Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by slcathena

  1. Dear Debaters and Coaches: The Lexington Debate squad is pleased to invite you and your students to our fall tournament on Saturday, November 22, 2008. The tournament will offer competition in novice policy, open policy, open Public Forum, and novice, JV, and open Lincoln-Douglas debate. INVITATIONAL INFORMATION: DATE: Saturday, November 22, 2008. REGISTRATION: Registration will take place on the Massachusetts State website- www.massforensics.org. Schools outside the League can set up an account by logging in with the requested information. Registration will open October 15, 2008. There are no official entry limits but we reserve the right to limit any school to only those entries in a division that the division can equitably pair. Registration will close November 20, 2008. Division guidelines will be in accordance with Massachusetts Forensic League guidelines: a novice debater must be a first year competitor in ANY debate division. Second year and above competitors, will compete in the varsity and open divisions. Open divisions will be eligible to earn qualification for the Massachusetts varsity state tournament. COST: $40 per Policy team, $40 per Public Forum debate team, and $20 per LD debater. Schools new to competition can apply for reduced fees directly with the tournament director. JUDGING: LD - one qualified judge per three debaters or fraction thereof should be provided. Junior and senior debaters can be used as judges in the novice division only. Novice judges cannot offset judging obligations in the open pool. Please be sure to bring trained and experienced LD judges to the competition. Policy: Experienced students may judge in novice policy, one judge for each 2 teams or fraction thereof. Public Forum: one judge is eligible to cover the entry for up to four teams. Judges may be hired for $75.00 per slot. We regret that we cannot hire fractions of judges. Requests for hired judging cannot be honored after November 7, 2008. TOPIC: All divisions will use the NFL topics designated for November 2008 available at nflonline.org. HOSPITALITY: Schools requesting housing for Friday night should make their requests by the entry deadline both on the MFL site and with direct email with the tournament director. Please do not assume you can be housed until you receive a confirmation email from the director. Lunch and munchies will be available for purchase throughout the tournament. We also invite you to consider joining us again during Martin Luther King weekend in January for our TOC qualifying event – details also available on the MFL site. We hope to see you in Lexington soon! Sara Sanchez, Director of Debate & the Lexington Debate Team lexingtondebate@gmail.com Cell in case of Emergency: 801-635-7008 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE 7:30-8:15am Registration 8:30am Round One all divisions 10:30am Round Two all divisions 1:00pm Round Three all divisions 3:00pm Round Four all divisions 5:30pm Awards, Science Lecture Hall
  2. Quite the controversy we have going on here. First a preface, I don't have a lot of free time these days, so I'm probably not coming back to the line-by-line, however, I did want my opinion on this issue to be generally known. First, the email to Prof. Simon was approved by me before it was sent. I also with agreed the decision to share with the debate community. In retrospect, we probably should have requested explicit permission to post the email, but at the end of the day, I'll contend that a conversation with an expert on the topic is at minimum good for discussion on a high school debate forum, and at maximum, better evidence than half the hyperbolic blogs that get cut and read uncontested in round. Second, this evidence has not been read by a Lexington team in any round, nor have we made any determination as to whether or not we will read it. Third, I understand Rajesh's point that this was posted 2 days before New Trier, however 2 days seems like more than adequate lead time to me. a) New answers (esp. on politics) are cut moments before rounds routinely. 2 days seems like more than enough. Also, cross-x posts show up in google results all the time means these are not different from other updates/answers. Many cards that are read in rounds have not been cut by the other team. Teams have to research new cites all the time, I'm pretty sure that means this is not uniquely abusive. c) It's potentially less abusive than cutting Lexis or Stratfor ev that is only available to those with accounts. We posted the entire context of the email in a central location; the fact that some people don't check it isn't an arg. Some people don't read the New York Times either, that doesn't mean it's my fault if they miss a sweet article and don't have answers to my arg. Furthermore, primary source interrogation is a best practice in most social sciences. We posted the full context of the both the email and the response. How do you know this is true? You have to trust it, just like you trust that the other team didn't cut their Lexis ev out of context when you don't have access and can't therefore independently verify it. For the record, the most damaging post in this thread is not Hao's, or anything said by Damien this year, or done by Damien last year. It's Synergy's "conversation" with Simon, which was a total fabrication. I get that you were trying to prove a point, but the only unethical thing done in this thread was to represent an email conversation that never happened as a legitimate rebuttal (no, I don't think it matters that you clarified it as sarcasm later). Sharing email conversations with experts on cross-x is not dangerous to our activity, fabricating them to prove a point is. Finally, we aren't the first team to email an author and we won't be the last. We don't currently have a centralized location where these conversations that could potentially be read in round can be posted.
  3. This is incorrect, Big Lex will be the 16th-19th, with policy running the 17th-19th.
  4. Little Lex will be on Nov. 22. Big Lex will be Jan. 16-19.
  5. Many congrats to Colleyville on a well deserved national championship! Also, congrats to New Trier, on being in the final round! Both teams and coaching staffs are amazing, what an awesome final round! I'm really sorry I wasn't there to see it! Well deserved props to you all on an excellent year.
  6. Correct. The final model wasn't in the fleet when that comment was uttered. BTW there were lots of hostages on the Base Ship.
  7. Here's the flyer: http://new.dixie.edu/workshops/File/DSC_SCF_Ad_prf2.pdf There is an email contact there that should help you.
  8. Daschle: He's been instrumental in supporting Barack since Barack came to the Senate. Half of his old advisers are working on the Obama campaign. He brings that whole gravitas thing, and doesn't have a ton of baggage. Sebelius: Yes I think she can deliver Kansas. Aside from that her resume just rocks and she has the appropriate change/bridge building feel about her. She'd be a great choice. Warner: Delivers Virginia, provides experience, safe choice. Webb: Military legitimacy. I wonder how well this guy would do on the campaign trail in terms of foot in mouth disease though. Clark: Throws the Clintons a sizable bone without actually committing the fatal error of putting Hillary on the ticket (that is a recipe for disaster, he shouldn't even offer it to her). Richardson: Last choice, dude can't open his mouth without inserting his foot in it, which is a pity because his resume rocks and it would do a ton for bringing in Latinos.
  9. Did Latin America get put back on the final list or something? I was pretty sure it wasn't one of the final 7 areas...
  10. I'm really sorry to hear that.
  11. slcathena

    TOC Ruling

    I don't venture into regional forum discussions often, but saw this on the "New Posts" list and just wanted to let you know that I'm truly sorry you all won't be able to go to the TOC this year. We enjoyed debating you at UT this year, and have a lot of respect for your abilities. I hope you'll be debating in college, and just want to reiterate that it is shame you won't be at the TOC. *Not looking to turn this into a Kansas politics v. National Circuit politics thread, but it's obvious these kids qualified for something they wish they could participate in, and I think it's unfortunate that they won't be able to, particularly after seeing them earlier this year.
  12. He lost Ohio by 10 after a report from the Canadian Broadcast Company that an adviser had given them assurances he was posturing on NAFTA. That report was found to be faulty after the primary. Prior to that report being released he was closing the gap in Ohio.
  13. You should check out Aimee Mann. You'll like her.
  14. slcathena

    NDT 2008

    You're right, it probably was me, although I should caveat and say that the NDCA is an attempt towards a more inclusive process, which I believe has been likened to as a sort of CEDA for high school, and I applaud it for that. I think a thought exercise on this is instructive. You say CEDA has 150+ plus teams in a "everyone come play" tournament. They also have 8 prelims and break to partial quads so everyone with a winning record can clear. That's massive. The biggest debate weekend of the year on the highschool circuit as far as I can tell in raw numbers is the Harvard/Berkeley weekend. This year Harvard pulled 205 teams and Berkeley pulled 222 (quick counts using the packets, it could be +/- a few). Those are open numbers. That does not account for all teams in the country (pretty sure some travel restrictions in the midwest keep them from both tournaments.) An open national tournament of 400+ teams? I don't even want to know what that would have to break to with 8 prelims (and let's all be honest, 8 prelims breaking to trips at Berk is brutal...more prelims/a larger elim bracket would be very hard), and don't get me started on venues that could actually accomodate it. /tangent off. I echo the calls for more updates, though. Anyone have the Octos pairing with judges/results/a full bracket?
  15. slcathena

    NDT 2008

    Thanks for the update, but those panels can't be right. Repko can't judge MSU, for example.
  16. A presidential race where your only hope of winning is to kneecap the opposition in your own party is fundamentally different than a debate round. You forgot Guam, but that's not a big deal. He's not going to come out pro-life. And the fact that her candidacy is based almost solely on the collapse of Obama is unsettling. Her own advisors (according to the aforementioned Brooks piece) give her a 5% chance of winning. Five. That is ridiculous for what she is putting her party through. She's not winning Indiana, NC or most of those other states by 20%. You forget, the lady hasn't cracked 65% in a previous primary, and she needs to RUN THE TABLE with 68% in all of them (according to Chuck Todd) in order to win the nomination. She couldn't do it in NY or Arkansas, but she's going to magically do it in 8 states in a row? That is patently absurd, and everyone in the Democratic party knows it, including her own politicos, which is why she's trying to poach pledged delegates despite the fact that her campaign has repeatedly said she would not go this route. Jonathan Chait was absolutely right when he called this fratricide.
  17. Counting those votes is ridiculous. Lots of Independents who would have voted for Obama in MI have said they voted for McCain so their vote would count. Similar args can be made for Florida. That's not a fair contest, you cannot count those votes and assume anything from them. Additionally, re-votes at this point would exclude those people (because you can't vote in both primaries legally) which again hurts Obama, not Clinton. It's really unfortunate that both of those states tried to jump the gun, but giving them a pass this time would only mean that it would be chaos in 2012, I think the DNC is doing the right thing, and they should split the delegates 50/50.
  18. I don't know that I'd call it influential, but that was one of the funniest, most enjoyable books I've ever read. There are lots of authors I like, I also still read LOTR every year or two, just because, but I don't know if it actually crosses the threshold of influential for me. The first book that left a huge impression on me was probably To Kill a Mockingbird. Edward Abbey's novels, particularly Desert Solitare and The Monkey Wrench Gang actually changed my mind on issues. Dostevskey's The Brothers Karamozov was similiarly thought provoking. CS Lewis's The Screwtape Letters and The Pilgrim's Regress were theologically amazing. I'm sure there are more, but those are the ones that jump out at the moment.
  19. Is there some reason you insist on attributing Wing's posts to me? I'm not offended, I generally agree with him, but it strikes me as odd.
  20. Maybe you should use the two books the man's written, then, instead of random interviews.
  21. Oh please. He wrote his speech on race himself. That is far from "scripted," and a lot more than the other candidates are doing.
  22. Um, no. He was in fact invited to the White House as part of Bill Clinton's annual prayer breakfast with religious leaders. He received a personal thanks from the president. Link In other (and in my opinion more important) news to the race between Obama and Clinton: The Money Race Obama has 10x more primary cash on hand than Clinton, when you factor in debts, and the fact that she can't touch $22 million of that cash on hand unless she wins the primary; it's earmarked for the general. Furthermore, I'm making the assumption she won't pay herself back, for the $5 million she loaned herself, if she did, she's $2 million in debt. That's remarkably devestating, and troubling. Her burn rate shows serious campaign mismanagement in my opinion, even after Patty Solis Doyle stepped down. It's doubly concerning when you factor in that she's competed in fewer states than Obama (ie, she didn't make ad buys in some of the states he did) and he outspent her in states where they both made media buys. It's not just that she doesn't have as much money as he does, she uses it much less efficiently. If I were a super-delegate, I'd be incredibly worried about the Clinton campaign's finances.
  23. For the record, I haven't said any of this (although I agree with Wing more than I do with you). The last few posts I made in this thread were about Senator Byrd, and Bill Richardson. That said, I'll give you my thoughts. I don't believe anything that has been said by Rev. Wright is racist. I don't find it shocking that there is still racial oppression in the US and people are pissed about it. That oppression contributes to death in some instances (Katrina) and is something to be ashamed of (if I remember correctly that was the background for the "God Damn America" comment.)I don't find it shocking that blowback is a pretty effective way to explain 9/11 (the "chickens are coming home to roost" comment.) I didn't hear one single statement in any of the quotes posted that was racist. Not one. I heard anger. I heard resentment. I heard rhetorical license. I heard hyperbole. I did not hear racism. So, when you say the threshold is racism and then I'm gone, I don't think that threshold was breached. As for the "what about the children" plea, I not only agree with Wing that children hear adults say things that are over the top on occassion (and do keep in mind that you are taking a 20 year career and boiling it down to the most offensive splicing of 5 minutes imaginable) and parents deal with it by explaining that sometimes people get mad and say hurtful things, but additionally, you don't even know that his children were in the room. There is a thing called Sunday School, and I don't recall seeing children in any of those tapes. You're right that the blood relative thing is a bit stronger, but there are people in my life that mean as much to me as relatives. I would not abandon them or throw them under a bus because it's politically expedient. I do not think he betrayed his grandmother, I think he was pointing out that the story of race in America is much more complicated than comment=racist or not. I have family members who make comments that make me cringe routinely. Some of them are ethnic minorities and it boggles my mind that they could make those comments, given what they've gone through personally. He didn't turn on his grandmother he acknowledged that love can coexist with the most irrational, persistent scars from racism that may never heal and called on us to rise above the current level of discourse. Seriously, level with me, it's not like you were voting for Obama to begin with. Quite frankly, based on your comments in this thread there is nothing he could say to change your mind, just like there was nothing he could have said to change Krauthammer's mind, or a host of other people who insist on saying this "wasn't enough" or was "just a pretty speech." You've already decided that the experience at Trinity was beyond the pale. That's really unfortunate considering the number of people at that church, the fact that you are taking a man's 20 year career and allowing it to be filtered into 4 or 5 minute long sound bites and calling it good. Luckily, based on reactions and polling data, it looks like it did speak to some people. It's been viewed almost 2.6 million times as I post this, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say your reaction (and Krauthammer's) is in the minority.
  24. While I agree with you that the impact of the endorsement might have been bigger, I think it's more symbolic now. Richardson seems to have waited until all reasonable avenues for Hillary to win were closed (losing the re-votes in MI and FL was devestating for her as it undercuts her ability to be ahead in the popular vote by the convention), and then came forward with his endorsement. I could be wrong on this, but I think it's possible that others pick this up and do the same.
  25. And in truly awesome news, Richardson is endorsing Obama later today.
  • Create New...