Taking Stock of the Merger

[Stephen J. Heidt]

You assume the status quo is static.
It's Not.

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.
>
> Bear
>

>From  Fri Jun 26 13:55:00 1998
Message-Id: <FRI.26.JUN.1998.135500.MST7MDT.>
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
 -0400
Received: from ns.suu.edu (ns.suu.edu [134.250.2.3]) 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 ([134.250.80.20]) 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
 13:55:28 MST7MDT
Received: from SpoolDir by CENTRUM (Mercury 1.40); 26 Jun 98 13:55:03 MST7MDT
Priority: normal
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

Bob,

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
this concept.

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?

Terry West
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.
>
> Peace,
>
> Bob Lechtreck
> Bakersfield College
> "Putting out fires, and damn good debaters"
>
>