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

Cultural Merger

A question:

AS THE ARGUMENT COMMUNITIES IN CEDA AND NDT EXPERIENCE GREATER
LEVELS OF CROSS-OVER, WHAT CULTURAL TRENDS CAN WE EXPECT?

I am slated to lead a discussion at the Midwest Debate Institute
on "New Directions in CEDA."  The biggest new direction in CEDA
is toward NDT, (and certainly vice versa).  As more teams cross
over, it seems a safe bet that the norms that have characterized
each group will change and accommodate themselves to a shared
space.  So I'm asking for help -- what do you think will happen
as our argument cultures move toward merger?  

I have some ideas, but first a few notes.

     1.) By "argument cultures" I mean those practical and
     community-defined norms regulating what is and is not
     considered good debate -- the practices which are reinforced
     by the best judges and the best teams.

     2.) When I speak of cultural merger I don't mean
     organizational merger.  I just mean that when two teams with
     different back-grounds find themselves in the same room,
     they have to negotiate a shared meaning for the notion of
     good argument.

     3.) It seems noncontroversial at this point that
     similarities in the argument cultures of CEDA and NDT *FAR
     EXCEED* the differences.  Yet given that cross-over has so
     far been the exception rather than the rule, we can expect
     some cultural differences nonetheless.  While no trend can
     be expected to be _unique_ to either group, there may yet be
     a greater emphasis on that trend in one community than the
     other.

     4.) I know next to nothing on the argument norms of NDT --
     the knowledge that I do have is second hand.  I post my
     observations *because I don't have faith in them* and want a
     second (3rd, 4th, 5th...) opinion.  I am very interested in
     what individuals with recent experience in both camps have
     to say.

Now, here is my 2nd hand take on general cultural differences. 
It may be a stereotype, but it is a starting point.  

AS A SMALLER AND TIGHTER COMMUNITY, NDT HAS MORE CLEARLY DEFINED
AND MORE COMMONLY HELD NORMS REGARDING WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD
ARGUMENT. AS AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS EXPERIENCED A GREATER
RECENT DIVERSITY OF PROPOSITION TYPES AND ATTITUDES TOWARD THE
ACTIVITY, CEDA HAS NOTIONS OF ARGUMENT QUALITY WHICH ARE MORE
FUZZY, MORE FLEXIBLE, AND MORE SITUATIONALLY DEPENDENT.

     1.) A relatively small number of cases to prepare against
     has led NDT to the privileging of case-specific answers to
     the near exclusion of generics.  The sheer number of teams
     which must be answered has led CEDA to a greater tolerance
     for generic, and sometimes poorly linked, positions.  'Risk
     of a link' means more to CEDA than to NDT.

     2.) A smaller number of competitors has also allowed NDT to
     employ a greater emphasis on evidence quality (source, as
     well as the reasons and analysis offered in the quote) as a
     way of determining who has won the point.  Quotes have
     gotten longer, blurbs have all but disappeared.  CEDA is
     moving this way too (e.g., Baby Joe: "if the quote isn't
     longer than my thumb its not worth a damn.") but not as
     much.  

     3.) A smaller cohort has led NDT to a clearer consensual
     notion of correct theory.  Offset counterplans are out. 
     Topical counterplans are in.  Issues regarding the function
     of the resolution, the need for counterplans to compete
     directly with case, etc. are not debated any longer.  CEDA
     has strong consensual standards too (e.g., whole res is
     gone) but in general is more likely than NDT to encourage
     teams to experiment with non-accepted ideas (e.g., "plan
     plan," counterfactuals, "we embrace...", foreign agent
     counterplans, object-of-the-res counterplans, etc.)

     4.) That same small cohort has led NDT to a greater tendency
     to share content assumptions on argument.  Nano-technology,
     for example, is 'a stupid position,' and the ethic is 'old.' 
     NDT _isn't_ more conservative per se (e.g., the most radical
     critiques seem to start first in NDT) but it is more in-
     agreement.  CEDA also has its assumptions, but given the
     greater number of teams, they are not as enforceable.

And, here is my take on trends we might expect.

     1.) Cultural merger will accelerate the emphasis on evidence
     quality.  Once one team is able to raise the issue, it will
     be hard to ignore.  CEDA will move in NDT's direction on
     this one.

     2.) A greater number of teams to prepare against will lead
     to a greater acceptance of general-link argument, innovative
     theory, and non-accepted content claims.  It will be a
     survival mechanism, and when it is done well, it will be
     respected.  NDT will move in CEDA's direction on this one.


     3.) Teams will realize that the similarities in argument
     culture far exceed the differences, and they will similarly
     realize that organizational distinctions are made of paper. 
     The move toward organizational merger will become an
     unstoppable force.  

Just some ideas.   Please, give me feedback if you can.  I'll
share it all with the students of MDI.

Thanks for your attention,

Ken Broda-Bahm
Towson State University
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page