[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Novice Amendment Issues Post #1 Answers

Darren Elliott delliott
Mon Nov 26 22:15:28 CST 2007

You?  Vote on the K?  No way.

As for you being the "orginal" Elliott, I wont touch that!  : )

The original Chief

>>> <scottelliott at grandecom.net> 11/26/07 7:10 PM >>>
Doesn't labeling me as the "other elliott" kick off a Zizek or Edward
kritik? Shouldn't we all now vote agains tthe amendment because you used
term "other" in your discourse?

The orginal Elliott

Quoting Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu>:

> I want to answer these concerns in 2 posts.  The first will deal with
> issues raised by Ermo, D Cram, Mike Davis, and that other Elliott
> : )  The second will answer Jackie???s post specifically because
simply his
> seems much more caustic and I wonder why?
> First to Ermo:
> I agree largely with most of what he says.  There are definite
differences to
> what directors consider ???novice?? .  He is right, this discussion
should be
> about what a novice SHOULD be.  I fundamentally believe that when
> have to face people with experience (whether that experience is good
or bad)
> they will be at a huge disadvantage.  Ermo says public pressure has
not been
> tried.  I agree.  But the one-on-one pressure he suggests has been
tried and
> it hasn???t worked???at least not in my experience.  I mentioned many
> ago, the public route only creates political backlash that we know
> happen.  I think we should try and avoid that.  The ???opt out of
> CP doesn???t seem to answer the concern that if one debater is much
> skilled it creates a disadvantage to the true novice team.  Jarman has
> suggested not counting Novice for sweeps at all.  Maybe that???s the
> and we will then see how ???committed??  people are to teaching
> The Division Collapse disad has been raised by Ermo and D Cram so
it???s a
> good segway into D Cram???s arguments against.
> D Cram:
> 1.  Argues that no LD debaters in Novice means virtually no novice
> turning the participation good args.  Maybe Neil will provide the
numbers but
> IF the numbers bear out that the majority of novices have LD
experience I
> would be surprised.  But the number is significant enough I think to
> the problems I have outlined.  I also still believe that novice
> decrease as the year goes on, not because of massive self-inflicted
> but because of novices quitting.  I cant help but think there is
> to the LD experience meaning division collapse disad is inevitable.
> 2.  The recruiting shortfall disad (also mentioned by the other
Elliott) to
> me is a non-starter.  If this is the key issue to determine a vote all
I will
> ask people to do is consider pedagogically/philosophically what novice
is.  I
> have not recruited LD???ers under the premise that they can learn
policy in
> novice because philosophically I don???t think that???s what the
division is
> for.  If the vote proves me wrong so be it.  But I hope everyone
> seriously considers this belief???that people recruit LD???ers with
> express pupose of putting them in novice.  I think the disad is doing
> There are other ways to get kids to debate and its not like the JV
> are full of such ringers that thjose with LD experience will be that
> behind.
> 3.  The micromanagement disad is only a reason to eliminate all of our
> about novice time lines, jv move up procedures etc.  We manage now. 
It is
> the only way to ensure a level of ethics.  (Let me also say that if
you, in
> your heart of hearts, believe its ok to put Ld???ers in Novice, I am
> arguing that you aren???t ethical).  My ethics argument has always
been about
> those that abuse the system, and in that world, the world we are in
now, the
> ???play nice and be fair??  standard is out the window.  But beyond
> ethics, it says that there is a standard for fairness and pedagogical
> that as a community we should endorse.  Here???s the alternative: Any
> that recruits novices finds out in a region where LD experience is
allowed to
> run through novice divisions it becomes hard to keep true novices. 
Either A)
> they quit recruiting novices or quit policy altogether making the
> collapse inevitable or B) they take their novices and go to
tournaments that
> have a higher pedagogical standard, thereby leaving their regions
which also
> makes division collapse inevitable and starts a new round of Regional
> in-fighting that you describe.
> Davis:
> Mike argues (as many others have) that not all LD is the same.  At
least he
> admits neither is all policy.  While the quality of debate is
subjective and
> the arguments may not always overlap, there is still no evidence to
> the contrary to the claim that 50 rounds of experience flowing,
> period, knowing speech order, and figuring out the system puts you far
> of the true novice.  And if this is true, I assume all who oppose the
> amendment on this ground will write one to eliminate all move up rules
in JV
> and the 24 round policy requirement for Novice.  These are the same
> As for the ???1 semester of Novice and move up??  CP, I am not sure it
> addresses the loss of novices experienced early in the year when all
> are not equal at the first couple tournaments.  Interesting proposal
but it
> doesn???t address the fundamental belief that novices quit earlier
because of
> the uneven playing field.  How about instead if you have LD experience
> debate in JV for a semester and if you don???t break after 4
> than you can go to novice.  Protects the true novice on the front end
> prevents the quitting Jackie is worried about.
> Finally the other Elliott:
> I???ve already addressed ???not all debate is the same??  and the
> philosophical difference I have with recruiting novices for the
> purpose of putting them in Novice.  Not much more I can say to those
> I do agree that College LD should count against policy eligibility. 
> I don???t think you can advocate that only HS TOC should count and not
all HS
> LD.  This seems disingenuous to your original claim that its hard to
> those distinctions.  Because many could argue, not all TOC LD is the
> And since we have neither the ability nor desire to police all local
> tournaments to grade the quality of the debate, I don???t think you
get to
> punish one type of HS LD debater because they are more ???elite?? .
> I am fine with the 3 final rounds and you move up provision assuming
it is in
> divisions where at least 20 teams compete.  I might even prefer
> offer of 2.  But this should be in addition not instead of my
> Still doesn???t solve for the novices that quit early on.
> For me this vote is about what you think novice should be for
> and philosophically.  It should also be about what does the least harm
to the
> fewest people???and in my mind that aint the SQ.  You all have offered
> good disads (all of which I think are inevitable or non-unique) and
> CP???s that don???t solve the issue of losing novices early on.  I
think most
> of them should be in addition to the amendment, not in place of it.
> One thing I am happy about however is the discussion that is
occurring.  I
> think its important and I think you all care deeply about debate and
your own
> programs and that is something we all benefit from.
> Thanks,
> Chief
> Darren Elliott
> Director of Debate and Forensics???KCKCC
> CEDA 1st VP

More information about the Mailman mailing list