[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Re-opening the debate on New Events at CEDA
Sat May 9 01:09:47 CDT 2009
Agreed, the question is why do it without a vote...I havent heard ONE
argument for this yet.....not why the amendment is good, why executive
discretion is superior to community deliberation,
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>> 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.
>> CEDA-L mailing list
>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman