[eDebate] Re-Post 2nd VP Answers 6 and 7 from Vik Keenan

Darren Elliott delliott
Tue Jan 6 15:54:01 CST 2009


In the formatting, it looks like Vik's answers to 6 and 7 copied over
with one running into the other.  Apologies to Vik.  Here are her
answers to 6 and 7 correctly formatted.

thanks,
chief

Darren Elliott
Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
CEDA President

Question #6--
Under what conditions, if any, would you accept, advocate or defend the
content regulation of a CEDA-sanctioned intercollegiate debate?


I don?t think CEDA should regulate argument content beyond established
evidentiary ethics considerations. Fundamentally, that is not how the
activity is perceived in ?CEDA? historically. Debaters can debate about
the content issues ? and I?ll double check the profanity K links are in
the backfile project. I think there are different educational models
that debate can follow, and the history of CEDA is one of open
discourse. I think content limitations would be more appropriate in the
educational and organizational model that the ADA is founded upon (for
the record, it?s rule #6 in their standing rules that says T is a voter,
although the criteria for voting on a kritik advocated by the aff are
not listed. Uniqueness and alternatives seem to only be a burden of the
neg). I think harassment issues are separate from content issues.

Question #7--
What should CEDA in conjunction with the NDT do in the next five years
to bring our organizations into the fold of convergence and increase the
electronic eloquence of our organizations? Secondarily, what should CEDA
in conjunction with the NDT do to foster our students' development of
producerly skills necessary to successfully communicate ideas, develop
meaningful social and political coalitions, and participate in
democratic discourse in the "real world" with all the underlying
"implications?"

(Hi Jimbo.)


The best place to work with the NDT on the issues of convergence and
electronic eloquence are at the topic meeting, which is our only
"official" cooperative action and which has seen the most progress in
these fields over the last 3 years. Using the Topic Meeting, the CEDA
Summer Meeting (and potentially NCA), and the upcoming conference hosted
by Wake may be the best option to serve as a "testing ground" in these
fields. More students, perhaps using the Presidential Intern model
established in 2005, could be involved in the technological production
aspects of these existing approaches, rather than simply seen as a
"host" duty.


I think the biggest obstacle for CEDA programs in this area is that what
we are seeing is a reflection of the larger comm community focus - it's
departmental and curricular priorities. I think encouraging programs to
engage in public debates about issues of importance to their
communities, and to explore inter-school electronic debates, as some
programs do, may be the best approach within those limitations. One
other suggestion would be to target emerging programs or those with
reduced budgets to explore electronic production to expand debate
opportunities from their school to other campuses. Finally, I think it
is important to emphasize the eloquence and production value component
of any such initiatives - the point is to develop better skills than
most amateur youTube postings, right? Doing production for production's
sake is irrelevant unless actual skills are developed.


Multiple individuals have advocated positive PR measures for our
activity, including promoting debates, advertising our "success
stories", and using our awards ceremonies as source material for
positive press. These initiatives would also be excellent opportunities
to provide production experiences for our community in conjunction with
broader goals.



More information about the Mailman mailing list