the post mortem

[Michael R. Dickman]

Greg:  Ok, so my 1st post was a bit bombastic.  I hope my more recent posts are a truer sense of where I stand.  I think you should remembber that those of us who are doing the complaining are the surviviors, we are the people who are still in evidence centered debate and who want to stay there.  I dont think many of us want to return to the golden age of ceda. What we want is a regional circuit where we can compete and teach.  I remember many of the what are now called national circuit people complaining about how the predominace of the regional circuit held them back and that they could not debate the way they wanted to.  Ceda has come full circle, now the national circuit dominates and the regional circuit is barely viable.  Is a balance where both feel comfortable possible?

Mike
CC Debate

----------
From:   Achten, Greg[SMTP:gachten at pepperdine.edu]
Sent:   Thursday, March 12, 1998 4:29 PM
To:     EDEBATE; Michael R. Dickman
Subject:        Re: the post mortem


First of all, attributing the decline of the regional circuit to the merger 
is completely spurious. Its as thought 1995 was a magical time when every 
regional tournament made doubles. That is silly. The regionals circuits have 
been small for the last five years before the merger. The reason as 
explained by a bunch of other people is that as debate has become a more 
research intensive activity, people have CHOSEN to leave. Lets be clear 
about this. NOT ONE SCHOOL has been spitefully driven out of CEDA/NDT. The 
reason schools are leaving is because they choose not to participate in a 
research intensive activity. I fully believe that is a bad choice, one based 
more on laziness than anything else, but it is still a choice. Instead  of 
decrying the death of debate for the umpteenth time, why don't we try to 
convince smaller squads that are burend out by the work tht policy debate is 
worth it. The reward from debate is NOT competitive success. My 
administration is happy when we do well, but they don't care if we don't do 
well. The real reward of debate is education, speaking skills, time 
management skills, organization, research, and argument skills. Other forms 
of deabte teach some of these skills (in fact parli teaches much better 
speaking skills) but no other form of debate teaches all of these skills 
nearly as well. Competitive success is nice, and it makes debate a lot more 
enjoyable, but everyone knows debaters who debated for 4 years and didnt 
ever clear at the national tournament or at a national circuit tournament, 
but still say debate was far and away the most important thing in their 
lives. Those people have it right. That is what we need to make clear to 
programs that are thinking about leaving or have already left.

As far as regional circuits drying up. That may be true. My experience in 
California over the last 2 years has been that the regional circuit is 
indeed small, although it has been aided greatly by the merger with the 
addition of USC, Redlands, Fullerton, etc. The merger may not have helped 
the regional circuit as much as some people would have liked or expected, 
but it certainly didn't hurt it. Thats absurd. There isn't one school that I 
know of that used to travel regionally and has stopped BECAUSE of the 
merger.

Finally, what issue at the national business meeting will fundamentally 
change to organization. We do need to ask ourselves what we can do to get 
more schools involved. That is a legitimate concern. But to declare the 
death of debate in its present form is fundamentally an insult to the people 
who worked their asses off to make the merger a reality and an insult to 
small programs who work really hard to be competitive. Frankly I don't 
usually write about these issues on the L because it is difficult for me to 
be objective. I find claims like "small schools cant compete" and "we may as 
well give up" to be offensive, although I know they are not meant to be.

I have dedicated my life to debate. It is my career and the basis of the 
majority of my social interaction and free time. I would not do that if I 
didn't think that what we are doing is worhtwhile. Is it perfect? Of course 
not. Can changes be made? Obviously. Should we scrap it and start a 
revolution? No.


Greg Achten


 ----------
From: Michael R. Dickman
To: EDEBATE
Subject: Re: the post mortem
Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 12:07PM

I just have to respond:

The fact that Towson was up does not disprove elliots analysis that =
numbers are down.  In fact it seems that there are two threads going on =
at once here.  From my reading of all of the posts on this topic I would =
conclude that the merger has increased tournament size and diversity at =
the big national level tournaments.  It has also had the opposite effect =
on regional tournaments.  The Towson wekend may in fact be a pretty good =
exemplar of what is going on in the activity.  While Towson is up, =
Florida is way down.  When I first started going to florida in the late =
80's it would easily make octo's in two divisions.  By the 93-94 year =
the numbers were the same.  Since then, the numbers have fallen =
dramatically!  This year there were 16 teams total in both divisions.  =
Now this could be chalked up to lots of other factors and those other =
factors surely play a part, but, overall, in the se/sec region, regional =
tournament were way down across the board.  Most tournaments are =
collapsing down to one or maybe two divisions and quarters is now a good =
size, healthy tournament. =20

My conclusion:  The merger is great for the national circuit.  It is bad =
for the regional one.  At least this region. =20

I wqould echo Scott's call for people who are not going to nats to give =
your proxy to someone you trust to vote something like your views!  The =
regional circuit is drying up!  Vote or die!

Mike=20
CC Debate

 ----------
From:   Achten, Greg[SMTP:gachten at PEPPERDINE.EDU]
Sent:   Wednesday, March 11, 1998 6:45 PM
To:     EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject:        Re: Reply to Josh.

There were something like 150 teams at Towson. Novice made DOUBLES with =
67
teams at one tournament. Clearly CEDA is dead.


Greg
 ----------
From: MWilliams
To: EDEBATE
Subject: Reply to Josh.
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 12:49PM

I remeber Josh kicking my ass with "Toto good" at Nats eons ago.
Now, I know there are a lot of varsity debaters and programs that coach
almost exclusively varsity teams that think things are just hunky dory =
in
debate land.
They ain't.
To answer some of Josh's commentary. If it ain't the topics, then what
caused
the dramatic decline of CEDA programs? It is not the lack of funds or
programs
just disappearing. They left for Parly or strictly I.E. programs. There =
has
to
be a reason. Them people I've talked to say it had a lot to do with the
topics chosen. Irrational perhaps, but that is why they left.  I guess I
need
to reiterate the difference between a "small program" and a "micro =
program."
Those programs listed like Ft. Hays et al. are rebuilding with a goal of
getting back to
the final round. Many coaches, myself included. Realize that given the
resources available, this is an unrealistic goal.  We just want to teach
argumentation
skills to as many students as possible. The hope is that the forum of
academic
competition will motivate students to learn new information and skills.
Sometimes, however, the topics scare students away before we have a =
chance
to
teach them. That is what has happened to many of my prospective debaters
this
year.
So, if the topics are not the cause, what is. Josh, there is something =
about
CEDA that Directors of programs are finding offensive. What is it.
        2. My constituency. Why don't I represent ALL students in CEDA.
Frankly,the top 20% belong to programs that are very active in CEDA =
business
meetings.
Or, like Eric Slusher, take action for themselves. There are many =
students
who
simply do not know how to take action. Or, their directors are either =
too
apathetic or underfunded to actively participate. All democratic
institutions
with representatives have limited constituencies. I just openly admit =
where
my political views lie. I believe that the students who need the year =
long
mega-topics to explore their highest levels of creativity already have =
an
outlet that is well established and well principled in this type of =
debate.
If I were at a University that could support such a program, I would be
advocating for the following resolution: Resolved: fill in your =
backfile.
But I do not represent such an institution. Probably never will.  I
represent
those students who just want to learn how to research and prepare =
arguments.
I don't want to represnt those that live 24/7 for debate. National =
Champions
delivering Pizzas ain't my bag anymore.  Let the "National Circuit" play
with
the other National teams. But, open up CEDA for the micro programs and =
the
mediocre debaters. Yes, I am championing mediocrity. There are a lot of
GREAT
students who will NEVER be great debaters.
        3. Depth versus Breadth and the Semester long topic. No Josh, =
you
are
still looking at it from a "Gotta Win Nationals" perspective. That ain't =
my
bag.Maybe novice nationals, but not open. I don't worry about nationals =
as a
central goal. That is a mantra of the top 20% of the debaters. Believe =
it or
not, some
people really do not want to go into the depth of analysis that is seen =
in
year long topics. Worrying about these progressively smaller case areas =
as
the
year goes by is not always the best goal. I would rather have my =
students
learn
a lot about two topics then learn TOO MUCH about one obscure topic. =
Really,
how many people are going to gain anything by getting 2 more link take =
outs
to a Vietnam/China disad. We all got the general point of the Southeast =
Asia
topic by around Mid-term of Fall '97. Now we are just worrying about the
details. In fact, the year long topic forces people to research more =
than
semester
long topics. There is an expectation now that you have to have specific
cards
to a specific case because of the year-long topic. I will bet $5.00 that =
a
California team will tell my Louisiana team next week "We've been =
running
this
case all year, they should have case cards" as a response. The year Josh
whipped me good, we went 6-2 at Nationals with just two briefcases. No =
tubs.
I say we shouldn't have to cut cards specific to hardening foam versus
lexfoam. It is
technical material that does not serve a purpose other than furtherance =
of
gamesmanship (sorry PC police!) for the top 20% in the field.
        I'm glad to see Josh and I having a discussion without calling =
each
other names.
Scott Elliott
SELA