[eDebate] [CEDA-L] And if they could only root for decent baseball teams...

Josh jbhdb8
Thu Jul 19 21:53:21 CDT 2007

Of course on the other hand......You can hit Kaufman, the Negro League HOF,
and Arthur Bryants within an afternoon,


On 7/19/07, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
>  CEDA-40 is yet another reason that Gordon Stables is my hero.  I love Joe
> Patrice, in spite of his relationship with Will Baker.  And finally, I have
> decided to cut all ties with Darren, who has cursed by 10 year old son with
> his call to come to KC.  While I appreciate and respect the offer, as his
> mentor and agent, my job is to make sure he can average 40 hr., 40 steals,
> 150 rbi, and hit .350 in the majors by the time he is 20, with a rocket arm
> behind the plate.  As his agent, I'm looking for more than A-Rod money.  Our
> pitch- Chris has leadership skills...And I'm trying to cut back on the bbq
> so that's another reason to avoid Kaufman Stadium.
> 'nuff said.
> >>> Gordon Stables <stables at usc.edu> 7/19/2007 5:50 PM >>>
> If past practice is any indication, once the topic is announced the
> discussion will focus on more immediate questions and analysis. Before we,
> as a group, make that adjustment let me introduce a significant research and
> analysis process to our membership. In just a few years (2011) CEDA will
> celebrate its 40th anniversary. One of the primary tasks of the 2nd VP is
> to coordinate research conducted at the CEDA Nationals tournament and
> through the organization's efforts. It is my belief that my beginning an
> organized campaign now we will have a process that will allow the
> organization to have acted on those ideas before it turns 40. That project
> is something called CEDA-40.
> I am not a fan of totalizing historical comparisons about debate, but it
> is hard to dispute we do precious little to analyze our own activity in any
> organized form and then share those insights with the larger community.
> Throughout the history of organized intercollegiate debate a variety of
> written forms existed to let the community learn and share from each other.
> Some were formal, refereed journals and some took the form of articles in
> handbooks. I suspect among many of us learned not only from the people we
> interacted with, but also by reading the work of some very talented people.
> In order to have a truly proud celebration of CEDA we need to take the time
> to apply our impressive analytical and research skills inward, even if just
> for a short time.
> I do not romanticize the idea that we can, or should, encourage our
> diverse community to narrow their efforts into a single rigid professional
> discipline. The fact that we all have different professional relationships
> to debate does not, however, mean we cannot take time to examine the
> activity we care do deeply about and then share those conclusions. When I
> first became involved in the topic process I was amazed how much research
> and analysis our community produces each year. Last year on the court topic,
> for example, dozens of folks contributed hundreds upon hundreds of pages of
> research analysis. Ever had that moment where you google a debate subject
> and find a wording or controversy paper? I think it is time for the
> community to google our practices, institutions, and goals and have the same
> success. It doesn't matter if you are a student, alum, professor,
> professional coach, volunteer, attorney, parent or just an interested party
> ? we need to rebuild our collective community knowledge base.
> For easy reading here are some questions and answers about this
> initiative.
> *What is CEDA 40? *
> A collection of community research and opinion organized into a strategic
> planning document. The document will:
> 1.      Conceptualize important challenges and opportunities confronting
> the CEDA community
> 2.      Begin to develop reforms designed to promote the organization's
> goals in time for the organization's 40th anniversary (in 2011)
> In other words, it is a collection of original perspectives and research
> by the CEDA community. This document is an organized means of allowing the
> community to learn to the experiences, perspectives and research by other
> community members.
> *What kind of topics should people research and analyze?***
> This is the question to be determined by you as members of our community.
> Instead of relying on informal conversation, momentary chats on edebate or
> other informal forms, this process gives people the opportunity to take a
> more orderly and well-developed assessment. Some of the possible areas for
> analysis include:
> ?       The Organizations that make up the community (CEDA, NDT, ADA, AFA,
> etc.)
>     The procedures, practices, leadership structure, schedules, etc.
> ?       Our Competitive Practices
>     Tournaments, Judging, Argumentative Practices
> ?       Membership (The CEDA Community)
>     Schools, Coaches, Debaters ? Who are these populations? How are
>       they changing?
>  *What form should these efforts take?*
> ?       Summaries of current practices
>      Once upon a time vicious battles raged over debate theory in
>             journals and other sites. There are occasional posts, but we could certainly
>             use some contemporary means of assessing the desirability of argumentative
>             trends.
> ?       Statistical analysis (metrics or surveys)
>      How much debate is there in a given season? Do we know much bigger
>             or smaller a region is in the last decade? Do shorter topic wordings produce
>             greater novice retention? Are there positive or negative trends in nature of
>             gender participation? We see lots of opinions, but much less in the way of
>             orderly analysis. We have the wonderful tool of debateresults to allow folks
>             to build these research questions from several years worth of data. There
>             are, of course, earlier records that may provide interesting points of
>             comparisons.
> ?       Case studies
>      There are plenty of occasions where conventional wisdom is
>             produced by the most basic of information. We have amazing folks in the
>             community who have started programs, re-started programs, helped them
>             expand, and yes, seen programs wither and die. What happened? What makes the
>             difference? I know there are about 1,000,000,000 edebate posts on the
>             subject but what about a 5 page detailed explanation about how the successes
>             or failure took place by a debater or coach involved in that effort?
> ?       Reaction (editorial) essays
>      Perhaps you would like the opportunity to write a lengthy defense
>             of the organizations goals, missions, or trends. Perhaps you have
>             experiences with teaching, recruitment or recruitment that you would like to
>             share. Maybe you just want to rant. Here is your chance.
>  ?       Reform proposals
>      When I witnessed the discussion of NDT redistricting a few years
>             ago one I was unprepared to appreciate how much of our planning is directed
>             at short-term efforts. By necessity we are all worried about the next topic,
>             the next season, the next tournament, the next class, the next meeting, the
>             next paycheck, time with our family, sleep, etc. There are plenty of items
>             that can and should be debated for reform in the near-term, but there are
>             also some fundamental questions that cannot (and shouldn't be) done at the
>             last minute. Do you think we should fundamentally revisit some form of how
>             we organize, compete or teach? We need the type of developed proposals that
>             can serve as the foundation for important efforts.
> Submitted materials will be organized and included in an edited volume
> that thematically organizes the materials. It will be produced as a free,
> publicly available e-book. Thanks to the cooperation of incoming CEDA
> journal editor Al Louden, outstanding submissions will be considered for
> inclusion in a future issue of* Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: The
> Journal of the Cross Examination Debate Association**.*
> The deadline for submissions in December 15, 2008. This gives everyone
> almost 18 months to develop, plan and produce research. This also allows
> individuals, or groups, to conduct research at the 2007 CEDA Nationals
> tournament. This will allow a number of 2009 events to be influence by this
> research product. It will be available in time to influence the development
> of the 2009 NCA Panels, the 2009 Summer Argument in Alta (which is
> bi-annual) as well as the business meetings of both CEDA and the NDT.
> This is a call for everyone involved with the CEDA community to find the
> time between now and December of 2008 to stop, reflect and add to the body
> of knowledge that makes up our activity. Maybe you like summarizing and
> explaining current practices. Great. Maybe you want to analyze the
> demographics of a specific tournament or region. Awesome. Maybe you have
> some ideas abut how to restructure our organizational or regional processes.
> Wonderful.
> Tomorrow the topic will be out and the next set of urgencies will fill all
> of our lives. I am not asking anyone to write a report this weekend. I am
> asking that everyone stop and assess if you can add to the body of knowledge
> that our community relies upon. I will regularly post and encourage
> participation, but please consider taking part. This is your community and
> it needs a small fraction of the research and analytical skills that we
> possess.
> Thanks for reading.
> Gordon
> Gordon Stables, Ph.D.
> Director of Debate and Forensics
> Annenberg School for Communication
> University of Southern California
> Office: 213 740 2759               Fax: 213 740 3913
> http://usctrojandebate.com
> _______________________________________________
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070719/536a628d/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list