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

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Fri May 8 22:49:59 CDT 2009

A bunch of reasons why it would be good to have other events at ceda is
cool...it is off topic however...cue joke here...the topic is not can you
make a compelling argument to the membership to add new events, an
interesting and perhaps fruitful debate....in fact this amendment would shut
down the need to disucss it with the membership...the topic is should the ec
be able to add events without the approval of the membership...the answer to
the first question might be yes. the answer to the second question, the
question of the amendment is absolutly not.

The amendment gives the executive the power to just short circuit the debate
and do it...the problem with this is there is no means for many members of
the ec, to be relected, so really no electorate for them to be responsible
to,.. no one is trying to add other events though...then why the executive
power and not the legilsative debate...

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Justin Green <jmgreen at ksu.edu> wrote:

> 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.
> Pre-empts:
> 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.
> Responses:
> 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.
> Justin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090508/30c0b6da/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list