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

Mexico as an option

The first issue is one of "burdens."  I have always understood the roots of the 
mid-semester topic change in CEDA to be a direct result (backlash) to the 
amassing of evidence.  The "old evil" of NDT created massive evidence burdens 
that the "modern" student just wasn't willing; or in some cases, "able to 
meet."  I remain unconvinced that this is the current status within the CEDA 
community.  I've heard so many backfiles that I'm beginning to wonder how much 
could be made by someone willing to sell copies.

Of course, some programs would be hurt, to a certain degree.  Not everyone has 
a great research facility or the money for "on-line" access.  Smaller programs 
would be hurt.  I wonder if the recent "exodus" to parli by many of the smaller 
programs is a backlash to the reemergence of the evidence burden and policy 
topics in CEDA?  Should smaller programs just realize that they can't compete 
with the big boys and bow out?  Should we establish "divisions?"

The second historical issue is one of "style."  Again, the original "gripe" in 
CEDA was the NDT fostered a reliance on evidence rather than persuasive style.  
If we change the topic, then competitors will have to rely less on evidence and 
more on solid, rhetorical skills.  Been there.  Done that. Bought the T-shirt.  
CEDA style has reverted back to the old NDT style in many, many cases.  I don't 
see that "solvency" was meet with regard to this issue/concern.

Finally, there was an argument advanced "back then" that forcing students to 
debate a number of issues was more pedagogically correct.  More bang for the 
buck.  The debate continues between the "depth" vs. "breadth" advocates.  I 
really don't see either side as clearly winning the round.

In conclusion, I do have one insight.  CEDA was started because there were, at 
least in the hearts and minds of some, "evils" associated with the contemporary 
practices in NDT.  The "perceived" evils were so bad, in fact, that repair was 
"impossible."  Only a radical, new style of debate -- a redefinition -- was 
acceptable. (Need/Plan/Solvency) Have we reached a point where the "solvency" 
no longer "solves?"  If we adopt the NDT "evidence burden format," their 
"style" of presentation,  all of the "evils" formerly associated with policy 
topics, and evolve to one topic per year, what makes us different from NDT?  
Why not just merge with NDT? Is there something unique about CEDA that is worth 
saving?
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page