[eDebate] Am. 9 I agree with Massey

Mike Davis davismk13
Mon Nov 26 14:50:49 CST 2007


I agreed with Darren (shocking - I know), but after talking to ML
about this at NCA and following the discussion on edebate I think
there is a middle ground.

I agree that there is an advantage to debating LD in high school (as
some of Neil's numbers show). However, I am not sure that all L/D is
created equal (of course, neither is all policy). I propose that
individuals who have done high school L/D should get one semester of
novice and then have to move up.

This allows those people to get used to policy debate, but does not
allow them to dominate for the entire year.

I know this is not a perfect solution, but it might help to bridge the
gap between the two concerns of people quitting and programs needing
some success to survive.

Mike

On Nov 26, 2007 2:53 PM,  <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>
> 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
> round.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>



-- 
Dr. Michael Davis
Director of Debate/Assistant Professor
James Madison University



More information about the Mailman mailing list