[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
NDT/CEDA/ADA/APDA/NDA rapprochment
Love Child has initiated an interesting strand which I would like to
formalize. The current debate landscape is beginning to resemble the former
Soviet Union. While I do not believe this to be necessarily bad (debate
participation is probably at its highest level ever and, unlike Professor
Bartanen, I do not believe parlimentary debate to be the evil empire), I do
believe that CEDA, in particular, is beginning to feel organizational strain.
Having been involved with NDT and CEDA extensively, I have always been
bothered by the near complete ignorance each group shows of the other.
Perhaps the most amusing anecdote I could share in this area was a round I
judged at South Carolina last year. The losing team (an NDT crossover), not
knowing that I was coach of an NDT team which had cleared at UNI, Wake
Forest, and West Georgia the year before, announced, "We wouldn't have lost
if this were an NDT round." Needless to say, I felt obligated to chew them up
a bit before spitting out! Anyway, I would be curious to know how people
feel about the following:
(1) Should CEDA separate into divisions? I advocated such a proposal in the
CEDA Executive Secretary Report last fall. Strangely, I have received mostly
positive feedback from and equal number of national circuit and regional
programs.
(2) Would separating into divisions lead to a rapprochment with NDT?
(3) How should CEDA deal with clear schisms, such as NDA or NPDA?
I think it's interesting that, while once viewed negatively, the ADA seems to
be holding NDT together. Will regional organizations, such as the NDA, TIFA,
NCFA, or PSCFA, hold CEDA together?
I would encourage members of all of these organizations to participate.
-Tom Murphy, Miami University
(513)529-2278
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page