Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About BigSkyDebate

  • Rank
    Registered User

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Name
    Don Pogreba
  • School
    Helena High School
  1. Yeah, I submitted the same paper. I wish they would have gone with the more inclusive list of options, but as I was not at the meeting, I don't know what the rationale for changing the topic from the wording the year before was.
  2. The new, proposed wording (to be first voted on by members of the Topic Meeting) and then sent out (I assume) to the states again is: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.
  3. I think you might still be misreading I am referring to the coaches (including myself) who got to choose from among the five topics, then among the two. I just don't know where this discussion about problems with this topic was then, and am troubled that the process to make changes post-vote seems so arbitary.
  4. Um. Let's see. I was at the meeting. I wrote one of the topic papers. I have a basic understanding of how the process works. I know who the Wording Committee is. They, presumably, are not the respected debate authorities named as the reason for the topic change, or would have been named as such. So before you accuse someone of paranoia and failing to investigate something, you might want to chill a little bit. Aside from that, my basic concerns still exist: Did these concerns about the topic come to light just after the vote? Why wasn't this a part of the discussion before the vote? Who has the authority to call for a rewording? What makes someone a respected debate authority? I agree with Sandy. I don't think this is a railroading. I do, however, think it is a pretty poorly thought out process. The body of debate coaches had TWO chances to look over and vote on this topic--and this is what they chose. It's not as if this wording was suddnely announced last week. It has been available since August.
  5. I'll admit my concern on the topic all along has been topical Affirmatives with both 1)contemporary research and 2) advocates for federal action. I think of dozens of little squirrely cases on this resolution, but I'm not sure how many are legitimately topical. While camps and seasoned judges in some states may establish topical ground that is fair, that isn't going to happen in states like mine where the judges might judge two rounds a year. Broadly, though, I am concerned about the process. It strikes me as profoundly anti-democratic to allow unnamed people to attempt to re-word the topic, post vote. Did something keep them from attending the meeting? Did something keep them from advocating their perceived problems with the topic before the vote? Does something keep them from being identified now? Why bother having a vote? Why not just ask 'these authorities' to write the topics for us? P.S. We're cool.
  6. I received this e-mail about the potential change. There is a meeting to discuss potential wording changes, but not the actual topic area. From: Robert Kanaby and Kent Summers The results of the balloting for the 2006-2007 CX Debate Topic were released earlier this week with National Service prevailing over Africa. Following the release of the topic, some respected authorities in the debate community have identified some concerns with the wording of the resolution to be debated. The inclusion of the terms “mandatory” and “citizens” in the resolution creates a very narrow topic that will make it difficult for affirmative teams to be competitive and will likely skew the results of debate rounds in favor of the negative. For this reason, the NFHS is initiating a conference call meeting of the Wording Committee to develop a revised wording for the resolution. Following that conference call meeting, if the committee determines that a revision of the resolution is necessary, the revised resolution will be sent to all attendees of the 2005 Topic Selection Meeting in Minneapolis for their vote. If they give their approval, the next step will then be to send the revised wording to all state balloters and ask that they vote on the revision. This procedure will permit all parties that participate in the selection process the opportunity to express opinions with regard to the revision. Please note that we are not considering a re-vote of the final two topics. The nation has spoken and the 2006-2007 CX Debate Topic is National Service. Only a revised wording is under consideration for the national service resolution to make it a more debatable topic. It is our hope that you understand the importance of this situation. Using the resolution as currently worded will likely cause considerable problems for policy debate and we would certainly not be considering action of this magnitude if we did not believe that it was necessary. Thank you for your understanding and patience as we work through this situation. Cynically, I wonder who has the authority as "some respected authorities in the debate community" to force the change, but I am all for it. The affirmative ground (especially when you consider the dearth of advocates for federal action) was so limited as to make the debate for the Aff. very difficult. I do, wonder, however, why the proposed resolution isn't going to have to be voted on again by the state associations. I suspect it would win again, especially with better wording, but the process seems flawed to me. It's pretty undemocratic for unnamed sources to be able to force a change--and then not allow a vote by members on the new topic compared to the others.
  7. BigSkyDebate


    I believe these Montana schools are coming Helena High (8 teams) Capital High (6-7 teams) CMR Skyview Senior West Any sense of what we should be prepared for, in terms of arguments and judging? Don Pogreba HHS
  • Create New...