From noahchestnut at yahoo.com Fri May 1 02:29:02 2009 From: noahchestnut at yahoo.com (Noah Chestnut) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 00:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] The Greg Paulus Rule/Re: The Graduation Amendment & Why We Shouldn't Redshirt Debaters Message-ID: <825414.60904.qm@web38202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Where did we go wrong? ?The fifth year rule is bad for college debate. ?There is a growing expectation among undergraduates that you should debate for five years. ?Recent success is usually emulated and having three fifth years in the semis of the?NDT& a fifth year as the top speaker will only spur more students to consider opting in for one more shot at glory. ?We all know certain students are now actively planning not to go to a certain NDT in order to debate during their fifth year. ?This is promoting a culture of academic laziness. ?You can get away with redshirting football players because of low academic expectations. ?Debaters should hold themselves to the highest academic expectations. ?It is disheartening to see the community norm become so immature and near-sighted. ?In a time when we need to defend this activity, we should focus on promoting it for its academic merits. ?We are the next generation of jurists, policy wonks, political strategists and educators. ?I loved my time debating, but I always understood that the activity was more important that my participation in it. ?The fifth year rule is simply selfish. ? The solution should not be to allow students to debate in grad/law school. ?The solution is for debaters to realize that?they are students first, debaters second. ?Coaches should hold their students to a higher standard.??If you love debate and want to stay in the activity, coach. ?You can even go to grad school and coach. ?I'm fully behind an amendment to lobby for more grad programs to offer funding for debate assistant. ?Grad school is about being a student first and foremost. ?Creating a rule that lets you debate in grad school will just lead to more individuals who view themselves as debaters first, students second, try to get into graduate programs. ? ? Let's be realistic. ?If you want to do well in grad school, you don't have the time to debate at a high level. ?You can be a good arg coach, but you can't excel in the classroom and do the work needed to compete for a first round. ?If you can, then you are in a crappy grad school and once again we are back to the problem of low academic standards for debaters. ? ? Debate is a privilege. ?Respect it. Note - I never check this e-mail so don't be offended if I don't respond to a backchannel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090501/d478b111/attachment.htm From privethedge at yahoo.com Fri May 1 10:07:19 2009 From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 08:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] The Greg Paulus Rule/Re: The Graduation Amendment & Why We Shouldn't Redshirt Debaters In-Reply-To: <825414.60904.qm@web38202.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <406090.20585.qm@web50904.mail.re2.yahoo.com> HI, Yet....most of the data about academic degree completion points to the conclusion that five years is becoming the norm for completion of the undergraduate degree. And if debate is an undergraduate activity, why bar fifth year students from debating? ? H. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by??its collision with error." John S. Mill ?Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live." Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman: "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!" --- On Fri, 5/1/09, Noah Chestnut wrote: From: Noah Chestnut Subject: [eDebate] The Greg Paulus Rule/Re: The Graduation Amendment & Why We Shouldn't Redshirt Debaters To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 3:29 AM Where did we go wrong? ?The fifth year rule is bad for college debate. ?There is a growing expectation among undergraduates that you should debate for five years. ?Recent success is usually emulated and having three fifth years in the semis of the?NDT& a fifth year as the top speaker will only spur more students to consider opting in for one more shot at glory. ?We all know certain students are now actively planning not to go to a certain NDT in order to debate during their fifth year. ?This is promoting a culture of academic laziness. ?You can get away with redshirting football players because of low academic expectations. ?Debaters should hold themselves to the highest academic expectations. ?It is disheartening to see the community norm become so immature and near-sighted. ?In a time when we need to defend this activity, we should focus on promoting it for its academic merits. ?We are the next generation of jurists, policy wonks, political strategists and educators. ?I loved my time debating, but I always understood that the activity was more important that my participation in it. ?The fifth year rule is simply selfish. ? The solution should not be to allow students to debate in grad/law school. ?The solution is for debaters to realize that?they are students first, debaters second. ?Coaches should hold their students to a higher standard.??If you love debate and want to stay in the activity, coach. ?You can even go to grad school and coach. ?I'm fully behind an amendment to lobby for more grad programs to offer funding for debate assistant. ?Grad school is about being a student first and foremost. ?Creating a rule that lets you debate in grad school will just lead to more individuals who view themselves as debaters first, students second, try to get into graduate programs. ? ? Let's be realistic. ?If you want to do well in grad school, you don't have the time to debate at a high level. ?You can be a good arg coach, but you can't excel in the classroom and do the work needed to compete for a first round. ?If you can, then you are in a crappy grad school and once again we are back to the problem of low academic standards for debaters. ? ? Debate is a privilege. ?Respect it. Note - I never check this e-mail so don't be offended if I don't respond to a backchannel. _______________________________________________ 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/20090501/4add604e/attachment.htm From cstone387 at gmail.com Fri May 1 10:24:56 2009 From: cstone387 at gmail.com (Chris Stone) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 10:24:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: AT: Chestnut -- message from Cormack Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Matt Cormack Date: Fri, May 1, 2009 at 10:23 AM Subject: AT: Chestnut -- please send to eDebate To: Chris Stone Can someone send this to edebate? Thanks... ==== Noah, I understand your concern of avoiding academic laziness but I fail to see how a 5th year of eligibility promotes this and in particular how the graduation amendment would encourage this. ?I will start by saying I debated and graduated in 4 years and never thought of skipping an NDT to stay for 5 years. ?I have no regrets. First, there is a MASSIVE link turn to your argument. ?Right now with 5 years of eligibility (regardless of what you think of it its the rule right now) and the only way to debate 5 years is to be "lazy" and prolong undergraduate studies for 5 years. ?This amendment would allow people to graduate in 4 years and still continue to debate. ?It removes the incentive to not graduate. ?It also would allow debaters to graduate in 3 years and still debate for 4. ?The SQ would punish debates that graduate in 3 years - that doesn't make much sense. Also, as you indicate grad school is not easy and I agree (I should be studying right now) but if someone is able to debate and attend graduate school aren't they actually blowing away the academic standards of most people? ?Wouldn't this be setting our goals higher than everyone else? ?Not only we will graduate smart students, but we will place them in graduate schools AND they will be smart enough to manage their time and continue debating. ?You make the assumption that people will just go to graduate schools with poor standards. ?I choose to be more optimistic and assume that some of the smartest debaters will take advantage of this opportunity. ?I know that I could not commit anywhere near the amount of time to debate that I did as an undergraduate but debaters are smart, they will figure out ways to spend less time on debate if they need to. ?Maybe they won't be as competitive - but if they love the activity why not let them attend a few tournaments? ?The assumption that everyone wants to compete for a first round is obviously wrong. ?Also - most (all) graduate programs that people would go to are going to last more than a year and I think the most people will debate in grad school is a year. ?Thus, the concern that they won't care about the school and be debates first, student second seems a bit far fetched. ?Your future is in grad school and I think people are smart enough to realize that. Your alternative is noble but silly. ?An amendment to "lobby for more grad programs to offer funding for debate assistants". ?Really? ?This is just so ridiculous on its face I am not sure what to say. ?If you think that "lobbying" (whatever that means) will cause programs to fund debate assistants in this economy...I really don't know what it would mean if you actually thought that. ?Great goal - not happening. It appears that your real problem is with the 5 year rule and not the graduate amendment. ?I say this because in a world without the 5 year rule I imagine you would support the graduate amendment (if people graduating in 3 years and going to grad school all while debating isn't high academic standards I don't know what is). So I think there are some real benefits to the 5 year rule. 1. Academics - debate takes lots of time if you want to be successful. ?Why not spread out your courses and get better grades? ?You might call this low standards, I don't. ?I think graduating in 5 years with better grades is better than graduating in 4 years with bad grades. Also, the fact that for whatever reason 5 years is becoming much more common with the general student population it seems more academically rigorous to debate while you are doing it. 2. High school inequality - some people end up debating way more than 5 years of NDT/CEDA style debate at high levels of competition. ?I don't follow high school debate but it seems like every year there is a team that people swear to me would clear at Kentucky. I guess I don't buy how it is "selfish" as you say a few times. ?I am sure there are plenty of more justifications for the 5th year rule but I need to stop. Matt From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Fri May 1 10:30:54 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:30:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] If you care about the capitalism debate... Message-ID: If you think capitalism is awesome and/or inevitable and want to try and challenge one of the leading Marxists...or if you agree with the critique of capital and want to help find alternatives...or if you swing both ways, as it were... UMass economist Richard Wolff is one of the most widely read, influential and innovative Marxist scholars in the world. He's one of the founders of Rethinking Marxism. Gary and I will be interviewing him tomorrow on Shared Sacrifice, which airs live from noon to 2:00 PM mountain time at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/HeadingLeft/Shared_Sacrifice Call-in number is (347) 327-9615; this would be a great opportunity to ask questions about capitalism (and its alternatives) to an extremely qualified source. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail?: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates2_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090501/8c7eb036/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Fri May 1 14:14:43 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:14:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Congratulations to Dr. Bruschke Message-ID: Check out this excellent article in "Profiles of Practice" in the current Spectra. Great PR for professional development! http://www.natcom.org/NCA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000001633/profileofpractice_Bruschke_spectra.pdf David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090501/e0b8e1cc/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Fri May 1 14:59:25 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:59:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <20090501145925.1404663cgimbj5b1@webmail.grandecom.net> I concur with Joel on this issue for the reasons he has already given. But I also want to add one more point: Who the hell is going to judge? Grad students judging grad students? It is bad enough when undergrads judge undergrads. I may be wrong but I percieve a shortage of judges. Letting people debate for five years into grad school reduces the judging pool further. I think the compromise should be 4 years, eight semesters--but if you graduate in 3 years and begin your fourth year in grad school, then you should be able to debate. This seems to be the optimum solution. Scott Elliott From blackslaw06 at yahoo.com Fri May 1 16:05:21 2009 From: blackslaw06 at yahoo.com (RW) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 14:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] IMF Topic Message-ID: <382077.2857.qm@web45415.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am going to plug the financial institutions topic. The Russia and Nuclear Weapons topics are intriguing, but they have been done. There have been a ton of debates on nuclear posture one way or another over the years and several debates about Russia/Europe as well. Update a few things, but the debates will inevitably sound the same. The financial institutions topic offers the possibility of a fresh actor and interesting/diverse harm areas that help us move beyond our obsession with nuclear weapons and nuclear war. I also think that the IMF topic will allow for good quality negative ground.. This topic is particularly interesting because it has the potential to turn traditional CP debates into solid case debates. In the past, the negative could CP with condition the plan's aid on anti-corruption measures or transparency or environmental impact statements, accounting, etc. Too many of these debates end up being resolved on theory or permutations. Now this debate can happen without the CP and the debaters can have an in depth discussion about whether conditions are good and which conditions are good. So, I think the negative would likely be much stronger on defending the status quo. Additional negative arguments could include region or country specific disadvantages for why removing conditions in country X would result in Y. Although, it's unclear to me if the topic as it has been currently discussed would permit the accompanying exclude country X from the plan PIC. Similarly, the Aff will have the ability to read country or project specific add on advantages to the specific effects the reforms will have. --- On Thu, 4/30/09, Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > From: Galloway, Ryan W. > Subject: [eDebate] IMF Topic > To: "hansonjb at whitman.edu" > Cc: "edebate at ndtceda.com" > Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 11:23 AM > Hi Jim, > > Frankly, I'm far more worried about the NEG than the AFF on > the IMF/World Bank topics (thus my topic assessment on page > 43 of the paper). > > Remember that most AFF's would block a negative action by > the IMF/World Bank. > > Ban aid conditionality from the IMF/World Bank.? All > the advantages are structural adjustment bad.? Another > agent can't solve that because it is an action from the > organization itself.? Giving more money from a regional > development bank could theoretically cause the target > country to refuse the loan from the IMF, but they may > already be subject to such restrictions. > > Strengthen environmental impact statements on IMF/World > Bank projects.? Other agent doesn't solve because these > are projects by these organizations that would still exist. > > The paper is predicated heavily on these "negative action" > affirmatives and not on the IMF/World Bank "doing something > else."? The voting rights portion of the topic deals > with the structure of the IMF & the Bank, the corruption > components are the Bank & IMF giving money to corrupt > governments and/or dealing with corruption internal to the > bank.? I'm posting a link to an article on the question > of voting rights, where I found a China advantage and a > US-European relations disad to reforming the voting > structure of the organizations:? http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-22-voa47.cfm > > Europe link/China-India advantage: > The calls for change extend to the World Bank as > well.? One solution is supported by an NGO supporting > reform, the Bretton Woods Project.? It calls for a > system of parity between members, where lenders and > borrowers would each have an equal number of votes on the > bank's executive board.? Ramachandran of the Center for > Global Development says the proposals do not enjoy universal > support.? Some fear the reforms might dilute the strong > working relationship between the united States and Europe, > which are said to be critical for development.? On the > other hand, development activists fear that without better > representation, emerging powers like China and India are not > likely to cooperate on issues such as limiting greenhouse > gas emissions or increasing support for efforts by the IMF > and World Bank to shield poor countries from the global > recession. > > > The paper also contains many cards on the IMF/World Bank > key: > > Specifically, > > World Bank key to solving world environment: (pg. 22) > > Pete Leyden, illustrates how changes at the global > institutional level could get clean development implemented > around the globe: > The way to truly solve the environment problems of this > planet is to accelerate the migration to new generations of > technologies. This needs to happen not just in the developed > countries, but especially in the developing ones. We need > Western autos to increasingly be super-efficient hybrids and > ultimately be based on hydrogen fuel cells. But what we > really need to do is ensure that China starts off with these > most-efficient technologies rather than older, dirtier ones. > If they're building a modern auto industry, then start > clean. These global institutions, particularly the World > Bank, can play a big part in getting this kind of thinking > incorporated into all development plans. (Leyden, quoted by > Lindsey, April 18, 2000) > > Leyden continues by noting how the World Bank is uniquely > situation to jump-start an environmental revolution in the > developing world: Instead of financing rain forest > destruction and climate change, the bank should support a > Global Green Deal: A program to renovate human civilization > environmentally from top to bottom while truly fighting > poverty. And make no mistake: Poverty is central to > humanity's environmental predicament. To accommodate this > mass ascent from poverty without ruining the natural systems > that make life on Earth possible in the first place will be > an enormous challenge. But the World Bank is uniquely > situated to jump-start the environmental revolution needed > to meet it. (Leyden, April 18, 2000). > > IMF key to solve global financial crisis:? (pg. 24) > > Edwin Truman of the Peterson Institute for International > Economics states: The scope of the current crisis reflects > the harsh reality of today?s globalised economy and > financial system. Every country has been affected; those > with the weakest policies have and most precarious financial > circumstances have been affected most and first. We have > learned that countries can run but they cannot hide from the > effects of such crises. In the future, the incidence and > virulence of crises may be reduced but will not be > eliminated. Over the past several decades, the leaders of > the advanced countries have failed to recognise this trend. > One consequence has been that they have starved the IMF of > resources to lend. In London, the G20 leaders should take > immediate and longer-term corrective actions. When the > simmering financial crisis boiled over in September 2007, > the Fund?s estimated forward lending capacity was $200 > billion from regular quota resources and an additional $50 > billion from established borrowing arrangements. Since > September, the IMF has made more than $50 billion in lending > commitments and set aside $100 billion for a new short-term > lending facility. At the same time and outside the framework > of IMF lending, the Federal Reserve has advanced more than > $600 billion in short-term credit to 14 other central banks, > and the European Central Bank and Swiss National Bank have > advanced smaller amounts within Europe. These facts > illustrate the need to augment immediately the IMF?s > lending capacity and to provide it with the resources and > instruments so that in the future permanent, multilateral > arrangements replace ad hoc bilateral operations. (Truman, > 2009). > > The paper does not really define an IMF/World Bank should > give more money topic, but that their practices are bad, and > barring change in their practices, harms will continue. > > The pause for concern should be for the NEG (which will > need to be more innovative on this topic), not the AFF. > > RG > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From ermocito at gmail.com Fri May 1 20:48:14 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 20:48:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10905011848o223a0842n4dca76497f319e7e@mail.gmail.com> Several thoughts on this amendment proposal. 1. We should keep in mind the factors which motivated the original shift. a. CEDA moved to get in line with the AFA (and thus the NDT), who changed their rules. One significant motive was uniformity, which is undermined with a CEDA-only change. b. The average length of the undergrad career IS increasing at many schools (while others give you 4 years to graduate or not). Our school has majors which require nearly 150 hours to graduate. c. Some schools have a hard time justifying providing scholarships to people who are not yet done, but were recruited and rely upon debate scholarships to afford college. d. The 5 year option was already available to many, but required minimizing travel for a semester, which may considered an annoyance. Occasionally, the 8 semester rule extended people beyond 5 years. 2. The current amendment's writing is designed to account for cases similar to a recent appeal, where a student at a school with an unusual schedule graduated a few weeks before CEDA nationals. Opening 5 years to every graduate student is a VERY different animal than making a reasonable adjustment to a school whose unusual calendar created a potentially unjust and inappropriate interaction with CEDA eligibility. 3. Presumption should remain against graduate school poaching, and I say this as a program that could theoretically poach effectively with our GTA positions (I thus disagree that short term competitive self interest would control the outcome of a vote on this proposal). It's a big deal to hand one program the bill for training you, and then debate your final (presumptively most successful) year for the highest bidder. The current ethical norms against poaching - combined with the allowance for transfer - are a balancing act that, if scrapped, might lead to a very different sort of community. One we legitimate poaching via graduate school, it will seem a short walk to accept it at all levels of the undergraduate experience. I anticipate significant cultural shifts will result from open bidding, and I'm skeptical that most of them will be positive. 4. Joel Rollins' post on CEDA-L indicating we may create significant PR problems with our home departments is a valid point. Although I think the proposal of some that we retreat to the old rule creates problems (see #1), it would probably be far less disruptive than the 5 years into graduate school alternative. 5. Given the points made above, and the clear lack of consensus about this issue in posts thus far, I would strongly oppose having the CEDA EC assert the power to impose this really substantial change on the community through the backdoor of the appeals process. The purpose of appeals is to consider hard cases within the spirit of the current rules, not to overthrow decades of practice. The notion that it might do so in reaction to defeat of the current modest proposal is even more concerning. It would be far superior to stretch the Constitution by finding a way to vote on a 5 year, grad school inclusive proposal than to have the EC impose that principle and thus push CEDA and NDT into inconsistent standards. 6. I don't wish to suggest that I'm completely decided on the merits of a 5th year graduate school proposal. I am at least very hesitant, and I would encourage those pressing for it to further advance the discussion instead of moving to the action phase without a clear vote from the community. 7. Do you really want to give every former debater who finished in 4 years another year if they enroll in a grad school somewhere? I don't know if the "you sacrifice your eligibility by judging open" norm is strong enough to prevent that, particularly given that none of those people understood themselves to be ("uniquely") forfeiting said eligibility if they did judge after graduating. How will you establish whether or not someone who graduated in 1979 and didn't coach judged open rounds or JV rounds? It could be Tim Mahoney's professional-debate concept run amok.... Ermo MoState -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090501/2cb24dba/attachment.htm From gordonm at pitt.edu Fri May 1 22:45:36 2009 From: gordonm at pitt.edu (Mitchell, Gordon Roger) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 23:45:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hester's Harrisonization Message-ID: Michael Hester's adroit deployment of Vonnegut warrants lionization, if not canonization. In case you missed it, Hester coined the neologism "harrison bergeron effects" to describe "artificial constraints intended to create balanced ground which end up skewing debates down alleyways where AFF solvency has built-in inadequacies, with the overall effect of mediocre debates." http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-April/078597.html Kurt Vonnegut fans will catch Hester's reference here, but for those who haven't had the pleasure of reading this funny, incisive and dystopic short story: "Harrison Bergeron, the protagonist of the story, has exceptional intelligence, height, strength and beauty and thus has to bear enormous handicaps. These include headphones that play distracting noises, three hundred pounds of weight strapped to his body, forty pounds of birdshot around his neck, eyeglasses designed to give him headaches, and a rubber ball on his nose, black caps on his teeth, and shaven eyebrows to hide his beauty. Despite these societal handicaps, he is able to invade a TV station, declare himself emperor, strip himself of his handicaps, then dance with a ballerina whose handicaps he has also discarded. Both are shot dead by the brutal and relentless Handicapper General. The story is framed by an additional perspective from Bergeron's parents, who are watching the incident on TV, but because of their handicaps and less than average intelligence, cannot concentrate enough to appreciate what occurs nor remember it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron Hester's metaphor ventures an explanation for lesser quality debate on the recent Indian Country and courts topics - in striving to maximize the TRANSACTIONAL MERITS of the respective topics, framers resorted to "Harrisonization" - strapping on all manner of clunky linguistic accoutrements in a bid to equalize debating ground. But just as Harrison Bergeron's scintillating talents were quashed by this process in Vonnegut's story, so to can jury-rigging wordplay compromise the CONTENT MERITS of a particular topic, starving affirmatives of solvency literature, for instance. I wonder whether Harrisonization might also erode a topic area's PUBLIC MERITS, especially if one considers Nancy Fraser's distinction between "strong" and "weak" publics as a clarifying principle. For Fraser, strong publics (e.g. the voting electorate, lobbyists) are directly tied into the institutional decision-making apparatus - they participate in activities that involve both opinion formation and institutional decision-making. In contrast, weak publics (such as civil society associations and the intercollegiate policy debate community) participate in deliberative practices consisting exclusively of opinion-formation and not encompassing institutional decision-making. As a weak public, the intercollegiate policy debate community (operating in its tournament mode) would NOT seem positioned well to call for passage of particular policies by institutions (a mode of action more akin to Beltway lobbyists bringing "strong publicity" to bear). Instead, in Zarefsky's terminology, the community is involved in "testing the resolution as a hypothesis" through a rigorous, collective and cooperative method (the debate season). But whereas Zarefsky's original formulation of hypothesis testing yielded judging paradigms appropriate for utilization in single contest rounds, this "weak public" sense turns hypothesis testing into a collaborative, collective project oriented to maximize the public merits of the year's debating resolution, with the fruits of that labor shared with interested wider audiences. The Bruschke results website and Wake caselist wiki provide glimpses of how digitally pooled knowledge products from a season of intercollegiate debating can have extraordinary public merit. The broad and deep panorama of many-sided argumentation turns Protagoras' notion of "dissoi logoi" into polloi logoi - a rigorous, systematic inquiry into multifaceted dimensions of a pressing public policy issue. Topic area choice and resolution wording bear on the prospects for development of debate's "weak public" role in this vein, hence the potential perils of Harrisonization deserve careful consideration. Gordon R. Mitchell Associate Professor of Communication Director, William Pitt Debating Union University of Pittsburgh CL 1117, 4200 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: (412) 624-8531 Fax: (412) 624-1878 http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/ From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sat May 2 03:26:39 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 04:26:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: <6bd35ee10905011848o223a0842n4dca76497f319e7e@mail.gmail.com> References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> <6bd35ee10905011848o223a0842n4dca76497f319e7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It does seem to me that regardless of the "turns" made to the 4 year graduation arguments...the 5 year/graduate proposal creates an incentive for programs with grad schools to poach good debaters from other programs to debate the last (arguably best) year for pay.....Is this really what we want? As usual, I agree with Ermo, Josh On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Eric Morris wrote: > Several thoughts on this amendment proposal. > > 1. We should keep in mind the factors which motivated the original shift. > a. CEDA moved to get in line with the AFA (and thus the NDT), who changed > their rules. One significant motive was uniformity, which is undermined with > a CEDA-only change. > b. The average length of the undergrad career IS increasing at many schools > (while others give you 4 years to graduate or not). Our school has majors > which require nearly 150 hours to graduate. > c. Some schools have a hard time justifying providing scholarships to > people who are not yet done, but were recruited and rely upon debate > scholarships to afford college. > d. The 5 year option was already available to many, but required minimizing > travel for a semester, which may considered an annoyance. Occasionally, the > 8 semester rule extended people beyond 5 years. > > 2. The current amendment's writing is designed to account for cases similar > to a recent appeal, where a student at a school with an unusual schedule > graduated a few weeks before CEDA nationals. Opening 5 years to every > graduate student is a VERY different animal than making a reasonable > adjustment to a school whose unusual calendar created a potentially unjust > and inappropriate interaction with CEDA eligibility. > > 3. Presumption should remain against graduate school poaching, and I say > this as a program that could theoretically poach effectively with our GTA > positions (I thus disagree that short term competitive self interest would > control the outcome of a vote on this proposal). It's a big deal to hand one > program the bill for training you, and then debate your final (presumptively > most successful) year for the highest bidder. The current ethical norms > against poaching - combined with the allowance for transfer - are a > balancing act that, if scrapped, might lead to a very different sort of > community. One we legitimate poaching via graduate school, it will seem a > short walk to accept it at all levels of the undergraduate experience. I > anticipate significant cultural shifts will result from open bidding, and > I'm skeptical that most of them will be positive. > > 4. Joel Rollins' post on CEDA-L indicating we may create significant PR > problems with our home departments is a valid point. Although I think the > proposal of some that we retreat to the old rule creates problems (see #1), > it would probably be far less disruptive than the 5 years into graduate > school alternative. > > 5. Given the points made above, and the clear lack of consensus about this > issue in posts thus far, I would strongly oppose having the CEDA EC assert > the power to impose this really substantial change on the community through > the backdoor of the appeals process. The purpose of appeals is to consider > hard cases within the spirit of the current rules, not to overthrow decades > of practice. The notion that it might do so in reaction to defeat of the > current modest proposal is even more concerning. It would be far superior to > stretch the Constitution by finding a way to vote on a 5 year, grad school > inclusive proposal than to have the EC impose that principle and thus push > CEDA and NDT into inconsistent standards. > > 6. I don't wish to suggest that I'm completely decided on the merits of a > 5th year graduate school proposal. I am at least very hesitant, and I would > encourage those pressing for it to further advance the discussion instead of > moving to the action phase without a clear vote from the community. > > 7. Do you really want to give every former debater who finished in 4 years > another year if they enroll in a grad school somewhere? I don't know if the > "you sacrifice your eligibility by judging open" norm is strong enough to > prevent that, particularly given that none of those people understood > themselves to be ("uniquely") forfeiting said eligibility if they did judge > after graduating. How will you establish whether or not someone who > graduated in 1979 and didn't coach judged open rounds or JV rounds? It could > be Tim Mahoney's professional-debate concept run amok.... > > Ermo > MoState > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090502/97f32e67/attachment.htm From kel1773 at msn.com Sat May 2 07:43:02 2009 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 08:43:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] IMF Topic Message-ID: This was said earlier, but I'm sure will be repeated several more times in the next few weeks: "There have been a ton of debates on nuclear posture one way or another over the years and several debates about Russia/Europe as well." Really? I'm curious as to what affs, neg disads or Ks explored US nuclear posture on the Ag, Middle East, Courts, China or Energy topics? Even on Europe, we only debated tactical weapons, not the overall weapon posture. NATO wasn't run by that many teams and generally didn't feature all that much discussion of cooperation with Russia. And that was 6 years ago. Let's stop confusing someone running a single impact card or a 3-4 card advantage that mentions Russia or Nuclear weapons as an in-depth season long investigation of a topic. I hear this argument every year and it's terrible. With this reasoning, we shouldn't debate IMF because we debated the international economic causes of global poverty and injustice last year. Or, since there was an immigration politics scenario, we shouldn't debate immigration. Or, we've all heard sexuality and body critiques, thus no taboo topic. I really haven't decided my preferences yet, but all of these are topics we really haven't explored in quite a while. They deserve more consideration than this. 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/20090502/fd5b14b4/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sat May 2 11:58:47 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 12:58:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> <6bd35ee10905011848o223a0842n4dca76497f319e7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: If however, as Dallas pointed out to me, the rule is written (as it is now) to prevent poaching by saying it has to be at the same school....then I am a moron for suggesting a straw boogie person......Ok, sorry about that (most people do not go to graduate school at the same school they did undergraduate at and are encouraged not from my understanding....but thats a minor disadvantage). Apologies, Josh On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Josh wrote: > It does seem to me that regardless of the "turns" made to the 4 year > graduation arguments...the 5 year/graduate proposal creates an incentive for > programs with grad schools to poach good debaters from other programs to > debate the last (arguably best) year for pay.....Is this really what we > want? > > As usual, I agree with Ermo, > > Josh > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Eric Morris wrote: > >> Several thoughts on this amendment proposal. >> >> 1. We should keep in mind the factors which motivated the original shift. >> a. CEDA moved to get in line with the AFA (and thus the NDT), who changed >> their rules. One significant motive was uniformity, which is undermined with >> a CEDA-only change. >> b. The average length of the undergrad career IS increasing at many >> schools (while others give you 4 years to graduate or not). Our school has >> majors which require nearly 150 hours to graduate. >> c. Some schools have a hard time justifying providing scholarships to >> people who are not yet done, but were recruited and rely upon debate >> scholarships to afford college. >> d. The 5 year option was already available to many, but required >> minimizing travel for a semester, which may considered an annoyance. >> Occasionally, the 8 semester rule extended people beyond 5 years. >> >> 2. The current amendment's writing is designed to account for cases >> similar to a recent appeal, where a student at a school with an unusual >> schedule graduated a few weeks before CEDA nationals. Opening 5 years to >> every graduate student is a VERY different animal than making a reasonable >> adjustment to a school whose unusual calendar created a potentially unjust >> and inappropriate interaction with CEDA eligibility. >> >> 3. Presumption should remain against graduate school poaching, and I say >> this as a program that could theoretically poach effectively with our GTA >> positions (I thus disagree that short term competitive self interest would >> control the outcome of a vote on this proposal). It's a big deal to hand one >> program the bill for training you, and then debate your final (presumptively >> most successful) year for the highest bidder. The current ethical norms >> against poaching - combined with the allowance for transfer - are a >> balancing act that, if scrapped, might lead to a very different sort of >> community. One we legitimate poaching via graduate school, it will seem a >> short walk to accept it at all levels of the undergraduate experience. I >> anticipate significant cultural shifts will result from open bidding, and >> I'm skeptical that most of them will be positive. >> >> 4. Joel Rollins' post on CEDA-L indicating we may create significant PR >> problems with our home departments is a valid point. Although I think the >> proposal of some that we retreat to the old rule creates problems (see #1), >> it would probably be far less disruptive than the 5 years into graduate >> school alternative. >> >> 5. Given the points made above, and the clear lack of consensus about this >> issue in posts thus far, I would strongly oppose having the CEDA EC assert >> the power to impose this really substantial change on the community through >> the backdoor of the appeals process. The purpose of appeals is to consider >> hard cases within the spirit of the current rules, not to overthrow decades >> of practice. The notion that it might do so in reaction to defeat of the >> current modest proposal is even more concerning. It would be far superior to >> stretch the Constitution by finding a way to vote on a 5 year, grad school >> inclusive proposal than to have the EC impose that principle and thus push >> CEDA and NDT into inconsistent standards. >> >> 6. I don't wish to suggest that I'm completely decided on the merits of a >> 5th year graduate school proposal. I am at least very hesitant, and I would >> encourage those pressing for it to further advance the discussion instead of >> moving to the action phase without a clear vote from the community. >> >> 7. Do you really want to give every former debater who finished in 4 years >> another year if they enroll in a grad school somewhere? I don't know if the >> "you sacrifice your eligibility by judging open" norm is strong enough to >> prevent that, particularly given that none of those people understood >> themselves to be ("uniquely") forfeiting said eligibility if they did judge >> after graduating. How will you establish whether or not someone who >> graduated in 1979 and didn't coach judged open rounds or JV rounds? It could >> be Tim Mahoney's professional-debate concept run amok.... >> >> Ermo >> MoState >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20090502/5b24008d/attachment.htm From micksouders at gmail.com Sat May 2 14:05:01 2009 From: micksouders at gmail.com (Michael Souders) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 14:05:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat Message-ID: <899735480905021205u2de06fcdsced105be7cafed33@mail.gmail.com> I don?t what happens on the CEDA-L, so I can?t speak to any of that discussion. Students who graduate ?early? should not be punished. Perhaps it is the case that students graduate in four years should not be considered graduating early and therefore eligible an additional year. Consider the following wording (which is just an example, not meant to be the actual wording): ?Students enrolled in graduate or professional schools associated with an accredited university or college are permitted to participate for one full year if, upon receipt of a bachelor?s degree from an accredited college of university, the student has used seven or less semesters as an undergraduate. Graduate student eligibility applies to only the first two semesters a student is enrolled in graduate school and must occur in the two semesters immediately following the receipt of the undergraduate degree.? Poaching is a major danger, agreed. Generally, I believe students should have to compete at the same university they did as an undergraduate. An exception could be made for colleges that do not have appropriate graduate programs. Eligibility might be determined by application for an exception to the policy. Consider the following wording (again, just an example): ?Extended graduate student eligibility will generally only available to students enrolled in a graduate school within the same university the student competed with as an undergraduate. If the student?s undergraduate institution lacks relevant graduate school opportunities the student may receive an additional year of eligibility via one of the following methods: a. Signed letter of release from the Director of the prior institution delivered to the CEDA Secretary 14 days before first competition of the next season. b. Application for exception is made to the . The Director of the prior institution may recommend for or against an exception.? I like this version of the rule because it puts an onus on the Director of the program to make the call. I know that in debate there is a lot passive aggressiveness about this sort of thing, but I think that Director?s should be able to say (as schools and ADs do the NCAA), ?Yes, I will give you this release? or ?No, I will not.? I also think that graduate students should have the limitation of competing in a certain graduate school made clear them. At KU, my guess is, it would not be considered appropriate for a graduate student to compete while in enrolled in the program. It is, at least partially, the privilege of graduate programs to outline the responsibilities of students in relation to competition. Some of the graduate programs won?t like it or will prohibit it. That?s the graduate programs call. Re: Graduate student judging graduate students. If you choose to debate is graduate school, you are choosing to let graduate students and even potentially ineligible or retired undergraduate students judge you. In our community is normal and necessary for those without a BA to judge. This isn?t must different from that. Choose to debate and choose to submit yourself to the judgment of the audience that exists. By the way, I find some of this discussion about graduate student eligibility a bit silly in a world where we rarely enforce undergraduate eligibility rules. Every single person on the list knows that ineligible undergraduate (a) gain CEDA and NDT point for their squad, (b) prevent eligible students from earning points for their squads or advancing in tournaments by defeating them competition, (c) sometimes even manage to compete at national tournaments, I wonder whether rule-making of this sort really matters in a world where we don?t do much to enforce the rules as they exist. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090502/27df6dff/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Sun May 3 11:42:54 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 12:42:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Public Forum Debate Message-ID: Does NFL Public Forum debate count against novice eligibility in CEDA Debate in College? If so, why? If not, why not? Thanks in advance for any info. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090503/8718bc82/attachment.htm From pricecautious at hotmail.com Sun May 3 14:23:27 2009 From: pricecautious at hotmail.com (John James) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 14:23:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2009-2010 Tournament List? Message-ID: Where can I find a complete list of tentative '09-'10 tournaments? Thanks _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090503/f6e4a41b/attachment.htm From mardigras23 at hotmail.com Sun May 3 19:09:14 2009 From: mardigras23 at hotmail.com (Aaron Kall) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 00:09:14 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] 2009 Tournament of Champions Octafinals Judging List Message-ID: Tournament of Champions?CX University of Kentucky May 2-4, 2009 The following judges should be available for the octafinal round tomorrow morning. A number of standby judges are on this list, but should wait until all of the octafinal debates actually begin before leaving in case you are needed. Call Aaron Kall at 734-239-3996 if there are any problems. Abelkop, Garrett Batterman, Bill Berthiaume, Maggie Bowen, Kathy Bricker, Brett Chestnut, Noah Cholera, Kuntal Clark, Kathryn Corrigan, Abe Culpepper, Brent emerson, eric Fisher, Matt Gonzalez, Josh Greenstein, Mike Hamraie, Aimi Harrigan, Casey Heidt, David Heidt, Jenny Lingel, Dan Matheson, Calum Moczulski, Leah Murillo, Gabe Oddo, Eric Paul, Jonathan Peterson, Brian Polin, Jacob Repko, Wil Rubaie, Brian Sears, Will Smith, Ross Stahl, Greta Symonds, Adam Turner, John Warden, John _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has a new way to see what's up with your friends. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090504/9a9bd02c/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun May 3 19:37:04 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 20:37:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Can you make an argument for your topic in 12 seconds? Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905031737j72fd274cn12d995a2bfb7662b@mail.gmail.com> Hello edebate I thought this could be an interesting and kind of fun way to have topic arguments http://12seconds.tv/channel/andyellis/153192 Here is how it works 1)sign up for 12seconds.tv 2) create a 12 second defense of your topic of choice 3)tag it "cedatopic12" you can follow them at http://12seconds.tv/tag/cedatopic12 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090503/36665428/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Mon May 4 09:03:12 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:03:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Unofficial Calendar RE: 2009-2010 Tournament List? Message-ID: The unofficial calendar is available at http://debate.miami.edu/calendar/ I will update as I receive new information. 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: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of John James [pricecautious at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 3:23 PM To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] 2009-2010 Tournament List? Where can I find a complete list of tentative '09-'10 tournaments? Thanks ________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. See how. From maffiemd at muohio.edu Mon May 4 14:03:41 2009 From: maffiemd at muohio.edu (Mike Maffie) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:03:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Cornell job clarification Message-ID: <3B7147A6-A70B-4D1E-AC1E-C57153041B70@muohio.edu> Sam wanted me to post this clarification: Due to the harsh economic climate, the assistant job has not yet been officially approved. Although we fully expect the school to allow the Cornell forensics society to hire a debate assistant, the previous email was just a heads up - not an official job announcement. Once the school has officially designated a position, Sam will begin getting back to candidates. I apologize for any confusion. -Mike From sharris at ku.edu Mon May 4 14:21:34 2009 From: sharris at ku.edu (Harris, Scott L) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 14:21:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The Greg Paulus Rule/Re: The Graduation Amendment & Why We Shouldn't Redshirt Debaters Message-ID: While I try to avoid posting to eDebate I sometimes can't help myself when I get angry at a post and the arrogance in Mr. Chestnut's post makes me very angry. The assumption behind Mr. Chestnut's post is that someone who takes 5 years to finish their undergraduate degree and debates during that 5th year is lazy and selfish. As someone who spent five years as an undergrad and who had the temerity to debate during that 5th year (under the old semester rules) I find Mr. Chestnut's arguments offensive. Despite apparently being academically lazy I somehow managed to complete an MA and a PhD. My experiences during that 5th year were fundamental to my decision to stay in debate as a coach. I have zero regrets for taking a 5th year on the undergrad and consider it one of the best decisions I ever made. There also seems to be in his post some implication that the 5th year seniors competing at this year's NDT are academically lazy. This is beyond laughable. The two KU 5th year seniors are both Phi Beta Kappa students graduating with honors and double majors who worked their rear ends off this year. Any inference that they are academically lazy is more than offensive to me. There also seems to be an implication in his post and others that after four years you should have gotten all the benefits out of debate that you can so it is selfish to do it for a 5th year. I also find this argument absurd. Everyone's debate experience is vastly different. Many who debate in college attended expensive debate workshops in high school and debated on a highly competitive national high school circuit. Many others have much different high school backgrounds and learn how to be effective debaters in college. At KU all of our debaters the last couple of years have come from Kansas high school backgrounds where they get to debate one semester a year in high school and are judged mostly by parents. Our debaters learn how to debate national circuit style in college and it generally takes them a year or two to figure out what they are doing. Someone like Bricker who never attended any college debate camp while in high school learned how to be a succesful college debater by working his rear end off. I too was a kid who never attended a debate camp and learned how to debate in college. I spent my first year in college debating in JV and it took me three years to figure out how to be a decent debater. I love it when people who had much different opportunities than someone like myself tells me I was selfish to debate a 5th year. Posts like Mr. Chestnut's make me very angry. This has nothing to do with the grad student rule but just with the argument that taking 5 years to graduate makes you somehow less of a person than Mr. Chestnut. From oldstrega at hotmail.com Mon May 4 18:22:27 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 18:22:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] update--obama part of the problem: silent on smithfield factory farm source of swine flu Message-ID: here's the even bigger reason they're cleaning up virus-speak, calling it "H1N1", AN AMERICAN COMPANY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SCREWING THE WORLD WITH ITS ANIMAL FACTORY FARM PUBLIC SAFETY VIOLATIONS. if you think calling the flu "swine" has hurt pork sales in a "house of cards" economy, wait til you see the impact of the SMITHFIELD SCANDAL. debaters should be reading mexican papers and seeking out translations, right now, to see if lexis-nexis is not using mind control to frame the story. it's one thing to give a free pass in an election but for the media to lie about american corporate responsibility for this disgrace is possible complicity in a mass murder cover-up. i'm calling it "charisma blowback": http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-25-swine-flu-smithfield/ The outbreak of a new flu strain?a nasty mash-up of swine, avian, and human viruses?has infected 1,000 people in Mexico and the U.S., killing 68. The World Health Organization warned Saturday that the outbreak could reach global pandemic levels.Is Smithfield Foods, the world?s largest pork packer and hog producer, linked to the outbreak? Smithfield operates massive hog-raising operations Perote, Mexico, in the state of Vera Cruz, where the outbreak originated. The operations, grouped under a Smithfield subsidiary called Granjas Carroll, raise 950,000 hogs per year, according to thecompany Web site.On Friday, the U.S. disease-tracking blog Biosurveillance published a timeline of the outbreak containing this nugget, dated April 6 (major tip of the hat to Paula Hay, who alerted me to the Smithfield link on the Comfood listserv and has written about it on her blog, Peak Oil Entrepreneur):Residents [of Perote] believed the outbreak had been caused by contamination from pig breeding farms located in the area. They believed that the farms, operated by Granjas Carroll, polluted the atmosphere and local water bodies, which in turn led to the disease outbreak. According to residents, the company denied responsibility for the outbreak and attributed the cases to ?flu.? However, a municipal health official stated that preliminary investigations indicated that the disease vector was a type of fly that reproduces in pig waste and that the outbreak was linked to the pig farms. It was unclear whether health officials had identified a suspected pathogen responsible for this outbreak.From what I can tell, the possible link to Smithfield has not been reported in the U.S. press. Searches of Google News and the websites of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal all came up empty. The link is being made in the Mexican media, however. ?Granjas Carroll, causa de epidemia en La Gloria,? declared a headline in the Vera Cruz-based paper La Marcha. No need to translate that, except to point out that La Gloria is the village where the outbreak seems to have started. Judging from the article, Mexican authorities treat hog CAFOs with just as much if not more indulgence than their peers north of the border, to the detriment of surrounding communities and the general public health. Get this:De acuerdo con uno de los habitantes de la comunidad, Eli Ferrer Cort?s, los desechos fecales y org?nicos que produce Granjas Carroll no son tratados adecuadamente, lo que genera contaminaci?n del agua y del viento en la region.My rough translation: According to one community resident, the organic and fecal waste produced by Granjas Carrol isn?t adequately treated, creating water and air pollution in the region. I witnessed?and smelled?the same thing in Hardin County, Iowa, a couple of years ago, another area marked by intensive industrial hog production. The article goes on to say that area residents have long complained of ?fetid odors? in the air and water, and swarms of flies hovering around waste lagoons. Like their counterparts who live in CAFO-heavy U.S. areas, they also complain of respiratory ailments. Now, with 30 percent of the area?s residents now infected with the virulent flu bug, people are demanding that state and federal authorities inspect hog operations there. So far, reports La Marcha, the response has been: nada.The Mexico City daily La Jornada has also made the link. According to the newspaper, the Mexican health agency IMSS has acknowledged that the orginal carrier for the flu could be the ?clouds of flies? that multiply in the Smithfield subsidiary?s manure lagoons.I?ll be in touch with contacts in Mexico as this story develops ?and I?ll be curious to see whether the U.S. media explores the link with Smithfield?s Mexico operation.Note: In the original version of this post, I had called production at Granjas Carroll ?nearly equal to Smithfield?s total U.S. production.? I had been confusing total production at Granjas Carroll?950,000 hogs produced in fiscal 2008?with the number of sows, or breeding pigs, kept by Smithfield in the United States. According to my source??Concentration of Ag Markets, 2007? (PDF) by Hendrickson and Heffernan?Smithfield keeps 1.2 million sows. Actual hog production is much larger?thus Smithfield?s total U.S. hog production is much larger than Granjas Carroll?s. I regret the error. _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090504/a602d29b/attachment.htm From cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu Mon May 4 18:39:57 2009 From: cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu (Cameron T. Norris) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:39:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Graduation Amendment -- Another Perspective Message-ID: <3bf818490905041639s7ef9a866n32c75d8e24adca53@mail.gmail.com> I've been following the recent discussion about the grad school amendment currently being proposed, and I feel like an important perspective may be missing from the discussion. This amendment seemed like a light at the end of the tunnel for me when I first read about it, since the "5th year in undergrad for another year of a debate versus going on to grad school" conundrum is something I've been trying to resolve for the last few months. First, when considering the debaters this amendment would affect, it's easy to think of those who choose to "skip out of a certain NDT" to debate for all 5 years of eligibility. I certainly respect and even envy those who are able to make this decision, but I believe debaters of this caliber aren't the majority. I speak from my own debate experiences, and I've spoken with others similarly situated who agree. The current discussion has left out those of us who came into college with little to no prior debate experience. I came to Vanderbilt with no prior knowledge or relevant experience in policy debate and had to start fresh as a novice. I quickly fell in love with debate, but I had to first debate for a year in the novice division and then get my butt kicked in varsity for another before becoming a competent carsity debater. This last season (my junior year), me and my partner (who also had little prior policy experience) finally qualified to the NDT. While we were proud of this accomplishment, the last three years has only increased my love for the activity that much more, and I've been seriously considering sticking around for a 5th year to get my full eligibility. In those first 2 years, I was still learning the ropes and was in no position to qualify for the NDT. And, now that I did actually qualify and got to experience the awesomeness of high-level varsity debate, I'm nearly finished with my undergraduate degree. Those of us who came into college without knowing much about debate most likely did not center our academic plans around debate and didn't plan on sticking around for 5 years in undergrad. The current rules seem to unnecessairly disadvantage debaters who get a late start. Many universities, including my own, place a lot of pressure on undergrads to finish in 4 years and look down on those who want to strech it out. By next semester, I'll have finished 2 separate majors, which makes it a lot harder to justify to the administration sticking around for a 5th year and sucking up university funds. Also, when applying to grad school, if a student stays for a 5th year in undergrad without any extensive work experience or other intensive research experience to show for it (things that a competitive debate season don't jive well with), he or she may be disadvantaged. Also, another perspective: those of us who come from economically disadvantaged positions, another situation I'm very familiar with. We all know undergrad can be expensive. Not all univerisites will extend their financial aid packages through for more than 4 years, and for those of us highly dependent on financial aid for our education, an extra year of debt can be too much to bear. It becomes a question of who can afford to debate for a 5th year or who will be forced to move on to grad school "on time" to save much needed money. The proposed amendment would greatly alleviate these concerns for myself and I'm sure many similarly situated. I implore everyone to vote for it. The objections I've seen thus far don't seem very compelling, especially given the status quo rules that encourage debaters to prolong their undergraduate careers for debate (as I mentioned earlier, a choice that may not be conducive to resume building). Poaching wouldn't be a concern if the amendment required the 5th year to be completed at the same school as the student attended for undergrad. I'm not aware or informed about a "judging shortage crisis," but it seems to me if people are attending grad schools where they can continue to debate, the 5th year may encourage some to remain involved in the community, since many debaters now go to grad schools that don't have undergrad debate programs. Also, the concern that we shouldn't encourage students to debate in grad school because they may not be able to handle it academically seems overblown and somewhat paternalisitic. Encouraging students to stay a 5th year in undergrad rather than entering into grad school certainly seems to contradict a "student first, debater second" framework. I don't see a very big risk in allowing students to decide themselves whether they want to debate competitively their first year in grad school or not. Hard workers will work hard and find a way to manage their time. If debate programs really want to encourage academic responsibility, maybe they should consider establishing/enforcing/raising the minimum GPA levels required for a student to debate for their team, rather than punish students by restricting their flexibility in continuing to participate in an activity they love while pursuing their academic goals. -- Cameron Norris Vanderbilt University cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090504/6721588d/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Mon May 4 20:02:25 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 20:02:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Graduation Amendment -- Another Perspective -- From Cameron Norris of Vandy Message-ID: Sending this along for Cameron. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cameron T. Norris Date: Mon, May 4, 2009 at 8:01 PM Subject: Fwd: Graduation Amendment -- Another Perspective To: Jason Russell ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cameron T. Norris Date: Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:39 PM Subject: Graduation Amendment -- Another Perspective To: edebate at ndtceda.com I've been following the recent discussion about the grad school amendment currently being proposed, and I feel like an important perspective may be missing from the discussion. This amendment seemed like a light at the end of the tunnel for me when I first read about it, since the "5th year in undergrad for another year of a debate versus going on to grad school" conundrum is something I've been trying to resolve for the last few months. First, when considering the debaters this amendment would affect, it's easy to think of those who choose to "skip out of a certain NDT" to debate for all 5 years of eligibility. I certainly respect and even envy those who are able to make this decision, but I believe debaters of this caliber aren't the majority. I speak from my own debate experiences, and I've spoken with others similarly situated who agree. The current discussion has left out those of us who came into college with little to no prior debate experience. I came to Vanderbilt with no prior knowledge or relevant experience in policy debate and had to start fresh as a novice. I quickly fell in love with debate, but I had to first debate for a year in the novice division and then get my butt kicked in varsity for another before becoming a competent carsity debater. This last season (my junior year), me and my partner (who also had little prior policy experience) finally qualified to the NDT. While we were proud of this accomplishment, the last three years has only increased my love for the activity that much more, and I've been seriously considering sticking around for a 5th year to get my full eligibility. In those first 2 years, I was still learning the ropes and was in no position to qualify for the NDT. And, now that I did actually qualify and got to experience the awesomeness of high-level varsity debate, I'm nearly finished with my undergraduate degree. Those of us who came into college without knowing much about debate most likely did not center our academic plans around debate and didn't plan on sticking around for 5 years in undergrad. The current rules seem to unnecessairly disadvantage debaters who get a late start. Many universities, including my own, place a lot of pressure on undergrads to finish in 4 years and look down on those who want to strech it out. By next semester, I'll have finished 2 separate majors, which makes it a lot harder to justify to the administration sticking around for a 5th year and sucking up university funds. Also, when applying to grad school, if a student stays for a 5th year in undergrad without any extensive work experience or other intensive research experience to show for it (things that a competitive debate season don't jive well with), he or she may be disadvantaged. Also, another perspective: those of us who come from economically disadvantaged positions, another situation I'm very familiar with. We all know undergrad can be expensive. Not all univerisites will extend their financial aid packages through for more than 4 years, and for those of us highly dependent on financial aid for our education, an extra year of debt can be too much to bear. It becomes a question of who can afford to debate for a 5th year or who will be forced to move on to grad school "on time" to save much needed money. The proposed amendment would greatly alleviate these concerns for myself and I'm sure many similarly situated. I implore everyone to vote for it. The objections I've seen thus far don't seem very compelling, especially given the status quo rules that encourage debaters to prolong their undergraduate careers for debate (as I mentioned earlier, a choice that may not be conducive to resume building). Poaching wouldn't be a concern if the amendment required the 5th year to be completed at the same school as the student attended for undergrad. I'm not aware or informed about a "judging shortage crisis," but it seems to me if people are attending grad schools where they can continue to debate, the 5th year may encourage some to remain involved in the community, since many debaters now go to grad schools that don't have undergrad debate programs. Also, the concern that we shouldn't encourage students to debate in grad school because they may not be able to handle it academically seems overblown and somewhat paternalisitic. Encouraging students to stay a 5th year in undergrad rather than entering into grad school certainly seems to contradict a "student first, debater second" framework. I don't see a very big risk in allowing students to decide themselves whether they want to debate competitively their first year in grad school or not. Hard workers will work hard and find a way to manage their time. If debate programs really want to encourage academic responsibility, maybe they should consider establishing/enforcing/raising the minimum GPA levels required for a student to debate for their team, rather than punish students by restricting their flexibility in continuing to participate in an activity they love while pursuing their academic goals. -- Cameron Norris Vanderbilt University cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu -- Cameron Norris cameron.t.norris at vanderbilt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090504/889f600c/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Tue May 5 01:41:34 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 23:41:34 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] whitman hires jimi durkee Message-ID: <0C25605AEC86440F98B1E75D14579843@hansonjbPC> we are very excited to have jimi durkee join our program as an assistant coach for the coming year. jimi had a great career at michigan state and will be a great addition to aaron hardy's coaching and a big help for me and all of our students in the coming year. and as I say that, I want to thank eric chalfant who leaves for grad school. eric worked his heart out for us this past year as well as the previous 4 years while he was a great debater for our squad. we'll miss you eric. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090504/53fa231d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 257 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090504/53fa231d/attachment.gif From privethedge at yahoo.com Tue May 5 07:17:06 2009 From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 05:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] The Greg Paulus Rule/Re: The Graduation Amendment & Why We Shouldn't Redshirt Debaters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <540239.92534.qm@web50906.mail.re2.yahoo.com> HI, Most graudation data points towards 5 years for completion of the undergrad to be the norm, rather than a statistical abnormality as it may have been in the days when I was in school (late 80's) =- and that's across all majors, and students - not just specific to debaters. If 5 years is becoming the norm, then there is no reason why debaters shouldn't be allowed to debate for 5 years. ? I'm glad the community is making this change. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by??its collision with error." John S. Mill ?Who said Dr. Who isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him! Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live." Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman: "What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!" --- On Mon, 5/4/09, Harris, Scott L wrote: From: Harris, Scott L Subject: [eDebate] The Greg Paulus Rule/Re: The Graduation Amendment & Why We Shouldn't Redshirt Debaters To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Monday, May 4, 2009, 3:21 PM While I try to avoid posting to eDebate I sometimes can't help myself when I get angry at a post and the arrogance in Mr. Chestnut's post makes me very angry. The assumption behind Mr. Chestnut's post is that someone who takes 5 years to finish their undergraduate degree and debates during that 5th year is lazy and selfish. As someone who spent five years as an undergrad and who had the temerity to debate during that 5th year (under the old semester rules) I find Mr. Chestnut's arguments offensive. Despite apparently being academically lazy I somehow managed to complete an MA and a PhD. My experiences during that 5th year were fundamental to my decision to stay in debate as a coach. I have zero regrets for taking a 5th year on the undergrad and consider it one of the best decisions I ever made. There also seems to be in his post some implication that the 5th year seniors competing at this year's NDT are academically lazy. This is beyond laughable. The two KU 5th year seniors are both Phi Beta Kappa students graduating with honors and double majors who worked their rear ends off this year. Any inference that they are academically lazy is more than offensive to me. There also seems to be an implication in his post and others that after four years you should have gotten all the benefits out of debate that you can so it is selfish to do it for a 5th year. I also find this argument absurd. Everyone's debate experience is vastly different. Many who debate in college attended expensive debate workshops in high school and debated on a highly competitive national high school circuit. Many others have much different high school backgrounds and learn how to be effective debaters in college. At KU all of our debaters the last couple of years have come from Kansas high school backgrounds where they get to debate one semester a year in high school and are judged mostly by parents. Our debaters learn how to debate national circuit style in college and it generally takes them a year or two to figure out what they are doing. Someone like Bricker who never attended any college debate camp while in high school learned how to be a succesful colleg e debater by working his rear end off. I too was a kid who never attended a debate camp and learned how to debate in college. I spent my first year in college debating in JV and it took me three years to figure out how to be a decent debater. I love it when people who had much different opportunities than someone like myself tells me I was selfish to debate a 5th year. Posts like Mr. Chestnut's make me very angry. This has nothing to do with the grad student rule but just with the argument that taking 5 years to graduate makes you somehow less of a person than Mr. Chestnut. _______________________________________________ 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/20090505/7a73f6a5/attachment.htm From edebate at anumbersgame.net Tue May 5 13:21:55 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 11:21:55 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Graduation Amendment -- Another Perspective In-Reply-To: <3bf818490905041639s7ef9a866n32c75d8e24adca53@mail.gmail.com> References: <3bf818490905041639s7ef9a866n32c75d8e24adca53@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <739f03b0905051121g115e3e2cg3679351ea4b68dd4@mail.gmail.com> Cameron T. Norris said: [1] "First, when considering the debaters this amendment would affect, it's easy to think of those who choose to 'skip out of a certain NDT' to debate for all 5 years of eligibility. I certainly respect and even envy those who are able to make this decision, but I believe debaters of this caliber aren't the majority." Noah Chestnut earlier claimed: [2] "We all know certain students are now actively planning not to go to a certain NDT in order to debate during their fifth year." I don't know if planning on skipping one NDT is a new phenomenon. Assuming it is, the number of first-year students who qualified for the NDT in previous seasons is a rough upper estimate on the number of people for whom skipping an NDT is an option, rather than a forced hand based on their skill as a freshperson college debater. Below are the numbers derived from Jon Brushke's database dumps from 2003-2008 on debateresults.com. I counted a debater as debating in the open division if they debated in even one open division. Sometimes this includes non-qualifying divisions at district qualifying tournaments. I counted a debater as new if they debated at least one round and nobody with the same name was registered on debateresults.com the previous year. I did not account for people who were registered the previous year, but didn't debate, or people who took one year off, or people who changed their name, or pairs of people with the same name. 2005-2006 open division debaters: 959 2005-2006 new college debaters: 903 2005-2006 freshperson open division debaters: 397 (41.4% of all open debaters, 44.0% of all new college debaters) 2005-2006 NDT freshpersons: 21 (5.3% of freshperson open debaters) 16.3% of open debaters participated in the NDT. 2006-2007 open division debaters: 983 2006-2007 new college debaters: 911 2006-2007 freshperson open division debaters: 425 (43.2% of all open debaters, 46.7% of all new college debaters) 2006-2007 NDT freshpersons: 18 (4.2% of freshperson open debaters) 15.9% of open debaters participated in the NDT. 2007-2008 open division debaters: 925 2007-2008 new college debaters: 855 2007-2008 freshperson open division debaters: 366 (39.6% of all open debaters, 42.8% of all new college debaters) 2007-2008 NDT freshpersons: 18 (4.9% of freshperson open debaters) 16.9% of open debaters participated in the NDT. 1: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078633.html 2: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078612.html On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Cameron T. Norris wrote: > I've been following the recent discussion about the grad school amendment > currently being proposed, and I feel like an important perspective may be > missing from the discussion.? This amendment seemed like a light at the end > of the tunnel for me when I first read about it, since the "5th year in > undergrad for another year of a debate versus going on to grad school" > conundrum is something I've been trying to resolve for the last few months. > > First, when considering the debaters this amendment would affect, it's easy > to think of those who choose to "skip out of a certain NDT" to debate for > all 5 years of eligibility.? I certainly respect and even envy those who are > able to make this decision, but I believe debaters of this caliber aren't > the majority. From bwittwer at mail.edgemont.org Tue May 5 13:47:59 2009 From: bwittwer at mail.edgemont.org (Benjamin Wittwer) Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 14:47:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Assistant Coach Job - Edgemont Message-ID: <4A00519F.F495.0024.0@mail.edgemont.org> ASSISTANT COACH OPENING Edgemont High School is looking to hire an assistant debate coach for the 2009-2010 season. Edgemont is located in Scarsdale, NY, about 20 minutes north of New York City. The assistant coach would be expected to attend one meeting per week after school, assist with evidence production, and attend around 15 tournaments per year. We will strongly prefer applicants who are located in the greater New York City and tri-state area. This position is ideal for an undergraduate or graduate student with debate experience. The compensation will be a stipend of $10,000-$12,000 for the debate season, commensurate with experience. There is no additional compensation for judging as that is factored into the stipend, however the team will cover all travel expenses including meals. Please contact Ben Wittwer with inquiries at bwittwer at mail.edgemont.org ( http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate ) Ben Wittwer Benefits Asst., Edgemont UFSD Head Coach, Edgemont Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090505/f81775aa/attachment.htm From akelsie at gmail.com Tue May 5 14:33:46 2009 From: akelsie at gmail.com (Amber Kelsie) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 15:33:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Job Opening for The New School Coach Message-ID: <59a0c94f0905051233m11986941q5c13d8b91388b235@mail.gmail.com> If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Speech & Debate Coach Job Description Eugene Lang College The New School for Liberal Arts announces a policy debate coach/instructor position for its team. The New School Debate Team is a relatively new but growing presence housed in a small liberal arts college. In its first few years, the team has participated competitively in many regional and national tournaments. The ideal candidate will hold a Master?s degree, have several years experience coaching students in speech and debate and be willing to travel to and coordinate students travel to local, regional, and national competitions. A dedication to working with students, teaching and youth development is required. This position will involve the creation and teaching of one to two classes on public speaking and the rhetoric of politics. Duties include working with the Assistant Coach to run and coach practice rounds, chaperoning students on debate trips and coordinating civic engagement opportunities for students. Make up of the squad and its goals: There are currently 8-10 dedicated students on the team. One team competed in the varsity division last year and broke to triple octafinals at CEDA. Three additional teams will compete in Junior Varsity or Varsity next year. Ideally the team should travel both nationally and regionally. The team has developed a fun, safe, cooperative and competitive learning environment, and the students have become very close. Practice is held once or twice a week. The ideal candidate should be able to coach at Varsity, JV and Novice levels with the intent of developing competitive debaters while still maintaining a positive intellectual and community atmosphere. There is an opportunity to host a regional round robin in January. The squad also participates in extra-debate activities. In the past year debaters have judged at local high school tournaments and have participated in debate with inmates from the Arthur Kill Correctional Facility in Staten Island. The ideal candidate should be ready to continue these activities and to seek opportunities for expanding debate in regards to current events relevant to the University student body. Qualified candidates may send a cover letter and resume by May 18 to: Amber Kelsie Director of Debate akelsie at gmail.com and Ella Turenne Director of Special Projects Eugene Lang College turennee at newschool.edu From jmgreen at ksu.edu Tue May 5 21:25:46 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:25:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA Message-ID: <5a6e2a80905051925t202b7b8hd92695b644a14aa9@mail.gmail.com> The short version: We shouldn't add new events without a popular vote. Yes, democracy is slow and time consuming. Dictatorships = quick decisions.....Democracy = you have to wait for everyone to vote. If you want the President to add Parli, Worlds, LD, Public Forum, Extemp, etc to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals without a vote, then vote yes. For those of you who want CEDA Nats to be a celebration of Cross Ex Debate and not a new event without a popular vote - vote no. As a caveat, had the amendment said "The President can add new events or divisions by putting them up to a public vote with a three week window for the public to vote". This would solve all of the problems Chief mentioned, yet still maintain democracy. If there is a way for a friendly amendment, please instruct. Chief's arguments seem eerily similar to "must define all words" - largely a semantics game. "1. The amendment process is often too long of a cycle, unwieldy, and unfriendly of a process once the year starts. If we were to require amendments to change anything about the National Tournament, it would likely take at least a year likely from its inception date for anything after November 1st. I think that is when bureaucracy can hamstring an organization. " You call it hamstring an organization. I might call it preventing tyranny. Is it tyranny that will kill me physically - no, but it is certainly a tyranny of ideas that flies in the face of the mission of our organization "promote Cross Examination Debate". "2. The President and EC are voted on by a community vote. This is one of those times Directors will need to decide if they trust their elected leadership to do what is within the best interest of the community they represent." Which part of the Presidential platform discussion asked "do you want to add new events to make CEDA Nationals "? I trust them to run a CX tournament, but I have no idea if Gordon is qualified to run a Public Forum or World's Tournament or which events he will seek to add. "3. New events: Again Gordon should chime in, but one thing he talked about was the ability for our organization to reach out to other organizations, groups, constituencies. If CEDA wanted to offer a Public Debate event, umbrella sponosr another organization's National Tournament (Parli, NFA Lincoln-Douglas, etc) this amendment would allow the President to make that offer with the suppport of the EC. A decision to do this in December would be too late to get an amendment passed to do it. And amendments usually imply continuity, as opposed to year-to-year trial experiments. Sometimes revenue streams may make it beneficial to the organization to do just this, and reach out to others inside the big tent. " Gordon, please chime in here. Will NFA Lincoln-Douglas be asking us to join them so that they can put money towards our nationals? To put it in terms Chief used while judging me once "I don't get it". "4. The People's Tournament: Indeed! I articulated above why sometimes process takes too long for all the "people" to chime in." Ummmm....If democracy is slow then it is not worth following? Chief you added a division - Novice. New novice division, not the same as "lets debate LD". While I received enlightening backchannels after my previous post comparing this amendment to Senator Palpatine's plan of destroying democracy "one amendment at a time" (provided by the debate Green Party President aka Jester the behester) and those who had more explicit concerns like "here comes Worlds Debate" (a former CEDA Presidential candidate), I was hoping to get the perspective of someone other than the current President or former President as to why expanding executive powers to include A NEW EVENT was a good idea - especially one without a popular vote. Last I checked we participate in Cross Examination Debate. Hence our organizations name. While personally participating and facilitating multiple forms of debate: public forums, debates with my wife, debates among local representatives, and in-class debates, just to name a few. Sometimes there are declared winners sometimes no winners at all. But, when our teams go to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals, I for one am happy that we are debating Cross-Ex styles with all of its diversity and spending a weekend just dedicated to the efforts of our students working hard on that event. If we want to add World's Debate to CEDA, why can't this wait a year for an amendment to let all the World's voices to be heard? Justin Green From vegasrobert at gmail.com Tue May 5 23:01:54 2009 From: vegasrobert at gmail.com (Robert Garcia) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 04:01:54 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Assistant Coach Job - Edgemont In-Reply-To: <4A00519F.F495.0024.0@mail.edgemont.org> References: <4A00519F.F495.0024.0@mail.edgemont.org> Message-ID: <922739546-1241582511-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-143539684-@bxe1173.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Benjamin - I would invite you to also post this for free to http://SpeechandDebateJobs.com. It's a new site for the forensics community. -----Original Message----- From: "Benjamin Wittwer" Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 14:47:59 To: Subject: [eDebate] Assistant Coach Job - Edgemont _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From edebate at anumbersgame.net Tue May 5 23:56:53 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:56:53 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] RFC: edebate migration to Google Groups Message-ID: <739f03b0905052156q3618614fnb8cd416df6ed52c8@mail.gmail.com> edebate is overloading its server, causing long delays in delivery. I suggested to Phil Kerpen (the list admin) that it may be a good idea to move the list to Google Groups. Like now, the list would have both email distribution and a web archive of past posts. It would hopefully have very quick response time and very high uptime. It does not require a Google account to subscribe or to post. Migration would require minimal, if any, user input. http://groups.google.com/support/ From ekim711 at gmail.com Wed May 6 09:26:27 2009 From: ekim711 at gmail.com (Liz Kim) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:26:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 5 years/Grad school debate Message-ID: <118db1be0905060726v35b24df9s7857ed2c262970ac@mail.gmail.com> I don't really care about whether or not students get to debate for five years, but frankly I'm a little surprised that the movement to allow debaters a fifth year has become the focus of how to best encourage more participation, or perhaps better participation in debate. This is even worse if the grad school amendment is meant to be purely a question of fairness. If we're going to allow grad students to debate, and even debate at a different school than they attended undergrad for, we should repeal or at least significantly amend the hybrid rule first. There isn't much excuse for saying "oh it's ok for a grad student to debate at a different program because his/her undergrad school doesn't have a graduate program" but then saying that "debaters who attend colleges without established debate programs have no right to go to the NDT with another team." By the hybrid rule logic, grad students should be excluded from debating another year if they "choose" to go to an undergrad institution without graduate programs.The student first, debater second argument also supports significant changes to the hybrid rule. Yes, I chose to go to a college that hasn't had a debate team since the '60s and despite my best attempts to find a partner and restart a program, the only way I could participate was to debate with Harvard. The choice that I make in my academic interest however, shouldn't deny me the opportunity to compete at the NDT. Yes, every choice that I make, including where I go to college, will trade off with something else - but that trade off can occur in the extra time it takes me to commute to debate meetings at a different university, or even the inherent difficulty in debating with another school rather than denying hybrid debaters a chance to compete at the NDT. Unlike the grad school amendment which would only extend a debaters' time to compete, changing the hybrid rule would encourage new students to debate, even if they couldn't find a partner at their own school. Obviously there are a variety of arguments for and against amending the hybrid rule, but there isn't much justification for allowing grad students to debate and have another NDT when some undergrad students don't even get the chance to qualify. How about the community deals with a discriminatory rule that discourages participation and team-building before trying to make sure debaters who already had multiple opportunities to attend the NDT get one more shot. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090506/61566efc/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed May 6 10:49:25 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:49:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Old Strega and not being me Message-ID: Just to correct any misconceptions, I am not, nor have I ever been, Old Strega. It's one thing to give Jackie a hard time; it's another to publicly slander the guy and his camp. Also, if I had anything to say about someone and their camp, I wouldn't do it anonymously. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090506/736ac26b/attachment.htm From greta.stahl at gmail.com Wed May 6 13:30:25 2009 From: greta.stahl at gmail.com (Greta Stahl) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 14:30:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] MSU Assistant Coaching Position Available Message-ID: <4a01d748.060ec00a.17eb.613e@mx.google.com> Unfortunately for those of us at MSU, Gabe Murillo has decided to move on to another position next season. Gabe has been a tremendous asset to our team for the last two years, and all of us at MSU want to wish him luck in the upcoming season. Any team would be incredibly lucky to have him. In light of his decision to move on, MSU is looking to hire an Assistant Coach for the 2009-2010 season. The details of the posting are provided below. Please feel free to contact me at greta.stahl at gmail.com with any questions about this position. Greta - - - - - - Michigan State University is seeking someone to fill an Assistant Debate Coach position for the 2009-2010 debate season. Candidates should have completed an undergraduate degree, should have extensive experience in collegiate debate, and should be willing to live in East Lansing. This is a "debate-only" position -- meaning that applicants would not be required to teach courses or take Graduate-level classes. The position will entail traveling to debate tournaments with the team, working with students on research and speaking in between tournaments, and occasionally assisting with administrative tasks. This position does not necessarily include/require summer workshop work, though this may be an option. If you are interested in applying for this position, the application is available online at jobs.msu.edu (posting #3228). If you are interested in applying, please contact me at greta.stahl at gmail.com and let us know. I'd also be happy to answer any questions about this position! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090506/407215b5/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed May 6 13:31:04 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:31:04 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA new events discussion Message-ID: <4A01D768.3090508@uvm.edu> I largely agree with Justin Green on this one. While my squad does policy and worlds and will continue to do so, I am not in favor of adding a worlds division to CEDA nats. We have a worlds nationals already, US Universities Debating Championship. Last year we had 120+ teams. CEDA nats had 140, I believe. Let CEDA continue to do policy cross examination debate. And I think Chief is losing the debate on the specifics of allowing the president to make the decision. I am all for having people vote on such a decision, and when the vote comes to add worlds I will vote no. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed May 6 15:32:49 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 15:32:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Questioning the Taboo Topic area Message-ID: <20090506153249.292707iakfvjfawh@webmail.grandecom.net> Not a lengthy discussion. But I do want to raise an issue(s). Gay marriage--there is not much of a debate on its merits (at least within the debate community). My issue is that (a) at least five states as of this post have legalized it and (b) the Supreme Court is likely to make it a national right under the Full Faith and Credit Clause using the same lagic it used to overturn miscagenation laws. It seems as if this sub-area is prone to two bad outcomes: (a) Most rounds become a state c-plan and/or a Supreme Court C-plan debate or (b) Affirmatives have all the ground to debate. Is there going to be a major issue in terms of inherency/uniqueness debates? Scott From jarrod.atchison at gmail.com Wed May 6 16:34:00 2009 From: jarrod.atchison at gmail.com (Jarrod Atchison) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:34:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] One more plea for help... Message-ID: I know that we are approaching the end of the semester and that everyone is super busy. Several people mentioned to me at the NDT that they had simply forgotten to send in their information. The more data we have the stronger our argument will be so please send us whatever you can. Sincerely, ~Jarrod Here is the message from Dr. Rowland again: Colleagues: On behalf of the Tenure and Promotion Working Group that is preparing materials for the upcoming Third Developmental Conference on Debate to be hosted by Wake Forest next June, I am writing to solicit information and input related to the professional status of the debate coach at your university. Other members of the working group include Jarrod Atchison of Trinity University, Matt Gerber of Baylor, Kelly McDonald of Arizona State, and Jeff Jarman of Wichita State. For those of you who don't know me, I was the Director of Forensics at Baylor for five years in the 1980s and then for three more at KU and am currently a member of the Board of Trustees of the NDT. Our working group has the assignment of looking at the professional status of debate coaches and exploring whether a successor document to the Quail Roost Statement on the web site of the AFA might be created that could be used by debate coaches in various types of positions to explain to the administration of their particular school the appropriate professional standards for evaluating their work. One problem that coaches face again and again is that university administrations don't understand the demands of competitive debate and traditional standards for tenure and promotion are often inappropriate. This has caused many universities, including my own, to move to some kind of appointment for the debate coach other than that of a tenure-track faculty member. As a first step in carrying out our assignment, we want to gather information about the nature of your appointment and the standards by which it is evaluated. Of course, this information will be kept confidential and we will report only data within categories. Jarrod Atchison has graciously agreed to analyze this data. We hope you will take a moment and email him information about your appointment and the way it is evaluated. His email is jarrod.atchison at gmail.com. Please copy me on that message as well. My email is rrowland at ku.edu. We also would value any insights that you might have on the document that the working group eventually will draft. It is our hope that we can describe appropriate evaluative standards for a number of different types of appointments for debate coaches. As someone who has both been an active coach and a department chair for a decade, I know that the demands on coaches are enormous and very different from those of other faculty members. We want to create a document that will provide context for the role of coach and specify standards for evaluation that both reflect the pedagogical goals of debate and fairly account for the enormous workload required by contemporary debate. Debate has been the most important influence in my academic life. And my debate coach, Dr. Donn Parson, has been (and remains) an enormously influential mentor. For the future health of the activity, it is important that we identify reasonable standards for evaluating the professional accomplishment of debate coaches. We very much would value your participation in that effort. Robin Robert C. Rowland Professor and Chair Communication Studies 102 Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd. KU Lawrence, KS 66045-7574 Phone: 785-864-3633 Fax: 785-864-5203 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090506/f4ff0f2d/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Wed May 6 18:42:35 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 18:42:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] obama murders dozens of afghan civilians Message-ID: MLK would be endorsing the collateral damage b/c of the skin color of the commander-in-chief. the struggles of the civil rights leader and the imperial president are the exact same. in fact, obama is better b/c he is showing us to treat our wives in glamour magazines. http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-06-voa6.cfm Red Cross: Dozens of Afghans Killed in US AirstrikeBy Barry Newhouse Islamabad 06 May 2009 Afghan villagers mark new burial site of victims who were allegedly killed during the coalition airstrikes in Bala Baluk district of Farah province, Afghanistan, 05 May 2009Red Cross officials are backing local reports that U.S.-led airstrikes in western Afghanistan earlier this week killed dozens of civilians. The U.S. military is sending investigators to the scene and President Hamid Karzai has pledged to take up the issue in meetings with President Obama. Local Afghan officials say the incident occurred during a battle Monday and Tuesday in Farah province, when Afghan troops aided by U.S. soldiers were battling Taliban insurgents. Local officials said bombing raids on the suspected Taliban positions killed as many as 100 civilians and residents are still digging through rubble looking for more bodies. A Red Cross team sent to the region backed up the claims of dozens of civilian deaths, including women and children. A joint Afghan and U.S. military team has gone to investigate the site and interview residents, but officials said continued fighting in the region has delayed the mission. U.S. Deputy Ambassador Francis Ricciardone vowed to help the families of any civilians killed in the strikes, but said it is first important to try to establish what happened. "The first reports are almost always wrong, one way or another," Ricciardone said. "We also know that the insurgents, the Taliban, exploit them and sometimes usually fabricate in very sophisticated ways. So I think we have to wait and see what the facts are." In similar previous incidents, U.S. officials initially disputed Afghan claims of large numbers of civilian casualties. Later, the United Nations and Red Cross backed up the higher tallies. Those incidents helped make the issue one of the most contentious in Afghanistan, and led top officials including President Karzai to urge international forces to exhibit more restraint. Mr. Karzai has said airstrikes and house raids are seriously undermining support for international troops in the country. The United Nations estimated that in 2008, some 828 civilians were killed by coalition and Afghan security forces - a third higher than the year before. Most of those killed are believed to have died from aerial bombing. The U.N.'s highest estimated tally from a single incident has been 90 civilians killed in Azizabad village in western Afghanistan last year. Military officials say the public outrage over the deaths has led the Taliban to adopt tactics that try to encourage pro-government forces to strike civilian targets. ISAF spokesman Brigadier General Richard Blanchette says all foreign troops entering Afghanistan are trained to try to avoid such incidents, but they still occur. "We fully realize that we want to bring down the casualties to zero," Blanchette said. "But with the behavior of the insurgents who are continuing to hide, to use human shields, it is a difficult task to separate the population from the cowardly behavior of the insurgents." President Karzai's office released a statement saying he plans to raise the issue of civilian casualties during his first in-person meeting with President Barack Obama on Wednesday. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090506/773de26d/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed May 6 19:29:51 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 19:29:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Correction re: Strega's Message-ID: I obviously meant New Strega. I actually AM Old Strega. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090506/99000815/attachment.htm From richardgarner at gmail.com Wed May 6 21:29:33 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 22:29:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 5 years/Grad school debate In-Reply-To: <118db1be0905060726v35b24df9s7857ed2c262970ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <118db1be0905060726v35b24df9s7857ed2c262970ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0905061929j88ceba3gf1267c385701ef24@mail.gmail.com> What Liz said. On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Liz Kim wrote: > I don't really care about whether or not students get to debate for five > years, but frankly I'm a little surprised that the movement to allow > debaters a fifth year has become the focus of how to best encourage more > participation, or perhaps better participation in debate. This is even worse > if the grad school amendment is meant to be purely a question of fairness. > If we're going to allow grad students to debate, and even debate at a > different school than they attended undergrad for, we should repeal or at > least significantly amend the hybrid rule first. There isn't much excuse for > saying "oh it's ok for a grad student to debate at a different program > because his/her undergrad school doesn't have a graduate program" but then > saying that "debaters who attend colleges without established debate > programs have no right to go to the NDT with another team." By the hybrid > rule logic, grad students should be excluded from debating another year if > they "choose" to go to an undergrad institution without graduate > programs.The student first, debater second argument also supports > significant changes to the hybrid rule. Yes, I chose to go to a college that > hasn't had a debate team since the '60s and despite my best attempts to find > a partner and restart a program, the only way I could participate was to > debate with Harvard. The choice that I make in my academic interest however, > shouldn't deny me the opportunity to compete at the NDT. Yes, every choice > that I make, including where I go to college, will trade off with something > else - but that trade off can occur in the extra time it takes me to commute > to debate meetings at a different university, or even the inherent > difficulty in debating with another school rather than denying hybrid > debaters a chance to compete at the NDT. Unlike the grad school amendment > which would only extend a debaters' time to compete, changing the hybrid > rule would encourage new students to debate, even if they couldn't find a > partner at their own school. Obviously there are a variety of arguments for > and against amending the hybrid rule, but there isn't much justification for > allowing grad students to debate and have another NDT when some undergrad > students don't even get the chance to qualify. > > How about the community deals with a discriminatory rule that discourages > participation and team-building before trying to make sure debaters who > already had multiple opportunities to attend the NDT get one more shot. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090506/cb0d9fac/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu May 7 00:29:45 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 01:29:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] New Events Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905062229y17c33b5cxcb2b559d6ca9b479@mail.gmail.com> A question...Former president elliott seems to suggest that it would be a good idea to add another organizations nationals after december...what organization mentioned there decides after december when and where it's nationals is going to be? Is this the just in case some other major national forensics organization LOSES its DETERMINED site, and is willing t pay us a whole bunch of money in order to manage their logistics and host their hundreds of people...and the problem is ...the president cannont say yes to this remarkably good idea? Clearly what we want our president doing is agreeing in feb. to try something cool at nationals...like doubling their logistical burden..and the number of people...revenue streams...dangerous road to go down...if executive power is entirely determined by ability to access revenue streams, then not a one of the current ec should be in charge. we should host nfl/ceda/ada/ndt/toc/ncfl/universes, use the intense profit generated from hosting other peoples nationals and hire our selves a top notch revenue stream accessing maven -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090507/884b5c73/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Thu May 7 01:55:45 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 23:55:45 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Comments on the CEDA Amemdments and topic ballot Message-ID: <39c1ac890905062355w7bc6bc83lc8f12a084e09f818@mail.gmail.com> A lot to catch up on. Yes - there are technical problems with the listservs. I encourage everyone to become more familiar with the new CEDA website which has been designed to serve as a site for community documents, discussion, etc. The time will come in the not too distant future when all organizational business (topic, tournaments, deadlines, etc.) happens away from these lists. Now is a good time to start getting used to it. www.cedadebate.org I have provided a comment on the proposed CEDA amendments, including the grad student eligibility and adding events, at http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=node/839#comment-31 I have a note about the topic process at http://topic.cedadebate.org/?q=node/12#comment-3 You can leave your thoughts as replies to either item. Remember there is only a week left to vote. Please email Jeff Jarman if you need a ballot or have technical questions about voting. Thanks Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From edebate at anumbersgame.net Thu May 7 14:58:46 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 12:58:46 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 5 years/Grad school debate In-Reply-To: <118db1be0905060726v35b24df9s7857ed2c262970ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <118db1be0905060726v35b24df9s7857ed2c262970ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <739f03b0905071258kc988fa9ge4fc4689cc94608a@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Liz Kim wrote: > If we're going to allow grad students to debate, and even debate at a > different school than they attended undergrad for, we should repeal or at > least significantly amend the hybrid rule first. I was curious about the numbers for hybrid teams: The charts: http://repository.anumbersgame.net/wiki/HybridTeams Summary: In the average year, about 6% of debaters participate in a hybrid team. 23% of these only debate on hybrid teams. 50% of tournaments have some hybrid entries, but those tournaments generate 58% of the ballots. From blakejohnson at urbandebate.org Thu May 7 19:35:35 2009 From: blakejohnson at urbandebate.org (Blake Johnson) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:35:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] High School Debate Class Syllabus (esp California) Message-ID: <7c50ea8f0905071735u5677ce0cnba77bcf255a1edbe@mail.gmail.com> Hello friends, I'm currently trying to get debate classes in Oakland and San Francisco high schools recognized as Cal A-G Courses. Being relatively new to syllabus construction, I'm wondering if any of you have a model that I might be able to take a look at. I'm particularly interested in seeing any and all syllabi from California high schools and especially those that are already recognized by the UC System. Thanks in advance. 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/20090507/198a19c5/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu May 7 22:11:39 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 22:11:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Taboo Topic..Interesting article Message-ID: <20090507221139.193059dmylz2wf6z@webmail.grandecom.net> I have no idea how this impacts the debate for the Aff or the Neg, but voters may want to consider: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30614874/ From bamadebate at yahoo.com Thu May 7 23:15:30 2009 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 21:15:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Questioning the Taboo Topic area In-Reply-To: <20090506153249.292707iakfvjfawh@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <20090506153249.292707iakfvjfawh@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <644075.22230.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Which part of the topic is this not a concern? "War on Drugs" seems to be the only thing is insulated from the states cp. THere is actually decent ev on the need for a federal signal for gay marriage but that seems to be it. Some would argue that the threat of the states cp should not deter us from exploring a new body of literature. My good friend, Dylan Keenan, would argue that the fact we consider the risk of the states cp to decide this which topic we will spend the next year investigating is one of the major reason the cp is illegitimate. e ________________________________ From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:32:49 PM Subject: [eDebate] Questioning the Taboo Topic area Not a lengthy discussion. But I do want to raise an issue(s). Gay marriage--there is not much of a debate on its merits (at least within the debate community). My issue is that (a) at least five states as of this post have legalized it and (b) the Supreme Court is likely to make it a national right under the Full Faith and Credit Clause using the same lagic it used to overturn miscagenation laws. It seems as if this sub-area is prone to two bad outcomes: (a) Most rounds become a state c-plan and/or a Supreme Court C-plan debate or (b) Affirmatives have all the ground to debate. Is there going to be a major issue in terms of inherency/uniqueness debates? 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/20090507/6d469c1d/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu May 7 23:34:16 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 23:34:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA Message-ID: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> Warning: Post may contain (attempts at) humor. Ok so when Justin objected to the ?New Events? amendment I sat and thought about it a while. Justin is a great coach, has really successful teams, and was a good debater himself back in the day. So I was conflicted. Then Tuna and Andy agreed with him and I was convinced I was in fact correct. This 3-0 decision also reminded me of why I am often in favor or MPJ. But I digress... Justin argues no new events without a popular vote. We apparently wont agree on that one but I am curious where the line is drawn? Democracy as Justin describes it rarely exists, in life or in CEDA or the NDT. Direct votes rarely ever occur on major decisions?its why we have reps. We have elected reps who are elected through democratic means. The amendment does not give the President authority to do this on his own. I demonstrated it would require approval of almost 20% of our membership (the EC includes almost 20 people). Where is the outcry when other decisions are not made by popular vote? Me thinks it might be politically more salient to cry foul when its small potatoes and hope things swing the right way when big decisions are made. But maybe its just a feeling I get. Like when someone drops ?must define all words? or runs a bad K for 9 minutes in the 1NC. Bottom line, we have reps we elect. Hold them accountable on this as you would anything else hopefully. Will this lead to tyranny? I almost wet myself laughing. Seriously. Then the phone rang and it was 1983 asking we please give back their Federalism Disad Impact. As for a tyranny of ideas and the ?mission? of CEDA I think Justin is a bit off here too. A large part of CEDA's mission is increasing novice debate and participation?Justin opposed the novice breakout rounds at CEDA. Why didnt that fly in the face of our mission? As for promoting Cross Examination Debate, there are other forms of debate like public debate events that promote cross examination debate. Justin points out the platform questions did not ask which events the candidates might add. I would respond by saying there is no conspiracy here. Repeat, no conspiracy here. Gordon, Sue, Mike. None of them to my knowledge have secret plans to add events. None of them do any of the events I mentioned except some public debate events. But I would trust that no one (especially 17 people?the EC) would approve of something in such a flawed manner as to not run a great CEDA. Again there was no asnwer to the number of past Presidents who changed things significantly and how those changes had no negative effect on the outcome of the tournament nor diminished the championships we crowned. Hating to add to the semantics charge, but novice breakout rounds were not a new ?division?. I think that is where a lot of this is stemming from. But again maybe just a bad feeling. As to the belief that this amendment would destroy democracy is either uninformed (see above?multiple decisions a year without popular vote) or conspiratorial. And as far as conspiracies go this is one of the weakest Ive ever seen advanced here. Tuna, you know about conspiracies right? Am I right or am I right? : ) Finally I will try and address privilige. Not everyone has K-State's resources. Budgets around 6 digits, multiple coaches, grad students, the ability to travel virtually anywhere, and an endless group of debaters. When you have that luxury and focus on one thing, I understand your desire to protect that one thing. But what about programs without that ability? What about programs who have gone on to other forms of Forensics? Many of them made choices and arent coming back. But what if? What if CEDA ran alongside another form of debate and a few colleges came and were able to do both? Or some came and liked what we were doing and crossed over? Or some who do primarily Parli, who have kids that want to try Policy, came and had kids do both? What is bad about that? Seriousforensic organizations and I know some folks who would like to exist on the fringes, or participate now and then, but budgets force choices. A former CEDA President speaking here made the choice this year to do a different form of debate and not send teams to CEDA. Thats too bad. Maybe CEDA has lost its purpose for him. Maybe it has for others. Maybe it will for more in the future. Then that one thing conspiracy theorists try so hard to protect wont be big enough to justify to your administrators. Then your budgets begin to shift. I have a list of 200 schools who have made that shift?dont think it cant happen. My point is that if we were more experimental, if we opened up debate to more people, then maybe CEDA would begin to grow again. What other options are there? So yes we participate in Cross Examination Debate and I hope we continue to do so in healthy numbers?but shutting off the opportunities to bring others in is in my opinion foolish. This amendment does not empower the President to be tyrannical. It requires the EC approval?your EC. The elected reps you know. It also would not destroy democracy. We have virtually no popular vote democracy now. And it would expedite the process to expose CEDA to potential new programs. An integral part of our mission. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA Immediate Past President >>> Justin Green 05/05/09 9:25 PM >>> The short version: We shouldn't add new events without a popular vote. Yes, democracy is slow and time consuming. Dictatorships = quick decisions.....Democracy = you have to wait for everyone to vote. If you want the President to add Parli, Worlds, LD, Public Forum, Extemp, etc to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals without a vote, then vote yes. For those of you who want CEDA Nats to be a celebration of Cross Ex Debate and not a new event without a popular vote - vote no. As a caveat, had the amendment said "The President can add new events or divisions by putting them up to a public vote with a three week window for the public to vote". This would solve all of the problems Chief mentioned, yet still maintain democracy. If there is a way for a friendly amendment, please instruct. Chief's arguments seem eerily similar to "must define all words" - largely a semantics game. "1. The amendment process is often too long of a cycle, unwieldy, and unfriendly of a process once the year starts. If we were to require amendments to change anything about the National Tournament, it would likely take at least a year likely from its inception date for anything after November 1st. I think that is when bureaucracy can hamstring an organization. " You call it hamstring an organization. I might call it preventing tyranny. Is it tyranny that will kill me physically - no, but it is certainly a tyranny of ideas that flies in the face of the mission of our organization "promote Cross Examination Debate". "2. The President and EC are voted on by a community vote. This is one of those times Directors will need to decide if they trust their elected leadership to do what is within the best interest of the community they represent." Which part of the Presidential platform discussion asked "do you want to add new events to make CEDA Nationals "? I trust them to run a CX tournament, but I have no idea if Gordon is qualified to run a Public Forum or World's Tournament or which events he will seek to add. "3. New events: Again Gordon should chime in, but one thing he talked about was the ability for our organization to reach out to other organizations, groups, constituencies. If CEDA wanted to offer a Public Debate event, umbrella sponosr another organization's National Tournament (Parli, NFA Lincoln-Douglas, etc) this amendment would allow the President to make that offer with the suppport of the EC. A decision to do this in December would be too late to get an amendment passed to do it. And amendments usually imply continuity, ato year-to-year trial experiments. Sometimes revenue streams may make it beneficial to the organization to do just this, and reach out to others inside the big tent. " Gordon, please chime in here. Will NFA Lincoln-Douglas be asking us to join them so that they can put money towards our nationals? To put it in terms Chief used while judging me once "I don't get it". "4. The People's Tournament: Indeed! I articulated above why sometimes process takes too long for all the "people" to chime in." Ummmm....If democracy is slow then it is not worth following? Chief you added a division - Novice. New novice division, not the same as "lets debate LD". While I received enlightening backchannels after my previous post comparing this amendment to Senator Palpatine's plan of destroying democracy "one amendment at a time" (provided by the debate Green Party President aka Jester the behester) and those who had more explicit concerns like "here comes Worlds Debate" (a former CEDA Presidential candidate), I was hoping to get the perspective of someone other than the current President or former President as to why expanding executive powers to include A NEW EVENT was a good idea - especially one without a popular vote. Last I checked we participate in Cross Examination Debate. Hence our organizations name. While personally participating and facilitating multiple forms of debate: public forums, debates with my wife, debates among local representatives, and in-class debates, just to name a few. Sometimes there are declared winners sometimes no winners at all. But, when our teams go to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals, I for one am happy that we are debating Cross-Ex styles with all of its diversity and spending a weekend just dedicated to the efforts of our students working hard on that event. If we want to add World's Debate to CEDA, why can't this wait a year for an amendment to let all the World's voices to be heard? Justin Green _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu May 7 23:38:58 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 23:38:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New Events ans Andy Message-ID: <4A037113020000930002993B@mymail.kckcc.edu> I cannot imagine many times when such a request would come up after December. And as Gordon pointed out the amendment would require any new event to be in the CEDA invite. And yes, if we were at a site with the room, and another tournament wanted to bring in THEIR personnel and run THEIR tournament, why would we not want to expose other forensics folks to CEDA? Are we really that unattractive? As for the shot at the CEDA EC not being competent enough to generate revenue streams, all I can say is sometimes full time jobs get in the way of being good fund raisers. What we do have going for us however is the ability to earn free Hotel Points when we host large tournaments. Now you gotta give us credit for that. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA Immediate Past Prseident Andy Ellis wrote: A question...Former president elliott seems to suggest that it would be a good idea to add another organizations nationals after december...what organization mentioned there decides after december when and where it's nationals is going to be? Is this the just in case some other major national forensics organization LOSES its DETERMINED site, and is willing t pay us a whole bunch of money in order to manage their logistics and host their hundreds of people...and the problem is ...the president cannont say yes to this remarkably good idea? Clearly what we want our president doing is agreeing in feb. to try something cool at nationals...like doubling their logistical burden..and the number of people...revenue streams...dangerous road to go down...if executive power is entirely determined by ability to access revenue streams, then not a one of the current ec should be in charge. we should host nfl/ceda/ada/ndt/toc/ncfl/universes, use the intense profit generated from hosting other peoples nationals and hire our selves a top notch revenue stream accessing maven From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu May 7 23:48:27 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 23:48:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Questioning the Taboo Topic area In-Reply-To: <644075.22230.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <20090506153249.292707iakfvjfawh@webmail.grandecom.net> <644075.22230.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20090507234827.19606m8w6uuk7jbv@webmail.grandecom.net> On Ag subsdies, yes, on issues such as marriage, this is clearly a Constitutional States rights issues, except for the Full Faith and Credit Clause. State c-plan is only illegit when people use it outside fo its proper constitutional scope. Quoting ed lee : > Which part of the topic is this not a concern? "War on Drugs" seems > to be the only thing is insulated from the states cp. THere is > actually decent ev on the need for a federal signal for gay marriage > but that seems to be it. Some would argue that the threat of the > states cp should not deter us from exploring a new body of > literature. My good friend, Dylan Keenan, would argue that the fact > we consider the risk of the states cp to decide this which topic we > will spend the next year investigating is one of the major reason > the cp is illegitimate. > e > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:32:49 PM > Subject: [eDebate] Questioning the Taboo Topic area > > Not a lengthy discussion. But I do want to raise an issue(s). > > Gay marriage--there is not much of a debate on its merits (at least > within the debate community). My issue is that (a) at least five > states as of this post have legalized it and (b) the Supreme Court is > likely to make it a national right under the Full Faith and Credit > Clause using the same lagic it used to overturn miscagenation laws. > > It seems as if this sub-area is prone to two bad outcomes: > > (a) Most rounds become a state c-plan and/or a Supreme Court C-plan debate or > (b) Affirmatives have all the ground to debate. > > Is there going to be a major issue in terms of inherency/uniqueness debates? > > Scott > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > From richardgarner at gmail.com Fri May 8 07:37:25 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:37:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Questioning the Taboo Topic area In-Reply-To: <20090507234827.19606m8w6uuk7jbv@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <20090506153249.292707iakfvjfawh@webmail.grandecom.net> <644075.22230.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <20090507234827.19606m8w6uuk7jbv@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0905080537u13e93e0foefac99fec03a35@mail.gmail.com> "a Constitutional States rights issue": While this is theoretically true, it is empirically much less so. The federal government is heavily involved in all these areas of life, and a simple abstract reference to the states (FIAT) obscures that relation. I don't think people so much think that the question of states vs. federal action is illegitimate, just that the mechanism of activating that discussion is a poor one (thus, Dylan proposes: block grants CP or a non-uniform conception of state action (or maybe someone else proposed the last one...)). Also, additional considerations: 1. Less important: the federal government "does a bad" in this situation, and if a plan can stop that, then there's an advantage somewhere. Much of this also spills over into areas of international concern, such as development policy, international human rights campaigns, etc. 2. More important: in many ways, these questions are extremely well-suited to the courts. The advantages to court action in many of these areas would be intrinsic to the principles concerned as much as the particular policies. Also, some areas are more imbricated in federal law than we might think. For example, and I don't know the current status of this debate/issure per se but it will do as a representative, what about a mother's ability to breast feed/pump breast milk at work? RG On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:48 AM, wrote: > On Ag subsdies, yes, on issues such as marriage, this is clearly a > Constitutional States rights issues, except for the Full Faith and > Credit Clause. State c-plan is only illegit when people use it outside > fo its proper constitutional scope. > > > Quoting ed lee : > > > Which part of the topic is this not a concern? "War on Drugs" seems > > to be the only thing is insulated from the states cp. THere is > > actually decent ev on the need for a federal signal for gay marriage > > but that seems to be it. Some would argue that the threat of the > > states cp should not deter us from exploring a new body of > > literature. My good friend, Dylan Keenan, would argue that the fact > > we consider the risk of the states cp to decide this which topic we > > will spend the next year investigating is one of the major reason > > the cp is illegitimate. > > e > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: "scottelliott at grandecom.net" > > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 4:32:49 PM > > Subject: [eDebate] Questioning the Taboo Topic area > > > > Not a lengthy discussion. But I do want to raise an issue(s). > > > > Gay marriage--there is not much of a debate on its merits (at least > > within the debate community). My issue is that (a) at least five > > states as of this post have legalized it and (b) the Supreme Court is > > likely to make it a national right under the Full Faith and Credit > > Clause using the same lagic it used to overturn miscagenation laws. > > > > It seems as if this sub-area is prone to two bad outcomes: > > > > (a) Most rounds become a state c-plan and/or a Supreme Court C-plan > debate or > > (b) Affirmatives have all the ground to debate. > > > > Is there going to be a major issue in terms of inherency/uniqueness > debates? > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/206ab050/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri May 8 09:24:23 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:24:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] New Events ans Andy In-Reply-To: <4A037113020000930002993B@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A037113020000930002993B@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905080724u4c707ce7n38b696624869e3c9@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Darren Elliott wrote: > I cannot imagine many times when such a request would come up after > December. And as Gordon pointed out the amendment would require any new > event to be in the CEDA invite. And yes, if we were at a site with the > room, and another tournament wanted to bring in THEIR personnel and run > THEIR tournament, why would we not want to expose other forensics folks to > CEDA? Are we really that unattractive? I don't think thats the point......but you get to proving that later on...the point is that somebody with a full time job, and then another one, should not be making the decision that with less than 3 months to go before their third full time job hits its peak they want to add another organizations national tournament to the organizations(run by people with three full time jobs) responsobility chart...no matter how much you say it will be their personel and their stuff unless you are just agreeing to share campuses and hotel blocks with other organizations, no revenue...but if not and it is a revenue stream for the org you will create workload for the organization...doable, in the world i am calling for, but by your own admission not feasible in the world where the ec is all gainfully employed elsewhere first as a professor or lawyer or whatever, then as a debate coach, then as an ec member....come on man for the sake of the ad homs you have walked right into the bigger argument. To get back to justins point...if the collective will of the organization is eager to make this bad business decision...not catagoricaly just as you have described it...perhaps you should let gordon do the talking...then so be it...but a president barely elected with popular support as you point out shouldnt be able to do it...when things are bad enough ideas put forth either by amendment the community rejects them...usually...when it comes time to vote for 2nd vice president...the community is kinda meh about it...so here is the world you want...a person elected into leadership...with at most the support of a quarter(im being generous here) of the membership, the meh of about 75 per cent of it...this person in conjunction with similarly elected people...all gainfully employed elsewhere...should not have sweeping executive powers...it was bold enough when bush took them, this is an evenmore ridiculous application of them...and this example proves why...i really don't think you could have made a worse defense of this amendment...like seriously your strongest argument for why this two month window needs to opened up is...what if i want to double the size and respnsibility of the tournament over christmas break?....well obviously i wouldnt want to check with the membership about how they feel about this, because they will think it an awful idea...so let me just tell them and then tel them i am open to discussion on it...perhaps on the ceda website...people discuss this now...it is the last chance you will have to do so...if you you vote yes on this amendment, the only people who will discuss it will be your leadership...can you even name the ec without looking it up? > > > As for the shot at the CEDA EC not being competent enough to generate > revenue streams, all I can say is sometimes full time jobs get in the way of > being good fund raisers. What we do have going for us however is the > ability to earn free Hotel Points when we host large tournaments. Now you > gotta give us credit for that. > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA Immediate Past Prseident > > > Andy Ellis wrote: > > A question...Former president elliott seems to suggest that it would be a > good idea to add another organizations nationals after december...what > organization mentioned there decides after december when and where it's > nationals is going to be? Is this the just in case some other major > national > forensics organization LOSES its DETERMINED site, and is willing t pay us a > whole bunch of money in order to manage their logistics and host their > hundreds of people...and the problem is ...the president cannont say yes to > this remarkably good idea? Clearly what we want our president doing is > agreeing in feb. to try something cool at nationals...like doubling their > logistical burden..and the number of people...revenue streams...dangerous > road to go down...if executive power is entirely determined by ability to > access revenue streams, then not a one of the current ec should be in > charge. we should host nfl/ceda/ada/ndt/toc/ncfl/universes, use the intense > profit generated from hosting other peoples nationals and hire our selves a > top notch revenue stream accessing maven > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/8c791cb1/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Fri May 8 11:06:51 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:06:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA In-Reply-To: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <5a6e2a80905080906o3d5d64d4l7ba92be0ce101f85@mail.gmail.com> Two reasons to vote no: CEDA was established to promote Cross Examination Debate. I for one appreciate that. The inclusion of LD, Parli, worlds - (if they are "Cross Ex Debate" because they involve questions and answers this is a very liberal interp of Cross Ex Debate) - takes away from the time and energy necessary to host a truly wonderful experience of what we traditionally know as Cross Ex Debate. If we are successful, then we are taking away from other organizations nationals. So we decide to host LD, then all of a sudden the NFALD community is split between two nationals, I am not sure why this is good for them or us. Perhaps the following year they would host a Policy Nationals in Miami, Florida. If you think ADA, NDT, CEDA is bad now, wait till we add a fourth or fifth. Counterplan: Work with another organization. If the problem is a split between Policy and Parli or Policy and LD and squads which have both need to make a forced financial decision, then CEDA should simply work along with NFA-LD (i.e) to identify a host who can accomodate both. No event would need to be added, this would address all of the problems identified by Chief, but avoid the ones listed above. This requires no constitutional amendment. And the CEDA EC has its hands full running cx debate, why would they want more on their plate. Pre-empts: If the goal is to crown a CEDA Novice National Champion, then why was that amendment not proposed? If there is another specific event that should be added because it is educationally worthwhile, what is that event? why is it not proposed as an amendment? The adding of the event can only be a financial/administrative reasons - if it were along educational merits, it would be proposed right now. Distinction between event and division....Yes, there might be a version of Public Debate that could be considered cross-examination debate. However, in your previous post you mentioned including LD, Worlds, Parli, etc. Had this amendment said, CEDA can offer a new division of cross ex debate, arguments against would be much more difficult to make. Novice break-out was added because Chief did have that Constitutional Authority. Responses: Yes there are schools with multiple forms of debate. CP above addresses this. Here's the issue. Why would it be good for us to decide to host Parli in November at our CEDA Nationals tournament? Aside from being highly unlikely due to logistical contstraints (lack of classrooms and hotel space being the biggest one), this seems to create huge administrative burdens at a tournament that is highly likely to produce failure. Tuna pointed out that Parli(in addition to multiple I.E. nationals) won't likely come. We just open the door for a poor decision. Why referendum and not representation? I covered this in a post to Gordon. Below are the responses: 1. They are not truly representative - Yes they are voted on, but not every region has the same number of schools. It is closer to the Senate than the House of Reps. 2. Fundamental Decisions about the future of the organization should be decided on by the people, not the EC. As a former rep - It's hard to balance being an EC member. At any given time there could be as many as five or six issues before the EC. My hats are off to those that are. Some of the members spend a great deal of time deliberating, others do not. Sure some adminstrative decisions should be made through the EC, but not ones that fundamentally change the mission of the tournament. 3. Democracy is often representative, but when it can truly be a referendum without significant harm, why not pursue it. The Ad Hom debate: Dude, if tyranny made you wet your pants, maybe you should see a doctor. It would be an interesting experiment to see if a panel of Ellis, Green and Snider were of a higher MPJ than Chief. Especially if the MPJ revolved around resolving a CEDA Constitutional and Adminsitrative Debates and the growth/development of CEDA was compared between the Snider administration and the Elliot administration. Not sure which way it would go. Not sure why our budget is relevant to this discussion, but since Chief asked. His facts are wrong about the KSU Budget. I wrote a couple of paragraphs mud-slinging back at KCK calling them privileged too and defending KSU and then decided to delete them and chalk his comments up to lack of accurate information. Both KSU and KCK debaters read this and this discussion is good for neither of our squads. I am not interested in the oppression olympics. Anyone who feels KSU's budget is relevant to their vote, should back-channel me. Justin From tara_l_tate at hotmail.com Fri May 8 11:37:30 2009 From: tara_l_tate at hotmail.com (Tara Tate) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:37:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] High School Debate Class Syllabus (esp California) In-Reply-To: <7c50ea8f0905071735u5677ce0cnba77bcf255a1edbe@mail.gmail.com> References: <7c50ea8f0905071735u5677ce0cnba77bcf255a1edbe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Blake (and other interested parties) - The NDCA has a fantastic database for all sorts of materials for debate coaches...lesson plans, syllabi, permission form templates, etc. I don't think we have any specific from California, but we may have some that are helpful. We *just* redid our website and we are in the process of reposting a lot of our curriculum materials. You can certainly visit it today, but with the TOC now over, I intend on getting much more of our materials up over the course of the weekend. I will start with the sample syllabi. Specifically, if anyone is interested, I will be uploading a "Current Event" unit this weekend that I just completed on Poverty. It is not tied to debate but is a good curriculum to get the kids excited and engaged (hopefully) on next year's topic and give them some good foundation material heep://www.debatecoaches.org - tab at top for resources for all of our curriculum material. Blake, if folks send you things in backchannel, can you forward them to me to post on the website? As many materials as we have to "beg, borrow, and steal" from, the better. :) Tara Tate NDCA Executive Board member Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:35:35 -0700 From: blakejohnson at urbandebate.org To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] High School Debate Class Syllabus (esp California) Hello friends, I'm currently trying to get debate classes in Oakland and San Francisco high schools recognized as Cal A-G Courses. Being relatively new to syllabus construction, I'm wondering if any of you have a model that I might be able to take a look at. I'm particularly interested in seeing any and all syllabi from California high schools and especially those that are already recognized by the UC System. Thanks in advance. b -- Blake Johnson Executive Director Bay Area Urban Debate League www.baudl.org _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has a new way to see what's up with your friends. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/95fca3b4/attachment.htm From logan.martin at gmail.com Fri May 8 11:47:19 2009 From: logan.martin at gmail.com (Logan Martin) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:47:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] same sex marriage (ans elliot) Message-ID: "b) the Supreme Court is likely to make it a national right under the Full Faith and Credit Clause using the same lagic it used to overturn miscagenation laws. " For what it's worth: I don't think Loving v. Virginia (the landmark Supreme Court case striking down anti-miscegenation laws) was decided on Full Faith and Credit grounds. I think it was decided on 14th amendment substantive due process/equal protection grounds: marriage is a fundamental right, Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute burdens it, doesn't withstand strict scrutiny, ergo unconstitutional/race is a suspect classification, Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes are racially discriminatory, doesn't withstand strict scrutiny, ergo unconstitutional. At the very least, it wasn't ONLY decided on full faith and credit grounds, bc that would have meant that Virginia could continue to ban interracial marriages in Virginia so long as it recognized interracial marriages conducted outside of Virginia. Now maybe there's a pretty healthy debate to be had about whether Loving compels the recognition of same-sex marriages, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion--especially with the current supreme court. In two landmark Supreme Court gay rights cases in the last 15 years or so the court has declined to apply heightened scrutiny to laws which discriminated against gays/lesbians either on Equal Protection Grounds or on Substantive Due Process grounds. (See Romer v. Evans--using rational basis, not strict/intermediate scrutiny, to strike down Colorado's Amendment 2; see also Lawrence v. Texas--striking down anti-sodomy statutes under rational basis review only.) Also I think the court's moved to the right a little bit since those decisions, but of course it's hard to speculate how any court will come out on an issue. Lastly, even if the court requried states to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages recognized in other states I think this would be different than recognizing a "right" to same sex marriage. It wouldn't require states to allow same-sex couples to get married in any state they wanted, at least. So anyhow thought I would share all that. I don't know how that should impact everybody's topic discussion. Logan Martin p.s. Here's some of the cases I mentioned: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html(Loving) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0517_0620_ZS.html(Romer) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html (Lawrence) p.s.s.: After typing this I went back and re-read Loving. It does not mention the Full Faith and Credit Clause. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/68d932c7/attachment.htm From logan.martin at gmail.com Fri May 8 13:03:38 2009 From: logan.martin at gmail.com (Logan Martin) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:03:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] same sex marriage (ans elliot) Message-ID: "b) the Supreme Court is likely to make it a national right under the Full Faith and Credit Clause using the same lagic it used to overturn miscagenation laws. " For what it's worth: I don't think Loving v. Virginia (the landmark Supreme Court case striking down anti-miscegenation laws) was decided on Full Faith and Credit grounds. I think it was decided on 14th amendment substantive due process/equal protection grounds: marriage is a fundamental right, Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute burdens it, doesn't withstand strict scrutiny, ergo unconstitutional/race is a suspect classification, Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes are racially discriminatory, doesn't withstand strict scrutiny, ergo unconstitutional. At the very least, it wasn't ONLY decided on full faith and credit grounds, bc that would have meant that Virginia could continue to ban interracial marriages in Virginia so long as it recognized interracial marriages conducted outside of Virginia. Now maybe there's a pretty healthy debate to be had about whether Loving compels the recognition of same-sex marriages, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion--especially with the current supreme court. In two landmark Supreme Court gay rights cases in the last 15 years or so the court has declined to apply heightened scrutiny to laws which discriminated against gays/lesbians either on Equal Protection Grounds or on Substantive Due Process grounds. (See Romer v. Evans--using rational basis, not strict/intermediate scrutiny, to strike down Colorado's Amendment 2; see also Lawrence v. Texas--striking down anti-sodomy statutes under rational basis review only.) Also I think the court's moved to the right a little bit since those decisions, but of course it's hard to speculate how any court will come out on an issue. Lastly, even if the court requried states to give full faith and credit to same-sex marriages recognized in other states I think this would be different than recognizing a "right" to same sex marriage. It wouldn't require states to allow same-sex couples to get married in any state they wanted, at least. So anyhow thought I would share all that. I don't know how that should impact everybody's topic discussion. Logan Martin p.s. Here's some of the cases I mentioned: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html(Loving) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0517_0620_ZS.html(Romer) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html (Lawrence) p.s.s.: After typing this I went back and re-read Loving. It does not mention the Full Faith and Credit Clause. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/adcb44e1/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Fri May 8 13:27:58 2009 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:27:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Concern about the Graduation Amendment Message-ID: <7fd76c680905081127y21da2240i6cf4f79705bc199c@mail.gmail.com> Yesterday at our squad meeting, I thought we would quickly discusss the graduation amendment and move on when my team made some very good points that I would like to inquire about. So here is my concern and perhaps someone can alleviate it or agree with it or logically dismiss it. The amendment that allows a student to continue debating in their first year of graduate school may unfairly privlege programs with attached graduate schools in recruiting activities. A director who is recruiting a student to their debate program may be able to make their program sound very appealing if they said "If you want to finish your degree in 4 years, you can continue debating here." Even if the student is fooling themselves and has zero intention or will to graduate in four years (which, from my experience, is VERY often the case when dealing with 18-year-old kids...they all think they can handle 24 credit hours a semester), the possibility of expediting graduation may just be appealing enough to make them prefer a bigger school with graduate programs. If that program has graduate assistantships that are attached to the debate program, that could be even more appealing ("come debate for me: school will be free your 5th year and we'll pay you $10,000"...to an 18-year-old, that sounds awesome)*. This also may disadvantage new programs that either (a) don't have graduate schools in popular debater-majors (poly sci, comm, etc.) or (b) even have graduate schools but no assistantships designated for the debate team. Keep in mind, this is just a reservation and concern that we have, not necessarily a deal-breaker for the amendment. I just wanted to put this out there to see what other folks thought. Obviously, I do this from the perspective of a director at a program that doesn't have an attached graduate school or any graduate assistantships. It may be the case that, althought this concern is a real one, that it simply doesn't outweigh the concerns of belaying academic advancement of our students. 'What? Students may go to schools where they can go to undergrad AND graduate school at the same university? Good!' I get that. As one of my debaters put it "if you can handle debating a full schedule and your first year of graduate school at the same time, more power to you." And I do think it is dumb for someone to have to take 24 credit hours of basket weaving their super senior year just so they can debate. But at the same time, it is plainly obvious that the most skilled and practiced high school debaters that come out of big TOC programs almost exclusively go to large, well-funded debate teams at very reputable universities; I believe this amendment will amplify that effect. Do the academic benefits to some of our students outweigh the slight structural magnification of inequity between programs? I don't know -- that's why I'm asking. Sam * A seperate concern, but one worth inquiring about. How would assistantships that are designated for debate teaching assistants work in that world? Would those just become de facto debating scholarships? Would assistanships that are tied to a partial teaching load even be feasible to a student with a full travel schedule? I suppose it would vary, but something to think about. -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/1d29a59d/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri May 8 13:32:10 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:32:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA In-Reply-To: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: Hey, I think there is a feeling that by having a bunch of fringe competition suddenly tied to a National tournament you risk cheapening the value of winning a National tournament for the participants. Instead of one CEDA champion there are now a CEDA National parli champion, novice champion, and varsity champion. This certainly confuses the already difficult "advertising and promoting" your championship. As for Democracy: Perhaps the problem is that Justin is making some arguments against the proposal but contained in arguments for Democracy. In other words, you need to present a disadvatage to presenting the proposal to the voters instead of "just the EC." I think Tuna's point, as it has been for over ten years, is that Parli doesn't want to come back to CEDA and has no incentive to do so. By calling CEDA a "Parli" national championship you might actually be insulting/cheapening their own national championships - not likely to make them come rushing back to the fold. I could be wrong on this one and do not want to "speak for Tuna" at all but it seems somewhat logical. How would you feel if you had just won Parli nationals, against 200 teams, and some joker is in the press saying they were the CEDA national parli champion when they competed against like 20 teams. Finally, none of this is intended to demean any attempt to widen the fold of CEDA/NDT debate. I am certain all involved in this discussion have nothing but the best intentions vis-a-vis the activity. Hope everyone is well, Josh On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Darren Elliott wrote: > Warning: Post may contain (attempts at) humor. > > Ok so when Justin objected to the ?New Events? amendment I sat and > thought about it a while. Justin is a great coach, has really > successful teams, and was a good debater himself back in the day. So I > was conflicted. Then Tuna and Andy agreed with him and I was convinced > I was in fact correct. This 3-0 decision also reminded me of why I am > often in favor or MPJ. But I digress... > > Justin argues no new events without a popular vote. We apparently wont > agree on that one but I am curious where the line is drawn? Democracy > as Justin describes it rarely exists, in life or in CEDA or the NDT. > Direct votes rarely ever occur on major decisions?its why we have reps. > We have elected reps who are elected through democratic means. The > amendment does not give the President authority to do this on his own. > I demonstrated it would require approval of almost 20% of our membership > (the EC includes almost 20 people). Where is the outcry when other > decisions are not made by popular vote? Me thinks it might be > politically more salient to cry foul when its small potatoes and hope > things swing the right way when big decisions are made. But maybe its > just a feeling I get. Like when someone drops ?must define all words? > or runs a bad K for 9 minutes in the 1NC. Bottom line, we have reps we > elect. Hold them accountable on this as you would anything else > hopefully. > > Will this lead to tyranny? I almost wet myself laughing. Seriously. > Then the phone rang and it was 1983 asking we please give back their > Federalism Disad Impact. As for a tyranny of ideas and the ?mission? of > CEDA I think Justin is a bit off here too. A large part of CEDA's > mission is increasing novice debate and participation?Justin opposed the > novice breakout rounds at CEDA. Why didnt that fly in the face of our > mission? As for promoting Cross Examination Debate, there are other > forms of debate like public debate events that promote cross examination > debate. > > Justin points out the platform questions did not ask which events the > candidates might add. I would respond by saying there is no conspiracy > here. Repeat, no conspiracy here. Gordon, Sue, Mike. None of them to > my knowledge have secret plans to add events. None of them do any of > the events I mentioned except some public debate events. But I would > trust that no one (especially 17 people?the EC) would approve of > something in such a flawed manner as to not run a great CEDA. Again > there was no asnwer to the number of past Presidents who changed things > significantly and how those changes had no negative effect on the > outcome of the tournament nor diminished the championships we crowned. > > Hating to add to the semantics charge, but novice breakout rounds were > not a new ?division?. I think that is where a lot of this is stemming > from. But again maybe just a bad feeling. > > As to the belief that this amendment would destroy democracy is either > uninformed (see above?multiple decisions a year without popular vote) or > conspiratorial. And as far as conspiracies go this is one of the > weakest Ive ever seen advanced here. Tuna, you know about conspiracies > right? Am I right or am I right? : ) > > Finally I will try and address privilige. Not everyone has K-State's > resources. Budgets around 6 digits, multiple coaches, grad students, > the ability to travel virtually anywhere, and an endless group of > debaters. When you have that luxury and focus on one thing, I > understand your desire to protect that one thing. But what about > programs without that ability? What about programs who have gone on to > other forms of Forensics? Many of them made choices and arent coming > back. But what if? What if CEDA ran alongside another form of debate > and a few colleges came and were able to do both? Or some came and > liked what we were doing and crossed over? Or some who do primarily > Parli, who have kids that want to try Policy, came and had kids do both? > What is bad about that? Seriousforensic organizations and I know some > folks who would like to exist on > the fringes, or participate now and then, but budgets force choices. A > former CEDA President speaking here made the choice this year to do a > different form of debate and not send teams to CEDA. Thats too bad. > Maybe CEDA has lost its purpose for him. Maybe it has for others. > Maybe it will for more in the future. Then that one thing conspiracy > theorists try so hard to protect wont be big enough to justify to your > administrators. Then your budgets begin to shift. I have a list of 200 > schools who have made that shift?dont think it cant happen. > > My point is that if we were more experimental, if we opened up debate to > more people, then maybe CEDA would begin to grow again. What other > options are there? So yes we participate in Cross Examination Debate > and I hope we continue to do so in healthy numbers?but shutting off the > opportunities to bring others in is in my opinion foolish. > > This amendment does not empower the President to be tyrannical. It > requires the EC approval?your EC. The elected reps you know. It also > would not destroy democracy. We have virtually no popular vote > democracy now. And it would expedite the process to expose CEDA to > potential new programs. An integral part of our mission. > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA Immediate Past President > > >>> Justin Green 05/05/09 9:25 PM >>> > The short version: We shouldn't add new events without a popular > vote. Yes, democracy is slow and time consuming. Dictatorships = > quick decisions.....Democracy = you have to wait for everyone to vote. > If you want the President to add Parli, Worlds, LD, Public Forum, > Extemp, etc to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals > without a vote, then vote yes. For those of you who want CEDA Nats to > be a celebration of Cross Ex Debate and not a new event without a > popular vote - vote no. > > As a caveat, had the amendment said "The President can add new events > or divisions by putting them up to a public vote with a three week > window for the public to vote". This would solve all of the problems > Chief mentioned, yet still maintain democracy. If there is a way for > a friendly amendment, please instruct. > > Chief's arguments seem eerily similar to "must define all words" - > largely a semantics game. > > "1. The amendment process is often too long of a cycle, unwieldy, and > unfriendly of a process once the year starts. If we were to require > amendments to change anything about the National Tournament, it would > likely take at least a year likely from its inception date for > anything after November 1st. I think that is when bureaucracy can > hamstring an organization. " > > You call it hamstring an organization. I might call it preventing > tyranny. Is it tyranny that will kill me physically - no, but it is > certainly a tyranny of ideas that flies in the face of the mission of > our organization "promote Cross Examination Debate". > > "2. The President and EC are voted on by a community vote. This is one > of those times Directors will need to decide if they trust their > elected leadership to do what is within the best interest of the > community they represent." > > Which part of the Presidential platform discussion asked "do you want > to add new events to make CEDA Nationals "? I trust them to run a CX > tournament, but I have no idea if Gordon is qualified to run a Public > Forum or World's Tournament or which events he will seek to add. > > "3. New events: Again Gordon should chime in, but one thing he talked > about was the ability for our organization to reach out to other > organizations, groups, constituencies. If CEDA wanted to offer a > Public Debate event, umbrella sponosr another organization's National > Tournament (Parli, NFA Lincoln-Douglas, etc) this amendment would > allow the President to make that offer with the suppport of the EC. A > decision to do this in December would be too late to get an amendment > passed to do it. And amendments usually imply continuity, ato year-to-year > trial experiments. Sometimes revenue streams may make > it beneficial to the organization to do just this, and reach out to > others inside the big tent. " > > Gordon, please chime in here. Will NFA Lincoln-Douglas be asking us > to join them so that they can put money towards our nationals? To put > it in terms Chief used while judging me once "I don't get it". > > "4. The People's Tournament: Indeed! I articulated above why sometimes > process takes too long for all the "people" to chime in." > > Ummmm....If democracy is slow then it is not worth following? Chief > you added a division - Novice. New novice division, not the same as > "lets debate LD". > > While I received enlightening backchannels after my previous post > comparing this amendment to Senator Palpatine's plan of destroying > democracy "one amendment at a time" (provided by the debate Green > Party President aka Jester the behester) and those who had more > explicit concerns like "here comes Worlds Debate" (a former CEDA > Presidential candidate), I was hoping to get the perspective of > someone other than the current President or former President as to why > expanding executive powers to include A NEW EVENT was a good idea - > especially one without a popular vote. > > Last I checked we participate in Cross Examination Debate. Hence our > organizations name. While personally participating and facilitating > multiple forms of debate: public forums, debates with my wife, debates > among local representatives, and in-class debates, just to name a few. > Sometimes there are declared winners sometimes no winners at all. > But, when our teams go to the Cross Examination Debate Association > Nationals, I for one am happy that we are debating Cross-Ex styles > with all of its diversity and spending a weekend just dedicated to the > efforts of our students working hard on that event. > > If we want to add World's Debate to CEDA, why can't this wait a year > for an amendment to let all the World's voices to be heard? > > Justin Green > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/30a23a67/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Fri May 8 13:49:20 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:49:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] afghans riot in response to obama murder play Message-ID: this war is so much smarter than iraq. it makes sense. al-qaeda's waiting for a showdown just like saddam had wmds. what happens when we don't find al-qaeda? we vote for obama in 2012 anyway because he's sexy on the teleprompter, and, even though he's virtually the same as bush in many vile areas of policy, we secretly want to give him a blowjob. that's the edge. that's the difference. sex overrides accountability for wanton murder. obama's murder is different than bush's. don't eat out palin. she's the devil hick who totes guns. obama is far superior. i heard it on colbert. genius airstrikes. this is how we stomp out terrorism the rock star democrat way. civilian murders don't abet al-qaeda recruitment. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html Shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government", thousands of Afghan villagers hurled stones at police yesterday as they vented their fury at American air strikes that local officials claim killed 147 civilians.The riot started when people from three villages struck by US bombers in the early hours of Tuesday, brought 15 newly-discovered bodies in a truck to the house of the provincial governor. As the crowd pressed forward in Farah, police opened fire, wounding four protesters. Traders in the rest of Farah city, the capital of the province of the same name where the bombing took place, closed their shops, vowing they would not reopen them until there is an investigation.A local official Abdul Basir Khan said yesterday that he had collected the names of 147 people who had died, making it the worst such incident since the US intervened in Afghanistan started in 2001. A phone call from the governor of Farah province, Rohul Amin, in which he said that 130 people had died, was played over the loudspeaker in the Afghan parliament in Kabul, sparking demands for more control over US operations. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/6cc431a2/attachment.htm From wnewnam at emory.edu Fri May 8 13:49:59 2009 From: wnewnam at emory.edu (Newnam, William E) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:49:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Student eligibility Message-ID: Dear Community, I have been following this particular threat with some interest and I think that it is an important issue that should not be taken lightly as it represents a sea-change in thinking about debate opportunity and eligibility. I have several general comments to make and at the end of this post, I discuss some problems with the amendment as written compared with the various ways that it is being interpreted. First, do not conflate fifth year eligibility with graduate student competition. The fifth year eligibility amendment is a very different component. The purpose of that amendment was to bring eligibility standards into line with the reality of the contemporary collegiate experience. As several folks have pointed out, the majority of college students now graduate in five years instead of four years. Many factors inform this reality, but the bottom line is that our eligibility standards should probably embrace the academic experience rather that defy it. For many students, especially those at smaller state institutions, it is nearly impossible to graduate in four years-the requirements do not match up with course availability. This will only worsen as state schools continue to take a hit by belt-tightening legislatures who continue to cut funds to such schools. As such, that amendment, which is already in effect, recognizes that and was hashed out as a compromise because students can attend nationals for only four years but a fifth year of debate does not cut against their nationals eligibility. THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN GRADUATE STUDENT ELIGIBILITY, but it is important to how that resolution plays out. Second, some students are able to complete college in less than four years and start graduate school. This is, of course, the exception not the rule. It usually requires accepted AP credits, rigorous commitment, summer school, and course availability, among other things generally not accessible to most college students. Third, since this rule is written for a narrow exception, it seems as though we should be careful in crafting a broad piece of legislation that sweeps other circumstances into it. And this amendment is clearly broader than what Gordon Stables indicates it is intended to do. There is further discussion of that item below. Fourth, while I oppose the amendment, if it were to pass along the lines it is written, I believe the anti-poaching provision also needs to be re-examined as I discuss below as well. Now lets look at the wording problems: "National CEDA Tournament contestants are to be officially enrolled students in good standing at the college or university they represent in competition. All CEDA tournament contestants must be undergraduate students, unless they have already received their undergraduate degree, are officially enrolled in a graduate program at the same institution, and have competed in four or less years of intercollegiate debate." The last clause clearly states, "and HAVE competed in FOUR or less years of intercollegiate debate." The grammar and meaning of this statement is quite clear and unequivocal: students that HAVE had four years of debate are eligible to compete as graduate students! This is not even ambiguous. If you "have" competed for four years, you can continue as a graduate student as long as you remain at your original undergraduate institution. Until Gordon's post, everyone (supporters and opponents alike) interpreted it as such. All posts have (notice that use of "have") clearly interpreted this proposal to mean exactly that a student retains the benefit of a fifth year of eligibility. I recognize that for many, the opportunity to debate is limited to their college years because they lacked access to strong programs or any programs at all. And I have a great deal of respect for those who commit themselves to debate and continue to debate despite the high entry barriers that exist. But I feel that this is such a major change, to allow graduate students to compete against undergraduates, while being judged by graduates (and sometimes undergraduates as well) that it should not be assumed to be non-controversial. I believe this merits much more discussion than a couple of months of edebate commentary and should be more thoroughly vetted. Gordon's intent seems quite at odds with the interpretation and that reason, if nothing else, should prompt some to reconsider the situation. While I recognize the fallacy of slippery slope, there are several odd scenarios that should be considered. There is no consecutive eligibility restraint which means that someone could conceivably finish undergraduate work, go on to work toward an advanced degree (or more than one) and in the third or fourth year of a Ph.D. program, or while taking only thesis hours, or while coasting through year three of law school have a eureka moment: I have another year of eligibility! I think I will debate now. At this point you have substantially altered the population of the active debate community. Or, someone begins their graduate career as an assistant coach. Decides, what the heck after two or three years of coaching, I know a heck-of-a-lot more about debate now than I did when I debated. I will put that knowledge to use now. I will go back and debate again. Almost everyone I know who coaches debate realizes that they would have been a much better debater after coaching than before coaching. Surely someone will put that to use. I recognize that some individuals choose, for various reasons, to finish their degrees early but I don't think that justifies such a broad eligibility change for several reasons: Ending your undergraduate career means that you forego all kinds of experiences unique to undergraduates. Debate is no different. Many schools, especially where those covered by the example of early graduation covered by Gordon might apply, also have joint MA/BA programs that undergraduates can take advantage of if they truly want to begin their graduate program early. There are very few students that this rule (under Gordon's interpretation) applies to and this can be accommodated with appeals without passing such a broad based rule. Finally, I believe that if this rule were to pass under the rationale that graduate students should be eligible because they lacked opportunity in college the idea that there is an "anti-poaching" rule is very much at odds with the goal of arguing that students should not be discouraged from pursuing their graduate education to remain eligible to debate. Diversity of the educational experience is good. Students choose and many are encouraged to pursue graduate degrees at other schools. Tethering a graduate student to their undergraduate program seems an artificial constraint that is not justified if the idea is that graduate students should have a right to debate because their undergraduate experience was incomplete. They should be encouraged to pursue the best graduate program for their education, while maintaining their debate eligibility. If the argument is that this amendment is best for the educational experience, the "anti-poaching" clause seems a disingenuous and unnecessary addition. I remain opposed to the rule, but if it is passed, it seems unreasonable to constrain rather than restrict graduate education choices. A couple of possible alternatives: First, the rule must be re-crafted if the idea is to limit this to those graduating a little early, as Gordon indicates, because it has no such limitation now. Second, the rule as written allows students to pursue the post-graduate eligibility at any time in their postgraduate career as long as they are enrolled in graduate classes which opens it up to a far larger range of eligibility options that also needs to be re-crafted. Third, maintain the status quo and make exceptions (as limited a population as exists that the idea behind the amendment affects) on a case-by-case appeals basis. The appeals create precedential opportunities for others without creating an overly broad rule. Fourth, if those who want a fifth year rule for graduate students do win the day, they should consider eliminating the anti-poaching component since it restricts a graduate student education rather than expands it. Fifth, at a minimum, there is a strong case to be made that this rule needs serious discussion and reconsideration before it is passed. It creates a massive change in the eligibility structures despite the intent to keep it narrow and should be evaluated more accurately to determine: a. what the purpose of the change is, b. if the purpose matches the proposed change, c. how to craft a more narrow construction to avoid overly broad increases in eligibility. Guess conditionality ain't so bad afterall. I encourage all voters to reject the amendment as written. Respectfully, Bill n emory There has been a great deal of confusion and rancor on this subject. Let me first clarify that this amendment only seeks to add a means for students who have started competing to continue competing through their 4th year if they have begun a graduate program at their institution. It is already current practice that students are allowed to compete for up 5 years. The recent discussion has highlighted that there are diverse opinions on this subject. This measure does not offer a means of addressing that dispute. I would encourage each side to reflect on the competing issues (i.e., the challenges of completing a degree in 4 years at many schools alongside the concern about incentivizing students to stay in school longer) and try to begin getting us as a community toward some common ideas. What this measure does do, however, is make it possible for students who are making progress toward their degree to have an incentive to graduate early. The NCAA currently allows a student to finish their BA or BS and then start work on an MA if they have eligibility remaining. This rule would match that NCAA effort with one important restriction. It is not designed to allow a student to graduate and debate in their 5th year. This is only a provision for students who would earn a BA or BA in less than four and then want to continue to start working on an MA or PhD at their current institution. This incentivizes students to compete and make academic progress in four years. This is a system that our athletes can use, but not our debaters. To frame it clearly today a 5th year student earning their BA can debate, but a student who earns the degree in 3 1/2 years cannot attend the NDT or CEDA in their 4th year. Regardless of your views on 5th year eligibility, it is not good policy or equitable to create disincentives for students to make academic progress. Again, a student cannot debate as a grad student in year 5. I hope these items help clarify some of the rationales for these measures. Please leave your comments or email me at stables at usc.edu if you have questions. ________________________________ This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the original message (including attachments). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/f60b7d61/attachment.htm From rrach at juno.com Fri May 8 13:54:38 2009 From: rrach at juno.com (rrach at juno.com) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 18:54:38 GMT Subject: [eDebate] hiring CFL judges for Albany, NY Nats Message-ID: <20090508.135438.15581.1@webmail23.vgs.untd.com> need to hire several judges for CFL Nationals. will pay 200 dollars. must be able to judge all rounds on Saturday and Sunday. in Albany, New York. May 23-24. please backchannel if you are interested. Russell Rach Bellaire High School ____________________________________________________________ Click now for prescreened plumbing contractors. http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTRHJBepVLQY06jgEubPcwsZJ7m7raa9fxoHxiaKN3bfB0FMMUwekQ/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/4657df50/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Fri May 8 16:58:11 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 14:58:11 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Reply to Chief Message-ID: <4A04AAF3.3070808@uvm.edu> Just a couple of points. 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. I notice Justin did not bring up ****. 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. Vote no. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From james.maritato at gmail.com Fri May 8 17:59:27 2009 From: james.maritato at gmail.com (James Maritato) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 18:59:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] A2 CHIEF RE: New Events Message-ID: Sir, Thank you for feeding the argument for why the CEDA President should be someone who makes it their full time job because we college faculty don't have the time to do the nonprofit type fundraising. Oh wait -- that was part of Andy's platform when he was running... right? Nice try at a cheap shot. FAIL. -JM is outta here and off to get a PhD. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/684c7abc/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Fri May 8 19:53:02 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 19:53:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate school debating & Newnam Message-ID: I don't have a strong opinion on this provision overall, but am I wrong that Bill's concern about people coming back in their 5th year of PhD work is off-base because you only have consecutive years of eligibility under the current guidelines? My understanding was you could no longer gerrymander your years. 1-4 + 1 at a later date. I do not get the impression that there are only a few students to whom this rule would apply. I believe many debaters would make drastically different choices, particularly regarding their fifth years, if the amendment passed. I think that an appeals process is wildly inappropriate to handle the likely rush of student interest in said waiver. I do not believe that these waivers should be only applicable to students finishing school in their 3rd year given that we allow students to debate 5 yrs, regardless of Gordon's interp (which I saw as merely an example, not a constitutive rationale). I guess I will say that I strongly favor the anti-poaching provisions. I do not believe that the goal of this proposal is to expand graduate opportunities. I do believe it is to avoid a forced choice between debating and graduating. I do not like the idea of students trained at one school transferring to another for an MA program and 1-2 more years of eligibility. I do believe that this retains and perhaps accentuates some of the perceived injustices between smaller and larger programs. This is not for my vested interest, mind you. I've only ever worked at schools w excellent graduate opportunities in a diversity of fields. It is in my estimation not good for our game. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/2eb960e0/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri May 8 22:49:59 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 23:49:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA In-Reply-To: <5a6e2a80905080906o3d5d64d4l7ba92be0ce101f85@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> <5a6e2a80905080906o3d5d64d4l7ba92be0ce101f85@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905082049h6863e264k86790a63cd47359f@mail.gmail.com> A bunch of reasons why it would be good to have other events at ceda is cool...it is off topic however...cue joke here...the topic is not can you make a compelling argument to the membership to add new events, an interesting and perhaps fruitful debate....in fact this amendment would shut down the need to disucss it with the membership...the topic is should the ec be able to add events without the approval of the membership...the answer to the first question might be yes. the answer to the second question, the question of the amendment is absolutly not. The amendment gives the executive the power to just short circuit the debate and do it...the problem with this is there is no means for many members of the ec, to be relected, so really no electorate for them to be responsible to,.. no one is trying to add other events though...then why the executive power and not the legilsative debate... On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Justin Green wrote: > Two reasons to vote no: > > CEDA was established to promote Cross Examination Debate. I for one > appreciate that. The inclusion of LD, Parli, worlds - (if they are > "Cross Ex Debate" because they involve questions and answers this is a > very liberal interp of Cross Ex Debate) - takes away from the time and > energy necessary to host a truly wonderful experience of what we > traditionally know as Cross Ex Debate. > > If we are successful, then we are taking away from other organizations > nationals. So we decide to host LD, then all of a sudden the NFALD > community is split between two nationals, I am not sure why this is > good for them or us. Perhaps the following year they would host a > Policy Nationals in Miami, Florida. If you think ADA, NDT, CEDA is > bad now, wait till we add a fourth or fifth. > > Counterplan: Work with another organization. If the problem is a > split between Policy and Parli or Policy and LD and squads which have > both need to make a forced financial decision, then CEDA should simply > work along with NFA-LD (i.e) to identify a host who can accomodate > both. No event would need to be added, this would address all of the > problems identified by Chief, but avoid the ones listed above. This > requires no constitutional amendment. And the CEDA EC has its hands > full running cx debate, why would they want more on their plate. > > Pre-empts: > > If the goal is to crown a CEDA Novice National Champion, then why was > that amendment not proposed? > > If there is another specific event that should be added because it is > educationally worthwhile, what is that event? why is it not proposed > as an amendment? The adding of the event can only be a > financial/administrative reasons - if it were along educational > merits, it would be proposed right now. > > Distinction between event and division....Yes, there might be a > version of Public Debate that could be considered cross-examination > debate. However, in your previous post you mentioned including LD, > Worlds, Parli, etc. Had this amendment said, CEDA can offer a new > division of cross ex debate, arguments against would be much more > difficult to make. Novice break-out was added because Chief did have > that Constitutional Authority. > > Responses: > > Yes there are schools with multiple forms of debate. CP above > addresses this. Here's the issue. Why would it be good for us to > decide to host Parli in November at our CEDA Nationals tournament? > Aside from being highly unlikely due to logistical contstraints (lack > of classrooms and hotel space being the biggest one), this seems to > create huge administrative burdens at a tournament that is highly > likely to produce failure. Tuna pointed out that Parli(in addition to > multiple I.E. nationals) won't likely come. We just open the door for > a poor decision. > > Why referendum and not representation? I covered this in a post to > Gordon. Below are the responses: > > 1. They are not truly representative - Yes they are voted on, but not > every region has the same number of schools. It is closer to the > Senate than the House of Reps. > > 2. Fundamental Decisions about the future of the organization should > be decided on by the people, not the EC. As a former rep - It's hard > to balance being an EC member. At any given time there could be as > many as five or six issues before the EC. My hats are off to those > that are. Some of the members spend a great deal of time > deliberating, others do not. Sure some adminstrative decisions should > be made through the EC, but not ones that fundamentally change the > mission of the tournament. > > 3. Democracy is often representative, but when it can truly be a > referendum without significant harm, why not pursue it. > > The Ad Hom debate: > > Dude, if tyranny made you wet your pants, maybe you should see a doctor. > > It would be an interesting experiment to see if a panel of Ellis, > Green and Snider were of a higher MPJ than Chief. Especially if the > MPJ revolved around resolving a CEDA Constitutional and Adminsitrative > Debates and the growth/development of CEDA was compared between the > Snider administration and the Elliot administration. Not sure which > way it would go. > > Not sure why our budget is relevant to this discussion, but since > Chief asked. His facts are wrong about the KSU Budget. I wrote a > couple of paragraphs mud-slinging back at KCK calling them privileged > too and defending KSU and then decided to delete them and chalk his > comments up to lack of accurate information. Both KSU and KCK > debaters read this and this discussion is good for neither of our > squads. I am not interested in the oppression olympics. Anyone who > feels KSU's budget is relevant to their vote, should back-channel me. > > Justin > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/30c0b6da/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat May 9 01:02:21 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 01:02:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Reply to Chief Message-ID: <4A04D61D0200009300029B58@mymail.kckcc.edu> I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it was a pot shot or a low blow. As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about the process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not make a unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids were brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from Jackie. I loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to tournaments, I supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be presented to the Executive Council in Dallas at the summer meeting. Were you there? Did you watch on the web? I cant remember. The Executive Council voted for Idaho State for a number of reasons which I am sure you couldnt care less about--afterall its all about supporting your own right? I mean I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but Jesus H, dude, take off the blinders. This was not a personal decision and Im sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA leadership than many past decisions where programs not only didnt go to CEDA but left altogether. For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional Diversity good judge! 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any potential host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and abilty to provide amenities most tournaments only dream of was very compelling. 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was overwhelmingly impressed. I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots at a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the best Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision was those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. chief >>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> Just a couple of points. 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. I notice Justin did not bring up ****. 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. Vote no. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sat May 9 01:09:47 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 02:09:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0905082049h6863e264k86790a63cd47359f@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> <5a6e2a80905080906o3d5d64d4l7ba92be0ce101f85@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905082049h6863e264k86790a63cd47359f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Agreed, the question is why do it without a vote...I havent heard ONE argument for this yet.....not why the amendment is good, why executive discretion is superior to community deliberation, Josh On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > A bunch of reasons why it would be good to have other events at ceda is > cool...it is off topic however...cue joke here...the topic is not can you > make a compelling argument to the membership to add new events, an > interesting and perhaps fruitful debate....in fact this amendment would shut > down the need to disucss it with the membership...the topic is should the ec > be able to add events without the approval of the membership...the answer to > the first question might be yes. the answer to the second question, the > question of the amendment is absolutly not. > > The amendment gives the executive the power to just short circuit the > debate and do it...the problem with this is there is no means for many > members of the ec, to be relected, so really no electorate for them to be > responsible to,.. no one is trying to add other events though...then why the > executive power and not the legilsative debate... > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Justin Green wrote: > >> Two reasons to vote no: >> >> CEDA was established to promote Cross Examination Debate. I for one >> appreciate that. The inclusion of LD, Parli, worlds - (if they are >> "Cross Ex Debate" because they involve questions and answers this is a >> very liberal interp of Cross Ex Debate) - takes away from the time and >> energy necessary to host a truly wonderful experience of what we >> traditionally know as Cross Ex Debate. >> >> If we are successful, then we are taking away from other organizations >> nationals. So we decide to host LD, then all of a sudden the NFALD >> community is split between two nationals, I am not sure why this is >> good for them or us. Perhaps the following year they would host a >> Policy Nationals in Miami, Florida. If you think ADA, NDT, CEDA is >> bad now, wait till we add a fourth or fifth. >> >> Counterplan: Work with another organization. If the problem is a >> split between Policy and Parli or Policy and LD and squads which have >> both need to make a forced financial decision, then CEDA should simply >> work along with NFA-LD (i.e) to identify a host who can accomodate >> both. No event would need to be added, this would address all of the >> problems identified by Chief, but avoid the ones listed above. This >> requires no constitutional amendment. And the CEDA EC has its hands >> full running cx debate, why would they want more on their plate. >> >> Pre-empts: >> >> If the goal is to crown a CEDA Novice National Champion, then why was >> that amendment not proposed? >> >> If there is another specific event that should be added because it is >> educationally worthwhile, what is that event? why is it not proposed >> as an amendment? The adding of the event can only be a >> financial/administrative reasons - if it were along educational >> merits, it would be proposed right now. >> >> Distinction between event and division....Yes, there might be a >> version of Public Debate that could be considered cross-examination >> debate. However, in your previous post you mentioned including LD, >> Worlds, Parli, etc. Had this amendment said, CEDA can offer a new >> division of cross ex debate, arguments against would be much more >> difficult to make. Novice break-out was added because Chief did have >> that Constitutional Authority. >> >> Responses: >> >> Yes there are schools with multiple forms of debate. CP above >> addresses this. Here's the issue. Why would it be good for us to >> decide to host Parli in November at our CEDA Nationals tournament? >> Aside from being highly unlikely due to logistical contstraints (lack >> of classrooms and hotel space being the biggest one), this seems to >> create huge administrative burdens at a tournament that is highly >> likely to produce failure. Tuna pointed out that Parli(in addition to >> multiple I.E. nationals) won't likely come. We just open the door for >> a poor decision. >> >> Why referendum and not representation? I covered this in a post to >> Gordon. Below are the responses: >> >> 1. They are not truly representative - Yes they are voted on, but not >> every region has the same number of schools. It is closer to the >> Senate than the House of Reps. >> >> 2. Fundamental Decisions about the future of the organization should >> be decided on by the people, not the EC. As a former rep - It's hard >> to balance being an EC member. At any given time there could be as >> many as five or six issues before the EC. My hats are off to those >> that are. Some of the members spend a great deal of time >> deliberating, others do not. Sure some adminstrative decisions should >> be made through the EC, but not ones that fundamentally change the >> mission of the tournament. >> >> 3. Democracy is often representative, but when it can truly be a >> referendum without significant harm, why not pursue it. >> >> The Ad Hom debate: >> >> Dude, if tyranny made you wet your pants, maybe you should see a doctor. >> >> It would be an interesting experiment to see if a panel of Ellis, >> Green and Snider were of a higher MPJ than Chief. Especially if the >> MPJ revolved around resolving a CEDA Constitutional and Adminsitrative >> Debates and the growth/development of CEDA was compared between the >> Snider administration and the Elliot administration. Not sure which >> way it would go. >> >> Not sure why our budget is relevant to this discussion, but since >> Chief asked. His facts are wrong about the KSU Budget. I wrote a >> couple of paragraphs mud-slinging back at KCK calling them privileged >> too and defending KSU and then decided to delete them and chalk his >> comments up to lack of accurate information. Both KSU and KCK >> debaters read this and this discussion is good for neither of our >> squads. I am not interested in the oppression olympics. Anyone who >> feels KSU's budget is relevant to their vote, should back-channel me. >> >> Justin >> _______________________________________________ >> CEDA-L mailing list >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090509/479462b4/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat May 9 01:10:29 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 01:10:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A2 CHIEF RE: New Events Message-ID: <4A04D8050200009300029B61@mymail.kckcc.edu> When, in my opinion, the majority of people who run programs believe CEDA officers should be tied to the academy, be able to work within the academy to promote debate amongst those who matter (read Administrators, Tenure Committees, etc), and that they should probably hold advanced degrees and exist as both coaches and faculty of some sort, my arguments are actually proof positive that the CEDA President should not exist as a full time fundraiser. And I would imagine such political platforms with that being the main strategy will continue to be non-starters. So not a try at a cheap shot, just a glowing reality. Good luck with that PhD. chief >>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 5:59 PM >>> Sir, Thank you for feeding the argument for why the CEDA President should be someone who makes it their full time job because we college faculty don't have the time to do the nonprofit type fundraising. Oh wait -- that was part of Andy's platform when he was running... right? Nice try at a cheap shot. FAIL. -JM is outta here and off to get a PhD. From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat May 9 03:50:56 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 04:50:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] A2 CHIEF RE: New Events In-Reply-To: <4A04D8050200009300029B61@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A04D8050200009300029B61@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905090150x5ef7962fy7fccf159a12aa805@mail.gmail.com> Here is my point...You want revenue streams? You have to be able to nurture, maintain, and grow them. There are other people with advanced degrees who do this as a living. Some of them are even in the academy. If you tend to them after everything else, not only do they risk not flowing very reliability but they expose you to liability. If this is a focus of the organization i applaud the move, however it is a more reliable strategy if the process is devised and maintained by somebody who does it as their job. This does not mean fill the ec with technocratic business person, but having one may not be a bad idea. Aside from being able to plan and make the kind of deals this amendment suggests, this person could do a lot of the work to let the ec focus on the things that caused them to run for office...If this is developing revenue streams im sure the ed would take the help, but if it is not its not something that you have to worry about. There is a vast difference between a full time fundraiser, a development director and an executive director...just as their is between a debaprtment chair a dean and a provost....i would advise against a full time fundraiser, but a person who makes ceda go, enables the ec to do what they are professionaly trained to do, and builds the kind of resources darren says are the real issues...is probably a lot better than someone who speant 2 weeks of march in wyoming stuck due to their first and second job. Thats not a pot shot, a low blow, or some other euphamism, its a direct indictment of your leadership and management. Andy PS-Any word on what i should do with the CEDA nats video. I asked you more than a month ago where you would like me to send the DVD so you could do something with it (like i don't know make it available to the membership as promised) On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Darren Elliott wrote: > When, in my opinion, the majority of people who run programs believe CEDA > officers should be tied to the academy, be able to work within the academy > to promote debate amongst those who matter (read Administrators, Tenure > Committees, etc), and that they should probably hold advanced degrees and > exist as both coaches and faculty of some sort, my arguments are actually > proof positive that the CEDA President should not exist as a full time > fundraiser. And I would imagine such political platforms with that being > the main strategy will continue to be non-starters. So not a try at a cheap > shot, just a glowing reality. > > Good luck with that PhD. > > chief > > >>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 5:59 PM >>> > Sir, > > Thank you for feeding the argument for why the CEDA President should be > someone who makes it their full time job because we college faculty don't > have the time to do the nonprofit type fundraising. > > Oh wait -- that was part of Andy's platform when he was running... right? > > Nice try at a cheap shot. FAIL. > > -JM > is outta here and off to get a PhD. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090509/246c9c79/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Sat May 9 08:23:11 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 08:23:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Reply to Chief Message-ID: <20090509082311.10182psqkhaaudvj@webmail.grandecom.net> Ya know what Tuna, Fuck you. I mean seriously, this is fucking ridiculous. And with all sincerity, fuck off. Let's talk about Idaho , Nationals and OU. As usual, I will state my props at the beginning. I coach at a small program. I coach by myself. My budget is next to nothing. I voted for Idaho and advocated for Idaho. It would have been cheaper for us to drive to Oklahoma. I am frankly jealous of Oklahoma--not Jackie or his program...but the entire state of Oklahoma educational system. Yes, that is how poor my state is, we are so poor, we are jealous of a state that is known for mud storms and tornadoes. I hope my program goes to five to ten National Tournaments at the Universisty of Oklahoma. But, and, if you did not get it the first time, you don't know what you are fucking talking about and, as usual, you are wrong, so fuck off. I told my team and I told my boss that there are times when you make decisions for a higher purpose. Yeah, that's right, sometimes people make decsions because they know other human beings will benefit. I speak only for myself. But I can tell you I made an initial decision to vote for Idaho State as the CEDA National Site for three major reasons: 1) It is a small program-which is what CEDA is supposed to recognize, so, fuck off; 2) there was an opportunity to secure the long term financial stability of a regional program, what the fuck!! are you retarded or crazy or high?, you pick which one, because this is HUGE; and 3) it was support a region of CEDA that has been ill-served by CEDA since the time of your abysmal leadership. It had nothing to do with OU, and in fact, it was a counter-intuitive decision. I will add, I think this was most likely the reason many within the community chose to bite the collective bullet and go. So, the original decision was made for very good reasons by people that actually particpAte in this organization. If you don't like it, may I suggest two things: 1) show up at the summer business meetings or 2) fuck off. Now, in poker, we all know that you should not base your decisions on the turn of the cards after the fact. But, in this case, we should look at the results. I know you have been around the block for forty years. i have been around the block for close to 30. The tournament at Idaho State, except for the weather and distance of rooms, was absolutely awesome. It was THE model of a CEDA National TOurnament. The final round literally brought me to tears. I was so proud of the two teams representing CEDA. The hospitality was awesome. I was fortunate enough to be on the plane back to Dallas with the Idaho State benefactor,/tournament subsidizer. I and my kids gushed, I mean, really gushed, at how happpy we were about the tournament. We loved it. So, you coming out from your "World's Debate" hole---what's the topic of them moment, weather football should be soccer or American football?---and knock a tournament that you did not fucking attend is just ridiculous. And, somebody ought to call your ass out on it. Ironically, it is one of the biggest critics of CEDA that is doing it. The so-called small field in CEDA was not the result of it being hosted at a Moutain region. At best, OU would have genrated maybe 30 extra teams. The reason f or the small field is all the fuck-ups within CEDA that can be laid DIRECTLY at YOUR FEET. You Tuna, yes, YOU, pushed for a merger with NDT Policy. Your fucking "House of Reason" was and is a House of Cards. The direction of CEDA was determined by YOUR administration. Like a douche, you have run away to "World's," leaving others to clean up your fucking mess. Then you have the gall to chime in every now and then on how this organization is run. Fuck you. You may have a right to criticize. But I have the history and ability to call your ass out. I think it absolutely ridiculous for anybody within CEDA to take your comments seriously on the issue of OUR national tournamnet when you are not an active memeber and you did not attend the busness meeting nor the tournament. Go back to spreading your shit in Parly land. Scott Elliott Quoting Darren Elliott : > I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. > His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they > deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it was > a pot shot or a low blow. > > As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right > decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about the > process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not make a > unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids were > brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from Jackie. I > loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to tournaments, I > supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be presented to the > Executive Council in Dallas at the summer meeting. Were you there? > Did you watch on the web? I cant remember. The Executive Council > voted for Idaho State for a number of reasons which I am sure you > couldnt care less about--afterall its all about supporting your own > right? I mean I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but > Jesus H, dude, take off the blinders. This was not a personal > decision and Im sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA > leadership than many past decisions where programs not only didnt go t > o CEDA but left altogether. > > For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: > 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other > reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support > 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host > CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support > 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had > NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional > Diversity good judge! > 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any potential > host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and abilty to provide > amenities most tournaments only dream of was very compelling. > 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was > overwhelmingly impressed. > > I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when > someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots at > a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the best > Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision was > those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. > > chief > >>>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> > Just a couple of points. > > 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. > I notice Justin did not bring up ****. > > 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did > nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision > to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of > financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds > of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA > presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a > very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. > > 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. > > Vote no. > > Tuna > > -- > Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna > Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics > University of Vermont > Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA > Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com > Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu > World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ > World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com > 802-656-0097 office telephone > 802-656-4275 office fax > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Sat May 9 10:18:53 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 09:18:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Geography Message-ID: As I recall, some people complained back in '98 that the Rochester CEDA Nats was too far away from them. Conversely, it was very accessible to schools close to it (duh). ISU this year was extremely accessible to some programs, while others found it difficult to go to both CEDA and NDT in a time of tightening budgets and a few others sneered "Idaho?" in an indefensible way. Rochester is a beautiful city and anyone who got to visit it that year got to see its classic, gothic, old-industry history and form, and got to experience an epic snowstorm. Pocatello is located on the side of a mountain, overlooking unbelievable peaks and valleys; those who came to this year's CEDA also got to experience an epic snowstorm. The decision to host at Rochester wasn't solely made by Tuna, who presided as CEDA President, and it was not Chief who unilaterally decided to host at ISU. Myriad considerations came into play and a bunch of people debated and voted. Location came into play in discussions preceding both the Rochester and ISU decisions. The deliberative process took its course. Speaking a little closer to home both spatially and temporally, CEDA Nats at ISU was analogous to CEDA Nats at SIU, in 99. In both cases, participants had to fly into a major airport and then drive to another state to get to the tournament. The drive from St. Louis to Carbondale is longer (and, I dare say, less aesthetically impressive) than the drive from Salt Lake to Pocatello. The decision to host at SIU was somewhat "inconvenient" from a strictly logistical point of view: hotel space was sparse and people don't like to drive 2+ hours after landing at an airport. But SIU at that time was considered a vital cornerstone of the community. Many of us consider ISU to be a foundational post-merger debate school who routinely supports tournaments all over the country and whose coaching faculty are extremely involved in organizational service and leadership. Should we be concerned that tournament travel is too expensive? Certainly. It is. But air and other travel-related expenses are relative to where you are, and unless we want to be strictly utilitarian in deciding where to host tournaments (and if that's what some of us want, let's have a transparent discussion about that), then some years some regions get a break and other years other regions do. If you want to be utilitarian, then don't be surprised when the regions furthest away from the tournament in any given year don't attend. And not attending one year is not the end of the world, particularly if you have good substitutes like a nearby novice/JV nats, ADA championship, whatever. The most positive use of our energy would be finding a way to host a FREE CEDA Nats: no entry fees, free food, free trophies, possibly even free sleeping space, possibilities that have been raised publicly in the past. That would be huge. It would be a goal we could all share in no matter where we had to fly or drive in from. And we could do it if we put our minds to it. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090509/615d7609/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Sat May 9 12:17:29 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 10:17:29 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Reply to Chief In-Reply-To: <20090509082311.10182psqkhaaudvj@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <20090509082311.10182psqkhaaudvj@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <4A05BAA9.9000408@uvm.edu> I have no intention to engage your hateful tirade in any way. It is shameful for a communication professional to conduct himself in this way. Alfred Snider AKA Tuna scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > Ya know what Tuna, Fuck you. > > I mean seriously, this is fucking ridiculous. And with all sincerity, > fuck off. > > Let's talk about Idaho , Nationals and OU. > > As usual, I will state my props at the beginning. I coach at a small > program. I coach by myself. My budget is next to nothing. I voted for > Idaho and advocated for Idaho. It would have been cheaper for us to > drive to Oklahoma. I am frankly jealous of Oklahoma--not Jackie or his > program...but the entire state of Oklahoma educational system. Yes, > that is how poor my state is, we are so poor, we are jealous of a > state that is known for mud storms and tornadoes. I hope my program > goes to five to ten National Tournaments at the Universisty of Oklahoma. > > But, and, if you did not get it the first time, you don't know what > you are fucking talking about and, as usual, you are wrong, so fuck off. > > I told my team and I told my boss that there are times when you make > decisions for a higher purpose. Yeah, that's right, sometimes people > make decsions because they know other human beings will benefit. I > speak only for myself. But I can tell you I made an initial decision > to vote for Idaho State as the CEDA National Site for three major > reasons: 1) It is a small program-which is what CEDA is supposed to > recognize, so, fuck off; 2) there was an opportunity to secure the > long term financial stability of a regional program, what the fuck!! > are you retarded or crazy or high?, you pick which one, because this > is HUGE; and 3) it was support a region of CEDA that has been > ill-served by CEDA since the time of your abysmal leadership. It had > nothing to do with OU, and in fact, it was a counter-intuitive > decision. I will add, I think this was most likely the reason many > within the community chose to bite the collective bullet and go. So, > the original decision was made for very good reasons by people that > actually particpAte in this organization. If you don't like it, may I > suggest two things: 1) show up at the summer business meetings or 2) > fuck off. > > Now, in poker, we all know that you should not base your decisions on > the turn of the cards after the fact. But, in this case, we should > look at the results. I know you have been around the block for forty > years. i have been around the block for close to 30. The tournament at > Idaho State, except for the weather and distance of rooms, was > absolutely awesome. It was THE model of a CEDA National TOurnament. > The final round literally brought me to tears. I was so proud of the > two teams representing CEDA. The hospitality was awesome. I was > fortunate enough to be on the plane back to Dallas with the Idaho > State benefactor,/tournament subsidizer. I and my kids gushed, I > mean, really gushed, at how happpy we were about the tournament. We > loved it. > > So, you coming out from your "World's Debate" hole---what's the topic > of them moment, weather football should be soccer or American > football?---and knock a tournament that you did not fucking attend is > just ridiculous. And, somebody ought to call your ass out on it. > Ironically, it is one of the biggest critics of CEDA that is doing it. > > The so-called small field in CEDA was not the result of it being > hosted at a Moutain region. At best, OU would have genrated maybe 30 > extra teams. The reason f or the small field is all the fuck-ups > within CEDA that can be laid DIRECTLY at YOUR FEET. You Tuna, yes, > YOU, pushed for a merger with NDT Policy. Your fucking "House of > Reason" was and is a House of Cards. The direction of CEDA was > determined by YOUR administration. Like a douche, you have run away to > "World's," leaving others to clean up your fucking mess. Then you > have the gall to chime in every now and then on how this organization > is run. Fuck you. You may have a right to criticize. But I have the > history and ability to call your ass out. I think it absolutely > ridiculous for anybody within CEDA to take your comments seriously on > the issue of OUR national tournamnet when you are not an active > memeber and you did not attend the busness meeting nor the tournament. > Go back to spreading your shit in Parly land. > > > Scott Elliott > > > > > Quoting Darren Elliott : > > >> I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. >> His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they >> deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it was >> a pot shot or a low blow. >> >> As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right >> decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about the >> process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not make a >> unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids were >> brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from Jackie. I >> loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to tournaments, I >> supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be presented to the >> Executive Council in Dallas at the summer meeting. Were you there? >> Did you watch on the web? I cant remember. The Executive Council >> voted for Idaho State for a number of reasons which I am sure you >> couldnt care less about--afterall its all about supporting your own >> right? I mean I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but >> Jesus H, dude, take off the blinders. This was not a personal >> decision and Im sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA >> leadership than many past decisions where programs not only didnt go t >> o CEDA but left altogether. >> >> For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: >> 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other >> reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support >> 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host >> CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support >> 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had >> NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional >> Diversity good judge! >> 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any potential >> host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and abilty to provide >> amenities most tournaments only dream of was very compelling. >> 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was >> overwhelmingly impressed. >> >> I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when >> someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots at >> a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the best >> Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision was >> those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. >> >> chief >> >> >>>>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> >>>>> >> Just a couple of points. >> >> 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. >> I notice Justin did not bring up ****. >> >> 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did >> nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision >> to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of >> financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds >> of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA >> presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a >> very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. >> >> 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. >> >> Vote no. >> >> Tuna >> >> -- >> Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna >> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics >> University of Vermont >> Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA >> Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com >> Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu >> World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ >> World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com >> 802-656-0097 office telephone >> 802-656-4275 office fax >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CEDA-L mailing list >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >> >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From scottelliott at grandecom.net Sat May 9 12:22:32 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 12:22:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Reply to Chief In-Reply-To: <4A05BAA9.9000408@uvm.edu> References: <20090509082311.10182psqkhaaudvj@webmail.grandecom.net> <4A05BAA9.9000408@uvm.edu> Message-ID: <20090509122232.17874hlnatgmnnbs@webmail.grandecom.net> Good. Quoting Alfred Snider : > I have no intention to engage your hateful tirade in any way. > > It is shameful for a communication professional to conduct himself > in this way. > > Alfred Snider AKA Tuna > > > > scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >> Ya know what Tuna, Fuck you. >> >> I mean seriously, this is fucking ridiculous. And with all >> sincerity, fuck off. >> >> Let's talk about Idaho , Nationals and OU. >> >> As usual, I will state my props at the beginning. I coach at a >> small program. I coach by myself. My budget is next to nothing. I >> voted for Idaho and advocated for Idaho. It would have been >> cheaper for us to drive to Oklahoma. I am frankly jealous of >> Oklahoma--not Jackie or his program...but the entire state of >> Oklahoma educational system. Yes, that is how poor my state is, we >> are so poor, we are jealous of a state that is known for mud >> storms and tornadoes. I hope my program goes to five to ten >> National Tournaments at the Universisty of Oklahoma. >> >> But, and, if you did not get it the first time, you don't know what >> you are fucking talking about and, as usual, you are wrong, so >> fuck off. >> >> I told my team and I told my boss that there are times when you >> make decisions for a higher purpose. Yeah, that's right, sometimes >> people make decsions because they know other human beings will >> benefit. I speak only for myself. But I can tell you I made an >> initial decision to vote for Idaho State as the CEDA National Site >> for three major reasons: 1) It is a small program-which is what >> CEDA is supposed to recognize, so, fuck off; 2) there was an >> opportunity to secure the long term financial stability of a >> regional program, what the fuck!! are you retarded or crazy or >> high?, you pick which one, because this is HUGE; and 3) it was >> support a region of CEDA that has been ill-served by CEDA since >> the time of your abysmal leadership. It had nothing to do with OU, >> and in fact, it was a counter-intuitive decision. I will add, I >> think this was most likely the reason many within the community >> chose to bite the collective bullet and go. So, the original >> decision was made for very good reasons by people that actually >> particpAte in this organization. If you don't like it, may I >> suggest two things: 1) show up at the summer business meetings or >> 2) fuck off. >> >> Now, in poker, we all know that you should not base your decisions >> on the turn of the cards after the fact. But, in this case, we >> should look at the results. I know you have been around the block >> for forty years. i have been around the block for close to 30. The >> tournament at Idaho State, except for the weather and distance of >> rooms, was absolutely awesome. It was THE model of a CEDA National >> TOurnament. The final round literally brought me to tears. I was >> so proud of the two teams representing CEDA. The hospitality was >> awesome. I was fortunate enough to be on the plane back to Dallas >> with the Idaho State benefactor,/tournament subsidizer. I and my >> kids gushed, I mean, really gushed, at how happpy we were about >> the tournament. We loved it. >> >> So, you coming out from your "World's Debate" hole---what's the >> topic of them moment, weather football should be soccer or >> American football?---and knock a tournament that you did not >> fucking attend is just ridiculous. And, somebody ought to call >> your ass out on it. Ironically, it is one of the biggest critics >> of CEDA that is doing it. >> >> The so-called small field in CEDA was not the result of it being >> hosted at a Moutain region. At best, OU would have genrated maybe >> 30 extra teams. The reason f or the small field is all the >> fuck-ups within CEDA that can be laid DIRECTLY at YOUR FEET. You >> Tuna, yes, YOU, pushed for a merger with NDT Policy. Your fucking >> "House of Reason" was and is a House of Cards. The direction of >> CEDA was determined by YOUR administration. Like a douche, you >> have run away to "World's," leaving others to clean up your >> fucking mess. Then you have the gall to chime in every now and >> then on how this organization is run. Fuck you. You may have a >> right to criticize. But I have the history and ability to call >> your ass out. I think it absolutely ridiculous for anybody within >> CEDA to take your comments seriously on the issue of OUR national >> tournamnet when you are not an active memeber and you did not >> attend the busness meeting nor the tournament. Go back to >> spreading your shit in Parly land. >> >> >> Scott Elliott >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Darren Elliott : >> >> >>> I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. >>> His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they >>> deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it >>> was a pot shot or a low blow. >>> >>> As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right >>> decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about >>> the process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not >>> make a unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids >>> were brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from >>> Jackie. I loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to >>> tournaments, I supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be >>> presented to the Executive Council in Dallas at the summer >>> meeting. Were you there? Did you watch on the web? I cant >>> remember. The Executive Council voted for Idaho State for a >>> number of reasons which I am sure you couldnt care less >>> about--afterall its all about supporting your own right? I mean >>> I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but Jesus H, dude, >>> take off the blinders. This was not a personal decision and Im >>> sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA leadership than many >>> past decisions where programs not only didnt go t >>> o CEDA but left altogether. >>> >>> For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: >>> 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other >>> reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support >>> 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host >>> CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support >>> 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had >>> NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional >>> Diversity good judge! >>> 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any >>> potential host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and >>> abilty to provide amenities most tournaments only dream of was >>> very compelling. >>> 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was >>> overwhelmingly impressed. >>> >>> I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when >>> someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots >>> at a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the >>> best Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision >>> was those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. >>> >>> chief >>> >>> >>>>>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> >>>>>> >>> Just a couple of points. >>> >>> 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. >>> I notice Justin did not bring up ****. >>> >>> 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did >>> nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision >>> to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of >>> financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds >>> of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA >>> presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a >>> very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. >>> >>> 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. >>> >>> Vote no. >>> >>> Tuna >>> >>> -- >>> Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna >>> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics >>> University of Vermont >>> Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA >>> Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com >>> Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu >>> World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ >>> World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com >>> 802-656-0097 office telephone >>> 802-656-4275 office fax >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CEDA-L mailing list >>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CEDA-L mailing list >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >> >> > > > -- > Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna > Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics > University of Vermont > Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA > Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com > Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu > World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ > World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com > 802-656-0097 office telephone > 802-656-4275 office fax > > From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat May 9 12:43:18 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 13:43:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Geography In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905091043y7ecd93fdq3ca7487fef602516@mail.gmail.com> free ceda nats would rock...thats likely a 6 figure fundraising project...real tough for someone with two other jobs to do On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:18 AM, matt stannard wrote: > As I recall, some people complained back in '98 that the Rochester CEDA > Nats was too far away from them. Conversely, it was very accessible to > schools close to it (duh). ISU this year was extremely accessible to some > programs, while others found it difficult to go to both CEDA and NDT in a > time of tightening budgets and a few others sneered "Idaho?" in an > indefensible way. > > Rochester is a beautiful city and anyone who got to visit it that year got > to see its classic, gothic, old-industry history and form, and got to > experience an epic snowstorm. Pocatello is located on the side of a > mountain, overlooking unbelievable peaks and valleys; those who came to this > year's CEDA also got to experience an epic snowstorm. > > The decision to host at Rochester wasn't solely made by Tuna, who presided > as CEDA President, and it was not Chief who unilaterally decided to host at > ISU. Myriad considerations came into play and a bunch of people debated and > voted. Location came into play in discussions preceding both the Rochester > and ISU decisions. The deliberative process took its course. > > Speaking a little closer to home both spatially and temporally, CEDA Nats > at ISU was analogous to CEDA Nats at SIU, in 99. In both cases, > participants had to fly into a major airport and then drive to another state > to get to the tournament. The drive from St. Louis to Carbondale is longer > (and, I dare say, less aesthetically impressive) than the drive from Salt > Lake to Pocatello. The decision to host at SIU was somewhat "inconvenient" > from a strictly logistical point of view: hotel space was sparse and people > don't like to drive 2+ hours after landing at an airport. But SIU at that > time was considered a vital cornerstone of the community. Many of us > consider ISU to be a foundational post-merger debate school who routinely > supports tournaments all over the country and whose coaching faculty are > extremely involved in organizational service and leadership. > > Should we be concerned that tournament travel is too expensive? > Certainly. It is. But air and other travel-related expenses are relative > to where you are, and unless we want to be strictly utilitarian in deciding > where to host tournaments (and if that's what some of us want, let's have a > transparent discussion about that), then some years some regions get a break > and other years other regions do. If you want to be utilitarian, then don't > be surprised when the regions furthest away from the tournament in any given > year don't attend. And not attending one year is not the end of the world, > particularly if you have good substitutes like a nearby novice/JV nats, ADA > championship, whatever. > > The most positive use of our energy would be finding a way to host a FREE > CEDA Nats: no entry fees, free food, free trophies, possibly even free > sleeping space, possibilities that have been raised publicly in the past. > That would be huge. It would be a goal we could all share in no matter > where we had to fly or drive in from. And we could do it if we put our > minds to it. > > ------------------------------ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090509/c6e5c805/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat May 9 19:21:18 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 19:21:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA Message-ID: <4A05D7AE0200009300029C49@mymail.kckcc.edu> 2 reasons to vote YES. 1. Directly after the merger ?CEDA?s? numbers dramatically decreased. Since then we have remained stagnant and in some years decreased even farther. Many of those programs are still around doing something different. Some, perhaps many, would like an event where they did not have to split resources around the country but could attend a Nationals with many flavors. This is the first step in that opportunity. 2. Why the EC and Pres instead of membership vote? When we hold arguably the most important vote, the topic, we get less than 50% of the membership voting. Imagine an amendment to add Parli. Allowing less than 50% of the membership to make that decision should make you no more comfortable than allowing an EC elected to serve you. The EC should be made up of Regional Reps that get the feeling of their constituents. And if you have a strong feeling one way or another you know who to lobby. >From election to election you have no idea who is voting or why. The EC makes the decision accountable or at least gives us people to hold accountable. All of the arguments made assume a voting population CEDA hasn?t seen since before 1996. Is the disad between 20% of the organization deciding (the EC) and 40% deciding really that significant? When the EC votes you have 17 identifiable people to lobby and hold accountable. And given that so many of us are so busy, having a targeted audience whose job it is to study these issues and make decisions should be enough to empower the EC to do the job. If the risk is a fool hardy decision made by the EC imagine a colossal mistake in a popular vote that the responsibility to carry out is dumped on the EC. Who would ever want to serve? As for the rest of this I am getting closer to Justin on his interp of the ability of the Pres and EC to carry something out, but I think some of the things he advocates in the CP might be seen by some as exactly the language the amendment was getting at and trying to avoid problems others brought up in the past. Justin says work with another organization if a split is the issue and find accommodating hosts. That is exactly what I argued for answering Andy that CEDA would never seek to RUN another organization?s Nationals. They would bring in THEIR personnel and run THEIR tab room. This was all already described by me when mentioning other organizations. So the CP is something I advocated but as part of the amendment. If Justin agrees no amendment is necessary for us to host alongside another organization I am all for it and hope he will defend that when others cry ?foul? if the President ever goes down that road. At the Business Meeting at CEDA I was initially opposed to this amendment until it was clear some felt the EC needed authority to do what Justin describes above. To Justin?s ?Pre-Empts?: Again, this has never been about crowning a Novice National Champion. I have do idea where that is coming from and like I said before that issue seems to be the sticking point and ?I don?t get it?. CEDA should continue to have Novice Breakout Rounds. It increased participation, led to much needed PR for some programs, and did ZERO harm. My intent was to never ?steal? the title Novice Natl Champ from the 5 other tournaments that crown a Novice Natl Champ. As for other ?events? Gordon spoke about Public Debate events at the CEDA EC meeting in Pocatello. Again I was initially against it myself. His reasoning was interesting and he convinced me other tournaments may offer similar events this year. Enough so that I changed to supporting the amendment. To Justin?s ?Responses?: I?m with you on the CP and I have always felt like that was within the President?s authority. Others might disagree. We apparently agree on it and I?m glad. I?m still unclear where the line is on direct democracy versus representation however. Dozens of decisions made yearly without direct vote doesn?t = tyranny, but the President and 17 other people elected by us, making 1 decision = tyranny. Again, I believe we have reached an impasse on this one. Would love to have this talk in person to share views on representation. To the ?Ad Hom debate?: I?ll give you the Dr. comment. That was good. . As for the panel, well 6 degrees of debate separation is a game barking up the wrong (singular branch) family tree on this one. As for what Administration led to the most growth maybe mr debatenumbersgame guy can provide some insight. Others will fall on different sides of the philosophical and ideological divide. All of the programs that left due to the merger might vote differently than those who have benefited from the merger, myself among the beneficiaries I think. Tuna delivered us the NDT. Now if the panel was West, Hobbs, and Graham?wait those folks left CEDA. Ehhh. The Budget Issue: I made the budget comments to draw an analogy between those who practice one kind of forensic art and those who might practice many and have to make forced choices. Big budget/resources and 1 kind makes it understandable why one would defend that 1 kind. Smaller budgets/resources and desire to do more than one kind often trumped by the small budget itself. So schools who want to do multiple events usually forced out by the market. National events that accommodate more than 1 kind brings folks back in. I?ve got the proof from as early as last month if you want it. I apologize if my comments hit a nerve or were ?out of line? but I thought the analogy was pertinent. Budgets at State institutions are part of the public record. I wonder why information is not reported accurately if my assessment was incorrect. Either way, I do feel like its easier to make the arguments advanced when you have opportunities perhaps not afforded everyone. No offense was meant?just making comparisons between program choices. chief From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat May 9 20:08:39 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 20:08:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A2 CHIEF RE: New Events Message-ID: <4A05E2C70200009300029C57@mymail.kckcc.edu> Andy, I should probably stop engaging you on these issues. If the best you got is that I was stuck in a blizzard for 2 days in Wyoming because I made a commitment to 6 kids to take them to a National Tournament and planned our budgeting in a way to make it happen, made sure they got there, got them opportunities that others didnt get, then you are really stretching for ways to indict my leadership and management. Did you even pay attention to what a great tournament CEDA was? Or were you in a fog all week? I mean how much of the planning and budgeting did you do in your role at Towson? How many of those Baltimore programs did you get to CEDA? What revenue streams did you nurture and grow to make that happen? A lot of us with full time jobs, in some cases multiple ones, and families, and committee responsibilities at our institutions, and professional development responsibilities, and professional conference responsibilities, and coaching, and planning, and YES budgeting for our programs, could still run circles (while in a blizzard) around someone who would rather indict the very structure and those that serve it that gives them opportunities to exist in a bizarre little world we call debate and not require so much of them as a thank you. With virtually none of the responsibilities above, your planning and management skills still dont deserve the ability to even smell the socks of Gordon Stables, Sue Peterson, or Mike Davis--the next 3 people you get to criticize. But yet we will continue to serve and give you that space to do it. And frankly until you master the language and quit babbling about things like the "risk of not flowing very reliability" (sic) but being "exposed to liability" I cant even begin to address the words you have somehow strung together. It makes my head hurt reading it. Seriously. chief >>> Andy Ellis 05/09/09 3:50 AM >>> Here is my point...You want revenue streams? You have to be able to nurture, maintain, and grow them. There are other people with advanced degrees who do this as a living. Some of them are even in the academy. If you tend to them after everything else, not only do they risk not flowing very reliability but they expose you to liability. If this is a focus of the organization i applaud the move, however it is a more reliable strategy if the process is devised and maintained by somebody who does it as their job. This does not mean fill the ec with technocratic business person, but having one may not be a bad idea. Aside from being able to plan and make the kind of deals this amendment suggests, this person could do a lot of the work to let the ec focus on the things that caused them to run for office...If this is developing revenue streams im sure the ed would take the help, but if it is not its not something that you have to worry about. There is a vast difference between a full time fundraiser, a development director and an executive director...just as their is between a debaprtment chair a dean and a provost....i would advise against a full time fundraiser, but a person who makes ceda go, enables the ec to do what they are professionaly trained to do, and builds the kind of resources darren says are the real issues...is probably a lot better than someone who speant 2 weeks of march in wyoming stuck due to their first and second job. Thats not a pot shot, a low blow, or some other euphamism, its a direct indictment of your leadership and management. Andy PS-Any word on what i should do with the CEDA nats video. I asked you more than a month ago where you would like me to send the DVD so you could do something with it (like i don't know make it available to the membership as promised) On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Darren Elliott wrote: When, in my opinion, the majority of people who run programs believe CEDA officers should be tied to the academy, be able to work within the academy to promote debate amongst those who matter (read Administrators, Tenure Committees, etc), and that they should probably hold advanced degrees and exist as both coaches and faculty of some sort, my arguments are actually proof positive that the CEDA President should not exist as a full time fundraiser. And I would imagine such political platforms with that being the main strategy will continue to be non-starters. So not a try at a cheap shot, just a glowing reality. Good luck with that PhD. chief >>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 5:59 PM >>> Sir, Thank you for feeding the argument for why the CEDA President should be someone who makes it their full time job because we college faculty don't have the time to do the nonprofit type fundraising. Oh wait -- that was part of Andy's platform when he was running... right? Nice try at a cheap shot. FAIL. -JM is outta here and off to get a PhD. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From edebate at anumbersgame.net Sat May 9 22:05:50 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 20:05:50 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Geography In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <739f03b0905092005j1e22ae6atd18ecb3550c23e36@mail.gmail.com> I was curious about the CEDA Nats attendance numbers, so I compared them to NDT qualifying tournaments here: http://code.google.com/p/anumbersgame/wiki/Attendance I have no evidence that these numbers should move in lock-step, but I suspect they draw from similar crowds. Obviously, some teams with no NDT aspirations go to CEDA Nats. The short version, by the way, is that this year's CEDA Nats showed a precipitous decline in attendance, and 2006's NDT at Northwestern showed a similarly-sized increase in NDT qual attendance. On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:18 AM, matt stannard wrote: > Should we be concerned that tournament travel is too expensive?? Certainly. > It is.? But air and other travel-related expenses are relative to where you > are, and unless we want to be strictly utilitarian in deciding where to host > tournaments (and if that's what some of us want, let's have a transparent > discussion about that), then some years some regions get a break and other > years other regions do.? If you want to be utilitarian, then don't be > surprised when the regions furthest away from the tournament in any given > year don't attend. From edebate at anumbersgame.net Sat May 9 22:19:20 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 20:19:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA In-Reply-To: <4A05D7AE0200009300029C49@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A05D7AE0200009300029C49@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <739f03b0905092019w5e09fd55wbe76496b5b3ed7fc@mail.gmail.com> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: >?CEDA should > continue to have Novice Breakout Rounds. ?It increased participation, > led to much needed PR for some programs, and did ZERO harm. Once Brushke's 2008-2009 database dump is available we can see if adding the novice breakout: (a) Increased attendance of novice-eligible teams (b) Hurt strength-of-schedule equity among teams near or above the break (c) Affected speaker point distribution in any way (Disclaimer: I'm not making any claims about whether/how these numbers could/should change the decision to have the breakout rounds) >?As for what > Administration led to the most growth maybe mr debatenumbersgame guy can > provide some insight. Unfortunately, we don't have nearly enough data for that. Maybe in a decade or two . . . From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat May 9 22:21:55 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 23:21:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] A2 CHIEF RE: New Events In-Reply-To: <4A05E2C70200009300029C57@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A05E2C70200009300029C57@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905092021h1d11b8eby70240c1ff1ca1666@mail.gmail.com> Let's recap you made an attrocious argument for why the ec should have powers that you can't explain a useful application of. In engaging that argument i made a passing reference to the idea of ceda hiring an ed. You responded to that argument with the inadequacy you normally bring to the table (like i said you really should let gordon do the talking, he is actually intelligent, an actual academic,not a dude for whom debate was the only thing he was ever good at) Now we are here...so a few things my argument is not here is my resume ceda should hire me as ed, while i would love to do the job someday there are millions of candidates more qualified to lead an orgaization with the size and scope of ceda. And hey for you there at least a million people less qualified than you...ok just kidding...not really, i thought you sucked as leader. Good job to sarah and you and the ec on a great ceda nats, and thank you. But for the bulk of your administration it seemed like ceda was at least your third priority.Things bumped up against deadlines, got together with last minute bursts of energy, and often seemed to be in situations where vision and implementation were not synced. In your defense, this is a problem with all ceda leadershp, as long as ceda comes third to its leadership and its leadership is entirely made up of particpants the ability to offer the kind of programing, research, support, and leadership that each member of the ec envisions the misson of ceda enabling is not a high priority AND decisions are made with allegiances to the second job(debate coach). I will talk more about the second part of it in a second. We could exchange insults all day. Really. and Im sure you agree...but i'll stop..look let me put it this way...you the ec gets to pick the ed, make sure it is somebody who understand the needs of academics, the nature of debate, the role of the ec, and the ability to qucikly bring the kind of funds that could make your third job her job and your third job a lot better and a lot easier...It actually increses the power of the executive, but puts those decisions in the hands of thinking about this day in and day out...i don't mind if an executive has power as long as they are focuesd on those decisions, but i don't by any means want somebody making final decisions who has at least two professional priorities prior to ceda. I'm not knocking you for being passionate about the parts of debate you are passionate about...ou know you rock that stuff, and keep doing it, it doesnt mean you arent good at it or appreciated for it, it means you should not also run a national organization which includes 200 members schools and sanctions a season worth of competition...see this is where the rub is..CEDA is largely driven by the intense personal commitment of those that care, the ec, and a chunk of directors and a smaller chunk of students, the CEDA that exists and can exist to those who care is different than the ceda that exists for those that are largely agnostic on the question except when the question directy effects them. Intense personal commitment often gets things done during the presidents term, but then another president comes in with their agenda, and so on and so on...this means that when tuna opens the door for the merger he is not around to manage it after its implementd...while that may be an interesting debate, for the point of argument the process would have been a lot different if he had implemented it in his first year and managed his vision of that partnership for the last dozen or so years...the events question (where the debate started) is simlar if gordon would agree to be the executive director of ceda...i wouldnt care if he added events in mid feburary, but i don't think your argument in defense of it was very good and you seemed to think it was...enough that it is a description of a reason you might agree to make this decision to add other events at nationals. I don't want to give that power to the executive generally, but an executive yes...especially if my elected leadership served as board to the ed of ceda...NFL Does it...it seems to work...or at least be worth investigating. You get a link to a spending disad, hasn't been your argument yet. Whats the rest of the offense? Now the other question...Some sort of outsider on the leadership structure would be good, some one who doesnt care about 5th years but understands why you do, somebodys whose job it is to reach across competitive rivalries and to guide the right way for the organization...i'm not suggesting some tyrant chalie sheen would play or something, you all work out the compensation package and terms, you all hire and fire the person, you all do committee work under non rotating leadership..uses your time well in your third priority...and lets you have say on the vision of the organization...president of ceda could be president of the board...still powerful because they set the vision and char ethe key committees, but without the thankless third job(something most of your non debate advanced degree having colleagues cannot understand) Recapping again...you have no disad, just some d...An executive director can be somebody who you like, who handles the day to to day things you handle third first. Ill address this baltimore thing. Reasons why Baltimore College Debate did not work as i had envisioned it. 1)It never had the opportunity to come first, it was always at least second to my middle school job or my towson job. had to take care of the things where my job first and my volunteer work suffered. I beleive had it been funded in 2007 it would have succeeded, however i trained my eyes on one revenue stream, when it fell through there where no accesible methods of funding it to the level that it would have required to spur ceda debate as we recognize it here. 2) I tried to tailor the league to ceda's definition of what a tournament is. I always focused on points eligible tournaments in order to attract outsiders, while ignoring the 1 day tournament experience of many of the local students, and debate leaders. 3) Without fundraising there was very little i could do to expand services and help students justfy it to thier schools. 4) I had to many tournaments in one place to alter peoples schedules to the extent that i would have needed to. There are other reasons and thats actually a conversation i am interested in having with some of you. I bet that at somepoint in the future lots of debates will be going on in Baltimore amongst college students in competitive forums, just not usually your competitive forum. Some of the reasons this failed are the same reason many good ideas fail...doing them is a lot more work, than thinking of them...i think this applies to the amendment this conversation all started with, and the reason it doesnt make sense to expand the ecs development responsibilities without increasing their capacity first. Finally...funding..yes its expensive to have an executive director...but if that is really the only concern...then lets talk about how to do that, i don't doubt the ec can come up with a good solution....in consultation with the membership of course. On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > Andy, > > I should probably stop engaging you on these issues. If the best you got > is that I was stuck in a blizzard for 2 days in Wyoming because I made a > commitment to 6 kids to take them to a National Tournament and planned our > budgeting in a way to make it happen, made sure they got there, got them > opportunities that others didnt get, then you are really stretching for ways > to indict my leadership and management. Did you even pay attention to what > a great tournament CEDA was? Or were you in a fog all week? I mean how > much of the planning and budgeting did you do in your role at Towson? How > many of those Baltimore programs did you get to CEDA? What revenue streams > did you nurture and grow to make that happen? > > A lot of us with full time jobs, in some cases multiple ones, and families, > and committee responsibilities at our institutions, and professional > development responsibilities, and professional conference responsibilities, > and coaching, and planning, and YES budgeting for our programs, could still > run circles (while in a blizzard) around someone who would rather indict the > very structure and those that serve it that gives them opportunities to > exist in a bizarre little world we call debate and not require so much of > them as a thank you. With virtually none of the responsibilities above, > your planning and management skills still dont deserve the ability to even > smell the socks of Gordon Stables, Sue Peterson, or Mike Davis--the next 3 > people you get to criticize. But yet we will continue to serve and give you > that space to do it. > > And frankly until you master the language and quit babbling about things > like the "risk of not flowing very reliability" (sic) but being "exposed to > liability" I cant even begin to address the words you have somehow strung > together. It makes my head hurt reading it. Seriously. > > chief > > >>> Andy Ellis 05/09/09 3:50 AM >>> > Here is my point...You want revenue streams? You have to be able to > nurture, maintain, and grow them. There are other people with advanced > degrees who do this as a living. Some of them are even in the academy. If > you tend to them after everything else, not only do they risk not flowing > very reliability but they expose you to liability. > > If this is a focus of the organization i applaud the move, however it is a > more reliable strategy if the process is devised and maintained by somebody > who does it as their job. > > This does not mean fill the ec with technocratic business person, but > having one may not be a bad idea. Aside from being able to plan and make the > kind of deals this amendment suggests, this person could do a lot of the > work to let the ec focus on the things that caused them to run for > office...If this is developing revenue streams im sure the ed would take the > help, but if it is not its not something that you have to worry about. > > There is a vast difference between a full time fundraiser, a development > director and an executive director...just as their is between a debaprtment > chair a dean and a provost....i would advise against a full time fundraiser, > but a person who makes ceda go, enables the ec to do what they are > professionaly trained to do, and builds the kind of resources darren says > are the real issues...is probably a lot better than someone who speant 2 > weeks of march in wyoming stuck due to their first and second job. > > Thats not a pot shot, a low blow, or some other euphamism, its a direct > indictment of your leadership and management. > > Andy > PS-Any word on what i should do with the CEDA nats video. I asked you more > than a month ago where you would like me to send the DVD so you could do > something with it (like i don't know make it available to the membership as > promised) > > > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Darren Elliott wrote: > > > When, in my opinion, the majority of people who run programs believe > CEDA officers should be tied to the academy, be able to work within the > academy to promote debate amongst those who matter (read Administrators, > Tenure Committees, etc), and that they should probably hold advanced degrees > and exist as both coaches and faculty of some sort, my arguments are > actually proof positive that the CEDA President should not exist as a full > time fundraiser. And I would imagine such political platforms with that > being the main strategy will continue to be non-starters. So not a try at a > cheap shot, just a glowing reality. > > Good luck with that PhD. > > chief > > >>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 5:59 PM >>> > > Sir, > > Thank you for feeding the argument for why the CEDA President should be > someone who makes it their full time job because we college faculty don't > have the time to do the nonprofit type fundraising. > > Oh wait -- that was part of Andy's platform when he was running... right? > > Nice try at a cheap shot. FAIL. > > -JM > is outta here and off to get a PhD. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090509/e71d8f47/attachment.htm From edebate at anumbersgame.net Sat May 9 22:33:03 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 20:33:03 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Found: CEDA finals footage, NDT finals ballots, book Message-ID: <739f03b0905092033j4f62db82s9206a749abd54d5a@mail.gmail.com> This post is not about numbers. While googling around for previous CEDA Nats and NDT locations, I found: CEDA finals footage: http://video.ap.org/?f=&pid=WrAdIJX63k5JSvkkJvg2TqExnLDu0C1e Total NDT results packet: http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Photos/NDT2009/2009PhotoCover.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Sat May 9 22:41:46 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 22:41:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Student eligibility In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6bd35ee10905092041y6d34c2aci37ecd84ad25605c7@mail.gmail.com> I do not read the rule the way Bill reads it (and if I did, I would certainly vote against it). My reading of it matches Gordon's statement about its intent. Here is the text: ?National CEDA Tournament contestants are to be officially enrolled students in good standing at the college or university they represent in competition. All CEDA tournament contestants must be undergraduate students, unless they have already received their undergraduate degree, are officially enrolled in a graduate program at the same institution, and have competed in four or less years of intercollegiate debate.? I get that "have" is past tense, but it is past tense in relation to the particular CEDA Nationals. If, come 2010, a graduate student seeks to compete at CEDA, they will have to "have competed in four or less years" at that time. Those who are finishing their 4th year of competition will meet this rule, and those who are finishing their 5th year will not. Bill's interpretation would make sense if the rule said "had completed competition in four or less years" (meaning that the present 5th year was not yet complete), but that's not the wording. The only sneaky way around this would be to not "really" debate your 5th year but then try to show up at nationals. I assume someone trying that would lose if challenged, given that there is a member of the EC on public record indicating that doing so would violate the rule's purpose. Plus, I'm not real concerned about competitors who skip the year prior to CEDA... There was an appeal on this basis last year, and I believe the amendment reflects agreement with the idea that allowing even someone who graduates in Feb/Mar before CEDA (due to a quarter system, etc) was a significant enough change that the EC would like to have member support of the concept instead of just precedent. If you agree with Justin Green and Tuna that the CEDA EC should not make major adjustments without a community vote, then you should also be uncomfortable with the EC habitually doing so on eligibility questions. This isn't an objection to the EC doing so last year (actually, I don't recall how that case was resolved), but a recognition that doing so is less ideal than a forward looking membership vote. Even if Chief is correct, and only 50% vote, it's probably fair to say that those who interested in expressing their opinion are the ones who vote. I wouldn't support a massive expansion of real presidential powers on the basis of low voter turnout in real elections. All that said, the question of whether we should allow this at all - or, the question of whether we should go FURTHER - are all important questions. Reasonable people may differ. I just hope that people voting will vote on the basis of what the amendment actually says, and not on the basis of misconceptions about it. Ermo MoState -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090509/57310072/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Sat May 9 22:56:29 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 22:56:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate school debating & Newnam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6bd35ee10905092056n69c88c5cofe6c53d1dcbf4448@mail.gmail.com> I agree with nearly everything Russell says here, but I do think you can 'gerrymander' (as an undergrad). The CEDA Constitution (Section VII): "Tournament contestants are eligible to earn points for a maximum of five different, not necessarily consecutive, academic years." I don't think the proposed amendment, if passed, creates that much of a problem, as it would only enable graduate students to compete if they have only competed in 4 years (or fewer). I do believe that the "wait and debate later" trick might work for students who debated 3 or fewer years, but if they coached and judged open, then the EC might get into the position of trying to decide if judging in open really DOES end your eligibility. I'm among many who feel it does, although I can think of at least one case where someone was pushed into judging open against their preferences that I would think appropriate for an exception. If they didn't coach and judge during those off years, I'm not sure that their participation is that concerning to me. I respect that it might be so for others. Ermo MoState On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Jason Russell wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion on this provision overall, but am I wrong > that Bill's concern about people coming back in their 5th year of PhD work > is off-base because you only have consecutive years of eligibility under the > current guidelines? My understanding was you could no longer gerrymander > your years. 1-4 + 1 at a later date. > > I do not get the impression that there are only a few students to whom this > rule would apply. I believe many debaters would make drastically different > choices, particularly regarding their fifth years, if the amendment passed. > I think that an appeals process is wildly inappropriate to handle the likely > rush of student interest in said waiver. I do not believe that these waivers > should be only applicable to students finishing school in their 3rd year > given that we allow students to debate 5 yrs, regardless of Gordon's interp > (which I saw as merely an example, not a constitutive rationale). > > I guess I will say that I strongly favor the anti-poaching provisions. I do > not believe that the goal of this proposal is to expand graduate > opportunities. I do believe it is to avoid a forced choice between debating > and graduating. I do not like the idea of students trained at one school > transferring to another for an MA program and 1-2 more years of eligibility. > I do believe that this retains and perhaps accentuates some of the perceived > injustices between smaller and larger programs. This is not for my vested > interest, mind you. I've only ever worked at schools w excellent graduate > opportunities in a diversity of fields. It is in my estimation not good for > our game. > > J > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090509/715db612/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Sun May 10 00:32:20 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 00:32:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the pelosi shuffle: a torture dance Message-ID: rockefeller knew too. here's the real reason cheney's henchmen aren't getting prosecuted. obama's people were informed by cheney who covered his ass. the obama torture stance is purely symbolic action. guatanamo has moved to afghanistan. nobody gets prosecuted. perfect for all the fans who don't care what's going on so long as they are in line for the next blow job: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5297269/Nancy-Pelosi-was-aware-harsh-interrogation-methods-had-been-used.html Newly released CIA documents revealed that the Speaker of the House of Representatives was aware of the methods' deployment and not just their existence, as she had earlier claimed.A leading Republican called her explanation the "lamest of lame excuses". _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090510/b3f0c8ee/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Sun May 10 21:45:24 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 19:45:24 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] Reply to Chief In-Reply-To: <4A04D61D0200009300029B58@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A04D61D0200009300029B58@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <4A079144.7020109@uvm.edu> It saddens me that your remarks are full of personal attacks and attempts to deflect the issue. This does not serve you well as a communication professional, as a role model for students or as a president of this organization. I will point this out below. Darren Elliott wrote: > I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it was a pot shot or a low blow. > OK, if you wish. > As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about the process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not make a unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids were brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from Jackie. I loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to tournaments, I supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be presented to the Executive Council in Dallas at the summer meeting. Were you there? Did you watch on the web? I cant remember. The Executive Council voted for Idaho State for a number of reasons which I am sure you couldnt care less about--afterall its all about supporting your own right? I mean I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but Jesus H, dude, take off the blinders. This was not a personal decision and Im sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA leadership than many past decisions where programs not > only didnt go t > > o CEDA but left altogether. > Great, call me names - "all-knowing arrogance" is neither justified by my argument nor my tone, stating that I "couldn't care less" when I obviously do (see below), insinuating that I "play favorites" with Jackie because i think more teams would have gone to Oklahoma, all of these are unnecessary, unprofessional and besides the point.. Actually, one of my former debaters teaches at ISU and was in recent years department chair. Nice of you to "allow" people to be at the summer meeting. Yes, and it could have been worse. This is an all-purpose argument that signifies nothing -- it could always have been worse. Can't you rise above personal attacks? At least you didn't drop the "f bomb" ten times. > For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: > 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support > 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support > 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional Diversity good judge! > 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any potential host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and abilty to provide amenities most tournaments only dream of was very compelling. > 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was overwhelmingly impressed. > And a lot of teams didn't go. Sarah and ISU did a great job, I said that, but the location was wrong. If others are right and 30 teams didn't go that would have gone to Oklahoma, how can you justify to those 60 students that there is no nationals for them besides to repeat the arguments in favor of it above? I do not think they will be persuaded. > I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots at a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the best Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision was those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. > What are you talking about? This year Vermont went to 13 CEDA sanctioned tournaments. [Bruschke site] Do you call that "barely supporting CEDA?" You do not seem to even know who is participating in the tournaments or the organization you lead. Stop saying that I am criticizing Sarah and ISU when I obviously am not. Just because Vermont does not sit at your meetings doesn't mean we do not participate. This is about DEBATE not about business meetings. We trust our rep to represent. I believe that is your point on the "new events" argument. I believe that the president of an academic organization should not attack active members in good standing with personal insults. You may not like the questions I am asking or the points I am making, but our tone should always remain civil. If you wonder why people may not find this organization welcoming, then read your post again. Who reading this, perhaps as a new coach starting out, will feel welcome to raise issues in the future? Tuna > chief > > >>>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> >>>> > Just a couple of points. > > 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. > I notice Justin did not bring up ****. > > 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did > nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision > to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of > financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds > of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA > presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a > very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. > > 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. > > Vote no. > > Tuna > > -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From anon.edebate at gmail.com Mon May 11 02:02:41 2009 From: anon.edebate at gmail.com (Anony mous) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 00:02:41 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence Message-ID: I saw this posted on Cross-X.com, but I thought it would be interesting to get the college community's opinion (a similar incident occured before CEDA with a BC student writing a conveniently worded article concerning LOST, although the circumstances were a bit different): "Before the TOC this awesome article came out about SPS. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1359/1 The author credited Justin Skarb for some help. Upon further research, it appears Justin Skarb actually wrote the article. He is also the coach at Damien. http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com.../#comment-3110 Obviously people have called out Damien before on emailing authors and using their responses as evidence, and there has been much debate on the legitimacy of that. This is a seperate matter, and I think this issue merits some discussion as well. I have three questions: 1) Is it legitimate for a coach to write articles which are clearly relevant to the current debate topic? Should we treat these differently? And should the purpose/content be relevant? For example, here are two different scenarios: a) It is clearly written for the purpose of a debate round, such as this article which included a few disads and a counterplan without citing research b) It is not as rhetorically powerful, is backed up with research, and is written as a product of knowledge acquired over a year of debating the topic rather than with the intent of producing new evidence. Obviously it is difficult to measure intent, although it may not actually be necessary, since in scenario b it is less likely that the article would be used as evidence or be the critical card in some debate. 2) If it is legitimate, should the coaches experience on the topic be an additional factor when comparing qualifications, or should the evidence be evaluated based solely on the author's other qualifications? If it is not legitimate, what is the remedy? Should the evidence be evaluated as nothing more than a lengthy analytic, or is it an ethics question? 3) If it is ok to write the article, is it ethical to use a pen name? Because I am remaining anonymous, I'm not voicing opinions. This is an attempt to spur discussion from others on an important issue, and shouldn't just turn into a hate on Damien thread." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/2e21b0d9/attachment.htm From anon.edebate at gmail.com Mon May 11 02:06:42 2009 From: anon.edebate at gmail.com (Anony mous) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 00:06:42 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Standards for Evidence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I saw this posted on Cross-X.com, but I thought it would be interesting to get the college community's opinion (a similar incident occured before CEDA with a BC student writing a conveniently worded article concerning LOST, although the circumstances were a bit different): "Before the TOC this awesome article came out about SPS. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1359/1 The author credited Justin Skarb for some help. Upon further research, it appears Justin Skarb actually wrote the article. He is also the coach at Damien. http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com.../#comment-3110 Obviously people have called out Damien before on emailing authors and using their responses as evidence, and there has been much debate on the legitimacy of that. This is a seperate matter, and I think this issue merits some discussion as well. I have three questions: 1) Is it legitimate for a coach to write articles which are clearly relevant to the current debate topic? Should we treat these differently? And should the purpose/content be relevant? For example, here are two different scenarios: a) It is clearly written for the purpose of a debate round, such as this article which included a few disads and a counterplan without citing research b) It is not as rhetorically powerful, is backed up with research, and is written as a product of knowledge acquired over a year of debating the topic rather than with the intent of producing new evidence. Obviously it is difficult to measure intent, although it may not actually be necessary, since in scenario b it is less likely that the article would be used as evidence or be the critical card in some debate. 2) If it is legitimate, should the coaches experience on the topic be an additional factor when comparing qualifications, or should the evidence be evaluated based solely on the author's other qualifications? If it is not legitimate, what is the remedy? Should the evidence be evaluated as nothing more than a lengthy analytic, or is it an ethics question? 3) If it is ok to write the article, is it ethical to use a pen name? Because I am remaining anonymous, I'm not voicing opinions. This is an attempt to spur discussion from others on an important issue, and shouldn't just turn into a hate on Damien thread." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/b518ff2e/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Mon May 11 09:20:36 2009 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 07:20:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence Message-ID: <734167.41494.qm@web110601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> I'll say this:? Justin Skarb was a top-notch debater and an excellent coach. I have no doubt that any policy writing on his part was probably well-researched and insightful...that being said... Anony mous writes: 1) Is it legitimate for a coach to write articles which are clearly relevant to the current debate topic? Should we treat these differently? And should the purpose/content be relevant? For example, here are two different scenarios: a) It is clearly written for the purpose of a debate round, such as this article which included a few disads and a counterplan without citing research b) It is not as rhetorically powerful, is backed up with research, and is written as a product of knowledge acquired over a year of debating the topic rather than with the intent of producing new evidence. Obviously it is difficult to measure intent, although it may not actually be necessary, since in scenario b it is less likely that the article would be used as evidence or be the critical card in some debate. <<< References: <734167.41494.qm@web110601.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905110809nb765771p2765b2ba97a8122@mail.gmail.com> Every time this comes up and we eat our own who take the work they do and make external public policy arguments a little part of me dies...if framework arguments are to be believed we are doing tons of policy research about a given topic as an academic community driven by competition...this is really cool and when it creates thought that can be shared with the outside world we should celebrate it as an accomplishment of the activity, not question the ethics of the person that did it. If the evidence makes bad arguments ie if you support bioremdiation efforts in oakland the sri lankans will ask for indias assistance in nuking the tamils which will then draw in the chinese north koreans and russians and spur a parkinglot making war between iran and israel....that evidence should be challenged, not because it comes from a coach but because it sucks and its dangerous scholarship... The intent question is interesting to me because it assumes that the intent of articles not written by coaches is pure...non intrest influenced words that elucidate some kernal of truth...nearly all academic writting is written with competitive self interest in mind, as is most professional journalism, ironicaly the things written with the least self interest, blog posts, wikipedia, and other user generated content is often looked at with suspecious eyes, and dismissed by the community. Just because the interest in this case is in part written toward the debate community simply means that the debate community should be better at identifying the place where interest is placed above fair and balanced journalism...we have a leg up that the non debate rader doesnt have, we know the context...ive never heard a card written by a debater or a coach that was unfair or unethical, and justins writting is not that either, can we please stop villifying anybody who takes the hours upon hours of public policy research they do and turns it in to something that goes outward? On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:20 AM, J T wrote: > I'll say this: Justin Skarb was a top-notch debater and an excellent > coach. I have no doubt that any policy writing on his part was probably > well-researched and insightful...that being said... > > Anony mous writes: > 1) Is it legitimate for a coach to write articles which are clearly > relevant to the current debate topic? Should we treat these differently? And > should the purpose/content be relevant? For example, here are two different > scenarios: > a) It is clearly written for the purpose of a debate round, such as this > article which included a few disads and a counterplan without citing > research > b) It is not as rhetorically powerful, is backed up with research, and is > written as a product of knowledge acquired over a year of debating the topic > rather than with the intent of producing new evidence. > Obviously it is difficult to measure intent, although it may not actually > be necessary, since in scenario b it is less likely that the article would > be used as evidence or be the critical card in some debate. > > <<< experience in the field, they are a legit author by any standard. BETTER > THAN A STAFF WRITER: Even if a coach--let's say Justin Skarb--had zero > "quals", that coach is probably more qualified to make claims based on > research than the staff writer from AP that writes politics cards! INTENT: > don't even go there! The article Justin evidently wrote was published in a > reputable journal in the field. But for others, you only risk wrongly > insulting someone. No proof = no accusation. > > > 2) If it is legitimate, should the coaches experience on the topic be an > additional factor when comparing qualifications, or should the evidence be > evaluated based solely on the author's other qualifications? If it is not > legitimate, what is the remedy? Should the evidence be evaluated as nothing > more than a lengthy analytic, or is it an ethics question? > > << should be a quals debate. It depends on their topic experience. Just > judging rounds and coaching teams does not inherently make you more > qualified. Do they do research? Have they done alot on this particulat > topic? Do they have any academic background on the subject? This discussion > would not happen in response to a card from a New York Times staff writer, > but because he is a coach, Justin gets called out---this is ridiculous. > > 3) If it is ok to write the article, is it ethical to use a pen name? > > << independent research to find out their quals. Was this the case? If Justin > just used a pen name then perhaps he was trying to avoid the silly > highschool complaints about intent that some have advanced. Regardless, it > was probably unnecessary...not sure why the pen name thanked the actual > author for assistance though...??? > > Because I am remaining anonymous, I'm not voicing opinions. This is an > attempt to spur discussion from others on an important issue, and shouldn't > just turn into a hate on Damien thread." > > -----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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/0d922407/attachment.htm From antonucci23 at gmail.com Mon May 11 12:34:40 2009 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:34:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Skarb-researched Article Message-ID: <4a71966c0905111034n2d792b76h98fa3b274b866fae@mail.gmail.com> I'd defend both the writing and the deployment of that particular article. I think some of the above comments, however, miss the mark. I don't think anyone is "calling out" Justin Skarb. I'm certainly not. The only possible unethical action in such a situation is deception, and that didn't happen. Skarb exerted a good deal of influence over the content of that article, and the lead author clearly attributes his influence. Everything's above the table. The larger question isn't one of "qualifications." It couldn't be, in this case. The lead writer (not Skarb) has a master's in political communication. Since he's writing spending and politics links, he has subject-appropriate qualifications. The real question's one of competitive bias. The publication of the article coincided with the high school "Tournament of Champions." Skarb pretty clearly had a direct vested interest in publishing great cards that delineated a net beneficial counterplan against Solar Power Satellites. He might be more qualified and intelligent than a staff writer (although I think their craft gets unnecessarily pooped on in these conversations. Tampa Tribune writers need love too!) A staff writer, however, doesn't have any direct vested interest in making very strong claims about relative solvency and net benefits. None of these factors militate against the use of this evidence, IMO. It certainly calls the quality of that evidence into question, however. Climate studies funded by oil companies are pretty suspect, as are Skarb cards about different Solar Power Satellite proposals. I think the debaters can largely debate that out, though. We debate about financial or institutional bias all the time. There's some risk that debaters would use that particular card deceptively, by citing the lead author without making the attribution clear. That would blindside a team pretty badly, and probably cross some sort of line for me. To echo some of Mr. Ellis' sentiments, it seems that this might produce some positive benefits as well: a. Isolation bad - the debate community should, ideally, be an interdisciplinary nexus between several different fields, which dynamically generates new material instead of confining itself to raw repetition. b. Claims prolif good - if all arguments are supported by claims as good as Skarb's, the focus of evaluating competing cards must necessarily shift to warrants. It becomes the only relevant basis for distinction. I think that's a good thing. I remember a longish post by Branson a while back that bemoaned debate's perverse over-valuation of strong claims that, in any other context, would only serve to reduce the author's credibility. Skarb's article drives that point home; that practice reproduced en masse would force judges to alter their card-reading ideology in some positive ways. -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 From antonucci23 at gmail.com Mon May 11 14:16:21 2009 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:16:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Retraction re: Skarb Article Message-ID: <4a71966c0905111216j77573cd6lcb3700a17ad17b3b@mail.gmail.com> I was behind on some of the attribution details. I retract all my comments. I find the general topic really interesting, which is why I jumped the gun. I shouldn't editorialize absent all the details of authorship, which remain unclear to me. Sorry. -- Michael Antonucci Debate Coach Georgetown University Mobile: 617-838-3345 Office: 202-687-4079 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/719b1837/attachment.htm From edebate at anumbersgame.net Mon May 11 14:28:50 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:28:50 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors Message-ID: <739f03b0905111228h4fa11145p8b04f927ea84b824@mail.gmail.com> Cumulative results sheets at the NDT often misstate team points by a small amount, possibly due to a bug in Tab Room on the PC (TRPC). This has created incorrect seeding in NDT elimination rounds at least thrice in the past five years. The following seeds should have been swapped: 2009 28 Berkeley BG 29 Towson JM 2007 5 Northwestern BW 6 Southern Cal IS 2005 23 Emory CG 24 Dartmouth BeM For more details, see: http://repository.anumbersgame.net/wiki/TeamPointsBug From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Mon May 11 15:19:30 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:19:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors In-Reply-To: <739f03b0905111228h4fa11145p8b04f927ea84b824@mail.gmail.com> References: <739f03b0905111228h4fa11145p8b04f927ea84b824@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Someone want to clarify or verify? mjs > From: edebate at anumbersgame.net > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:28:50 -0700 > To: edebate at ndtceda.com; Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu > Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors > > Cumulative results sheets at the NDT often misstate team points by a > small amount, possibly due to a bug in Tab Room on the PC (TRPC). This > has created incorrect seeding in NDT elimination rounds at least > thrice in the past five years. > > The following seeds should have been swapped: > > 2009 > 28 Berkeley BG > 29 Towson JM > > 2007 > 5 Northwestern BW > 6 Southern Cal IS > > 2005 > 23 Emory CG > 24 Dartmouth BeM > > For more details, see: http://repository.anumbersgame.net/wiki/TeamPointsBug > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/cb9a0fd6/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Mon May 11 15:31:05 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:31:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] SPS article Message-ID: Why is everyone acting like it's clear that Skarb or Stefan Marbury (the fella's real name is actually that of a character from the West Wing, and is never cited in any other academic context or elsewhere on the internet) or whoever wrote this article is actually qualified bc they have a Masters in poli comm and/or have judged debates? This is obviously nonsense. Last poli comm class I took didnt have anything to do w public policy related to SPS, and the last class Skarb took was 6 years ago. The qualifications listed in the BLOG that hosts this article are almost certainly fabricated by "the author". I'd love to see any evidence that suggests that there is a real John Marburry. Perhaps Skarb could show us some evidence that he exists? I feel confident that this article was written to cheat, plain and simple. While I don't hold it against students for reading it, I would bet that the host school would be interested to know the standards of academic integrity employed in the posting of this article. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/63d370b9/attachment.htm From rahul.jaswa at gmail.com Mon May 11 15:42:57 2009 From: rahul.jaswa at gmail.com (Rahul Jaswa) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:42:57 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb Message-ID: A teammate pointed this out to me on the high school debate website and I was pretty shocked so I left some commentary. I didn't realize this was on edebate as well--i'm copying and pasting my thoughts here. First, this is completely unethical. 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an article was written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach instructing students during the current season, that seems to be minimally appropriate. 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. It has several DA and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and draws on "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely inappropriate for any real "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and attempting to then publish an article would be laughed at by any journal submission board. Some examples: ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is these very programs that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic crisis." "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short term is that the military will end up having to pay not only for its traditional energy supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of funding SBSP research and development costs. With readiness, maintenance, and procurement accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation the DOD can not afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP research and development could force the military to drastically scale back, if not cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an energy system that it will not be able to use for decades." "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the American economy were not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the government to embark upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based solar power. Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, quite simply, the nation currently has better uses for the money that would need to be spent by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, however, there is a more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to purchase commercial power beamed from space, which does not require any federal outlays in the near-term but will effectively help speed the development of SBSP. This is one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it too." 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? Marburry is Skarb, as we know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is even more unethical because it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an actual person to a fictitious person. 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name "norman ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would sound in a debate round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an anchor tenant for commercial power beamed from space would drain the last drop of Barack Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is currently using to persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the status quo is maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's focus on spending political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in these times, as poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be perceived as part of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender backlash from the same, interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with to pass LOST." 5) Published 2 days before the TOC 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I don't think that "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate defense." The onus is clearly on them. 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is constituted by the writings of researchers who have no vested interest in producing oversimplified debate arguments. 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going to be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest topic expert. After all, Arizona State's political science, history, and political communication departments are world renowned for their classes on space based energy. And your master's research, i'm sure, required you to devote your time and thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons programs, the details of agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary "money tree" which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, how they would interact given immediate funding of such a program. 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to promote quality education among students. Even if Damien's coaching doesn't believe that debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, apparently more wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. EVEN IF there were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), this was clearly approaching questionable territory and instead of erring against it, or at least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures like informing the community that such an article had been written by your program, you decided it was more important to have another strategic tool. Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article and having debaters card from it." This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming researchers used to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles supporting their side of the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a strategic game. 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel the need to defend your program--this obviously deserves "community" attention, and the fact that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to high school debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of discussion has far-reaching influence. Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is obviously an inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly affects the way that debates take place on a community-wide basis. More importantly, the longer this goes without It was published two days before the TOC. There was no effort to tell the whole community that this article was available. The article obviously cited no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if the coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate in their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author in the field?" Well that is certainly not the case here, and this imaginary coach/field expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure hybrid between community blog and public discussion of "published" articles. More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from an oversimplified argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and exclusively debate arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy analysis doesn't just mean that someone else read and approved it, it means that reputable academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and approved it. Please, submit this to a scientific journal and send us the response, i'd be glad to read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the economist, or the New Yorker even. 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., then I don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't have subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to get a subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair game - as long as the writing is from legit sources.." At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect the community--people need to be made aware of the existence of such an article from the author/debate coach; in this case it is inappropriate to say that the burden is on the researcher because, among other things, this is ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team making the arguments. Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their opinions should help direct your research/argumentation so that you can find people who don't have a vested interest in your winning that support your findings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/fceff432/attachment.htm From rahul.jaswa at gmail.com Mon May 11 15:58:41 2009 From: rahul.jaswa at gmail.com (Rahul Jaswa) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 13:58:41 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb Message-ID: Here are my thoughts: First, this is completely unethical. 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an article was written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach instructing students during the current season, that seems to be minimally appropriate. 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. It has several DA and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and draws on "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely inappropriate for any real "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and attempting to then publish an article would be laughed at by any journal submission board. Some examples: ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is these very programs that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic crisis." "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short term is that the military will end up having to pay not only for its traditional energy supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of funding SBSP research and development costs. With readiness, maintenance, and procurement accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation the DOD can not afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP research and development could force the military to drastically scale back, if not cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an energy system that it will not be able to use for decades." "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the American economy were not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the government to embark upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based solar power. Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, quite simply, the nation currently has better uses for the money that would need to be spent by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, however, there is a more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to purchase commercial power beamed from space, which does not require any federal outlays in the near-term but will effectively help speed the development of SBSP. This is one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it too." 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? Marburry is Skarb, as we know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is even more unethical because it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an actual person to a fictitious person. 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name "norman ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would sound in a debate round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an anchor tenant for commercial power beamed from space would drain the last drop of Barack Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is currently using to persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the status quo is maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's focus on spending political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in these times, as poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be perceived as part of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender backlash from the same, interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with to pass LOST." 5) Published 2 days before the TOC 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I don't think that "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate defense." The onus is clearly on them. 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is constituted by the writings of researchers who have no vested interest in producing oversimplified debate arguments. 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going to be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest topic expert. After all, Arizona State's political science, history, and political communication departments are world renowned for their classes on space based energy. And your master's research, i'm sure, required you to devote your time and thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons programs, the details of agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary "money tree" which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, how they would interact given immediate funding of such a program. 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to promote quality education among students. Even if Damien's coaching doesn't believe that debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, apparently more wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. EVEN IF there were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), this was clearly approaching questionable territory and instead of erring against it, or at least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures like informing the community that such an article had been written by your program, you decided it was more important to have another strategic tool. Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article and having debaters card from it." This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming researchers used to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles supporting their side of the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a strategic game. 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel the need to defend your program--this obviously deserves "community" attention, and the fact that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to high school debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of discussion has far-reaching influence. Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is obviously an inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly affects the way that debates take place on a community-wide basis It was published two days before the TOC. There was no effort to tell the whole community that this article was available. The article obviously cited no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if the coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate in their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author in the field?" Well that is certainly not the case here, and this imaginary coach/field expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure hybrid between community blog and public discussion of "published" articles. More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from an oversimplified argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and exclusively debate arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy analysis doesn't just mean that someone else read and approved it, it means that reputable academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and approved it. Please, submit this to a scientific journal and send us the response, i'd be glad to read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the economist, or the New Yorker even. 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., then I don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't have subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to get a subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair game - as long as the writing is from legit sources.." At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect the community--people need to be made aware of the existence of such an article from the author/debate coach; in this case it is inappropriate to say that the burden is on the researcher because, among other things, this is ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team making the arguments. Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their opinions should help direct your research/argumentation so that you can find people who don't have a vested interest in your winning that support your findings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/a0702dba/attachment.htm From rahul.jaswa at gmail.com Mon May 11 16:49:00 2009 From: rahul.jaswa at gmail.com (Rahul Jaswa) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 14:49:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb Message-ID: A teammate pointed this out to me on the high school debate website and I was pretty shocked so I left some commentary. I didn't realize this was on edebate as well--i'm copying and pasting my thoughts here. First, this is completely unethical. 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an article was written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach instructing students during the current season, that seems to be minimally appropriate. 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. It has several DA and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and draws on "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely inappropriate for any real "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and attempting to then publish an article would be laughed at by any journal submission board. Some examples: ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is these very programs that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic crisis." "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short term is that the military will end up having to pay not only for its traditional energy supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of funding SBSP research and development costs. With readiness, maintenance, and procurement accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation the DOD can not afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP research and development could force the military to drastically scale back, if not cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an energy system that it will not be able to use for decades." "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the American economy were not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the government to embark upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based solar power. Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, quite simply, the nation currently has better uses for the money that would need to be spent by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, however, there is a more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to purchase commercial power beamed from space, which does not require any federal outlays in the near-term but will effectively help speed the development of SBSP. This is one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it too." 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? Marburry is Skarb, as we know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is even more unethical because it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an actual person to a fictitious person. 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name "norman ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would sound in a debate round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an anchor tenant for commercial power beamed from space would drain the last drop of Barack Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is currently using to persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the Law of the Sea Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the status quo is maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's focus on spending political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in these times, as poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be perceived as part of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender backlash from the same, interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with to pass LOST." 5) Published 2 days before the TOC 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I don't think that "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate defense." The onus is clearly on them. 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is constituted by the writings of researchers who have no vested interest in producing oversimplified debate arguments. 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going to be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest topic expert. After all, Arizona State's political science, history, and political communication departments are world renowned for their classes on space based energy. And your master's research, i'm sure, required you to devote your time and thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons programs, the details of agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary "money tree" which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, how they would interact given immediate funding of such a program. 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to promote quality education among students. Even if Damien's coaching doesn't believe that debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, apparently more wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. EVEN IF there were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), this was clearly approaching questionable territory and instead of erring against it, or at least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures like informing the community that such an article had been written by your program, you decided it was more important to have another strategic tool. Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article and having debaters card from it." This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming researchers used to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles supporting their side of the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a strategic game. 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel the need to defend your program--this obviously deserves "community" attention, and the fact that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to high school debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of discussion has far-reaching influence. Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is obviously an inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly affects the way that debates take place on a community-wide basis. It was published two days before the TOC. There was no effort to tell the whole community that this article was available. The article obviously cited no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if the coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate in their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author in the field?" Well that is certainly not the case here, and this imaginary coach/field expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure hybrid between community blog and public discussion of "published" articles. More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from an oversimplified argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and exclusively debate arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy analysis doesn't just mean that someone else read and approved it, it means that reputable academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and approved it. Please, submit this to a scientific journal and send us the response, i'd be glad to read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the economist, or the New Yorker even. 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., then I don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't have subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to get a subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair game - as long as the writing is from legit sources.." At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect the community--people need to be made aware of the existence of such an article from the author/debate coach; in this case it is inappropriate to say that the burden is on the researcher because, among other things, this is ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team making the arguments. Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their opinions should help direct your research/argumentation so that you can find people who don't have a vested interest in your winning that support your findings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/05aef5c2/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon May 11 17:10:37 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:10:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround Message-ID: <4A085C0D0200003300042892@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> I hate to deflate a possible scandal but I did a very quick check on the first instance of ?wrong? calculations and don?t see a problem. For Towson JM in 2009, the post suggests that the three possible interpretations of the rule give 1240, 1240.5 or 1295 as adjusted totals for Towson. But looking at the actual results posted, it appears that Towson?s highest ballot was a 58 in round 8 and their lowest ballot was a 55.5 (either round 1 or round 2). In either case the adjustment will be 1353-113.5=1239.5, exactly what TRPC reported. I?ll go through each of the purported errors tonight when I get home, but I suspect that ?TeamsPointsBug? misinterprets the application of the rule. GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/65f89a1b/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon May 11 17:20:53 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:20:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround Message-ID: <4A085E75.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> >>> On 5/11/2009 at 5:10 PM, Gary Larson wrote: I hate to deflate a possible scandal but I did a very quick check on the first instance of ?wrong? calculations and don?t see a problem. For Towson JM in 2009, the post suggests that the three possible interpretations of the rule give 1240, 1240.5 or 1295 as adjusted totals for Towson. But looking at the actual results posted, it appears that Towson?s highest ballot was a 58 in round 8 and their lowest ballot was a 55.5 (either round 1 or round 2). In either case the adjustment will be 1353-113.5=1239.5, exactly what TRPC reported. I?ll go through each of the purported errors tonight when I get home, but I suspect that ?TeamsPointsBug? misinterprets the application of the rule. GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/87285403/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon May 11 17:25:02 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:25:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905111525w5e3f3bc4n49fdaea27a53a870@mail.gmail.com> Putting aside the attribution issues for a second, all of the cards you quote sound like typically bombastic things that make up a good cross section of evidence....context wise why are they approaching or crossing the line... On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Rahul Jaswa wrote: > Here are my thoughts: > > First, this is completely unethical. > > 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an article was > written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach instructing students > during the current season, that seems to be minimally appropriate. > > 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. It has several > DA and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and draws on > "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely inappropriate for any real > "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and attempting to then publish > an article would be laughed at by any journal submission board. > > Some examples: > > ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial > research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is these very programs > that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic > crisis." > > "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short term is that the > military will end up having to pay not only for its traditional energy > supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of funding SBSP > research and development costs. With readiness, maintenance, and procurement > accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation the DOD can not > afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP research and > development could force the military to drastically scale back, if not > cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an energy system that > it will not be able to use for decades." > > "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the American economy were > not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the government to embark > upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based solar power. > Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, quite simply, the > nation currently has better uses for the money that would need to be spent > by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, however, there is a > more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to purchase commercial > power beamed from space, which does not require any federal outlays in the > near-term but will effectively help speed the development of SBSP. This is > one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it too." > > 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? Marburry is Skarb, as we > know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is even more unethical > because it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an actual person > to a fictitious person. > > 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name "norman > ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would sound in a debate > round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday > > "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an anchor tenant for > commercial power beamed from space would drain the last drop of Barack > Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is currently using to > persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the Law of the Sea > Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the status quo is > maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's focus on spending > political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in these times, as > poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be perceived as part > of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender backlash from the same, > interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with to pass LOST." > > 5) Published 2 days before the TOC > > 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I don't think that > "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate defense." The onus is clearly > on them. > > 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is constituted by the > writings of researchers who have no vested interest in producing > oversimplified debate arguments. > > 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going > to be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest topic expert. > After all, Arizona State's political science, history, and political > communication departments are world renowned for their classes on space > based energy. And your master's research, i'm sure, required you to devote > your time and thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons programs, > the details of agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary > "money tree" which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, how > they would interact given immediate funding of such a program. > > 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to promote quality > education among students. Even if Damien's coaching doesn't believe that > debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, apparently more > wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. EVEN IF there > were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), this was clearly > approaching questionable territory and instead of erring against it, or at > least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures like informing > the community that such an article had been written by your program, you > decided it was more important to have another strategic tool. > > Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. > > 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the > credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or > something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article > and having debaters card from it." > > This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming researchers > used to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles supporting their > side of the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a strategic > game. > > 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a > public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." > > Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel the need to defend > your program--this obviously deserves "community" attention, and the fact > that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to high school > debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of discussion has > far-reaching influence. > > Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is obviously an > inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly affects the way > that debates take place on a community-wide basis > > It was published two days before the TOC. There was no effort to tell the > whole community that this article was available. The article obviously cited > no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. > > 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if the > coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate in > their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits > insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author > in the field?" > > Well that is certainly not the case here, and this imaginary coach/field > expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure hybrid between > community blog and public discussion of "published" articles. > > More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from an oversimplified > argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and exclusively debate > arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy analysis doesn't just mean > that someone else read and approved it, it means that reputable > academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and approved it. Please, > submit this to a scientific journal and send us the response, i'd be glad to > read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the economist, or the > New Yorker even. > > 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., then I > don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't have > subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to get a > subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair game - > as long as the writing is from legit sources.." > > At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect the > community--people need to be made aware of the existence of such an article > from the author/debate coach; in this case it is inappropriate to say that > the burden is on the researcher because, among other things, this is > ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team making the arguments. > > Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their opinions should > help direct your research/argumentation so that you can find people who > don't have a vested interest in your winning that support your findings. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090511/c48cbef0/attachment.htm From rahul.jaswa at gmail.com Mon May 11 17:49:32 2009 From: rahul.jaswa at gmail.com (Rahul Jaswa) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:49:32 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0905111525w5e3f3bc4n49fdaea27a53a870@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0905111525w5e3f3bc4n49fdaea27a53a870@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: The concern here is obviously that a debate coach wrote an article which said the aff plan froze and deepened recessionary economic condition, trades off with DOD weapons programs, and stretches military readiness to the breaking point, all of which can be solved by an advantage counterplan to purchase commercial beam power from space, which, just for kicks, results in the aff plan later. That being said, seriously? The only references cited are a blog called next100.com, a dialogue on the next century of energy, and a quote from a DOE report from 1978 which says "every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization." If that's considered sufficient for a BA history/poli sci, MS poli comm to extrapolate that to determine DOD deficit spending would collapse the economy, collapse U.S. readiness, treadoff with critical weapons programs, etc., then by all means expect I won't be going for the K next year and will instead be authoring a host of new disads equipped with my berkeley economics knowledge. I could go through the article and detail the logical gaps...but the obvious counterpoint you could make to that is "well, newspapers articles don't usually report data and are opinionated with lacking evidence." Not only does this "article" attempt to present itself as a scholarly contribution (Skarb's qualifications are noted as "independent policy analyst"...is that what high school debate coaches are nowadays?), newspaper articles are background checked for accuracy, credibility, and legitimacy. Thespacereview.com, according to its submission guidelines, filters out primarily articles on UFOs and Area 51... On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > Putting aside the attribution issues for a second, all of the cards you > quote sound like typically bombastic things that make up a good cross > section of evidence....context wise why are they approaching or crossing the > line... > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Rahul Jaswa wrote: > >> Here are my thoughts: >> >> First, this is completely unethical. >> >> 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an article was >> written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach instructing students >> during the current season, that seems to be minimally appropriate. >> >> 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. It has several >> DA and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and draws on >> "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely inappropriate for any real >> "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and attempting to then publish >> an article would be laughed at by any journal submission board. >> >> Some examples: >> >> ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial >> research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is these very programs >> that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic >> crisis." >> >> "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short term is that the >> military will end up having to pay not only for its traditional energy >> supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of funding SBSP >> research and development costs. With readiness, maintenance, and procurement >> accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation the DOD can not >> afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP research and >> development could force the military to drastically scale back, if not >> cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an energy system that >> it will not be able to use for decades." >> >> "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the American economy were >> not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the government to embark >> upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based solar power. >> Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, quite simply, the >> nation currently has better uses for the money that would need to be spent >> by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, however, there is a >> more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to purchase commercial >> power beamed from space, which does not require any federal outlays in the >> near-term but will effectively help speed the development of SBSP. This is >> one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it too." >> >> 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? Marburry is Skarb, as we >> know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is even more unethical >> because it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an actual person >> to a fictitious person. >> >> 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name "norman >> ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would sound in a debate >> round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday >> >> "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an anchor tenant for >> commercial power beamed from space would drain the last drop of Barack >> Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is currently using to >> persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the Law of the Sea >> Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the status quo is >> maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's focus on spending >> political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in these times, as >> poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be perceived as part >> of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender backlash from the same, >> interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with to pass LOST." >> >> 5) Published 2 days before the TOC >> >> 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I don't think >> that "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate defense." The onus is >> clearly on them. >> >> 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is constituted by the >> writings of researchers who have no vested interest in producing >> oversimplified debate arguments. >> >> 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going >> to be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest topic expert. >> After all, Arizona State's political science, history, and political >> communication departments are world renowned for their classes on space >> based energy. And your master's research, i'm sure, required you to devote >> your time and thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons programs, >> the details of agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary >> "money tree" which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, how >> they would interact given immediate funding of such a program. >> >> 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to promote quality >> education among students. Even if Damien's coaching doesn't believe that >> debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, apparently more >> wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. EVEN IF there >> were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), this was clearly >> approaching questionable territory and instead of erring against it, or at >> least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures like informing >> the community that such an article had been written by your program, you >> decided it was more important to have another strategic tool. >> >> Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. >> >> 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the >> credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or >> something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article >> and having debaters card from it." >> >> This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming researchers >> used to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles supporting their >> side of the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a strategic >> game. >> >> 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a >> public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." >> >> Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel the need to defend >> your program--this obviously deserves "community" attention, and the fact >> that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to high school >> debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of discussion has >> far-reaching influence. >> >> Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is obviously an >> inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly affects the way >> that debates take place on a community-wide basis >> >> It was published two days before the TOC. There was no effort to tell the >> whole community that this article was available. The article obviously cited >> no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. >> >> 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if the >> coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate in >> their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits >> insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author >> in the field?" >> >> Well that is certainly not the case here, and this imaginary coach/field >> expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure hybrid between >> community blog and public discussion of "published" articles. >> >> More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from an oversimplified >> argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and exclusively debate >> arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy analysis doesn't just mean >> that someone else read and approved it, it means that reputable >> academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and approved it. Please, >> submit this to a scientific journal and send us the response, i'd be glad to >> read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the economist, or the >> New Yorker even. >> >> 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., then I >> don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't have >> subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to get a >> subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair game - >> as long as the writing is from legit sources.." >> >> At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect the >> community--people need to be made aware of the existence of such an article >> from the author/debate coach; in this case it is inappropriate to say that >> the burden is on the researcher because, among other things, this is >> ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team making the arguments. >> >> Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their opinions should >> help direct your research/argumentation so that you can find people who >> don't have a vested interest in your winning that support your findings. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20090511/7d819bea/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Mon May 11 18:01:16 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:01:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT points were correct Message-ID: <4A0867EC.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> Follow-up: Perhaps not surprisingly, I verified the adjusted point calculations that were identified as possible errors for 2005, 2007, and 2009. TRPC calculated all points correctly. I hate to deflate a possible scandal but I did a very quick check on the first instance of ?wrong? calculations and don?t see a problem. For Towson JM in 2009, the post suggests that the three possible interpretations of the rule give 1240, 1240.5 or 1295 as adjusted totals for Towson. But looking at the actual results posted, it appears that Towson?s highest ballot was a 58 in round 8 and their lowest ballot was a 55.5 (either round 1 or round 2). In either case the adjustment will be 1353-113.5=1239.5, exactly what TRPC reported. I?ll go through each of the purported errors tonight when I get home, but I suspect that ?TeamsPointsBug? misinterprets the application of the rule. GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/c385d347/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Mon May 11 18:57:55 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:57:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround In-Reply-To: <4A085C0D0200003300042892@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> References: <4A085C0D0200003300042892@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> Message-ID: I heart Gary Larson and Rich Edwards! Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:10:37 -0500 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround I hate to deflate a possible scandal but I did a very quick check on the first instance of ?wrong? calculations and don?t see a problem. For Towson JM in 2009, the post suggests that the three possible interpretations of the rule give 1240, 1240.5 or 1295 as adjusted totals for Towson. But looking at the actual results posted, it appears that Towson?s highest ballot was a 58 in round 8 and their lowest ballot was a 55.5 (either round 1 or round 2). In either case the adjustment will be 1353-113.5=1239.5, exactly what TRPC reported. I?ll go through each of the purported errors tonight when I get home, but I suspect that ?TeamsPointsBug? misinterprets the application of the rule. GARY _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/2be3f9fc/attachment.htm From bdelo77 at gmail.com Mon May 11 19:14:26 2009 From: bdelo77 at gmail.com (Brian Delong) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:14:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Evidence in general Message-ID: <837710f70905111714v1d03ea62w1af9dff08a3701b2@mail.gmail.com> I am thinking about labelled the "blogs are not-peer reviewed argument": The skarb takeout. Beware, the "we got ev" defense may not be able to win the day. From bdelo77 at gmail.com Mon May 11 19:16:38 2009 From: bdelo77 at gmail.com (Brian Delong) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:16:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Evidence in general In-Reply-To: <837710f70905111714v1d03ea62w1af9dff08a3701b2@mail.gmail.com> References: <837710f70905111714v1d03ea62w1af9dff08a3701b2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <837710f70905111716p37d40710p617032352a3197f7@mail.gmail.com> Well, unless you are negative. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Brian Delong wrote: > I am thinking about labelled the "blogs are not-peer reviewed > argument": The skarb takeout. ?Beware, the "we got ev" defense may not > be able to win the day. > From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Mon May 11 19:34:08 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:34:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence (and quip to russell) Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078695.html _ those who've responded to this individual instance appear to have set aside the more general pressing question asked in the original post: "Is it legitimate for a[ny] coach to write articles which are clearly relevant to the current debate topic?" if not, why not? ...if so, does this hold true even if the work is specifically tailored to be used as 'evidence' in a debate round? {additionally, to grind my own axe: how is this problem worsened by the traditional distinction between analytical and evidential argumentation?} _ http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078703.html 'cheating', mr. russell? - but i thought... "There are no rules in debate. Yes, I'm saying that this rule and *any other rule* on who can produce evidence before a debate round ought to be revoked." : asterisk-emphasis mine, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-April/061594.html {which was in reply to, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-April/061590.html and to which i replied, http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-April/061600.html } ;-) K _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has a new way to see what's up with your friends. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/872497fb/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Mon May 11 19:45:32 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:45:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround In-Reply-To: <4A085C0D0200003300042892@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> References: <4A085C0D0200003300042892@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> Message-ID: Yeah, but it took him over three hours to verify this stuff. With the kind of retainer the debate community pays Gary, we should expect better service! --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: matt stannard To: gary.n.larson at wheaton.edu ; edebate at www.ndtceda.com Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 7:57 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround I heart Gary Larson and Rich Edwards! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 17:10:37 -0500 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround I hate to deflate a possible scandal but I did a very quick check on the first instance of ?wrong? calculations and don?t see a problem. For Towson JM in 2009, the post suggests that the three possible interpretations of the rule give 1240, 1240.5 or 1295 as adjusted totals for Towson. But looking at the actual results posted, it appears that Towson?s highest ballot was a 58 in round 8 and their lowest ballot was a 55.5 (either round 1 or round 2). In either case the adjustment will be 1353-113.5=1239.5, exactly what TRPC reported. I?ll go through each of the purported errors tonight when I get home, but I suspect that ?TeamsPointsBug? misinterprets the application of the rule. GARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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/20090511/d43143b1/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon May 11 19:48:36 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:48:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0905111525w5e3f3bc4n49fdaea27a53a870@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905111748l41fa21bbwa08c66a1788987eb@mail.gmail.com> Yeah Bad ev that all to often passes...why does it matter that justin wrote it its either good ev or bad ev On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Rahul Jaswa wrote: > The concern here is obviously that a debate coach wrote an article which > said the aff plan froze and deepened recessionary economic condition, trades > off with DOD weapons programs, and stretches military readiness to the > breaking point, all of which can be solved by an advantage counterplan to > purchase commercial beam power from space, which, just for kicks, results in > the aff plan later. Other cards that win rounds say similarly outlandish things...not sure why its unethical, just bad ev, > > > That being said, seriously? The only references cited are a blog called > next100.com, a dialogue on the next century of energy, and a quote from a > DOE report from 1978 which says "every dollar spent on solar satellites will > not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization." A reason that it wouldnt matter if justin skarb or justin timberlake wrote it..its bad.. > If that's considered sufficient for a BA history/poli sci, MS poli comm to > extrapolate that to determine DOD deficit spending would collapse the > economy, collapse U.S. readiness, treadoff with critical weapons programs, > etc., then by all means expect I won't be going for the K next year and will > instead be authoring a host of new disads equipped with my berkeley > economics knowledge. If you replicated skarbs work it would be a frustrating season for you...but it wouldnt make you unethical... > > I could go through the article and detail the logical gaps...but the > obvious counterpoint you could make to that is "well, newspapers articles > don't usually report data and are opinionated with lacking evidence." Not > only does this "article" attempt to present itself as a scholarly > contribution (Skarb's qualifications are noted as "independent policy > analyst"...is that what high school debate coaches are nowadays?), newspaper > articles are background checked for accuracy, credibility, and legitimacy. Correct, blogs and half the things that begin with http:// are not > Thespacereview.com, according to its submission guidelines, filters out > primarily articles on UFOs and Area 51... > Yeah and V:Dare finds laughable that people call them white suprmeacist.... http://bit.ly/IhSdy isn't this a reason to question all of their submissions(not that an answer is nt available to that question)...i don't get the uproar...i'll agree that my intial reaction did not have a few details right, but still... Two final things...If skustin Jarb wrote the the same thing, everybody would be trading the cite right now...this is evident by the fact that the article that was written was writen, if we as a community had higher standards for warrents the article would have been writen with more warrents, but justin, a very good coach and an excellent debater, and a decent academic, chose to write something judges would want to hear (allegedly) and debaters would not be able to answer...the fact that this is the outcome of that idea says a whole lot more about what passes as good evidence then it does about justin. Two...the real problem here is that most of us know that the high school students we work with and the judges we entrust their education to are not the rigerous content and truth analyzers we like to pass them off as, everything i wrote above SHOULD be true, but everybody is put off by this because we know they aren't and the damage this would cause would force us to expose that most high school and college debaters would not be able to point out the bad scholarship within this article, OR MAYBE THEY WOULD and judges wouldnt buy it...either way, bigger problems than this > > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > >> Putting aside the attribution issues for a second, all of the cards you >> quote sound like typically bombastic things that make up a good cross >> section of evidence....context wise why are they approaching or crossing the >> line... >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Rahul Jaswa wrote: >> >>> Here are my thoughts: >>> >>> First, this is completely unethical. >>> >>> 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an article was >>> written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach instructing students >>> during the current season, that seems to be minimally appropriate. >>> >>> 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. It has several >>> DA and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and draws on >>> "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely inappropriate for any real >>> "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and attempting to then publish >>> an article would be laughed at by any journal submission board. >>> >>> Some examples: >>> >>> ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial >>> research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is these very programs >>> that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic >>> crisis." >>> >>> "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short term is that the >>> military will end up having to pay not only for its traditional energy >>> supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of funding SBSP >>> research and development costs. With readiness, maintenance, and procurement >>> accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation the DOD can not >>> afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP research and >>> development could force the military to drastically scale back, if not >>> cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an energy system that >>> it will not be able to use for decades." >>> >>> "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the American economy were >>> not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the government to embark >>> upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based solar power. >>> Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, quite simply, the >>> nation currently has better uses for the money that would need to be spent >>> by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, however, there is a >>> more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to purchase commercial >>> power beamed from space, which does not require any federal outlays in the >>> near-term but will effectively help speed the development of SBSP. This is >>> one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it too." >>> >>> 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? Marburry is Skarb, as >>> we know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is even more unethical >>> because it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an actual person >>> to a fictitious person. >>> >>> 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name "norman >>> ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would sound in a debate >>> round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday >>> >>> "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an anchor tenant for >>> commercial power beamed from space would drain the last drop of Barack >>> Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is currently using to >>> persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the Law of the Sea >>> Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the status quo is >>> maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's focus on spending >>> political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in these times, as >>> poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be perceived as part >>> of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender backlash from the same, >>> interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with to pass LOST." >>> >>> 5) Published 2 days before the TOC >>> >>> 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I don't think >>> that "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate defense." The onus is >>> clearly on them. >>> >>> 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is constituted by the >>> writings of researchers who have no vested interest in producing >>> oversimplified debate arguments. >>> >>> 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going >>> to be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest topic expert. >>> After all, Arizona State's political science, history, and political >>> communication departments are world renowned for their classes on space >>> based energy. And your master's research, i'm sure, required you to devote >>> your time and thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons programs, >>> the details of agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary >>> "money tree" which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, how >>> they would interact given immediate funding of such a program. >>> >>> 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to promote quality >>> education among students. Even if Damien's coaching doesn't believe that >>> debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, apparently more >>> wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. EVEN IF there >>> were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), this was clearly >>> approaching questionable territory and instead of erring against it, or at >>> least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures like informing >>> the community that such an article had been written by your program, you >>> decided it was more important to have another strategic tool. >>> >>> Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. >>> >>> 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the >>> credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or >>> something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article >>> and having debaters card from it." >>> >>> This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming researchers >>> used to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles supporting their >>> side of the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a strategic >>> game. >>> >>> 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a >>> public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." >>> >>> Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel the need to defend >>> your program--this obviously deserves "community" attention, and the fact >>> that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to high school >>> debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of discussion has >>> far-reaching influence. >>> >>> Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is obviously an >>> inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly affects the way >>> that debates take place on a community-wide basis >>> >>> It was published two days before the TOC. There was no effort to tell the >>> whole community that this article was available. The article obviously cited >>> no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. >>> >>> 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if >>> the coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate >>> in their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits >>> insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author >>> in the field?" >>> >>> Well that is certainly not the case here, and this imaginary coach/field >>> expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure hybrid between >>> community blog and public discussion of "published" articles. >>> >>> More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from an oversimplified >>> argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and exclusively debate >>> arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy analysis doesn't just mean >>> that someone else read and approved it, it means that reputable >>> academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and approved it. Please, >>> submit this to a scientific journal and send us the response, i'd be glad to >>> read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the economist, or the >>> New Yorker even. >>> >>> 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., then >>> I don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't have >>> subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to get a >>> subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair game - >>> as long as the writing is from legit sources.." >>> >>> At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect the >>> community--people need to be made aware of the existence of such an article >>> from the author/debate coach; in this case it is inappropriate to say that >>> the burden is on the researcher because, among other things, this is >>> ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team making the arguments. >>> >>> Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their opinions should >>> help direct your research/argumentation so that you can find people who >>> don't have a vested interest in your winning that support your findings. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/20090511/0f64670c/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon May 11 19:51:12 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:51:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0905111748l41fa21bbwa08c66a1788987eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0905111525w5e3f3bc4n49fdaea27a53a870@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905111748l41fa21bbwa08c66a1788987eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905111751r762ad622y1f3e524eb500c041@mail.gmail.com> Just a note, im not really making evaluations of skarb's academic capabilities, that was a poor choice of words...my intention was to say his MA program required at least more rigorous academics than this article displays.. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > Yeah Bad ev that all to often passes...why does it matter that justin wrote > it its either good ev or bad ev > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Rahul Jaswa wrote: > >> The concern here is obviously that a debate coach wrote an article which >> said the aff plan froze and deepened recessionary economic condition, trades >> off with DOD weapons programs, and stretches military readiness to the >> breaking point, all of which can be solved by an advantage counterplan to >> purchase commercial beam power from space, which, just for kicks, results in >> the aff plan later. > > > Other cards that win rounds say similarly outlandish things...not sure why > its unethical, just bad ev, > >> >> >> That being said, seriously? The only references cited are a blog called >> next100.com, a dialogue on the next century of energy, and a quote from a >> DOE report from 1978 which says "every dollar spent on solar satellites will >> not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization." > > > A reason that it wouldnt matter if justin skarb or justin timberlake wrote > it..its bad.. > > >> If that's considered sufficient for a BA history/poli sci, MS poli comm to >> extrapolate that to determine DOD deficit spending would collapse the >> economy, collapse U.S. readiness, treadoff with critical weapons programs, >> etc., then by all means expect I won't be going for the K next year and will >> instead be authoring a host of new disads equipped with my berkeley >> economics knowledge. > > > If you replicated skarbs work it would be a frustrating season for > you...but it wouldnt make you unethical... > > >> >> I could go through the article and detail the logical gaps...but the >> obvious counterpoint you could make to that is "well, newspapers articles >> don't usually report data and are opinionated with lacking evidence." Not >> only does this "article" attempt to present itself as a scholarly >> contribution (Skarb's qualifications are noted as "independent policy >> analyst"...is that what high school debate coaches are nowadays?), newspaper >> articles are background checked for accuracy, credibility, and legitimacy. > > > Correct, blogs and half the things that begin with http:// are not > >> Thespacereview.com, according to its submission guidelines, filters out >> primarily articles on UFOs and Area 51... >> > > Yeah and V:Dare finds laughable that people call them white suprmeacist.... > http://bit.ly/IhSdy isn't this a reason to question all of their > submissions(not that an answer is nt available to that question)...i don't > get the uproar...i'll agree that my intial reaction did not have a few > details right, but still... > > Two final things...If skustin Jarb wrote the the same thing, everybody > would be trading the cite right now...this is evident by the fact that the > article that was written was writen, if we as a community had higher > standards for warrents the article would have been writen with more > warrents, but justin, a very good coach and an excellent debater, and a > decent academic, chose to write something judges would want to hear > (allegedly) and debaters would not be able to answer...the fact that this is > the outcome of that idea says a whole lot more about what passes as good > evidence then it does about justin. > > Two...the real problem here is that most of us know that the high school > students we work with and the judges we entrust their education to are not > the rigerous content and truth analyzers we like to pass them off as, > everything i wrote above SHOULD be true, but everybody is put off by this > because we know they aren't and the damage this would cause would force us > to expose that most high school and college debaters would not be able to > point out the bad scholarship within this article, OR MAYBE THEY WOULD and > judges wouldnt buy it...either way, bigger problems than this > > >> >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: >> >>> Putting aside the attribution issues for a second, all of the cards you >>> quote sound like typically bombastic things that make up a good cross >>> section of evidence....context wise why are they approaching or crossing the >>> line... >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Rahul Jaswa wrote: >>> >>>> Here are my thoughts: >>>> >>>> First, this is completely unethical. >>>> >>>> 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an article was >>>> written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach instructing students >>>> during the current season, that seems to be minimally appropriate. >>>> >>>> 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. It has >>>> several DA and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and draws on >>>> "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely inappropriate for any real >>>> "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and attempting to then publish >>>> an article would be laughed at by any journal submission board. >>>> >>>> Some examples: >>>> >>>> ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on terrestrial >>>> research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is these very programs >>>> that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current economic >>>> crisis." >>>> >>>> "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short term is that the >>>> military will end up having to pay not only for its traditional energy >>>> supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of funding SBSP >>>> research and development costs. With readiness, maintenance, and procurement >>>> accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation the DOD can not >>>> afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP research and >>>> development could force the military to drastically scale back, if not >>>> cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an energy system that >>>> it will not be able to use for decades." >>>> >>>> "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the American economy >>>> were not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the government to >>>> embark upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based solar >>>> power. Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, quite >>>> simply, the nation currently has better uses for the money that would need >>>> to be spent by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, however, >>>> there is a more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to purchase >>>> commercial power beamed from space, which does not require any federal >>>> outlays in the near-term but will effectively help speed the development of >>>> SBSP. This is one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it >>>> too." >>>> >>>> 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? Marburry is Skarb, as >>>> we know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is even more unethical >>>> because it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an actual person >>>> to a fictitious person. >>>> >>>> 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name "norman >>>> ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would sound in a debate >>>> round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday >>>> >>>> "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an anchor tenant for >>>> commercial power beamed from space would drain the last drop of Barack >>>> Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is currently using to >>>> persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the Law of the Sea >>>> Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the status quo is >>>> maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's focus on spending >>>> political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in these times, as >>>> poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be perceived as part >>>> of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender backlash from the same, >>>> interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with to pass LOST." >>>> >>>> 5) Published 2 days before the TOC >>>> >>>> 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I don't think >>>> that "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate defense." The onus is >>>> clearly on them. >>>> >>>> 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is constituted by the >>>> writings of researchers who have no vested interest in producing >>>> oversimplified debate arguments. >>>> >>>> 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy >>>> going to be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest topic >>>> expert. After all, Arizona State's political science, history, and political >>>> communication departments are world renowned for their classes on space >>>> based energy. And your master's research, i'm sure, required you to devote >>>> your time and thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons programs, >>>> the details of agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary >>>> "money tree" which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, how >>>> they would interact given immediate funding of such a program. >>>> >>>> 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to promote quality >>>> education among students. Even if Damien's coaching doesn't believe that >>>> debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, apparently more >>>> wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. EVEN IF there >>>> were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), this was clearly >>>> approaching questionable territory and instead of erring against it, or at >>>> least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures like informing >>>> the community that such an article had been written by your program, you >>>> decided it was more important to have another strategic tool. >>>> >>>> Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. >>>> >>>> 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the >>>> credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or >>>> something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article >>>> and having debaters card from it." >>>> >>>> This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming researchers >>>> used to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles supporting their >>>> side of the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a strategic >>>> game. >>>> >>>> 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a >>>> public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." >>>> >>>> Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel the need to >>>> defend your program--this obviously deserves "community" attention, and the >>>> fact that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to high school >>>> debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of discussion has >>>> far-reaching influence. >>>> >>>> Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is obviously an >>>> inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly affects the way >>>> that debates take place on a community-wide basis >>>> >>>> It was published two days before the TOC. There was no effort to tell >>>> the whole community that this article was available. The article obviously >>>> cited no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. >>>> >>>> 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if >>>> the coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate >>>> in their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits >>>> insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author >>>> in the field?" >>>> >>>> Well that is certainly not the case here, and this imaginary coach/field >>>> expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure hybrid between >>>> community blog and public discussion of "published" articles. >>>> >>>> More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from an >>>> oversimplified argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and >>>> exclusively debate arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy analysis >>>> doesn't just mean that someone else read and approved it, it means that >>>> reputable academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and approved it. >>>> Please, submit this to a scientific journal and send us the response, i'd be >>>> glad to read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the economist, >>>> or the New Yorker even. >>>> >>>> 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., then >>>> I don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't have >>>> subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to get a >>>> subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair game - >>>> as long as the writing is from legit sources.." >>>> >>>> At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect the >>>> community--people need to be made aware of the existence of such an article >>>> from the author/debate coach; in this case it is inappropriate to say that >>>> the burden is on the researcher because, among other things, this is >>>> ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team making the arguments. >>>> >>>> Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their opinions should >>>> help direct your research/argumentation so that you can find people who >>>> don't have a vested interest in your winning that support your findings. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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/20090511/c7d03074/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Mon May 11 20:05:45 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <697771.4460.qm@web53502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> "When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going to be published?" Eh, Gordon Mitchell could probably do it. --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Rahul Jaswa wrote: > From: Rahul Jaswa > Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 3:42 PM > A teammate pointed this out to me on the high school debate > website and I > was pretty shocked so I left some commentary. I didn't > realize this was on > edebate as well--i'm copying and pasting my thoughts > here. > > First, this is completely unethical. > > 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an > article was > written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach > instructing students > during the current season, that seems to be minimally > appropriate. > > 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. > It has several DA > and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and > draws on > "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely > inappropriate for any real > "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and > attempting to then publish > an article would be laughed at by any journal submission > board. > > Some examples: > > ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent > on terrestrial > research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is > these very programs > that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the > current economic > crisis." > > "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short > term is that the > military will end up having to pay not only for its > traditional energy > supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of > funding SBSP > research and development costs. With readiness, > maintenance, and procurement > accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation > the DOD can not > afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP > research and > development could force the military to drastically scale > back, if not > cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an > energy system that > it will not be able to use for decades." > > "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the > American economy were > not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the > government to embark > upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based > solar power. > Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, > quite simply, the > nation currently has better uses for the money that would > need to be spent > by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, > however, there is a > more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to > purchase commercial > power beamed from space, which does not require any federal > outlays in the > near-term but will effectively help speed the development > of SBSP. This is > one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it > too." > > 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? > Marburry is Skarb, as we > know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is > even more unethical because > it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an > actual person to a > fictitious person. > > 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name > "norman > ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would > sound in a debate > round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday > > "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an > anchor tenant for > commercial power beamed from space would drain the last > drop of Barack > Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is > currently using to > persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the > Law of the Sea > Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the > status quo is > maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's > focus on spending > political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in > these times, as > poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be > perceived as part > of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender > backlash from the same, > interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with > to pass LOST." > > 5) Published 2 days before the TOC > > 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I > don't think that > "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate > defense." The onus is clearly > on them. > > 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is > constituted by the > writings of researchers who have no vested interest in > producing > oversimplified debate arguments. > > 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into > space based energy going to > be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest > topic expert. After > all, Arizona State's political science, history, and > political communication > departments are world renowned for their classes on space > based energy. And > your master's research, i'm sure, required you to > devote your time and > thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons > programs, the details of > agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary > "money tree" > which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, > how they would > interact given immediate funding of such a program. > > 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to > promote quality > education among students. Even if Damien's coaching > doesn't believe that > debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, > apparently more > wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. > EVEN IF there > were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), > this was clearly > approaching questionable territory and instead of erring > against it, or at > least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures > like informing > the community that such an article had been written by your > program, you > decided it was more important to have another strategic > tool. > > Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. > > 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take > into consideration the > credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a > major in engineering or > something of the sort, there's no problem with you > publishing the article > and having debaters card from it." > > This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming > researchers used > to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles > supporting their side of > the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a > strategic game. > > 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking > for responses on a > public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." > > Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel > the need to defend > your program--this obviously deserves "community" > attention, and the fact > that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to > high school > debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of > discussion has > far-reaching influence. > > Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is > obviously an > inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly > affects the way > that debates take place on a community-wide basis. More > importantly, the > longer this goes without > > It was published two days before the TOC. There was no > effort to tell the > whole community that this article was available. The > article obviously cited > no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. > > 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For > instance, what if the > coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she > coaches debate in > their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be > off-limits > insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main > solvency author > in the field?" > > Well that is certainly not the case here, and this > imaginary coach/field > expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure > hybrid between > community blog and public discussion of > "published" articles. > > More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from > an oversimplified > argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and > exclusively debate > arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy > analysis doesn't just mean > that someone else read and approved it, it means that > reputable > academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and > approved it. Please, > submit this to a scientific journal and send us the > response, i'd be glad to > read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the > economist, or the > New Yorker even. > > 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited > journals, etc., then I > don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't > say that we can't have > subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're > lucky enough to get a > subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing > should be fair game - > as long as the writing is from legit sources.." > > At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect > the > community--people need to be made aware of the existence of > such an article > from the author/debate coach; in this case it is > inappropriate to say that > the burden is on the researcher because, among other > things, this is > ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team > making the arguments. > > Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their > opinions should > help direct your research/argumentation so that you can > find people who > don't have a vested interest in your winning that > support your findings. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From rahul.jaswa at gmail.com Mon May 11 20:06:36 2009 From: rahul.jaswa at gmail.com (Rahul Jaswa) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:06:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0905111751r762ad622y1f3e524eb500c041@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0905111525w5e3f3bc4n49fdaea27a53a870@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905111748l41fa21bbwa08c66a1788987eb@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905111751r762ad622y1f3e524eb500c041@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: This last e-mail was pretty funny, though I still don't think it gets to the real concerns: 1) The difference between Skarb writing it and some other idiot on the internet writing it is that the other idiot on the internet isn't motivated by the desire to win. The fact that no one else wrote articles describing these arguments seems pretty plain evidence that introducing new ideas into the literature base which weren't motivated by legitimate interest (ie they were biased by something other than wanting to be right) changes how debate happens. 2) The article was authored by the PSEUDONYM John Marburry or something like that, and for qualifications was cited as a "BA history/policy MS political communication and an independent policy analyst." How do you think that gets cited in a debate? Marburry This Morning--John, Policy Analyst, BA History/Poly Sci, MS Poli Comm, The Space Review...etc. Pretty hard to call that out, man. 3) The difference between skarb authoring it and some random idiot writing bad ev is that this is obviously an attempt to take a series of analytical arguments which skarb believes (or thinks is strategic and doesn't believe it), and then try and elevate it to the level of evidence. The fact that author quals aren't often evaluated rigorously is a good reason to believe such a piece of evidence might slip by and advantage a team who is coached by Skarb--is that fair? No, and that's why ethical standards need to be held. 4) Justin timberlake wouldn't write that article unless he wanted damien to beat whoever read that aff, which is my point. 5) So, if Skarb was a better writer, that would make it okay? I don't think that saying, oh well this is the fault of the community for not analyzing evidence more effectively, is a rationalization for fabricating evidence. There's still a question of what should be allowed or not allowed, or people will spend their time becoming "decent academic" writers. 6) Intent distinguishes writing your own evidence from just observing bad evidence on the internet. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > Just a note, im not really making evaluations of skarb's academic > capabilities, that was a poor choice of words...my intention was to say his > MA program required at least more rigorous academics than this article > displays.. > > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > >> Yeah Bad ev that all to often passes...why does it matter that justin >> wrote it its either good ev or bad ev >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Rahul Jaswa wrote: >> >>> The concern here is obviously that a debate coach wrote an article which >>> said the aff plan froze and deepened recessionary economic condition, trades >>> off with DOD weapons programs, and stretches military readiness to the >>> breaking point, all of which can be solved by an advantage counterplan to >>> purchase commercial beam power from space, which, just for kicks, results in >>> the aff plan later. >> >> >> Other cards that win rounds say similarly outlandish things...not sure why >> its unethical, just bad ev, >> >>> >>> >>> That being said, seriously? The only references cited are a blog called >>> next100.com, a dialogue on the next century of energy, and a quote from >>> a DOE report from 1978 which says "every dollar spent on solar satellites >>> will not be spent on terrestrial research and commercialization." >> >> >> A reason that it wouldnt matter if justin skarb or justin timberlake wrote >> it..its bad.. >> >> >>> If that's considered sufficient for a BA history/poli sci, MS poli comm >>> to extrapolate that to determine DOD deficit spending would collapse the >>> economy, collapse U.S. readiness, treadoff with critical weapons programs, >>> etc., then by all means expect I won't be going for the K next year and will >>> instead be authoring a host of new disads equipped with my berkeley >>> economics knowledge. >> >> >> If you replicated skarbs work it would be a frustrating season for >> you...but it wouldnt make you unethical... >> >> >>> >>> I could go through the article and detail the logical gaps...but the >>> obvious counterpoint you could make to that is "well, newspapers articles >>> don't usually report data and are opinionated with lacking evidence." Not >>> only does this "article" attempt to present itself as a scholarly >>> contribution (Skarb's qualifications are noted as "independent policy >>> analyst"...is that what high school debate coaches are nowadays?), newspaper >>> articles are background checked for accuracy, credibility, and legitimacy. >> >> >> Correct, blogs and half the things that begin with http:// are not >> >>> Thespacereview.com, according to its submission guidelines, filters out >>> primarily articles on UFOs and Area 51... >>> >> >> Yeah and V:Dare finds laughable that people call them white >> suprmeacist.... http://bit.ly/IhSdy isn't this a reason to question all >> of their submissions(not that an answer is nt available to that >> question)...i don't get the uproar...i'll agree that my intial reaction did >> not have a few details right, but still... >> >> Two final things...If skustin Jarb wrote the the same thing, everybody >> would be trading the cite right now...this is evident by the fact that the >> article that was written was writen, if we as a community had higher >> standards for warrents the article would have been writen with more >> warrents, but justin, a very good coach and an excellent debater, and a >> decent academic, chose to write something judges would want to hear >> (allegedly) and debaters would not be able to answer...the fact that this is >> the outcome of that idea says a whole lot more about what passes as good >> evidence then it does about justin. >> >> Two...the real problem here is that most of us know that the high school >> students we work with and the judges we entrust their education to are not >> the rigerous content and truth analyzers we like to pass them off as, >> everything i wrote above SHOULD be true, but everybody is put off by this >> because we know they aren't and the damage this would cause would force us >> to expose that most high school and college debaters would not be able to >> point out the bad scholarship within this article, OR MAYBE THEY WOULD and >> judges wouldnt buy it...either way, bigger problems than this >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: >>> >>>> Putting aside the attribution issues for a second, all of the cards you >>>> quote sound like typically bombastic things that make up a good cross >>>> section of evidence....context wise why are they approaching or crossing the >>>> line... >>>> >>>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Rahul Jaswa wrote: >>>> >>>>> Here are my thoughts: >>>>> >>>>> First, this is completely unethical. >>>>> >>>>> 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an article was >>>>> written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach instructing students >>>>> during the current season, that seems to be minimally appropriate. >>>>> >>>>> 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. It has >>>>> several DA and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and draws on >>>>> "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely inappropriate for any real >>>>> "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and attempting to then publish >>>>> an article would be laughed at by any journal submission board. >>>>> >>>>> Some examples: >>>>> >>>>> ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent on >>>>> terrestrial research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is these very >>>>> programs that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the current >>>>> economic crisis." >>>>> >>>>> "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short term is that the >>>>> military will end up having to pay not only for its traditional energy >>>>> supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of funding SBSP >>>>> research and development costs. With readiness, maintenance, and procurement >>>>> accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation the DOD can not >>>>> afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP research and >>>>> development could force the military to drastically scale back, if not >>>>> cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an energy system that >>>>> it will not be able to use for decades." >>>>> >>>>> "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the American economy >>>>> were not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the government to >>>>> embark upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based solar >>>>> power. Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, quite >>>>> simply, the nation currently has better uses for the money that would need >>>>> to be spent by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, however, >>>>> there is a more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to purchase >>>>> commercial power beamed from space, which does not require any federal >>>>> outlays in the near-term but will effectively help speed the development of >>>>> SBSP. This is one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it >>>>> too." >>>>> >>>>> 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? Marburry is Skarb, as >>>>> we know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is even more >>>>> unethical because it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an >>>>> actual person to a fictitious person. >>>>> >>>>> 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name "norman >>>>> ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would sound in a debate >>>>> round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday >>>>> >>>>> "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an anchor tenant for >>>>> commercial power beamed from space would drain the last drop of Barack >>>>> Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is currently using to >>>>> persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the Law of the Sea >>>>> Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the status quo is >>>>> maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's focus on spending >>>>> political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in these times, as >>>>> poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be perceived as part >>>>> of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender backlash from the same, >>>>> interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with to pass LOST." >>>>> >>>>> 5) Published 2 days before the TOC >>>>> >>>>> 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I don't think >>>>> that "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate defense." The onus is >>>>> clearly on them. >>>>> >>>>> 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is constituted by the >>>>> writings of researchers who have no vested interest in producing >>>>> oversimplified debate arguments. >>>>> >>>>> 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy >>>>> going to be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest topic >>>>> expert. After all, Arizona State's political science, history, and political >>>>> communication departments are world renowned for their classes on space >>>>> based energy. And your master's research, i'm sure, required you to devote >>>>> your time and thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons programs, >>>>> the details of agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary >>>>> "money tree" which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, how >>>>> they would interact given immediate funding of such a program. >>>>> >>>>> 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to promote quality >>>>> education among students. Even if Damien's coaching doesn't believe that >>>>> debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, apparently more >>>>> wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. EVEN IF there >>>>> were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), this was clearly >>>>> approaching questionable territory and instead of erring against it, or at >>>>> least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures like informing >>>>> the community that such an article had been written by your program, you >>>>> decided it was more important to have another strategic tool. >>>>> >>>>> Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. >>>>> >>>>> 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take into consideration the >>>>> credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a major in engineering or >>>>> something of the sort, there's no problem with you publishing the article >>>>> and having debaters card from it." >>>>> >>>>> This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming researchers >>>>> used to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles supporting their >>>>> side of the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a strategic >>>>> game. >>>>> >>>>> 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking for responses on a >>>>> public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." >>>>> >>>>> Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel the need to >>>>> defend your program--this obviously deserves "community" attention, and the >>>>> fact that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to high school >>>>> debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of discussion has >>>>> far-reaching influence. >>>>> >>>>> Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is obviously an >>>>> inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly affects the way >>>>> that debates take place on a community-wide basis >>>>> >>>>> It was published two days before the TOC. There was no effort to tell >>>>> the whole community that this article was available. The article obviously >>>>> cited no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. >>>>> >>>>> 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For instance, what if >>>>> the coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she coaches debate >>>>> in their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be off-limits >>>>> insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main solvency author >>>>> in the field?" >>>>> >>>>> Well that is certainly not the case here, and this imaginary >>>>> coach/field expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure hybrid >>>>> between community blog and public discussion of "published" articles. >>>>> >>>>> More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from an >>>>> oversimplified argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and >>>>> exclusively debate arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy analysis >>>>> doesn't just mean that someone else read and approved it, it means that >>>>> reputable academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and approved it. >>>>> Please, submit this to a scientific journal and send us the response, i'd be >>>>> glad to read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the economist, >>>>> or the New Yorker even. >>>>> >>>>> 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited journals, etc., >>>>> then I don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't say that we can't >>>>> have subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're lucky enough to >>>>> get a subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing should be fair >>>>> game - as long as the writing is from legit sources.." >>>>> >>>>> At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect the >>>>> community--people need to be made aware of the existence of such an article >>>>> from the author/debate coach; in this case it is inappropriate to say that >>>>> the burden is on the researcher because, among other things, this is >>>>> ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team making the arguments. >>>>> >>>>> Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their opinions >>>>> should help direct your research/argumentation so that you can find people >>>>> who don't have a vested interest in your winning that support your findings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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/20090511/4135373b/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Mon May 11 20:10:31 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <703442.95935.qm@web53512.mail.re2.yahoo.com> More seriously..... We should not pretend either that our participation in debate invalidates us from producing unique and useful socio-political thought, nor that we may simply say anything that we want to and then use it in a debate round. In general, debaters should pay more attention to qualifications. if debaters do that, it fixes a lot of these problems. We can't really stop people from using shadowy pseudonyms, and as a community, we are best off if we do point out such behavior when it occurs. But we can't stop it from happening. We can only hope that our opponents are as generous and as good natured as we ourselves hope to be to them, and as we are on our best days. Paul Johnson --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Anony mous wrote: > From: Anony mous > Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 2:02 AM > I saw this posted on Cross-X.com, but I thought it would be > interesting to > get the college community's opinion (a similar incident > occured before CEDA > with a BC student writing a conveniently worded article > concerning LOST, > although the circumstances were a bit different): > > "Before the TOC this awesome article came out about > SPS. > http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1359/1 > The author credited Justin Skarb for some help. > > Upon further research, it appears Justin Skarb actually > wrote the article. > He is also the coach at Damien. > http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com.../#comment-3110 > > > Obviously people have called out Damien before on emailing > authors and using > their responses as evidence, and there has been much debate > on the > legitimacy of that. This is a seperate matter, and I think > this issue merits > some discussion as well. I have three questions: > > 1) Is it legitimate for a coach to write articles which are > clearly relevant > to the current debate topic? Should we treat these > differently? And should > the purpose/content be relevant? For example, here are two > different > scenarios: > a) It is clearly written for the purpose of a debate round, > such as this > article which included a few disads and a counterplan > without citing > research > b) It is not as rhetorically powerful, is backed up with > research, and is > written as a product of knowledge acquired over a year of > debating the topic > rather than with the intent of producing new evidence. > Obviously it is difficult to measure intent, although it > may not actually be > necessary, since in scenario b it is less likely that the > article would be > used as evidence or be the critical card in some debate. > > 2) If it is legitimate, should the coaches experience on > the topic be an > additional factor when comparing qualifications, or should > the evidence be > evaluated based solely on the author's other > qualifications? If it is not > legitimate, what is the remedy? Should the evidence be > evaluated as nothing > more than a lengthy analytic, or is it an ethics question? > > 3) If it is ok to write the article, is it ethical to use a > pen name? > > Because I am remaining anonymous, I'm not voicing > opinions. This is an > attempt to spur discussion from others on an important > issue, and shouldn't > just turn into a hate on Damien thread." > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From edebate at anumbersgame.net Mon May 11 20:26:36 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:26:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround In-Reply-To: <4A085C0D0200003300042892@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> References: <4A085C0D0200003300042892@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> Message-ID: <739f03b0905111826j2e3f4ee1n62f42f6102b79387@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Gary Larson wrote: > For Towson > JM in 2009, the post suggests that the three possible interpretations of the > rule give 1240, 1240.5 or 1295 as adjusted totals for Towson.? But looking > at the actual results posted, it appears that Towson?s highest ballot was a > 58 in round 8 and their lowest ballot was a 55.5 (either round 1 or round > 2). Thanks for pointing out my error! I misinterpreted "adjusted combined speaker points (dropping high and low ballots)". From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Mon May 11 20:32:05 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:32:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: <697771.4460.qm@web53502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <697771.4460.qm@web53502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Look, I have been against random Blog evidence being considered the same as published for a long time. If the "random blog" posts a qualified or researchable author...no problem...But this goes to show that had Justin not have given credit to Justin this would not even be traceable. Personally, I suspect that there has to be another side of the story (since Justin debated for me at ASU and I love the guy) but if this is accurate it is a tragedy. I would like to think that we hold ourselves, as professionals, to higher standards of ethics then publishing fake evidence under nom de plumes so we can "win" by cheating. I do hope we hear from Justin at some point, I suspect there has to be some explanation, Josh On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > "When is the next "socio-political" foray into space based energy going to > be published?" > > Eh, Gordon Mitchell could probably do it. > > --- On Mon, 5/11/09, Rahul Jaswa wrote: > > > From: Rahul Jaswa > > Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb > > To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com > > Date: Monday, May 11, 2009, 3:42 PM > > A teammate pointed this out to me on the high school debate > > website and I > > was pretty shocked so I left some commentary. I didn't > > realize this was on > > edebate as well--i'm copying and pasting my thoughts > > here. > > > > First, this is completely unethical. > > > > 1) No attempt was made to inform the community that such an > > article was > > written. Given that it was produced by a debate coach > > instructing students > > during the current season, that seems to be minimally > > appropriate. > > > > 2) The article is obviously written for strategic benefit. > > It has several DA > > and CP solvency arguments without appropriate data, and > > draws on > > "non-intrinsic" arguments which would be largely > > inappropriate for any real > > "peer-reviewed" journal. Citing 2 references and > > attempting to then publish > > an article would be laughed at by any journal submission > > board. > > > > Some examples: > > > > ?every dollar spent on solar satellites will not be spent > > on terrestrial > > research and commercialization?. Unfortunately, it is > > these very programs > > that may be critical to preventing a deepening of the > > current economic > > crisis." > > > > "the problem with DOD investments in SBSP in the short > > term is that the > > military will end up having to pay not only for its > > traditional energy > > supplies but will have to also carry the extra burden of > > funding SBSP > > research and development costs. With readiness, > > maintenance, and procurement > > accounts already stretched thin, this is simply a situation > > the DOD can not > > afford. In a worst-case scenario, a mandate to pursue SBSP > > research and > > development could force the military to drastically scale > > back, if not > > cancel entirely, critical weapons programs to pay for an > > energy system that > > it will not be able to use for decades." > > > > "If there were such a thing as a money tree and the > > American economy were > > not in dire straits it would make perfect sense for the > > government to embark > > upon an all-out path towards the development of space-based > > solar power. > > Unfortunately, money trees only exist in our dreams and, > > quite simply, the > > nation currently has better uses for the money that would > > need to be spent > > by funding SBSP research and development. Fortunately, > > however, there is a > > more moderate path the government can take, agreeing to > > purchase commercial > > power beamed from space, which does not require any federal > > outlays in the > > near-term but will effectively help speed the development > > of SBSP. This is > > one case where we might be able to have our cake and eat it > > too." > > > > 3) Why was a name other than Skarb's ever cited? > > Marburry is Skarb, as we > > know, and saying that Skarb helped "research" is > > even more unethical because > > it blatantly redirects credit for the article from an > > actual person to a > > fictitious person. > > > > 4) This was in the comments section, posted under the name > > "norman > > ornstein," coincidentally... I wonder how that would > > sound in a debate > > round? Plan derails lost--Ornstein yesterday > > > > "It seems clear, however, that DOD serving as an > > anchor tenant for > > commercial power beamed from space would drain the last > > drop of Barack > > Obama's finite reserve of political capital that he is > > currently using to > > persuade key senators and moderate Republicans to pass the > > Law of the Sea > > Treaty. That treaty is up in the air right now, but if the > > status quo is > > maintained it seems very likely to pass, due to Obama's > > focus on spending > > political capital there. Space is a controversial issue in > > these times, as > > poll after poll attest to, and DOD action would surely be > > perceived as part > > of Obama's green energy plan, which would engender > > backlash from the same, > > interestingly enough, senators he's co-operating with > > to pass LOST." > > > > 5) Published 2 days before the TOC > > > > 6) Did Damien teams debate this case at the TOC? If not, I > > don't think that > > "we didn't read these cards is an appropriate > > defense." The onus is clearly > > on them. > > > > 7) It pollutes the existing research base which is > > constituted by the > > writings of researchers who have no vested interest in > > producing > > oversimplified debate arguments. > > > > 8) When is the next "socio-political" foray into > > space based energy going to > > be published? I'm anxious to hear more from the newest > > topic expert. After > > all, Arizona State's political science, history, and > > political communication > > departments are world renowned for their classes on space > > based energy. And > > your master's research, i'm sure, required you to > > devote your time and > > thoughts to learning the intricacies of DOD weapons > > programs, the details of > > agency fiscal discipline, and the workings of the imaginary > > "money tree" > > which guide the future of such a program--most importantly, > > how they would > > interact given immediate funding of such a program. > > > > 9) The bottom line is that this activity is meant to > > promote quality > > education among students. Even if Damien's coaching > > doesn't believe that > > debate is more than a game, there are a slew of people, > > apparently more > > wise, who recognize the importance of keeping debate clean. > > EVEN IF there > > were arguments in defense of this behavior (there are not), > > this was clearly > > approaching questionable territory and instead of erring > > against it, or at > > least diffusing the problem by proactively taking measures > > like informing > > the community that such an article had been written by your > > program, you > > decided it was more important to have another strategic > > tool. > > > > Second, addressing other people's rationalizations. > > > > 1) "I'd say that it's fairly important to take > > into consideration the > > credentials of the author. If you're a coach with a > > major in engineering or > > something of the sort, there's no problem with you > > publishing the article > > and having debaters card from it." > > > > This is nonsensical--just like how qualified global warming > > researchers used > > to be paid money by thinktanks to publish articles > > supporting their side of > > the debate. Except this is worse because it affects a > > strategic game. > > > > 2) "you should email them directly instead of asking > > for responses on a > > public forum known for devolving into keyboard wars." > > > > Please, own up. I know you're young and proud and feel > > the need to defend > > your program--this obviously deserves "community" > > attention, and the fact > > that I, a UC Berkeley debater with essentially no ties to > > high school > > debate, heard about it, is clear evidence that this sort of > > discussion has > > far-reaching influence. > > > > Right or wrong, relegating this to the private sphere is > > obviously an > > inappropriate way to deal with a phenomenon which directly > > affects the way > > that debates take place on a community-wide basis. More > > importantly, the > > longer this goes without > > > > It was published two days before the TOC. There was no > > effort to tell the > > whole community that this article was available. The > > article obviously cited > > no research to backup the vast majority of its assertions. > > > > 3) "What if the coach is an expert in the field. For > > instance, what if the > > coach is, say, the chief scientist at the JPL, and he/she > > coaches debate in > > their spare time - would anything that the coach writes be > > off-limits > > insofar as debate is concerned? Even if they were the main > > solvency author > > in the field?" > > > > Well that is certainly not the case here, and this > > imaginary coach/field > > expert would certainly not publish articles in an obscure > > hybrid between > > community blog and public discussion of > > "published" articles. > > > > More importantly, this article wouldn't be written from > > an oversimplified > > argumentative perspective with shallow analysis and > > exclusively debate > > arguments. "Peer-reviewed" in academia/policy > > analysis doesn't just mean > > that someone else read and approved it, it means that > > reputable > > academics/analysts within your subdiscipline read and > > approved it. Please, > > submit this to a scientific journal and send us the > > response, i'd be glad to > > read it. Or, if you prefer, an economics journal, or the > > economist, or the > > New Yorker even. > > > > 4) "if they are writing for peer-reviewed or edited > > journals, etc., then I > > don't think their writing is off-limits. you can't > > say that we can't have > > subject matter experts coaching debate, and if you're > > lucky enough to get a > > subject matter expert coaching you, then their writing > > should be fair game - > > as long as the writing is from legit sources.." > > > > At minimum, there needs to be specific practice to protect > > the > > community--people need to be made aware of the existence of > > such an article > > from the author/debate coach; in this case it is > > inappropriate to say that > > the burden is on the researcher because, among other > > things, this is > > ingenuine research and artificially benefits the team > > making the arguments. > > > > Their writing should not be fair game as evidence, their > > opinions should > > help direct your research/argumentation so that you can > > find people who > > don't have a vested interest in your winning that > > support your findings. > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/2149ab97/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Mon May 11 20:37:08 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:37:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0905111525w5e3f3bc4n49fdaea27a53a870@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905111748l41fa21bbwa08c66a1788987eb@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905111751r762ad622y1f3e524eb500c041@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905111837n1797be17o2f0c970ac0da7a56@mail.gmail.com> Here is my problem,,, this evidence would be "spot on""on fire""round winning" world rocking stuff if skustin jarb wrote it, if justin skarb or justin timberlake wrote it we would be all up in arms...you are right it would "slip by" ...and it would be well into the summer before we realized it was bad and then debated about it...i don't know how many times i have read the article that an "awsome card" comes from and wondered if the person is litterate...what if justin didnt include his name and the pseudenym wrote it? one time i wrote a piece of evidence on a geocities page, it was a letter from some one in the military who had a non existent rank...he said that there was a secret treaty between the us military and the greys regarding the use of alien technology in vietnam and that it wuld be exposed if the us cleaned up the agent orange...the agent orange was really defoliating to cover up the alien presence...i believe it included the line in the 60's the vc double crossed the greys...the impact was that if the use of their tech got exposed the greys would destroy the know universe...then i included an excerpt of the treaty ...did i ever use it in a round...no but not because it wasn't ethical to do so, but because it was just bad...this didnt mean GW didnt run it at districts afer i posted the link.. the point is that we should have a higher bs detection system so that people can't get away with this, more rigorous standards of warrent and evidence evaluation would solve the need for any ethical system which only exists because it doesnt...im sure justins collegues are deliberating internally about how this makes them feel about him, and perhaps that is the stuff of ethics,but on the level we are having this conversation ethcis seem more like a community code...which would only drive the un ethical folks to just use the psuedonym on the web page somewhere...which could be happening at any moment, btw...any thing that is a great card from an obscure writter could be fake...it would take about twenty bucks to register and create two sites where a policy maker has worked to entirely fake them... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/94664a87/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Mon May 11 21:26:25 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred Snider) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 19:26:25 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] News About Huber Debates, September 2009 Message-ID: <4A08DE51.5010700@uvm.edu> Policy and Worlds format. Lots of fun and hospitality, as well as inexpensive. 26-27 September 2009. http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/huber/Welcome.html People were asking for an inexpensive motel option, here it is, but it won't last long. http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/huber/Blog/Entries/2009/5/11_GGT_TIBET_INN.html More to come! Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Mon May 11 22:01:10 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:01:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] FW: From Rich Edwards (with a preface from me) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Gary has already addressed this, but Rich wrote an extensive post he asked me to forward. I agree with his sentiment regarding how these things get brought up. I am sorry if my unthinking reaction (can we verify this) made it any worse for anyone. mjs > From: Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu > To: stannardmatt at hotmail.com > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:33:23 -0500 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors > > Matt, > > Thanks for calling this post to my attention. I do not routinely read edebate and do not have posting privileges. > > Would you be willing to post the following response for me? > > The report of an error in NDT seeding is based upon a misunderstanding of the NDT rule for calculating team high-low points. > > The person posting the error report presumes that team high-low points should be calculated by adding together the high/low points for the two speakers. Thus, in the example used in the error report Web site, the individual high/low points for Jackson and Murray were added together for a total of 1240. The anonymous Web site says that the TRPC results sheet incorrectly presents the team high/low points for Towson JM as 1235.5 (tied with Berkeley). In fact, the 1235.5 team high/low total is correct. The Towson team was offered as an example of this alleged error with the statement that the same error seems to routinely occur for other teams. > > The NDT rule calls for dropping the lowest ballot and highest ballot in order to determine the high/low point total. The total of all points for Towson JM was 1353. The lowest ballot total for the team was 55.5 and the highest ballot total was 58. When these two totals are subtracted from 1353, the high/low point total is 1235.5 (as corrected reported by TRPC on the result sheet). The seeding was properly determined. > > So, one may ask, why can't you just add the high/low points for the two individual debaters and get the same total (1235.5)? How is it possible that Jackson's high low total (618) and Murray's high low total (622) adds up to 1240? The difference is completely understandable when you think about how individual high/low speaker points are calculated. The computer has to locate the lowest and highest individual points for Jackson and Murray, which may not (and often do not) occur in the same rounds for Jackson as for Murray. If you take the time to look at the sheet and add up the points, you will realize the truth that the team high-lows and the individual high-lows were correctly calculated. > > Please, those of us who work in the NDT tab room do it as a labor of love and without compensation. We certainly do not object to being questioned and are happy to answer questions. If we have made mistakes, we are certainly willing to stand responsible for them. One would think, however, that we at least deserve the courtesy of having someone contact us directly to ask how we calculated the seeds before simply announcing to all concerned that errors are carelessly and routinely made. > > Thanks to Matt Stannard for calling the post to our attention so that we could address the issue. > > Rich Edwards > Professor of Communication Studies > Baylor University > Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu > > > > On 5/11/09 4:56 PM, "matt stannard" wrote: > > I don't know if that's necessary--whoever anonymously posted this seems to have been in error. > > > From: Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu > > To: stannardmatt at hotmail.com > > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:48:10 -0500 > > Subject: RE: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors > > > > Thanks,Matt. Could you call my cell phone at 254 744 2443? > > > > Rich > > ________________________________________ > > From: matt stannard [stannardmatt at hotmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:19 PM > > To: edebate at anumbersgame.net; edebate at ndtceda.com; Edwards, Richard > > Subject: RE: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors > > > > Someone want to clarify or verify? > > > > mjs > > > > > From: edebate at anumbersgame.net > > > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:28:50 -0700 > > > To: edebate at ndtceda.com; Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu > > > Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors > > > > > > Cumulative results sheets at the NDT often misstate team points by a > > > small amount, possibly due to a bug in Tab Room on the PC (TRPC). This > > > has created incorrect seeding in NDT elimination rounds at least > > > thrice in the past five years. > > > > > > The following seeds should have been swapped: > > > > > > 2009 > > > 28 Berkeley BG > > > 29 Towson JM > > > > > > 2007 > > > 5 Northwestern BW > > > 6 Southern Cal IS > > > > > > 2005 > > > 23 Emory CG > > > 24 Dartmouth BeM > > > > > > For more details, see: http://repository.anumbersgame.net/wiki/TeamPointsBug > > > _______________________________________________ > > > eDebate mailing list > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > ________________________________ > > Windows Live(tm): Keep your life in sync. Check it out. > > ________________________________ > Hotmail? goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/e89a2e87/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Mon May 11 22:01:46 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:01:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ...and one more...FW: Update on Seeding issue; please disregard earlier messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > From: Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu > To: stannardmatt at hotmail.com > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:58:53 -0500 > Subject: Update on Seeding issue; please disregard earlier messages > > Matt, > > Sorry to clutter your inbox with several posts, but I realized that I had listed some incorrect numbers in my earlier email (my spread sheet was accurate, but I did not type the numbers correctly in the email to you). The correct numbers are included in this message & I also omitted the intemperate last paragraph. If you could post the essence of this to edebate for me, I would appreciate it: > > The report of an error in NDT seeding is based upon a misunderstanding of the NDT rule for calculating team high-low points. > > The person posting the error report presumes that team high-low points should be calculated by adding together the high/low points for the two speakers. Thus, in the example used in the error report Web site, the individual high/low points for Jackson and Murray were added together for a total of 1240. The anonymous Web site says that the TRPC results sheet incorrectly presents the team high/low points for Towson JM as 1239.5 (tied with Berkeley). In fact, the 1239.5 team high/low total is correct. > > The NDT rule calls for dropping the lowest ballot and highest ballot in order to determine the high/low point total. The total of all points for Towson JM was 1353. The lowest ballot total for the team was 55.5 and the highest ballot total was 58. When these two totals are subtracted from 1353, the high/low point total is 1239.5 (as corrected reported by TRPC on the result sheet). The seeding was properly determined. > > So, one may ask, why can't you just add the high/low points for the two individual debaters and get the same total (1239.5)? How is it possible that Jackson's high low total (618) and Murray's high low total (622) adds up to 1240? The difference is completely understandable when you think about how individual high/low speaker points are calculated. The computer has to locate the lowest and highest individual points for Jackson and Murray, which may not (and often do not) occur in the same rounds for Jackson as for Murray. If you take the time to look at the sheet and add up the points, you will realize the truth that the team high-lows and the individual high-lows were correctly calculated. > > Thanks to Gary Larson and Arnie Madsen for re-checking the numbers and thanks to Matt Stannard for calling the edebate post to my attention. > > Rich Edwards > Professor of Communication Studies > Baylor University > Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu > > > > On 5/11/09 4:56 PM, "matt stannard" wrote: > > I don't know if that's necessary--whoever anonymously posted this seems to have been in error. > > > From: Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu > > To: stannardmatt at hotmail.com > > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:48:10 -0500 > > Subject: RE: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors > > > > Thanks,Matt. Could you call my cell phone at 254 744 2443? > > > > Rich > > ________________________________________ > > From: matt stannard [stannardmatt at hotmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:19 PM > > To: edebate at anumbersgame.net; edebate at ndtceda.com; Edwards, Richard > > Subject: RE: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors > > > > Someone want to clarify or verify? > > > > mjs > > > > > From: edebate at anumbersgame.net > > > Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:28:50 -0700 > > > To: edebate at ndtceda.com; Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu > > > Subject: [eDebate] Error in team points calculation leads to NDT outround seeding errors > > > > > > Cumulative results sheets at the NDT often misstate team points by a > > > small amount, possibly due to a bug in Tab Room on the PC (TRPC). This > > > has created incorrect seeding in NDT elimination rounds at least > > > thrice in the past five years. > > > > > > The following seeds should have been swapped: > > > > > > 2009 > > > 28 Berkeley BG > > > 29 Towson JM > > > > > > 2007 > > > 5 Northwestern BW > > > 6 Southern Cal IS > > > > > > 2005 > > > 23 Emory CG > > > 24 Dartmouth BeM > > > > > > For more details, see: http://repository.anumbersgame.net/wiki/TeamPointsBug > > > _______________________________________________ > > > eDebate mailing list > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > ________________________________ > > Windows Live(tm): Keep your life in sync. Check it out. > > ________________________________ > Hotmail? goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090511/e1cc1326/attachment.htm From edebate at anumbersgame.net Mon May 11 23:13:10 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:13:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ...and one more...FW: Update on Seeding issue; please disregard earlier messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <739f03b0905112113t2dc14e6aj84e8ca46aa0ca75c@mail.gmail.com> Gary Larson and Rich Edwards have donated their valuable time and saved the community thousands of person-hours by their expertise. They deserve our gratitude. Should a systemic tab error ever be discovered, Gary Larson and Rich Edwards would deserve no less gratitude. The alternative to doing calculations by computer is doing them by hand, with all the attendant human errors. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 8:01 PM, matt stannard wrote: > > >> From: Richard_Edwards at baylor.edu >> To: stannardmatt at hotmail.com >> Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 21:58:53 -0500 >> Subject: Update on Seeding issue; please disregard earlier messages >> >> Matt, >> >> Sorry to clutter your inbox with several posts, but I realized that I had >> listed some incorrect numbers in my earlier email (my spread sheet was >> accurate, but I did not type the numbers correctly in the email to you). The >> correct numbers are included in this message & I also omitted the >> intemperate last paragraph. If you could post the essence of this to edebate >> for me, I would appreciate it: From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue May 12 00:04:03 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:04:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0905111525w5e3f3bc4n49fdaea27a53a870@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905111748l41fa21bbwa08c66a1788987eb@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905111751r762ad622y1f3e524eb500c041@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905112204w5cf21ef9je103b40e14b9dd04@mail.gmail.com> I Don't think justin is unethical, cheating, or any other such thing...next time i see him i may be like man those where some bad cards...f those people who call you a cheater, but man those are some awful cards... but here is a question, in a different scenario...say "mario savio" wrote the exact same text that was in this article, a coach found the article two days before the TOC. They read it and know two things...there are some "great cards" and this article has no warrents and no citations...are they unethical if they cut the good card out of the bad article? are they unethical if they don't tell the rest of the community about the good card in the bad article? No...say most people i imagine...thats different AT LEAST IT WAS NOT PREPARED JUST FOR DEBATE...but in a sense it was...it is the cards not the article that are for debate, this article would have less credibility of the whole thing where printed out with the cards...but when its not who wrote the original article is largely irrelevant, because the original articles is substaintialy modified to win debates...to me if justin is unethical so is everyone who cuts good cards out of articles they know are bad... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/3cdcb608/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Tue May 12 01:55:39 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:55:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Sanchez's double-bind about rules and evidence production Message-ID: The esteemed Mr. Sanchez believes that I have been confronted w an apparent contradiction between holding that anyone can produce evidence and by contention that this situation is a clear-cut case of cheating. The cheating is not that Skarb apparently wrote evidence. For instance, if I were to publish an article supporting claims that later appeared in my dissertation, that would not be academically dishonest. Same thing w Skarb. If he were to produce some evidence on the internet, published under his own name, and used that evidence in a debate round, the issue in my opinion would no longer be one of dishonesty, but rather one of poorly qualified evidence. However, much like if I were to pretend to be Michael Burgoon and publish corroborating research that later appeared in my dissertation, to lie about the identity of the source of the SPS article is academically dishonest. It is cheating. If I were to do this during the course of my dissertation research, I would be out of graduate school and likely shut out of academics for life. I believe that this situation is particularly nefarious because the association between author and true source is intentionally obscured by the use of a faux email address and false qualifications for the pen name. I know that many in our activity support defending the indefensible, but I do not see how this behavior is not the textbook case of evidence fabrication. Writing bad evidence is not illegal; fabricating great evidence is. The line is clear. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/31552250/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Tue May 12 02:19:39 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 03:19:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Sanchez's double-bind about rules and evidence production In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905120019na85262av868846072793af4e@mail.gmail.com> Yeah, thats the part that is hard to deal with...one has to ask why did he attach his name to it...if its fake why attribute him self...i mean why not just let it go from the other name? In some ways it seems like the part of the ethical that triumphed is what exposed us all to the unethical...it would have been a ton easier to just say it was admiral stockdale, use medicore email security, and sniker with his trusted friends...so why did he put his name on it at all? Pride in having a published work...surely not...because there are any number of things that justin could write about in equally selective publications and not cause all this...so why if its the elaborate scam that some suggest it is would his name appear anywhere...just a small part of me thinks a sociology experiment is underway... On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Jason Russell wrote: > The esteemed Mr. Sanchez believes that I have been confronted w an apparent > contradiction between holding that anyone can produce evidence and by > contention that this situation is a clear-cut case of cheating. The cheating > is not that Skarb apparently wrote evidence. For instance, if I were to > publish an article supporting claims that later appeared in my dissertation, > that would not be academically dishonest. Same thing w Skarb. If he were to > produce some evidence on the internet, published under his own name, and > used that evidence in a debate round, the issue in my opinion would no > longer be one of dishonesty, but rather one of poorly qualified evidence. > However, much like if I were to pretend to be Michael Burgoon and publish > corroborating research that later appeared in my dissertation, to lie about > the identity of the source of the SPS article is academically dishonest. It > is cheating. If I were to do this during the course of my dissertation > research, I would be out of graduate school and likely shut out of academics > for life. I believe that this situation is particularly nefarious because > the association between author and true source is intentionally obscured by > the use of a faux email address and false qualifications for the pen name. I > know that many in our activity support defending the indefensible, but I do > not see how this behavior is not the textbook case of evidence fabrication. > Writing bad evidence is not illegal; fabricating great evidence is. The line > is clear. > > J > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/d43139f4/attachment.htm From drmosbornesq at gmail.com Tue May 12 02:38:18 2009 From: drmosbornesq at gmail.com (bandana martin) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 01:38:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Standards for Evidence/Skarb In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0905112204w5cf21ef9je103b40e14b9dd04@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0905111525w5e3f3bc4n49fdaea27a53a870@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905111748l41fa21bbwa08c66a1788987eb@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905111751r762ad622y1f3e524eb500c041@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905112204w5cf21ef9je103b40e14b9dd04@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <39c09a80905120038j673b5d6fp90b2c1c179d34bd@mail.gmail.com> LOLLLLLLLL On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > I Don't think justin is unethical, cheating, or any other such thing...next > time i see him i may be like man those where some bad cards...f those people > who call you a cheater, but man those are some awful cards... > > but here is a question, in a different scenario...say "mario savio" wrote > the exact same text that was in this article, a coach found the article two > days before the TOC. They read it and know two things...there are some > "great cards" and this article has no warrents and no citations...are they > unethical if they cut the good card out of the bad article? are they > unethical if they don't tell the rest of the community about the good card > in the bad article? > > No...say most people i imagine...thats different AT LEAST IT WAS NOT > PREPARED JUST FOR DEBATE...but in a sense it was...it is the cards not the > article that are for debate, this article would have less credibility of the > whole thing where printed out with the cards...but when its not who wrote > the original article is largely irrelevant, because the original articles is > substaintialy modified to win debates...to me if justin is unethical so is > everyone who cuts good cards out of articles they know are bad... > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090512/84f7420e/attachment.htm From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue May 12 09:07:26 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 09:07:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] obama's middle east imperialism Message-ID: get out of my way, i want to give the next obama blowjob. sucking off scumbag liar politicians is my fetish: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20090510&articleId=13556 The velvet gloves are off and the reality of Obama?s Middle East plans are being revealed: a bare-fisted pummeling of Afghanistan andPakistan ? with Iraq?s fate yet to be determined. The media have been preparing this for months, with incessant talk about the alleged ?troop drawdown? in Iraq, the ?surge? in Afghanistan and the ?immediate threat? that supposedly is represented by Pakistan. It?s now crystal clear that zero ?change? will be forthcoming when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, minus a strategic shifting of troops. This fact was highlighted recently when Obama asked for an additional $83.4 billion in ?emergency spending? to fight the Iraq/Afghan/Pakistan wars. It must be noted that so-called ?emergency funds? were precisely the avenue Bush chose to fight his wars, enabling him to skirt the already-gigantic military budget. The 2010 military budget is now set at $534 billion (!), not counting emergency spending; a 4 percent increase from the previous year. At a time when jobs, education, health, and public services are being slashed all over the country, calling such a budget ?highly immoral? would be an understatement. Also morally questionable is the extension of the Afghanistan war into Pakistan, a bitter pill to swallow for those who once sincerely believed in Obama?s antiwar rhetoric. The house appropriations committee recently approved $2.3 billion in ?emergency spending? for ?assistance? to Pakistan, most of it for the purpose of making war: training Pakistani ?counterinsurgency? forces and police and building a fortified U.S. super embassy. In an attempt to fool the American public about Pakistan, Obama has substituted the always-unpopular ground troops with unmanned drones, stepping up the use of this highly inaccurate form of combat since becoming President and consequently killing hundreds of civilians. Obama has also laid down the law for his puppet presidents in Afghanistan and Pakistan: they will fight his war to the end or be replaced. The recent scene in Washington of these two Presidents declaring ?unity and cooperation? with Obama?s war plans was perhaps the most farcical imperialist media show in recent history. The ?historic? meeting took place after weeks of U.S. government and military officials denouncing the two Presidents, along with open suggestions that a ?better? leader should lead either country, i.e., wage Obama?s wars. In the Washington Post we read: "On all fronts," said a senior U.S. official, "Hamid Karzai has plateaued as a leader." And: ?Obama intends to maintain an arm's-length relationship with Karzai in the hope that it will lead him to address issues of concern to the United States, according to senior U.S. government officials.? (May 5, 2009) What are these ?issues of concern?? The Post explains: ?Obama wanted a renewed commitment by Karzai to better coordinate operations with Pakistan and the U.S., which will expand its military presence in Afghanistan under the president's revised war strategy against the Taliban.? Karzai got the message, and so did Zardari in Pakistan, who received similar messages from both the media and politicians (the Post article states that Obama has only spoken to Karzai twice since becoming President!). Above all, Obama wanted completely pliable puppets, as opposed to the anti-American rhetoric both Presidents had used on multiple occasions so as not to appear complicit in having their own people massacred. The meeting of the Presidents quelled this. Both Presidents sounded as if they were reading scripts as they talked about their ?unwavering? fight against the Taliban. Ironically, a convenient test of loyalty occurred during the summit: it was discovered thatAmerican fighter jets had massacred at least 147 people in Afghanistan. Both Obama and the Afghani President were utterly stoic about the news. Instead of addressing the immense human suffering of the slaughter, they renewed their commitment to the war, while blandly adding: ?Every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties.? Although the latest bombing resembles in every way the horrors depicted in Picasso?s painting Guernica, it is not especially unique. Using fighter jets against the Afghani people has now become common place, with the number of bombing raids increasing month to month. The Washington Post article explains: ?As Taliban activity has increased in recent years, overwhelmed soldiers have increasingly resorted to calling in air strikes, resulting in numerous civilian casualties.? The tried and true colonial tactic of terrorizing a population into submission is now the route being employed in Afghanistan ? shock and awe Vietnam style. And although Obama has stated repeatedly that he is trying to ?finish up? Bush?s wars, he is in fact escalating them. The above-mentioned military spending prompted Democratic congresswoman Lynn Woolsey to point out the obvious: ?[The spending] will prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011, and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely." (Obama promised recently that all troops would be out of Iraq by 2011, the date the Bush administration had previously negotiated.) The question must be asked: Why is Obama pursuing this policy? One easy explanation is Obama?s extremely close ties to Wall Street. U.S. banks are but one type of corporation that benefit greatly from a U.S.- dominated Middle East. Becoming the primary banker for the region would be a very profitable endeavor; this applies with equal weight to weapons producing companies, and those paid to ?reconstruct? a country after it is destroyed, not to mention corporations ? oil, mining, U.S. exporters, etc. ? that benefit from having a monopoly over a fully ?pacified? nation. Straying from this policy would require that the government pursue policies that directly benefit ordinary people, instead of those that cater to corporations and the rich that own them. Breaking the corporate dominance over social life requires that the market economy (capitalism) itself be opposed, since nothing is produced unless it can be sold for profit on the world market, and where the struggle to dominate this market leads corporations based in different countries to advocate for a policy of never-ending war. Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook at yahoo.com _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/98d8b44b/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue May 12 10:01:28 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:01:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Answer to Tuna Message-ID: <4A0948F80200009300029D85@mymail.kckcc.edu> Tuna, My remarks were not attacking to divert the issue. My comments were very salient to the issue. Every now and then you come out of edebate slumber and attack the leadership for the very things the archives will demonstrate you yourself were once part of, and were offended when people called you on it. I'm a big guy. Physically and mentally. I can take the criticism, I can take the comments, and often they do make me reflect. But recently your indicts of CEDA leadership seem either misplaced or perhaps the result of 20/20 vision. You get angry when results are not posted in a timely (fast) manner. Years ago on this list you chastised people for making such complaints often quipping you were too busy taking care of "those who bothered to show up to the tournament". Now you have become the complaining party and when called on not knowing things for lack of attendance either in person or via the web you get indignant and make claims of participation even though you dont sit at our table. At least acknowledge you have had a change of heart from your own behavior in the past. I also found it ironic that in a post about adding events to CEDA Nats where you chastised me for my humor and begged me to stick to the issues, you slipped in the attack on me (and the EC) about the decision to go to Idaho State over OU. How did that apply to the issues? If you say its because there is a link between that Executive decision and ones that could be made by adding events then you gotta spot me the link to your non-support of CEDA Nats and perhaps favoring the OU bid (for reasons other than cost) where airline cost from many parts of the country was just as expensive as it was to fly to ISU. The closest I came to personal insults was "all knowing arrogance" and "ignorance of the process". I suppose arrogance could be inflammatory, but in my opinion the tone did seem to have a holier than thou ring to it. Ignorance is not however inflammatory--being ignorant means you simply dont know. And since you simply didnt know the process CEDA follows I pointed that out. You clearly are unaware that the EC usually gets to vote on the site for CEDA. This was one of those years. Can you at least admit you were wrong for insinuating I made a "personal decision" that eroded confidence in CEDA leadership? Are you willing to admit you were wrong about the process and the comment you made? As for the decision, neither of us has any data to support the claim attendance was helped in one place over the other. Go to OU and maybe a lot of the Rocky Mountain and Nor Cal programs cant afford to get there. Claims of 60 students being denied access is hogwash. And to put that at the feet of the EC is as well. No one blamed you for choosing Worlds which I would guess was more expensive than getting kids to CEDA. So I wont make claims that you denied folks opportunities. We all make choices. As for my tone towards members of the organization I lead, what does "civil" mean to you? Being passionate and not laying down while people continue to kick you and the people who serve unselfishly is not uncivil. Just as I wouldnt expect you to not be passionate, dont call me uncivilized. What about public emails with misinformation that leads to this kind of rancor is civilized? What happened to emailing someone privately first and asking them about the details before you criticize publicly? Isnt that more civil? Tuna, when you were leading this organization I kinda thought you were a great ruler. Mostly because you made tough decisions, did what you thought was right at the time, and didnt roll over like a puppy begging for positive attention. Now you are on the other side of the table and have become what you used to fight against. Why the change of heart? I ask seriously. I am glad to listen to any issue anytime. Even when we disagree I will always respect the right of the person to have that opinion. One of my best friends in the activity and mentors is Jeff Jarman. We often, and by often I mean A LOT, disagree on things. We have healthy debates, make fun of each other some, then love each other when its over. I disagree with Justin and Andy on this amendment. I still respect their right to their opinions and encourage them to make them known. Justin and I will sling jokes but hopefully at the end of the day he knows my support of him and K-State. Hell I spent an hour talking with my President to get a pulse of what presidents around the state were feeling after the Ft Hays incident. I spent this time to make sure someone on the Executive level was fighting for debate, and knowing K-State was going to be getting a new President, making sure there were not undo influences from those with negative agendas. If I didnt like Justin and support K-State, I never would have made the effort. In the end we are all passionate, and yes sometimes I really get going when people are either inconsistent with their criticisms OR they are uninformed and go public first. So I think the organization is welcoming, its just too many of the players know the history too well to let some things slide after they build up over time. I dont expect you to agree with me, change your opinion, or even like me I guess. But I wonder why people who are in your inner circle get a free pass when they engage in the same behavior you chastise me or the CEDA leadership for. When that happens it does seem questionable at the very least. Enjoy the summer! chief ALFRED SNIDER WROTE: It saddens me that your remarks are full of personal attacks and attempts to deflect the issue. This does not serve you well as a communication professional, as a role model for students or as a president of this organization. I will point this out below. Darren Elliott wrote: > I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it was a pot shot or a low blow. > OK, if you wish. > As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about the process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not make a unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids were brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from Jackie. I loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to tournaments, I supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be presented to the Executive Council in Dallas at the summer meeting. Were you there? Did you watch on the web? I cant remember. The Executive Council voted for Idaho State for a number of reasons which I am sure you couldnt care less about--afterall its all about supporting your own right? I mean I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but Jesus H, dude, take off the blinders. This was not a personal decision and Im sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA leadership than many past decisions where programs not > only didnt go t > > o CEDA but left altogether. > Great, call me names - "all-knowing arrogance" is neither justified by my argument nor my tone, stating that I "couldn't care less" when I obviously do (see below), insinuating that I "play favorites" with Jackie because i think more teams would have gone to Oklahoma, all of these are unnecessary, unprofessional and besides the point.. Actually, one of my former debaters teaches at ISU and was in recent years department chair. Nice of you to "allow" people to be at the summer meeting. Yes, and it could have been worse. This is an all-purpose argument that signifies nothing -- it could always have been worse. Can't you rise above personal attacks? At least you didn't drop the "f bomb" ten times. > For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: > 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support > 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support > 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional Diversity good judge! > 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any potential host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and abilty to provide amenities most tournaments only dream of was very compelling. > 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was overwhelmingly impressed. > And a lot of teams didn't go. Sarah and ISU did a great job, I said that, but the location was wrong. If others are right and 30 teams didn't go that would have gone to Oklahoma, how can you justify to those 60 students that there is no nationals for them besides to repeat the arguments in favor of it above? I do not think they will be persuaded. > I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots at a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the best Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision was those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. > What are you talking about? This year Vermont went to 13 CEDA sanctioned tournaments. [Bruschke site] Do you call that "barely supporting CEDA?" You do not seem to even know who is participating in the tournaments or the organization you lead. Stop saying that I am criticizing Sarah and ISU when I obviously am not. Just because Vermont does not sit at your meetings doesn't mean we do not participate. This is about DEBATE not about business meetings. We trust our rep to represent. I believe that is your point on the "new events" argument. I believe that the president of an academic organization should not attack active members in good standing with personal insults. You may not like the questions I am asking or the points I am making, but our tone should always remain civil. If you wonder why people may not find this organization welcoming, then read your post again. Who reading this, perhaps as a new coach starting out, will feel welcome to raise issues in the future? Tuna > chief > > >>>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> >>>> > Just a couple of points. > > 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. > I notice Justin did not bring up ****. > > 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did > nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision > to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of > financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds > of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA > presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a > very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. > > 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. > > Vote no. > > Tuna > > -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue May 12 10:31:03 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:31:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Andy Ellis and how I learned to love framework Message-ID: <4A094FE70200009300029D8F@mymail.kckcc.edu> Before I get to the part about how like Obama inherited a bad economy, the CEDA EC inherited a youtube video crisis of someones ass to begin my term (more on that below) I couldnt resist and I couldnt let Andy post on some other subject without commenting on it. And Andy things I say here might indeed piss you off. Are you ready? You sitting down? Fingers ready to type a qucik response? Cause here it comes!! I agree with Andy about 2 things he has posted. Didnt see it coming did you? Now you are gonna change your mind huh? Dont become too angry. But seriously, reading the evidence discussion intrigued me and Andy's arguments about framework and its analogous application to scholarly produced work by coaches and academics in our community made me consider it even farther. I havent seen a good response to that. Academically produced work probably should hold a higher place of consideration than regurgitated framework blocks that some 19 year old produced at 2am before the Wake tournament. So common ground. See thats a starting point. Thing 2 I agree with (man you are going through some dissonance now), in large part. And this I never made fun of in any of my posts nor disagreed with. And that is the idea of an ED for CEDA. In fact rewind the tape. NCA. Miami. 2002 I believe. CEDA round table discussion on the future of the organization. Steve Koch from Capital gives a rousing presentation on the need for an Executive Director for CEDA. Likens it to NFL (as Andy does below). Discussion ensues with the players at the time. Baker, Warner, Steinberg, Sandoz. They were all there. And I was there. And Uncle Frank and Auntie Em. You were there too. I lobbied for it then. Baker presented a different model that he thought would be better for CEDA. He rolled it out at the CEDA summer meeting in Mississippi. We created charges and benchmarks for CEDA committees. We created working drafts of the organizational model for efficiency. It caught on and worked well...for about a year. I continued to discuss the Executive Director position for CEDA. As all discussions go they come and well usually go. But Steve Koch's presentation always had me convinced. Baker's model would be a good mixture of that idea and efficiency. So Andy and I have common ground again. As for the other stuff below: Only good at debate! Not an academic. Inadequacy. Ouch. Sticks and stones my boy sticks and stones! (I bet you dont get called out by Tuna for being mean--wanna make a wager?). I'm offended you dont know me better! Did you know that in the last 3 years I have coached 2 National Championships in Women's Softball. Did you know I am a certified baseball and softball umpire, working majors and regional champsionships? Certified at both the semi-pro and major level! Did you know I'm an avid pet owner and care taker? Did you know I have a beautiful 5 year old daughter I do a damn good job of taking care of? And not to brag but I can cook a damn fine brisket if I do say so myself. Oh yeah and Im learning how to use that interweb thing and the youtube whatchamacallit. And besides did you know Gordon was a Yankees fan? As for your indicts of my administration, I will simply say I think we accomplished a lot. There are more CC's debating now than when I started. Others, through a lot of work on my part, will join the fold next year, and the year after. We had a great CEDA Nats. Whether you realized it or not, I paid very close attention to detail. You are right about one thing--people often get bogged down with other commitments and decisions are slow and time consuming. Part of the reason I have faith in the EC process--people are willing to invest time as opposed to making uninformed votes sometimes. Its why we have an EC. I believe the time is worth the wait. I'm pleased with a lot of what was accomplished. I wish we could have done more--we all do. But a ton of work was completed this summer at my meeting and a lot of it is rolling out still. CEDA received compliments as we were the first to adopt a professional ethics document. The other organizations are adopting our language almost verbatim. So I am happy with what we did but will also defend your right to criticize. If things got off to a slow start, remember the EC was mired with the youtube Shanahan video to begin my term and in one day had over 100 emails from members and the media. Just like Obama didnt create this financial mess the U.S. is in, he inherited it, and has to deal with it. The CEDA EC inerited something none of us wanted. So please consider that when criticizing that the nuts and bolts didnt get tightened right away. I appreciate the compliment about rocking that which I am passionate about. I like to think so. And I brought up the Baltimore thing because I was truly interested. Your comments are helpful. I think it is a model that can work and will happen across the country as budgets tend to tighten. When debates that dont fit our model begin to happen in Baltimore and elsewhere, wouldnt it be nice to have a way to showcase that kind of debate at our organization's year end event as well? I would think so. Maybe the conversation is the beginning. chief ANDY ELLIS WROTE: Let's recap you made an attrocious argument for why the ec should have powers that you can't explain a useful application of. In engaging that argument i made a passing reference to the idea of ceda hiring an ed. You responded to that argument with the inadequacy you normally bring to the table (like i said you really should let gordon do the talking, he is actually intelligent, an actual academic,not a dude for whom debate was the only thing he was ever good at) Now we are here...so a few things my argument is not here is my resume ceda should hire me as ed, while i would love to do the job someday there are millions of candidates more qualified to lead an orgaization with the size and scope of ceda. And hey for you there at least a million people less qualified than you...ok just kidding...not really, i thought you sucked as leader. Good job to sarah and you and the ec on a great ceda nats, and thank you. But for the bulk of your administration it seemed like ceda was at least your third priority.Things bumped up against deadlines, got together with last minute bursts of energy, and often seemed to be in situations where vision and implementation were not synced. In your defense, this is a problem with all ceda leadershp, as long as ceda comes third to its leadership and its leadership is entirely made up of particpants the ability to offer the kind of programing, research, support, and leadership that each member of the ec envisions the misson of ceda enabling is not a high priority AND decisions are made with allegiances to the second job(debate coach). I will talk more about the second part of it in a second. We could exchange insults all day. Really. and Im sure you agree...but i'll stop..look let me put it this way...you the ec gets to pick the ed, make sure it is somebody who understand the needs of academics, the nature of debate, the role of the ec, and the ability to qucikly bring the kind of funds that could make your third job her job and your third job a lot better and a lot easier...It actually increses the power of the executive, but puts those decisions in the hands of thinking about this day in and day out...i don't mind if an executive has power as long as they are focuesd on those decisions, but i don't by any means want somebody making final decisions who has at least two professional priorities prior to ceda. I'm not knocking you for being passionate about the parts of debate you are passionate about...ou know you rock that stuff, and keep doing it, it doesnt mean you arent good at it or appreciated for it, it means you should not also run a national organization which includes 200 members schools and sanctions a season worth of competition...see this is where the rub is..CEDA is largely driven by the intense personal commitment of those that care, the ec, and a chunk of directors and a smaller chunk of students, the CEDA that exists and can exist to those who care is different than the ceda that exists for those that are largely agnostic on the question except when the question directy effects them. Intense personal commitment often gets things done during the presidents term, but then another president comes in with their agenda, and so on and so on...this means that when tuna opens the door for the merger he is not around to manage it after its implementd...while that may be an interesting debate, for the point of argument the process would have been a lot different if he had implemented it in his first year and managed his vision of that partnership for the last dozen or so years...the events question (where the debate started) is simlar if gordon would agree to be the executive director of ceda...i wouldnt care if he added events in mid feburary, but i don't think your argument in defense of it was very good and you seemed to think it was...enough that it is a description of a reason you might agree to make this decision to add other events at nationals. I don't want to give that power to the executive generally, but an executive yes...especially if my elected leadership served as board to the ed of ceda...NFL Does it...it seems to work...or at least be worth investigating. You get a link to a spending disad, hasn't been your argument yet. Whats the rest of the offense? Now the other question...Some sort of outsider on the leadership structure would be good, some one who doesnt care about 5th years but understands why you do, somebodys whose job it is to reach across competitive rivalries and to guide the right way for the organization...i'm not suggesting some tyrant chalie sheen would play or something, you all work out the compensation package and terms, you all hire and fire the person, you all do committee work under non rotating leadership..uses your time well in your third priority...and lets you have say on the vision of the organization...president of ceda could be president of the board...still powerful because they set the vision and char ethe key committees, but without the thankless third job(something most of your non debate advanced degree having colleagues cannot understand) Recapping again...you have no disad, just some d...An executive director can be somebody who you like, who handles the day to to day things you handle third first. Ill address this baltimore thing. Reasons why Baltimore College Debate did not work as i had envisioned it. 1)It never had the opportunity to come first, it was always at least second to my middle school job or my towson job. had to take care of the things where my job first and my volunteer work suffered. I beleive had it been funded in 2007 it would have succeeded, however i trained my eyes on one revenue stream, when it fell through there where no accesible methods of funding it to the level that it would have required to spur ceda debate as we recognize it here. 2) I tried to tailor the league to ceda's definition of what a tournament is. I always focused on points eligible tournaments in order to attract outsiders, while ignoring the 1 day tournament experience of many of the local students, and debate leaders. 3) Without fundraising there was very little i could do to expand services and help students justfy it to thier schools. 4) I had to many tournaments in one place to alter peoples schedules to the extent that i would have needed to. There are other reasons and thats actually a conversation i am interested in having with some of you. I bet that at somepoint in the future lots of debates will be going on in Baltimore amongst college students in competitive forums, just not usually your competitive forum. Some of the reasons this failed are the same reason many good ideas fail...doing them is a lot more work, than thinking of them...i think this applies to the amendment this conversation all started with, and the reason it doesnt make sense to expand the ecs development responsibilities without increasing their capacity first. Finally...funding..yes its expensive to have an executive director...but if that is really the only concern...then lets talk about how to do that, i don't doubt the ec can come up with a good solution....in consultation with the membership of course. From rahul.jaswa at gmail.com Tue May 12 10:50:34 2009 From: rahul.jaswa at gmail.com (Rahul Jaswa) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 08:50:34 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Andy Ellis and how I learned to love framework In-Reply-To: <4A094FE70200009300029D8F@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A094FE70200009300029D8F@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: Ya, I mean, fair enough. After all, if the drug tests in the MLB weren't good enough, then why shouldn't people take steroids? On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Darren Elliott wrote: > Before I get to the part about how like Obama inherited a bad economy, the > CEDA EC inherited a youtube video crisis of someones ass to begin my term > (more on that below) I couldnt resist and I couldnt let Andy post on some > other subject without commenting on it. And Andy things I say here might > indeed piss you off. Are you ready? You sitting down? Fingers ready to > type a qucik response? Cause here it comes!! > > I agree with Andy about 2 things he has posted. Didnt see it coming did > you? Now you are gonna change your mind huh? Dont become too angry. But > seriously, reading the evidence discussion intrigued me and Andy's arguments > about framework and its analogous application to scholarly produced work by > coaches and academics in our community made me consider it even farther. I > havent seen a good response to that. Academically produced work probably > should hold a higher place of consideration than regurgitated framework > blocks that some 19 year old produced at 2am before the Wake tournament. So > common ground. See thats a starting point. > > Thing 2 I agree with (man you are going through some dissonance now), in > large part. And this I never made fun of in any of my posts nor disagreed > with. And that is the idea of an ED for CEDA. In fact rewind the tape. > NCA. Miami. 2002 I believe. CEDA round table discussion on the future of > the organization. Steve Koch from Capital gives a rousing presentation on > the need for an Executive Director for CEDA. Likens it to NFL (as Andy does > below). Discussion ensues with the players at the time. Baker, Warner, > Steinberg, Sandoz. They were all there. And I was there. And Uncle Frank > and Auntie Em. You were there too. I lobbied for it then. Baker presented > a different model that he thought would be better for CEDA. He rolled it > out at the CEDA summer meeting in Mississippi. We created charges and > benchmarks for CEDA committees. We created working drafts of the > organizational model for efficiency. It caught on and worked well...for > about a year. I continued to > discuss the Executive Director position for CEDA. As all discussions go > they come and well usually go. But Steve Koch's presentation always had me > convinced. Baker's model would be a good mixture of that idea and > efficiency. So Andy and I have common ground again. > > As for the other stuff below: > Only good at debate! Not an academic. Inadequacy. Ouch. Sticks and > stones my boy sticks and stones! (I bet you dont get called out by Tuna for > being mean--wanna make a wager?). I'm offended you dont know me better! > Did you know that in the last 3 years I have coached 2 National > Championships in Women's Softball. Did you know I am a certified baseball > and softball umpire, working majors and regional champsionships? Certified > at both the semi-pro and major level! Did you know I'm an avid pet owner > and care taker? Did you know I have a beautiful 5 year old daughter I do a > damn good job of taking care of? And not to brag but I can cook a damn fine > brisket if I do say so myself. Oh yeah and Im learning how to use that > interweb thing and the youtube whatchamacallit. And besides did you know > Gordon was a Yankees fan? > > As for your indicts of my administration, I will simply say I think we > accomplished a lot. There are more CC's debating now than when I started. > Others, through a lot of work on my part, will join the fold next year, and > the year after. We had a great CEDA Nats. Whether you realized it or not, > I paid very close attention to detail. You are right about one > thing--people often get bogged down with other commitments and decisions are > slow and time consuming. Part of the reason I have faith in the EC > process--people are willing to invest time as opposed to making uninformed > votes sometimes. Its why we have an EC. I believe the time is worth the > wait. I'm pleased with a lot of what was accomplished. I wish we could > have done more--we all do. But a ton of work was completed this summer at > my meeting and a lot of it is rolling out still. CEDA received compliments > as we were the first to adopt a professional ethics document. The other > organizations are adopting our langu > age almost verbatim. So I am happy with what we did but will also defend > your right to criticize. If things got off to a slow start, remember the EC > was mired with the youtube Shanahan video to begin my term and in one day > had over 100 emails from members and the media. Just like Obama didnt > create this financial mess the U.S. is in, he inherited it, and has to deal > with it. The CEDA EC inerited something none of us wanted. So please > consider that when criticizing that the nuts and bolts didnt get tightened > right away. I appreciate the compliment about rocking that which I am > passionate about. I like to think so. And I brought up the Baltimore thing > because I was truly interested. Your comments are helpful. I think it is a > model that can work and will happen across the country as budgets tend to > tighten. When debates that dont fit our model begin to happen in Baltimore > and elsewhere, wouldnt it be nice to have a way to showcase that kind of > debate at our organizat > ion's year end event as well? I would think so. Maybe the conversation > is the beginning. > > chief > > > > > > ANDY ELLIS WROTE: > Let's recap > > you made an attrocious argument for why the ec should have powers that you > can't explain a useful application of. > In engaging that argument i made a passing reference to the idea of ceda > hiring an ed. > You responded to that argument with the inadequacy you normally bring to > the > table (like i said you really should let gordon do the talking, he is > actually intelligent, an actual academic,not a dude for whom debate was the > only thing he was ever good at) > > Now we are here...so a few things my argument is not here is my resume ceda > should hire me as ed, while i would love to do the job someday there are > millions of candidates more qualified to lead an orgaization with the size > and scope of ceda. And hey for you there at least a million people less > qualified than you...ok just kidding...not really, i thought you sucked as > leader. Good job to sarah and you and the ec on a great ceda nats, and > thank > you. But for the bulk of your administration it seemed like ceda was at > least your third priority.Things bumped up against deadlines, got together > with last minute bursts of energy, and often seemed to be in situations > where vision and implementation were not synced. In your defense, this is a > problem with all ceda leadershp, as long as ceda comes third to its > leadership and its leadership is entirely made up of particpants the > ability > to offer the kind of programing, research, support, and leadership that > each > member of the ec envisions the misson of ceda enabling is not a high > priority AND decisions are made with allegiances to the second job(debate > coach). I will talk more about the second part of it in a second. > > We could exchange insults all day. Really. and Im sure you agree...but i'll > stop..look let me put it this way...you the ec gets to pick the ed, make > sure it is somebody who understand the needs of academics, the nature of > debate, the role of the ec, and the ability to qucikly bring the kind of > funds that could make your third job her job and your third job a lot > better > and a lot easier...It actually increses the power of the executive, but > puts > those decisions in the hands of thinking about this day in and day out...i > don't mind if an executive has power as long as they are focuesd on those > decisions, but i don't by any means want somebody making final decisions > who > has at least two professional priorities prior to ceda. I'm not knocking > you > for being passionate about the parts of debate you are passionate > about...ou > know you rock that stuff, and keep doing it, it doesnt mean you arent good > at it or appreciated for it, it means you should not also run a national > organization which includes 200 members schools and sanctions a season > worth > of competition...see this is where the rub is..CEDA is largely driven by > the intense personal commitment of those that care, the ec, and a chunk of > directors and a smaller chunk of students, the CEDA that exists and can > exist to those who care is different than the ceda that exists for those > that are largely agnostic on the question except when the question directy > effects them. Intense personal commitment often gets things done during the > presidents term, but then another president comes in with their agenda, and > so on and so on...this means that when tuna opens the door for the merger > he > is not around to manage it after its implementd...while that may be an > interesting debate, for the point of argument the process would have been a > lot different if he had implemented it in his first year and managed his > vision of that partnership for the last dozen or so years...the events > question (where the debate started) is simlar if gordon would agree to be > the executive director of ceda...i wouldnt care if he added events in mid > feburary, but i don't think your argument in defense of it was very good > and > you seemed to think it was...enough that it is a description of a reason > you > might agree to make this decision to add other events at nationals. I don't > want to give that power to the executive generally, but an executive > yes...especially if my elected leadership served as board to the ed of > ceda...NFL Does it...it seems to work...or at least be worth investigating. > > You get a link to a spending disad, hasn't been your argument yet. Whats > the > rest of the offense? > > Now the other question...Some sort of outsider on the leadership structure > would be good, some one who doesnt care about 5th years but understands why > you do, somebodys whose job it is to reach across competitive rivalries and > to guide the right way for the organization...i'm not suggesting some > tyrant > chalie sheen would play or something, you all work out the compensation > package and terms, you all hire and fire the person, you all do committee > work under non rotating leadership..uses your time well in your third > priority...and lets you have say on the vision of the > organization...president of ceda could be president of the board...still > powerful because they set the vision and char ethe key committees, but > without the thankless third job(something most of your non debate advanced > degree having colleagues cannot understand) > > Recapping again...you have no disad, just some d...An executive director > can > be somebody who you like, who handles the day to to day things you handle > third first. > > Ill address this baltimore thing. > > Reasons why Baltimore College Debate did not work as i had envisioned it. > 1)It never had the opportunity to come first, it was always at least second > to my middle school job or my towson job. had to take care of the things > where my job first and my volunteer work suffered. I beleive had it been > funded in 2007 it would have succeeded, however i trained my eyes on one > revenue stream, when it fell through there where no accesible methods of > funding it to the level that it would have required to spur ceda debate as > we recognize it here. > 2) I tried to tailor the league to ceda's definition of what a tournament > is. I always focused on points eligible tournaments in order to attract > outsiders, while ignoring the 1 day tournament experience of many of the > local students, and debate leaders. > 3) Without fundraising there was very little i could do to expand services > and help students justfy it to thier schools. > 4) I had to many tournaments in one place to alter peoples schedules to the > extent that i would have needed to. > > There are other reasons and thats actually a conversation i am interested > in > having with some of you. I bet that at somepoint in the future lots of > debates will be going on in Baltimore amongst college students in > competitive forums, just not usually your competitive forum. > > Some of the reasons this failed are the same reason many good ideas > fail...doing them is a lot more work, than thinking of them...i think this > applies to the amendment this conversation all started with, and the reason > it doesnt make sense to expand the ecs development responsibilities without > increasing their capacity first. > > Finally...funding..yes its expensive to have an executive director...but if > that is really the only concern...then lets talk about how to do that, i > don't doubt the ec can come up with a good solution....in consultation with > the membership of course. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090512/f8dcf88e/attachment.htm From dgm2109 at columbia.edu Tue May 12 11:52:05 2009 From: dgm2109 at columbia.edu (David Marks) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:52:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? Message-ID: The problem isn't that coaches write articles. You can read those cards and debaters should be able to make arguments about bias. The problem is when coaches purposefully hide the fact that they wrote them. This problem is made worse when it happens right before TOC and when the article includes cards just so happen to be a devastating negative strategy (one that was read by at least one team at TOC with the use of these cards). Let's be very clear about something: the Marburry character is COMPLETELY FALSE. Marburry is Skarb. The idea that Skarb just "contributed research" is laughably misleading, but it does show that the use of the fake name couldn't have been to protect Skarb's anonymity from non-debate people out to get him. And what's the practical consequence? The card obviously gets cited as Marburry, not Skarb! No debater facing this card would find out that Skarb had anything to do with it until AFTER the debate. Warming analogy: it'd be like if Skarb was paid $1b by the oil industry and then got plastic surgery to testify before Congress under the fake name Marburry. Him saying "I hired Skarb to contribute to some of the research" and presenting a biography with no other connections to the oil industry is not even close to "I am Skarb and I was paid $1b to testify before you." Here's a very simple question: which is really more likely? A. Skarb had to use a pen name because someone was out to get him. B. Skarb used a pen name to cloak bias. Here are some facts that can help you resolve this question: 1. Skarb put his name right after putting the fake name (at the bottom of the article). If it were really a pen name to protect his anonymity, why did he break it? To me, it seems much more likely that he put the name there to REINFORCE the idea that Skarb and Marburry are two separate people! I have no idea why putting his name in the article as a contributing researcher makes it more fair. In my mind, it HELPS the deception by reinforcing the idea that the author was not biased ---- intentional or not. 2. Zero other publications by this Marburry person. 3. Why was a comment posted --- AFTER toc --- by Skarb saying "embarassing" and clarifying that he's the author? Did his need for anonymity suddenly resolve itself? If it did, why would that be "embarrassing"??? 4. The article --- which wasn't written for the purpose of debate --- just so happens to have cards that provide brink, link, and internal link and CP solvency all specific to several of the top TOC teams' plans? That's not even getting into the "one week before TOC" isues. 5. The very first comment on the article --- posted right after publication --- is obviously by a debater. "Disciples of 2A" posted "WTF MARBURRY WRITE SOME SPS GOOD ARTICLES." Now why would a debater be the first person to read and comment on this article, AND know that Marburry would understand what "write some sps good articles" means ---- unless Skarb told debaters about it? 6. What's the deal with the Norman Ornstein card in the comments? Maybe this is a joke like Andy's aliens thing. But it's not very funny. Why? Because it creates a headache when someone who doesn't get the joke actually cuts that card, thinking they found awesome evidence. These are young high school debaters. 7. I don't know if it's true, but on Cross-X.com's forum on this, someone suggested that: "just for the record, this article has been floating around the web since at least february, spammed all over the comments sections of space websites. it seems like it was only recently though that skarb's name became attached to it." 8. According to a Damien debater, "our coaches were responsible for the name Justin Skarb being attached to the article in the first place." -This issue was NOT unforeseen. The Damien staff knew that this could be a problem. I fail to see how attaching "research contributor" in any way avoids the bias problem, as I think I've explained above. If Skarb had posted this in circumstances that were obviously not intended for debate but instead for personal reasons, then I think there's nothing at all wrong. But this is so far away from such a scenario it's almost funny that anyone would try to defend it as such. This shouldn't be evaluated by the highest standards of ethics challenges in debates, because here we are not limited by the competitive format and time and research constraints of those situations. The purpose of this discussion shouldn't be a witch hunt. It should be a community discussion over what we think is appropriate or not, and fair warning in the future that this kind of behavior is not kosher. Even if Skarb didn't intend all this, he really should've been a lot more careful. My measure of INTENT is not "did he purposefully cheat," because that's not something that can be fixed in a forum. My measure of intent is "did he create evidence knowing that debaters could use it in ways that other debaters would think is very unfair, and fail to take easy remedialsteps?" I do have to say that this kind of thing is sad because I won't ever be able to look at Damien cards in the same light. That's not fair their debaters and coaches who put a lot into the activity and don't deserve that taint. Lesson: when you KNOW it could be controversial, DISCLOSE. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/4a29ac95/attachment.htm From dgm2109 at columbia.edu Tue May 12 12:53:20 2009 From: dgm2109 at columbia.edu (David Marks) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:53:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Here's more proof Message-ID: Skarb did "publish" this in February initially without citing himself. Someone forwarded me the link confirming this: http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/time-to-build-a-first-look-at-the-initial-plan/#comment-3059 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/e7c12048/attachment.htm From tara_l_tate at hotmail.com Tue May 12 13:06:45 2009 From: tara_l_tate at hotmail.com (Tara Tate) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 13:06:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One other piece of information that is now public is that Justin Skarb replied to numerous emails as John Marburry in the days prior to the TOC...emails from coaches/students that wanted more information about his qualifications, primary resources that "Marburry" used to write his paper, etc. The deception continued after the article's publication. Emails were written to these coaches/students as John Marburry. My primary concern right now is not what happens to Skarb. I believe that the Damien coaching staff and administration have to make that call internally with the information they have. My concern is for the Damien debaters. Although I don't disagree with David's comments about Damien's evidence now being "suspect", I am so saddened by any consequences, intended or unintended, this has on the Damien kiddos. I have used the Damien kids as a model often times for my own squad about a uniquely determined, hard-working squad who are innovative with their arguments and absolutely love the game...and the work that is put into being successful at that game. I know that David was not implying that this was not accurate, but these kids uniquely deserve our compassion and understanding at this point. I hope the fact that uniquely hard working, smart, skillful teen-agers are at the heart of this crisis is not forgotten (again, not implying that David did that...his post just sparked me to dovetail off of him). Tara Tate GBS Debate From: dgm2109 at columbia.edu Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:52:05 -0400 To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? The problem isn't that coaches write articles. You can read those cards and debaters should be able to make arguments about bias. The problem is when coaches purposefully hide the fact that they wrote them. This problem is made worse when it happens right before TOC and when the article includes cards just so happen to be a devastating negative strategy (one that was read by at least one team at TOC with the use of these cards). Let's be very clear about something: the Marburry character is COMPLETELY FALSE. Marburry is Skarb. The idea that Skarb just "contributed research" is laughably misleading, but it does show that the use of the fake name couldn't have been to protect Skarb's anonymity from non-debate people out to get him. And what's the practical consequence? The card obviously gets cited as Marburry, not Skarb! No debater facing this card would find out that Skarb had anything to do with it until AFTER the debate. Warming analogy: it'd be like if Skarb was paid $1b by the oil industry and then got plastic surgery to testify before Congress under the fake name Marburry. Him saying "I hired Skarb to contribute to some of the research" and presenting a biography with no other connections to the oil industry is not even close to "I am Skarb and I was paid $1b to testify before you." Here's a very simple question: which is really more likely? A. Skarb had to use a pen name because someone was out to get him. B. Skarb used a pen name to cloak bias. Here are some facts that can help you resolve this question: 1. Skarb put his name right after putting the fake name (at the bottom of the article). If it were really a pen name to protect his anonymity, why did he break it? To me, it seems much more likely that he put the name there to REINFORCE the idea that Skarb and Marburry are two separate people! I have no idea why putting his name in the article as a contributing researcher makes it more fair. In my mind, it HELPS the deception by reinforcing the idea that the author was not biased ---- intentional or not. 2. Zero other publications by this Marburry person. 3. Why was a comment posted --- AFTER toc --- by Skarb saying "embarassing" and clarifying that he's the author? Did his need for anonymity suddenly resolve itself? If it did, why would that be "embarrassing"??? 4. The article --- which wasn't written for the purpose of debate --- just so happens to have cards that provide brink, link, and internal link and CP solvency all specific to several of the top TOC teams' plans? That's not even getting into the "one week before TOC" isues. 5. The very first comment on the article --- posted right after publication --- is obviously by a debater. "Disciples of 2A" posted "WTF MARBURRY WRITE SOME SPS GOOD ARTICLES." Now why would a debater be the first person to read and comment on this article, AND know that Marburry would understand what "write some sps good articles" means ---- unless Skarb told debaters about it? 6. What's the deal with the Norman Ornstein card in the comments? Maybe this is a joke like Andy's aliens thing. But it's not very funny. Why? Because it creates a headache when someone who doesn't get the joke actually cuts that card, thinking they found awesome evidence. These are young high school debaters. 7. I don't know if it's true, but on Cross-X.com's forum on this, someone suggested that: "just for the record, this article has been floating around the web since at least february, spammed all over the comments sections of space websites. it seems like it was only recently though that skarb's name became attached to it." 8. According to a Damien debater, "our coaches were responsible for the name Justin Skarb being attached to the article in the first place." -This issue was NOT unforeseen. The Damien staff knew that this could be a problem. I fail to see how attaching "research contributor" in any way avoids the bias problem, as I think I've explained above. If Skarb had posted this in circumstances that were obviously not intended for debate but instead for personal reasons, then I think there's nothing at all wrong. But this is so far away from such a scenario it's almost funny that anyone would try to defend it as such. This shouldn't be evaluated by the highest standards of ethics challenges in debates, because here we are not limited by the competitive format and time and research constraints of those situations. The purpose of this discussion shouldn't be a witch hunt. It should be a community discussion over what we think is appropriate or not, and fair warning in the future that this kind of behavior is not kosher. Even if Skarb didn't intend all this, he really should've been a lot more careful. My measure of INTENT is not "did he purposefully cheat," because that's not something that can be fixed in a forum. My measure of intent is "did he create evidence knowing that debaters could use it in ways that other debaters would think is very unfair, and fail to take easy remedialsteps?" I do have to say that this kind of thing is sad because I won't ever be able to look at Damien cards in the same light. That's not fair their debaters and coaches who put a lot into the activity and don't deserve that taint. Lesson: when you KNOW it could be controversial, DISCLOSE. David _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/84be35dd/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Tue May 12 14:12:55 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:12:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? Message-ID: <20090512141255.11781ovrp39l53jr@webmail.grandecom.net> Why is there even a debate? Great Question. The answer is deeper than people think within this community. The reason why there is a debate is because many within this insular community a flat out delusional. They are nutjobs. Notice that the one's defending such shit as people fabricating evidence are not people with Ph.D.'s. Some i do not think even have degrees or academic positions. Why does this matter they will ask? It matters because unless you have actually done the work necessary to obtain a Ph.D., or to get published in a peer review journal, you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to scholarship. It is a sad freaking day when I am in agreement with Jason Russell. But there is a reason why--because he too knows what constitutes real scholarship, and what is shit. We also know fabrication of evidence in order to secure a win at the TOC when we see it. People trying to rationalize such behavior do a disservice to the field of academic debate and they do a disservice to their teams. The circumstances that have been relayed to me indicates that somebody fabricated evidence in order to secures some wins at the TOC. I wonder if Skarb is the real author...becuase I find it hard to believe that an adult coach with more than half a brain would do so. But, assuming it is true, there is no debate. Sanchez, JT, Ellis and every other yahoo trying to rationalize such shit are just doing that...rationalizing. Actions like Skarb/whoever wrote the article sets a horrible precedent and should be punished by the respective organizations. Handling it as an "internal matter" is not enough. Under the new CEDA Rules regarding professional responsibility, such fabrication at a CEDA sanctioned tournament would/should result in that coach be sanctioned, up to and including teams that he coaches not receiving CEDA points. Leaving it up to teams to argue it out in rounds is NOT a solution. Why? Because the circumstances of this case prove the point...it happens too quickly for students to adapt, the abuse may take weeks to figure out, and the damage has already been done. If this evidence was used in a round at the TOC...is there any way for a "do over?" Scott From hallitripe at gmail.com Tue May 12 14:14:02 2009 From: hallitripe at gmail.com (Halli Tripe) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:14:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] questions about evidence Message-ID: <766e55810905121214le3bfd7bl8d29ea7d140c84b9@mail.gmail.com> is it ok to cut cards from the comments section of an article?? if so, how do you cite those cards?? the name of the website or publication? the 'name' of the commenter? is it ok to find cards in another language, put them through a translator, and then read them (in english) during the round? is it ok to remove large sections of an article and make some sort of notation like "she continues.." in the middle of the card? these are all honest questions that i?m curious about.? i err NO on most of them (although the 3rd question seems comparatively less problematic than the other two), but these are practices that happen all the time in debate.? i?m not necessarily calling it out as ?unethical? but just curious to know what other people think. on a related note - sometimes as a judge/observer of debates i forget how hard it was as a debater (especially a 1AR) to make source qualification indicts during rounds.? being a 1ar in a straight-up debate, it is nearly impossible to read EVERY card that the other team reads, much less take scarce prep time to look at the quals of each card.? this is compounded by the fact that some people/teams do a very poor job of citing cards and including necessary/relevant information in the citation. it is really easy as a judge to say after the round ?did you read this card?! its terrible!! and its written by so-and-so?.?? but it is much harder for debaters to figure this stuff out with just 10 minutes of prep time. halli From richardgarner at gmail.com Tue May 12 14:35:53 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:35:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] questions about evidence In-Reply-To: <766e55810905121214le3bfd7bl8d29ea7d140c84b9@mail.gmail.com> References: <766e55810905121214le3bfd7bl8d29ea7d140c84b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0905121235p31704d05kcee18e7bd82570b7@mail.gmail.com> 1. People should indict evidence more, and good debaters who do it well are often rewarded. Yes it's hard, but ... debate. If you can beat a card with two words ("blog comment"), that's a model of efficiency. 2. None of these speak to the question of deception/intent/fabrication. As long as this information is foregrounded, you can cut cards from anything published. People read the Bearden card all the time, as it were. Another example, related to #1: people read cards from the Wake Forest camp handbook all the time, too (and those cards are much better than Bearden, by the way), and because we know what their purpose is and from what context they come, we can make judgments ourselves. Answers below: On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Halli Tripe wrote: > is it ok to cut cards from the comments section of an article? if so, > how do you cite those cards? the name of the website or publication? > the 'name' of the commenter? > Yes, but why would you? is it ok to find cards in another language, put them through a > translator, and then read them (in english) during the round? Interesting question. My ultimate answer: yes, but evidence indicts regarding translation would be dispositive in interpreting the evidence, so again: why would you? All someone has to say is: "How do you know that it translated all the negatives correctly?" > is it ok to remove large sections of an article and make some sort of > notation like "she continues.." in the middle of the card? Yes, and this is a community norm and has been for years. But not so that the intent of the card changes (and obviously not such that the integrity of paragraphs are compromised). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/65ad2e69/attachment.htm From hallitripe at gmail.com Tue May 12 15:05:13 2009 From: hallitripe at gmail.com (Halli Tripe) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:05:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] questions about evidence In-Reply-To: <17bee7eb0905121235p31704d05kcee18e7bd82570b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <766e55810905121214le3bfd7bl8d29ea7d140c84b9@mail.gmail.com> <17bee7eb0905121235p31704d05kcee18e7bd82570b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <766e55810905121305w3719cbcbqc593f73e024752c2@mail.gmail.com> just to be clear ..... i am in NO WAY saying that these are analogous to the skarb situation. not even close. On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Richard A. Garner wrote: > 1. People should indict evidence more, and good debaters who do it well are > often rewarded. Yes it's hard, but ... debate. If you can beat a card with > two words ("blog comment"), that's a model of efficiency. > > 2. None of these speak to the question of deception/intent/fabrication. As > long as this information is foregrounded, you can cut cards from anything > published. People read the Bearden card all the time, as it were. Another > example, related to #1: people read cards from the Wake Forest camp handbook > all the time, too (and those cards are much better than Bearden, by the > way), and because we know what their purpose is and from what context they > come, we can make judgments ourselves. > > Answers below: > > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Halli Tripe wrote: >> >> is it ok to cut cards from the comments section of an article?? if so, >> how do you cite those cards?? the name of the website or publication? >> the 'name' of the commenter? > > Yes, but why would you? > >> is it ok to find cards in another language, put them through a >> translator, and then read them (in english) during the round? > > Interesting question. My ultimate answer: yes, but evidence indicts > regarding translation would be dispositive in interpreting the evidence, so > again: why would you? All someone has to say is: "How do you know that it > translated all the negatives correctly?" > >> >> is it ok to remove large sections of an article and make some sort of >> notation like "she continues.." in the middle of the card? > > Yes, and this is a community norm and has been for years. But not so that > the intent of the card changes (and obviously not such that the integrity of > paragraphs are compromised). > From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Tue May 12 15:44:26 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:44:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the esteemed qualification problem Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078730.html _ well, i know nothing about the particularities of this specific case, and wasn't commenting on what may be properly considered 'indefensible'. also, the reason what russell wrote wasn't a contradiction was because in the first instance he was discussing 'evidence production' in the sense of 'cutting cards' and in the latter he was discussing it in the sense of 'writing articles'. clearly different standards can be applied to these two activities, but i knowingly ran the two senses together in jest - hence the smiley face. though russell and most others accept the right of debate coaches to publish and the legitimacy of debaters' quotation of them, there's still a couple issues left on the table: (1) is publishing under a pen-name always "academically dishonest"? is lying about one's qualifications the line not to be crossed here, or are we asking for no pseudonyms whatsoever? (should debaters not be able to quote from the anonymous c.i.a. analyst's book, 'imperial hubris: why the west is losing the war on terror' (2004), for example?) (2) to what extent does weighing evidential above analytic argumentation contribute to attempts to blur the line on evidence fabrication? let's say i find myself making a similar set of claims at the ends of my 2n.r. against solar-powered satellites: i concede that the project is worthwhile, but argue that a counter-plan of formal d.o.d. agreement is preferable given the tight-budgeted state of the u.s. economy. and let's say i get the bright idea to type up what i find myself saying every last rebuttal, publish it to a blog, and read that in the 1n.c. instead. i might fancy myself ahead of the game, only my 1n.c. 'evidence', written under my own name, is likely to be dismissed, even if there's nothing dubious about the set of claims i advance, due to 'poor qualifications'. therefore, i write it under a fake name and give myself some made-up certifications... obviously that's lying, which i don't condone, but what am i trying to gain with this lie except to have my claims taken as seriously as the claims of any staff writer at the san antonio express-news? i mean, i don't care if you have degrees in political science and history: if you quote one-line in a report from 1978 to demonstrate an immediate budgetary trade-off, you're being ridiculous. 'quals' won't save us from the ridiculous - only well-articulated reasons can. _ one further refutation of the infamous article in question: "With the economy closer to the abyss of complete economic Armageddon than it has been at any point since, perhaps, the Great Depression, the last thing we need is to start throwing money hand over fist at a project that might end up being nothing more than a pie in the sky fantasy. ...The danger in making large investments into SBSP while the economy is reeling is that there is only so much money to go around. As such, there is a danger that scarce investment dollars will be siphoned way from more immediately viable and beneficial programs such as terrestrial based green energy programs." http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/10/13/time-to-build-a-first-look-at-the-initial-plan/#comment-3059 ...actually, if we're good keynesians, this is precisely the kind of crisis which calls for massive government expenditure, not penny-pinching: we need to throw more money on long-shots like solar-powered satellites. but don't take my word for it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuj-0Lvkmuw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRpB8mKj6y0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HO9onHp-xQ _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/693b1bbf/attachment.htm From carrolltondebate at gmail.com Tue May 12 15:57:23 2009 From: carrolltondebate at gmail.com (Joseph Carver) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:57:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In all fairness, Damien has 3 coaches. And it is not the first time that the issue of evidence legitimacy has been an issue with "these kids". Feel free to cite them as role models, the community has to have a standard and it should be enforced. I have known these kids a long time. And I like them alot but the impact of this sort of garbage has a much bigger impact than detracting one part time coach from a staff of 3 at a private school on the national circuit. Somebody needs to get their shit together. period carver On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Tara Tate wrote: > One other piece of information that is now public is that Justin Skarb > replied to numerous emails as John Marburry in the days prior to the > TOC...emails from coaches/students that wanted more information about his > qualifications, primary resources that "Marburry" used to write his paper, > etc. The deception continued after the article's publication. Emails were > written to these coaches/students as John Marburry. > > My primary concern right now is not what happens to Skarb. I believe that > the Damien coaching staff and administration have to make that call > internally with the information they have. My concern is for the Damien > debaters. Although I don't disagree with David's comments about Damien's > evidence now being "suspect", I am so saddened by any consequences, intended > or unintended, this has on the Damien kiddos. I have used the Damien kids > as a model often times for my own squad about a uniquely determined, > hard-working squad who are innovative with their arguments and absolutely > love the game...and the work that is put into being successful at that > game. I know that David was not implying that this was not accurate, but > these kids uniquely deserve our compassion and understanding at this point. > I hope the fact that uniquely hard working, smart, skillful teen-agers > are at the heart of this crisis is not forgotten (again, not implying that > David did that...his post just sparked me to dovetail off of him). > > Tara Tate > GBS Debate > > ------------------------------ > From: dgm2109 at columbia.edu > Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:52:05 -0400 > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? > > > The problem isn't that coaches write articles. You can read those cards and > debaters should be able to make arguments about bias. > > The problem is when coaches purposefully hide the fact that they wrote > them. This problem is made worse when it happens right before TOC and when > the article includes cards just so happen to be a devastating negative > strategy (one that was read by at least one team at TOC with the use of > these cards). > > Let's be very clear about something: the Marburry character is COMPLETELY > FALSE. Marburry is Skarb. The idea that Skarb just "contributed research" is > laughably misleading, but it does show that the use of the fake name > couldn't have been to protect Skarb's anonymity from non-debate people out > to get him. And what's the practical consequence? The card obviously gets > cited as Marburry, not Skarb! No debater facing this card would find out > that Skarb had anything to do with it until AFTER the debate. > > Warming analogy: it'd be like if Skarb was paid $1b by the oil industry and > then got plastic surgery to testify before Congress under the fake name > Marburry. Him saying "I hired Skarb to contribute to some of the research" > and presenting a biography with no other connections to the oil industry is > not even close to "I am Skarb and I was paid $1b to testify before you." > > Here's a very simple question: which is really more likely? > A. Skarb had to use a pen name because someone was out to get him. > B. Skarb used a pen name to cloak bias. > > Here are some facts that can help you resolve this question: > 1. Skarb put his name right after putting the fake name (at the bottom of > the article). > > If it were really a pen name to protect his anonymity, why did he break it? > To me, it seems much more likely that he put the name there to REINFORCE the > idea that Skarb and Marburry are two separate people! I have no idea why > putting his name in the article as a contributing researcher makes it more > fair. In my mind, it HELPS the deception by reinforcing the idea that the > author was not biased ---- intentional or not. > > 2. Zero other publications by this Marburry person. > > 3. Why was a comment posted --- AFTER toc --- by Skarb saying "embarassing" > and clarifying that he's the author? Did his need for anonymity suddenly > resolve itself? If it did, why would that be "embarrassing"??? > > 4. The article --- which wasn't written for the purpose of debate --- just > so happens to have cards that provide brink, link, and internal link and CP > solvency all specific to several of the top TOC teams' plans? That's not > even getting into the "one week before TOC" isues. > > 5. The very first comment on the article --- posted right after publication > --- is obviously by a debater. "Disciples of 2A" posted "WTF MARBURRY WRITE > SOME SPS GOOD ARTICLES." Now why would a debater be the first person to read > and comment on this article, AND know that Marburry would understand what > "write some sps good articles" means ---- unless Skarb told debaters about > it? > > 6. What's the deal with the Norman Ornstein card in the comments? Maybe > this is a joke like Andy's aliens thing. But it's not very funny. Why? > Because it creates a headache when someone who doesn't get the joke actually > cuts that card, thinking they found awesome evidence. These are young high > school debaters. > > 7. I don't know if it's true, but on Cross-X.com's forum on this, someone > suggested that: "just for the record, this article has been floating around > the web since at least february, spammed all over the comments sections of > space websites. it seems like it was only recently though that skarb's name > became attached to it." > > 8. According to a Damien debater, "our coaches were responsible for the > name Justin Skarb being attached to the article in the first place." > -This issue was NOT unforeseen. The Damien staff knew that this could be a > problem. I fail to see how attaching "research contributor" in any way > avoids the bias problem, as I think I've explained above. > > > > > If Skarb had posted this in circumstances that were obviously not intended > for debate but instead for personal reasons, then I think there's nothing at > all wrong. But this is so far away from such a scenario it's almost funny > that anyone would try to defend it as such. > > This shouldn't be evaluated by the highest standards of ethics challenges > in debates, because here we are not limited by the competitive format and > time and research constraints of those situations. The purpose of this > discussion shouldn't be a witch hunt. It should be a community discussion > over what we think is appropriate or not, and fair warning in the future > that this kind of behavior is not kosher. Even if Skarb didn't intend all > this, he really should've been a lot more careful. My measure of INTENT is > not "did he purposefully cheat," because that's not something that can be > fixed in a forum. My measure of intent is "did he create evidence knowing > that debaters could use it in ways that other debaters would think is very > unfair, and fail to take easy remedialsteps?" > > I do have to say that this kind of thing is sad because I won't ever be > able to look at Damien cards in the same light. That's not fair their > debaters and coaches who put a lot into the activity and don't deserve that > taint. > Lesson: when you KNOW it could be controversial, DISCLOSE. > > David > > ------------------------------ > 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/20090512/cfe1511b/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Tue May 12 16:40:17 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:40:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] obama's middle east imperialism (reply to stroube) Message-ID: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078733.html "...a bitter pill to swallow for those who once sincerely believed in Obama's antiwar rhetoric..." i disagree with this description. obama's 'antiwar rhetoric' was never opposed to war as such; rather obama opposed the war in iraq for empirical reasons - namely, it distracted the u.s. from what he considers the main front in 'the war on terror': afghanistan. obama's position has been consistent (though i oppose it). so to characterize obama's supporters as 'sincerely believing' in a stance he never took seems fundamentally flawed to me. who could've missed his statements on pakistan in the democratic primaries that were criticized by the *republican* candidate for their imprudence? to me, this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWWWVNBuGAA follows logically from this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P-Jvobd3-8 we're right to worry about liberals and their wars, of course. it was l.b.j. who escalated vietnam, and it might be obama who escalates the conflict in afghanistan and pakistan. barack obama = harvey dent. http://www.firstshowing.net/img/harvey-dent-believe-350w.jpg _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_BR_life_in_synch_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/3b73a59d/attachment.htm From gordonm at pitt.edu Tue May 12 18:26:57 2009 From: gordonm at pitt.edu (Mitchell, Gordon Roger) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 19:26:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Marburry redux Message-ID: I'm working my way gradually into the Skarb/Marburry controversy and initially would like to engage some of the spinoff vectors, since they are rich, perhaps even more so than the specific fact pattern regarding the SPS topic, Damien H.S. and the TOC: ON TRANSLATION OF DEBATE EVIDENCE Tripe: "is it ok to find cards in another language, put them through a translator, and then read them (in english) during the round?" http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078741.html Very salient question, one that has been simmering especially in Japan for the past five years or so, where policy debates, modeled on the NDT style, are conducted in the debaters' second tongue, English. There is a bevy of translation that converts Japanese language material to English for use in contest rounds, and the quality of translations (especially in regards to the question of whether the translation is slanted to achieve contest round advantage). I'll try to get some feedback from Japan that can sluice productively into this discussion. ON PEN NAMES Sanchez: "(1) is publishing under a pen-name always "academically dishonest"? is lying about one's qualifications the line not to be crossed here, or are we asking for no pseudonyms whatsoever? (should debaters not be able to quote from the anonymous c.i.a. analyst's book, 'imperial hubris: why the west is losing the war on terror' (2004), for example?)" - Excellent questions. Exhibit B: One of the previous generation's most creative, hard-hitting critique of the military-industrial-complex, Report from Iron Mountain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_From_Iron_Mountain Of course, the Iron Mountain example also provides evidence of the near-inevitable collateral damage that can result from deployment of psuedonyms: "Even though Lewin and Navasky admitted the report was a hoax, there still remain some who believe it to be an official government document that was leaked to the public. An ultra-rightwing group known as the Liberty Lobby is one such group. Believing that the report was evidence of a secret government plot, the group printed their own edition of the report. When Lewin found out about this, he sued them for copyright infringement. The case was settled out of court with the Liberty Lobby agreeing to pay Lewin an undisclosed sum." http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Report_From_Iron_Mountain/ ON REAL-TIME SOURCE INDICTS Garner: "People should indict evidence more, and good debaters who do it well are often rewarded. Yes it's hard, but ... debate. If you can beat a card with two words ("blog comment"), that's a model of efficiency." http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078742.html Agreed, but Tripe's point about the speed pressure of contest rounds is well taken too. Question: would the dilemma be recast in a world where a presumption of transparency prevailed and all or near all of the sources cited by teams in every contest round were listed online? ON SCHOLARLY QUALIFICATIONS Elliott: "It matters because unless you have actually done the work necessary to obtain a Ph.D., or to get published in a peer review journal, you really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to scholarship" http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078740.html A fair point, but vulnerable to the naturalistic fallacy (collapsing is/ought). Compare with Johnson: "We should not pretend either that our participation in debate invalidates us from producing unique and useful socio-political thought, nor that we may simply say anything that we want to and then use it in a debate round." http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078721.html ON INTENT TO INFLUENCE CONTEST ROUNDS Anony mous: "Is it legitimate for a coach to write articles which are clearly relevant to the current debate topic?" http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-May/078695.html Most definitely, although scrutiny of the process and product should of course still obtain. Since our early 2K work at Pitt has been featured in this discussion, both here and at Cross-X.com, I'm inclined to stir the pot by bringing forth context surrounding production of: http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/Mitchelletal2001b.pdf This briefing paper was commissioned by ISIS UK, a British security think-tank with ties to British Parliament and the British Royal Society. When published, the report received attention in the Hansard (roughly equivalent to our Congressional Record) and it was featured in the London Guardian, a leading daily newspaper: http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/Guardian.html Co-authors Kevin Ayotte, David Cram Helwich and myself drew heavily from our intercollegiate debate research and skill set to write the brief. Knowing that our work would likely be scrutinized by academic referees in hiring, tenure and promotion committees, we also sought to provide ample research support for each key claim featured in the piece. Now consider the key impact card on pp. 8-9 of the brief; would judgments regarding the overall credibility of the briefing paper be affected if it were the case that the cadence, structure, and prose pattern of that paragraph were tailored to resonate with unique sensibilities of interscholastic and intercollegiate debaters? * * * Gordon R. Mitchell Associate Professor of Communication Director, William Pitt Debating Union University of Pittsburgh CL 1117, 4200 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: (412) 624-8531 Fax: (412) 624-1878 http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/ From spowers at usc.edu Tue May 12 19:47:59 2009 From: spowers at usc.edu (Shawn Powers) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:47:59 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] C. Jones on the nuclear weapons topic References: Message-ID: <9CBFB16A-4B34-4C80-8876-EDBD9618D3F4@usc.edu> Subject says it all.... Begin forwarded message: > From: Chris Jones > Date: May 12, 2009 5:17:35 PM PDT > To: Shawn Powers > Subject: edebate post? > > Sp, > > any chance you could throw this up on edebate? I don't have an > account. Much appreciated. > > Best, > cj > > There has been surprisingly little topic discussion here or on the > CEDA site about the topics, for better or worse, but with topic > ballots due in the next bit I wanted to offer a reprieve from the > evidence standards firestorm and provide a last plug for the nuclear > weapons topic if there are still some folks on the fence: > > The topic is sweet: > > It?s now or never--- as we discussed in our paper, if this topic is > going to be debated this is the year. After the NPR, QDR, NPT > Review Conference, etc. are over this topic will be nowhere near as > timely. In the words of former Secretaries of Defense Perry and > Schlesinger from the May 6 final report of the Congressional > Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States (one of a > few major reports that has been released in the couple weeks since > topic papers have been out which speaks to the degree of awesome > literature coming out on this question): > This is a moment of opportunity to revise and renew U.S. nuclear > strategy, but also a moment of urgency. The opportunity arises from > the arrival of a new administration in Washington and the top-down > reassessment that must now begin of national security strategy, of > approaches to nuclear security, and of the purposes of U.S. nuclear > weapons and their supporting capabilities. The urgency follows, > internationally, from the danger that we may be close to a tipping > point in nuclear proliferation and, domestically, from an > accumulation of delayed decisions about the nuclear weapon program. > (http://media.usip.org/reports/strat_posture_report.pdf) > > Good division of aff/neg policy ground - It provides affs with the a > number of possible aff areas (arms control, doctrine, posture) while > probably excluding some of the more ?nonproliferationesque? affs > like set up an international fuel bank, strengthen the PSI, etc that > don?t link to core neg ground are somewhat of a separate > consideration. The negative gets deterrence DA?s (both deterring > Russia/China and extended deterrence) which is a huge chunk of core > ground, impact turns to advantages (prolif good, npt cred bad, etc.) > and a ton of counterplan ground based on how large and to what > degree the aff reduces reliance. > > The K constituency- Jessica said this much more eloquently than I > could but nuclear weapons is an awesome topic for the K. Extend the > Nunn, Kissinger, Schultz, Perry 2k7 impossible dream aff evidence. > The degree to which fundamental assumptions about the role the > nuclear weapons play in our security have changed drastically even > since it was last debated in 2002/2003 (High School WMD/CTBT). The > Russian critical literature is almost predominately general foreign > policy K?s (Schmidt, Tickner, Spanos, Heidegger, etc.) that almost > all apply equally well, perhaps better, to a nuclear weapons topic > but the reverse causal argument from Russia to nukes is not the case > because the nuclear weapons critical literature argue nuclear > weapons and the policies associated with them in and of themselves > are problematic, which does not even have to even the broad level > claims about international relations. > > AT: A couple major concerns I?ve heard: > > Neg uniqueness ground - Cooperation with Russia and ?Reduce Reliance > on Nuclear Weapons? are both parts of the Obama agenda- no question > about it. There are two major reasons this is less of a concern for > nuclear weapons: > A. The complexity of relations- US/Russian relations are > horribly complex and as the Strategic Posture Commission (guess what > I?ve been reading at work?) explains (http://media.usip.org/reports/strat_posture_report.pdf > ): > Two decades after the end of the Cold War, Russia and the United > States are certainly not enemies but neither are they allies. The > picture is a bit more complex. The two are strategic partners on > some important international questions, but strategic competitors on > others. > The problem with this for debate is that affs (and 2 minute 1AC > uniqueness observations) will run to things we are partners on and > have mutual interests in dealing with but the neg ground for the > topic is premised on the latter category of issues. The affs will > get smaller and smaller and the red spread DA will still be the red > spread DA. This is not the case with the nukes debate. Even > negotiating a START follow-on, which most people seem to think is a > good idea, has to be approached very carefully. Schlesinger?s > remarks to the SASC on the Commission Report have an extended > deterrence link in it for a START follow-on (http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2009/May/Schlesinger%2005-07-09.pdf > ) > B. How evidence gets deployed in debates- core neg ground on the > Russia topic is ?cooperation bad.? In other words, link cards will > be based on the word ?cooperation? to try to garner internal link to > big impacts and affs will update their ?united states and Russia and > w/25 cooperation? to find a host of miscellaneous things we > cooperate on. It happened with pressure. It happened with > overrule. It happened with financial aid. The same is not the case > with nuclear weapons because link arguments won?t be rhetorically > based on ?reducing reliance on nuclear weapons.? Teams will not > read link cards like ?if the US reduces their reliance on nuclear > weapons, x happens? it will be things like ?if the United States > cuts numbers, x country builds a bunch of nukes,? ?if the triad > loses flexibility, y country freaks out? because the debates in the > literature don?t occur at the meta-level of ?yes/no reliance.? I > can?t speak to the Russia topic as much on this question but all of > the ?US reducing nuclear reliance now? jazz is primarily Executive > Branch/State Department huff and fluff that doesn?t impact topic da > links. We haven?t operationalized policies to make that reduced > reliance the case and even "big steps" like the START follow-on are > looking to be VERY modest so as to not disrupt any of these major > deterrence considerations. It is very easy for the State Department > to decide to search a few more ships, plant a few trees, and pledge > to jointly protect the environment in the name of cooperation with > Russia but it is a BIG DEAL to make changes to our nuclear weapons > strategy that has been at the core our the national security > strategic of the United States as well as its allies and competitors > for half a century. Just ask the Pentagon. > > ?Reliance? is a bad verb- I got an e-mail about reliance being bad > because it is fuzzy and hard to quantify. I agree that reliance is > not just numbers and involves an element of perception but I think > that is why it is a good topic. Schlesinger is right that nuclear > weapons are ?used? every day in the way they dissuade and deter and > that is what the topic gets at. The contextual T evidence on this > question I thought was pretty good for a cursory search?both in > carving out affs that actually do reduce reliance and ensuring neg > link ground to thinks like the deterrence DA. Reliance, salience, > and emphasis seem to be the terminology used in many of the major > reports on the issue. All of this said, this also was a time > constrained choice and should be further evaluated by the topic > committee. > > The ?in its national security policy? modifier is bad (Sorry > Antonucci never check the facebook and just saw your message)?it > didn?t show up in the approved controversy. We thought it was > decent but didn?t have time for a good evidentiary defense of it. > Probably a great thing for the topic committee to task out to explore. > > Consider the real world impact a debate is pushing the envelope- in > debate terms this is a defensive takeout that does not take away > from the reasons why this would be a sweet topic to debate. That > said, I don?t see why it is a bad thing that college debate topic > could have a ?real world? impact. If a college debate topic could > have the added benefit of providing value to policymakers, why not? > Kids way down the road reading framework cards about how debating > nuclear weapons had an impact seems like a cool thing to me but > maybe I'm crazy. According to the editor of the Nation, Katrina > vanden Heuvel, from yesterday (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/434649/the_fierce_urgency_of_disarmament > ): > > Dr. Bruce Blair of Global Zero said a major challenge will be to > sustain the disarmament momentum and "prevent a lapse." While > nuclear abolition has broadened its appeal politically--receiving > endorsements from conservatives such as former Senator Chuck Hagel, > John McCain, Henry Kissinger and George Schultz--Blair said the > constituency isn't as vibrant as it needs to be and young people > aren't sufficiently involved. His colleague, former Ambassador > Richard Burt, agreed. He said there simply isn't "a constituency > like there was twenty or thirty years ago. Younger people are not > paying attention." (Yes this is from a blog. It is also from a > reputable blog quoting qualified nuclear people and is talking about > the role of young people not a cp/da strat) > > Time will be very tight this week but will try to answer concerns if > I can. > > Best, > cj > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/f1f403df/attachment.htm From commftownnielson at aol.com Tue May 12 21:45:19 2009 From: commftownnielson at aol.com (commftownnielson at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 22:45:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] test post - ignore Message-ID: <8CBA18BFD548C57-118C-4A9@webmail-mf18.sysops.aol.com> edebate hates me so I am test posting. -Toni -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/1e330547/attachment.htm From hallitripe at gmail.com Wed May 13 03:36:25 2009 From: hallitripe at gmail.com (Halli Tripe) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 03:36:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] more questions about evidence Message-ID: <766e55810905130136v68940cd9xafbaf1785e3b43ae@mail.gmail.com> I don?t mean to get up on a high horse or anything?. But I will say that I am saddened and frustrated by some of Richard?s responses. I will start by saying that I didn?t really have a coach in high school, and thus I was taught how to cut cards by Gerber and Dave Cisneros once I entered college. I remember cutting cards and then asking Dave ?how do I cite this?? Often he would say something like ?WTF website are you looking at!? There is no date, no author? you can?t cite this because this website is crap!? Maybe I learned how to cut cards from super-uptight people, but I don?t think that?s a bad thing?.. Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people/teams don?t seem to have the same mentality. I have seen cards in debate rounds that are barely readable/legible (ie. they were written by a 2nd grader or were very poorly translated via google-translator) and the cards pass as legitimate evidence. I agree that in an ideal world we would all be good enough debaters to call this crap out. However, some people are clever enough in their citations to somehow make the sources seem legitimate. For example, if I cut a card from the comments of an article and cite it ?NY times, ?09??.is that legit? In an example from the Skarb article, can I cite the comment ?Ornstein 09?? As a debater, I was always under the impression that what Dave and Gerber told me was the community norm, but apparently I was wrong. All along it seems that I had a higher evidence standard than a lot of people (is this true!?!?). When I look at it from a pessimistic lens, I probably lost a few round because of it. I fully acknowledge that the questions I am getting at are NOT ?you were unethical? accusations or anything of the like?. but at some points it is borderline. Inappropriately citing cards is REALLY BAD research/scholarship at best, and can be sketchy at worse. You might ask ?yeah, but why would you?? ???. Well, the reason why people MIGHT is that people can post stupid stuff (but good debate arguments) in the comments, but then cite the evidence as ?qualified publication, ?09? and get away with it in debate rounds. I realize that all of these questions are borderline, and probably context dependent. So my question is this?. Should I: a) Stop worrying about such silly distinctions and cut really bad/sketchy evidence because everybody else is doing it, and that?s what it takes to win?. Or, b) Keep cutting evidence that is reputable and would pass the ?laugh test? but risk losing from sketchy evidence from the other team? It is really sad that this is what the activity is coming to??but I at least want to know what the consensus is so that I can cut terrible evidence without feeling guilty. From richardgarner at gmail.com Wed May 13 07:09:15 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:09:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] more questions about evidence In-Reply-To: <766e55810905130136v68940cd9xafbaf1785e3b43ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <766e55810905130136v68940cd9xafbaf1785e3b43ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0905130509o16b9ed4q646fd5d7345fbf0b@mail.gmail.com> This post's context makes much clearer what the nature of the questions being asked were from the last post, so hopefully my elaboration will be more satisfactory. We do our best. First let me state a principle or two: 1. Anything can be read as evidence, as long as it is properly cited. 2. Barring that, the veracity/truth-value of the evidence is up for debate. Only by following the qualification of principle 1 is it possible to fulfill principle 2. The problem is, ultimately, that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, as well as bad pedagogy, &c. We cannot simply rely on the fact that Courtney Brown is a an Associate Professor of Political Science at Emory University in order for us to accept the veracity of the following claim: "Moreover, educating our own public about the ETs is the first step toward establishing reciprocal diplomatic relations" (259; link). Then again, some guy who goes by the single name Kos and posts pictures of his kids on his personal web page is a fairly well-respected political pundit. Times, they are a changing. Which is why my answer to the previous post was essentially: yes, you CAN do it, but that does not mean you SHOULD do it. It's not a question of what's allowed/legal, but what's possible/debatable. The caveat being: most of the examples you cite are patently unethical. Citing a commenter on the NYTimes as the NYTimes is unethical, nor would it be ethical to cite Ornstein from that Skarb article (though I can see why an inexperienced debater might have read that not as a debater making an ironic and possibly strategic commentary on that article, as opposed to the opinion of actual conservative political prognosticator Norman Ornstein). On translation, if the card says its translated, then that's fine, but you should be prepared to indict its veracity/verifiability (handling it as a *critical* argument that attempts to demonstrate the problematically ethnocentric nature of evidence production would be a different matter, however). Should there be automatic penalties, considering that judging between an honest mistake and a cynical debater can be nigh on impossible? I don't know, but think that it depends on the case. So, yes, if you properly cite something you can cite anything. And no, you probably shouldn't. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news for Halli and other debaters who find themselves in the same predicament, but yes, you apparently do have higher standards than a lot of your compatriots, and yes, it can be a winning strategy. Should you cut such poor evidence? No. Can such poor evidence win debate rounds? "The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades" (Bearden, 2000); in other words: it has and will continue to do so into the forseeable future. Why should you not cut such, if it wins? Pride, an attempt to hone one's research capabaility, a search for the truth, all these are good reasons, but that's a choice that each debater has to make for themselves. Ultimately, my conclusion is that people need to cultivate the discussion of evidence qualification and quality as one of their debate skills. Practice how you make the argument, the warrants for the argument, the efficiency thereof, appropriate ways to embarass your opponent in CX. There are models out there; I watched Martin Osborn do this pretty effectively once or twice, and my understanding is that he did it a whole lot; most judges are probably hungry for such argumentation (and there are other examples). That doesn't mean it's not hard, even very hard, to develop a good argument with solid standards about qualifications, but making good arguments is hard sometimes. Gordon Mitchell calls for a norm of transparency. I think that's what the "proper citation" qualification above means to me, though I may not be fully comprehending what Gordon's standard means. If it means more than that, the development of such a norm will require more extensive discussion and, ultimately, in-round argumentation for it to come about. If all it means is proper citation, then that already a norm, and a pretty good one. RG On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Halli Tripe wrote: > I don?t mean to get up on a high horse or anything?. But I will say > that I am saddened and frustrated by some of Richard?s responses. I > will start by saying that I didn?t really have a coach in high school, > and thus I was taught how to cut cards by Gerber and Dave Cisneros > once I entered college. I remember cutting cards and then asking Dave > ?how do I cite this?? Often he would say something like ?WTF website > are you looking at!? There is no date, no author? you can?t cite this > because this website is crap!? Maybe I learned how to cut cards from > super-uptight people, but I don?t think that?s a bad thing?.. > Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people/teams don?t seem to have > the same mentality. I have seen cards in debate rounds that are > barely readable/legible (ie. they were written by a 2nd grader or were > very poorly translated via google-translator) and the cards pass as > legitimate evidence. I agree that in an ideal world we would all be > good enough debaters to call this crap out. However, some people are > clever enough in their citations to somehow make the sources seem > legitimate. For example, if I cut a card from the comments of an > article and cite it ?NY times, ?09??.is that legit? In an example > from the Skarb article, can I cite the comment ?Ornstein 09?? As a > debater, I was always under the impression that what Dave and Gerber > told me was the community norm, but apparently I was wrong. All along > it seems that I had a higher evidence standard than a lot of people > (is this true!?!?). When I look at it from a pessimistic lens, I > probably lost a few round because of it. > I fully acknowledge that the questions I am getting at are NOT ?you > were unethical? accusations or anything of the like?. but at some > points it is borderline. > Inappropriately citing cards is REALLY BAD research/scholarship at > best, and can be sketchy at worse. You might ask ?yeah, but why would > you?? ???. Well, the reason why people MIGHT is that people can post > stupid stuff (but good debate arguments) in the comments, but then > cite the evidence as ?qualified publication, ?09? and get away with it > in debate rounds. > I realize that all of these questions are borderline, and probably > context dependent. > > So my question is this?. Should I: > a) Stop worrying about such silly distinctions and cut really > bad/sketchy evidence because everybody else is doing it, and that?s > what it takes to win?. Or, > b) Keep cutting evidence that is reputable and would pass the ?laugh > test? but risk losing from sketchy evidence from the other team? > It is really sad that this is what the activity is coming to??but I at > least want to know what the consensus is so that I can cut terrible > evidence without feeling guilty. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090513/25c5633d/attachment.htm From dylan.keenan at gmail.com Wed May 13 07:45:07 2009 From: dylan.keenan at gmail.com (Dylan Keenan) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:45:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] more questions about evidence In-Reply-To: <17bee7eb0905130509o16b9ed4q646fd5d7345fbf0b@mail.gmail.com> References: <766e55810905130136v68940cd9xafbaf1785e3b43ae@mail.gmail.com> <17bee7eb0905130509o16b9ed4q646fd5d7345fbf0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Halli earlier said: ?sometimes as a judge/observer of debates i forget how hard it was as a debater (especially a 1AR) to make source qualification indicts during rounds. being a 1ar in a straight-up debate, it is nearly impossible to read EVERY card that the other team reads, much less take scarce prep time to look at the quals of each card.? It IS extremely difficult for a 1AR to do this, especially if the block reads a ton of cards. I?m wondering how people feel about a debater saying the following: ?Almost all their cards are from blogs. I don?t have time to point out each one, but you should look at the quals of all their politics ev after the debate. If any of it says blogspot or the author has no qualifications listed you should presumptively disregard it because we have no idea who is writing it. They could lack a high school education and we have no reason to believe they are any more qualified than we as debaters are to comment on American politics. Since these cards add no valuable independent verification to an argument, as an expert claim would, these arguments are at best analytical.? Would judges be amenable to this, or just write it off as lazy debating. Obviously the aff in this case would have to win that blogs do have presumptively now value, but Ricky suggests most judges are "hungry" for these arguments. Would non-specific application like this work? I ask this because frequently judges frown on sweeping generalizations (e.g. ?All their ev has no warrants?) and give credit only for specific application. My sense is that this is, or at least should be, an exception. If that is true it would give debaters a huge return to maybe 10 seconds of the 1AR, especially on flows with tons of bad cards like politics? or the cap K. On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Richard A. Garner wrote: > This post's context makes much clearer what the nature of the questions > being asked were from the last post, so hopefully my elaboration will be > more satisfactory. We do our best. First let me state a principle or two: > > 1. Anything can be read as evidence, as long as it is properly cited. > 2. Barring that, the veracity/truth-value of the evidence is up for debate. > > Only by following the qualification of principle 1 is it possible to > fulfill principle 2. > > The problem is, ultimately, that the appeal to authority is a logical > fallacy, as well as bad pedagogy, &c. We cannot simply rely on the fact that > Courtney Brown is a an Associate Professor of Political Science at Emory > University in order for us to accept the veracity of the following claim: > "Moreover, educating our own public about the ETs is the first step toward > establishing reciprocal diplomatic relations" (259; link). > Then again, some guy who goes by the single name Kos and posts pictures of > his kids on his personal web page is a fairly well-respected political > pundit. Times, they are a changing. > > Which is why my answer to the previous post was essentially: yes, you CAN > do it, but that does not mean you SHOULD do it. It's not a question of > what's allowed/legal, but what's possible/debatable. The caveat being: most > of the examples you cite are patently unethical. Citing a commenter on the > NYTimes as the NYTimes is unethical, nor would it be ethical to cite > Ornstein from that Skarb article (though I can see why an inexperienced > debater might have read that not as a debater making an ironic and possibly > strategic commentary on that article, as opposed to the opinion of actual > conservative political prognosticator Norman Ornstein). On translation, if > the card says its translated, then that's fine, but you should be prepared > to indict its veracity/verifiability (handling it as a *critical* argument > that attempts to demonstrate the problematically ethnocentric nature of > evidence production would be a different matter, however). Should there be > automatic penalties, considering that judging between an honest mistake and > a cynical debater can be nigh on impossible? I don't know, but think that it > depends on the case. > > So, yes, if you properly cite something you can cite anything. And no, you > probably shouldn't. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news for Halli and > other debaters who find themselves in the same predicament, but yes, you > apparently do have higher standards than a lot of your compatriots, and yes, > it can be a winning strategy. Should you cut such poor evidence? No. Can > such poor evidence win debate rounds? "The resulting great Armageddon will > destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at > least for many decades" (Bearden, 2000); in other words: it has and will > continue to do so into the forseeable future. Why should you not cut such, > if it wins? Pride, an attempt to hone one's research capabaility, a search > for the truth, all these are good reasons, but that's a choice that each > debater has to make for themselves. > > Ultimately, my conclusion is that people need to cultivate the discussion > of evidence qualification and quality as one of their debate skills. > Practice how you make the argument, the warrants for the argument, the > efficiency thereof, appropriate ways to embarass your opponent in CX. There > are models out there; I watched Martin Osborn do this pretty effectively > once or twice, and my understanding is that he did it a whole lot; most > judges are probably hungry for such argumentation (and there are other > examples). That doesn't mean it's not hard, even very hard, to develop a > good argument with solid standards about qualifications, but making good > arguments is hard sometimes. > > Gordon Mitchell calls for a norm of transparency. I think that's what the > "proper citation" qualification above means to me, though I may not be fully > comprehending what Gordon's standard means. If it means more than that, the > development of such a norm will require more extensive discussion and, > ultimately, in-round argumentation for it to come about. If all it means is > proper citation, then that already a norm, and a pretty good one. > > RG > > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Halli Tripe wrote: > >> I don?t mean to get up on a high horse or anything?. But I will say >> that I am saddened and frustrated by some of Richard?s responses. I >> will start by saying that I didn?t really have a coach in high school, >> and thus I was taught how to cut cards by Gerber and Dave Cisneros >> once I entered college. I remember cutting cards and then asking Dave >> ?how do I cite this?? Often he would say something like ?WTF website >> are you looking at!? There is no date, no author? you can?t cite this >> because this website is crap!? Maybe I learned how to cut cards from >> super-uptight people, but I don?t think that?s a bad thing?.. >> Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people/teams don?t seem to have >> the same mentality. I have seen cards in debate rounds that are >> barely readable/legible (ie. they were written by a 2nd grader or were >> very poorly translated via google-translator) and the cards pass as >> legitimate evidence. I agree that in an ideal world we would all be >> good enough debaters to call this crap out. However, some people are >> clever enough in their citations to somehow make the sources seem >> legitimate. For example, if I cut a card from the comments of an >> article and cite it ?NY times, ?09??.is that legit? In an example >> from the Skarb article, can I cite the comment ?Ornstein 09?? As a >> debater, I was always under the impression that what Dave and Gerber >> told me was the community norm, but apparently I was wrong. All along >> it seems that I had a higher evidence standard than a lot of people >> (is this true!?!?). When I look at it from a pessimistic lens, I >> probably lost a few round because of it. >> I fully acknowledge that the questions I am getting at are NOT ?you >> were unethical? accusations or anything of the like?. but at some >> points it is borderline. >> Inappropriately citing cards is REALLY BAD research/scholarship at >> best, and can be sketchy at worse. You might ask ?yeah, but why would >> you?? ???. Well, the reason why people MIGHT is that people can post >> stupid stuff (but good debate arguments) in the comments, but then >> cite the evidence as ?qualified publication, ?09? and get away with it >> in debate rounds. >> I realize that all of these questions are borderline, and probably >> context dependent. >> >> So my question is this?. Should I: >> a) Stop worrying about such silly distinctions and cut really >> bad/sketchy evidence because everybody else is doing it, and that?s >> what it takes to win?. Or, >> b) Keep cutting evidence that is reputable and would pass the ?laugh >> test? but risk losing from sketchy evidence from the other team? >> It is really sad that this is what the activity is coming to??but I at >> least want to know what the consensus is so that I can cut terrible >> evidence without feeling guilty. >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090513/1aa9597f/attachment.htm From gacggc at gmail.com Wed May 13 07:54:24 2009 From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:54:24 +0200 Subject: [eDebate] more questions about evidence In-Reply-To: <17bee7eb0905130509o16b9ed4q646fd5d7345fbf0b@mail.gmail.com> References: <766e55810905130136v68940cd9xafbaf1785e3b43ae@mail.gmail.com> <17bee7eb0905130509o16b9ed4q646fd5d7345fbf0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8371758b0905130554j4553e590p18dac15acd04c391@mail.gmail.com> Re Ricky's email: It seems like the problem with the specific case under discussion is that the "true author" was disguised. So even if you do as Ricky says, and cite the evidence "properly", you are not allowing the opposing team to make an informed indict, because an accurate cite would be of the fake author. So perhaps we can amend Ricky's rule as "'Anything can be read as evidence, as long as it is properly cited', providing that the cite reflects the actual author." Gordon Mitchell also pointed out problems with pseudonymous evidence. In the current case, there was no way to know that the author was using a pseudonym. And David Marks has already made clear points about the use of a pseudonym in this instance. David Glass Harvard Debate On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Richard A. Garner wrote: > This post's context makes much clearer what the nature of the questions > being asked were from the last post, so hopefully my elaboration will be > more satisfactory. We do our best. First let me state a principle or two: > > 1. Anything can be read as evidence, as long as it is properly cited. > 2. Barring that, the veracity/truth-value of the evidence is up for debate. > > Only by following the qualification of principle 1 is it possible to fulfill > principle 2. > > The problem is, ultimately, that the appeal to authority is a logical > fallacy, as well as bad pedagogy, &c. We cannot simply rely on the fact that > Courtney Brown is a an Associate Professor of Political Science at Emory > University in order for us to accept the veracity of the following claim: > "Moreover, educating our own public about the ETs is the first step toward > establishing reciprocal diplomatic relations" (259; link). Then again, some > guy who goes by the single name Kos and posts pictures of his kids on his > personal web page is a fairly well-respected political pundit. Times, they > are a changing. > > Which is why my answer to the previous post was essentially: yes, you CAN do > it, but that does not mean you SHOULD do it. It's not a question of what's > allowed/legal, but what's possible/debatable. The caveat being: most of the > examples you cite are patently unethical. Citing a commenter on the NYTimes > as the NYTimes is unethical, nor would it be ethical to cite Ornstein from > that Skarb article (though I can see why an inexperienced debater might have > read that not as a debater making an ironic and possibly strategic > commentary on that article, as opposed to the opinion of actual conservative > political prognosticator Norman Ornstein). On translation, if the card says > its translated, then that's fine, but you should be prepared to indict its > veracity/verifiability (handling it as a critical argument that attempts to > demonstrate the problematically ethnocentric nature of evidence production > would be a different matter, however). Should there be automatic penalties, > considering that judging between an honest mistake and a cynical debater can > be nigh on impossible? I don't know, but think that it depends on the case. > > So, yes, if you properly cite something you can cite anything. And no, you > probably shouldn't. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news for Halli and > other debaters who find themselves in the same predicament, but yes, you > apparently do have higher standards than a lot of your compatriots, and yes, > it can be a winning strategy. Should you cut such poor evidence? No. Can > such poor evidence win debate rounds? "The resulting great Armageddon will > destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at > least for many decades" (Bearden, 2000); in other words: it has and will > continue to do so into the forseeable future. Why should you not cut such, > if it wins? Pride, an attempt to hone one's research capabaility, a search > for the truth, all these are good reasons, but that's a choice that each > debater has to make for themselves. > > Ultimately, my conclusion is that people need to cultivate the discussion of > evidence qualification and quality as one of their debate skills. Practice > how you make the argument, the warrants for the argument, the efficiency > thereof, appropriate ways to embarass your opponent in CX. There are models > out there; I watched Martin Osborn do this pretty effectively once or twice, > and my understanding is that he did it a whole lot; most judges are probably > hungry for such argumentation (and there are other examples). That doesn't > mean it's not hard, even very hard, to develop a good argument with solid > standards about qualifications, but making good arguments is hard sometimes. > > Gordon Mitchell calls for a norm of transparency. I think that's what the > "proper citation" qualification above means to me, though I may not be fully > comprehending what Gordon's standard means. If it means more than that, the > development of such a norm will require more extensive discussion and, > ultimately, in-round argumentation for it to come about. If all it means is > proper citation, then that already a norm, and a pretty good one. > > RG > > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Halli Tripe wrote: >> >> I don?t mean to get up on a high horse or anything?. But I will say >> that I am saddened and frustrated by some of Richard?s responses. ?I >> will start by saying that I didn?t really have a coach in high school, >> and thus I was taught how to cut cards by Gerber and Dave Cisneros >> once I entered college. ?I remember cutting cards and then asking Dave >> ?how do I cite this?? ?Often he would say something like ?WTF website >> are you looking at!? ?There is no date, no author? you can?t cite this >> because this website is crap!? ?Maybe I learned how to cut cards from >> super-uptight people, but I don?t think that?s a bad thing?.. >> Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people/teams don?t seem to have >> the same mentality. ?I have seen cards in debate rounds that are >> barely readable/legible (ie. they were written by a 2nd grader or were >> very poorly translated via google-translator) and the cards pass as >> legitimate evidence. ?I agree that in an ideal world we would all be >> good enough debaters to call this crap out. ?However, some people are >> clever enough in their citations to somehow make the sources seem >> legitimate. ?For example, if I cut a card from the comments of an >> article and cite it ?NY times, ?09??.is that legit? ?In an example >> from the Skarb article, can I cite the comment ?Ornstein 09?? ?As a >> debater, I was always under the impression that what Dave and Gerber >> told me was the community norm, but apparently I was wrong. ?All along >> it seems that I had a higher evidence standard than a lot of people >> (is this true!?!?). ?When I look at it from a pessimistic lens, I >> probably lost a few round because of it. >> I fully acknowledge that the questions I am getting at are NOT ?you >> were unethical? accusations or anything of the like?. but at some >> points it is borderline. >> Inappropriately citing cards is REALLY BAD research/scholarship at >> best, and can be sketchy at worse. ?You might ask ?yeah, but why would >> you?? ????. Well, the reason why people MIGHT is that people can post >> stupid stuff (but good debate arguments) in the comments, but then >> cite the evidence as ?qualified publication, ?09? and get away with it >> in debate rounds. >> I realize that all of these questions are borderline, and probably >> context dependent. >> >> So my question is this?. Should I: >> a) ? ? ?Stop worrying about such silly distinctions and cut really >> bad/sketchy evidence because everybody else is doing it, and that?s >> what it takes to win?. Or, >> b) ? ? ?Keep cutting evidence that is reputable and would pass the ?laugh >> test? but risk losing from sketchy evidence from the other team? >> It is really sad that this is what the activity is coming to??but I at >> least want to know what the consensus is so that I can cut terrible >> evidence without feeling guilty. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 richardgarner at gmail.com Wed May 13 08:19:02 2009 From: richardgarner at gmail.com (Richard A. Garner) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 09:19:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] more questions about evidence In-Reply-To: References: <766e55810905130136v68940cd9xafbaf1785e3b43ae@mail.gmail.com> <17bee7eb0905130509o16b9ed4q646fd5d7345fbf0b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <17bee7eb0905130619s7f674a9cr34adc676f4851a5a@mail.gmail.com> Re: Dylan's question: On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Dylan Keenan wrote: > Halli earlier said: ?sometimes as a judge/observer of debates i forget how > hard it was as a debater (especially a 1AR) to make source qualification > indicts during rounds. being a 1ar in a straight-up debate, it is nearly > impossible to read EVERY card that the other team reads, much less take > scarce prep time to look at the quals of each card.?/snip/ > Would judges be amenable to this, or just write it off as lazy debating. > Obviously the aff in this case would have to win that blogs do have > presumptively now value, but Ricky suggests most judges are "hungry" for > these arguments. Would non-specific application like this work? > I think that it has to be a little more involved than that, but ... yes, something like that. And I hear people make that type of argument all the time. I think that the argument needs to have two components, probably: 1. An attempt to specify which pieces of evidence and the principle that makes them citable in toto (a list would be best; another 15 precious seconds, but well worth it, I would think); 2. But more importantly, a least of positive and negative warrants as to what is qualified and why that matters. So, "high school education," ... maybe not relevant, but "no greater context than we have," maybe more relevant; ultimately, debatable. I think that the 2AR would have a higher burden of elaboration than the 1AR, though within reasonable and predictable limits. Re: David's question: > It seems like the problem with the specific case under discussion is that > the "true author" was disguised. [insert: refereincing Marburry/Skarb] > I think David's 100% right about his caveat. My posts do not speak to this question at all, and that's because I don't think that this question about the deceiptful PRODUCTION of evidence is intrinsic to the standards for debater's CUTTING said evidence. Any debater would have been well within their rights to cut the Marburry article, as it was posted to an online forum with extensive discussion of a specialized topic, and one whose discursive structure (tonality, rhetorical form, citational structure (i.e., an op-ed)) indicated that it was an attempt to produce a thoughtful, researched position on the subject. That is, of course, unless said hypothetical debater knew or suspsected that the evidence was fabricated for the purposes of competitive debating. Against a debater who knew not what they did, while the indictment of that evidence by the opposing teams would be legitimate, the debater would not be unethical for reading that evidence (though they would be if they read it *again*). Shorter: outright cheating nullifies the criteria for evaluation by subverting them (in this case, making it *impossible* to properly cite the evidence). RG > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:09 AM, Richard A. Garner < > richardgarner at gmail.com> wrote: > >> This post's context makes much clearer what the nature of the questions >> being asked were from the last post, so hopefully my elaboration will be >> more satisfactory. We do our best. First let me state a principle or two: >> >> 1. Anything can be read as evidence, as long as it is properly cited. >> 2. Barring that, the veracity/truth-value of the evidence is up for >> debate. >> >> Only by following the qualification of principle 1 is it possible to >> fulfill principle 2. >> >> The problem is, ultimately, that the appeal to authority is a logical >> fallacy, as well as bad pedagogy, &c. We cannot simply rely on the fact that >> Courtney Brown is a an Associate Professor of Political Science at Emory >> University in order for us to accept the veracity of the following claim: >> "Moreover, educating our own public about the ETs is the first step toward >> establishing reciprocal diplomatic relations" (259; link). >> Then again, some guy who goes by the single name Kos and posts pictures of >> his kids on his personal web page is a fairly well-respected political >> pundit. Times, they are a changing. >> >> Which is why my answer to the previous post was essentially: yes, you CAN >> do it, but that does not mean you SHOULD do it. It's not a question of >> what's allowed/legal, but what's possible/debatable. The caveat being: most >> of the examples you cite are patently unethical. Citing a commenter on the >> NYTimes as the NYTimes is unethical, nor would it be ethical to cite >> Ornstein from that Skarb article (though I can see why an inexperienced >> debater might have read that not as a debater making an ironic and possibly >> strategic commentary on that article, as opposed to the opinion of actual >> conservative political prognosticator Norman Ornstein). On translation, if >> the card says its translated, then that's fine, but you should be prepared >> to indict its veracity/verifiability (handling it as a *critical*argument that attempts to demonstrate the problematically ethnocentric >> nature of evidence production would be a different matter, however). Should >> there be automatic penalties, considering that judging between an honest >> mistake and a cynical debater can be nigh on impossible? I don't know, but >> think that it depends on the case. >> >> So, yes, if you properly cite something you can cite anything. And no, you >> probably shouldn't. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news for Halli and >> other debaters who find themselves in the same predicament, but yes, you >> apparently do have higher standards than a lot of your compatriots, and yes, >> it can be a winning strategy. Should you cut such poor evidence? No. Can >> such poor evidence win debate rounds? "The resulting great Armageddon will >> destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at >> least for many decades" (Bearden, 2000); in other words: it has and will >> continue to do so into the forseeable future. Why should you not cut such, >> if it wins? Pride, an attempt to hone one's research capabaility, a search >> for the truth, all these are good reasons, but that's a choice that each >> debater has to make for themselves. >> >> Ultimately, my conclusion is that people need to cultivate the discussion >> of evidence qualification and quality as one of their debate skills. >> Practice how you make the argument, the warrants for the argument, the >> efficiency thereof, appropriate ways to embarass your opponent in CX. There >> are models out there; I watched Martin Osborn do this pretty effectively >> once or twice, and my understanding is that he did it a whole lot; most >> judges are probably hungry for such argumentation (and there are other >> examples). That doesn't mean it's not hard, even very hard, to develop a >> good argument with solid standards about qualifications, but making good >> arguments is hard sometimes. >> >> Gordon Mitchell calls for a norm of transparency. I think that's what the >> "proper citation" qualification above means to me, though I may not be fully >> comprehending what Gordon's standard means. If it means more than that, the >> development of such a norm will require more extensive discussion and, >> ultimately, in-round argumentation for it to come about. If all it means is >> proper citation, then that already a norm, and a pretty good one. >> >> RG >> >> >> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Halli Tripe wrote: >> >>> I don?t mean to get up on a high horse or anything?. But I will say >>> that I am saddened and frustrated by some of Richard?s responses. I >>> will start by saying that I didn?t really have a coach in high school, >>> and thus I was taught how to cut cards by Gerber and Dave Cisneros >>> once I entered college. I remember cutting cards and then asking Dave >>> ?how do I cite this?? Often he would say something like ?WTF website >>> are you looking at!? There is no date, no author? you can?t cite this >>> because this website is crap!? Maybe I learned how to cut cards from >>> super-uptight people, but I don?t think that?s a bad thing?.. >>> Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of people/teams don?t seem to have >>> the same mentality. I have seen cards in debate rounds that are >>> barely readable/legible (ie. they were written by a 2nd grader or were >>> very poorly translated via google-translator) and the cards pass as >>> legitimate evidence. I agree that in an ideal world we would all be >>> good enough debaters to call this crap out. However, some people are >>> clever enough in their citations to somehow make the sources seem >>> legitimate. For example, if I cut a card from the comments of an >>> article and cite it ?NY times, ?09??.is that legit? In an example >>> from the Skarb article, can I cite the comment ?Ornstein 09?? As a >>> debater, I was always under the impression that what Dave and Gerber >>> told me was the community norm, but apparently I was wrong. All along >>> it seems that I had a higher evidence standard than a lot of people >>> (is this true!?!?). When I look at it from a pessimistic lens, I >>> probably lost a few round because of it. >>> I fully acknowledge that the questions I am getting at are NOT ?you >>> were unethical? accusations or anything of the like?. but at some >>> points it is borderline. >>> Inappropriately citing cards is REALLY BAD research/scholarship at >>> best, and can be sketchy at worse. You might ask ?yeah, but why would >>> you?? ???. Well, the reason why people MIGHT is that people can post >>> stupid stuff (but good debate arguments) in the comments, but then >>> cite the evidence as ?qualified publication, ?09? and get away with it >>> in debate rounds. >>> I realize that all of these questions are borderline, and probably >>> context dependent. >>> >>> So my question is this?. Should I: >>> a) Stop worrying about such silly distinctions and cut really >>> bad/sketchy evidence because everybody else is doing it, and that?s >>> what it takes to win?. Or, >>> b) Keep cutting evidence that is reputable and would pass the ?laugh >>> test? but risk losing from sketchy evidence from the other team? >>> It is really sad that this is what the activity is coming to??but I at >>> least want to know what the consensus is so that I can cut terrible >>> evidence without feeling guilty. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090513/658bd292/attachment.htm From tara_l_tate at hotmail.com Wed May 13 08:39:52 2009 From: tara_l_tate at hotmail.com (Tara Tate) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 08:39:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have zero knowledge of past issues that have been proven in regards to the Damien kids and their ethics. I think eluding to past issues of illegitimacy of unethical behavior by the Damien kids when nothing has been proven is problematic. Whether or not the Damien coaching staff needs to get their "shit together" is not an issue of whether or not these kids are hard-workers and need a bit of protection right now from mentors/educators in the community from the crisis at hand. It almost seems as if your argument might actually feed mine...if your argument is that the Damien coaching staff is not doing their job, isn't it even more paramount that coaches in this community stand up for these debaters? Tara Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:57:23 -0400 From: carrolltondebate at gmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? In all fairness, Damien has 3 coaches. And it is not the first time that the issue of evidence legitimacy has been an issue with "these kids". Feel free to cite them as role models, the community has to have a standard and it should be enforced. I have known these kids a long time. And I like them alot but the impact of this sort of garbage has a much bigger impact than detracting one part time coach from a staff of 3 at a private school on the national circuit. Somebody needs to get their shit together. period carver On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Tara Tate wrote: One other piece of information that is now public is that Justin Skarb replied to numerous emails as John Marburry in the days prior to the TOC...emails from coaches/students that wanted more information about his qualifications, primary resources that "Marburry" used to write his paper, etc. The deception continued after the article's publication. Emails were written to these coaches/students as John Marburry. My primary concern right now is not what happens to Skarb. I believe that the Damien coaching staff and administration have to make that call internally with the information they have. My concern is for the Damien debaters. Although I don't disagree with David's comments about Damien's evidence now being "suspect", I am so saddened by any consequences, intended or unintended, this has on the Damien kiddos. I have used the Damien kids as a model often times for my own squad about a uniquely determined, hard-working squad who are innovative with their arguments and absolutely love the game...and the work that is put into being successful at that game. I know that David was not implying that this was not accurate, but these kids uniquely deserve our compassion and understanding at this point. I hope the fact that uniquely hard working, smart, skillful teen-agers are at the heart of this crisis is not forgotten (again, not implying that David did that...his post just sparked me to dovetail off of him). Tara Tate GBS Debate From: dgm2109 at columbia.edu Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:52:05 -0400 To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? The problem isn't that coaches write articles. You can read those cards and debaters should be able to make arguments about bias. The problem is when coaches purposefully hide the fact that they wrote them. This problem is made worse when it happens right before TOC and when the article includes cards just so happen to be a devastating negative strategy (one that was read by at least one team at TOC with the use of these cards). Let's be very clear about something: the Marburry character is COMPLETELY FALSE. Marburry is Skarb. The idea that Skarb just "contributed research" is laughably misleading, but it does show that the use of the fake name couldn't have been to protect Skarb's anonymity from non-debate people out to get him. And what's the practical consequence? The card obviously gets cited as Marburry, not Skarb! No debater facing this card would find out that Skarb had anything to do with it until AFTER the debate. Warming analogy: it'd be like if Skarb was paid $1b by the oil industry and then got plastic surgery to testify before Congress under the fake name Marburry. Him saying "I hired Skarb to contribute to some of the research" and presenting a biography with no other connections to the oil industry is not even close to "I am Skarb and I was paid $1b to testify before you." Here's a very simple question: which is really more likely? A. Skarb had to use a pen name because someone was out to get him. B. Skarb used a pen name to cloak bias. Here are some facts that can help you resolve this question: 1. Skarb put his name right after putting the fake name (at the bottom of the article). If it were really a pen name to protect his anonymity, why did he break it? To me, it seems much more likely that he put the name there to REINFORCE the idea that Skarb and Marburry are two separate people! I have no idea why putting his name in the article as a contributing researcher makes it more fair. In my mind, it HELPS the deception by reinforcing the idea that the author was not biased ---- intentional or not. 2. Zero other publications by this Marburry person. 3. Why was a comment posted --- AFTER toc --- by Skarb saying "embarassing" and clarifying that he's the author? Did his need for anonymity suddenly resolve itself? If it did, why would that be "embarrassing"??? 4. The article --- which wasn't written for the purpose of debate --- just so happens to have cards that provide brink, link, and internal link and CP solvency all specific to several of the top TOC teams' plans? That's not even getting into the "one week before TOC" isues. 5. The very first comment on the article --- posted right after publication --- is obviously by a debater. "Disciples of 2A" posted "WTF MARBURRY WRITE SOME SPS GOOD ARTICLES." Now why would a debater be the first person to read and comment on this article, AND know that Marburry would understand what "write some sps good articles" means ---- unless Skarb told debaters about it? 6. What's the deal with the Norman Ornstein card in the comments? Maybe this is a joke like Andy's aliens thing. But it's not very funny. Why? Because it creates a headache when someone who doesn't get the joke actually cuts that card, thinking they found awesome evidence. These are young high school debaters. 7. I don't know if it's true, but on Cross-X.com's forum on this, someone suggested that: "just for the record, this article has been floating around the web since at least february, spammed all over the comments sections of space websites. it seems like it was only recently though that skarb's name became attached to it." 8. According to a Damien debater, "our coaches were responsible for the name Justin Skarb being attached to the article in the first place." -This issue was NOT unforeseen. The Damien staff knew that this could be a problem. I fail to see how attaching "research contributor" in any way avoids the bias problem, as I think I've explained above. If Skarb had posted this in circumstances that were obviously not intended for debate but instead for personal reasons, then I think there's nothing at all wrong. But this is so far away from such a scenario it's almost funny that anyone would try to defend it as such. This shouldn't be evaluated by the highest standards of ethics challenges in debates, because here we are not limited by the competitive format and time and research constraints of those situations. The purpose of this discussion shouldn't be a witch hunt. It should be a community discussion over what we think is appropriate or not, and fair warning in the future that this kind of behavior is not kosher. Even if Skarb didn't intend all this, he really should've been a lot more careful. My measure of INTENT is not "did he purposefully cheat," because that's not something that can be fixed in a forum. My measure of intent is "did he create evidence knowing that debaters could use it in ways that other debaters would think is very unfair, and fail to take easy remedialsteps?" I do have to say that this kind of thing is sad because I won't ever be able to look at Damien cards in the same light. That's not fair their debaters and coaches who put a lot into the activity and don't deserve that taint. Lesson: when you KNOW it could be controversial, DISCLOSE. David 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 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? goes with you. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090513/6ee0aa10/attachment.htm From carrolltondebate at gmail.com Wed May 13 08:52:46 2009 From: carrolltondebate at gmail.com (Joseph Carver) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 09:52:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think that perhaps you should do more reseaech before you isolate kids as role models. I don't think that hard work alone satisfies the requirements of what I want to see in my kids. And the picture that you paint of these poor kids left out in the coaching cold is laughable. I should be so lucky to have the kind of staff that they have. If you want a record of the incidents I isolate, I am happy to back channel the 6 emails I got from folks on this issue including directors of housing at camps, coaches etc. This post is not to villify kids at Damien. In fact I would be surprised if I have voted against them three times in two years. Just like any program there are good kids and there are kids who's behavior has been reprehensible. Let's be clear- you are right that my problem with the direction the staff has turned is diferent than the idea that it is inane to refer to kids who have repeatedly acted in a way that is not in the spirit of what the community is about as role models. Forgive those programs out there fighting for surivival with their west coast handbooks and a parent to judge for not rallying to make sure that the kids at Damien get some direction. They have all the direction that money can buy and they should be held to a higher standard. On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Tara Tate wrote: > I have zero knowledge of past issues that have been proven in regards to > the Damien kids and their ethics. I think eluding to past issues of > illegitimacy of unethical behavior by the Damien kids when nothing has > been proven is problematic. Whether or not the Damien coaching staff needs > to get their "shit together" is not an issue of whether or not these kids > are hard-workers and need a bit of protection right now from > mentors/educators in the community from the crisis at hand. > > It almost seems as if your argument might actually feed mine...if your > argument is that the Damien coaching staff is not doing their job, isn't it > even more paramount that coaches in this community stand up for these > debaters? > > Tara > > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 16:57:23 -0400 > From: carrolltondebate at gmail.com > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? > > In all fairness, Damien has 3 coaches. And it is not the first time that > the issue of evidence legitimacy has been an issue with "these kids". Feel > free to cite them as role models, the community has to have a standard and > it should be enforced. I have known these kids a long time. And I like them > alot but the impact of this sort of garbage has a much bigger impact than > detracting one part time coach from a staff of 3 at a private school on the > national circuit. Somebody needs to get their shit together. period > > carver > > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Tara Tate wrote: > > One other piece of information that is now public is that Justin Skarb > replied to numerous emails as John Marburry in the days prior to the > TOC...emails from coaches/students that wanted more information about his > qualifications, primary resources that "Marburry" used to write his paper, > etc. The deception continued after the article's publication. Emails were > written to these coaches/students as John Marburry. > > My primary concern right now is not what happens to Skarb. I believe that > the Damien coaching staff and administration have to make that call > internally with the information they have. My concern is for the Damien > debaters. Although I don't disagree with David's comments about Damien's > evidence now being "suspect", I am so saddened by any consequences, intended > or unintended, this has on the Damien kiddos. I have used the Damien kids > as a model often times for my own squad about a uniquely determined, > hard-working squad who are innovative with their arguments and absolutely > love the game...and the work that is put into being successful at that > game. I know that David was not implying that this was not accurate, but > these kids uniquely deserve our compassion and understanding at this point. > I hope the fact that uniquely hard working, smart, skillful teen-agers > are at the heart of this crisis is not forgotten (again, not implying that > David did that...his post just sparked me to dovetail off of him). > > Tara Tate > GBS Debate > > ------------------------------ > From: dgm2109 at columbia.edu > Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:52:05 -0400 > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? > > > The problem isn't that coaches write articles. You can read those cards and > debaters should be able to make arguments about bias. > > The problem is when coaches purposefully hide the fact that they wrote > them. This problem is made worse when it happens right before TOC and when > the article includes cards just so happen to be a devastating negative > strategy (one that was read by at least one team at TOC with the use of > these cards). > > Let's be very clear about something: the Marburry character is COMPLETELY > FALSE. Marburry is Skarb. The idea that Skarb just "contributed research" is > laughably misleading, but it does show that the use of the fake name > couldn't have been to protect Skarb's anonymity from non-debate people out > to get him. And what's the practical consequence? The card obviously gets > cited as Marburry, not Skarb! No debater facing this card would find out > that Skarb had anything to do with it until AFTER the debate. > > Warming analogy: it'd be like if Skarb was paid $1b by the oil industry and > then got plastic surgery to testify before Congress under the fake name > Marburry. Him saying "I hired Skarb to contribute to some of the research" > and presenting a biography with no other connections to the oil industry is > not even close to "I am Skarb and I was paid $1b to testify before you." > > Here's a very simple question: which is really more likely? > A. Skarb had to use a pen name because someone was out to get him. > B. Skarb used a pen name to cloak bias. > > Here are some facts that can help you resolve this question: > 1. Skarb put his name right after putting the fake name (at the bottom of > the article). > > If it were really a pen name to protect his anonymity, why did he break it? > To me, it seems much more likely that he put the name there to REINFORCE the > idea that Skarb and Marburry are two separate people! I have no idea why > putting his name in the article as a contributing researcher makes it more > fair. In my mind, it HELPS the deception by reinforcing the idea that the > author was not biased ---- intentional or not. > > 2. Zero other publications by this Marburry person. > > 3. Why was a comment posted --- AFTER toc --- by Skarb saying "embarassing" > and clarifying that he's the author? Did his need for anonymity suddenly > resolve itself? If it did, why would that be "embarrassing"??? > > 4. The article --- which wasn't written for the purpose of debate --- just > so happens to have cards that provide brink, link, and internal link and CP > solvency all specific to several of the top TOC teams' plans? That's not > even getting into the "one week before TOC" isues. > > 5. The very first comment on the article --- posted right after publication > --- is obviously by a debater. "Disciples of 2A" posted "WTF MARBURRY WRITE > SOME SPS GOOD ARTICLES." Now why would a debater be the first person to read > and comment on this article, AND know that Marburry would understand what > "write some sps good articles" means ---- unless Skarb told debaters about > it? > > 6. What's the deal with the Norman Ornstein card in the comments? Maybe > this is a joke like Andy's aliens thing. But it's not very funny. Why? > Because it creates a headache when someone who doesn't get the joke actually > cuts that card, thinking they found awesome evidence. These are young high > school debaters. > > 7. I don't know if it's true, but on Cross-X.com's forum on this, someone > suggested that: "just for the record, this article has been floating around > the web since at least february, spammed all over the comments sections of > space websites. it seems like it was only recently though that skarb's name > became attached to it." > > 8. According to a Damien debater, "our coaches were responsible for the > name Justin Skarb being attached to the article in the first place." > -This issue was NOT unforeseen. The Damien staff knew that this could be a > problem. I fail to see how attaching "research contributor" in any way > avoids the bias problem, as I think I've explained above. > > > > > If Skarb had posted this in circumstances that were obviously not intended > for debate but instead for personal reasons, then I think there's nothing at > all wrong. But this is so far away from such a scenario it's almost funny > that anyone would try to defend it as such. > > This shouldn't be evaluated by the highest standards of ethics challenges > in debates, because here we are not limited by the competitive format and > time and research constraints of those situations. The purpose of this > discussion shouldn't be a witch hunt. It should be a community discussion > over what we think is appropriate or not, and fair warning in the future > that this kind of behavior is not kosher. Even if Skarb didn't intend all > this, he really should've been a lot more careful. My measure of INTENT is > not "did he purposefully cheat," because that's not something that can be > fixed in a forum. My measure of intent is "did he create evidence knowing > that debaters could use it in ways that other debaters would think is very > unfair, and fail to take easy remedialsteps?" > > I do have to say that this kind of thing is sad because I won't ever be > able to look at Damien cards in the same light. That's not fair their > debaters and coaches who put a lot into the activity and don't deserve that > taint. > Lesson: when you KNOW it could be controversial, DISCLOSE. > > David > > ------------------------------ > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------ > Hotmail? goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090513/5e7e1a8f/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed May 13 09:10:08 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 10:10:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Skarb - and how is this even a debate?? In-Reply-To: <20090512141255.11781ovrp39l53jr@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <20090512141255.11781ovrp39l53jr@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905130710oa87d106kf9c292c2eab6fccc@mail.gmail.com> And then sometimes posts like Scott's prove that going through the work to get a PhD does not by itself prove anything. 1) I was wrong about my application of my general answers to this specific instance(remember the original post asked general questions about the practices). This case seems to have aspects that do not fall under the broader questions Anon asked originally, or at least some of them. 2) My general stance is that if we had higher standards for evidence evaluation when cutting cards, reading cards and deciding debates on cards, that this would be less of a problem. If for example we demanded warrents and supporting evidence from all cards then there would be less of a problem when a debate coach wrote cards/articles. The problem now is that we have no standards, which means anybody can write anything, true or not, scholarship or not, and it gets passed off as such until proven otherwise. This article seems to be awful assertions, but if our standards where higher and Skarb wrote actual scholarship (under his name would be nice) I don't see why there would be a problem. 3)I do not think a stance which says that this is a symptom of a larger problem ie "Debaters do not apply very strict standards of scrutiny to "evidence" and thus things like this pass as evidence all the time" is delusional, nor proof of my anti academic nutjobness. 4)Nutjobs get PhD's all the time, delusional people get higher degrees all the time, in fact the academy may have much higher thresholds for declaring people delusional nutjobs than almost any other profession. I would guess that 70 per cent of the things read in debate rounds would not be sufficient proof in the grants i am working on this month...This is not to say that 70 per cent of things has no utility, or is worthless, just that Scott's arguments could use some more precision. On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:12 PM, wrote: > Why is there even a debate? > > Great Question. The answer is deeper than people think within this > community. The reason why there is a debate is because many within > this insular community a flat out delusional. They are nutjobs. Notice > that the one's defending such shit as people fabricating evidence are > not people with Ph.D.'s. Some i do not think even have degrees or > academic positions. Why does this matter they will ask? > > It matters because unless you have actually done the work necessary to > obtain a Ph.D., or to get published in a peer review journal, you > really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to > scholarship. It is a sad freaking day when I am in agreement with > Jason Russell. But there is a reason why--because he too knows what > constitutes real scholarship, and what is shit. We also know > fabrication of evidence in order to secure a win at the TOC when we > see it. People trying to rationalize such behavior do a disservice to > the field of academic debate and they do a disservice to their teams. > > The circumstances that have been relayed to me indicates that somebody > fabricated evidence in order to secures some wins at the TOC. I > wonder if Skarb is the real author...becuase I find it hard to believe > that an adult coach with more than half a brain would do so. But, > assuming it is true, there is no debate. > > Sanchez, JT, Ellis and every other yahoo trying to rationalize such > shit are just doing that...rationalizing. > > Actions like Skarb/whoever wrote the article sets a horrible precedent > and should be punished by the respective organizations. Handling it as > an "internal matter" is not enough. Under the new CEDA Rules regarding > professional responsibility, such fabrication at a CEDA sanctioned > tournament would/should result in that coach be sanctioned, up to and > including teams that he coaches not receiving CEDA points. > > Leaving it up to teams to argue it out in rounds is NOT a solution. > Why? Because the circumstances of this case prove the point...it > happens too quickly for students to adapt, the abuse may take weeks to > figure out, and the damage has already been done. If this evidence was > used in a round at the TOC...is there any way for a "do over?" > > 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/20090513/6d1ad766/attachment.htm From paulj567 at yahoo.com Wed May 13 09:42:38 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 07:42:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] C. Jones on the nuclear weapons topic Message-ID: <720840.95351.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Does anyone else think worrying about deterring China and Russia is totally beside the point these days? I know this is a cheapshot aside but i dont have time for more --- On Tue, 5/12/09, Shawn Powers wrote: > From: Shawn Powers > Subject: [eDebate] C. Jones on the nuclear weapons topic > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Cc: "Chris Jones" > Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2009, 7:47 PM > Subject says it all.... > > Begin forwarded message: > From: Chris Jones Date: May > 12, 2009 5:17:35 PM PDTTo: Shawn Powers Subject: edebate post? > Sp, > > any chance you could throw this up on edebate?? I > don't have an account.? Much appreciated. > > Best, > cj > > #yiv1267642906