[eDebate] Reactionary Provisions AT:Neil

Kuswa, Kevin kkuswa
Tue Nov 20 06:56:13 CST 2007

Ahhh--the novice eligibility question.
We've been discussing this for years in the ADA with no real solution.
Once again this summer at the ADA meeting we will advocate a novice move up rule:
You win two novice tournaments (or get to finals at 3) you move up for every other tournament.
Easy.  You could still have one, but the eligibility rule is less necessary at that point--if some high school hot shot wants to come win a couple novice tournaments, fine.
This will probably not pass--last time the existing novice move-up rule was repealed.
Another solution:  Put a box on every novice ballot for the judge to check if 1 or more of the debaters in the round are ready for JV.  If a student receives 30 ballots with checks by their name, that person has to move up.
Why does this matter that much?  Mainly because it is a barrier to entry for new novices when they are expected to compete against students with a lot more experience and skill.  Also, it encourages students to have the best debates possible despite counter-pressures (institutional and otherwise) to stay in the lower divisions for more points.
In my opinion, LD is at least as valuable as policy for college NDT/CEDA debate, but that's besides the point.

More information about the Mailman mailing list