[eDebate] Reactionary Provisions
Massey, Jackie B.
Sun Nov 18 05:09:59 CST 2007
I just wanted to offer my perspective on one of the proposed ammendment changes in the VP report.
My perspective is that we do not need rules to dictate when ethics should probably be more responsible. I think the rule counting LD as eligibility is somewhat reactionary, and not appealing to the true hopes of participation for some, in the face of the detrmiments when a novice team gets waxed by a super LD star.
The rationale for the rule makes too many assumptions and false categorizations from my perspective.
RATIONALE: A number of high school students are competing on the
National circuit in LD which is similar to policy debate and then coming
to college understanding the ins and outs of debate and debating in
Novice against people who have never seen a debate before, much less 50
rounds of debate. Additionally college NFA LD is policy LD and should
count as policy debate rounds. Finally, with the lines blurred in
contemporary college debate between policy and critical anyone who has
debated before, even in high school LD, has quite a leg up on a true
Novice. LD, even when not policy oriented in HS, is closer to the
critical side of the community and should count against novice
------- The rationale atttempts to use a false dichotomy of critical and policy to support what is acknowledged as "lines blurred". I am somewhat of a beneficiary of this rule. My perspective is that if a student is so far above the rest of the students, they should debate JV or open, and not stay in novice. There are many high school LD debaters that would never debate if they were pushed into JV when they entered college debate. More than there are that quit whenever a super novice is left in novice and waxes and wanes. (no evidence - my opinion)
They still gotta get rid of of the "aff case" and "neg case" terminology. The problem is some of these students do appear to know the "ins and outs" (official langauge now) of debate, and devestate some of the new comers. This is where i say it becomes more of an ethical issue for the coaches to move them up. Currently the rule allows a starting point for those LD debaters who did not travel National Circuit LD (most of them) to begin college debate and not have to compete against those who were doing CX in high school. It cuts both ways, thats why rules arent always the answer.
More information about the Mailman