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

Re: Merger

> Hmmm.  It seems to me to be the end of the road for the separate buit
> mostly equal CEDA circuit.  Most of the complaints that I originally held
> about CEDA are no longer relevant (lack of work by the debaters and subsequent
> rewarding of
> laziness, wildly disparate views of theory etc) and the national CEDA
> circuit resembles (ok, with a lot more participation by
> marginally succesful programs) the national NDT circuit of the late '70's.

I have to agree. I've been saying this for years. CEDA is evolving
into an activity very similar to NDT.

> The problem in the Northwest specifically is that the stability of the
> CEDA regime has been undermined by the growing split between schools who
> can travel nationally and those who cannot.  Gee, what then is the
> difference between the `exclusivity' of NDT in the early `80's and the
> same inherent disadvantages faced by lesser well endowed programs here in
> the mid-90`s?  What then has CEDA solved?

I think CEDA has been a valuable endeavor. It certainly has provided
a means to keep the vast majority of active schools involved in
debate. The novice and JV circuits in CEDA are far better than
anything in NDT.

>  In the Northwest it has meant
> that instead of a split between the high powered programs who debate NDT
> and the rest of the programs who debate CEDA, we now have high powered
> schools who debate CEDA and the remainder of the programs who are slowly
> moving (sinking?) into Parly.

I object to your rhetoric, sir! Parli debate is an interesting
activity. It is not NDT or CEDA debate, but that is not to say that
it is devoid of educational merit. Communicating with humor and
intelligence to more traditional audiences is not easy. The ability
to showcase parli components of a debate squad to administrative and
community groups provides an important public relations benefit.
While i find it a shame that so many northwestern squads are making
mutually exclusive decisions about the direction of their programs. I
encourage all squads - NDT or CEDA to add a parli component to their
squads.


> Seattle U next year will take a couple of young teams and debate NDT. We
> will also still debate CEDA in the Northwest, but for reason explained
> below I'm unsure how long the Northwest will support a viable CEDA
> community.
>  I'm
> not sure why there shouldn't be a merger, except politically it probably
> will never happen.  Bottom line, folks, the debate between CEDA nad NDT is
> OVER!!!

The Northwest is just going through some natural regional flux in the
nature of forensics. No reason to panic. Don't give up so quickly on
merger. Wheels are starting to turn.


>  There is a should in the resolution.  For fifteen years we have
> listened to the blarney and the bluster over `values' debate and now we
> don't even have that to recommend CEDA. The rest of the arguments come
> down to unwillingness or perceived inability to compete with the politicos
> in NDT.  Too bad--if enough people revert to NDT, wouldn't the political
> advantage lie with your friends who used to be in CEDA?  Isn't that what
> politics is mostly about?
> Anyway, since there is now a should in the resolution, and the CEDA
> community has done it to themselves, it seems we should close the debate
> and move on to bigger and better things.

I think your reasoning goes out on a limb here, however. The simple
adoption of a policy topic is hardly the root cause of NDT and CEDA
consubstantiality. CEDA has been debating policy on dozens of value
topics and NDT is discovering the delight of debating value positions
on policy topics. You are dead right, however, about politics and
merger. Not liking the other circuits politics is turned badly by the
notion of merging with an organization (NDT) that lacks the regional
organizational depth of CEDA. It's like the old surrender to the
Soviets counterplan. Who do you think would have been wearing jeans
and drinking cokes?

Yes, let's merge, and concentrate on providing official meachanisms
of support for forensic deversity.

>   On the other hand, I think the arrogance of the NDT circuit needs to be
> combatted.  I think the best debaters in CEDA can debate with great NDT
> programs, to the betterment of all.
>
We agree. Be not so quick to stereotype all NDT debaters as arrogant.
Most of the NDT debaters I have spoken with are quick to embrace the
notion of debate unity over organizational fragmentation. Some of the
most arrogant debaters I've ever met have been at CEDA tournaments.
They have that right.


> Finally:
> To the extent that Parliamentary debate will expand and remove many of
> the financially pressed schools from the CEDA circuit what we have left in the
> Northwest are the same schools who hung on to NDT until its bitter dying
> gasps in the Northwest debating CEDA.  (Gonzo, Western, L&C, Whitman,
> Oregon, UPS, PLU, Willamette).  What we will be left with are tiny pools
> of CEDA teams and large pools of Parly teams, until only the wealthiest of
> the Northwest schools can compete nationally.  This is what happened to
> NDT in the early `80s, and if you listened to the self-satisfied simpering
> of the coaches from terrible programs who are so happy with the success
> they are getting for doing no coaching at all, you would realize that
> in the Northwest Parly is going to be HUGE.

Your anti-parli biases do damage to your rhetorical force. Parli
coaches are not lazy bums looking for easy routes to success. That
implication is unfair and makes me uncomfortable in agreeing with some
of your other points. The growth of parli is a good thing. It
provides more people more opportunities to be involved in competitive
forensics. Blaming the success of parli on CEDAs problems is self-
defeating. Unless we can move beyond the age of zero-sum forensics
and recognize the high-quality programs can and should embrace a
variety of debate forms, we will forever be caught in a "cold war" of
our own making.

> My goal, then, is to try to sustain a reasonable level of the best form of
> debate in the Northwest.  I have concluded that CEDA as an individual
> massive entity propelling debate in the Northwest is through.  We must
> move on to NDT  and Parly together as the only possible combination of
> events.  CEDA is now doing what NDT did, in both good ways and bad.  Since
> the two are identical in all ways but the names of the schools who
> participate, we must rebel from our emotional attachments and move back to
> NDT.

Just taint so. NDT and CEDA get closer every day, but CEDA still has
a lot to offer that is somewhat unique from NDT. Good luck finding a
novice and JV circuit in NDT that is anywhere near the tournaments in
the northwest.

> THIS IS NOT A SLAP AT CEDA PEOPLE, WHOM I HAVE THE HIGHEST REGARD FOR.  I
> THINK CEDA COULD HAVE SUCCEEDED.  WITH THIS TOPIC, CEDA HAS GIVEN UP THE
> ONLY MORAL FORCE SURROUNDING ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE, VALUES DEBATE.  WE
> DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE, SO LETS MOVE ON.
>
Again, your case is broadly overstated. CEDA is not dying. The rumors
of its demise in the Northwest are greatly exaggerated. The presence
of value topics was never the unique distinguishing factor between
NDT and CEDA. NDT has embraced value argumentation in the same
fashion that policy debate has dominated CEDA's value topics for over
a decade.

The present impracticality of merger must not be a cause for
surrendering ourselves to the comfort of organizational bigotry. All
of the problems in your post would be greatly alleviated by the
minimization of organizational fragmentation. Close your eyes for a
second and envision a nation with one guiding organization for r



Michael "Bear" Bryant           Internet: mbryant@central.weber.edu
Director of Forensics           Home:   801-399-4253
Department of Communication     Office: 801-626-7186
Weber State University          Fax:    801-626-7975
Ogden, UT  84408-1903
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page