[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
CEDA-L digest 962 - topic comments
Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont
==========
dklein@dailynews.net
"first, thanks to jamie and greg for their assistance in retrieving pam's
topic process survey. I am disturbed that this document is used so
frequently as an appeal for inclusion of non-policy resolutions on the
ballot. first, there are numerous programs that for whatever reason did not
respond to the survey. arizona state, kansas state, the university of
central oklahoma, the university of saint louis-missouri, western washington
and macalaster college are just a few of the programs missing from the
survey results. "
Thanks for finding it. I have it at the office but not here at home, and I
didn't search for it like you did. This reminds me of why I need to get a
search engine installed to Debate Central.
Sure, not everybody votes for the topic, either. This is why I want to
eliminate summer voting on topics. Why list schools, as if some mattered more
than others? I notice that you picked 6 national circuit teams. No, it isn't
a complete survey, but it is data.
BY THE WAY for the 20%+ figure I have been using as those who want a choice
of policy and non-policy, I assumed that everyone who didn't fill out a
survey wanted POLICY ONLY, which I doubt is true. The 20% figure is, I think
very low.
ESPECIALLY since Church's survey had 80% response and showed the same thing.
Using Church's results, we could say that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of CEDA
schools want a choice. Now, I think this has eroded some over time, and I
have no quibble with that, but the situation seems to be that LOTS want the
choice.
"3. The topic ballot should include:
all policy topics 13
all value 5
value & policy 35"
Now, if the Church data replicates this relationship, my above claims seem
pretty clear. But, they don't have to be. I just need to know that a
substantial number of our members want a choice and thus as a member of the
topic committee I wanted them to have choice.
------------------------------
Pacedebate@aol.com
"I believe the topic committee is required by the constitution to propose
resolutions drawn from the topic area. As I understand it the topic area
selected was environmental regulations."
I believe it says: (Russell Church, please help me out):
"Section 2: ... no fewer than three topics drawn from the problem area" So,
let me get this straight, this is a topicality argument, right? These topics
are not "drawn from" environmental regulation is your argument. If they are
found in this discourse then it is OK.
"R: That the USFG should increase the rights of non-human animal species in
the US.
In my opinion the topic committee should withdraw this topic from
consideration or at least substantially change the wording so that it falls
within the realm of environmental regulations."
Can anyone doubt that non-human species are something we debate about when
debating the environment? I don't. Does granting legal rights sound like a
form of regulation to you? It does to me.
"The topic committee should also consider whether or not
R: That biocentric ethics are more desirable than anthropocentric ethics.
and
R: That we should embrace the principles of deep ecology.
fall within the topic area voters have selected."
Which ethical system we embrace has everything to do with how we regulate the
environment, it creates a value system within which decisions are made. This
is true of both topics.
I offer a useful standard -- THE DESCRIPTOR TEST...
Previously, the topic committee has released a list of descriptors (ideas
which might come up) with the topic areas. This year we did not. If you would
have accepted "animal rights" and "deep ecology" and "anthropocentrism" as
descriptors for things likely to come up in a problem area like
"environmental regulation" then everything is fine. And I believe that the
vast majority of people would have found those descriptors acceptable.
"In their attempt to be "creative and diverse" the committee may have been
just a bit over exuberant and pushed aside the direction voters have given
them. I urge their prompt reconsideration of the three topics I listed
above."
Applying the standard raised by many on topic issues (and it should be pretty
clear now who has been saying don't allow a non-policy topic on the ballot no
matter how many people want one), if I don't agree with you I would simply
ignore your perspective and do my will. However, because I am open to
considering positions I do not currently agree with, and because I believe in
including them in formal decision making, I will ask the committee to
consider withdrawing these three topics. Thank you for raising this
substantive issue.
------------------------------
WHITNEMR@snymorva.cs.snymor.edu
"This tempest in a teapot is taking on a life of its own. Remember what topic
selection used to be like? A committee would meet sometime, somewhere, and a
list of topics would emerge for us to vote on (kind of like the state budget
in New York). This topic committee has been the most open ever. They
accepted volumes of input from the list (oops, I guess that raises all those
validity questions because not everyone is a member of the list), put out
daily reports on progress and asked for and accepted more input, and replied
quickly to concerns. But it seems that no matter what lengths they go to,
they can't win."
Yes, it is a little silly. I would not be spending my personal time doing
this, but as chair of the topic committee I guess I'm the one to do it. I
will even have to do it again. After that I wish Carrie Crenshaw luck with it
all. Her style may be different, and probably superior to mine. Live and
learn.
At Kansas Prof. Kim Giffin taught me some very important lessons about
participatory decision making:
1. It takes a lot longer;
2. It is far more difficult, often trying available patience;
3. It results in the best decisions;
4. People are more willing to support decisions they participated in.
5. You have to put up with 1 & 2 to get 3 & 4.
Being "open" and having "participation" are also concepts which very rarely
get maximized. We could always be more open, and we could always participate
more, so that explains part of it .
Another part of it is, as you mention, a lack of historical perspective.
Perhaps Russell Church could compare this committee and process with those of
the past where he has served before. I feel good about the changes I have
tried to bring to the topic process.
------------------------------
Glen Strickland <STRICKLG@esumail.emporia.edu>
"Another area which has not been addressed is the scope of the three
quasi-value topics. Most people view these topics as too narrow, while I, on
the other hand, view them as topics with few limits; can you imagine Michigan
State running the pond case and applying the concept of Deep Ecology to it?
Or justifying it from a biocentric ethics point of view or specifying the
one tiny little specie which is placed at risk in that one pond? Multiple
this example by thousands. What are the limits placed on those topics?"
Finally, someone with vision! YES! These are huge topics with lots of
available concepts to explore and exploit. I agree Glen, these are broad
topics.
Having said that, let me repeat that I prefer a clear, short, broad topic. I
don't demand definitional certainty because I think that is largely illusory.
------------------------------
"Russell T. Church" <rchurch@frank.mtsu.edu>
"Pam's survey was preceeded in the spring by a topic survey I did which
received an 80 percent response rate from all CEDA members and many of the
high profile programs responded. THE RESULTS WERE ALMOST THE SAME. IT WAS
PUBLISHED ON THE L AND CAN BE RETRIEVED."
Thank you Russell. Case closed on whether people want a choice of both policy
and non-policy choices.
------------------------------
dklein@dailynews.net
"there is certainly a segment of the community that advocates the inclusion
of non-policy resolutions on the ballot, and whether that is a small or
"overwhelming" portion of the community is only marginally relevant to my
claim as to the superiority or inferiority of a policy only approach. and
in any case the reality appears that there will be minimally one value
resolution wording on the ballot, and so i have decided to spend my time
working to make constructive criticism of the various wording proposals. "
Very well. I look forward to your comments.
------------------------------
Pacedebate@aol.com
"This is the best topic committee process we've ever had. That doesn't mean
it couldn't be a little bit better. As I noted in my original post I don't
see this as some evil topic committee conspiracy. I just think they got a bit
carried away in their quest to be creative and diverse."
No we didn't. I'm not extra-problem-area. *That sounds strange* I address
that above.
See above about how we can never be too open or have too much participation.
I appreciate my colleagues keeping a close watch on me because there is an
evil conspiracy I am working on and I want people to join me. It seems like a
suicide mission, but I'm looking for brave volunteers. We may even develop a
secret hand shake.
I want to promote intellectual rigor in debate while at the same time making
it accessible to many different types of programs and many different types of
students. My mad scheme is to have BOTH!
THANKS TO ALL! Thanks especially to Yuri and David Klein for putting up with
me.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page