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

Re: Cultural Merger

>      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.
>
Agreed, with the caveat that I am impressed with the immense
improvements in the quality of CEDA evidnece. I am hearing very few
pieces of evidence without adequate supporting reasoning or
inaccessible citation. Particularly when comparing Jesuit-qualifying
tournaments to the NDT circuit, the differences seem very small.

>      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.)
>
A good assessment of the primary, substantive differences between
argument style between the two communities.


> 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.
>
I would only add that we should remember that any such movement will
probably be uneven, reflecting the diverse sub-communities within
CEDA's "big tent."

>      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.
>
My most substantive disagreement with Ken might be on this point.
While this may occur to some degree, I think CEDA will be more likely
to move toward specificity than NDT will relax it's current
expectations for such "on-point" argumentation. Reasons: NDT is very
proud of what it considers to be superior argumentation standards,
NDT has developed high-intensity research efforts for deep squads,
and CEDA is already well on it's way toward tougher argument
standards.

>
>      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.
>
We must also guard against the potential let-downs of over-optimism
on expectations such as these. While Ken's prediction is my clear
personal preference (remember Tuna and I fighting over this in CEDA-
L's early days?), I believe that there will be many disappointments
over the next year that will provide plenty of mortar for those who
choose to continue to support separate organizations. My concerns
include:

1. Few actual crossovers. I think that regional CEDA circuits will
prove too unpalatable for most NDT expectations. Most national-
circuit CEDA teams will stick to the crowded Jesuit lineup. NDT teams
will stick to the lineup of tournaments considered traditionally
necessary for a first-round bid. I know there will be SOME
crossovers, but I fear that the actual numbers may be relatively
small.

2. Judging differences leading to alienation. NDT simply expects more
in terms of judging standards. Some of these relate to different
community norms, but, quite frankly, there is far more homogeneity of
skill levels between NDT judges. Adaptation, as a necessary skill,
has faded in NDT. There are stronger expectations regarding decision
disclosure and cogency of oral critiques. My strongest fear is of
inter-community alienation over efforts and styles of judging.

3. Long-term problems remain. No one has yet produced a very detailed
vision of how actual organizational unity might be accomplished. The
heirachies of both organizations have few incentives to reduce their
current powers. Substantive disagreement remains on the issue of non-
policy resolutions. Both sides continue to remind us that this is not
organizational merger. Uncomfortable whispers on the list, from both
sides, provide evidence that emerging problems may be dealt with via
mutual threat-making as opposed to unified consciousness. Time may
yet work these problems out, but the point is that, as of now, the
future for merger remains murky.

I offer the following observations not as a critic of either
organization (though I am of both), but as an advocate for further
movement on the potentials that this next year might initiate. It is
essential to highlight the positive accomplishments of this
experiment, lest it's limitations kill future potentials.

In great fear of flying during the Olympics,

Bear
Michael "Bear" Bryant           Internet: mbryant@central.weber.edu
Director of Forensics           Home:   801-399-4253
Department of Communication     Office: 801-626-7186
Weber State University          Fax:    801-626-7975
Ogden, UT  84408-1605           AOL:    MWBRYANT@AOL.COM
                                Prodigy:SRGL57A@PRODIGY.COM
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page