[eDebate] Fwd: Some questions for my administration

Josh jbhdb8
Thu Jul 19 20:11:53 CDT 2007


Should be worried that the only other major Royals fan I know of is Rush
Limbaugh (former announcer)?


Just kidding, you pretty much have to have no soul to hate the Royals - I
mean nobody should have to endure what Royals fans endure....and I am a
Rangers fan for God's sake and they were OWNED by GWBush.....Yoikes,

Josh


On 7/19/07, Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu> wrote:
>
> 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!
> chief
>
>
>
> Ede
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by KCKCC's MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070719/2e13dbe9/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list