[eDebate] Am. 9 I agree with Massey

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Mon Nov 26 13:53:33 CST 2007

I voted against Amendment #9. I agree with Jackie's arguments on two key points
that I will reiterate:

1. Not all L/D experience is the same. I think the National/TOC-L/D is
substantially different than what most people do in high school L/D. Based on
my experience in Louisiana, L/D is little more than bad parly or declimation.

But, I agree with Chief that college l/d-as embodied in the NFA(?)-is very much
policy driven. I mean, they are essentially doing the high school Africa cx
topic this year and I know for a fact that many of those coaches are former
CEDA coaches who had teams in finals of CEDA Nationals within the past decade.
So, a distinction needs to be made.

2. Small programs could be hurt. My program for example, recruits from two basic
sources-local high school L/D debaters (because we do not have that much cx
debate, but I am working on that)and students from argumetation and speech
classes. I find it hard to believe that big programs searching for a national
sweepstakes championship are recruting high school L/D debaters to stack the
deck. But, maybe I am naive. What I do know is that I assumed that because
a student did l/d in high school that he/she was a jv debater. After sending
some l/d debaters into jv, and having them go 0-6 and wanting to quit the
program, I looked at the rules again. I think the risk of losing small programs
outweighs the risk of having a few pechulant novices quit because they lost a

I think a better amendment needs to be drafted and discussed.

My proposal:

1. College Licoln-Douglas experience counts against novice and JV eligibility.
2. High school l/d that results in participation in the TOC counts against
novice eligibility. (i.e. if you are a TOC L/D debaters, you ain't novice).
3. Students appearing in finals of three novice division tournaments lose their
novice eligibility and should be moved up.
4. Tournaments are strongly encouraged to offer "rookie" divisions for students
with less than two tournaments of ANY competitive forensics event-at the high
school or college level.

I would be more than happy to re-write this into proper CEDA Constitutional
language for submission to the Next available CEDA business meeting. I hope
Jackie, Chief, and anyone else concerned with this issue will work to draft a
more workable amendment.

Until then, I vote no.

Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D.
University of Lousiana-Lafayette

More information about the Mailman mailing list