[eDebate] [CEDA-L] And if they could only root for decent baseball teams...

[Josh]

Of course on the other hand......You can hit Kaufman, the Negro League HOF,
and Arthur Bryants within an afternoon,

Josh


On 7/19/07, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:

>

>  CEDA-40 is yet another reason that Gordon Stables is my hero.  I love Joe

> Patrice, in spite of his relationship with Will Baker.  And finally, I have

> decided to cut all ties with Darren, who has cursed by 10 year old son with

> his call to come to KC.  While I appreciate and respect the offer, as his

> mentor and agent, my job is to make sure he can average 40 hr., 40 steals,

> 150 rbi, and hit .350 in the majors by the time he is 20, with a rocket arm

> behind the plate.  As his agent, I'm looking for more than A-Rod money.  Our

> pitch- Chris has leadership skills...And I'm trying to cut back on the bbq

> so that's another reason to avoid Kaufman Stadium.

>

> 'nuff said.

>

>

> >>> Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu> 7/19/2007 5:50 PM >>>

>

>

> If past practice is any indication, once the topic is announced the

> discussion will focus on more immediate questions and analysis. Before we,

> as a group, make that adjustment let me introduce a significant research and

> analysis process to our membership. In just a few years (2011) CEDA will

> celebrate its 40th anniversary. One of the primary tasks of the 2nd VP is

> to coordinate research conducted at the CEDA Nationals tournament and

> through the organization's efforts. It is my belief that my beginning an

> organized campaign now we will have a process that will allow the

> organization to have acted on those ideas before it turns 40. That project

> is something called CEDA-40.

>

> I am not a fan of totalizing historical comparisons about debate, but it

> is hard to dispute we do precious little to analyze our own activity in any

> organized form and then share those insights with the larger community.

> Throughout the history of organized intercollegiate debate a variety of

> written forms existed to let the community learn and share from each other.

> Some were formal, refereed journals and some took the form of articles in

> handbooks. I suspect among many of us learned not only from the people we

> interacted with, but also by reading the work of some very talented people.

> In order to have a truly proud celebration of CEDA we need to take the time

> to apply our impressive analytical and research skills inward, even if just

> for a short time.

>

> I do not romanticize the idea that we can, or should, encourage our

> diverse community to narrow their efforts into a single rigid professional

> discipline. The fact that we all have different professional relationships

> to debate does not, however, mean we cannot take time to examine the

> activity we care do deeply about and then share those conclusions. When I

> first became involved in the topic process I was amazed how much research

> and analysis our community produces each year. Last year on the court topic,

> for example, dozens of folks contributed hundreds upon hundreds of pages of

> research analysis. Ever had that moment where you google a debate subject

> and find a wording or controversy paper? I think it is time for the

> community to google our practices, institutions, and goals and have the same

> success. It doesn't matter if you are a student, alum, professor,

> professional coach, volunteer, attorney, parent or just an interested party

> – we need to rebuild our collective community knowledge base.

>

> For easy reading here are some questions and answers about this

> initiative.

>

> *What is CEDA 40? *

>

> A collection of community research and opinion organized into a strategic

> planning document. The document will:

>

>

> 1.      Conceptualize important challenges and opportunities confronting

> the CEDA community

>

>

> 2.      Begin to develop reforms designed to promote the organization's

> goals in time for the organization's 40th anniversary (in 2011)

>

> In other words, it is a collection of original perspectives and research

> by the CEDA community. This document is an organized means of allowing the

> community to learn to the experiences, perspectives and research by other

> community members.

>

> *What kind of topics should people research and analyze?***

>

> This is the question to be determined by you as members of our community.

> Instead of relying on informal conversation, momentary chats on edebate or

> other informal forms, this process gives people the opportunity to take a

> more orderly and well-developed assessment. Some of the possible areas for

> analysis include:

>

> ·       The Organizations that make up the community (CEDA, NDT, ADA, AFA,

> etc.)

>

>     The procedures, practices, leadership structure, schedules, etc.

>

>

> ·       Our Competitive Practices

>

>     Tournaments, Judging, Argumentative Practices

>

>

> ·       Membership (The CEDA Community)

>

>     Schools, Coaches, Debaters – Who are these populations? How are

>       they changing?

>

>  *What form should these efforts take?*

>

> ·       Summaries of current practices

>

>      Once upon a time vicious battles raged over debate theory in

>             journals and other sites. There are occasional posts, but we could certainly

>             use some contemporary means of assessing the desirability of argumentative

>             trends.

>

>

> ·       Statistical analysis (metrics or surveys)

>

>      How much debate is there in a given season? Do we know much bigger

>             or smaller a region is in the last decade? Do shorter topic wordings produce

>             greater novice retention? Are there positive or negative trends in nature of

>             gender participation? We see lots of opinions, but much less in the way of

>             orderly analysis. We have the wonderful tool of debateresults to allow folks

>             to build these research questions from several years worth of data. There

>             are, of course, earlier records that may provide interesting points of

>             comparisons.

>

>

> ·       Case studies

>

>      There are plenty of occasions where conventional wisdom is

>             produced by the most basic of information. We have amazing folks in the

>             community who have started programs, re-started programs, helped them

>             expand, and yes, seen programs wither and die. What happened? What makes the

>             difference? I know there are about 1,000,000,000 edebate posts on the

>             subject but what about a 5 page detailed explanation about how the successes

>             or failure took place by a debater or coach involved in that effort?

>

>

> ·       Reaction (editorial) essays

>

>      Perhaps you would like the opportunity to write a lengthy defense

>             of the organizations goals, missions, or trends. Perhaps you have

>             experiences with teaching, recruitment or recruitment that you would like to

>             share. Maybe you just want to rant. Here is your chance.

>

>  ·       Reform proposals

>

>      When I witnessed the discussion of NDT redistricting a few years

>             ago one I was unprepared to appreciate how much of our planning is directed

>             at short-term efforts. By necessity we are all worried about the next topic,

>             the next season, the next tournament, the next class, the next meeting, the

>             next paycheck, time with our family, sleep, etc. There are plenty of items

>             that can and should be debated for reform in the near-term, but there are

>             also some fundamental questions that cannot (and shouldn't be) done at the

>             last minute. Do you think we should fundamentally revisit some form of how

>             we organize, compete or teach? We need the type of developed proposals that

>             can serve as the foundation for important efforts.

>

> Submitted materials will be organized and included in an edited volume

> that thematically organizes the materials. It will be produced as a free,

> publicly available e-book. Thanks to the cooperation of incoming CEDA

> journal editor Al Louden, outstanding submissions will be considered for

> inclusion in a future issue of* Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: The

> Journal of the Cross Examination Debate Association**.*

>

> The deadline for submissions in December 15, 2008. This gives everyone

> almost 18 months to develop, plan and produce research. This also allows

> individuals, or groups, to conduct research at the 2007 CEDA Nationals

> tournament. This will allow a number of 2009 events to be influence by this

> research product. It will be available in time to influence the development

> of the 2009 NCA Panels, the 2009 Summer Argument in Alta (which is

> bi-annual) as well as the business meetings of both CEDA and the NDT.

>

> This is a call for everyone involved with the CEDA community to find the

> time between now and December of 2008 to stop, reflect and add to the body

> of knowledge that makes up our activity. Maybe you like summarizing and

> explaining current practices. Great. Maybe you want to analyze the

> demographics of a specific tournament or region. Awesome. Maybe you have

> some ideas abut how to restructure our organizational or regional processes.

> Wonderful.

>

> Tomorrow the topic will be out and the next set of urgencies will fill all

> of our lives. I am not asking anyone to write a report this weekend. I am

> asking that everyone stop and assess if you can add to the body of knowledge

> that our community relies upon. I will regularly post and encourage

> participation, but please consider taking part. This is your community and

> it needs a small fraction of the research and analytical skills that we

> possess.

>

> Thanks for reading.

>

> Gordon

>

> Gordon Stables, Ph.D.

> Director of Debate and Forensics

> Annenberg School for Communication

> University of Southern California

> Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913

> http://usctrojandebate.com

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/edebate/attachments/20070719/536a628d/attachment.htm