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

Josh jbhdb8
Fri May 8 13:32:10 CDT 2009


I think there is a feeling that by having a bunch of fringe competition
suddenly tied to a National tournament you risk cheapening the value of
winning a National tournament for the participants.  Instead of one CEDA
champion there are now a CEDA National parli champion, novice champion, and
varsity champion.  This certainly confuses the already difficult
"advertising and promoting" your championship.

As for Democracy:  Perhaps the problem is that Justin is making some
arguments against the proposal but contained in arguments for Democracy.  In
other words, you need to present a disadvatage to presenting the proposal to
the voters instead of "just the EC."

I think Tuna's point, as it has been for over ten years, is that Parli
doesn't want to come back to CEDA and has no incentive to do so.  By calling
CEDA a "Parli" national championship you might actually be
insulting/cheapening their own national championships - not likely to make
them come rushing back to the fold.  I could be wrong on this one and do not
want to "speak for Tuna" at all but it seems somewhat logical. How would you
feel if you had just won Parli nationals, against 200 teams, and some joker
is in the press saying they were the CEDA national parli champion when they
competed against like 20 teams.

Finally, none of this is intended to demean any attempt to widen the fold of
CEDA/NDT debate.  I am certain all involved in this discussion have nothing
but the best intentions vis-a-vis the activity.

Hope everyone is well,


On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Darren Elliott <delliott at kckcc.edu> wrote:

> Warning: Post may contain (attempts at) humor.
> Ok so when Justin objected to the ?New Events? amendment I sat and
> thought about it a while.  Justin is a great coach, has really
> successful teams, and was a good debater himself back in the day.  So I
> was conflicted.  Then Tuna and Andy agreed with him and I was convinced
> I was in fact correct.  This 3-0 decision also reminded me of why I am
> often in favor or MPJ.  But I digress...
> Justin argues no new events without a popular vote.  We apparently wont
> agree on that one but I am curious where the line is drawn?  Democracy
> as Justin describes it rarely exists, in life or in CEDA or the NDT.
> Direct votes rarely ever occur on major decisions?its why we have reps.
> We have elected reps who are elected through democratic means.  The
> amendment does not give the President authority to do this on his own.
> I demonstrated it would require approval of almost 20% of our membership
> (the EC includes almost 20 people).  Where is the outcry when other
> decisions are not made by popular vote?  Me thinks it might be
> politically more salient to cry foul when its small potatoes and hope
> things swing the right way when big decisions are made.  But maybe its
> just a feeling I get.  Like when someone drops ?must define all words?
> or runs a bad K for 9 minutes in the 1NC.  Bottom line, we have reps we
> elect.  Hold them accountable on this as you would anything else
> hopefully.
> Will this lead to tyranny?  I almost wet myself laughing.  Seriously.
> Then the phone rang and it was 1983 asking we please give back their
> Federalism Disad Impact.  As for a tyranny of ideas and the ?mission? of
> CEDA I think Justin is a bit off here too.  A large part of CEDA's
> mission is increasing novice debate and participation?Justin opposed the
> novice breakout rounds at CEDA.  Why didnt that fly in the face of our
> mission?  As for promoting Cross Examination Debate, there are other
> forms of debate like public debate events that promote cross examination
> debate.
> Justin points out the platform questions did not ask which events the
> candidates might add.  I would respond by saying there is no conspiracy
> here.  Repeat, no conspiracy here.  Gordon, Sue, Mike.  None of them to
> my knowledge have secret plans to add events.  None of them do any of
> the events I mentioned except some public debate events.  But I would
> trust that no one (especially 17 people?the EC) would approve of
> something in such a flawed manner as to not run a great CEDA.  Again
> there was no asnwer to the number of past Presidents who changed things
> significantly and how those changes had no negative effect on the
> outcome of the tournament nor diminished the championships we crowned.
> Hating to add to the semantics charge, but novice breakout rounds were
> not a new ?division?.  I think that is where a lot of this is stemming
> from.  But again maybe just a bad feeling.
> As to the belief that this amendment would destroy democracy is either
> uninformed (see above?multiple decisions a year without popular vote) or
> conspiratorial.  And as far as conspiracies go this is one of the
> weakest Ive ever seen advanced here.  Tuna, you know about conspiracies
> right?  Am I right or am I right?  : )
> Finally I will try and address privilige.  Not everyone has K-State's
> resources.  Budgets around 6 digits, multiple coaches, grad students,
> the ability to travel virtually anywhere, and an endless group of
> debaters.  When you have that luxury and focus on one thing, I
> understand your desire to protect that one thing.  But what about
> programs without that ability?  What about programs who have gone on to
> other forms of Forensics?  Many of them made choices and arent coming
> back.  But what if?  What if CEDA ran alongside another form of debate
> and a few colleges came and were able to do both?  Or some came and
> liked what we were doing and crossed over?  Or some who do primarily
> Parli, who have kids that want to try Policy, came and had kids do both?
>  What is bad about that?  Seriousforensic organizations and I know some
> folks who would like to exist on
> the fringes, or participate now and then, but budgets force choices.  A
> former CEDA President speaking here made the choice this year to do a
> different form of debate and not send teams to CEDA.  Thats too bad.
> Maybe CEDA has lost its purpose for him.  Maybe it has for others.
> Maybe it will for more in the future.  Then that one thing conspiracy
> theorists try so hard to protect wont be big enough to justify to your
> administrators.  Then your budgets begin to shift.  I have a list of 200
> schools who have made that shift?dont think it cant happen.
> My point is that if we were more experimental, if we opened up debate to
> more people, then maybe CEDA would begin to grow again.  What other
> options are there?   So yes we participate in Cross Examination Debate
> and I hope we continue to do so in healthy numbers?but shutting off the
> opportunities to bring others in is in my opinion foolish.
> This amendment does not empower the President to be tyrannical.  It
> requires the EC approval?your EC.  The elected reps you know.  It also
> would not destroy democracy.  We have virtually no popular vote
> democracy now.  And it would expedite the process to expose CEDA to
> potential new programs.  An integral part of our mission.
> chief
> Darren Elliott
> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
> CEDA Immediate Past President
> >>> Justin Green 05/05/09 9:25 PM >>>
>  The short version:  We shouldn't add new events without a popular
> vote.  Yes, democracy is slow and time consuming.  Dictatorships =
> quick decisions.....Democracy = you have to wait for everyone to vote.
>  If you want the President to add Parli, Worlds, LD, Public Forum,
> Extemp, etc to the Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals
> without a vote, then vote yes.  For those of you who want CEDA Nats to
> be a celebration of Cross Ex Debate and not a new event without a
> popular vote - vote no.
> As a caveat, had the amendment said "The President can add new events
> or divisions by putting them up to a public vote with a three week
> window for the public to vote".  This would solve all of the problems
> Chief mentioned, yet still maintain democracy.  If there is a way for
> a friendly amendment, please instruct.
> Chief's arguments seem eerily similar to "must define all words" -
> largely a semantics game.
> "1. The amendment process is often too long of a cycle, unwieldy, and
> unfriendly of a process once the year starts. If we were to require
> amendments to change anything about the National Tournament, it would
> likely take at least a year likely from its inception date for
> anything after November 1st. I think that is when bureaucracy can
> hamstring an organization. "
> You call it hamstring an organization.  I might call it preventing
> tyranny.  Is it tyranny that will kill me physically - no, but it is
> certainly a tyranny of ideas that flies in the face of the mission of
> our organization "promote Cross Examination Debate".
> "2. The President and EC are voted on by a community vote. This is one
> of those times Directors will need to decide if they trust their
> elected leadership to do what is within the best interest of the
> community they represent."
> Which part of the Presidential platform discussion asked "do you want
> to add new events to make CEDA Nationals "?  I trust them to run a CX
> tournament, but I have no idea if Gordon is qualified to run a Public
> Forum or World's Tournament or which events he will seek to add.
> "3. New events: Again Gordon should chime in, but one thing he talked
> about was the ability for our organization to reach out to other
> organizations, groups, constituencies. If CEDA wanted to offer a
> Public Debate event, umbrella sponosr another organization's National
> Tournament (Parli, NFA Lincoln-Douglas, etc) this amendment would
> allow the President to make that offer with the suppport of the EC. A
> decision to do this in December would be too late to get an amendment
> passed to do it. And amendments usually imply continuity, ato year-to-year
> trial experiments. Sometimes revenue streams may make
>  it beneficial to the organization to do just this, and reach out to
> others inside the big tent. "
> Gordon, please chime in here.  Will NFA Lincoln-Douglas be asking us
> to join them so that they can put money towards our nationals?  To put
> it in terms Chief used while judging me once "I don't get it".
> "4. The People's Tournament: Indeed! I articulated above why sometimes
> process takes too long for all the "people" to chime in."
> Ummmm....If democracy is slow then it is not worth following?  Chief
> you added a division - Novice.   New novice division, not the same as
> "lets debate LD".
> While I received enlightening backchannels after my previous post
> comparing this amendment to Senator Palpatine's plan of destroying
> democracy "one amendment at a time" (provided by the debate Green
> Party President aka Jester the behester) and those who had more
> explicit concerns like "here comes Worlds Debate" (a former CEDA
> Presidential candidate), I was hoping to get the perspective of
> someone other than the current President or former President as to why
> expanding executive powers to include A NEW EVENT was a good idea -
> especially one without a popular vote.
> Last I checked we participate in Cross Examination Debate.  Hence our
> organizations name.  While personally participating and facilitating
> multiple forms of debate: public forums, debates with my wife, debates
> among local representatives, and in-class debates, just to name a few.
>  Sometimes there are declared winners sometimes no winners at all.
> But, when our teams go to the Cross Examination Debate Association
> Nationals, I for one am happy that we are debating Cross-Ex styles
> with all of its diversity and spending a weekend just dedicated to the
> efforts of our students working hard on that event.
> If we want to add World's Debate to CEDA, why can't this wait a year
> for an amendment to let all the World's voices to be heard?
> Justin Green
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> _______________________________________________
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090508/30a23a67/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list