memory. As the representatives of intercollegiate debate organizations, we recognize Ross K. Smith?s lifetime of service to our community and we express our most profound condolences to his wife Jayne, their son Alex, their entire family, Alan Louden, the entire Wake Forest debate family, and Wake Forest University. Brent Brossman, President ? American Debate Association Tim O?Donnell, Committee Chair ? National Debate Tournament Robert C. Rowland, Chair of the Board of Trustees, National Debate Tournament Gordon Stables, President ? Cross Examination Debate Association -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090722/e692afd3/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed Jul 22 22:01:09 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:01:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] arnold crushes fishy erlich on twitter revolution Message-ID: In his diplomatic career of nearly 30 years, Terrell E. Arnold served as an analyst in the State Office of Intelligence and Research, in five diplomatic postings including Consul General, Sao Paulo, Brazil, as a Senior Inspector who evaluated the operations of 24 US diplomatic missions, as Principal Deputy Director of the State Office of Counterterrorism and as Chairman of the Department of International Studies of the National War College. that's the source on the evidence below. it's not the foolish left making the argument caricatured by walter cronkite's close friend. it's scott ritter, former UN chief weapons inspector, who has been established the line of continuity between the bush administration and the obama administration regarding regime change in iran. fishy gerbil, no more confusion. you're stuck in a bad game where all you can do is react in defeat. the name of the state dep't conduit is "the alliance of youth movements". i wonder how your boss is going to tell you how to smear ritter. "crush, crush, crush 5-0," the words of david huggin. you've been a miserable opponent. http://www.rense.com/general86/irn.htm For Iranian leadership, the principal lessons learned from these elections may have been mostly about the players, the extent and nature of outside meddling, and the order of discontent within Iranian society. The diverse new tools of communications technologies-especially cell phones and videocams and the Internet's FaceBook, YouTube and Twitter-manifested themselves in this election more than in any other of record. What emerged in the situation were novel opportunities and maybe some novel cyber applications of electoral interference. Certainly FaceBook and Twitter were in constant use. An estimated third of Iranians had Internet access, so all one (Iranian or not) needed to get involved in the runup, the demonstrations and the post election protests was access to the Net and a laptop or other digital communication device. Chinese leadership has been sensitive for some time about this type of external communication and political interference or networking. It has not closed down the Internet, but restrictions on it are abundant, spying is constant, certain sites are or may be blocked, and China has a growing cadre of Internet police. In dealing with the June 12 elections and subsequent experiences, Iran officials are reported to have monitored emails, and they probably authorized broader cyber surveillance. There are practical reasons why that would commend itself to the hierarchy and to the serving government. In effect, the Internet proved to be a major vehicle for external meddling in Iranian affairs. Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter notes ( see: "The Iranian Elections and Energy Security" in Energy Intelligence, June 19, 2009) that the US State Department runs a program known as the "Alliance of Youth Movements" which uses FaceBook and other Internet avenues for "planning and implementing covert action against Iran" The Zionists, who view Iran as the next significant Middle Eastern challenge to exclusive Israeli regional power, have joined the US in conducting cyber warfare against Iran. The tools are tailor made for interfering in elections, but Ritter suggests the goal is and has been "regime change" in Iran. No thorough appraisal of the impact of the Internet on national political processes has yet been done, certainly not of such uses of cyber warfare. However, the June 12 Iran elections provide a good place to start, mainly because before this election the tools were neither so well developed nor so widely available. For several years moreover, Iran has been systematically targeted by both the United States and Israel for harassment, leadership change or absolute regime change. The tools of cyber interference appear to have been added to covert operations already being conducted along Iran's border with Iraq, an exposed Iranian flank that runs all the way from northern Kurdish territory to the Persian Gulf. The US also is reported to have worked with Iranian exiles, as well as dissident groups such as MEK and the Sunni Jundallah fighters in the Iran/Pakistan frontier region. Parties both in and outside Iran were busy on the Net during the elections and subsequent protests. A striking example of what is possible was an article on one website in which the author, an Iranian exile, suggested it was time to promote a general strike. That was necessary, as the writer saw it, to keep the revolution alive. The piece was not addressed to any specific audience. Had the idea been floated in a telephone message or an email to specific recipients in Iran, the recipients could have been in trouble, but lying loose on the internet, it was "found" policy. There is simply no way to know how widely this suggestion may have been read. Such are the types of cyber interference that could incite a Chinese scale of Net paranoia in Iran. Ritter refers to such cyber activity as Obama's "digital democracy gambit". However, it is evident that the programs of this gambit are not reserved exclusively for Iran. Moreover, if the United States can play such games, so can any other government or any individual or group with modest amounts of hacking skill, equipment and an urge to interfere. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Store, access, and share your photos. See how. http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090722/78e23301/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Jul 23 17:30:47 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:30:47 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] still--korean debate teaching opportunity Message-ID: JC Learning, who I and Matt Taylor are working with, is looking to hire as soon as possible. Give it some thought. JCLearning Job Description 1.Responsilities ? Create debate work books for students(We Provide basic Materials) ? Daily class planning ? Grades, attendance, deportment and other record keeping ? Grading and preparation of homework and exams ? Preparations of regular written student evaluations ? Attendance at faculty meetings, workshops, events 2. Qualifications ? 4-year degree from accredited university or college required; relevant degree perferred ? Experience as a Debater ? Experience coaching debate teams required ? Debate competition awards preferred 3. Requirements ? Be eligible for a work visa ? Be a native English speaker (First Language is English) ? No criminal record ? Be able to commit to a one year contract 4.Compensation. Employee shall receive a Base Salary for teaching approximately 30 hours per week, or in any event, no more than 120 hours of teaching per month at the Institute. Teaching hour in excess of 120 per month will be considered and compensated as Overtime. a.Base Salary. negotiable, min $28,000. (varied according to the teaching Experience) b.Overtime Pay negotiable c.Housing will be provided--a one room studio style apartment. 5 minute by Walk d.We offer visa and also air fee from US to South Korea, Pick up at Inchon Int'l Airport. 3.Hours. Employee shall be available for work from 1 to 10 including one hour break, Monday through Friday, and on Saturday when requested. Send your CV to Joshua Choi joshua at jclearn.com. ========================== JC Learning Co., Ltd. Joshua Choi joshua at jclearn.com ========================== jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090723/d4d04f81/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Fri Jul 24 16:12:46 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:12:46 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Diablo Valley College Message-ID: <5CFE2FA532A342E8872653B6704DFB67@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Diablo Valley College Swing Part 1 Starts:10/23/2009 Ends:10/24/2009 Hosted by: Diablo Valley College Contact: Becky Opsata Address: 321 Golf Club Rd. Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Phone: 818-357-8423 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Open Parli with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Novice Parli with 6 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 scottelliott at grandecom.net Fri Jul 24 16:37:08 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:37:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] U. Louisiana welcomes its new coaches. Message-ID: <20090724163708.15023pk45ohx36o4@webmail.grandecom.net> The University of Louisiana Debate Team is happy to announce to addition of two grduate assistant coaches for 2009-2010 season. Avery Henry (Ft. Hays/UCO) and Judson Eldredge (SIU) will be assisting the program this year. Scott Elliott From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Fri Jul 24 17:33:26 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:33:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] U. Louisiana welcomes its new coaches. In-Reply-To: <20090724163708.15023pk45ohx36o4@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <20090724163708.15023pk45ohx36o4@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: D3 is glad to have Avery remain as a coach/judge in the District and welcome to Judson, whose time off from debate did not diminish his skills as a critic. ULL should be excited, and frankly we expect even more exciting hospitality in the Bayou come February! chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of scottelliott at grandecom.net [scottelliott at grandecom.net] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 4:37 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] U. Louisiana welcomes its new coaches. The University of Louisiana Debate Team is happy to announce to addition of two grduate assistant coaches for 2009-2010 season. Avery Henry (Ft. Hays/UCO) and Judson Eldredge (SIU) will be assisting the program this year. Scott Elliott _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Fri Jul 24 19:20:33 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:20:33 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 100 pt scale--a numbers game Message-ID: The UNLV round robin and the invitational tournament will use the 100 point scale this year as well. 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/20090724/023469f5/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Jul 24 23:52:31 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:52:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs Message-ID: despite the freakout over his skepticism about obama's birth certificate, lou dobbs will remain @ CNN. i agree with what lou is saying on TV --- obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president according to the constitution. thank god soldiers are contesting the "commander-in-chief's" orders to go to afghanistan. BORN IN KENYA!!! http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnnobama25-2009jul25%2C0%2C3939176.story By Matea Gold July 25, 2009Reporting from New York -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story. But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. "He's got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as various stories evolve," Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a mix of news and opinion. RELATEDSTORY: CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead'STORY: Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth"Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that story as it comes," he added. That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, they reported. "It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote in the e-mail, first reported by the website TVNewser. "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef." On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story. _________________________________________________________________ NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. http://windowslive.com/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_MB_new_hotmail_072009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090724/fafe2cc2/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri Jul 24 23:54:36 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:54:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have been trying to stay out of this...but the person who replaced Lou "hates immigrants" Dobbs last week spent thirty minutes de-bunking the Obama birth certificate issue before Dobbs came back and ignored it. Josh On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Old Strega wrote: > despite the freakout over his skepticism about obama's birth certificate, > lou dobbs will remain @ CNN. i agree with what lou is saying on TV --- > obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president according to > the constitution. thank god soldiers are contesting the > "commander-in-chief's" orders to go to afghanistan. BORN IN KENYA!!! > > http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnnobama25-2009jul25%2C0%2C3939176.story > > By Matea Gold > July 25, 2009 > Reporting from New York -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of > "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the > legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has > avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story. > > But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that > Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not > produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has > spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty > of evidence to the contrary. > > "He's got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, > as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as > various stories evolve," Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a > mix of news and opinion. > > RELATED > > - [image: CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead'] > *STORY: * CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead' > - [image: Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth] > *STORY: * Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth > > "Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that > story as it comes," he added. > > That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail > Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that > Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, > Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter > certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, > they reported. > > "It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote in the e-mail, first > reported by the website TVNewser. > "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he > should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems > this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't > really have a legitimate beef." > > On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story. > > ------------------------------ > NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090724/2b815c73/attachment.htm From bobdoleable at gmail.com Sat Jul 25 01:55:30 2009 From: bobdoleable at gmail.com (Michael Tahmoressi) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:55:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.hulu.com/watch/85063/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-born-identity#s-p2-st-i1 On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Josh wrote: > I have been trying to stay out of this...but the person who replaced Lou > "hates immigrants" Dobbs last week spent thirty minutes de-bunking the Obama > birth certificate issue before Dobbs came back and ignored it. > > Josh > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Old Strega wrote: > >> despite the freakout over his skepticism about obama's birth certificate, >> lou dobbs will remain @ CNN. i agree with what lou is saying on TV --- >> obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president according to >> the constitution. thank god soldiers are contesting the >> "commander-in-chief's" orders to go to afghanistan. BORN IN KENYA!!! >> >> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnnobama25-2009jul25%2C0%2C3939176.story >> >> By Matea Gold >> July 25, 2009 >> Reporting from New York -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of >> "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the >> legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has >> avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story. >> >> But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that >> Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not >> produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has >> spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty >> of evidence to the contrary. >> >> "He's got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, >> as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as >> various stories evolve," Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a >> mix of news and opinion. >> >> RELATED >> >> - [image: CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead'] >> *STORY: * CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead' >> - [image: Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth] >> *STORY: * Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth >> >> "Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that >> story as it comes," he added. >> >> That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail >> Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that >> Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, >> Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter >> certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, >> they reported. >> >> "It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote in the >> e-mail, first reported by the website TVNewser. >> "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he >> should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems >> this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't >> really have a legitimate beef." >> >> On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story. >> >> ------------------------------ >> NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- m tahm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090725/c2a1d5f7/attachment.htm From bobdoleable at gmail.com Sat Jul 25 02:10:44 2009 From: bobdoleable at gmail.com (Michael Tahmoressi) Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:10:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: i dont know why we are talking about this on a space were constructive discussion about the academic debate world take place. when most "reasonable and i know this asking alot of sir hates alot," people have already realized its frivolous and unfounded. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Michael Tahmoressi wrote: > > http://www.hulu.com/watch/85063/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-born-identity#s-p2-st-i1 > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Josh wrote: > >> I have been trying to stay out of this...but the person who replaced Lou >> "hates immigrants" Dobbs last week spent thirty minutes de-bunking the Obama >> birth certificate issue before Dobbs came back and ignored it. >> >> Josh >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Old Strega wrote: >> >>> despite the freakout over his skepticism about obama's birth certificate, >>> lou dobbs will remain @ CNN. i agree with what lou is saying on TV --- >>> obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president according to >>> the constitution. thank god soldiers are contesting the >>> "commander-in-chief's" orders to go to afghanistan. BORN IN KENYA!!! >>> >>> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnnobama25-2009jul25%2C0%2C3939176.story >>> >>> By Matea Gold >>> July 25, 2009 >>> Reporting from New York -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of >>> "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the >>> legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has >>> avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story. >>> >>> But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that >>> Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not >>> produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has >>> spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty >>> of evidence to the contrary. >>> >>> "He's got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, >>> as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as >>> various stories evolve," Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a >>> mix of news and opinion. >>> >>> RELATED >>> >>> - [image: CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story >>> 'dead'] >>> *STORY: * CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead' >>> - [image: Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth] >>> *STORY: * Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth >>> >>> "Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that >>> story as it comes," he added. >>> >>> That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail >>> Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that >>> Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, >>> Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter >>> certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, >>> they reported. >>> >>> "It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote in the >>> e-mail, first reported by the website TVNewser. >>> "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he >>> should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems >>> this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't >>> really have a legitimate beef." >>> >>> On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story. >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > > -- > m tahm. > -- m tahm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090725/895daf31/attachment.htm From nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com Sun Jul 26 16:10:10 2009 From: nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com (nicholas brady) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:10:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Does the Debate community not care about limits anymore? Message-ID: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal. With two "and/or" phrases in the resolution, I honestly am wondering if the community has no regards for limits anymore. I never really cared about limits because there is absolutely no way to control what people do (evidence of this can be seen in the recent success of performative/untopical debate), but I never thought the community would actually vote down limits. Basically there are three seperate areas of this resolution (size, role, and mission) and you can choose anything within these three areas or any combination of the three. That is one wide-open topic! So I am asking the debate community, was this a conscious decision to say "fuck limits" or is this the unfortunate consequence of wanting to deal with the seperate issues at hand? Nicholas Brady Johns Hopkins class of 2011 Africana Studies and Philosophy Double-Major BSU Vice President Co-Founder of Sowing Roots Mentoring Program "I put on for my City" "My emancipation does not fit your equation" "The whole process which has brought about these race differentiations has been a growth, and the great characteristic of this growth has been the differentiation of spiritual and mental differences between great races of mankind and the integration of physical differences.? -Dubois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090726/7d459539/attachment.htm From leaderdb8 at hotmail.com Sun Jul 26 16:45:05 2009 From: leaderdb8 at hotmail.com (Paul Leader) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:45:05 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Does the Debate community not care about limits anymore? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: By community norm, it is my perspective that the concept of "limits" has become obsolete, with the increased popularity and acceptance of performative and critical affirmatives. I think I agree with your general sentiment--that this is probably unfortunate. During my brief three-year return to the activity, I judged a large number of debates where the affirmative "case," had nothing to do with the topic. And, unfortunately, all too often one never heard the word "topicality," from the negative--even more rare that a negative team would try to actually stick the aff. with that issue. So, I believe the new community "rule" is that you can talk about whatever you want to talk about, there is no normative standard or punitive sanction for the decision to simply ignore the resolution completely. Given that, why worry about "tight" wording for a topic anymore. As I read the resol., it requests that the aff. team include nuclear weapons in their discussion--that is about it. And given that probably half of all affirmatives won't even bother with that.....well such is the squo of modern college debate Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:10:10 -0400 From: nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Does the Debate community not care about limits anymore? Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal. With two "and/or" phrases in the resolution, I honestly am wondering if the community has no regards for limits anymore. I never really cared about limits because there is absolutely no way to control what people do (evidence of this can be seen in the recent success of performative/untopical debate), but I never thought the community would actually vote down limits. Basically there are three seperate areas of this resolution (size, role, and mission) and you can choose anything within these three areas or any combination of the three. That is one wide-open topic! So I am asking the debate community, was this a conscious decision to say "fuck limits" or is this the unfortunate consequence of wanting to deal with the seperate issues at hand? Nicholas Brady Johns Hopkins class of 2011 Africana Studies and Philosophy Double-Major BSU Vice President Co-Founder of Sowing Roots Mentoring Program "I put on for my City" "My emancipation does not fit your equation" "The whole process which has brought about these race differentiations has been a growth, and the great characteristic of this growth has been the differentiation of spiritual and mental differences between great races of mankind and the integration of physical differences.? -Dubois _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. Check it out. http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090726/b3043aef/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Sun Jul 26 19:59:08 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:59:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Does the Debate community not care about limits anymore? Message-ID: <20090726195908.17624ss86ekdg5b0@webmail.grandecom.net> The problem can pinpointed to the Topic Committee. I do not know, nor do i try to understand, how they do it...but every year, seemingly intelligent people get together for three days to see just how badly they can screw up a basic concept. I still think it is some kind of traumatic stress disorder related to the immediately preceding NDT outrounds. THe Topic Committee seems obsessed with preventing a suprise case occurring at the NDT......even though it is inevitable. I really would like for the Topic Committee to come up with a list of topics...then take a freaking break. I think that if they took a week off, and contemplated the montrosities that occur as a result of groupthink, they would rewrite the topics prior to submission to the general debate community. Let's face it, a resolution with "and/or," "and" AND ANOTHER "and/or" is a monstrosity that even Dr. Frakenstein would consider an abomination. Scott Elliott From kkuswa at richmond.edu Sun Jul 26 22:05:10 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:05:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Does the Debate community not care about limits anymore? In-Reply-To: <20090726195908.17624ss86ekdg5b0@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <20090726195908.17624ss86ekdg5b0@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F01DF562207@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> hi Scott, congrats on your new coaches. looks like you are doing some good building. you all should come up to the richmond tournament--8 prelims--pretty cheap tickets. so, keep in mind, at least the second half of the three-headed hydra says "reduce and restrict." it could easily have said "reduce and/or restrict." next year it might be possible to have three and/ors or a neither/nor. seriously, a lot of what you say below is accurate, although the community (fewer than 75 teams voted) could have selected #1 if the "and/ors" were that bad. a lot of us do not like "and/or"--in fact some of us even hate it--but there is also a need to compromise at certain points in the process and that gets reflected in the wordings. the rest is pretty much described on the "live topic blogs." the topic could be worse, it could be a lot longer, it could have diverted from the basic controversy paper, and the choices for the community could have been slight variations on the same construction like they have been in the past. i will say that stables is a very good leader of this tough process and it is true that the topic committee people work really hard to put together the best wordings possible. i think we lose stahl and galloway and they were both great. i'm sure good folks will replace them--you should try running or find a way to get on--it's not like people want to spend their off season writing random topicality papers so it is often just a matter of volunteering in your region. for me, i enjoy the grammar aspect, making the and/or even harder to stomache--but i still think it worked out ok. anyway, good luck with your team. no matter what happens, i bet about half the affs and negs will win this year despite the topic wording. ;) kevin ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of scottelliott at grandecom.net [scottelliott at grandecom.net] Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:59 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Does the Debate community not care about limits anymore? The problem can pinpointed to the Topic Committee. I do not know, nor do i try to understand, how they do it...but every year, seemingly intelligent people get together for three days to see just how badly they can screw up a basic concept. I still think it is some kind of traumatic stress disorder related to the immediately preceding NDT outrounds. THe Topic Committee seems obsessed with preventing a suprise case occurring at the NDT......even though it is inevitable. I really would like for the Topic Committee to come up with a list of topics...then take a freaking break. I think that if they took a week off, and contemplated the montrosities that occur as a result of groupthink, they would rewrite the topics prior to submission to the general debate community. Let's face it, a resolution with "and/or," "and" AND ANOTHER "and/or" is a monstrosity that even Dr. Frakenstein would consider an abomination. Scott Elliott _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From davismk13 at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 10:26:38 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:26:38 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Job Opening: JMU for Fall 2009 Message-ID: <9a7f6f740907270826w377197dble160c61acc754ed0@mail.gmail.com> Not a debate job, but we have an opening and I can put in a good word for anyone who might be interested. It is listed as one year position, but many one years stay longer (RJ had this job for the two years before he became the assistant director). If you have questions please let me know. General Info: The James Madison University School of Communication Studies invites applications for a 1 year position at the rank of Lecturer. This position is a 1 year contract. More information about JMU and the School of Communication Studies can be found at www.jmu.edu Duties and Responsibilities: The School of Communication Studies at James Madison University invites applications for a 1-year position at the rank of Lecturer, beginning August 2009. The position involves teaching a course load of 4 or 5 courses per semester, and opportunities to contribute to service activities in the department. The teaching responsibilities exist in the Fundamental Human Communication courses in the General Education Program. Master's degree in communication is required at the time of appointment. Experience preferred. Salary is competitive. Applicants should initiate the application process by accessing https://Joblink.jmu.edu. Applicants should also submit a letter of application, curriculum vitae, official transcripts, evidence of teaching excellence, and three letters of reference to Dr. Tim Ball, School of Communication Studies, MSC 2106, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807. Review of applications will begin July 30, 2009 and continue until the position is filled. James Madison University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity, Equal Access employer and especially encourages applications from minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. We seek candidates who will contribute to a climate of diversity in which students and faculty facilitate constructive dialogue in the classroom and community to inspire responsible citizenship in a diverse world. Qualifications: Master's degree in communication or an equivalent is required at the time of appointment. Experience preferred. Pay Rate: Commensurate w/ experience Special Instructions: In addition to electronically attaching the faculty application, please mail the following documents: - cover letter - curriculum vitae - three letters of recommendation - official transcripts - evidence of teaching excellence Send To: Dr. Tim Ball, Search Committee Chair James Madison University School of Communication Studies MSC 2106 Harrisonburg, VA 22807 Application Information Contact: Human Resources James Madison University Online App. Form: https://joblink.jmu.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=56020&jtsrc=www.higher edjobs.com&jtrfr=www.peopleadmin.com&adorig=PA -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Jul 27 11:54:17 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:54:17 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Kentucky Message-ID: Name:Henry Clay Debates Starts:10/3/2009 Ends:10/5/2009 Hosted by: Kentucky Contact: Roger Solt Address: 225 Funkhouser, Lexington, KY 40506-0054 Phone: 859-221-1192 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: 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 resolt2 at email.uky.edu Mon Jul 27 13:00:05 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:00:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Invitation to 2009 Henry Clay Debates Message-ID: Attached is a copy of the invitation to the 2009 Henry Clay debates. They will be held at the University of Kentucky on October 3-5. Roger Solt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090727/464d653b/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2009 Henry Clay Invitation Type: application/octet-stream Size: 41472 bytes Desc: 2009 Henry Clay Invitation Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090727/464d653b/attachment.obj From eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com Mon Jul 27 14:07:55 2009 From: eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com (Judson Eldredge) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:07:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Old Strega, I have been reading your plentiful posts all summer, and trying to maintain respect for them and you, but you?re basically making that impossible. I can see no reason why you would post to edebate that "Obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president". You seem to have at least some of the critical thinking and research skills that debate instills, so why would you post a statement like this that any high school student with 1/2 a brain and an internet connection could debunk in minutes? Have you even read anything about this or are you just cut and paste happy? As for the soldier (Major Stefan Fredrick Cook) "contesting the commander and chief's orders", as you put it. You realize he didn't get called back to active duty or ordered to do anything he didn't want to do. He freaking' volunteered for the duty (and I don't mean in the general sense that every soldier is a volunteer). I mean he specifically requested it. He could have simply told them he didn't want to go up until the very day of his deployment. He (and Orly Taitz, his "lawyer" who can?t even get admitted to the ABA) manufactured this to gain standing to once again file a frivolous claim about a matter that has already been adjudicated. As for the complaint (application for injunction) itself. It is a joke, literally. Have you even read it? Please do, Orly Taitz esquire's interpretation of the UCMJ is complete fiction. Not to mention it is TOTALLY 100% devoid of any evidence, or even any claims that any evidence exists. As for previous adjudications of this matter, like the Philip Berg pre-election lawsuit, have you read any of that masterful legal pleading? At least they argued there was SOME evidence. Of course the big evidence in that federal filing was that the English language version of wikipedia listed a different birth hospital for Obama than the Italian language version of Wikipedia. Now that is damning evidence indeed! As for the truth of the matter, why don't you think it?s good enough that Obama satisfy the same criteria that EVERY OTHER American citizen born in Hawaii has to meet? He has produced the same Hawaiian certificate of live birth that everyone else does. It has been found to be genuine and virtually every public official in the state of Hawaii that has connection to this has stated on the record that it is legit. Not a single one disputes it. None! You realize that the birth was even announced in local papers at the time of his birth right? Seriously, just how deep and far back do you think this conspiracy goes? To me it looks like your way past Manchurian Candidate territory and getting pretty deep into the tin foil hat/straightjacket zone. If you think President's need higher standards than other American's to prove their place of birth, then get the standard changed before the next election, but you won't need to spread any false rumors about Obama to do it. Getting the standard changed would just be a policy debate. That?s what we do here remember? We debate policy here not fringe conspiracy theories that you believe are true on nothing more than faith. I'm not trying to censor you, post what you want, but at least 1/2 a second of forethought before posting would probably do worlds of good for digging your credibility back out of the dirt. Please apply the intelligence that you obviously have to critically analyzing your posts before you hit send. If you do that, and you still think it?s worth saying, try to say it yourself instead of cutting and pasting someone else's stuff. You realize this is a community of skilled researcher?s right? You don?t think we know where WorldNet Daily is if we want to go there? Sorry if that was too harsh, but if you take it to heart maybe your advocacy might actually lead people to change something besides their spam filter settings. Jud P.S. Lou "mainstream" Dobbs is a "great American". Glenn Beck is too, and if you buy his new book (and a copy for a friend) you can save the country. Plus, Bill O'Reilly and Shawn Hannity; they are "great Americans" too; don?t forget to buy their books as well. I just love it when they all go on Hannity together and call each other "great Americans". They said it almost as many times as they reminded us to buy their books. It?s just like one big orgy of patriotic/consumer synergy. Sorry, I meant to say "mainstream patriotism". That?s the best kind you know, especially if you?re selling books. Thanks goodness these dedicated ethical ?mainstream? journalists are out there keeping the Obama birth story alive, when it is ignored by the bias liberal drive-by media. They truly are ?great Americans?. Oh and don?t forget to buy those books! P.P.S. If you can't stay off the consipracy train. Go for Bilderberg or at least something halfway interesting that a gradeschooler couldn't debunk. This birther junk is just dumb and boring. Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:10:44 -0500 From: bobdoleable at gmail.com To: jbhdb8 at gmail.com CC: edebate at ndtceda.com; jvreedmore at hotmail.com; oldstrega at hotmail.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs i dont know why we are talking about this on a space were constructive discussion about the academic debate world take place. when most "reasonable and i know this asking alot of sir hates alot," people have already realized its frivolous and unfounded. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Michael Tahmoressi wrote: http://www.hulu.com/watch/85063/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-born-identity#s-p2-st-i1 On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Josh wrote: I have been trying to stay out of this...but the person who replaced Lou "hates immigrants" Dobbs last week spent thirty minutes de-bunking the Obama birth certificate issue before Dobbs came back and ignored it. Josh On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Old Strega wrote: despite the freakout over his skepticism about obama's birth certificate, lou dobbs will remain @ CNN. i agree with what lou is saying on TV --- obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president according to the constitution. thank god soldiers are contesting the "commander-in-chief's" orders to go to afghanistan. BORN IN KENYA!!! http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnnobama25-2009jul25%2C0%2C3939176.story By Matea Gold July 25, 2009 Reporting from New York -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story. But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. "He's got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as various stories evolve," Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a mix of news and opinion. RELATED STORY: CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead' STORY: Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth "Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that story as it comes," he added. That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, they reported. "It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote in the e-mail, first reported by the website TVNewser. "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef." On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story. NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -- m tahm. -- m tahm. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. Check it out. http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090727/d721a270/attachment.htm From eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com Mon Jul 27 16:06:56 2009 From: eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com (Judson Eldredge) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:06:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] FW: birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: OK, just one more thing and then I'll stop beating this dead horse. That you would refer to Obama as "an illegal" is just further evidence to me that you put almost zero thought into the meaningless little op/ed snippets you put above your cut and paste posts. Look, even the tinfoil hat crowd that thinks he was born in Kenya doesn't go that far. He is clearly a LEGAL US citizen, everyone admits that is true even if he was born in Kenya (which he wasn't). The ONLY question is whether he meets the Article 2 "natural born" requirement. The requirement at the time of his birth is that only one parent was a US citizen residing in the US for ten years before the child?s birth (5 of which after the age of 14). His mother clearly meets this standard. Making the claim that he is "an illegal" absolutely fictitious. The only possible argument you MIGHT have (if you misunderstood the facts and the law) would be based on some paperwork filled out by his father in Indonesia which MIGHT be construed as evidence of dual citizenship. In any case, this still would not make Obama anything other than a legal citizen of the US, not "an illegal". Jud From: eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:07:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs Old Strega, I have been reading your plentiful posts all summer, and trying to maintain respect for them and you, but you?re basically making that impossible. I can see no reason why you would post to edebate that "Obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president". You seem to have at least some of the critical thinking and research skills that debate instills, so why would you post a statement like this that any high school student with 1/2 a brain and an internet connection could debunk in minutes? Have you even read anything about this or are you just cut and paste happy? As for the soldier (Major Stefan Fredrick Cook) "contesting the commander and chief's orders", as you put it. You realize he didn't get called back to active duty or ordered to do anything he didn't want to do. He freaking' volunteered for the duty (and I don't mean in the general sense that every soldier is a volunteer). I mean he specifically requested it. He could have simply told them he didn't want to go up until the very day of his deployment. He (and Orly Taitz, his "lawyer" who can?t even get admitted to the ABA) manufactured this to gain standing to once again file a frivolous claim about a matter that has already been adjudicated. As for the complaint (application for injunction) itself. It is a joke, literally. Have you even read it? Please do, Orly Taitz esquire's interpretation of the UCMJ is complete fiction. Not to mention it is TOTALLY 100% devoid of any evidence, or even any claims that any evidence exists. As for previous adjudications of this matter, like the Philip Berg pre-election lawsuit, have you read any of that masterful legal pleading? At least they argued there was SOME evidence. Of course the big evidence in that federal filing was that the English language version of wikipedia listed a different birth hospital for Obama than the Italian language version of Wikipedia. Now that is damning evidence indeed! As for the truth of the matter, why don't you think it?s good enough that Obama satisfy the same criteria that EVERY OTHER American citizen born in Hawaii has to meet? He has produced the same Hawaiian certificate of live birth that everyone else does. It has been found to be genuine and virtually every public official in the state of Hawaii that has connection to this has stated on the record that it is legit. Not a single one disputes it. None! You realize that the birth was even announced in local papers at the time of his birth right? Seriously, just how deep and far back do you think this conspiracy goes? To me it looks like your way past Manchurian Candidate territory and getting pretty deep into the tin foil hat/straightjacket zone. If you think President's need higher standards than other American's to prove their place of birth, then get the standard changed before the next election, but you won't need to spread any false rumors about Obama to do it. Getting the standard changed would just be a policy debate. That?s what we do here remember? We debate policy here not fringe conspiracy theories that you believe are true on nothing more than faith. I'm not trying to censor you, post what you want, but at least 1/2 a second of forethought before posting would probably do worlds of good for digging your credibility back out of the dirt. Please apply the intelligence that you obviously have to critically analyzing your posts before you hit send. If you do that, and you still think it?s worth saying, try to say it yourself instead of cutting and pasting someone else's stuff. You realize this is a community of skilled researcher?s right? You don?t think we know where WorldNet Daily is if we want to go there? Sorry if that was too harsh, but if you take it to heart maybe your advocacy might actually lead people to change something besides their spam filter settings. Jud P.S. Lou "mainstream" Dobbs is a "great American". Glenn Beck is too, and if you buy his new book (and a copy for a friend) you can save the country. Plus, Bill O'Reilly and Shawn Hannity; they are "great Americans" too; don?t forget to buy their books as well. I just love it when they all go on Hannity together and call each other "great Americans". They said it almost as many times as they reminded us to buy their books. It?s just like one big orgy of patriotic/consumer synergy. Sorry, I meant to say "mainstream patriotism". That?s the best kind you know, especially if you?re selling books. Thanks goodness these dedicated ethical ?mainstream? journalists are out there keeping the Obama birth story alive, when it is ignored by the bias liberal drive-by media. They truly are ?great Americans?. Oh and don?t forget to buy those books! P.P.S. If you can't stay off the consipracy train. Go for Bilderberg or at least something halfway interesting that a gradeschooler couldn't debunk. This birther junk is just dumb and boring. Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:10:44 -0500 From: bobdoleable at gmail.com To: jbhdb8 at gmail.com CC: edebate at ndtceda.com; jvreedmore at hotmail.com; oldstrega at hotmail.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs i dont know why we are talking about this on a space were constructive discussion about the academic debate world take place. when most "reasonable and i know this asking alot of sir hates alot," people have already realized its frivolous and unfounded. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Michael Tahmoressi wrote: http://www.hulu.com/watch/85063/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-the-born-identity#s-p2-st-i1 On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Josh wrote: I have been trying to stay out of this...but the person who replaced Lou "hates immigrants" Dobbs last week spent thirty minutes de-bunking the Obama birth certificate issue before Dobbs came back and ignored it. Josh On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Old Strega wrote: despite the freakout over his skepticism about obama's birth certificate, lou dobbs will remain @ CNN. i agree with what lou is saying on TV --- obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president according to the constitution. thank god soldiers are contesting the "commander-in-chief's" orders to go to afghanistan. BORN IN KENYA!!! http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnnobama25-2009jul25%2C0%2C3939176.story By Matea Gold July 25, 2009 Reporting from New York -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story. But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. "He's got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as various stories evolve," Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a mix of news and opinion. RELATED STORY: CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead' STORY: Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth "Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that story as it comes," he added. That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, they reported. "It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote in the e-mail, first reported by the website TVNewser. "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef." On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story. NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -- m tahm. -- m tahm. Windows Live? Hotmail?: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. Check it out. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Search, add, and share the web?s latest sports videos. Check it out. http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090727/6767201a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00000 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090727/6767201a/attachment.txt From sethegannon at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 19:11:07 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:11:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] College Debate Coaches' Poll 2009-2010 Message-ID: <4bfbc1090907271711q22fb16fcyf919df0599a0d2c5@mail.gmail.com> After seeking input here and elsewhere and receiving an almost uniformly positive response, I have decided to operate a coaches? poll next year to rank the country?s top 25 debate teams on roughly a monthly basis. The coaching staff of ANY active college debate program is encouraged to vote, at one ballot per school. More information follows; please feel free to send along any questions or suggestions. Instructions and points of interest: - There will be six polls, all after the season?s start and before its end. For each, votes will be due on a Saturday--September 26th, October 10th, November 7th, December 5th, January 16th, and a date in late February or early March to be named later. - To vote, answer the question ?Who are currently the twenty-five best partnerships in the country in rank order?? and e-mail your list to sethegannon at gmail.com. - The 1st team on each ballot receives 25 points; the 2nd receives 24 points; etc., until the 25th team receives 1 point. You must select one and only one team for each of the 25 spots. - Your rankings will be private: Only I will ever see them. However, I may publish an alphabetical list of voters with each poll. - I will accept only one ballot per school, submitted by a coach. - You are welcome to rank your own teams for the sake of accuracy, but they will not receive points for your ballot. Please mark any team you cannot judge with an asterisk; judging constraints are coaches? poll constraints. - Each team?s total score will be divided by the number of voters eligible to rank it, so that no school is disadvantaged by voting. - It should be generally understood that no school or college debate organization is undertaking this poll and that voters are not expected to invest nearly the time or labor of a voter for NDT at large bids. I hope everyone is doing well. Thanks, seth From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Mon Jul 27 19:56:10 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:56:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the duty to interfere Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-July/079218.html _ re-engaging because the subject of iran broaches some crucial issues regarding the role of the internet in national elections and the role of national sovereignty in resistances to u.s. imperialism. first note that stroube's own source - terrell arnold - admits that "no thorough appraisal of the impact of the internet on [Iranian] national political processes has yet been done". i think it's fair to say, therefore, that his essay doesn't count as a "thorough appraisal", and so fails to trigger david huggin declarations ("crush, crush, crush 5-0"). this piece of 'evidence' wins stroube the following claims: iran has policed internet websites and might consider doing so in the future in a manner akin to china; the u.s. state department runs a facebook group which goes by the name 'alliance of youth movements' that might support 'covert action against iran'; israel and the u.s. are dedicated to 'regime change' in iran. ...so where exactly is the breaking news here? the anti-climatic nature of this 'evidence' is best indicated by what it refers to as "a striking example": an iranian exile wrote an article on a website that advocated a general strike, and we don't know how widely it was read. ...woah, stop the presses! someone who was exiled from a country used the internets to call for protests against that country's government?!?! -- striking indeed. none of this compares to the interference we already know about which has been reported in the mainstream press - the state department asking twitter to refrain from closing down for routine maintenance on a key day when iranians were organizing protests using the site. in fact, the same state department official is behind both that request and the 'alliance of youth movements'. his name is jared cohen. for the record, he claims his organization is entirely peaceful, describing its mission as follows: "Wherever civil society organizations exist or individuals have causes that promote non-violent youth causes, we want them to have the knowledge and information on how to develop an online component to what they are trying to achieve." http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2008/December/20081202145553xjsnommis0.2335169.html {he's also written a book of some repute: http://books.google.com/books?id=ibINlBuSdF4C} i was unable to track down scott ritter's piece in 'energy intelligence' that supposedly counters cohen's mission statement. specifically, i'd like to know how ritter's quoted characterization of this group as "planning and implementing covert action against iran" is backed up. if stroube has this article, i kindly request he (or anyone else) forward it to the list to better focus our discussion. "The Iranian Elections and Energy Security" in Energy Intelligence, June 19, 2009. it's true, as arnold points out, that "Iran has been systematically targeted by both the United States and Israel for harassment, leadership change, or absolute regime change". i'll further agree there's strong evidence to suggest that "covert operations" have "already been conducted along Iran's border with Iraq" and that "dissident groups such as MEK and the Sunni Jundallah fighters" have been surreptitiously assisted. let's make an initial distinction between propaganda and force. both are forms of 'meddling', it's true. but dropping tons of anti-hitler flyers on germany is what we'll call propaganda, and dropping tons of bombs on dresden is what we'll call force. funding a 'pro-democracy' group to write editorials in chilean newspapers - propaganda; backing a coup d'etat of salvador allende's government - force. one key difference between the two is that the former still gives the people some choice, ill-informed though it may be, while the latter offers the people little choice at all. drawing this line is necessary because the same tone of opposition shouldn't cover both types of interference. yet terms such as "cyber assault" gloss over this. needless to say, stroube also lacks this nuance. on the iranian election specifically, arnold notes that the supreme council's investigation (and partial recount) wasn't a good faith concession made to correct discrepancies (as stroube has repeatedly claimed), but was meant to postpone the process in order to wait out the green revolution, "long enough for the pot to cool" to borrow arnold's metaphor. arnold runs together "fraudulent" and "stolen" in describing what stroube calls 'the stolen election hoax', but these are very different adjectives. as arnold admits, we *know* the election was fraudulent - "any Iranian election is already rigged" he concedes. we don't know that the election was stolen, but we do know that there were significant irregularities. the struggle continues over resolving these: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSHAF74430920090727 i feel compelled to point out some unvarnished aspects of arnold's political analysis. he asks: "Without ignoring the obvious tensions that exist in Iranian society, a leading question is was there actually a 'green' revolution in Iran, or was it a dispute between rival power clusters in the hierarchy, with the 'revolution' mostly invented and promoted from the outside?" this may rely on the faulty premise that we can tell 'real revolutions' from mere power struggles, but can't all revolutionary movements be reduced to "disputes between rival power clusters"? we could take the american revolution as a paradigm case (see charles beard's 'an economic interpretation of the constitution of the united states'). i mean, did assistance from france make the american revolution any less authentic? arnold writes, "it actually did not matter to the meddlers where the Iranian public stood on these issues", but he assumes that the iranian public is a static entity instead of a diverse group of people who can make up their own minds upon being presented with conflicting information. he says "complex external motives were involved", but when is this not the case in every political situation ever? (for a hard-headed analysis of this, see ernesto laclau's 'on populist reason', and/or: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-November/076809.html.) the rosy rhetoric of uncorrupted democratic elections aside, most of us know that our leaders aren't transparent reflections of the popular will. sometimes, however - just sometimes - the people can write the scripts that their leaders will read from. mousavi would've had to have been more responsive to the mass movement which coalesced after the alleged electoral theft, yet arnold fails to consider this counter-factual. http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/mousavis_altered_meaning.php i also disagree with the branding of mousavi and his supporters as "basically secular". if their goal was to "reduce, if not eliminate altogether, the Islamic overtones of Iranian governance", why was their slogan a return to '79? but the key question begged by arnold's article is why 'cyber interference' is shocking when seen in the context of u.s. support for violent opposition forces which have killed innocent iranians. we might be willing to concede arnold's claim that the u.s. is "a political abuser" of "the integrity of the Internet" - but isn't it more important that it's an abuser of *territorial* integrity and of international norms? popularizing some website that's 'pro-democracy' is not force - it doesn't even necessarily qualify as disinformation. funding militias, however, as the bush administration was evidently doing, *is* force. and we (world-citizens) have a right to know whether the obama administration is continuing those operations. given the history, we are justified in assuming the worst of any silence, but given the stakes, why get bent out of shape over 'pro-democracy' propaganda? so let's make another basic distinction: *within* propaganda, there's a difference between what's disinformation and what isn't. dropping flyers on nazi germany that read 'hitler is a jew' - that's disinfo; dropping flyers that read 'hitler is wrecking your country' - that's not. likewise, calling people and implying that john mccain has an illegitimate black child - disinfo; calling people and implying that mccain has a crappy economic policy - not. somehow this distinction also gets glossed over. case-in -point: how does an iranian exile expressing an opinion on a website 'interfere' with the integrity of iranian elections? does *any* political advocacy that occurs outside a nation's borders qualify as 'interference'? where are the smoking guns, jack? where are the reports of israelis posing as domestic iranians, of orchestrated hacks on ahmadinejad's camp's websites, of actual *illegal* shit? after all, publishing a blog doesn't require much "hacking skill", and simply being "busy on the net" surely doesn't necessarily constitute a 'corruption' of the process. bottom-line, in stroube-and-arnold's account, i'm left with insufficient means to define 'interference' and distinguish it from mere influence. i claim this weakens the effectiveness of their critique. we can't oppose "cyber warfare against Iran" without knowing what it even means. of course the governments of iran and china consider it illegal for the u.s. state department to support groups that oppose them: are we to endorse *their* definition of criminal behavior? these states don't appear to believe *their own citizens* should be allowed to protest in public. if disinformation campaigns work against regimes like these, one of the main reasons is because there's widespread distrust of their state-run media. so an exiled iranian might be able to offer a dissenting viewpoint which might land an in-country iranian in prison or worse. stroube and arnold risk falling into apologism here. arnold speaks of iran's authorization of broader cyber surveillance as a "practical" response to "external meddling". although arnold cites "Net paranoia" as a danger, he also writes approvingly of "authorities who may honestly seek to preserve the integrity of their electoral processes". he even deploys a bio-political rhetoric to justify these regulations, writing of the need to keep the internet "clean" and non-"cancerous". it's my position that we shouldn't condone china-style spying and censorship, nor should we make excuses for 'cyber cleansing' of any kind. in opposition to the blocking of websites, the monitoring of emails, and the "growing cadre of Internet police", us communist should mount an unqualified defense of "open transborder communication". (here i find unlikely allies in michael hardt and toni negri - two scholars with whom i often disagree.) we ought to rejoice in the fact that "even the most repressive societies now have limited control at best over what information is available to people". yes, this harbingers new dangers, but thankfully it leaves some tired methods of state control in the dust. arnold writes that "the United States ... is undoubtedly making every effort to prevent such [cyber] interference in internal US affairs", but since he doesn't give us any examples, he repeats the ambiguity between influence and interference. of course the u.s. military and intelligence services have extensive anti-'cyberterrorism' components, but i'm guessing that if some website called 'persians for ron paul' popped up, the u.s. wouldn't bother censoring it, even if the checks funding it were cut in iran. related to this, notice how these two claims of arnold's appear to contradict: (1) "In the environment of the Internet national boundaries are not effective, either at stopping or limiting information flows". (2) "Iranian national sovereignty was the immediate victim of the cyber assault". well, if national boundaries aren't effective, then what's the sense of respecting them? taken to its logical conclusion, iranian national sovereignty seems to be a victim not so much of u.s. foreign policy as the internet age itself. if arnold's "informational flat earth" obtains, talk of "the integrity of the Internet" seems to me like saying info-mercials damage 'the integrity of Television' - i.e., it's what debaters call 'non-unique'. i don't believe we need to take seriously the choice of whether to respect iran's sovereignty or to risk supporting american imperialism, for the simple reason that we can actively *disrespect* their sovereignty and still oppose the empire. this carves out an internationalist, anti-nationalistic terrain that the left should stake as its own. to permit conservatives like john mccain or hillary clinton to garner exclusive rights on praising the bravery of iranian protesters cedes too much ground to the enemy. and the regimes in china and iran deserve zero sympathy from us; these are countries that don't allow even *the semblance* of a free press. and this much i know: someone on twitter in tel aviv can't march on the streets of tehran. what all of us with non-ideologically-blinded eyes saw were the largest protests in iran in thirty years. those people weren't a youtube hoax or some u.s.-sponsored cyber hallucination. neither were those who died at the hands of the basij. that's my position and i'm sticking to it, until stroube gives us something solid. in short, he's still on the wrong side of this one. his guy arnold writes, "...the opposition demonstrations, as shown on western TV, have included rock throwing, window and storefront breakage, and trashcan burning. That may indeed make better TV imagery, but such destructive protest activities are suppressed in virtually every country including the United States." ...and i'm usually on the side of the protesters in those cases too. throwing a rock doesn't justify being shot dead (see relevant precedent here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings). i can't speak to the question of whether ordinary iranians would be better off if the demonstrations hadn't happened. i do know the threat of "greater conservatism" is a risk inherent in most revolutionary action and seldom counts as a strong reason for passivity. much was made in this discussion of foucault's reporting from iran in the late 70s, but perhaps a better analogy to this situation would be his activism surrounding poland in the early 80s... here's an excerpt from chapter 17 of david macey's biography of foucault entitled 'the great, stubborn light of polish freedom': On 13 December 1981, General Woiciech Jaruzelski, who had been appointed prime minister of Poland in February, declared a 'state of war' and imposed martial law... Early next morning, Foucault was telephoned by Pierre Bourdieu. The two men were not close, even though they had known each other for almost thirty years, and Bourdieu was not normally one to take an active political stance. It seemed to him that Foucault was the obvious person to turn to in an attempt to protest against developments in Poland. The result of the phone call was a text - drafted in Foucault's apartment by Bourdieu and Foucault - entitled 'Les Rendez-vous manques'... The text reads as follows: ...By asserting in the face of all truth and all morality that the situation in Poland is a matter for Poles alone, are not the French Socialist leaders giving more importance to their alliances at home than to the assistance that is due any nation in danger? ...We remind the government that it promised that the obligations of international morality would prevail over Realpolitik. ...The Foucault-Bourdieu text was also denounced by Jack Lang, the minister of culture, a week later. ... He... accussed Glucksmann, Foucault and Montand of 'bawling without thinking'. -- reminiscent of jack stroube's accusation of 'mawkishness', no? obviously we can't compare the imposition of martial law with the quelling of protests, or wojciech jaruzelski with mahmoud ahmadinejad, but we can isolate a principle that foucault delineated in an interview from the same period (re-published in the foucault reader, page 377), Let's take an example that touches us all, that of Poland. If we raise the question of Poland in strictly political terms, it's clear that we quickly reach the point of saying that there's nothing we can do. We can't dispatch a team of paratroopers, and we can't send armored cars to liberate Warsaw. I think that, politically, we have to recognize this, but I think we also agree that, for ethical reasons, we have to raise the problem of Poland in the form of a nonacceptance of what is happening there, and a nonacceptance of the passivity of our own governments. I think this attitude is an ethical one, but it is also political; it does not consist in saying merely, 'I protest,' but in making of that attitude a political phenomenon that is as substantial as possible, and one which those who govern, here or there, will sooner or later be obliged to take into account. even clearer was foucault's statement before the international congress at the united nations in geneva from july 1981: 1. There is such a thing as an international citizenship which has its rights, which has its duties and which implies a commitment to rise up against any abuse of power, whoever its author, whoever the victims. After all, we are all governed and, by that token, our fates are bound up together. 2. Because they claim to look after the happiness of societies, governments arrogate to themselves the right to draw up profit-and-loss accounts for the human misery which their decisions provoke, or which their negligence causes. One of the duties of international citizenship is to reveal human misery to the eyes and ears of government, as it is not true that they are not responsible for it. Human misery must never be the silent residue of politics. It founds an absolute right to rise up and to address those who hold power. 3. We must reject the division of labour we are so often offered: it is up to individuals to think and to act . . . Amnesty Intenational, Terre des Hommes and Medecins du Monde are the initiatives which have created this new right: the right of private individuals to intervene effectively in the order of international policies and strategies. The will of individuals must be inscribed in a reality over which governments wish to have a monopoly, a monopoly which we must wrest away from them, gradually and day by day. _ _________________________________________________________________ Bing? brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MLOGEN_Local_Local_Restaurants_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090727/b827fc06/attachment.htm From sac36967 at saclink.csus.edu Tue Jul 28 10:39:30 2009 From: sac36967 at saclink.csus.edu (Tudor, Kristen H) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:39:30 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] alumni newsletters Message-ID: <33DF852C3535A3409897ACAA0EE6DE913F287CBD9B@VSL3.saclink.csus.edu> I am preparing to send out an alumni newsletter for our program - something we have not done in the past. Since this is a first, I'm interested in taking a look at other alumni newsletters to get ideas for layout and types of info to include. Or, if you'd just be willing to share ideas you've had or used in the past, that'd be great. The major goal is, of course, fundraising, though I don't expect to generate any large donations from this first mailing. I'm hoping to just get our network of alumni reconnected to the program to start. I have a few ideas, but figure many of you have done this a bunch, so I'm hoping to use you as a resource for ideas and inspiration. I'm doing this one as an actual snail-mailing since my alumni database is mostly home addresses, but I do hope to move this to an e-newsletter in the future, so all types of ideas would be very welcome. Thanks, Kristen Tudor Sac State From edebate at anumbersgame.net Tue Jul 28 17:53:50 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:53:50 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Seeding tiebreakers Message-ID: <739f03b0907281553q4abecddatd16cc0a2096a162e@mail.gmail.com> Summary: Most tournaments use adjusted points as the first tiebreaker for elim round seeding. Total points more accurately predicted elim ballot winners, but only by a small margin. Both gave more accurate predictions than opponent wins, at least as a first tiebreaker. In outround ballots between teams with the same preliminary record and the same total points, the negative team won almost 55% of the time, and the team with the higher adjusted points lost almost 55% of the time. However, there were only a few of these rounds, so the results are probably not statistically significant. Details: The debateresults.com data includes 542 tournaments. As a first tiebreaker to use for seeding teams before outrounds, [*] 510 tournaments used adjusted points 21 tournaments used total points 10 tournaments used opponent wins 1 tournament used ranks One could rank a tiebreaker's accuracy by how often it correctly predicts the result of a round between otherwise tied teams. [**] debateresults.com records 21,662 elimination rounds ballots. 4971 of these ballots are between teams who had the same preliminary round ballot count. 4244 of those were at tournaments that recorded speaker ranks in preliminary rounds. The tie breakers I tested, listed in order of their accuracy, were: 58.7% total points 58.1% adjusted points 56.1% ranks 55.4% adjusted ranks 53.5% opponent win percentage [***] (takes into account opponents with byes) 53.1% total opponent wins [***] 51.4% opponent points 50.6% opponent ranks 50.5% just assume the negative team will win 50.0% flip a coin 238 ballots were between teams that won the same number of ballots and earned the same total speaker points in preliminary rounds. 186 were from tournaments where ranks were recorded. The secondary tiebreakers I tested, listed in order of their accuracy, were: 57.8% adjusted ranks 56.5% ranks 54.6% just assume the negative team will win 50.0% flip a coin 49.6% opponent points 48.7% opponent wins [***] 48.1% opponent win percentage [***] 45.4% adjusted points 44.1% opponent ranks Notes: [*] Some of the debateresults.com data is erroneous. For instance, according to NDT standing rule V.C.2, "2. Seeding. The criteria for determining the seeding for elimination rounds shall be administered in the following order: (1) wins, (2) ballots, (3) adjusted combined speaker points (dropping high and low ballots), (4) continue dropping high and low ballots down to twelve remaining ballots, (5) flip of a coin." The debateresults.com data, on the other hand, says that the tie breakers for NDT seeding are: 1. wins 2. ballots 3. 1x adjusted points 4. 2x adjusted points 5. 3x adjusted points 6. 4x adjusted points 7. opponent wins 8-13. random [**] A tie in a statistic is counted as half of a correct prediction, no matter the outcome [***] Opponent wins were calculated to exclude the result of the opponent vs. the team in question From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 18:42:55 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:42:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Congrats to Michael Greenstein! Message-ID: <524839830907281642w26974867p9b570927a30cd70b@mail.gmail.com> http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=993377 *GBN Welcomes New Coach* ------------------------------ On behalf of the Glenbrook North debate team, we would like to welcome back Michael Greenstein who is returning to the program to take on the position of Head Coach. Michael Greenstein has had a big impact in a short time as a coach, assissting debaters who broke at the TOC, and received high speaking accolades. We are thrilledhe's back, and look forward to the growth of the program under his guidance. We would like to give a special thanks to the administration, especially director of student activities Dr. Tarjan, and former coaches Ted Belch and Greg Malis for taking out time of their busy schedules to help with the hiring process, especially in the middle of the summer. ---Zack Parker, Mitchel Hochberg, Alex Pappas, and GBN Debate -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090728/d51ead73/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Wed Jul 29 20:13:41 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:13:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] very interesting tech & debate post at the3nr.com Message-ID: <524839830907291813w68f235a1heefa7730e22bb1a3@mail.gmail.com> http://www.the3nr.com/2009/07/29/guest-post-alex-gulakov/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090729/138b14c3/attachment.htm From eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com Thu Jul 30 09:58:31 2009 From: eldredge_edebate at hotmail.com (Judson Eldredge) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:58:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CBS: Face the Nation 7/26/09 (Switch-Side Debate) Message-ID: This is a small thing, but I found it to be a pleasant surprise. Face the Nation this weekend ran a segment on the Gates arrest in Cambridge. I was pleased to see a conservative and a liberal agree that they should engage in a switch side debate on the issue, since it would encourage mutual understanding and conflict resolution. A brief excerpt is below: ...we were talking earlier and we decided that not only should we be invited to this White House encounter but what would be interesting; the way you get to the truth is you have the opposite sides defend the person they are least likely to defend. You argue for the white cop, I?ll argue for the black intellectual. The full transcript and video are here: Face The Nation ? CBS News July 26, 2009 Transcript http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml GUESTS: MICHAEL ERIC DYSON Sociologist, Georgetown University KATHLEEN PARKER Syndicated Columnist _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Search, add, and share the web?s latest sports videos. Check it out. http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090730/ffddf233/attachment.htm From blakejohnson at urbandebate.org Thu Jul 30 12:01:41 2009 From: blakejohnson at urbandebate.org (Blake Johnson) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:01:41 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Bay Area Urban Debate League seeks part-time Program Coordinator Message-ID: <7c50ea8f0907301001s18995a4dwd430170cedfb0dbf@mail.gmail.com> Great work. Application deadline is August 14th. Find job description attached. Thanks much. 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/20090730/f67de0d0/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BAUDL Program Coordinator Job Posting.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 157911 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090730/f67de0d0/attachment.pdf From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Thu Jul 30 14:29:45 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:29:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [East Debate Institute] Message-ID: <4A71F4A9.6090800@uvm.edu> THE LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT PRESENTS?. THE EAST DEBATE INSTITUTE 2009 This program is a pre-season training opportunity for college and university students. All students from all countries and all schools are welcome if they are serious about learning and training. All experience levels are welcome. Two Sessions: USA Policy Debate ? Arrive by Sunday Noon 16 August 2009, depart Sunday early AM 23 August 2009 WUDC Worlds Debate ? Arrive by Noon Sunday 23 August 2009, depart Sunday early AM 30 August 2009 DETAILS: * $25 deposit covers all tuition. No other charges. * Attendees provide own housing, but there will be limited ?crash? space provided as well as low cost per-night options. * Faculty will consist of Vermont coaches, visiting instructors from other colleges and more experienced debaters. More faculty will be announced as they sign up. Look for announcements of other attending coaches soon. * Facilities will be Huber House at 475 Main Street and adjacent university classrooms. * All evidence and briefs produced during the sessions will be shared. * Services provided: full Internet access (including university libraries), reasonable copying, scanning, and DVD production for archiving materials. * Social events as appropriate. CURRICULUM: * Theory lectures and instruction * Speaking and argument drills * Practice speeches * Practice debates SPACE IS LIMITED! HOUSING OPTIONS WILL GO FAST! You will be sent housing information to make your own arrangements. TO REGISTER: Send an email specifying which session to debate at uvm.edu Send $25 check payable to University of Vermont (a donation to the debate team) to LJ Palardy, Speech & Debate, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From oldstrega at hotmail.com Thu Jul 30 14:33:22 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:33:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: actually dobbs holds strong for the "president" to present his COLB to a third party other than anneburg foundation for whom he used to work. looks like congress is moving to have all future presidents present a long form birth certificate with doctor and nurse signatures since the possibility of a constitutional crisis still haunts the presidency. the obama faithful are engrossed in a hysterical reaction to suppress free speech. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105345 Posted: July 28, 2009 9:20 pm Eastern ? 2009 WorldNetDaily Lou Dobbs After being attacked by groups ranging from the Southern Poverty Law Center to Media Matters for relentlessly calling on Barack Obama to prove his eligibility for the office of the presidency, CNN's Lou Dobbs wasn't backing off on either his syndicated radio or his television program today. Once again, he renewed his calls for Obama to produce his long-form birth certificate that would settle doubts about where he was born and offered that the president's actions could actually be "illegal."Dobbs took on the special-interest groups demanding that CNN shut him up. "The left is trying to silence their opponents and their competitors in the public marketplace of ideas," he said on his radio show. "One issue in which the ethnocentric issue groups have been trying to silence me is on the issue of illegal immigration. Many of those, if you will, have migrated to me here recently because I, even though I said I believe the president is a citizen of the United States, I don't understand why he shouldn't produce a birth certificate. My God, you're talking about the third rail of American journalism, baby! That's it. I'm not going to back off."Join in WND's Fedex campaign and tell Obama you don't buy his state-run media coverup!As WND is reporting, Dobbs has come under fire for having the audacity to question on air why Obama hasn't released his long-form birth certificate. Now members of the Daily Kos website, which bills itself as "the largest progressive community blog in the United States," have turned up the heat even more by listing CNN executives' email addresses in a campaign to get Dobbs fired from the network."Lou Dobbs is an idiot and he should be booted off CNN for his obsession with President Obama's birth certificate," writes Daily Kos diarist kerouacforobama. "We need to get these far-right haters off the air." Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:54:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com To: oldstrega at hotmail.com CC: edebate at ndtceda.com; jvreedmore at hotmail.com I have been trying to stay out of this...but the person who replaced Lou "hates immigrants" Dobbs last week spent thirty minutes de-bunking the Obama birth certificate issue before Dobbs came back and ignored it. Josh On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Old Strega wrote: despite the freakout over his skepticism about obama's birth certificate, lou dobbs will remain @ CNN. i agree with what lou is saying on TV --- obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president according to the constitution. thank god soldiers are contesting the "commander-in-chief's" orders to go to afghanistan. BORN IN KENYA!!! http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnnobama25-2009jul25%2C0%2C3939176.story By Matea Gold July 25, 2009 Reporting from New York -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story. But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. "He's got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as various stories evolve," Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a mix of news and opinion. RELATED STORY: CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead' STORY: Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth "Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that story as it comes," he added. That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, they reported. "It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote in the e-mail, first reported by the website TVNewser. "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef." On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story. NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Store, access, and share your photos. See how. http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090730/5711f8d2/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Jul 30 14:34:30 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Except that it was presented, and re-presented, and re-re-presented, Or is your argument that Hawaii knew it was coming when they made it and the story was in the paper, Josh On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Old Strega wrote: > actually dobbs holds strong for the "president" to present his COLB to a > third party other than anneburg foundation for whom he used to work. > looks like congress is moving to have all future presidents present a long > form birth certificate with doctor and nurse signatures since the > possibility of a constitutional crisis still haunts the presidency. the > obama faithful are engrossed in a hysterical reaction to suppress free > speech. > > > http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105345 > Posted: July 28, 2009 > 9:20 pm Eastern > > ? 2009 WorldNetDaily > > > Lou Dobbs > > After being attacked by groups ranging from the Southern Poverty Law Center > to Media Matters for relentlessly calling on Barack Obama to prove his > eligibility for the office of the presidency, CNN's Lou Dobbs wasn't backing > off on either his syndicated radio or his television program today. > > Once again, he renewed his calls for Obama to produce his long-form birth > certificate that would settle doubts about where he was born and offered > that the president's actions could actually be "illegal." > > Dobbs took on the special-interest groups demanding that CNN shut him up. > > "The left is trying to silence their opponents and their competitors in the > public marketplace of ideas," he said on his radio show. "One issue in which > the ethnocentric issue groups have been trying to silence me is on the issue > of illegal immigration. Many of those, if you will, have migrated to me here > recently because I, even though I said I believe the president is a citizen > of the United States, I don't understand why he shouldn't produce a birth > certificate. My God, you're talking about the third rail of American > journalism, baby! That's it. I'm not going to back off." > > *Join in WND's Fedex campaign and tell Obama you don't buy his state-run > media coverup! * > > As WND is reporting, > Dobbs has come under fire for having the audacity to question on air why > Obama hasn't released his long-form birth certificate. > > > Now members of the Daily Kos website, which > bills itself as "the largest progressive community blog in the United > States," have turned up the heat even more by listing CNN executives' > email addresses in > a campaign to get Dobbs fired from the network > . > > "Lou Dobbs is an idiot and he should be booted off CNN for his obsession > with President Obama's birth certificate," writes Daily Kos diarist > kerouacforobama . "We need to get > these far-right haters off the air." > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:54:36 -0500 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs > From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com > To: oldstrega at hotmail.com > CC: edebate at ndtceda.com; jvreedmore at hotmail.com > > I have been trying to stay out of this...but the person who replaced Lou > "hates immigrants" Dobbs last week spent thirty minutes de-bunking the Obama > birth certificate issue before Dobbs came back and ignored it. > > Josh > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Old Strega wrote: > > despite the freakout over his skepticism about obama's birth certificate, > lou dobbs will remain @ CNN. i agree with what lou is saying on TV --- > obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president according to > the constitution. thank god soldiers are contesting the > "commander-in-chief's" orders to go to afghanistan. BORN IN KENYA!!! > > http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnnobama25-2009jul25%2C0%2C3939176.story > > By Matea Gold > July 25, 2009 > Reporting from New York -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of > "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the > legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has > avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story. > > But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that > Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not > produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has > spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty > of evidence to the contrary. > > "He's got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, > as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as > various stories evolve," Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a > mix of news and opinion. > > RELATED > > - [image: CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead'] > *STORY: * CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead' > - [image: Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth] > *STORY: * Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth > > "Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that > story as it comes," he added. > > That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail > Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that > Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, > Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter > certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, > they reported. > > "It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote in the e-mail, first > reported by the website TVNewser. > "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he > should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems > this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't > really have a legitimate beef." > > On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story. > > ------------------------------ > NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > ------------------------------ > Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Store, access, and share your photos. See how. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090730/5bce4f97/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Fri Jul 31 10:54:10 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:54:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Louisiana-Lafayette Message-ID: <534893A546834619A807AF4CB81163E2@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:U. of Louisiana Mardi Gras Tournament Starts:2/12/2010 Ends:2/15/2010 Hosted by: Louisiana-Lafayette Contact: Scott Elliott Address: Dept. of Communication, Lafayette LA 70503 Phone: 337-482-6090 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Junior Division with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From mardigras23 at hotmail.com Fri Jul 31 11:01:53 2009 From: mardigras23 at hotmail.com (Aaron Kall) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:01:53 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Judges needed for Michigan Camp Tournament Message-ID: The Michigan Camp Tournament will be on August 5-7. We mainly need judges on August 5 and August 6. If you are interested in judging in Ann Arbor on those days, please e-mail me at akall at umich.edu Thanks, Aaron Michigan Debate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Search, add, and share the web?s latest sports videos. Check it out. http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_videos_072009&cat=sports -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090731/985ea7f0/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Fri Jul 31 11:49:57 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:49:57 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Clarion University Message-ID: Name:Clarion University Autumn Leaf Debate Tournament Starts:9/25/2009 Ends:9/27/2009 Hosted by: Clarion University Contact: Jim Lyle Address: 840 Wood St, Clarion Phone: 814-393-2476 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Junior Varsity with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Varsity 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 jrlyle at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 11:52:48 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:52:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion University Debate Tournament Message-ID: <25fd497f0907310952m10eaa625h130bd3b1c0670669@mail.gmail.com> July 31, 2009 Dear Colleague: Clarion University would like to invite you to the third annual Clarion University Autumn Debate Tournament on September 25-27, 2009. This tournament is sanctioned by the American Debate Association and the Cross Examination Debate Association and adheres to the rules of each organization including sexual harassment policies. The preliminary rounds will be Friday and Saturday with the elimination rounds on Sunday. We will have three divisions of debate, Open, Junior Varsity, and Novice. We will be using the Comfort Inn as our tournament hotel, which has agreed to provide a rate of 69.99/night. The Comfort Inn has high-speed internet and provides a continental breakfast. Fees will be the following: $25.00 per person and a $15.00 fee for each team entered. If fees are an issue, please contact us and we will do our best to help with constraints. We look forward to seeing you this fall. And, if you need some incentives to come: 1. We will offer Open, JV, and Novice divisions with the appropriate number of out-rounds as per ADA/CEDA rules. 2. We will be providing lunch on both Saturday and Sunday and will maintain a hospitality room with drinks and snacks during the course of the tournament. 3. A Saturday evening dinner banquet. 4. Traveling Trophies ? We will be awarding traveling trophies to the champion in each division, in addition to a permanent award for those schools. 5. The Autumn Leaf Festival ? The annual festival begins on Sunday with a car show and more importantly the availability of uber-healthy carnival food such as an assortment of things that should not be deep fried but are super-tasty. 6. Northwest PA ? The changing of the leaves make for quite the scenery. We look forward to seeing you in September. Sincerely, Jim Lyle Director of Debate Phone: 814-393-2476 Fax: 814-393-1623 Email: jlyle at clarion.edu IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGISTRATION The entry deadline will be September 23, 2009 at 3:00 pm, but we would like to have at least an expected party count by Friday the 18th to assist with catering planning. You may email your entry but I would prefer that you use the online entry system (www.debateresults.com). There will be a morning registration from 11:00am to 1:30 pm at the Comfort Inn. Afternoon registration will take place on campus (location TBA) between 2:00 and 3:00 pm. HOUSING The tournament hotel is the Comfort Inn with a rate of $69.99/night. The block ends on August 25th. The contact information for the Comfort Inn is: 129 Dolby St., Clarion, PA 16214, (814) 226-5230. Note: rooms are available after the 25th at the same rate but the block reverts back to general public availability. While this may seem to be of marginal importance given the normal frequency of travelers to Clarion, but the Autumn Leaf Festival begins on September 27th and will make it much harder to get rooms after the block closes. Other hotels in the area have reasonable rooms and rates, and probably can offer a ?Clarion University rate? if you ask. If you need to use a different hotel, let Jim Lyle know and I may be able to assist with rates. JUDGES Each school is responsible for providing a qualified judge for your obligations. One judge will cover up to 2 teams, 2 judges - 4 teams, etc. There is a limited amount available judging available for hire through the tournament at a rate of $100.00 per uncovered team. The number of available judges for hire from the tournament is limited so let me know ASAP if judging is needed and we will do what we can. DIVISIONS Separate elimination rounds will be held for teams in Open, Junior Varsity and Novice. See ADA and CEDA rules for definitions. FORMAT We will use the 2009-2010 CEDA/NDT/ADA debate topic. We will offer 6 rounds of preliminary competition and clear up to half the field in each division into the elimination rounds. Open/JV/Novice will use the 9-3-6 format with 10 minutes of preparation time. Rounds 1 and 2 will be random; rounds 3-6 will be power-matched. Round 4 will be lag-paired off the first 2 rounds. Hybrids are allowed and may clear to the elimination rounds if they receive approval from the Tournament Director at least one week prior to the start of the tournament. AWARDS Awards will be given to the top 10 speakers in each division and for teams in each division from the quarterfinals on. We reserve the right to give additional awards. FEES Entry fees are $25 per person, and $15 team. A person is defined as anyone associated with a program. Fees are due at registration. If you are a small program and have financial constraints, please contact us and we can make arrangements to overcome financial barriers. We reserve the right to charge a fee for dropped persons after the deadline. The late drop fee would be $20/person. TAB Will be run by Mike Davis of James Madison University FURTHER INFORMATION For further information, contact me at: Jim Lyle, Director of Debate, Department of Communication, Clarion University, 840 Wood St., Clarion, PA, 16214, or through email (jlyle at clarion.edu), or via phone (814-393-2476). If we have further information to get to you, we will do so as soon as we can via www.ndtceda.com. Tournament Schedule Friday, September 25 11:00 Registration (at hotel) 3:30 Round 1 5:45 Round 2 Saturday, September 26 8:30 Round 3 10:45 Round 4 Lunch 2:00 Round 5 4:30 Round 6 Sunday, September 27 1st elim Elims Continue Lunch available -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090731/78244946/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri Jul 31 15:39:21 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:39:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: only anneburg saw the hard copy. scanned internet copies are not presentations. doctoring is more than possible and doctorings are explained in the polarik video. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDIVEfVGLBQ never presented in court which is what dobbs qualifies as dispelling doubts and ending the looming constitutional crisis with hundreds of cases in all 50 states now against the defendant obama. never presented to congress like mccain's. never truly made public just like the education records which is frightening as spivak claims. many stories in the autobiography maybe false unless confirmed by overturning obama's unprecedented secret protection of his records. if the short form is not real as polarik claims, presentation in court would result in criminality. there is no logical reason to continue withholding from court and allow for skepticism to continue to proliferate. that's the dobbs innuendo which is the forefront of the legal cases. one terrible consequence of withholding from court is that a reserve was not forced to deploy to afghanistan because of his challenge to obama's eligibility. more cases of obama's lack of authority to enforce the law will happen if your standards of presentation continue to satisfy the sheep. first soldier ever whose order to deploy was revoked based on contesting the eligibility of the "commander-in-chief". how many more deployment orders will be revoked after the recent precedent? Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:34:30 -0400 Subject: Re: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com To: oldstrega at hotmail.com CC: edebate at ndtceda.com; jvreedmore at hotmail.com Except that it was presented, and re-presented, and re-re-presented, Or is your argument that Hawaii knew it was coming when they made it and the story was in the paper, Josh On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Old Strega wrote: actually dobbs holds strong for the "president" to present his COLB to a third party other than anneburg foundation for whom he used to work. looks like congress is moving to have all future presidents present a long form birth certificate with doctor and nurse signatures since the possibility of a constitutional crisis still haunts the presidency. the obama faithful are engrossed in a hysterical reaction to suppress free speech. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105345 Posted: July 28, 2009 9:20 pm Eastern ? 2009 WorldNetDaily Lou Dobbs After being attacked by groups ranging from the Southern Poverty Law Center to Media Matters for relentlessly calling on Barack Obama to prove his eligibility for the office of the presidency, CNN's Lou Dobbs wasn't backing off on either his syndicated radio or his television program today. Once again, he renewed his calls for Obama to produce his long-form birth certificate that would settle doubts about where he was born and offered that the president's actions could actually be "illegal." Dobbs took on the special-interest groups demanding that CNN shut him up. "The left is trying to silence their opponents and their competitors in the public marketplace of ideas," he said on his radio show. "One issue in which the ethnocentric issue groups have been trying to silence me is on the issue of illegal immigration. Many of those, if you will, have migrated to me here recently because I, even though I said I believe the president is a citizen of the United States, I don't understand why he shouldn't produce a birth certificate. My God, you're talking about the third rail of American journalism, baby! That's it. I'm not going to back off." Join in WND's Fedex campaign and tell Obama you don't buy his state-run media coverup! As WND is reporting, Dobbs has come under fire for having the audacity to question on air why Obama hasn't released his long-form birth certificate. Now members of the Daily Kos website, which bills itself as "the largest progressive community blog in the United States," have turned up the heat even more by listing CNN executives' email addresses in a campaign to get Dobbs fired from the network. "Lou Dobbs is an idiot and he should be booted off CNN for his obsession with President Obama's birth certificate," writes Daily Kos diarist kerouacforobama. "We need to get these far-right haters off the air." Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:54:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [eDebate] birth certificate goes mainstream: lou dobbs From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com To: oldstrega at hotmail.com CC: edebate at ndtceda.com; jvreedmore at hotmail.com I have been trying to stay out of this...but the person who replaced Lou "hates immigrants" Dobbs last week spent thirty minutes de-bunking the Obama birth certificate issue before Dobbs came back and ignored it. Josh On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Old Strega wrote: despite the freakout over his skepticism about obama's birth certificate, lou dobbs will remain @ CNN. i agree with what lou is saying on TV --- obama is an illegal and therefore not qualified to be president according to the constitution. thank god soldiers are contesting the "commander-in-chief's" orders to go to afghanistan. BORN IN KENYA!!! http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-cnnobama25-2009jul25%2C0%2C3939176.story By Matea Gold July 25, 2009 Reporting from New York -- CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on Thursday that the controversy regarding the legitimacy of President Obama's birth certificate -- a topic Dobbs has avidly pursued on the air -- is a "dead" story. But in an interview, the cable news chief left open the possibility that Dobbs may continue to raise questions about why the president has not produced a long-form birth certificate. The absence of such a record has spawned rumors that Obama was not born in the United States, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. "He's got more than 30 years as a television journalist, and I trust him, as I trust all our reporters and anchors, to exercise their judgment as various stories evolve," Klein said of Dobbs, whose daily CNN program is a mix of news and opinion. RELATED STORY: CNN President Jon Klein declares Obama birther story 'dead' STORY: Lou Dobbs and the canard over President Obama's birth "Certainly if there are future news pegs, then we have to take that story as it comes," he added. That appeared to be a step back from the stance Klein took in his e-mail Thursday, in which he wrote that CNN researchers had determined that Hawaiian officials discarded paper documents in 2001. Because of that, Obama's long-form birth certificate no longer exists and a shorter certificate of live birth that has been made public is the official record, they reported. "It seems to definitively answer the question," Klein wrote in the e-mail, first reported by the website TVNewser. "Since the show's mission is for Lou to be the explainer and enlightener, he should be sure to cite this during your segment tonite. And then it seems this story is dead -- because anyone who still is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef." On Friday, Klein said he was not ordering the staff to drop the story. NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Store, access, and share your photos. See how. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? Hotmail?: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics. Check it out. http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090731/c1449051/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 31 18:10:21 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Co-author Wanted Message-ID: <577814.6124.qm@web53509.mail.re2.yahoo.com> The new journal Timely Interventions is set to launch this fall. The journal's goal is to bring together the awesome power of debate research, with its focus on quick turnaround and nuanced argumentation, and the formal process of scholarly production. The journal is peer reviewed by highly qualified individuals. The journal is interested in publishing pieces related to the 2009/2010 policy topic that use the insights gleaned from debate research to create a credible document that will circulate among not just an insular academic community, but will also reach people in government and think-tankery and hopefully influence their deliberations on matters of public policy related to our nuclear force. The exigence in this case is particularly awesome, with Obama having pledged in the campaign to dealert, the possible pushing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the current arms control negotiations with Russia. Combined with the current instransigence/exericse of sovereignty on the part of the Iranian regime, North Korea's continued proliferation, and multiple other global proliferation issues, the time is now. I'm looking for a coauthor(s) (preferably an undergraduate(s)) with whom we will produce a scholarly document that will come out during the debate season. The idea is to demonstrate what positive contribution debate makes above and beyond the production of evidence useful in contestation rounds. Why should you consider doing this? Several reasons: 1. There is a good possibility of getting a scholarly publication DURING the 2009/2010 debate season. For those of you seeking entry into graduate programs, policy jobs, and other such avenues, a publication looks great. 2. Experience - the process of scholarly collaboration and academic knowledge production can be an empowering process in which valuable experience of working towards a shared goal delivers and refines insights about what collaborative work really means. This is especially true given the opportunity for a publication which is not constrained by the "contest round" format of a debate tournament, but instead is aimed at effecting and analyzing public policy. 3. Be the Debater That You Want To See- you have an opportunity to turn what you do in debate into something that affect policy processes. Thats really cool. We talk a lot about the skill that debate breeds (I'm talking to you framework debates, on BOTH sides). Lets do some of it. Reply to this email address if you are interested. Any questions, I'll clarify. -Paul Elliott Johnson From paulj567 at yahoo.com Fri Jul 31 23:33:42 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Co-Author Wanted Message-ID: <91824.38622.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> The new journal Timely Interventions is set to launch this fall. The journal's goal is to bring together the awesome power of debate research, with its focus on quick turnaround and nuanced argumentation, and the formal process of scholarly production. The journal is peer reviewed by highly qualified individuals. The journal is interested in publishing pieces related to the 2009/2010 policy topic that use the insights gleaned from debate research to create a credible document that will circulate among not just an insular academic community, but will also reach people in government and think-tankery and hopefully influence their deliberations on matters of public policy related to our nuclear force. The exigence in this case is particularly awesome, with Obama having pledged in the campaign to dealert, the possible pushing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the current arms control negotiations with Russia. Combined with the current instransigence/exericse of sovereignty on the part of the Iranian regime, North Korea's continued proliferation, and multiple other global proliferation issues, the time is now. I'm looking for a coauthor(s) (preferably an undergraduate(s)) with whom we will produce a scholarly document that will come out during the debate season. The idea is to demonstrate what positive contribution debate makes above and beyond the production of evidence useful in contestation rounds. Why should you consider doing this? Several reasons: 1. There is a good possibility of getting a scholarly publication DURING the 2009/2010 debate season. For those of you seeking entry into graduate programs, policy jobs, and other such avenues, a publication looks great. 2. Experience - the process of scholarly collaboration and academic knowledge production can be an empowering process in which valuable experience of working towards a shared goal delivers and refines insights about what collaborative work really means. This is especially true given the opportunity for a publication which is not constrained by the "contest round" format of a debate tournament, but instead is aimed at effecting and analyzing public policy. 3. Be the Debater That You Want To See- you have an opportunity to turn what you do in debate into something that affect policy processes. Thats really cool. We talk a lot about the skill that debate breeds (I'm talking to you framework debates, on BOTH sides). Lets do some of it. Reply to this email address if you are interested. Any questions, I'll clarify. -Paul Elliott Johnson