[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business

NEIL BERCH berchnorto
Mon Nov 26 12:27:45 CST 2007

I meant a DEEPER view is important as well.

>From: "NEIL BERCH" <berchnorto at msn.com>
>To: debate at ou.edu, delliott at kckcc.edu, CEDA-L at ndtceda.com, 
>edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business
>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:22:20 -0500
>I think Jackie (and Andy before him) raise an important issue.  I only 
>focused on novice winners because that gave the broadest picture given the 
>time I had.  A broader view is important as well.  I've got a busy few days 
>ahead of me (both professionally and personally), but I'm going to try to 
>look at all the teams that debated in novice in the largest ADA tournament 
>so far (King's), the largest CEDA Northeast tournament (West Point), and 
>the largest Midamerica novice division (UNI, with just 11 teams).  I'll try 
>to get this done in the next couple of days, and I'll post my results to 
>debate and CEDA-L.  Note, though, that this is probably about 5 times as 
>much work as the previous post, and first I have to change our John Carroll 
>hotel reservations (remember, Brent, anyone can run a tournament when there 
>are no glitches; it's how you respond to crises that is key, and clearly 
>you're on top of this!).--Neil
>--Neil Berch
>West Virginia University
>>From: "Massey, Jackie B." <debate at ou.edu>
>>To: Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu>, 
>>"CEDA-L at ndtceda.com"<CEDA-L at ndtceda.com>, "edebate at ndtceda.com" 
>><edebate at ndtceda.com>
>>Subject: Re: [CEDA-L] Encouraging your "yes" vote on CEDA business
>>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:45:57 -0600
>> >From my mailbox:
>>Amendment #9 Novice Definition
>>This amendment has created the most discussion on the listserve.  While I 
>>wrote the original amendment, I would not be against changing my mind in 
>>the face of good reasoning.  While some arguments against have been put 
>>forward, both in the Business Meeting (where it received near unanimous 
>>support) and on this list serve, none of those arguments have swayed me.  
>>Both sides of this issue can prove that we might lose novices with or 
>>without the amendment.
>>----- Why didn?t you just stop here?  Let people decide now?
>>Chief Says:
>>  However the arguments I put forward are the only ones that seem to 
>>answer all of the offense generated, solving that offense, and at the same 
>>time provided unanswered disadvantages to staying the course.
>>---- Is this how you talk to your administrators? Your trying to make 
>>facts out of subjective interpretations.  Why cant you accept that it cuts 
>>both ways like above, and not continue with somewhat of a not so ?true? 
>>Chief says:
>>  Some people have provided good anecdotal evidence how debaters they have 
>>with HS LD experience can achieve success even in JV with little to no 
>>coaching (Hanson) and have provided ample hard evidence (Berch) that those 
>>winning Novice divisions have HS LD experience a lot of the time (and in 
>>some cases have ridiculous amounts of
>>  experience) and are walking through Novice.  Yet they arent being moved 
>>--- Yes, berch?s evidence was overwhelming.  However, it really depends on 
>>the debater.  Some LD debaters learn to flow, others don?t.  Neal?s post 
>>may have changed my mind on the issue.  What about the ?anecdotal? 
>>evidence I offer that LD debaters are much more willing to join debate if 
>>they can go novice.  One thing about neals post is that it only recognized 
>>the winners, not to mention the many former LD debaters who don?t even win 
>>in novice.
>>Chief Says:
>>The problem is in the SQ there is no check and no way to prevent the 
>>abuse.  When ethics and competition collide there is often a slide on the 
>>ethical (Harris), and this remains unanswered.  Pressure has not and is 
>>not working.  The only arguments against have been that people forced into 
>>JV will quit.  No one has answered that we allow an exemption waiver 
>>process in CEDA that if a debater is really not ready for JV they can go 
>>in Novice with an exemption.
>>------- Actually, someone did answer the waiver argument, maybe you just 
>>forget those posts that don?t agree with you.  Just ignore It maybe it 
>>will go away?
>>Chief says:
>>   This solves the offense and remains unanswered.  And I will go one 
>>further--the CEDA EC has already granted such waivers this year, proving 
>>the system works.
>>--- This is so subjective ? the EC determine if students should be in 
>>novice or not?  There is a time lag, etc.  I think this is a bad 
>>Chief says:
>>   These were cases where the debater really was a novice even though not 
>>so definitionally.  What CEDA cant do however is the reverse.  We cant 
>>tell novices they have to move up even if they have 50, 100, or 150 rounds 
>>of HS LD experience.  That means the debaters they trounce have no 
>>protection and THEY are the ones who walk away.
>>--- This is your best way of dealing with the issue that the current rule 
>>is a bridge, and does also allow for a situation where LDers move to 
>>policy.  I agree, some Novices get trounced and quit, but ?THEY? are not 
>>the only ones effected by this rule.
>>Chiefs Says:
>>   I also believe that any coach can make decent arguments why a debater 
>>should go JV at least at first if they have HS experience, thereby 
>>preventing the debater from quitting outright.  And, if that debater does 
>>so poorly, they do deserve to move down, the coach can assure them there 
>>is a waiver process that allows that.
>>---- Do you explain this to the new students as going JV solves all the 
>>offense of you debating HS policy debaters and the waiver process solves 
>>all the disads to the intimidating experience you will engage?
>>Chief says:
>>Unfortnately very few coaches will be successful in convincing a true 
>>novice (no experience) that they should stay even in a world where they 
>>are getting hammered by novices with experience.  Myself and others have 
>>also spoken to the nature of the policy/critical divide that is blurred 
>>these days and one can no longer assert that LD is so different from 
>>college debate that it shouldnt count.
>>--- I think that your assumption that LD is ?critical? is laughable.  I 
>>have to say no more.
>>Chief says:
>>Finally, I think anyone with a concept of a flow, speech order, time 
>>limits, a judge, etc. (especially with over 50 rounds of such experience) 
>>is so far ahead of any true novice, that they really should not be 
>>considered novice without some pretty serious limitation on their part 
>>(which can be accounted for in a waiver process).  In order to preserve 
>>the intent of the novice division, in order to protect the novices that 
>>currently do not have protection, and in order to help grow and preserve 
>>the numbers in novice, I encourage you to vote yes on this amendment.
>>---- You are saying that we should take first year LD debaters and first 
>>year policy debaters, and put them in the same division.  I am saying the 
>>HS Policy debater has a huge advantage over the HS LD er. Then does the 
>>LDer quit for getting trounced?
>>Chief says:
>>Let me add one other thing about the Novice Amendment.  My program could 
>>gain a lot more from the SQ than the world of the amendment.  In KS, MO, 
>>OK there is a ton of LD debate.  Tonight I looked up how many graduating 
>>Seniors this year in the 3 state area did just LD (and high amounts).  In 
>>case you didnt know there is a ton of debate in KS, MO, and OK and a ton 
>>of that is LD.  I would have a hard time deciding which of the 10 to offer 
>>full ride scholarships to and recruit and stack the Novice division.
>>---- Stack the novice division?  I am skeptical on why you don?t have more 
>>novice teams, but I guess this clears it up.  And to say you do it for 
>>ethics is grand of you.
>>We probably agree on the problem.  Neal?s evidence was overwhelming.  
>>However, is it just LD?
>>Many of the students have IE experience, Student Congress, Public Forum. 
>>Since they did those activities, should that count also?  That was just as 
>>common as LD.
>>How about a move up rule in novice instead?  You win 2 novice tournaments 
>>or final 2, you move up.  This sounds much better.
>>I admit that I benefit from the current rule.  I love teaching LD debaters 
>>policy debate.  However, very seldom do any of my debaters stay in novice 
>>more than two or three tournaments.  As far as benefits for points and 
>>rankings, I am not sure that novice brackets have counted for many of the 
>>CEDA points in our region ever. The average size is about semis.
>>What will novice look like in a region that is comprised of over ? their 
>>debaters in novice have LD experience?  Will we even have a novice 
>>Take UCO, what if all the teams with LD experience were eliminated.  We 
>>would have probably 2-3 teams in novice. IE ? no novice, those novice have 
>>to go JV, and then what happens?  Oh yeah, your scenario happens still in 
>>a worse way.  DA to your ?plan?.
>>There is a huge divide in the skill level of LD debaters.  At UCO there 
>>was one novice that was way ahead of everyone else. Even the other 
>>debaters who had LD experience were no match.   She made my debaters 
>>better, trying to figure out how to beat her.  She also had a partner who 
>>was totally unexperienced.  Bottom line, she was good. Rules don?t change 
>>That?s it.  I will probably vote for the rule that is an attempt to help 
>>novice debate become pure, while I think its going to help it disappear. 
>>That is why I challenge those who were at NCA and voted on the rule to 
>>show up next year with two novice teams and travel them all year.  Its not 
>>all about ?solving all the offense? and ?no disadvantages to the plan?, 
>>its more than that.  It's about coaches taking the time and energy to 
>>teach students with no "policy" debate experience how to debate.
>>  I guarantee you there were a lot more than 10 to choose from.  Multiply 
>>that by 10 and add some.  I havent done this because I honestly believe 
>>the community and the intent of novice sides with the amendment, and until 
>>now it has just slipped through the cracks.  Maybe I am wrong and I have 
>>just always seen Novice as something different.  The vote will determine 
>>that I guess.  But this amendment is in no way self-serving.  I honestly 
>>believe Novice should be something other than
>>  what it is at some tournaments right now.  If the vote proves me wrong, 
>>I guess I can push harder for Rookie Divisions then start doling out the 
>>"novice" scholarships to area HS LD debaters. ; )
>>CEDA-L mailing list
>>CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com

>CEDA-L mailing list
>CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com

More information about the Mailman mailing list