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

Re: Rapprochment Need

Prof. Stickland,
I am writing this response to the letter you wrote talking about 1) the
need to avoid attacks on individuals - not their arguments, and 2)
the need to discuss primarily the benefits of CEDA.  I am very new to
e-mail and I do find the personal attacks disconcerting, to say the
least.  I think the notion of avoiding them should be a goal of 
everyone involved.
My concern focuses primarily on the evolution of the CEDA/NDT thread.
I agree that the debate about which is better is a bit tangental to
the avowed goals of this system.  If the purpose is to prove that
both activities can learn from the other, I would hope that
neither group is so vain to believe that their activity possesses a
monopoly on educational benefits.  I do feel that a discussion on
the incorporation of certain practices into, not repudiating, the
CEDA framework has considerable value.  My experience has taught
me that both groups could benefit from the incorporation of 
certain practices of the other.
As to the discussion on reapproachment between the camps, I think
this has value.  That does not mean we need to debate which is
better - rather, the discussion should focus on ways in which they
can comingle while maintaining their distinct identities.  I believe
this primarily because I think the debater (for whom this activity
theoretically exists) in both groups would like some minimal level
of experimentation.  I think that this would be helpful to CEDA
debate because it would demystify NDT and allow many debaters (they
do exist) who feel that CEDA is inferior to NDT to realize they
are not that different.  Maybe then they will feel more
comfortable supporting their choice of CEDA, having been able to
fully understand the other option.  Obviously, I feel that
debaters in both groups could benefit from this.
I am hopeful that CEDA-L will remain focused on CEDA, but am
also convinced that we should make CEDA as good as it can be
within its own goals and framework.  I hope that valuable discussion
in this area won't be chilled in our goal for greater comment
directness and efficency.
				- Nick Coburn-Palo
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page