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

Re: Divisions & geographic participation

<< The idea that there are alternatives (like parlimentary) really bothers 
 me.  The fact that a school chooses a particular debate format 
 represents a choice; given the dramatic differences between CEDA and 
 parlimentary formats, I would think that CEDA schools would lobby others 
 to switch.  There are educational facets to academic debate that are not 
 present in parlimentary debate.
 
 As I've said many times before, the ultimate challenge facing 
 intercollegiate debate as it enters the next century is developing 
 stability in its organization.
  >>

I'm very troubled to see respected leaders of this community return to the
troubling claim that parli is somehow less educational than CEDA. Several
responses:

First, this just repeats the NDT-CEDA polarization of the last generation. If
you thought the NDT folks looked snooty and elitist then, reflect on how you
may appear to a growing chunk of the overall forensic community now.

Secondly, every game has some educational benefits, ususally just in
different areas. CEDA/NDT promotes research skills and ability to integrate
complex cognitive mapping. Parli may be less educational in those areas, but
as other threads are highlighting, there are benefits to training in public
formats, too. The use of humor and the more real-world burden of proof
without reliance on authoritative quotes are clearly skills worthy of
educational merit. The things that we generally see in academic argument
texts are far more likely to be part of the content of a parli debate than
they are in a "quotation debate." Trying to say that one skill is more
inherently educational than another seems to be akin to speculating how many
Korcoks can dance on the head of a pin.

Thirdly, clearly not everyone is going to choose to do CEDA/NDT. It just
doesn't fit everyone's particular needs. Just like many of CEDA left NDT,
many will decide that parli better fits their needs and students. Now there
seems to be two ways we can deal with this situation -- 
1. We could try to persuade those schools shifting to parli not to shift to
an "educationally inferior" activity. This can be characterized as the early
'80's NDT  approach. We can all see how very successful that approach was to
stemming the exodus. And we get the extra benfit of igniting another forensic
cold war to occupy our petty bigotries well into the next generation. Or we
could
2. Incorporate the inevitable need for public format debates into CEDA. WE
should be offering schools the potential to earn some type of points in CEDA
for competition in parli. We should be offering non-quotation (or limited
quotation) public formats on diverse resolutions drawn from the larger
CEDA/NDT topic, using both policy and value resolutions. We should be trying
to coordinate with APDA and NPDA, just as we are tentatively groping for
organizational detente with NDT. In other words, don't you really think that
a strategy of inclusion serves the larger benefits of this community much
more than a strategy of exclusion and hierarchy? 

We need to wake up! When I started on CEDA-L three years ago, the goal of
common year long policy topics seemed a million miles away. But, the walls
are starting to crumble. Now is not the time to start building walls on the
other side of our terrain. Now is the time to recognize that there is not one
format of debate that provides the perfect mix of educational skills. Now is
the time to show our true committment to the goals of diversity and
inclusiveness.

No one seems to be responding to this premise. Why not? Why would this be
bad?

Curious,

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