From jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu Fri May 1 07:16:33 2009 From: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu (Joel Rollins) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 07:16:33 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: This proposal is a director's PR nightmare... I very much oppose allowing graduate students to debate unless they never debated in college--if not, then they get one year. Reasoning: one year allows students who have never debated before to understand the rigors of debate and to gain experience necessary to pursue it as a career. Grad students have different academic responsibilities, both in departments and in the classroom. By and large they are perceived differently by department heads--they are training to be coaches and teachers. Maintaining that structure is important to the health of graduate programs and the support that some of our programs receive from our administrations. 5 years for everyone, 6 years for everyone, 7 years for everyone... Go back to the old system--8 semesters over 5 years, 3 tournaments count as a semester, if you want to debate a 5th year, you have to give up something to do so. The current system encourages students to stay in school longer and delay graduation. Folks, at many universities there is much pressure to unclog the arteries of the undergrad system--get them out--peace corps, teach for america, grad school, take a year off to help local high schools or your team. J On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:16 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From dave at miami.edu Fri May 1 14:14:43 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:14:43 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Congratulations to Dr. Bruschke Message-ID: Check out this excellent article in "Profiles of Practice" in the current Spectra. Great PR for professional development! http://www.natcom.org/NCA/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000001633/profileofpractice_Bruschke_spectra.pdf 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) dave at miami.edu Go Canes! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090501/e0b8e1cc/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Fri May 1 14:59:25 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 14:59:25 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <20090501145925.1404663cgimbj5b1@webmail.grandecom.net> I concur with Joel on this issue for the reasons he has already given. But I also want to add one more point: Who the hell is going to judge? Grad students judging grad students? It is bad enough when undergrads judge undergrads. I may be wrong but I percieve a shortage of judges. Letting people debate for five years into grad school reduces the judging pool further. I think the compromise should be 4 years, eight semesters--but if you graduate in 3 years and begin your fourth year in grad school, then you should be able to debate. This seems to be the optimum solution. Scott Elliott From Jeffrey.Jarman at wichita.edu Fri May 1 16:09:14 2009 From: Jeffrey.Jarman at wichita.edu (Jarman, Jeffrey) Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 16:09:14 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <42558793D89D414BB16A72C7F4CAFACD043EA13319@exchange-01.ad.wichita.edu> Two points: (1) we should not confuse the 5 year rule with the graduation amendment. Even if we moved back to four years, we'd still consider this question, since some students could graduate early. (2) The squo is a larger PR nightmare. Right now, students who want to debate are encouraged NOT to graduate. How do we explain that to administrators? That makes us less academically-oriented than NCAA football. They let students play for a fourth year at their original school. I would think most administrators would understand exactly what this allows. A student on your own team is allowed a fourth year, so long as they continue at your school. The rule applies to a narrow set of students: those looking for a 4th year of eligibility (in most cases b/c they entered college with a dozen or so credits) on a team they already compete on. I agree that most students who graduate in 3 years and enter a graduate school are not likely to debate. Grad school is difficult and I doubt many will take on the extra burden of debating. But, providing an incentive to graduate seems like an easy explanation to offer administrators, especially for good students who have been debaters for you for three years. And, let me close with one bit of sarcasm: if our schools can withstand the PR nightmare that comes from some of our arguments (kill all of the people) and some of our styles (incomprehensible speech), then I think we can weather the storm caused by 4th year debaters in their first year of grad school. Jeff ________________________________________ From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Joel Rollins [jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 7:16 AM To: Darren Elliott Cc: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat This proposal is a director's PR nightmare... I very much oppose allowing graduate students to debate unless they never debated in college--if not, then they get one year. Reasoning: one year allows students who have never debated before to understand the rigors of debate and to gain experience necessary to pursue it as a career. Grad students have different academic responsibilities, both in departments and in the classroom. By and large they are perceived differently by department heads--they are training to be coaches and teachers. Maintaining that structure is important to the health of graduate programs and the support that some of our programs receive from our administrations. 5 years for everyone, 6 years for everyone, 7 years for everyone... Go back to the old system--8 semesters over 5 years, 3 tournaments count as a semester, if you want to debate a 5th year, you have to give up something to do so. The current system encourages students to stay in school longer and delay graduation. Folks, at many universities there is much pressure to unclog the arteries of the undergrad system--get them out--peace corps, teach for america, grad school, take a year off to help local high schools or your team. J On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:16 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sat May 2 03:26:39 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 04:26:39 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: <6bd35ee10905011848o223a0842n4dca76497f319e7e@mail.gmail.com> References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> <6bd35ee10905011848o223a0842n4dca76497f319e7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: It does seem to me that regardless of the "turns" made to the 4 year graduation arguments...the 5 year/graduate proposal creates an incentive for programs with grad schools to poach good debaters from other programs to debate the last (arguably best) year for pay.....Is this really what we want? As usual, I agree with Ermo, Josh On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Eric Morris wrote: > Several thoughts on this amendment proposal. > > 1. We should keep in mind the factors which motivated the original shift. > a. CEDA moved to get in line with the AFA (and thus the NDT), who changed > their rules. One significant motive was uniformity, which is undermined with > a CEDA-only change. > b. The average length of the undergrad career IS increasing at many schools > (while others give you 4 years to graduate or not). Our school has majors > which require nearly 150 hours to graduate. > c. Some schools have a hard time justifying providing scholarships to > people who are not yet done, but were recruited and rely upon debate > scholarships to afford college. > d. The 5 year option was already available to many, but required minimizing > travel for a semester, which may considered an annoyance. Occasionally, the > 8 semester rule extended people beyond 5 years. > > 2. The current amendment's writing is designed to account for cases similar > to a recent appeal, where a student at a school with an unusual schedule > graduated a few weeks before CEDA nationals. Opening 5 years to every > graduate student is a VERY different animal than making a reasonable > adjustment to a school whose unusual calendar created a potentially unjust > and inappropriate interaction with CEDA eligibility. > > 3. Presumption should remain against graduate school poaching, and I say > this as a program that could theoretically poach effectively with our GTA > positions (I thus disagree that short term competitive self interest would > control the outcome of a vote on this proposal). It's a big deal to hand one > program the bill for training you, and then debate your final (presumptively > most successful) year for the highest bidder. The current ethical norms > against poaching - combined with the allowance for transfer - are a > balancing act that, if scrapped, might lead to a very different sort of > community. One we legitimate poaching via graduate school, it will seem a > short walk to accept it at all levels of the undergraduate experience. I > anticipate significant cultural shifts will result from open bidding, and > I'm skeptical that most of them will be positive. > > 4. Joel Rollins' post on CEDA-L indicating we may create significant PR > problems with our home departments is a valid point. Although I think the > proposal of some that we retreat to the old rule creates problems (see #1), > it would probably be far less disruptive than the 5 years into graduate > school alternative. > > 5. Given the points made above, and the clear lack of consensus about this > issue in posts thus far, I would strongly oppose having the CEDA EC assert > the power to impose this really substantial change on the community through > the backdoor of the appeals process. The purpose of appeals is to consider > hard cases within the spirit of the current rules, not to overthrow decades > of practice. The notion that it might do so in reaction to defeat of the > current modest proposal is even more concerning. It would be far superior to > stretch the Constitution by finding a way to vote on a 5 year, grad school > inclusive proposal than to have the EC impose that principle and thus push > CEDA and NDT into inconsistent standards. > > 6. I don't wish to suggest that I'm completely decided on the merits of a > 5th year graduate school proposal. I am at least very hesitant, and I would > encourage those pressing for it to further advance the discussion instead of > moving to the action phase without a clear vote from the community. > > 7. Do you really want to give every former debater who finished in 4 years > another year if they enroll in a grad school somewhere? I don't know if the > "you sacrifice your eligibility by judging open" norm is strong enough to > prevent that, particularly given that none of those people understood > themselves to be ("uniquely") forfeiting said eligibility if they did judge > after graduating. How will you establish whether or not someone who > graduated in 1979 and didn't coach judged open rounds or JV rounds? It could > be Tim Mahoney's professional-debate concept run amok.... > > Ermo > MoState > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090502/97f32e67/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sat May 2 11:58:47 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 12:58:47 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> <6bd35ee10905011848o223a0842n4dca76497f319e7e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: If however, as Dallas pointed out to me, the rule is written (as it is now) to prevent poaching by saying it has to be at the same school....then I am a moron for suggesting a straw boogie person......Ok, sorry about that (most people do not go to graduate school at the same school they did undergraduate at and are encouraged not from my understanding....but thats a minor disadvantage). Apologies, Josh On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Josh wrote: > It does seem to me that regardless of the "turns" made to the 4 year > graduation arguments...the 5 year/graduate proposal creates an incentive for > programs with grad schools to poach good debaters from other programs to > debate the last (arguably best) year for pay.....Is this really what we > want? > > As usual, I agree with Ermo, > > Josh > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Eric Morris wrote: > >> Several thoughts on this amendment proposal. >> >> 1. We should keep in mind the factors which motivated the original shift. >> a. CEDA moved to get in line with the AFA (and thus the NDT), who changed >> their rules. One significant motive was uniformity, which is undermined with >> a CEDA-only change. >> b. The average length of the undergrad career IS increasing at many >> schools (while others give you 4 years to graduate or not). Our school has >> majors which require nearly 150 hours to graduate. >> c. Some schools have a hard time justifying providing scholarships to >> people who are not yet done, but were recruited and rely upon debate >> scholarships to afford college. >> d. The 5 year option was already available to many, but required >> minimizing travel for a semester, which may considered an annoyance. >> Occasionally, the 8 semester rule extended people beyond 5 years. >> >> 2. The current amendment's writing is designed to account for cases >> similar to a recent appeal, where a student at a school with an unusual >> schedule graduated a few weeks before CEDA nationals. Opening 5 years to >> every graduate student is a VERY different animal than making a reasonable >> adjustment to a school whose unusual calendar created a potentially unjust >> and inappropriate interaction with CEDA eligibility. >> >> 3. Presumption should remain against graduate school poaching, and I say >> this as a program that could theoretically poach effectively with our GTA >> positions (I thus disagree that short term competitive self interest would >> control the outcome of a vote on this proposal). It's a big deal to hand one >> program the bill for training you, and then debate your final (presumptively >> most successful) year for the highest bidder. The current ethical norms >> against poaching - combined with the allowance for transfer - are a >> balancing act that, if scrapped, might lead to a very different sort of >> community. One we legitimate poaching via graduate school, it will seem a >> short walk to accept it at all levels of the undergraduate experience. I >> anticipate significant cultural shifts will result from open bidding, and >> I'm skeptical that most of them will be positive. >> >> 4. Joel Rollins' post on CEDA-L indicating we may create significant PR >> problems with our home departments is a valid point. Although I think the >> proposal of some that we retreat to the old rule creates problems (see #1), >> it would probably be far less disruptive than the 5 years into graduate >> school alternative. >> >> 5. Given the points made above, and the clear lack of consensus about this >> issue in posts thus far, I would strongly oppose having the CEDA EC assert >> the power to impose this really substantial change on the community through >> the backdoor of the appeals process. The purpose of appeals is to consider >> hard cases within the spirit of the current rules, not to overthrow decades >> of practice. The notion that it might do so in reaction to defeat of the >> current modest proposal is even more concerning. It would be far superior to >> stretch the Constitution by finding a way to vote on a 5 year, grad school >> inclusive proposal than to have the EC impose that principle and thus push >> CEDA and NDT into inconsistent standards. >> >> 6. I don't wish to suggest that I'm completely decided on the merits of a >> 5th year graduate school proposal. I am at least very hesitant, and I would >> encourage those pressing for it to further advance the discussion instead of >> moving to the action phase without a clear vote from the community. >> >> 7. Do you really want to give every former debater who finished in 4 years >> another year if they enroll in a grad school somewhere? I don't know if the >> "you sacrifice your eligibility by judging open" norm is strong enough to >> prevent that, particularly given that none of those people understood >> themselves to be ("uniquely") forfeiting said eligibility if they did judge >> after graduating. How will you establish whether or not someone who >> graduated in 1979 and didn't coach judged open rounds or JV rounds? It could >> be Tim Mahoney's professional-debate concept run amok.... >> >> Ermo >> MoState >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20090502/5b24008d/attachment.htm From louden at wfu.edu Sun May 3 14:42:20 2009 From: louden at wfu.edu (louden) Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 15:42:20 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Call CAD Manuscripts Message-ID: <49FDF39C.3060101@wfu.edu> */Contemporary/** Argumentation & Debate * *Submission Policy* /Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: The Journal of the Cross Examination Debate Association/, is a refereed journal dedicated to publishing quality scholarship related to the theory and practice of debate (academic and pubic sphere) and argumentation (theoretical and applied). *Submission Guidelines* Manuscripts should be prepared in accordance with the /Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association/. The journal employs a blind review system. Manuscripts must be submitted electronically in a current /Word/ or rich-text format. Identification materials--the author(s), institutional affiliation, mailing address, e-mail address, and phone numbers--should only appear on the first page. The first page should also note any previous public presentation of publication of any portion or form of the manuscript. The manuscript should not contain internal references that identify the author in a way to compromise blind review. All correspondence relating to the manuscript, including notification that the manuscript has been received, will be directed to the specified author. Authors submitting to /Contemporary Argumentation and Debate/ must give exclusive right of review to this journal until such time that the review has been completed. Upon acceptance, assignment of copyright will be made to the Cross Examination Debate Association. CAD is an annual publication with manuscripts accepted throughout the year. An electronic copy of manuscript should be sent to: Allan Louden -- *louden at wfu.edu* Editor, /Contemporary Argumentation and Debate/ Department of Communication Box 7347, Reynolda Station Wake Forest University Winston-Salem, NC 27109 *CAD Forum Editors* Ben Voth, University of Miami (OH) Kevin Kuswa, University of Richmond (VSA) -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090503/f1f908ac/attachment.htm From dave at miami.edu Mon May 4 09:03:12 2009 From: dave at miami.edu (Steinberg, David L) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 10:03:12 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Unofficial Calendar RE: [eDebate] 2009-2010 Tournament List? Message-ID: The unofficial calendar is available at http://debate.miami.edu/calendar/ I will update as I receive new information. ds David L. Steinberg Director of Debate, Lecturer in Communication Studies University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 FLW 3015 305-284-5553 204-385-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu http://debate.miami.edu/ ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of John James [pricecautious at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 3:23 PM To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] 2009-2010 Tournament List? Where can I find a complete list of tentative '09-'10 tournaments? Thanks ________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. See how. From jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu Mon May 4 09:50:19 2009 From: jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu (Joel Rollins) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 09:50:19 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: <42558793D89D414BB16A72C7F4CAFACD043EA13319@exchange-01.ad.wichita.edu> References: <49FA23520200009300029382@mymail.kckcc.edu> <42558793D89D414BB16A72C7F4CAFACD043EA13319@exchange-01.ad.wichita.edu> Message-ID: You're right, the SQ is a nightmare--I want to change it to the old system. I have no problem with adopting rules in some ways parallel to the the NCAA-- your sarcasm is not sarcasm, it is too close to a crumbling truth-- the NPR incident, whatever you want to call it, has drawn increasing scrutiny on what we do. I have long advocated that debates are too fast and that it is ridiculous that incomprehensible speakers win awards. On May 1, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Jarman, Jeffrey wrote: > Two points: > > (1) we should not confuse the 5 year rule with the graduation > amendment. Even if we moved back to four years, we'd still > consider this question, since some students could graduate early. > > (2) The squo is a larger PR nightmare. > Right now, students who want to debate are encouraged NOT to > graduate. How do we explain that to administrators? That makes us > less academically-oriented than NCAA football. They let students > play for a fourth year at their original school. > > I would think most administrators would understand exactly what > this allows. A student on your own team is allowed a fourth year, > so long as they continue at your school. > > The rule applies to a narrow set of students: those looking for a > 4th year of eligibility (in most cases b/c they entered college > with a dozen or so credits) on a team they already compete on. > > I agree that most students who graduate in 3 years and enter a > graduate school are not likely to debate. Grad school is difficult > and I doubt many will take on the extra burden of debating. But, > providing an incentive to graduate seems like an easy explanation > to offer administrators, especially for good students who have been > debaters for you for three years. > > And, let me close with one bit of sarcasm: if our schools can > withstand the PR nightmare that comes from some of our arguments > (kill all of the people) and some of our styles (incomprehensible > speech), then I think we can weather the storm caused by 4th year > debaters in their first year of grad school. > > Jeff > > > > ________________________________________ > From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [ceda-l- > bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Joel Rollins > [jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu] > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 7:16 AM > To: Darren Elliott > Cc: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat > > This proposal is a director's PR nightmare... > > I very much oppose allowing graduate students to debate unless they > never debated in college--if not, then they get one year. > Reasoning: one year allows students who have never debated before to > understand the rigors of debate and to gain experience necessary to > pursue it as a career. > > Grad students have different academic responsibilities, both in > departments and in the classroom. By and large they are perceived > differently by department heads--they are training to be coaches and > teachers. Maintaining that structure is important to the health of > graduate programs and the support that some of our programs receive > from our administrations. > > 5 years for everyone, 6 years for everyone, 7 years for everyone... > > Go back to the old system--8 semesters over 5 years, 3 tournaments > count as a semester, if you want to debate a 5th year, you have to > give up something to do so. The current system encourages students > to stay in school longer and delay graduation. Folks, at many > universities there is much pressure to unclog the arteries of the > undergrad system--get them out--peace corps, teach for america, grad > school, take a year off to help local high schools or your team. > > J > On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:16 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > >> 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. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CEDA-L mailing list >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l From swhalen at sfsu.edu Mon May 4 15:58:37 2009 From: swhalen at sfsu.edu (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:58:37 -0700 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A few thoughts: The fundamental error of some of these discussions is that collegiate debate is not an "extra-curricular" activity similar to football or other sports. It is instead a "co-curricular" activity that extends the undergraduate experience by providing a non-traditional opportunity for students to apply and experiment with the ideas that they are confronting in their traditional curriculum. Our considerations should acknowledge issues of competition and fairness, but they should be driven by the role of the debate activity in the education of students. I don't believe that graduate education offers the same co-curricular fit with debate, but I suspect that there might be some compelling arguments that it would. If those arguments are made, we might also need to ask if graduate debate and undergraduate debate are similar pedagogical phenomenon, such that they should happen together in mixed competition. Shawn Whalen Academic Senate Chair San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Ave. - ADM 551 San Francisco, CA 94132 http://www.sfsu.edu/~senate/ swhalen at sfsu.edu 415-338-1264 Joel Rollins Sent by: ceda-l-bounces at ndtceda.com 05/04/2009 07:50 AM To "Jarman, Jeffrey" cc "CEDA-L at ndtceda.com" Subject Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat You're right, the SQ is a nightmare--I want to change it to the old system. I have no problem with adopting rules in some ways parallel to the the NCAA-- your sarcasm is not sarcasm, it is too close to a crumbling truth-- the NPR incident, whatever you want to call it, has drawn increasing scrutiny on what we do. I have long advocated that debates are too fast and that it is ridiculous that incomprehensible speakers win awards. On May 1, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Jarman, Jeffrey wrote: > Two points: > > (1) we should not confuse the 5 year rule with the graduation > amendment. Even if we moved back to four years, we'd still > consider this question, since some students could graduate early. > > (2) The squo is a larger PR nightmare. > Right now, students who want to debate are encouraged NOT to > graduate. How do we explain that to administrators? That makes us > less academically-oriented than NCAA football. They let students > play for a fourth year at their original school. > > I would think most administrators would understand exactly what > this allows. A student on your own team is allowed a fourth year, > so long as they continue at your school. > > The rule applies to a narrow set of students: those looking for a > 4th year of eligibility (in most cases b/c they entered college > with a dozen or so credits) on a team they already compete on. > > I agree that most students who graduate in 3 years and enter a > graduate school are not likely to debate. Grad school is difficult > and I doubt many will take on the extra burden of debating. But, > providing an incentive to graduate seems like an easy explanation > to offer administrators, especially for good students who have been > debaters for you for three years. > > And, let me close with one bit of sarcasm: if our schools can > withstand the PR nightmare that comes from some of our arguments > (kill all of the people) and some of our styles (incomprehensible > speech), then I think we can weather the storm caused by 4th year > debaters in their first year of grad school. > > Jeff > > > > ________________________________________ > From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [ceda-l- > bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Joel Rollins > [jd.rollins at mail.utexas.edu] > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 7:16 AM > To: Darren Elliott > Cc: CEDA-L at ndtceda.com > Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Graduation Amendment with a Caveat > > This proposal is a director's PR nightmare... > > I very much oppose allowing graduate students to debate unless they > never debated in college--if not, then they get one year. > Reasoning: one year allows students who have never debated before to > understand the rigors of debate and to gain experience necessary to > pursue it as a career. > > Grad students have different academic responsibilities, both in > departments and in the classroom. By and large they are perceived > differently by department heads--they are training to be coaches and > teachers. Maintaining that structure is important to the health of > graduate programs and the support that some of our programs receive > from our administrations. > > 5 years for everyone, 6 years for everyone, 7 years for everyone... > > Go back to the old system--8 semesters over 5 years, 3 tournaments > count as a semester, if you want to debate a 5th year, you have to > give up something to do so. The current system encourages students > to stay in school longer and delay graduation. Folks, at many > universities there is much pressure to unclog the arteries of the > undergrad system--get them out--peace corps, teach for america, grad > school, take a year off to help local high schools or your team. > > J > On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:16 PM, Darren Elliott wrote: > >> 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. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CEDA-L mailing list >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l _______________________________________________ CEDA-L mailing list CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090504/84d95ae4/attachment.htm From Jarrod.Atchison at Trinity.edu Wed May 6 16:35:46 2009 From: Jarrod.Atchison at Trinity.edu (Atchison, Jarrod) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:35:46 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] One more plea for help.... In-Reply-To: <49FDF39C.3060101@wfu.edu> References: <49FDF39C.3060101@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <348B2A31FF98E2488A7F8CB740645B61197EB516@its-goliad.trinity.local> I know that we are approaching the end of the semester and that everyone is super busy. Several people mentioned to me at the NDT that they had simply forgotten to send in their information. The more data we have the stronger our argument will be so please send us whatever you can. Sincerely, ~Jarrod Here is the message from Dr. Rowland again: Colleagues: On behalf of the Tenure and Promotion Working Group that is preparing materials for the upcoming Third Developmental Conference on Debate to be hosted by Wake Forest next June, I am writing to solicit information and input related to the professional status of the debate coach at your university. Other members of the working group include Jarrod Atchison of Trinity University, Matt Gerber of Baylor, Kelly McDonald of Arizona State, and Jeff Jarman of Wichita State. For those of you who don't know me, I was the Director of Forensics at Baylor for five years in the 1980s and then for three more at KU and am currently a member of the Board of Trustees of the NDT. Our working group has the assignment of looking at the professional status of debate coaches and exploring whether a successor document to the Quail Roost Statement on the web site of the AFA might be created that could be used by debate coaches in various types of positions to explain to the administration of their particular school the appropriate professional standards for evaluating their work. One problem that coaches face again and again is that university administrations don't understand the demands of competitive debate and traditional standards for tenure and promotion are often inappropriate. This has caused many universities, including my own, to move to some kind of appointment for the debate coach other than that of a tenure-track faculty member. As a first step in carrying out our assignment, we want to gather information about the nature of your appointment and the standards by which it is evaluated. Of course, this information will be kept confidential and we will report only data within categories. Jarrod Atchison has graciously agreed to analyze this data. We hope you will take a moment and email him information about your appointment and the way it is evaluated. His email is jarrod.atchison at gmail.com . Please copy me on that message as well. My email is rrowland at ku.edu . We also would value any insights that you might have on the document that the working group eventually will draft. It is our hope that we can describe appropriate evaluative standards for a number of different types of appointments for debate coaches. As someone who has both been an active coach and a department chair for a decade, I know that the demands on coaches are enormous and very different from those of other faculty members. We want to create a document that will provide context for the role of coach and specify standards for evaluation that both reflect the pedagogical goals of debate and fairly account for the enormous workload required by contemporary debate. Debate has been the most important influence in my academic life. And my debate coach, Dr. Donn Parson, has been (and remains) an enormously influential mentor. For the future health of the activity, it is important that we identify reasonable standards for evaluating the professional accomplishment of debate coaches. We very much would value your participation in that effort. Robin Robert C. Rowland Professor and Chair Communication Studies 102 Bailey Hall, 1440 Jayhawk Blvd. KU Lawrence, KS 66045-7574 Phone: 785-864-3633 Fax: 785-864-5203 Jarrod Atchison, Ph.D. Director of Debate and Assistant Professor Department of Speech and Drama Trinity University 1 Trinity Place San Antonio, TX 78212 210-999-8582 (phone) 210-999-8512 (fax) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090506/11447e79/attachment.htm From stables at usc.edu Thu May 7 01:55:45 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 23:55:45 -0700 Subject: [CEDA-L] Comments on the CEDA Amemdments and topic ballot Message-ID: <39c1ac890905062355w7bc6bc83lc8f12a084e09f818@mail.gmail.com> A lot to catch up on. Yes - there are technical problems with the listservs. I encourage everyone to become more familiar with the new CEDA website which has been designed to serve as a site for community documents, discussion, etc. The time will come in the not too distant future when all organizational business (topic, tournaments, deadlines, etc.) happens away from these lists. Now is a good time to start getting used to it. www.cedadebate.org I have provided a comment on the proposed CEDA amendments, including the grad student eligibility and adding events, at http://www.cedadebate.org/?q=node/839#comment-31 I have a note about the topic process at http://topic.cedadebate.org/?q=node/12#comment-3 You can leave your thoughts as replies to either item. Remember there is only a week left to vote. Please email Jeff Jarman if you need a ballot or have technical questions about voting. Thanks 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 From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu May 7 23:34:16 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 23:34:16 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA Message-ID: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> Warning: Post may contain (attempts at) humor. Ok so when Justin objected to the ?New Events? amendment I sat and thought about it a while. Justin is a great coach, has really successful teams, and was a good debater himself back in the day. So I was conflicted. Then Tuna and Andy agreed with him and I was convinced I was in fact correct. This 3-0 decision also reminded me of why I am often in favor or MPJ. But I digress... Justin argues no new events without a popular vote. We apparently wont agree on that one but I am curious where the line is drawn? Democracy as Justin describes it rarely exists, in life or in CEDA or the NDT. Direct votes rarely ever occur on major decisions?its why we have reps. We have elected reps who are elected through democratic means. The amendment does not give the President authority to do this on his own. I demonstrated it would require approval of almost 20% of our membership (the EC includes almost 20 people). Where is the outcry when other decisions are not made by popular vote? Me thinks it might be politically more salient to cry foul when its small potatoes and hope things swing the right way when big decisions are made. But maybe its just a feeling I get. Like when someone drops ?must define all words? or runs a bad K for 9 minutes in the 1NC. Bottom line, we have reps we elect. Hold them accountable on this as you would anything else hopefully. Will this lead to tyranny? I almost wet myself laughing. Seriously. Then the phone rang and it was 1983 asking we please give back their Federalism Disad Impact. As for a tyranny of ideas and the ?mission? of CEDA I think Justin is a bit off here too. A large part of CEDA's mission is increasing novice debate and participation?Justin opposed the novice breakout rounds at CEDA. Why didnt that fly in the face of our mission? As for promoting Cross Examination Debate, there are other forms of debate like public debate events that promote cross examination debate. Justin points out the platform questions did not ask which events the candidates might add. I would respond by saying there is no conspiracy here. Repeat, no conspiracy here. Gordon, Sue, Mike. None of them to my knowledge have secret plans to add events. None of them do any of the events I mentioned except some public debate events. But I would trust that no one (especially 17 people?the EC) would approve of something in such a flawed manner as to not run a great CEDA. Again there was no asnwer to the number of past Presidents who changed things significantly and how those changes had no negative effect on the outcome of the tournament nor diminished the championships we crowned. Hating to add to the semantics charge, but novice breakout rounds were not a new ?division?. I think that is where a lot of this is stemming from. But again maybe just a bad feeling. As to the belief that this amendment would destroy democracy is either uninformed (see above?multiple decisions a year without popular vote) or conspiratorial. And as far as conspiracies go this is one of the weakest Ive ever seen advanced here. Tuna, you know about conspiracies right? Am I right or am I right? : ) Finally I will try and address privilige. Not everyone has K-State's resources. Budgets around 6 digits, multiple coaches, grad students, the ability to travel virtually anywhere, and an endless group of debaters. When you have that luxury and focus on one thing, I understand your desire to protect that one thing. But what about programs without that ability? What about programs who have gone on to other forms of Forensics? Many of them made choices and arent coming back. But what if? What if CEDA ran alongside another form of debate and a few colleges came and were able to do both? Or some came and liked what we were doing and crossed over? Or some who do primarily Parli, who have kids that want to try Policy, came and had kids do both? What is bad about that? Seriousforensic organizations and I know some folks who would like to exist on the fringes, or participate now and then, but budgets force choices. A former CEDA President speaking here made the choice this year to do a different form of debate and not send teams to CEDA. Thats too bad. Maybe CEDA has lost its purpose for him. Maybe it has for others. Maybe it will for more in the future. Then that one thing conspiracy theorists try so hard to protect wont be big enough to justify to your administrators. Then your budgets begin to shift. I have a list of 200 schools who have made that shift?dont think it cant happen. My point is that if we were more experimental, if we opened up debate to more people, then maybe CEDA would begin to grow again. What other options are there? So yes we participate in Cross Examination Debate and I hope we continue to do so in healthy numbers?but shutting off the opportunities to bring others in is in my opinion foolish. This amendment does not empower the President to be tyrannical. It requires the EC approval?your EC. The elected reps you know. It also would not destroy democracy. We have virtually no popular vote democracy now. And it would expedite the process to expose CEDA to potential new programs. An integral part of our mission. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA Immediate Past President >>> Justin Green 05/05/09 9:25 PM >>> The short version: We shouldn't add new events without a popular vote. Yes, democracy is slow and time consuming. Dictatorships = quick decisions.....Democracy = you have to wait for everyone to vote. If you want the President to add Parli, Worlds, LD, Public Forum, Extemp, etc to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals without a vote, then vote yes. For those of you who want CEDA Nats to be a celebration of Cross Ex Debate and not a new event without a popular vote - vote no. As a caveat, had the amendment said "The President can add new events or divisions by putting them up to a public vote with a three week window for the public to vote". This would solve all of the problems Chief mentioned, yet still maintain democracy. If there is a way for a friendly amendment, please instruct. Chief's arguments seem eerily similar to "must define all words" - largely a semantics game. "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. " You call it hamstring an organization. I might call it preventing tyranny. Is it tyranny that will kill me physically - no, but it is certainly a tyranny of ideas that flies in the face of the mission of our organization "promote Cross Examination Debate". "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." Which part of the Presidential platform discussion asked "do you want to add new events to make CEDA Nationals "? I trust them to run a CX tournament, but I have no idea if Gordon is qualified to run a Public Forum or World's Tournament or which events he will seek to add. "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, ato 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. " Gordon, please chime in here. Will NFA Lincoln-Douglas be asking us to join them so that they can put money towards our nationals? To put it in terms Chief used while judging me once "I don't get it". "4. The People's Tournament: Indeed! I articulated above why sometimes process takes too long for all the "people" to chime in." Ummmm....If democracy is slow then it is not worth following? Chief you added a division - Novice. New novice division, not the same as "lets debate LD". While I received enlightening backchannels after my previous post comparing this amendment to Senator Palpatine's plan of destroying democracy "one amendment at a time" (provided by the debate Green Party President aka Jester the behester) and those who had more explicit concerns like "here comes Worlds Debate" (a former CEDA Presidential candidate), I was hoping to get the perspective of someone other than the current President or former President as to why expanding executive powers to include A NEW EVENT was a good idea - especially one without a popular vote. Last I checked we participate in Cross Examination Debate. Hence our organizations name. While personally participating and facilitating multiple forms of debate: public forums, debates with my wife, debates among local representatives, and in-class debates, just to name a few. Sometimes there are declared winners sometimes no winners at all. But, when our teams go to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals, I for one am happy that we are debating Cross-Ex styles with all of its diversity and spending a weekend just dedicated to the efforts of our students working hard on that event. If we want to add World's Debate to CEDA, why can't this wait a year for an amendment to let all the World's voices to be heard? Justin Green _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From delliott at kckcc.edu Thu May 7 23:38:58 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 23:38:58 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] New Events ans Andy Message-ID: <4A037113020000930002993B@mymail.kckcc.edu> I cannot imagine many times when such a request would come up after December. And as Gordon pointed out the amendment would require any new event to be in the CEDA invite. And yes, if we were at a site with the room, and another tournament wanted to bring in THEIR personnel and run THEIR tournament, why would we not want to expose other forensics folks to CEDA? Are we really that unattractive? As for the shot at the CEDA EC not being competent enough to generate revenue streams, all I can say is sometimes full time jobs get in the way of being good fund raisers. What we do have going for us however is the ability to earn free Hotel Points when we host large tournaments. Now you gotta give us credit for that. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA Immediate Past Prseident Andy Ellis wrote: A question...Former president elliott seems to suggest that it would be a good idea to add another organizations nationals after december...what organization mentioned there decides after december when and where it's nationals is going to be? Is this the just in case some other major national forensics organization LOSES its DETERMINED site, and is willing t pay us a whole bunch of money in order to manage their logistics and host their hundreds of people...and the problem is ...the president cannont say yes to this remarkably good idea? Clearly what we want our president doing is agreeing in feb. to try something cool at nationals...like doubling their logistical burden..and the number of people...revenue streams...dangerous road to go down...if executive power is entirely determined by ability to access revenue streams, then not a one of the current ec should be in charge. we should host nfl/ceda/ada/ndt/toc/ncfl/universes, use the intense profit generated from hosting other peoples nationals and hire our selves a top notch revenue stream accessing maven From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri May 8 09:24:23 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:24:23 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] New Events ans Andy In-Reply-To: <4A037113020000930002993B@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A037113020000930002993B@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905080724u4c707ce7n38b696624869e3c9@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Darren Elliott wrote: > I cannot imagine many times when such a request would come up after > December. And as Gordon pointed out the amendment would require any new > event to be in the CEDA invite. And yes, if we were at a site with the > room, and another tournament wanted to bring in THEIR personnel and run > THEIR tournament, why would we not want to expose other forensics folks to > CEDA? Are we really that unattractive? I don't think thats the point......but you get to proving that later on...the point is that somebody with a full time job, and then another one, should not be making the decision that with less than 3 months to go before their third full time job hits its peak they want to add another organizations national tournament to the organizations(run by people with three full time jobs) responsobility chart...no matter how much you say it will be their personel and their stuff unless you are just agreeing to share campuses and hotel blocks with other organizations, no revenue...but if not and it is a revenue stream for the org you will create workload for the organization...doable, in the world i am calling for, but by your own admission not feasible in the world where the ec is all gainfully employed elsewhere first as a professor or lawyer or whatever, then as a debate coach, then as an ec member....come on man for the sake of the ad homs you have walked right into the bigger argument. To get back to justins point...if the collective will of the organization is eager to make this bad business decision...not catagoricaly just as you have described it...perhaps you should let gordon do the talking...then so be it...but a president barely elected with popular support as you point out shouldnt be able to do it...when things are bad enough ideas put forth either by amendment the community rejects them...usually...when it comes time to vote for 2nd vice president...the community is kinda meh about it...so here is the world you want...a person elected into leadership...with at most the support of a quarter(im being generous here) of the membership, the meh of about 75 per cent of it...this person in conjunction with similarly elected people...all gainfully employed elsewhere...should not have sweeping executive powers...it was bold enough when bush took them, this is an evenmore ridiculous application of them...and this example proves why...i really don't think you could have made a worse defense of this amendment...like seriously your strongest argument for why this two month window needs to opened up is...what if i want to double the size and respnsibility of the tournament over christmas break?....well obviously i wouldnt want to check with the membership about how they feel about this, because they will think it an awful idea...so let me just tell them and then tel them i am open to discussion on it...perhaps on the ceda website...people discuss this now...it is the last chance you will have to do so...if you you vote yes on this amendment, the only people who will discuss it will be your leadership...can you even name the ec without looking it up? > > > As for the shot at the CEDA EC not being competent enough to generate > revenue streams, all I can say is sometimes full time jobs get in the way of > being good fund raisers. What we do have going for us however is the > ability to earn free Hotel Points when we host large tournaments. Now you > gotta give us credit for that. > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA Immediate Past Prseident > > > Andy Ellis wrote: > > A question...Former president elliott seems to suggest that it would be a > good idea to add another organizations nationals after december...what > organization mentioned there decides after december when and where it's > nationals is going to be? Is this the just in case some other major > national > forensics organization LOSES its DETERMINED site, and is willing t pay us a > whole bunch of money in order to manage their logistics and host their > hundreds of people...and the problem is ...the president cannont say yes to > this remarkably good idea? Clearly what we want our president doing is > agreeing in feb. to try something cool at nationals...like doubling their > logistical burden..and the number of people...revenue streams...dangerous > road to go down...if executive power is entirely determined by ability to > access revenue streams, then not a one of the current ec should be in > charge. we should host nfl/ceda/ada/ndt/toc/ncfl/universes, use the intense > profit generated from hosting other peoples nationals and hire our selves a > top notch revenue stream accessing maven > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090508/8c791cb1/attachment.htm From jmgreen at ksu.edu Fri May 8 11:06:51 2009 From: jmgreen at ksu.edu (Justin Green) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:06:51 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA In-Reply-To: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: <5a6e2a80905080906o3d5d64d4l7ba92be0ce101f85@mail.gmail.com> Two reasons to vote no: CEDA was established to promote Cross Examination Debate. I for one appreciate that. The inclusion of LD, Parli, worlds - (if they are "Cross Ex Debate" because they involve questions and answers this is a very liberal interp of Cross Ex Debate) - takes away from the time and energy necessary to host a truly wonderful experience of what we traditionally know as Cross Ex Debate. If we are successful, then we are taking away from other organizations nationals. So we decide to host LD, then all of a sudden the NFALD community is split between two nationals, I am not sure why this is good for them or us. Perhaps the following year they would host a Policy Nationals in Miami, Florida. If you think ADA, NDT, CEDA is bad now, wait till we add a fourth or fifth. Counterplan: Work with another organization. If the problem is a split between Policy and Parli or Policy and LD and squads which have both need to make a forced financial decision, then CEDA should simply work along with NFA-LD (i.e) to identify a host who can accomodate both. No event would need to be added, this would address all of the problems identified by Chief, but avoid the ones listed above. This requires no constitutional amendment. And the CEDA EC has its hands full running cx debate, why would they want more on their plate. Pre-empts: If the goal is to crown a CEDA Novice National Champion, then why was that amendment not proposed? If there is another specific event that should be added because it is educationally worthwhile, what is that event? why is it not proposed as an amendment? The adding of the event can only be a financial/administrative reasons - if it were along educational merits, it would be proposed right now. Distinction between event and division....Yes, there might be a version of Public Debate that could be considered cross-examination debate. However, in your previous post you mentioned including LD, Worlds, Parli, etc. Had this amendment said, CEDA can offer a new division of cross ex debate, arguments against would be much more difficult to make. Novice break-out was added because Chief did have that Constitutional Authority. Responses: Yes there are schools with multiple forms of debate. CP above addresses this. Here's the issue. Why would it be good for us to decide to host Parli in November at our CEDA Nationals tournament? Aside from being highly unlikely due to logistical contstraints (lack of classrooms and hotel space being the biggest one), this seems to create huge administrative burdens at a tournament that is highly likely to produce failure. Tuna pointed out that Parli(in addition to multiple I.E. nationals) won't likely come. We just open the door for a poor decision. Why referendum and not representation? I covered this in a post to Gordon. Below are the responses: 1. They are not truly representative - Yes they are voted on, but not every region has the same number of schools. It is closer to the Senate than the House of Reps. 2. Fundamental Decisions about the future of the organization should be decided on by the people, not the EC. As a former rep - It's hard to balance being an EC member. At any given time there could be as many as five or six issues before the EC. My hats are off to those that are. Some of the members spend a great deal of time deliberating, others do not. Sure some adminstrative decisions should be made through the EC, but not ones that fundamentally change the mission of the tournament. 3. Democracy is often representative, but when it can truly be a referendum without significant harm, why not pursue it. The Ad Hom debate: Dude, if tyranny made you wet your pants, maybe you should see a doctor. It would be an interesting experiment to see if a panel of Ellis, Green and Snider were of a higher MPJ than Chief. Especially if the MPJ revolved around resolving a CEDA Constitutional and Adminsitrative Debates and the growth/development of CEDA was compared between the Snider administration and the Elliot administration. Not sure which way it would go. Not sure why our budget is relevant to this discussion, but since Chief asked. His facts are wrong about the KSU Budget. I wrote a couple of paragraphs mud-slinging back at KCK calling them privileged too and defending KSU and then decided to delete them and chalk his comments up to lack of accurate information. Both KSU and KCK debaters read this and this discussion is good for neither of our squads. I am not interested in the oppression olympics. Anyone who feels KSU's budget is relevant to their vote, should back-channel me. Justin From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Fri May 8 13:32:10 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 14:32:10 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA In-Reply-To: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> References: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: Hey, I think there is a feeling that by having a bunch of fringe competition suddenly tied to a National tournament you risk cheapening the value of winning a National tournament for the participants. Instead of one CEDA champion there are now a CEDA National parli champion, novice champion, and varsity champion. This certainly confuses the already difficult "advertising and promoting" your championship. As for Democracy: Perhaps the problem is that Justin is making some arguments against the proposal but contained in arguments for Democracy. In other words, you need to present a disadvatage to presenting the proposal to the voters instead of "just the EC." I think Tuna's point, as it has been for over ten years, is that Parli doesn't want to come back to CEDA and has no incentive to do so. By calling CEDA a "Parli" national championship you might actually be insulting/cheapening their own national championships - not likely to make them come rushing back to the fold. I could be wrong on this one and do not want to "speak for Tuna" at all but it seems somewhat logical. How would you feel if you had just won Parli nationals, against 200 teams, and some joker is in the press saying they were the CEDA national parli champion when they competed against like 20 teams. Finally, none of this is intended to demean any attempt to widen the fold of CEDA/NDT debate. I am certain all involved in this discussion have nothing but the best intentions vis-a-vis the activity. Hope everyone is well, Josh On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Darren Elliott wrote: > Warning: Post may contain (attempts at) humor. > > Ok so when Justin objected to the ?New Events? amendment I sat and > thought about it a while. Justin is a great coach, has really > successful teams, and was a good debater himself back in the day. So I > was conflicted. Then Tuna and Andy agreed with him and I was convinced > I was in fact correct. This 3-0 decision also reminded me of why I am > often in favor or MPJ. But I digress... > > Justin argues no new events without a popular vote. We apparently wont > agree on that one but I am curious where the line is drawn? Democracy > as Justin describes it rarely exists, in life or in CEDA or the NDT. > Direct votes rarely ever occur on major decisions?its why we have reps. > We have elected reps who are elected through democratic means. The > amendment does not give the President authority to do this on his own. > I demonstrated it would require approval of almost 20% of our membership > (the EC includes almost 20 people). Where is the outcry when other > decisions are not made by popular vote? Me thinks it might be > politically more salient to cry foul when its small potatoes and hope > things swing the right way when big decisions are made. But maybe its > just a feeling I get. Like when someone drops ?must define all words? > or runs a bad K for 9 minutes in the 1NC. Bottom line, we have reps we > elect. Hold them accountable on this as you would anything else > hopefully. > > Will this lead to tyranny? I almost wet myself laughing. Seriously. > Then the phone rang and it was 1983 asking we please give back their > Federalism Disad Impact. As for a tyranny of ideas and the ?mission? of > CEDA I think Justin is a bit off here too. A large part of CEDA's > mission is increasing novice debate and participation?Justin opposed the > novice breakout rounds at CEDA. Why didnt that fly in the face of our > mission? As for promoting Cross Examination Debate, there are other > forms of debate like public debate events that promote cross examination > debate. > > Justin points out the platform questions did not ask which events the > candidates might add. I would respond by saying there is no conspiracy > here. Repeat, no conspiracy here. Gordon, Sue, Mike. None of them to > my knowledge have secret plans to add events. None of them do any of > the events I mentioned except some public debate events. But I would > trust that no one (especially 17 people?the EC) would approve of > something in such a flawed manner as to not run a great CEDA. Again > there was no asnwer to the number of past Presidents who changed things > significantly and how those changes had no negative effect on the > outcome of the tournament nor diminished the championships we crowned. > > Hating to add to the semantics charge, but novice breakout rounds were > not a new ?division?. I think that is where a lot of this is stemming > from. But again maybe just a bad feeling. > > As to the belief that this amendment would destroy democracy is either > uninformed (see above?multiple decisions a year without popular vote) or > conspiratorial. And as far as conspiracies go this is one of the > weakest Ive ever seen advanced here. Tuna, you know about conspiracies > right? Am I right or am I right? : ) > > Finally I will try and address privilige. Not everyone has K-State's > resources. Budgets around 6 digits, multiple coaches, grad students, > the ability to travel virtually anywhere, and an endless group of > debaters. When you have that luxury and focus on one thing, I > understand your desire to protect that one thing. But what about > programs without that ability? What about programs who have gone on to > other forms of Forensics? Many of them made choices and arent coming > back. But what if? What if CEDA ran alongside another form of debate > and a few colleges came and were able to do both? Or some came and > liked what we were doing and crossed over? Or some who do primarily > Parli, who have kids that want to try Policy, came and had kids do both? > What is bad about that? Seriousforensic organizations and I know some > folks who would like to exist on > the fringes, or participate now and then, but budgets force choices. A > former CEDA President speaking here made the choice this year to do a > different form of debate and not send teams to CEDA. Thats too bad. > Maybe CEDA has lost its purpose for him. Maybe it has for others. > Maybe it will for more in the future. Then that one thing conspiracy > theorists try so hard to protect wont be big enough to justify to your > administrators. Then your budgets begin to shift. I have a list of 200 > schools who have made that shift?dont think it cant happen. > > My point is that if we were more experimental, if we opened up debate to > more people, then maybe CEDA would begin to grow again. What other > options are there? So yes we participate in Cross Examination Debate > and I hope we continue to do so in healthy numbers?but shutting off the > opportunities to bring others in is in my opinion foolish. > > This amendment does not empower the President to be tyrannical. It > requires the EC approval?your EC. The elected reps you know. It also > would not destroy democracy. We have virtually no popular vote > democracy now. And it would expedite the process to expose CEDA to > potential new programs. An integral part of our mission. > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA Immediate Past President > > >>> Justin Green 05/05/09 9:25 PM >>> > The short version: We shouldn't add new events without a popular > vote. Yes, democracy is slow and time consuming. Dictatorships = > quick decisions.....Democracy = you have to wait for everyone to vote. > If you want the President to add Parli, Worlds, LD, Public Forum, > Extemp, etc to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals > without a vote, then vote yes. For those of you who want CEDA Nats to > be a celebration of Cross Ex Debate and not a new event without a > popular vote - vote no. > > As a caveat, had the amendment said "The President can add new events > or divisions by putting them up to a public vote with a three week > window for the public to vote". This would solve all of the problems > Chief mentioned, yet still maintain democracy. If there is a way for > a friendly amendment, please instruct. > > Chief's arguments seem eerily similar to "must define all words" - > largely a semantics game. > > "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. " > > You call it hamstring an organization. I might call it preventing > tyranny. Is it tyranny that will kill me physically - no, but it is > certainly a tyranny of ideas that flies in the face of the mission of > our organization "promote Cross Examination Debate". > > "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." > > Which part of the Presidential platform discussion asked "do you want > to add new events to make CEDA Nationals "? I trust them to run a CX > tournament, but I have no idea if Gordon is qualified to run a Public > Forum or World's Tournament or which events he will seek to add. > > "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, ato 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. " > > Gordon, please chime in here. Will NFA Lincoln-Douglas be asking us > to join them so that they can put money towards our nationals? To put > it in terms Chief used while judging me once "I don't get it". > > "4. The People's Tournament: Indeed! I articulated above why sometimes > process takes too long for all the "people" to chime in." > > Ummmm....If democracy is slow then it is not worth following? Chief > you added a division - Novice. New novice division, not the same as > "lets debate LD". > > While I received enlightening backchannels after my previous post > comparing this amendment to Senator Palpatine's plan of destroying > democracy "one amendment at a time" (provided by the debate Green > Party President aka Jester the behester) and those who had more > explicit concerns like "here comes Worlds Debate" (a former CEDA > Presidential candidate), I was hoping to get the perspective of > someone other than the current President or former President as to why > expanding executive powers to include A NEW EVENT was a good idea - > especially one without a popular vote. > > Last I checked we participate in Cross Examination Debate. Hence our > organizations name. While personally participating and facilitating > multiple forms of debate: public forums, debates with my wife, debates > among local representatives, and in-class debates, just to name a few. > Sometimes there are declared winners sometimes no winners at all. > But, when our teams go to the Cross Examination Debate Association > Nationals, I for one am happy that we are debating Cross-Ex styles > with all of its diversity and spending a weekend just dedicated to the > efforts of our students working hard on that event. > > If we want to add World's Debate to CEDA, why can't this wait a year > for an amendment to let all the World's voices to be heard? > > Justin Green > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090508/30a23a67/attachment.htm From BNorthup at carroll.edu Fri May 8 22:13:10 2009 From: BNorthup at carroll.edu (Northup, Brent) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 21:13:10 -0600 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA References: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> Message-ID: Hi All I'm a coach of a parli program, with no policy teams. I'm part of NPDA. I listen with interest to this dialogue about opening a possible gateway to a parli division at CEDA. What interests me most is the beginning struggle to see if there's room in your tent for parli teams with a policy background. In parli we have seen tension between what are termed "progressive" teams, which tend to love policy strategies and styles, and "traditional" teams that want impromptu debate preserved, without sliding towards heavy research, fast speed and off case creativity. (Many of these programs ran to parli specifically to avoid policy approaches to argumentation). We are at a moment of truth between those two preferences and are seeking a way to keep the family together. Proposals have been suggested to hold two divisions at NPDA nats - trad and prog, which raises all sorts of intriguing difficulties but is also appealing on some levels. Some schools are simply leaving parli - ironically for opposite reasons (some because it's too progressive some because it's too old fashioned traditional). Other proposals are totally at odds: some want us to embrace progressive and move on with the "evolution," and others to find a way to halt policification of parli with a series of procedural constraints (no evidence, no pre-announced topic areas, no strikes, and so forth). Truth be known, we just don't know which way to turn and so all options are on the table. Derek has reached out to try to bridge this gap, and we have been trying to see if a summit or conference would help air the differences and find solutions. Your discussion seems related to our own discussion. I would love to see this dialogue open up more connections between the various forms of debate. As for how large you would be if you had a parli division, you could be tiny - or you could mushroom into a very substantial division as the progressive teams find a second national tournament (aside from NPTE) that is designed to reward their approach. I am not sure which way it would go. But the very discussion is encouraging to me, no matter what the outcome. I've heard it asked about religion: why do people of faith often treat each other like enemies when they have so much in common? I've had the same thought about the very contentious arguments among debaters of different styles/types. Seems like we have so much in common, we'd see each other as family. But, in fact, we can be very intolerant of each other. And I'm as guilty of this as the next person. As for me, I am right between the two factions...I don't want policy strategies/speed/evidence in parli but I also train my teams in policy argumentation because messy value/fact rounds in parli are fingernails-across-a-blackboard to me. In the 1990s we were criticized for running a plan in a parli world...now we're criticized for not running enough K in parli. We haven't changed all that much, but perception of us has changed from seeing us as too prog. to too traditional. We are less competitive in parli than we once were, which speaks to the evolution that rewards our approach less often - and to my stubbornness not to "evolve." So maybe your dialogue - and ours - can open discussion on the worthy goal of bringing the dysfunctional family of college debaters into closer contact with each other. People like Jim Hanson live in both tents. Derek has, too. Steve Hunt was a former CEDA president who has lived in parli for a while (and is now retired). There are lots of coaches with feet and hearts in both worlds who might help suggest ways to heal the fractures. I don't have a single solution, except to thank all of you in CEDA for having this valuable dialogue. It might seem to you like you are arguing about the definition of your tournament, but in many ways you are having a much bigger philosophical dialogue about the future of debate. And those of us who care about debate appreciate that dialogue, no matter how contentious. I suspect you have other observers to your talk that live in parli. I maintain my CEDA subscription so I can listen to your discussions, for example. Listening to smart people argue can be educational :) Best wishes. Thanks. Brent Brent Northup Carroll College 1601 N. Benton Helena, MT. 59625 bnorthup at carroll.edu (406) 459-2371 (cell) -----Original Message----- From: ceda-l-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Josh Sent: Fri 5/8/2009 12:32 PM To: Darren Elliott Cc: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com; EDEBATE at ndtceda.com; CEDA-L at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA Hey, I think there is a feeling that by having a bunch of fringe competition suddenly tied to a National tournament you risk cheapening the value of winning a National tournament for the participants. Instead of one CEDA champion there are now a CEDA National parli champion, novice champion, and varsity champion. This certainly confuses the already difficult "advertising and promoting" your championship. As for Democracy: Perhaps the problem is that Justin is making some arguments against the proposal but contained in arguments for Democracy. In other words, you need to present a disadvatage to presenting the proposal to the voters instead of "just the EC." I think Tuna's point, as it has been for over ten years, is that Parli doesn't want to come back to CEDA and has no incentive to do so. By calling CEDA a "Parli" national championship you might actually be insulting/cheapening their own national championships - not likely to make them come rushing back to the fold. I could be wrong on this one and do not want to "speak for Tuna" at all but it seems somewhat logical. How would you feel if you had just won Parli nationals, against 200 teams, and some joker is in the press saying they were the CEDA national parli champion when they competed against like 20 teams. Finally, none of this is intended to demean any attempt to widen the fold of CEDA/NDT debate. I am certain all involved in this discussion have nothing but the best intentions vis-a-vis the activity. Hope everyone is well, Josh On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Darren Elliott wrote: > Warning: Post may contain (attempts at) humor. > > Ok so when Justin objected to the "New Events" amendment I sat and > thought about it a while. Justin is a great coach, has really > successful teams, and was a good debater himself back in the day. So I > was conflicted. Then Tuna and Andy agreed with him and I was convinced > I was in fact correct. This 3-0 decision also reminded me of why I am > often in favor or MPJ. But I digress... > > Justin argues no new events without a popular vote. We apparently wont > agree on that one but I am curious where the line is drawn? Democracy > as Justin describes it rarely exists, in life or in CEDA or the NDT. > Direct votes rarely ever occur on major decisions-its why we have reps. > We have elected reps who are elected through democratic means. The > amendment does not give the President authority to do this on his own. > I demonstrated it would require approval of almost 20% of our membership > (the EC includes almost 20 people). Where is the outcry when other > decisions are not made by popular vote? Me thinks it might be > politically more salient to cry foul when its small potatoes and hope > things swing the right way when big decisions are made. But maybe its > just a feeling I get. Like when someone drops "must define all words" > or runs a bad K for 9 minutes in the 1NC. Bottom line, we have reps we > elect. Hold them accountable on this as you would anything else > hopefully. > > Will this lead to tyranny? I almost wet myself laughing. Seriously. > Then the phone rang and it was 1983 asking we please give back their > Federalism Disad Impact. As for a tyranny of ideas and the "mission" of > CEDA I think Justin is a bit off here too. A large part of CEDA's > mission is increasing novice debate and participation-Justin opposed the > novice breakout rounds at CEDA. Why didnt that fly in the face of our > mission? As for promoting Cross Examination Debate, there are other > forms of debate like public debate events that promote cross examination > debate. > > Justin points out the platform questions did not ask which events the > candidates might add. I would respond by saying there is no conspiracy > here. Repeat, no conspiracy here. Gordon, Sue, Mike. None of them to > my knowledge have secret plans to add events. None of them do any of > the events I mentioned except some public debate events. But I would > trust that no one (especially 17 people-the EC) would approve of > something in such a flawed manner as to not run a great CEDA. Again > there was no asnwer to the number of past Presidents who changed things > significantly and how those changes had no negative effect on the > outcome of the tournament nor diminished the championships we crowned. > > Hating to add to the semantics charge, but novice breakout rounds were > not a new "division". I think that is where a lot of this is stemming > from. But again maybe just a bad feeling. > > As to the belief that this amendment would destroy democracy is either > uninformed (see above-multiple decisions a year without popular vote) or > conspiratorial. And as far as conspiracies go this is one of the > weakest Ive ever seen advanced here. Tuna, you know about conspiracies > right? Am I right or am I right? : ) > > Finally I will try and address privilige. Not everyone has K-State's > resources. Budgets around 6 digits, multiple coaches, grad students, > the ability to travel virtually anywhere, and an endless group of > debaters. When you have that luxury and focus on one thing, I > understand your desire to protect that one thing. But what about > programs without that ability? What about programs who have gone on to > other forms of Forensics? Many of them made choices and arent coming > back. But what if? What if CEDA ran alongside another form of debate > and a few colleges came and were able to do both? Or some came and > liked what we were doing and crossed over? Or some who do primarily > Parli, who have kids that want to try Policy, came and had kids do both? > What is bad about that? Seriousforensic organizations and I know some > folks who would like to exist on > the fringes, or participate now and then, but budgets force choices. A > former CEDA President speaking here made the choice this year to do a > different form of debate and not send teams to CEDA. Thats too bad. > Maybe CEDA has lost its purpose for him. Maybe it has for others. > Maybe it will for more in the future. Then that one thing conspiracy > theorists try so hard to protect wont be big enough to justify to your > administrators. Then your budgets begin to shift. I have a list of 200 > schools who have made that shift-dont think it cant happen. > > My point is that if we were more experimental, if we opened up debate to > more people, then maybe CEDA would begin to grow again. What other > options are there? So yes we participate in Cross Examination Debate > and I hope we continue to do so in healthy numbers-but shutting off the > opportunities to bring others in is in my opinion foolish. > > This amendment does not empower the President to be tyrannical. It > requires the EC approval-your EC. The elected reps you know. It also > would not destroy democracy. We have virtually no popular vote > democracy now. And it would expedite the process to expose CEDA to > potential new programs. An integral part of our mission. > > chief > > Darren Elliott > Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC > CEDA Immediate Past President > > >>> Justin Green 05/05/09 9:25 PM >>> > The short version: We shouldn't add new events without a popular > vote. Yes, democracy is slow and time consuming. Dictatorships = > quick decisions.....Democracy = you have to wait for everyone to vote. > If you want the President to add Parli, Worlds, LD, Public Forum, > Extemp, etc to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals > without a vote, then vote yes. For those of you who want CEDA Nats to > be a celebration of Cross Ex Debate and not a new event without a > popular vote - vote no. > > As a caveat, had the amendment said "The President can add new events > or divisions by putting them up to a public vote with a three week > window for the public to vote". This would solve all of the problems > Chief mentioned, yet still maintain democracy. If there is a way for > a friendly amendment, please instruct. > > Chief's arguments seem eerily similar to "must define all words" - > largely a semantics game. > > "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. " > > You call it hamstring an organization. I might call it preventing > tyranny. Is it tyranny that will kill me physically - no, but it is > certainly a tyranny of ideas that flies in the face of the mission of > our organization "promote Cross Examination Debate". > > "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." > > Which part of the Presidential platform discussion asked "do you want > to add new events to make CEDA Nationals "? I trust them to run a CX > tournament, but I have no idea if Gordon is qualified to run a Public > Forum or World's Tournament or which events he will seek to add. > > "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, ato 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. " > > Gordon, please chime in here. Will NFA Lincoln-Douglas be asking us > to join them so that they can put money towards our nationals? To put > it in terms Chief used while judging me once "I don't get it". > > "4. The People's Tournament: Indeed! I articulated above why sometimes > process takes too long for all the "people" to chime in." > > Ummmm....If democracy is slow then it is not worth following? Chief > you added a division - Novice. New novice division, not the same as > "lets debate LD". > > While I received enlightening backchannels after my previous post > comparing this amendment to Senator Palpatine's plan of destroying > democracy "one amendment at a time" (provided by the debate Green > Party President aka Jester the behester) and those who had more > explicit concerns like "here comes Worlds Debate" (a former CEDA > Presidential candidate), I was hoping to get the perspective of > someone other than the current President or former President as to why > expanding executive powers to include A NEW EVENT was a good idea - > especially one without a popular vote. > > Last I checked we participate in Cross Examination Debate. Hence our > organizations name. While personally participating and facilitating > multiple forms of debate: public forums, debates with my wife, debates > among local representatives, and in-class debates, just to name a few. > Sometimes there are declared winners sometimes no winners at all. > But, when our teams go to the Cross Examination Debate Association > Nationals, I for one am happy that we are debating Cross-Ex styles > with all of its diversity and spending a weekend just dedicated to the > efforts of our students working hard on that event. > > If we want to add World's Debate to CEDA, why can't this wait a year > for an amendment to let all the World's voices to be heard? > > Justin Green > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090508/0516fe94/attachment.htm From andy.edebate at gmail.com Fri May 8 22:49:59 2009 From: andy.edebate at gmail.com (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 23:49:59 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA In-Reply-To: <5a6e2a80905080906o3d5d64d4l7ba92be0ce101f85@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> <5a6e2a80905080906o3d5d64d4l7ba92be0ce101f85@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0905082049h6863e264k86790a63cd47359f@mail.gmail.com> A bunch of reasons why it would be good to have other events at ceda is cool...it is off topic however...cue joke here...the topic is not can you make a compelling argument to the membership to add new events, an interesting and perhaps fruitful debate....in fact this amendment would shut down the need to disucss it with the membership...the topic is should the ec be able to add events without the approval of the membership...the answer to the first question might be yes. the answer to the second question, the question of the amendment is absolutly not. The amendment gives the executive the power to just short circuit the debate and do it...the problem with this is there is no means for many members of the ec, to be relected, so really no electorate for them to be responsible to,.. no one is trying to add other events though...then why the executive power and not the legilsative debate... On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Justin Green wrote: > Two reasons to vote no: > > CEDA was established to promote Cross Examination Debate. I for one > appreciate that. The inclusion of LD, Parli, worlds - (if they are > "Cross Ex Debate" because they involve questions and answers this is a > very liberal interp of Cross Ex Debate) - takes away from the time and > energy necessary to host a truly wonderful experience of what we > traditionally know as Cross Ex Debate. > > If we are successful, then we are taking away from other organizations > nationals. So we decide to host LD, then all of a sudden the NFALD > community is split between two nationals, I am not sure why this is > good for them or us. Perhaps the following year they would host a > Policy Nationals in Miami, Florida. If you think ADA, NDT, CEDA is > bad now, wait till we add a fourth or fifth. > > Counterplan: Work with another organization. If the problem is a > split between Policy and Parli or Policy and LD and squads which have > both need to make a forced financial decision, then CEDA should simply > work along with NFA-LD (i.e) to identify a host who can accomodate > both. No event would need to be added, this would address all of the > problems identified by Chief, but avoid the ones listed above. This > requires no constitutional amendment. And the CEDA EC has its hands > full running cx debate, why would they want more on their plate. > > Pre-empts: > > If the goal is to crown a CEDA Novice National Champion, then why was > that amendment not proposed? > > If there is another specific event that should be added because it is > educationally worthwhile, what is that event? why is it not proposed > as an amendment? The adding of the event can only be a > financial/administrative reasons - if it were along educational > merits, it would be proposed right now. > > Distinction between event and division....Yes, there might be a > version of Public Debate that could be considered cross-examination > debate. However, in your previous post you mentioned including LD, > Worlds, Parli, etc. Had this amendment said, CEDA can offer a new > division of cross ex debate, arguments against would be much more > difficult to make. Novice break-out was added because Chief did have > that Constitutional Authority. > > Responses: > > Yes there are schools with multiple forms of debate. CP above > addresses this. Here's the issue. Why would it be good for us to > decide to host Parli in November at our CEDA Nationals tournament? > Aside from being highly unlikely due to logistical contstraints (lack > of classrooms and hotel space being the biggest one), this seems to > create huge administrative burdens at a tournament that is highly > likely to produce failure. Tuna pointed out that Parli(in addition to > multiple I.E. nationals) won't likely come. We just open the door for > a poor decision. > > Why referendum and not representation? I covered this in a post to > Gordon. Below are the responses: > > 1. They are not truly representative - Yes they are voted on, but not > every region has the same number of schools. It is closer to the > Senate than the House of Reps. > > 2. Fundamental Decisions about the future of the organization should > be decided on by the people, not the EC. As a former rep - It's hard > to balance being an EC member. At any given time there could be as > many as five or six issues before the EC. My hats are off to those > that are. Some of the members spend a great deal of time > deliberating, others do not. Sure some adminstrative decisions should > be made through the EC, but not ones that fundamentally change the > mission of the tournament. > > 3. Democracy is often representative, but when it can truly be a > referendum without significant harm, why not pursue it. > > The Ad Hom debate: > > Dude, if tyranny made you wet your pants, maybe you should see a doctor. > > It would be an interesting experiment to see if a panel of Ellis, > Green and Snider were of a higher MPJ than Chief. Especially if the > MPJ revolved around resolving a CEDA Constitutional and Adminsitrative > Debates and the growth/development of CEDA was compared between the > Snider administration and the Elliot administration. Not sure which > way it would go. > > Not sure why our budget is relevant to this discussion, but since > Chief asked. His facts are wrong about the KSU Budget. I wrote a > couple of paragraphs mud-slinging back at KCK calling them privileged > too and defending KSU and then decided to delete them and chalk his > comments up to lack of accurate information. Both KSU and KCK > debaters read this and this discussion is good for neither of our > squads. I am not interested in the oppression olympics. Anyone who > feels KSU's budget is relevant to their vote, should back-channel me. > > Justin > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090508/30c0b6da/attachment.htm From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat May 9 01:02:21 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 01:02:21 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Reply to Chief Message-ID: <4A04D61D0200009300029B58@mymail.kckcc.edu> I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it was a pot shot or a low blow. As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about the process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not make a unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids were brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from Jackie. I loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to tournaments, I supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be presented to the Executive Council in Dallas at the summer meeting. Were you there? Did you watch on the web? I cant remember. The Executive Council voted for Idaho State for a number of reasons which I am sure you couldnt care less about--afterall its all about supporting your own right? I mean I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but Jesus H, dude, take off the blinders. This was not a personal decision and Im sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA leadership than many past decisions where programs not only didnt go to CEDA but left altogether. For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional Diversity good judge! 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any potential host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and abilty to provide amenities most tournaments only dream of was very compelling. 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was overwhelmingly impressed. I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots at a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the best Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision was those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. chief >>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> Just a couple of points. 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. I notice Justin did not bring up ****. 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. Vote no. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jbhdb8 at gmail.com Sat May 9 01:09:47 2009 From: jbhdb8 at gmail.com (Josh) Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 02:09:47 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0905082049h6863e264k86790a63cd47359f@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A036FF80200009300029936@mymail.kckcc.edu> <5a6e2a80905080906o3d5d64d4l7ba92be0ce101f85@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0905082049h6863e264k86790a63cd47359f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Agreed, the question is why do it without a vote...I havent heard ONE argument for this yet.....not why the amendment is good, why executive discretion is superior to community deliberation, Josh On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > A bunch of reasons why it would be good to have other events at ceda is > cool...it is off topic however...cue joke here...the topic is not can you > make a compelling argument to the membership to add new events, an > interesting and perhaps fruitful debate....in fact this amendment would shut > down the need to disucss it with the membership...the topic is should the ec > be able to add events without the approval of the membership...the answer to > the first question might be yes. the answer to the second question, the > question of the amendment is absolutly not. > > The amendment gives the executive the power to just short circuit the > debate and do it...the problem with this is there is no means for many > members of the ec, to be relected, so really no electorate for them to be > responsible to,.. no one is trying to add other events though...then why the > executive power and not the legilsative debate... > > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Justin Green wrote: > >> Two reasons to vote no: >> >> CEDA was established to promote Cross Examination Debate. I for one >> appreciate that. The inclusion of LD, Parli, worlds - (if they are >> "Cross Ex Debate" because they involve questions and answers this is a >> very liberal interp of Cross Ex Debate) - takes away from the time and >> energy necessary to host a truly wonderful experience of what we >> traditionally know as Cross Ex Debate. >> >> If we are successful, then we are taking away from other organizations >> nationals. So we decide to host LD, then all of a sudden the NFALD >> community is split between two nationals, I am not sure why this is >> good for them or us. Perhaps the following year they would host a >> Policy Nationals in Miami, Florida. If you think ADA, NDT, CEDA is >> bad now, wait till we add a fourth or fifth. >> >> Counterplan: Work with another organization. If the problem is a >> split between Policy and Parli or Policy and LD and squads which have >> both need to make a forced financial decision, then CEDA should simply >> work along with NFA-LD (i.e) to identify a host who can accomodate >> both. No event would need to be added, this would address all of the >> problems identified by Chief, but avoid the ones listed above. This >> requires no constitutional amendment. And the CEDA EC has its hands >> full running cx debate, why would they want more on their plate. >> >> Pre-empts: >> >> If the goal is to crown a CEDA Novice National Champion, then why was >> that amendment not proposed? >> >> If there is another specific event that should be added because it is >> educationally worthwhile, what is that event? why is it not proposed >> as an amendment? The adding of the event can only be a >> financial/administrative reasons - if it were along educational >> merits, it would be proposed right now. >> >> Distinction between event and division....Yes, there might be a >> version of Public Debate that could be considered cross-examination >> debate. However, in your previous post you mentioned including LD, >> Worlds, Parli, etc. Had this amendment said, CEDA can offer a new >> division of cross ex debate, arguments against would be much more >> difficult to make. Novice break-out was added because Chief did have >> that Constitutional Authority. >> >> Responses: >> >> Yes there are schools with multiple forms of debate. CP above >> addresses this. Here's the issue. Why would it be good for us to >> decide to host Parli in November at our CEDA Nationals tournament? >> Aside from being highly unlikely due to logistical contstraints (lack >> of classrooms and hotel space being the biggest one), this seems to >> create huge administrative burdens at a tournament that is highly >> likely to produce failure. Tuna pointed out that Parli(in addition to >> multiple I.E. nationals) won't likely come. We just open the door for >> a poor decision. >> >> Why referendum and not representation? I covered this in a post to >> Gordon. Below are the responses: >> >> 1. They are not truly representative - Yes they are voted on, but not >> every region has the same number of schools. It is closer to the >> Senate than the House of Reps. >> >> 2. Fundamental Decisions about the future of the organization should >> be decided on by the people, not the EC. As a former rep - It's hard >> to balance being an EC member. At any given time there could be as >> many as five or six issues before the EC. My hats are off to those >> that are. Some of the members spend a great deal of time >> deliberating, others do not. Sure some adminstrative decisions should >> be made through the EC, but not ones that fundamentally change the >> mission of the tournament. >> >> 3. Democracy is often representative, but when it can truly be a >> referendum without significant harm, why not pursue it. >> >> The Ad Hom debate: >> >> Dude, if tyranny made you wet your pants, maybe you should see a doctor. >> >> It would be an interesting experiment to see if a panel of Ellis, >> Green and Snider were of a higher MPJ than Chief. Especially if the >> MPJ revolved around resolving a CEDA Constitutional and Adminsitrative >> Debates and the growth/development of CEDA was compared between the >> Snider administration and the Elliot administration. Not sure which >> way it would go. >> >> Not sure why our budget is relevant to this discussion, but since >> Chief asked. His facts are wrong about the KSU Budget. I wrote a >> couple of paragraphs mud-slinging back at KCK calling them privileged >> too and defending KSU and then decided to delete them and chalk his >> comments up to lack of accurate information. Both KSU and KCK >> debaters read this and this discussion is good for neither of our >> squads. I am not interested in the oppression olympics. Anyone who >> feels KSU's budget is relevant to their vote, should back-channel me. >> >> Justin >> _______________________________________________ >> CEDA-L mailing list >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/ceda-l/attachments/20090509/479462b4/attachment.htm From scottelliott at grandecom.net Sat May 9 08:23:11 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 08:23:11 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Reply to Chief Message-ID: <20090509082311.10182psqkhaaudvj@webmail.grandecom.net> Ya know what Tuna, Fuck you. I mean seriously, this is fucking ridiculous. And with all sincerity, fuck off. Let's talk about Idaho , Nationals and OU. As usual, I will state my props at the beginning. I coach at a small program. I coach by myself. My budget is next to nothing. I voted for Idaho and advocated for Idaho. It would have been cheaper for us to drive to Oklahoma. I am frankly jealous of Oklahoma--not Jackie or his program...but the entire state of Oklahoma educational system. Yes, that is how poor my state is, we are so poor, we are jealous of a state that is known for mud storms and tornadoes. I hope my program goes to five to ten National Tournaments at the Universisty of Oklahoma. But, and, if you did not get it the first time, you don't know what you are fucking talking about and, as usual, you are wrong, so fuck off. I told my team and I told my boss that there are times when you make decisions for a higher purpose. Yeah, that's right, sometimes people make decsions because they know other human beings will benefit. I speak only for myself. But I can tell you I made an initial decision to vote for Idaho State as the CEDA National Site for three major reasons: 1) It is a small program-which is what CEDA is supposed to recognize, so, fuck off; 2) there was an opportunity to secure the long term financial stability of a regional program, what the fuck!! are you retarded or crazy or high?, you pick which one, because this is HUGE; and 3) it was support a region of CEDA that has been ill-served by CEDA since the time of your abysmal leadership. It had nothing to do with OU, and in fact, it was a counter-intuitive decision. I will add, I think this was most likely the reason many within the community chose to bite the collective bullet and go. So, the original decision was made for very good reasons by people that actually particpAte in this organization. If you don't like it, may I suggest two things: 1) show up at the summer business meetings or 2) fuck off. Now, in poker, we all know that you should not base your decisions on the turn of the cards after the fact. But, in this case, we should look at the results. I know you have been around the block for forty years. i have been around the block for close to 30. The tournament at Idaho State, except for the weather and distance of rooms, was absolutely awesome. It was THE model of a CEDA National TOurnament. The final round literally brought me to tears. I was so proud of the two teams representing CEDA. The hospitality was awesome. I was fortunate enough to be on the plane back to Dallas with the Idaho State benefactor,/tournament subsidizer. I and my kids gushed, I mean, really gushed, at how happpy we were about the tournament. We loved it. So, you coming out from your "World's Debate" hole---what's the topic of them moment, weather football should be soccer or American football?---and knock a tournament that you did not fucking attend is just ridiculous. And, somebody ought to call your ass out on it. Ironically, it is one of the biggest critics of CEDA that is doing it. The so-called small field in CEDA was not the result of it being hosted at a Moutain region. At best, OU would have genrated maybe 30 extra teams. The reason f or the small field is all the fuck-ups within CEDA that can be laid DIRECTLY at YOUR FEET. You Tuna, yes, YOU, pushed for a merger with NDT Policy. Your fucking "House of Reason" was and is a House of Cards. The direction of CEDA was determined by YOUR administration. Like a douche, you have run away to "World's," leaving others to clean up your fucking mess. Then you have the gall to chime in every now and then on how this organization is run. Fuck you. You may have a right to criticize. But I have the history and ability to call your ass out. I think it absolutely ridiculous for anybody within CEDA to take your comments seriously on the issue of OUR national tournamnet when you are not an active memeber and you did not attend the busness meeting nor the tournament. Go back to spreading your shit in Parly land. Scott Elliott Quoting Darren Elliott : > I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. > His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they > deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it was > a pot shot or a low blow. > > As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right > decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about the > process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not make a > unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids were > brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from Jackie. I > loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to tournaments, I > supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be presented to the > Executive Council in Dallas at the summer meeting. Were you there? > Did you watch on the web? I cant remember. The Executive Council > voted for Idaho State for a number of reasons which I am sure you > couldnt care less about--afterall its all about supporting your own > right? I mean I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but > Jesus H, dude, take off the blinders. This was not a personal > decision and Im sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA > leadership than many past decisions where programs not only didnt go t > o CEDA but left altogether. > > For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: > 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other > reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support > 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host > CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support > 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had > NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional > Diversity good judge! > 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any potential > host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and abilty to provide > amenities most tournaments only dream of was very compelling. > 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was > overwhelmingly impressed. > > I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when > someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots at > a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the best > Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision was > those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. > > chief > >>>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> > Just a couple of points. > > 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. > I notice Justin did not bring up ****. > > 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did > nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision > to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of > financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds > of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA > presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a > very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. > > 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. > > Vote no. > > Tuna > > -- > Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna > Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics > University of Vermont > Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA > Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com > Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu > World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ > World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com > 802-656-0097 office telephone > 802-656-4275 office fax > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > From scottelliott at grandecom.net Sat May 9 12:22:32 2009 From: scottelliott at grandecom.net (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 12:22:32 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Reply to Chief In-Reply-To: <4A05BAA9.9000408@uvm.edu> References: <20090509082311.10182psqkhaaudvj@webmail.grandecom.net> <4A05BAA9.9000408@uvm.edu> Message-ID: <20090509122232.17874hlnatgmnnbs@webmail.grandecom.net> Good. Quoting Alfred Snider : > I have no intention to engage your hateful tirade in any way. > > It is shameful for a communication professional to conduct himself > in this way. > > Alfred Snider AKA Tuna > > > > scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: >> Ya know what Tuna, Fuck you. >> >> I mean seriously, this is fucking ridiculous. And with all >> sincerity, fuck off. >> >> Let's talk about Idaho , Nationals and OU. >> >> As usual, I will state my props at the beginning. I coach at a >> small program. I coach by myself. My budget is next to nothing. I >> voted for Idaho and advocated for Idaho. It would have been >> cheaper for us to drive to Oklahoma. I am frankly jealous of >> Oklahoma--not Jackie or his program...but the entire state of >> Oklahoma educational system. Yes, that is how poor my state is, we >> are so poor, we are jealous of a state that is known for mud >> storms and tornadoes. I hope my program goes to five to ten >> National Tournaments at the Universisty of Oklahoma. >> >> But, and, if you did not get it the first time, you don't know what >> you are fucking talking about and, as usual, you are wrong, so >> fuck off. >> >> I told my team and I told my boss that there are times when you >> make decisions for a higher purpose. Yeah, that's right, sometimes >> people make decsions because they know other human beings will >> benefit. I speak only for myself. But I can tell you I made an >> initial decision to vote for Idaho State as the CEDA National Site >> for three major reasons: 1) It is a small program-which is what >> CEDA is supposed to recognize, so, fuck off; 2) there was an >> opportunity to secure the long term financial stability of a >> regional program, what the fuck!! are you retarded or crazy or >> high?, you pick which one, because this is HUGE; and 3) it was >> support a region of CEDA that has been ill-served by CEDA since >> the time of your abysmal leadership. It had nothing to do with OU, >> and in fact, it was a counter-intuitive decision. I will add, I >> think this was most likely the reason many within the community >> chose to bite the collective bullet and go. So, the original >> decision was made for very good reasons by people that actually >> particpAte in this organization. If you don't like it, may I >> suggest two things: 1) show up at the summer business meetings or >> 2) fuck off. >> >> Now, in poker, we all know that you should not base your decisions >> on the turn of the cards after the fact. But, in this case, we >> should look at the results. I know you have been around the block >> for forty years. i have been around the block for close to 30. The >> tournament at Idaho State, except for the weather and distance of >> rooms, was absolutely awesome. It was THE model of a CEDA National >> TOurnament. The final round literally brought me to tears. I was >> so proud of the two teams representing CEDA. The hospitality was >> awesome. I was fortunate enough to be on the plane back to Dallas >> with the Idaho State benefactor,/tournament subsidizer. I and my >> kids gushed, I mean, really gushed, at how happpy we were about >> the tournament. We loved it. >> >> So, you coming out from your "World's Debate" hole---what's the >> topic of them moment, weather football should be soccer or >> American football?---and knock a tournament that you did not >> fucking attend is just ridiculous. And, somebody ought to call >> your ass out on it. Ironically, it is one of the biggest critics >> of CEDA that is doing it. >> >> The so-called small field in CEDA was not the result of it being >> hosted at a Moutain region. At best, OU would have genrated maybe >> 30 extra teams. The reason f or the small field is all the >> fuck-ups within CEDA that can be laid DIRECTLY at YOUR FEET. You >> Tuna, yes, YOU, pushed for a merger with NDT Policy. Your fucking >> "House of Reason" was and is a House of Cards. The direction of >> CEDA was determined by YOUR administration. Like a douche, you >> have run away to "World's," leaving others to clean up your >> fucking mess. Then you have the gall to chime in every now and >> then on how this organization is run. Fuck you. You may have a >> right to criticize. But I have the history and ability to call >> your ass out. I think it absolutely ridiculous for anybody within >> CEDA to take your comments seriously on the issue of OUR national >> tournamnet when you are not an active memeber and you did not >> attend the busness meeting nor the tournament. Go back to >> spreading your shit in Parly land. >> >> >> Scott Elliott >> >> >> >> >> Quoting Darren Elliott : >> >> >>> I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. >>> His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they >>> deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it >>> was a pot shot or a low blow. >>> >>> As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right >>> decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about >>> the process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not >>> make a unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids >>> were brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from >>> Jackie. I loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to >>> tournaments, I supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be >>> presented to the Executive Council in Dallas at the summer >>> meeting. Were you there? Did you watch on the web? I cant >>> remember. The Executive Council voted for Idaho State for a >>> number of reasons which I am sure you couldnt care less >>> about--afterall its all about supporting your own right? I mean >>> I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but Jesus H, dude, >>> take off the blinders. This was not a personal decision and Im >>> sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA leadership than many >>> past decisions where programs not only didnt go t >>> o CEDA but left altogether. >>> >>> For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: >>> 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other >>> reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support >>> 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host >>> CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support >>> 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had >>> NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional >>> Diversity good judge! >>> 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any >>> potential host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and >>> abilty to provide amenities most tournaments only dream of was >>> very compelling. >>> 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was >>> overwhelmingly impressed. >>> >>> I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when >>> someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots >>> at a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the >>> best Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision >>> was those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. >>> >>> chief >>> >>> >>>>>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> >>>>>> >>> Just a couple of points. >>> >>> 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. >>> I notice Justin did not bring up ****. >>> >>> 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did >>> nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision >>> to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of >>> financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds >>> of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA >>> presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a >>> very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. >>> >>> 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. >>> >>> Vote no. >>> >>> Tuna >>> >>> -- >>> Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna >>> Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics >>> University of Vermont >>> Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA >>> Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com >>> Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu >>> World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ >>> World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com >>> 802-656-0097 office telephone >>> 802-656-4275 office fax >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> eDebate mailing list >>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CEDA-L mailing list >>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CEDA-L mailing list >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l >> >> > > > -- > Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna > Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics > University of Vermont > Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA > Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com > Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu > World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ > World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com > 802-656-0097 office telephone > 802-656-4275 office fax > > From delliott at kckcc.edu Sat May 9 19:21:18 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 09 May 2009 19:21:18 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] [eDebate] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA Message-ID: <4A05D7AE0200009300029C49@mymail.kckcc.edu> 2 reasons to vote YES. 1. Directly after the merger ?CEDA?s? numbers dramatically decreased. Since then we have remained stagnant and in some years decreased even farther. Many of those programs are still around doing something different. Some, perhaps many, would like an event where they did not have to split resources around the country but could attend a Nationals with many flavors. This is the first step in that opportunity. 2. Why the EC and Pres instead of membership vote? When we hold arguably the most important vote, the topic, we get less than 50% of the membership voting. Imagine an amendment to add Parli. Allowing less than 50% of the membership to make that decision should make you no more comfortable than allowing an EC elected to serve you. The EC should be made up of Regional Reps that get the feeling of their constituents. And if you have a strong feeling one way or another you know who to lobby. >From election to election you have no idea who is voting or why. The EC makes the decision accountable or at least gives us people to hold accountable. All of the arguments made assume a voting population CEDA hasn?t seen since before 1996. Is the disad between 20% of the organization deciding (the EC) and 40% deciding really that significant? When the EC votes you have 17 identifiable people to lobby and hold accountable. And given that so many of us are so busy, having a targeted audience whose job it is to study these issues and make decisions should be enough to empower the EC to do the job. If the risk is a fool hardy decision made by the EC imagine a colossal mistake in a popular vote that the responsibility to carry out is dumped on the EC. Who would ever want to serve? As for the rest of this I am getting closer to Justin on his interp of the ability of the Pres and EC to carry something out, but I think some of the things he advocates in the CP might be seen by some as exactly the language the amendment was getting at and trying to avoid problems others brought up in the past. Justin says work with another organization if a split is the issue and find accommodating hosts. That is exactly what I argued for answering Andy that CEDA would never seek to RUN another organization?s Nationals. They would bring in THEIR personnel and run THEIR tab room. This was all already described by me when mentioning other organizations. So the CP is something I advocated but as part of the amendment. If Justin agrees no amendment is necessary for us to host alongside another organization I am all for it and hope he will defend that when others cry ?foul? if the President ever goes down that road. At the Business Meeting at CEDA I was initially opposed to this amendment until it was clear some felt the EC needed authority to do what Justin describes above. To Justin?s ?Pre-Empts?: Again, this has never been about crowning a Novice National Champion. I have do idea where that is coming from and like I said before that issue seems to be the sticking point and ?I don?t get it?. CEDA should continue to have Novice Breakout Rounds. It increased participation, led to much needed PR for some programs, and did ZERO harm. My intent was to never ?steal? the title Novice Natl Champ from the 5 other tournaments that crown a Novice Natl Champ. As for other ?events? Gordon spoke about Public Debate events at the CEDA EC meeting in Pocatello. Again I was initially against it myself. His reasoning was interesting and he convinced me other tournaments may offer similar events this year. Enough so that I changed to supporting the amendment. To Justin?s ?Responses?: I?m with you on the CP and I have always felt like that was within the President?s authority. Others might disagree. We apparently agree on it and I?m glad. I?m still unclear where the line is on direct democracy versus representation however. Dozens of decisions made yearly without direct vote doesn?t = tyranny, but the President and 17 other people elected by us, making 1 decision = tyranny. Again, I believe we have reached an impasse on this one. Would love to have this talk in person to share views on representation. To the ?Ad Hom debate?: I?ll give you the Dr. comment. That was good. . As for the panel, well 6 degrees of debate separation is a game barking up the wrong (singular branch) family tree on this one. As for what Administration led to the most growth maybe mr debatenumbersgame guy can provide some insight. Others will fall on different sides of the philosophical and ideological divide. All of the programs that left due to the merger might vote differently than those who have benefited from the merger, myself among the beneficiaries I think. Tuna delivered us the NDT. Now if the panel was West, Hobbs, and Graham?wait those folks left CEDA. Ehhh. The Budget Issue: I made the budget comments to draw an analogy between those who practice one kind of forensic art and those who might practice many and have to make forced choices. Big budget/resources and 1 kind makes it understandable why one would defend that 1 kind. Smaller budgets/resources and desire to do more than one kind often trumped by the small budget itself. So schools who want to do multiple events usually forced out by the market. National events that accommodate more than 1 kind brings folks back in. I?ve got the proof from as early as last month if you want it. I apologize if my comments hit a nerve or were ?out of line? but I thought the analogy was pertinent. Budgets at State institutions are part of the public record. I wonder why information is not reported accurately if my assessment was incorrect. Either way, I do feel like its easier to make the arguments advanced when you have opportunities perhaps not afforded everyone. No offense was meant?just making comparisons between program choices. chief From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue May 12 10:01:28 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:01:28 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Answer to Tuna Message-ID: <4A0948F80200009300029D85@mymail.kckcc.edu> Tuna, My remarks were not attacking to divert the issue. My comments were very salient to the issue. Every now and then you come out of edebate slumber and attack the leadership for the very things the archives will demonstrate you yourself were once part of, and were offended when people called you on it. I'm a big guy. Physically and mentally. I can take the criticism, I can take the comments, and often they do make me reflect. But recently your indicts of CEDA leadership seem either misplaced or perhaps the result of 20/20 vision. You get angry when results are not posted in a timely (fast) manner. Years ago on this list you chastised people for making such complaints often quipping you were too busy taking care of "those who bothered to show up to the tournament". Now you have become the complaining party and when called on not knowing things for lack of attendance either in person or via the web you get indignant and make claims of participation even though you dont sit at our table. At least acknowledge you have had a change of heart from your own behavior in the past. I also found it ironic that in a post about adding events to CEDA Nats where you chastised me for my humor and begged me to stick to the issues, you slipped in the attack on me (and the EC) about the decision to go to Idaho State over OU. How did that apply to the issues? If you say its because there is a link between that Executive decision and ones that could be made by adding events then you gotta spot me the link to your non-support of CEDA Nats and perhaps favoring the OU bid (for reasons other than cost) where airline cost from many parts of the country was just as expensive as it was to fly to ISU. The closest I came to personal insults was "all knowing arrogance" and "ignorance of the process". I suppose arrogance could be inflammatory, but in my opinion the tone did seem to have a holier than thou ring to it. Ignorance is not however inflammatory--being ignorant means you simply dont know. And since you simply didnt know the process CEDA follows I pointed that out. You clearly are unaware that the EC usually gets to vote on the site for CEDA. This was one of those years. Can you at least admit you were wrong for insinuating I made a "personal decision" that eroded confidence in CEDA leadership? Are you willing to admit you were wrong about the process and the comment you made? As for the decision, neither of us has any data to support the claim attendance was helped in one place over the other. Go to OU and maybe a lot of the Rocky Mountain and Nor Cal programs cant afford to get there. Claims of 60 students being denied access is hogwash. And to put that at the feet of the EC is as well. No one blamed you for choosing Worlds which I would guess was more expensive than getting kids to CEDA. So I wont make claims that you denied folks opportunities. We all make choices. As for my tone towards members of the organization I lead, what does "civil" mean to you? Being passionate and not laying down while people continue to kick you and the people who serve unselfishly is not uncivil. Just as I wouldnt expect you to not be passionate, dont call me uncivilized. What about public emails with misinformation that leads to this kind of rancor is civilized? What happened to emailing someone privately first and asking them about the details before you criticize publicly? Isnt that more civil? Tuna, when you were leading this organization I kinda thought you were a great ruler. Mostly because you made tough decisions, did what you thought was right at the time, and didnt roll over like a puppy begging for positive attention. Now you are on the other side of the table and have become what you used to fight against. Why the change of heart? I ask seriously. I am glad to listen to any issue anytime. Even when we disagree I will always respect the right of the person to have that opinion. One of my best friends in the activity and mentors is Jeff Jarman. We often, and by often I mean A LOT, disagree on things. We have healthy debates, make fun of each other some, then love each other when its over. I disagree with Justin and Andy on this amendment. I still respect their right to their opinions and encourage them to make them known. Justin and I will sling jokes but hopefully at the end of the day he knows my support of him and K-State. Hell I spent an hour talking with my President to get a pulse of what presidents around the state were feeling after the Ft Hays incident. I spent this time to make sure someone on the Executive level was fighting for debate, and knowing K-State was going to be getting a new President, making sure there were not undo influences from those with negative agendas. If I didnt like Justin and support K-State, I never would have made the effort. In the end we are all passionate, and yes sometimes I really get going when people are either inconsistent with their criticisms OR they are uninformed and go public first. So I think the organization is welcoming, its just too many of the players know the history too well to let some things slide after they build up over time. I dont expect you to agree with me, change your opinion, or even like me I guess. But I wonder why people who are in your inner circle get a free pass when they engage in the same behavior you chastise me or the CEDA leadership for. When that happens it does seem questionable at the very least. Enjoy the summer! chief ALFRED SNIDER WROTE: It saddens me that your remarks are full of personal attacks and attempts to deflect the issue. This does not serve you well as a communication professional, as a role model for students or as a president of this organization. I will point this out below. Darren Elliott wrote: > I will justify my discussion of budgets in my response to Justin. His arguments have merit and I will give them the attention they deserve by writing an appropriate post to him. I dont think it was a pot shot or a low blow. > OK, if you wish. > As for Idaho State your all-knowing arrogance of what the right decision was regarding CEDA this year wreaks of ignorance about the process and is mean-spirited Tuna. THIS President did not make a unilateral decision about where to host Nationals. 2 bids were brought forward. I solicited the OU bid heavily from Jackie. I loved the OU Nats. Given my penchant for driving to tournaments, I supported the OU bid. But I allowed BOTH to be presented to the Executive Council in Dallas at the summer meeting. Were you there? Did you watch on the web? I cant remember. The Executive Council voted for Idaho State for a number of reasons which I am sure you couldnt care less about--afterall its all about supporting your own right? I mean I love Jackie too and I know hes one of yours but Jesus H, dude, take off the blinders. This was not a personal decision and Im sure it did less to erode confidence in CEDA leadership than many past decisions where programs not > only didnt go t > > o CEDA but left altogether. > Great, call me names - "all-knowing arrogance" is neither justified by my argument nor my tone, stating that I "couldn't care less" when I obviously do (see below), insinuating that I "play favorites" with Jackie because i think more teams would have gone to Oklahoma, all of these are unnecessary, unprofessional and besides the point.. Actually, one of my former debaters teaches at ISU and was in recent years department chair. Nice of you to "allow" people to be at the summer meeting. Yes, and it could have been worse. This is an all-purpose argument that signifies nothing -- it could always have been worse. Can't you rise above personal attacks? At least you didn't drop the "f bomb" ten times. > For those interested in transparency and not just in it for the fight: > 1. Your Executive Council voted for Idaho State for among other reasons, a ridiculous amount of financial support > 2. A donor at a program who wanted the program he endowed to host CEDA so he could kick in a load of money and support > 3. A Region that consistently supports CEDA in attendance but had NEVER had the chance to host the National Tournament. Regional Diversity good judge! > 4. A presentation by Sarah that should be modeled by any potential host. Her commitment, presentation materials, and abilty to provide amenities most tournaments only dream of was very compelling. > 5. Other reasons were elucidated as well and the EC was overwhelmingly impressed. > And a lot of teams didn't go. Sarah and ISU did a great job, I said that, but the location was wrong. If others are right and 30 teams didn't go that would have gone to Oklahoma, how can you justify to those 60 students that there is no nationals for them besides to repeat the arguments in favor of it above? I do not think they will be persuaded. > I dont think anyone should have to justify that decision, but when someone who barely even supports CEDA anymore begins taking shots at a program that worked their asses off to provide one of the best Nationals in memory, it is annoying. The only bad decision was those who chose not to come because it was in Pocatello. > What are you talking about? This year Vermont went to 13 CEDA sanctioned tournaments. [Bruschke site] Do you call that "barely supporting CEDA?" You do not seem to even know who is participating in the tournaments or the organization you lead. Stop saying that I am criticizing Sarah and ISU when I obviously am not. Just because Vermont does not sit at your meetings doesn't mean we do not participate. This is about DEBATE not about business meetings. We trust our rep to represent. I believe that is your point on the "new events" argument. I believe that the president of an academic organization should not attack active members in good standing with personal insults. You may not like the questions I am asking or the points I am making, but our tone should always remain civil. If you wonder why people may not find this organization welcoming, then read your post again. Who reading this, perhaps as a new coach starting out, will feel welcome to raise issues in the future? Tuna > chief > > >>>> edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com 05/08/09 4:58 PM >>> >>>> > Just a couple of points. > > 1. Taking pot shots at KSU because of their budget is a low blow. Shame. > I notice Justin did not bring up ****. > > 2. I understand that Sarah and ISU did a great job hosting, they did > nice work but could not change the location, but it was a bad decision > to do it there, ignored a strong bid from Oklahoma with lots of > financial support, and resulted in a very small field. It is these kinds > of personal decisions that have eroded community trust in CEDA > presidents. Vermont did not go because of financial considerations and a > very young team. We would probably have gone to Oklahoma. > > 3. Spare us the humor and stick to the issues. > > Vote no. > > Tuna > > -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From delliott at kckcc.edu Tue May 12 10:31:03 2009 From: delliott at kckcc.edu (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:31:03 -0500 Subject: [CEDA-L] Andy Ellis and how I learned to love framework Message-ID: <4A094FE70200009300029D8F@mymail.kckcc.edu> Before I get to the part about how like Obama inherited a bad economy, the CEDA EC inherited a youtube video crisis of someones ass to begin my term (more on that below) I couldnt resist and I couldnt let Andy post on some other subject without commenting on it. And Andy things I say here might indeed piss you off. Are you ready? You sitting down? Fingers ready to type a qucik response? Cause here it comes!! I agree with Andy about 2 things he has posted. Didnt see it coming did you? Now you are gonna change your mind huh? Dont become too angry. But seriously, reading the evidence discussion intrigued me and Andy's arguments about framework and its analogous application to scholarly produced work by coaches and academics in our community made me consider it even farther. I havent seen a good response to that. Academically produced work probably should hold a higher place of consideration than regurgitated framework blocks that some 19 year old produced at 2am before the Wake tournament. So common ground. See thats a starting point. Thing 2 I agree with (man you are going through some dissonance now), in large part. And this I never made fun of in any of my posts nor disagreed with. And that is the idea of an ED for CEDA. In fact rewind the tape. NCA. Miami. 2002 I believe. CEDA round table discussion on the future of the organization. Steve Koch from Capital gives a rousing presentation on the need for an Executive Director for CEDA. Likens it to NFL (as Andy does below). Discussion ensues with the players at the time. Baker, Warner, Steinberg, Sandoz. They were all there. And I was there. And Uncle Frank and Auntie Em. You were there too. I lobbied for it then. Baker presented a different model that he thought would be better for CEDA. He rolled it out at the CEDA summer meeting in Mississippi. We created charges and benchmarks for CEDA committees. We created working drafts of the organizational model for efficiency. It caught on and worked well...for about a year. I continued to discuss the Executive Director position for CEDA. As all discussions go they come and well usually go. But Steve Koch's presentation always had me convinced. Baker's model would be a good mixture of that idea and efficiency. So Andy and I have common ground again. As for the other stuff below: Only good at debate! Not an academic. Inadequacy. Ouch. Sticks and stones my boy sticks and stones! (I bet you dont get called out by Tuna for being mean--wanna make a wager?). I'm offended you dont know me better! Did you know that in the last 3 years I have coached 2 National Championships in Women's Softball. Did you know I am a certified baseball and softball umpire, working majors and regional champsionships? Certified at both the semi-pro and major level! Did you know I'm an avid pet owner and care taker? Did you know I have a beautiful 5 year old daughter I do a damn good job of taking care of? And not to brag but I can cook a damn fine brisket if I do say so myself. Oh yeah and Im learning how to use that interweb thing and the youtube whatchamacallit. And besides did you know Gordon was a Yankees fan? As for your indicts of my administration, I will simply say I think we accomplished a lot. There are more CC's debating now than when I started. Others, through a lot of work on my part, will join the fold next year, and the year after. We had a great CEDA Nats. Whether you realized it or not, I paid very close attention to detail. You are right about one thing--people often get bogged down with other commitments and decisions are slow and time consuming. Part of the reason I have faith in the EC process--people are willing to invest time as opposed to making uninformed votes sometimes. Its why we have an EC. I believe the time is worth the wait. I'm pleased with a lot of what was accomplished. I wish we could have done more--we all do. But a ton of work was completed this summer at my meeting and a lot of it is rolling out still. CEDA received compliments as we were the first to adopt a professional ethics document. The other organizations are adopting our language almost verbatim. So I am happy with what we did but will also defend your right to criticize. If things got off to a slow start, remember the EC was mired with the youtube Shanahan video to begin my term and in one day had over 100 emails from members and the media. Just like Obama didnt create this financial mess the U.S. is in, he inherited it, and has to deal with it. The CEDA EC inerited something none of us wanted. So please consider that when criticizing that the nuts and bolts didnt get tightened right away. I appreciate the compliment about rocking that which I am passionate about. I like to think so. And I brought up the Baltimore thing because I was truly interested. Your comments are helpful. I think it is a model that can work and will happen across the country as budgets tend to tighten. When debates that dont fit our model begin to happen in Baltimore and elsewhere, wouldnt it be nice to have a way to showcase that kind of debate at our organization's year end event as well? I would think so. Maybe the conversation is the beginning. chief ANDY ELLIS WROTE: Let's recap you made an attrocious argument for why the ec should have powers that you can't explain a useful application of. In engaging that argument i made a passing reference to the idea of ceda hiring an ed. You responded to that argument with the inadequacy you normally bring to the table (like i said you really should let gordon do the talking, he is actually intelligent, an actual academic,not a dude for whom debate was the only thing he was ever good at) Now we are here...so a few things my argument is not here is my resume ceda should hire me as ed, while i would love to do the job someday there are millions of candidates more qualified to lead an orgaization with the size and scope of ceda. And hey for you there at least a million people less qualified than you...ok just kidding...not really, i thought you sucked as leader. Good job to sarah and you and the ec on a great ceda nats, and thank you. But for the bulk of your administration it seemed like ceda was at least your third priority.Things bumped up against deadlines, got together with last minute bursts of energy, and often seemed to be in situations where vision and implementation were not synced. In your defense, this is a problem with all ceda leadershp, as long as ceda comes third to its leadership and its leadership is entirely made up of particpants the ability to offer the kind of programing, research, support, and leadership that each member of the ec envisions the misson of ceda enabling is not a high priority AND decisions are made with allegiances to the second job(debate coach). I will talk more about the second part of it in a second. We could exchange insults all day. Really. and Im sure you agree...but i'll stop..look let me put it this way...you the ec gets to pick the ed, make sure it is somebody who understand the needs of academics, the nature of debate, the role of the ec, and the ability to qucikly bring the kind of funds that could make your third job her job and your third job a lot better and a lot easier...It actually increses the power of the executive, but puts those decisions in the hands of thinking about this day in and day out...i don't mind if an executive has power as long as they are focuesd on those decisions, but i don't by any means want somebody making final decisions who has at least two professional priorities prior to ceda. I'm not knocking you for being passionate about the parts of debate you are passionate about...ou know you rock that stuff, and keep doing it, it doesnt mean you arent good at it or appreciated for it, it means you should not also run a national organization which includes 200 members schools and sanctions a season worth of competition...see this is where the rub is..CEDA is largely driven by the intense personal commitment of those that care, the ec, and a chunk of directors and a smaller chunk of students, the CEDA that exists and can exist to those who care is different than the ceda that exists for those that are largely agnostic on the question except when the question directy effects them. Intense personal commitment often gets things done during the presidents term, but then another president comes in with their agenda, and so on and so on...this means that when tuna opens the door for the merger he is not around to manage it after its implementd...while that may be an interesting debate, for the point of argument the process would have been a lot different if he had implemented it in his first year and managed his vision of that partnership for the last dozen or so years...the events question (where the debate started) is simlar if gordon would agree to be the executive director of ceda...i wouldnt care if he added events in mid feburary, but i don't think your argument in defense of it was very good and you seemed to think it was...enough that it is a description of a reason you might agree to make this decision to add other events at nationals. I don't want to give that power to the executive generally, but an executive yes...especially if my elected leadership served as board to the ed of ceda...NFL Does it...it seems to work...or at least be worth investigating. You get a link to a spending disad, hasn't been your argument yet. Whats the rest of the offense? Now the other question...Some sort of outsider on the leadership structure would be good, some one who doesnt care about 5th years but understands why you do, somebodys whose job it is to reach across competitive rivalries and to guide the right way for the organization...i'm not suggesting some tyrant chalie sheen would play or something, you all work out the compensation package and terms, you all hire and fire the person, you all do committee work under non rotating leadership..uses your time well in your third priority...and lets you have say on the vision of the organization...president of ceda could be president of the board...still powerful because they set the vision and char ethe key committees, but without the thankless third job(something most of your non debate advanced degree having colleagues cannot understand) Recapping again...you have no disad, just some d...An executive director can be somebody who you like, who handles the day to to day things you handle third first. Ill address this baltimore thing. Reasons why Baltimore College Debate did not work as i had envisioned it. 1)It never had the opportunity to come first, it was always at least second to my middle school job or my towson job. had to take care of the things where my job first and my volunteer work suffered. I beleive had it been funded in 2007 it would have succeeded, however i trained my eyes on one revenue stream, when it fell through there where no accesible methods of funding it to the level that it would have required to spur ceda debate as we recognize it here. 2) I tried to tailor the league to ceda's definition of what a tournament is. I always focused on points eligible tournaments in order to attract outsiders, while ignoring the 1 day tournament experience of many of the local students, and debate leaders. 3) Without fundraising there was very little i could do to expand services and help students justfy it to thier schools. 4) I had to many tournaments in one place to alter peoples schedules to the extent that i would have needed to. There are other reasons and thats actually a conversation i am interested in having with some of you. I bet that at somepoint in the future lots of debates will be going on in Baltimore amongst college students in competitive forums, just not usually your competitive forum. Some of the reasons this failed are the same reason many good ideas fail...doing them is a lot more work, than thinking of them...i think this applies to the amendment this conversation all started with, and the reason it doesnt make sense to expand the ecs development responsibilities without increasing their capacity first. Finally...funding..yes its expensive to have an executive director...but if that is really the only concern...then lets talk about how to do that, i don't doubt the ec can come up with a good solution....in consultation with the membership of course. From stables at usc.edu Wed May 13 15:34:39 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:34:39 -0700 Subject: [CEDA-L] Fwd:Topic/Amendment Voting Reminder In-Reply-To: <09964D98-CAE6-4B9E-9160-9D1D8982C916@wichita.edu> References: <09964D98-CAE6-4B9E-9160-9D1D8982C916@wichita.edu> Message-ID: <39c1ac890905131334g685128b4q9eb175ca38ce006a@mail.gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jeffrey Jarman Date: Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM Subject: [eDebate] Topic/Amendment Voting Reminder To: eDebate eDebate About nine hours remain to vote on the 2009 - 2010 topic area and several amendments. ?Ballots are due today, Wednesday, May 13, by midnight (central). You must create an account at the ceda site in order to vote. ?If you have not done this, you'll need to register AND then send me an email so I can enable voting. ?All registered users cannot access the ballot, so I'll need to manually enable voting for your account. You must be a current CEDA member in order to vote. ?If you haven't paid your membership dues ($150), you can do that online, too. ?Click the link for PAY! on the site. If you have trouble, please let me know. The results will be announced tomorrow. Jeff _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From stables at usc.edu Thu May 14 15:26:33 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:26:33 -0700 Subject: [CEDA-L] The topic process and legislative matters - onto the summer meetings Message-ID: <39c1ac890905141326j3aa5ec76p85d1f58b6560247c@mail.gmail.com> Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent CEDA balloting. We selected the new controversy for the 09-10 season, reducing nuclear weapons, and we approved a number of legislative changes to CEDA's governing documents. We have made some good progress, including allowing the creation of a single eligibility form for both CEDA and the NDT, allowing greater participation in the selection of the student representative to the topic selection committee, and increased the transparency of how our community votes. We also finally took a long overdue step and approved the redistricting of several CEDA regions. For the first time in many years, regional boundaries reflect the programs that make up those communities. We also owe a great deal of thanks to the many authors who made it possible to have such good options for the topic. We are very happy that our alums and current CSIS staff Jessica and Chris provided an option that so many folks are interested in debating. We also very much appreciate that Toni, Steve, Vik, and Ryan put in a lot of work to give us a strong slate of options. Even beyond new legislation, the process works well when everyone can appreciate what is happening, and even when a particular vote may go against you, you can take part in a healthy discussion. As the recent discussion of the failed amendments illustrates, we have a great deal of interest in the matter of student eligibility as well as the role of the CEDA National Tournament. These conversations will continue and I encourage folks not to lose sight of other suggested ideas to improve our community practices. We now move ahead in several directions. The Topic Selection Committee will immediately begin dividing up the controversy and exploring potential wording options. We will need community input to complete this task and if you are interested, please let me know. We will develop an agenda several days before the Topic Meetings that lists all of the proposed types of resolutions under consideration. At the same time, the organization will continue to work toward the Debate Summit and CEDA Summer Business Meetings. There is still time to join one of the working groups for the Summit and play a role in the shaping of our collective future. We have groups working on argumentative practices, job security, tenure and promotion and many other areas. We are also still soliciting items for the agenda of the business meeting. We will be discussing a number of near-term issues but I want to know what items this community sees as most important. There will be a great deal more to discuss but I am very interested in our efforts to help member schools made the most of this difficult economic climate. I am also eager to advance the discussion about adapting with new forms of technological opportunities. On a related note, we are also not far away from the day when all organizational business will be handled directly (and only) by our website and other similar platforms. I encourage everyone to take a moment and register for the site so you can keep up with information (you can subscribe to the site as an RSS feed and you can also receive emails through it). We will also be opening the conversation to potential hosts for the 2011 CEDA Nationals. We will not be voting on proposals at this meeting, but if you part of a program who is potentially interested in hosting in 2011, please let us know. All of the information for the topic, the business meetings, and the summit will be updated at http://www.cedadebate.org/ We are lucky to have Wake Forest and Al Louden hosting our meetings and we invite you to join us in Winston Salem. Thanks again. Best of luck to everyone as your academic year comes to a close and at the beginning of another busy summer. Gordon Incoming CEDA President and 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 Mon May 18 19:49:59 2009 From: stables at usc.edu (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:49:59 -0700 Subject: [CEDA-L] Topic Process update - Wording paper planning Message-ID: <39c1ac890905181749r67442e21lb24acaa9d0f748b5@mail.gmail.com> Greetings. The CEDA Topic Selection Committee has begun working to prepare wording papers for the upcoming topic meetings.? You can review the update and learn how to help in the process at http://topic.cedadebate.org/?q=preparingwordingpapers We will be using the http://topic.cedadebate.org website as the home for all discussion and documents during the meetings. You can leave comments directly on that site or use the forum linked in the post. You can find information about the summer meetings at the main CEDA website?http://www.cedadebate.org/ Thanks 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 From todonnel at umw.edu Tue May 26 11:01:30 2009 From: todonnel at umw.edu (Timothy O'Donnell) Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 12:01:30 -0400 Subject: [CEDA-L] Announcements: National Development Conference on Debate Message-ID: <4A1BDA02020000BD00094D21@umwgw.umw.edu> The National Development Conference on Debate convenes in two weeks. If you are attending and do not appear on this list of participants below please send and e-mail to Allan Louden, Conference coordinator (louden at wfu.edu) Look for hotel information and schedule at the bottom of this message: ----------------------------- 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. Kelly Young, Wayne State Univ Tom Hollihan, Univ of Southern California (Remote) David Zarefsky, Northwestern Univ.(Remote) 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) Matt Stannard, Univ of Wyomng (Additional members to be announced) 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 Coaching Profession Chair: David Hingstman, University of Iowa Members: Brian Lain, Univ of North Texas David Cram Helwich, Univ of Minnesota Blake Abbott, Univ of Georgia Mike Davis, James Madison Univ. Taylor Hahn, Wake Forest Univ. Researchers:Shruti Chaganti - James Madison Univ Sean Lowry - James Madison Univ 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 John Reif, Univ of Pittsburgh (Awaiting confirmation) Sara Spring, Univ of Iowa Casey Harrigan, Univ of Georgia Kelly Congdon, Univ of Richmond Scott Varda, Baylor Univ Aaron Hardy, Whitman College (Remote) Blake Abbott, Univ of Georgia Researchers: Josh Gonzales, Wake Forest Univ. 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 inteBest 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 (remote) Mike Hall, Liberty Univ Kris Willis, Appalachian State Univ Michael Antonucci, Georgetown Univ. John Fritch, Univ. of Northern Iowa 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, Weber State Univ (tentative) Andrew Barnes, Georgia State Univ Eric Morris, Missouri State Univ ML Sandoz, Vanderbilt Univ Terri Easley, Johnson County CC 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.,, Washington DC Members: Josh Zive, Bracewell & Giuliani, Washington DC (remote) Brad Hall, Al Gore's Office Dave Arnett, Cal Berkeley (not confirmed) Sue Peterson, CSU Chico (Remote) Sarah Holbrook, State Univ of West Georgia Mike Hester, State Univ of West Georgia Ross Smith, Wake Forest Univ. Andrea Reed, Wake Forest Univ. Researchers: TBA 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 Joe Bellon, Georgia State Univ. John Kastulas, Boston College Bill Keith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Stephan Bauschard, Lakeland School District, NY Warren Decker, George Mason Univ Danielle Verney O'Gorman, US Naval Academy 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 Steinberg, Univ. of Miami (FL) Fred Sternhagen, Concordia College Ed Lee, Emory Univ. Sherry Hall, Harvard Univ Researchers: Will Mosley-Jensen, Univ of Georgia John Turner, Dartmouth College (remote) Aims and Tasks: The purpose of thisand practice. Participation - Alternative Models Working Group Chair: Allan Louden, Wake Forest Univ Members: Carol Winkler, Georgia State Univ (remote) John W. Davis Debate Solutions, Baltimore Will Baker, New York Univ Scott Deatherage, National Urban Debate League, Chicago Beth Skinner, Towson State Noel Selegzi, International Debate Education Association (NY) Alfred Snyder, Univ of Vermont (Remote) Melissa Wade, Emory Univ Aims and Tasks: The purpose of this working group is to identify and examine alternative models in debate participation: for example: NAUDL, IDEA, ALOUD, NDProject, HBCs, DOJ crime projects, Debate across the Curriculum ----------------------------- National Debate Developmental Conference (NDDC) Schedule Friday June 5 4:00 pm ? 6:00 pm - Registration at Sundance Plaza Hotel Lobby- Information packet provided. 7:00 pm ? 7:30 pm - Keynote Speech Conference Opener in Hotel Piedmont Room-Plenary Sessions with Conference Charge and Opening Speaker: William M. Keith, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee - Author of Democracy as Discussion (2007) 7:30 pm ? 9:00 pm - Hosted Reception at Sundance Plaza Hotel -Hot hors d?oeuvres and an open bar at the outside swimming lounge area. Saturday June 6 9:00 am-7:00 pm - Organizational Working Groups - Groups will meet separately in one of the nine selected meeting rooms. Lunch on Your Own ? See the local restaurant listing provided in your information packet. Refreshments Available - Coffee, beverage, and cookies station conveniently located outside conference rooms from ? 1pm ? 5pm. 8:00 pm ? 10:00 pm - Dinner at Putter?s Patio & Grill ? The conference has sold out Putter?s for an evening of delicious North Carolinian grill-out entrees. 3 minute walk from the hotel. Sunday June 7 9:00am-Noon - Organizational Working Groups ? Groups will meet in the same corresponding conference rooms as Saturday. Noon-2:00 pm - Lunch on Your Own. Refreshments Available outside conference room 1pm- 5pm 2:00 pm-6:30 pm - Presentations by Working Groups ? Each group will have a time to present finding, resolutions, invite debate, etc. . Presentations will take place in the Piedmont/Blueridge Peak Conference area. Computer projection capabilities will be available. 7:30 pm-9:00 pm - Wrap-Up Buffet and Reception ? Meet at the common room (Sunspree, Vivians, Bistro &Sierra I, II, & III) for entrees of herb baked chicken, roast beef w/ Au ju, and vegetable lasagna with sides and salads. ------------------- Transportation: We will have airport pickup (Piedmont Triad Airport (GSO) to the hotel. If you can send your request for transportation to louden at wfu and hobemn5 at wfu.edu it will be appreciated. Otherwise look for the airport express limo. -------------------- Hotel Information Rate: 74.99 single. Sundance Plaza Hotel, Spa & Wellness Center, 3050 University Parkway Winston Salem, NC 27105 Phone: Latrice Jefferson, Sales & Catering Manager, 336 723-2911 Ext. 4 (Office) E-mail: ljsundance at yahoo.com -- 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