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

Darren Elliott delliott
Thu Jul 19 23:22:51 CDT 2007


And dont forget the new minor league sensation the Kansas City T-Bones.  How can you not love a baseball team named after meat?  They are busting minor league attendance records all over the place.  Constantly selling out.  And kudos to Josh for naming the best BBQ place in KC.  So many imitators, but no duplicators!

And dont believe Ede, he isnt cutting his ties.  I'm telling you, the Warners will look stellar in Royal Blue.

chief


>>> Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> 07/19/07 9:53 PM >>>
Of course on the other hand......You can hit Kaufman, the Negro League HOF,
and Arthur Bryants within an afternoon,

Josh


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
>
>

-- 
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