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

Re: Eligibility, enrollment, etc (not a pot post)

Maybe instead we should establish the NDL or National Debaters League.
We could have a draft, and debaters could  give up their eligibility to come 
out early, to step out of the ranks of poverty that debate puts you in.  We 
could get contracts with NEWSTALK television, NIGHTLINE and other similar 
shows to allow debaters to come on and debate.  Coaches could have 
milnlion dollar contracts and debaters could hold out for a couple more 
mill. We could rent CEACERS PALACE in Las Vegas, "Ladies and Gentlemen, 
lets get ready to rumble."  Debaters who did not want to enroll for 
college could go straight to the NDL right out of High School.  Then 
maybe other countries could start a league, and we could debate the 
OXFORD Union. Any more ideas? Add on.

Jackie 

The Old SChool

On Tue, 11 Jun 1996, MTSU Debate wrote:

> Howdy all,
>    I think the eligibility/enrollment thread is an extermely important 
> one to the CEDA community, and I'd like to address my concerns as well... 
> Please excuse any nonsensical, stream of consciousness garbage... it's 
> 4:30 am. I don't expect this to be too long...
>    I think most of us would agree that debate is and extremely beneficial 
> educational activity. (Translation: we learn a lot). Now as far as I'm 
> concerned, were I not debating, I probably wouldn't be in school (I'd be 
> in CA or NY), and I definitely wouldn't be at MTSU (Yes, "Deliverance" 
> depicts Murfreesboro real-life). I'm a theatre major... Oooooh! I wanna 
> act for a living... I could take private classes and get the same 
> experiences as here... and it really doesn't matter to directors whether 
> or not you have a degree... just memorize the lines, and deliver them 
> well... I don't need college for that. But, while I'm here, I'll learn as 
> much as I can. Sorry, tangent. I guess I'm just trying to stress the 
> importance and educational value of debate. we're a group of students and 
> educators... I would think that we'd be in favor of non-students wanting 
> to learn a thing or 2, and not so eager to push them away. When we 
> educate through debate (even if it's a non-student), haven't we done 
> something right. And as far as students are concerned, we're a pretty 
> arrogant bunch. Debate is very competitive... I don't think too many of 
> us would shy away from debating a team that is very good, but very not 
> enrolled. I'd say "bring 'em on!" Hell, those of you who've debated me 
> know I need all the experience I can get. we could only get better, right?
>    Now, here's the part I don't like about non-student debaters. If 
> they're on my squad, then they're taking MY money. That means I don't get 
> to travel near as much, which means I don't get as much experience, which 
> means I don't learn as much... A university has enough to pay without 
> funding someone not even affiliated with it to go on a field trip. Not cool.
>    So I say let 'em debate, but make them pay for it... Make the 
> non-enrolled debater pay all his/her own travel/food/registration/lodging 
> expenses. The number of non-enrolled students debating would drop 
> tremendously, if not completely, but that avenue would be open for those 
> folks who want to do it and can afford it. Yeah, the poor ones get left 
> out... I still haven't figured that out.
>    I think time limits should still apply, however... That way, you can 
> control the amount of time debaters (both enrolled and non-) remain on 
> the circuit.
>                       Just some thoughts,
>                              Scott Pejaver
>                              MTSU Debate
>
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page