[eDebate] ans Hoe

Michael Korcok mmk_savant
Fri Jul 20 22:37:59 CDT 2007

yeah, I have consistently written that this correlation is just that, a correlation.  that is sorta flimsy evidence.  but life is like that.
look, you know if UCO winning CEDA Nationals really was the harbinger of the Apocalypse, I will blame Charlie and not you.  I got your back.
and if that doesn't work we can always blame Jarman:  he won it the very year that participation declines began to be noticed...
the next part requires me to slow down and emphasize a bit more.  Josh writes: "I am still not sure the Broda-Bahm/Korcok argument is a strong one...As I mentioned, in response, the trending seems very sketchy - I really doubt that people saw those topics and said "OH NO, POLICY IS COMING, TIME TO GO" 
Josh, this is the same argument that Matt has been making and it is what he looked at in his research and confirmed:  no coaches said they left because the topics were policy based.  but unlike Matt, you seem stuck here.  he obviously saw that something more important may have been operating, an indirect effect.  I think he is right.  
But now, you old senile no-flow-skills bastard: i have spelled out what i think that indirect mechanism looks like.  policy topics give huge advantages to experienced debaters, you know, ones who have 3 or 4 years of high school experience inpolicy debate.  they give HUGE advantages to folsk who kicked ass in high school policy debate because they learned how to do that shit GREAT.  and now they get to do more of the same in college.  inexperienced debaters and coaches who aren't so good at coaching policy debate faced dimmer and dimmer prospects as policy advanced.  the smart ones bailed.  those who stuck around until the merger decided that was just too much and fled before they were fed to the sharks.
and... you... have... had... no... response... to... that... mechanism.  because it is a damn fine explanation, boyo.  which jives mighty nice with the flimsy evidence.  so save the capslock mocking until you gots sumtin to say.
Josh then writes:  "You have to believe that topics like:  
Resolved: That the increasing trend toward foreign investment in the US has been detrimental and Resolved: Violence is a justified response to politcal oppression 
Were seen by large numbers of coaches as a harbringer of impending policy doom.  Impending enough to desert like rats on a sinking ship....like clemens after a paycheck....like Sparty at half time of a big ten football game (ok, sorry, that was uncalled for)....like Bud Selig when an intelligent decision is called for...."
your timing is off and you are papering-over the important point Ken made in 1999 and which I made in answer to your "decline started before the merger" argument:  before the resolutions became explicitly policy topics, the hard shift to policy was well under way with "policy implications" on the neg and explicit plans in the 1ac.  
Hey Josh, this is a link to a post by Jamey Dumas from 1993 arguing that we should vote for an explicit policy resolution.  In it he makes some excellent arguments.  Here is part of that post (yes I have ellipsed old school but the whole thing is linked below):   
"My general point is that policy debate is not something to be avoided, and in many cases may be a better choice.  Many people in our region object topolicy topics for one of three reasons (I think):  first, "THIS IS CEDA";  second, we don't like those evil NDT trends; and third, our debaters don'tknow how to debate policy topics....  
The final argument against policy debate is somewhat legitimate.  Many of the debaters in our region, especially novice debaters, do not know how to debate from a policy perspective.  BUT, ignorance does not seem to me to be a reason to avoid a framework.  Just because many debaters in our regionwere not versed in mass media literature did not stop us from voting for this semester's topic.  Similarly, our current lack of knowledge aboutpolicy debate can be solved by learning about it.  I think that the amount of knowledge necessary to debate in a policy framework is minimal:  a onehour lecture should be a fine starter.  Granted, learning to put this information to work will take time and practice -- but that is true foranything we do....  
Ultimately, I think that there are advantages and disadvantages to all of the possible frameworks for debate.  My main point simply remains that weshouldn't avoid one of them ignorantly."  ( http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jonathan/debate/ceda-l/archive/CEDA-L-Nov-1993/msg00062.html )
Josh, you are continuing to be confused about what happened when.  I won't berate anyone who bailed in the shift to policy:  the poor decision-making wasn't theirs, it was ours.
We are the ones who didn't live up to and build on what we inherited, Josh.
and Josh ends with the ultimate irony in this discussion when he writes:  "Is it possible that maybe only a core of people can handle building the core support necessary to maintain the resources, support, education, etc etc etc for what we do?"
yes, Josh it is possible.  in fact, it is very likely.  and the irony, my friend, is that those people are not us and they are certainly not the NDT.  our tenure has been characterized not by growth, expansion, and a thriving of cross-examination debate, but its decline.  Rather than doing what worked for those who grew this activity, we are doing what failed for those who shrank it.
I know you meant your comment in the context of growing an individual program, implying that those who left debate were somehow deficient.  That is the ultimate irony.
Michael Korcok
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!??
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070720/1842f19e/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list