Collapsing down, Mexico for a Year

[jhboyle@postman.harding.edu]

I have a few answers:

   a) The possibility legally exists for the topic to be extended.  Until
      an amendment is passed to change this than the possibility of the
      topic being extended should be a consideration in the budget planning
      process.
   b) I would concede, that the lack of certainity about whether or not the
      topic will be extended makes it a gamble for schools to not invest
      in debating in the fall (or not debating to a significant degree).
      However, I think the advantages of having the option to not having
      the option outweight this consideration.  I'll address them specifically
      below.
   c) In Cornell's case specifically, you do attend tournaments in the fall,
      however you invest the majority of your assets during the spring 
      semester.  I don't see how the inability to attend all the "national
      circuit" tournaments in the fall would significantly impair your
      ability to debate competitively on the same topic in the spring.
   d) Who exactly is the juggernaut of the circuit whose debators never
      attend classes and spend all their time researching who you fear
      falling behind?  Perhaps the "information anxiety" we're feeling at
      not being able to spend all our time researching and writing arguments
      reflects a deeper problem which the prospect of a year long topic
      has brought to the surface.
   e) There is always going to be a limitation on resources.  I find 
      it admirable that Cornell never turns people away who want to debate,
      however there are limits to how far money will go.  Your squad's choice
      to travel that many teams is just that, a personal choice.  Your choice
      to concentrate on school more in the fall is just that, a personal
      choice.  Your tournament schedule is also a personal choice.  There
      are many ways to adjust to your resources and preferences, however your
      choices may not reflect the choices of other teams.  This is why there
      is a vote to extend or not to extend the topic.  Cast yours in the
      negative and see if others follow.  I'm not sure if you're advocating
      a systemic restriction to extending the topic or just trying to
      influence the way people vote, however.
   
In my personal opinion the lack of desire to travel on the "national circuit"
in the fall would not significantly impair the ability to debate competitively
in the Spring semester if the topic were extended.  Here's why:
    
    a) You still have all of the Spring semester tournaments to prepare for
       nationals.  Unless you decide not to travel at all in the fall I think
       you can still be competitive in the spring.  
    b) I don't see where we can draw a line on the issue.  How many national
       circuit tournaments do you have to travel in the fall to be competitive
       in the Spring?  How many hours every day do you need to spend to be
       competitive.  The amount of work you put into debate is your own choice,
       and if you have to kill yourself in the spring because the competition
       is so intense, just in order to keep up, that's probably not a good
       thing.  I believe the year long topic would decrease the impetus for
       a "spring crush" in terms of research and tournament attendance.  I
       think it allows for teams to gradually build up over the course of a
       year, rather than all at the beginning of a semester.  This is why I
       hope teams make the decision now to extend the topic for a year.  You're
       right, it is a gamble, however until we have "mandatory" year long topic
       I think this is the way to go.  I understand that your objection is not
       to the concept of a year long topic, but to the concept of lack of prior
       notice as to whether or not it will be extended.  I think that's just
       as good a reason to get everyone to extend it more so than to reject
       it.  If everyone makes the conscious decision to extend the topic NOW
       then we would begin to immediately reap the benefits of a year long
       topic.  I think it's a better idea to err on the side of extension
       then not.  I think it's a better idea to try it and see what happens 
       then to reject it for fear of some unquantified decrease in spring
       competitiveness.  I think we should look beyond our immediate personal
       opportunities for gain or loss and envision how this would effect the
       community over the long haul.  If the topic is extended, I think it
       will be the precursor to a year long CEDA resolution replacing the
       current "option" amendment.  And in the longer run, I think that will
       eventually facilitate an NDT/CEDA reunion.  I think those are good
       things, I think they're a long ways down the line - but I don't think
       we should miss out on the opportunity because of a one year potential
       inconvenience.

Joe Boyle
Harding University

---

• Prev by Date: Ben Bates, Tyrant
• Next by Date: Re: Boyle: many arguments, little sense
• Prev by thread: Re: Ben Bates, Tyrant
• Next by thread: Re: Majority rules, Minority rules, personal rights, and some modicum of ,Re: lexis2
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page