[eDebate] ans Hoe
Wed Jul 18 21:15:25 CDT 2007
Josh: "It doesnt take that much time or smarts to figure out that: a) non-policy topics have "policy implications" b) criteria functions a bit like K frameworks c) Whole res/Hasty G has some issues"
Mike: so you are telling us that if there is a non-policy resolution, ALL of the Michigan teams will get worked EVERY ROUND by EVERY team that attends the Wyoming coop?
Josh: "I am really skeptical that somehow, if a non-policy resolution passed it would change things substantially....On my second non-policy topic ever I won CEDA nationals...Again, I had GREAT help from CEDA veterans...But its not brain surgery."
Mike: yeesh. you guys were good but Boggs and Molden had your number all year. we all know that winning nats takes work, talent, and ... luck. but i won't help you marginalize you and Charlie's achievement. if you don't think it was much of an achievement, we will have to disagree...
also, Josh, you were competing in what, your 6th year of debate? for one of the premier programs in CEDA. and it pains me greatly to write this... but... you... are... pretty... smart... so don't make it sound like you just got out of bed and joined the Podunk College team on a whim, got your recipe box together and won nationals... even though your experience and program gave you a huge leg up over almost everyone you were competing against, you still struggled like a seabird caught in an oilslick most of the year...
also, my senior year, Scott Parsons and John Lapham decided to go to the NDT qualifier at Northwestern 2 weeks before the tournament, on the topic of US military commitments to Europe, without a single debate on the resolution. all SIU CEDA backfiles except cutting one book by Lane. they qualified to the NDT. at the NDT they went 4-4, not clearing by 1 ballot. That doesn't show that policy resolutions don't require research or that NDT debaters are stupid or any other damn thing. My point here is that there are all sorts of freaky anecdotal occurrences which don't show a damn thing other than freaky stuff happens.
Josh: "I know the mere threat of a non-policy resolution almost squashed the evil merger...But its really not that different...Certainly not enough so that good coaches in the "policy" world will suddenly become helpless and old school CEDA coaches will take over the corridors of national circuit power."
Mike: I agree. I do think it would equalize things some though.
Josh: "CEDA membership was massively falling off PRIOR to the MERGER. I keep saying this and nobody even bothers to respond."
Mike: wow, you have a really shitty flow, man. did Mallard have to keep it for you or something?
This week I 1) quoted: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-July/071489.html and 2) repeated: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-July/071548.html
an argument made by Ken Broda-Bahm in 1999 that crushes your claim.
once again: the CEDA decline in participation coincides with a) the 4 or 5 years immediately preceding the merger, in which the topics became increasingly policy oriented and b) the years after the merger. So your argument is TURNED, old man. the pre-merger decline in participation begins as resolutions have increasingly obvious "policy implications", accelerates as the resolutions actually become "policy resolutions" and continues apace after the merger locks us in. Papa Duke did teach you what a "turn" is, didn't he?
Josh: "There was an elite hierarchy of teams winning EVERY tournament, tournaments were dropping in numbers, CEDA nats was massively dropping in numbers (unless it was hosted in Cali). My senior year there were five teams that everyone would have agreed had a chance at winning CEDA nationals. This nostalgia is AHISTORIC."
Mike: The decline in participation started and accelerated as resolutions became more policy oriented. when that happened, more NDT folk crossed over and experienced high school debaters were drawn in too. This gave some programs a pretty big advantage over others on those resolutions and yeah, there was increasing domination by a few programs. The participation drops weren't much until a few years after Josh had won his nationals: by then "policy implications" was being run a lot because the resolutions had become pretty policy-oriented. The drops accelerated as we moved to actual policy resolutions. The drop has continued post merger. What is ahistorical is this attempted nonunique.
Josh: "I feel your pain, I really do....I love Marlow and Massey....I really do, but its not going back to the glorious past....Its really not."
Mike: hmmm, if we can't go back to the sweet spot of the CEDA middle years, can we at least avoid going back to the nightmare of the pre-merger NDT?
because, Josh, a decade is plenty of time for the way things have been done to turn things around. and.. it... has... not.
Josh: "Now, all that said, if a broader topic means some more kids debate....and we get some different perspectives....Great....But non-policy topics? Really? They kind of stunk...and they sure arent going to rearrange the power in this activity."
Mike: no, they probably won't rearrange the power in this activity. Experience is important and so are resources. But they will cut into that experience advantage and against some of the institutional advantage. And Josh, your opinion that they "stunk" was apparently not shared by the 200+ member programs in CEDA that fielded what, 320 teams at CEDA nats the year before you won? The resolutions you like... well... they are being debated by fewer and fewer programs and debaters... finally: is the problem that you are only recruiting debaters who can't debate anything but the same stuff they have already debated in high school? is that the problem?
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman