Dear community,
 
I appreciate Gary's efforts to no end.  I support the goal of maximizing 
competitive equity as much as possible without sacrificing other educational 
objectives of CEDA/NDT debate.  But I can't help but wonder is the goal of 
perfect mutuality in every debate a construction of fantasy that only further 
serves to divorce debate from the value of persuasion, rhetoric and the role of 
audience analysis?  As we move towards a more mulitcultural and diverse 
society, is it in the best interest of debate to preserve letting debaters 
participate in the most monocultural environments we can simulate?  How can 
this ever be a productive laboratory to protect experimentation with different 
ideas as preparation for the real world?
 
My identity and the choices I have made rarely allow me a world of speaking to 
audiences who are like me or who agree with what I usually want to say.  Is 
that my preference?  Probably not.  Is there a real world value to being forced 
to figure out how to tailor my message to audiences that likely come from 
different experiences with different viewpoints?  Most definitely.
 
Goals of perfect mutuality are an attempt to protect students from having that 
opportunity and that is not only sad, but a wall from what they will experience 
when they leave the game of debate.  It privileges competitive equity above all 
else, but of course, that comes at a cost.  
 
In fact, would not a better educational goal be to ensure that every debate 
team simulate as many different audience possibilities over the course of a 
tournament?  Is that better preparation for a world of growing difference?  Is 
this not part of the conversation we should be having over the mission and 
goals of CEDA versus the NDT?  Is it in the best interests of our activity to 
cede the power of the direction of our activity to individual tournaments?  
Still continuing the productive conversation of missions and a future for CEDA 
and to a lesser degree the NDT.  Lesser because tournament created practices 
are the only mechanism the NDT uses for change.  CEDA has many more options in 
their tool belt, however if it chooses to use them.
 
With love,
 
Ede
 
 
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
502-852-3522
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
http://comm.louisville.edu/~debate
_______________________________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l

Reply via email to