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

Re: Toward a Middle Ground—A Pr oposal

I don't feel that I need to jump in on Jim's behalf because he is capable of
dealing with his own proposal, but there are a couple of misconceptions
suggested by Ellis that I would like to clear up.


At 03:51 AM 2/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Why is it that evry debate community thinks this proposal is a good idea, 
>a similar proposal was advanced for the hs community last year when 
>several"slow traditional "programs wanted made an argument that my 4 year 
>old brother always makes" it is my toy you can't play with it" while I 
>tolerate this from him even though he now realizes this is bad logic, I 
>wonder why thinking communities of intellectual adults must enage in the 
>same kind of thinking , the line by line

I'm not sure what is being said here, but it seems like Ellis is criticizing
himself.  CEDA is his "toy", and anyone who dares suggest an alternative way
to play with his "toy" is called names and insulted...




>> In the Northwest, I can 
>think of six
>> programs that might be willing to rejoin the CEDA organization if we had a
>> *middle ground* form of debate using quotations. In addition, there are
>> at least two more programs that will probably leave CEDA next year in the
>> Northwest. I know on our own program, the excessive amount of work to
>> remain competitive has taken its toll. I believe this trend to be happening
>> throughout the country.


>Its non-unique check out the nsu needs help post, its not just work loads 
>that are making programs go away, but more importantly why does the fact 
>that your program and others don't feel like doing the work mean that our 
>program should be discouraged to research, i'm sorry we are motivated and 
>so are a lot of other small programs. Maybe it would be nice If i didn't 
>spend this entire weekend in the squad room cutting cards but let me make 
>that decison not less motivated people imposing rules on supposdly free 
>expression.

OK, here is the first misconception...I wonder if Ellis has ever been to a
Whitman squad meeting to hear all their unmotivated debaters whine about how
much work they have to do.  Probbaly not, because I doubt it has ever
happened.  They are one of the better researched teams in our district,
especially for a very small school.  In fact, I bet they spend many weekends
in their squad room cutting cards...so do my students.  Does that mean we
shouldn't offer alternatives for those who would rather not?  It just
baffles me why people get so uptight when alternatives are offered.  Why
shouldn't teams have the choice to debate in a division where the number and
types of arguments are limited if they so choose?  Nobody is telling you
what you have to do.


> > The basic idea of 
>this proposal is to offer an > additional form of CEDA debate that:
>> 1. uses a narrowed topic (The breadth of recent topics, especially this
>> year's requires students to spend too much preparation/research time)


>your right my personal life sucks, I spend far too much time on my 
>computer, but i know a lot more now than I ever knew before this season 
>and the bredth of the topic has made me learn about things ranging from 
>our agriculture policy to our space policy, to our nuclear policy. You 
>get the point the bredth increases the education I know more about 
>policies and about philosophies, and to preempt the depth better 
>argument, they are simply not mutulay exclusive. The aspects of the wide 
>ranging resolution that i have researche di have researched in depth, and 
>the aspects that the xpansive topic has opened my eyes too i have found 
>more arguments that interest me. Again don't decrease my educationa nd 
>force me out of ceda because you're squad isn't motivated.

2 misconceptions:  1) Jim's squad isn't motivated; 2) That your education
would be impacted one iota.  Jim's squad is motivated, and you can research
to your heart's content unless your coach forces you to do Public CEDA.  Why
must you hurl insults toward people you know nothing about?


>> Also, I am not saying that our program will discontinue traditional CEDA
>> debate, because it will not. We would, as I am suggesting for the
>> organization, expand and include this new form of CEDA, Public CEDA.

>Why you can't uphold the research buden that is in ceda now, when you 
>make this proposal the teams you can beat will be gone and the burden 
>will increase

I am looking at the results sheet from the Whitman tournament and there
seems to be a few teams they can beat..Your concern is touching, however...


>> respectfully suggested
>For the most part i think this proposal is an oppresive, education 
>destroying ceda destroying, way for non motivated teams to feel good, cut 
>some cards be creative

Well, at least Jim is being respectful...Again, no one would force you to do
Public CEDA...If CEDA is destroyed by this proposal, then maybe there are
problems within the organization that need to be addressed...Maybe I want
teams that don't have time to live in their squad rooms over the weekend
because they are working jobs, taking care of their families, etc. to have a
chance to feel good about themselves and gain the benefits of evidence-based
debate...Jim is being creative--he is trying to find away to accomodate
teams that cannot/will not do CEDA in its current form.  What is wrong with
that?

I'm not sure I agree with the proposal, but I wanted to make sure Jim and
his squad were defended because they may not be arrogant enough to do it
themselves (though I doubt it :) ), or perhaps because they are too busy
cutting cards for Heart.

Glenn Kuper
University of Puget Sound

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