I would like to formally announce that after careful deliberation, the CEDA topic selection committee has voted 8-1 against changing the slate of topics produced in Kansas City. The formal tally voting against the motion to change the ballot was, in alphabetical order: Elliott, Galloway, Gordon, Lee, Mancuso, Patrice, Stables, and Steinberg. The vote in favor of change was cast by O’Donnell.

This decision was not taken lightly and both the substance and procedures of the proposal were closely examined. I will not attempt to speak on behalf of the committee (I invite them to share their views), but as the chair I will share my perspective on the process with the community. After reviewing my notes, I have four general comments.

1) The committee is generally pleased with these wording options.

There is no question that differing perspectives have been offered to approach legal topics in general and this topic in particular. I noted that many members of the committee, myself included, found reassurance in basic construction of these topics, validated over time, and that the essence of the controversy is one founded in the literature. If I were to judge some of the larger problems created by topic wordings in past topics I would point to those phrases that lack use in professional literature. As the recent papers and posts have demonstrated, the key questions surrounding this topic concern contested meanings of terms like ‘overrule’ and ‘decision.’ The committee has been presented, and has provided to you, a number of definitions and uses to support these terms. The fact that there continues to be debate about a couple of primary interpretations speaks to the logical place where the competition debates can take place. Debaters now have a tremendous amount of material to draw upon to support their views of these phrases. I am not sure if it is desirable or possible to find words that reflect only a single meaning in our topics and when we accept this limit, it is best if we provide a deep body of literature for students to explore.

2) Legal topics create unique educational opportunities and unique challenges.

When trying to examine the totality of this topic process, I am struck by the wisdom of those who pushed for a legal topic. This process was different from many others in two ways. From my perspective, perhaps one of the greatest benefits so far of this topic process is our alums. We had a very capable collection of debate alumni who, despite their successful legal careers, found time to help us work through the topic process. They wrote papers, they wrote emails, they helped blog throughout the topic meetings, and recently they served as important experts in our deliberations. When the argument was made that debate needs to include legal topics on a somewhat more regular basis one of the primary rationales was extending the linkages between debaters and the law. I can say, without question, that the wisdom and selflessness of our legal alums speaks to the value of continuing this tradition. I do hope that one day this legal topic helps to similarly influence future legal alums. I would forget some of the alums if listed by name, so let me extend a group thank-you to everyone who helped in this process.

Even with the assistance from our legal alums, the gap between traditional debate practice and the legal system has withered over the last few years. More than a few people on both sides of the recent discussion noted that perhaps having more regular legal topics would allow us to work through some of what appear to be the awkward compromises of trying to mimic the legal process. I am convinced that we take as many liberties with the legislative and executive branches, but our routine use of these arms of governance allows us as a community to settle controversies about their use. Hopefully, the experiences on this legal topic will help inform the next such topic.

3) The nature of post-business meeting reviews requires additional examination.

There is a wide range of opinion, both within the community and the committee, on the appropriate course of action for reviewing the topic slate after the summer business meetings. The CEDA constitution provides a formal beginning and end to only some of ways in which deliberate. This created concerns on both sides as issues of topic accuracy were considered alongside the problems of effective deliberation. The recent historical model for topic deliberations has largely ended with the topic meetings and it is important for the community and the committee to work with that expectation or, if found to be lacking, to alter that process. The most important part of the entire process is creating a normative expectation of when the topic work should be conducted and when the decisions need to be made. We were able to identify a small area of appellate-like review this year, but we should carefully consider how this process should be managed in future years. Community and committee input will be needed on this question.

4) The topic process is improving.

You may feel that it takes an extreme optimist to make such a claim, but the very nature of this public deliberation and vote is reflective of an evolving process. The webcast, the volume of hits on the blog, the public production and deliberation of papers related to this appeal, are all reflective of a community that is finding new ways to communicate and starting to work through the challenges posed by these new communicative mediums. If you accumulate the amount of research done by the committee and community, and now all posted at www.cedatopic.com , and add the posts and comments  you see that this may have been among the most prolific topic selection processes in debate history.  This is a huge resource that we can and will build upon. The formal ballot will be provided to each school soon and we will then move into this topic. Even as that takes place, take the time to periodically check on the cedatopic website. We will have a community survey in the not-to distant future as well as regular updates on both the process and topics used in coming years. Anyone who goes to a tournament can appreciate that this community may not agree on a great many things, but I am inspired by all those who took part in this process that we can at least work together in a way that reflects a shared sense of the educational vision of debate.