Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21St Century Wake Forest National Debate Conference

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21St Century Wake Forest National Debate Conference Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century Wake Forest National Debate Conference Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century Wake Forest National Debate Conference Allan D. Louden, editor International Debate Education Association New York & Amsterdam Published by: International Debate Education Association 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 Copyright © 2010 by International Debate Education Association This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/deed.en_US Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data National Developmental Debate Conference (2009 : Wake Forest University) Navigating opportunity : policy debate in the 21st century : Wake Forest National Debate Conference / Allan D. Louden, editor. p. cm. Papers presented at the National Developmental Debate Conference held June 5–7, 2009 at Wake Forest University; Allan D. Louden, conference director. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-932716-61-0 1. Debates and debating--Congresses. 2. Debates and debating--Study and teaching (Higher)--Congresses. I. Louden, Allan D. II. International Debate Education Association. III. Title. PN4181.N38 2009 808.53--dc22 2010015216 Printed in the USA IDEBATE Press Books IDEBATE Press Books Conference Sponsors American Debate Association (ADA) American Forensics Association (AFA) Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) National Debate Tournament (NDT) Wake Forest University—Office of the Provost Conference Directors Allan D. Louden, conference director, Wake Forest University George Ziegelmueller, honorary codirector, Wayne State University Special Thanks Steering Committee Timothy O’Donnell, University of Mary Washington Robin Rowland, University of Kansas Gordon Stables, University of Southern California Distinguished Advisory Committee Thomas Hollihan, University of Southern California David Zarefsky, Northwestern University Administrative Associates Odile Hobeka, University of Pittsburgh Will Sears, Wake Forest University Special Recognition Jeffrey Jarman, Wichita State University—CEDA Web Presence Seth Gannon, Wake Forest University—Hospitality/Transcription Alex Lamballe, Wake Forest University—Local Logistics Ananda Mitra, Wake Forest University Communication Department—Chair Dedication Several giants of the debate community have passed away since the conception of the National Developmental Conference to publish this work This book is dedicated to their decades of loyal service as debate educators Scott Deatherage (47) (December 2009). Director of debate at Northwestern University (1990–2008). Scott Deatherage led the Northwestern University Debate Society to seven national championships as director from 1990 to 2008. “He believed very strongly in debate and what it could do for students— how valuable it was for their education,” said David Zarefsky. Douglas Duke (70) (March 2010). A teacher for 46 years, Douglas Duke spent much of his coaching time with the University of Central Oklahoma. His college coaching career began back in 1962 when he coached at Southeastern State College in Durant, Oklahoma. John Gossett (57) (June 2009). Director at the University of Northern Iowa (1979–1981) and North Texas (1981–1991), department chair for 17 years. He was a member of the National Debate Tournament Board of Trustees from 1992 to 2002. Frank Harrison (69) (June 2009). Director of debate at Trinity University for 20 years. At the 1961 National Debate Tournament, Frank was third speaker and final round participant for King’s College. He served as a United States Representative for the state of Pennsylvania. Scott Nobles (85) (December 2008). A longtime winning director at Oregon and Macalester, Scott Nobles will always be remembered for winning the first National Debate Tournament in 1947 with partner, Jerry Sanders. He consistently produced a nationally recognized program, leading one of his teams to win the national Cross Examination Debate Association tournament in two consecutive years. Michael Pfau (63) (March 2009). A successful director of debate at Augustana College, SD in the 1970s–1980s. He was Communication Department chair at the University of Oklahoma for a decade, authoring and coauthoring more than 100 articles and book chapters. vi NavigatiNg OppOrtuNity Ross Smith (54) (July 2009). A conference participant, Ross was the longtime Wake Forest debate coach and director of debate (1985–2009) who led the squad to two national championships. He was the 2009 winner of the George Ziegelmueller Award. James Unger (66) (April 2008). A highly successful debate coach at Georgetown and American universities who was also a past director of the National Forensics Institute and an innovative argument theorist. As one of his alumni wrote, “He lived it, breathed it, epitomized it, enjoyed it, perfected it, practiced it, and made it a permanent part of our lives.” His “policymaking” approach to debate strategy became standard practice for debate teams at the high school and college levels. NavigatiNg OppOrtuNity vii Contents Beginnings: The National Developmental Debate Conference 1 Allan D. Louden, conference director, Wake Forest University Framing Policy Debate in the 21st Century 9 Keynote Address: A New Golden Age—Intercollegiate Debate in the Twenty-first Century 11 William Keith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee A Rationale for Intercollegiate Debate in the Twenty-first Century 27 Timothy O’Donnell, University of Mary Washington Alumni Testimonials 57 Section I: Professional Development, Research, and Advancement 65 Status of Standards for Tenure and Promotion in Debate 67 Robin Rowland, chair, University of Kansas; and R. Jarrod Atchison, Trinity University, Texas Pathways to Innovation in Debate Scholarship 93 Gordon R. Mitchell, chair, University of Pittsburgh Development and Advancement in the Coaching Profession: A Report on Professional Debate Coaching Positions and Benchmarks for the Profession 127 David Hingstman, chair, University of Iowa; and Taylor Hahn, Clarion University Section II: Innovation and Best Practices 147 Innovation and Debate: Where Do We Go from Here? 149 Karla Leeper, chair, Baylor University Best Tournament Practices: Recommendations and Data 163 Rich Edwards, chair, Baylor University; and Jon Bruschke, California State University–Fullerton Section III: Community and Organization Building 179 Consolidating Debate Governance: Working Group Recommendations 181 Gordon Stables, chair, University of Southern California Constructing Alumni Networks 198 Scott Segal, chair, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, Washington, DC; and Michael Hester, University of West Georgia NavigatiNg OppOrtuNity ix Section IV: Agenda for Policy Debate in the 21st Century 209 Controversies in Debate Pedagogy: Working Paper 211 Edward M. Panetta, chair, University of Georgia; and William Mosley-Jensen, University of Georgia Alternative Debate Models: Working Group Summary 236 Allan D. Louden, chair, Wake Forest University; and Theodore Albiniak, University of Southern California Civic Engagement Through Policy Debate: Possibilities for Transformation 242 Anjali Vats, Washington Debate Coalition, Seattle, and University of Puget Sound Section V: Beyond Tournaments—Openings for Debate Programs 251 Toward an Understanding of the Landscape of Debate Expansion in Urban Areas and Opportunities for the College Community 253 Will Baker, American Forensics Association, vice president for high-school affairs Rethinking Debate Education: The Impact of Community Programs and Engaged Scholarship on Debate at Emory University 262 Melissa Maxcy Wade, Emory University Reaching the Dropout Population: Seeking Government Grants 271 Carol Winkler, Georgia State University The Challenge to Reestablish Intercollegiate Debate at Our Nation’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities 273 John W. Davis II, Debate Solutions, LLC Broadening the Base of Investment in Challenging Economic Times: Communicating the Case for Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Debate Interventions 277 Scott Deatherage, executive director, and Eric Tucker, chief academic officer and deputy director, National Association for Urban Debate Leagues Section VI: Pedagogical Innovations 287 The Allred Initiative and Debate Across the Curriculum: Reinventing the Tradition of Debate at North Carolina 289 Christian O. Lundberg, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill x NavigatiNg OppOrtuNity Co-opetition: A Strategic Approach to Debate Organization Politics and a Proposal for Skills-based Debate Instruction 322 Will Baker, American Forensics Association, vice president for high-school affairs Educational Convergences: The Potential Relationships Between Parliamentary and Policy Debate Communities 330 Derek T. Buescher, University of Puget Sound Section VII: International Debate Opportunities 339 New Models for Debating: The USA Learns from the World 341 Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont Prospering in a World of World Debate 349 Noel Selegzi, Open Society Institute The Growth of Asian Debate: Implications for America 357 Jason Jarvis, Georgia State University Appendixes 361 I: Debate in Research, Practice, and History: A Selected Annotated Bibliography 363 Sarah Spring, University of Iowa; Joseph Packer, University of Pittsburgh; and Timothy O’Donnell, University of Mary Washington II: Guide to Debate Organizations on the Web 376 Anjali Vats, Washington Debate Coalition, Seattle and University of Puget Sound NavigatiNg OppOrtuNity xi Beginnings: The
Recommended publications
  • Anthropology (Ant) 101 Introduction to Anthropology General Elective S1 902 102 Intro to Cultural Anthropology Anth 220; Society & Culture S1 901N
    MORTON COLLEGE CATALOG YEAR: 2019–2020 NIU CATALOG: 2021–2022 DATE: JULY 2021 CALENDAR: SEMESTER AA/AS DEGREES: 62 HRS PAGE 1 of 8 EFFECTIVE FOR COURSES TAKEN FALL 2021, SPRING 2022, AND SUMMER 2022 COMMUNITY COLLEGE COURSE NUMBER/TITLE NIU EQUIVALENT IAI CODE ANTHROPOLOGY (ANT) 101 INTRODUCTION TO ANTHROPOLOGY GENERAL ELECTIVE S1 902 102 INTRO TO CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY ANTH 220; SOCIETY & CULTURE S1 901N ART (ART) STUDENTS RECEIVING ART STUDIO (ARTS ELECTIVE) CREDIT FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE COURSES ARE ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT A PORTFOLIO OF THEIR WORK FOR POSSIBLE COURSE CREDIT. PLACEMENT IN MAJOR STUDIO CLASSES, EXCEPT FOR CORE COURSES, IS BY PORTFOLIO. CONTACT SCHOOL OF ART FOR INFORMATION ON PPLICATION AND DATES FOR PORTFOLIO SUBMISSION. 101 TWO-DIMENSIONAL FUNDAMENTALS ART 102; CREATIVITY & CRITICAL ANALYSIS 102 THREE-DIMENSIONAL FUNDAMENTALS ART 103; CREATIVITY & CRITICAL ANALYSIS 103 DRAWING I ART 100; CREATIVITY & CRITICAL ANALYSIS 104 DRAWING II ART 101; CREATIVITY & CRITICAL ANALYSIS 105 PAINTING I ARTS ELECTIVE 107 WATERCOLOR ARTS ELECTIVE 111 SCULPTURE I GENERAL ELECTIVE 113 CERAMICS I ARTS ELECTIVE 115 PHOTOGRAPHY I ARTS ELECTIVE 116 PHOTOGRAPHY II GENERAL ELECTIVE 117 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY GENERAL ELECTIVE 120 ART APPRECIATION ARTH 282; CREATIVITY & F2 900 CRITICAL ANALYSIS 125 ART HISTORY SURVEY I ARTH ELECTIVE; CREATIVITY F2 901 & CRITICAL ANALYSIS 126 ART HISTORY SURVEY II ARTH 292; CREATIVITY & F2 902 CRITICAL ANALYSIS 127 ART HISTORY SURVEY III CREATIVITY & CRITICAL F2 902 ANALYSIS ELECTIVE 203 FIGURE DRAWING I ARTS 200 204 FIGURE DRAWING II ARTS ELECTIVE 205 PAINTING II ARTS ELECTIVE 211 SCULPTURE II ARTS 261 213 CERAMICS II ARTS ELECTIVE 217 TRIBAL ART CREATIVITY & CRITICAL F2 903N ANALYSIS ELECTIVE NOTE: ART HISTORY MAJORS W/217 CONTACT SCHOOL OF ART FOR POSSIBLE ART CREDIT.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Tips & Tricks
    Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 Home About Us ∠ For Debaters & Coaches ∠ News & Events ∠ Join the Movement Debate Tips & Tricks Partners & Partner Supporters: Schools: Alvarez Central Click Here to download Debate 101: This is a helpful guide to Policy Debate written by Bill & Will Smelko detailing everything 3 you need to know from Rudiments of Rhetoric to Debate Theory. E 5 tips to help you win Juanita every debate round: Sanchez 1. Think as if you were your judge, not yourself. Remember, the only person whose opinion matters at Mount the end of the round is the judge’s, not yours! A Pleasant common mistake everyone in public speaking makes is assuming that because you understand the argument that your audience does as well. Take into account the Paul Cuffee judge’s debate experience before using a lot of debate http://www.riudl.org/debate-tips-tricks/ Page 1 of 4 Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 lingo, and make sure you look up at your judge while making a key point. This will both reinforce your argument because of the eye contact you will make, and it will allow you to look for signals from the judge (ie, Woonsocket shaking her head) that she understands you. 2. Always think comparatively. Every argument that you make, at the end of the round, will be compared against something the other team said. If you’re affirmative, for example, you should always be thinking in the mindset of “how does my plan compare to the status quo?” [i.e., doing nothing, what the negative frequently advocates].
    [Show full text]
  • Lehigh University's Project Impact: an Environmental Management Case Study
    The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, with supplemental funding from The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Reprinted from Journal of Drug Education and Awareness, 2003, Vol. 1, pp. 59-75, with permission of Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 400 Oser Avenue, Suite 1600, Hauppauge, NY 11788. Tel: 631- 231-7269; Fax: 631-231-8175; e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]; Web: www.novapublishers.com. Reprinted by the Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention • (800) 676-1730 • www.higheredcenter.org 60 John W. Smeaton, Madalyn C. Eadline, Brenda Egolf and William DeJong LEHIGH UNIVERSITY'S PROJECT IMPACT: AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY High-risk drinking has been a long-standing problem on U.S. college campuses. According to national surveys of college students conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, approximately 44% of college students engage in heavy, episodic drinking, which is defined for males as five or more drinks in a row within a two-week period, and as four or more drinks for females. 1, 2 About half of these heavy drinkers, or about one in five students overall, can be classified as frequent heavy drinkers, meaning that they drink at this level three or more times during a two-week period. These drinkers account for approximately 68% of all alcohol consumption by U.S. college students. 3 Progress in reducing heavy, episodic drinking among college students has been slow. One positive note is an increase in the percentage of students who abstain from drinking.
    [Show full text]
  • College Historical Society
    COLLEGE HISTORICAL SOCIETY LAWS OF THE SOCIETY Chapter I Fundamental Regulations The following shall be considered the fundamental regulations of the College Historical Society and no Law or resolution in anywise contradicting, suspending or repealing them, or any part of them, shall be valid without the consent of the Board. 1. All persons paying the capital levy shall be eligible for the ordinary Membership of the Society. 2. Topics of religious controversy and present party politics shall be prohibited at the meetings of the Society. 3. Every meeting of the Society shall terminate not later than twelve o’clock by College time. 4. No person can be elected an Officer of the Historical Society without the sanction of the Board unless he be either officially connected with the University or be a member of the Society. This law shall not apply to the election of Vice-Presidents. Chapter II Annual Members 1. The amount of the annual subscription shall be determined by the General Committee in advance of the first of October of each session. 2. All persons who are eligible shall become Annual Members immediately upon paying their annual subscription. 3. The membership of every Annual Member shall lapse at the end of the sixth week of Michaelmas Term in the session following that in which his annual subscription was last paid. Every person whose membership shall have so lapsed shall be re-admissible on payment of the annual subscription. 4. Any member who is neither indebted to the Society in any amount, nor has in his possession any book from the Society’s Library, nor has any key belonging to the Society may resign from membership of the Society on notifying in writing the Record Secretary of his wish to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Academy Guide
    Debate Academy Guide 29 July to 3 August 2019, Uppingham School Introduction from the Course Director Debate Academy is an annual, week-long summer school in the United Kingdom dedicated to improving young people’s debating skills. It is held each year in late July to early August at Uppingham School in Rutland. Students aged 14-18 receive tuition from expert debating mentors in a variety of competitive debating formats. Whether you have little or no experience, or are getting ready for trials for your national debating team, Debate Academy will offer a tailored experience to suit you. This document is designed to provide additional information and hopefully to answer any questions you may have about Debate Academy. For the most up to date information on this year’s Debate Academy or to sign up for a place, please visit our website: http://www.esu.org/programmes/debate-academy If you have any further questions or queries about Debate Academy feel free to get in touch with me at [email protected]. I look forward to seeing you there! Bob Saull Debating Programmes Officer English-Speaking Union 1 Contents Learning at Debate Academy 3 Which ‘Track’ is for Me? 4 Which ‘Stream’ is for Me? 5 Living at Debate Academy 6 Applying to Debate Academy 9 2 Learning at Debate Academy At Debate Academy you will receive expert tuition on debating from some of the best debaters in the country. You will get the chance to discuss world issues, sharpen your analytical, reasoning and public speaking skills, and spar with other students from all over the world in competitive debates.
    [Show full text]
  • CX Firm Foundation I
    Stefanie Rodarte-Suto Canyon High School [email protected] §Policy Debate: US policy at home and abroad is the central issue of the topic/resolution. Debaters role play by acting as a policy maker, playing out possible scenarios. Evidence driven §CX Debate: Cross-Examination Debate §Team Debate: Two members constitute a team; Two teams of Two constitute a debate § “At the beginning, though, it is important to understand that, whatever else debate is, it is a game. It has teams, points, winners, losers, tournaments, and trophies. Like many games, it is not always fair (even though we try hard to make it fair). Most importantly, debate is supposed to be fun.” - Dr. Joe Bellon, Director of Debate Georgia State University 2006 § Just like any game, there are rules and a basic structure to learn and understand. Constructives § 8 min. 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC) § 3 min. CX by 2nd Negative § 8 min. 1st Negative Constructive (1NC) § 3 min. CX by 1st Affirmative § 8 min. 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC) § 3 min. CX by 1st Negative § 8 min. 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC) § 3 min. CX by 2nd Affirmative Rebuttals § 5 min. 1st Negative Rebuttal (1NR) § 5 min. 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) § 5 min. 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR) § 5 min. 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) *8 minutes of prep time for each team §Resolution § Topic to be debated- Selected each year by a national vote § Debated across the US throughout the academic year § Wording is important: Each word has meaning (Topicality) Providing boundaries for each team § 2017-2018 Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Policy Debate
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 354 559 CS 508 069 AUTHOR Herbeck, Dale A.; Katsulas, John P. TITLE The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Policy Debate. PUB DATE Oct 92 NOTE 16p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (78th, Chicago, IL, October 29-November 1, 1992). PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Debate; Debate Format; Higher Education; *Probability; Rhetorical Criticism; *Risk IDENTIFIERS *Policy Debate; Rhetorical Strategies; *Risk Assessment ABSTRACT The best check on the preposterous claims of crisis rhetoric is an appreciation of the nature of risk analysis and how it functions in argumentation. The use of risk analysis is common in policy debate. While the stock issues paradigm focused the debate exclusively on the affirmative case, the advent of policy systems analysis has transformed debate into an w,aluation of competing policy systems. Unfortunately, the illusion of objectivity masks several serious problems with risk analysis as it is presently used in academic debate. Risk analysis artificially assigns probability to arguments and overvalues arguments with large impacts. Four suggestions can dramatically improve the use of risk analysis in policy debate:(1) some risks are so trivial that they are not meaningful;(2) the increment of risk must be considered; (3) debaters must not become enslaved to large impacts; and (4) debaters must rehabilitate the importance of uniqueness arguments in debate. (Twenty-one notes are included.) (RS) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • ICTV Rush Night Spring 2012
    ICTV Rush Night Spring 2012 A note from your Station Manager New Productions for Spring 2012 Hello Rush Nighters, Backstage Comedy Ithaca Eats College Gourmet Poutine on the Fritz Welcome to the Spring 2012 ICTV Rush Night! ICTV is turning 54 years old this year as we gear up to start another semester of Dual Redundancy Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One the longest-running college television station in the nation. ICTV is the largest student organization on campus. From producers, directors, actors, anchors, editors, graphic designers, set designers, sound engineers, and much more - ICTV has something to interest everyone. Executive Staff I encourage you to stop by each of the tables here, using this Monitor as your guide. The producers need your help to make their production visions a reality. They’re more than happy to talk to you Station Manager: about what they’ll be putting a lot of dedication into this coming semester. Find out what best suits you. Most of all, get involved! J.P. Mosca, [email protected] With over 20 unique productions, I am confident that you’ll be able Director of Programming: to find something you’ll enjoy. We have news, sports, dramas, reviews shows, game shows, sketch comedies, and many more. James Heasley, [email protected] Director of Technical Operations: ICTV’s Rush Night often gets a large turnout and these producers have many applications to sift through. If for some reason you do Ayla Kaluski, [email protected] not hear back from anyone, please email me and I will personally Director of On-Air Promotions: do my best to find a show that needs your help.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Entire Book
    Scientific knowledge in controversy: the social dynamics of the fluoridation debate Brian Martin with a commentary by Edward Groth III Published in 1991 by State University of New York Press, Albany The version here differs from the published version in a number of details of expression, a different format, different page numbering (151 instead of 274 pages) and omission of the index. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Arguments 9 3. Coherent viewpoints 27 4. The struggle over credibility 40 5. Professional attack 66 6. A corporate connection? 84 7. Making a decision 94 8. Studying the controversy 106 The fluoridation controversy: which side is science on? by Edward Groth III 122 Appendix: Fluoridation around the world 137 Acknowledgments Albert Burgstahler, Edith Waldbott, and many others (too numerous to mention) plied me with valuable information through correspondence. Gay Antonopoulos obtained copies of many publications for me through interlibrary loans. I thank the individuals listed in chapter 3 for their generosity in being interviewed. Discussions with Mark Diesendorf and Evelleen Richards provided me with insights. I received a large number of valuable corrections and comments on the earlier drafts from Albert Burgstahler, Brian Burt, John Colquhoun, Mark Diesendorf, Edward Groth III, Michael A. Lennon, Pam Scott, John Small, Donald Taves, and several anonymous reviewers. I especially thank Edward Groth III for his mammoth correspondence and for writing the commentary. 1 Introduction The 1 August 1988 issue of Chemical & fluoridation are given little space and little Engineering News contained an article that credence. caused a sensation in the long-running The Chemical & Engineering News article controversy over fluoridation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ebook Download Seinfeld Ultimate Episode Guide Ebook Free Download
    SEINFELD ULTIMATE EPISODE GUIDE PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Dennis Bjorklund | 194 pages | 06 Dec 2013 | Createspace Independent Publishing Platform | 9781494405953 | English | none Seinfeld Ultimate Episode Guide PDF Book Christmas episodes have also given birth to iconic storylines. Doch das vermeintliche Paradies hat auch seine Macken. Close Share options. The count includes both halves of three one-hour episodes, including the finale , and two retrospective episodes, each split into two parts: " The Highlights of ", covering the first episodes; and " The Clip Show ", also known as "The Chronicle", which aired before the series finale. Doch zuerst geht es um ihr eigenes Zuhause: Mobile 31 Quadratmeter werden auf mehrere Ebenen aufgeteilt. December is the most festive month of the year and plenty of TV shows — both new and old — have Christmas-themed episodes ready to rewatch. Spike Feresten. Finden sie ein Haus nach ihrer Wunschvorstellung - in bezahlbar? Main article: Seinfeld season 1. Cory gets a glimpse at what life would be like without Topanga and learns that maybe it's worth making a few compromises. Das Ehepaar hat in der Region ein erschwingliches Blockhaus mit Pelletheizung entdeckt. Doch noch fehlt ein Zuhause. Doch es wird immer schwieriger, geeignete Objekte auf dem Markt zu finden. Sound Mix: Mono. As they pass the time, the pair trade stories about their lives, which ultimately give clues to their current predicament. Was this review helpful to you? Jason Alexander. Favorite Seinfeld Episodes. Schimmel und ein kaputtes Dach sind nur der Anfang. Auch das Wohn-, Ess- und Badezimmer erstrahlen in neuem Glanz. Deshalb bauen die Do-it-yourself-Experten seinen Keller um.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Association & Debate Speech National ©
    © National SpeechDebate & Association DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION DEBATE 101: Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Copyright © 2013 by the National Speech & Debate Association All rights reserved. Published by National Speech & Debate Association 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 USA Phone: (920) 748-6206 Fax: (920) 748-9478 [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or hereafter invented, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, information storage and retrieval, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. The National Speech & Debate Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, gender identity, gender expression, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services. Printed and bound in the United States of America Contents Chapter 1: Debate Tournaments . .1 . Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Rhetoric . 5. Chapter 3: The Debate Process . .11 . Chapter 4: Debating, Negative Options and Approaches, or, THE BIG 6 . .13 . Chapter 5: Step By Step, Or, It’s My Turn & What Do I Do Now? . .41 . Chapter 6: Ten Helpful Little Hints . 63. Chapter 7: Public Speaking Made Easy .
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do Parties Cooperate in Presidentialism?
    WHY DO PARTIES COOPERATE IN PRESIDENTIALISM? ELECTORAL AND GOVERNMENT COALITION FORMATION IN LATIN AMERICA ¿Por qué los partidos cooperan en sistemas presidenciales? Formación de coaliciones electorales y de gobierno en América Latina KENNETH BUNKER Universitá degli Studi di Milano [email protected] Cómo citar/Citation Bunker, K. (2019). Why do parties cooperate in presidentialism? Electoral and government coalition formation in Latin America. Revista de Estudios Políticos, 186, 171-199. doi: https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rep.186.06 Abstract The purpose of this article is to explore coalition formation in presidential sys- tems using evidence from Latin America. It puts forward three hypotheses based on formateur power, electoral structures and party systems to explore when and why electoral and government coalition formation occurs. It uses evidence stemming from eighteen democratic presidential regimes in Latin America from 1980 to 2010. It looks at 100 elections and 407 aggregate years of democratic government. It anal- yses data organized in a cross-sectional time-series fashion through a logit function with random effects and robust standard errors. It finds that in democracies with weak presidents, restrictive electoral rules and highly fragmented party systems, the president will seek the support of multiple parties. While the effective number of par- ties is the most important determinant, rules related to legislative elections are more important predictors of electoral coalitions, and those related to presidential elections are more important predictors of government coalitions. The findings in this article are important insofar as yielding critical insight into partisan strategies in both the run-up to elections and the maintenance of governments, as well as contributing to a general theory of coalition formation.
    [Show full text]