General Topic Process Comments or Questions
This thread is for comments that don't relate to one of the specific topics, but that might instead relate to the general standards for topic development.
CEDA Topic Blog
CEDA Topic: General Topic Process Comments or Questions
random rants--all directed toward strongly advocating a change to the topic selection process. it is obviously broken--noone is paying attention and they won't until after the ndt; by then, it is too late.
i've cursorily read the topic areas (and doing so is rather difficult--the first one is like 46 pages long).
i don't know what resolutions the committee will pick. hence, i do not really have an informed opinion upon which to discern which areas i want and don't want.
the paucity of comments on this site indicate to me that we are once again headed for a list of topic areas that is going to disappoint.
what happened to the latin america topic area? that was one i and several members of my team were really interested in.
this blog is too difficult to use. people have to come to it. then they have to type in security codes et al to make a post. are we notified that someone has responded to a thread we have commented on? this is not generative of a discussion.
i strongly advocate the following:
1. begin _resolution_ request papers immediately following the ndt (or ceda if it is the 'last' tournament)
2. require the resolution request papers to include the suggested resolution wording and follow it with actual solvency quotations and then counterplan/disad quotations. i guess in this k era, some k quotations although, those are pretty much gonna be there with whatever resolution is chosen.
3. these resolution request papers--several resolutions can be offered under the same topic area.
4. the topic selection committee narrows the list down to 12 resolutions at maximum. there will be a strong presumption against lowering it below 12.
5. the community votes on the resolutions and we narrow down to 5 resolutions to pick from.
6. the topic committee meets in early june as it does now and more carefully words the resolutions but is STRONGLY urged to stick to the fundamental focus of the originally voted on resolution wording.
7. then, the five resolutions are submitted to the community for voting as is now.
I agree with Hanson, but Idon't see how one can do what he is requesting in less than 30 pages.
A couple of comments on the proposals for reform.
1) When Jim last mentioned his frustration with the deadlines I asked only that (and I am now quoting from the earlier email)
"I would just ask that legislative reforms of this nature consider the whole process, including the sequencing of summer meetings, announce date, etc. The committee must work within the procedures established by the CEDA membership so a clear system is essential".
The hard part is not picking a date to accept papers. The challenge is including both votes (area and then resolution) and including times for the topic meetings and the release date. This schedule is, in part, produced by working back from the final release date, not just the date we would prefer the process to start.
The community, by amending the CEDA constitution, has the authority to adjust these procedures. If there is interest in such a movement I would only ask that you consider the entire calendar so that the committee can complete its task. I am more than willing to discuss these items with anyone interested in reform.
2) I can understand that Jim didn't have an opportunity to thoroughly review the papers before he posted, but again as I mentioned in the last post,
"We have moved this year to provide additional guidance in the first balloting. The introduction of the concept of controversy papers and the effort to phase out 'area' papers is a reflection that schools should have some greater sense of what these potential topics included."
If anyone reading the papers is unclear as to the direction of these potential topics, please let me know. Based on my reading, the community should have some pretty good ideas about where the topics are headed. It is true that there is latitude in each area for follow-up work, but I would be hard-pressed to believe that these papers are vague on the question of the type of topic.
This stage of the process is not the same as the past and it is careless to describe it as such.
3) Setting the dates is a matter for the community. Setting the procedures for accepting papers is the province of the committee. We have worked hard to increase transparency, through items like controversy guidelines and the blog. I realize it isn't as easy as edebate, but the organization and structure of the site is another means of being transparent.
If you have any suggestions on how to encourage authors to develop their papers, please let me know. As always, this is the province of getting volunteers to do work. I am, at this point, a little leery of requiring that papers be a certain length. The controversy guidelines suggest that papers need not be very long, but I don't see how arbitrary page cut-offs improve the process.
Thanks.
Gordon
gordon
i honestly can say i don't see the direction of these papers--i see multiple directions in which the topic committee can proceed on pretty much each one.
would you be willing to list out what the main angle of the resolutions would be for each of these topic areas? it would be really helpful.
as for the length of the topic papers (in response to scott and to you)--yea, i agree i'm being a bit overzealous there. i guess, for me, i just want to see the resolution, see some solvency cards, then see some cards for the neg with some quick explanations of neg strats. a little bit of analysis is fine but i really just want to see _actual_ cards.
My immediate response is that each of the four papers suggesting it be include makes a clear statement of intent about the type of topic that would be developed.
A purely immediate reply is (and not a formal sense of wordings:
Genetics- USFG increase regulation of biotech/nanotech/genetic engineering.
Mideast - There is a specific resolution in the paper advocating constructive engagement.
Weapons Posture - USFG should reduce its nuclear weapons arsenal through X
Democracy Promotion - USFG should increase/enhance democracy promotion programs/efforts in {countries that have good relations with the US).
No these aren't wordings, but this stage of the process is about problem areas and controversies.
What each member of the community should know that is that each of these papers has a sense of direction that should give you a better sense of how to vote.
thanks gordon. that's very helpful to me.
What happened to the Latin America topic? Is there any way to revive that area? All of us at Rochester were excited to have that area. What can be done?!?
Ken (and all),
The volunteers working on the Latin America topic were unable to finish it at this point. There has been a lot of interest in the subject, both in the committee and in the community about this area and we very much hope it eventually becomes an option.
I have spoken to Mike Davis who is committed to keep working on the area with the goal of making a paper available this summer. Our process for the last few summers has been the sanctioning of several papers each summer and it would be an obvious choice to include in that list. This wouldn't be in time for the 07-08 cycle, but it would immediately be in consideration for the following year.
Mike, and all of the volunteers, do a great amount to make the process work and we appreciate their efforts. If anyone would like to help any of these groups, please let me (of them know) and we can try to reduce the burden on any single indvidual.
Thanks.
Gordon
I think Eli is absolutely right that the genetic engineering topic will
largely avoid the scientific literature, but that's why I'm for it --because ever so slightly it will expose students to at least SOME literature
beyond foreign policy (and of course there are real world foreign policy
implications to genetic engineering, but I digress). It's reached the level
of absurdity that the debate community is fixated on constructing tangential
foreign policy scenarios with huge impacts regardless of the debate topic.
I think the only hope of changing this culture of complacency -- running the
same argument and researching out of the same sources over and over (while
Eli focuses on "policy" debate, this is true of "K" debating too) -- is to
keep providing the community with topics that alter the starting point of
the debate and force at least some engagement with new literature and forces the community to deal with the unpleasant reality that it often runs stupid arguments.
Eli puts it best that these are often "silly debates," but rather than
concede that debaters make dumb arguments when challenged with a non-foreign topic, the answer is not to only have foreign topics. This is functionally grade inflation. If debaters have trouble tackling literature about non-foreign policy problems, then we should endeavor to have MORE non-foreign topics, not less. That said, I think all 4 topic areas will provide great debates, but I am thinking in the long-term and think that every year of great foreign policy debates just entrenches this culture a
little bit more. There are other dire policy questions facing the USFG (and
other policy making agents) and giving in to the complacency of the community guarantees that the debate community will never have a coherent argument about them (when and if they ever become the resolution).
Joe