[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:

> I guess my main problem with this line of thinking, Alan, is that the
> question of a causal connection between style and membership ISN'T a
> different discussion - it is the implicit assumption buried in the logical
> syllogism you've constructed: 'X' style becomes "inaccessible", membership
> in 'X' organization declines; 'Y' style becomes like 'X' style, membership
> in 'Y' organization declines.  Ergo, 'X' style = declining membership. 
> Help me dissect this in a way which escapes the question of causality?  My

No problem.  At no point did I say that the causal relationship existed,
or in any way argue that CEDA should impose content regulations to change
the style (which I think is the only way it could be done).  I strongly
oppose such restrictions on philosophical grounds.  Your argument appeared
to be "Someone said NDT was dying in 1988, and it didn't.  Now people are
saying CEDA is dying, but it's the same as NDT."  My argument was "well,
in a sense, NDT did decline considerably, and CEDA grew as a result.  Now
that CEDA and NDT are interchangeable, the combined community is
shrinking."  No causal link, just an observation that the 1988 prediction
wasn't wholly off-base.  I was not attempting to construct a syllogism.

> point is this: subatomic physics, as a discipline, is "highly
> stylized...evidence-intensive and unapproachable by a general audience",
> yet membership is seemingly unaffected.  Why should debate be any

Actually, largely because of that inaccessibility, subatomic physics is in
serious danger of extinction in this country.  Public support for the
expensive experiments of "big science" has withered in the absence of
public understanding of the purpose of those experiments.  I think the
analogy was a bad choice, and won't try to argue that the situation of
CEDA/NDT debate is the same as that of subatomic physics, but you might
want to ask a physics Ph.D. what he thinks his job prospects are.

I do not think the problem lies in CEDA's style - it's a problem of
program structure.  If we recruit extensively from high schools and let
the Novice division in our region die out, it will be our own damned fault
when the rarefied debate world we have built starts to crumble at the
base.  At the risk of sounding like a "slippery slope" link card, I really
do believe this happens suddenly when participation drops below a certain
critical level.  We might not perceive a problem until it's too late, if
we're not paying close attention to tournament size and composition in
different regions.

Why are programs dropping out in the first place?  I sent a number of
hypotheses backchannel to Berube, and I assume others are doing the same
so he can construct his survey and see if he can scare up some answers.  I
suspect that the unapproachability of the activity may be a minor factor,
and could be solved by better public relations.

> Vertical consolidation is, however, an effective means of surviving in a
> competitive environment.  The proliferation of debate formats has created 

I agree that it's a good thing.  Your original argument (at least as I
read it) seemed to suggest that CEDA/NDT was growing "stronger" by
merging.  More resistant, perhaps, but not inherently stronger, if by
"stronger" we mean "having more participants."  Again, two organizations
with declining membership are working together, which will help both, but
will not, in and of itself, solve the problem of declining membership that
encouraged them to do this in the first place.

> full.  While the "critical level" has certainly been reached in some areas
> (the Northwest comes to mind), most regions continue to support novice
> debate.  Should these efforts be expanded?  Undoubtedly.  Can we do more?

"Most regions" or "some regions?"  And how much support?  Here in the
Northeast, Novice is almost always the biggest division at a tournament,
and generally breaks to octas even at relatively small regional
competitions.  JV and Open often barely break to quarters at these small
tournaments, and are frequently collapsed into a single Open division.
That's what I call "a healthy Novice division." Is this the rule, or the
exception?  Novices should outnumber JV and Open debaters everywhere, if
we allow for attrition.  I think we're in agreement here, but I see things
as being a few shades closer to the edge than you do.  If we don't start
boosting Novice participation in other regions soon, it may cease to be an
issue in those areas, as programs with Novices will just switch to other
formats (which won't necessarily give them the same learning opportunities
they would get in CEDA/NDT debate).

> Not a reservation, just an addition.  I totally agree.  These efforts are
> complementary.  I suspect that you and I are in general agreement here.
> However, my concerns above reflect a suspicion that others in our
> community would rather "fix" the game than question the reason it isn't
> being played.

I think you're right - we do agree.  I'm just more of a pessimist.

          --Alan

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