Taking Stock of the Merger
Stephen J. Heidt
Fri Jun 26 14:35:14 CDT 1998
You assume the status quo is static.
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Michael Bear Bryant wrote:
> << In a message dated 98-06-26 03:29:51 EDT, you write:
> Webster's 7th New Collegiate p. 530
> Merger: "any of various methods of combining two or more business concerns
> or other organizations."
> >> >>
> Webster's Ninth New Collegiate, p.743
> Merger: 1. law : the absorption of an estate, a contract, or an interest in
> another, of a minor offense in a greater, or of an obligation into a judgement
> 2. a: the act or process of merging b: absorption by a corporation of one or
> more others;
> Also: any of the various methods of combining two or more organizations (as
> business concerns)
> I fail to see how the status quo meets Webster's most recent definition of a
> merger. We have not combined in any way on business concerns.
>From Fri Jun 26 13:55:00 1998
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
spool id 67698 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:55:34
Received: from ns.suu.edu (ns.suu.edu [22.214.171.124]) by list.uvm.edu
(AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id PAA53104 for
<edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 15:55:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from centrum.cn.suu.edu ([126.96.36.199]) by ns.suu.edu with ESMTP
for edebate at list.uvm.edu; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:54:09 -0600
Received: from CENTRUM/SpoolDir by centrum.cn.suu.edu (Mercury 1.40); 26 Jun 98
Received: from SpoolDir by CENTRUM (Mercury 1.40); 26 Jun 98 13:55:03 MST7MDT
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-ID: <81FE6F551FD at centrum.cn.suu.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 13:55:00 MST7MDT
Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terry West <WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>
Organization: Southern Utah University
Subject: Re: value topics suck
I think you just don't get it. Maybe that's my fault for not being
more clear, or maybe there's some assumption that I'm joining a
larger fray. I'm going to write a clarifying post, but basically,
I'm just trying to make these points:
1) We do ourselves disservice when we post (on e-debate, parli-l, or
pro-wrestling weekly) that we define "debate." I find it ironic that
I hear more whining from Southern California than I do even here
(where it's just as bad) about how we can't fill our policy debate
tournament divisions and Parli is "taking over"--yet here we have a
Southern California coach with a blind blanket defense of a mindset
that totally ignores the continuing decline in our membership that
will exacerbate these problems.
2) Remember, it's not me who went all apoplectic about the
appearance of a value topic on the ballot. Those who did are the
ones making assumptions of superiority that they simply cannot
defend. I never even said I'd VOTE for a value topic--just that I'd
have to wait and see the ballot. Turns out, I don't even see a value
topic on the ballot; just one that asks us to evaluate the positive
or negative impacts of a policy. An actual value topic would be more
along the lines of R: that reparation for past discrimination in race
and/or gender based employment practices is more important than equal
treatment of current job applicants. Caveat: don't pick at the
topic wording; it could be improved. The point is, a value topic
should give us cause to select some point within a value hierarchy to
defend. I still don't know what caused such vitriolic reaction to
3) There isn't any single cause of the decline of policy debate.
It's a combination of things, but they all (to me) seem to have one
thing in common. Since CEDA was at its zenith, it seems there has
been a group within the organization that has continually increased
its power as it has chased off membership through a variety of
mechanisms which have had the effect of making history of virtually
everything that formerly defined CEDA as a unique perspective on
academic debate. It's not a conspiracy; it's not necessarily evil;
and it's debatable whether it's even wrong (I think it is on some
things, but not others). Fact is, we continue to lose members for a
variety of reasons. If including one value topic on a list can give
some people a chance to say: "I may not win, but at least I have a
voice and a reason to stay in CEDA"--why are you against that Bob?
There are schools throughout this land searching vigorously for a
reason to continue doing CEDA. Shouldn't we take care in what we say
to them and how we say it?
Southern Utah University
> Date sent: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 19:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
> To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU, EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> From: Bob Lechtreck <db8coach at raiden.lightspeed.net>
> Subject: Re: value topics suck
> At 05:34 PM 6/25/98 MST7MDT, Terry West wrote:
> > i can't think of any debater i know (perhaps with the exception
> > of George Kouros) who would enjoy debating a value topic.
> You might want to get out more. In fact, the majority of debaters in
> the US debate value topics fairly frequently.
> Again, context is key. This may seem like a pretty silly statement on the
> Parli-L, but this ain't the Parli-L.
> > to paraphrase Katsulis, we do policy debate.
> Who do you mean by "we"?
> You know, WE, the people who will be reading this post (unless you have
> cross-posted it to the Parli-L).
> > i don't know the (formerly CEDA) circuit as well, but i am
> >EXTREMELY doubtful that even 10% of debaters and coaches would
> >support such a topic.
> Wow. We're now "formerly" CEDA. Hear that, Carrie? You're now
> President of a "former" organization.
> Sheesh, some people just love to pick a fight.
> If you will notice, the writer referred to the CIRCUIT, not the
> organization. I doubt that Carrie considers herself the president of a circuit.
> There did, indeed, used to be a CEDA circuit. While Bear is correct, that it
> hasn't changed drastically, it has changed. And what was once the CEDA
> circuit, is now a "converged" circuit.
> Bob Lechtreck
> Bakersfield College
> "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters"
More information about the Mailman