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

Re: Future of Debate

On Thu, 15 May 1997, David Franklin Breshears wrote:

> a chance to play.  That was 1988.  Clark and his troupe denounced that
> wacky "NDT style" and marched indignantly off to CEDA.  Well, less than 10
> years later, I'll wager 10 bucks you couldn't tell a CEDA round from an
> NDT round (and not just because we're debating the same topic).  Looked at
> from this perspective, I have a hard time understanding why folks think
> NDT/CEDA is dying.  The numbers may have been dropping in the past, and

I think that may be precisely the problem.  Look at it from a different
angle: NDT debate became highly stylized, high-speed, evidence-intensive
and unaproachable by a general audience.  Simultaneously, NDT membership
started to decline, schools switched to CEDA (where there was still some
emphasis on communication and rounds could be understood, at least on a
basic level, by the uninitiated), which grew.  Now CEDA is interchangeable
with NDT, is stylized, fast, and unapproachable by a general audience, and
membership is declining, with schools leaving for Parliamentary, at least
if the anecdotal evidence and current trends are borne out.  We can
legitimately question whether there is a causal relationship between
debate style and membership, but that's a different discussion.  Just
because Henny Penny has said "the sky is falling" before doesn't mean that
it won't this time, especially since it did, in a sense, last time.

> there are still justified concerns about continuing reductions in
> membership, but keep in mind that this past year was the beginning of a
> grand experiment that could substantially increase the strength of both
> organizations.  We shouldn't fear diversity of formats, nor should we fret

Increasing the strength of two organizations with declining memberships by
merging them is not the same as solving the problem of declining
membership.  When CEDA/NDT debate drops below a critical level in a
region, it will then drop off precipitously, since teams will not be able
to compete without taking longer and longer trips.  Eventually, you get
the situation that NDT had, where a few dozen enormous programs comprise
the majority of the competitive field, and I don't think that's good for
students or coaches or the activity in general.

> schedules, speaking style, or whatever). We should focus instead on
> extending our outreach to students in high school, to make them aware of
> debate opportunities in our joint community, to put interested students in

I'll agree here, with one serious reservation: we should increase our
outreach to students on our own campuses who have NO debate experience,
and get them involved as Novices.  If we just recruit from high schools,
we become largely self-perpetuating and are not providing a real service
to the majority of students at our universities.  High school recruitment
is fine, but on-campus recruitment is, in my opinion, MUCH more important.
Tuna has a great sermon on this issue, and his program is a good example
of what can be done in that area.

> address these issues without the emotional charge of a seige mentality.
> Our activity isn't doomed.  Clark was simply wrong (I'm sure you're all
> shocked).  We'll be fine if we just step out of our offices and into our
> communities.

And onto our campuses.  Come to think of it, some rounds in other formats
would probably be good publicity as well.  I agree that the "siege
mentality" is wrong, but for a different reason: other formats are not our
enemies, they are just other choices for our students.  If people are
leaving CEDA in droves, we need to find out why and see if they're being
well-served by the change.  If not, then we need to address their
concerns, but if they are happy in Parliamentary, why try to draw them
back to a format that doesn't suit them?

          --Alan

__________________
Alan Dove
N3IMU
ad52@columbia.edu
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page