[eDebate] Fwd: Some questions for my administration

Darren Elliott delliott
Thu Jul 19 19:59:51 CDT 2007

Your favorite Royals fan will now engage having enjoyed the winning of 2
out of 3 from the Bo Sox, and now we are gonna do the same or better in
Motown over the weekend.

That said, be careful about respecting that Royals thang Ede.  I know
people in the scouting system.  Wont you be embarrased wearing Royal
Blue in about 11 years when I convince the Royals to take a young stud
named Christopher Warner before the Chi Sox get a shot at him in the
first round of the draft?

>>> "Ede Warner" <ewarner at louisville.edu> 07/18/07 10:30 PM >>>
I few questions from the kitchen for my favorite Royals fan or any
members of the topic committee/CEDA execs:
1) If 25 new programs willing to become CEDA members tomorrow if they
could debate a 10-12 word broad topic, would you reconsider your
position in the best interests of CEDA?

chief--I am not sure multi-word, narrow topics are my position.  I
merely want those who argue for that standard to make cogent arguments
as to why it benefits novices, or new programs.  If those arguments make
sense I can be sold.  I am not necessarily a fan of 45 words in a topic.
 I am a fan of keeping the Res. manageable.  If prior to the next topic
mtg. 20 new potential programs make the claim you make above I would be
fool-hardy to not listen to them.
2) If a general area paper won that called for either a broad topic or a
non-policy resolution, would you support an exclusive slate of topics
complying with what the paper called for?

chief--I am with Joe on the vote splitting issue.  I also would want to
know what "broad" meant in that regards.  I also like the approach
Gordon has taken regarding the area papers.  If the author of that paper
stipulated an exclusive slate then I am not sure once it wins we could
waiver from that.  If they asked for broad topics and non-policy ones,
we also need to abide by that.  It means the community had that info.
when they voted.  As an aside I am also a fan of CEDA supporting
financially the author to attend the meeting if they are not already a
topic cmte member.  Steve and Mike were valuable resources this summer
as the authors who did the legwork.
3)  Would a compromise decision by the community to vote for a broad
topic but to enforce topicality much more stringently be acceptable to
you?  Could that agreement be informal or would it need to be formalized
somehow?  Does the loss of having "not debate the topic" debates reduce
the topic sufficiently enough for you to make the tradeoff manageable?

chief--Yes to the first question in an ideal world.  To the 2nd I am not
sure how we would formalize it.  And I am skeptical of informal
agreements to be totally honest.
The tradeoff can be manageable and it has been.  I am not opposed to
"not debate the topic" debates--Louisville is well aware of that.  But
in the Novice division, a division I see with different expectations I
am not sure the tradeoff is a good one.  But you point out in your other
post the differences that make us great.  So I am not willing to
legislate intolerance either.  More to think about on this one...

4) Why can't CEDA, who has an actual structure and organization find a
way to regulate this through it's organization?  Doesn't your argument
prove the point, that all of the power of this organization has already
been ceded to CEDA, through the "run to the national circuit", etc.

chief--To regulate what?  Topic adherence?  And did you mean the power
has been ceded to the "NDT"?  Again I wont structurally support
intolerance but I do think if we can determine our organizational goals
it will go a long way to making some informal agreements more so than we
do now.
5) Who and what is CEDA?  Part of what makes this conversation less
meaningful is that many of the pro-CEDA folks support smaller limited
topic, national circuit travel, et.  So, is there a CEDA versus NDT
anymore?  And if not, is there a better way to categorize our community?

chief--I think your first question continues to be fleshed out in the
court of public opinion.  I also hope CEDA-40 will get at this.  I would
like to think of the organization as a professional organization to
promote the growth of debate throughout the country, to build coalitions
with the high school community, and to serve as a professional
development organization for debate professionals.  Within that I think
making debate available to as many populations as possible is central to
our goals.  From what I am gathering in these conversations is that the
pro-CEDA folks (Massey, Marlow, Korcok--wow what a panel) : ) is that
they would prefer a broad topic.  2 of those three also support national
circuit travel while also producing a ton of novices.  Is there a CEDA
vs NDT?  I think the "vs" is still calculated through the lens of the
haves and have nots.  But the run to the national circuit have made many
of the have nots have wannabes.  Not that there is anything wrong with
that.  I am in favor of raising standards, not playing down.  But I
think many of those programs are misled and many of the fringe programs
get lost.  The best way to categorize "our" "community" I think is one
that is searching for a soul.
6) If a segment of the community is frustrated with those who ignore the
topic, resulting in a move to more and more narrower topics AND there is
a segment of the community frustrated with those who overly restrict
affirmative ground (voice, etc) through narrow topics resulting in a
move to less and less engaging of the topic, why isn't the broader topic
with strong topical checks the compromise?  

chief--I think it is the compromise.  Who is signing on to it though? 
How do we regulate it?  All judging is in essence subjective.  The irony
of it (for those who agree with me while in the past rebuffing
Louisville) will be lost in the land of the line-by-line.  On face case
aint topical, but you all lost on the line-by-line debate.  This will
always be the fallback for those judges who "agree" but not really.  I
believe Ede when he makes the compromise.  Cant say I am that trusting
of all non-Royals fans however.
7)  Can we identify when the NDT and CEDA have been at their strongest
in terms of participation and identify what the norms and procedures
looked like during that time period?

chief--I would hope so.  Korcok has given some recollection of CEDA. 
People with much longer memories need to chime in on the NDT side of
things.  George Z., Bill Southworth, Al Louden all come to mind.  As for
the CEDA folks, I think T.C. Winebrenner, Don Brownlee, and Tuna would
be good resources.  I am not sure CEDA has done such a good job in terms
of keeping membership numbers pre-merger but I could be wrong.  Jarman
has most of that in boxes.  Definitely a worthy goal.

thanks again for engaging!


This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by KCKCC's MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the Mailman mailing list