more continua for CEDA-NDT

[drtuna@aol.com]

Where was I.......

#6: amount of research and research skills:
NDT: 8 (one topic, goes deep)
CEDA: 6 (two t
opics, get as deep as we can)
Parl: 3 (some prep is done to develop cases)

#7: quality of judging
NDT: 8
CE
DA: 6
Parl: 1 (often pretty corrupt...)

#8: ELITISM FACTOR
NDT: 9
CEDA: 6
Parl: 3

#9: National and regiona
l cicuit:
CEDA: 9
Parl: 5
NDT: 2

#10: Diversity of participants: (gender, race...)
Parl: 6
CEDA: 4
NDT: 2

WARNING:
^^^^^^^

Please feel free to disagree with my point values or my rankings. This is all
pretty subje
ctive. However, argument about it would probably be calories burned in vain.
I probably won't reply to your 
different rankings and you may be right. That isn't the point.

LOOK:
^^^^

The real point I am trying to ma
ke is that different people and different programs want different things out
of the debate experience. No on
e format can do that. Debating is a skill which more people need to learn,
and different formats with differ
ent levels of intensity and emphasis serve that need.

FINALLY:
^^^^^^^

I believe that in America today the
re are more college students engaging in debate in the three formats than at
any time in the past. This is g
ood. To what extent does a format merger help things except create new ground
for another format to rise and
 meet the needs of those left out by the compromises of the merger?

Perhaps we should leave well enough alo
ne.

Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont

---

• Prev by Date: Re: #2(2) CEDA-L digest 96 and Yuval Malchi and CEDA/NDT
• Next by Date: Re: SCA papers
• Prev by thread: Re: #2(2) CEDA-L digest 96 and Yuval Malchi and CEDA/NDT
• Next by thread: Re: more continua for CEDA-NDT
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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