From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Tue Sep 1 10:49:38 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:49:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Central website celebrates 15th birthday Message-ID: <4A9D4292.3040703@uvm.edu> The DEBATE CENTRAL website at http://debate.uvm.edu today celebrates its 15th year on the Internet. It may very well have trained more debaters in that time than any other website in the world. DEBATE CENTRAL is a non-profit service of the Lawrence Debate Union and the University of Vermont, and is designed to promote debating at all levels, in all languages, and all around the world. Our server is provided by the University of Vermont. The System Operator is Alfred C."Tuna"Snider. The Technical Advisers are Andrew Hendrickson and Wesley Wright. The Business Manager is Lionel Palardy. Debate Central was born as an idea in 1993 when it became obvious that debaters, ever voracious for information, were increasingly taking advantage of the internet. The way in which debate information circulated was about to change. Likewise, it would soon be relatively easy for coaches and students to reach huge bodies of information they needed but had been unable to access: educational materials, organizational information, addresses, theory discussions, argument lists, scholarship and program opportunities, graduate assistant opportunities, job openings, and much more. At the Kansas Speech Communication Association Convention in May, 1994, Prof. A. C. Snider of the University of Vermont met with a number of high school debate coaches who expressed a need to get educational debate information to help strengthen existing programs, attract new ones, help new debaters, and especially to help new coaches. Most had modems and inexpensive computers. At the University of Vermont there was a move to find some economical way to make such information available for free over phone lines or the internet. However, the costs were too high. It was a shareware breakthrough in Spring, 1994 which made the difference. FTPd, a shareware program (Ask Peter about it!), allowed any Mac (including a very slow and stupid one at the University of Vermont called "The Brigadier") to become a gopher server. A basic set of materials were assembled and on September 1, 1994 Debate Central was turned on at a cost of less than $100. Within two months America Online had chosen Debate Central as one of its featured educational internet sites and the rush was on. During the 1994-95 school year DC logins and downloads increased steadily to a level of between 35-55 different users a day. Getting the machines to run was the easy part. It became clear that many internet locations are not "stops" on the information superhighway because there is very little to stop there for. They were often just intersections where one could catch a link to somewhere else. To be useful, Debate Central needed to be constantly adding materials and updating information. Although the data acquisition phase has been difficult, many people have helped contribute to a systematic build up of materials. Listserv archives, address lists, argument lists, job offerings, and many other items have been added regularly. Each month the newsletter NEW ON DEBATE CENTRAL was, at this time, circulated through the debate listservs and is posted at the entrance to the main Debate Central Library. Debate Central has now been recognized by other debate internet sites as the most complete depository of debate related information on the internet. In the Summer of 1995 another shareware breakthrough took place. Debate Central wanted a presence on the world wide web but could not afford it and the SysOp had no time to learn HyperText Markup Language. Fortunately, the shareware program HTML Web Weaver (Contact Robert Best about it) allowed even this SysOp to format in HTML. Also, another shareware program, MacHTTP, allowed the same "stupid Mac" (the Brigadier) to operate as a WWW server (for more information contact StarNine Technologies). We love StarNine so much we later switched to proudly run WebStar as our web server. In Early 1999 DC began to offer streaming internet videos using RealPlayer. In December, 1999 DC hosted the first live internet video distance debate between Vermont and Cornell using Apple's QuickTime and Sorenson Broadcaster. Read about the first debate: Cornell vs. Vermont In December, 1999 DC had its first major facelift since 1996, changing from a geographical model to an action model of web site design. In February of 2000 the original gopher server was finally turned off. WebStar has integrated a www server and a gopher server and an ftp server into one program. This allowed our trusty server (PowerMac WorkGroup Server 7250/120) the Matrix to serve documents much faster. As of February, 2000 DC averaged about 2800 users a day and about 15,000 hits a day. Whew, we came a long way from our little gopher server in 1994. In 2002 the site was moved to the central servers at the University of Vermont to improve response and archiving. The video library continued to grow. Debate Central continued to grow in terms of content as the 21st Century became a reality. The video system was switched to QuickTime as bandwidth increased for users and as it became the dominant application for video. In 2006 the format for all new videos became podcast to improve the ability of users to make these videos portable yet large and vivid. In 2006 a group of related websites were created to explore a new project - documenting debate news from around the world and sharing it. Thus, the Global Debate Blog was both. At first it was an iWeb site housed at the University of Vermont, and that continued since its founding in March 2006. The 2006 Global Debate Blog archives can be found at http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/doctortuna/Blog2006/Archive.html. In the middle of 2007 it became clear that the traffic and the need for constant posting made it clear that iWeb was not practical. The Global Debate Blog fled from iWeb, and the 2007 archives are at http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/doctortuna/Blog/Archive.html In July 2007 the Global Debate Blog went to its new home at http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/ Now there are a wide assortment of websites associated with Debate Central. They live on the blogspot.com service for easy updating, although there are a few iWeb sites.. Here is a fairly complete listing of what we are calling THE FIRST FAMILY OF DEBATE WEBSITES. Debate Central Main page http://debate.uvm.edu/ Learn to Debate http://debate.uvm.edu/learndebate.html Video Instruction and Debate Video Library http://debate.uvm.edu/watch.html Purchase Debate Training Materials http://debate.uvm.edu/ee.html Debate Related Books We Endorse http://debate.uvm.edu/shoptext.html Old Global Debate Blog http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/doctortuna/Blog/Blog.html DebateVideoBlog http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/ Instructional Programs World Debate Institute Summer Program (USA) http://learn.uvm.edu/wdi/ International Debate Academy (Europe) http://debate.uvm.edu/idas2007.html Asian Debate Institute (Korea) http://debatekorea.blogspirit.com/ Other Websites DebateNews (Google robots find debate in the news) http://debatenews.blogspot.com/ Lawrence Debate Union, University of Vermont http://debate.uvm.edu/ldu.html Voice of Edwin (Lawrence Debate Union Newsletter) http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/Voice%20of%20Edwin/Voice%20of%20Edwin.html Flashpoint Debate Television Program Videos http://flashpointtv.blogspot.com/ -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From oldstrega at hotmail.com Tue Sep 1 12:57:49 2009 From: oldstrega at hotmail.com (Old Strega) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 12:57:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] missing from ted kennedy's hagiography Message-ID: the senator from chappaquiddick's death provided necessary relief with the worst inaugural summer in recent presidential history but ted kennedy is no 'liberal saint'. he was drunk womanizing sympathizer with feminism and liked 16 year old girls. then, there's his documented relationship with the KBG. the media soap operas have gotten so bad and i don't know how y'all still believe them. how does these facts go unreported? the camelot fairy tales really are sweet though and they reassure my weak identity as a social justice agent. http://www.nypost.com/seven/08302009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/kennedys_free_pass_with_women_187139.htmIn 1990, GQ magazine ran a devastating profile of Kennedy. Two 16-year-old girls near the Capitol startled by a limo rolling up, the door opening, Ted sitting in the back with a bottle of wine, asking one, then the other, to join. A former aide who acted as Ted's "pimp." His penchant for dating women so young that one did not know he was the subject of many books. Kennedy, at a swank DC restaurant with his drinking buddy Chris Dodd, throwing a petite waitress on his dinner table with such force that glass and flatware shatters and goes flying. Then Ted throws her on to Dodd's lap and grinds against her. He is interrupted by other waitstaff. He is later caught in the same restaurant, in a semi-private area, having sex on the floor with a lobbyist.http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/kgb_kennedy_the_ted_kennedy_i.htmlShortly after the announcement of Ted Kennedy's death, I had already received several interview requests. I declined them, not wanting to be uncharitable to the man upon his death. Since then, I've seen the need to step up and provide some clarification. The issue is a remarkable 1983 KGB document on Kennedy, which I published in my 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperCollins). The document is a May 14, 1983 memo from KGB head Victor Chebrikov to his boss, the odious Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov, designated with the highest classification. It concerns a confidential offer to the Soviet leadership by Senator Kennedy. The target: President Ronald Reagan. (A pdf file of the original Russian language document and an English translation are available here.)With Kennedy's death, this stunning revelation is again making the rounds, especially after Rush Limbaugh flagged it in his "Stack of Stuff." I'm being inundated with emails, asking basically two questions: 1) is the document legitimate; and 2) what does it allege of Senator Kennedy? First off, yes, the document is legitimate. If it were not, I would have never reported it. Over the years, from my book to radio and web interviews, I've provided specifics. Briefly summarized, here are the basics: The document was first reported in a February 2, 1992 article in the London Times, titled, "Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file," by reporter Tim Sebastian. Russian President Boris Yeltsin had opened the Soviet archives. Sebastian discovered the document in the Central Committee archives specifically. When his article appeared in the Times, other on-site researchers dashed to the archives and grabbed their own copy. Those archives have been resealed. The Times merely quoted the document and ran a tiny photo of its heading. Once I got ahold of it later, I published the entire text (English translation) in my book. Importantly, when I published the document, Senator Kennedy's office didn't dispute its authenticity, instead ambiguously (and briefly) arguing with its "interpretation." This was clever. The senator's office didn't specify whether this interpretation problem was a matter of my personal misunderstanding of the document or the misunderstanding of the document's author, Chebrikov. Chebrikov couldn't be reached for comment; he was dead. So, what was the offer? The subject head, carried under the words, "Special Importance," read: "Regarding Senator Kennedy's request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Y. V. Andropov." According to the memo, Senator Kennedy was "very troubled" by U.S.-Soviet relations, which Kennedy attributed not to the murderous tyrant running the USSR but to President Reagan. The problem was Reagan's "belligerence." This was allegedly made worse by Reagan's stubbornness. "According to Kennedy," reported Chebrikov, "the current threat is due to the President's refusal to engage any modification to his politics." That refusal, said the memo, was exacerbated by Reagan's political success, which made the president surer of his course, and more obstinate -- and, worst of all, re-electable. On that, the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Chebrikov's memo got to the thrust of Kennedy's offer: The senator was apparently clinging to hope that President Reagan's 1984 reelection bid could be thwarted. Of course, this seemed unlikely, given Reagan's undeniable popularity. So, where was the president vulnerable? Alas, Kennedy had an answer, and suggestion, for his Soviet friends: In Chebrikov's words, "The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign." Therein, Chebrikov got to the heart of the U.S. senator's offer to the USSR's general secretary: "Kennedy believes that, given the state of current affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan." Of these, step one would be for Andropov to invite the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting. Said Chebrikov: "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they would be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." The second step, the KGB head informed Andropov, was a Kennedy strategy to help the Soviets "influence Americans." Chebrikov explained: "Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year [1983], televised interviews with Y. V. Andropov in the USA." The media savvy Massachusetts senator recommended to the Soviet dictator that he seek a "direct appeal" to the American people. And, on that, "Kennedy and his friends," explained Chebrikov, were willing to help, listing Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters (both listed by name in the memo) as good candidates for sit-down interviews with the dictator. Kennedy concluded that the Soviets needed, in effect, some PR help, given that Reagan was good at "propaganda" (the word used in the memo). The senator wanted them to know he was more than eager to lend a hand. Kennedy wanted the Soviets to saturate the American media during such a visit. Chebrikov said Kennedy could arrange interviews not only for the dictator but for "lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military," who "would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR." This was apparently deemed crucial because of the dangerous threat posed not by Andropov's regime but -- in Kennedy's view -- by Ronald Reagan and his administration. It was up to the Kremlin folks to "root out the threat of nuclear war," "improve Soviet-American relations," and "define the safety for the world." Quite contrary to the ludicrous assertions now being made about Ted Kennedy working jovially with Ronald Reagan, Kennedy, in truth, thought Reagan was a trigger-happy buffoon, and said so constantly, with vicious words of caricature and ridicule. The senator felt very differently about Yuri Andropov. As Chebrikov noted in his memo, "Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y. V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders." Alas, the memo concluded with a discussion of Kennedy's own presidential prospects in 1984, and a note that Kennedy "underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal." What happened next? We will never know. None of the Kennedy admirers and court composers who serve as "journalists" bothered to ask, even with decades available to pose questions, beginning back in January 1992 when the highly reputable London Times broke the story. In 2006, when my book was released, there was a virtual media blackout on coverage of the document, with the exception of conservative media: talk-radio, Rush Limbaugh, some websites, and mention on FoxNews by Brit Hume. Amazingly, I didn't even get calls from mainstream reporters seeking to shoot down the story. I had prepared in great detail to be grilled on nationaltelevision, picturing the likes of Katie Couric needling me. I didn't need to worry. I worked up a detailed op-ed on the document, where I even played devil's advocate by defending Kennedy, trying to get at his thinking, being as fair as possible. No major newspapers would touch it. The Boston Globe editors refused to acknowledge it or reply to my emails. The editor at the New York Times confessed to being "fascinated" by the piece but conceded that he wouldn't "be able to get it in." One editor at a West Coast newspaper, a genuinely fair liberal, considered it carefully. We went back and forth. I was shocked to see that neither the editor nor his staff would do any investigating, not placing a single phone call to Kennedy's office. In the end, the editor rejected the piece, telling me: "I just can't believe Kennedy would do something that stupid." Alas, here we are now, after Kennedy's death, and I'm reliving the same experience, as no one from the mainstream media has contacted me. Liberal reporters lionized Ted Kennedy in life and have begun the canonization process in death. They are liberal activists first, and journalists second. Finally, a postscript for these liberal Democrat "journalists:" We know they don't care that Ted Kennedy did this to Ronald Reagan. Fine. Well, how about this? As the Mitrokhin Archives reveal, Senator Kennedy did something similar to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 -- his own political flesh and blood. Does that story interest liberal reporters? No. I likewise noted that gem in 2006. I didn't get a single media inquiry. It will be left to future generations to examine these truths. As for Senator Ted Kennedy's motivations for doing what he did with the Soviet leadership? Alas, now we can definitively say, he will never tell us. The liberal media protected him, all the way to the grave. Paul Kengor is author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007) and professor of political science at Grove City College. His latest book is The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007). _________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090901/839c9cc3/attachment.htm From lawlruschang at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 00:31:45 2009 From: lawlruschang at gmail.com (Lawrence Chang) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:31:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Asst. Coach/Assistance Cutting Cards - Greenhill Message-ID: <82c497000909012231n2047d1eanf810d6bcb1886f8d@mail.gmail.com> Clear Springs High School is searching for assistants to coach/help cut cards in preparation for Greenhill. Reasonable compensation. Send me an email or IM if interested: lawlruschang at gmail.com, AIM: lawlruschang. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090902/9f4ccfe7/attachment.htm From lawlruschang at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 00:37:36 2009 From: lawlruschang at gmail.com (Lawrence Chang) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 00:37:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Asst. Coach/Assistance Cutting Cards - Greenhill In-Reply-To: <82c497000909012231n2047d1eanf810d6bcb1886f8d@mail.gmail.com> References: <82c497000909012231n2047d1eanf810d6bcb1886f8d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <82c497000909012237o5a757dbeme73afb72a121c9fb@mail.gmail.com> Clear Springs High School is searching for assistants to coach/help cut cards in preparation for Greenhill. Reasonable compensation. Send me an email or IM if interested: lawlruschang at gmail.com, AIM: lawlruschang. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090902/606eb749/attachment.htm From debate.gsu at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 07:48:13 2009 From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 08:48:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Tournament -- small but important changes Message-ID: Just to let you know, we have updated the tournament invitation ( http://www.gsudebate.org/events_at_gsu/gsu_national_college_debate.html) to indicate the following minor but important changes: 1) We are officially using ordinal preferences 2) Awards will be held after prelim round 7. Doubles will begin at 8 pm on Sunday evening. 3) Octos now start at 8:30 am on Monday to compensate for the late night many of us will have on Sunday. We look forward to seeing you all in Atlanta. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090902/40f886de/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Wed Sep 2 09:18:31 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:18:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Rooms Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677FEA95D0E91@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> I have a couple of rooms a the GSU tournament hotel if anyone needs them, please backchannel me. Friends get first priority. (kidding, i dont have friends) peace Massey From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Sep 2 09:43:25 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:43:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Qatar Debate Academy Message-ID: <4A9E848D.4080903@uvm.edu> QatarDebate, a member of the Qatar Foundation, will be hosting the Qatar Debate Academy in Doha, Qatar from October 29-November 6 2009. The program is organized in cooperation with Za in Proti Slovenia and the World Debate Institute of the University of Vermont. The program will focus on the development of debate in new countries, creating a meaningful international exchange and paving the way towards the World Schools Debating Championship in Qatar in February 2010. "Southwest Asia is a prime candidate for the expansion of debating," said Alfred Snider of the World Debate Institute, "and Qatar is the ideal site and host for such an event. Their determination to promote debating and open civil discourse in this region is impressive and groundbreaking. I am inspired by Dr. Hayat Maarafi's vision of expanded debating in this part of the world. I hope that we can really spark some important debate development in these countries as well as expose them to more established debating trainers, nations and teams. We are expecting over 240 people at this event." GOALS The goals of the Qatar Debate Academy include: * Preparing students and trainers from new debating countries for future participation in WSDC Qatar 2010 and in their home countries. * Preparing Qatar students and teachers for involvement in debating in Qatar and internationally. * Preparing judges for future debate competitions, especially WSDC Qatar 2010. * Preparing teachers to be able to form debate clubs, train students and host tournaments. * Demonstrating Qatar?s ability to host a major debate event. * Prepare Qatar schools for the experience of hosting debates as part of WSDC Qatar 2010. DATES Arrival 29-30 October 2009 Instruction and competition 31 October-5 November 2009 Departure 6 November 2009 FACULTY AND STAFF Planning and Implementation Dr. Hayat Maarafi, convener Dr. Alfred Snider, program planning & tournament administration Bojana Skrt, curriculum planning Kelley Bieringer, implementation planning Adjudication Core This group will work with teachers and others on judging skills and prepare them for judging at WSDC Qatar and at the tournament at the end of this program. They will meet with judges after judging experiences to properly process their learning. They will also come up with approximately 20 prepared and impromptu motions for use in the tournament, practice debates and exercises. Chris Erskine, Australia Simon Quinn, Oxford University, UK Faculty Alex Campbell, USA Piyanart Faktangporn, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Loke Wing Fatt, SAID, Singapore Sam Greenland, University of Sydney, Australia Rhydian Morgan, Stylus Communications, UK Sam Nelson, Cornell University, USA Debbie Newman, UK Erin O?Brien, University of Queensland, Australia Omar Salahuddin bin Abdullah, MultiMedia University, Malaysia Bilal Siddiqi, Pakistan Bojana Skrt, ZIP, Slovenia Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA Miranda Weigler, St. Andrews University, Scotland CURRICULUM There will be several tracks at the event: * For students from debating countries new and old * For teachers and trainers from new debating countries * For judges preparing for WSDC 2010 * For Qatari students and teachers The curriculum will use the training model previously used at the International Debate Academy, the World Schools Debate Academy and the World Debate Institute. Features of this model include: * Intense preparation and work environment * Limited lectures on essential topics * Active exercises and drills to teach debate skills in small group settings * Repetition of activities to promote skill development * Practice debates with lengthy and specific critiques Watch for more information as we get closer to the event. Contacts: Kelley Bieringer kbieringer at qf.org.qa Alfred Snider alfred.snider at uvm.edu Bojana Skrt bojana.skrt at siol.net -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From dmattern at gmail.com Wed Sep 2 10:58:33 2009 From: dmattern at gmail.com (David Mattern) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:58:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU - Case Western Needs Judges References: <006b01ca2a98$8bb17960$a3146c20$@edu> Message-ID: > Dear Available Judges: > > > > Case Western is interested in purchasing your rounds. Please email > me at this address if you are available. We can pay cash or check. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > David Mattern -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090902/1038ef5a/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Wed Sep 2 11:41:35 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:41:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Appalachian State Message-ID: Name:70th Annual Mountain Debate Tournament (AppState) Starts:11/20/2009 Ends:11/22/2009 Hosted by: Appalachian State Contact: Mariam Willis Address: ASU Box 32039 Phone: 828-262-8371 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From kristopherwillis at hotmail.com Wed Sep 2 11:44:21 2009 From: kristopherwillis at hotmail.com (Kris Willis) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:44:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Appalachian State University Debate Tournament Message-ID: Attached is the pdf for our tournament. If you have trouble opening the pdf, let me know and I will send you the information. We sincerely hope to see you in Boone for our tournament! Kris and Mariam Willis Appalachian State University _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090902/3dd8201f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Tourney Invite App 2009.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 24080 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090902/3dd8201f/attachment.pdf From rwgallow at samford.edu Wed Sep 2 12:44:50 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:44:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking Hired Judging for Samford HS Tourney Oct 2-3rd Message-ID: Seeking hired judges for the Samford High School Tourney on October 2nd & 3rd in Birmingham. Paying $150 + lodging, gas, & meals. Contact me if interested. Thanks! Dr. Ryan Galloway Director of Debate Samford University From oguevara at hotmail.com Wed Sep 2 14:06:49 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:06:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Need to HIRE 6 rounds for WNPT Message-ID: $300 cash. Please help!! Lots of students and not nearly enough coaches/judges. Thank you in advance, OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090902/e8b48864/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Wed Sep 2 14:36:56 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:36:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] T/F: Novice Division at CEDA Nats? Message-ID: I should know this, but totally swamped. Trying to beat a budget disclosure deadline for Spring 10. Quick reply would be awesome!! OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM _________________________________________________________________ Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. http://www.bing.com/cashback?form=MSHYCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHYCB_BackToSchool_Cashback_BTSCashback_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090902/38c2cede/attachment.htm From ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu Wed Sep 2 15:14:45 2009 From: ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu (Sandoz, M L) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:14:45 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] Vanderbilt Hotel Info Message-ID: <2552.129.59.250.146.1251922485.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu> LODGING: The Sheraton will hold a block of rooms until September 18, 2009. Sheraton Nashville Downtown Hotel: 623 Union Street ? Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Reservations can be made online at http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/Book/vandy or by phone (800) 325-3535 or (615) 259-2000 (ask for Vanderbilt Debate). The group rate will be $99.00 and will expire September 18, 2009. Please note that the tournament falls on our homecoming weekend and rooms will be difficult to find after September 18, 2009. ------------------------------------------------- Sandoz, M L Director of Debate Vanderbilt University Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu From searwr6 at wfu.edu Wed Sep 2 15:59:59 2009 From: searwr6 at wfu.edu (searwr6) Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:59:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] missing from ted kennedy's hagiography Message-ID: <4A9EDCCF.9000802@wfu.edu> Do you honestly have nothing better to do than copy paste right-wing conspiracy theories onto a college debate listserv? Even George W. Bush had the tact to pay his respects to Senator Kennedy. It's not a matter of whether or not you like the guy, it's about showing respect to those who pass away and their families. Kindly do us all a favor, and shut up, or at least go back to your tried and true "phosphorous" routine, or whatever the hell had you worked up all summer. -Will Sears From stables at usc.edu Wed Sep 2 16:23:23 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:23:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] T/F: Novice Division at CEDA Nats? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c1ac890909021423n3d6703c6lad5b73c0b600614b@mail.gmail.com> Invitation being finalized. Still on target for releasing the full invite around Labor Day/ next week. Consistent with discussions at previous business meetings, we will be having breakout elimination debates (but not a separate division) for novice teams. Also in discussions about CC/JC breakouts. The dates have already been confirmed and made available if folks need to make plane reservations. Remember CEDA Nats this year is at Cal right after the NDT. Questions. Just let me know. Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:36 PM, omar guevara wrote: > > I should know this, but totally swamped. Trying to beat a budget > disclosure deadline for Spring 10. > > Quick reply would be awesome!! > > OG > > Omar G Guevara II > Director of Forensics > Department of Communication > College of Arts & Humanities > Weber State University > Ogden, Utah > > 801.626.6220 (Office) > 801.668.6910 (Cell) > > Oguevara at hotmail.com > Oguevara at weber.edu > > > PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you. Try Bing now. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090902/cf0d6eb2/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Thu Sep 3 07:55:57 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:55:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] T/F: Novice Division at CEDA Nats? Message-ID: <20090903075557.44304vj9sndfqtwd@webmail.grandecom.net> I am glad that CEDA has decided to keep a novice break out division. This means we will probably send four teams to CEDA instead of just one or two. While I do not have adog in the hunt regarding community colleges, I wonder why a JV break out division would not solve for this as well while preventing a possible abuse. I would hate to see a program stack the deck by brining a senior or fourth (or fifth) year debater to debate for a community college. Scott From don1299 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 3 09:21:13 2009 From: don1299 at hotmail.com (Donny Peters) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:21:13 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] ISU requests hotel room share for UNI In-Reply-To: <4A9D4292.3040703@uvm.edu> References: <4A9D4292.3040703@uvm.edu> Message-ID: Hello, we have a room with 1 female. If you are interested in sharing the room we can split the costs. if you are interested please contact me. Donny Peters Director of Debate Illinois State University _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090903/40fb9735/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Thu Sep 3 10:11:33 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (David Steinberg) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] FOX Pro Football Pick'em - You're Invited to Play! Message-ID: <109970015.4431251990693856.JavaMail.nobody@localhost> Your email client does not support HTML messages -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090903/7d2660be/attachment.htm From jddtfl at yahoo.com Thu Sep 3 11:53:33 2009 From: jddtfl at yahoo.com (David Trigaux) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 09:53:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] GSU Hybrid Message-ID: <368554.65674.qm@web51309.mail.re2.yahoo.com> U. South Florida St. Pete is looking for a hybrid for the novice division at GSU. The probable partner has no formal debate experience, but is being trained to be ready for the tournament. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090903/4854550e/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Thu Sep 3 13:09:17 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (David Steinberg) Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] FOX College Football Pick'em - You're Invited to Play! Message-ID: <1689399187.9941252001357150.JavaMail.nobody@localhost> Your email client does not support HTML messages -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090903/457cc756/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Fri Sep 4 09:11:30 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 09:11:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Do you need Vegas Rooms? Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677FEA95D0EAF@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> I have a couple of rooms at the Vegas tournament hotel I am about to let go. I think one of them was for the Round Robin. Peace Massey From jarrod.atchison at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 11:55:46 2009 From: jarrod.atchison at gmail.com (Jarrod Atchison) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:55:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Trinity Looking to Hire 4 rounds at Kentucky Message-ID: We can pay cash. If you are interested, contact me at Jarrod.atchison at gmail.com ~Jarrod From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Fri Sep 4 11:26:27 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:26:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky seeks 2 rounds of judging at Georgia State Message-ID: We will pay $30 per round. Contact Roger Solt (resolt at email.uky.edu) if you are interested. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090904/11325768/attachment.htm From jrlyle at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 11:27:48 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:27:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] American Debate Association Ballot Results Message-ID: <25fd497f0909040927x78ccdf31hdd929b15af94acd1@mail.gmail.com> There were two issues on the ballot (one to the Standing Rules and one to the Constitution). Both passed. Standing Rules change (increased prior policy rounds from 18 to 24): Novice Eligibility ? III. A. 1. Eligibility. This division is open to debaters who: a. have no more than a combined total of 50 rounds of Lincoln Douglas and policy debate prior to the current academic year of which no more than 24 rounds can be policy debate. b. have competed in the novice division in a previous year but have not advanced into the elimination rounds at two tournaments. Constitution change (created summer meeting flexibility): Spring Meeting ? IV. 1 SECTION 1. The Association shall meet during the summer (May-August) for the purpose of electing officers and revising the ?Constitution and the Standing Rules of Debate Tournament Procedure.? Additionally, the Association shall meet, at least once, during the Fall academic semester (September-December) and at least once during the Spring academic semester (January-April). Vote counts: Standing Rules 9-3 Constitution 12-0 Jim Lyle Secretary - American Debate Association From anj36 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 4 14:01:20 2009 From: anj36 at hotmail.com (Anjali Vats) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:01:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga Judging Message-ID: Looking for 4 rounds of judging @ Gonzaga. Will pay $30 per round. Thanks, Anjali Vats Policy Debate Coach University of Puget Sound _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090904/7e840d78/attachment.htm From bbolman at gmail.com Fri Sep 4 15:32:13 2009 From: bbolman at gmail.com (Brad Bolman) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:32:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging needed for St. Marks and New Trier (Pembroke) Message-ID: The Pembroke Hill squad is looking for one judge/assistant coach for New Trier (Oct 9-11), Chicago, and two for St. Mark?s (Oct 23-25), Dallas. For New Trier someone in KC, Chicago, or in between would be preferable - for St. Mark's - between KC and Dallas. Compensation is reasonable. The squad is paperless so travel shouldn't be too much of an annoyance. Email pembrokedebate [at] gmail.com if you're interested. - Brad Bolman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090904/cd330ce5/attachment.htm From rwgallow at samford.edu Sat Sep 5 12:57:08 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 12:57:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking to Hire a Full Commitment at Richmond Message-ID: Pay $30 a round, in cash, at tournament. Please contact me if interested. Thank you! Dr. Ryan Galloway Director of Debate Samford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090905/e89723a4/attachment.htm From clairecmckinney at hotmail.com Sat Sep 5 15:03:59 2009 From: clairecmckinney at hotmail.com (Claire McKinney) Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:03:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Houston UDL Job Opening In-Reply-To: <45c5c7ad0909051139s3ecc00c7gf35e4554df2312ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <45c5c7ad0909051139s3ecc00c7gf35e4554df2312ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: >From Eric Emerson. Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 13:39:53 -0500 Subject: Please post - edebate From: eric.emerson at kinkaid.org To: clairecmckinney at hotmail.com CC: kdubose at adtappellate.com Claire, Can you please post a message for me to edebate? It's below. Eric EmersonDebate Coach - The Kinkaid School The Houston Urban Debate League (HUDL), in our second year, is currently undergoing expansion into almost 30 schools within the Houston Independent School District (HISD). Accordingly, HUDL is interested in finding qualified candidates to be the deputy league director. The deputy director will be employed by HISD, but the HUDL board of directors, with advice from our search committee, will provide guidance about hiring decisions. Candidates must be able to work with the HUDL board of directors, HUDL director Bryan Weber, and HISD. Salary is determined by HISD based upon the qualifications of the applicant. I have attached a detailed description of the job. Qualified and interested candidates should send a cover letter and resume to eric.emerson at kinkaid.org. Applicants will be reviewed by the search committee, and they must be willing and able to meet HISD hiring criteria. HUDL is a recognized affiliate of the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues (NAUDL). The mission of the Houston Urban Debate League is to build, support, and sustain programs in Houston?s public schools to make policy debate an educational resource available to all students. Eric Emerson _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=PID23391::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HYGN_faster:082009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090905/71c1d3e8/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: HUDL Deputy Director Job Description (2).DOC Type: application/msword Size: 63488 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090905/71c1d3e8/attachment.wiz From bdelo77 at gmail.com Sun Sep 6 14:05:24 2009 From: bdelo77 at gmail.com (Brian DeLong) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 14:05:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kerpen & Obama School Indoctrination REALLY? Message-ID: <72FBBE38-4691-4216-ABF8-CDFA1AA9E24D@gmail.com> http://kerpen.hipcast.com/deluge/a0c98d5d-c4e5-c043-21be-41593c8716dd.mp3 Beautiful representation of the debate community... I hear better arguments from my freshman government run school graduates. From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Sun Sep 6 14:39:20 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 15:39:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kerpen & Obama School Indoctrination REALLY? In-Reply-To: <72FBBE38-4691-4216-ABF8-CDFA1AA9E24D@gmail.com> References: <72FBBE38-4691-4216-ABF8-CDFA1AA9E24D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <524839830909061239o62dc7987hd9ea39a94cc8459b@mail.gmail.com> Phil, Are you suggesting that the government pay (via vouchers) for the majority of the costs associated with kids attending the Sidwell Friends school -- a mere $30K/year? I'm not necessarily opposed, but that seems like a lot of government spending... Also, are you suggesting that private school students won't be listening to Obama's speech? I bet the majority of them will, and they will likely do so without the politicized opt-outs Thoughts on opt-outs -- http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/5/777387/-The-Opt-Out-As-A-Political-Decision-and-a-Bad-Lesson On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Brian DeLong wrote: > http://kerpen.hipcast.com/deluge/a0c98d5d-c4e5-c043-21be-41593c8716dd.mp3 > > Beautiful representation of the debate community... I hear better > arguments from my freshman government run school graduates. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090906/226fcc74/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Mon Sep 7 16:57:11 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 14:57:11 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] hiring for judging at gonzaga $30 per round Message-ID: <3F86C8A34CD44B258245B358457D8BFA@whitman.edu> anyone got some extra rounds to sell? $30 per round. email me. got a full time judge--I'll pay nicely. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090907/57e4baf5/attachment.htm From ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu Mon Sep 7 18:54:34 2009 From: ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu (Sandoz, M L) Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:54:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] Vanderbilt Hotel Message-ID: <1319.10.2.85.12.1252367674.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu> Please make hotel reservations for the Vanderbilt tournament soon. Here is the link: http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/Book/vandy ------------------------------------------------- Sandoz, M L Director of Debate Vanderbilt University Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu From oguevara at hotmail.com Tue Sep 8 11:02:31 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:02:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Need 3 Rounds @ UNLV ~ Paying $100.00 Message-ID: That is $33.33 per round in cash. Has to be a quality person (i.e. usable from the perspective of the tab room). Only sure bet in town!! OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090908/f40d0452/attachment.htm From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 8 11:08:29 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 11:08:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Tournament Updates Message-ID: We are fast approaching the Ulrich tournament, we are looking forward to hosting you all next weekend. A couple of logistical issues: 1. The hotel block still has 11 doubles. If you haven't made reservations yet, please plan on staying at the Ramada Inn and Convention Center. The rate is $79/night, it has free wireless and it is the site of out rounds on Monday. 2. I will be posting an e-copy of our tournament booklet next Tuesday. We will have directions and schedules at registration, but in an effort to cut down on paper, we will have the information online. 3. Please indicate any vegetarians or vegans in your party on debateresults. We will be serving Jimmy John's on Sunday afternoon for lunch, and we will be happy to accomodate your party. kll Katherine L. Lavelle Director of Forensics University of Northern Iowa You must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't be resigned to that. Break out! ? Mr. Keating, Tom Schulman Dead Poets Society _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090908/43d22148/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Tue Sep 8 11:18:50 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:18:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Need 3 Rounds @ UNLV ~ Paying $100.00 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rounds have been purchased. Thank you Vince :) O Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM From: oguevara at hotmail.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:02:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Need 3 Rounds @ UNLV ~ Paying $100.00 That is $33.33 per round in cash. Has to be a quality person (i.e. usable from the perspective of the tab room). Only sure bet in town!! OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. Click here. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you?re up to on Facebook. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_facebook:082009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090908/793e992f/attachment.htm From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Tue Sep 8 12:22:59 2009 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:22:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Mo State Judging Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCA011855BC@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> UTSA is seeking nine rounds of judging at MO State. Will pay $30 cash. skip eno -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090908/49e47977/attachment.htm From debate.gsu at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 21:42:33 2009 From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 22:42:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Looking to Hire Judges for GSU Message-ID: If you're going to be in the ATL and want to get paid to judge, we're looking. Contact me at joe.bellon at gmail.com. -Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090908/bda65621/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Tue Sep 8 21:59:53 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 22:59:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Balt-DC judging available Message-ID: Hi, everyone! One of our recent grads, Katie Santmyer, is attending law school in the DC area and is interested in judging some high school tournaments. She judged for us last year as a senior, and I heard excellent things about her judging. If interested, please let me know, and I'll put you in touch with her. Thanks! --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090908/072ecf84/attachment.htm From jrlyle at gmail.com Tue Sep 8 22:34:37 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 23:34:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Tournament Updates Message-ID: <25fd497f0909082034r4d7971ebq5668c9693180fdc6@mail.gmail.com> 1. We have decided to use the 100 point scale for speaker points. 2. We will employ ordinal rank preferences for judging. 3. We will be having a sale at our tournament of virtually every tub and expando owned by the team. If you still rely on paper, we'll have deals for you. From spoon_22 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 9 03:27:24 2009 From: spoon_22 at hotmail.com (Aaron Hardy) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 01:27:24 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Judge philosophy Message-ID: <4e9460e80909090127n52782197lda09f2fc7384fcdf@mail.gmail.com> I've gotten a series of emails over the last few days with questions about my judge philosophy -- thought it worth posting a reminder before the Jesuit prefs go live. The questions, usually in order: 1) "Consult?" Still a bad idea if you like speaker points. Still willing to vote on it. 2) "But, this topic has specific consult evidence." (Not really a question, but...) Sounds like a very good DA. Still convinced the CP is an unfair (and uncompetitive) shortcut. Yes, "Japan w/25 consult! w/25 nuclear" does come up with cards that suggest talking to our allies before making changes to our posture. That hardly qualifies as deep, well-balanced, comparative literature on both sides. Backup option if you really want to run it anyway -- anyone who publicly posts an affirmative card to e-debate which comparatively says it would be better if the US did NOT consult X ally over a topical plan, and gets 3 judges unaffiliated with their school to post in public support that the card is good enough, has free reign to run that consult CP in front of me with no speaker point penalties. 3) "Do any other counterplans incur similar speaker point penalties?" No. I'm sure this topic will have a wide array of CP's, many of which are fair, many of which are unfair, and plenty of which questionably compete -- but none of them will automatically lose you points. Full philosophy (updated) is up on debateresults and the wiki. hardy From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Wed Sep 9 07:38:27 2009 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:38:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Navy needs 1 round of GSU Judging Message-ID: Navy needs to hire one round of judging for GSU. We pay $50, in cash, at the tournament. Shoot me an email at verney at usna.edu if you're interested. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you?re up to on Facebook. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_facebook:082009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090909/a60c67e4/attachment.htm From ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu Tue Sep 8 19:49:33 2009 From: ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu (Sandoz, M L) Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 19:49:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] [Released] Looking to hire GSU judges Message-ID: <3106.129.59.250.146.1252457373.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu> Email ml.sandoz at vanderbilt.edu or call 615-500-6184 ------------------------------------------------- Sandoz, M L Director of Debate Vanderbilt University Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu From jarrod.atchison at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 10:13:09 2009 From: jarrod.atchison at gmail.com (Jarrod Atchison) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:13:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Frank Harrison Memorial Weekend at Trinity Message-ID: Sent on behalf of Jamie Downing: Dear Colleagues, To commemorate the life and passing of Frank Harrison, the Trinity University Department of Speech and Drama and Trinity Debate alumni are planning a memorial service on October 17, 2009 at Trinity University in the Marguerite B. Parker Chapel at 2:00 p.m. A reception and dedication will be held in the Ruth Taylor Courtyard following the service. For more information, or if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact Jamie Downing (jamiesdowning at gmail.com) or Jarrod Atchison. If you have contact information for others who would be interested in attending this service, please feel free to forward this invitation and let us know so that they can be included in future emails. Thank you, Jamie Downing From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 10:58:16 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:58:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging Available at Georgia State Message-ID: <9368bc9b0909090858l5edc9134la0b24d5a48fc16@mail.gmail.com> I can judge a full commitment, if you are in need please contact me. Andy PS- I am sure there are lots of need judging announcements, but im not really following edebate so much right now so please pardon the message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090909/7407d99f/attachment.htm From andreareed2007 at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 13:53:59 2009 From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com (Andrea Reed) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 13:53:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Opencaselist formatting Message-ID: <77B0CE2E-16DC-4194-BB79-C60DDA411441@gmail.com> Hi everyone, A couple of changes to the formatting of the caselist wiki... For each page of team intel, 1. Heading 1 will be used to separate intel entries by tournament- this means that when you go to add cites, remember to paste them under this tournament heading, not ahead of it... if you are the first person to enter intel from a particular tournament, feel free to add this organizational heading yourself to the page you are editing 2. Heading 3 will NOT be used for the "round/tourney" information as JP previously said, this information should be in normal style- making this info Heading 3 will end up making the table of contents unwieldy (Heading 2 will still be used for the team and opponent information.) See Cal BP's neg page for an example: http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/Cal+BP-+Kathy+Bowen+%26+Jacob+Polin-+NEG Other things to note: 1. copy and pasting from files using these new paperless templates (including from the cite list if you are using that macro) is creating weird spacing issues- cites are copying as 1.5 paragraph spacing instead of normal, even if you clear their formatting first. I'm trying to figure out a way to fix this, if you have ideas, let me know... 2. If you use the aff and neg scouting templates that are at the bottom of the caselist home page, they will create the wrong heading levels if you just copy and paste them into the text editor.... in those templates, the "team name" top line is correct (Heading 2), but everything else copies as Heading 3 instead of Normal... you must *manually change* all of the other lines to Normal, or it will put ALL of the citation information into the Table of Contents Feel free to email me if you have questions. Thanks, Andrea From paulj567 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 9 14:55:23 2009 From: paulj567 at yahoo.com (Paul Johnson) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog Message-ID: <641891.63325.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Just a couple thoughts: I don't understand why we think that the debate community is somehow hermetically sealed from the outside world of knowledge production. The idea of having concerns about "debaters" writing cards can be turned on its head: in Soviet Russia, debate produces knowledge! Less colloquially, we might consider the possibility that if we really believe in the ol' debate project and some of our best and our brightest are writing on the blog at a respected think tank, instead of recoiling in fear that they are "writing cards" we might instead acknowledge that what they are producing is actually the sort of education/research that we (especially the committed framework types) have so often exclaimed debate SHOULD produce. Basically, the people who are blogging at the CSIS aren't changing the contours of the debate topic. Rather, debate is changing the contours of what the CSIS is working on. At the very least, they are mutually informing areas of knowledge and separating them out isn't an easy task. The eight years of debate (or so, give or take, I dont know them personally very well) that each has are literally informing what they're doing it, how they're doing it, and why they're doing it. So while it may seem like John Warden or Chris Jones is at the CSIC "writing cards", there's not really a need to think about this practice as somehow "special" and that the debate community should be insulated from such intervention. Instead, read what they're doing as evidence of the salutary (or deleterious, depending on your perspective) effects of participation in highly competitive intercollegiate debate. -PJ From trebrovick at comcast.net Wed Sep 9 19:13:54 2009 From: trebrovick at comcast.net (Tripp Rebrovick) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 17:13:54 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog In-Reply-To: <641891.63325.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <641891.63325.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9bdf06180909091713k47cff544i6c7c05dcb23fbed7@mail.gmail.com> Paul's hit the nail on the head: to say that debaters aren't "qualified" is a semi-veiled indict of the entire activity. What else did John and Chris, and really, the rest of us, spend several years learning how to do, if not learn how to think carefully and construct arguments to be released into the public domain? We should *glad* that trained debaters are making their arguments in public. The issue, it seems to me, is not that John and Chris have done something wrong, but that the way people interpret evidence has gone awry. It's only a *problem* that the cards on the CSIS blog are "too good to be true" if debaters and judges take the *mere existence* of a piece of evidence as somehow making the claim of the card true. Rather, if we treat evidence appropriately -- as just one factor among many to be considered in evaluating an argument -- it doesn't matter how good a card is, since its mere existence doesn't insulate it from rebuttal. Authority matters, sure, but it's never a trump. On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Just a couple thoughts: > > I don't understand why we think that the debate community is somehow > hermetically sealed from the outside world of knowledge production. The idea > of having concerns about "debaters" writing cards can be turned on its head: > in Soviet Russia, debate produces knowledge! Less colloquially, we might > consider the possibility that if we really believe in the ol' debate project > and some of our best and our brightest are writing on the blog at a > respected think tank, instead of recoiling in fear that they are "writing > cards" we might instead acknowledge that what they are producing is actually > the sort of education/research that we (especially the committed framework > types) have so often exclaimed debate SHOULD produce. > > Basically, the people who are blogging at the CSIS aren't changing the > contours of the debate topic. Rather, debate is changing the contours of > what the CSIS is working on. At the very least, they are mutually informing > areas of knowledge and separating them out isn't an easy task. The eight > years of debate (or so, give or take, I dont know them personally very well) > that each has are literally informing what they're doing it, how they're > doing it, and why they're doing it. So while it may seem like John Warden or > Chris Jones is at the CSIC "writing cards", there's not really a need to > think about this practice as somehow "special" and that the debate community > should be insulated from such intervention. Instead, read what they're doing > as evidence of the salutary (or deleterious, depending on your perspective) > effects of participation in highly competitive intercollegiate debate. > > -PJ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090909/5ad507e4/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 19:21:37 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:21:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog In-Reply-To: <9bdf06180909091713k47cff544i6c7c05dcb23fbed7@mail.gmail.com> References: <641891.63325.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9bdf06180909091713k47cff544i6c7c05dcb23fbed7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I think there is some slippage here between the complaints people have about the blog and the argument you and Paul are answering. The original objection was that there was no author attribution - this means that debaters could not "question" the author as being a debater or not. Regardless of how qualified you think people are - debaters should get to discuss those qualifications - and this blog was masking the author (for non-nefarious reasons). If someone said Chris and John are, or are not, unqualified, you could make these fine arguments in favor of them here. The second argument I have heard is that its a bit much to expect that John has attained an expertise in the intricacies of US-Japan consultation methods and how the new government will react in situations under the US umbrella. Again, at the very least this argument should be available to debaters but was not under the structure of the blog (as it was designed). This is not to say John will not become an expert, or have many advantages because of his debate training, etc. Yes, debate learning is good :) Josh On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Tripp Rebrovick wrote: > Paul's hit the nail on the head: to say that debaters aren't "qualified" is > a semi-veiled indict of the entire activity. What else did John and Chris, > and really, the rest of us, spend several years learning how to do, if not > learn how to think carefully and construct arguments to be released into the > public domain? We should *glad* that trained debaters are making their > arguments in public. > The issue, it seems to me, is not that John and Chris have done something > wrong, but that the way people interpret evidence has gone awry. It's only a > *problem* that the cards on the CSIS blog are "too good to be true" if > debaters and judges take the *mere existence* of a piece of evidence as > somehow making the claim of the card true. > > Rather, if we treat evidence appropriately -- as just one factor among many > to be considered in evaluating an argument -- it doesn't matter how good a > card is, since its mere existence doesn't insulate it from rebuttal. > Authority matters, sure, but it's never a trump. > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Just a couple thoughts: >> >> I don't understand why we think that the debate community is somehow >> hermetically sealed from the outside world of knowledge production. The idea >> of having concerns about "debaters" writing cards can be turned on its head: >> in Soviet Russia, debate produces knowledge! Less colloquially, we might >> consider the possibility that if we really believe in the ol' debate project >> and some of our best and our brightest are writing on the blog at a >> respected think tank, instead of recoiling in fear that they are "writing >> cards" we might instead acknowledge that what they are producing is actually >> the sort of education/research that we (especially the committed framework >> types) have so often exclaimed debate SHOULD produce. >> >> Basically, the people who are blogging at the CSIS aren't changing the >> contours of the debate topic. Rather, debate is changing the contours of >> what the CSIS is working on. At the very least, they are mutually informing >> areas of knowledge and separating them out isn't an easy task. The eight >> years of debate (or so, give or take, I dont know them personally very well) >> that each has are literally informing what they're doing it, how they're >> doing it, and why they're doing it. So while it may seem like John Warden or >> Chris Jones is at the CSIC "writing cards", there's not really a need to >> think about this practice as somehow "special" and that the debate community >> should be insulated from such intervention. Instead, read what they're doing >> as evidence of the salutary (or deleterious, depending on your perspective) >> effects of participation in highly competitive intercollegiate debate. >> >> -PJ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20090909/4ac69a23/attachment.htm From sethegannon at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 20:15:28 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:15:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog In-Reply-To: References: <641891.63325.qm@web53511.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9bdf06180909091713k47cff544i6c7c05dcb23fbed7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4bfbc1090909091815q8c31291ke88941602894da63@mail.gmail.com> Is it just me or does no one even want my cards on consulting field epidemiologists in Indonesia?? Warden still gets all the press... On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Josh wrote: > I think there is some slippage here between the complaints people have about > the blog and the argument you and Paul are answering.? The original > objection was that there was no author attribution - this means that > debaters could not "question" the author as being a debater or not. > Regardless of how qualified you think people are - debaters should get to > discuss those qualifications - and this blog was masking the author (for > non-nefarious reasons).? If someone said Chris and John are, or are not, > unqualified, you could make these fine arguments in favor of them here. > > The second argument I have heard is that its a bit much to expect that John > has attained an expertise in the intricacies of US-Japan consultation > methods and how the new government will react in situations under the US > umbrella.? Again, at the very least this argument should be available to > debaters but was not under the structure of the blog (as it was designed). > This is not to say John will not become an expert, or have many advantages > because of his debate training, etc. > > Yes, debate learning is good :) > > Josh > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Tripp Rebrovick > wrote: >> >> Paul's hit the nail on the head: to say that debaters aren't "qualified" >> is a semi-veiled indict of the entire activity. What else did John and >> Chris, and really, the rest of us, spend several years learning how to do, >> if not learn how to think carefully and construct arguments to be released >> into the public domain? We should glad?that trained debaters are making >> their arguments in public. >> The issue, it seems to me, is not that John and Chris have done something >> wrong, but that the way people interpret evidence has gone awry. It's only a >> *problem* that the cards on the CSIS blog are "too good to be true" if >> debaters and judges take the *mere existence* of a piece of evidence as >> somehow making the claim of the card true. >> Rather, if we treat evidence appropriately -- as just one factor among >> many to be considered in evaluating an argument -- it doesn't matter how >> good a card is, since its mere existence doesn't insulate it from rebuttal. >> Authority matters, sure, but it's never a trump. >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: >>> >>> Just a couple thoughts: >>> >>> I don't understand why we think that the debate community is somehow >>> hermetically sealed from the outside world of knowledge production. The idea >>> of having concerns about "debaters" writing cards can be turned on its head: >>> in Soviet Russia, debate produces knowledge! Less colloquially, we might >>> consider the possibility that if we really believe in the ol' debate project >>> and some of our best and our brightest are writing on the blog at a >>> respected think tank, instead of recoiling in fear that they are "writing >>> cards" we might instead acknowledge that what they are producing is actually >>> the sort of education/research that we (especially the committed framework >>> types) have so often exclaimed debate SHOULD produce. >>> >>> Basically, the people who are blogging at the CSIS aren't changing the >>> contours of the debate topic. Rather, debate is changing the contours of >>> what the CSIS is working on. At the very least, they are mutually informing >>> areas of knowledge and separating them out isn't an easy task. The eight >>> years of debate (or so, give or take, I dont know them personally very well) >>> that each has are literally informing what they're doing it, how they're >>> doing it, and why they're doing it. So while it may seem like John Warden or >>> Chris Jones is at the CSIC "writing cards", there's not really a need to >>> think about this practice as somehow "special" and that the debate community >>> should be insulated from such intervention. Instead, read what they're doing >>> as evidence of the salutary (or deleterious, depending on your perspective) >>> effects of participation in highly competitive intercollegiate debate. >>> >>> -PJ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 23:46:36 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 23:46:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog Message-ID: I couldn't disagree with Paul more about the qualifications of the CSIS interns. And I ironically enough think Josh makes an important point that helps my argument. I'll say this: they're not automatically unqualified, BUT citing this evidence as "CSIS Nuclear Topics Blog" would, in my opinion, overstate the role that either plays in the CSIS. Effectively, either of these folks is basically a Masters student without a completed degree, which is better than most journalists (probably not the NYT, LAT, WP, or major news magazines), but should not put them on par with true academic experts. This is not to say that their evidence should be ignored, but it is to say that, like Josh notes, they're probably not qualified to make the very specific claims they're making with the very limited warrants they provide in some places. I don't think that the guys tried to hide their qualifications, but I do think it would be disingenuous now to argue that this evidence is of top level quality or that insulating the evidence from interrogation by refusing to note that it was written by Warden and Jones is an attempt to hide a relevant fact to judging these cards' quality. J From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Wed Sep 9 23:59:19 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 23:59:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just as an aside, I have talked to Chris about this and he has elucidated why the blog is currently sans names. In addition, he also explained his thinking about why he wrote what he wrote. I felt his explanation was more than adequate. I will cross-post it if this is the place for this discussion to continue. I am clarifying this because I want everyone to know that niether Chris or John seem to have intended this in any nefarious way - they were just doing what they do for a living etc. Josh On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Jason Russell wrote: > I couldn't disagree with Paul more about the qualifications of the > CSIS interns. And I ironically enough think Josh makes an important > point that helps my argument. I'll say this: they're not automatically > unqualified, BUT citing this evidence as "CSIS Nuclear Topics Blog" > would, in my opinion, overstate the role that either plays in the > CSIS. Effectively, either of these folks is basically a Masters > student without a completed degree, which is better than most > journalists (probably not the NYT, LAT, WP, or major news magazines), > but should not put them on par with true academic experts. This is not > to say that their evidence should be ignored, but it is to say that, > like Josh notes, they're probably not qualified to make the very > specific claims they're making with the very limited warrants they > provide in some places. I don't think that the guys tried to hide > their qualifications, but I do think it would be disingenuous now to > argue that this evidence is of top level quality or that insulating > the evidence from interrogation by refusing to note that it was > written by Warden and Jones is an attempt to hide a relevant fact to > judging these cards' quality. > > > 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/20090909/5892f170/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Sep 10 00:34:40 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:34:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA88FF0.40408@wfu.edu> Not really disagreeing: Have you read their stuff? It makes more sense than the NYT, LAT, WP or "major news magazines" do. I don't know if they make better arguments than "experts." But, I see a lot less overreaching, a lot more good arguments & a lot more documentation than the usual blog, or even news feed would contain. Given almost equally good arguments, expertise or "authority" does come into play. But, you can't ignore reality when an academic expert has been beaten, whether in "print" or in an un-evidenced speech delivered by a debater. If someone makes an argument with limited warrants, debaters should be able to dissect & refute it...especially if the argument is wrong. Who cares about the authors qualifications? Its hard to make "analytics" count as much as a card but, that is part of the game. I hope we can teach debaters how to beat a bad argument quoted from the most qualified source imaginable. We may need to work on that, but I hope that debaters in general become conversant enough in a subject matter to tell the "experts" when they are wrong. Debate judging is part of the problem: How long will the "you are right, but they have a card" excuse last? I hope no one uses similar reasoning in their daily decision making. We got rid of the parts of Stock Issues that made no sense. Why do we follow "argument from authority" to its extreme? If a debater is right & an authority wrong, why do we keep rely on authority? -- JP ps: I don't get this whole "The blog is without authors" argument. Subscribe to the blog with an RSS feed & you'll see all the authors. Jason Russell wrote: > I couldn't disagree with Paul more about the qualifications of the > CSIS interns. And I ironically enough think Josh makes an important > point that helps my argument. I'll say this: they're not automatically > unqualified, BUT citing this evidence as "CSIS Nuclear Topics Blog" > would, in my opinion, overstate the role that either plays in the > CSIS. Effectively, either of these folks is basically a Masters > student without a completed degree, which is better than most > journalists (probably not the NYT, LAT, WP, or major news magazines), > but should not put them on par with true academic experts. This is not > to say that their evidence should be ignored, but it is to say that, > like Josh notes, they're probably not qualified to make the very > specific claims they're making with the very limited warrants they > provide in some places. I don't think that the guys tried to hide > their qualifications, but I do think it would be disingenuous now to > argue that this evidence is of top level quality or that insulating > the evidence from interrogation by refusing to note that it was > written by Warden and Jones is an attempt to hide a relevant fact to > judging these cards' quality. > > > J > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Sep 10 00:42:12 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:42:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog In-Reply-To: <4AA88FF0.40408@wfu.edu> References: <4AA88FF0.40408@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <4AA891B4.9080907@wfu.edu> JP Lacy wrote: > > Not really disagreeing: > > Have you read their stuff? It makes more sense than the NYT, LAT, WP > or "major news magazines" do. I don't know if they make better > arguments than "experts." But, I see a lot less overreaching, a lot > more good arguments & a lot more documentation than the usual blog, or > even news feed would contain. > > Given almost equally good arguments, expertise or "authority" does > come into play. > > But, you can't ignore reality when an academic expert has been beaten, > whether in "print" or in an un-evidenced speech delivered by a debater. > > If someone makes an argument with limited warrants, debaters should be > able to dissect & refute it...especially if the argument is wrong. Who > cares about the authors qualifications? > > Its hard to make "analytics" count as much as a card but, that is part > of the game. > > I hope we can teach debaters how to beat a bad argument quoted from > the most qualified source imaginable. > > We may need to work on that, but I hope that debaters in general > become conversant enough in a subject matter to tell the "experts" > when they are wrong. > > Debate judging is part of the problem: How long will the "you are > right, but they have a card" excuse last? > > I hope no one uses similar reasoning in their daily decision making. > We got rid of the parts of Stock Issues that made no sense. Why do we > follow "argument from authority" to its extreme? > > If a debater is right & an authority wrong, why do we keep rely on > authority? > > -- JP > > ps: I don't get this whole "The blog is without authors" argument. > Subscribe to the blog with an RSS feed & you'll see all the authors. > > > > Jason Russell wrote: >> I couldn't disagree with Paul more about the qualifications of the >> CSIS interns. And I ironically enough think Josh makes an important >> point that helps my argument. I'll say this: they're not automatically >> unqualified, BUT citing this evidence as "CSIS Nuclear Topics Blog" >> would, in my opinion, overstate the role that either plays in the >> CSIS. Effectively, either of these folks is basically a Masters >> student without a completed degree, which is better than most >> journalists (probably not the NYT, LAT, WP, or major news magazines), >> but should not put them on par with true academic experts. This is not >> to say that their evidence should be ignored, but it is to say that, >> like Josh notes, they're probably not qualified to make the very >> specific claims they're making with the very limited warrants they >> provide in some places. I don't think that the guys tried to hide >> their qualifications, but I do think it would be disingenuous now to >> argue that this evidence is of top level quality or that insulating >> the evidence from interrogation by refusing to note that it was >> written by Warden and Jones is an attempt to hide a relevant fact to >> judging these cards' quality. >> >> >> J >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> > > From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 00:43:20 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:43:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog In-Reply-To: <4AA88FF0.40408@wfu.edu> References: <4AA88FF0.40408@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Again, I'm not worried about the blog being without authors as an indict of Jones or Warden's ethics. I understand exactly why it was done this way and how to obtain the author info. I'm worried about our people (read: debaters & coaches) misrepresenting the evidence as "CSIS" rather than "1st yr CSIS intern Warden", because to me that is VERY different. Let's don't pretend that this doesn't happen at time when debaters and coaches look at a card and say "I can't really defend this individual, but the organization they work for or magazine/paper they're writing for is very reputable. I'll cite that". This is the practice I'm trying to head off. The rest of J.P.'s comment I'm ok with. Jones and Warden could make excellent arguments that are logically impenetrable by expert evidence. I don't believe that they do and I do not and will not consider their evidence to be of comparable quality as an expert's if that claim is contested. J From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 01:02:06 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:02:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog In-Reply-To: <4AA88FF0.40408@wfu.edu> References: <4AA88FF0.40408@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Your caveat at the end is naiive in that most people would not think to "subscribe to the rss feed" while doing research. It is a good tip, but doesn't jump to mind for most I suspect. In addition, this blog will have authors attributed soon anyway (they are redesigning), Josh On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:34 AM, JP Lacy wrote: > > Not really disagreeing: > > Have you read their stuff? It makes more sense than the NYT, LAT, WP or > "major news magazines" do. I don't know if they make better arguments > than "experts." But, I see a lot less overreaching, a lot more good > arguments & a lot more documentation than the usual blog, or even news > feed would contain. > > Given almost equally good arguments, expertise or "authority" does come > into play. > > But, you can't ignore reality when an academic expert has been beaten, > whether in "print" or in an un-evidenced speech delivered by a debater. > > If someone makes an argument with limited warrants, debaters should be > able to dissect & refute it...especially if the argument is wrong. Who > cares about the authors qualifications? > > Its hard to make "analytics" count as much as a card but, that is part > of the game. > > I hope we can teach debaters how to beat a bad argument quoted from the > most qualified source imaginable. > > We may need to work on that, but I hope that debaters in general become > conversant enough in a subject matter to tell the "experts" when they > are wrong. > > Debate judging is part of the problem: How long will the "you are right, > but they have a card" excuse last? > > I hope no one uses similar reasoning in their daily decision making. We > got rid of the parts of Stock Issues that made no sense. Why do we > follow "argument from authority" to its extreme? > > If a debater is right & an authority wrong, why do we keep rely on > authority? > > -- JP > > ps: I don't get this whole "The blog is without authors" argument. > Subscribe to the blog with an RSS feed & you'll see all the authors. > > > > Jason Russell wrote: > > I couldn't disagree with Paul more about the qualifications of the > > CSIS interns. And I ironically enough think Josh makes an important > > point that helps my argument. I'll say this: they're not automatically > > unqualified, BUT citing this evidence as "CSIS Nuclear Topics Blog" > > would, in my opinion, overstate the role that either plays in the > > CSIS. Effectively, either of these folks is basically a Masters > > student without a completed degree, which is better than most > > journalists (probably not the NYT, LAT, WP, or major news magazines), > > but should not put them on par with true academic experts. This is not > > to say that their evidence should be ignored, but it is to say that, > > like Josh notes, they're probably not qualified to make the very > > specific claims they're making with the very limited warrants they > > provide in some places. I don't think that the guys tried to hide > > their qualifications, but I do think it would be disingenuous now to > > argue that this evidence is of top level quality or that insulating > > the evidence from interrogation by refusing to note that it was > > written by Warden and Jones is an attempt to hide a relevant fact to > > judging these cards' quality. > > > > > > J > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20090910/89c8ea0b/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com Thu Sep 10 01:34:55 2009 From: let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:34:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog Message-ID: one possible rationale for anonymous-collective blogging: http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377#About_Economistcom&CFID=78068341&CFTOKEN=43771569 Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that WHAT IS WRITTEN IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHO WRITES IT. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle." _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090910/9659d7d5/attachment.htm From dsrader at northwestchristian.edu Thu Sep 10 08:39:09 2009 From: dsrader at northwestchristian.edu (Doyle Srader) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:39:09 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] The CSIS Debaters Who Blog Message-ID: <11EB54FFE7082149BAD19E0230D2641C01B2B42B4D@noah> JP wrote: "Given almost equally good arguments, expertise or 'authority' does come into play. But, you can't ignore reality when an academic expert has been beaten, whether in 'print' or in an un-evidenced speech delivered by a debater. If someone makes an argument with limited warrants, debaters should be able to dissect & refute it...especially if the argument is wrong. Who cares about the authors qualifications?" This is on my mind, because I've been watching this same argument play out in another forum. JP, you're wrong. Way wrong. I remember Josh Branson's long post of reflections, a year or several ago, about adjusting to how people argued in his post-debate life. Many of the arguments he'd constructed were revealed to be comic oversimplifications of the way things really were. I also remember that we used to brag that our debaters could hold their own with law professors on legal topics and with climatologists on climate change issues. I now think that's silly. When experts in a field argue among themselves, they use a lot of shorthand. They don't go back to square one to argue, step by step, through every bit of settled lore in their field. If they did, you'd need a forklift to move a single journal article. What seems to us like a "limited warrant" may really be someone with twenty years' experience researching and writing for an audience of peer reviewers, not precocious nineteen-year-olds, who is aiming the current writing to the intended audience, not the recently-arrived dilettantes. I worry, and this is a study waiting to happen, that debaters catch a bad case of the same kind of stubborn, uninformed certainty that was attributed to Limbaugh audiences a few years back. Yes, debaters can spot a bad argument. No, debaters who first started reading the literature in May or June cannot, in October, confidently separate an error from a brief reference in the writings of a career-devoted scholar writing for the consumption of other career-devoted scholars. It's just nonsense to claim otherwise. -- Doyle Srader, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Communication Northwest Christian University From nicksciullo at hotmail.com Thu Sep 10 08:54:05 2009 From: nicksciullo at hotmail.com (Nick Sciullo) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:54:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia is looking for traveling judges/coaches for the 2009-2010 school year. Message-ID: T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia is looking for traveling judges/coaches for the 2009-2010 school year. T.C. Williams High School, home of the Titans, requires additional judging support for this year. We recently lost our faculty sponsor and the size of the team is rapidly growing. Both factors have left us with a void of judging. T.C. Williams has a fast growing debate team that has become regionally competitive in the last several years. We have a great group of diverse debaters with passion for the activity. Most tournaments are held in the Northern Virginia area. This year we plan to travel to several ?away? tournaments including George Mason, James Madison, Pennsbury (Fairless Hills, PA) and Lakeland (Shrub Oak, NY). We compete in both Policy and LD. The tournaments we compete in the following leagues: Virginia High School League, Washington Arlington Catholic Forensic League, and Northern Virginia Forensic League. The team primarily needs judges, but coaching assistance never hurt either. I?m looking for? * current or former debaters with two years of combined debate experience * prior coaching and/or judging experience is a plus * good track record of working with high-schoolers or college novi * dependability Unfortunately we don?t have much in the way of financial support to provide beyond room and meals (and maybe a couple bucks per round), so at this point you should consider this a volunteer position. When we do have the money, I?ll be sure to direct it toward anyone who helps out. Email me back to learn more or if you?re interested. Also, check us out on the web at www.tcdebatesociety.org. Best of luck on a great season and many thanks, Nick J. Sciullo Director of Debate, T.C. Williams High School nicksciullo at hotmail.com _________________________________________________________________ With Windows Live, you can organize, edit, and share your photos. http://www.windowslive.com/Desktop/PhotoGallery -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090910/7c84c6da/attachment.htm From lukephill at gmail.com Thu Sep 10 12:05:10 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:05:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Looking for GSU and Kentucky Judges Message-ID: Northwestern is looking for judging for both the GSU tournament and the Clay. Please backchannel (lukephill at gmail.com) if interested. We pay well and in cash. LH Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090910/470d0cc6/attachment.htm From Roy.Eno at utsa.edu Thu Sep 10 13:02:02 2009 From: Roy.Eno at utsa.edu (Roy Eno) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:02:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UTSA Judging Needed at Mo State Message-ID: <7CE039ACB3DF9645B48718D2FDB21DCA011855C4@opal1604.UTSARR.NET> Thanks to Andy Casey, we have seven rounds covered for Springfield--still need two more rounds--$30 per and cash. skip eno -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090910/4103dc2d/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Thu Sep 10 13:36:42 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 14:36:42 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Cannot pay CEDA dues Message-ID: <4AA94739.1000905@uvm.edu> The website at http://cedadebate.org/join is for 2008-09, not 2009-10. When you print the "printer friendly version" it will give you a 2008-09. My university will NOT pay dues for last year. They demand an invoice. When it is updated we will be glad to join. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From daisy_verney at hotmail.com Thu Sep 10 19:46:20 2009 From: daisy_verney at hotmail.com (Danielle Verney) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:46:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Navy needs judging for Clarion Message-ID: Navy needs judging for Clarion. We will pay $50/committed round. We can also arrange to cover room and meals if needed. We need at least one full commitment and would prefer to hire that but will also consider hiring partial commitments. Send me an email at verney at usna.edu if you're interested. Thanks, Danielle Verney O'Gorman Navy Debate _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090910/bb810dc3/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Fri Sep 11 11:46:49 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:46:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Vermont Tournament numbers two weeks out Message-ID: <4AAA7EF9.1020500@uvm.edu> Preliminary, other schools say they are coming but have yet to check in. Waiting for Claremont, NYU, Cortland, Cape Cod and others. All welcome. Policy New School 7-8 WConn 7 CUNY 2-4 Rochester 10 Bard 2 Cornell 10 Vermont 7-10 TOTAL 50 Worlds Claremont Colgate 4 St Johns 7 Kings NY 5 Ohio Wesleyan 5 Rochester 5-8 Bard 8 HWSmith 4 Cornell 20 Vermont 10-12 TOTAL 73 We plan to have a very nice time here in beautiful Burlington. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From blackslaw06 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 11 14:02:18 2009 From: blackslaw06 at yahoo.com (RW) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:02:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Univ. of Florida-Hiring judging for GSU Message-ID: <322859.23902.qm@web45401.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Anyone still on the market?? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090911/2ac9d1d1/attachment.htm From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 11 15:48:46 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:48:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI updates - tournament booklet & restaurant list Message-ID: hi all, Here are some updates for the UNI tournament: 1. The hotel block expires today. If you haven't made reservations and plan to, please do so during business hours today. 2. I am emailing the tournament booklet and restaurant list. I will have paper copies of the directions (they have been changing daily due to construction on campus) at registration. One warning, they have University down to one lane on each side, so movement through the intersection of Main & University can be quite slow. 3. We will be serving the ubiquitous Jimmy John's for lunch on Sunday. If you haven't filled out the veggie/vegan preference yet, please do so. We will have the condiments on the side. If you have vegans in your party, let me know so we can get something without animal products in it. 4. As always, our judging pool is quite limited. If you want to hire for rounds, you may want to check with schools that have extra commitment. We will be asking at registration if people are willing to judge extra rounds for pay. All the best, kate Katherine L. Lavelle Director of Forensics University of Northern Iowa You must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't be resigned to that. Break out! ? Mr. Keating, Tom Schulman Dead Poets Society _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Keep your friends up to date with what you do online. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_SB_online:082009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090911/e9e94214/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: booklet08.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36352 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090911/e9e94214/attachment.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: restaurantlist08.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29184 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090911/e9e94214/attachment-0001.doc From ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu Fri Sep 11 16:24:02 2009 From: ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu (Sandoz, M L) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:24:02 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] Vandy Tournament - Time is running out Message-ID: <1458.129.59.250.146.1252704242.squirrel@vuwebmail.vanderbilt.edu> Please make hotel reservations for the Vanderbilt tournament soon. Here is the link: http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/Book/vandy LODGING: The Sheraton will hold a block of rooms until September 18, 2009. Sheraton Nashville Downtown Hotel: 623 Union Street ? Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Reservations can be made online at http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/Book/vandy or by phone (800) 325-3535 or (615) 259-2000 (ask for Vanderbilt Debate). The group rate will be $99.00 and will expire September 18, 2009. Please note that the tournament falls on our homecoming weekend and rooms will be difficult to find after September 18, 2009. ------------------------------------------------- Sandoz, M L Director of Debate Vanderbilt University Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Fri Sep 11 19:46:20 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:46:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by CSU Northridge Message-ID: Name:The CSUN-Robert Barbera Invitational Starts:11/20/2009 Ends:11/22/2009 Hosted by: CSU Northridge Contact: John Kephart Address: 18111 Nordhoff St. Northridge, CA 91330-8257 Phone: 818-677-3043 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Open Parlimentary with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Novice Parlimentary with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Fri Sep 11 19:46:40 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:46:40 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by CSU Northridge Message-ID: <37D8F88B359F4EA391715BC10DBAB567@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:The CSUN-Robert Barbera Invitational Starts:11/20/2009 Ends:11/22/2009 Hosted by: CSU Northridge Contact: John Kephart Address: 18111 Nordhoff St. Northridge, CA 91330-8257 Phone: 818-677-3043 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos JV Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice Policy with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Open Parlimentary with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Novice Parlimentary with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From commftownnielson at aol.com Fri Sep 11 20:24:11 2009 From: commftownnielson at aol.com (commftownnielson at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:24:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fullerton needs hybrid for SF St Message-ID: <8CC015EDDF1E7C7-2138-1228B@webmail-d058.sysops.aol.com> Hi D1 folks, We have 1 JV debater and 1 novice debater who need a partner. if worse comes to worse, we can put them together, but at the beginning of the year the gap is so large. If anyone has an extra person, please contact me. Thanks, Toni commftownnielson at aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090911/00024cb2/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Sep 11 23:16:44 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:16:44 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Read this. Seriously. Message-ID: <4AAB20AC.7000802@wfu.edu> http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/12/12/tips-of-how-to-prevent-your-gmail-from-being-hacked-by-phishers/ Nowadays it is very common to hear about online security vulnerability with email and domains being stolen by unauthorized third parties. As a frequent internet surfer, how are you going to ensure your Gmail is safe from being attacked by phishers and prevent your private information from being stolen by third parties? You never know or suspect the email is actually sent by phisher as the web page looks like a legitimate site you have visited before. Phishers can imitate as banks, email, online merchants, payment services providers and even governments that you may be confused with what they have claimed and follow the instructions to enter your username, password and other private information on the site. All these information can be used by phishers to steal your bank money, open new credit card applications under your name and etc. In order to prevent or minimize such incident from happening, there are few tips you can apply to prevent phishers? attacks: ? Examine if there are any suspicious filters which are not created by you Access to your Gmail account, go to Setting -> Filters, then verify if there are any filters which are not created by you. Delete them right away if there is any. ? Disable Forwarding and POP/IMAP Access to your Gmail account, go to Setting -> Forwarding and POP/IMAP, disable forwarding, POP and IMAP if you have not used them. From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Sep 11 23:37:04 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:37:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Read this. Seriously. In-Reply-To: <4AAB20AC.7000802@wfu.edu> References: <4AAB20AC.7000802@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0909112137i534ed6e4r6f765f63fac74828@mail.gmail.com> JP...Can you confirm that you sent this, and that it is not itself something malicious...This type of message is often exactly how people get lured in especially when it comes from someone trusted... On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:16 AM, JP Lacy wrote: > > > > > http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/12/12/tips-of-how-to-prevent-your-gmail-from-being-hacked-by-phishers/ > > Nowadays it is very common to hear about online security > vulnerability with email and domains being stolen by unauthorized third > parties. As a frequent internet surfer, how are you going to ensure your > Gmail is safe from being attacked by phishers and prevent your private > information from being stolen by third parties? > > You never know or suspect the email is actually sent by phisher as the > web page looks like a legitimate site you have visited before. Phishers > can imitate as banks, email, online merchants, payment services > providers and even governments that you may be confused with what they > have claimed and follow the instructions to enter your username, > password and other private information on the site. All these > information can be used by phishers to steal your bank money, open new > credit card applications > under your name and etc. In order to prevent or minimize such incident > from happening, there are few tips you can apply to prevent phishers? > attacks: > > ? Examine if there are any suspicious filters which are not created by you > Access to your Gmail account, go to Setting -> Filters, then verify if > there are any filters which are not created by you. Delete them right > away if there is any. > > ? Disable Forwarding and POP/IMAP > Access to your Gmail account, go to Setting -> Forwarding and POP/IMAP, > disable forwarding, POP and IMAP if you have not used them. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090912/edaef730/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Sep 11 23:54:11 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:54:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Read this. Seriously. In-Reply-To: <4AAB20AC.7000802@wfu.edu> References: <4AAB20AC.7000802@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <4AAB2973.2080109@wfu.edu> Some context: A bunch of big high school debate teams got all their files stolen using methods similar to below. Don't know if the perpetrator used a web page or social engineering to get it done. It also happened to Wake. Don't let it happen to you. JP Lacy wrote: > > > http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/12/12/tips-of-how-to-prevent-your-gmail-from-being-hacked-by-phishers/ > > Nowadays it is very common to hear about online security > vulnerability with email and domains being stolen by unauthorized third > parties. As a frequent internet surfer, how are you going to ensure your > Gmail is safe from being attacked by phishers and prevent your private > information from being stolen by third parties? > > You never know or suspect the email is actually sent by phisher as the > web page looks like a legitimate site you have visited before. Phishers > can imitate as banks, email, online merchants, payment services > providers and even governments that you may be confused with what they > have claimed and follow the instructions to enter your username, > password and other private information on the site. All these > information can be used by phishers to steal your bank money, open new > credit card applications > under your name and etc. In order to prevent or minimize such incident > from happening, there are few tips you can apply to prevent phishers? > attacks: > > ? Examine if there are any suspicious filters which are not created by you > Access to your Gmail account, go to Setting -> Filters, then verify if > there are any filters which are not created by you. Delete them right > away if there is any. > > ? Disable Forwarding and POP/IMAP > Access to your Gmail account, go to Setting -> Forwarding and POP/IMAP, > disable forwarding, POP and IMAP if you have not used them. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > From lacyjp at wfu.edu Sat Sep 12 00:10:13 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:10:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Read this. Seriously. In-Reply-To: <4AAB2973.2080109@wfu.edu> References: <4AAB20AC.7000802@wfu.edu> <4AAB2973.2080109@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <4AAB2D35.8090607@wfu.edu> I guess some of our stuff is "open sourced" or "full text" now. If someone makes an offer to sell you our stuff (like they have recently,) we can probably make a better deal:) -- JP JP Lacy wrote: > Some context: > > A bunch of big high school debate teams got all their files stolen using > methods similar to below. Don't know if the perpetrator used a web page > or social engineering to get it done. > > It also happened to Wake. > > Don't let it happen to you. > > JP Lacy wrote: > >> http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/12/12/tips-of-how-to-prevent-your-gmail-from-being-hacked-by-phishers/ >> >> Nowadays it is very common to hear about online security >> vulnerability with email and domains being stolen by unauthorized third >> parties. As a frequent internet surfer, how are you going to ensure your >> Gmail is safe from being attacked by phishers and prevent your private >> information from being stolen by third parties? >> >> You never know or suspect the email is actually sent by phisher as the >> web page looks like a legitimate site you have visited before. Phishers >> can imitate as banks, email, online merchants, payment services >> providers and even governments that you may be confused with what they >> have claimed and follow the instructions to enter your username, >> password and other private information on the site. All these >> information can be used by phishers to steal your bank money, open new >> credit card applications >> under your name and etc. In order to prevent or minimize such incident >> from happening, there are few tips you can apply to prevent phishers? >> attacks: >> >> ? Examine if there are any suspicious filters which are not created by you >> Access to your Gmail account, go to Setting -> Filters, then verify if >> there are any filters which are not created by you. Delete them right >> away if there is any. >> >> ? Disable Forwarding and POP/IMAP >> Access to your Gmail account, go to Setting -> Forwarding and POP/IMAP, >> disable forwarding, POP and IMAP if you have not used them. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 12 01:16:31 2009 From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:16:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] GSU JUDGE HIRING Message-ID: <365846.13612.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> HI LOOKING TO GET HIRED FOR 7 ROUNDS IF POSSIBLE? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090911/f84c628e/attachment.htm From bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 12 01:31:58 2009 From: bmoreboi325 at yahoo.com (Deven) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] GSU JUDGE HIRING AVAIL Message-ID: <275181.20366.qm@web65410.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> HELLO, IM LOOKING TO GET HIRED FOR GSU...ANY TAKERS? 7 ROUNDS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090911/9d7753e7/attachment.htm From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Sat Sep 12 14:59:25 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:59:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Rounds for Sale Message-ID: We have rounds we can cover for hire at the UNI tournament. If you still need to hire, let me know. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090912/9db7115f/attachment.htm From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Sat Sep 12 15:14:58 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:14:58 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by California Message-ID: <4C765CE07D9E4665B6E71E3B9701DFED@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Cal Swing #1 Starts:1/3/2010 Ends:1/5/2010 Hosted by: California Contact: Greg Achten Address: Phone: 510-684-8120 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: OPen with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From lacyjp at wfu.edu Sun Sep 13 00:26:46 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 01:26:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Full text on opencaselist? Message-ID: <4AAC8296.6000604@wfu.edu> Some people have been pasting the full text of evidence into cites on opencaselist. Some people have been deleting that text. I am ambivalent about whether or not the wiki should include full text. I guess we can keep going with this wiki war & keep pasting full text, deleting it, & repasting it forever. I figure its a better idea to ask this: Should people add the "middle text" to cites on the wiki? Why or why not? Its not really "My wiki." Debaters refer to it as "The wiki." Its a place where we share arguments. So, I'm not trying to make a "final decision" here. We do have a controversy where lots of people have stakes involved & maybe those involved should share their arguments. -- JP Here are some starter arguments: Posting full text discourages research because people can just "steal" the ev & use it themselves. Posting full text encourages research because scrutiny improves the quality of card-cutting. From gregachten at berkeley.edu Sun Sep 13 15:35:44 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:35:44 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Need Kentucky and Harvard Judging Message-ID: Cal is looking to hire judging at Kentucky and Harvard. We pay in cash at the tournament. $30 per round. Let me know if you have any available, Greg From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sun Sep 13 23:10:34 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:10:34 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga elim seedings Message-ID: Attention: Cal State Fullerton's area code and prefix are now 657-278. The Fullerton campus and most of the Irvine campus phone and fax numbers now begin with 657-278 followed by the current extension number. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GonzBracket.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 52113 bytes Desc: GonzBracket.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090913/be3feed2/attachment.pdf From asymonds at asu.edu Sun Sep 13 23:52:44 2009 From: asymonds at asu.edu (Adam Symonds) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:52:44 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for SFSU and UNLV judging Message-ID: $30 a round. Inquire within. Adam Symonds Director of Forensics Arizona State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090913/f4a6035d/attachment.htm From asymonds at asu.edu Mon Sep 14 01:25:02 2009 From: asymonds at asu.edu (Adam Symonds) Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 23:25:02 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] SFSU judging done, still looking for UNLV judging Message-ID: email if interested. Thanks, Adam Symonds Director of Forensics Arizona State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090913/4d31d8b3/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Mon Sep 14 08:46:48 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 09:46:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Intl Debate Academy Scholarships Message-ID: <4AAE4948.2080408@uvm.edu> The Dallas-based law firm of Bickel and Brewer announced a $5000 grant to the International Debate Academy Slovenia, sponsored by ZIP Slovenia and the World Debate Institute USA, for scholarship funds to bring the best and neediest of students to the 2009 program, a week-long intensive debate training program that will take place in November. Sarah Marshala, director of the Bickel and Brewer Foundation, called in this news to Bojana Skrt, IDAS director, who reacted, "I am happy and very grateful for this award, and I am excited about now offering more scholarships than ever. I hope that the example set by this visionary law firm is something that lawyers in Europe will learn from," said Skrt. Get information about the International Debate Academy Slovenia at http://debate.uvm.edu/idas.html You will find the link to scholarship forms there. Please realize: There will be substantial competition for scholarship funds. There will be no 100% awards. Please follow instructions in the scholarship essay. September 30 2009 is the deadline. Bickel & Brewer is one of the most aggressive, creative and successful litigation firms in the United States. The firm's concentration in complex litigation and dispute resolution is not confined to particular substantive areas of the law, but to the litigation practice itself. As such, many of the firm's attorneys have gained national recognition by handling cutting-edge cases in a wide variety of substantive legal fields. Bickel & Brewer has proven time and again that the well-honed skills of its litigators may be universally applied to forge profitable resolutions of disputes in any area of law or any area of commercial enterprise. Although the trial and forensic abilities of Bickel & Brewer litigators are unparalleled, these tools are often used as strategic deterrents rather than as implements of first resort. Thus, a substantial portion of the firm's practice is preventative counseling and problem solving. The firm recognizes that in many instances its clients' objectives are best served by successfully avoiding litigation and that success is measured by the advice and counsel provided to achieve this end. However, if full-scale litigation is in the client's best interest, no law firm in the country understands and successfully galvanizes the process as well as Bickel & Brewer. http://www.bickelbrewer.com/index.php?id=the_firm The International Debate Academy Slovenia is now in its seventh year and has become one of the world's premier debate training programs, focusing on training in the WUDC format. Students from over twenty countries have attended the program, and faculty members come from the top ranks of debate trainers from around the world. http://debate.uvm.edu/idas.html The dates for 2009 are 21-29 November 2009. One of the other events Bickel and Brewer supports is the International Public Policy Forum that it operates in partnership with New York University. It is a debate contest that allows high school students from all over the world to compete against each other to earn an all-expense paid trip to New York City for the top eight teams and a chance to win $10,000. Formerly known as the Bickel & Brewer/ NYU National Public Policy Forum, the IPPF is a unique debate competition involving public and private schools from across the globe. Visit www.nppf.net for more information! See their Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/International-Public-Policy-Forum/211483875322?ref=ts . -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Mon Sep 14 09:45:13 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:45:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Gonz octos Message-ID: Attention: Cal State Fullerton's area code and prefix are now 657-278. The Fullerton campus and most of the Irvine campus phone and fax numbers now begin with 657-278 followed by the current extension number. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GonzOctos.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 37075 bytes Desc: GonzOctos.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090914/56c4205c/attachment.pdf From berchnorto at msn.com Mon Sep 14 11:32:36 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:32:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] need 3 rounds for King's Message-ID: We can pay a total of $100 in cash, at the tournament. Please let me know if you have rounds to sell. --Neil --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090914/5dafe513/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 12:27:07 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:27:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] test Message-ID: <50002ace0909141027n5140921fj43992b66c06394bf@mail.gmail.com> test -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090914/ed0f4667/attachment.htm From debate.gsu at gmail.com Mon Sep 14 12:33:30 2009 From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 13:33:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Reminders Message-ID: 1) Fill out your food information, ESPECIALLY the number of vegetarians and vegans. 2) Make sure your judging entry is complete on debateresults.com, as we will be shutting off changes tomorrow. 3) If you are hiring someone to do some or all of your judging, please make sure we know by e-mailing me at joe.bellon at gmail.com. 4) WE ARE WILLING TO BUY EXTRA ROUNDS if you are willing to be hired for more debates. Please indicate that by filling out your judging commitment appropriately on debateresults.com or by emailing me at joe.bellon at gmail.com . 5) Remember to SEND YOUR AFF CASELIST INFORMATION to us at gsucaselist at gmail.com. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090914/14f2de08/attachment.htm From mcarswellcrosby at yahoo.com Mon Sep 14 13:31:22 2009 From: mcarswellcrosby at yahoo.com (matthew carswell) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Lost Laptop at Greenhill Message-ID: <636013.39321.qm@web38503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sometime between round 5 and 6 of the Greenhill tournament one of the Crosby debaters laptop seemed to have disappeared. The last time the laptop was seen was sitting on top of their tubs in its case outside of the room. We are hoping that maybe someone accidently took it or maybe she left it near a bench and it was taken by mistake, either way we are hoping to get it back. It was in her laptop case, and there are some other very personal items in there that she would like to be returned.? We'll be at Grapevine or you can contact me at mcarswellcrosby at yahoo.com. Thanks and Good luck to everyone on this next very busy weekend, Matthew CarswellCrosby Debate(281) 507 4714 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090914/0e322138/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Mon Sep 14 16:05:10 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:05:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Gonz 09 cume Message-ID: Attention: Cal State Fullerton's area code and prefix are now 657-278. The Fullerton campus and most of the Irvine campus phone and fax numbers now begin with 657-278 followed by the current extension number. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GonzCume09.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 98612 bytes Desc: GonzCume09.pdf Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090914/232775d4/attachment.pdf From dissonince10 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 14 20:43:30 2009 From: dissonince10 at hotmail.com (Joe Keeton) Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 21:43:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 4 Rounds available at both GSU & Kentucky In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Make me an offer. Joe _________________________________________________________________ Bing brings you health info from trusted sources. http://www.bing.com/search?q=pet+allergy&form=MHEINA&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MHEINA_Health_Health_PetAllergy_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090914/aff07a6b/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Tue Sep 15 01:29:51 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:29:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ross Wiki Message-ID: <4AAF345F.103@wfu.edu> http://rosssmith.wikispaces.com/ I just started it, I haven't added much yet. Its a wiki...please edit anything you want. -- JP lacyjp at wfu.edu From MikeBerry at kings.edu Tue Sep 15 07:57:14 2009 From: MikeBerry at kings.edu (Berry, Mike) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:57:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging for Frank Harrison Memorial Tournament and outrounds Message-ID: Hi, As is the usual case, King's is looking to hire some extra judging for the tournament. We can pay you $30 a round. Also, because the judging pool is so tight, the outrounds may need to be staggered on Sunday to ensure full panels. If you have any concerns or comments, please send them to me. Sincerely Mike Berry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090915/79ae87c2/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 09:00:35 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:00:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Caselist Information for those attending Message-ID: <50002ace0909150700t6fd984efkd1e3ad5be84aa742@mail.gmail.com> We will have scouts running around gathering information for the caselist. Contrary to the information in the invitation we will not be compiling a separate document, we will be uploading information directly to the wiki. In an effort to make this a more efficient process PLEASE bring an electronic case outline with complete citations of your 1AC with you to the tournament, this will greatly expedite the process of gathering intel after the rounds. Also 1NC outlines/cites would be very helpful, and will greatly decrease the amount of you have to wait on people to gather intel. If you would like to not be bothered after round 1, you can email this info to me prior to the start of the tournament and I will promise not to post anything until after round 1 has ended. Sincerely, Richard Tews Director of Debate University of Northern Iowa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090915/ab182198/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 09:03:00 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:03:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI update please finalize entries Message-ID: <50002ace0909150703g395ba9dewbad4622dae60fe99@mail.gmail.com> Please finalize your entries for the 2009 Ulrich Season Opener. I will be turning off the entries function on the Bruscke site tomorrow (Wed. 9/16) at 4pm CST. After 4pm tomorrow, please email any changes directly to me at tews.rich at gmail.com. Thanks and I hope to see you all soon Richard Tews Director of Debate University of Northern Iowa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090915/238bed65/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Tue Sep 15 10:09:27 2009 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga results? Message-ID: <492572.41820.qm@web110605.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Haven't seen anything since the octos pairings...?? Some vague rumors, etc. thanks W. James Taylor ("JT") Clinical Instructor Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University ***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University. The contents are the sole opinion of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090915/d3eff502/attachment.htm From kenrjohnson at msn.com Tue Sep 15 11:27:32 2009 From: kenrjohnson at msn.com (Ken Johnson) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:27:32 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rochester looking to hire juding for Vermont Tournament Message-ID: $200. Please reply to kenrjohnson at msn.com or jmill12 at mail.rochester.edu Thanks, kj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090915/218faf5a/attachment.htm From spowers at usc.edu Tue Sep 15 11:58:32 2009 From: spowers at usc.edu (Shawn Powers) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:58:32 +0100 Subject: [eDebate] Omri Ceren in the News Message-ID: <058C742C-905B-4028-8DA8-8CABBD604D45@usc.edu> Doing the Lord's work.....Mere Rhetoric sparks media scandal and gets quoted in the New York Times. Well done, Omri. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/world/middleeast/15nazi.html?_r=1&hp sp From runlittleman at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 12:40:02 2009 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:40:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] LU Going Paperless Message-ID: <886dd32a0909151040t5d412961r4a284904fb0c4098@mail.gmail.com> Like several programs this year, Liberty University will be going entirely paperless. We will follow most of the same conventions that Whitman introduced last year (and thanks to them for showing this is all possible, and all their predecessors). Each of our teams will have a third laptop that we will transfer all of our speeches to, before we start our speeches. We ask that you treat that laptop with all the care that you would treat your own, as it belongs to the debaters. Like Whitman (and other paperless teams), we also ask that you not scroll ahead of where the debaters are reading (ie, no peeking at new advantages, or upcoming offcase positions). We will mark cards by entering multiple line breaks where we stop reading. Our debaters should offer to transfer a marked copy of their speech to the third laptop immediately after their speeches end. If they don't, just ask, and they will offer you the updated document. Finally, if the third laptop is unavailable or two copies of the speech are needed for the block, we will offer to jump the speech to you, our debaters will hand over a read only copy of the speech on a flash drive, we ask that you don?t save the document to your computer. -Matt and Nick LU Debate From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Tue Sep 15 13:41:01 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:41:01 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by Kansas City Kansas C Message-ID: Name:KCKCC Blue Devil Debates Starts:10/9/2009 Ends:10/11/2009 Hosted by: Kansas City Kansas C Contact: Darren Elliott Address: Phone: 913-288-7295 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From gregachten at berkeley.edu Tue Sep 15 13:46:34 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:46:34 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga Results Message-ID: Northwestern Fisher and Spies defeated Cal Bowen and Polin on a 2-1 decision in the finals. Murrillo and Varda were in the majority, Steve Pointer (the smartest judge in the country) voted for Cal. In the semifinals Cal BP defeated Whitman Cohn and Strauss and Northwestern defeated Cal Brockway and Jaswa. Full results will be available on Debate Results soon if they are not already. Greg From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Tue Sep 15 14:09:13 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:09:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Updated KCKCC Tournament Invite Message-ID: Below is the invite for the KCKCC Debate Tournament, Oct. 9th ? 11th, 2009. It has also been uploaded to the Bruschke site. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College Friends, Please plan on joining us in October for the 8th Annual Blue Devil Debates. We plan to continue the tradition started six years ago in honoring our judges and competitors with awards voted on by the debaters. Additionally we will again present the Coaching Award and the Dr. Amy Fugate Leadership Award. Last year's recipients were Carolyn Cusick of Vanderbilt University receiving the Coaching Award and Kathryn Rubino of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, receiving the Leadership Award. I look forward to presenting this year's awards as well. There will be entertainment options for coaches in the evening if there is interest. Likewise just 3 miles to the West of campus is Village West. It has become the entertainment, dining, and shopping mecca of Kansas and the Mid-West. It has moved Kansas up 15 spots in tourism among all states nationwide. Casinos are minutes away. Anything you could want to eat or buy is now available just minutes from the Campus. I encourage everyone to check it out--especially BBQ fans! (Read Arthur Bryant?s!!) : ) Thanks, Chief September 2009 Dear Colleagues: On behalf of Kansas City Kansas Community College, Blue Devil Debate, and the Humanities and Fine Arts Division, it is my pleasure to invite you and your students to the 8th annual KCKCC Debate Tournament. The debate tournament will be held Friday October 9th through Sunday October 11th on the KCKCC campus in Kansas City, Kansas. Registration for the tournament will be on Friday at the college. In this invitation you will find the necessary hotel information, schedule, and entry form. Please call for your rooms now as rooms in KC are hard to come by. We will be offering three divisions of policy debate on the current CEDA/NDT topic for 2009-2010. You may submit teams in Open, JV, and Novice divisions. We will break to an appropriate number of elims in each division and will do everything within reason to not have to collapse divisions. As per the CEDA rule governing sweeps, we will break ? the teams in all divisions providing at least a 50% W/L record. Speaker awards will also be given in each division. If you have any questions regarding the tournament, please do not hesitate to call or email. We look forward to hosting you on our campus in October. Sincerely, Darren Elliott--Director of Debate and Forensics (913)288-7295 -- office (316)214-9502 * cell delliott at kckcc.edu Amy Arellano--Asst. Debate and Forensics Coach Adrian Self?Asst. Coach John Bretthauer?Asst. Coach Clay Crockett?Asst. Coach Tentative KCKCC Schedule of events: Friday, October 9th 2:00pm Registration Upper Level Lounge Jewell Student Center 3:00pm Pairings/Opening Assembly Upper Level Lounge Jewell Student Center 3:30pm Round I Preset 5:30pm Round II Preset 9:00pm Coaches Reception Saturday, October 10th 8:00am Release Pairings Room 2110 Humanities 9:00am Round III 11:45am Round IV 1:45-3:00pm Lunch Room 2110 Humanities 3:30pm Round V 6:00pm Round VI 8:30pm First Partials Round (depending on size) ASAP Release list of Elim participants at Hotels and on edebate 10:00pm All Coaches Reception at Tournament Suite (Dependent on partials Round) Sunday, October 11th 8:00am Awards Assembly Upper Level Lounge Jewell Student Center Or Partial Elims (depending on size) 10am Elims Continue KCKCC Tournament Information DIVISIONS: We will be offering Open, Junior Varsity, and Novice Divisions. Please follow the CEDA guidelines for entering your team in the correct division. We will only collapse divisions if ABSOLUTELY necessary. We will break to the appropriate number of elims based on CEDA sweeps points regulations and number of entries in a division. We will break ? the teams in each division provided a 50% W/L record. If a division does collapse we will still give awards based on how a team finishes in comparison to other teams who would have been eligible for the less experienced division. ENTRIES: Please have your entries to me as soon as possible. I would like them no later than Oct. 6th. The number of Saturday classes on our campus has increased dramatically. Classroom space is limited. As such tournament entries will be secured on a first entered basis. If a wait list is necessary, teams will be notified once the cap is reached. If you are flying to KC, enter early and your spots will be guaranteed. TIME LIMITS: Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes of prep time per team. JUDGING: Each school is expected to provide qualified judges to accompany their teams. You are responsible for three rounds of judging for every one team entered. All judges are committed through the first elim debate or one round past their teams' elimination, whichever occurs first. Please do your best to hire judges if you need to as opposed to trying to hire them through us. If you do need to hire a judge, the fee will be $150.00 per uncovered team. Please give me plenty of notice if you need to hire someone. If you are bringing extra judges, let me know how many rounds they would like to be hired for. Judges MUST render a decision by marking a loser and a winner of each debate. Only one team can win and only one can lose. Judges not following this will have their ballot changed with a coin toss and have their best team's record altered by forfeiting a win at the conclusion of prelims. We plan on using some sort of judge preference system depending on entries and availability. If a preference system is used, one will be used in ALL divisions as per CEDA rules. If you are bringing more teams than you can cover, and are splitting your judge commitments among your coaches, it is vital that you have enough judges on elim day to cover at a minimum the number of teams you clear. FEES: The registration fee will be $80.00 per team entered. We will provide Breakfast on Saturday as well as lunch. We will provide breakfast on Sunday morning as well. We will provide drinks and snacks throughout the weekend. Cash is the preferred method of payment so we can pay our vendors over the weekend. A check is the second best option--made out to "Darren Elliott--KCKCC Debate". Unfortunately we cannot take Visa, Mastercard, or Discover at this time. Bartering for chickens, and pigs is always negotiable. Just remember, even if you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. SMOKING: Please do not smoke inside buildings on the KCKCC campus. Smoking areas and containers for cigarette butts are located outside throughout the campus. TEAMS: Teams should be comprised of two debaters from the same school or two debaters, each from a different school. All teams, including hybrids will be allowed to advance to elims and win speaker awards. Please notify me early of any 3-person teams you may enter. KCKCC debaters may participate in the tournament and advance to elim rounds. Three-Person teams will be allowed although if multiple three-person teams (2 from different schools) become a reality I will try and get coaches together to make two-person hybrids out of their extra debaters. AWARDS: Teams reaching the elimination debates will receive awards. An appropriate number of speaker awards will be given in each division as well. Collapsed divisions if it has to happen will still be awarded based on finish in comparison to other teams from the less experienced division that was collapsed. We will once again present the Dr. Amy Fugate Leadership Award to a member of CEDA who has distinguished service and leadership in the organization. Previous recipients were ML Sandoz, Jeff Jarman, Eric Morris, Neil Berch, Gordon Stables and Kathryn Rubino. We will once again present the Coaches Award, typically designated for an assistant coach, to show appreciation for those who work so hard to keep our programs going. Previous recipients were Heather Walters, James Taylor, Matt Moore, Jason Russell, Louie Petit and Carolyn Cusick. We will present the Newcomer Award to any program coming to our tournament for the first time, and the Long Distance Award to the program traveling the farthest to be with us. We will award the Top 3 Critics as voted on by the competitors. We will award 1 team in each Division as ?representing the best there is in competition? as voted on by the competitors. BRACKETS: Brackets will not be broken in elimination debates. HOTEL INFO: There are a number of hotel options near the campus. In the past we have used the Microtel Inn and Suites as a tournament hotel. The Microtel is no longer in operation. That may shock some of you! In its place is a newly renovated, newly managed Days Inn property. The property is within 5 minutes of campus. Please make reservations ASAP. The hotel is located right off of I70 and 78th St exit in Kansas City (Exit #414). Their number is (913)334-3028. Their fax number is (913)334-5983. They are located at 7721 Elizabeth St. Kansas City, KS 66112. Other hotels: The Comfort Inn and Suites (on the other side of I70 from the Microtel) is about 5 minutes from campus. Their number is 913-299-5555 The Holiday Inn Express (located in the Legends Shopping Center at Village West) is 10 minutes from the College. This hotel is relatively new, very nice, and right in the middle of shopping and dining mecca! Their number is 913-328-1024. The Holiday Inn Express (On I70 in Bonner Springs) is about 10-15 minutes from the College. Their number is 913-721-5300. The Hampton Inn (located in the Legends Shopping Center at Village West) is 10 minutes from the College. Also very new and very nice, it is located in the heart of shopping and dining. Their number is 913-328-1400. Comfort Suites has just opened a brand new property at the Legends at Village West, just adjacent to the T-Bones Minor League baseball stadium. TRANSPORTATION: If you are flying in to KCI and need a shuttle to the hotel, please let me know immediately. If you are driving from the East: Take I70 through Kansas City, MO and into Kansas City, KS. You will see signs for KCKCC just before the turn off for the campus. You want to take the Turner Diagonal/Highway 40 Exit. Stay to the right onto Highway 40. Stay on until State Avenue. Turn left onto State and at the first right, which is College Blvd., turn right into the college. Follow the road around (please don't hit our ducks) until you see the Humanities building on your right. Park anywhere you can find a space in front of the section of the building labeled ?JEWELL?. Enter the Jewell building, proceed down the hallway past Admissions and Financial Aid. Once you reach the end of the hall, take a left to the Upper Level Lounge. If you are driving from the West: Take I70 to Kansas City and take the Highway 40 exit. You will be driving under the Turner Diagonal then rounding back on to it heading North. When you come to State Avenue turn left. The entrance to KCKCC will be on your immediate right at College Blvd. Once turning on to College Blvd. follow the road around (please don't hit our ducks) until you see the Humanities building on your right. Park anywhere you can find a space in front of the section of the building labeled ?JEWELL?. Enter the Jewell building, proceed down the hallway past Admissions and Financial Aid. Once you reach the end of the hall, take a left to the Upper Level Lounge. If you are coming from the North or South: Take I35 until you reach I70. Take I70 and follow the first set of directions listed above. PARKING: You will not be ticketed by parking in the lot in front of Humanities or Jewell Friday, Saturday, or Sunday unless you park in a Handicapped or Reserved stall. All unmarked and Visitor stalls are fine to park in. You also need to park head-in to avoid being ticketed. SEXUAL HARRASSMENT: The CEDA statement on Sexual Harassment will be upheld. A tournament harassment committee will be appointed to deal with any issues that arise. STATE LAW: All tournament participants, coaches and judges are expected to adhere to the laws of the State of Kansas. Alcohol and illegal substance consumption on campus is strictly prohibited by these laws and will result in removal from the tournament. ENTERING THE TOURNAMENT: Entry on the Bruschke website (debateresults.com) is the preferred method of entry. You can also email me your entry if you prefer. Faxing is also an option using the form below. It and mailing your entries are the least preferred and trusted methods of entry. Once you enter I will email you a confirmation. If you do not receive this confirmation, please email me. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call or email me. We hope to see you in October in Kansas City. Darren Elliott KCKCC 7250 State Avenue Kansas City, KS 66112 delliott at kckcc.edu (913)288-7295 office (913)288-7638 fax (316)214-9502 cell KCKCC Team Policy Entry Form-return to Darren Elliott School ____________________________________ Coach ____________________________________ Address ____________________________________ Office # ____________________________________ Home # ____________________________________ Fax ____________________________________ Email ____________________________________ Open Division: (use more space if necessary) 1. ________________________________and_____________________________ 2. ________________________________and_____________________________ 3. ________________________________and_____________________________ 4. ________________________________and_____________________________ Junior Varsity Division: (use more space if necessary) 1._____________________________and_________________________________ 2._____________________________and_________________________________ 3._____________________________and_________________________________ 4._____________________________and_________________________________ Novice Division: (use more space if necessary) 1._____________________________and_________________________________ 2._____________________________and_________________________________ 3._____________________________and_________________________________ 4._____________________________and_________________________________ Judges: Please indicate commitment for each judge and any team restrictions. We ask that schools with multiple teams do your best to secure multiple judges for elims. Only having one judge available on elim day makes it difficult on tournament administration. (use more space if necessary) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090915/f8ff2dd4/attachment.htm From jrlyle at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 14:14:49 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:14:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Tournament - Hotel Reminder Message-ID: <25fd497f0909151214u4ca416cbv6cfad351f9cb82f2@mail.gmail.com> The tournament is starting to fill out quite nicely, and I hope to see a few more schools make their way to Clarion. I just wanted to send out an email for anyone who may not yet have rooms to do so quickly. As I mentioned before, the tournament falls on the beginning of the Autumn Leaf Festival so rooms are increasingly at a premium. At this point I am not sure the Comfort Inn has any rooms other than a few singles, but the Quality Inn should have rooms. You may also be able to score a room at the Super 8 or Microtel (which does not have the commonly associated creepiness many associate with Microtels in major urban areas), but rumor is they are close to full as well. Beyond these options there are the Holiday Inn and Hampton Inn, but both are pricier. From there, you'll be looking at hotels in Brookville (which is about a fifteen minute drive to campus). Whoever you call inquire about a University rate. Jim From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Tue Sep 15 17:19:07 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:19:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: FW: Resources for 2009-2010 College Debate on Nuclear Weapons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <524839830909151519t27635112p929c0064150efb52@mail.gmail.com> Hi everyone, Travis Sharp @ the Nukes of Hazard blog put some resources on the topic together and asked me to forward them to the college debate listservs. Stefan (cc Katie), I hope all is well. Following up on our email correspondence regarding the 2009-2010 debate on nuclear weapons, I wanted to let you know that today we posted a debate resource guide to background materials, publications, and relevant organizations ( http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/college_debate_09-10/ ) Included is information on START; force posture; CTBT; cost; blast effects; Iran; missile defense; NPT; North Korea; public opinion; scientific and technical skills; stockpiles; U.S. policy; a world free of nuclear weapons; and more. I?d like to disseminate the guide as widely as possible. Would you be willing to post it on Planet Debate? Are there any listservs I can send it to? Any help you can provide would be most appreciated. I have cc?d our external relations director, Katie Mounts, who is in charge of all our outreach initiatives. Thanks, Stefan! Travis *---* *Travis Sharp* Communications Director & Military Policy Analyst Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Council for a Livable World Phone: 202-543-4100 ext. 2105 Email: tsharp at armscontrolcenter.org Web: www.armscontrolcenter.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090915/ca7cab16/attachment.htm From dperkins at fas.harvard.edu Tue Sep 15 22:52:45 2009 From: dperkins at fas.harvard.edu (Dallas Perkins) Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:52:45 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Late night ride from ATL to Marriott? Message-ID: I need a ride for one person from the Atlanta airport to the GSU tournament hotel around 9:30 pm on Friday night. Any assistance, including offers of shared cabs, would be appreciated. dp From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Sep 16 07:53:23 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:53:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [Fwd: Job Opportunity] Message-ID: <4AB0DFC3.8000803@uvm.edu> -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Kelley Bieringer" Subject: Job Opportunity Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:31:14 +0300 Size: 11147 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090916/b44f6a82/attachment.eml From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 10:16:21 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:16:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] JMU needs hired judging at Clarion Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909160816r10cfdf74v1b985a2e21c69014@mail.gmail.com> We need a bunch of rounds if you have them for sale let us know. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090916/5d977625/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 10:42:50 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:42:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU entries and judging Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909160842g446af9a7mc8c1ad35e7031d04@mail.gmail.com> I will be closing GSU entries at 2:00 today. A few things: 1. Please make any changes by then. This includes filling out your judging requirements and filling in missing debater names. 2. If you have any changes after that please e-mail me directly. 3. IMPORTANT: please enter judge philosophies for all judges. I am going to open up the ordinal rankings tonight and it would really help if everyone could do their rankings in the near future. We are missing philosophies from the following 22 judges: Binder - FSU The Chungs - Wake and Mo. St. Duffy - Mi. St Gajora - Wake Gonzalez - Wake Hammond - Mi. St. Hart - Georgia Hodder - USF Jardina - Wake Jarvis - GSU Johnson, A. - USF Jordan, S. - Emory Kim - Harvard Lamballe - Wake Lemuel - GSU Pasquinelli - Wake Sandoz - Vandy Rhode - Wake Scwab - Emory Webb - Mo. St. Weston - Florida Wake is way in the lead with 7, five way tie for second with 2 -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090916/d17460c6/attachment.htm From edebate at anumbersgame.net Wed Sep 16 11:06:47 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:06:47 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Topic side bias Message-ID: <739f03b0909160906r3c56cf00kb70713bdb57d540e@mail.gmail.com> Every summer there is discussion about the side bias of prospective controversy areas and resolutions. There has also been some number crunching and speculation about whether tournament results show any side bias, including: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-March/070410.html http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/1997-October/000956.html http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-June/049812.html http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-June/049838.html Using the data from DebateResults.com, we can see what side bias past resolutions have exhibited: http://code.google.com/p/anumbersgame/wiki/TopicSideBias Under the Bradley-Terry model, the energy, China, and security guarantee topics had small, yet highly statistically significant (p < .001), negative bias. The Europe, courts, and agriculture topics show no statistically significant bias either way. Though the side bias is statistically significant for three of the six years in the debateresults.com data, statistical significance does not imply real world significance. The largest side bias under the BT model in the past six years was on the energy topic. Under the BT model for that year, in an otherwise evenly matched round, the neg had a 52.91% chance of winning. The effect, though small, is statistically significant because of the large number of ballots in the database. Thanks again to John Bruschke and DebateResults.com, as well as those who reviewed the wiki page and offered suggestions. From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 12:59:52 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:59:52 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Non-debate related teaching position at JMU Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909161059v1d598ccbi6e822630c1227ef4@mail.gmail.com> Announcement below. Not debate-related, but we would love to have you. Former debaters have had a great deal of success when interviewing for these positions. If you have any questions let me know. Mike JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY ANNOUNCES ONE OR MORE 3 YEAR RTA FACULTY POSITIONS The School of Communication Studies at James Madison University invites applications for one or more 3-year RTA (Revolving Term Appointment) lecturer positions. The position involves teaching and service responsibilities with a course load of 4 courses per semester. The teaching responsibilities exist in the Fundamental Human Communication courses in the General Education Program, with some teaching in an area of specialty. Master?s degree in communication is required at the time of appointment. Experience preferred. Review of applications will begin on October 15, 2009 and continue until the position is filled. Candidates are urged to submit completed applications prior to NCA, as informational interviews will be conducted at the NCA job fair. Applicants should initiate the application process by accessing http://www.jmu.edu/humanresources/emp/joblink.shtml where they should upload a letter of application and curriculum vitae. In addition, applicants should mail official transcripts and evidence of teaching excellence, and make arrangements to have three original letters of reference sent to Ken Young, RTA Search Committee Chair, School of Communication Studies, MSC 2106, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807 James Madison University is a rapidly growing university of approximately 17,000 students. JMU has been ranked as the South?s top public, master?s-level university for the 15th consecutive year, according to the annual "U.S. News & World Report" 2009 America's Best Colleges guide. JMU has earned national recognition for its outstanding first-year experiences, learning communities and service-learning. The School of Communication Studies is located in new facilities and has the potential to offer a graduate program and become part of a College of Communication, Information, and Media in the near future. The School is comprised of faculty who present a diverse range of communication training and research. Undergraduate majors leave with strong research and writing skills, practical internship experiences, and a cultivated appreciation of human communication. JMU is located in Harrisonburg, VA, a Main Street community of about 41,000, in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley. It is approximately 1 hour from historic Charlottesville, 2 ? hours from Washington, D.C. and Richmond, and 3 ? hours from the Chesapeake Bay. More information can be found at www.jmu.edu, www.jmu.edu/commstudies, and http://www.harrisonburgva.gov. JMU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity, Equal Access employer. We seek candidates who will contribute to the climate and body of diversity in the School and the development of a College of Communication, Information, and Media. The School of Communication Studies strives to create an educational environment in which students and faculty facilitate constructive dialogue in the classroom and community to inspire responsible citizenship in a diverse world. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090916/7a09e652/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Sep 16 13:59:13 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:59:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Job opportunity in Qatar Message-ID: <4AB13581.9000200@uvm.edu> Sorry I pasted it in improperly last time. QatarDebate is looking to hire a full time English Debate Specialist and Team Qatar Coach (one position) for the current school year. This person would not only coach our national team, but also run workshops, train locals to run workshops, and run tournaments (training can be provided for that). QD would like to have potential candidates come to run workshops and interview for the position. For more information about QatarDebate, please visit our website at www.qatardebate.org. If this is something you are interested in, please email a CV to Kelley Bieringer, Program Manager, at kbieringer at qf.org.qa. Deadline to apply: 5 October, 2009 Thanks, Kelley Kelley Bieringer Program Manager QatarDebate Qatar Foundation PO Box 5825 Doha Qatar Portacabin 8, Room #33 Tel. : +974 4540397 Fax : +974 4540394 Mobile: +974 3472230 kbieringer at qf.org www.qatardebate.org.qa -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From debate.gsu at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 14:11:15 2009 From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:11:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Pre-Tournament Packet Message-ID: You can now download our packet -- which includes the schedule, maps, restaurant guides, internet information, and so on -- at our website. We will NOT be printing paper copies of this, in an attempt to save both money and paper. As a result, we recommend that if you're coming to the tournament, you download a copy. The link is: http://www.gsudebate.org/events_at_gsu/gsu_pre-tournament_packet.pdf Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090916/5394b880/attachment.htm From debate.gsu at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 14:49:27 2009 From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:49:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Caselist Reminder Message-ID: Just a reminder that the e-mail address for caselist information is gsucaselist at gmail.com. Getting your caselist information in on time saves you $30 per team. Also this reminder: we will NOT publish any affirmative information you give us until the start of round 2. You will not be punished for early compliance. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090916/b06d781c/attachment.htm From EMarlow at uco.edu Wed Sep 16 15:10:18 2009 From: EMarlow at uco.edu (Eric Marlow) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:10:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern students please post to the wiki the information we gave you Message-ID: <75671A9DCD21974888C9A2E5E4937B6451E0D59786@EXCHANGE.uco.local> Would the Northwestern students who tried to video record our rounds despite our objections, and who took our cites please post them to the wiki. On several occasions at Gonzaga, you promised to do this in exchange for us handing you all of our evidence. I personally witnessed this promise three times and yet not a single one of the cites we gave you has been posted. If you cannot live up to your promise, I am afraid we are going to have to stop sharing that information with your school. We believe in sharing arguments with other schools, so please do as you promised. Peace, Marlow Eric Marlow Director of Debate University of Central Oklahoma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090916/5bf1c8b2/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 5675 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090916/5bf1c8b2/attachment.jpg From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Wed Sep 16 20:12:25 2009 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:12:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Sick debaters and travel Message-ID: <7fd76c680909161812i39f3d708u1366e8735a76e4cf@mail.gmail.com> Dear coaches, Please do not bring your sick debaters to tournaments. They are contagious. They will not only get everyone else on your team sick, but people from other universities who have a job to do. Please be considerate and use good judgment. Maurer -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090916/bbd64d3e/attachment.htm From bk2nocal at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 03:52:01 2009 From: bk2nocal at gmail.com (Sue Peterson) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 01:52:01 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Sick debaters and travel In-Reply-To: <7fd76c680909161812i39f3d708u1366e8735a76e4cf@mail.gmail.com> References: <7fd76c680909161812i39f3d708u1366e8735a76e4cf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <417507f50909170152i395e0024uf1a363c9829f17a1@mail.gmail.com> Well said... Sue Peterson, Director of Speech and Debate at CSU Chico sepeterson at csuchico.edu 530-898-4771 Please help me raise money for the Ronald McDonald House in Stanford, where me and my family spent more than four months during the last year! http://www.firstgiving.com/suepeterson On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Samuel Maurer wrote: > Dear coaches, > > Please do not bring your sick debaters to tournaments. They are > contagious. They will not only get everyone else on your team sick, but > people from other universities who have a job to do. Please be considerate > and use good judgment. > > Maurer > > -- > Samuel A. Maurer > Director of Debate > Emporia State University > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/204c372e/attachment.htm From debate.gsu at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 08:54:30 2009 From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:54:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Registration Location Message-ID: Registration will start at 6 pm in room 1204 of the Marriott. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/d03ff84e/attachment.htm From rwgallow at samford.edu Thu Sep 17 09:10:02 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:10:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications Message-ID: I think Sam and Sue raise a good point. I would like to point out the counter-vailing tendency among debaters however, especially those that might be in contention for a 1st/2nd round bid. When I debated, I debated at the Redlands tournament my senior year when I was extremely ill. I could barely navigate a flight of stairs. I could not physically lift a tub (Gordon carried them all, and I forgot my promise that I would carry them at the next tournament). Frankly, I was miserable the whole weekend and likely a severe infestation risk. When confronted about this question "why are you debating?" by Sherry Hall and Rebecca Tushnet, I remember weakly replying "that our bid was not high enough." A rationale that made sense at age 20, an insane rationale at age 36. I think debaters, coaches, and rankers of bids should be especially cognizant of the way certain tournaments are viewed on the bid sheets. I would encourage all to take a reasonable perspective of the situation, especially if estimates (like the one given at our university) that 30% of the population could get the swine flu this season. Let's cut some people some slack if they don't have Kentucky or another tournament on their bid sheet that is a "must attend" tournament for a bid sheet. Take care of your health. Be reasonable about the situation. It's a debate tournament, you'll have more down the road. RG From davismk13 at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 10:42:05 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:42:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] More judge philosophy shaming Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909170842h18268a25o60bb4588c08c0dec@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to everyone who posted. Below are the list of people who still don't have a philosophy. Chung, D. - Mo. St. Gonzalez - Wake Hart - Georgia Jarvis - GSU Lamballe - Wake Lemuel - GSU Rosenblum - FSU Sandoz - Vandy Scwab - Emory Weston - Florida On a side note - St. Pete got both of their judge philosophies in within minutes of my post. Kudos to them. Shame on those listed above. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/412fb3d8/attachment.htm From sjsnider at ksu.edu Thu Sep 17 11:31:47 2009 From: sjsnider at ksu.edu (Sarah Jane Green) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:31:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I completely agree with Sam, Sue & Ryan I too remember debating ill and in retrospect cannot believe I did it. I would like to add- that I have been at tournaments where participants have been so ill that they have had to pull themselves from competition, but then come and hang out at the tournament anyways. Please recognize that when you are ill, you are putting others at risk and stay away from the debate tournament. It is difficult enough for our students to come home from a tournament and catch up with school, for them to get sick upon returning from a tournament puts them in a precarious situation academically. Let's try to respect the community a little more than we may have in the past. Sarah On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > I think Sam and Sue raise a good point. ?I would like to point out the counter-vailing tendency among debaters however, especially those that might be in contention for a 1st/2nd round bid. > > When I debated, I debated at the Redlands tournament my senior year when I was extremely ill. ?I could barely navigate a flight of stairs. ?I could not physically lift a tub (Gordon carried them all, and I forgot my promise that I would carry them at the next tournament). ?Frankly, I was miserable the whole weekend and likely a severe infestation risk. > > When confronted about this question "why are you debating?" by Sherry Hall and Rebecca Tushnet, I remember weakly replying "that our bid was not high enough." ?A rationale that made sense at age 20, an insane rationale at age 36. > > I think debaters, coaches, and rankers of bids should be especially cognizant of the way certain tournaments are viewed on the bid sheets. ?I would encourage all to take a reasonable perspective of the situation, especially if estimates (like the one given at our university) that 30% of the population could get the swine flu this season. ?Let's cut some people some slack if they don't have Kentucky or another tournament on their bid sheet that is a "must attend" tournament for a bid sheet. > > Take care of your health. ?Be reasonable about the situation. ?It's a debate tournament, you'll have more down the road. > > RG > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From derekbuescher at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 12:05:42 2009 From: derekbuescher at gmail.com (Derek Buescher) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:05:42 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Anjali Vats at Puget Sound In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please join me in giving a very belated welcome and congratulations to Anjali Vats who has joined Puget Sound debate as the policy debate coach. We are thrilled to have Anjali and her years of experience and dedication to debate. And, my apologies for not being able to figure out the technicalities of email address changes that prevented the many earlier attempts at this message. Sincerely, Derek Buescher Associate Professor and Director of Forensics University of Puget Sound -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/11e7b62a/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Thu Sep 17 12:31:47 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:31:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Thank You 'Zags Message-ID: The Jesuit at Gonzaga has been a class act of Northwest Rockies for going on 10 years now - its previous history at SIU is even longer. Hospitality (no bar tab the whole weekend bcause plentitude was in vogue), cost-effectiveness (no outrageously priced rental car), and very competitive draw makes it the marquee tournament our new district. Thanks to Jon and Greg for the Tab, Pointer for tournament directing, Karina for logistics and hospitality, and all the alums and current 'zags who helped keep the show running on time. And, of course to Glen and Cindy for being gracious enough to put up with us :) [You know, while we're on the topic of other "value buy" tournaments in the Northwest Rockies, it should also be mentioned that Wyoming charges no fees and is a short drive from cheap-to-fly-to Denver, Whitman waves yours fees, feeds your starving masses with more food than you can imagine, and throws in a student party, and Idaho State is always inexpensive and a great time as well...] Go 'Zags, Go! OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/96afbce7/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 14:01:28 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:01:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] A experiment in social debate results on facebook Message-ID: <9368bc9b0909171201t25b02a98reca875ef9da06530@mail.gmail.com> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Policy-Debate-Results/139705362370 I was very impressed with the new debate results functions the Bruschke announced at the beginning of this season. i think it is a huge step forward in debate tournament utilization of internet technology. The one thing i wished was there that was not was an ability to take the online data and make it social. I think it would be great if when things happened in the debate tech world users had the opportunity to share it on facebook. Not only is this fun, but it also has the ability to allow real time community double checking on information. Nothing on this page is meant to compete with debate results, more it is my attempt to begin to create and test a component that i would like to see and i believe the community would benefit from. Here is how it will work. If you know the result of a round post it on the wall. Include the tournament the round number the aff the neg the judge the decison and any rfd info you want to provide. If anybody in the round is your facebook friend use the @ feature to tag them in the wall post.This will serve two purposes 1) It creates a level of double checking that is almost instantaneous. If i am watching a round that Deven Cooper is judging and i report that @deven cooper voted aff and Deven really voted neg deven will be immediatly notfied through facebook of the report i just gave. He will likely correct it. Say Deven is not following his Facebook updates, but he tells one of his debaters about the result of this round. As his friends they too will see that he has been tagged in a status. While this service is not as useful without being directly connected to the offical ballot entry, it hopefully can demonstrate the way that a facebook feature would work if facebook connect integration where built into Bruschke's system. 2) Most people want the results from their friends debates, not all the results. The @ feature means you can follow the results of the people you care about in your newsstream. This is something that i have long wanted while watching from home and i think this is a relatively small effort way in which this feature can be enabled. By this evening i will have a few short instructional videos that can show how you can easily use this and i will make several more as people ask questions. Here is the link to the page http://www.facebook.com/pages/Policy-Debate-Results/139705362370 One thing that would be cool is if tournaments would set up facebook pages for their tournaments. This would enable people to tag @ndt10 and post the result directly to the wall of the tournament page. This would give people real time results with the ability to comment and discus the rounds that interested them. I am interested in your feedback and the ways that we can use the tools that facebook provides to further amplify the impact of the recent debate results improvements. Thanks and looking forward to Georgia State. Andy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/c828d560/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 14:05:05 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:05:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Anjali Vats at Puget Sound In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats to Puget Sound and to Anjali! Josh On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Derek Buescher wrote: > > Please join me in giving a very belated welcome and congratulations to > Anjali Vats who has joined Puget Sound debate as the policy debate coach. We > are thrilled to have Anjali and her years of experience and dedication to > debate. And, my apologies for not being able to figure out the > technicalities of email address changes that prevented the many earlier > attempts at this message. > Sincerely, > Derek Buescher > Associate Professor and Director of Forensics > University of Puget Sound > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090917/6f6c7614/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Sep 17 14:47:43 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:47:43 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Thank You 'Zags References: Message-ID: <3137DA41AA67484EBEC014BEBA32F01E@whitman.edu> omar is right on. thank you gonzaga. great tournament. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: omar guevara Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:31 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Thank You 'Zags The Jesuit at Gonzaga has been a class act of Northwest Rockies for going on 10 years now - its previous history at SIU is even longer. Hospitality (no bar tab the whole weekend bcause plentitude was in vogue), cost-effectiveness (no outrageously priced rental car), and very competitive draw makes it the marquee tournament our new district. Thanks to Jon and Greg for the Tab, Pointer for tournament directing, Karina for logistics and hospitality, and all the alums and current 'zags who helped keep the show running on time. And, of course to Glen and Cindy for being gracious enough to put up with us :) [You know, while we're on the topic of other "value buy" tournaments in the Northwest Rockies, it should also be mentioned that Wyoming charges no fees and is a short drive from cheap-to-fly-to Denver, Whitman waves yours fees, feeds your starving masses with more food than you can imagine, and throws in a student party, and Idaho State is always inexpensive and a great time as well...] Go 'Zags, Go! OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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/20090917/35c34319/attachment.htm From od.hobeika at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 15:37:50 2009 From: od.hobeika at gmail.com (Odile Hobeika) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:37:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Pitt Needs a Swing Partner for GSU Message-ID: <5c8d938d0909171337r161ac060s42ed6dc681099de0@mail.gmail.com> Anyone hoping to find a debate partner for GSU? Pittsburgh's finest, Jeff Kurr, needs you. He is a 2A, although he could roll with either position at this point. Thanks! Odile Hobeika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/5922eedd/attachment.htm From od.hobeika at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 16:14:49 2009 From: od.hobeika at gmail.com (Odile Hobeika) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:14:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Pittsburgh Debater in Need of Swing Partner for GSU Message-ID: <5c8d938d0909171414oc745679p6acead213c7e7c2a@mail.gmail.com> Anyone hoping to find a debate partner for GSU? Pittsburgh's finest, Jeff Kurr, needs you. He is a 2A, although he could roll with either position at this point. Thanks, Odile Hobeika -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/d1346509/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Thu Sep 17 16:16:14 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:16:14 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Anjali Vats at Puget Sound References: Message-ID: ditto. anjali is a great addition to the northwest rockies. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: Josh Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:05 PM To: Derek Buescher Cc: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Anjali Vats at Puget Sound Congrats to Puget Sound and to Anjali! Josh On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Derek Buescher wrote: Please join me in giving a very belated welcome and congratulations to Anjali Vats who has joined Puget Sound debate as the policy debate coach. We are thrilled to have Anjali and her years of experience and dedication to debate. And, my apologies for not being able to figure out the technicalities of email address changes that prevented the many earlier attempts at this message. Sincerely, Derek Buescher Associate Professor and Director of Forensics University of Puget Sound _______________________________________________ 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/20090917/7084c134/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/20090917/7084c134/attachment.gif From MikeBerry at kings.edu Thu Sep 17 16:56:27 2009 From: MikeBerry at kings.edu (Berry, Mike) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:56:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Entries Closed for Frank Harrison Memorial Tournament Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/7a200d60/attachment.htm From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Thu Sep 17 17:21:33 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:21:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Thank You 'Zags In-Reply-To: <3137DA41AA67484EBEC014BEBA32F01E@whitman.edu> References: <3137DA41AA67484EBEC014BEBA32F01E@whitman.edu> Message-ID: Dittos. The pokes had a great time. Incredible hospitality and beautiful weather. And yeah, our tournament is free. Think about it. matt From: hansonjb at whitman.edu To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:47:43 -0700 Subject: Re: [eDebate] Thank You 'Zags omar is right on. thank you gonzaga. great tournament. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: omar guevara Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 10:31 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Thank You 'Zags The Jesuit at Gonzaga has been a class act of Northwest Rockies for going on 10 years now - its previous history at SIU is even longer. Hospitality (no bar tab the whole weekend bcause plentitude was in vogue), cost-effectiveness (no outrageously priced rental car), and very competitive draw makes it the marquee tournament our new district. Thanks to Jon and Greg for the Tab, Pointer for tournament directing, Karina for logistics and hospitality, and all the alums and current 'zags who helped keep the show running on time. And, of course to Glen and Cindy for being gracious enough to put up with us :) [You know, while we're on the topic of other "value buy" tournaments in the Northwest Rockies, it should also be mentioned that Wyoming charges no fees and is a short drive from cheap-to-fly-to Denver, Whitman waves yours fees, feeds your starving masses with more food than you can imagine, and throws in a student party, and Idaho State is always inexpensive and a great time as well...] Go 'Zags, Go! OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/c79dbc56/attachment.htm From oguevara at hotmail.com Thu Sep 17 17:29:09 2009 From: oguevara at hotmail.com (omar guevara) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:29:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Anjali Vats at Puget Sound In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: U-P-S! U-P-S! Gratz to Anjali!! OG Omar G Guevara II Director of Forensics Department of Communication College of Arts & Humanities Weber State University Ogden, Utah 801.626.6220 (Office) 801.668.6910 (Cell) Oguevara at hotmail.com Oguevara at weber.edu PLEASE VISIT: WWW.WEBERDEBATE.COM From: hansonjb at whitman.edu To: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:16:14 -0700 Subject: Re: [eDebate] Anjali Vats at Puget Sound ditto. anjali is a great addition to the northwest rockies. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From: Josh Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:05 PM To: Derek Buescher Cc: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Anjali Vats at Puget Sound Congrats to Puget Sound and to Anjali! Josh On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Derek Buescher wrote: Please join me in giving a very belated welcome and congratulations to Anjali Vats who has joined Puget Sound debate as the policy debate coach. We are thrilled to have Anjali and her years of experience and dedication to debate. And, my apologies for not being able to figure out the technicalities of email address changes that prevented the many earlier attempts at this message. Sincerely, Derek Buescher Associate Professor and Director of Forensics University of Puget Sound _______________________________________________ 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 _________________________________________________________________ Bing brings you health info from trusted sources. http://www.bing.com/search?q=pet+allergy&form=MHEINA&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MHEINA_Health_Health_PetAllergy_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/5ecec987/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Emoticon1.gif Type: image/gif Size: 257 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/5ecec987/attachment.gif From anj36 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 17 18:06:55 2009 From: anj36 at hotmail.com (Anjali Vats) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:06:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Thank You 'Zags In-Reply-To: <3137DA41AA67484EBEC014BEBA32F01E@whitman.edu> References: <3137DA41AA67484EBEC014BEBA32F01E@whitman.edu> Message-ID: I echo that. Excellent competition, great hospitality, humane schedule, and a lot of fun. Couldn't have asked for a better season opener. _________________________________________________________________ Ready for Fall shows? Use Bing to find helpful ratings and reviews on digital tv's. http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=digital+tv's&form=MSHNCB&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MSHNCB_Vertical_Shopping_DigitalTVs_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/8fe338a2/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Thu Sep 17 21:07:35 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:07:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] MSU Judging - We have extra rounds! Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677FEA95D0F2D@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> If you would like need to hire judging for SMS (AKA MSU) please email me and let me know. We can cover up to 10 I think. Best, Massey OU Debate From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Thu Sep 17 21:15:58 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:15:58 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by North Texas (Univ.) Message-ID: <6B420428418A48009009629BC5BBD266@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:William DeMougeot Debates at UNT Starts:1/4/2010 Ends:1/7/2010 Hosted by: North Texas (Univ.) Contact: Brian Lain Address: 1155 Union Circle, Box 305268, Denton, TX, 76203 Phone: 940-565-4534 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: Open with 7 prelims, expected to clear to: Doubles JV with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Quarters Novice with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Semis Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From ermocito at gmail.com Thu Sep 17 21:16:19 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:16:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock: Judging Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909171916x2daa40ep755e45107740387b@mail.gmail.com> We are eager to hire additional rounds at the Bear Shock, both from judges who are coming any way and from people who might consider hanging out in Springfield. We have some flexibility on accommodations at the tournament hotel in addition to payment. Shoot me a backchannel! Ermo MoState -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090917/1fda9ff2/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Sep 17 21:27:13 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:27:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AB2F001.4060301@wfu.edu> Wake misses competing at our tournament every year. So does every other squad that hosts a "major" national tournament. It is hard for debaters to give up an opportunity to compete. Many would give an organ to clear at a tournament. We need to get better at showing people that debate isn't worth hurting themselves or others over. I agree with Ryan that we should "cut people some slack" if they miss a tournament due to illness, injury or other contingencies. After all, hosting schools get that "slack" every year. -- JP Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > I think Sam and Sue raise a good point. I would like to point out the counter-vailing tendency among debaters however, especially those that might be in contention for a 1st/2nd round bid. > > When I debated, I debated at the Redlands tournament my senior year when I was extremely ill. I could barely navigate a flight of stairs. I could not physically lift a tub (Gordon carried them all, and I forgot my promise that I would carry them at the next tournament). Frankly, I was miserable the whole weekend and likely a severe infestation risk. > > When confronted about this question "why are you debating?" by Sherry Hall and Rebecca Tushnet, I remember weakly replying "that our bid was not high enough." A rationale that made sense at age 20, an insane rationale at age 36. > > I think debaters, coaches, and rankers of bids should be especially cognizant of the way certain tournaments are viewed on the bid sheets. I would encourage all to take a reasonable perspective of the situation, especially if estimates (like the one given at our university) that 30% of the population could get the swine flu this season. Let's cut some people some slack if they don't have Kentucky or another tournament on their bid sheet that is a "must attend" tournament for a bid sheet. > > Take care of your health. Be reasonable about the situation. It's a debate tournament, you'll have more down the road. > > RG > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Thu Sep 17 22:03:49 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:03:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications In-Reply-To: <4AB2F001.4060301@wfu.edu> References: , <4AB2F001.4060301@wfu.edu> Message-ID: Don't risk a Forced Choice by Administrators of Non-Competition for others and yourself down the road. This issue is larger than you might think. I sat in on a legislative session this week where illness and N1H1 was a hot topic. University AD's and Officials are contacting each other (and being directed to) and putting in place contingency plans should an outbreak occur. The contingency plan in KS would appear to be to cancel games, tournaments, and events to prevent outbreaks. I'm sure KS is not the only State, and the MIAA, NAIA, and NCAA Big 12 are not the only conferences with this in mind. No doubt this will trickle down to non-athletic events if Colleges and Universities shut their doors to prevent the sickness from getting out. Not to sound alarm bells, but its high on the priority list of those making decisions above all of us. Dont risk not only the health of yourself and others, but entire tournaments being shut down. I think Sarah put it best, we should be more kind to ourselves and those around us than we have been in the past. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:27 PM To: Galloway, Ryan W. Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications Wake misses competing at our tournament every year. So does every other squad that hosts a "major" national tournament. It is hard for debaters to give up an opportunity to compete. Many would give an organ to clear at a tournament. We need to get better at showing people that debate isn't worth hurting themselves or others over. I agree with Ryan that we should "cut people some slack" if they miss a tournament due to illness, injury or other contingencies. After all, hosting schools get that "slack" every year. -- JP Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > I think Sam and Sue raise a good point. I would like to point out the counter-vailing tendency among debaters however, especially those that might be in contention for a 1st/2nd round bid. > > When I debated, I debated at the Redlands tournament my senior year when I was extremely ill. I could barely navigate a flight of stairs. I could not physically lift a tub (Gordon carried them all, and I forgot my promise that I would carry them at the next tournament). Frankly, I was miserable the whole weekend and likely a severe infestation risk. > > When confronted about this question "why are you debating?" by Sherry Hall and Rebecca Tushnet, I remember weakly replying "that our bid was not high enough." A rationale that made sense at age 20, an insane rationale at age 36. > > I think debaters, coaches, and rankers of bids should be especially cognizant of the way certain tournaments are viewed on the bid sheets. I would encourage all to take a reasonable perspective of the situation, especially if estimates (like the one given at our university) that 30% of the population could get the swine flu this season. Let's cut some people some slack if they don't have Kentucky or another tournament on their bid sheet that is a "must attend" tournament for a bid sheet. > > Take care of your health. Be reasonable about the situation. It's a debate tournament, you'll have more down the road. > > RG > > _______________________________________________ > 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 lexdevil at mindspring.com Thu Sep 17 23:33:42 2009 From: lexdevil at mindspring.com (Lexy Green & John Seal) Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:33:42 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications Message-ID: <17150658.1253248422434.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I have to confess to being more concerned about the public health measures than the H1N1 flu itself, but I am concerned. A few days before Greenhill my husband asked, "What are you going to do if one of your debaters comes down with the flu while you're on the road?" In past years the answer was simple--take care of the kid and get him/her home ASAP. With public health guidelines currently saying no school, work, or travel until fever free for 24 hours, I was suddenly faced with the reality that I could be stuck in Dallas for several days with a sick kid. I checked with my administration and was told that I would need to comply with the guidelines. We're talking extra hotel room to isolate the sick debater, as well as postponing return as recommended. The potential budget busting implications of a single flu episode are scary. My administration did not offer to cover any illness related travel costs. Instead, they told me to purchase travel insurance. I shopped around and found that CSA sells group travel policies for parties of 10 or more at a reasonable price. If you insure your trip for $500 per person the cost is around $12 per participant. That gives you $500 in trip cancellation (should a debater be forced to drop due to illness), $750 each for trip interruption (added hotel and flight change expenses), $1000 for lost baggage, $200 for late baggage, and lots of medical coverage (including a totally unnecessary $250,000 in emergency medical evacuation!). I wouldn't purchase such a policy under normal circumstances, but I think the odds are good that someone on our squad will get sick while traveling during this flu season. It is even conceivable that an entire squad could be quarantined while on the road. Lexy From stables at usc.edu Fri Sep 18 02:01:37 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:01:37 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Kicking off the 2009-10 Season Message-ID: <39c1ac890909180001h49f8f7b6l5fe997a5ab5d732d@mail.gmail.com> Although many of us opened the season at Gonzaga last weekend, for a number of schools this coming weekend is their opening competition. This has been a difficult year for many in our community. The new season brings sadness with those no longer with us, but it also provides a new start. On behalf of CEDA let me wish you all the best for a great season. We are excited to have such a timely topic and one that promises to make for a compelling year of debates. I also wanted to highlight a few items. First, the CEDA website has updated a number of items, including our new officers and regions. Remember that several regions (in the Southeast and west) were restructured last spring. A full list of your regional and national officers is available at http://cedadebate.org/officers Second, we are all looking forward to another great season. If, however, we fail as professionals to live up to our responsibilities there is a new provision to resolve such issues. In accordance with the recently amended CEDA constitution, a Professional Review Board has been created to address allegations of unprofessional conduct. The constitution outlines their procedures. Any member of the college debate community may initiate the process by contacting the committee directly. The constitution specifies procedures for their review and includes important important about the confidentiality of the process. The current Board is: Ed Panetta, University of Georgia (Chair) Sue Peterson, CSU Chico and Brian Lain, University of North Texas. We appreciate all of their service to the community. Third, as a number of folks have posted about in the last few days, there are concerns about this flu season. We all share in the interests of keep our community healthy and we are asking all members to take a few steps. - Please review your university policies, especially with regard to when students can and should travel and your responsibilities to these and all of your students. These policies will help explain how to exercise the due caution that is in all of our interests. - Please share updated information about best practices. As Lexy noted, there may be a variety of unintended travel issues that arise this year and we can all learn from each other. - Please contact your regional and national officers if your university imposes restrictions on your ability to travel. While not likely, we have to be aware of the possibility that our traditional schedule of tournaments may be disrupted. Each university and team will have to make their own decisions, but we can help address situations where the needs of our member schools intersect. Finally, and in happier news, I would encourage everyone to keep the spirit of education and professional development that was present during the Debate 'Summit' in Winston Salem this summer. It was a tremendous gathering of individuals assembled to analyze the best way for our activity to move forward. In coming weeks will see the product of that labor in the form of an edited volume (thanks to Alan Louden). We can also support this effort by innovating and sharing those exciting ideas. If there was ever any doubt, this summer reinforced that we have a lot of great work going on outside our traditional competition space - please share those accomplishments. Travel safe, take care of each other and do your part to stay healthy. We are looking forward to seeing you all this year as we work toward our fantastic conclusion with the joint NDT-CEDA Nationals at Cal Berkeley. Gordon CEDA President and Chair - Topic Selection Committee Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From lacyjp at wfu.edu Fri Sep 18 02:59:42 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:59:42 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate School Opportunities at Wake Message-ID: <4AB33DEE.5040906@wfu.edu> Interested in Graduate School? Want to coach debate? Wake wants you! Wake has a very good Communication Graduate School program. Plus, we have a record of graduating great debate coaches. The number of amazing people who got better at debate coaching here is huge. Jarrod Atchison likes to call Wake the "Harvard Business School" of debate coaches. Helping people become better coaches is & will continue to be one of our squad's highest priorities. If you are interested, talk to me. Or, email me. We are always looking for good people. I'll be at GSU, Kentucky, Harvard, Wake & most of the local tournaments Wake usually attends. If you don't like me, then shoot Al Louden, our long time Director of Debate, now Director of Graduate Studies in Communication an email: louden at wfu.edu. Any of our students or coaching staff are more than willing to discuss our graduate program as well. -- JP Lacy lacyjp at wfu.edu From davismk13 at gmail.com Fri Sep 18 07:17:08 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:17:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU judge pref deadline Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909180517p328a0120rbbbeadbfebec163d@mail.gmail.com> We will be closing judge preferences for GSU at 4:00. Please complete your preferences by then. Thanks! -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From privethedge at yahoo.com Fri Sep 18 12:12:26 2009 From: privethedge at yahoo.com (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:12:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Session on Data Calibration and Global Climate Change Message-ID: <374365.60216.qm@web50907.mail.re2.yahoo.com> For all of you who are intrerested in climate change issues, and the measuring of such things - there will be presentation on Monday (9/21) at 1pm in Rm. 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, on the need for standardized data calibration to ensure the accuracy of global climate change measurements. ? Speakers include: Dr. Philip Ardanuy, chief scientist, Raytheon Information Solutions; Ron Birk, director, mission integration civil systems division, Northrop Grumman; Jonathan Malay, director, civil space and environment programs, Lockheed Martin Corporation; Eric Webster, vice president, government and industry partnerships, ITT Corporation;? Nancy Colleton, executive director, Alliance for Earth Observations; Dr. Michael Freilich, director, earth science division, science mission directorate, NASA; Dr. Molly Macauley, senior fellow and director, academic programs, Resources for the Future; Chris Scolese, associate administrator, NASA, ? It is free and open to the public. If you are interested in attending, let me know. It promises to be an interesting discussion. ? 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 ? President Barack Obama: "So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial...uh..." (Politico5/29/09)? Boy..do I feel safe...... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090918/be8f09dc/attachment.htm From jrlyle at gmail.com Fri Sep 18 15:39:05 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:39:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Entries/Headcount Message-ID: <25fd497f0909181339o60801bafs43ed7279bbc7096e@mail.gmail.com> If people are not registered or have people attending but not listed please go to debateresults or email me by Monday. We need to be able to submit a final headcount for meals by the end of business Monday. Also, make sure you have food information entered so we plan properly. Jim From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 19 06:24:05 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:24:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Round 1 Pairings Message-ID: Katherine L. Lavelle Director of Forensics University of Northern Iowa You must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't be resigned to that. Break out! ? Mr. Keating, Tom Schulman Dead Poets Society _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/a5c4ef0d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Open Rnd 1.txt Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/a5c4ef0d/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: JV Rnd 1.txt Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/a5c4ef0d/attachment-0001.txt From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 06:33:28 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:33:28 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Round One Pairings Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909190433g4ee1a78bya522b93e7d9f55ba@mail.gmail.com> Pairings and Ballots are on the 5th floor of the General Classroom Building. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/e8c2aa9a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Open-Rd1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12438 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/e8c2aa9a/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JV-Rd1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9774 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/e8c2aa9a/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rd1-Novice.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9516 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/e8c2aa9a/attachment-0002.pdf From tews.rich at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 07:03:49 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:03:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Round 1 Message-ID: <50002ace0909190503j6430fa93nf04c8144e8a0548e@mail.gmail.com> I understand there might be some internet problems at the hotel, we will have paper copies available at the tournament and I think that Dr. Lavelle is working to get some paper copies at the hotel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/f54c8c25/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Open Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 1 -- START TIME: 8 am Concordia AW Wayne State Universi KS Lang 20 Powers, Tj Emporia State U. FL Concordia MR Lang 346 Koehle, Joe Illinois State HP Wayne State Universi DJ Lang 18 Neal, Travis Iowa HP Minnesota SZ Lang 10 Crockett, Clay Kansas State HW Wisconsin Oshkosh CI Lang 23 Brown, Zach Macalester CC Wichita State BR Lang 8 Archer, Max Macalester FI Kansas State DR Lang 21 Marso, Heath Minnesota KS Missouri-kansas City AB Lang 308 Henson, Chad Minnesota SW Kansas State MP Lang 22 Baxter-kauf, Mik Northwestern BK Wayne State Universi GP Lang 12 Pennington, Nata Northwestern RX Emporia State U. WW Lang 345 Gordon, Malcolm Wichita State CM Missouri-kansas City JS Lang 311 Regnier, Jason Wichita State GJ Iowa DO Lang 11 Elliott, Darren -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Junior Varsity Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 1 -- START TIME: 8am Augustana Il FH Minnesota SS Searley 112` Sutton, Dylan Illinois (university HM Illinois State HS Searley 115 Green, Justin Kansas City Kansas C NT Capital CN Searley 220 "jt" Taylor, Jam Kansas State BE Kansas City Kansas C BR Searley 213 Hill, Luke Minnesota FS BYE Southern Methodist Un HM Kansas State BW Searley 212 Peters, Donny Wayne State Universi JM Kansas State SW Searley 120 Hamburger,Ben If you did not turn in a strike sheet, please fill one out and return it to the tab table prior to Rnd 2. From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 07:57:06 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:57:06 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Round Two Pairings Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909190557p6956f432mcc261a2374bd7c99@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/2a9bb0bf/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rd2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12432 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/2a9bb0bf/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd2-jv.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9744 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/2a9bb0bf/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd 2 - novice.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9553 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/2a9bb0bf/attachment-0002.pdf From tews.rich at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 09:51:32 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:51:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rnd 2 UNI Message-ID: <50002ace0909190751u26a96744ibfb761b6e233c91c@mail.gmail.com> attached. Lunch in Lang after this round -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/72045221/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Open Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 2 -- START TIME: 1045 Concordia MR Northwestern BK Lang 12 Henson, Chad Emporia State U. WW Kansas State HW Lang 23 Powers, Tj Iowa DO Emporia State U. FL Lang 346 Green, Justin Kansas State DR Minnesota KS Lang 308 Elliott, Darren Kansas State MP Northwestern RX Lang 345 Marso, Heath Minnesota SZ Macalester CC Lang 8 Brown, Zach Missouri-kansas City AB Iowa HP Lang 10 Archer, Max Missouri-kansas City JS Concordia AW Lang 20 Baxter-kauf, Mik Wayne State Universi DJ Minnesota SW Lang 22 Pennington, Nata Wayne State Universi GP Wichita State CM Lang 311 Gordon, Malcolm Wayne State Universi KS Illinois State HP Lang 18 Crockett, Clay Wichita State BR Macalester FI Lang 21 Neal, Travis Wisconsin Oshkosh CI Wichita State GJ Lang 11 Regnier, Jason -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Junior Varsity Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 2 -- START TIME: 1045 Capital CN Wayne State Universi JM Searley 120 Hingstman, David Illinois State HS Kansas State BE Searley 213 Sutton, Dylan Kansas City Kansas C BR Southern Methodist Un HM Searley 212 Hamburger, Ben Kansas State BW Illinois (university HM Searley 115 "jt" Taylor, Jam Kansas State SW Augustana Il FH Searley 112` Peters, Donny Minnesota FS Kansas City Kansas C NT Searley 220 Koehle, Joe Minnesota SS BYE From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Sat Sep 19 12:26:14 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:26:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Northern Iowa questions Message-ID: <4AB51436.7050402@uvm.edu> I heard that prefs were not really being used (just 2 strikes) because those running the tournament do not know how to use them. I heard that there are NO prefs at all in JV & novice which means the tournament may not be CEDA sanctioned. Any truth to these ugly rumors? Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From malgor.debate at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 12:35:51 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:35:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] gsu wiki Message-ID: i thought gsu was going to put the affs up as they were broken. what's up? i got an over/under on number of NFU affs. i know you got the info. don't let fools hold you back post it! malgor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/0d4cba8e/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 13:17:32 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:17:32 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Round Three Pairings GSU Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909191117q3cb713f7o881954d281fad381@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/07974813/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd3-JV.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9772 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/07974813/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd3-novice.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9605 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/07974813/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rd3-Opne.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12503 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/07974813/attachment-0002.pdf From tews.rich at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 13:34:15 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:34:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Rnd 3 Message-ID: <50002ace0909191134v4fd32467k718c934ed06244e3@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/67dce411/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Open Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 3 -- START TIME: 2:45 Concordia MR Wichita State GJ Lang 12 Powers, Tj Emporia State U. WW Wayne State Universi DJ Lang 22 Marso, Heath Illinois State HP Northwestern RX Lang 345 Archer, Max Iowa DO Wichita State BR Lang 311 Pennington, Nata Iowa HP Macalester CC Lang 23 Gordon, Malcolm Kansas State HW Wayne State Universi KS Lang 18 Regnier, Jason Kansas State MP Emporia State U. FL Lang 346 Neal, Travis Minnesota SW Macalester FI Lang 21 Brown, Zach Missouri-kansas City AB Northwestern BK Lang 10 Baxter-kauf, Mik Missouri-kansas City JS Minnesota KS Lang 308 Koehle, Joe Wayne State Universi GP Concordia AW Lang 20 Crockett, Clay Wichita State CM Minnesota SZ Lang 8 Elliott, Darren Wisconsin Oshkosh CI Kansas State DR Lang 11 Henson, Chad -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Junior Varsity Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 3 -- START TIME: 2:45 Augustana Il FH Kansas City Kansas C BR Searley 213 Green, Justin Capital CN Kansas State SW Searley 112` Bruce, Caitlin Illinois (university HM Southern Methodist Un HM Searley 212 Tajima, Noriaki Kansas City Kansas C NT Minnesota SS Searley 120 Severson, Brian Kansas State BE Minnesota FS Searley 220 Hamburger, Ben Wayne State Universi JM Kansas State BW Searley 115 Sutton, Dylan From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 15:23:59 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:23:59 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Rd 4 Pairings Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909191323s43e30759o96b5d533747e9083@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/f7f134c3/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd4-jv.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9745 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/f7f134c3/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd4-novice.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9544 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/f7f134c3/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd4-Open.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12348 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/f7f134c3/attachment-0002.pdf From kel1773 at msn.com Sat Sep 19 15:32:47 2009 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:32:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Northern Iowa questions Message-ID: "I heard that prefs were not really being used (just 2 strikes) because those running the tournament do not know how to use them. I heard that there are NO prefs at all in JV & novice which means the tournament may not be CEDA sanctioned. Any truth to these ugly rumors? --Tuna" This is absolute bush-league slander and is really unprofessional and uncalled for, particular from someone that isn't at the tournament. Perhaps you should back-channel the directors of the tournament before you publicly sander a good program that runs a nice tournament. I was in the room exactly at the moment that your source asked if pref system was being used and I specifically heard him then misrepresent the answer and justification. At a tournament with 20ish teams there just aren't enough judges to give any real flexibility to have meaningful prefs. If you have an A, B, Strike system, you have to require so many As that you end up with just about everyone in the pool as an A. And in late rounds, the pool is so constrained by that point, you will get many scenarios that are mutual but not preferred (which again, the mutual is meaningless because you have to rank about 85% of the pool an A). So, its either the facade of pref or it's the reality, you get a couple of strikes and accept it. The people running the tournament have ran several of highly competitive high school tournaments. This is not a lack of competence or ability. I still can't believe you dared to suggest such a thing. More importantly, there ARE JV and novice strikes. It was the first strike sheet I picked up at registration. Unsure where this ugly--ugly because it's a lie--rumor came from. There is only one strike, but the language of the constitution is: "If a preference system is used, a version of a preference system must be used in all divisions (Open, JV, Novice, etc.) offered." A VERSION OF A PREFERENCE SYSTEM IS BEING USED. Get your facts straight. 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/20090919/ab8a70d4/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 16:36:24 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:36:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Rnd 4 Message-ID: <50002ace0909191436h156937b3tc21efe639980b07a@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/d415d181/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Open Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 4 -- START TIME: 5:30 Concordia AW Iowa DO Lang 311 Brown, Zach Emporia State U. FL Missouri-kansas City AB Lang 10 Powers, Tj Kansas State DR Concordia MR Lang 12 Neal, Travis Macalester CC Wayne State Universi GP Lang 20 Salinas, Chris Macalester FI Missouri-kansas City JS Lang 308 Elliott, Darren Minnesota KS Illinois State HP Lang 345 Baxter-kauf, Mik Minnesota SZ Emporia State U. WW Lang 22 Pennington, Nata Northwestern BK Wichita State CM Lang 8 Green, Justin Northwestern RX Minnesota SW Lang 21 Koehle, Joe Wayne State Universi DJ Kansas State MP Lang 346 Gordon, Malcolm Wayne State Universi KS Wisconsin Oshkosh CI Lang 11 Marso, Heath Wichita State BR Kansas State HW Lang 18 Hamburger, Ben Wichita State GJ Iowa HP Lang 23 Henson, Chad -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Junior Varsity Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 4 -- START TIME: 5:30 Illinois State HS Capital CN Searley 112` Voth, Ben Kansas City Kansas C BR BYE Kansas State BW Augustana Il FH Searley 213 Hill, Luke Kansas State SW Illinois (university HM Searley 212 Sternhagen, Fred Minnesota FS Wayne State Universi JM Searley 115 Severson, Brian Minnesota SS Kansas State BE Searley 220 "jt" Taylor, Jam Southern Methodist Un HM Kansas City Kansas C NT Searley 120 Schraeder, Jenni From berchnorto at msn.com Sat Sep 19 17:20:21 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:20:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] teams clearing at King's Message-ID: Novice: Binghamton KZ, LS; Cornell OR, SW; George Mason BG*; USMA AdBe*, DD*, MR*, PW*; West Virginia JP; Wilkes CG* JV: Binghamton JT*, Cornell KaLa, KlLo; Rochester BS, MM, MW*; USMA AtBe*; West Virginia CP, HP, SZ* Open: Binghamton FT; Cornell HK, PW; George Mason KN; Rochester KY Teams with * are debating in JV and Novice partial octas right now. Others will debate in quarters in the morning. Open partial quarters will also take place in the morning. All judges are obligated for the first round on Sunday. Pairings at 7:30; 1AC at 8:00. 15-minute forfeit rule in effect. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/0c357a91/attachment.htm From debate.gsu at gmail.com Sat Sep 19 18:54:15 2009 From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:54:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Caselist Plea Message-ID: Thanks to everyone who helped us collect aff intel on pretty much everyone at the tournament. Cooperation has been at an all-time high. However, as usual, our problem is negative reporting. We have very little information on negatives. To come close to covering a tournament of this size with a staff of our size, we are reliant on self-reporting. We'd like to make rounds 5 and 6 focused on negative information gathering. If you're judging, please send us any intel on the rounds you judged ( gsucaselist at gmail.com). If you're coaching, please ask your teams to send reports on their rounds to us. Obviously, anyone who has a wiki account can upload information directly. We'll do our best to cover key debates, but we could really use your help. Thanks again to everyone for joining us and braving the rain. Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090919/d23d430e/attachment.htm From gregachten at berkeley.edu Sat Sep 19 23:26:25 2009 From: gregachten at berkeley.edu (gregachten at berkeley.edu) Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:26:25 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] SFSU Teams Clearing to Elims Message-ID: <6bbefbc4926650209b4febcbc452e68b.squirrel@calmail.berkeley.edu> Teams Clearing at SFSU Open Cal PG Cal GR Cal NP Fullerton CT Northridge AH Southwestern FP UNLV EL USC DP JV Chico RL ELAC/UNLV LRCC BK SFSU JO Novice ? partial quarters ? took 4 wins to clear LRCC BL (bye to semis) ELAC RC (bye to semis) Chico MN FLC BS SFSU BS USC MR All judges are needed for the morning elim From debate.gsu at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 06:00:01 2009 From: debate.gsu at gmail.com (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:00:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Round 5 Message-ID: Good luck to everyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/9da10f7a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 38186 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/9da10f7a/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceRd5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 39643 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/9da10f7a/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRd5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 45120 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/9da10f7a/attachment-0002.pdf From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 20 06:35:25 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:35:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Rounds 5 & 6 Message-ID: We will be accelerating the afternoon schedule of the tournament. Our tournament schedule will be as follows: Round 5 - 8am Round 6 10:45am All round 6 ballots in by 1:15 Round 7 - 2:15pm All round 7 ballots must be in by 4:45 Round 8 - 6:15pm All round 8 ballots must be in by 8:45 pm Katherine L. Lavelle Director of Forensics University of Northern Iowa You must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't be resigned to that. Break out! ? Mr. Keating, Tom Schulman Dead Poets Society _________________________________________________________________ Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing? now http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try bing_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/768c443d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Open Rnd 6.txt Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/768c443d/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Open Rnd 5.txt Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/768c443d/attachment-0001.txt -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: JV Rnd 6.txt Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/768c443d/attachment-0002.txt -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: JV Rnd 5.txt Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/768c443d/attachment-0003.txt From dave at miami.edu Sun Sep 20 06:37:36 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:37:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications In-Reply-To: References: , <4AB2F001.4060301@wfu.edu>, Message-ID: a rant! I am sitting in a classroom at Georgia State University at 7:15 am, my head pounding. We left the hotel at 6:30. Yesterday we began a little later, leaving at 7:00. Cruel trick to start the second day earlier than the first. And we live in this time zone. For west coast people, it is 4:00 am. I sacrificed my typical oatmeal and fruit breakfast for more sleep, a sugary donut instead. After a long day with short breaks filled with round preparation (shoveled in some fast food during the 45 minutes we had for lunch) we completed our day and left the tournament around 8:45 pm, excellent by debate standards. Selfishly, I took the team for a sit down meal, and then foolessly indulged in watching some of the Auburn football game on TV. Self-indulgent, but it was Saturday night! A mistake. One beer with dinner. I feel like I have smoked a carton of cigarettes (and I quit 12 years ago). Another donut. Sleep deprivation, poor food, cigarette smoke, no exercise. OK, the high levels of mental/psychological stress reasonably go with the territory, but the physical stress is mostly unnecessary, its a choice we make in designing our activity. And our students need to return to class and schoolwork on Monday or Tuesday, with substantially more pressure than other students who have not missed classes or sacrificed schoolwork time for debate work. Are we concerned about the health of our participants? Surprised when our immune systems do not fight off the flu? I do not think so. 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: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Darren Elliott [delliott at KCKCC.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:03 PM To: JP Lacy; Galloway, Ryan W. Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com; ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications Don't risk a Forced Choice by Administrators of Non-Competition for others and yourself down the road. This issue is larger than you might think. I sat in on a legislative session this week where illness and N1H1 was a hot topic. University AD's and Officials are contacting each other (and being directed to) and putting in place contingency plans should an outbreak occur. The contingency plan in KS would appear to be to cancel games, tournaments, and events to prevent outbreaks. I'm sure KS is not the only State, and the MIAA, NAIA, and NCAA Big 12 are not the only conferences with this in mind. No doubt this will trickle down to non-athletic events if Colleges and Universities shut their doors to prevent the sickness from getting out. Not to sound alarm bells, but its high on the priority list of those making decisions above all of us. Dont risk not only the health of yourself and others, but entire tournaments being shut down. I think Sarah put it best, we should be more kind to ourselves and those around us than we have been in the past. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:27 PM To: Galloway, Ryan W. Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications Wake misses competing at our tournament every year. So does every other squad that hosts a "major" national tournament. It is hard for debaters to give up an opportunity to compete. Many would give an organ to clear at a tournament. We need to get better at showing people that debate isn't worth hurting themselves or others over. I agree with Ryan that we should "cut people some slack" if they miss a tournament due to illness, injury or other contingencies. After all, hosting schools get that "slack" every year. -- JP Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > I think Sam and Sue raise a good point. I would like to point out the counter-vailing tendency among debaters however, especially those that might be in contention for a 1st/2nd round bid. > > When I debated, I debated at the Redlands tournament my senior year when I was extremely ill. I could barely navigate a flight of stairs. I could not physically lift a tub (Gordon carried them all, and I forgot my promise that I would carry them at the next tournament). Frankly, I was miserable the whole weekend and likely a severe infestation risk. > > When confronted about this question "why are you debating?" by Sherry Hall and Rebecca Tushnet, I remember weakly replying "that our bid was not high enough." A rationale that made sense at age 20, an insane rationale at age 36. > > I think debaters, coaches, and rankers of bids should be especially cognizant of the way certain tournaments are viewed on the bid sheets. I would encourage all to take a reasonable perspective of the situation, especially if estimates (like the one given at our university) that 30% of the population could get the swine flu this season. Let's cut some people some slack if they don't have Kentucky or another tournament on their bid sheet that is a "must attend" tournament for a bid sheet. > > Take care of your health. Be reasonable about the situation. It's a debate tournament, you'll have more down the road. > > RG > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From tews.rich at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 07:07:14 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:07:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Rnd 5 Message-ID: <50002ace0909200507h295bf2d5ga6e50ccaac021f17@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/dfbf7ab7/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Open Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 5 -- START TIME: ASAP Concordia MR Wichita State CM Lang 8 Salinas, Chris Emporia State U. FL Northwestern RX Lang 21 Severson, Brian Illinois State HP Kansas State HW Lang 18 Henson, Chad Kansas State DR Macalester CC Lang 12 Bruce, Caitlin Kansas State MP Missouri-kansas City JS Lang 308 Powers, Tj Macalester FI Minnesota SZ Lang 22 Green, Justin Minnesota KS Concordia AW Lang 345 Pennington, Nata Minnesota SW Wayne State Universi KS Lang 11 Gordon, Malcolm Missouri-kansas City AB Wichita State GJ Lang 10 Marso, Heath Northwestern BK Iowa DO Lang 311 Koehle, Joe Wayne State Universi DJ Wisconsin Oshkosh CI Lang 346 Hingstman, David Wayne State Universi GP Emporia State U. WW Lang 20 Hamburger, Ben Wichita State BR Iowa HP Lang 23 Baxter-kauf, Mik -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Junior Varsity Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 5 -- START TIME: 8am Augustana Il FH Kansas City Kansas C NT Searley 220 Young, Kelly Capital CN Minnesota FS Searley 112` Peters, Donny Illinois (university HM BYE Illinois State HS Kansas State SW Searley 212 Brown, Zach Kansas City Kansas C BR Kansas State BW Searley 213 Koch, John Kansas State BE Southern Methodist Un HM Searley 120 Elliott, Darren Minnesota SS Wayne State Universi JM Searley 115 Hill, Luke From davismk13 at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 10:21:16 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:21:16 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] GSU - RD6 Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909200821g2d0aa6bfp6b1440322acedc18@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/55d7a1b7/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd6-jv.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9771 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/55d7a1b7/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd6-novice.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9605 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/55d7a1b7/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rd6-open.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 12436 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/55d7a1b7/attachment-0002.pdf From Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU Sun Sep 20 11:57:06 2009 From: Kenneth.M.Strange at Dartmouth.EDU (Kenneth M. Strange) Date: 20 Sep 2009 12:57:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] RESEARCH SITE Message-ID: <162554431@newvixen.Dartmouth.EDU> --- Forwarded message from "John Isaacs" --- >From: "John Isaacs" >Subject: 2009-2010 national collegiatee debate on nuclear weapons >Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:58:29 -0400 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE DEBATE TOPIC FOR 2009-10: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal. Today, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation launched an on-line resource guide for the 2009-10 national collegiate debate topic consisting of background materials, publications, and relevant organizations on both sides of the issues. (http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/nuclearweapons/articles/college_debate_09-10/). Included is information on START; force posture; CTBT; cost; blast effects; Iran; missile defense; NPT; North Korea; public opinion; scientific and technical skills; stockpiles; U.S. policy; a world free of nuclear weapons; and more. An outline is below. We would like to disseminate the guide as widely as possible. Are there other listservs we can send it to? Any help you can provide would be most appreciated, as would suggestions about additional ways my organization can be involved in the debate season. John Isaacs, Dartmouth OE67 ================================== Download this resource guide in PDF form (8 pages) BACKGROUND MATERIALS BY TOPIC 1. Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) START Resource Center (Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation), http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/resources/start_resources/, includes: Primers - U.S. and Russian Arms Control Treaty Limits - Current Nuclear Weapons Stockpiles - Counting Rules under START and Treaty of Moscow - Arguments for Nuclear Weapons Reductions - Technical Issues for a Follow-On START Agreement - START Follow-On Timeline - What the Administration and Key Democrats Say - Moderates and Conservatives Supporting Nuclear Weapons Cuts - Newspaper Editorials Supporting Nuclear Weapons Reductions - From the Other Side: Voices Opposed to Further Reductions - Previous Votes on Arms Control Treaties by Republican Senators Analysis - Local Priorities vs. National Interests in Arms Control (Aug 2009) - Progress on Nuclear Weapons Reductions (Jul 2009) - Decrease Stockpiles, Increase Security (Jul 2009) - The Obama-Medvedev Security Summit (Jul 2009) - Backgrounder on Obama-Medvedev July 2009 Moscow Summit (Jul 2009) - Will the Senate Support New Nuclear Arms Reductions? (Jun 2009) - Nukes Remain Top Security Issue (Jun 2009) - START and Further Nuclear Reductions: Where Are We? (Apr 2009) - Support for Nuclear Reductions Builds with Two New Reports (May 2009) 2. Force posture and targeting doctrine Supportive of nuclear weapons reductions - Sidney Drell and James Goodby, What Are Nuclear Weapons For? (Arms Control Association 2007), http://www.armscontrol.org/system/files/20071104_Drell_Goodby_07_new.pdf - Charles Glaser and Steve Fetter, Counterforce Revisited (International Security 2005), http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/703/counterforce_revisited.html - Andrew Grotto and Joe Cirincione, Orienting the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review (Center for American Progress 2008), http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/11/pdf/nuclear_posture.pdf - Harold Feiveson, The Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-Alerting of Nuclear Weapons (Brookings Institution 1999), http://www.brookings.edu/press/Books/1999/nucturn.aspx - Hans Kristensen, Robert Norris, Ivan Oelrich, From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons (Federation of American Scientists and National Resources Defense Council 2009), http://www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/OccasionalPaper7.pdf Opposed to/skeptical about nuclear weapons reductions - David Cooper, Aligning Disarmament to Nuclear Dangers: Off to a Hasty START? (National Defense University 2009), http://www.ndu.edu/WMDCenter/docUploaded/SF244.pdf - National Institute for Public Policy, The Necessity of the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent (2007), http://www.nipp.org/Publication/Downloads/Publication%20Archive%20PDF/Deterrence%20Paper%20-%20version%202.pdf - The New Deterrent Working Group, U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century (2009), http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/upload/wysiwyg/center%20publication%20pdfs/NDWG-%20Getting%20It%20Right.pdf - Keith Payne, How Much Is Enough? (National Institute for Public Policy 2009), http://www.lanl.gov/conferences/sw/2009/docs/payne_livermore-2.pdf Academic/organizationally neutral - Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States (2009), http://www.usip.org/strategic_posture/index.html - Final Report of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy (2009), http://www.cfr.org/publication/19259/cfr_task_force_report.html - Anya Loukianova, The Nuclear Posture Review Debate (Nuclear Threat Initiative 2009), http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_nuclear_posture_review_debate.html - Roles of U.S. Nuclear Forces: Implications for U.S. Strategy (RAND Corporation 2003), http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1231.pdf 3. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Supportive of U.S. ratification - David Hafemeister, The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Effectively Verifiable (Arms Control Today 2008), http://www.armscontrol.org/print/3391 - Jofi Joseph, Renew the Drive for CTBT Ratification (Washington Quarterly 2009), http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_Joseph.pdf - Daryl Kimball, The Logic of the Test Ban Treaty (Arms Control Today 2009), http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_5/focus Opposed to U.S. ratification - Mackubin Thomas Owens, The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Junk Arms Control (Claremont Institute 1999), http://www.claremont.org/projects/print_page.asp?pageid=1886 Academic/organizationally neutral - Sean Dunlop and Jean du Preez, The United States and the CTBT: Renewed Hope or Politics as Usual? (Nuclear Threat Initiative 2009), http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_ctbt_united_states.html - Jonathan Medalia, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments (Congressional Research Service 2009), http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33548_20090128.pdf - Technical Issues Related to Ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (National Academy of Sciences 2002), http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10471 4. Cost of nuclear weapons - Steven Kosiak, Spending on U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Plans & Options for the 21st Century (Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments 2006), http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20060901.Spending_on_US_Str/R.20060901.Spending_on_US_Str.pdf - Stephen Schwartz, ed., Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons since 1940 (Brookings Institution Press 1998), http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/weapons.aspx - Stephen Schwartz and Deepti Choubey, Nuclear Security Spending: Assessing Costs, Examining Priorities (Carnegie Endowment 2009), http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22601 5. Effects of nuclear weapons - Ashton Carter, Michael May, and William Perry, The Day After: Action Following a Nuclear Blast in a U.S. City (Washington Quarterly 2007), http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/The%20Day%20After-%20Action%20Following%20a%20Nuclear%20Blast%20in%20a%20U.S.%20City.pdf - Samuel Glasstone and Philip Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 3rd edition (Department of Defense 1977), http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/index.html#EONW77 - Ira Helfand, Assessment of the Extent of Projected Global Famine Resulting From Limited, Regional Nuclear War (Physicians for Social Responsibility), http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/an-assessment-of-the-extent.pdf - Nuclear Weapon Blast Effects Calculator (Federation of American Scientists), http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects/nuclearwpneffctcalc.html - Nuclear Weapon Fallout Effects Calculator (Federation of American Scientists), http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects/falloutcalc.html 6. Iran - Curbing Iran$E2s Nuclear Ambitions (National Discussion & Debate Series 2009), http://millercenter.org/public/debates/iran - William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Jim Walsh, How to Deal with Iran (New York Review of Books 2009), http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22271 - Michael McFaul, Abbas Milani, and Larry Diamond, A Win-Win U.S. Strategy for Dealing with Iran (Washington Quarterly 2007), http://www.twq.com/07winter/docs/07winter_mcfaul.pdf - Mohsen Milani, Tehran$E2s Take: Understanding Iran$E2s U.S. Policy (Foreign Affairs 2009), http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65123/mohsen-m-milani/tehrans-take - Whitney Raas and Austin Long, Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities (International Security 2007), http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/is3104_pp007-033_raas_long.pdf - Kingston Reif, Current Status of Iran$E2s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs (Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation 2009), http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iran/articles/081709_factsheet_irans_missile_programs/ 7. Missile Defense - Charles Glaser and Steve Fetter, National Missile Defense and the Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy (International Security 2001), http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/Fetter/2001-IS-NMD.pdf - Steven Hildreth and Carl Ek, Long-Range Ballistic Missile Defense in Europe (Congressional Research Service 2009), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34051.pdf - John Isaacs and Travis Sharp, Bargaining Chip or Gas Mask? Prospects for Missile Defense (Carnegie Council 2009), http://www.cceia.org/resources/articles_papers_reports/0023.html - George Lewis and Theodore Postol, European Missile Defense: The Technological Basis of Russian Concerns (Arms Control Today 2007), http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_10/LewisPostol - James Lindsay and Michael O$E2Hanlon, Defending America: The Case for Limited National Missile Defense (Brookings 2001) 8. Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - Lewis Dunn, The NPT: Assessing the Past, Building the Future (Nonproliferation Review 2009), http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/npr_16-2_dunn.pdf - Rebecca Johnson, Enhanced Prospects for 2010: An Analysis of the Third PrepCom and the Outlook for the 2010 NPT Review Conference (Arms Control Today 2009), http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_6/Johnson - Daryl Kimball, NPT: Past, Present, and Future (Arms Control Today 2008), http://www.armscontrol.org/node/2933 9. North Korea - Siegfried Hecker, Denuclearizing North Korea (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 2008), http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22161/064002011_0-1.pdf - Mary Beth Nikitin, North Korea$E2s Nuclear Weapons: Technical Issues (Congressional Research Service 2009), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34256.pdf - Larry Niksch, North Korea$E2s Nuclear Weapons Development and Diplomacy (Congressional Research Service 2009), http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33590.pdf - Charles $E3Jack$E4 Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy: The Tragic Story of How North Korea Got the Bomb (Brookings 2007) 10. Public opinion - Gallup poll on importance of nonproliferation (February 2008), http://www.gallup.com/poll/116350/Position-World.aspx - Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll on support for Obama$E2s nuclear weapons policies (May 2009), http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/resources/061609_obama_nuclear_policies_poll/ - Harris Interactive poll on nuclear weapons encouraging proliferation (August 2008), http://nuclearweaponsfree.presstools.org/node/32423 - WorldPublicOpinion.org poll on elimination of nuclear weapons (December 2008), http://worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/577.php 11. Scientific and technical skills - Final Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence Skills (2008), http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-09-NDS.pdf - Leveraging Science for Security: A Strategy for the Nuclear Weapons Laboratories in the 21st Century (Stimson Center 2009), http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?ID=760 12. Stockpiles Current stockpiles by country - Hans Kristensen, Status of World Nuclear Forces (Federation of American Scientists), http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html Current size and configuration of U.S. nuclear stockpile - Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen, Nuclear Notebook: U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2009 (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2009), http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/f64x2k3716wq9613/fulltext.pdf - Amy Woolf, U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Development, and Issues (Congressional Research Service 2009), http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33640.pdf Historical stockpiles by country, 1945-2006 - Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen, Nuclear Notebook: Global Nuclear Stockpiles, 1945-2006 (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2006), http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/c4120650912x74k7/fulltext.pdf 13. U.S. nuclear weapons policy (Cold War and beyond) - Joe Cirincione, Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons (2007) - Lawrence Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, 3rd edition (2003) - John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, revised and expanded edition (2005) - Keith Payne, The Great American Gamble: Deterrence Theory and Practice from the Cold War to the Twenty-First Century (2008) - Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed (2002) 14. World free of nuclear weapons - John Holdren, Getting to Zero: Is Pursuing a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World Too Difficult? Too Dangerous? Too Distracting? (Belfer Center 1998), http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/disc_paper_98_24.pdf - Global Zero Program (Stimson Center), http://www.stimson.org/nuke/?SN=NW200707271363 - Charles Glaser, The Flawed Case for Nuclear Disarmament (Survival 1998), http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a780011902 - George Perkovich and James Acton, eds., Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate (Carnegie Endowment 2009), http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22748 - George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, A World Free of Nuclear Weapons (Wall Street Journal 2007), http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/6731276.html - George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, Toward a Nuclear-Free World (Wall Street Journal 2008), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120036422673589947.html PUBLICATIONS Blogs - Arms Control Wonk: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/ - Nukes of Hazard: http://www.nukesofhazardblog.com/ - PONI (CSIS): http://csis.org/program/poni-debates-issues - Strategic Security (FAS): http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/ Journals - Arms Control Today: http://www.armscontrol.org/act - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: http://www.thebulletin.org/ - Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/ - International Security: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/58/quarterly_journal.html - The National Interest: http://www.nationalinterest.org/ - The Nonproliferation Review: http://www.cns.miis.edu/npr/index.htm - Science & Global Security: http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/archive/ - The Washington Quarterly: http://www.twq.com/ News sources - Defense News: http://www.defensenews.com/ - Global Security Newswire: http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/ RESEARCH/ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS Generally supportive of nuclear weapons reductions - Arms Control Association: http://www.armscontrol.org/ - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/ - Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/ - Center for Nonproliferation Studies: http://www.cns.miis.edu/ - Council for a Livable World: http://www.livableworld.org/ - Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/index.html - Institute for Science and International Security: http://www.isis-online.org/ - Stimson Center: http://www.stimson.org/nuke/programhome.cfm - Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/ Generally opposed to/skeptical about nuclear weapons reductions - American Enterprise Institute: http://www.aei.org/ra/100001 - American Foreign Policy Council: http://www.afpc.org/ - Center for Security Policy: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ - Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/ - Lexington Institute: http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense - National Institute for Public Policy: http://www.nipp.org/ - Potomac Institute: http://www.potomacinstitute.org/ Academic/organizationally neutral - Brookings Institution: http://www.brookings.edu/foreign-policy.aspx - Center for International Security and Cooperation (Stanford): http://cisac.stanford.edu/ - Center for International and Security Studies (Maryland): http://www.cissm.umd.edu/ - Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/ - CSIS: http://csis.org/category/topics/defense-and-security - Belfer Center (Harvard): http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/project/3/managing_the_atom.html - Nuclear Threat Initiative: http://www.nti.org/ --- Travis Sharp Communications Director & Military Policy Analyst Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Council for a Livable World Phone: 202-543-4100 ext. 2105 Email: tsharp at armscontrolcenter.org Web: www.armscontrolcenter.org From bk2nocal at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 12:45:40 2009 From: bk2nocal at gmail.com (Sue Peterson) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 10:45:40 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications In-Reply-To: References: <4AB2F001.4060301@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <417507f50909201045q3945c3c2qa1fc5b139791e979@mail.gmail.com> All of this is true of 90% or more of us in the debate community this weekend...I appreciate your willingness to so bluntly describe it and question it. A bold move on your part...I would be interested in discussing solutions - here is what I can think of: 1) shorten times of speeches for debates - go back to the 8-3-5 model of old CEDA and high school debate - it seems like a small change, but over the course of a weekend, it cuts out quite a bit of time. 2) shorten prep times. in this age of electronic research, files, etc. it seems to me that many of the reasons that made longer prep times necessary in the past (having to go through paper files, needing to hand write so much of your speech, etc.) are no longer there and with the disclosure going on through caselists, etc. rarely are we surprised by what other teams say in a round. Again, seems like a small change - 10 to 8 minutes or 7 minutes - but equally impacts both teams and over the course of a weekend saves quite a bit of time. 3) shorten decision-times. this topic seems like it has been hashed, rehashed and rehashed again. and maybe it isn't as big of a problem anymore (I wasn't around much last year, so maybe people got the message and decisions are now shorter?), but it seems to me that really causes a lot of the stretching in tournament times, esp on elim days. 4) stricter start times. I will admit that I am guilty of this - in fact, we just started a round 15 minutes late and both teams had coaches in talking to them (one of whom should have been judging in a different round) right up until the judges kicked us out of the room. most of us are probably guilty of not leaving a room while coaching until someone kicks us out, even when we have a ballot for a different round. This seems like a community norm - I'm not sure how to change it other than talking forfeits - which I would hate to do (why punish the team for the coaches problems), but competitively speaking it may force people to do more to honor the start times. 5) more pre-sets. This one I don't really like because it can really skew a tournament. But, it is an option, so I thought I would list it. It is especially time-consuming (in combination with some of the above this may become unnecessary - I think length of pairing rounds is often negatively effected by decision time, start delays, etc.). 6) less rounds. We've already made the change at Wake (who took a lot of heat for it, but took the risk and went ahead and did it - seems that people are still going), maybe all of our tournaments need to be six round tournaments? Less elims? Maybe we need to break less teams? I think this would be sad, but it may be necessary. 7) less tournaments and four day schedules. I can see a world where we value the tournament experience for quality not quantity. Right now, my schedule has six tournaments on it between September and November - that is two tournaments per month...and the Spring is about the same or worse between January and March. We have a very compact schedule (we really only debate six months of the year, but many of us go to more than 12 tournaments during that time). Maybe we need to have less tournaments with more rounds and go over four days. If missing school is an argument, we miss as much school to leave on Fridays or return on Mondays for these myriad of tournaments. We could go to six tournaments instead of twelve and start on Friday and finish on Monday, with shorter days during that duration of each tournament. This seems better for sleep, eating and immune systems. 8) shorter season. Maybe we need to do the reverse. Maybe we should only debate during the Spring semester - start in January - push the national tournaments back to April or early May and fit it all in. We could have two fall tournaments as "warm-ups" (like exhibition games) on the topic or something, but it seems to me we are literally the ONLY competitive activity in college that competes during both semesters for a large part of both of those semesters. How do sports etc get it done? They compete every weekend for a full semester and then have their national tournaments/games. It would make for a rough Spring semester, but a nice, open Fall semester...It would allow students to load up units in the fall and take a lighter schedule in the Spring...It may even allow those with releases to use more in the Spring and have even a lighter load during that semester. Or we could do it in the fall and have the National tournaments during the month of January/early February... I don't know if any of these are good ideas, but I will offer them as a discussion starting point. They are just things I've thought up as ideas - I don't even like all of them necessarily. But, I think we are realizing that something may need to change... --Sue Sue Peterson, Director of Speech and Debate at CSU Chico sepeterson at csuchico.edu 530-898-4771 Please help me raise money for the Ronald McDonald House in Stanford, where me and my family spent more than four months during the last year! http://www.firstgiving.com/suepeterson On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Steinberg, David L wrote: > a rant! > > I am sitting in a classroom at Georgia State University at 7:15 am, my head > pounding. > > We left the hotel at 6:30. Yesterday we began a little later, leaving at > 7:00. Cruel trick to start the second day earlier than the first. And we > live in this time zone. For west coast people, it is 4:00 am. I sacrificed > my typical oatmeal and fruit breakfast for more sleep, a sugary donut > instead. After a long day with short breaks filled with round preparation > (shoveled in some fast food during the 45 minutes we had for lunch) we > completed our day and left the tournament around 8:45 pm, excellent by > debate standards. Selfishly, I took the team for a sit down meal, and then > foolessly indulged in watching some of the Auburn football game on TV. > Self-indulgent, but it was Saturday night! A mistake. One beer with > dinner. I feel like I have smoked a carton of cigarettes (and I quit 12 > years ago). Another donut. > > Sleep deprivation, poor food, cigarette smoke, no exercise. OK, the high > levels of mental/psychological stress reasonably go with the territory, but > the physical stress is mostly unnecessary, its a choice we make in designing > our activity. > > And our students need to return to class and schoolwork on Monday or > Tuesday, with substantially more pressure than other students who have not > missed classes or sacrificed schoolwork time for debate work. > > Are we concerned about the health of our participants? Surprised when our > immune systems do not fight off the flu? I do not think so. > > 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: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of Darren Elliott [delliott at KCKCC.EDU] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:03 PM > To: JP Lacy; Galloway, Ryan W. > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com; ceda-l at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications > > Don't risk a Forced Choice by Administrators of Non-Competition for others > and yourself down the road. This issue is larger than you might think. I > sat in on a legislative session this week where illness and N1H1 was a hot > topic. University AD's and Officials are contacting each other (and being > directed to) and putting in place contingency plans should an outbreak > occur. The contingency plan in KS would appear to be to cancel games, > tournaments, and events to prevent outbreaks. I'm sure KS is not the only > State, and the MIAA, NAIA, and NCAA Big 12 are not the only conferences with > this in mind. No doubt this will trickle down to non-athletic events if > Colleges and Universities shut their doors to prevent the sickness from > getting out. Not to sound alarm bells, but its high on the priority list of > those making decisions above all of us. Dont risk not only the health of > yourself and others, but entire tournaments being shut down. > > I think Sarah put it best, we should be more kind to ourselves and those > around us than we have been in the past. > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics > Kansas City Kansas Community College > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:27 PM > To: Galloway, Ryan W. > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications > > Wake misses competing at our tournament every year. So does every other > squad that hosts a "major" national tournament. > > It is hard for debaters to give up an opportunity to compete. Many would > give an organ to clear at a tournament. We need to get better at showing > people that debate isn't worth hurting themselves or others over. > > I agree with Ryan that we should "cut people some slack" if they miss a > tournament due to illness, injury or other contingencies. > > After all, hosting schools get that "slack" every year. > > -- JP > > Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > > I think Sam and Sue raise a good point. I would like to point out the > counter-vailing tendency among debaters however, especially those that might > be in contention for a 1st/2nd round bid. > > > > When I debated, I debated at the Redlands tournament my senior year when > I was extremely ill. I could barely navigate a flight of stairs. I could > not physically lift a tub (Gordon carried them all, and I forgot my promise > that I would carry them at the next tournament). Frankly, I was miserable > the whole weekend and likely a severe infestation risk. > > > > When confronted about this question "why are you debating?" by Sherry > Hall and Rebecca Tushnet, I remember weakly replying "that our bid was not > high enough." A rationale that made sense at age 20, an insane rationale at > age 36. > > > > I think debaters, coaches, and rankers of bids should be especially > cognizant of the way certain tournaments are viewed on the bid sheets. I > would encourage all to take a reasonable perspective of the situation, > especially if estimates (like the one given at our university) that 30% of > the population could get the swine flu this season. Let's cut some people > some slack if they don't have Kentucky or another tournament on their bid > sheet that is a "must attend" tournament for a bid sheet. > > > > Take care of your health. Be reasonable about the situation. It's a > debate tournament, you'll have more down the road. > > > > RG > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090920/824149ec/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 13:32:48 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:32:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Round 7 Message-ID: <50002ace0909201132r5d18c544rcd87062800c539e7@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/13b2898e/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Open Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 7 -- START TIME: 2:15 Concordia MR Missouri-kansas City AB Lang 10 Stewart, Nathan Emporia State U. FL Northwestern BK Lang 12 Cram Helwich, Da Emporia State U. WW Wichita State GJ Lang 346 Baxter-kauf, Mik Illinois State HP Wayne State Universi GP Lang 20 "jt" Taylor, Jam Kansas State DR Iowa HP Lang 311 Schraeder, Jenni Kansas State HW Minnesota SW Lang 11 Palczewski, Cate Kansas State MP Macalester FI Lang 18 Peters, Donny Macalester CC Wichita State CM Lang 22 Young, Kelly Missouri-kansas City JS Minnesota SZ Lang 308 Severson, Brian Northwestern RX Wichita State BR Lang 23 Elliott, Darren Wayne State Universi DJ Minnesota KS Lang 345 Salinas, Chris Wayne State Universi KS Iowa DO Lang 21 Neal, Travis Wisconsin Oshkosh CI Concordia AW Lang 8 Koehle, Joe -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Junior Varsity Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 7 -- START TIME: 2:15 Augustana Il FH Wayne State Universi JM Searley 120 Pennington, Nata Illinois (university HM Kansas State BE Searley 112` Samuels, Phil Kansas City Kansas C BR Minnesota SS Searley 115 Hingstman, David Kansas City Kansas C NT Kansas State SW Searley 213 Powers, Tj Kansas State BW Capital CN Searley 220 Marso, Heath Minnesota FS Illinois State HS Searley 212 Archer, Max From christy.webster at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 13:36:22 2009 From: christy.webster at gmail.com (Christy Webster) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:36:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kings Update Message-ID: <59b051810909201136u7fbec612yec65f60d3bd8e5a@mail.gmail.com> Here are the final rounds that are going on as we speak.... Novice Army DD vs Cornell SW Goss, Brown, Risko JV Cornell KL vs WVU HP Rubino, Warner, Webster Open Binghamton FT vs Cornell HK Godbey, Patrice, Mistretta -- Best, Christy From stannardmatt at hotmail.com Sun Sep 20 16:36:12 2009 From: stannardmatt at hotmail.com (matt stannard) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:36:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] anyone from Gonzaga Message-ID: Hey Bulldogs-- Pointer had a rather important message for me on facebook. Please inform him I have answered his message and that I'm around if he needs to talk to me. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Bing brings you health info from trusted sources. http://www.bing.com/search?q=pet+allergy&form=MHEINA&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TXT_MHEINA_Health_Health_PetAllergy_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/31a7a247/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 17:26:10 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:26:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Rnd 8 Message-ID: <50002ace0909201526w805b54dtb92aef6c6944b644@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/648e4f1f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Open Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 8 -- START TIME: 6:00 Concordia AW Wayne State Universi DJ Lang 345 Elliott, Darren Iowa DO Northwestern RX Lang 23 Peters, Donny Iowa HP Illinois State HP Lang 20 Koehle, Joe Macalester FI Wisconsin Oshkosh CI Lang 8 Voth, Ben Minnesota KS Emporia State U. WW Lang 346 Bruce, Caitlin Minnesota SW Concordia MR Lang 10 Hingstman, David Minnesota SZ Kansas State HW Lang 11 Young, Kelly Missouri-kansas City AB Kansas State DR Lang 311 "jt" Taylor, Jam Northwestern BK Macalester CC Lang 22 Neal, Travis Wayne State Universi GP Missouri-kansas City JS Lang 308 Henson, Chad Wichita State BR Emporia State U. FL Lang 12 Sternhagen, Fred Wichita State CM Wayne State Universi KS Lang 21 Cram Helwich, Da Wichita State GJ Kansas State MP Lang 18 Samuels, Phil -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Junior Varsity Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 SCHEDULE FOR ROUND 8 -- START TIME: 6:00 Capital CN Kansas City Kansas C BR Searley 115 Stout, Daniel Illinois State HS Kansas City Kansas C NT Searley 213 Pennington, Nata Kansas State BE Augustana Il FH Searley 120 Gordon, Malcolm Kansas State SW Minnesota FS Searley 212 Crockett, Clay Minnesota SS Kansas State BW Searley 220 Stewart, Nathan Wayne State Universi JM Illinois (university HM Searley 112` Salinas, Chris From dave at miami.edu Sun Sep 20 19:29:51 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 20:29:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] unofficial calendar Message-ID: The unofficial calendar can be accessed at http://debate.miami.edu/calendar/ 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 davismk13 at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 19:39:10 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:39:10 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] GSU - Elim Pairings Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909201739g37d7b469h4e29824d5db691c9@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/87ea7620/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: jvquart.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9306 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/87ea7620/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceQtrs.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9320 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/87ea7620/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: opendoubs.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9949 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/87ea7620/attachment-0002.pdf From davismk13 at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 19:44:35 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:44:35 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Seedings/Bracket Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909201744j575b115aw7f08139c7d447166@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/76759fc3/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 33.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8809 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/76759fc3/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVteams.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 7439 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/76759fc3/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: noviceteams.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 7124 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/76759fc3/attachment-0002.pdf From davismk13 at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 19:48:08 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:48:08 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Speakers Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909201748x719ce33coc206dc654a289e42@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/0e398323/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVspeaks.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 7137 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/0e398323/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceSpeaks.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 7089 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/0e398323/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: open speak.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8590 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/0e398323/attachment-0002.pdf From dave at miami.edu Sun Sep 20 20:12:29 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:12:29 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] FW: Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications In-Reply-To: References: <4AB2F001.4060301@wfu.edu> , <417507f50909201045q3945c3c2qa1fc5b139791e979@mail.gmail.com>, Message-ID: 1. My rant is not a criticism of Joe Bellon and the GSU folks who provide phenomenal service to the debate community through their willingness to host tournaments (2 a year forever..), and do their best to give us what we ask for. I do not even mean to criticize the Krispy Kreme donuts, which are clearly a guilty pleasure.... Dinner tonight was EXCELLENT!!! Still tired, but much happier than this morning. Tasty home style food with healthy and guilty choices. Love the ATL and appreciate Joe and his crew despite the brutal nature of the tournament experience, its not their fault. 2. Talked today to a friend who no longer coaches debate. He mocked me about reading my post this morning as he enjoyed his breakfast and morning paper with his family at home. 3. Still, though, it will be at least 11:00 pm before we get back to the hotel. Thats a 17 hour day. And tomorrow morning rounds will be announced at 7:30 am (4:30 am west coast time). 4. I think that in incremental ways, we as a community have begun to take steps toward a more humane tournament life. Few 8 round tournaments are left, there is a move toward defining best practices as 6 prelim rounds, some shift in debate culture to shortening decision time post debate has occured at least during prelims, and there is more conversation and awareness of health and quality of life issues. 5. I think I like Sue's suggestions, but not sure how to proceed. Maybe CEDA sanctioning should be more strictly controlled (no points to tournaments that do not offer 12 hours from completion of rounds to announcement of next days rounds, or only 6 rounds, or...???) Maybe the marketplace will solve, if we have a variety of tournament choices, that would be good. How about a 5K morning walk/run on Saturday? Basketball, touch football or soccer during the tournament? A hypnotist to guide deep breathing relaxation/meditation sessions between rounds.... a masseuse... looking for another donut..... dave ________________________________ From: Sue Peterson [bk2nocal at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 1:45 PM To: Steinberg, David L; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications All of this is true of 90% or more of us in the debate community this weekend...I appreciate your willingness to so bluntly describe it and question it. A bold move on your part...I would be interested in discussing solutions - here is what I can think of: 1) shorten times of speeches for debates - go back to the 8-3-5 model of old CEDA and high school debate - it seems like a small change, but over the course of a weekend, it cuts out quite a bit of time. 2) shorten prep times. in this age of electronic research, files, etc. it seems to me that many of the reasons that made longer prep times necessary in the past (having to go through paper files, needing to hand write so much of your speech, etc.) are no longer there and with the disclosure going on through caselists, etc. rarely are we surprised by what other teams say in a round. Again, seems like a small change - 10 to 8 minutes or 7 minutes - but equally impacts both teams and over the course of a weekend saves quite a bit of time. 3) shorten decision-times. this topic seems like it has been hashed, rehashed and rehashed again. and maybe it isn't as big of a problem anymore (I wasn't around much last year, so maybe people got the message and decisions are now shorter?), but it seems to me that really causes a lot of the stretching in tournament times, esp on elim days. 4) stricter start times. I will admit that I am guilty of this - in fact, we just started a round 15 minutes late and both teams had coaches in talking to them (one of whom should have been judging in a different round) right up until the judges kicked us out of the room. most of us are probably guilty of not leaving a room while coaching until someone kicks us out, even when we have a ballot for a different round. This seems like a community norm - I'm not sure how to change it other than talking forfeits - which I would hate to do (why punish the team for the coaches problems), but competitively speaking it may force people to do more to honor the start times. 5) more pre-sets. This one I don't really like because it can really skew a tournament. But, it is an option, so I thought I would list it. It is especially time-consuming (in combination with some of the above this may become unnecessary - I think length of pairing rounds is often negatively effected by decision time, start delays, etc.). 6) less rounds. We've already made the change at Wake (who took a lot of heat for it, but took the risk and went ahead and did it - seems that people are still going), maybe all of our tournaments need to be six round tournaments? Less elims? Maybe we need to break less teams? I think this would be sad, but it may be necessary. 7) less tournaments and four day schedules. I can see a world where we value the tournament experience for quality not quantity. Right now, my schedule has six tournaments on it between September and November - that is two tournaments per month...and the Spring is about the same or worse between January and March. We have a very compact schedule (we really only debate six months of the year, but many of us go to more than 12 tournaments during that time). Maybe we need to have less tournaments with more rounds and go over four days. If missing school is an argument, we miss as much school to leave on Fridays or return on Mondays for these myriad of tournaments. We could go to six tournaments instead of twelve and start on Friday and finish on Monday, with shorter days during that duration of each tournament. This seems better for sleep, eating and immune systems. 8) shorter season. Maybe we need to do the reverse. Maybe we should only debate during the Spring semester - start in January - push the national tournaments back to April or early May and fit it all in. We could have two fall tournaments as "warm-ups" (like exhibition games) on the topic or something, but it seems to me we are literally the ONLY competitive activity in college that competes during both semesters for a large part of both of those semesters. How do sports etc get it done? They compete every weekend for a full semester and then have their national tournaments/games. It would make for a rough Spring semester, but a nice, open Fall semester...It would allow students to load up units in the fall and take a lighter schedule in the Spring...It may even allow those with releases to use more in the Spring and have even a lighter load during that semester. Or we could do it in the fall and have the National tournaments during the month of January/early February... I don't know if any of these are good ideas, but I will offer them as a discussion starting point. They are just things I've thought up as ideas - I don't even like all of them necessarily. But, I think we are realizing that something may need to change... --Sue Sue Peterson, Director of Speech and Debate at CSU Chico sepeterson at csuchico.edu 530-898-4771 Please help me raise money for the Ronald McDonald House in Stanford, where me and my family spent more than four months during the last year! http://www.firstgiving.com/suepeterson On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Steinberg, David L > wrote: a rant! I am sitting in a classroom at Georgia State University at 7:15 am, my head pounding. We left the hotel at 6:30. Yesterday we began a little later, leaving at 7:00. Cruel trick to start the second day earlier than the first. And we live in this time zone. For west coast people, it is 4:00 am. I sacrificed my typical oatmeal and fruit breakfast for more sleep, a sugary donut instead. After a long day with short breaks filled with round preparation (shoveled in some fast food during the 45 minutes we had for lunch) we completed our day and left the tournament around 8:45 pm, excellent by debate standards. Selfishly, I took the team for a sit down meal, and then foolessly indulged in watching some of the Auburn football game on TV. Self-indulgent, but it was Saturday night! A mistake. One beer with dinner. I feel like I have smoked a carton of cigarettes (and I quit 12 years ago). Another donut. Sleep deprivation, poor food, cigarette smoke, no exercise. OK, the high levels of mental/psychological stress reasonably go with the territory, but the physical stress is mostly unnecessary, its a choice we make in designing our activity. And our students need to return to class and schoolwork on Monday or Tuesday, with substantially more pressure than other students who have not missed classes or sacrificed schoolwork time for debate work. Are we concerned about the health of our participants? Surprised when our immune systems do not fight off the flu? I do not think so. 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: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Darren Elliott [delliott at KCKCC.EDU] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:03 PM To: JP Lacy; Galloway, Ryan W. Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com; ceda-l at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications Don't risk a Forced Choice by Administrators of Non-Competition for others and yourself down the road. This issue is larger than you might think. I sat in on a legislative session this week where illness and N1H1 was a hot topic. University AD's and Officials are contacting each other (and being directed to) and putting in place contingency plans should an outbreak occur. The contingency plan in KS would appear to be to cancel games, tournaments, and events to prevent outbreaks. I'm sure KS is not the only State, and the MIAA, NAIA, and NCAA Big 12 are not the only conferences with this in mind. No doubt this will trickle down to non-athletic events if Colleges and Universities shut their doors to prevent the sickness from getting out. Not to sound alarm bells, but its high on the priority list of those making decisions above all of us. Dont risk not only the health of yourself and others, but entire tournaments being shut down. I think Sarah put it best, we should be more kind to ourselves and those around us than we have been in the past. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City Kansas Community College ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of JP Lacy [lacyjp at wfu.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:27 PM To: Galloway, Ryan W. Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Sick Debaters, Travel, and Bid Applications Wake misses competing at our tournament every year. So does every other squad that hosts a "major" national tournament. It is hard for debaters to give up an opportunity to compete. Many would give an organ to clear at a tournament. We need to get better at showing people that debate isn't worth hurting themselves or others over. I agree with Ryan that we should "cut people some slack" if they miss a tournament due to illness, injury or other contingencies. After all, hosting schools get that "slack" every year. -- JP Galloway, Ryan W. wrote: > I think Sam and Sue raise a good point. I would like to point out the counter-vailing tendency among debaters however, especially those that might be in contention for a 1st/2nd round bid. > > When I debated, I debated at the Redlands tournament my senior year when I was extremely ill. I could barely navigate a flight of stairs. I could not physically lift a tub (Gordon carried them all, and I forgot my promise that I would carry them at the next tournament). Frankly, I was miserable the whole weekend and likely a severe infestation risk. > > When confronted about this question "why are you debating?" by Sherry Hall and Rebecca Tushnet, I remember weakly replying "that our bid was not high enough." A rationale that made sense at age 20, an insane rationale at age 36. > > I think debaters, coaches, and rankers of bids should be especially cognizant of the way certain tournaments are viewed on the bid sheets. I would encourage all to take a reasonable perspective of the situation, especially if estimates (like the one given at our university) that 30% of the population could get the swine flu this season. Let's cut some people some slack if they don't have Kentucky or another tournament on their bid sheet that is a "must attend" tournament for a bid sheet. > > Take care of your health. Be reasonable about the situation. It's a debate tournament, you'll have more down the road. > > RG > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From dave at miami.edu Sun Sep 20 20:32:14 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:32:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire judging at UNLV Message-ID: would like 4 rounds. contact me. thanks. dave 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 tews.rich at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 22:11:01 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:11:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Teams Clearing and Judges needed UNI Message-ID: <50002ace0909202011hb5c79afseda1acbd494e7fa2@mail.gmail.com> OPEN Emporia State FL 7 Northwestern RX 7 Iowa DO 6 TEAMS COMPETING IN PARTIAL OCTAS Wichita State BR 6 Emporia State WW 5 Northwestern BK 5 Wichita State CM 5 Missouri-Kansas City JS 5 Macalester CC 5 Minnesota SZ 4 Wayne State GP 4 Kansas State DR 4 Kansas State HW 4 JV Minnesota SS 8 Minnesota SF 6 TEAMS COMPETING IN PARTIAL QUARTERS Wayne State JM 6 Kansas State BE 5 Capital CN 5 KCKCC BR 5 NOVICE FINALS Augustana (aff) v K-State JUDGES NEEDED FOR PARTIAL ROUND AT 8:00 AM Powers, TJ Cram-Helwich Neal Salinas Gordon Bruce Roubidoux Brown Crockett Young Hill Regnier Taylor Green Schraeder Severson Voth Pennington Hingstman Samuels Elliot Koehle Stout Baxter-kauf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/707187bd/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 22:21:19 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:21:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judge Addition for UNI elims Message-ID: <50002ace0909202021r793d4cd4hc67196e5a32a6c5d@mail.gmail.com> We actually need Stewart NOT Severson in the morning. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/fffaa26c/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 22:45:32 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:45:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Ballot count correction Message-ID: <50002ace0909202045p5e815ecbr64931140bb475dae@mail.gmail.com> after verifying some ballots, there was an error with the UMKC JS ballot count. The real count is 6 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/7ef1bdd7/attachment.htm From chairman.maurer at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 23:02:32 2009 From: chairman.maurer at gmail.com (Samuel Maurer) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:02:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Ballot count correction In-Reply-To: <50002ace0909202045p5e815ecbr64931140bb475dae@mail.gmail.com> References: <50002ace0909202045p5e815ecbr64931140bb475dae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7fd76c680909202102v566a8b93qc44304c5d0ae4022@mail.gmail.com> apparently, NU RX was 6 and not 7 according to their coach. anything else? Sam On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:45 PM, rich tews wrote: > after verifying some ballots, there was an error with the UMKC JS ballot > count. The real count is 6 > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Samuel A. Maurer Director of Debate Emporia State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/3a91016e/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Sun Sep 20 23:17:24 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:17:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Correction entire list Message-ID: <50002ace0909202117y471dd514s1324a109460c7ac3@mail.gmail.com> OPEN Emporia State FL 7 Iowa DO 6 Wichita State BR 6 TEAMS COMPETING IN PARTIAL OCTAS Northwestern RX 6 Missouri-Kansas City JS 6 Emporia State WW 5 Northwestern BK 5 Wichita State CM 5 Macalester CC 5 Minnesota SZ 4 Wayne State GP 4 Kansas State DR 4 Kansas State HW 4 JV Minnesota SS 8 Minnesota SF 6 TEAMS COMPETING IN PARTIAL QUARTERS Wayne State JM 6 Kansas State BE 5 Capital CN 5 KCKCC BR 5 NOVICE FINALS Augustana (aff) v K-State JUDGES NEEDED FOR PARTIAL ROUND AT 8:00 AM Powers, TJ Cram-Helwich Neal Salinas Gordon Bruce Roubidoux Brown Crockett Young Hill Regnier Taylor Green Schraeder Stewart Voth Pennington Hingstman Samuels Elliot Koehle Stout Baxter-kauf Sternhagen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090920/d90ace28/attachment.htm From jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Sun Sep 20 23:44:08 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:44:08 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] GSU morning matchups and judges Message-ID: JUDGES IN THE MORNING ELIM DEBATE: Abelkop, Garrett Atchison, Jarrod Bricker, Brett Chung, Doowon Crowe, Chris Feldman, Jonah Galloway, Ryan Gannon, Seth Gonzalez, Joshua Harkins, Caroline Heidt, David Herndon , James Herndon, Scott Holbrook, Sarah Johnson, Jessica Jordan, Todd Lacy, J.P. Lamballe, Alex Lee, Ed Morris, Eric Mosley-Jensen, Will Mulholand, Robert Murray, Athena Olsen, Kade Petit, Louie Repko, Will Sabino, Lauren Sedelmyer, Chris Stahl, Greta Strange, Ken Topp, Sarah Walters, Heather Warden, John Open debates Emory GoJe vs. Nwstrn FiSp Emory InWe vs. IdahoS JeJo Harvard KaRo vs. Harvard JaPa Kansas KeQu vs. Wake CaCr Kansas KeSt vs. WestGa BoSc MictSt LaWu vs. Georgi CaLa Towson JaMu vs. UTD BaRu Wake MaSe vs. Mo St FoKe JV debates UTSA TaLi vs. Samfor DeLe Vandy HoSt vs. Liberty AtBa Novice debates JamesM MeMc vs. Liberty LaSi Vandy YoZh vs. Liberty BuSi From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Mon Sep 21 08:59:03 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:59:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Reply to Kelly Young Message-ID: <4AB786A7.5010903@uvm.edu> And thanks to you for your friendly and professional attitude, Kelly. Richard Tews said: "The JV and novice rumor is not true. The other "rumors" are correct but will be remedied next year." Two attending coaches said the tournament was "prompted" into extending limited prefs to novice and jv. Every tournament has complaints, but if they are always covered up hosts cannot learn about them. We miss the real lesson of debate when we react that all disagreement is bad and all criticism is negative. It is the basis of our activity, and using disagreement constructively is the key to developing better answers to problems. I trust Richard and Katie to understand that. I support them fully as growing & evolving debate professionals. I will treat them like adults. We are about to run a 115 team tournament next weekend, and if there are any problems or difficulties please let us all know as soon as you can and be specific. We will try and use that criticism to do better. Tuna Kelly Young wrote: Message: 6 Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:32:47 -0400 From: Kelly Young Subject: Re: [eDebate] Northern Iowa questions To: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" "I heard that prefs were not really being used (just 2 strikes) because those running the tournament do not know how to use them. I heard that there are NO prefs at all in JV & novice which means the tournament may not be CEDA sanctioned. Any truth to these ugly rumors? --Tuna" This is absolute bush-league slander and is really unprofessional and uncalled for, particular from someone that isn't at the tournament. Perhaps you should back-channel the directors of the tournament before you publicly sander a good program that runs a nice tournament. I was in the room exactly at the moment that your source asked if pref system was being used and I specifically heard him then misrepresent the answer and justification. At a tournament with 20ish teams there just aren't enough judges to give any real flexibility to have meaningful prefs. If you have an A, B, Strike system, you have to require so many As that you end up with just about everyone in the pool as an A. And in late rounds, the pool is so constrained by that point, you will get many scenarios that are mutual but not preferred (which again, the mutual is meaningless because you have to rank about 85% of the pool an A). So, its either the facade of pref or it's the reality, you get a couple of strikes and accept it. The people running the tournament have ran several of highly competitive high school tournaments. This is not a lack of competence or ability. I still can't believe you dared to suggest such a thing. More importantly, there ARE JV and novice strikes. It was the first strike sheet I picked up at registration. Unsure where this ugly--ugly because it's a lie--rumor came from. There is only one strike, but the language of the constitution is: "If a preference system is used, a version of a preference system must be used in all divisions (Open, JV, Novice, etc.) offered." A VERSION OF A PREFERENCE SYSTEM IS BEING USED. Get your facts straight. Kelly ---------- -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From sethellsworth at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 12:23:19 2009 From: sethellsworth at gmail.com (sethellsworth at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:23:19 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Ugly rumors Message-ID: <4ab7b689.9713f30a.10c7.1475@mx.google.com> I Heard that gsu didnt even use prefs at all and that there were judges drinking during rounds. Also i heard that the tab room made round six an opposite day round and entered decisions opposite the way they were rendered. ---------- Sent from my Verizon Wireless mobile phone From joe_koehle at yahoo.com Mon Sep 21 12:59:35 2009 From: joe_koehle at yahoo.com (Joe Koehle) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] gsu updates? Message-ID: <375249.49753.qm@web50209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> some of us aren't there. k thx bai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090921/a9e2ac37/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 14:08:10 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:08:10 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Results Sheets Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909211208g649e0981haf1553eee30c88e6@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090921/b4dec292/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVCumSheets.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 23880 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090921/b4dec292/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceCumSheets.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 19257 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090921/b4dec292/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenCumSheets.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 92921 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090921/b4dec292/attachment-0002.pdf From ralph.paone at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 15:20:07 2009 From: ralph.paone at gmail.com (Ralph Paone) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:20:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] gsu updates? Message-ID: <86f9bd6d0909211320v71645822x5f5590c437f853fb@mail.gmail.com> harvard jp v. utd br west ga bs v. emory iw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090921/247da8c0/attachment.htm From stevendamico at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 15:27:48 2009 From: stevendamico at gmail.com (stevendamico at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:27:48 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] gsu travel help Message-ID: <1236787610-1253564848-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-937510829-@bda298.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Anyone still left at the tourney hotel who might be willing to give a stranded traveller a ride from the airport back to the hotel? Flights are being cancelled left and right. ------Original Message------ From: Joe Koehle Sender: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] gsu updates? Sent: Sep 21, 2009 1:59 PM some of us aren't there. k thx bai _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From csedelmyer at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 15:39:54 2009 From: csedelmyer at gmail.com (Chris Sedelmyer) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:39:54 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Semis Message-ID: Harvard JP (A) v. UTD BR West Georgia BS (A) v. Emory IW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090921/78d44ba5/attachment.htm From edebate at anumbersgame.net Mon Sep 21 15:47:57 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:47:57 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] gsu updates? In-Reply-To: <375249.49753.qm@web50209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <375249.49753.qm@web50209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <739f03b0909211347g4a5c396ft37cdc843c1bec681@mail.gmail.com> http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/WarmRoom.aspx?ID=2 http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/ShowPairings.aspx?ID=2 From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Mon Sep 21 17:26:13 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:26:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Make UNLV Hotel reservations now! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090921/b8ea3e04/attachment.htm From tews.rich at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 18:31:40 2009 From: tews.rich at gmail.com (rich tews) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:31:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Packets Message-ID: <50002ace0909211631o1934475g57dfe2cf84fb2093@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090921/8402f957/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Open Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 Concordia AW L-AFF L-Neg W-Neg L-AFF W-Neg L-AFF W-Neg W-AFF Concordia Wayne KS MissouJS Wayne GP Iowa DO MinnesKS MissouAB WisconCI Wayne DJ Powers, T Baxter-ka Crockett, Brown, Za Penningto Neal, Tra Koehle, J Elliott, Matthew Aadland 27 4 26 4 27.5 2 28 2 27.5 3 27 4 27.5 2 28 2 Erik Walker 27 2 27 2 28 1 28 4 27.5 1 27 3 27.5 1 28 1 Prelim Record: 4-4 Pts: 329.50 438.50 16th Seed Speaker Total for Matthew Aadland 164.50 218.50 Speaker Total for Erik Walker 165.00 220.00 Concordia MR L-Neg L-AFF W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF L-Neg L-AFF W-Neg Concordia EmporiFL Nwest BK WichitGJ KansasDR WichitCM KansasHW MissouAB MinnesSW Koehle, J Henson, C Powers, T Neal, Tra Salinas, Baxter-ka Stewart, Hingstman Mason Maxwell 27 4 27.5 4 27.5 2 27.5 2 27 2 27.5 4 27.5 4 28.5 1 Dana Rognlie 27 3 28.5 2 28 1 27.5 1 27 4 27.5 2 28.5 2 28.5 2 Prelim Record: 3-5 Pts: 331.50 442.50 Speaker Total for Mason Maxwell 164.50 220.00 Speaker Total for Dana Rognlie 167.00 222.50 Honors: 11th Spkr Emporia State U. FL W-AFF W-Neg W-Neg W-AFF L-AFF W-Neg W-AFF W-Neg Emporia State U. ConcorMR Iowa DO KansasMP MissouAB Nwest RX Wayne KS Nwest BK WichitBR Koehle, J Green, Ju Neal, Tra Powers, T Severson, Hill, Luk Cram Helw Sternhage Kurt Fifelski 28 1 28 1 27.5 2 27.5 2 28.5 1 28 2 27.5 2 28 3 Chris Loghry 28 2 27.5 2 27.5 1 28 1 28 4 28.5 1 28 1 28.5 2 Prelim Record: 7-1 Pts: 335.50 447.00 1st Seed Speaker Total for Kurt Fifelski 167.00 223.00 Honors: 9th Spkr Speaker Total for Chris Loghry 168.00 224.00 Honors: 6th Spkr Emporia State U. WW L-Neg W-AFF W-AFF L-Neg W-Neg L-AFF W-AFF W-Neg Emporia State U. Nwest RX KansasHW Wayne DJ MinnesSZ Wayne GP WichitBR WichitGJ MinnesKS Gordon, M Powers, T Marso, He Penningto Hamburger Voth, Ben Baxter-ka Bruce, Ca Ryan Wash 28 3 28.5 1 27.5 2 28.5 1 28.5 2 28 1 27.5 2 28.5 1 Latoya Williams-green 28 1 28 2 28 1 28.5 4 28.5 1 27 4 27.5 1 28.5 2 Prelim Record: 5-3 Pts: 337.00 449.00 6th Seed Speaker Total for Ryan Wash 169.00 225.00 Honors: 2nd Spkr Speaker Total for Latoya Williams-green 168.50 224.00 Honors: 5th Spkr Illinois State HP W-AFF L-Neg L-AFF W-Neg W-AFF L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg Illinois State Wayne DJ Wayne KS Nwest RX MinnesKS KansasHW MacaleCC Wayne GP Iowa HP Neal, Tra Crockett, Archer, M Baxter-ka Henson, C Marso, He "jt" Tayl Koehle, J Marlon Harris 27 2 27 4 27 4 27 4 27 4 27 4 27 4 26.5 4 Jeremiah Pickert 27.5 1 28.5 1 28 3 27.5 1 28 1 27.5 3 27.5 3 27 3 Prelim Record: 3-5 Pts: 328.00 437.00 Speaker Total for Marlon Harris 162.00 215.50 Speaker Total for Jeremiah Pickert 166.00 221.50 Iowa DO W-Neg L-AFF W-AFF W-Neg W-Neg W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF Iowa WichitGJ EmporiFL WichitBR ConcorAW Nwest BK MinnesSW Wayne KS Nwest RX Elliott, Green, Ju Penningto Brown, Za Koehle, J "jt" Tayl Neal, Tra Peters, D Kiran Dhillon 29 2 27.5 4 28 1 28 3 28 4 28.5 1 28 2 28 1 Nat Olson 29 1 27.5 3 28 4 28.5 1 28.5 1 28.5 2 28 1 28 3 Prelim Record: 6-2 Pts: 338.00 451.00 2nd Seed Speaker Total for Kiran Dhillon 168.50 225.00 Honors: 3rd Spkr Speaker Total for Nat Olson 169.50 226.00 Honors: 1st Spkr Iowa HP W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF W-Neg L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg W-AFF Iowa MinnesSZ MissouAB MacaleCC WichitGJ WichitBR Nwest BK KansasDR ISU HP Crockett, Archer, M Gordon, M Henson, C Baxter-ka Powers, T Schraeder Koehle, J Ryan Hunt 28 1 27.5 1 27.5 3 28 1 27.5 4 27.5 3 27.5 4 27.5 2 David Petersen 27 3 25 2 27.5 2 28 2 27.5 3 27 4 28 3 27.5 1 Prelim Record: 4-4 Pts: 330.00 438.50 14th Seed Speaker Total for Ryan Hunt 165.50 221.00 Speaker Total for David Petersen 164.50 217.50 Kansas State DR L-Neg W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF L-AFF W-Neg W-AFF L-Neg Kansas State MacaleFI MinnesKS WisconCI ConcorMR MacaleCC MissouJS Iowa HP MissouAB Marso, He Elliott, Henson, C Neal, Tra Bruce, Ca Palczewsk Schraeder "jt" Tayl Ashley Denney 27.5 2 28 1 28 3 27 3 27 4 27.5 1 28 2 27.5 2 Caitlin Reynolds 27 3 28 3 28 2 27 4 27 3 27.5 2 29 1 27.5 4 Prelim Record: 4-4 Pts: 330.50 441.50 12th Seed Speaker Total for Ashley Denney 165.50 220.50 Speaker Total for Caitlin Reynolds 165.00 221.00 Kansas State HW W-AFF L-Neg W-AFF L-Neg L-Neg W-AFF W-AFF L-Neg Kansas State WisconCI EmporiWW Wayne KS WichitBR ISU HP ConcorMR MinnesSW MinnesSZ Brown, Za Powers, T Regnier, Hamburger Henson, C Baxter-ka Palczewsk Young, Ke Blake Hallinan 27 3 27.5 3 27.5 4 28 2 27.5 3 27.5 3 27 2 27.5 3 Heather Woods 27 1 27.5 4 28 1 27.5 4 28 2 27.5 1 27.5 1 27.5 4 Prelim Record: 4-4 Pts: 330.50 440.00 13th Seed Speaker Total for Blake Hallinan 164.50 219.50 Speaker Total for Heather Woods 165.50 220.50 Kansas State MP L-Neg L-AFF L-AFF W-Neg L-AFF L-Neg W-AFF W-Neg Kansas State MinnesSW Nwest RX EmporiFL Wayne DJ MissouJS MinnesSZ MacaleFI WichitGJ Baxter-ka Marso, He Neal, Tra Gordon, M Powers, T Henson, C Peters, D Samuels, Molly Mcguire 26.5 4 27.5 4 27 3 28 1 27.5 3 28 3 27.5 2 27 4 Preston Peer 26.5 2 27.5 2 27 4 27.5 4 27 4 27 4 27 4 27 3 Prelim Record: 3-5 Pts: 327.00 435.50 Speaker Total for Molly Mcguire 164.50 219.00 Speaker Total for Preston Peer 162.50 216.50 Macalester CC L-AFF W-Neg W-Neg L-AFF W-Neg W-AFF W-AFF L-Neg Macalester WichitBR MinnesSZ Iowa HP Wayne GP KansasDR ISU HP WichitCM Nwest BK Archer, M Brown, Za Gordon, M Salinas, Bruce, Ca Marso, He Young, Ke Neal, Tra Jon Chen 27 4 28 2 28 1 27.5 1 27 1 28 1 27.5 2 27.5 2 Cory Copeland 27 3 28 1 27.5 4 27 3 27 2 27.5 2 28 1 27.5 4 Prelim Record: 5-3 Pts: 330.00 440.00 9th Seed Speaker Total for Jon Chen 165.50 220.50 Speaker Total for Cory Copeland 164.50 219.50 Macalester FI W-AFF L-Neg L-Neg W-AFF L-AFF L-Neg L-Neg L-AFF Macalester KansasDR WichitBR MinnesSW MissouJS MinnesSZ WichitCM KansasMP WisconCI Marso, He Neal, Tra Brown, Za Elliott, Green, Ju Bruce, Ca Peters, D Voth, Ben Mike Freedman 27.5 1 27 3 27 4 28 2 27 4 26.5 4 27.5 3 27 4 Sasha Indarte 27 4 27 4 27.5 2 28.5 1 27.5 3 26.5 3 27.5 1 27 3 Prelim Record: 2-6 Pts: 326.50 436.00 Speaker Total for Mike Freedman 163.00 217.50 Speaker Total for Sasha Indarte 163.50 218.50 Minnesota KS W-AFF L-Neg L-Neg L-AFF L-AFF W-Neg W-Neg L-AFF Minnesota MissouAB KansasDR MissouJS ISU HP ConcorAW WisconCI Wayne DJ EmporiWW Henson, C Elliott, Koehle, J Baxter-ka Penningto Young, Ke Salinas, Bruce, Ca Mark Katerberg 28 1 28 4 27 4 27 2 27.5 4 28 1 28 1 28 4 Jake Swede 27.5 4 28 2 27 3 27 3 27.5 2 27.5 2 27 2 28 3 Prelim Record: 3-5 Pts: 331.00 441.00 Speaker Total for Mark Katerberg 166.50 221.50 Speaker Total for Jake Swede 164.50 219.50 Minnesota SW W-AFF W-Neg W-AFF L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg L-Neg L-AFF Minnesota KansasMP Wayne DJ MacaleFI Nwest RX Wayne KS Iowa DO KansasHW ConcorMR Baxter-ka Penningto Brown, Za Koehle, J Gordon, M "jt" Tayl Palczewsk Hingstman Rohan Sadagopal 27 1 27.5 1 27.5 3 27 4 27 2 27.5 3 27 3 28 3 Brittany Williams 26.5 3 27 3 27.5 1 27 3 27 4 27.5 4 26.5 4 28 4 Prelim Record: 3-5 Pts: 326.00 435.50 Speaker Total for Rohan Sadagopal 163.50 218.50 Speaker Total for Brittany Williams 162.50 217.00 Minnesota SZ L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg W-AFF W-Neg W-AFF L-Neg W-AFF Minnesota Iowa HP MacaleCC WichitCM EmporiWW MacaleFI KansasMP MissouJS KansasHW Crockett, Brown, Za Elliott, Penningto Green, Ju Henson, C Severson, Young, Ke Mike Steffan 27 4 27.5 3 28 3 28.5 2 27.5 2 28 1 28 3 28 1 Ogi Zugic 27.5 2 27.5 4 28 4 28.5 3 27.5 1 28 2 28.5 2 27.5 2 Prelim Record: 4-4 Pts: 334.00 445.50 10th Seed Speaker Total for Mike Steffan 167.00 222.50 Honors: 12th Spkr Speaker Total for Ogi Zugic 167.00 223.00 Honors: 10th Spkr Missouri-kansas City AB L-Neg L-AFF L-AFF L-Neg W-AFF W-Neg W-Neg W-AFF Missouri-kansas City MinnesKS Iowa HP Nwest BK EmporiFL WichitGJ ConcorAW ConcorMR KansasDR Henson, C Archer, M Baxter-ka Powers, T Marso, He Neal, Tra Stewart, "jt" Tayl Andrew Allsup 27.5 3 25 4 28 2 27.5 3 28 1 27.5 2 28 3 27.5 1 Alex Bonnet 28 2 25 3 27 4 26.5 4 27.5 2 27.5 1 29 1 27.5 3 Prelim Record: 4-4 Pts: 330.00 437.00 15th Seed Speaker Total for Andrew Allsup 166.00 219.00 Speaker Total for Alex Bonnet 164.00 218.00 Missouri-kansas City JS L-Neg W-AFF W-AFF W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF W-AFF W-Neg Missouri-kansas City WichitCM ConcorAW MinnesKS MacaleFI KansasMP KansasDR MinnesSZ Wayne GP Regnier, Baxter-ka Koehle, J Elliott, Powers, T Palczewsk Severson, Henson, C Nicholas Jennings 27 4 27 1 27.5 1 27.5 2 28 2 27 3 28.5 1 28 4 Peter Sadowski 27 3 27 3 27.5 2 27.5 3 28 1 26.5 4 27 4 28 1 Prelim Record: 6-2 Pts: 329.50 439.00 5th Seed Speaker Total for Nicholas Jennings 165.00 220.50 Speaker Total for Peter Sadowski 164.00 218.50 Northwestern BK L-AFF W-Neg W-Neg W-AFF L-AFF W-Neg L-Neg W-AFF Northwestern Wayne GP ConcorMR MissouAB WichitCM Iowa DO Iowa HP EmporiFL MacaleCC Penningto Henson, C Baxter-ka Green, Ju Koehle, J Powers, T Cram Helw Neal, Tra Jon Blough 28 2 27.5 3 27 3 29 1 28 3 28 2 27.5 3 27.5 1 Pavan Krishnamurthy 27.5 3 28.5 1 28 1 28.5 2 28 2 28 1 27.5 4 27.5 3 Prelim Record: 5-3 Pts: 333.50 446.00 7th Seed Speaker Total for Jon Blough 166.50 222.50 Honors: 14th Spkr Speaker Total for Pavan Krishnamurthy 167.50 223.50 Honors: 7th Spkr Northwestern RX W-AFF W-Neg W-Neg L-AFF W-Neg W-AFF L-AFF W-Neg Northwestern EmporiWW KansasMP ISU HP MinnesSW EmporiFL Wayne GP WichitBR Iowa DO Gordon, M Marso, He Archer, M Koehle, J Severson, Green, Ju Elliott, Peters, D Jason Rickard 28 2 27.5 3 28 2 27.5 2 28 3 28 1 28 4 27.5 4 Jeffrey Xu 27.5 4 28 1 28 1 27.5 3 28 2 28 3 28 3 28 2 Prelim Record: 6-2 Pts: 334.50 445.50 4th Seed Speaker Total for Jason Rickard 167.00 222.50 Honors: 13th Spkr Speaker Total for Jeffrey Xu 167.50 223.00 Honors: 8th Spkr Wayne State Universi DJ L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg L-AFF L-AFF L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg Wayne State Universi ISU HP MinnesSW EmporiWW KansasMP WisconCI WichitGJ MinnesKS ConcorAW Neal, Tra Penningto Marso, He Gordon, M Hingstman Stewart, Salinas, Elliott, Marshall Dodson 27 4 27.5 2 27 3 27.5 3 28 2 28 3 26 3 27.5 3 Mark Jarrett 27 3 27 4 27 4 27.5 2 27.5 3 27 4 26 4 27.5 4 Prelim Record: 0-8 Pts: 327.50 435.00 Speaker Total for Marshall Dodson 164.50 218.50 Speaker Total for Mark Jarrett 163.00 216.50 Wayne State Universi GP W-Neg W-AFF L-AFF W-Neg L-AFF L-Neg W-Neg L-AFF Wayne State Universi Nwest BK WichitCM ConcorAW MacaleCC EmporiWW Nwest RX ISU HP MissouJS Penningto Gordon, M Crockett, Salinas, Hamburger Green, Ju "jt" Tayl Henson, C Alan Gocha 27.5 4 27.5 4 27 3 27 4 28.5 3 27.5 4 27.5 2 28 2 Alex Pasquinelli 28 1 27.5 2 27 4 27 2 28 4 28 2 27.5 1 28 3 Prelim Record: 4-4 Pts: 331.00 441.50 11th Seed Speaker Total for Alan Gocha 165.00 220.50 Speaker Total for Alex Pasquinelli 166.00 221.00 Wayne State Universi KS W-Neg W-AFF L-Neg W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF L-AFF L-Neg Wayne State Universi ConcorAW ISU HP KansasHW WisconCI MinnesSW EmporiFL Iowa DO WichitCM Powers, T Crockett, Regnier, Marso, He Gordon, M Hill, Luk Neal, Tra Cram Helw Amrit Kamboj 27 1 27 3 27.5 3 27.5 2 27 1 27 4 27.5 4 27 3 Harry Singh 27 3 27.5 2 27.5 2 28 1 27 3 27 3 27.5 3 27 4 Prelim Record: 4-4 Pts: 326.50 436.00 Speaker Total for Amrit Kamboj 163.00 217.50 Speaker Total for Harry Singh 163.50 218.50 Wichita State BR W-Neg W-AFF L-Neg W-AFF W-AFF W-Neg W-Neg L-AFF Wichita State MacaleCC MacaleFI Iowa DO KansasHW Iowa HP EmporiWW Nwest RX EmporiFL Archer, M Neal, Tra Penningto Hamburger Baxter-ka Voth, Ben Elliott, Sternhage Brian Box 27.5 1 27.5 2 28 3 27.5 3 28 2 27 2 28.5 2 27.5 4 Eric Robinson 27.5 2 27.5 1 28 2 28.5 1 28.5 1 27 3 29 1 28.5 1 Prelim Record: 6-2 Pts: 334.50 446.00 3rd Seed Speaker Total for Brian Box 166.00 221.50 Speaker Total for Eric Robinson 168.50 224.50 Honors: 4th Spkr Wichita State CM W-AFF L-Neg W-AFF L-Neg W-Neg W-AFF L-Neg W-AFF Wichita State MissouJS Wayne GP MinnesSZ Nwest BK ConcorMR MacaleFI MacaleCC Wayne KS Regnier, Gordon, M Elliott, Green, Ju Salinas, Bruce, Ca Young, Ke Cram Helw Creighton Coleman 28 2 28 1 28 2 28 3 27 3 27 2 27.5 3 28 2 Matt Munday 28 1 27.5 3 28.5 1 28 4 27.5 1 27 1 27.5 4 28 1 Prelim Record: 5-3 Pts: 333.00 443.50 8th Seed Speaker Total for Creighton Coleman 166.50 221.50 Honors: 16th Spkr Speaker Total for Matt Munday 166.50 222.00 Honors: 15th Spkr Wichita State GJ L-AFF W-Neg L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg W-AFF L-Neg L-AFF Wichita State Iowa DO WisconCI ConcorMR Iowa HP MissouAB Wayne DJ EmporiWW KansasMP Elliott, Regnier, Powers, T Henson, C Marso, He Stewart, Baxter-ka Samuels, Tom Garvey 27 4 27 3 27.5 3 26.5 4 27 4 28.5 2 27.5 3 27.5 2 Tyler Joe 27.5 3 27 2 26.5 4 27 3 27 3 29 1 27 4 27.5 1 Prelim Record: 2-6 Pts: 326.00 437.00 Speaker Total for Tom Garvey 163.50 218.50 Speaker Total for Tyler Joe 163.00 218.50 Wisconsin Oshkosh CI L-Neg L-AFF L-AFF L-Neg W-Neg L-AFF L-AFF W-Neg Wisconsin Oshkosh KansasHW WichitGJ KansasDR Wayne KS Wayne DJ MinnesKS ConcorAW MacaleFI Brown, Za Regnier, Henson, C Marso, He Hingstman Young, Ke Koehle, J Voth, Ben Charlie Clark 27 2 27 1 28.5 1 27.5 3 28 1 26.5 3 27 4 28 2 Bridget Isnardi 27 4 26 4 26.5 4 27 4 27.5 4 26.5 4 27 3 28 1 Prelim Record: 2-6 Pts: 326.00 435.00 Speaker Total for Charlie Clark 164.50 219.50 Speaker Total for Bridget Isnardi 161.50 215.50 ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION THREE: OPEN OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS Emporia State U. FL Advances without debating Iowa DO Advances without debating Wichita State BR Advances without debating Kansas State HW (Aff) defeated Northwestern RX 2-1 Samuels, P Schraeder, *"jt" Tayl Missouri-kansas City JS (Neg) defeated Kansas State DR 2-1 Young, Kel *Hingstman Sternhagen Emporia State U. WW (Aff) defeated Wayne State Universi GP 2-1 Regnier, J *Koehle, J Pennington Northwestern BK (Aff) defeated Minnesota SZ 3-0 Voth, Ben Green, Jus Stewart, N Wichita State CM (Aff) defeated Macalester CC 3-0 Hill, Luke Stout, Dan Elliott, D QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Emporia State U. FL (Neg) defeated Wichita State CM 3-0 Archer, Ma Pennington Koehle, Jo Northwestern BK (Neg) defeated Iowa DO 2-1 "jt" Taylo Gordon, Ma *Young, Ke Wichita State BR (Aff) defeated Emporia State U. WW 3-0 Cram Helwi Hill, Luke Green, Jus Kansas State HW (Neg) defeated Missouri-kansas City JS 3-0 Bruce, Cai Neal, Trav Samuels, P SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Emporia State U. FL (Aff) defeated Kansas State HW 3-0 Young, Kel Hill, Luke Brown, Zac Wichita State BR (Neg) defeated Northwestern BK 3-0 Green, Jus Powers, Tj Samuels, P FINAL ROUND RESULTS Emporia State U. FL Advances Over Wichita State BR Hingstman, Archer, Ma Lavelle, K -------------- next part -------------- Uni Ulrich Season Opener -- Junior Varsity Northern Iowa (univ.) 9/19/2009 through 9/21/2009 Augustana Il FH L-AFF W-Neg L-AFF W-Neg W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF L-Neg Augustana Il MinnesSS KansasSW KCK BR KansasBW KCK NT MinnesFS Wayne JM KansasBE Sutton, D Peters, D Green, Ju Hill, Luk Young, Ke Schraeder Penningto Gordon, M Ben Fischer 26.5 3 27.5 1 27.5 2 28 1 28 2 28 1 27.5 4 28 2 Andrew Heidtke 26.5 2 26 4 27.5 4 27.5 2 28.5 1 28 2 27.5 3 28 3 Prelim Record: 4-4 Pts: 331.00 440.50 7th Seed Speaker Total for Ben Fischer 166.50 221.00 Honors: 6th Spkr Speaker Total for Andrew Heidtke 165.00 219.50 Capital CN W-Neg W-AFF W-AFF L-Neg L-AFF W-Neg L-Neg W-AFF Capital KCK NT Wayne JM KansasSW ISU HS MinnesFS IllinoHM KansasBW KCK BR "jt" Tayl Hingstman Bruce, Ca Voth, Ben Peters, D Gordon, M Marso, He Stout, Da Garrett Crane 28.5 2 28 2 27 1 27 2 27 3 28.5 2 27 4 26.5 4 Jake Nickell 29 1 28.5 1 27 2 27 3 26.5 4 28.5 1 27 3 27 1 Prelim Record: 5-3 Pts: 329.00 440.00 5th Seed Speaker Total for Garrett Crane 164.50 219.50 Speaker Total for Jake Nickell 165.00 220.50 Illinois (university HM L-AFF L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg W-Bye L-AFF L-AFF L-Neg Illinois (university ISU HS KansasBW KansasSW CapitaCN KansasBE Wayne JM Green, Ju "jt" Tayl Tajima, N Sternhage Gordon, M Samuels, Powers, T Dotan Haim 27 4 27.5 4 27 3 26 3 27 3.1 28 4 27 1 26.5 3 Chicari Morris 27.5 2 27.5 3 26.5 4 26 4 26.92 3.4 28 3 27 4 26 4 Prelim Record: 1-7 Pts: 323.42 431.42 Speaker Total for Dotan Haim 162.00 216.00 Speaker Total for Chicari Morris 161.42 215.42 Illinois State HS W-Neg L-AFF - W-AFF L-AFF W-Neg L-Neg L-AFF Illinois State IllinoHM KansasBE CapitaCN KansasSW KansasBW MinnesFS KCK NT Green, Ju Sutton, D Voth, Ben Brown, Za Crockett, Archer, M Penningto Ariel Howard 27.5 1 27 3 0 0 27 4 27 4 27.5 2 27.5 4 26.5 4 Scott Siebert 27 3 28 1 0 0 28 1 27.5 1 27.5 1 28 2 27 2 Prelim Record: 3-4 Pts: 327.50 383.00 8th Seed Speaker Total for Ariel Howard 162.50 190.00 Speaker Total for Scott Siebert 165.00 193.00 Kansas City Kansas C BR L-Neg W-AFF W-Neg W-Bye W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF L-Neg Kansas City Kansas C KansasBE AugustFH KansasBW KansasSW MinnesSS CapitaCN Hill, Luk Hamburger Green, Ju Koch, Joh Roubidoux Hingstman Stout, Da Marquis Bell-ard 28 1 27 3 27.5 3 27.14 2.8 27 3 27 4 27 4 26.5 2 Kristyn Russell 27 4 28 1 28 1 27.42 2 27.5 1 27.5 1 27.5 3 26.5 3 Prelim Record: 5-3 Pts: 328.06 436.56 6th Seed Speaker Total for Marquis Bell-ard 162.64 217.14 Speaker Total for Kristyn Russell 164.92 219.42 Kansas City Kansas C NT L-AFF L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg L-Neg W-Bye W-AFF W-Neg Kansas City Kansas C CapitaCN MinnesFS MinnesSS AugustFH KansasSW ISU HS "jt" Tayl Koehle, J Severson, Schraeder Young, Ke Powers, T Penningto Nick Novak 27 4 27 4 28 4 26 4 27 4 27 3.7 27.5 3 26.5 3 Aaron Thomas 28 3 27 3 28 3 26 3 27 3 27.28 2.4 28 1 27 1 Prelim Record: 3-5 Pts: 326.28 434.28 Speaker Total for Nick Novak 162.00 216.00 Speaker Total for Aaron Thomas 164.28 218.28 Kansas State BE W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF L-Neg W-Bye L-Neg W-Neg W-AFF Kansas State KCK BR ISU HS MinnesFS MinnesSS Wayne JM IllinoHM AugustFH Hill, Luk Sutton, D Hamburger "jt" Tayl Elliott, Brown, Za Samuels, Gordon, M Nick Birdsong 27.5 2 26 4 28 4 27.5 4 27.21 3.2 26.5 3 27 2 28 4 Caleb Edwards 27.5 3 28 2 28 3 28 3 27.64 2.7 26.5 4 27 3 28.5 1 Prelim Record: 5-3 Pts: 329.35 438.85 4th Seed Speaker Total for Nick Birdsong 163.71 217.71 Speaker Total for Caleb Edwards 166.14 221.14 Honors: 7th Spkr Kansas State BW L-Neg W-AFF L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg L-AFF W-AFF L-Neg Kansas State IllinoHM Wayne JM AugustFH KCK BR ISU HS CapitaCN MinnesSS Peters, D "jt" Tayl Sutton, D Hill, Luk Koch, Joh Crockett, Marso, He Stewart, Trey Bryant 26 4 28 2 26 4 27 4 27 4 27 3 27 2 27 4 Kevin Walbridge 26 2 28.5 1 27 3 27.5 3 27.5 2 27 4 27.5 1 27 3 Prelim Record: 2-6 Pts: 324.50 433.00 Speaker Total for Trey Bryant 161.00 215.00 Speaker Total for Kevin Walbridge 163.50 218.00 Kansas State SW L-Neg L-AFF L-Neg W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF L-Neg L-AFF Kansas State Wayne JM AugustFH CapitaCN IllinoHM ISU HS KCK BR KCK NT MinnesFS Hamburger Peters, D Bruce, Ca Sternhage Brown, Za Roubidoux Powers, T Crockett, Steven Seib 27 4 26.5 2 27 4 27.5 1 27 3 27 3 27 4 27 3 Maggie Weller 27.5 3 26 3 27 3 27 2 27.5 2 27 2 27.5 2 26.5 4 Prelim Record: 2-6 Pts: 325.00 432.00 Speaker Total for Steven Seib 162.00 216.00 Speaker Total for Maggie Weller 162.50 216.00 Minnesota FS W-Bye W-AFF W-Neg L-AFF W-Neg L-AFF W-AFF W-Neg Minnesota KCK NT KansasBE Wayne JM CapitaCN AugustFH ISU HS KansasSW Koehle, J Hamburger Severson, Peters, D Schraeder Archer, M Crockett, Jay Frank 28.21 2 28 1 28.5 2 28.5 3 27.5 2 28 3 28.5 1 28.5 2 Julian Switala 28 2.2 27.5 2 28.5 1 28.5 4 27.5 1 28 4 27.5 3 28.5 1 Prelim Record: 6-2 Pts: 337.71 449.71 2nd Seed Speaker Total for Jay Frank 169.71 225.71 Honors: 1st Spkr Speaker Total for Julian Switala 168.00 224.00 Honors: 3rd Spkr Minnesota SS W-Neg W-Bye W-Neg W-AFF W-AFF W-Bye W-Neg W-AFF Minnesota AugustFH KCK NT KansasBE Wayne JM KCK BR KansasBW Sutton, D Severson, "jt" Tayl Hill, Luk Sternhage Hingstman Stewart, Katie Shaw 27 1 28 1.1 28 1 28.5 2 28 1 28 1.1 28 1 28.5 1 Brian Smith 26 4 27.66 2.1 28 2 28.5 1 27.5 2 27.66 2.1 28 2 28 2 Prelim Record: 8-0 Pts: 335.32 445.32 1st Seed Speaker Total for Katie Shaw 168.50 224.00 Honors: 2nd Spkr Speaker Total for Brian Smith 166.82 221.32 Honors: 5th Spkr Wayne State Universi JM W-AFF L-Neg W-AFF W-Neg L-Neg W-AFF W-Neg W-AFF Wayne State Universi KansasSW CapitaCN KansasBW MinnesFS MinnesSS KansasBE AugustFH IllinoHM Hamburger Hingstman Sutton, D Severson, Hill, Luk Brown, Za Penningto Powers, T Jake Justice 28.5 1 27.5 3 27 2 28.5 2 27.5 3 28 1 27.5 2 27 2 Kristen Messina 28.5 2 27.5 4 28 1 28.5 1 27.5 4 28 2 28 1 27 1 Prelim Record: 6-2 Pts: 333.50 444.50 3rd Seed Speaker Total for Jake Justice 166.00 221.50 Honors: 8th Spkr Speaker Total for Kristen Messina 167.50 223.00 Honors: 4th Spkr ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION ONE: JUNIOR VARSITY QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Minnesota SS Advances without debating Minnesota FS Advances without debating Wayne State Universi JM (Aff) defeated Kansas City Kansas C 3-0 Salinas, C Gordon, Ma Bruce, Cai Kansas State BE (Neg) defeated Capital CN 3-0 Powers, Tj Cram Helwi Neal, Trav SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Minnesota SS (Neg) defeated Kansas State BE 3-0 Schraeder, Crockett, Brown, Zac Wayne State Universi JM (Aff) defeated Minnesota FS 2-1 Baxter-kau *Elliott, Lavelle, K FINAL ROUND RESULTS Minnesota SS (Neg) defeated Wayne State Universi JM 3-0 Bruce, Cai Hingstman, "jt" Taylo From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Mon Sep 21 19:40:22 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:40:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy Message-ID: I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. J From lenehan20 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 22 09:29:04 2009 From: lenehan20 at hotmail.com (Katherine Lavelle) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:29:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Outrounds Results Message-ID: The final open round ended last night at 8:34 last night. We were very glad to host 17 different schools at our tournament, and send our congrats to Wichita, Minnesota, and K-State for winning their divisions. Special thanks to Dr. Dave and Max Archer for staying beyond their commitment to judge finals. I hope that everyone got home safely, and we look forward to hosting next year. Kate Lavelle Director of Forensics OPEN OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS Emporia State U. FL Advances without debating Iowa DO Advances without debating Wichita State BR Advances without debating Kansas State HW (Aff) defeated Northwestern RX 2-1 Samuels, P Schraeder, *"jt" Tayl Missouri-kansas City JS (Neg) defeated Kansas State DR 2-1 Young, Kel *Hingstman Sternhagen Emporia State U. WW (Aff) defeated Wayne State Universi GP 2-1 Regnier, J *Koehle, J Pennington Northwestern BK (Aff) defeated Minnesota SZ 3-0 Voth, Ben Green, Jus Stewart, N Wichita State CM (Aff) defeated Macalester CC 3-0 Hill, Luke Stout, Dan Elliott, D QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Emporia State U. FL (Neg) defeated Wichita State CM 3-0 Archer, Ma Pennington Koehle, Jo Northwestern BK (Neg) defeated Iowa DO 2-1 "jt" Taylo Gordon, Ma *Young, Ke Wichita State BR (Aff) defeated Emporia State U. WW 3-0 Cram Helwi Hill, Luke Green, Jus Kansas State HW (Neg) defeated Missouri-kansas City JS 3-0 Bruce, Cai Neal, Trav Samuels, P SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Emporia State U. FL (Aff) defeated Kansas State HW 3-0 Young, Kel Hill, Luke Brown, Zac Wichita State BR (Neg) defeated Northwestern BK 3-0 Green, Jus Powers, Tj Samuels, P FINAL ROUND RESULTS Wichita State BR defeats Emporia State U. FL on a 3-0 Hingstman, Archer, Ma Lavelle, K ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION ONE: JUNIOR VARSITY QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Minnesota SS Advances without debating Minnesota FS Advances without debating Wayne State Universi JM (Aff) defeated Kansas City Kansas C 3-0 Salinas, C Gordon, Ma Bruce, Cai Kansas State BE (Neg) defeated Capital CN 3-0 Powers, Tj Cram Helwi Neal, Trav SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Minnesota SS (Neg) defeated Kansas State BE 3-0 Schraeder, Crockett, Brown, Zac Wayne State Universi JM (Aff) defeated Minnesota FS 2-1 Baxter-kau *Elliott, Lavelle, K FINAL ROUND RESULTS Minnesota SS (Neg) defeated Wayne State Universi JM 3-0 Bruce, Cai Hingstman, "jt" Taylo Novice Final Round ? Kansas State defeats Augustana on a 3-0 Speaker Awards (full results on packet that Rich sent out) Katherine L. Lavelle Director of Forensics University of Northern Iowa You must strive to find your own voice. Because the longer you wait to begin, the less likely you are to find it at all. Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation." Don't be resigned to that. Break out! ? Mr. Keating, Tom Schulman Dead Poets Society _________________________________________________________________ Bing? brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/aa8708af/attachment.htm From kel1773 at msn.com Tue Sep 22 10:55:21 2009 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:55:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] RE to Tuna Message-ID: Tuna-- Thanks in turn for appreciation. When you go out of your way to publicly shame a tournament rather than backchannel them, you will get a rude response. Don't turn this back on me when you are still unable to publicly apologize to Katie and Richard for the tone of your original post. Saying that you respect them but you will publicly call out their ability to run a tournament is laughable. Your response completely misses the point. I never suggested that we shouldn't voice concerns/complaints about tournaments. Instead, my point was that we should do so through backchannel emails so that we don't make other tournaments. Your public post did nothing that a private email on the matter wouldn't have resolved. The post's only effect was to call out and shame two young DOFs that risks harming future attendance at a nice regional tournament. The counterplan solves without harm to anyone. Another important lesson of argumentation and debate is the important of time and place and etiquette. The point of my response is that you completely failed in that regard. Kelly > Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:59:03 -0400 > From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Reply to Kelly Young > > And thanks to you for your friendly and professional attitude, Kelly. > > Richard Tews said: > "The JV and novice rumor is not true. The other "rumors" are correct but will be remedied next year." > > Two attending coaches said the tournament was "prompted" into extending limited prefs to novice and jv. > > Every tournament has complaints, but if they are always covered up hosts cannot learn about them. We miss the real lesson of debate when we react that all disagreement is bad and all criticism is negative. It is the basis of our activity, and using disagreement constructively is the key to developing better answers to problems. > > I trust Richard and Katie to understand that. I support them fully as growing & evolving debate professionals. I will treat them like adults. > > We are about to run a 115 team tournament next weekend, and if there are any problems or difficulties please let us all know as soon as you can and be specific. We will try and use that criticism to do better. > > Tuna > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/8fdad8e2/attachment.htm From don1299 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 22 12:13:40 2009 From: don1299 at hotmail.com (Donny Peters) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:13:40 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] thanks UNI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I want to thanks Katie, Rich and the entire UNI staff for a wonderful tournament. The tournament ran on time, the staff was friendly, and the competition was solid. My debaters definitely enjoyed themselves this past weekend. thanks, Donny Peters Director of Debate Illinois State University _________________________________________________________________ Bing? brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/9ce46353/attachment.htm From scottvarda at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 14:01:25 2009 From: scottvarda at gmail.com (scott varda) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:01:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor cites Message-ID: If you were one of the several people taking Baylor cites in Doubles, Octos, or Quarters, could you please post those cites to the wiki. Or, failing that, email those cites to me and I will post them the wiki. It would save a great deal of time and we give out our cites with the belief that no one team should have them, but the entire community should have access. Thanks, sjv -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/b6b28308/attachment.htm From sethegannon at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 14:31:11 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:31:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] National Top 25 Coaches' Poll -- ballots due this Saturday, 9/26 Message-ID: <4bfbc1090909221231r205027d3y46b54b82c1461601@mail.gmail.com> I will accept ballots for the first of six scheduled coaches' polls any time between now and the end of this Saturday, September 26. The complete instructions I sent two months ago are below, but it's very simple: Rank in order the 25 partnerships you believe are the country's best, mark any you are precluded from judging with an asterisk, and e-mail your list to sethegannon at gmail.com. One coach from any active college debate program can submit a ballot. I will never share your ballot with anyone. Many of you supported this idea over the summer and said you would participate. Please do... this can only work with a critical mass of voters. One of the poll's major selling points is good P.R. for debate teams. If you give me the contact info for a publication near your school, I will send them a press release any time your school is ranked, or ranked at a level you specify. Thanks to Will Repko for this improvement. It was great to see so many of you in Atlanta. Congrats to NU and UTD, who each have a tough tournament undefeated to their credit, and to the many other programs off to strong starts. Thanks, seth ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seth Gannon Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:11 PM Subject: College Debate Coaches' Poll 2009-2010 To: edebate at ndtceda.com Instructions and points of interest: - There will be six polls, all after the season?s start and before its end. For each, votes will be due on a Saturday--September 26th, October 10th, November 7th, December 5th, January 16th, and a date in late February or early March to be named later. - To vote, answer the question ?Who are currently the twenty-five best partnerships in the country in rank order?? and e-mail your list to sethegannon at gmail.com. - The 1st team on each ballot receives 25 points; the 2nd receives 24 points; etc., until the 25th team receives 1 point. You must select one and only one team for each of the 25 spots. - Your rankings will be private: Only I will ever see them. However, I may publish an alphabetical list of voters with each poll. - I will accept only one ballot per school, submitted by a coach. - You are welcome to rank your own teams for the sake of accuracy, but they will not receive points for your ballot. Please mark any team you cannot judge with an asterisk; judging constraints are coaches? poll constraints. - Each team?s total score will be divided by the number of voters eligible to rank it, so that no school is disadvantaged by voting. - It should be generally understood that no school or college debate organization is undertaking this poll and that voters are not expected to invest nearly the time or labor of a voter for NDT at large bids. From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Tue Sep 22 14:40:27 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:40:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies Message-ID: I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless debate. I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of others. So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason elucidates but am leaning his direction. It would be nice if other judges would state if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: 1. Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. I gave leeway since it was the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's not my choice, coaches forced it on us". I began keeping track of time between "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. Avg amount--3 min 33 sec per speech. Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates a day. Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! Seriously this is an issue. I didnt take it off prep time this weekend. But like I said leaning Russell's way. If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. Some of the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed the computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing and not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). : ) 2. Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. A couple times the other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small computer. Not sure how I feel about this. 3. Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and asking them not to read ahead. I think this is a good idea and is reasonable as a best practice. 4. One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a 3rd computer, OR print it out. I like this option best. It's good for the opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. This last thing is a big concern for me. When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the block has to share that computer to prep. Paper 2AC's are something the block can split up physically with no issue. So I am concerned for the block's ability to prep off 1 single computer. Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. My biggest concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's direction--counts as prep. The utility of paperless for the opponent is also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues this past weekend. Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have become experts at this. Would also like to know the prep time stance of other judges. thanks, chief ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. J _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From ben.crossan at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 14:49:28 2009 From: ben.crossan at gmail.com (Ben Crossan) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:49:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] UTD Octos AFF Message-ID: Hey Debate Community, I know at least two people took down cites for UTD's Kato aff during Octos of GSU. Can you please post these cites to the opencaselist wiki? It's really easy and should only take you 5 minutes tops. Thanks, Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/1294c873/attachment.htm From asymonds at asu.edu Tue Sep 22 15:25:41 2009 From: asymonds at asu.edu (Adam Symonds) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:25:41 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ASU needs judging at Idaho State Message-ID: Looking to pay for 3-6 rounds. Thanks, Adam Symonds Director of Forensics Arizona State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/642f0155/attachment.htm From fijipapabear at aol.com Tue Sep 22 16:23:29 2009 From: fijipapabear at aol.com (Alejandro Acosta) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:23:29 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] National Top 25 Coaches' Poll -- ballots due this Saturday, 9/26 In-Reply-To: <4bfbc1090909221231r205027d3y46b54b82c1461601@mail.gmail.com> References: <4bfbc1090909221231r205027d3y46b54b82c1461601@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <011f01ca3bca$ef291500$cd7b3f00$@com> Sweet bracket busters come out shortly after that? BCS after the 4th poll? Maybe the edebate numbers guy can contribute? Post week 1 Heisman hype? Sorry, for the jokes, but am just so happy football started, and think that in certain forms this should be very entertaining. Seth way to go on being proactive and volunteering for this. Good luck all on the first ballot. Alex Acosta -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Seth Gannon Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 3:31 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] National Top 25 Coaches' Poll -- ballots due this Saturday, 9/26 I will accept ballots for the first of six scheduled coaches' polls any time between now and the end of this Saturday, September 26. The complete instructions I sent two months ago are below, but it's very simple: Rank in order the 25 partnerships you believe are the country's best, mark any you are precluded from judging with an asterisk, and e-mail your list to sethegannon at gmail.com. One coach from any active college debate program can submit a ballot. I will never share your ballot with anyone. Many of you supported this idea over the summer and said you would participate. Please do... this can only work with a critical mass of voters. One of the poll's major selling points is good P.R. for debate teams. If you give me the contact info for a publication near your school, I will send them a press release any time your school is ranked, or ranked at a level you specify. Thanks to Will Repko for this improvement. It was great to see so many of you in Atlanta. Congrats to NU and UTD, who each have a tough tournament undefeated to their credit, and to the many other programs off to strong starts. Thanks, seth ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Seth Gannon Date: Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:11 PM Subject: College Debate Coaches' Poll 2009-2010 To: edebate at ndtceda.com Instructions and points of interest: - There will be six polls, all after the season's start and before its end. For each, votes will be due on a Saturday--September 26th, October 10th, November 7th, December 5th, January 16th, and a date in late February or early March to be named later. - To vote, answer the question "Who are currently the twenty-five best partnerships in the country in rank order?" and e-mail your list to sethegannon at gmail.com. - The 1st team on each ballot receives 25 points; the 2nd receives 24 points; etc., until the 25th team receives 1 point. You must select one and only one team for each of the 25 spots. - Your rankings will be private: Only I will ever see them. However, I may publish an alphabetical list of voters with each poll. - I will accept only one ballot per school, submitted by a coach. - You are welcome to rank your own teams for the sake of accuracy, but they will not receive points for your ballot. Please mark any team you cannot judge with an asterisk; judging constraints are coaches' poll constraints. - Each team's total score will be divided by the number of voters eligible to rank it, so that no school is disadvantaged by voting. - It should be generally understood that no school or college debate organization is undertaking this poll and that voters are not expected to invest nearly the time or labor of a voter for NDT at large bids. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From max.o.archer at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 16:24:37 2009 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:24:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNI Thanks Message-ID: <1944fe1d0909221424i47306d3r55fd5fedf594dbd2@mail.gmail.com> I want to echo Donny's thanks. I know it can be hard to run a tournament when you're new at it, particularly when it is at the very beginning of the year. So many times the logistics and decisions are hard to make, particularly when unforeseen circumstances arise. At any rate, UNI was a great experience this year, Augie will be back and others should go too. Thanks! Max Archer Director of Debate Augustana College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/fda2330e/attachment.htm From cramhelwich at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 16:32:57 2009 From: cramhelwich at gmail.com (David Cram Helwich) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:32:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52ace93c0909221432v3b693e65q9ee8b99a94eb6bb1@mail.gmail.com> I have now judged a fair number of "paperless" debates and coached a squad through two "paper-less" tournaments. I do not have a particularly strong feeling about whether jumping or printing a speech should count as prep time. I do think that it is important that we develop a community consensus on this question. The evolution towards non-timed roadmaps probably shows that the norm will be towards non-timing, but I am not 100% certain of this. I will say that, in my experience to date, "jumping" takes more time than analgous activity (stacking tubs, etc). Very skilled Whitman teams (CS) are pretty fast at it, but most teams I have judged are slow (looking at you, Wichita ;). As a judge, I am pretty annoyed by people who just hand me a laptop when I ask for cards after the debate. I would much rather have an electronic copy that I can then delete after the debate--it is much easier to use a familiar system than one which is unfamiliar, particulary an older laptop or low-end netbook. One proposal that we have been kicking around is asking if we can print paperless team's speeches. As noted by Chief and others, it can be much easier to deal with a papered 2ac than one that is paperless. See yinz in Lexington. dch FYI: UMN teams print their speeches before delivering them. Should this activity count as "prep time?" It usually takes a minute. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief > post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless > debate. > > I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of > others. So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason elucidates > but am leaning his direction. It would be nice if other judges would state > if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. > > Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: > 1. Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. I gave leeway since it > was the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's > not my choice, coaches forced it on us". I began keeping track of time > between "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. Avg > amount--3 min 33 sec per speech. Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates > a day. Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! Seriously this is an issue. I > didnt take it off prep time this weekend. But like I said leaning Russell's > way. If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. Some > of the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do > it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed the > computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing and > not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they > started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). : ) > > 2. Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. A couple times the > other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small computer. > Not sure how I feel about this. > > 3. Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and asking > them not to read ahead. I think this is a good idea and is reasonable as a > best practice. > > 4. One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a > 3rd computer, OR print it out. I like this option best. It's good for the > opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows > them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. This last thing is a big > concern for me. When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the block > has to share that computer to prep. Paper 2AC's are something the block can > split up physically with no issue. So I am concerned for the block's > ability to prep off 1 single computer. > > Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. My biggest > concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's > direction--counts as prep. The utility of paperless for the opponent is > also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues this > past weekend. > > Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have > become experts at this. Would also like to know the prep time stance of > other judges. > > thanks, > chief > > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy > > I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be > applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like > process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker > points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming > tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you > frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. > > J > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090922/fee0c47c/attachment.htm From mstruth at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 16:35:23 2009 From: mstruth at gmail.com (Matt Struth) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:35:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 100 Point Scale Thoughts Message-ID: First of all, GSU was a great first coaching/judging experience for me so thanks to tournament and tab staff for that. Since the tournament I've been looking at the points and thinking about the 100 point scale and how it is evolving. Mostly, I wanted to revive discussion of why we use the 100 point scale to make sure that it doesn't fall prey to the same problems it was designed to avoid, and personally I want to make sure that I don't hurt peoples' points relative to the community by being in a minority view on 'point inflation' (if there is a point inflation trend I wouldn't want to buck it and unfairly punish people who get me as a judge). At GSU I did not feel 100% comfortable assigning points- after talking to a couple of people and looking over the results, I feel much more comfortable now, but I would feel even better if there was a larger discussion in the community about this. I want to caution that I am a novice when it comes to this type of analysis, and am certainly no 'numbers game.' I also have not examined / compared point distribution in depth, but here are some things I looked at/for: -Point inflation- is it happening to the 100 point scale and if so what is the impact? I looked at the points from GSU 09 and Wake 08 and found that(just by comparatively spot-checking several of the top 20 speakers at each) there seems to be a general trend of point inflation (number 1 speaker at GSU is higher than number 1 at Wake, and so-on). This seems especially striking since its the first tournament for most people- I would expect points to be higher at Wake than GSU. -Half points - Ross originally posted that he created the 100 point scale instead of a 50 point variant in order to eliminate half points. The 07 Wake 100 point instructions also say to avoid half points. I didn't compare against other tournaments, but GSU did have 1/2 points being awarded. At future 100 point tournaments, should be award half points or should we avoid that? -Point differentiation / compression- at GSU, the ballot specified 87 as an average, but do we want 87 to be the average? Separate from the issue of inflation, if the point of the RKS scale is to create an opportunity to differentiate among speakers, it seems like 87 is not the best average. If 87 is the average than half of the field should fall below and half above- this means there are 86 units to differentiate the bottom half of the field (even if most aren't used) and only only 12 units to differentiate the top half of the field. This doesn't make sense to me, and creates the same conundrum where we ended up giving four very differently skilled debaters 28s. Maybe the average should be 80, instead of 87? I think the point is most people agree there is a general ever-existent trend toward inflation and compression. I think our job should be to do what we can to make it take longer, partly by continuing to talk about why we use the 100 point scale. Hopefully this will ensure that we aren't using a 1,000 point scale in 2012. -Matt LU Debate Links I looked at for anyone else interested in this: GSU 09 results sheet- http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-September/079621.html GSU 09 top speakers- http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-September/079609.html Wake 08 results sheet- http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-November/076928.html Wake 08 top speakers- http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081116/5c01653e/attachment.pdf Wake Shirley information packet w/ 100 point directions and graph- http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/DixieClassic/Shirley%20Information%202007.pdf Wake 07 point distribution graph- http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081111/85e3ed02/attachment.pdf Original 100 point explanation (which I looked up mostly for my benefit, but thought others might want to see again too): Most debaters at our tournament are in the range between the high 70?s and low 90?s. For the more verbally inclined: Think of grades. 90% and above is an A. 80-90 is a B. Assume you are a very kind professor who will give mostly A's and B's and does not want to buck the grade inflation trend (it is unfair to do so since it punishes students relative to their peers merely for having you as the prof., not for the quality of their work). We have a national tournament with a limited field, so most of the students will be A and B students. I suspect there are more B students than there are A students (bell curves being what they are). You might usefully think of the A students as the ones that debate well enough that they are likely in the top third of the field. It should be no source of shame to a student to get a B. A B+ might be saying you are close to getting there. For those who like to think in other terms, maybe this will help (just a rough guide): 95-100 ? No doubt top notch, hard to be much better. 90-95 ? Really good, highly effective. 85-90: Powerful but not extraordinary. Workmanlike break round style. 80-85: Good stuff, but missing what it takes to break into the top national level. 75-80: Decent. More than one area needs improvement. 70-75: Struggling. Probably bravely and nobly, but struggling nonetheless. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/7cd61f77/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Tue Sep 22 16:59:03 2009 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] UK - Emory looking for judging Message-ID: <730127.89549.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Cash. Thanks in advance. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/f326aecf/attachment.htm From gfrappier at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 17:49:20 2009 From: gfrappier at gmail.com (Glen Frappier) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:49:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7a803e390909221549t64fd6f31x9d10d06cbc16800d@mail.gmail.com> Question - do the same judges who take prep time from teams who are trying to go paperless also penalize non paperless teams who can't find cards in a timely manner to pass on to their opponents? I would say at least 5 minutes per debate are lost transferring cards from one team to another and it is rarely, if ever, taken out of anyones prep time. What about when someone says "im ready" and then they tell their opponents that they need a couple cards back. That generally takes as long as it does to jump the speech doc so do you also take that out of a teams prep? What about when when we give our oppoents the jump drive and it takes a while for them to open it due to their own incompetence? Does that still come out of the paperless teams prep? What about teams who use paper but flow on the computer? If there is a computer malfunction do you keep the clock running while they fix their business? I have very rarely seen anyone keep a true "running clock" in a debate round and it seems strange that the standard is now being applied to teams who have made the decision to go paperless. There is learning curve to getting this paperless thing down. My teams did it pretty well last weekend but i'm sure there is room for improvement. We're not going paperless in order to get an advantage over anyone, we're doing it to try and stretch our dollar and provide more opportunities for our debaters. Surely thats a goal we all support and i'm afraid that those who think they need to police a paperless teams prep closer than non paperless teams are actively trying to discourage this move. You might hate paperless but i hate that it costs twice as much for my teams to attend national tournaments because we have to fly literally everywhere outside our district. Walk a mile in our shoes and see if you wouldn't want to make this shift. I guess i just don't see paperless teams as taking anymore time than teams who use paper and i think they are being unfairly persecuted. Rant over. Paperless is awesome and its inevitable. Get used to it. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief > post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless > debate. > > I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of > others. So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason elucidates > but am leaning his direction. It would be nice if other judges would state > if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. > > Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: > 1. Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. I gave leeway since it > was the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's > not my choice, coaches forced it on us". I began keeping track of time > between "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. Avg > amount--3 min 33 sec per speech. Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates > a day. Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! Seriously this is an issue. I > didnt take it off prep time this weekend. But like I said leaning Russell's > way. If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. Some > of the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do > it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed the > computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing and > not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they > started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). : ) > > 2. Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. A couple times the > other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small computer. > Not sure how I feel about this. > > 3. Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and asking > them not to read ahead. I think this is a good idea and is reasonable as a > best practice. > > 4. One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a > 3rd computer, OR print it out. I like this option best. It's good for the > opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows > them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. This last thing is a big > concern for me. When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the block > has to share that computer to prep. Paper 2AC's are something the block can > split up physically with no issue. So I am concerned for the block's > ability to prep off 1 single computer. > > Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. My biggest > concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's > direction--counts as prep. The utility of paperless for the opponent is > also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues this > past weekend. > > Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have > become experts at this. Would also like to know the prep time stance of > other judges. > > thanks, > chief > > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy > > I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be > applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like > process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker > points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming > tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you > frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. > > J > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090922/67cf62b5/attachment.htm From hansonjb at whitman.edu Tue Sep 22 18:19:44 2009 From: hansonjb at whitman.edu (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:19:44 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies References: Message-ID: <158D702DEA43445991377E7F76F29FBF@whitman.edu> some thoughts on the issues darren has raised (I couldn't find jason's philosophy to respond to whatever his concerns are): 1. transfering data shouldn't take more than 40-50 seconds. ----if judges wanted, a 1 minute limit for transferring data (and not for prep'ing in any way) would be very reasonable. I don't think it is fair nor a good idea for judges to time transferring data from the get go. if you are really going to do that, I'd ask those judges to time paper teams getting files to the other team (and to time re-filing at the end of the debate) ----teams should do transfer drills--practice so they do it quickly. ----remember that at the end of the debate--the debaters are ready to go to their next round pretty much right away instead of taking 15-20 minutes to get their stuff refiled and then trudging with tubs and cart to their next round. that is time saved for dave's doughnuts. :) 2. re laptops for the block ----the aff should give the files to the neg on TWO computers so both the 2nc and 1nr can prep 3. re netbooks ----if the screen is really small and I can totally understand this as an issue ----netbooks are cheap but you can get $350-$550 totally useable laptops (inspiron 15s; they have other types available too). at dell: http://www.dell.com/us/en/dfh/notebooks/ct.aspx?refid=notebooks&s=dfh&cs=22 jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------------------------------------------- From: "Darren Elliott" Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:40 PM To: "Jason Russell" ; Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless debate. I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of others. So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason elucidates but am leaning his direction. It would be nice if other judges would state if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: 1. Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. I gave leeway since it was the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's not my choice, coaches forced it on us". I began keeping track of time between "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. Avg amount--3 min 33 sec per speech. Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates a day. Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! Seriously this is an issue. I didnt take it off prep time this weekend. But like I said leaning Russell's way. If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. Some of the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed the computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing and not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). : ) 2. Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. A couple times the other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small computer. Not sure how I feel about this. 3. Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and asking them not to read ahead. I think this is a good idea and is reasonable as a best practice. 4. One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a 3rd computer, OR print it out. I like this option best. It's good for the opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. This last thing is a big concern for me. When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the block has to share that computer to prep. Paper 2AC's are something the block can split up physically with no issue. So I am concerned for the block's ability to prep off 1 single computer. Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. My biggest concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's direction--counts as prep. The utility of paperless for the opponent is also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues this past weekend. Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have become experts at this. Would also like to know the prep time stance of other judges. thanks, chief ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. J _______________________________________________ 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 sethegannon at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 18:31:09 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:31:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU packet + complete bracket Message-ID: <4bfbc1090909221631tf45fcc8gdffd3bc7fc6670f9@mail.gmail.com> A few people have written me looking for these as they do their rankings for the poll. Thanks to John Warden for the elim bracket. Complete Gonzaga results are already available here: http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/ShowResultsByTourney.aspx Thanks again, seth -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GSU prelims.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 92921 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/b538d4d1/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GSU elims.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 10236 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/b538d4d1/attachment.bin From sethegannon at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 18:42:02 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:42:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GSU packet + complete bracket In-Reply-To: <4bfbc1090909221631tf45fcc8gdffd3bc7fc6670f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <4bfbc1090909221631tf45fcc8gdffd3bc7fc6670f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4bfbc1090909221642t501cd15dpdee1f3e59e792680@mail.gmail.com> I'm operating under the assumption everyone saw the UNI packet and elims on edebate, but for your convenience: Packets: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-September/079627.html Results: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-September/079629.html Ok, sorry for clog -- I've now doubled my lifetime edebate posts. See you w/ the results this weekend. Thanks, s On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Seth Gannon wrote: > A few people have written me looking for these as they do their > rankings for the poll. Thanks to John Warden for the elim bracket. > > Complete Gonzaga results are already available here: > http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/ShowResultsByTourney.aspx > > Thanks again, > > seth > From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 19:09:30 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:09:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: <52ace93c0909221432v3b693e65q9ee8b99a94eb6bb1@mail.gmail.com> References: <52ace93c0909221432v3b693e65q9ee8b99a94eb6bb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <524839830909221709q616444cfyb6340be39c65e6ae@mail.gmail.com> If paperless is increasing the amount of time debates are taking, and *most* judges are not counting this as prep, why not just increase prep time to 15-20 minutes? This makes sure everyone gets the same amount of "down" time, avoids controversies about what people are doing when speeches are getting jumped/printed/shared, and incentivizes debaters to be more efficient to save prep for more productive things. If debaters become more efficient in the next month as a result of this, prep time can be dialed back. Also, as more and more teams go paperless, less time between rounds will be needed for "movement," so even if prep is expanded the time can be offset because less movement time will be needed. Note -- This proposal doesn't make people more tired and get the the swine/bird flu because the time is already being spent -- it just makes it more equitable and incentivizes efficiency. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:32 PM, David Cram Helwich wrote: > I have now judged a fair number of "paperless" debates and coached a squad > through two "paper-less" tournaments. > > I do not have a particularly strong feeling about whether jumping or > printing a speech should count as prep time. I do think that it is important > that we develop a community consensus on this question. The evolution > towards non-timed roadmaps probably shows that the norm will be towards > non-timing, but I am not 100% certain of this. > > I will say that, in my experience to date, "jumping" takes more time than > analgous activity (stacking tubs, etc). Very skilled Whitman teams (CS) are > pretty fast at it, but most teams I have judged are slow (looking at you, > Wichita ;). > > As a judge, I am pretty annoyed by people who just hand me a laptop when I > ask for cards after the debate. I would much rather have an electronic copy > that I can then delete after the debate--it is much easier to use a familiar > system than one which is unfamiliar, particulary an older laptop or low-end > netbook. > > One proposal that we have been kicking around is asking if we can print > paperless team's speeches. As noted by Chief and others, it can be much > easier to deal with a papered 2ac than one that is paperless. > > See yinz in Lexington. > > dch > > FYI: UMN teams print their speeches before delivering them. Should this > activity count as "prep time?" It usually takes a minute. > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > >> I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief >> post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless >> debate. >> >> I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of >> others. So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason elucidates >> but am leaning his direction. It would be nice if other judges would state >> if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. >> >> Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: >> 1. Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. I gave leeway since it >> was the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's >> not my choice, coaches forced it on us". I began keeping track of time >> between "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. Avg >> amount--3 min 33 sec per speech. Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates >> a day. Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! Seriously this is an issue. I >> didnt take it off prep time this weekend. But like I said leaning Russell's >> way. If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. Some >> of the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do >> it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed the >> computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing and >> not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they >> started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). : ) >> >> 2. Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. A couple times the >> other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small computer. >> Not sure how I feel about this. >> >> 3. Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and >> asking them not to read ahead. I think this is a good idea and is >> reasonable as a best practice. >> >> 4. One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a >> 3rd computer, OR print it out. I like this option best. It's good for the >> opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows >> them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. This last thing is a big >> concern for me. When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the block >> has to share that computer to prep. Paper 2AC's are something the block can >> split up physically with no issue. So I am concerned for the block's >> ability to prep off 1 single computer. >> >> Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. My biggest >> concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's >> direction--counts as prep. The utility of paperless for the opponent is >> also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues this >> past weekend. >> >> Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have >> become experts at this. Would also like to know the prep time stance of >> other judges. >> >> thanks, >> chief >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] >> On Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM >> To: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy >> >> I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be >> applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like >> process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker >> points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming >> tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you >> frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. >> >> J >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/ecd50ddc/attachment.htm From bamadebate at yahoo.com Tue Sep 22 19:12:42 2009 From: bamadebate at yahoo.com (ed lee) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] UK - Emory looking for judges Message-ID: <69843.2080.qm@web62004.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Pay in cash. Thanks in advance. e -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/10794848/attachment.htm From loghry at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 19:17:44 2009 From: loghry at gmail.com (christopher loghry) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:17:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: <52ace93c0909221432v3b693e65q9ee8b99a94eb6bb1@mail.gmail.com> References: <52ace93c0909221432v3b693e65q9ee8b99a94eb6bb1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6b8e3f1c0909221717w19379325r3ec82ac67ff1b69b@mail.gmail.com> I know I definitely appreciated the Gophers printing their speeches off @ Gonzaga. Chief is absolutely right about block prep time. Splitting up paper copies is just so much easier than passing a tiny little netbook back and forth with the added benefit of paper not running out of batteries. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:32 PM, David Cram Helwich wrote: > I have now judged a fair number of "paperless" debates and coached a squad > through two "paper-less" tournaments. > > I do not have a particularly strong feeling about whether jumping or > printing a speech should count as prep time. I do think that it is important > that we develop a community consensus on this question. The evolution > towards non-timed roadmaps probably shows that the norm will be towards > non-timing, but I am not 100% certain of this. > > I will say that, in my experience to date, "jumping" takes more time than > analgous activity (stacking tubs, etc). Very skilled Whitman teams (CS) are > pretty fast at it, but most teams I have judged are slow (looking at you, > Wichita ;). > > As a judge, I am pretty annoyed by people who just hand me a laptop when I > ask for cards after the debate. I would much rather have an electronic copy > that I can then delete after the debate--it is much easier to use a familiar > system than one which is unfamiliar, particulary an older laptop or low-end > netbook. > > One proposal that we have been kicking around is asking if we can print > paperless team's speeches. As noted by Chief and others, it can be much > easier to deal with a papered 2ac than one that is paperless. > > See yinz in Lexington. > > dch > > FYI: UMN teams print their speeches before delivering them. Should this > activity count as "prep time?" It usually takes a minute. > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > >> I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief >> post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless >> debate. >> >> I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of >> others. So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason elucidates >> but am leaning his direction. It would be nice if other judges would state >> if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. >> >> Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: >> 1. Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. I gave leeway since it >> was the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's >> not my choice, coaches forced it on us". I began keeping track of time >> between "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. Avg >> amount--3 min 33 sec per speech. Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates >> a day. Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! Seriously this is an issue. I >> didnt take it off prep time this weekend. But like I said leaning Russell's >> way. If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. Some >> of the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do >> it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed the >> computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing and >> not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they >> started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). : ) >> >> 2. Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. A couple times the >> other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small computer. >> Not sure how I feel about this. >> >> 3. Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and >> asking them not to read ahead. I think this is a good idea and is >> reasonable as a best practice. >> >> 4. One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a >> 3rd computer, OR print it out. I like this option best. It's good for the >> opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows >> them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. This last thing is a big >> concern for me. When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the block >> has to share that computer to prep. Paper 2AC's are something the block can >> split up physically with no issue. So I am concerned for the block's >> ability to prep off 1 single computer. >> >> Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. My biggest >> concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's >> direction--counts as prep. The utility of paperless for the opponent is >> also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues this >> past weekend. >> >> Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have >> become experts at this. Would also like to know the prep time stance of >> other judges. >> >> thanks, >> chief >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] >> On Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM >> To: edebate at ndtceda.com >> Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy >> >> I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be >> applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like >> process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker >> points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming >> tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you >> frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. >> >> J >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/23f42588/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 20:00:36 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:00:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Point Inflation and the 100 pt scale Message-ID: 87 should assuredly not be the average. That's ridiculous. If 87 is average then we're using this scale needlessly and could easily use the old 30 point scale just as well since it is likely no one is getting below a 75 even if they're really terrible with 87 set as the mark. In fact, that average would argue we'd need less differentiation, not more. I'm not so worried about the top speaker having really high points as I am about the middle and bottom being differentiated. The top 20 speakers at most tournaments are objectively very close in skill and persuasiveness. Those debaters typically do A level work (90-100). I'm not shocked they're about the same. I am constantly shocked at how close the 50th debater is in points to the 20th debater. In my mind, there is a huge difference. I wish tournaments would stop providing advice on what the scale means because it directly influences judges. Many people I know have said to me re: the old Wake system histogram "yeah, I thought a 70 or so should be average like a term paper, but it says here an 82 is a 27, so that's what I'll go by". Judging is so referential to important opinion leaders and norms and trends that this simple suggestion quickly becomes a law. Let's be honest: we got to the problem of point inflation because many judges want the good teams to pref them. If you give lower points, you won't get preffed by the top teams fighting for elim seeding or even the 30-45 teams fighting to clear. So the trend in points went up to satisfy debaters' egos and consequently judges' egos. Now, because of these "suggestions" at tournaments regarding the meaning of their scales, debaters have concrete expectations about their points that START at 87. This is like students who walk into a college classroom and believe that completing all of their work gets them an A. It's nonsensical, uneducational, and frankly does debaters a disservice in evaluating their true skills, both strengths and weaknesses. 87 won't be my average at 100 point scale tournaments. I will start at 75 and work from there. J From lukephill at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 20:14:47 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:14:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Female coach room share Kentucky? Message-ID: Northwestern is looking for a room share for a female coach, please back channel if interested lukephill at gmail.com Also, still looking for judging we will pay $1 more than Emory. Best, LH Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/076a847d/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Tue Sep 22 20:36:37 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:36:37 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: <158D702DEA43445991377E7F76F29FBF@whitman.edu> References: <158D702DEA43445991377E7F76F29FBF@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <39c1ac890909221836t54c6d03bj914dceb447436607@mail.gmail.com> One random suggestion from someone who very much appreciates the importance of our community moving away from paper. With the understanding that not all tournaments or debates have online access - when at a tournament with online access - use a round specific google group. If paperless teams could create a google group for the participants at the start of each debate (just like we used to fill out a ballot) all of the files could be immediately pasted to that group. It would be instant (cut and paste) for all of the participants, including judges. At the conclusion of the debate and decision the group could be deleted. This doesn't involve software issues with jumping files or potential virus issues on jump drives. I suspect that this will be much faster, especially on larger panels. I appreciate all of the work done to make paperless happen and I am curious to hear other ideas. Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Jim Hanson wrote: > some thoughts on the issues darren has raised (I couldn't find jason's > philosophy to respond to whatever his concerns are): > > 1. transfering data shouldn't take more than 40-50 seconds. > ----if judges wanted, a 1 minute limit for transferring data (and not for > prep'ing in any way) would be very reasonable. I don't think it is fair nor > a good idea for judges to time transferring data from the get go. if you are > really going to do that, I'd ask those judges to time paper teams getting > files to the other team (and to time re-filing at the end of the debate) > ----teams should do transfer drills--practice so they do it quickly. > ----remember that at the end of the debate--the debaters are ready to go to > their next round pretty much right away instead of taking 15-20 minutes to > get their stuff refiled and then trudging with tubs and cart to their next > round. that is time saved for dave's doughnuts. :) > > 2. re laptops for the block > ----the aff should give the files to the neg on TWO computers so both the > 2nc and 1nr can prep > > 3. re netbooks > ----if the screen is really small and I can totally understand this as an > issue > ----netbooks are cheap but you can get $350-$550 totally useable laptops > (inspiron 15s; they have other types available too). at > dell: > http://www.dell.com/us/en/dfh/notebooks/ct.aspx?refid=notebooks&s=dfh&cs=22 > > jim :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Darren Elliott" > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:40 PM > To: "Jason Russell" ; > Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies > > I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief > post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless > debate. > > I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of > others. ?So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason elucidates > but am leaning his direction. ?It would be nice if other judges would state > if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. > > Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: > 1. ?Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. ?I gave leeway since it was > the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's not > my choice, coaches forced it on us". ?I began keeping track of time between > "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. ?Avg amount--3 > min 33 sec per speech. ?Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates a day. > Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! ?Seriously this is an issue. ?I didnt > take it off prep time this weekend. ?But like I said leaning Russell's way. > If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. ?Some of > the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do > it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed the > computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing and > not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they > started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). ?: ) > > 2. ?Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. ?A couple times the > other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small computer. > Not sure how I feel about this. > > 3. ?Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and asking > them not to read ahead. ?I think this is a good idea and is reasonable as a > best practice. > > 4. ?One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a > 3rd computer, OR print it out. ?I like this option best. ?It's good for the > opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows > them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. ?This last thing is a big > concern for me. ?When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the block > has to share that computer to prep. ?Paper 2AC's are something the block can > split up physically with no issue. ?So I am concerned for the block's > ability to prep off 1 single computer. > > Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. ?My biggest > concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's > direction--counts as prep. ?The utility of paperless for the opponent is > also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues this > past weekend. > > Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have > become experts at this. ?Would also like to know the prep time stance of > other judges. > > thanks, > chief > > > ________________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy > > I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be > applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like > process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker > points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming > tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you > frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. > > J > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From rwgallow at samford.edu Tue Sep 22 20:45:34 2009 From: rwgallow at samford.edu (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:45:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Wood Pulp-less Debate Message-ID: OK, sometimes debates are close. Sometimes they're a crush. Let's see: tree-less debate... 1) Saves squads a ton of money--Emory debaters claimed they'll save a grand a tournament. 2) Gets more debaters debating--cost savings allow it, more fit in a van. 3) It's safer--don't have to rent the 15 passenger, which is less safe. Tubs flying in a van have also been cited as a risk before. 4) It's faster on a panel: multiple judges can read the electronic team's cards at the same time on multiple lap-tops 5) You don't lose things under a chair, in a mess on the table, that stalls debates. 6) It's neater--a lot less paper around the tournament--I can't imagine tourney hosts are "damn those paperless teams, they make such a mess!" 7) Kids get to their rounds faster...means they get to spend more time prepping and getting the educational benefits of talking to coaches, reading judging philosophies, thinking of args instead of mindless drudgery of moving tubs around. 8) Mild environment benefit The disads??? 1) Sometimes it takes a little while to get the tech working in a debate (people lose wood pulp stuff all the time in rounds) 2) I don't like reading off a computer...um...you are reading this on a computer now This should be a 100-0 for wood pulp-less debate. Put away the quill and the parchment, it's time to move forward. I think we are mentally trained not to see how time passes in the world of tree entrails. Shuffling blocks, finding the CP text, lost papers at the end of a debate. We instead see time for jump drives because it is new and different. Perception is selective. We tend to see what is new and ignore what is old. We have adapted to people playing music in rounds, bringing in boxes, art work, performance projects, etc. We can easily adapt to this. Kudos for those who have done it, please help show me how we can do it at Samford. Still stuck in the world of dead trees, but willing to move forward. RG From jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com Tue Sep 22 21:22:22 2009 From: jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com (Jason Russell) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:22:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Glen's questions about paperless timing Message-ID: For the record, yes, I do time file exchanges that are not done basically immediately by papered teams. I've been known to stop the CX and put a team on the clock to do so. You'll also note that it says in my philosophy that I think it's totally acceptable to do the transfer to the viewing computer or jump drive while the partner is speaking such that it doesn't come from your speech time. I don't get why everyone thinks a paperless team has to provide the entirety of their speech ahead of time and a papered team can give their opponents cards essentially whenever. In my opinion, no one has a right to your evidence until the speech is over. We have simply allowed teams to look at cards out of courtesy. That said, my belief is that the paperless teams' only obligation to their opponents is to get the speech on a jump drive or viewer, not to wait for them to open it to follow along. That's on them. Once the jumping is done, the roadmap begins and the speech thereafter. I will not be waiting for anyone to print an entire speech. They're welcome to do this in the background while someone is speaking, but I won't be hitting the pause button. My point is not to say "dont be paperless". My point is to say "do this without wasting a ton of time". I do not penalize teams for technology malfunctions, but this is not an analogous issue since practically everyone uses computers in debates now and tech malfunctions are basically equally un/likely for either side. I am not trying to discourage paperless debate, but I am trying to discourage our building in an expectation of another 20-30 minutes of dead time into each debate. I think a large part of the reason tournaments are slower today than they were in the past is a built in expectation of 40 minutes or so of sitting around during debates. I'm doing my best to cut it down and hope others will too. I think Gordon's idea sounds pretty reasonable btw. I've heard of others (UMKC) using an electronic dropbox to deposit their paperless files in. I think this sounds better than jumping the ev for sure, where it's available. Hopefully in the next couple of years, every important tournament will have real, free wireless at the tournament and hotel which would make this process way easier, obviously. J From vegam at umkc.edu Tue Sep 22 23:18:00 2009 From: vegam at umkc.edu (Vega, Matthew J.) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:18:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking to hire at MO State Message-ID: <1C1A133246EC8344B22D2FDFF3D341E60A3508DD@KC-MSX4.kc.umkc.edu> The person we hired probably has the flu. We need to hire 5 rounds for MO State. -Vega From commftownnielson at aol.com Tue Sep 22 23:23:21 2009 From: commftownnielson at aol.com (commftownnielson at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:23:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fullerton Needs Novice Debate for UNLV Message-ID: <8CC0A1CB7D3229D-5AA4-E5D6@webmail-m026.sysops.aol.com> If there's an extra novice debater heading to UNLV, we would like to pair up. We have a debater with a little experience under his belt who is a really easy going. Please contact me if you have someone. -Toni Nielson - commftownnielson at aol.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/c747eb14/attachment.htm From jimjo1000 at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 01:10:59 2009 From: jimjo1000 at gmail.com (James Joseph) Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:10:59 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: <39c1ac890909221836t54c6d03bj914dceb447436607@mail.gmail.com> References: <158D702DEA43445991377E7F76F29FBF@whitman.edu> <39c1ac890909221836t54c6d03bj914dceb447436607@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <86aab3230909222310v78a6302fi8e48543e6e5ba5b3@mail.gmail.com> Really quick... Having one computer for the negative team is fine for the block. The 1nr still gets 12 minutes of built in prep where the 2nc will not be looking at the viewing computer. I don't think they need the additional 3-4 minutes that the 2nc takes. Also, I know all Gonzaga teams have a power strip and extension cord so battery power won't be an issue. Transfer times will decrease. The first tournament of the year is always the most disorganized. And Whitman proves you will get faster as you have more rounds. Just make sure you have a USB that doesn't require additional software to use it. The USB flash-drives that we got at CEDA are awesome for this. I wouldn't post on the internet but thats because I hate my wireless card. In terms of prep time, leeway for now. Change and transitions will be tough but the benefits from paperless are worth it. I can ensure everyone that any team that goes paperless will NEVER lose a card and will be able to find it within seconds (Ctrl-F). Using the netbooks is fine if you adjust the viewing style. Don't keep the document in the "print" layout, switch to the "full-screen reading" layout. It makes everything bigger and scrolling is ten times easier. Plus, you don't have to deal with people making the un-underlined part of their cards size 4 font. I guess you could print speeches but really, what a waste. If a team prints the evidence I read off my computer, I am going to throw it all away after the round. Waste of paper, ink, time, and requires each team to carry a printer. I know Gonzaga tried that last year, it sucked. They break, toner runs out, paper jams, etc. I'll admit, I used to hate debating Whitman because of this paperless system. But they got this one right and we need to catch up. -- James Joseph jimjo1000 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090922/e0b46369/attachment.htm From geekthroat at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 03:38:07 2009 From: geekthroat at gmail.com (asdf qwertylicious) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 03:38:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Doomsday Machine Real Message-ID: <6cda76990909230138u7727da40u7e7c97917c3ded63@mail.gmail.com> holy hell http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/17-10/mf_deadhand?currentPage=all -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/aeb56339/attachment.htm From kkuswa at richmond.edu Wed Sep 23 07:30:01 2009 From: kkuswa at richmond.edu (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:30:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: <7a803e390909221549t64fd6f31x9d10d06cbc16800d@mail.gmail.com> References: , <7a803e390909221549t64fd6f31x9d10d06cbc16800d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0212E622749FDB4EA3A538AF1F4ECC4F04CA22738C@UREXCHANGESCC.richmond.edu> Out of curiousity, what are people doing when the paperless team does not make all the necessary moves toward fairness? We debated a team at Ga. State that WAS using paperless for an advantage--they claimed their laptop broke down so they did not share any evidence--when they did hand over a jump drive (literally minutes into our prep time), it had about five times as much material on it as was used in the debate and none of the cards were marked even though all of the cards were shortened in the speeches (and perhaps not all of the card was even being read in the speeches). The paperless team was pompous about the tech and unwilling to help at all. In fact, they even delayed getting the jump drives over to us becaue of "upload problems." It was clear they were taking advantage of a less experienced team and being real jerks about it. In fact, they may have even given us material on the jjump drive that was not used in the debate on purpose. This is an exception (I hope) and I agree that paperless is inevitable and an important cost saving measure. BUT, IN THE INTERIM, THERE ARE "BAD" PAPERLESS TEAMS that do try to use it as an advantage and they do not do all of the things necessary to make these fair debates. Saving money for them should not mean everyone else suffers when debating them. What's the solution here? Have these particular teams go to paper until they can manage the system? End the debate and vote against that team? Refuse to consider their evidence in the decision? Should certain parameters and expectations be set up clearly before the debate in order to move forward? And if those parameters are not met? Apparently this team was expected to hand us a sheet with these things listed, but they did not. We have talked to their coaches and were assured it was just a "bad apple" team, but still...something to consider. Thoughts? Thanks, Kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Glen Frappier [gfrappier at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:49 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies Question - do the same judges who take prep time from teams who are trying to go paperless also penalize non paperless teams who can't find cards in a timely manner to pass on to their opponents? I would say at least 5 minutes per debate are lost transferring cards from one team to another and it is rarely, if ever, taken out of anyones prep time. What about when someone says "im ready" and then they tell their opponents that they need a couple cards back. That generally takes as long as it does to jump the speech doc so do you also take that out of a teams prep? What about when when we give our oppoents the jump drive and it takes a while for them to open it due to their own incompetence? Does that still come out of the paperless teams prep? What about teams who use paper but flow on the computer? If there is a computer malfunction do you keep the clock running while they fix their business? I have very rarely seen anyone keep a true "running clock" in a debate round and it seems strange that the standard is now being applied to teams who have made the decision to go paperless. There is learning curve to getting this paperless thing down. My teams did it pretty well last weekend but i'm sure there is room for improvement. We're not going paperless in order to get an advantage over anyone, we're doing it to try and stretch our dollar and provide more opportunities for our debaters. Surely thats a goal we all support and i'm afraid that those who think they need to police a paperless teams prep closer than non paperless teams are actively trying to discourage this move. You might hate paperless but i hate that it costs twice as much for my teams to attend national tournaments because we have to fly literally everywhere outside our district. Walk a mile in our shoes and see if you wouldn't want to make this shift. I guess i just don't see paperless teams as taking anymore time than teams who use paper and i think they are being unfairly persecuted. Rant over. Paperless is awesome and its inevitable. Get used to it. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Darren Elliott > wrote: I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless debate. I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of others. So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason elucidates but am leaning his direction. It would be nice if other judges would state if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: 1. Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. I gave leeway since it was the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's not my choice, coaches forced it on us". I began keeping track of time between "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. Avg amount--3 min 33 sec per speech. Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates a day. Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! Seriously this is an issue. I didnt take it off prep time this weekend. But like I said leaning Russell's way. If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. Some of the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed the computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing and not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). : ) 2. Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. A couple times the other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small computer. Not sure how I feel about this. 3. Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and asking them not to read ahead. I think this is a good idea and is reasonable as a best practice. 4. One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a 3rd computer, OR print it out. I like this option best. It's good for the opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. This last thing is a big concern for me. When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the block has to share that computer to prep. Paper 2AC's are something the block can split up physically with no issue. So I am concerned for the block's ability to prep off 1 single computer. Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. My biggest concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's direction--counts as prep. The utility of paperless for the opponent is also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues this past weekend. Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have become experts at this. Would also like to know the prep time stance of other judges. thanks, chief ________________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. J _______________________________________________ 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 malgor.debate at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 09:20:56 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:20:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless thangs (helpful tips included) Message-ID: I agree with Russell on the point of transferring files before the speech-it's not necessary. The negative doesn't have a right to your entire speech. As soon as the aff has the speech on a jump drive they should just hand it to the neg and get up and start giving the order. the neg can jump it to their computers (or the viewing computer) during the 2ac. This puts them at no disadvantage whatsoever. They may not be able to listen and flow the 2ac while jumping the file to the laptop, but this is not unique to paperless-when a 1n is reading the 2ac evidence being handed to them during the 2ac they aren't flowing the speech during that either. UMKC uses a drop box account that has worked well for the most part (I say for the most part because we have some teams who have put a lot of effort into making paperless work, and some that have not). We created a squad account, and put folders for each team in it. This is a fast way to do it because all you have to do is drag your speech into the folder on your desktop and bam-it's immediately on the reading computer. "small netbooks are annoying" - helpful tip- go to the view menu at the top of word and you can zoom in to make the text bigger. unlike paper, you can also zoom in so you can better read the 8pt font that often surrounds cards underlined/highlighted in 10pt. I also agree with frappier-a lot of these complaints are just being thrust on to paperless bc it's new. Russell has always kept time strictly even with paper teams, I can vouch that he's a strict SOB in either case (that's why we love him). Some people, however, are hostile to the situation in general. Big issue with paperless NOT related to prep time- using evidence in the cross x. When paperless is involved it decreases dramatically. Most teams just aren't used to reading cards off a laptop and referring to them in cx or their speeches. Here is something we're trying to get our debaters to do-use the speech doc on the reading laptop to your advantage. Open a new file in word on the reading laptop, copy/paste the cards you want to cx about, and type your questions above them. handy trick that can actually ensure more efficiency in the cross x. Printing the speech out should come from prep-of the team doing the printing. there is no right to having the evidence provided to you on paper. Reading cards off a laptop is reasonable-if you debate with paper then every time you cut and read a card is off of a computer EXCEPT when you give the speech. malgor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/df6ebc62/attachment.htm From malgor.debate at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 09:27:27 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:27:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] one other paperless note Message-ID: We debated a team at gonzaga that did something i think should be frowned upon-they gave us a 52 page 2ac that was completely out of order. Now i don't think the neg should demand that every card the 2ac puts in the speech doc be read, or that the cards even be read in the exact order (as long as the toplines are clear about what the card answers it's easy to recover from a few out of order cards). But this team put every card they had to answer our arguments in the speech doc, knowing that they couldn't get through all 52 pages (man of the cards weren't even highlighted). This is egregious. There should be an expectation that the 2ac is making an honest effort to minimize the amount of excess cards being put into the speech document. My teams have been good about this so far and i hope that continues. In this same debate we received 2 speech docs for the 1ar each with 15 cards. How often has anyone heard a 30 card 1ar? It's hard to determine the bright line for when there are too many cards put in the speech doc, but if it's very excessive I will not make the other team use their cross x time to figure out everything-that should come out of the prep of the violating team. malgor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/1159853f/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 09:36:00 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:36:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: <39c1ac890909221836t54c6d03bj914dceb447436607@mail.gmail.com> References: <158D702DEA43445991377E7F76F29FBF@whitman.edu> <39c1ac890909221836t54c6d03bj914dceb447436607@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0909230736m449c24b9kd19520397d79c48@mail.gmail.com> Perhaps a google document is even easier than a google group. You can immediately share it and you can terminate sharing preferences after the round, watch for google wave to make this super easy in the coming weeks. http://wave.google.com/ On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Gordon Stables wrote: > One random suggestion from someone who very much appreciates the > importance of our community moving away from paper. > > With the understanding that not all tournaments or debates have online > access - when at a tournament with online access - use a round > specific google group. > > If paperless teams could create a google group for the participants at > the start of each debate (just like we used to fill out a ballot) > all of the files could be immediately pasted to that group. It would > be instant (cut and paste) for all of the participants, including > judges. At the conclusion of the debate and decision the group could > be deleted. This doesn't involve software issues with jumping files or > potential virus issues on jump drives. I suspect that this will be > much faster, especially on larger panels. > > I appreciate all of the work done to make paperless happen and I am > curious to hear other ideas. > > Gordon > > Gordon Stables, Ph.D. > Director of Debate & Forensics > Annenberg School for Communication > University of Southern California > Office: 213 740 2759 > Fax: 213 740 3913 > www.usctrojandebate.com > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Jim Hanson wrote: > > some thoughts on the issues darren has raised (I couldn't find jason's > > philosophy to respond to whatever his concerns are): > > > > 1. transfering data shouldn't take more than 40-50 seconds. > > ----if judges wanted, a 1 minute limit for transferring data (and not for > > prep'ing in any way) would be very reasonable. I don't think it is fair > nor > > a good idea for judges to time transferring data from the get go. if you > are > > really going to do that, I'd ask those judges to time paper teams getting > > files to the other team (and to time re-filing at the end of the debate) > > ----teams should do transfer drills--practice so they do it quickly. > > ----remember that at the end of the debate--the debaters are ready to go > to > > their next round pretty much right away instead of taking 15-20 minutes > to > > get their stuff refiled and then trudging with tubs and cart to their > next > > round. that is time saved for dave's doughnuts. :) > > > > 2. re laptops for the block > > ----the aff should give the files to the neg on TWO computers so both the > > 2nc and 1nr can prep > > > > 3. re netbooks > > ----if the screen is really small and I can totally understand this as an > > issue > > ----netbooks are cheap but you can get $350-$550 totally useable laptops > > (inspiron 15s; they have other types available too). at > > dell: > > > http://www.dell.com/us/en/dfh/notebooks/ct.aspx?refid=notebooks&s=dfh&cs=22 > > > > jim :) > > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Darren Elliott" > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:40 PM > > To: "Jason Russell" ; > > Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies > > > > I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a brief > > post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless > > debate. > > > > I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of > > others. So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason > elucidates > > but am leaning his direction. It would be nice if other judges would > state > > if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. > > > > Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: > > 1. Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. I gave leeway since it > was > > the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's > not > > my choice, coaches forced it on us". I began keeping track of time > between > > "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. Avg > amount--3 > > min 33 sec per speech. Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates a day. > > Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! Seriously this is an issue. I > didnt > > take it off prep time this weekend. But like I said leaning Russell's > way. > > If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. Some of > > the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do > > it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed > the > > computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing > and > > not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they > > started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). : ) > > > > 2. Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. A couple times > the > > other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small > computer. > > Not sure how I feel about this. > > > > 3. Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and > asking > > them not to read ahead. I think this is a good idea and is reasonable as > a > > best practice. > > > > 4. One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on a > > 3rd computer, OR print it out. I like this option best. It's good for > the > > opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows > > them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. This last thing is a > big > > concern for me. When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the > block > > has to share that computer to prep. Paper 2AC's are something the block > can > > split up physically with no issue. So I am concerned for the block's > > ability to prep off 1 single computer. > > > > Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. My biggest > > concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's > > direction--counts as prep. The utility of paperless for the opponent is > > also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues > this > > past weekend. > > > > Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have > > become experts at this. Would also like to know the prep time stance of > > other judges. > > > > thanks, > > chief > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] > On > > Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM > > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy > > > > I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be > > applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like > > process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker > > points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming > > tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you > > frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. > > > > J > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/b360b19e/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 09:59:33 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:59:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Point Inflation and the 100 pt scale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70909230759g1aae43b7k431a65cf30fa88e8@mail.gmail.com> Russell is correct. 87 is too high. i was conservative (i.e., tried to stay close to what i thought others would do) at GSU b/c i felt like UTD got jobbed last year missing on points and it affected their bid application. but i will also go on record and say my 100 point scale will look like this: 27-27.5: 70-74 27.5-28: 75-82 --> these two have large ranges b/c they are the areas i want to distinguish the most 28-28.5: 83-89 > 28.5: 90-100 i'm adding this to my judge philosophy (plus, there are some other additions since GSU) hester On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jason Russell wrote: > 87 should assuredly not be the average. That's ridiculous. If 87 is > average then we're using this scale needlessly and could easily use > the old 30 point scale just as well since it is likely no one is > getting below a 75 even if they're really terrible with 87 set as the > mark. In fact, that average would argue we'd need less > differentiation, not more. > > I'm not so worried about the top speaker having really high points as > I am about the middle and bottom being differentiated. The top 20 > speakers at most tournaments are objectively very close in skill and > persuasiveness. Those debaters typically do A level work (90-100). I'm > not shocked they're about the same. I am constantly shocked at how > close the 50th debater is in points to the 20th debater. In my mind, > there is a huge difference. > > I wish tournaments would stop providing advice on what the scale means > because it directly influences judges. Many people I know have said to > me re: the old Wake system histogram "yeah, I thought a 70 or so > should be average like a term paper, but it says here an 82 is a 27, > so that's what I'll go by". Judging is so referential to important > opinion leaders and norms and trends that this simple suggestion > quickly becomes a law. Let's be honest: we got to the problem of point > inflation because many judges want the good teams to pref them. If you > give lower points, you won't get preffed by the top teams fighting for > elim seeding or even the 30-45 teams fighting to clear. So the trend > in points went up to satisfy debaters' egos and consequently judges' > egos. Now, because of these "suggestions" at tournaments regarding the > meaning of their scales, debaters have concrete expectations about > their points that START at 87. This is like students who walk into a > college classroom and believe that completing all of their work gets > them an A. It's nonsensical, uneducational, and frankly does debaters > a disservice in evaluating their true skills, both strengths and > weaknesses. > > 87 won't be my average at 100 point scale tournaments. I will start at > 75 and work from there. > > J > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From hallbrad at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 11:40:06 2009 From: hallbrad at gmail.com (Brad Hall) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:40:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless thangs (helpful tips included) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How does the 1N ask questions about evidence after the 2AC if the 2N needs the evidence to prep for their own speech? It seems like this would require either a) the negative to have a computer of their own to use; or b) two computers from the affirmative team, which doesn't seem to be the norm yet. (Obviously, in paper debate, the 1N and 2N can't be using the same card simultaneously, but they can at least split up the evidence so the 1N asks about a certain card while the 2N is prepping with other evidence.) There are some other situations where this might be relevant: before the 2AR, the aff wants to split up the uniqueness and link cards so one of them can read the former and the other the latter. Another is if the 2N wants to refer directly to aff evidence during the 2NC, but the 1NR also needs to prep during that speech. Someone else may have already raised this second one. For better or for worse, paperless is clearly the future of debate, but we should make sure at the outset that the quality of debate itself doesn't suffer, even in minor instances like these. Brad On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Malcolm Gordon wrote: > Big issue with paperless NOT related to prep time- using evidence in the > cross x. When paperless is involved it decreases dramatically. Most teams > just aren't used to reading cards off a laptop and referring to them in cx > or their speeches. Here is something we're trying to get our debaters to > do-use the speech doc on the reading laptop to your advantage. > > -- Brad Hall hallbrad at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/611f54bd/attachment.htm From csedelmyer at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 11:49:18 2009 From: csedelmyer at gmail.com (Chris Sedelmyer) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:49:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need Rounds at KY? Message-ID: Email John Patten at: pattjt4 at wfu.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/acf7674d/attachment.htm From charrigan at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 11:54:12 2009 From: charrigan at gmail.com (Casey Harrigan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 12:54:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Coaching at UGA Message-ID: We encourage students who are interested in graduate work in communication to look at the program at the University of Georgia. Our graduate program funds each student admitted to one of our degree programs (M.A. & Ph.D.). The stipend is extremely competitive?it pays tuition and fees and provides a monthly income sufficient to provide for comfortable living in low-cost Athens. In most cases, a graduate student would teach in a classroom setting and work with the debate program. The Georgia Debate Union travels to both regional and national policy debate tournaments. The assistant coaches have the opportunity to work with a wide range of students that comprise the membership of the program. More details about our team can be found our web site: http://www.debate.uga.edu/ For details about the graduate admissions process, see: http://www.uga.edu/~spc/ . We begin to review files for admission on January 1, 2010. The University of Georgia is located in Athens, Georgia. You can find information about Athens at: http://www.visitathensga.com/ Feel free to contact us if you have any questions: epanetta at uga.eduor harrigan at uga.edu -- Casey Harrigan Head Coach - Georgia Debate Union University of Georgia 123 Terrell Hall Athens, GA 30605 (o) 706 542 9420 (c) 706 207 4753 harrigan at uga.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/236f33e8/attachment.htm From jams0426 at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 11:56:48 2009 From: jams0426 at gmail.com (Jamie Cheek) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:56:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 6 Rounds to Sell at Vegas Message-ID: Sam Allen has 5 rounds to sell Ryan Cheek has 1 round to sell $30 a round...let us know if you need them -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/4aa5520f/attachment.htm From mphall at liberty.edu Wed Sep 23 12:09:17 2009 From: mphall at liberty.edu (Hall, Michael P. (Debate)) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:09:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging for Clarion Message-ID: Liberty is looking for 3 rounds of judging for Clarion. mph Michael P. Hall Director of Debate Liberty University 1971 University Blvd. Lynchburg, VA 24502 (434) 582-2080 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/2d15747e/attachment.htm From jrlyle at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 12:23:05 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:23:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky judging available - Rob Noerr Message-ID: <25fd497f0909231023k1d787e0era4eb33bd00253c81@mail.gmail.com> I'm emailing as Rob Noerr's agent. Rob has 5 rounds available for sale. Let me know interest and wage. Jim From runlittleman at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 13:23:48 2009 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:23:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0909230736m449c24b9kd19520397d79c48@mail.gmail.com> References: <158D702DEA43445991377E7F76F29FBF@whitman.edu> <39c1ac890909221836t54c6d03bj914dceb447436607@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0909230736m449c24b9kd19520397d79c48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <886dd32a0909231123u3a21d03fn87bf2245c4192134@mail.gmail.com> Liberty experimented with a solution to the jump drive problem at Georgia State that for the most part enjoyed extensive success in minimizing wasted time in-round and created several other benefits as well (like Malcom we say for the most part because we have some teams who have put a lot of effort into making paperless work, and some that have not). The system connects three laptops together on an isolated wireless network that does not require an external router, but rather uses only the internal wireless cards of the three computers to instantly transfer files and speeches back and forth. Two computers are for the two debaters and include a folder shared only between them, the third computer is for the other team and a second folder is shared between all three computers that should only hold the speeches presented in the round. This allows the team to share only their speeches with the other team and protects the rest of their files from snooping. This has several advantages - First, and most obvious, is the instant transfer of data between partners and to the third computer both in round and during pre-round prep. Second, it doesn't require tournaments to have an external wireless network in order to function properly. Third, it protects a teams files, and the danger of losing jump drives with a teams backfiles or topic files on them is also greatly reduced because you don't have to jump them back and forth between partner computers or other computers on your team all the time. Concerning the most common complaint of division of the 2AC for 2NC prep time a jump drive can be made available for the negative to transfer the speech to their own laptops during the 2AC c/x or the affirmative team can lone one of their personal computers for the few minutes of prep time before the 2NC. Once the 2NC starts the aff would get their laptop back and the 1NR would keep the third computer to continue prepping. The attached document includes instructions for creating the network and the folder setup. On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Andy Ellis wrote: > Perhaps a google document is even easier than a google group. You can > immediately share it and you can terminate sharing preferences after the > round, watch for google wave to make this super easy in the coming weeks. > http://wave.google.com/ > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Gordon Stables wrote: > >> One random suggestion from someone who very much appreciates the >> importance of our community moving away from paper. >> >> With the understanding that not all tournaments or debates have online >> access - when at a tournament with online access - use a round >> specific google group. >> >> If paperless teams could create a google group for the participants at >> the start of each debate (just like we used to fill out a ballot) >> all of the files could be immediately pasted to that group. It would >> be instant (cut and paste) for all of the participants, including >> judges. At the conclusion of the debate and decision the group could >> be deleted. This doesn't involve software issues with jumping files or >> potential virus issues on jump drives. I suspect that this will be >> much faster, especially on larger panels. >> >> I appreciate all of the work done to make paperless happen and I am >> curious to hear other ideas. >> >> Gordon >> >> Gordon Stables, Ph.D. >> Director of Debate & Forensics >> Annenberg School for Communication >> University of Southern California >> Office: 213 740 2759 >> Fax: 213 740 3913 >> www.usctrojandebate.com >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Jim Hanson wrote: >> > some thoughts on the issues darren has raised (I couldn't find jason's >> > philosophy to respond to whatever his concerns are): >> > >> > 1. transfering data shouldn't take more than 40-50 seconds. >> > ----if judges wanted, a 1 minute limit for transferring data (and not >> for >> > prep'ing in any way) would be very reasonable. I don't think it is fair >> nor >> > a good idea for judges to time transferring data from the get go. if you >> are >> > really going to do that, I'd ask those judges to time paper teams >> getting >> > files to the other team (and to time re-filing at the end of the debate) >> > ----teams should do transfer drills--practice so they do it quickly. >> > ----remember that at the end of the debate--the debaters are ready to go >> to >> > their next round pretty much right away instead of taking 15-20 minutes >> to >> > get their stuff refiled and then trudging with tubs and cart to their >> next >> > round. that is time saved for dave's doughnuts. :) >> > >> > 2. re laptops for the block >> > ----the aff should give the files to the neg on TWO computers so both >> the >> > 2nc and 1nr can prep >> > >> > 3. re netbooks >> > ----if the screen is really small and I can totally understand this as >> an >> > issue >> > ----netbooks are cheap but you can get $350-$550 totally useable laptops >> > (inspiron 15s; they have other types available too). at >> > dell: >> > >> http://www.dell.com/us/en/dfh/notebooks/ct.aspx?refid=notebooks&s=dfh&cs=22 >> > >> > jim :) >> > hansonjb at whitman.edu >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------- >> > From: "Darren Elliott" >> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:40 PM >> > To: "Jason Russell" ; >> > Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies >> > >> > I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a >> brief >> > post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of paperless >> > debate. >> > >> > I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of >> > others. So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason >> elucidates >> > but am leaning his direction. It would be nice if other judges would >> state >> > if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. >> > >> > Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: >> > 1. Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. I gave leeway since it >> was >> > the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's >> not >> > my choice, coaches forced it on us". I began keeping track of time >> between >> > "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. Avg >> amount--3 >> > min 33 sec per speech. Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates a >> day. >> > Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! Seriously this is an issue. I >> didnt >> > take it off prep time this weekend. But like I said leaning Russell's >> way. >> > If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. Some >> of >> > the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do >> > it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed >> the >> > computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing >> and >> > not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they >> > started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). : ) >> > >> > 2. Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. A couple times >> the >> > other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small >> computer. >> > Not sure how I feel about this. >> > >> > 3. Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and >> asking >> > them not to read ahead. I think this is a good idea and is reasonable >> as a >> > best practice. >> > >> > 4. One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on >> a >> > 3rd computer, OR print it out. I like this option best. It's good for >> the >> > opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND allows >> > them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. This last thing is a >> big >> > concern for me. When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the >> block >> > has to share that computer to prep. Paper 2AC's are something the block >> can >> > split up physically with no issue. So I am concerned for the block's >> > ability to prep off 1 single computer. >> > >> > Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. My biggest >> > concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning Russell's >> > direction--counts as prep. The utility of paperless for the opponent is >> > also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues >> this >> > past weekend. >> > >> > Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have >> > become experts at this. Would also like to know the prep time stance of >> > other judges. >> > >> > thanks, >> > chief >> > >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] >> On >> > Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] >> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM >> > To: edebate at ndtceda.com >> > Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy >> > >> > I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be >> > applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like >> > process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker >> > points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming >> > tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you >> > frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. >> > >> > J >> > _______________________________________________ >> > eDebate mailing list >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > _______________________________________________ >> > eDebate mailing list >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > eDebate mailing list >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090923/bb769908/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Instructions for Setting up Ad Hoc Network.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24776 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/bb769908/attachment.bin From gacggc at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 13:33:00 2009 From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:33:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Adoption of the 100 pt scale Message-ID: <8371758b0909231133t22e289a9wf2d582f2b565ca71@mail.gmail.com> My suggestion on this is as follows: 1) For several tournaments, continue to use the 30 point system, but have judges also give a score on the 100 point scale. 2) Publish the data, in this forum, demonstrating the norms and variance as to how different people map the various scores on the 30 point system to the 100 point system 3) Discuss the data, in this forum 4) This will have the effect of educating everyone as to the range that the 30 point scale is translated to the 100 point scale, and will help to decrease dramatic outliers. 5) After this sort of transition period where people have a chance to understand how the 100 point scale is being used on average in the community, then the 100 point scale could be more safely adopted. In contrast, if one just immediately switches over to the 100 point scale, the odds that different people will interpret the new system in very different ways seem to be very high, resulting in speaker awards that don't accurately reflect the judges' intent. David Glass On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:59 AM, michael hester wrote: > Russell is correct. 87 is too high. i was conservative (i.e., tried to > stay close to what i thought others would do) at GSU b/c i felt like > UTD got jobbed last year missing on points and it affected their bid > application. > > but i will also go on record and say my 100 point scale will look like this: > > 27-27.5: 70-74 > > 27.5-28: 75-82 > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?--> these two have large ranges b/c they are the > areas i want to distinguish the most > 28-28.5: 83-89 > >> 28.5: 90-100 > > > > i'm adding this to my judge philosophy (plus, there are some other > additions since GSU) > > hester > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jason Russell wrote: >> 87 should assuredly not be the average. That's ridiculous. If 87 is >> average then we're using this scale needlessly and could easily use >> the old 30 point scale just as well since it is likely no one is >> getting below a 75 even if they're really terrible with 87 set as the >> mark. In fact, that average would argue we'd need less >> differentiation, not more. >> >> I'm not so worried about the top speaker having really high points as >> I am about the middle and bottom being differentiated. The top 20 >> speakers at most tournaments are objectively very close in skill and >> persuasiveness. Those debaters typically do A level work (90-100). I'm >> not shocked they're about the same. I am constantly shocked at how >> close the 50th debater is in points to the 20th debater. In my mind, >> there is a huge difference. >> >> I wish tournaments would stop providing advice on what the scale means >> because it directly influences judges. Many people I know have said to >> me re: the old Wake system histogram "yeah, I thought a 70 or so >> should be average like a term paper, but it says here an 82 is a 27, >> so that's what I'll go by". Judging is so referential to important >> opinion leaders and norms and trends that this simple suggestion >> quickly becomes a law. Let's be honest: we got to the problem of point >> inflation because many judges want the good teams to pref them. If you >> give lower points, you won't get preffed by the top teams fighting for >> elim seeding or even the 30-45 teams fighting to clear. So the trend >> in points went up to satisfy debaters' egos and consequently judges' >> egos. Now, because of these "suggestions" at tournaments regarding the >> meaning of their scales, debaters have concrete expectations about >> their points that START at 87. This is like students who walk into a >> college classroom and believe that completing all of their work gets >> them an A. It's nonsensical, uneducational, and frankly does debaters >> a disservice in evaluating their true skills, both strengths and >> weaknesses. >> >> 87 won't be my average at 100 point scale tournaments. I will start at >> 75 and work from there. >> >> J >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 edebate at anumbersgame.net Wed Sep 23 13:40:31 2009 From: edebate at anumbersgame.net (A Numbers Game edebate) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 11:40:31 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] 100 Point Scale Thoughts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <739f03b0909231140s1e42bfa6w5ae4f20a33bc59f3@mail.gmail.com> > -Point inflation- is it happening to the 100 point scale and if so what is > the impact? There is point inflation in the 100-point scale from Wake to Wake to GSU over the past three seasons, but not statistically significantly more point inflation than there was at Gonzaga over the past three seasons. To compare two point distributions that may not have the same shape, we can find the probability that a randomly drawn point value from distribution A exceeds a randomly drawn point value from distribution B. GSU 09-10 point values exceeded Wake 08-09 point values 54.4% of the time. Using the Mann-Whitney U test, we can determine a rough(*) confidence interval around the percentage. The 95% confidence interval for how often point values from GSU 09-10 exceed point values from Wake 08-09 is 52.5% to 56.4%. For comparison, the 95% confidence interval for Wake 08-09 over Wake 07-08 is 51.5% to 55.2%. Comparing to the 30-point scale, the 95% confidence intervals for Gonzaga are 49.3% to 55.6% for 09-10 over 08-09 52.1% to 58.6% for 08-09 over 07-08 Since these overlap the confidence intervals for the 100-point inflation, we can't be confident that either point scale is experiencing more inflation. The point distributions at the tournaments that have used the 100-point scale are: http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=lxy&chs=600x300&chd=t:69.000,70.000,71.000,72.000,73.000,74.000,75.000,76.000,77.000,78.000,79.000,80.000,81.000,82.000,83.000,84.000,85.000,86.000,87.000,88.000,89.000,90.000,91.000,92.000,93.000,94.000,95.000,96.000,97.000,98.000|0.0009,0.0098,0.0028,0.0084,0.0056,0.0098,0.0364,0.0173,0.0163,0.0229,0.0215,0.0518,0.0238,0.0476,0.0541,0.0588,0.0779,0.0452,0.0508,0.0536,0.0485,0.1049,0.0466,0.0588,0.0480,0.0331,0.0275,0.0112,0.0028,0.0033|68.000,70.000,71.000,72.000,73.000,74.000,75.000,76.000,77.000,78.000,79.000,80.000,81.000,82.000,83.000,84.000,85.000,86.000,87.000,88.000,89.000,90.000,91.000,92.000,93.000,94.000,95.000,96.000,97.000,98.000,99.000|0.0012,0.0068,0.0006,0.0019,0.0025,0.0056,0.0211,0.0112,0.0124,0.0180,0.0118,0.0466,0.0199,0.0311,0.0553,0.0491,0.0907,0.0534,0.0653,0.0901,0.0740,0.1131,0.0603,0.0559,0.0472,0.0155,0.0193,0.0087,0.0044,0.0031,0.0037|69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99|1,1,1,1,2,3,12,4,6,17,12,63,16,48,56,66,130,126,264,197,146,181,88,98,68,50,50,13,1,3,4&chds=68,100,0,0.2,68,100,0,0.2,68,100,0,345.6&chco=ff0000,00cc00,aa44ff&chtt=100-point|speaker%20point%20distribution%20by%20percentage&chdl=Wake%20%2707-%2708|Wake%20%2708-%2709|GSU%20%2709-%2710&chxt=x,y&chxr=0,68,100|1,0,20&chg=15.625,0,3,2,6.25 or http://tinyurl.com/100-point-inflation The point values were pulled from debateresults.com and the GSU results sheet. > -Half points - Ross originally posted that he created the 100 point scale > instead of a 50 point variant in order to eliminate half points. The 07 Wake > 100 point instructions also say to avoid half points. I didn't compare > against other tournaments, but GSU did have 1/2 points being awarded. At Wake in 07-08 and 08-09, debateresults.com recorded no half points. At GSU this year, 8 of 1728 (0.5%) point assignments were half points. > If > 87 is the average than half of the field should fall below and half above- > this means there are 86 units to differentiate the bottom half of the field > (even if most aren't used) and only only 12 units to differentiate the top > half of the field. The histograms for the 100 point tournaments are definitely not symmetric The second year of Wake's 100 point scale, even though there was inflation from the year before, point differentiation both among the four debaters in each round and across each debater's tournament were significantly better than under the 30-point scale. ( http://code.google.com/p/anumbersgame/wiki/SpeakerPointScale ) A 100-point scale that's only a 29-point scale has been better at differentiating performances than a 30-point scale that's really a 7-point scale. The clustering in the 100-point scale at 5-point intervals (and at 87 for GSU this year) may also indicate that judges are really not comfortable differentiating as much as might be desirable. Using more of the scale might just produce more noise and more clustering at 5- and 10-point intervals. (*) Confidence intervals are do not recalculate the variance adjustment for ties when estimating U, which makes a very small difference in these particular cases From runlittleman at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 14:04:51 2009 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:04:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Point Inflation and the 100 pt scale In-Reply-To: <2e0f7ba70909230759g1aae43b7k431a65cf30fa88e8@mail.gmail.com> References: <2e0f7ba70909230759g1aae43b7k431a65cf30fa88e8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <886dd32a0909231204y1191fd60g2c0a59820e7a5517@mail.gmail.com> I have updated my philosophy to follow Hester's comparison of the two point scales. Nick Ryan Liberty Debate On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:59 AM, michael hester wrote: > Russell is correct. 87 is too high. i was conservative (i.e., tried to > stay close to what i thought others would do) at GSU b/c i felt like > UTD got jobbed last year missing on points and it affected their bid > application. > > but i will also go on record and say my 100 point scale will look like > this: > > 27-27.5: 70-74 > > 27.5-28: 75-82 > --> these two have large ranges b/c they are the > areas i want to distinguish the most > 28-28.5: 83-89 > > > 28.5: 90-100 > > > > i'm adding this to my judge philosophy (plus, there are some other > additions since GSU) > > hester > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Jason Russell > wrote: > > 87 should assuredly not be the average. That's ridiculous. If 87 is > > average then we're using this scale needlessly and could easily use > > the old 30 point scale just as well since it is likely no one is > > getting below a 75 even if they're really terrible with 87 set as the > > mark. In fact, that average would argue we'd need less > > differentiation, not more. > > > > I'm not so worried about the top speaker having really high points as > > I am about the middle and bottom being differentiated. The top 20 > > speakers at most tournaments are objectively very close in skill and > > persuasiveness. Those debaters typically do A level work (90-100). I'm > > not shocked they're about the same. I am constantly shocked at how > > close the 50th debater is in points to the 20th debater. In my mind, > > there is a huge difference. > > > > I wish tournaments would stop providing advice on what the scale means > > because it directly influences judges. Many people I know have said to > > me re: the old Wake system histogram "yeah, I thought a 70 or so > > should be average like a term paper, but it says here an 82 is a 27, > > so that's what I'll go by". Judging is so referential to important > > opinion leaders and norms and trends that this simple suggestion > > quickly becomes a law. Let's be honest: we got to the problem of point > > inflation because many judges want the good teams to pref them. If you > > give lower points, you won't get preffed by the top teams fighting for > > elim seeding or even the 30-45 teams fighting to clear. So the trend > > in points went up to satisfy debaters' egos and consequently judges' > > egos. Now, because of these "suggestions" at tournaments regarding the > > meaning of their scales, debaters have concrete expectations about > > their points that START at 87. This is like students who walk into a > > college classroom and believe that completing all of their work gets > > them an A. It's nonsensical, uneducational, and frankly does debaters > > a disservice in evaluating their true skills, both strengths and > > weaknesses. > > > > 87 won't be my average at 100 point scale tournaments. I will start at > > 75 and work from there. > > > > J > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20090923/1940c6ce/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 14:39:42 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:39:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging requests: Bear Shock & Kentucky Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909231239l2f706933n2f17eaf4e1093003@mail.gmail.com> We're lost a couple of judges for the Bear Shock, and we are looking to hire. If you are attending anyway, and are willing to hire extra rounds, please tell me. If you aren't coming, but would like to work out an arrangement for guaranteed rounds and lodging, please email me. Also - we are looking to hire several rounds at Kentucky. If you are willing to hire there (even just a round or two), please backchannel me! Ermo MoState -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/80345c7c/attachment.htm From jrlyle at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 15:01:48 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:01:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Tournament - Entries Closed Message-ID: <25fd497f0909231301r3498dc69v9af68a6fb793823c@mail.gmail.com> Entries for the Clarion University Debate Tournament have been turned off at www.debateresults.com. If you need to make changes send emails to Jim Lyle (jlyle at clarion dot edu OR jrlyle at gmail dot com). Jim From wsu.cook at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 15:03:10 2009 From: wsu.cook at gmail.com (Matthew Cook) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:03:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A reason to use dropbox instead of flashdrives Message-ID: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20081109a2.html H1N1 is not the only virus we have to watch out for. cook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/3755a77f/attachment.htm From runlittleman at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 15:36:27 2009 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:36:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless debate (Liberty's Solution to Jump Drives) Message-ID: <886dd32a0909231336j10baa38dxa1f7950940676bef@mail.gmail.com> Liberty experimented with a solution to the jump drive problem at Georgia State that for the most part enjoyed extensive success in minimizing wasted time in-round and created several other benefits as well (like Malcom we say for the most part because we have some teams who have put a lot of effort into making paperless work, and some that have not). The system connects three laptops together on an isolated wireless network that does not require an external router, but rather uses only the internal wireless cards of the three computers to instantly transfer files and speeches back and forth. Two computers are for the two debaters and include a folder shared only between them, the third computer is for the other team and a second folder is shared between all three computers that should only hold the speeches presented in the round. This allows the team to share only their speeches with the other team and protects the rest of their files from snooping. This has several advantages - First, and most obvious, is the instant transfer of data between partners and to the third computer both in round and during pre-round prep. Second, it doesn't require tournaments to have an external wireless network in order to function properly. Third, it protects a teams files, and the danger of losing jump drives with a teams backfiles or topic files on them is also greatly reduced because you don't have to jump them back and forth between partner computers or other computers on your team all the time. Concerning the most common complaint of division of the 2AC for 2NC prep time a jump drive can be made available for the negative to transfer the speech to their own laptops during the 2AC c/x or the affirmative team can lone one of their personal computers for the few minutes of prep time before the 2NC. Once the 2NC starts the aff would get their laptop back and the 1NR would keep the third computer to continue prepping. The attached document includes instructions for creating the network and the folder setup. Nick Ryan Liberty University P.S. I'm having difficulty with getting posts to edebate currently so if this is a duplicate email i apologize -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Instructions for Setting up Ad Hoc Network.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24776 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/c1af9a00/attachment.bin From jrlyle at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 15:52:36 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:52:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky judging available - Rob Noerr In-Reply-To: <25fd497f0909231023k1d787e0era4eb33bd00253c81@mail.gmail.com> References: <25fd497f0909231023k1d787e0era4eb33bd00253c81@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <25fd497f0909231352s1af0ff48x24d909fed9ec68b6@mail.gmail.com> All gone. On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:23 PM, James Lyle wrote: > I'm emailing as Rob Noerr's agent. Rob has 5 rounds available for > sale. Let me know interest and wage. > > Jim > From tpeters at jeffco.k12.co.us Wed Sep 23 15:39:47 2009 From: tpeters at jeffco.k12.co.us (Peters Tammie L.) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:39:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for help for a new program in Kansas Message-ID: <02806BDC91CA4848A5DF52FF55B945110C84CED9@EXCHANGE.jeffco.schools> Once again, I have a former student who is now attending college at a school where there is no forensics program. He is attending Benedictine College in Kansas. I would appreciate any of you who would be willing to act as advisors to him about the process involved. I do not know what events he would like to pursue. I just know that I would like to help him by making introductions to the college speech community. Thanks, Tammie Peters Golden High School, Colorado -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/04e76b56/attachment.htm From jams0426 at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 17:01:18 2009 From: jams0426 at gmail.com (Jamie Cheek) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:01:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 6 Rounds to Sell at Vegas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All rounds are sold. thank you :) On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Jamie Cheek wrote: > Sam Allen has 5 rounds to sell > Ryan Cheek has 1 round to sell > > $30 a round...let us know if you need them > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/b92cee67/attachment.htm From wsu.cook at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 17:05:01 2009 From: wsu.cook at gmail.com (Matthew Cook) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:05:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A reason to use dropbox or network instead of flashdrives Message-ID: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20081109a2.html H1N1 is not the only virus we have to watch out for. cook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/bc6311a0/attachment.htm From runlittleman at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 17:22:04 2009 From: runlittleman at gmail.com (Nick Ryan) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:22:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies In-Reply-To: <886dd32a0909231123u3a21d03fn87bf2245c4192134@mail.gmail.com> References: <158D702DEA43445991377E7F76F29FBF@whitman.edu> <39c1ac890909221836t54c6d03bj914dceb447436607@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0909230736m449c24b9kd19520397d79c48@mail.gmail.com> <886dd32a0909231123u3a21d03fn87bf2245c4192134@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <886dd32a0909231522s695aa9e7o9d88e08a59cad51b@mail.gmail.com> Apparently that didn't attach (I blame word 2007) here it is again with a send space link http://www.sendspace.com/file/4199ie and I've attached it again here with word 03 On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Nick Ryan wrote: > Liberty experimented with a solution to the jump drive problem at Georgia > State that for the most part enjoyed extensive success in minimizing wasted > time in-round and created several other benefits as well (like Malcom we say > for the most part because we have some teams who have put a lot of effort > into making paperless work, and some that have not). > > The system connects three laptops together on an isolated wireless network > that does not require an external router, but rather uses only the internal > wireless cards of the three computers to instantly transfer files and > speeches back and forth. ?Two computers are for the two debaters and include > a folder shared only between them, the third computer is for the other team > and a second folder is shared between all three computers that should only > hold the speeches presented in the round. ?This allows the team to share > only their speeches with the other team and protects the rest of their files > from snooping. > > This has several advantages - > ? ? ?First, and most obvious, is the instant transfer of data between > partners and to the third computer both in round and during pre-round prep. > ? ? ?Second, it doesn't require tournaments to have an external wireless > network in order to function properly. > ? ? ?Third, it protects a teams files, and the danger of losing jump drives > with a teams backfiles or topic files on them is also greatly reduced > because you don't have to jump them back and forth between partner computers > or other computers on your team all the time. > > Concerning the most common complaint of division of the 2AC for 2NC prep > time a jump drive can be made available for the negative to transfer the > speech to their own laptops during the 2AC c/x or the affirmative team can > lone one of their personal computers for the few minutes of prep time before > the 2NC. ?Once the 2NC starts the aff would get their laptop back and the > 1NR would keep the third computer to continue prepping. > > The attached document includes instructions for creating the network and the > folder setup. > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Andy Ellis wrote: >> >> Perhaps a google document is even easier than a google group. You can >> immediately share it and you can terminate sharing preferences after the >> round, watch for google wave to make this super easy in the coming weeks. >> http://wave.google.com/ >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Gordon Stables wrote: >>> >>> One random suggestion from someone who very much appreciates the >>> importance of our community moving away from paper. >>> >>> With the understanding that not all tournaments or debates have online >>> access - when at a tournament with online access - use a round >>> specific google group. >>> >>> If paperless teams could create a google group for the participants at >>> the start of each debate (just like we used to fill ?out a ballot) >>> all of the files could be immediately pasted to that group. It would >>> be instant (cut and paste) for all of the participants, including >>> judges. At the conclusion of the debate and decision the group could >>> be deleted. This doesn't involve software issues with jumping files or >>> potential virus issues on jump drives. ?I suspect that this will be >>> much faster, especially on larger panels. >>> >>> I appreciate all of the work done to make paperless happen and I am >>> curious to hear other ideas. >>> >>> Gordon >>> >>> Gordon Stables, Ph.D. >>> Director of Debate & Forensics >>> Annenberg School for Communication >>> University of Southern California >>> Office: 213 740 2759 >>> Fax: 213 740 3913 >>> www.usctrojandebate.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Jim Hanson wrote: >>> > some thoughts on the issues darren has raised (I couldn't find jason's >>> > philosophy to respond to whatever his concerns are): >>> > >>> > 1. transfering data shouldn't take more than 40-50 seconds. >>> > ----if judges wanted, a 1 minute limit for transferring data (and not >>> > for >>> > prep'ing in any way) would be very reasonable. I don't think it is fair >>> > nor >>> > a good idea for judges to time transferring data from the get go. if >>> > you are >>> > really going to do that, I'd ask those judges to time paper teams >>> > getting >>> > files to the other team (and to time re-filing at the end of the >>> > debate) >>> > ----teams should do transfer drills--practice so they do it quickly. >>> > ----remember that at the end of the debate--the debaters are ready to >>> > go to >>> > their next round pretty much right away instead of taking 15-20 minutes >>> > to >>> > get their stuff refiled and then trudging with tubs and cart to their >>> > next >>> > round. that is time saved for dave's doughnuts. :) >>> > >>> > 2. re laptops for the block >>> > ----the aff should give the files to the neg on TWO computers so both >>> > the >>> > 2nc and 1nr can prep >>> > >>> > 3. re netbooks >>> > ----if the screen is really small and I can totally understand this as >>> > an >>> > issue >>> > ----netbooks are cheap but you can get $350-$550 totally useable >>> > laptops >>> > (inspiron 15s; they have other types available too). at >>> > dell: >>> > >>> > http://www.dell.com/us/en/dfh/notebooks/ct.aspx?refid=notebooks&s=dfh&cs=22 >>> > >>> > jim :) >>> > hansonjb at whitman.edu >>> > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------- >>> > From: "Darren Elliott" >>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 12:40 PM >>> > To: "Jason Russell" ; >>> > Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and judge philosophies >>> > >>> > I've read Russell's updated philosophy and it reminded me to make a >>> > brief >>> > post after judging 9 rounds at UNI this weekend in the dawn of >>> > paperless >>> > debate. >>> > >>> > I am not sure how I feel yet, and am looking at feedback/experiences of >>> > others. ?So I have yet to decide about the prep time issue Jason >>> > elucidates >>> > but am leaning his direction. ?It would be nice if other judges would >>> > state >>> > if they have a feeling about this one way or the other. >>> > >>> > Experiences this weekend with paperless teams: >>> > 1. ?Extremely slow in terms of transfering data. ?I gave leeway since >>> > it was >>> > the first tournament and its new and some of them even complained "It's >>> > not >>> > my choice, coaches forced it on us". ?I began keeping track of time >>> > between >>> > "stop prep" and actual speech starting time to transfer data. ?Avg >>> > amount--3 >>> > min 33 sec per speech. ?Multiply that by 4-5 speeches by 4 debates a >>> > day. >>> > Now Steinberg has to eat two donuts! ?Seriously this is an issue. ?I >>> > didnt >>> > take it off prep time this weekend. ?But like I said leaning Russell's >>> > way. >>> > If we add 15 minutes to every debate thats an hour to every day. ?Some >>> > of >>> > the transfer issues were people relying on an internet connection to do >>> > it--never reliable at many tournaments, some were because of the speed >>> > the >>> > computer could keep up with I'm sure, and others were people finishing >>> > and >>> > not even having a jump drive where they knew where it was before they >>> > started prepping (here's an idea--keep it in the computer). ?: ) >>> > >>> > 2. ?Most teams transferred data to the small netbooks. ?A couple times >>> > the >>> > other team clearly was not happy to have to read from such a small >>> > computer. >>> > Not sure how I feel about this. >>> > >>> > 3. ?Transferring data and letting the team have the whole speech and >>> > asking >>> > them not to read ahead. ?I think this is a good idea and is reasonable >>> > as a >>> > best practice. >>> > >>> > 4. ?One team offered to jump it to the other team's computer, put it on >>> > a >>> > 3rd computer, OR print it out. ?I like this option best. ?It's good for >>> > the >>> > opponent who does not want to have to deal with your computer AND >>> > allows >>> > them to split the 2AC for the block's prep time. ?This last thing is a >>> > big >>> > concern for me. ?When the info is jumped to a 3rd computer only, the >>> > block >>> > has to share that computer to prep. ?Paper 2AC's are something the >>> > block can >>> > split up physically with no issue. ?So I am concerned for the block's >>> > ability to prep off 1 single computer. >>> > >>> > Those are just some random thoughts and experiences I had. ?My biggest >>> > concerns are the prep time issue, and like I said I am leaning >>> > Russell's >>> > direction--counts as prep. ?The utility of paperless for the opponent >>> > is >>> > also a big concern I have and something that created some minor issues >>> > this >>> > past weekend. >>> > >>> > Would love to hear solutions to the above problems from those who have >>> > become experts at this. ?Would also like to know the prep time stance >>> > of >>> > other judges. >>> > >>> > thanks, >>> > chief >>> > >>> > >>> > ________________________________________ >>> > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] >>> > On >>> > Behalf Of Jason Russell [jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com] >>> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 7:40 PM >>> > To: edebate at ndtceda.com >>> > Subject: [eDebate] judge philosophy >>> > >>> > I've made some updates to my judge philosophy. Some of them may be >>> > applicable for paperless teams. Others are just about args like >>> > process cp's, T, and PICs/presumption. Some stuff about speaker >>> > points. Fair warning to those of you I'm judging in upcoming >>> > tournaments. It's nothing you don't already know if I judge you >>> > frequently, but I wanted to get it out there. It's on debate results. >>> > >>> > J >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > eDebate mailing list >>> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > eDebate mailing list >>> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > eDebate mailing list >>> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Instructions for Setting up Ad Hoc Network.doc Type: application/msword Size: 48640 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/c29c3008/attachment.doc From anj36 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 23 18:30:16 2009 From: anj36 at hotmail.com (Anjali Vats) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:30:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging for UNLV Message-ID: We could use 2 rounds. We pay $30 a piece in cash. _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/9cc00fc3/attachment.htm From dplove05 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 23 19:01:48 2009 From: dplove05 at yahoo.com (Dayvon Love) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Hotep X Message-ID: <870397.36540.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I am really interested in learning more about Hotep X. ?I have been trying to find information about him and its hard to find. ?From what I know about Hotep X, he debate for Brown University with Alfred (Tuna) Snider. ?He was a black debater who pretended to be a Black Muslim (his real name wasn't Hotep X). ?I also know that he got to semis of the NDT in 1972. ?Does anyone know any more information about him, I am really interested. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/aa07789d/attachment.htm From Pacedebate at aol.com Wed Sep 23 19:24:38 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:24:38 EDT Subject: [eDebate] 2009 Heart of Texas - College Preview Program Message-ID: If you are planning on attending I just wanted to remind folks that our hotel block must be booked by October 1. Information on the preview can be found here: _http://www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/stmarks/info.asp?p=7_ (http://www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/stmarks/info.asp?p=7) Hotel informaton can be found here: _http://www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/stmarks/info.asp?p=8_ (http://www.joyoftournaments.com/tx/stmarks/info.asp?p=8) If you have questions not answered on the website feel free to email me. Thanks, Tim Mahoney Director of Debate, St. Mark's School of Texas 10600 Preston Road Dallas, TX 75230 214-346-8141 214-734-3673 cell 425-740-9130 fax -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/b612ac96/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 21:00:46 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:00:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging in the dark Message-ID: <524839830909231900v79cccc7o1f08a6b582d5fde9@mail.gmail.com> This is in no way an objection to paperless... The neg gets the 1AC right before the debate starts...they are ordinarily asked not to read ahead...but they can read along...the judge sits and listens -- the best he or she can...maybe yells "clearer" now and then...the neg doesn't much care about "clearer" because they are just reading...and maybe quickly changing the small sized font to get more context... Then the 1NC goes...ditto...they get it all...and are reading along...they get that long CP text that spikes every 2AC answer and has a crafty net-benefit..of course, the CP is read really fast and the judge tries to sit there and figure out what it does while the Aff is reading every word and integrating cards into their speech.doc.. c-x ensues with everyone but the judge having read the full text of (just about) everything.... It seems to me that it is nearly impossible for the judge to be as clued-in to what all the arguments in the debate are/process them as fast since they are only getting the info orally and others are getting to read it as it goes... I thought this was always somewhat of a problem..debaters reading cards & CP texts during the debate...with the judge trying to figure it out after..or at least getting more clued in later when reading the evidence after the debate rather than during...but with the participants getting real-time access to at least all evidence-based things during the debate and the judge not getting it until after it just seems that the debate is always going to proceed wit the participants having a much greater understanding of what is going on than what the judge can provide by looking at it after the debate. What do people think of debaters also giving the judge a copy of the speech before they start? It would clue the judge in a lot faster. Is it unreasonable for a judge to ask for this? I still think judges should just flow and not read along during the speech since obviously the content of the speech probably won't exactly match the anticipated speech doc, but as a judge I'd love to be able to quickly read the CP while it was being discussed in the c-x, maybe glance at the link cards when the link was being discussed, maybe look at an un-underlined part of a card when someone tries to argue that it says the opposite of the underlined part, and maybe scan through some of the cards during prep time.... I don't think I'm alone in saying that when judging a debate I like to understand the arguments as much as possible when the debate progresses...paperless seems to create more judge darkness relative to the debaters in terms of understanding those arguments...immediately sharing the doc would reduce the darkness....and it would probably speed-up post-round decision-making since I'd have a "full" understanding of the arguments during the debate and would have all the ev I needed to look at immediately available at the end of the debate. Thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090923/4f83397b/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Wed Sep 23 22:52:32 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:52:32 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Judge Prefs Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909232052k3319283er2314766e9980cfd@mail.gmail.com> Clarion judge prefs are up and ready to go. Please have them completed by noon on Friday. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/7eb40867/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Wed Sep 23 23:55:32 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:55:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless, Time & Other Issues (Long) Message-ID: <4ABAFBC4.1050101@wfu.edu> The Shirley (Wake's tournament) enforces a strict 2:45 decision deadline during prelims. We do our best to begin rounds on time by informing participants regularly of the start time. Our tournament won't be delayed because some rounds took "extra time" to transfer evidence. We give participants adequate time to move rooms & plenty of time for pre-round preparation (Typically 45 minutes from the release of pairings.) I firmly believe that if rounds are scheduled with enough pre-round prep & enough decision time, & debates begin as scheduled, tournaments will run on time to the benefit of all involved. That said, I fully support the move to debating without paper. I think that paperless will eventually save time. It currently saves time for paperless teams: No box moving, no time wasted printing, streamlined filing process. If we can eliminate box moving from pre-round prep, we will likely save 15 minutes per round & can start scheduling accordingly once the vast majority of teams eliminate paper. Transfer time: This is obviously the biggest problem at the moment. I've heard all the horror stories but haven't witnessed any myself. I do like Russell's "time is charged to the transferring team" rule, (I'm a bit more flexible -- I'm willing to allow one minute to jump, dropbox or otherwise transfer ev pre-speech because that is almost equivalent to the time it should take a papered debater to do analogous things.) I'd like to add some initial caveats (That are definitely open to deliberation.): 1. Once its up & readable on a viewing computer, other "transfer time" should be charged to the opposition. If you insist on two copies of the speech, or want to print their stuff, it comes out of your time. If a team's viewing computer is not reasonably usable, we'll negotiate to find the best solution. 2. "My computer sucks" is not a valid excuse. You are a debater. You have one computer. There are many like it, but the one you use is yours. You must master it. Keep your computer running well. Fix it or find another if you have to. (Its still cheaper than printing.) The vast majority of performance problems are because users do not maintain their computers well. Saying "my computer is too slow" is like saying "my filing system & in round organization suck." 3. One free reboot per team. Paper using debaters get one free time out if their podium falls over. No more. No thinking during reboots. Make small talk instead. The weather is always interesting. Make sure your computers work. Communication is more technological now. If we are trying to teach people to be better communicators & debaters, they need to know technology. Learn what you need to communicate with the technology you are using. Even Obama doesn't get a free pass if his teleprompter fails. Transfer time longer than a minute might be counted as your "free reboot." 4. Speech.doc organization: Due diligence must be paid to providing the opponent with an organized copy of the evidence you read. Teams will be penalized for negligent or intentional disorganization. (A 50 page 2ac is facially un-acceptable. If you have 10 page frontlines to all their arguments in a well structured document, I think its alright, even though you should write better 2ac blocks.) Penalties obviously depend on the situation: If the other team can't be reasonably expected to read your evidence when you do, I may disregard the argument. If your organization is so bad that they can't read a majority of your evidence, I might disregard all your arguments by 50 percent. If I think your confusion is intentional, you'll get the same penalty a speaker who refuses to share any of their evidence with the opposition would. I think you are obligated to provide a copy of evidence & other relevant texts upon your presentation of them. If your practices fulfill that obligation, you are fine. I think this whole transfer time problem will be eliminated with time. I'm more than willing to consider alternatives to the above! Thanks to everyone who pointed out the problem & much thanks to everyone who suggested ways to improve the situation. -- JP "Make your tech work" Lacy lacyjp at wfu.edu From lacyjp at wfu.edu Thu Sep 24 00:33:56 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:33:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless, Time & Other Issues (Long) Message-ID: <4ABB04C4.5040605@wfu.edu> The Shirley (Wake's tournament) enforces a strict 2:45 decision deadline during prelims. We do our best to begin rounds on time by informing participants regularly of the start time. Our tournament won't be delayed because some rounds took "extra time" to transfer evidence. We give participants adequate time to move rooms & plenty of time for pre-round preparation (Typically 45 minutes from the release of pairings.) I firmly believe that if rounds are scheduled with enough pre-round prep & enough decision time, & debates begin as scheduled, tournaments will run on time to the benefit of all involved. That said, I fully support the move to debating without paper. I think that paperless will eventually save time. It currently saves time for paperless teams: No box moving, no time wasted printing, streamlined filing process. If we can eliminate box moving from pre-round prep, we will likely save 15 minutes per round & can start scheduling accordingly once the vast majority of teams eliminate paper. Transfer time: This is obviously the biggest problem at the moment. I've heard all the horror stories but haven't witnessed any myself. I do like Russell's "time is charged to the transferring team" rule, (I'm a bit more flexible -- I'm willing to allow one minute to jump, dropbox or otherwise transfer ev pre-speech because that is almost equivalent to the time it should take a papered debater to do analogous things.) I'd like to add some initial caveats (That are definitely open to deliberation.): 1. Once its up & readable on a viewing computer, other "transfer time" should be charged to the opposition. If you insist on two copies of the speech, or want to print their stuff, it comes out of your time. If a team's viewing computer is not reasonably usable, we'll negotiate to find the best solution. 2. "My computer sucks" is not a valid excuse. You are a debater. You have one computer. There are many like it, but the one you use is yours. You must master it. Keep your computer running well. Fix it or find another if you have to. (Its still cheaper than printing.) The vast majority of performance problems are because users do not maintain their computers well. Saying "my computer is too slow" is like saying "my filing system & in round organization suck." 3. One free reboot per team. Paper using debaters get one free time out if their podium falls over. No more. No thinking during reboots. Make small talk instead. The weather is always interesting. Make sure your computers work. Communication is more technological now. If we are trying to teach people to be better communicators & debaters, they need to know technology. Learn what you need to communicate with the technology you are using. Even Obama doesn't get a free pass if his teleprompter fails. Transfer time longer than a minute might be counted as your "free reboot." 4. Speech.doc organization: Due diligence must be paid to providing the opponent with an organized copy of the evidence you read. Teams will be penalized for negligent or intentional disorganization. (A 50 page 2ac is facially un-acceptable. If you have 10 page frontlines to all their arguments in a well structured document, I think its alright, even though you should write better 2ac blocks.) Penalties obviously depend on the situation: If the other team can't be reasonably expected to read your evidence when you do, I may disregard the argument. If your organization is so bad that they can't read a majority of your evidence, I might disregard all your arguments by 50 percent. If I think your confusion is intentional, you'll get the same penalty a speaker who refuses to share any of their evidence with the opposition would. I think you are obligated to provide a copy of evidence & other relevant texts upon your presentation of them. If your practices fulfill that obligation, you are fine. I think this whole transfer time problem will be eliminated with time. I'm more than willing to consider alternatives to the above! Thanks to everyone who pointed out the problem & much thanks to everyone who suggested ways to improve the situation. -- JP "Make your tech work" Lacy lacyjp at wfu.edu From gacggc at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 07:47:35 2009 From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:47:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging in the dark In-Reply-To: <524839830909231900v79cccc7o1f08a6b582d5fde9@mail.gmail.com> References: <524839830909231900v79cccc7o1f08a6b582d5fde9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8371758b0909240547s37a28995sdaf3c32767a01cf7@mail.gmail.com> It just seems that what your'e really saying is that the debate is really becoming a written activity not an oral activity, and the limits as to what material is entered into the debate is how much can be read during speech time... but the way the information is actually understood and processed is via reading - and paperless definitely accentuates this and flips the balance to the round being more about written-word processing. On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Stefan Bauschard wrote: > This is in no way an objection to paperless... > > The neg gets the 1AC right before the debate starts...they are ordinarily > asked not to read ahead...but they can read along...the judge sits and > listens -- the best he or she can...maybe yells "clearer" now and then...the > neg doesn't much care about "clearer" because they are just reading...and > maybe quickly changing the small sized font to get more context... > > Then the 1NC goes...ditto...they get it all...and are reading along...they > get that long CP text that spikes every 2AC answer and has a crafty > net-benefit..of course, the CP is read really fast and the judge tries to > sit there and figure out what it does while the Aff is reading every word > and integrating cards into their speech.doc.. c-x ensues with everyone but > the judge having read the full text of (just about) everything.... > > It seems to me that it is nearly impossible for the judge to be as clued-in > to what all the arguments in the debate are/process them as fast since they > are only getting the info orally and others are getting to read it as it > goes... > > I thought this was always somewhat of a problem..debaters reading cards & CP > texts during the debate...with the judge trying to figure it out after..or > at least getting more clued in later when reading the evidence after the > debate rather than during...but with the participants getting real-time > access to at least all evidence-based things during the debate and the judge > not getting it until after it just seems that? the debate is always going to > proceed wit the participants having a much greater understanding of what is > going on than what the judge can provide by looking at it after the debate. > > What do people think of debaters also giving the judge a copy of the speech > before they start? It would clue the judge in a lot faster.? Is it > unreasonable for a judge to ask for this?? I still think judges should just > flow and not read along during the speech since obviously the content of the > speech probably won't exactly match the anticipated speech doc, but as a > judge I'd love to be able to quickly read the CP while it was being > discussed in the c-x, maybe glance at the link cards when the link was being > discussed, maybe look at an un-underlined part of a card when someone tries > to argue that it says the opposite of the underlined part, and maybe scan > through some of the cards during prep time.... > > I don't think I'm alone in saying that when judging a debate I like to > understand the arguments as much as possible when the debate > progresses...paperless seems to create more judge darkness relative to the > debaters in terms of understanding those arguments...immediately sharing the > doc would reduce the darkness....and it would probably speed-up post-round > decision-making since I'd have a "full" understanding of the arguments > during the debate and would have all the ev I needed to look at immediately > available at the end of the debate. > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From ermocito at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 08:48:43 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:48:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock Update #1 - Prefs Coming Soon, Finalize your Entries Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909240648q7c005184gb57e4b5781f254b7@mail.gmail.com> We hope to have prefs ready for entry on Debate Results by around noon (cst), and we'll post here to confirm once they are ready. This is a good time to get your judging finalized, get philosophies attached to any 1st year judges, and email me about any judging coverage that Debate Results cannot easily display. Looking forward to seeing everyone tomorrow night! Ermo MoState -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/bbff3678/attachment.htm From Pacedebate at aol.com Thu Sep 24 10:51:53 2009 From: Pacedebate at aol.com (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:51:53 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Judging in the dark Message-ID: CLEARER! In a message dated 9/24/2009 1:24:49 A.M. Central Daylight Time, stefan.bauschard at gmail.com writes: This is in no way an objection to paperless... The neg gets the 1AC right before the debate starts...they are ordinarily asked not to read ahead...but they can read along...the judge sits and listens -- the best he or she can...maybe yells "clearer" now and then...the neg doesn't much care about "clearer" because they are just reading...and maybe quickly changing the small sized font to get more context... Then the 1NC goes...ditto...they get it all...and are reading along...they get that long CP text that spikes every 2AC answer and has a crafty net-benefit..of course, the CP is read really fast and the judge tries to sit there and figure out what it does while the Aff is reading every word and integrating cards into their speech.doc.. c-x ensues with everyone but the judge having read the full text of (just about) everything.... It seems to me that it is nearly impossible for the judge to be as clued-in to what all the arguments in the debate are/process them as fast since they are only getting the info orally and others are getting to read it as it goes... I thought this was always somewhat of a problem..debaters reading cards & CP texts during the debate...with the judge trying to figure it out after..or at least getting more clued in later when reading the evidence after the debate rather than during...but with the participants getting real-time access to at least all evidence-based things during the debate and the judge not getting it until after it just seems that the debate is always going to proceed wit the participants having a much greater understanding of what is going on than what the judge can provide by looking at it after the debate. What do people think of debaters also giving the judge a copy of the speech before they start? It would clue the judge in a lot faster. Is it unreasonable for a judge to ask for this? I still think judges should just flow and not read along during the speech since obviously the content of the speech probably won't exactly match the anticipated speech doc, but as a judge I'd love to be able to quickly read the CP while it was being discussed in the c-x, maybe glance at the link cards when the link was being discussed, maybe look at an un-underlined part of a card when someone tries to argue that it says the opposite of the underlined part, and maybe scan through some of the cards during prep time.... I don't think I'm alone in saying that when judging a debate I like to understand the arguments as much as possible when the debate progresses...paperless seems to create more judge darkness relative to the debaters in terms of understanding those arguments...immediately sharing the doc would reduce the darkness....and it would probably speed-up post-round decision-making since I'd have a "full" understanding of the arguments during the debate and would have all the ev I needed to look at immediately available at the end of the debate. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ 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/20090924/074a9297/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Thu Sep 24 11:02:35 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:02:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Dayvon & Hotep X Message-ID: <4ABB981B.9010407@uvm.edu> Yeah, send me a list of questions and I will answer all backchannel next week, as I have a 120+ team tournament to host this weekend. It is an interesting story. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 11:06:12 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (stefan.bauschard) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:06:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging in the dark In-Reply-To: <8371758b0909240547s37a28995sdaf3c32767a01cf7@mail.gmail.com> References: <524839830909231900v79cccc7o1f08a6b582d5fde9@mail.gmail.com> <8371758b0909240547s37a28995sdaf3c32767a01cf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <524839830909240906v471881c8l33d06098b8b7dc09@mail.gmail.com> I'm saying some things: 1) In the status quo (paper status quo) it is hard to (fully) understand the cards plan/CP texts as presented in the debate. Yes, you can obviously get the basic jist, but if people could fully understand the evidence then debaters (who usually sit closer to each other than the judge sits to either team) would not be so concerned about how to immediately access the other teams evidence -- even before the speech is over. I don't think I'm the only one who has observed that more and more teams just read through the cards after other team finishes instead of even trying to *listen* to the other team's evidence as it is presented. And, at the very least, the debaters in the debate have a greater understanding of all of the arguments *as the debate progresses* than the judge because they have the opportunity to both read and listen as the debate progresses. 2) This debater/judge gap is likey to get magnified as the debaters just jump/share the speeches with each other. 3) Unlike in the past where it was not practical to have an additional copy available for the judge to see as the debate goes on, it is now incredibly simple. 4) Yes, an alternative is "CLEARER," but for the alternative to allow the judge to understand the arguments as they progress as well as the debaters in the debate who can now even more easily read all of the evidence as the debate progresses, they will have to slow down *considerably* in most instances. If they did, this would arguably even eliminate the need for figuring out how judges should handle the swapping of the speech docs in the debates because the debaters wouldn't need immediate access to the evidence in most instances. There doesn't seem to be any dissent from the basic contention that debaters should be able to get the other teams evidence in (almost) real time, so I'm not sure why the person who adjudicates the debate should not see it in (almost) real time. 5) I'm not saying judges HAVE to do this. But if you are a judge who reads every single card relevant to the decision at the end of the debate, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want to read it during the debate. 6) RE: Stannard's "debater's wouldn't be able to spin" -- yeah, it would be harder to spin because everyone could "understand" what your evidence says. The fact that you can so easily spin it now means it isn't being presented in a (fully) comprehensible form. On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:47 AM, David Glass wrote: > It just seems that what your'e really saying is that the debate is > really becoming > a written activity not an oral activity, and the limits as to what > material is entered > into the debate is how much can be read during speech time... but the way > the > information is actually understood and processed is via reading - and > paperless > definitely accentuates this and flips the balance to the round being more > about > written-word processing. > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Stefan Bauschard > wrote: > > This is in no way an objection to paperless... > > > > The neg gets the 1AC right before the debate starts...they are ordinarily > > asked not to read ahead...but they can read along...the judge sits and > > listens -- the best he or she can...maybe yells "clearer" now and > then...the > > neg doesn't much care about "clearer" because they are just reading...and > > maybe quickly changing the small sized font to get more context... > > > > Then the 1NC goes...ditto...they get it all...and are reading > along...they > > get that long CP text that spikes every 2AC answer and has a crafty > > net-benefit..of course, the CP is read really fast and the judge tries to > > sit there and figure out what it does while the Aff is reading every word > > and integrating cards into their speech.doc.. c-x ensues with everyone > but > > the judge having read the full text of (just about) everything.... > > > > It seems to me that it is nearly impossible for the judge to be as > clued-in > > to what all the arguments in the debate are/process them as fast since > they > > are only getting the info orally and others are getting to read it as it > > goes... > > > > I thought this was always somewhat of a problem..debaters reading cards & > CP > > texts during the debate...with the judge trying to figure it out > after..or > > at least getting more clued in later when reading the evidence after the > > debate rather than during...but with the participants getting real-time > > access to at least all evidence-based things during the debate and the > judge > > not getting it until after it just seems that the debate is always going > to > > proceed wit the participants having a much greater understanding of what > is > > going on than what the judge can provide by looking at it after the > debate. > > > > What do people think of debaters also giving the judge a copy of the > speech > > before they start? It would clue the judge in a lot faster. Is it > > unreasonable for a judge to ask for this? I still think judges should > just > > flow and not read along during the speech since obviously the content of > the > > speech probably won't exactly match the anticipated speech doc, but as a > > judge I'd love to be able to quickly read the CP while it was being > > discussed in the c-x, maybe glance at the link cards when the link was > being > > discussed, maybe look at an un-underlined part of a card when someone > tries > > to argue that it says the opposite of the underlined part, and maybe scan > > through some of the cards during prep time.... > > > > I don't think I'm alone in saying that when judging a debate I like to > > understand the arguments as much as possible when the debate > > progresses...paperless seems to create more judge darkness relative to > the > > debaters in terms of understanding those arguments...immediately sharing > the > > doc would reduce the darkness....and it would probably speed-up > post-round > > decision-making since I'd have a "full" understanding of the arguments > > during the debate and would have all the ev I needed to look at > immediately > > available at the end of the debate. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/d876ebc7/attachment.htm From jddtfl at yahoo.com Thu Sep 24 11:58:21 2009 From: jddtfl at yahoo.com (David Trigaux) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Hybrid for Vanderbilt Message-ID: <374271.99506.qm@web51305.mail.re2.yahoo.com> We just had one of our debaters drop, and we're looking for a JV kid to partner with us for Vanderbilt. We can cover our half of the judging commitment, etc. Student: Erik Brazil--2rd year debater, pretty solid across the board. Flexible K and straight up styles. --U South Florida St. Pete -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/f4efb213/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 12:04:37 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:04:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless and the NDT Scouting System Message-ID: <524839830909241004i6032582xfb6aaa8213714fb5@mail.gmail.com> If even 1/2 the teams at the NDT debate (largely) paperless, the scouting system could be much more efficient. Teams could simply paste outlines and cites of what they read immediately after the debate on the wiki. This would drammatically reduce the time demands on the scouts and probably allow two scouts to follow the "paper" teams and post outlines and cites of their arguments. Should this just be an expectation of paperless teams? Should it be a rule? (I think teams are already required to give scouts what they've read after the judges have seen it). Should paperless debaters be expected/required to give scouts a jump of the speech doc? Should scouts be expected to come with jump drives to accept the speech docs? Some may see this as a unique DA to being paperless, but remember that it would allow more scouts to scout paper teams. I think paperless debating will change debate/how we do things/what our norms are in more ways than reducing the physical and financial load of carrying tubs and I think some discussion of those potential changes is good. -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/0f5eed03/attachment.htm From greg at palisadesassociates.com Thu Sep 24 12:20:55 2009 From: greg at palisadesassociates.com (Greg A. Rosenbaum) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:20:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hotep X In-Reply-To: <870397.36540.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <870397.36540.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <90946D5047DC4F5FAF4CE95F3F333B31@SonyMedCtrPort> His real name was William A. "Sandy" Darity, Jr. and he debated for Amherst Regional High School in Massachusetts, graduating in 1970. I debated him in the quarters of NFL Nationals in 1970 and he went on to lose the final round, as I recall, to a team from New Trier High School - East (like the Glenbrooks now, New Trier then had two high schools, both with active debate teams.) I knew Sandy pretty well in college but lost touch with him afterward. Tuna, who debated with Sandy when he was both Sandy and Hotep X, published something on his blog in 2007 about re-connecting with Sandy who, at that time, was a professor at UNC and a research professor at Duke. You can find that entry here: http://alfredsnider.blogspot.com/2007/04/sandy-darity-in-area.html Sandy appears to have moved on from UNC to Duke full time, according to the University's listings here: http://fds.duke.edu/db/Sanford/william.darity Sandy was a fine debater and really funny guy. I'm sure that Tuna can fill you in a lot more about their time as partners and provide some accurate background on the Hotep X persona. Greg Rosenbaum ++++++CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE++++++ The information transmitted by this email is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any interception, review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of, or taking of any action upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited by law and may subject them to criminal or civil liability. If you received this communication in error, please contact us immediately by return email, and delete the communication from any computer or network system. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might negatively affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way in the event that such a virus or defect exist. _____ From: Dayvon Love [mailto:dplove05 at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:02 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Hotep X I am really interested in learning more about Hotep X. I have been trying to find information about him and its hard to find. From what I know about Hotep X, he debate for Brown University with Alfred (Tuna) Snider. He was a black debater who pretended to be a Black Muslim (his real name wasn't Hotep X). I also know that he got to semis of the NDT in 1972. Does anyone know any more information about him, I am really interested. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/135f24ce/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 13:06:21 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:06:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock Update #2 Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909241106u3b358a2ftab72dc2c0888b0d3@mail.gmail.com> 1. Preferences are now available online. Please complete them by noon on Friday, so that we will be able to release Round 1-2 pairings on Friday evening (per tradition). If your prefs are late, you risk having them go into effect late (e.g. Round 3). The Debate Results settings assume JV/Novice (9 A's, 8 A-, 6 B+, 5 B, 5 C, 4 Strike). Since not all judges are available in open, you can reduce the open A/A-/B+ by 1 judge each (8, 7, 5, 5, 4 strike) for open judges. As always, we reserve the right to place strikes in late prelims for teams that have lost 4 rounds if necessary for the round to occur (but we've been able to avoid doing so). This year, we have 34 judges in the open pool and 30 rounds at once across all divisions, so it will be tight. We will have a couple of Missouri State people who are running the tournament, but could be placed in an emergency. They will appear on a supplemental strike sheet at registration. We have judge philosophies available for nearly all judges, and I am pestering to get the remainder up as soon as possible. 2. Computer passwords My password request was bounced, because they wanted either gmail, phone, or ideally both for each person getting a guest wireless account. I sent an email to Directors on this question. If you didn't get that email and should have, it may be that I was using an incorrect email. Correct me, in case there are some future announcements that only go to Directors. 3. Registration is 7pm tomorrow. If you don't think you will be in town by then, call me from the road (417-496-7141) so we can confirm that none of your teams were left behind due to illness, Assignment:FAIL, or some other cause. Then, we can get pairings out early instead of late. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/1bba6152/attachment.htm From spring.sarah at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 13:42:25 2009 From: spring.sarah at gmail.com (Sarah Spring) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:42:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging in the dark In-Reply-To: <8371758b0909240547s37a28995sdaf3c32767a01cf7@mail.gmail.com> References: <524839830909231900v79cccc7o1f08a6b582d5fde9@mail.gmail.com> <8371758b0909240547s37a28995sdaf3c32767a01cf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: David and Stefan raise an interesting point - I think Stefan is clearly correct that we are largely judging in the dark. Maybe its just my personal lack of a perfect flow - but I often find myself in the same position of not knowing what the page-long counterplan does or how it competes - debaters largely forget to communicate this clearly to the judge (although in the best debates this might not be the case). The question becomes either should we push debaters to communicate the material more effectively or should we try to access the written material? Secondly, does paperless make this worse or just highlight the problems? I think a discussion about flowing I've been having with my debaters also highlights this problem, a majority of the 2As on my team don't flow the block - they rather just read the cards that are read. While I find reading cards to be important - they aren't getting what is said exactly. Regardless of the validity of this practice - I've seen this symptom alot - debaters feel pressure to read all of the cards in the debate and judges just listen - this creates a unique imbalance in communication given that debaters have read all of the cards, the judges have only listened to the arguments and boom then the judges have to catch up and read a ton of cards at the end of the debate. 2 hour decisions are probably another symptom of this problem. But is it paperless that causes this or perhaps our obsession with evidence? I think its more likely that this problem has developed over the last few decades and paperless now can give us a way to remedy this imbalance - that is that the judge can now probably keep up with the evidence in the debate, if we so choose. But - do we want this? I'm not quite sure that I do. I agree that the oral communication of debate is probably valuable - how do we save it? Just some interesting and good questions that I'm not sure I have an answer to. Sarah On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:47 AM, David Glass wrote: > It just seems that what your'e really saying is that the debate is > really becoming > a written activity not an oral activity, and the limits as to what > material is entered > into the debate is how much can be read during speech time... but > the way the > information is actually understood and processed is via reading - > and paperless > definitely accentuates this and flips the balance to the round being > more about > written-word processing. > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Stefan Bauschard > wrote: >> This is in no way an objection to paperless... >> >> The neg gets the 1AC right before the debate starts...they are >> ordinarily >> asked not to read ahead...but they can read along...the judge sits >> and >> listens -- the best he or she can...maybe yells "clearer" now and >> then...the >> neg doesn't much care about "clearer" because they are just >> reading...and >> maybe quickly changing the small sized font to get more context... >> >> Then the 1NC goes...ditto...they get it all...and are reading >> along...they >> get that long CP text that spikes every 2AC answer and has a crafty >> net-benefit..of course, the CP is read really fast and the judge >> tries to >> sit there and figure out what it does while the Aff is reading >> every word >> and integrating cards into their speech.doc.. c-x ensues with >> everyone but >> the judge having read the full text of (just about) everything.... >> >> It seems to me that it is nearly impossible for the judge to be as >> clued-in >> to what all the arguments in the debate are/process them as fast >> since they >> are only getting the info orally and others are getting to read it >> as it >> goes... >> >> I thought this was always somewhat of a problem..debaters reading >> cards & CP >> texts during the debate...with the judge trying to figure it out >> after..or >> at least getting more clued in later when reading the evidence >> after the >> debate rather than during...but with the participants getting real- >> time >> access to at least all evidence-based things during the debate and >> the judge >> not getting it until after it just seems that the debate is always >> going to >> proceed wit the participants having a much greater understanding of >> what is >> going on than what the judge can provide by looking at it after the >> debate. >> >> What do people think of debaters also giving the judge a copy of >> the speech >> before they start? It would clue the judge in a lot faster. Is it >> unreasonable for a judge to ask for this? I still think judges >> should just >> flow and not read along during the speech since obviously the >> content of the >> speech probably won't exactly match the anticipated speech doc, but >> as a >> judge I'd love to be able to quickly read the CP while it was being >> discussed in the c-x, maybe glance at the link cards when the link >> was being >> discussed, maybe look at an un-underlined part of a card when >> someone tries >> to argue that it says the opposite of the underlined part, and >> maybe scan >> through some of the cards during prep time.... >> >> I don't think I'm alone in saying that when judging a debate I like >> to >> understand the arguments as much as possible when the debate >> progresses...paperless seems to create more judge darkness relative >> to the >> debaters in terms of understanding those arguments...immediately >> sharing the >> doc would reduce the darkness....and it would probably speed-up >> post-round >> decision-making since I'd have a "full" understanding of the >> arguments >> during the debate and would have all the ev I needed to look at >> immediately >> available at the end of the debate. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Thu Sep 24 13:44:05 2009 From: jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:44:05 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] AFA nominating committee seeking candidates Message-ID: There are 6 executive offices for the AFA; the nominating committee is currently seeking nominations to forward by October 30. If you are interested in serving, please respond to me as soon as you can. If you know of someone you think would serve well, please forward me their contact information. A list of current office holders is at http://www.americanforensics.org/organization/officers.html and is posted below. A list of duties is contained in the CEDA constitution. Sincerely, Dr. Jon Bruschke, CSU Fullerton Daniel Cronn-Mills, Minnesota State University-Mankato - President Rich Edwards, Baylor University - Vice President Will Baker, New York University - Vice President for High School Affairs M'Liss Hindman, Tyler Jr. College - Two-Year College Representative: Michael Janas, Samford Univ. - Recording Secretary: James W. Pratt, University of Wisconsin, River Falls - Executive Secretary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/7cc143d6/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Thu Sep 24 13:57:16 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:57:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] RE RE Tuna Message-ID: <4ABBC10C.9050801@uvm.edu> I am sorry that I quite often speak in public. Public events need a public comment. Public speech gets a reaction. Public speech increases the incentives on those who speak. Public speech raises consciousness. Counterplan gone. Public speech receives a rude response from you. Rude is your word, not mine. Listen to what you are saying. Sorry, I do not intend to scurry into the twilight after receiving your rudeness. Bad job at reading my mind when you interpret it as intended to "publicly shame." Motive, as you should have learned, is one of the hardest things to determine. I was asking what is going on and I got an answer. I will determine time and place as well as standards of etiquette, thank you very much. By the way, it is "importance" not "important." Unprofessional? I am just going to shine my Ziegelmueller award and smile at you. It should be clear to you that I will neither withdraw my statements, cower at your lecture, or change my future habits in this regard. I have disarm cards to cut and a 120+ team tournament to host this weekend. I wish you were coming so that you could publicly flag our every mistake. If others wish to do that, fine. I will appreciate it. By the way, I hope that the Motor City Debates go well. I gave that tournament its name. Perhaps you do not know that. Perhaps there are many things you do not know. Tuna ========================= Kelly says: Tuna-- Thanks in turn for appreciation. When you go out of your way to publicly shame a tournament rather than backchannel them, you will get a rude response. Don't turn this back on me when you are still unable to publicly apologize to Katie and Richard for the tone of your original post. Saying that you respect them but you will publicly call out their ability to run a tournament is laughable. Your response completely misses the point. I never suggested that we shouldn't voice concerns/complaints about tournaments. Instead, my point was that we should do so through backchannel emails so that we don't make other tournaments. Your public post did nothing that a private email on the matter wouldn't have resolved. The post's only effect was to call out and shame two young DOFs that risks harming future attendance at a nice regional tournament. The counterplan solves without harm to anyone. Another important lesson of argumentation and debate is the important of time and place and etiquette. The point of my response is that you completely failed in that regard. Kelly -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From gacggc at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 17:38:32 2009 From: gacggc at gmail.com (David Glass) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:38:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging in the dark In-Reply-To: References: <524839830909231900v79cccc7o1f08a6b582d5fde9@mail.gmail.com> <8371758b0909240547s37a28995sdaf3c32767a01cf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8371758b0909241538s30c225c7hfd16cb9fd8f671d9@mail.gmail.com> The only real check on devolution here is to have the judges make sure that they are going on what they heard and understood from the debaters during the speeches, and that they use evidence reading as a purely confirmatory exercise. So the worst thing would be for debaters to give the judge a copy of their speech as well before they start, as suggested by Stefan. The speaking at that point would be completely irrelevant to the debate, except to determine which portion of the written document is admissible. On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sarah Spring wrote: > David and Stefan raise an interesting point - I think Stefan is clearly > correct that we are largely judging in the dark. Maybe its just my personal > lack of a perfect flow - but I often find myself in the same position of not > knowing what the page-long counterplan does or how it competes - debaters > largely forget to communicate this clearly to the judge (although in the > best debates this might not be the case). The question becomes either should > we push debaters to communicate the material more effectively or should we > try to access the written material? > > Secondly, does paperless make this worse or just highlight the problems? I > think a discussion about flowing I've been having with my debaters also > highlights this problem, a majority of the 2As on my team don't flow the > block - they rather just read the cards that are read. While I find reading > cards to be important - they aren't getting what is said exactly. Regardless > of the validity of this practice - I've seen this symptom alot - debaters > feel pressure to read all of the cards in the debate and judges just listen > - this creates a unique imbalance in communication given that debaters have > read all of the cards, the judges have only listened to the arguments and > boom then the judges have to catch up and read a ton of cards at the end of > the debate. 2 hour decisions are probably another symptom of this problem. > > ?But is it paperless that causes this or perhaps our obsession with > evidence? I think its more likely that this problem has developed over the > last few decades and paperless now can give us a way to remedy this > imbalance - that is that the judge can now probably keep up with the > evidence in the debate, if we so choose. But - do we want this? I'm not > quite sure that I do. I agree that the oral communication of debate is > probably valuable - how do we save it? Just some interesting and good > questions that I'm not sure I have an answer to. > > Sarah > > On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:47 AM, David Glass wrote: > >> It just seems that what your'e really saying is that the debate is >> really becoming >> a written activity not an oral activity, and the limits as to what >> material is entered >> into the debate is how much can be read during speech time... but the way >> the >> information is actually understood and processed is via reading - and >> paperless >> definitely accentuates this and flips the balance to the round being more >> about >> written-word processing. >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Stefan Bauschard >> wrote: >>> >>> This is in no way an objection to paperless... >>> >>> The neg gets the 1AC right before the debate starts...they are ordinarily >>> asked not to read ahead...but they can read along...the judge sits and >>> listens -- the best he or she can...maybe yells "clearer" now and >>> then...the >>> neg doesn't much care about "clearer" because they are just reading...and >>> maybe quickly changing the small sized font to get more context... >>> >>> Then the 1NC goes...ditto...they get it all...and are reading >>> along...they >>> get that long CP text that spikes every 2AC answer and has a crafty >>> net-benefit..of course, the CP is read really fast and the judge tries to >>> sit there and figure out what it does while the Aff is reading every word >>> and integrating cards into their speech.doc.. c-x ensues with everyone >>> but >>> the judge having read the full text of (just about) everything.... >>> >>> It seems to me that it is nearly impossible for the judge to be as >>> clued-in >>> to what all the arguments in the debate are/process them as fast since >>> they >>> are only getting the info orally and others are getting to read it as it >>> goes... >>> >>> I thought this was always somewhat of a problem..debaters reading cards & >>> CP >>> texts during the debate...with the judge trying to figure it out >>> after..or >>> at least getting more clued in later when reading the evidence after the >>> debate rather than during...but with the participants getting real-time >>> access to at least all evidence-based things during the debate and the >>> judge >>> not getting it until after it just seems that ?the debate is always going >>> to >>> proceed wit the participants having a much greater understanding of what >>> is >>> going on than what the judge can provide by looking at it after the >>> debate. >>> >>> What do people think of debaters also giving the judge a copy of the >>> speech >>> before they start? It would clue the judge in a lot faster. ?Is it >>> unreasonable for a judge to ask for this? ?I still think judges should >>> just >>> flow and not read along during the speech since obviously the content of >>> the >>> speech probably won't exactly match the anticipated speech doc, but as a >>> judge I'd love to be able to quickly read the CP while it was being >>> discussed in the c-x, maybe glance at the link cards when the link was >>> being >>> discussed, maybe look at an un-underlined part of a card when someone >>> tries >>> to argue that it says the opposite of the underlined part, and maybe scan >>> through some of the cards during prep time.... >>> >>> I don't think I'm alone in saying that when judging a debate I like to >>> understand the arguments as much as possible when the debate >>> progresses...paperless seems to create more judge darkness relative to >>> the >>> debaters in terms of understanding those arguments...immediately sharing >>> the >>> doc would reduce the darkness....and it would probably speed-up >>> post-round >>> decision-making since I'd have a "full" understanding of the arguments >>> during the debate and would have all the ev I needed to look at >>> immediately >>> available at the end of the debate. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 don1299 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 24 17:54:57 2009 From: don1299 at hotmail.com (Donny Peters) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:54:57 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Illinois State Debate Assistantship In-Reply-To: <524839830909240906v471881c8l33d06098b8b7dc09@mail.gmail.com> References: <524839830909231900v79cccc7o1f08a6b582d5fde9@mail.gmail.com> <8371758b0909240547s37a28995sdaf3c32767a01cf7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello everyone, Illinois State University is looking for a Graduate Assistant Debate Coach for the 2010-2011 debate season. The ISU debate team is working to build a nationally competitive debate program. As an graduate assistant debate coach you will travel both regionally and nationally with a group of young and talented debaters to both CEDA and NDT tournaments. We would like a graduate assistant coach who is dedicated to helping the debate program flourish, and also a someone who will take her/his graduate studies seriously. ISU has a top 5 masters program in Communication. More details regarding the graduate program are below. As a Graduate Assistant coach you will receive a full tuition waiver and a competitive stipend. It?s a pretty sweet deal. If you are graduating and are not yet sure what you may want to do I strongly encourage you to considering applying to ISU. This is a great program and Bloomington-Normal is a wonderful place to live. If you have any questions regarding the debate program feel free to contact me. I will be at Kentucky and Wake, among other regional tournaments. Finally, keep in mind the application deadline is February 15, 2010. Thanks! Donny Peters, ABD Director of Debate School of Communication Illinois State University Campus Box 4480 Normal, IL 61790-4480 (309) 438-2321 djpete2 at ilstu.edu The graduate program of Illinois State University's School of Communication provides a distinctive academic experience that educates students in convergent disciplinary knowledge, diverse theoretical frameworks and research methods appropriate to the advanced study of communication. Given that communication takes place in various contexts, the graduate program is responsive to students seeking further scholarly rigor and professional development. This program prepares graduates for careers in academia as well as business and non-profit organizations. In addition, our program seeks to instill in students a passion for intellectual and theoretical discovery that transcends career objectives and course expectations. We fulfill our mission for the graduate program by achieving the following goals: * Educating students by offering a variety of graduate seminars and other opportunities to explore the latest disciplinary and interdisciplinary developments in theory and research * Providing an advisement system that supports curricula tailored to meet personal and professional objectives * Encouraging students to make applications of theory and research via professional internships, teaching, research, and service learning * Guiding students in the process of conducting original research and/or to producing creative works that may result in presentations, publications, conference papers, and/or exhibitions Prospective students interested in applying for admission to the graduate program in the School of Communication are required to complete the following: 1. The Graduate School 's on-line admission application available at: http://www.admissions.ilstu.edu/apply. 2. The Supplemental Graduate Admission Application for the School of Communication. To be admitted to the program, students must: * Have either a minimum GPA of 3.00 over the last 60 hours of his or her undergraduate degree, or a combined score of 1,000 on the verbal and quantitative portions of the GRE. * International students are additionally required to obtain a minimum TOEFL score of 250 (computer-based testing), 100 (Internet-based testing), or 600 (paper-based). * All applicants must submit a letter of application that describes their backgrounds, interests, and career objectives, and arrange to have 3 letters of recommendation forwarded to the School. To ensure full consideration for admission in fall, application materials should be received no later than February 15. http://www.communication.illinoisstate.edu/masters/index.shtml _________________________________________________________________ Bing? brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MLOGEN_Core_tagline_local_1x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/3744ecd0/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Thu Sep 24 18:00:50 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:00:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Judging in the dark In-Reply-To: <8371758b0909241538s30c225c7hfd16cb9fd8f671d9@mail.gmail.com> References: <524839830909231900v79cccc7o1f08a6b582d5fde9@mail.gmail.com> <8371758b0909240547s37a28995sdaf3c32767a01cf7@mail.gmail.com> <8371758b0909241538s30c225c7hfd16cb9fd8f671d9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <524839830909241600h38aa34a3l6e1f2b9446116b40@mail.gmail.com> As I said, the judge wouldn't look at any portion of the speech doc until after the speech was over. This simply enables the judge to read cards & CP texts that they will (if they chose) read after the debate during prep/cx/etc instead (or in addition to). Even when they read evidence after the debate (and more and more judges read nearly all of it after the debate anyhow), they still have to/ought to consider what the debaters said about it/how it was debated. This is no different. I'm sure that when judges started reading evidence after the debate people argued that it would destroy orality and the activity. It didn't. It did change it. In some ways it would make it better (judges would understand more of what was happening in the debate when the debate was happening) and maybe in some ways it would make it worse (perhaps a little less emaphasis on orality). Ironically, I think, if judges actually understood the evidence as it was being read, this wouldn't even be controversial because judges would gain little from the reading. But, since they are often left in the dark/the dusk, I don't see what the harm is to letting them read the evidence at approximately the same time all the debaters in the debate get to read it instead of an hour later. On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Glass wrote: > The only real check on devolution here is to have the judges make sure > that they are going on what they heard and understood from the > debaters during the speeches, and that they use evidence reading > as a purely confirmatory exercise. > > So the worst thing would be for debaters to give the judge a copy of their > speech as well before they start, as suggested by Stefan. The speaking > at that point would be completely irrelevant to the debate, except to > determine which portion of the written document is admissible. > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Sarah Spring > wrote: > > David and Stefan raise an interesting point - I think Stefan is clearly > > correct that we are largely judging in the dark. Maybe its just my > personal > > lack of a perfect flow - but I often find myself in the same position of > not > > knowing what the page-long counterplan does or how it competes - debaters > > largely forget to communicate this clearly to the judge (although in the > > best debates this might not be the case). The question becomes either > should > > we push debaters to communicate the material more effectively or should > we > > try to access the written material? > > > > Secondly, does paperless make this worse or just highlight the problems? > I > > think a discussion about flowing I've been having with my debaters also > > highlights this problem, a majority of the 2As on my team don't flow the > > block - they rather just read the cards that are read. While I find > reading > > cards to be important - they aren't getting what is said exactly. > Regardless > > of the validity of this practice - I've seen this symptom alot - debaters > > feel pressure to read all of the cards in the debate and judges just > listen > > - this creates a unique imbalance in communication given that debaters > have > > read all of the cards, the judges have only listened to the arguments and > > boom then the judges have to catch up and read a ton of cards at the end > of > > the debate. 2 hour decisions are probably another symptom of this > problem. > > > > But is it paperless that causes this or perhaps our obsession with > > evidence? I think its more likely that this problem has developed over > the > > last few decades and paperless now can give us a way to remedy this > > imbalance - that is that the judge can now probably keep up with the > > evidence in the debate, if we so choose. But - do we want this? I'm not > > quite sure that I do. I agree that the oral communication of debate is > > probably valuable - how do we save it? Just some interesting and good > > questions that I'm not sure I have an answer to. > > > > Sarah > > > > On Sep 24, 2009, at 7:47 AM, David Glass wrote: > > > >> It just seems that what your'e really saying is that the debate is > >> really becoming > >> a written activity not an oral activity, and the limits as to what > >> material is entered > >> into the debate is how much can be read during speech time... but the > way > >> the > >> information is actually understood and processed is via reading - and > >> paperless > >> definitely accentuates this and flips the balance to the round being > more > >> about > >> written-word processing. > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Stefan Bauschard > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> This is in no way an objection to paperless... > >>> > >>> The neg gets the 1AC right before the debate starts...they are > ordinarily > >>> asked not to read ahead...but they can read along...the judge sits and > >>> listens -- the best he or she can...maybe yells "clearer" now and > >>> then...the > >>> neg doesn't much care about "clearer" because they are just > reading...and > >>> maybe quickly changing the small sized font to get more context... > >>> > >>> Then the 1NC goes...ditto...they get it all...and are reading > >>> along...they > >>> get that long CP text that spikes every 2AC answer and has a crafty > >>> net-benefit..of course, the CP is read really fast and the judge tries > to > >>> sit there and figure out what it does while the Aff is reading every > word > >>> and integrating cards into their speech.doc.. c-x ensues with everyone > >>> but > >>> the judge having read the full text of (just about) everything.... > >>> > >>> It seems to me that it is nearly impossible for the judge to be as > >>> clued-in > >>> to what all the arguments in the debate are/process them as fast since > >>> they > >>> are only getting the info orally and others are getting to read it as > it > >>> goes... > >>> > >>> I thought this was always somewhat of a problem..debaters reading cards > & > >>> CP > >>> texts during the debate...with the judge trying to figure it out > >>> after..or > >>> at least getting more clued in later when reading the evidence after > the > >>> debate rather than during...but with the participants getting real-time > >>> access to at least all evidence-based things during the debate and the > >>> judge > >>> not getting it until after it just seems that the debate is always > going > >>> to > >>> proceed wit the participants having a much greater understanding of > what > >>> is > >>> going on than what the judge can provide by looking at it after the > >>> debate. > >>> > >>> What do people think of debaters also giving the judge a copy of the > >>> speech > >>> before they start? It would clue the judge in a lot faster. Is it > >>> unreasonable for a judge to ask for this? I still think judges should > >>> just > >>> flow and not read along during the speech since obviously the content > of > >>> the > >>> speech probably won't exactly match the anticipated speech doc, but as > a > >>> judge I'd love to be able to quickly read the CP while it was being > >>> discussed in the c-x, maybe glance at the link cards when the link was > >>> being > >>> discussed, maybe look at an un-underlined part of a card when someone > >>> tries > >>> to argue that it says the opposite of the underlined part, and maybe > scan > >>> through some of the cards during prep time.... > >>> > >>> I don't think I'm alone in saying that when judging a debate I like to > >>> understand the arguments as much as possible when the debate > >>> progresses...paperless seems to create more judge darkness relative to > >>> the > >>> debaters in terms of understanding those arguments...immediately > sharing > >>> the > >>> doc would reduce the darkness....and it would probably speed-up > >>> post-round > >>> decision-making since I'd have a "full" understanding of the arguments > >>> during the debate and would have all the ev I needed to look at > >>> immediately > >>> available at the end of the debate. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> eDebate mailing list > >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> eDebate mailing list > >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/00125e56/attachment.htm From alpaca at umich.edu Thu Sep 24 18:44:20 2009 From: alpaca at umich.edu (Edmund Adam Zagorin) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:44:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Detroit Urban Debate Ideablob- Take A Second And Vote Message-ID: <19f848c6b7f1eddfc7d54cfa8406e120@umich.edu> Hello Debate Community, Take a second to support urban debate by voting for Detroit Urban Debate Education in on Ideablob. Detroit's been going through some tough times lately and having a strong urban debate league in the community right now will make a difference for a lot of kids thinking about college. If we have the most votes at the end of the month we get $10K to host tournaments in Detroit, hold workshops on research and strategy and create more opportunities for teaching volunteers at more schools. Vote here: http://www.ideablob.com/ideas/6401-Detroit-Urban-Debate-Education We're actually at 96% in the running right now and debate community votes could put us over the top. Best, Edmund Zagorin University of Michigan From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Fri Sep 25 00:22:45 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:22:45 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Important UNLV Tournament updates Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090924/bcdb60ad/attachment.htm From malgor.debate at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 09:51:13 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:51:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] judging in the dark Message-ID: just ask in cross x what the cp does. if it's obvious the other team has a firm grip on it bc they read the text, and you don't bc it was read so fast, ask for the text or ask the neg team to clarify what the cp does. it's just clarification, a harmless act of judge intervention. i have done it several times when one team is reading a fifty plank cp. the judge should be allowed to ask questions of clarification sometimes. i had judges ask me what the last argument i made on a particular flow was before, etc don't be such a fraidy cat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/b81b47f7/attachment.htm From dudebate at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 14:29:13 2009 From: dudebate at gmail.com (Boon Poineer) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:29:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rounds for sale at UNLV Message-ID: <1a72a330909251229q5ac7dc40w683f54fd592901fb@mail.gmail.com> I have 3 rounds for sale at UNLV. E-mail me at Justin.eckstein at gmail.com if you?re interested. Cheers, Justin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/e8dd73a8/attachment.htm From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Fri Sep 25 15:08:33 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:08:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] pairings for the Kentucky Round Robin Message-ID: Pairings for the Kentucky Round Robin are attached. We will try to post new arguments to the Wiki on both Wednesday, September 30 and Thursday, October 1. The posting should occur sometime each evening. Roger Solt University of Kentucky -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/281ed213/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PAIRINGS (9-02-09).doc Type: application/msword Size: 78336 bytes Desc: PAIRINGS (9-02-09).doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/281ed213/attachment.doc From davismk13 at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 15:25:44 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:25:44 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Round One Pairings Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909251325k78f9db06t743451daf440a42b@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/e4cd7be6/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 11212 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/e4cd7be6/attachment.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceRd1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 11358 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/e4cd7be6/attachment-0001.bin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: VarsityRd1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 11216 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/e4cd7be6/attachment-0002.bin From davismk13 at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 15:31:27 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:31:27 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Rd Two Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909251331l79c46658ibfc63aeac0a0aef@mail.gmail.com> -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/8e6358cb/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: JVRd2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9468 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/8e6358cb/attachment.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NoviceRD2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9834 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/8e6358cb/attachment-0001.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OpenRd2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9387 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/8e6358cb/attachment-0002.pdf From kel1773 at msn.com Fri Sep 25 16:27:16 2009 From: kel1773 at msn.com (Kelly Young) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:27:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] RE RE RE Tuna...Did you really have to bring George's Award into it? Message-ID: Wow, just wow. You are really melting down into sheer babble. The argument originally was simple: there's better ways to deal with this than in a public venue and you were rather mean about it. Now you are talking about George's trophy, our tournament and attacking my knowledge. Will your next rhetorical volley contain comments about my mother and our penis sizes? This is absolutely insane, Alfred. Your statement about the Ziegelmueller award is really sad. What are you, 12 years old now? Your position on this would not have been endorsed by George. George was a huge fan of young directors and he worked hard to help young directors without browbeating them in public. And that award is about professionalism and dedication, not something to stroke off in public to teach a youngin' like me a lesson. It's a shame you have the trophy if that's how you are going to deploy a rather incredible professional accomplishment. I apparently completely missed the point of your comment about naming our tournament. If you did play a role--something that none of our program histories (we have two highly detailed ones) and coaches from that era can recall, good job on the great stretch from the tournament's previous name--the Renaissance Debate Tournament and Renaissance Classic (starting in 1976)--to Motor City Classic. What were your other options? The Wayne State Annual Debate Tournament? The Motown Classic? The Oil Can tournament (also a previous name of the tournament before the Renaissance Tournament that makes the evolution to Motor City Classic rather surprising)? Perhaps the Car City Classic? The GM Classic? The Iron Horse City Classic? It is really a major feat to name a tournament in Detroit the Motor City Classic? I hope that's a vita line for you because you are obviously very proud of the accomplishment. I've been thinking about changing the name of the tournament for a while, so thanks for the added motivation. I guess in this sense, you can take credit again for whatever name we change it to. But back to the point: I would never nitpick apart your tournament or anyone else's tournament. I've never done that and I certainly would never do it publicly like you. I know how hard it is to run tournaments and I greatly appreciate every school and host that holds one. I have offered suggestions privately, but again, it's clear that my purpose is to constructively help tournaments, while yours isn't. Everything has to be a public demonstration and self-aggrandizing moment for you. Still stroking the trophy? Remember, that was your shameful rhetorical move, not mine. 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/20090925/20205ffd/attachment.htm From blakejohnson at urbandebate.org Fri Sep 25 18:06:22 2009 From: blakejohnson at urbandebate.org (Blake Johnson) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:06:22 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Boston UDL and Boston Marathon Message-ID: <7c50ea8f0909251606q3c2a14bfm350a2d64a6fc8073@mail.gmail.com> Forwarding along this message from the Boston Debate League... Debate Community, The Boston Debate League is proud to announce that we have been chosen as an official charity of the Boston Marathon?, the world?s oldest and most prestigious marathon! What does this mean? We are looking for runners (and runners-to-be) who want to join our team. Our preference is to offer these slots to individuals who are committed to debate in general, and urban debate specifically. Please forward this announcement to anyone you know who is running the Boston Marathon or might want to. Please check out our website at www.bostondebate.org for more information. As always, thank you for your support. Steve Stein Executive Director Boston Debate League -- 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/20090925/fc6e05f5/attachment.htm From blakejohnson at urbandebate.org Fri Sep 25 20:11:20 2009 From: blakejohnson at urbandebate.org (Blake Johnson) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:11:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Boston UDL and Boston Marathon In-Reply-To: <7c50ea8f0909251606q3c2a14bfm350a2d64a6fc8073@mail.gmail.com> References: <7c50ea8f0909251606q3c2a14bfm350a2d64a6fc8073@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7c50ea8f0909251811h6c388603m66b0876e3ebfa8a7@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Blake Johnson Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 4:06 PM Subject: Boston UDL and Boston Marathon To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Forwarding along this message from the Boston Debate League... Debate Community, The Boston Debate League is proud to announce that we have been chosen as an official charity of the Boston Marathon?, the world?s oldest and most prestigious marathon! What does this mean? We are looking for runners (and runners-to-be) who want to join our team. Our preference is to offer these slots to individuals who are committed to debate in general, and urban debate specifically. Please forward this announcement to anyone you know who is running the Boston Marathon or might want to. Please check out our website at www.bostondebate.org for more information. As always, thank you for your support. Steve Stein Executive Director Boston Debate League -- Blake Johnson Executive Director Bay Area Urban Debate League www.baudl.org -- 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/20090925/8ff0e1f4/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 21:37:19 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:37:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] looking for mac timer and xl template... Message-ID: <9368bc9b0909251937p429c32ceg52e2a3eeab14efeb@mail.gmail.com> never been at a tournament with a mac till this year...need xls template for mac excel 2008 and a functional timer program...anybody have any ideas? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/96136ab5/attachment.htm From EricMorris at MissouriState.edu Fri Sep 25 23:09:53 2009 From: EricMorris at MissouriState.edu (Morris, Eric R) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:09:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock Pairings, Round 1 & 2 In-Reply-To: <0E1A96A3677F974A8F5DBF8C387910B40422F63D@evh1-ms1.EDUBEAR.NET> References: <0E1A96A3677F974A8F5DBF8C387910B40422F63D@evh1-ms1.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: <0E1A96A3677F974A8F5DBF8C387910B40422F63E@evh1-ms1.EDUBEAR.NET> Sorry for the delay, Ermo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/119ef909/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bear Shock Rd 1-2.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 37888 bytes Desc: Bear Shock Rd 1-2.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/119ef909/attachment.obj From ermocito at gmail.com Fri Sep 25 23:14:31 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:14:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock Pairings, Round 1 & 2 In-Reply-To: <0E1A96A3677F974A8F5DBF8C387910B40422F63D@evh1-ms1.EDUBEAR.NET> References: <0E1A96A3677F974A8F5DBF8C387910B40422F63D@evh1-ms1.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909252114o7723292am313c88443477a0bf@mail.gmail.com> I apologize in advance if a duplicate appears. It hasn't appeared yet, so I'm re-sending this. Ermo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/a8ce7443/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bear Shock Rd 1-2.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090925/a8ce7443/attachment.obj From ermocito at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 14:25:59 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:25:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock, Rounds 3-4 Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909261225p529061d8k8cd441128ecb4945@mail.gmail.com> attached -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090926/3e002e6f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bear Shock Rd 3-4.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35328 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090926/3e002e6f/attachment.doc From tcram at ku.edu Sat Sep 26 18:24:26 2009 From: tcram at ku.edu (tcram) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:24:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] RE RE RE Tuna...Did you really have to bring George'sAward into it? References: Message-ID: <9F03BD778566E24CAD8C9A2213539C9F02E567@MAILBOX-33.home.ku.edu> This madness aside, if you're shopping around for a new name, can I suggest the 'Gordie Howe Invitational Debates'? -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Kelly Young Sent: Fri 9/25/2009 4:27 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] RE RE RE Tuna...Did you really have to bring George'sAward into it? Wow, just wow. You are really melting down into sheer babble. The argument originally was simple: there's better ways to deal with this than in a public venue and you were rather mean about it. Now you are talking about George's trophy, our tournament and attacking my knowledge. Will your next rhetorical volley contain comments about my mother and our penis sizes? This is absolutely insane, Alfred. Your statement about the Ziegelmueller award is really sad. What are you, 12 years old now? Your position on this would not have been endorsed by George. George was a huge fan of young directors and he worked hard to help young directors without browbeating them in public. And that award is about professionalism and dedication, not something to stroke off in public to teach a youngin' like me a lesson. It's a shame you have the trophy if that's how you are going to deploy a rather incredible professional accomplishment. I apparently completely missed the point of your comment about naming our tournament. If you did play a role--something that none of our program histories (we have two highly detailed ones) and coaches from that era can recall, good job on the great stretch from the tournament's previous name--the Renaissance Debate Tournament and Renaissance Classic (starting in 1976)--to Motor City Classic. What were your other options? The Wayne State Annual Debate Tournament? The Motown Classic? The Oil Can tournament (also a previous name of the tournament before the Renaissance Tournament that makes the evolution to Motor City Classic rather surprising)? Perhaps the Car City Classic? The GM Classic? The Iron Horse City Classic? It is really a major feat to name a tournament in Detroit the Motor City Classic? I hope that's a vita line for you because you are obviously very proud of the accomplishment. I've been thinking about changing the name of the tournament for a while, so thanks for the added motivation. I guess in this sense, you can take credit again for whatever name we change it to. But back to the point: I would never nitpick apart your tournament or anyone else's tournament. I've never done that and I certainly would never do it publicly like you. I know how hard it is to run tournaments and I greatly appreciate every school and host that holds one. I have offered suggestions privately, but again, it's clear that my purpose is to constructively help tournaments, while yours isn't. Everything has to be a public demonstration and self-aggrandizing moment for you. Still stroking the trophy? Remember, that was your shameful rhetorical move, not mine. 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 From ermocito at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 21:02:53 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 21:02:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Bear Shock: Day 1 Win Counts & Announcements In-Reply-To: <6bd35ee10909261902k7270fb1dx8ab7b1647d9ea852@mail.gmail.com> References: <6bd35ee10909261902k7270fb1dx8ab7b1647d9ea852@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909261902r658f7f1bre5e5bb2076e23b00@mail.gmail.com> Round 5 (High-High) begins at 8am. We will release the pairings by 7am (perhaps a bit earlier) at both the Clarion and the campus. Round 6 will be paired off rounds 1-5. Lunch (pizza) served after round 6. Here are the win counts for specific teams. If there are any discrepancies, find me asap in Room 172 (417-496-7141). See you in the morning! Ermo MoState Open division KU CJ 2 KU FW 0 KU JS 2 KSU MP 1 Louisiana Lafayette 1 Mo State FG 3 Mo State HK 2 Mo State HR 3 Mo State HS 1 Mo State KR 4 Mo State SS 3 Oklahoma NW 1 UCO KS 3 UCO SS 3 UMKC AB 2 UMKC BJ 3 UMKC BS 2 UMKC GJ 3 UNI CH 1 UNT MP 1 UNT QW 2 UTSA MT 4 Wichita BC 1 Wichita CK 0 JV Division JCCC BL 3 Kansas CG 2 Kansas PT 1 Kansas SS 1 KCKCC BN 2 KCKCC RT 2 KSU BW 2 KSU DS 2 KSU EW 2 KSU SW 3 Louisiana Lafayette BM 1 Mo State HW 1 Oklahoma BM 2 Oklahoma CP 2 Oklahoma KM 2 UCO DW 3 UCO EL 4 UCO RW 3 UNI NS 2 UNT DN 3 UNT HS 1 UNT HT 1 UTSA CM 3 JCCC KS 4 JCCC CI 3 JCCC AW 2 JCCC SU 2 KSU AJ 2 La Lafayette CS 2 La Lafayette DL 1 La Lafayette BrMe 0 Oklahoma OV 3 Oklahoma CoPr 1 UMKC DF 2 UTSA JM 3 UTSA GR 3 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090926/928b358f/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 22:00:04 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:00:04 -0300 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Team and Judges for the Morning Message-ID: <9a7f6f740909262000kdd06845g6d359cc534f55184@mail.gmail.com> *Debates at 8:00, pairings at 7:00 * ** *Records available at debateresults * * * *JUDGES IN THE MORNING ELIM DEBATE:* *Bigelow, Matt* *Bonneau, Scott* *Brossmann, Brent* *Ellis, Andy* *Godbey, Samantha* *Hall, Heather* *Hall, Michael* *Hanson, Kenny* *Hobeika, Marie* *Johnson, Jay* *Kennedy, Tom* *Mabrey, Paul* *McDaniel, Mylinda* *Noerr, Rob* *ODonnell, Tim* *Packer, Joe* *Passantino, Andrea* *Patrice, Joe* *Pryce, Tiffany* *Risko, Guy* *Rubino, Kathryn* *Ryan, Nick* *Schraeder, Jennifer* *Sciullo, Nick* *Stevenson, Ron* *Verney-O'Gorman, Danielle * *Webster, Christy* * * * * *Varsity Teams* *Bing ToFo * *JamesM ChLo * *Liberty AtBa * *Liberty PoWo * *UMW SaSl * *WayneS MiGo * * * *JV Teams* *Bing CaTi * *JamesM StKr * *Liberty ArAu* *Liberty DaTh * *Liberty LaTr * *WayneS JuMe * *WestVa CoPo* * * *Novice* * * *Army AdBe * *Army DeDe * *Army MoRi* *Army PiWa * *Bing KoZg * *Bing SiDa* *JamesM BaCo * *JamesM MeMc * *JCU BrBu * *Liberty BuSi * *Liberty LaSi * *Liberty LuSt * *Liberty McWo* *Liberty StWa * *WestVa JePl * * * -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/60620fe4/attachment.htm From malgor.debate at gmail.com Sat Sep 26 22:16:06 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:16:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] rr pairings Message-ID: i'd like to thank OU for still traveling this weekend to the missouri state tournament (RJ and nick aren't here, but their entire coaching staff is managing teams across all 3 divisions). It would have been legitimate for them to pack it in and prepare for the RR. Surely the positive vibes will pay off despite the competitive disadvantage. And I hope Gabe and Russell don't make themselves sick trying to cut cards all night to play catchup, after judging all day. malgor good luck to the D3 RR reps OU and UTD. And Harvard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090926/1d4506d9/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 07:46:29 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:46:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Bear Shock, Round 5 Pairings In-Reply-To: <6bd35ee10909261853x40ed6a41vf68aaf8a794000ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <6bd35ee10909261853x40ed6a41vf68aaf8a794000ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909270546k4ef0769cl2a7e4d9dca47695d@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eric Morris Date: Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 8:53 PM Subject: Bear Shock, Round 5 Pairings To: Eric Morris The round begins at 8am. Round 6 is powered off of Rounds 1-5. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/99776b8d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bear Shock Rd 5.doc Type: application/msword Size: 31232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/99776b8d/attachment.doc From sethegannon at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 09:12:54 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:12:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Coaches' Poll -- National Top 25 as of 9/26/09 Message-ID: <4bfbc1090909270712h668cb6bdt4692838b200ececa@mail.gmail.com> Team (First Place Votes) ? Points Per Eligible Ballot 1. UT Dallas BR (19) -- 24.86 2. Northwestern FS (3) -- 23.62 3. Emory IW -- 23.33 4. California BP -- 21.14 5. West Georgia BS -- 19.71 6. Harvard JP -- 19.68 7. Whitman CS -- 17.76 8. Wake Forest MS -- 17.37 9. Michigan State LW -- 17.05 10. Baylor CM -- 14.41 11. Georgia CL -- 14.38 12. Oklahoma GW -- 13.41 13. California BJ -- 12.90 14. Kansas KS -- 11.23 15. Missouri State FK -- 9.23 16. Mary Washington -- 8.19 17. Emory GJ -- 7.38 18. Idaho State JJ -- 6.48 19. Kansas KQ -- 6.05 20. Harvard KR -- 5.82 21. Towson JM -- 5.36 22. Gonzaga CJ -- 4.67 23. Emory NS -- 4.48 24. Trinity BH -- 4.14 25. Southern California HL -- 2.00 Also receiving votes (alphabetical): Baylor LR, California GW, Central Oklahoma KS, Georgetown HM, Georgia HL, Harvard BH, Iowa SV, Kansas PW, Kansas State HW, Kansas State MZ, Michigan GC, Michigan State GS, North Texas PR, Northwestern BK, Northwestern GL, Samford BG, UT San Antonio MT, Vanderbilt BN, Wake CC, Wichita State BR. Voters (and collaborations I know of): Arnett (and Reed), Atchison, Burk, S. Chung, Davis, Frappier, Gannon, Gerber, Hardy, Harrigan, Harris, J. Herndon, Hester, Johnson (and the Iowa coaches), Odekirk, Paul, Repko, Ryan (and Struth), Symonds, Thompson (and Battocletti), Vega, Warden. From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Sun Sep 27 09:51:18 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:51:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] dietary information and total numbers attending needed for Henry Clay Message-ID: Please try to finalize your entries as soon as possible. In particular, note the following: 1. We need an accurate count on vegans and vegetarians, especially for the individually catered box lunches we are serving on Saturday. 2. We need an accurate total body count for the same reason and to know how much to charge you. 3. Some judges are still listed as filling an 8 round commitment. This is impossible in a 7 round tournament. 4. Please enter any additions, deletions, or changes as soon as possible. Thanks. We look forward to seeing you in Lexington. Roger Solt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/fa502edb/attachment.htm From resolt2 at email.uky.edu Sun Sep 27 10:06:58 2009 From: resolt2 at email.uky.edu (SOLT, ROGER E) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:06:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] First year teams and debaters at the Henry Clay Message-ID: Teams composed of two first year debaters are eligible for a separate elimination bracket at the University of Kentucky tournament. All first year debaters are eligible for the "top first year debater" speaker award. I've listed first year teams and individual debaters below. Please let me know if there are any errors or omissions. First year teams: 1. Dartmouth-Armstrong & Balisteri 2. Dartmouth-Donlan & Smyser 3. Dartmouth-Lee & Shim 4. Dartmouth-Gonzalez & Vance 5. Emory-Holland & Zevell 6. Emory-Deunzel & Rains 7. Emory-Gordon & Jagadeesh 8. Florida-Novaes & Tellez 9. Florida-Arias & Dobies 10. George Mason-Nichols & Kyagaba 11. Georgetown-Rodarte & Shen 12. Geogia-Zhang & Sudarshan 13. Iowa-Hunt & Peterson 14. James Madison-Brass & Veland 15. Michigan State-Kowalski & Stoecker 16. Michigan State-Lin & McIntosh 17. Michigan-Almeter & Karabulut 18. Minnesota-Sadagopal & Williams 19. Missouri State-Hart & Wiley 20. Northwestern-Layton & Mair 21. Texas-Bhattacharjjee & Gulakov 22. Tiniity-Hagney & Murray 23. Wake Forest-Bailey & Miller Individual first year debaters: 1. Baylor-Kaut 2. Emory-Rab 3. Emory-Chlistunoff 4. Emory-Ma 5. Emory-Gupta 6. Georgia-Layton 7. Harvard-Rogan 8. Illinois State-Pickert 9. Louisiana-Lafayette-Brasseaux 10. Michigan State-Leap 11. Michigan-Bloom 12. Michigan-Deming 13. Minnesota-Anderson 14. Missouri State-Rumbaugh 15. Missouri State-Schmitz 16. Northwestern-Xu 17. Northwestern-Lee 18. Northwestern-Shao 19. Southern California-Hernandez 20. Texas-Shear 21. Towson-Crossan 22. Towson-Bey 23. Trinity-Uzman 24. Wake-Thies 25. Wake-Godwin 26. West Georgia-Boykin Roger Solt Resolt2 at email.uky.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/1bda390b/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 11:07:40 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:07:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Rumor has it Message-ID: <9368bc9b0909270907n3ccc2273m89d096b875bc437e@mail.gmail.com> That vermont had a tournament this weekend...any word on breaks? Checked global debate blog, facebook, and debate results, is there somewhere else i should be looking? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/6dfed875/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 11:09:19 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:09:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock Round 6 (11:45am) Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909270909q5f3c47c0u44d61d62c7a33256@mail.gmail.com> not 11:30. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/d5e78c65/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bear Shock Rd 6.doc Type: application/msword Size: 31232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/d5e78c65/attachment.doc From andreareed2007 at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 11:34:51 2009 From: andreareed2007 at gmail.com (Andrea Reed) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:34:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] caselist- the subscription message Message-ID: Several people have asked me if the caselist wiki is expiring or if they need to sign up again because their subscription was cancelled... No. That message is showing up at the top of the wiki because JP got a temporary premium upgrade when he archived last years list. That upgrade is up now, the message is annoying, I don't know when it will go away. But, nothing is wrong, you can still post as normal, and you don't need to re-join if you are already a member. Andrea From delliott at KCKCC.EDU Sun Sep 27 12:36:26 2009 From: delliott at KCKCC.EDU (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:36:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] rr pairings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: i'd like to thank Malcolm for still traveling this weekend to the missouri state tournament (there is no BBQ here, but he is judging debates and managing teams across 2 divisions). It would have been legitimate for him to pack it in and stay in KC to watch the Chiefs on television or attend the last Royals home game with Grienke pitching, his Cy Young votes hanging in the balance. Surely the positive comments he provides in his post round critiques and all around jovial attitude will pay off despite the disadvantage to the hometown sports teams. And I hope he doesnt make himiself sick trying to cut cards all afternoon playing catchup after these important sports matchups are concluded. chief good luck to the Chiefs and Zack Grienke. And Harvard. ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Malcolm Gordon [malgor.debate at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:16 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] rr pairings i'd like to thank OU for still traveling this weekend to the missouri state tournament (RJ and nick aren't here, but their entire coaching staff is managing teams across all 3 divisions). It would have been legitimate for them to pack it in and prepare for the RR. Surely the positive vibes will pay off despite the competitive disadvantage. And I hope Gabe and Russell don't make themselves sick trying to cut cards all night to play catchup, after judging all day. malgor good luck to the D3 RR reps OU and UTD. And Harvard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/19e4a1c6/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Sun Sep 27 13:45:59 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:45:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clay judging and other details Message-ID: <4ABF6C97.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> As of this AM there are 144 teams at Kentucky. This means that with 4 rounds of commitment per team, we need 576 rounds. Only 513 rounds have been committed so far so we need 63 more rounds. Additionally, some judges are currently in for 8 rounds, rather difficult since there are only 7 preliminary rounds. I'd appreciate it if everyone would solidify their judging as soon as possible. We will turn on the pref entry on Tuesday night so it would be best to have as accurate a list as possible at that point. If you have constraints that aren't entered on Bruschke's system, please send them to me directly. Two innovations this year - we will be giving judges the option of receiving and submitting ballots via e-mail (a slight variation on what Jon is doing). If you would like to participate, I need to have you enter you enter your e-mail on Bruschke's site AND communicate you intent to participate to me. THANKS We also will use "round-weighted" ordinal preferences similar to those used at Georgia State. You will enter ordinal preferences the way you have in the past. But they be computed as a percentage of the entire judging pool based on the number of rounds of obligation for each judge. For example, if the judging pool ends up with 576 rounds and 26 of those rounds represent judges you are constrained against and your #1 rated judge has a 4-round commitment, they will have a RW ordinal of 4/550 or .73%. If the next judge also has a 4-round commitment, they would be 1.46% and so on. The reasoning behind the RW ordinal is that if there are 140 judges in the pool that have commitments that range from 1 to 7 rounds, the ordering of the judges should take into consideration how many rounds the judge will hear. Otherwise a sheet that ranks all of the low commitment judges as best and one that ranks all of the high commitment judges are actually quite different, particularly if you ask the question of whether all of your judges were in the top "half." It is potentially quite different to ask whether they were all in the top 70 judges or the top 275 rounds with the latter being more accurate and comparable. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/ef6c487e/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 14:47:45 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:47:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Bear Shock Round 7 In-Reply-To: <6bd35ee10909271247q48298c0dx46aabc9bb4dacb37@mail.gmail.com> References: <6bd35ee10909271247q48298c0dx46aabc9bb4dacb37@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909271247t25cd981aqa9d42cf5f5220b96@mail.gmail.com> dd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/06e419c1/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bear Shock Rd 7.doc Type: application/msword Size: 31744 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/06e419c1/attachment.doc From sethegannon at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 15:31:59 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:31:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Coaches' Poll -- National Top 25 as of 9/26/09 In-Reply-To: <4bfbc1090909270712h668cb6bdt4692838b200ececa@mail.gmail.com> References: <4bfbc1090909270712h668cb6bdt4692838b200ececa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4bfbc1090909271331j375c9b93t761b44b69f33a8de@mail.gmail.com> Team (First Place Votes) ? Points Per Eligible Ballot 1. UT Dallas BR (19) -- 24.86 2. Northwestern FS (3) -- 23.62 3. Emory IW -- 23.33 4. California BP -- 21.14 5. West Georgia BS -- 19.71 6. Harvard JP -- 19.68 7. Whitman CS -- 17.76 8. Wake Forest MS -- 17.37 9. Michigan State LW -- 17.05 10. Baylor CM -- 14.41 11. Georgia CL -- 14.38 12. Oklahoma GW -- 13.41 13. California BJ -- 12.90 14. Kansas KS -- 11.23 15. Missouri State FK -- 9.23 16. Mary Washington -- 8.19 17. Emory GJ -- 7.38 18. Idaho State JJ -- 6.48 19. Kansas KQ -- 6.05 20. Harvard KR -- 5.82 21. Towson JM -- 5.36 22. Gonzaga CJ -- 4.67 23. Emory NS -- 4.48 24. Trinity BH -- 4.14 25. Southern California HL -- 2.00 Also receiving votes (alphabetical): Baylor LR, California GW, Central Oklahoma KS, Georgetown HM, Georgia HL, Harvard BH, Iowa SV, Kansas PW, Kansas State HW, Kansas State MZ, Michigan GC, Michigan State GS, North Texas PR, Northwestern BK, Northwestern GL, Samford BG, UT San Antonio MT, Vanderbilt BN, Wake CC, Wichita State BR. Voters (and collaborations I know of): Arnett (and Reed), Atchison, Burk, S. Chung, Davis, Frappier, Gannon, Gerber, Hardy, Harrigan, Harris, J. Herndon, Hester, Johnson (and the Iowa coaches), Odekirk, Paul, Repko, Ryan (and Struth), Symonds, Thompson (and Battocletti), Vega, Warden. From uwgdebate at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 15:58:51 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:58:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CSIS Bloggers, the National Poll, and conflicts of interest Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70909271358j5c0c5487k42f4f49424f17687@mail.gmail.com> Is that John Warden on the list of voters? doesn't he currently work at the CSIS, blogging about the topic? haven't debaters read CSIS blog evidence in rounds? hmph. if this were a Vegas casino, large mean with unibrows would be escorting him from the building and informing him his money's "no good here." worried about the integrity of the game, hester On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Seth Gannon wrote: > Team (First Place Votes) ? Points Per Eligible Ballot > > 1. UT Dallas BR (19) -- 24.86 > 2. Northwestern FS (3) -- 23.62 > 3. Emory IW -- 23.33 > 4. California BP -- 21.14 > 5. West Georgia BS -- 19.71 > 6. Harvard JP -- 19.68 > 7. Whitman CS -- 17.76 > 8. Wake Forest MS -- 17.37 > 9. Michigan State LW -- 17.05 > 10. Baylor CM -- 14.41 > 11. Georgia CL -- 14.38 > 12. Oklahoma GW -- 13.41 > 13. California BJ -- 12.90 > 14. Kansas KS -- 11.23 > 15. Missouri State FK -- 9.23 > 16. Mary Washington -- 8.19 > 17. Emory GJ -- 7.38 > 18. Idaho State JJ -- 6.48 > 19. Kansas KQ -- 6.05 > 20. Harvard KR -- 5.82 > 21. Towson JM -- 5.36 > 22. Gonzaga CJ -- 4.67 > 23. Emory NS -- 4.48 > 24. Trinity BH -- 4.14 > 25. Southern California HL -- 2.00 > > Also receiving votes (alphabetical): Baylor LR, California GW, Central > Oklahoma KS, > Georgetown HM, Georgia HL, Harvard BH, Iowa SV, Kansas PW, Kansas > State HW, Kansas State MZ, Michigan GC, Michigan State GS, North Texas > PR, Northwestern BK, Northwestern GL, Samford BG, UT San Antonio MT, > Vanderbilt BN, Wake CC, Wichita State BR. > > Voters (and collaborations I know of): Arnett (and Reed), Atchison, > Burk, S. Chung, Davis, Frappier, Gannon, Gerber, Hardy, Harrigan, > Harris, J. Herndon, Hester, Johnson (and the Iowa coaches), Odekirk, > Paul, Repko, Ryan (and Struth), Symonds, Thompson (and Battocletti), > Vega, Warden. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From james.maritato at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 20:37:33 2009 From: james.maritato at gmail.com (James Maritato) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:37:33 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Paperless Tip From the Spectator's Gallery Message-ID: Hello All, Not doing much debate these days, but ran across an interesting program on the Internet that allows you to take pictures of books with your digital camera, upload the pictures, automagically clean them up and uncurve the pages, and convert them to PDF. http://snapter.atiz.com/ It's not free, but you can try it for 14 days for free, and beyond that it only costs $50. If you have a digital camera laying around, this may be an alternative way to get information in books into cards without the time it takes to scan each side of a book. -JM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/87deaf18/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 22:37:01 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:37:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Bear Shock Sunday Elims Results, Seed Positions, Monday Judging In-Reply-To: <6bd35ee10909272036x3a23247asa9264c067f792083@mail.gmail.com> References: <6bd35ee10909272036x3a23247asa9264c067f792083@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909272037t402d1dd6m420c7619bb1fd3a1@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eric Morris Date: Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:36 PM Subject: Bear Shock Sunday Elims Results, Seed Positions, Monday Judging To: richard.tews at uni.edu, ben warner , Brian Lain < blain at unt.edu>, Eric Marlow , Heather Walters < HeatherWalters at missouristate.edu>, Jackie Massey , Jeffrey Jarman , Justin Green , Justin Green , Justin Stanley , Lindsey Shook , Louie Petit , Louie Petit , Matt Vega , Matthew Vega < matthewjvega at gmail.com>, "Petit, Louie F" , Scott Elliott , Scott Harris , Terri Easley , "Walters, Heather L" , "Warner, Benjamin R" , Terri Easley *Open Division:* partial octos 1. UTSA MT (7-0) - BYE 2. UCO KS (6-1) - BYE 3. Kansas CJ (5-2) - BYE 4. MoState KR (5-2) - BYE 12. Kansas JS* (4-3) def. 5. UCO SS (5-2) 11. MoState SS (4-3) def. 6. UMKC BS (5-2) 7. UMKC GJ (4-3) def 10. MoState HR (4-3) 9. UNT QW (4-3) def 8. MoState FG (4-3) * MoState HS was 12th seed, but precluded from clearing for the purpose of allowing visiting teams with a winning record to clear. *JV Division*: partial octos 1. UNT DN (6-1) 2. Oklahoma BM (5-2) 3. UCO EL (5-2) 4. JoCo BL (5-2) 5. UCO DW (5-2) 6. UTSA CM (4-3) def 11. Kansas CG (4-3) 10. Oklahoma KM (4-3) def 7. UNI NS (4-3) 8. UCO RW (4-3) def 9. KCKCC RT (4-3) Missing on points (4-3): UNT HT, UNT HS *Novice*: partial quarters 1. JoCo KS (7-0) 2. UTSA JM (6-1) 3. JoCo CL (5-2) def 6. KSU AJ (4-3) 5. Oklahoma OV (4-3) def 4. JoCo SU (5-2) Missing on points (4-3): UTSA GR, UMKC DF Monday pairings/panels released at 8am (or slightly before) at Clarion front desk. First Monday elim at 8:30am, with awards (Ballroom 1) to follow. Judging at 8:30am in the Clarion: Casey Chung Cram Crockett Davis Dipiazza Easley Elliott, D Elliott, S Gordon Halley Hamilton Henry Jarman Kearney Massey Murillo Pennington Petit Sabino Shook Snider Stanley Tews Tripe-Roberts Vega Warner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/a4429cbe/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Sep 27 23:11:22 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:11:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Thanks Message-ID: <9368bc9b0909272111m3cfe435dvd921f8a7c26d2313@mail.gmail.com> What a cool tournament. Thanks to Jim Lyle and all the clarionites. Combine a humane schedule(out friday and saturday night by reasonable times, home sunday night (after judging varsity finals) by 10 PM, a good draw (much of d7, bing wvu and usma from the northeast, wayne & john carroll, and fayeteville state from the southeast) and you get great competition. Add mike davis in tab, a well coordinated ballot running team and real time pairings through debate results and it gets even better. Throw in a great banquet and a diverse set of food options throughout the tournament and its hard to think of why i wouldnt go to this tournament any year i can. I also wanted to welcome Fayetteville State to the community, it was great to see a new school with several teams poised to break late into the tournament at their first ever debate tournament. Props to Pete Fountain, you may have the fastest debate learning curve i have ever seen. Also props to Tim O'Donnell for a quiet but dedicated effort to increase the diversity of voices contributing to the debate. Andy Ellis PS- Thanks to Liberty for being very hospitable to the judges they hire, maybe its normal for you, but for some one used to simply receiving cash sometime after round 8 when i hire out my judging, it was incredibly appreciated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/06a934dd/attachment.htm From blakejohnson at baudl.org Mon Sep 28 01:01:09 2009 From: blakejohnson at baudl.org (Blake Johnson) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:01:09 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Boston UDL and Boston Marathon In-Reply-To: <7c50ea8f0909251606q3c2a14bfm350a2d64a6fc8073@mail.gmail.com> References: <7c50ea8f0909251606q3c2a14bfm350a2d64a6fc8073@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7c50ea8f0909272301n72d61713tf87771e8583d35c0@mail.gmail.com> Forwarding along this message from the Boston Debate League... Debate Community, The Boston Debate League is proud to announce that we have been chosen as an official charity of the Boston Marathon?, the world?s oldest and most prestigious marathon! What does this mean? We are looking for runners (and runners-to-be) who want to join our team. Our preference is to offer these slots to individuals who are committed to debate in general, and urban debate specifically. Please forward this announcement to anyone you know who is running the Boston Marathon or might want to. Please check out our website at www.bostondebate.org for more information. As always, thank you for your support. Steve Stein Executive Director Boston Debate League -- Blake Johnson Executive Director Bay Area Urban Debate League www.baudl.org -- 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/20090927/f68ca535/attachment.htm From lawlruschang at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 02:15:51 2009 From: lawlruschang at gmail.com (Lawrence Chang) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:15:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for assistants - St. Mark's Message-ID: <82c497000909280015x7ea11a02j7ebc18b645cc71b3@mail.gmail.com> Clear Springs High School is looking for a few people to cut cards, formulate strategies, and work with us at the St. Mark's High School tournament October 23-25 in Dallas, TX. We will provide reasonable compensation. Send me an email or IM if interested: lawlruschang at gmail.com, AIM: lawlruschang. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/c01a835c/attachment.htm From antonucci23 at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 03:34:54 2009 From: antonucci23 at gmail.com (Michael Antonucci) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:34:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CSIS Bloggers and Coaches' Poll Message-ID: <4a71966c0909280134i15ad3406w5b14de043f4714a5@mail.gmail.com> I'm personally not that worried about Warden getting bounced from the casino. (Who is the mean unibrow in this metaphor?) The route from his publicly available, institutionally constrained blog to direct victories for any one team seems circuitous at best. I also don't see how he's any more or less invested in the community as a result of his blog. He's surely very supportive of Northwestern, but that's true regardless of his public writings. That said, Hester may have a very valid concern. If the coaches' poll is going to be a thing, maybe it could be transparent? Any form of competitive ranking in this community is potentially contentious, and public accountability seems the easiest fix. If you want a vote, you should be able to defend it. I have no problem with the game, but it's probably best that everyone keep their hands above the table to avoid accusations of rigging. Of course, it's informal and Seth's thing, so he can do it however he chooses. Just an idea to boost its legitimacy and avoid backlash. -- 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/20090928/761fbc8b/attachment.htm From jrlyle at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 10:22:48 2009 From: jrlyle at gmail.com (James Lyle) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:22:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion - Congrats and Thanks Message-ID: <25fd497f0909280822v1596d23dr3ea8740c99a26518@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to everyone for attending and helping us continue to grow the tournament. Thanks to Mike Davis for running tab and everyone else who chipped in to keep us on track (there are way too many to acknowledge individually). Congrats... 1. To Fayetteville State - 1st policy tournament in...ever?...with 5 teams and several in break rounds. 2. Binghamton and Wayne and JMU - Binghamton wins Novice and Varsity (and makes finals of JV), Wayne wins JV (and gets to finals of Varsity), JMU makes the finals of Novice. 3. Our supporters - You're good people. Thanks! Jim Lyle, Taylor Hahn, Rob Noerr, and the entire Clarion Debate Team From kurr.jeff at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 10:48:04 2009 From: kurr.jeff at gmail.com (Jeff Kurr) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:48:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Programs with Non-Comm Master's Grad Assistantships Message-ID: <718013f0909280848n23e0a8dfjd08715e13352e4e2@mail.gmail.com> Hey, Is there a list of schools where you could be an Assistant Coach or Grad Assistant for a debate program but be able to be in a non-Communication Master's program? Thanks. -- Jeff Kurr University of Pittsburgh 2011 Actuarial Mathematics, Finance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/4ad0162a/attachment.htm From berchnorto at msn.com Mon Sep 28 11:14:38 2009 From: berchnorto at msn.com (NEIL BERCH) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:14:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Thanks In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0909272111m3cfe435dvd921f8a7c26d2313@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0909272111m3cfe435dvd921f8a7c26d2313@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Let me second all of Andy's remarks, especially the welcome to Fayetteville (and welcome back, Greg Thomas!). We are, however, calling for the IOC to perform genetic testing on Mr. Fountain. He may be a space alien. --Neil Berch West Virginia University Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:11:22 -0400 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com To: eDebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Thanks What a cool tournament. Thanks to Jim Lyle and all the clarionites. Combine a humane schedule(out friday and saturday night by reasonable times, home sunday night (after judging varsity finals) by 10 PM, a good draw (much of d7, bing wvu and usma from the northeast, wayne & john carroll, and fayeteville state from the southeast) and you get great competition. Add mike davis in tab, a well coordinated ballot running team and real time pairings through debate results and it gets even better. Throw in a great banquet and a diverse set of food options throughout the tournament and its hard to think of why i wouldnt go to this tournament any year i can. I also wanted to welcome Fayetteville State to the community, it was great to see a new school with several teams poised to break late into the tournament at their first ever debate tournament. Props to Pete Fountain, you may have the fastest debate learning curve i have ever seen. Also props to Tim O'Donnell for a quiet but dedicated effort to increase the diversity of voices contributing to the debate. Andy Ellis PS- Thanks to Liberty for being very hospitable to the judges they hire, maybe its normal for you, but for some one used to simply receiving cash sometime after round 8 when i hire out my judging, it was incredibly appreciated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/21e8589e/attachment.htm From lukephill at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 11:35:02 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:35:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky Judging - last call Message-ID: With the entry deadline rapidly approaching Northwestern is still looking to hire judging for the Clay. If you are interested please let me know today, we pay well and in cash. Will hire any number of rounds you have available. LH lukephill at gmail.com Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/b6ff8d58/attachment.htm From jonahdebate at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 11:46:17 2009 From: jonahdebate at gmail.com (Jonah Feldman) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:46:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CSIS Bloggers, the National Poll, and conflicts of interest Message-ID: 1) JW can't vote for Northwestern in the poll 2) Northwestern doesn't read any cards from JW 3) JW isn't allowed within 200 yards of casino's or chucky cheese for...other reasons Hugs and Kisses, ----Jonah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/a2abdbf6/attachment.htm From malgor.debate at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 11:48:15 2009 From: malgor.debate at gmail.com (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:48:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] avery henry has rounds for sale at kentucky Message-ID: But he doesn't have an edebate account. 7 rounds for sale, price negotiable. e-mail axh4931 at louisiana.edu good day malgor -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/ee6cb743/attachment.htm From wdecker at gmu.edu Mon Sep 28 12:10:01 2009 From: wdecker at gmu.edu (Warren Decker) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:10:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Graduate Work at George Mason Message-ID: If you are considering working on an MA or PhD in Communication or other areas please consider coming to the Washington D.C. area and enjoy the atmosphere that the World's hub provides. We have significant support for individuals that are interested in assisting with the Debate program and we are looking for 2/4 individuals. The opportunities in this area are incredible. If interested contact Warren Decker. From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Mon Sep 28 12:14:19 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:14:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Rumor has it...Vermont results Message-ID: <4AC0EEEB.4020302@uvm.edu> Thanks for pointing that out, Andy. I posted the complete results to the Northeast Debate listserv but not edebate. Here it is: NOVICE Rochester DZ 3-0 over Cornell NW JV NYU DG 3-0 over Cornell RK OPEN Cornell HK 3-0 over Rochester KS WORLDS Bates EM wins. For complete results policy debate: http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/huber09policyresults.pdf See all ballots: http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/huber09policyballots.pdf For complete worlds results: http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/huber09wudcresults.pdf Vik Keenan (who did a great job in tab this weekend) is uploading all policy results to debateresults.com today. She arrived in NYC at 3 AM. Best wishes, Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From sethegannon at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 12:42:38 2009 From: sethegannon at gmail.com (Seth Gannon) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:42:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CSIS Bloggers and Coaches' Poll In-Reply-To: <4a71966c0909280134i15ad3406w5b14de043f4714a5@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a71966c0909280134i15ad3406w5b14de043f4714a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4bfbc1090909281042u59156019l690cd77a3efe6c33@mail.gmail.com> Brief (I hope, and you more so) thoughts on the poll's anonymity: After consulting, err--sorry, bad CSIS habit--after talking to some but certainly not all of the many people in the debate community whose advice I take as gospel, I decided to leave the poll confidential, at least for year one. The main concern was deterring smart, well-intentioned, otherwise-willing voters who would be able to defend their picks but wouldn?t have the requisite edebate time between GSU and Kentucky to do so. No points are awarded to any team the voter cannot judge. Warden?s enthusiasm for Northwestern, to take the going example, has no impact on the ratings and accounts for none of that school?s three first place votes. Now, of course, the poll?s opacity leaves it to the word of the Gannons that I don?t slide 15 first place votes over to the Demon Deacons every month (not that this is Antonucci?s concern). On that count, so be it. The word of the Gannons can be much vouched for, except perhaps by one Cromwell apologist who got taken to the cleaners with a rigged deck of cards in Galway in 1649, but those were tough times. I?d like to keep the poll consistent with my announcement for this year, but I could be fairly easily convinced to make it transparent next year, if that?s the community?s general sentiment. While the poll is informal and while everyone can make up their own minds re: its legitimacy, I?d certainly like it to be as legitimate and thus enjoyable as possible. Thanks again to everyone who voted or said they plan to next time. Good luck to all at their next tournament. Your friend, A.T. Tappman On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Michael Antonucci wrote: > I'm personally not that worried about Warden getting bounced from the > casino.? (Who is the mean unibrow in this metaphor?) > > The route from his publicly available, institutionally constrained blog to > direct victories for any one team seems circuitous at best.? I also don't > see how he's any more or less invested in the community as a result of his > blog.? He's surely very supportive of Northwestern, but that's true > regardless of his public writings. > > That said, Hester may have a very valid concern.? If the coaches' poll is > going to be a thing, maybe it could be transparent?? Any form of competitive > ranking in this community is potentially contentious, and public > accountability seems the easiest fix.? If you want a vote, you should be > able to defend it. > > I have no problem with the game, but it's probably best that everyone keep > their hands above the table to avoid accusations of rigging. > > Of course, it's informal and Seth's thing, so he can do it however he > chooses.? Just an idea to boost its legitimacy and avoid backlash. > > -- > Michael Antonucci > Debate Coach > Georgetown University > Mobile: 617-838-3345 > Office: 202-687-4079 > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From jbruschke at fullerton.edu Mon Sep 28 13:08:09 2009 From: jbruschke at fullerton.edu (jbruschke at fullerton.edu) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:08:09 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Tournament invitation hosted by George Mason Univers Message-ID: <1CDD09BCD9134827AB10257E9CB91E27@AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Name:Patriot Debates @ George Mason University Starts:1/15/2010 Ends:1/17/2010 Hosted by: George Mason Univers Contact: wdecker Address: 4400 University Dr Phone: 703-993-1093 On-line entry allowed: True AFA Open tournament (open to non-AFA members): True Divisions Offered: with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Octos with 6 prelims, expected to clear to: Not specified Other details are available at: http://www.debateresults.com This tournament may be offered in conjunction with an individual events tournament. If so, you will be notified by a separate email. From micksouders at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 13:14:47 2009 From: micksouders at gmail.com (Michael Souders) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:14:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Poll Legitimacy Message-ID: <899735480909281114m6371dc4axe33465e67851d912@mail.gmail.com> Institutional control over voters is important to legitimacy, if legitimacy matters.. One ballot per school ostensibly submitted by the person in charge of the debate team there. I don?t know whether that?s Warden or not but it seems like a simple series of questions to answer: Is Warden a coach of a participating school? If not, no vote. If so, is he authorized to speak on behalf of the school? If not, no vote. If so, vote. At some level transparency is a bit irrelevant to me. Obvi, the voters and their credentials should be disclosed. I even think that maybe voting records should be released at the end of the year. But listening to everyone complain and moan at everyone else because of their ranking all year? Not interested. Don?t trust the voters? Don?t have a poll. Or don?t pay any attention to it. The credibility of the ranking and those who are voting on it is a good argument for the off-season, not yet another problem for intense public wrangling during the season. Wait until the jury is in to evaluate the situation of an UNOFFICIAL poll. I don?t like the old ?you should be able to defend your rankings? line. That sounds more like ?if I have a problem with your rankings I should get to complain endlessly and publicly about them.? Or ?I should get to lobby/intimidate people about the rankings.? That?s probably not what?s initially intended, but I?d bet that what it turns into. Lame. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/922cb305/attachment.htm From lukephill at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 14:08:06 2009 From: lukephill at gmail.com (Luke Hill) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:08:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kentucky Judging - last call Message-ID: With the entry deadline rapidly approaching Northwestern is still looking to hire judging for the Clay. If you are interested please let me know today, we pay well and in cash. Will hire any number of rounds you have available. LH lukephill at gmail.com Luke P. Hill Program Coordinator Northwestern Debate Society 847-467-0345 (o) 678-852-9280 (c) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/9ff2b0c1/attachment.htm From twoan318 at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 17:11:32 2009 From: twoan318 at gmail.com (Tansy Woan) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:11:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] rounds available for kentucky Message-ID: If anyone needs judging, feel free to backchannel me and let me know. Bing has 6 rounds available. Thanks! Tansy On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 1:00 PM, wrote: > Send eDebate mailing list submissions to > edebate at www.ndtceda.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of eDebate digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Fwd: Bear Shock, Round 5 Pairings (Eric Morris) > 2. Coaches' Poll -- National Top 25 as of 9/26/09 (Seth Gannon) > 3. dietary information and total numbers attending needed for > Henry Clay (SOLT, ROGER E) > 4. First year teams and debaters at the Henry Clay (SOLT, ROGER E) > 5. Rumor has it (Andy Ellis) > 6. Bear Shock Round 6 (11:45am) (Eric Morris) > 7. caselist- the subscription message (Andrea Reed) > 8. Re: rr pairings (Darren Elliott) > 9. Clay judging and other details (Gary Larson) > 10. Fwd: Bear Shock Round 7 (Eric Morris) > 11. Coaches' Poll -- National Top 25 as of 9/26/09 (Seth Gannon) > 12. Re: CSIS Bloggers, the National Poll, and conflicts of > interest (michael hester) > 13. Paperless Tip From the Spectator's Gallery (James Maritato) > 14. Fwd: Bear Shock Sunday Elims Results, Seed Positions, Monday > Judging (Eric Morris) > 15. Clarion Thanks (Andy Ellis) > 16. Boston UDL and Boston Marathon (Blake Johnson) > 17. Looking for assistants - St. Mark's (Lawrence Chang) > 18. CSIS Bloggers and Coaches' Poll (Michael Antonucci) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 07:46:29 -0500 > From: Eric Morris > Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Bear Shock, Round 5 Pairings > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <6bd35ee10909270546k4ef0769cl2a7e4d9dca47695d at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Eric Morris > Date: Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 8:53 PM > Subject: Bear Shock, Round 5 Pairings > To: Eric Morris > > > The round begins at 8am. Round 6 is powered off of Rounds 1-5. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/99776b8d/attachment.html > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Bear Shock Rd 5.doc > Type: application/msword > Size: 31232 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/99776b8d/attachment-0001.doc > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:12:54 -0400 > From: Seth Gannon > Subject: [eDebate] Coaches' Poll -- National Top 25 as of 9/26/09 > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <4bfbc1090909270712h668cb6bdt4692838b200ececa at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Team (First Place Votes) ? Points Per Eligible Ballot > > 1. UT Dallas BR (19) -- 24.86 > 2. Northwestern FS (3) -- 23.62 > 3. Emory IW -- 23.33 > 4. California BP -- 21.14 > 5. West Georgia BS -- 19.71 > 6. Harvard JP -- 19.68 > 7. Whitman CS -- 17.76 > 8. Wake Forest MS -- 17.37 > 9. Michigan State LW -- 17.05 > 10. Baylor CM -- 14.41 > 11. Georgia CL -- 14.38 > 12. Oklahoma GW -- 13.41 > 13. California BJ -- 12.90 > 14. Kansas KS -- 11.23 > 15. Missouri State FK -- 9.23 > 16. Mary Washington -- 8.19 > 17. Emory GJ -- 7.38 > 18. Idaho State JJ -- 6.48 > 19. Kansas KQ -- 6.05 > 20. Harvard KR -- 5.82 > 21. Towson JM -- 5.36 > 22. Gonzaga CJ -- 4.67 > 23. Emory NS -- 4.48 > 24. Trinity BH -- 4.14 > 25. Southern California HL -- 2.00 > > Also receiving votes (alphabetical): Baylor LR, California GW, Central > Oklahoma KS, > Georgetown HM, Georgia HL, Harvard BH, Iowa SV, Kansas PW, Kansas > State HW, Kansas State MZ, Michigan GC, Michigan State GS, North Texas > PR, Northwestern BK, Northwestern GL, Samford BG, UT San Antonio MT, > Vanderbilt BN, Wake CC, Wichita State BR. > > Voters (and collaborations I know of): Arnett (and Reed), Atchison, > Burk, S. Chung, Davis, Frappier, Gannon, Gerber, Hardy, Harrigan, > Harris, J. Herndon, Hester, Johnson (and the Iowa coaches), Odekirk, > Paul, Repko, Ryan (and Struth), Symonds, Thompson (and Battocletti), > Vega, Warden. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:51:18 -0400 > From: "SOLT, ROGER E" > Subject: [eDebate] dietary information and total numbers attending > needed for Henry Clay > To: "edebate at www.ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Please try to finalize your entries as soon as possible. In particular, > note the following: > > > 1. We need an accurate count on vegans and vegetarians, especially for > the individually catered box lunches we are serving on Saturday. > 2. We need an accurate total body count for the same reason and to know > how much to charge you. > 3. Some judges are still listed as filling an 8 round commitment. This > is impossible in a 7 round tournament. > 4. Please enter any additions, deletions, or changes as soon as possible. > > Thanks. We look forward to seeing you in Lexington. > > Roger Solt > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/fa502edb/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:06:58 -0400 > From: "SOLT, ROGER E" > Subject: [eDebate] First year teams and debaters at the Henry Clay > To: "edebate at www.ndtceda.com" > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Teams composed of two first year debaters are eligible for a separate > elimination bracket at the University of Kentucky tournament. > > All first year debaters are eligible for the "top first year debater" > speaker award. > > I've listed first year teams and individual debaters below. Please let me > know if there are any errors or omissions. > > First year teams: > > 1. Dartmouth-Armstrong & Balisteri > 2. Dartmouth-Donlan & Smyser > 3. Dartmouth-Lee & Shim > 4. Dartmouth-Gonzalez & Vance > 5. Emory-Holland & Zevell > 6. Emory-Deunzel & Rains > 7. Emory-Gordon & Jagadeesh > 8. Florida-Novaes & Tellez > 9. Florida-Arias & Dobies > 10. George Mason-Nichols & Kyagaba > 11. Georgetown-Rodarte & Shen > 12. Geogia-Zhang & Sudarshan > 13. Iowa-Hunt & Peterson > 14. James Madison-Brass & Veland > 15. Michigan State-Kowalski & Stoecker > 16. Michigan State-Lin & McIntosh > 17. Michigan-Almeter & Karabulut > 18. Minnesota-Sadagopal & Williams > 19. Missouri State-Hart & Wiley > 20. Northwestern-Layton & Mair > 21. Texas-Bhattacharjjee & Gulakov > 22. Tiniity-Hagney & Murray > 23. Wake Forest-Bailey & Miller > > Individual first year debaters: > > 1. Baylor-Kaut > 2. Emory-Rab > 3. Emory-Chlistunoff > 4. Emory-Ma > 5. Emory-Gupta > 6. Georgia-Layton > 7. Harvard-Rogan > 8. Illinois State-Pickert > 9. Louisiana-Lafayette-Brasseaux > 10. Michigan State-Leap > 11. Michigan-Bloom > 12. Michigan-Deming > 13. Minnesota-Anderson > 14. Missouri State-Rumbaugh > 15. Missouri State-Schmitz > 16. Northwestern-Xu > 17. Northwestern-Lee > 18. Northwestern-Shao > 19. Southern California-Hernandez > 20. Texas-Shear > 21. Towson-Crossan > 22. Towson-Bey > 23. Trinity-Uzman > 24. Wake-Thies > 25. Wake-Godwin > 26. West Georgia-Boykin > > Roger Solt > Resolt2 at email.uky.edu > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/1bda390b/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:07:40 -0400 > From: Andy Ellis > Subject: [eDebate] Rumor has it > To: edebate > Message-ID: > <9368bc9b0909270907n3ccc2273m89d096b875bc437e at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > That vermont had a tournament this weekend...any word on breaks? Checked > global debate blog, facebook, and debate results, is there somewhere else i > should be looking? > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/6dfed875/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:09:19 -0500 > From: Eric Morris > Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock Round 6 (11:45am) > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <6bd35ee10909270909q5f3c47c0u44d61d62c7a33256 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > not 11:30. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/d5e78c65/attachment-0001.htm > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Bear Shock Rd 6.doc > Type: application/msword > Size: 31232 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/d5e78c65/attachment-0001.doc > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:34:51 -0500 > From: Andrea Reed > Subject: [eDebate] caselist- the subscription message > To: e Debate > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes > > Several people have asked me if the caselist wiki is expiring or if > they need to sign up again because their subscription was cancelled... > > No. That message is showing up at the top of the wiki because JP got > a temporary premium upgrade when he archived last years list. That > upgrade is up now, the message is annoying, I don't know when it will > go away. > > But, nothing is wrong, you can still post as normal, and you don't > need to re-join if you are already a member. > > Andrea > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:36:26 -0500 > From: Darren Elliott > Subject: Re: [eDebate] rr pairings > To: Malcolm Gordon , "edebate at ndtceda.com" > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > i'd like to thank Malcolm for still traveling this weekend to the missouri > state tournament (there is no BBQ here, but he is judging debates and > managing teams across 2 divisions). It would have been legitimate for him > to pack it in and stay in KC to watch the Chiefs on television or attend the > last Royals home game with Grienke pitching, his Cy Young votes hanging in > the balance. Surely the positive comments he provides in his post round > critiques and all around jovial attitude will pay off despite the > disadvantage to the hometown sports teams. And I hope he doesnt make > himiself sick trying to cut cards all afternoon playing catchup after these > important sports matchups are concluded. > > chief > > good luck to the Chiefs and Zack Grienke. And Harvard. > > ________________________________ > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of Malcolm Gordon [malgor.debate at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 10:16 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] rr pairings > > i'd like to thank OU for still traveling this weekend to the missouri state > tournament (RJ and nick aren't here, but their entire coaching staff is > managing teams across all 3 divisions). It would have been legitimate for > them to pack it in and prepare for the RR. Surely the positive vibes will > pay off despite the competitive disadvantage. And I hope Gabe and Russell > don't make themselves sick trying to cut cards all night to play catchup, > after judging all day. > > malgor > > good luck to the D3 RR reps OU and UTD. And Harvard. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/19e4a1c6/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:45:59 -0500 > From: "Gary Larson" > Subject: [eDebate] Clay judging and other details > To: "Edebate" > Message-ID: <4ABF6C97.3F5C.0033.0 at wheaton.edu> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > As of this AM there are 144 teams at Kentucky. This means that with 4 > rounds of commitment per team, we need 576 rounds. Only 513 rounds have > been committed so far so we need 63 more rounds. Additionally, some judges > are currently in for 8 rounds, rather difficult since there are only 7 > preliminary rounds. > > I'd appreciate it if everyone would solidify their judging as soon as > possible. We will turn on the pref entry on Tuesday night so it would be > best to have as accurate a list as possible at that point. If you have > constraints that aren't entered on Bruschke's system, please send them to me > directly. > > Two innovations this year - we will be giving judges the option of > receiving and submitting ballots via e-mail (a slight variation on what Jon > is doing). If you would like to participate, I need to have you enter you > enter your e-mail on Bruschke's site AND communicate you intent to > participate to me. THANKS > > We also will use "round-weighted" ordinal preferences similar to those used > at Georgia State. You will enter ordinal preferences the way you have in > the past. But they be computed as a percentage of the entire judging pool > based on the number of rounds of obligation for each judge. For example, if > the judging pool ends up with 576 rounds and 26 of those rounds represent > judges you are constrained against and your #1 rated judge has a 4-round > commitment, they will have a RW ordinal of 4/550 or .73%. If the next judge > also has a 4-round commitment, they would be 1.46% and so on. > > The reasoning behind the RW ordinal is that if there are 140 judges in the > pool that have commitments that range from 1 to 7 rounds, the ordering of > the judges should take into consideration how many rounds the judge will > hear. Otherwise a sheet that ranks all of the low commitment judges as best > and one that ranks all of the high commitment judges are actually quite > different, particularly if you ask the question of whether all of your > judges were in the top "half." It is potentially quite different to ask > whether they were all in the top 70 judges or the top 275 rounds with the > latter being more accurate and comparable. > > If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. > > GARY > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/ef6c487e/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:47:45 -0500 > From: Eric Morris > Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Bear Shock Round 7 > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <6bd35ee10909271247t25cd981aqa9d42cf5f5220b96 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > dd > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/06e419c1/attachment-0001.htm > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: Bear Shock Rd 7.doc > Type: application/msword > Size: 31744 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/06e419c1/attachment-0001.doc > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:31:59 -0400 > From: Seth Gannon > Subject: [eDebate] Coaches' Poll -- National Top 25 as of 9/26/09 > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <4bfbc1090909271331j375c9b93t761b44b69f33a8de at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Team (First Place Votes) ? Points Per Eligible Ballot > > 1. UT Dallas BR (19) -- 24.86 > 2. Northwestern FS (3) -- 23.62 > 3. Emory IW -- 23.33 > 4. California BP -- 21.14 > 5. West Georgia BS -- 19.71 > 6. Harvard JP -- 19.68 > 7. Whitman CS -- 17.76 > 8. Wake Forest MS -- 17.37 > 9. Michigan State LW -- 17.05 > 10. Baylor CM -- 14.41 > 11. Georgia CL -- 14.38 > 12. Oklahoma GW -- 13.41 > 13. California BJ -- 12.90 > 14. Kansas KS -- 11.23 > 15. Missouri State FK -- 9.23 > 16. Mary Washington -- 8.19 > 17. Emory GJ -- 7.38 > 18. Idaho State JJ -- 6.48 > 19. Kansas KQ -- 6.05 > 20. Harvard KR -- 5.82 > 21. Towson JM -- 5.36 > 22. Gonzaga CJ -- 4.67 > 23. Emory NS -- 4.48 > 24. Trinity BH -- 4.14 > 25. Southern California HL -- 2.00 > > Also receiving votes (alphabetical): Baylor LR, California GW, Central > Oklahoma KS, Georgetown HM, Georgia HL, Harvard BH, Iowa SV, Kansas PW, > Kansas > State HW, Kansas State MZ, Michigan GC, Michigan State GS, North Texas > PR, Northwestern BK, Northwestern GL, Samford BG, UT San Antonio MT, > Vanderbilt BN, Wake CC, Wichita State BR. > > Voters (and collaborations I know of): Arnett (and Reed), Atchison, > Burk, S. Chung, Davis, Frappier, Gannon, Gerber, Hardy, Harrigan, > Harris, J. Herndon, Hester, Johnson (and the Iowa coaches), Odekirk, > Paul, Repko, Ryan (and Struth), Symonds, Thompson (and Battocletti), > Vega, Warden. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:58:51 -0400 > From: michael hester > Subject: Re: [eDebate] CSIS Bloggers, the National Poll, and > conflicts > of interest > To: Seth Gannon > Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <2e0f7ba70909271358j5c0c5487k42f4f49424f17687 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Is that John Warden on the list of voters? doesn't he currently work > at the CSIS, blogging about the topic? haven't debaters read CSIS blog > evidence in rounds? > > hmph. if this were a Vegas casino, large mean with unibrows would be > escorting him from the building and informing him his money's "no good > here." > > worried about the integrity of the game, > hester > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Seth Gannon > wrote: > > Team (First Place Votes) ? Points Per Eligible Ballot > > > > 1. UT Dallas BR (19) -- 24.86 > > 2. Northwestern FS (3) -- 23.62 > > 3. Emory IW -- 23.33 > > 4. California BP -- 21.14 > > 5. West Georgia BS -- 19.71 > > 6. Harvard JP -- 19.68 > > 7. Whitman CS -- 17.76 > > 8. Wake Forest MS -- 17.37 > > 9. Michigan State LW -- 17.05 > > 10. Baylor CM -- 14.41 > > 11. Georgia CL -- 14.38 > > 12. Oklahoma GW -- 13.41 > > 13. California BJ -- 12.90 > > 14. Kansas KS -- 11.23 > > 15. Missouri State FK -- 9.23 > > 16. Mary Washington -- 8.19 > > 17. Emory GJ -- 7.38 > > 18. Idaho State JJ -- 6.48 > > 19. Kansas KQ -- 6.05 > > 20. Harvard KR -- 5.82 > > 21. Towson JM -- 5.36 > > 22. Gonzaga CJ -- 4.67 > > 23. Emory NS -- 4.48 > > 24. Trinity BH -- 4.14 > > 25. Southern California HL -- 2.00 > > > > Also receiving votes (alphabetical): Baylor LR, California GW, Central > > Oklahoma KS, > > Georgetown HM, Georgia HL, Harvard BH, Iowa SV, Kansas PW, Kansas > > State HW, Kansas State MZ, Michigan GC, Michigan State GS, North Texas > > PR, Northwestern BK, Northwestern GL, Samford BG, UT San Antonio MT, > > Vanderbilt BN, Wake CC, Wichita State BR. > > > > Voters (and collaborations I know of): Arnett (and Reed), Atchison, > > Burk, S. Chung, Davis, Frappier, Gannon, Gerber, Hardy, Harrigan, > > Harris, J. Herndon, Hester, Johnson (and the Iowa coaches), Odekirk, > > Paul, Repko, Ryan (and Struth), Symonds, Thompson (and Battocletti), > > Vega, Warden. > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:37:33 -0400 > From: James Maritato > Subject: [eDebate] Paperless Tip From the Spectator's Gallery > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Hello All, > > Not doing much debate these days, but ran across an interesting program on > the Internet that allows you to take pictures of books with your digital > camera, upload the pictures, automagically clean them up and uncurve the > pages, and convert them to PDF. http://snapter.atiz.com/ > > It's not free, but you can try it for 14 days for free, and beyond that it > only costs $50. If you have a digital camera laying around, this may be an > alternative way to get information in books into cards without the time it > takes to scan each side of a book. > > -JM > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/87deaf18/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 22:37:01 -0500 > From: Eric Morris > Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Bear Shock Sunday Elims Results, Seed > Positions, Monday Judging > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <6bd35ee10909272037t402d1dd6m420c7619bb1fd3a1 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Eric Morris > Date: Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:36 PM > Subject: Bear Shock Sunday Elims Results, Seed Positions, Monday Judging > To: richard.tews at uni.edu, ben warner , Brian Lain < > blain at unt.edu>, Eric Marlow , Heather Walters < > HeatherWalters at missouristate.edu>, Jackie Massey , Jeffrey > Jarman , Justin Green , > Justin > Green , Justin Stanley , > Lindsey > Shook , Louie Petit , Louie > Petit , Matt Vega , Matthew Vega < > matthewjvega at gmail.com>, "Petit, Louie F" , > Scott > Elliott , Scott Harris , Terri > Easley , "Walters, Heather L" < > hlw267f at missouristate.edu>, > "Warner, Benjamin R" , Terri Easley < > terri.easley at gmail.com > > > > > *Open Division:* partial octos > 1. UTSA MT (7-0) - BYE > 2. UCO KS (6-1) - BYE > 3. Kansas CJ (5-2) - BYE > 4. MoState KR (5-2) - BYE > 12. Kansas JS* (4-3) def. 5. UCO SS (5-2) > 11. MoState SS (4-3) def. 6. UMKC BS (5-2) > 7. UMKC GJ (4-3) def 10. MoState HR (4-3) > 9. UNT QW (4-3) def 8. MoState FG (4-3) > * MoState HS was 12th seed, but precluded from clearing for the purpose of > allowing visiting teams with a winning record to clear. > > *JV Division*: partial octos > 1. UNT DN (6-1) > 2. Oklahoma BM (5-2) > 3. UCO EL (5-2) > 4. JoCo BL (5-2) > 5. UCO DW (5-2) > 6. UTSA CM (4-3) def 11. Kansas CG (4-3) > 10. Oklahoma KM (4-3) def 7. UNI NS (4-3) > 8. UCO RW (4-3) def 9. KCKCC RT (4-3) > Missing on points (4-3): UNT HT, UNT HS > > *Novice*: partial quarters > 1. JoCo KS (7-0) > 2. UTSA JM (6-1) > 3. JoCo CL (5-2) def 6. KSU AJ (4-3) > 5. Oklahoma OV (4-3) def 4. JoCo SU (5-2) > Missing on points (4-3): UTSA GR, UMKC DF > > Monday pairings/panels released at 8am (or slightly before) at Clarion > front > desk. > > First Monday elim at 8:30am, with awards (Ballroom 1) to follow. > > Judging at 8:30am in the Clarion: > Casey > Chung > Cram > Crockett > Davis > Dipiazza > Easley > Elliott, D > Elliott, S > Gordon > Halley > Hamilton > Henry > Jarman > Kearney > Massey > Murillo > Pennington > Petit > Sabino > Shook > Snider > Stanley > Tews > Tripe-Roberts > Vega > Warner > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090927/a4429cbe/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:11:22 -0400 > From: Andy Ellis > Subject: [eDebate] Clarion Thanks > To: edebate > Message-ID: > <9368bc9b0909272111m3cfe435dvd921f8a7c26d2313 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > What a cool tournament. Thanks to Jim Lyle and all the clarionites. Combine > a humane schedule(out friday and saturday night by reasonable times, home > sunday night (after judging varsity finals) by 10 PM, a good draw (much of > d7, bing wvu and usma from the northeast, wayne & john carroll, and > fayeteville state from the southeast) and you get great competition. Add > mike davis in tab, a well coordinated ballot running team and real time > pairings through debate results and it gets even better. Throw in a great > banquet and a diverse set of food options throughout the tournament and its > hard to think of why i wouldnt go to this tournament any year i can. > I also wanted to welcome Fayetteville State to the community, it was great > to see a new school with several teams poised to break late into the > tournament at their first ever debate tournament. > > Props to Pete Fountain, you may have the fastest debate learning curve i > have ever seen. > > Also props to Tim O'Donnell for a quiet but dedicated effort to increase > the > diversity of voices contributing to the debate. > > Andy Ellis > PS- Thanks to Liberty for being very hospitable to the judges they hire, > maybe its normal for you, but for some one used to simply receiving cash > sometime after round 8 when i hire out my judging, it was incredibly > appreciated. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/06a934dd/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 16 > Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:01:09 -0700 > From: Blake Johnson > Subject: [eDebate] Boston UDL and Boston Marathon > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <7c50ea8f0909272301n72d61713tf87771e8583d35c0 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Forwarding along this message from the Boston Debate League... > > > Debate Community, > > The Boston Debate League is proud to announce that we have been chosen as > an > official charity of the Boston Marathon?, the world?s oldest and most > prestigious marathon! What does this mean? We are looking for runners (and > runners-to-be) who want to join our team. Our preference is to offer these > slots to individuals who are committed to debate in general, and urban > debate specifically. Please forward this announcement to anyone you know > who > is running the Boston Marathon or might want to. Please check out our > website at www.bostondebate.org for more information. > > As always, thank you for your support. > > > Steve Stein > > Executive Director > > Boston Debate League > > > -- > Blake Johnson > Executive Director > Bay Area Urban Debate League > www.baudl.org > > > > > -- > 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/20090927/f68ca535/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 17 > Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:15:51 -0500 > From: Lawrence Chang > Subject: [eDebate] Looking for assistants - St. Mark's > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Message-ID: > <82c497000909280015x7ea11a02j7ebc18b645cc71b3 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Clear Springs High School is looking for a few people to cut cards, > formulate strategies, and work with us at the St. Mark's High School > tournament October 23-25 in Dallas, TX. We will provide reasonable > compensation. Send me an email or IM if interested: > lawlruschang at gmail.com, > AIM: lawlruschang. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/c01a835c/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 18 > Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:34:54 -0400 > From: Michael Antonucci > Subject: [eDebate] CSIS Bloggers and Coaches' Poll > To: College Debate Listserv > Message-ID: > <4a71966c0909280134i15ad3406w5b14de043f4714a5 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I'm personally not that worried about Warden getting bounced from the > casino. (Who is the mean unibrow in this metaphor?) > > The route from his publicly available, institutionally constrained blog to > direct victories for any one team seems circuitous at best. I also don't > see how he's any more or less invested in the community as a result of his > blog. He's surely very supportive of Northwestern, but that's true > regardless of his public writings. > > That said, Hester may have a very valid concern. If the coaches' poll is > going to be a thing, maybe it could be transparent? Any form of > competitive > ranking in this community is potentially contentious, and public > accountability seems the easiest fix. If you want a vote, you should be > able to defend it. > > I have no problem with the game, but it's probably best that everyone keep > their hands above the table to avoid accusations of rigging. > > Of course, it's informal and Seth's thing, so he can do it however he > chooses. Just an idea to boost its legitimacy and avoid backlash. > > -- > 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/20090928/761fbc8b/attachment-0001.htm > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > End of eDebate Digest, Vol 48, Issue 28 > *************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/a0d92c62/attachment.htm From max.o.archer at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 17:16:34 2009 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:16:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] augustana needs to hire 4 rounds in vegas Message-ID: <1944fe1d0909281516qf8b3406s8c2ac761c2f178b9@mail.gmail.com> Augustana is looking to hire 4 rounds at the unlv tournament. please backchannel if interested. max archer dod augustana college -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/01be5785/attachment.htm From lacyjp at wfu.edu Mon Sep 28 21:16:09 2009 From: lacyjp at wfu.edu (JP Lacy) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:16:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 2009 Franklin R. Shirley Classic Invitation Message-ID: <4AC16DE9.2050407@wfu.edu> The Shirley is my favorite tournament of all time. To me, it's at least as important as any family holiday. This year is especially important, as we'll be remembering the person who taught me almost everything I know about debate, Ross Smith. I'll hope you'll be able to join us for what looks to be a fantastic weekend of debating, socializing & remembering! As usual, the invitation is subject to reasonable changes. Debateresults should be open for entries if I did everything correctly -- JP Lacy lacyjp at wfu.edu *2009 Shirley Invitation Basics* Intercollegiate policy debate programs are invited to enter two teams in the 2009 Franklin R. Shirley Classic, November 21-23, 2009, hosted by Wake Forest University. Schools may enter more than two teams subject to the conditions listed below. This year's Shirley will be held in concurrence with a Remembrance commemorating the life and career of Ross Kennedy Smith, which take place Saturday evening, November 21st. *New This Year* 6 Prelims. (Not completely new.) 3 prelims followed by the Ross Remembrance Saturday. 3 prelims, & first elim Sunday. 4 elims Monday. * Ross Kennedy Smith Remembrance* We are planning a Remembrance to commemorate the life and career of Ross Smith, Wake Forest's long time Debate Coach & Director of Debate, on Saturday, November 21st. All family, friends, alumni & the debate community are invited. A reception featuring light appetizers and refreshments will begin at 6 pm with the main program beginning at 7 pm. A gathering of friends will follow at 10 pm at the Winston-Salem Marriott. *Same As Always* 1. Friendly, efficient & fun. 2. Entry process & qualifications. 3. Hospitality. There will be coffee, bagels & Krispy Kreme. There will be a Survivor's Party Monday night. 4. Scouting. 5. Frosh/Soph breakout. Any team where both partners have not completed two full years of college policy debate is eligible. We will clear at least to quarters. 6. Strict time limits for judge decisions in elims as well as prelims. Time allotted for post round discussion. We run on time. *Entries* Entries of two teams per school will be accepted until midnight October 28 on a first come, first served basis until we have reached our 150 team limit (this limit is necessary due to classroom and other facility limitations). Schools may apply for more teams by adding them to the waitlist subject to the following: As space permits, we will take additional teams, up to a total of four teams per school, as long as ALL THREE OR FOUR teams have cleared to elims in TWO varsity tournaments this fall. If both debaters on the team EITHER cleared twice this fall OR qualified for NDT in the past OR reached elimination rounds at CEDA Nationals in the past, the team is considered to have met the "cleared twice" requirement. No fourth team from a school will be accepted until all eligible third teams from other schools have been accepted. Waivers of the entry rules may be granted at the discretion of the WFU coaching staff. *Judging* Each school must provide 3 rounds of prelim judging for each of their first two teams and 4 rounds of judging for each additional team. As a normative rule, all coaches are expected to make themselves available for at least some judging and will be on the pref sheet. If you are hiring judging from outside of your school's staff/alumni, and the tournament cannot place your judges into the required number of rounds, the tournament reserves the right to: 1) adjust the judging obligations of your other judges (adding rounds of commitment to those of your judges who are easier to place), and/or 2) charge your school $30.00 per round of unmet obligation. Prelim rounds must be decided within two hours and forty-five minutes of the posted start time of the debate. The tab room will flip a coin to determine the winner when the judge cannot decide in time. Elim rounds must be decided within three hours of the posted/announced start time of the debate. The tab room will flip a coin to determine the winner when the judge cannot decide in time. Judges must vote for one and only one team in each debate and must assign speaker points and ranks in prelim rounds Fifteen minutes minimum will be allocated to post round discussion of the decision, but we must ask that the post-round cease 15 minutes after the decision deadline so debaters can move on to their next debate with adequate and fair time. *Speaker Points* A 100 point scale will be used. We'll share a graph showing the distribution of points from last year. *Caselist & Scouting* Participating teams and schools are expected to contribute to http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com and should provide their most recent affirmative and negative information by the Tuesday before the tournament at latest. Teams and schools should cooperate with Wake Forest students and staff assigned to gather material. *Audio & Video Recording* All rounds (defined as the speeches and judge critiques) are open to the public and may be electronically recorded for private educational use by any tournament participants (registered coaches, debaters and helpers, and Wake Forest tournament staff) only. Public distribution of such recordings is expressly prohibited unless prior written consent of all people on the recording is obtained and unless prior written consent of Wake Forest University is obtained. Private sharing for educational use is permitted. *Tabulation & Pairing* We will use an ordinal MPJ system run on STA. Rounds one and two preset. The other 4 prelims individually power paired hi-low within brackets. Top 32 teams clear on basis of adjusted points, opp wins, total points, twice adjusted points, ranks, random number. Brackets broken in elims. Side equalization procedure used for elims. *Frosh/Soph Breakout* Teams comprised of two debaters both of whom are still in their first or second year of debate who do not clear into the doubles are eligible to clear into the Frosh/Soph breakout. We will clear at least 8 teams. Suggestions for a name for this division are more than appreciated. * Fees* Tournament fees are $70.00 per person (debaters, coaches, judges, scouts.) This is an increase from previous years necessary to maintain the type of amenities we have provided in the past. We don't anticipate any profit from the event. *Tournament Hotel* We are very excited to be back downtown this year. This is a great property. Downtown eateries have experienced major growth recently, with a good deal of late night options available. The Winston-Salem Marriot, 425 North Cherry Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101. 336 725 3500 Rate: $109.00 per night plus taxes and fees. All elims will be held here. Make reservations online at http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/intmc?groupCode=scdscda&app=resvlink&fromDate=11/19/09&toDate=11/24/09 The Sundance, 3050 University Parkway, Winston-Salem, NC 27105 (336-723-2911) Rate: $??? per room per night plus taxes and fees Includes wireless internet, parking, and continental breakfast daily. *Rental Vans* For vans of all sizes, ask for the Wake Forest Debate rate at Triangle, http://www.trianglerentacar.com/ *Hospitality* Krispy Kreme, coffee, juice, bagels in the mornings. Water, sodas, aspirin, snacks throughout. Lunch on Saturday and Sunday. Food Sunday night, plus the usual Survivors Party^(TM) on Monday night after the start of the final round. *Conduc*t All participants debate at the invitation of Wake Forest University according to its tournament rules as well as any rules of their sponsoring institutions. We abide by all rules and norms of CEDA and the AFA, including but not limited to CEDA's sexual harassment policy. *Miscellaneous Important Stuff *Topic: the 2009-2010 CEDA resolution, Time limits: 9-3-6, Judges should post their judge philosophy at debateresults.com, Judges should be sure all conflicts of interest are noted at debateresults.com, *Schedule -- To follow* Registration Friday 6-9 pm at the Marriott, round 1& 2 pairings released at 9 pm. Saturday: 3 prelims, followed by the Ross Remembrance event Sunday: 3 prelims & 1st elim Monday: 4 elims -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/7b71bf71/attachment.htm From gfrappier at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 22:03:03 2009 From: gfrappier at gmail.com (Glen Frappier) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:03:03 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Vegas Room Sharing/Judging Message-ID: <7a803e390909282003x725ad0b4v370c847cd5698dfc@mail.gmail.com> gonzaga is looking for the following: a) a team that would like to co-op on room sharing at vegas. we have a female debater and would like to split room costs. b) a judge to hire for a few rounds of commitment. we pay cash at the tournament. If you can help us out with either of these contact me at this email. Thanks. glen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/8aefcdf5/attachment.htm From sailorferrets at gmail.com Mon Sep 28 22:40:12 2009 From: sailorferrets at gmail.com (joe leeson-schatz) Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:40:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] 6 KY Rounds for Sale Message-ID: Back channel me if you have interest. We've got 6 available. joe leeson-schatz director of debate at binghamton university campaigns coordinator of the binghamton/vestal vegan association -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090928/800a93e4/attachment.htm From uwgdebate at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 00:49:59 2009 From: uwgdebate at gmail.com (michael hester) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:49:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CSIS Bloggers and Coaches' Poll In-Reply-To: <4a71966c0909280134i15ad3406w5b14de043f4714a5@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a71966c0909280134i15ad3406w5b14de043f4714a5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2e0f7ba70909282249m7b7afe85na082388342e2941c@mail.gmail.com> i didn't have any concerns. i was just poking fun of the CSIS controversy earlier, and giving an indirect shout-out to my fellow ATLien JWard (hooty-hoo J-Dub!). i love the poll, anonymity and all. Seth rocks. Warden rocks. the 'Nooch rocks. most of all, DethKlok Rocks. hester On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Michael Antonucci wrote: > I'm personally not that worried about Warden getting bounced from the > casino. (Who is the mean unibrow in this metaphor?) > > The route from his publicly available, institutionally constrained blog to > direct victories for any one team seems circuitous at best. I also don't > see how he's any more or less invested in the community as a result of his > blog. He's surely very supportive of Northwestern, but that's true > regardless of his public writings. > > That said, Hester may have a very valid concern. If the coaches' poll is > going to be a thing, maybe it could be transparent? Any form of competitive > ranking in this community is potentially contentious, and public > accountability seems the easiest fix. If you want a vote, you should be > able to defend it. > > I have no problem with the game, but it's probably best that everyone keep > their hands above the table to avoid accusations of rigging. > > Of course, it's informal and Seth's thing, so he can do it however he > chooses. Just an idea to boost its legitimacy and avoid backlash. > > -- > Michael Antonucci > Debate Coach > Georgetown University > Mobile: 617-838-3345 > Office: 202-687-4079 > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From scottelliott at grandecom.net Tue Sep 29 08:30:24 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:30:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Hired Judging for Kentucky--Rounds available Message-ID: <20090929083024.172233jjrqsc6ui8@webmail.grandecom.net> Avery Henry is available for judging rounds---for a price. I am also available to pick up a extra few rounds--also for a price. Scott Elliott From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Tue Sep 29 08:49:25 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:49:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Video of public debate from Vermont tournament Message-ID: <4AC21065.7010602@uvm.edu> More to come... http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/debate-public-usa-out-of-afghanistan.html This public debate was held at the University of Vermont on 25 September 2009. The motion was, this House would remove all USA military forces from Afghanistan. This debate was held the night before the 2009 Robert Huber Memorial Debates, held at the University of Vermont, attended by 120 teams. Both events were sponsored by the Lawrence Debate Union at the University of Vermont. Participants were: First prop team: Claremont Colleges, Savage & Wolfson First opp team: Bard College, Lewis & Constantino Second prop team: Cornell University, Karin & Shao Second opp team: University of Vermont, Loeb & Gross There was no formal vote or decision. Huber Memorial Debates http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/huber/Welcome.html Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/The_Team.html Video by Alfred Snider http://debate.uvm.edu -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From mmangus at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 09:53:06 2009 From: mmangus at gmail.com (Michael Mangus) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:53:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Missouri State KR Message-ID: <93ba10490909290753o5f510a49y700a032dc3832651@mail.gmail.com> Looking for our copy of the video you took of our debate in round 7 at GSU. Backchannel and we can work out a way to transfer it. Thanks, Michael Mangus Pitt '10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090929/c87f409b/attachment.htm From jtedebate at yahoo.com Tue Sep 29 09:59:04 2009 From: jtedebate at yahoo.com (J T) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Bear-Shocker results? Message-ID: <657800.30438.qm@web110609.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Results? W. James Taylor ("JT") Clinical Instructor Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University ***Nothing in this email should be taken to represent Emporia State Debate or Emporia State University. The contents are the sole opinion of the author. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090929/1dda2dd6/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Tue Sep 29 12:03:38 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:03:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] avery henry has rounds for sale at kentucky Message-ID: <4AC1F79A0200003300003530@gwsmtp.wheaton.edu> As of right now Henry is listed as having 14 rounds of owed commitment L so I suspect that someone who thinks they?ve hired him might not have. Could everyone please check. GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090929/bd9933d4/attachment.htm From stefan.bauschard at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 15:01:39 2009 From: stefan.bauschard at gmail.com (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:01:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: [Ndca-l] Registration Open - James M. Langan Speech and Debate Invitational @ Scranton High School - November 6-8, 2009 Message-ID: <524839830909291301x6bb4bfa0ta646bc793ef24cec@mail.gmail.com> >From Brian Manuel: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brian Manuel Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:57 PM Subject: [Ndca-l] Registration Still Open - James M. Langan Speech and Debate Invitational @ Scranton High School - November 6-8, 2009 To: NDCA List Serv Registration is still open for the James M. Langan Speech and Debate Invitational at Scranton High School on November 6-8, 2009. A full tournament invitation can be found at www.scrantondebate/2009langaninvitational We?d love to have all of you in Scranton in early November. We are looking to bring back the popularity of High Schools putting on top quality events. A few good reasons that you should join us in Scranton that weekend!! 1. *$15/student entry fee* ? this includes registration, beautiful awards for all finalists and elimination round participants in debate, and 3 meals (2 dinners and 1 lunch). This entry fee is one of the lowest in the nation for the quality of service received. 2. *$250 First Place Speaker Award Scholarship* ? this will be presented to the top speaker in the Varsity Policy Debate Division. Thanks to the gracious donation from Stefan Bauschard this was made possible for one lucky debater to take advantage of. 3. *FREE!! Round Robin* ? thanks to a generous donation from the O?Malley Langan Law Offices, we are able to offer this year and hopefully for years to come, a Free Round Robin for some of the top debate teams in the country. The dates for the event will be November 4-5, 2009. We are seeking still seeking interested teams. Please email me at Clariondebate at gmail.com, if you are interested in attending. We are working on the possibility of hosting the debates at the ?Scranton Club? (http://scrantonclub.com/ ) with an awards dinner at ?Stirnas? ? (http://stirnas.com) 4. *First-Class Hospitality* ? The motto from The Office is absolutely true ? ?There ain?t no party like a Scranton party, because a Scranton party don?t stop!!? This year we look to provide all meals on campus to all participants. I also intend on providing top notch hospitality at both the tournament venue and hotel for all directors, coaches, and judges. 5. *National Caliber Judging Pool, Ordinal MPJ System, and 100 Point Speaker Point Scale* ? I have worked painlessly with many advisors to secure some great hired judging for the tournament. I?m also working with teams that are looking to hire a large part of their commitment to employ high quality judges we?ve already spoken to as well. I am seeking to provide a national caliber judging pool at our event this year. Along the lines of providing the best tournament experience we can, Stefan Bauschard (director of the policy tab room) will be utilizing an ordinal ranking MPJ system at this year?s tournament. Also we?ll be using the newly modeled 100 point scale for speaker points in policy debate (we?ll be providing a graph for all judges, based on numbers collected throughout the year and from past tournaments). Hope to see you all in November!! -- Brian Manuel Tournament Director - James M. Langan Speech and Debate Invitational Debate Coach - Lakeland District Debate Debate Coach - Harvard Debate Inc. Research/Advertising - Planet Debate _______________________________________________ Ndca-l mailing list Ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org http://lists.debatecoaches.org/listinfo.cgi/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org -- Stefan Bauschard President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com Debate Coach, Harvard Debate Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011 (c) 781-775-0433 (fx) 617-588-0283 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090929/4468ebaa/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Tue Sep 29 16:25:08 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:25:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2 rounds needed for Kentucky - we pay cash Message-ID: <5a6e2a80909291425g63380e3ev3da89c4d28582169@mail.gmail.com> $30 per - cash email to above address. not smart enough to effectively read invite til now Justin Green From beth.skinner at gmail.com Tue Sep 29 18:13:47 2009 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:13:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hiring Kentucky Judging Message-ID: <4550c7380909291613x28f68f43g71c95c97306a3abc@mail.gmail.com> Looking for up to 7 rounds at $30 per round. Beth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090929/6fb4ffa9/attachment.htm From debate at ou.edu Tue Sep 29 19:50:47 2009 From: debate at ou.edu (Massey, Jackie B.) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:50:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rooms at Kentucky Message-ID: <650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677FEAAB0795B@XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu> If you have an extra room at the tournament hotel -- Hilton, please do not cancel it. I would take it. Thanks jackie From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Tue Sep 29 20:26:52 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:26:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarification on judge commitments for Kentucky Message-ID: <4AC26D8C.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> I have a favor to ask. I need to finalize commitments so that we can turn on the pref entry later tonight. There are several cases where judges are covering rounds for another school. In such cases it is critical that the school SELLING the rounds include all sold rounds in the commitments for their judges. So if a judge is judging two rounds for your school and 3 for someone else, their commitment should be entered as 5 rounds. Thanks, GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090929/3eeb8ed4/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Wed Sep 30 00:46:04 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:46:04 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV RR pairings rd 1 & 2 Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090929/aec3d40b/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rounds 1&2 RR09--DONE.xlsx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 9805 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090929/aec3d40b/attachment.obj From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Sep 30 07:30:41 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:30:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] [Fwd: Urget search for two professors in Speech/Debate and more (Kyushu University)] Message-ID: <4AC34F71.3070301@uvm.edu> -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Narahiko INOUE" Subject: Urget search for two professors in Speech/Debate and more (Kyushu University) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:56:17 +0900 Size: 4442 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/f57c5e63/attachment.eml From adri.debate at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 07:53:53 2009 From: adri.debate at gmail.com (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:53:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] UMW looking to hire rounds at Richmond Message-ID: <50704d760909300553h186c9517ydc1a503d2b4d12fc@mail.gmail.com> UMW is looking to hire a few rounds at Richmond next weekend. We pay in cash at the tournament, no housing included. If interested, please be in touch. Thanks, Adrienne -- Adrienne F. Brovero Debate Coach UMW Debate 540-654-2128 "Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive." -John F. Kennedy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/6af62e14/attachment.htm From ermocito at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 08:25:00 2009 From: ermocito at gmail.com (Eric Morris) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:25:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bear Shock Results/Packet Message-ID: <6bd35ee10909300625q138651edn5809b44b5874476f@mail.gmail.com> Sorry for the delay; technical problems and round robin travel. Ermo Speaker Awards Open 1. Chris Thomas (UTSA) 2. Juan Garcia (UMKC) 3. Andrew Jack (KU) 4. Chris Spurlock (UCO) 5. Andy Montee (UTSA) 6. Katie Frederick (MoState) 7. Jace Gilmore (MoState) 8. Joel Reed (MoState) 9. Toni Jantz (UMKC) 10. Colin Quinn (UNT) JV 1. Zach Simonson (UNI) 2. Tyler Colwell (UTSA) 3. Austin Montee (UTSA) 4. Maggie Weller (KSU) 5. Michael Masterson (OU) 6. Cody Debaun (UNT) 7. Stormee Massey (OU) 8. Michael Ely (UCO) 9. Caitlin Breslin (JoCo) 10. Tia Robertson (UCO) Novice 1 Patrick O'Bryan (OU) 2. Chase Valharticky (OU) 3. Xavier Johnson (UTSA) 4. Brandie Shepard (JoCo) 5. Tyler Kowalewski (JoCo) 6. Ross Cooley (OU) 7. Jessica Mendez (UTSA) 8. Rachel Melancon (La-Lafayette) 9. Kenneth Culotta (La-Lafayette) 10. Anna Prezinda (OU) ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION ONE: OPEN OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS Texas San Antonio MT Advances without debating Central Oklahoma KS Advances without debating Kansas CJ Advances without debating Missouri State KR Advances without debating Kansas JS (Neg) defeated Central Oklahoma SS 2-1 Russell, J Petit, Lou *Elliott, Missouri State SS (Neg) defeated Missouri-kansas City BS 3-0 Murillo, G Shook, Lin Tews, Rich Missouri-kansas City GJ (Aff) defeated Missouri State HR 2-1 Stanley, J *Cram, Tra Dipiazza, North Texas QW (Aff) defeated Missouri State FG 3-0 Jarman, Je Vega, Matt Warner, Be QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Texas San Antonio MT (Aff) defeated North Texas QW 3-0 Cram, Trav Vega, Matt Elliott, S Central Oklahoma KS (Neg) defeated Missouri-kansas City GJ 2-1 Warner, Be Dipiazza, *Petit, Lo Missouri State SS (Neg) defeated Kansas CJ 2-1 Easley, Te *Murillo, Crockett, Missouri State KR (Aff) defeated Kansas JS 3-0 Stanley, J Henry, Ave Elliott, D SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Texas San Antonio MT (Aff) defeated Missouri State KR 3-0 Stanley, J Tripe-robe Davis, Jam Central Oklahoma KS (Neg) defeated Missouri State SS 3-0 Shook, Lin Easley, Te Murillo, G FINAL ROUND RESULTS Central Oklahoma KS (Aff) defeated Texas San Antonio MT 2-1 *Morris, E Murillo, G Petit, Lou ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION TWO: JV OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS North Texas DN Advances without debating Oklahoma BM Advances without debating Central Oklahoma EL Advances without debating Johnson County BL Advances without debating Central Oklahoma DW Advances without debating Texas San Antonio CM (Neg) defeated Kansas CG 3-0 Davis, Jam Pennington Snider, Sa Oklahoma KM (Neg) defeated Northern Iowa NS 3-0 Easley, Te Overstreet Crockett, Central Oklahoma RW (Neg) defeated KCKCC RT 3-0 Massey, Ja Chung, Doo Gordon, Ma QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS North Texas DN (Aff) defeated Central Oklahoma RW 3-0 Massey, Ja Tews, Rich Shook, Lin Oklahoma BM Advances Over Oklahoma KM Central Oklahoma EL (Aff) defeated Texas San Antonio CM 3-0 Halley, Ca Hamilton, Snider, Sa Central Oklahoma DW (Aff) defeated Johnson County BL 3-0 Jarman, Je Pennington Gordon, Ma SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS North Texas DN (Neg) defeated Central Oklahoma DW 3-0 Gordon, Ma Walters, H Dipiazza, Oklahoma BM (Neg) defeated Central Oklahoma EL 2-1 Chung, Doo *Petit, Lo Cram, Trav FINAL ROUND RESULTS North Texas DN (Neg) defeated Oklahoma BM 3-0 Casey, And Davis, Jam Dipiazza, ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION THREE: NOVICE QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Johnson County KS Advances without debating Texas San Antonio JM Advances without debating Johnson County CI (Neg) defeated Kansas State AJ 3-0 Murray, At Henry, Ave Casey, And Oklahoma OV (Neg) defeated Johnson County SU 3-0 Kearney, M Sabino, La Mccoy, Ran SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Oklahoma OV (Aff) defeated Johnson County KS 2-1 *Chung, Do Casey, And Sabino, La Texas San Antonio JM (Aff) defeated Johnson County CI 3-0 Kearney, M Tripe-robe Davis, Jam FINAL ROUND RESULTS Oklahoma OV (Aff) defeated Texas San Antonio JM 2-1 Sabino, La *Sullivan, Kearney, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/a9814f9d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bear Shock 09 Results.doc Type: application/msword Size: 78217 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/a9814f9d/attachment.doc From Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu Wed Sep 30 08:34:31 2009 From: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu (Gary Larson) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:34:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Prefs at Kentucky Message-ID: <4AC31817.3F5C.0033.0@wheaton.edu> The pref sheets at Kentucky are now open for entry. The DEADLINE for completion is 3:00 PM on Friday. We are doing ordinal prefs. You should rate all judges that are constrained 999. I have also disabled entries at this time. If you have changes that need to be made, e-mail them to both Roger and myself. Thanks, GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/ac3a53d4/attachment.htm From alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wed Sep 30 09:46:00 2009 From: alfred.snider at uvm.edu (Alfred C Snider) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:46:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Kelly Young Message-ID: <4AC36F28.8030700@uvm.edu> No answer to my point about the superiority of public communication. If you want people to notice and create awareness you speak publicly. I do not feel obligated to respond to your ad homs. Especially when you will not answer my argument. I am proud that George awarded me that honor. Sorry if I mentioned it. I enjoyed my years at Wayne State. Sorry if I mentioned it. These proceedings are closed as far as I am concerned. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/ Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From EMarlow at uco.edu Wed Sep 30 10:57:28 2009 From: EMarlow at uco.edu (Eric Marlow) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:57:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] FW: Bear Shock Results/Packet In-Reply-To: <6bd35ee10909300850h4998075eje3401eadbbf03983@mail.gmail.com> References: <6bd35ee10909300625q138651edn5809b44b5874476f@mail.gmail.com>, <6bd35ee10909300850h4998075eje3401eadbbf03983@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75671A9DCD21974888C9A2E5E4937B6451E0F3A2F9@EXCHANGE.uco.local> Eric Marlow Director of Debate University of Central Oklahoma ________________________________ From: Eric Morris [ermocito at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:50 AM To: richard.tews at uni.edu; ben warner; Brian Lain; Eric Marlow; Heather Walters; Jackie Massey; Jeffrey Jarman; Justin Green; Justin Green; Justin Stanley; Lindsey Shook; Louie Petit; Louie Petit; Matt Vega; Matthew Vega; Petit, Louie F; Scott Elliott; Scott Harris; Terri Easley; Walters, Heather L; Warner, Benjamin R; Terri Easley Subject: Fwd: Bear Shock Results/Packet I noticed that neither this, nor post of my pairing emails from over the weekend, have yet appeared on the edebate website. So, here's the packet for those who attended - feel free to forward it to edebate unless someone else already has. I don't think I will have time to troubleshoot why my messages aren't going through today. Ermo p.s. I don't know if anyone beyond UNI has unreceived awards. If you do, please send me a mailing address so I can get on that after Kentucky. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Eric Morris > Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:25 AM Subject: Bear Shock Results/Packet To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Sorry for the delay; technical problems and round robin travel. Ermo Speaker Awards Open 1. Chris Thomas (UTSA) 2. Juan Garcia (UMKC) 3. Andrew Jack (KU) 4. Chris Spurlock (UCO) 5. Andy Montee (UTSA) 6. Katie Frederick (MoState) 7. Jace Gilmore (MoState) 8. Joel Reed (MoState) 9. Toni Jantz (UMKC) 10. Colin Quinn (UNT) JV 1. Zach Simonson (UNI) 2. Tyler Colwell (UTSA) 3. Austin Montee (UTSA) 4. Maggie Weller (KSU) 5. Michael Masterson (OU) 6. Cody Debaun (UNT) 7. Stormee Massey (OU) 8. Michael Ely (UCO) 9. Caitlin Breslin (JoCo) 10. Tia Robertson (UCO) Novice 1 Patrick O'Bryan (OU) 2. Chase Valharticky (OU) 3. Xavier Johnson (UTSA) 4. Brandie Shepard (JoCo) 5. Tyler Kowalewski (JoCo) 6. Ross Cooley (OU) 7. Jessica Mendez (UTSA) 8. Rachel Melancon (La-Lafayette) 9. Kenneth Culotta (La-Lafayette) 10. Anna Prezinda (OU) ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION ONE: OPEN OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS Texas San Antonio MT Advances without debating Central Oklahoma KS Advances without debating Kansas CJ Advances without debating Missouri State KR Advances without debating Kansas JS (Neg) defeated Central Oklahoma SS 2-1 Russell, J Petit, Lou *Elliott, Missouri State SS (Neg) defeated Missouri-kansas City BS 3-0 Murillo, G Shook, Lin Tews, Rich Missouri-kansas City GJ (Aff) defeated Missouri State HR 2-1 Stanley, J *Cram, Tra Dipiazza, North Texas QW (Aff) defeated Missouri State FG 3-0 Jarman, Je Vega, Matt Warner, Be QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Texas San Antonio MT (Aff) defeated North Texas QW 3-0 Cram, Trav Vega, Matt Elliott, S Central Oklahoma KS (Neg) defeated Missouri-kansas City GJ 2-1 Warner, Be Dipiazza, *Petit, Lo Missouri State SS (Neg) defeated Kansas CJ 2-1 Easley, Te *Murillo, Crockett, Missouri State KR (Aff) defeated Kansas JS 3-0 Stanley, J Henry, Ave Elliott, D SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Texas San Antonio MT (Aff) defeated Missouri State KR 3-0 Stanley, J Tripe-robe Davis, Jam Central Oklahoma KS (Neg) defeated Missouri State SS 3-0 Shook, Lin Easley, Te Murillo, G FINAL ROUND RESULTS Central Oklahoma KS (Aff) defeated Texas San Antonio MT 2-1 *Morris, E Murillo, G Petit, Lou ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION TWO: JV OCTAFINAL ROUND RESULTS North Texas DN Advances without debating Oklahoma BM Advances without debating Central Oklahoma EL Advances without debating Johnson County BL Advances without debating Central Oklahoma DW Advances without debating Texas San Antonio CM (Neg) defeated Kansas CG 3-0 Davis, Jam Pennington Snider, Sa Oklahoma KM (Neg) defeated Northern Iowa NS 3-0 Easley, Te Overstreet Crockett, Central Oklahoma RW (Neg) defeated KCKCC RT 3-0 Massey, Ja Chung, Doo Gordon, Ma QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS North Texas DN (Aff) defeated Central Oklahoma RW 3-0 Massey, Ja Tews, Rich Shook, Lin Oklahoma BM Advances Over Oklahoma KM Central Oklahoma EL (Aff) defeated Texas San Antonio CM 3-0 Halley, Ca Hamilton, Snider, Sa Central Oklahoma DW (Aff) defeated Johnson County BL 3-0 Jarman, Je Pennington Gordon, Ma SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS North Texas DN (Neg) defeated Central Oklahoma DW 3-0 Gordon, Ma Walters, H Dipiazza, Oklahoma BM (Neg) defeated Central Oklahoma EL 2-1 Chung, Doo *Petit, Lo Cram, Trav FINAL ROUND RESULTS North Texas DN (Neg) defeated Oklahoma BM 3-0 Casey, And Davis, Jam Dipiazza, ELIMINATION ROUND RESULTS IN DIVISION THREE: NOVICE QUARTERFINAL ROUND RESULTS Johnson County KS Advances without debating Texas San Antonio JM Advances without debating Johnson County CI (Neg) defeated Kansas State AJ 3-0 Murray, At Henry, Ave Casey, And Oklahoma OV (Neg) defeated Johnson County SU 3-0 Kearney, M Sabino, La Mccoy, Ran SEMIFINAL ROUND RESULTS Oklahoma OV (Aff) defeated Johnson County KS 2-1 *Chung, Do Casey, And Sabino, La Texas San Antonio JM (Aff) defeated Johnson County CI 3-0 Kearney, M Tripe-robe Davis, Jam FINAL ROUND RESULTS Oklahoma OV (Aff) defeated Texas San Antonio JM 2-1 Sabino, La *Sullivan, Kearney, M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/c125de1d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bear Shock 09 Results.doc Type: application/msword Size: 78217 bytes Desc: Bear Shock 09 Results.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/c125de1d/attachment.doc From beth.skinner at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 11:48:15 2009 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:48:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Still need to hire kentucky judging... In-Reply-To: <4550c7380909300947n7fbd9aa9kf0319b24f4fb87bd@mail.gmail.com> References: <4550c7380909300947n7fbd9aa9kf0319b24f4fb87bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4550c7380909300948j4df9726cu85822affac4ba3b5@mail.gmail.com> We've got sick coaches. You really don't want them in close proximity, do you? C'mon and take our money! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/94f0de81/attachment.htm From max.o.archer at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 11:58:22 2009 From: max.o.archer at gmail.com (Max Archer) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 11:58:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Augie Rounds Covered AT Vegas Message-ID: <1944fe1d0909300958kb4a778ep956244c04ae06505@mail.gmail.com> Got all of our rounds covered. Thanks, and see yall in vegas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/9ed33a37/attachment.htm From beth.skinner at gmail.com Wed Sep 30 14:02:26 2009 From: beth.skinner at gmail.com (Beth Skinner) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:02:26 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] still need Kentucky judging Message-ID: <4550c7380909301202g3829eef8gac8048e06d15e60f@mail.gmail.com> We've got sick coaches. You really don't want them in close proximity, do you? C'mon and take our money! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/8301e6e3/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Wed Sep 30 16:35:58 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:35:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks Missouri State Message-ID: <20090930163558.9361706vg2xlahby@webmail.grandecom.net> Just wanted to send out a thank you to Missouri State for hosting a great regional tournament. Congrats to all the teams making it to finals. My team's qoute of the week: "Man D3 is tough," From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Wed Sep 30 17:06:19 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:06:19 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV RR round 3 & 4 pairings Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/237dc9eb/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rounds 3&4 RR09.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 18990 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/237dc9eb/attachment.pdf From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Wed Sep 30 17:30:36 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:30:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV RR rd 3 & 4 pairings Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/d972b8be/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rounds 3&4 RR09.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 18990 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/d972b8be/attachment.pdf From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Wed Sep 30 18:05:53 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:05:53 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] we're judging at UNLV Invitational Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/e6c042e0/attachment.htm From Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu Wed Sep 30 18:22:09 2009 From: Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu (Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:22:09 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] UNLV RR results after 2 rounds Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/6a520a27/attachment.htm From crazybeliever at yahoo.com Wed Sep 30 23:52:08 2009 From: crazybeliever at yahoo.com (Isaac Peck) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Southwestern looking to hire judging at UNLV Message-ID: <708589.22158.qm@web31101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> would like 4 rounds. Email me. crazybeliever at yahoo.com Isaac Peck -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090930/d98646c2/attachment.htm