[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: A Challenge to NDT Crossovers
On Thu, 27 Jan 1994, Steven Hunt wrote:
> Tom et al: Why CEDA versus NDT I will compose a list off the top of my
> head as I go along just for provoking some thought.
> l. When Lewis & Clark switched it was for reasons of economy and
> geography. NDT had died in the Northwest and I wasn't going to travel
> only l or 2 teams to the Midwest and East constantly by themselves.
> 2. When we switched CEDA was more accomodating to regional programs;
> there is now a national circuit so this reason only partially applies
> 3. CEDA was and I think still is much more accomodating to novices and
> junior division people. It gives new people and inexperienced people a
> chance before putting them in vigorous senior competition.
> 4. CEDA gives or did give small schools small programs a chance as more
> regional less costly than NDT competition.
> 5. CEDA gives 3 4 5 or even more teams a chance for glory. NDT used to
> just give one or two teams a chance vis national and national circuit rules.
> 6. At one time, maybe not now, CEDA emphasized a balance of research
> (evidence) logic and reasoning (analysis) and communication (reasonable
> public speaking). I like that as I think it is the best form of debate.
> It is now being lost in CEDA and style is not intrinsic to any kind of
> debate but ten years ago the b alance was better in CEDA.
> 7. Two topics a year and not st arting in July.
> 8. A more diverse judging pool and random assignment of judges. At one
> time power judging mutual preference elitism was rampant in NDT This may
> no longer be true. CEDA is sometimes moving away from randomness. But
> again ten years ago elitism much more rampant in NDT than CEDA.
> 9. Less dehumanization. Again not intrinsic to any form of debate but l0
> to l2 years ago elitism bashed small timers in NDT this may no longer be
> 10. More diversity in programs and participants minorities women etc. in
> CEDA. This is not intrinsic to a form of debate but has been true of CEDA
> vs. NDT in the past may no longer be so.
> 11. Originally CEDA had cross examination and sweepstakes and NDT did
> not. This, of course, has changed.
> 12. Almost compulsory judge revelation of decisions in NDT. I prefer to
> have a choice. Usually I want to keep my decision private though I am
> always willing to discuss the issues.
> 13. At one time NDT rounds were taking 2 1/2 hrs each with lots of
> examination of evidence talking over flows etc. after the round slowing
> down tournaments incredibly. I don't know if this is any longer true.
> 14. CEDA has had the option of policy, quasi policy, value, or face
> resolutions. It has not taken full advantage of this option but it is a
> potential advantage.
> 15. Right now pragmatically CEDA is just bigger more diverse more healthy
> than NDT CEDA has its problems but problems of NDT have been worse see
> article by Rowland and Deatherage Crisis in Policy Debate Argument and
> Advocacy Spring l988.
> 16. NDT estranged itself from c omm depts and administrators. Originally
> CEDA didn't do this I am not so sure about now.
> That's enough off the top of the head stuff. Remember in this argument
> NDT is not policy and CEDA is not value debate. NDT is an organization
> and rules and a style of debate and so is CEDA. I actually like policy
> debate as a teacher and judge because I think value debate is harder to
> teach and judge more complicated. Also, I know that fact, value, and
> policy mesh together in many debates. I am also an advocate of
> rapprochement as I think all debate in fact all forensics organizations
> need to get back together talk with one another interact and defend their
> fine activities against outside attackers rather than foolishly cutting
> one another apart.
> Steve Hunt
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page