User login

You are here

Controversy Ballot

1. Should the United States increase cooperation with Russia?
2. Should the IMF and World Bank be reformed?
3. Should the United States decrease reliance on nuclear weapons?"
4. Should the United States legalize and protect 'taboo' social practices?"

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 




With the controversy ballot due back in one week I wanted to provide the community with some information about the process that has informed this stage of the topic selection.

In general, we are once again benefitting from the post-season due date for controversy papers. With the possible exception of the Russia paper, none of these papers, was largely complete by the CEDA National tournament in Idaho. At the same time, this was a difficult year for many authors to complete papers. I know I personally was not able to complete my intended research project. We will need to continue working with the community to find ways to make this process best able to generate high quality contributions.

This year the committee, whose names and emails are linked to the left side of this site, approved a slate of four controversies. We feel that these four controversies reflect an interesting array of subjects and they are sufficiently organized to allow for the committee to complete wording options for the winning controversy. The short window for the wording task requires us to be vigilant in submitting a controversy ballot that only includes items that can easily be translated into predictable and significant wording options to guide our year’s worth of competitions.

This year we left one proposed controversy off the ballot. Vik did good work with the immigration paper but the committee felt that there was too much unsettled into how this large (and important) public policy issue would be translated into a year’s worth of debates. We look forward to continue exploring immigration and larger hemispheric questions in future papers.

In the end, we all owe a tremendous gratitude to Toni (and the CSUF squad), Steve, Vik, Ryan, Jessica and Chris. Their labors made it possible for us to evaluate these great options. This process only works because these folks give of themselves. We are all better for their generosity.

I will provide additional updated once a controversy is selected. Let me know if you have any questions.

Gordon Stables

CEDA 1st VP & Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee

Director of Debate & Forensics University of Southern California