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

elite and novices

everyone  starts out as a novice.  there is inevitably someone who is better
and more talented in the activity.  this is true of all activities.  now, the
question is one of whether this is good or bad for the activity.  well, i
know that i certainly wasn't motivated by the teams who didn't break at
tournaments.  it was the teams who won them that i modeled my work ethic and
style after.  the elite never made me want to quit the activity.  when i heard
them run arguments like socialism or anarchy or objectivism or postmodernism
or feminism, i wasn't discouraged.  i even took pride in throwing these words
around like i knew what i was talking about.  eventually, after being forced
to research these issues so that i could debate them, i actually learned
something.  it actually changed my life.  i don't remember who said it, but
it is these issues that may be "tangentically" linked that caused people to
question themselves and it can only be benificial.  we either learn to defend
what we think or we change.  judges intervening so that they can give thier
undebated opinions on the subject don't offer any "help."  i just get pissed.
i don't think i have ever been happy and actually benifited from a judge who
decided to play an "educater role" in one of my rounds.  it is stifling and
upseting which makes it counterproductive.
back to my piont.  i think crossman is making an assertion that novices are
leaving and that is the reason that ceda programs in CA are leaving.  there
is most likely a different explanation like what matt pointed out: a budget

crisis or something.  it is an unfounded claim that they are leaving because
of kritiks or pomo or even an "elite."  even if it is the elite that is driving
people out of the activity, what does crossman suggest as a solution?  do
we cut less cards so the quality of our arguments suffer?  again, i refuse to
believe that good debaters discourage novices.  if that is true, i wouldn't
be debating anymore.  nor would the novices who are very intrested in our
novice program that we will be starting next year.  they didn't look at joe
and me and say "gee, those guys are pretty smart, work hard, and go to
tournaments on the weekend" and then say "i don't want any part of that."

finnaly, why does debate have to have practical purposes?  does football have
a practical purpose?  not really, but it is still fun.  it is an end in and
of itself.  i debate because i like it.  it has practical effects on my life,
but they are not the reason i do it.  all of those things can be achieved
through a different medium.  it is not necessary to justify the activity
through its products.  it can be justified because it exists.

no spell check or organization of thoughts when i am supposed to be writing
a paper on Protagoras.

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