[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Why bother with topic ar

To: "c l" <ceda-l@cornell.edu>, nedunbar@ecst.csuchico.edu
Subject: Re: Why bother with topic ar
From: "Carson Brackney" <Carson_Brackney.ESC@ELLIOTT.ES.TWSU.EDU>
Date: 7 Dec 1995 10:06:30 -0600

Norah says:

 >My team will not waste their 
>time on Mexico updates or info-tech research if half their work will be 
>wasted so we are sitting around doing backfile research until the topic 
>is chosen.  I think we have simply reverted back to before we had topic 
>areas known.  Why bother with the topic areas at all?

This isn't really the part of the post on which I wanted to focus.  However, I
am wondering if having everyone kick back for TWO WHOLE WEEKS and not cut
cards might be ok.

>Pam Stepp made another good point at the SCA business meeting... the 
>topic commitee met and chose topic areas, and then spent time researching 
>the topic area and writing resolutions for us to vote on for the spring.  
>This was a huge waste of their precious time and CEDA's valuable 
>resources if we just end up debating Mexico again.

I don't think it is a waste of time at all.  They spent their time
constructing an alternative for those not wishing to extend Mexico.  Do you
consider the fact that the committee writes five topics a waste of time
because we choose only one?  Of course not.

>Suggestions:
>I think CEDA needs to decide in the fall if we want a year-long topic.  
>We could vote at the nationals business meeting (or in the mail) for a 
>year-long topic.  Alternatively, we could do it on a year-by-year basis 
>is we vote by mail in the fall whether we want the topic all year or 
>not.  If not, then at least the topic commitee will know that they are 
>not wasting their time writing spring topics.  If the topic is chosen 
>again for the spring, then the topic commitee doesn't even need to meet 
>in the fall.  

I think that is an interesting idea.  It might give us the chance to debate
year-long topics (something I favor) while avoiding some of the problems we
are currently facing.


>As it is now, having topic areas in the sring is a complete waste of 
>time, because no one can take advantage of knowing the topic area is 
>info-tech if it might also be Mexico.

I don't think so.  Spring topic areas are still necessary so that (1) we can
determine what topic area we want to oppose the first semester topic in
balloting, (2) so the community can provide opinion and insight to the topic
committee when they are selecting topics, (3) that we can eventually generate
specific resolutions for the balloting at mid-year, (4) so that we can all
check out the new topic area and make informed decisions during mid-year
balloting.

>Norah Dunbar
>Director of Debate
>CSU Chico  

Carson Brackney
Asst Dir of Speech and Debate
Wichita State

------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by ELLIOTT.ES.TWSU.EDU with SMTP;6 Dec 1995 21:25:59 -0600
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
listproc.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA27514; Wed, 6 Dec
1995 22:01:16 -0500
Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6]) by
listproc.mail.cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA27488 for
<CEDA-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 22:00:57 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA04045
for CEDA-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 22:04:47 -0500
Received: from steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu (steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu
[132.241.1.33]) by cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id WAA04033 for
<CEDA-L@cornell.edu>; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 22:04:45 -0500
Received: (from nedunbar@localhost) by steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu
(8.6.12/8.6.12) id TAA04482; Wed, 6 Dec 1995 19:04:43 -0800
Message-Id:
<Pine.HPP.3.91.951206184818.1125A-100000@steroid.ecst.csuchico.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 1995 19:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: nedunbar@ecst.csuchico.edu
Sender: owner-CEDA-L@cornell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Norah E. Dunbar" <nedunbar@ecst.csuchico.edu>
To: Issues concerning CEDA Debate  <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Why bother with topic areas?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified) 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN

Prev by Date: Re: Santa Speaks!!
Next by Date: Re: Mr. Hopper, tell us about evidence...
Prev by thread: re: Evidence-Student Judge Double Standard
Next by thread: Nick Burnett (others feel free to delete)
Index(es):

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page