From andy.edebate at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 09:31:38 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:31:38 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] feedback on twitter and other tech things Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904010731s2420264bi94b53886805e3558@mail.gmail.com> some time during the ndt i changed our teams twitter feed to an ndt twitter thread and started updating all the info i could get my hands on and asking others to do the same by tagging their ndt tweets with "#ndt" the # is the twitter tagging tool and lets you see all the things that are about that regardless of who you are ollowing and who is following you, i also posted a bracket as a google spreadsheet which allowed real time updates and ongoing chat room style conversation...neither of these things where planned out in advance and where simply thing i realized because of the alternate use time mpj provides some judges....i wonder what people thought, think, or envision for such an idea...this evening i will put out more information about how i think thi could work for future ndt's or other tournaments but i wanted to start a discussion and get some feedback on how people thought the experiment worked....here is my brief response...it is easy enough to allow the users to dissemeinate the information that the tab room is to busy to send out in real time, everybody knows bits of this information and by combining what we have all know nd have recorded on our computers we can create a information system which is 1 part helpful for teams there 1 part informative for people following at home and 1 part fun....1 thing i didnt do which i could have was to send out through debate twit the info that was being posted by the tab room, it was not my intention to create competing information channels, though it may have had that appearence this weekend....anyway thoughts nd feedback would be appreciated... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090401/1174507b/attachment.htm From smithr at wfu.edu Wed Apr 1 17:38:14 2009 From: smithr at wfu.edu (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:38:14 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Thanks to our competitors Message-ID: <49D3ECD6.9070400@wfu.edu> I've received some e-mail and facebook praise (thanks!). I want to issue a broader reply. Maybe it's just too obvious to state, but I've rarely been a person of few words (once you get me going) . . . . Thank you competitors. Every one of you, coach and debater, who face our teams and push our teams to think harder, research deeper, get outside of our narrower confines. You pose questions to our coaching, without which questions we could not learn and improve. On occasion, hopefully rare, we do not reciprocate or we fail to appreciate. When we (being human) are at our worst we might denigrate. I hope and trust not, but know that we mean not. We can't do it without you. What are the best debates you have judged or debated in? They are closely contested. They reflect a commitment to excellence. That atttribute can never be one sided. We are at our worst and best when we put everything we have into a debate and come up on the short end. But who gave us the opportunity to be triumphant and feel that the win was meaningful in the first place? Our competitors. Thank you. -- Ross K. Smith Director of Debate Wake Forest University 336-251-2076 (c) 336-758-5268 (o) http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/ http://www.DebateScoop.org From dave at miami.edu Thu Apr 2 10:24:05 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:24:05 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Animal Rights Debate with Irish FRIDAY! Message-ID: UMTV's We the Students Presents a: LIVE ONLINE DEBATE! Topic: Animal Rights Featuring: The Irish Debate Team & The University of Miami When: Friday April 3, 2009 Where: Log on to www.wethestudents.tv/ at 9pm EST to watch the debate live and participate in the chat room We The Students is sponsored by the University of Miami Ethics Programs with the help of a generous gift from philanthropist Adrienne Arsht. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090402/dbe02187/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WTS Poster Animal Rights.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1617700 bytes Desc: WTS Poster Animal Rights.jpg Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090402/dbe02187/attachment-0001.jpg From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 00:14:58 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 01:14:58 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] just throwing this out there... Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904022214rbaca5e3pf24144eae53e2071@mail.gmail.com> over the last semester i have realized that no matter how frustrated debate had me last summer its still where my home is, so i am looking for a place to work ...what i am looking for is a place that can pay me enough to live like an adult in the place where the university is and provides classes at the university and health insurance as a benefit...if you think thats an outlandish request, so be it, if you are at or know of a school that has such a position, or think something can be worked out, lemme know...there are some things i am considering right now, but i thought i would expand my field of possibilities and see whats out there... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090403/20ae0584/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Fri Apr 3 02:45:12 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 00:45:12 -0700 Subject: [CEDA-L] 2009-10 Topic Process Update Message-ID: <39c1ac890904030045j42025f53kcd948914fc3130cc@mail.gmail.com> Greetings all. Consistent with the constitutionally modified process of a few years ago, the CEDA Topic Selection Committee is accepting controversy papers for the next two weeks (through Saturday April 18th). This is an extension of the older process that required all papers be submitted before CEDA and the NDT. This adjustment has helped us gain additional papers from the community and we hope to again have some great community input. As part of the new ceda website, the topic process is now hosted at http://topic.cedadebate.org/ You will find guidelines to help author a controversy paper as well as all of the key deadlines and explanations of the process. The updated list of the committee and our email addresses are also available at that site. We have also added archives of papers submitted on previous topics. We hope this can make it easier for individuals to update and revise earlier work. A full explanation of all dates and the entire process, for example, can be found at http://topic.cedadebate.org/?q=Topic+Process The guidelines outline all of the constitutional mandates on topic selection. We are soliciting papers of all 'types' (i.e., domestic, international, legal, etc.). Members of the committee have volunteered to work on a number of controversies, but we can always use help from the community. Last year's topic, for example, was authored by volunteers from the community. We hope to get such strong contributions again this year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gordon Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 14:16:34 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:16:34 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] just throwing this out there... In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0904022214rbaca5e3pf24144eae53e2071@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904031216k4301b8e7jcebd9e71c9f660c1@mail.gmail.com> To the folks who have provided helpful information, thank you, and keep it coming...to the random haters...do what you like On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Matt Paz wrote: > ummmm... finish school and contact us later > stop being a debate leach and a two faced liar > GET A JOB!!! > > 2009/4/3 Andy Ellis > >> over the last semester i have realized that no matter how frustrated >> debate had me last summer its still where my home is, so i am looking for a >> place to work ...what i am looking for is a place that can pay me enough to >> live like an adult in the place where the university is and provides classes >> at the university and health insurance as a benefit...if you think thats an >> outlandish request, so be it, if you are at or know of a school that has >> such a position, or think something can be worked out, lemme know...there >> are some things i am considering right now, but i thought i would expand my >> field of possibilities and see whats out there... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090403/5281728f/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sat Apr 4 10:28:48 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 11:28:48 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Final round video Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904040828l2ae1fb19p4c543571ee5ca0a5@mail.gmail.com> hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following the video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. As we where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and hey who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it had fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could stream it we should as gordon announced before the round started....paraphrasing now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny then but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that they not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that the round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work that i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want to post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want to be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it but not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090404/350da1cf/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 07:57:33 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 08:57:33 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904050557k486842a9m63b80dc49c4b22ae@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andy Ellis Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM Subject: Final round video To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following the video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. As we where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and hey who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it had fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could stream it we should as gordon announced before the round started....paraphrasing now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny then but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that they not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that the round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work that i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want to post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want to be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it but not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090405/12e8e13a/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sun Apr 5 10:17:11 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:17:11 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] repost: Final round video-need ec feedback Message-ID: <49D885270200009300027FF3@mymail.kckcc.edu> Andy, You are correct that the CEDA leadership asked you to tape the Final Round, and we asked if you would be so kind to provide us with a copy of that round. I know Gordon was coordinating this with you, and given my lack of voice that evening I nodded a lot in agreement. : ) Two days ago I received a few inquiries in our intent to post given the concern of some who might show up in the video. Before you posted to edebate the first time, I emailed the tournament committee/Big 5 officers based on the emails I had received. That includes the 1st VP (Gordon), 2nd VP (Sue), Exec Secretary (Jeff), Treasurer (ML), and incoming 2nd VP (Mike). I am waiting on feedback from these officers. I am also sitting in a Wyoming hotel waiting for I80 to open so we can hopefully finish our drive to Oregon for Community College Debate Nationals which begins tomorrow evening. Soon as it opens I have a 17 hour drive. Please forgive if a response is not immediate in the next couple days. I know we are all busy, some of us still have a season going on, but I can assure you we are giving this our attention. Thank you for taping the round. When all is said and done I know we will all benefit from the educational ability to use these videos. Please stay tuned. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA President >>> Andy Ellis 04/05/09 7:57 AM >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andy Ellis Date: Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM Subject: Final round video To: "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" hello ceda....this may be a question specifically for the ec, but it has some aspects that i think are relevant to everybody. We went to ceda with two cameras and had every intention of following the video taping policy, I at least learned an important lesson last year. As we where setting up our cameras to tape the final round(for our own private educational use, large portions of the towson team where not there and hey who doesnt wnt a video of a team they work with in the final round of nationals)ceda ec members approached us and asked if we could shooot the offical tape because the arrnagements as i remember for them to tape it had fallen through. This went to the extent of agreeing that if we could stream it we should as gordon announced before the round started....paraphrasing now i said "uh you sure you wnt adam and i to tape and post a video from ceda, that seems to be exactly what the policy prempts(i was less funny then but still made the point)...yes...was the answer i got...so i toook the tapes and have been working on converting them as an act of community service....that brings us to now...at least two people have asked that they not be included in any video, and have reminded me about the policy that the round opperated under....im sorta stuck ive been willing to do the work that i have done so far in converting and editing the video but i dont want to post it if people are opting out...even with ec sanction...nor do i want to be responsible in that scenario for developing the "private educational purposes" system that will allow the people we want to see it to see it but not everybody else...? how to go fwd? thanks From andy.edebate at gmail.com Sun Apr 5 21:06:30 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 22:06:30 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Video and next year Message-ID: <9368bc9b0904051906n702e0047m47db0bf49b0a9cc5@mail.gmail.com> So while we hash this out let me make a suggestion for next year....the bay area is one of the most active areas in the world for internet media, lets start now to find a company that does this for a living, a startup would be ideal because they would have the greayerst incentive to do it as a donated service(tax write off) and could most benefit from intriducing their service to an avid user community...somebody bigger doesnt need the publicity but someone with something to promote to micro networks of cirulateable power does...that or just have berkley do it...but really there are companies who could do this far more easily, manage the sharing etc....if i come across the right startup ill share... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090405/70f3836c/attachment.htm From davismk13 at gmail.com Tue Apr 7 16:35:49 2009 From: davismk13 at gmail.com (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 17:35:49 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Final ADA Rankings Message-ID: <9a7f6f740904071435o56a05c07o4e97729093571220@mail.gmail.com> Final Overall ADA Rankings 1. Liberty 2. Mary Washington 3. George Mason 4. Clarion 5. James Madison 6. Wayne State 7. Vanderbilt 8. Emory 9. John Carroll 10. Wake Forest Varsity Rankings 1. Liberty 2. Mary Washington 3. Wake Forest 4. James Madison 5. Wayne State 6. Emory 7. George Mason 8. Georgia 9. Vanderbilt 10. West Virginia JV Rankings 1. Liberty 2. Mary Washington 3. George Mason 4. Clarion 5. Wayne State 6. Emory 7. James Madison 8. Appalachian State 9. Samford 10. Miami-Ohio Novice Rankings 1. Liberty 2. Clarion 3. George Mason 4. James Madison 5. Mary Washington 6. John Carroll 7. Vanderbilt 8. Boston College 9. Appalachian State 10. Navy -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University From todonnel at umw.edu Mon Apr 13 11:25:11 2009 From: todonnel at umw.edu (Timothy O'Donnell) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:25:11 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] National Developmental Conference for Debate Message-ID: <49E32F27020000BD0008EC09@umwgw.umw.edu> Forwarded for Allan Louden: The National Developmental Conference, will be held at Wake Forest, June 5-7, immediately following the CEDA Summer Meeting and Topic Selection. The conference is an important investment in the future of Debate. Many are planning on attending, but we are hoping for misrepresentation from across our activity. The working document of those participating is provided below. I know I have spoken informally with others who plan on being there but I have not included them yet. I also learned at the NDT others are attending but I missed that. This message to invite folks to take part. If you are not named below (or mis-listed) let me know at louden at wfu.edu. Also indicate which grouping you would like to work with. Some groups are still evolving and additional names will be added. *Also*, updates for the Conference are being posted at the CEDA site: http://conference.cedadebate.org/ You can find the past conference, schedule, hotel reservation information, etc. You can also set your RSS feed and automatically receive any updates posted on the site --------------------------- *Professional Development, Research, and Advancement* *_Tenure and Promotion Working Group_* Chair:* Robin Rowland*, University of Kansas Members: Jarrod Atchison, Trinity University Matt Gerber, Baylor Univ Derek Buescher, Puget Sound Steve Hunt, Lewis and Clark (Remote participant) Ryan Galloway, Samford Univ Kelly McDonald, Arizona State Univ Jeff Jarman, Wichita State Univ /Aims and Tasks/: The purpose of this working group is to examine the relationship between the coaching profession and tenure and promotion. The working group should begin by examining the status of tenure stream debate coaches throughout the academy and design a set of recommendations and standards for a variety of institutions. *_Scholarship and Research Working Group_* Chair: *Gordon Mitchell, *University of Pittsburgh Members: Pete Bsumek, James Madison Jeff Richards, Sammamish HS, Bellevue, WA Ben Voth, Southern Methodist Univ. flexible on group assignment) Chris Lundburg, Univ of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Michael Jensen, National Academy of Sciences (Advisory member) Researcher: Michael Mangus, Univ of Pittsburgh / Aims and Tasks/: The purpose of this working group is to foster research and scholarship by examining the culture and prevailing norms among debate professionals toward research and scholarship, identify opportunities for innovation in scholarship, examine existing outlets and imagine new possibilities for research and scholarship about debate and/or by debaters. *_Development and Advancement in the Co_*_*aching Profession*_ Chair:* David Hingstman, *University of Iowa Members: Brian Lain, Univ of North Texas David Cram Helwich, Univ of Minnesota Mike Hester, State Univ of West Georgia Blake Abbott, Univ of Georgia Researchers: /Aims and Tasks/: The purpose of this working group is to examine and inventory the variety of professional debate coaching positions represented at institutions across the country. This inventory should include: type of position, salary range, benefits, work load, and support for professional development. The working group is charged with drafting a set of suggested standards and benchmarks for institutions that employ debate coaches. *Innovation, Practice, and the State of the Art* _*Innovations in Debate Working Group*_ Chair:* Karla Leeper, *Baylor University Members: Sarah Partlow Lefevre Duane Fish, Northwest College John Reif, Univ of Pittsburgh (Awaiting confirmation) Sara Spring, Univ of Iowa Casey Harrigan, Univ of Georgia Kelly congdon, Univ of Richmond Researchers: /Aims and Tasks/: The purpose of this working group is to explore the possibilities for innovation in debating styles, formats, and practices including the introduction and use of new media technologies in intercollegiate debate practice; Will look at debate's place in 21st Century Academy. *_Best Practices Working Group_* Chair: *Rich Edwards*, Baylor University Members: Gary Larson, Wheaton Ross Smith, Wake Forest Brent Brossmann, John Carroll Univ Will Repko, Michigan State Univ Bill Newnam, Emory Univ Mike Hall, Liberty Univ Researchers: Jon Bruschke, CSU-Fullerton /Aims and Tasks/: The purpose of this working group is to explore and identify best practices related to tournament debating. The charge of this working group involves assessing such issues as: Tournament schedules, Debate program management, Debate program administration, judge preference. *Community and Organization Building* _*Governance and Working Group*_ Chair: *Gordon Stables, *University of Southern California Members: Dan Cronn-Mills, Minnesota State Univ-Mankato Teddy Albiniak, USC Omar Gruvera (tentative) Andrew Barnes, Georgia State Univ Eric Morris, Missouri State Univ ML Sandoz, Vanderbilt Univ Researchers: /Aims and Tasks/: The purpose of this working group is to 1) examine the relationships between the various organizations supporting a debate education in the United States, 2) examine issues of jurisdiction governing policy debate, 3) examine issues of calendar and scheduling _*Charting Post-Debate Networks Working Group*_ Chair: *Scott Segal, *Bracewell & Giuliani L.L.P. Members: Josh Zive,DC Dave Arnett, Cal Berkeley (not confirmed) Sue Peterson, CSU Chico (Remote) Sarah Holbrook, State Univ of West Georgia Researchers: /Aims and Tasks/: What becomes of debaters? The goal of this group is to conduct a survey of career paths, build alumni networks, and sketch plans and possibilities for linking the debate community with others outside of the academy. *The Rationale and Agenda for Policy Debate in the 21st Century* _*Rational For Policy Debate Working Group*_ Chair: *Tim O'Donnell,* University of Mary Washington Members: Will Baker, New York University Terri Easley, Johnson County CC Joe Bellon, Georgia State Univ. John Kastulas, Boston College Bill Keith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Researchers: Sarah Spring, Iowa Carly Woods, Pittsburgh Joe Packer, Pittsburgh /Aims and Tasks/: The goal of this working group is to conduct a review of the literature on the value of debate, articulate links between the activity and higher education, collect testimonials and research projects designed to assess and evaluate the activity, and craft a comprehensive and persuasive rationale for policy debate in the 21st Century. *_Controversies in Debate Pedagogy Working Group_* Chair: *Ed Panetta, *University of Georgia Members: Kevin Kuswa, Univ of Richmond Dan Fitzmier, Northwestern Univ. David Steinburg, Univ. of Miami (FL) Fred Sternhagen, Concordia College Ed Lee, Emory Univ. Sherry Hall, Harvard Univ Researchers: Will Mosley-Jensen /Aims and Tasks/: The purpose of this working group is to identify and examine trends and competing models in argumentation and debate pedagogy and practice. ----------------------------------- *Schedule for National Developmental Conference* *Friday June 5 * 6:00 pm hosted reception at Sundance Plaza Hotel 7:00 pm. Plenary Sessions with Conference Charge and Opening Speaker - William M. Keith, Univ of Wisconsin-Milwaukee - Author of /Democracy as Discusssion /(2007) *Saturday June 6* 9:00-Noon -- Organizational Working Groups 2:-00-5:00 -- group working sessions Evening -- Reception -- some groups my want a short working session *Sunday June 7 * 9:00-Noon -- Group working session 2:00-4:00 -- Conclusion work by groups 4:30-6:30 -- Report of eight working groups. 7:30 -- Wrap up buffet and reception. -- Allan Louden, Dir. of Graduate Studies, Communication Wake Forest University Box 7347, Reynolda Station Winston-Salem, NC 27109 (336) 758-5408 (Office) (336) 406-8451 (Cell) http://www.wfu.edu/communication/ www.wfu.edu/~louden Timothy M. O'Donnell Director of Debate and Associate Professor of Speech University of Mary Washington 1201 William St., #25 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 todonnel at umw.edu (540) 654-1252 (office) (540) 654-1569 (fax) From nicole.colston at uvm.edu Fri Apr 17 14:26:06 2009 From: nicole.colston at uvm.edu (Nicole) Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:26:06 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Brochure and Registration info- Call of the Loon Institute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello to College Debaters and Coaches! Please join us June 12-22, 2009 for the "Call of the Loon Institute", an alternative debate camp for college debaters. Our waterfront facilities are located on beautiful Loon Lake in upstate NY. We are proud to offer an individualized and non-traditional instructional format to explore alternative styles in debate. Be sure to check out our impressive list of institute leaders, as well as our unique accommodations and camp policies. I have attached the links to the registration forms and brochure for the Call of the Loon Institute. The registration/deposit deadline is *May 4th*. We only have 2-3 remaining spots (15 camper max). As you make your summer camp plans, I hope that you celebrate and create debate, regardless of which institute you attend. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. My Best Wishes, Nicole Colston Redlocks Education p.s. We have one remaining scholarship opportunity for a D-6 debater, please contact me asap for more information. Brochure: http://www.thinkorsink.net/pdf/CallOfTheLoon_BROCHURE_2009.pdf Registration: http://www.thinkorsink.net/pdf/REGISTRATION_FORM_Call_of_the_Loon_Institute.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090417/85ba85ef/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Sat Apr 18 10:35:22 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:35:22 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Deadline - Controversy papers for 09-10 CEDA Topic Message-ID: <39c1ac890904180835q7fe13e7n943fcbe11e83390b@mail.gmail.com> Greetings all. Just a reminder that today is the deadline for submitting controversy papers to the CEDA topic selection committee. All submissions should be mailed to me at this address. All of the details about such submissions are available at http://topic.cedadebate.org/ Please let me know if you have any questions. Gordon Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From stables at usc.edu Tue Apr 21 23:38:57 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:38:57 -0700 Subject: [CEDA-L] ceda topic/business comittee meeting question Message-ID: <39c1ac890904212138u1cefb415u91e7fd2ef2b8d60a@mail.gmail.com> At the November (NCA) meeting the CEDA EC approved having the summer business meetings, the topic selection meetings and the debate developmental conference in Winston-Salem NC and hosted by Wake Forest. Al Louden is working with the Sundance hotel (the same property that Wake uses for the Shirley tournament) and will have block information available shortly. In coordination with that hotel information (which will be posted at cedadebate.org) we will post a more detailed schedule shortly. For planning purposes, here is a basic outline of the week's events. Each day will have at least a morning (starting at approx 930 am) and afternoon (resuming at approx 130) session with occasional evening (7 pm) sessions. Tues, June 2 - CEDA Executive Council & Business Meeting Wed, June 3- AM- CEDA Business PM - Topic Selection Thurs, June 4 - All day - Topic Selection Meetings Fri, June 5 - All day - Topic Selection meetings. Evening - opening session for developmental conference Sat and Sun - June 6&7 - Developmental conference Folks are invited to attend as much of the week as they would like. There is a lot happening that week and we are eager for a great deal of community input. Finally, a word about the controversy papers. We have extended the submission deadline to work with a number of authors to who needed a few extra days. I will be updating the community on Wednesday with links to all of the submitted papers. Thanks for your patience and cooperation. After we determine the full list of controversies for the community ballot that will be added to a single ballot containing the amendments recently approved at the CEDA business meeting. Gordon Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Aaron Kall wrote: > what are the dates and times of the ceda topic committee meeting?? is there > a group block of rooms? > > sorry if this information has already been sent out and i missed it. > > aaron > > ________________________________ > Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. Check it out. > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From dave at miami.edu Thu Apr 23 11:18:49 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:18:49 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] unofficial calendar Message-ID: Please check this for your information and send me edits and additional information. I lost my original file, so my apologies if I left you out.... Just send me your info and I will fix it. Thanks. I will post to our website tomorrow with what I have so far.... 5-Sep 12-Sep 19-Sep GSU (Sat-Mon) O,JV,N Joe Bellon joe.bellon at gmail.com Golden Gate Season Opener, SFSU (fri-sun) O,JV,N Shawn Whalen swhalen at sfsu.edu www.sfstateforensics.com Northern Iowa (sat-mon) O,JV,N Katherine Lavelle katherine.lavelle at uni.edu 26-Sep Clarion (fri-sun) O,JV,N Jim Lyle jlyle at clarion.edu Bear Shock at MoState (Sat-Mon) O,JV,N Eric Morris ermocito at gmail.com Vermont (Sat-Sun) 30-Sep UNLV Las Vegas Classic Round Robin (W-TH) Jake Thompson jacob.thompson at unlv.edu http://www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate/ 3-Oct Kentucky (Sat-Mon) open Roger Solt resolt2 at email.uky.edu UNLV Las Vegas Classic Tournament (Sat-Mon) Jake Thompson jacob.thompson at unlv.edu http://www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate/ 10-Oct Richmond (sat-mon) O,JV,N Kevin Kuswa kkuswa at richmond.edu 17-Oct VANDY (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N M.L. Sandoz ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu Army @ West Point (Fri-Sat) 24-Oct Diablo Valley College Becky Opsata BOpsata at dvc.edu 31-Oct 7-Nov 14-Nov WNPT @ Whitman (Sat-Mon) open Jim Hanson hansonjb at whitman.edu http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54wnpt2009.htm Western Connecticut (Sat-Sun) 21-Nov Wake Forest (Sat-Mon) open Ross Smith smithr at wfu.edu 21-Nov Appalachian State (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N Kris Willis williskw at appstate.edu 28-Nov 5-Dec 12-Dec 19-Dec 26-Dec 2-Jan 9-Jan UT-Dallas (Sat-Mon) O,JV,N Chris Burk crb012000 at utdallas.edu www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ 16-Jan WGA (Sat-Mon) O,JV,N Mike Hester UWGDebate at gmail.com George Mason Patriot Debates (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N Warren Decker wdecker at gmu.edu 23-Jan Navy (Fri-Sat) O,JV,N Danielle Verney-O'Gorman verney at usna.edu 30-Jan Hurricane Debates (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N David Steinberg dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/college/ NE Round Robin in NYC (Sat-Sun) 6-Feb 13-Feb Umass (Sat-Sun) 20-Feb 27-Feb D6/SEC Regionals O,JV,N Mike Hester UWGDebate at gmail.com NE Regionals and D8 @ Binghamton (Sat-Sun) 6-Mar 13-Mar NJDDT (sat-mon) JV,N Terri Easley teasley3 at jccc.edu 20-Mar 27-Mar 3-Apr David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090423/1197bbb5/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unofficial calendar 2009-2010.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 20480 bytes Desc: unofficial calendar 2009-2010.xls Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090423/1197bbb5/attachment.xls From stables at usc.edu Thu Apr 23 23:34:24 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:34:24 -0700 Subject: [CEDA-L] CEDA Topic Selection Committee - Controversy Papers Message-ID: <39c1ac890904232134s5c0ce31cn1a950d456fd16892@mail.gmail.com> I am happy to announce that we have five controversy papers to consider for the 2009-10 topic . We appreciate all of the hard work of these authors and will begin reviewing the papers immediately. You may review each of the papers at http://www.cedadebate.org/ We also have open threads available for each of the papers. Please leave your comments there to help us in our deliberations. Thanks again to the authors and the committee for their hard work. Gordon Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate & Forensics Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 www.usctrojandebate.com From scottelliott at grandecom.net Fri Apr 24 01:16:57 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 01:16:57 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] CEDA Topic Selection Committee - Controversy Papers In-Reply-To: <39c1ac890904232134s5c0ce31cn1a950d456fd16892@mail.gmail.com> References: <39c1ac890904232134s5c0ce31cn1a950d456fd16892@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1240553817.49f159593f976@webmail.grandecom.net> I want to thank Toni et.al. for doing a great job with the Taboo subjects topic area. I still think a topic like this is a good idea primarily because it will break us out of the standard [insert country here] debate topics we have been dealing with on both the high school and college topics. Scott From dave at miami.edu Fri Apr 24 10:29:58 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:29:58 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Unofficial Calendar update 4/24 Message-ID: Keep the information coming! Thanks. 5-Sep 12-Sep 19-Sep GSU (Sat-Mon) O,JV,N Joe Bellon joe.bellon at gmail.com Golden Gate Season Opener, SFSU (fri-sun) O,JV,N Alexis Litzky alitzky at sfsu.edu www.sfstateforensics.com/ Northern Iowa (sat-mon) O,JV,N Katherine Lavelle katherine.lavelle at uni.edu 26-Sep Clarion (fri-sun) O,JV,N Jim Lyle jlyle at clarion.edu Bear Shock at MoState (Sat-Mon) O,JV,N Eric Morris ermocito at gmail.com Huber Debates, UVermont (Sat-Sun) O,JV,N Tuna Snider alfred.snider at uvm.edu Wayne Callaway Debates at Laramie (Sat-Sun) O,J,N Matt Stannard stannard at uwyo.edu 30-Sep UNLV Las Vegas Classic Round Robin (W-TH) Jake Thompson jacob.thompson at unlv.edu http://www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate/ 3-Oct Kentucky (Sat-Mon) open Roger Solt resolt2 at email.uky.edu UNLV Las Vegas Classic Tournament (Sat-Mon) Jake Thompson jacob.thompson at unlv.edu http://www.unlv.edu/orgs/debate/ 10-Oct Richmond (sat-mon) O,JV,N Kevin Kuswa kkuswa at richmond.edu Kansas City Kansas Community College (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N Darren Elliott delliott at kckcc.edu Santa Rosa Junior College O,JV,N Mark Nelson mnelson at santarosa.edu 17-Oct Vanderbilt (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N M.L. Sandoz ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu Army @ West Point (Fri-Sat) O,JV,N 24-Oct Diablo Valley College Becky Opsata BOpsata at dvc.edu 31-Oct Harvard O Dallas Perkins dperkins at fas.harvard.edu 7-Nov Joe C. Jackson @ UCO (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N Eric Marlow emarlow at uco.edu Liberty O,JV,N Mike Hall mphall at liberty.edu www.liberty.edu/debate 14-Nov WNPT @ Whitman (Sat-Mon) open Jim Hanson hansonjb at whitman.edu http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54wnpt2009.htm Western Connecticut (Sat-Sun) O,JV,N Wynn Gadkar-Wilcox wilcoxw at wcsu.edu 21-Nov Wake Forest (Sat-Mon) open Ross Smith smithr at wfu.edu 21-Nov Appalachian State (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N Kris Willis williskw at appstate.edu 28-Nov 5-Dec Austin J. Freeley @ John Carroll (Fri-Sun) Brent Brossman brossmann at jcu.edu 12-Dec 19-Dec 26-Dec 2-Jan First Leg of California Swing, Cal-Berkeley (1/2-1/5) Greg Achten gregachten at berkeley.edu Second Leg of California Swing, Cal-Berkeley (1/7-1/9) Greg Achten gregachten at berkeley.edu 9-Jan UT-Dallas (Sat-Mon) O,JV,N Chris Burk crb012000 at utdallas.edu www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/ 16-Jan WGA (Sat-Mon) O,JV,N Mike Hester UWGDebate at gmail.com George Mason Patriot Debates (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N Warren Decker wdecker at gmu.edu 23-Jan Navy (Fri-Sat) O,JV,N Danielle Verney-O'Gorman verney at usna.edu Fullerton (1/22-1/25) O,JV,N Jon Bruschke jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU Baby Jo Memorial Tournament at UMKC (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N Matt Vega vegam at umkc.edu 30-Jan Hurricane Debates, Universtiy of Miami (Fri-Sun) O,JV,N David Steinberg dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/college/ NE Round Robin in NYC (Sat-Sun) 6-Feb 13-Feb Umass (Sat-Sun) O,JV,N 20-Feb 27-Feb D6/SEC Regionals O,JV,N Mike Hester UWGDebate at gmail.com NE Regionals and D8 @ Binghamton (Sat-Sun) O,JV,N 6-Mar 13-Mar NJDDT (sat-mon) JV,N Terri Easley teasley3 at jccc.edu 20-Mar NDT: The National Debate Tournament at Cal-Berkeley (3/20-3/23) Greg Achten (Host) gregachten at berkeley.edu 27-Mar CEDA: Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals (3/25-3/28) Greg Achten (Host) Gordon Stables (director) gregachten at berkeley.edu; stables at usc.edu 3-Apr David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, University of Miami P.O. Box 248127 Coral Gables, Florida 33124 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) 305-926-8498 (cell) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090424/93b1c983/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unofficial calendar 2009-2010.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 35840 bytes Desc: unofficial calendar 2009-2010.xls Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090424/93b1c983/attachment.xls From luvmarissa at hotmail.com Tue Apr 28 14:13:23 2009 From: luvmarissa at hotmail.com (Marissa Silber) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:13:23 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] New Director of Debate at University of Florida - Congratulations to Rashad Evans! Message-ID: The University of Florida Speech and Debate Team is thrilled to welcome Rashad Evans as the new Director of Debate! While I am incredibly sad to say goodbye to the team, and want to once again thank them for being such an incredible group of individuals to work with, I am pleased to know the team will be left in such great hands. I can't wait to see all the good that Rashad does with the team. I hope D6 will welcome Rashad home as he returns to academia and debate. Congratulations Rashad and Go Gators! Marissa Silber _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_skydrive_042009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090428/ae179c21/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu Apr 30 17:09:06 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:09:06 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat References: <899735480904300826o7d5ab85en763e64c9160642de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090430T170906Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> I agree with most of the spirit of this amendment, agree with all of what Mick says (there goes my credibility..or perhaps Mick's), : ), but I have another caveat where I think the wording needs changed--and so much so that I wont vote "yes and hope to change the bad parts later". I am voting NO, encourage others to do the same, would fully support an EC waiver for any student directly impacted this coming year, and that includes ALL students, especially the ones falling under my concern which is this: The new rule is only a partial fix to the SQ. And it is a fix that is great for those who are privileged. You will NOT get to debate in Grad school UNLESS you attend the same school you got your undergrad from. There are some glaring problems with this. If we are to encourage academic enhancement, this rule incentivizes people to not seek out a grad program at another school--diversity in degree granting institutions should be encouraged not stifled. Additionally there are a number of schools who do not offer Graduate programs. Period. Why are those students punished? Some will answer, status quo. Yep it stinks too but it stinks fairly across the board. Some schools that do offer Grad programs may not offer them in the field the student wants to pursue. Again the rule encourages less academic freedom and not more. Why not let students who transfer to another institution for Graduate school debate? The only answer I have heard to this is it would encourage graduate school poaching and offers of assitantships to get good debaters. If thats the answer it seems like the motivation for allowing grad students a 5th year really isnt about whats best for them, but for the institution competitive-wise. If its all about competition and you have grad programs you will likely vote yes. Everyone else should vote no. I'm also turned off by the worry that some schools would poach grad students with offers of lots of money. Will it happen? Sure. But the amendment forces a choice between furthering education at a different institution (a good thing) and getting some money perhaps (also not a bad thing for our students) OR forced servitude if one wants to continue debating. Seems a bit problematic in a lot of ways. What I support: 5 years of debate for everyone. If a student crosses into Grad school in that 5th year, let them all debate too. The SQ lets none of them debate. The amendment only lets those who attend a privileged institution debate. Seems like the alt is worse because it creates a privileged class of debaters. Hope we can move beyond that. Again I support an EC waiver for anyone this effects this year, and would write an amendment allowing all grad students to debate if its their 5th year. chief >>> Michael Souders 4/30/2009 10:26 AM >>> Phil is obviously right about this. The current structure punishes those who perform well academically and create a disincentive for graduation And, of course, "graduate school" should be interpreted to also include any professional schools (medical school, law school, business school) or accredited certificate programs (women's or gender studies certificates, for example) that are not necessarily attached to the university graduate school. However, I do think some of the wording might need changing. The current wording would seem to allow graduate students to begin debating in graduate school and functionally debate for five years, unless I am mistaken--or, more commonly, to graduate after three years (having attended only two CEDA Nationals) and then compete for two more years in graduate school. I tend to think that graduate students should be limited to one year of additional competition after receiving an undergraduate degree. No one wants fifth year Ph.D students competing against 18 year old undergraduates. And perhaps more realistically, debate should not be competing with students's abilities to work on MA theses, L2 studies, etc. We all know debate can be all-consuming, let's not make a system that gets our students more undergraduate degrees (a good thing) but torpedoes their graduate work (a bad thing). Students need to make choices for themselves, but we shouldn't incentivize them not working on their thesis or graduate course work. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090430/9a6f3760/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu Apr 30 17:29:56 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:29:56 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Call for Debate on Amendment adding Events or Divisions to CEDA Nationals References: <5a6e2a80904292045s44973f8dy328b5e2d08f0edcd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090430T172956Z_0A6D00070001@kckcc.edu> Incoming President Stables (that sounds so official) can speak to his reasoning for submitting this amendment better than I can. He was a busy man (finally one-upped Hanson for amendments) : ) Since he wrote it, and he articulated good reasons at the CEDA Business Meeting, I would like to see his input here as well. Here is why I agree with Gordon and will encourage others to vote YES on the amendment to add events at CEDA Nationals. 1. The amendment process is often too long of a cycle, unwieldy, and unfriendly of a process once the year starts. If we were to require amendments to change anything about the National Tournament, it would likely take at least a year likely from its inception date for anything after November 1st. I think that is when bureaucracy can hamstring an organization. 2. The President and EC are voted on by a community vote. This is one of those times Directors will need to decide if they trust their elected leadership to do what is within the best interest of the community they represent. CEDA Nationals has always been a tournament where the President had broad authority to run the Tournament as Tournament Director. I can think of the last 10 CEDA Nationals, and rarely have any of them not seen a significant change instituted by the President--usually without an EC vote. Never once did it create a crisis so large that it hindered the quality of the tournament. Every CEDA President in one way or the other has put their stamp on the tournament. And sometimes changes should be made that the President can make with the authority granted her. In fact this new amendment, pass or fail, does nothing to change the part of the Constitution that allows the President to run the tournament as Director with input from the Tournament Committee--the 2 VP's, Treasurer, and Exec Sec. So if it fails, would Gordon still be able to add to the tournament--yes. I think part of his intent here is to specifically allow for new "events" not even necessarily divisions or breakout rounds. 3. New events: Again Gordon should chime in, but one thing he talked about was the ability for our organization to reach out to other organizations, groups, constituencies. If CEDA wanted to offer a Public Debate event, umbrella sponosr another organization's National Tournament (Parli, NFA Lincoln-Douglas, etc) this amendment would allow the President to make that offer with the suppport of the EC. A decision to do this in December would be too late to get an amendment passed to do it. And amendments usually imply continuity, as opposed to year-to-year trial experiments. Sometimes revenue streams may make it beneficial to the organization to do just this, and reach out to others inside the big tent. 4. The People's Tournament: Indeed! I articulated above why sometimes process takes too long for all the "people" to chime in. But what's the harm in offering something new and seeing if the "people" respond. That is one way to guarantee that an idea was good or bad. And just because it's not something one of the "people" may fancy, why begrudge others the opportunity? I decided to offer Novice Breakout rounds this year. It raised some ire from a few, but the majority of feedback I received was positive. And the "people" came out in force. Almost 15% of the tournament was eligible. Many said they would not have come otherwise. We cleared 8 teams. They all seemed to enjoy it, all had positive things to say, and some programs got some much needed PR. Not all of the "people" liked it. That's ok. The majority I talked to certainly did. And it did nothing to diminish either the judge pool in elims (Gary can confirm this) or to diminish the tournament overall (Towson and Oklahoma would likely agree). Since the "people" elect the President and the EC, it seems like they should hold them accountable. If 17 people (which is like 20% of our membership in terms of schools) create such a guffaw when given this power, it could be rescinded. In the meantime I think the ideas Gordon espoused about adding events to the National Tournament are great ones, and is something we should empower the leadership to do. Those are some preliminary thoughts. I encourage you to vote YES on this amendment. chief >>> Justin Green 4/29/2009 10:45 PM >>> The following amendment is up for vote in the CEDA Ballot: Beginning of next season Add to IX, Section 6 ?The President may, with approval by the Executive Council, add divisions or events to the invitation of the national tournament. All new events must be approved prior to the release of the tournament invitation.? While I am not opposed to changes to CEDA Nationals, the inclusion of divisions or potentially new events should be decided by popular vote of member schools and not by the President. ....Numerous friends and colleagues have described CEDA Nationals as "the people's tournament". This amendment flies in the face of that spirit. If the motivation is to include a Novice Division, then we should have a vote about that. I encourage others to use their vote to reject this amendment so that the President and EC continue to carry out the duties of hosting a great CEDA Nats as set up by the schools, not the executives. I have no doubt that there are advantages to this amendment I am mission. So, I am asking for supporters of this amendment to please speak up publicly to at least answer the question of "why are new events or divisions better created by the President without a public vote than through the usual amendment process?" Thanks for your time, Justin Green _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090430/b4324ef6/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu Apr 30 22:15:52 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:15:52 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Call for Debate on Amendment adding Events or Divisions to CEDA Nationals Message-ID: <49FA2318020000930002937D@mymail.kckcc.edu> Incoming President Stables (that sounds so official) can speak to his reasoning for submitting this amendment better than I can. He was a busy man (finally one-upped Hanson for amendments) : ) Since he wrote it, and he articulated good reasons at the CEDA Business Meeting, I would like to see his input here as well. Here is why I agree with Gordon and will encourage others to vote YES on the amendment to add events at CEDA Nationals. 1. The amendment process is often too long of a cycle, unwieldy, and unfriendly of a process once the year starts. If we were to require amendments to change anything about the National Tournament, it would likely take at least a year likely from its inception date for anything after November 1st. I think that is when bureaucracy can hamstring an organization. 2. The President and EC are voted on by a community vote. This is one of those times Directors will need to decide if they trust their elected leadership to do what is within the best interest of the community they represent. CEDA Nationals has always been a tournament where the President had broad authority to run the Tournament as Tournament Director. I can think of the last 10 CEDA Nationals, and rarely have any of them not seen a significant change instituted by the President--usually without an EC vote. Never once did it create a crisis so large that it hindered the quality of the tournament. Every CEDA President in one way or the other has put their stamp on the tournament. And sometimes changes should be made that the President can make with the authority granted her. In fact this new amendment, pass or fail, does nothing to change the part of the Constitution that allows the President to run the tournament as Director with input from the Tournament Committee--the 2 VP's, Treasurer, and Exec Sec. So if it fails, would Gordon still be able to add to the tournament--yes. I think part of his intent here is to specifically allow for new "events" not even necessarily divisions or breakout rounds. 3. New events: Again Gordon should chime in, but one thing he talked about was the ability for our organization to reach out to other organizations, groups, constituencies. If CEDA wanted to offer a Public Debate event, umbrella sponosr another organization's National Tournament (Parli, NFA Lincoln-Douglas, etc) this amendment would allow the President to make that offer with the suppport of the EC. A decision to do this in December would be too late to get an amendment passed to do it. And amendments usually imply continuity, as opposed to year-to-year trial experiments. Sometimes revenue streams may make it beneficial to the organization to do just this, and reach out to others inside the big tent. 4. The People's Tournament: Indeed! I articulated above why sometimes process takes too long for all the "people" to chime in. But what's the harm in offering something new and seeing if the "people" respond. That is one way to guarantee that an idea was good or bad. And just because it's not something one of the "people" may fancy, why begrudge others the opportunity? I decided to offer Novice Breakout rounds this year. It raised some ire from a few, but the majority of feedback I received was positive. And the "people" came out in force. Almost 15% of the tournament was eligible. Many said they would not have come otherwise. We cleared 8 teams. They all seemed to enjoy it, all had positive things to say, and some programs got some much needed PR. Not all of the "people" liked it. That's ok. The majority I talked to certainly did. And it did nothing to diminish either the judge pool in elims (Gary can confirm this) or to diminish the tournament overall (Towson and Oklahoma would likely agree). Since the "people" elect the President and the EC, it seems like they should hold them accountable. If 17 people (which is like 20% of our membership in terms of schools) create such a guffaw when given this power, it could be rescinded. In the meantime I think the ideas Gordon espoused about adding events to the National Tournament are great ones, and is something we should empower the leadership to do. Those are some preliminary thoughts. I encourage you to vote YES on this amendment. chief >>> Justin Green 4/29/2009 10:45 PM >>> The following amendment is up for vote in the CEDA Ballot: Beginning of next season Add to IX, Section 6 ?The President may, with approval by the Executive Council, add divisions or events to the invitation of the national tournament. All new events must be approved prior to the release of the tournament invitation.? While I am not opposed to changes to CEDA Nationals, the inclusion of divisions or potentially new events should be decided by popular vote of member schools and not by the President. ....Numerous friends and colleagues have described CEDA Nationals as "the people's tournament". This amendment flies in the face of that spirit. If the motivation is to include a Novice Division, then we should have a vote about that. I encourage others to use their vote to reject this amendment so that the President and EC continue to carry out the duties of hosting a great CEDA Nats as set up by the schools, not the executives. I have no doubt that there are advantages to this amendment I am mission. So, I am asking for supporters of this amendment to please speak up publicly to at least answer the question of "why are new events or divisions better created by the President without a public vote than through the usual amendment process?" Thanks for your time, Justin Green _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu Apr 30 22:16:50 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 22:16:50 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat Message-ID: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> I agree with most of the spirit of this amendment, agree with all of what Mick says (there goes my credibility..or perhaps Mick's), : ), but I have another caveat where I think the wording needs changed--and so much so that I wont vote "yes and hope to change the bad parts later". I am voting NO, encourage others to do the same, would fully support an EC waiver for any student directly impacted this coming year, and that includes ALL students, especially the ones falling under my concern which is this: The new rule is only a partial fix to the SQ. And it is a fix that is great for those who are privileged. You will NOT get to debate in Grad school UNLESS you attend the same school you got your undergrad from. There are some glaring problems with this. If we are to encourage academic enhancement, this rule incentivizes people to not seek out a grad program at another school--diversity in degree granting institutions should be encouraged not stifled. Additionally there are a number of schools who do not offer Graduate programs. Period. Why are those students punished? Some will answer, status quo. Yep it stinks too but it stinks fairly across the board. Some schools that do offer Grad programs may not offer them in the field the student wants to pursue. Again the rule encourages less academic freedom and not more. Why not let students who transfer to another institution for Graduate school debate? The only answer I have heard to this is it would encourage graduate school poaching and offers of assitantships to get good debaters. If thats the answer it seems like the motivation for allowing grad students a 5th year really isnt about whats best for them, but for the institution competitive-wise. If its all about competition and you have grad programs you will likely vote yes. Everyone else should vote no. I'm also turned off by the worry that some schools would poach grad students with offers of lots of money. Will it happen? Sure. But the amendment forces a choice between furthering education at a different institution (a good thing) and getting some money perhaps (also not a bad thing for our students) OR forced servitude if one wants to continue debating. Seems a bit problematic in a lot of ways. What I support: 5 years of debate for everyone. If a student crosses into Grad school in that 5th year, let them all debate too. The SQ lets none of them debate. The amendment only lets those who attend a privileged institution debate. Seems like the alt is worse because it creates a privileged class of debaters. Hope we can move beyond that. Again I support an EC waiver for anyone this effects this year, and would write an amendment allowing all grad students to debate if its their 5th year. chief >>> Michael Souders 4/30/2009 10:26 AM >>> Phil is obviously right about this. The current structure punishes those who perform well academically and create a disincentive for graduation And, of course, "graduate school" should be interpreted to also include any professional schools (medical school, law school, business school) or accredited certificate programs (women's or gender studies certificates, for example) that are not necessarily attached to the university graduate school. However, I do think some of the wording might need changing. The current wording would seem to allow graduate students to begin debating in graduate school and functionally debate for five years, unless I am mistaken--or, more commonly, to graduate after three years (having attended only two CEDA Nationals) and then compete for two more years in graduate school. I tend to think that graduate students should be limited to one year of additional competition after receiving an undergraduate degree. No one wants fifth year Ph.D students competing against 18 year old undergraduates. And perhaps more realistically, debate should not be competing with students's abilities to work on MA theses, L2 studies, etc. We all know debate can be all-consuming, let's not make a system that gets our students more undergraduate degrees (a good thing) but torpedoes their graduate work (a bad thing). Students need to make choices for themselves, but we shouldn't incentivize them not working on their thesis or graduate course work.