[eDebate] ans Warner

Ede Warner ewarner
Wed Nov 7 09:53:59 CST 2007


Not mutually exclusive judge.  What relevance is whether an administrators immediate reaction is worse for one (bad performance) than the other (good inaccessible policy debate) Mike?  ADMINISTRATORS WON'T SUPPORT EITHER.  One is a slow death through the diverting of resources to other places.  Proof- UMKC and countless others.  This year alone, there have been several posts looking for information on "how to win the budget battle".  The other, a too extreme performance like debate pornography, will create a quick investigation and CSTV would love to cover it.  Neither world bodes well for debate.  If your 30 years can't assure me, with evidence, as a director that I can easily sell fast, technical debate to the outside world, then your attempts at comparing the two issues is meaningless.  And if you have that evidence, I'm sure you've contacted UMKC about what strategies they need to proceed, right?
 
As far as what I'm wrong about:  now sound like Bob, yelling for the good old days.  We've been down this road before.  Look I wasn't in CEDA in the mid-1980s and I have no idea what real evidence you have to support your claims that it was so much better than the NDT in terms of balance, diversity, whatever.  Here is what I know:  CEDA died for some reason and became the NDT.  Period.  Your call to go back to some balance from that time that you can't identify has little evidence, less reasoning, and if it is so easy: then walk into the administration offices of the 100 or so programs CEDA has lost, make your case, and bring them back.  And when Louisville challenges that believe, by creating years of evidence that slow debates can be challenging, thought-provoking and provide for deep critical thought (no different than listserv discussions I suspect), you choose to ignore that evidence because it doesn't fit your worldview of what you WANT to do...So much for scientific inquiry...I choose to pick a time to go back that clearly had large public support, even if you personally believe it's inferiority, and I can point to what destroyed that world- the transition to fast, technical debate in the mid-sixties.  
 
As far as my credibility, for the size, statute and type of institution I teach at, I have generated more additional resources, more public relations, and more stability without being tied to alumni dollars than anyone in my country.  My program is closer to the balance of moderation we are talking about more than any other program.  Why?  Because that is what I'm searching for and most others are spending time defending the SQ or some idealistic vision of the past.  I have no problems with any administrator, media outlet, or public interest group coming to watch any Louisville debate.  And I don't risk alienation because an administrator can't understand what my students are saying, or because our performance crosses lines beyond any I would create in a classroom.  So when you get some credibility to do more than pontificate about things you haven't put into practice, holla at your boy...
 
 
>>> 

From: Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
To:"edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 11/7/2007 9:59 AM
Subject: [eDebate] ans Warner
Ede writes:
 
"2)  Guess who else chooses not to participant in the style and form you long for:  administrators, academic departments, potential revenue sources, CSTV, other media outlets, parents, interested 3rd parties, experts on the topic that's been selected.  Now, while you stick your proverbial head in the sand, shouting "everyone can do it!" to the rafters, ignoring that none of these groups want to do it, believe your evidence of how great it sufficient enough to support it, and if given a small window of opportunity, will kill it, I wonder will you bring your head up before it's too late."
 
I answer:
 
both 1) wise words warner, wise words and  2) wrong, warner wrong
 
1) wise words warner, wise words
 
I have been at this for 3 decades.  I have never met an important decision-making stakeholder in debate programs who would react to speedy speech, leet technical skillz, and crushing research burdens like they would to simulating a sex act and/or showing pornography to an unwilling 17-year old on a middle east policy topic because her fleeing the room in tears is important to dismantling hetero-normativity.
 
The former generates confusion and questions.  The latter pink slips, phone calls to university counsel, and program terminations.
 
Ede, you are one smart guy.  
But asking you to balance considerations and fairly weigh costs and benefits has always seemed to me perilous.
 
2) wrong warner wrong
 
There is a simple test.  The CEDA of the mid-80s to the mid-90s seemed to me to have that balance decently struck.  Lots of problems, true:  perfection isn't ever going to happen.  That debate had much more participation, at least as much diversity as today while it was increasing, and experimentation without insanity.  You can never go back, nor should we.  But we can undo some mistakes, backtrack a bit when we find ourselves on the wrong path, and fix what needs fixing.  Or we can press the pedal to the metal and pray that our pinto will be able to smash through that brick wall ...
 
Michael Korcok

Climb to the top of the charts! Play Star Shuffle: the word scramble challenge with star power. Play Now! ( http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071107/570fe18e/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list