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

Re: CEDA-L digest 604

  sound programs are able to teach
>well regardless of the particular subject, scope, or wording of the
>resolution.  whining is just an excuse for poor coaching skills.

Preston responds:

Here, here!  I'm not really sure where I fit in as far as the coaching
skills go, but my point is this--As well as what Mike is saying, as long as
CEDA counts novice equally to varsity, its entry barriers for the new
program/debater are incredibly fair.  Gary Rees is right--with hard work
small programs can win speaker awards and excel in CEDA.  As well, we at
UM-St. Louis rely mostly on new debaters, and CEDA rewards them while still
allowing those who have developed to a consistent Varsity level through
years of dedication and hard work to attain and maintain national honors. I
repeat--I cannot see a single program in today's CEDA top ten that at one
time was not either small or an easy win, before being coached by their
current director.  A broad or narrow topic will not stand in the way of our
ability to develop programs and teach debate--The Study Break tournament,
which is limited to novices, was bigger than ever despite the loss of some
of its contituents to NEDA last year.  The classes of beginning debaters
involved liked the criminal justic topic precisely because it allowed them
the flexibility to be creative and avoid having to respond to 1,000
clashes.  But creativity can still occur with narrow topics, so I still
don't care whether the topic is narrow or broad.  (note: former hs debaters
and college transfers with substantial experience [defined as two semesters
with three tournaments or have not yet been in finals twice, if memory
serves] are INELIGIBLE for novice)


It was written (oops I deleted the source--excuse me I'm new at this):

>>Resolved: That the United States government should substantially change
>>its foreign policy toward Cuba.
>
>How could such a resolution achieve the same effect as Cuba going through
>reforms.  At the level that you are using a remote (the us) to shape Cuban
>policies, the outcome becomes uncertain, whereas w/ cuba as the actor, plan
>would gain more workability and solvency than counterplan.  As well as
>avoiding heg and other disadvantages.
>
>
>>Resolved: That the US government should substantially increase its
>>developmental aid in one or more of following areas: rainforest protection,
>>debt relief, species preservation.
>

Preston responds:

Yea, yea, there are problems with US hegemony in this topics, but isn't the
status quo policy (an embargo, no diplomatic relations, with the explicit
goal of starving Cuba's ideologically "incorrect" government into oblivion)
also hegemony?  Perhaps changing this to a normal relationship would be
less hegemonic, an affirmative could argue. Sure the outcome is
uncertain--but ah, doesn't the uncertainty of the outcomes make for good
debate?

Also, debaters, unless they move to Cuba (t'ain't likely) are going to be
<<US>> policy makers if they advance in the political arena as historically
some former debaters have.  Like it or not, we are US citizens, and
therefore I see the US wording as being more immediate to those involved
here, and no problem that cannot be argued effectively by debaters on both
sides.  In reality, our US leaders will have to determine US policy toward
Latin America, so I have no problem with the US being the actor.

At the same time, I also like the idea of another nation being the active
agent--that challenges our debaters to become so immersed in the subject
matter that they gain some understanding of the issue from the perspective
of another country or culture.  I don't know if this can be done--you
almost have to have lived your life in that other culture to really
understand it.  As well, judges in order to critique the arguments
effectively would also have to become immersed in this manner--some will,
some won't.  At the same time, that would allow the debaters more ability
to define the voting issues for critics who allow them to do so.  As well,
walking a mile in the shoes of a foreign agent would be a challenge, as
well as worth considering.  Ironically, the challenge would be not to
impose our own, ethnocentric biases in debating what we think other
countries should do, as well as in our judging.  In short, the very act of
judging what another should do could be a hegemonic affair!

Well, here I go debating myself in the prior paragraph!  Suffice it to say
I can see plenty of fascinating arguments developing for both affirmative
and negative regardless of the actor chosen.  Interesting. . .


Joshua Hoe Writes:
>
> Resolved: that the expansion of Unted States trade with Latin America should
> be linked to one of the following concerns: Democratization, Environmental
> quality, or workers rights.
>

As you all may have surmised from my suggested list of topics, I really
like this one--if fact, I wish I'd thought of it.  I hope some version or
wording of it gets on the ballot.  In fact, there are three good ideas here
that could appear as separate topics for those inclined to want a narrower
scope.

Well, there's another, well, three cents.  Will look forward to seeing the
ballot.

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