[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Novice Amendment Issues Post #1 Answers

[Darren Elliott]

You?  Vote on the K?  No way.

As for you being the "orginal" Elliott, I wont touch that!  : )

The original Chief


>>> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> 11/26/07 7:10 PM >>>

Doesn't labeling me as the "other elliott" kick off a Zizek or Edward
Said
kritik? Shouldn't we all now vote agains tthe amendment because you used
the
term "other" in your discourse?


The orginal Elliott

Quoting Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu>:


> I want to answer these concerns in 2 posts.  The first will deal with

the

> issues raised by Ermo, D Cram, Mike Davis, and that other Elliott

character!

> : )  The second will answer Jackie’s post specifically because

simply his

> seems much more caustic and I wonder why?

>

> First to Ermo:

> I agree largely with most of what he says.  There are definite

differences to

> what directors consider “novice†.  He is right, this discussion

should be

> about what a novice SHOULD be.  I fundamentally believe that when

Novices

> have to face people with experience (whether that experience is good

or bad)

> they will be at a huge disadvantage.  Ermo says public pressure has

not been

> tried.  I agree.  But the one-on-one pressure he suggests has been

tried and

> it hasn’t worked—at least not in my experience.  I mentioned many

posts

> ago, the public route only creates political backlash that we know

will

> happen.  I think we should try and avoid that.  The “opt out of

sweeps†

> CP doesn’t seem to answer the concern that if one debater is much

more

> skilled it creates a disadvantage to the true novice team.  Jarman has

> suggested not counting Novice for sweeps at all.  Maybe that’s the

answer

> and we will then see how “committed† people are to teaching

novices.

> The Division Collapse disad has been raised by Ermo and D Cram so

it’s a

> good segway into D Cram’s arguments against.

>

>

> D Cram:

> 1.  Argues that no LD debaters in Novice means virtually no novice

divisions,

> turning the participation good args.  Maybe Neil will provide the

numbers but

> IF the numbers bear out that the majority of novices have LD

experience I

> would be surprised.  But the number is significant enough I think to

create

> the problems I have outlined.  I also still believe that novice

numbers

> decrease as the year goes on, not because of massive self-inflicted

move-ups

> but because of novices quitting.  I cant help but think there is

correlation

> to the LD experience meaning division collapse disad is inevitable.

> 2.  The recruiting shortfall disad (also mentioned by the other

Elliott) to

> me is a non-starter.  If this is the key issue to determine a vote all

I will

> ask people to do is consider pedagogically/philosophically what novice

is.  I

> have not recruited LD’ers under the premise that they can learn

policy in

> novice because philosophically I don’t think that’s what the

division is

> for.  If the vote proves me wrong so be it.  But I hope everyone

voting

> seriously considers this belief—that people recruit LD’ers with

the

> express pupose of putting them in novice.  I think the disad is doing

that.

> There are other ways to get kids to debate and its not like the JV

divisions

> are full of such ringers that thjose with LD experience will be that

far

> behind.

> 3.  The micromanagement disad is only a reason to eliminate all of our

rules

> about novice time lines, jv move up procedures etc.  We manage now. 

It is

> the only way to ensure a level of ethics.  (Let me also say that if

you, in

> your heart of hearts, believe its ok to put Ld’ers in Novice, I am

not

> arguing that you aren’t ethical).  My ethics argument has always

been about

> those that abuse the system, and in that world, the world we are in

now, the

> “play nice and be fair† standard is out the window.  But beyond

the

> ethics, it says that there is a standard for fairness and pedagogical

beliefs

> that as a community we should endorse.  Here’s the alternative: Any

program

> that recruits novices finds out in a region where LD experience is

allowed to

> run through novice divisions it becomes hard to keep true novices. 

Either A)

> they quit recruiting novices or quit policy altogether making the

division

> collapse inevitable or B) they take their novices and go to

tournaments that

> have a higher pedagogical standard, thereby leaving their regions

which also

> makes division collapse inevitable and starts a new round of Regional

> in-fighting that you describe.

>

> Davis:

> Mike argues (as many others have) that not all LD is the same.  At

least he

> admits neither is all policy.  While the quality of debate is

subjective and

> the arguments may not always overlap, there is still no evidence to

support

> the contrary to the claim that 50 rounds of experience flowing,

debating

> period, knowing speech order, and figuring out the system puts you far

ahead

> of the true novice.  And if this is true, I assume all who oppose the

> amendment on this ground will write one to eliminate all move up rules

in JV

> and the 24 round policy requirement for Novice.  These are the same

issues.

> As for the “1 semester of Novice and move up† CP, I am not sure it

> addresses the loss of novices experienced early in the year when all

things

> are not equal at the first couple tournaments.  Interesting proposal

but it

> doesn’t address the fundamental belief that novices quit earlier

because of

> the uneven playing field.  How about instead if you have LD experience

you

> debate in JV for a semester and if you don’t break after 4

tournaments,

> than you can go to novice.  Protects the true novice on the front end

and

> prevents the quitting Jackie is worried about.

>

> Finally the other Elliott:

> I’ve already addressed “not all debate is the same† and the

> philosophical difference I have with recruiting novices for the

express

> purpose of putting them in Novice.  Not much more I can say to those

two.

> I do agree that College LD should count against policy eligibility. 

However

> I don’t think you can advocate that only HS TOC should count and not

all HS

> LD.  This seems disingenuous to your original claim that its hard to

make

> those distinctions.  Because many could argue, not all TOC LD is the

same.

> And since we have neither the ability nor desire to police all local

HS LD

> tournaments to grade the quality of the debate, I don’t think you

get to

> punish one type of HS LD debater because they are more “elite†.

> I am fine with the 3 final rounds and you move up provision assuming

it is in

> divisions where at least 20 teams compete.  I might even prefer

Jackie’s

> offer of 2.  But this should be in addition not instead of my

amendment.

> Still doesn’t solve for the novices that quit early on.

>

> For me this vote is about what you think novice should be for

pedagogically

> and philosophically.  It should also be about what does the least harm

to the

> fewest people—and in my mind that aint the SQ.  You all have offered

some

> good disads (all of which I think are inevitable or non-unique) and

some

> CP’s that don’t solve the issue of losing novices early on.  I

think most

> of them should be in addition to the amendment, not in place of it.

>

> One thing I am happy about however is the discussion that is

occurring.  I

> think its important and I think you all care deeply about debate and

your own

> programs and that is something we all benefit from.

>

> Thanks,

> Chief

>

> Darren Elliott

> Director of Debate and Forensics—KCKCC

> CEDA 1st VP