[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA

Justin Green jmgreen
Fri May 8 11:06:51 CDT 2009

Two reasons to vote no:

CEDA was established to promote Cross Examination Debate.  I for one
appreciate that.  The inclusion of LD, Parli, worlds - (if they are
"Cross Ex Debate" because they involve questions and answers this is a
very liberal interp of Cross Ex Debate) - takes away from the time and
energy necessary to host a truly wonderful experience of what we
traditionally know as Cross Ex Debate.

If we are successful, then we are taking away from other organizations
nationals.  So we decide to host LD, then all of a sudden the NFALD
community is split between two nationals, I am not sure why this is
good for them or us.  Perhaps the following year they would host a
Policy Nationals in Miami, Florida.  If you think ADA, NDT, CEDA is
bad now, wait till we add a fourth or fifth.

Counterplan: Work with another organization.  If the problem is a
split between Policy and Parli or Policy and LD and squads which have
both need to make a forced financial decision, then CEDA should simply
work along with NFA-LD (i.e) to identify a host who can accomodate
both.  No event would need to be added, this would address all of the
problems identified by Chief, but avoid the ones listed above.  This
requires no constitutional amendment.  And the CEDA EC has its hands
full running cx debate, why would they want more on their plate.


If the goal is to crown a CEDA Novice National Champion, then why was
that amendment not proposed?

If there is another specific event that should be added because it is
educationally worthwhile, what is that event? why is it not proposed
as an amendment?  The adding of the event can only be a
financial/administrative reasons - if it were along educational
merits, it would be proposed right now.

Distinction between event and division....Yes, there might be a
version of Public Debate that could be considered cross-examination
debate.  However, in your previous post you mentioned including LD,
Worlds, Parli, etc.  Had this amendment said, CEDA can offer a new
division of cross ex debate, arguments against would be much more
difficult to make.  Novice break-out was added because Chief did have
that Constitutional Authority.


Yes there are schools with multiple forms of debate.  CP above
addresses this.  Here's the issue.  Why would it be good for us to
decide to host Parli in November at our CEDA Nationals tournament?
Aside from being highly unlikely due to logistical contstraints (lack
of classrooms and hotel space being the biggest one), this seems to
create huge administrative burdens at a tournament that is highly
likely to produce failure.  Tuna pointed out that Parli(in addition to
multiple I.E. nationals) won't likely come.  We just open the door for
a poor decision.

Why referendum and not representation?  I covered this in a post to
Gordon.  Below are the responses:

1. They are not truly representative - Yes they are voted on, but not
every region has the same number of schools.  It is closer to the
Senate than the House of Reps.

2. Fundamental Decisions about the future of the organization should
be decided on by the people, not the EC. As a former rep - It's hard
to balance being an EC member.  At any given time there could be as
many as five or six issues before the EC.   My hats are off to those
that are.  Some of the members spend a great deal of time
deliberating, others do not.  Sure some adminstrative decisions should
be made through the EC, but not ones that fundamentally change the
mission of the tournament.

3. Democracy is often representative, but when it can truly be a
referendum without significant harm, why not pursue it.

The Ad Hom debate:

Dude, if tyranny made you wet your pants, maybe you should see a doctor.

It would be an interesting experiment to see if a panel of Ellis,
Green and Snider were of a higher MPJ than Chief.  Especially if the
MPJ revolved around resolving a CEDA Constitutional and Adminsitrative
Debates and the growth/development of CEDA was compared between the
Snider administration and the Elliot administration.  Not sure which
way it would go.

Not sure why our budget is relevant to this discussion, but since
Chief asked.  His facts are wrong about the KSU Budget.  I wrote a
couple of paragraphs mud-slinging back at KCK calling them privileged
too and defending KSU and then decided to delete them and chalk his
comments up to lack of accurate information.  Both KSU and KCK
debaters read this and this discussion is good for neither of our
squads.  I am not interested in the oppression olympics.  Anyone who
feels KSU's budget is relevant to their vote, should back-channel me.


More information about the Mailman mailing list