[eDebate] ans Elliott; Reply
scottelliott at grandecom.net
Fri Jul 13 17:15:49 CDT 2007
I guess it really depends on--as usual--the persons in power and their
constiuencies and vested interests.
If the goal of the resolution is to maintain the interest of college debaters
who intend to attend Harvard, USC, Cal Berekley, Northwestern or Emory (usually
as their "just in case" school), then I agree that the resolutions should be
crafted as they are currently being written. Unfortunately, from my
perspective, those persons holding the institutional power with CEDA/NDT cater
to the precise interests that Mike writes about.
Thats why I believe that either a reform from within is necessary--a shift back
to a time when topics were more accessible within CEDA; or the creation of a
new debate organization that will serve those interests.
And, before if gets "pooh-poohed" and dumped on, I offer CEDA itself as the
historical model that such a radical, if not revolutionary, and can achieve
significant, exponetial growth within merely a decade.
I think that if you are a coach at Bakersfield, or Towson, a state diectional
school, or any program that is focused on teaching students debate rather than
simply winning the NDT, you would prefer to operate under a different set of
ground rules for tournamnet debates.
Let me give an example. This Fall, 2007: Resolved: The United States should
immediately remove a substanital portion of its military troops from Iraq.
Spring, 2008: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
substantially increase immigration restrictions or border enforcement.
I think that if I were a professor--wait a minute--I Am a professor, lol--I
would much prefer recruting new students to debate and teaching argumentation
based on these topics.
Hey, its a matter of taste. If I were are one of the top five debate schools and
could attracts the top 1% debaters in the country, I'd probably not give a shit
about other programs or students either.
More information about the Mailman