archive-org.com » ORG » C » CEDADEBATE.ORG

Total: 459

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • CEDA Awards - The National Public Debate Award | Cross Examination Debate Association
    portfolio including a narrative description of their public debate activities Programs are also asked to submit supporting materials of their choosing which might include participant lists publicity and promotional materials attendance figures transcripts or recordings commendations and letters of appreciation and any other materials that they feel are appropriate 3 The awards committee may elect to provide up to three awards each year and may also recognize as many Honorable

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/node/718 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • CEDA Awards - Public Advocate of the Year | Cross Examination Debate Association
    public discourse on matters of social import The award recipient need not have a direct relationship to intercollegiate debate but must be someone who has made a significant difference in local regional national or international affairs Name of submitter Submitter s email Name of nominee Nomination Letter Files must be less than 800 KB Allowed file types gif jpg png txt rtf html odf pdf doc ppt xls xml docx

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/node/716 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • User account | Cross Examination Debate Association
    Association Main menu Login Home Forum Journal Newsletters You are here Home User account Primary tabs Log in active tab Request new password Username or e mail address You may login with either your assigned username or your e mail

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/user (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • User account | Cross Examination Debate Association
    content Cross Examination Debate Association Main menu Login Home Forum Journal Newsletters You are here Home User account User account Primary tabs Log in Request new password active tab Username

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/user/password (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • CEDA News, November 2015 | Cross Examination Debate Association
    to be more upfront The initial rule was proposed in order to force up competitive JV debaters so that the pool quality allowed other debaters to succeed in JV I think this rationale is a poor choice and only makes a decline in debate more likely JV debate is dying The tournaments that have the largest numbers of JV debaters are largely composed of debaters who began as a novice the year prior This rule punishes novice debaters and only has a risk of putting up a novice debater after minimal experience in junior varsity into open before they are ready Having an incremental move from novice to junior varsity can provide the building blocks necessary to make varsity success possible I can name countless names of debaters from the past eight years who were provided the opportunity to debate in novice and junior varsity for a year and then went on to do very well in varsity There are also many examples of debaters who had this opportunity who then qualified for the NDT Forcing a debater up before they are ready in order to provide fodder to the bottom of the varsity pool is the definition of elitism Let these debaters learn with others who have the same amount of experience as they do Yes some will be better than others but not to the extent of skills gap that a second year debater who started as a novice will have to a debater in their fourth or fifth year of debate who also debated four years in high school Forcing a second year debater who started as a novice up because they have done well in JV makes no sense Of course they have done well in JV that is where they belong That also begs the question of what well means because clearing at a regional tournament in junior varsity and winning the first elim does not seem to mean being ready for varsity especially since the current rule counts walking over a team from your school as winning an elimination round The proposed rule rectifies this problem by extending the elimination requirement to finals as it used to be but only requiring that the tournament be a full quarterfinals division instead of 20 teams like the former rule was This only extends the rule by one elimination round as it only requires a team to win a semifinals round Most directors or coaches would probably agree that the first couple years of college debate are the make or break years in terms of a debater s retention in the activity Forcing a debater up in their second year of debate to then never win again in the hopes that trial by fire will teach them is poor pedagogy We do not take children in school who do well in fifth grade and have them move on to high school because that will make them a better student Why are we applying that logic to debate

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/node/1128 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Cross Examination Debate Association newsletter | Cross Examination Debate Association
    2016 Resolution Ballot Available Wed 2015 07 01 16 23 ceda The ballot is available online http www cedadebate org 1516resolution Votes are due by midnight central Wednesday July 15 Results will be announced on Friday July 17 Newsletter Cross Examination Debate Association newsletter Read more about 2015 2016 Resolution Ballot Available 2015 2016 Controversy Area Announcement Wed 2015 05 20 22 09 ceda Military presence was selected as the winning controversy area for 2015 2016 64 eligible ballots were cast A complete breakdown of voting is listed below Initial count of first place votes Arctic 4 Defense spending 5 Foreign aid 4 Israel 19 Labor 9 Military presence 14 Multilateral emissions 6 Treaty withdrawal 3 The votes for treaty withdrawal were redistributed The second count of first place votes was Newsletter Cross Examination Debate Association newsletter Read more about 2015 2016 Controversy Area Announcement CEDA Controversy Ballot Reminder Mon 2015 05 18 21 27 ceda Ballots for the 2015 2016 Controversy area are due tomorrow May 19 by midnight central The original information is below Please let me know if you have any questions or problems voting Jeff Newsletter Cross Examination Debate Association newsletter Read more about CEDA Controversy Ballot Reminder 2015 2016 Controversy Ballot Now Available Tue 2015 05 05 17 21 ceda The controversy ballot for 2015 2016 is now available Ballots are due by midnight central Tuesday May 19 One vote per school Schools must be current members of CEDA to participate 2014 2015 competition season The winning controversy will be announced shortly after the conclusion of the vote If you have trouble with voting please let me know The ballot is online at http cedadebate org 1516controversy Newsletter Cross Examination Debate Association newsletter Read more about 2015 2016 Controversy Ballot Now Available Topic Committee Election

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/taxonomy/term/62 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Resolution | Cross Examination Debate Association
    operations or introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities CATEGORY Resolution Read more about 2013 2014 Resolution 2012 2013 Resolution Fri 2012 07 20 13 05 ceda 2012 2013 Topic Announcement Resolved The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce restrictions on and or substantially increase financial incentives for energy production in the United States of one or more of the following coal crude oil natural gas nuclear power solar power wind power CATEGORY Resolution Read more about 2012 2013 Resolution 2011 2012 Resolution Sat 2011 07 30 08 10 ceda Resolved The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its democracy assistance for one or more of the following Bahrain Egypt Libya Syria Tunisia Yemen CATEGORY Resolution Read more about 2011 2012 Resolution 2010 2011 Resolution Sun 2010 07 18 17 17 ceda Resolved the United States Federal Government should substantially increase the number of and or substantially expand beneficiary eligibility for its visas for one or more of the following employment based immigrant visas nonimmigrant temporary worker visas family based visas human trafficking based visas CATEGORY Resolution Read more about 2010 2011 Resolution 2010 2011 Controversy Choices Wed 2010 04 28 07 39 ceda The topic committee has forwarded five controversies for consideration for the 2010 2011 season Balloting is available now and must be completed by midnight May 12 Results will be announced on May 13 1 Should the Supreme Court limit First Amendment freedoms specifically in the area of speech 2 Should the USFG substantially reduce restrictions on immigration 3 Should the USFG significantly increase space exploration beyond the Earth s mesosphere 4 Should the United States bind itself to one or more multilateral treaties CATEGORY Resolution Read more about 2010 2011 Controversy Choices 2009 2010 Resolution Fri 2009 07 17 11 20 ceda Resolved The

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/taxonomy/term/28 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 2015 - 2016 Resolution Announcement | Cross Examination Debate Association
    process A list is below The breakdown of voting also is explained Resolved The United States should significantly reduce its military presence in one or more of the following the Arab states of the Persian Gulf the Greater Horn of Africa Northeast Asia Initial first place votes Res 1 7 Res 2 0 Res 3 20 Res 4 28 Res 5 5 Votes for Res 5 were transferred The second count of first place votes Res 1 11 Res 3 21 Res 4 28 Votes for Res 1 were transferred The third count of first place votes Res 3 25 Res 4 35 List of schools voting Arizona State University Baylor University Binghamton University Boston College Clarion University Concordia College Cornell University CSU Northridge Dartmouth Emory University Emporia State University Fresno State George Mason Georgetown University Georgia State Universoty Gonzaga University Harvard Illinois College JMU Johnson County Community College KSU Liberty University Minnesota Missouri State New School Northwestern University Samford University Texas Towson University Trinity University UC Berkeley UC Irvine Univeristy of Miami University of Central Oklahoma University of Florida University of Georgia University of Houston University of Iowa University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Mary Washington University

    Original URL path: http://cedadebate.org/node/1125 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •