[eDebate] MPJ and Comments

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Tue Nov 21 14:34:25 CST 2006


Josh says the following:
>
> This is clealy a set of reactionary and false statements:
>
> First, the "forces" that "merged" NDT and CEDA were not dark and in the
> shadows....The NDT community voted to debate the same topic...That was
> it.....Not in the dark...not through a cabal.  They voted.  In the old days,
> debaters believed in making a claim and PROVING it not making insinuations
> and pretending they serve as argument.

I never claimed a hidden cabal. The merger was clear and open. The "forces" I am
talking about are wide open for everyone to see. That was, and is, schools and
programs that have choosen an elitist and exclusionary form of "national debate
tournament style" debate. That the NDT engaged in psychological jui jitsu, the
mere acceptance of a "shared topic," was just the beginning. It was all out in
the open and still is. MPJ just makes the elite debateers more exclusive, more
elitist and more insular.
So, here is my proof Josh, have small programs and regional programs diminished?
I think so. Have the entry barriers for particpation in CEDA debate increased? I
think so. Has policy debate become more obscure and out of touch with the
average college student, and even students who participated in high school
debate? I think so.
There is no secret cabal. You are all out there in the open, for everyone to
see. I happen to hold the opinion that there are a lot of problems with
CEDA/NDT debate that the top programs just don't give a damn about. No need to
make a conspiracy argument on my part.


>
> Second, MPJ was on the rise in CEDA well in advance of the merger.  It was
> supported by the majority of the membership and still is.  Tim Mahoney did a
> massive amount of work on pushing it prior to the merger even being a
> glimmer in anyones eye.

I agree that MPJ was on the rise prior to the merger. But I also think it was
part of a disturbing trend that led to the merger. They are part and parcel of
the same propblem--namely, major programs in CEDA wanting to be like the "big
boys" in NDT, and the trend toward a "national circuit." Not blaming you for it
Josh, just describing the trend.

>
> Third, the NDT and CEDA do not control any tournament BUT the National
> Tournament for each organization.  The NDT board does not vote on if Harvard
> or Wake has MPJ.  That is a decision of the host.  If enough people decided
> MPJ was bad and either a) lobbied those tournaments to change or b) voted
> with their feet and didnt attend tournaments that were MPJ there might be
> change in that direction.

I agree.

>
> Fourth, MPJ at national tournaments is probably a good idea.  Having many
> times had to try to escape the triples/doubles mine field at CEDA nationals
> in thos good old days of 300 judges many of whom you had never seen
> before...Let me tell you that I sure dont want debaters today to have to
> lose their last debate EVER in front of someone they have NEVER seen and
> have no idea how to debate in front of.

That is something we disagree on.


>
> Fifth, MPJ at the NDT or CEDA can be changed....Make a case at the business
> meetings with a motion of amendment to the CEDA or NDT constitutions.  Get
> the vote out.


Ok.  Is it ok to discuss some ideas prior to the business meetings?

>
> My point is only that all of these things at the national level - the
> merger, mpj, etc were something supported by the voting membership of each
> organization.  In CEDA studies and polling was done (I believe by Kan
> Broda-Bahm and Mahoney)..Stop making it sound like there is a secret cabal
> that makes all these decisions in a cave.  Its inaccurate and does a
> disservice to everyone involved.


>
> Josh
>
>
>
> Scott
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>







More information about the Mailman mailing list