[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Vote No on Amendment #3!!
As I read over the amendments to be discussed at the SCA meeting,
amendment #3 raises a question pertinent to current novice
eligibility. If Glen and Gina are correct (and I believe they are),
the current wording of Article 8, Section 11 disqualifies students
with high school L-D experience from participation in the novice
division (the text is "...NDT, CEDA, high school debate..." and does
not specify high school "team" debate).
I assume (know) that there are debaters competing in novice that have
had significant L-D experience in high school. Are these people
currently receiving sweepstakes points? I do not believe they
should.
The bigger consideration is whether students with high school L-D
experience should be eligible (this would dictate your vote on
amendment #3). I realize that the "traditional" interpretation is to
allow them to compete as novice, but we probably all remember the
tradition arguments from the critique (insert you favorite spelling
here) discussion. We need to reconsider this stance. If the purpose
of novice is to provide an educational experience/introduction to the
debate activity in a non-threatening environment, we should reject
amendment #3.
Having spent a significant amount of time judging high school debate
in North Dakota, I realize that many student's experiences in L-D do
not directly apply to CEDA/team debate. First, we must realize that
one of the biggest obstacles to coaching novice is acclimating the
students to the debate process and jargon. Even the non-elite ;) L-D
programs will acclimate students. They may not win their first
tournament in JV, but they threaten the educational environment for
the majority of novice debaters with no prior experience (for those
of you that know me, I know this sounds odd coming from me, but I
have had three solid semesters to ponder the purpose of novice
debate).
In conclusion, I hope you consider the ramifications of your vote on
Amendment #3. Do not cast you vote just because you think it solves
perceived constitutional tension.
Patrick J. Osowski
Director of Forensics
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
e-mail (osowski@dempsey.acs.uwosh.edu)
telephone (414-424-7048)
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page