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

merger

This is Tim Mahoney using Val Renegar's account because it is able to convert 
to convert word processing text into email which will hopefully cut down on
my typos.
     All this talk of meta-debate has rekindled my interest in the merger
issue which I think should be seriously considered. I have tried to solicit 
input on why certain programs do CEDA instead of NDT and vice-versa but 
received little response. However, I am going to take another shot at it by
making an actual proposal. A very rough outline of a proposal anyway. For 
clarity I have surrounded my 'comments' with asterisks. Sorry if it seems 
egotistical to comment on ones own proposal before it has been responded 
to but it seemed like the best way to explain my intent. OK here goes.
     In the summer of 1995 all collegiate directors of debate meet for an 
assessment conference the results of which are:

1) The formation of the United States Collegiate Debate Association
(USCDA)- the USCDA's primary function will be to select the college debate 
topic.  The USCDA will select one topic to be released on August 15 to be 
used the entire year. The USCDA will serve in a very loose manner as a 
sanctioning body for the other debate organizations detailed below. The 
USCDA will formulate harassment policies to be implemented at all 
sanctioned USCDA tournaments. The USCDA will also set standards for a 
Division 2 which will allow competition among schools with fewer resources.
****The debate topic being released on August 15 is probably a 
controversial point for many of you. For those of you who would say that is 
too late. I agree. However, recently there have been movements in both NDT 
and CEDA to shorten the season. I am firmly in the camp that says if you 
don't want to go to tournaments 9 months a year and cut cards 11 months of 
the year you don't have to but let me if I want to. However, if the merger is 
going to work we all have to make compromises and this is one I am willing 
to make. Besides, I am going to add a couple of weeks at the end of the year 
which hopefully will appease almost everyone - more about that later.
Tom Murphy, from Miami of Ohio, has persuasively argued on the
CEDA-L and in other forums that many of the divisions currently plaguing 
CEDA are a result of monetary inequities. In an age where some programs 
have on-line data bases, numerous coaches, huge travel budgets, etc. 
providing a division 2 would allow schools that wish to, to compete against 
other schools with the same resources. This might level the playing field. 
Maybe even a division 3 would be warranted, we will have to see.****

2) The NDT committee will now function as the host of the United States 
Collegiate Debate Association National Invitational Tournament to be held 
the last weekend in April. At said tournament the NDT committee will present 
the national varsity sweepstakes awards recognizing the debate squads 
who won the most debates in open division during the year. These awards 
would be given not only to the national winners but also to the top open 
point earners in each of the 15 or so USCDA regions.
****I envision this tournament as a gigantic by invitation only tournament say 
64 teams. The NDT committee could select the invited teams in any manner 
they so choose. I don't know how they would do it - maybe they would 
devise a system where the best 16 teams in the country were chosen and
given automatic invitations. Then each region of the country would have a 
tournament to select 30 more teams. The final 18 teams could then be 
selected by giving out 2nd rounds. Uh, I mean the NDT committee would
then find some way of selecting the other 18 teams that would provide high 
quality competition based on their year long ahievement.****
3) The ADA committee will now function as the host of the Division 2 national 
tournament to be held the 1st weekend in April. At said tournament Division
2 national and regional awards for open competition will be presented.

4) The CEDA committee will now function as the host of the USCDA national 
tournament to be held the 2nd weekend in April. This tournament will offer 
one division of competition open to all teams. At said tournament national 
and regional awards will be presented to the best overall squads in both 
Division 1 and Division 2.

****I'm not sure what to call the 'best overall squad' awards. The intent is for
 these awards to recognize schools for competition in novice, jv, and varsity 
debate. Each division would count equally for points. As opposed to the 
trophies given out by the NDT committee which recognize only debates won 
in varsity. Only the last 6 rounds of prelim competition and elims would count 
for points in the 'best overall squad' awards. Additionally, each school would 
only get to count its best 6 tournaments throughout the year. This is currently 
the practice in CEDA and seems to somewhat provide opportunities for 
schools with fewer resources to do well in sweepstakes competition.****

5) The USCDA will form a committee entitled the Public Debate committee. 
This committee will host the national Public Debate tournament to be held 
the last weekend in February.

****The intent of this tournament should be clear enough. Maybe this 
committee should use a different topic or switch during the year. I await your 
input.****

END

     Having just reread what I wrote it seems like more a pipe dream than 
a proposal. Nevertheless, I await your comments and suggestions. Normally,
I am concerned mainly with what the students/debaters think. In this instance 
I hope Directors of Debate will come out of the woodwork and speak up; 
since every debater in the country could support this but program directors 
are the ones who will make this happen. Students/debaters please respond also.
The activity is still primarily for you and if you say my ideas are bad ones
then in the trash heap they will go.
I hope that comments will also 
indicate whether or not you would support the proposal. If you don't support
the proposal please specify if you would support the proposal but for one or 
two issues. Or possibly you think I am trying to fix something that isn't broke.
 
     Well if nothing else this could take out the inherency for all the meta 
debate affirmatives. Actually, since no one votes on inherency anymore I 
guess it would just take out the uniqueness on the DA's. 

2AC #7 extend the evidence, group the answers...
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page