College Policy Debate Forums
July 04, 2015, 04:27:13 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 09:44:00 AM 
Started by ceda - Last post by Ryan Galloway
Sorry to take a while to get to this, closing down one camp and going to another.

Enhance was designed to allow the Afghanistan AFF that extends the deadline for troops to stay in the country.  The committee thought that this affirmative might struggle with "increase" as there would be no quantitative increase in troops.  The argument was that the small affirmatives that would be let in would be outweighed by letting in the core affirmative of Afghanistan.

That said, enhance was removed from resolution #5 because of the concern of small AFF's and for the idea that the Affirmative would just have to be ready to go on the increase violation.  Therefore, if you are looking for meaningful choice and are concerned about enhance, vote #5.

RG

 2 
 on: July 02, 2015, 09:47:28 PM 
Started by ceda - Last post by repko
Very busy with camp biz, but I was wondering if the Topic Committee has reactions to the WMJ-Roark paper.

... As it relates to "enhance = uber Aff", I do not think every one of their cards is a slam-dunk... but I do think the Winnefeld ev in their paper is solid. And, on balance, I think the Aff ev is better than the neg "limiters". So, I am slightly worried about greater-than-intended multidirectionality for ballot options with "enhance".

But, I wasn't at the meeting and the TC knows a lot more about this than I do - so I wanted to hear their take.

 Best,

   Will

 3 
 on: July 02, 2015, 05:47:06 PM 
Started by ceda - Last post by Malgor
vote for 3!

 4 
 on: July 01, 2015, 08:09:47 PM 
Started by mniermann - Last post by kelly young
This forum deserves a better class of troll.

 5 
 on: July 01, 2015, 07:55:06 PM 
Started by mniermann - Last post by CouldaBeenaContenda
As a person who shaves twice a day, I could only be misgendered by someone who mistook me for the Bearded Lady.  Over at Cross-ex.com, in a post I made several years ago in a thread that did not survive their message board software upgrade, I used the term, "Congressman", and some Libber there berated me for doing so, insisting that any erudite, post-neanderthal would surely know enough to say, "Congressperson", to impersonally denote such an office holder.  When I then asked her if she had played person-to-person defense in gym class, she had a hissy-fit, prompting me to discontinue my participation in that thread.  

Left hand on the Bible, right hand to God, I am certain that I have never in my life typed the four letters, LGBT, in sequence before composing this very sentence, not because of any prejudice I harbor, but because I simply have never had occasion to do so, and so in the spirit of this thread, which I obviously had failed to detect when I authored my initial "contribution" to it, I am now contemplating, also for the very first time, the implications of the fact that the "G" category actually encompasses the "L", which may lead to resentment between male "G"s who think they are being disfavored by their single inclusion in the acronym/abbreviation (again, chose one) and by "L"s, who might think that someone implicitly snubbed them by not recognizing their status as "G"s.  Since I'm not modern enough to have even begun using the title "Ms.", I will leave this discussion to those who are more attuned to your contemporary, "correctness" practices.

 6 
 on: July 01, 2015, 06:50:58 PM 
Started by mniermann - Last post by mniermann
This seems somewhat unnecessary, but given your post history I'm not terribly shocked that you thought a comic was the best medium for what you had to say.

To be clear: the survey is for the gendered pronouns of your preference---we give the examples of she, they, and ver. There are several reasons why we're doing this, but it's mostly five-fold:

1. It's a way for people to avoid being misgendered (that is, being called a gender through pronouns or otherwise that someone does not accept as their own) by people who are genuinely not antagonistic, but just ignorant as to someone's pronoun of choice. This applies to debaters, coaches, and judges, and is not only in round but also out of round.

2. It is a level of accountability for those that, intentionally or not, consistently misgender others. Much like the wiki/case disclosure can check a topicality violation, the pronoun index is able to be cited in a round.

3. It is a way for debaters and judges to proactively learn about each other before an RFD in order to have the best post round discussions possible.

4. It is a way for debaters and coaches to proactively learn about each other to ease day to day coaching interactions.

5. It is a way for marginalized debaters, coaches, or judges---perhaps people who use "she" pronouns, or people who use "they" pronouns---to find each other and build communities and solidarity.

The abbreviations are to account for safety and fluidity, but the survey is overwhelmingly pronouns, not abbreviations.

We are obviously always looking for substantive constructive criticism, but hard pass on the comic strips.

 7 
 on: July 01, 2015, 06:24:20 PM 
Started by mniermann - Last post by CouldaBeenaContenda
According to the reference source that rendered The Encyclopedia Britannica irrelevant: "An acronym is an abbreviation formed from the initial components in a phrase or a word."  Maybe I don't get what your list includes.  I thought "AIR/Ask in round" and "PND/prefer not to disclose" were part of the substance of your list.  I didn't recommend using the term acronym to categorize them because I tend to confine its use for abbreviations that sound like spoken words, like NATO and LASER.

He, she, it?  We, you, they?  Maybe you can define, "we".

-E. Nelson Bridwell, Mad Magazine, circa 1958

 8 
 on: July 01, 2015, 06:12:59 PM 
Started by mniermann - Last post by mniermann
Hmm?

Pronouns aren't abbreviations. I guess we can also call it a pronoun index, but I feel like ya'll know where I'm coming from.

 9 
 on: July 01, 2015, 04:25:15 PM 
Started by mniermann - Last post by CouldaBeenaContenda
...S.r. Robinson and I are heading up a Preferred Pronouns Abbreviations spreadsheet glossary/dictionary/index (choose one) for the college debate community next year.

 10 
 on: July 01, 2015, 03:32:06 PM 
Started by ceda - Last post by ceda
The ballot is available online: http://www.cedadebate.org/1516resolution.

Votes are due by midnight (central), Wednesday, July 15.
Results will be announced on Friday, July 17.

Only 2014-2015 CEDA members are eligible to vote. A membership list is available at: http://www.cedadebate.org/1415membership. If your school is not listed in error, please let me know right away.
You must have an account on this site (the main CEDA site, not the forums) and it must be flagged as eligible to vote. Let me know if I need to set up an account for you, a new coach, or your proxy.
If you are not members, and need to join, please pay the membership fee online at:  http://www.cedadebate.org/store.

Let me know if you have any questions or problems with the website.

As a reminder, the following resolutions are on the ballot:

Resolution 1. Resolved:  The United States should significantly enhance its military presence in Afghanistan, the Baltic States, Iraq, and/or Ukraine; or significantly reduce its military presence in Bahrain, Djibouti, and/or the Republic of Korea.

Resolution 2. Resolved:  The United States should either significantly enhance its military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq and/or Syria; or significantly reduce its military presence in Bahrain, Djibouti, and/or Saudi Arabia.   

Resolution 3. Resolved:  The United States should reduce its military commitment to, by at least significantly reducing its forward deployed forces in, one or more of the following:  the Baltic States, Gulf Cooperation Council member states, Japan, the Republic of Korea.

Resolution 4. Resolved:  The United States should significantly reduce its military presence in one or more of the following: the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, the Greater Horn of Africa, Northeast Asia.

Resolution 5. Resolved:  The United States should either significantly increase its military presence or significantly reduce its military presence in one of the following: Afghanistan, Bahrain, the Baltic States, Djibouti, Iraq, the Republic of Korea.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!