Prep-Outs and Case Disclosure
posted by Jon Cruz on May 29th, 2008
NEW YORK, N.Y. — Every installment of “Topic for Debate” features a pertinent discussion of current debate practice and theory.
A new debate has started in the 700-post-and-counting discussion that followed results from the Tournament of Champions. And while the subjects in this debate have been discussed before, I — and others — have sensed some shifts in where some people stand. This debate is about the ethics and efficacy of prep-outs and the potential place for a culture of case disclosure in Lincoln-Douglas debate. Should LD adopt a case disclosure culture similar to policy debate? Are prep-outs good or bad things? Why or why not?
Popularity: 10% [?]
no more tag found, sorry
230 Responses to “Prep-Outs and Case Disclosure”
Leave a Reply
Most Popular Posts
- Chris Theis Wins the TOC
- 2008 TOC Video: Elkins AC vs. Apple Valley CT
- Prep-Outs and Case Disclosure
- Ellen Noble Wins the NCFL
- Networking for College
- 2008 TOC Video: Mountain View DG vs. Walt Whitman CS
- Ravi Sankar to be Honored by the President
- 2008 TOC Video: Los Altos DM vs. Kinkaid BT
- If Adventure Has a Name... It Must Be Indiana Jones
- Live from the TOC: LD Prelims
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 16th, 2008 07:28
Let me re-clarify my position before this discussion begins and before people start criticizing what I said in the other forum:
1) I admit that prep-outs are inevitable and will never be phased-out.
2) Sites such as Michael’s will definitely end up helping debaters who lack political connections or experience debating a certain topic.
3) The only real issue I have with prep-outs (I don’t think they’re unethical or whatever, but maybe people will disagree with me on this) is that they undermine some important skills which debaters should have and debate as a practice should encourage. In my mind, the single most valuable benefit of debate is learning how to think on one’s feet – to be able to list flaws with a certain argument nearly instantaneously and deliver them with a degree of spontaneity. Prep-outs clearly undermine the development of this skill, since you have a longer time to think of responses and can have other people (such as your coaches) help you think of responses.
I will also admit that there are certain educational benefits to being prepped-out (such as having to deal with more responsive answers), but I don’t think this benefit outweighs the harm of losing the ability to think on one’s feet.
Posted from: 71.42.138.173
May 16th, 2008 08:11
ken:
does your criticism apply to debaters running other kids’ cases? i ask solely out of curiosity’s sake.
with regards to the actual susbtance of #3, why doesn’t this exclude having to engage with, say, really deep, intense, and potentially unpredicted philosophical arguments? or skepticism?
i only bring these up because they’re examples which have been used frequently lately, i think. i guess my problem with the contemporary trends in ld is that theory is, quite frequently, used as a crutch, and whose implications are generally that you don’t HAVE to think on your feet and respond to an argument. (this is why i think fairness and education qua debate theory may be unfair and uneducational qua reality)
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 16th, 2008 08:33
I don’t think running someone else’s case inhibits your ability to think on your feet necessarily, but I do think that writing and using one’s own cases is educationally valuable.
I don’t understand how my criticism of prep-outs applies to skepticism. Although I like debating skepticism, I do think that it’s an overused and oft rehashed argument that debaters fall back upon when they are not able to think on their feet.
As for your last comment, and I don’t think this is related to prep-outs, people do you theory as a means of excluding arguments that they don’t want to have to debate, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Theory cannot be used to exclude topical and fair arguments, it can only be used to exclude untopical or unfair arguments. Of course, theory can be used to exclude skepticism, but I think that’s perfectly legitimate. Whether or not it’s educational, that’s less clear.
Posted from: 71.42.138.173
May 16th, 2008 08:43
but dealing with the topic at hand (i am usually very bad at that):
i don’t think that prep-outs are really all that destructive to the ability to think on one’s feet. i have seen some damn good prep-outs in my day and i have never seen a prep-out that really and honestly had prep on everything in the case or that didn’t require the debater delivering the prep to actually engage her opponent. i think this is very similar to the argument that michael mangus always makes with regards to speed and persuasive speaking in debate: doing one doesn’t prevent you from being able to do the other. and just as i enjoyed both slowing down for the oklahoma crowd and laying down althusser at top speed, i also got things out of prepping kids out as well as out of being prepped out that i wouldn’t have gotten had i walked in just planning to pontificate without any idea what my opponent was talking about (and vice versa – i think we all like to pontificate now and then). all in all, i don’t feel comfortable speaking to the ethics of prep-outs – and before i make any judgment about anything therein i think there needs to be some sort of real, collective appraisal of communal ethics. sorry for the vagueness here but i really just feel like people don’t understand how many unethical and underhanded things occur in this activity and that’s probably a relevant precursor to this discussion.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 16th, 2008 08:48
I never said that prep-outs are unethical, I just think they may have educational draw-backs.
I agree that doing one thing doesn’t necessarily stop you from being good at the other (speed vs. persuasion is a good example), but if you do that one thing excessively it can inhibit your ability to be good at the other.
It seems clear to me that a debater who is excessively block-reliant can over time become worse at responding to things that they don’t have blocks to. The same applies to being prepped-out.
Posted from: 71.42.138.173
May 16th, 2008 09:04
regarding theory:
my point is that i don’t really feel like excluding arguments on the basis of “i shouldn’t have to answer this” is EVER fair or educational (or legitimate from a logical perspective). i don’t know how it’s at all fair to a student that we say to him, “i’m not going to consider what you have to say because what *i* feel is quite different and thus i would rather fortify my own position and vote you down than give consideration to your own” or educational to allow people to get out of having to respond to their opponents.
and if people think skepticism is a crutch, then why don’t we just beat the arg instead of bitching about it like every other crutch strat? like, shit, if you know a kid falls back on theory and you’re better at theory, you force him to debate the theory. if you know a kid relies on having a lot of outs, cut off his multiple avenues to victory. if you know a kid always runs negations of the existence of moral facts, cut cards about why that position is false and why the opposite conclusion is true and why skepticism is a rejectible epistemology. eric, on another thread, was absolutely right about this; these arguments have turn ground, they increase the educational qualities of the game (force us to reevaluate moral intuitions LOLOLOL how reprehensible), and they’re pretty damn predictable (BOTH from the topic wording and from current debate trends). people just start hacking against these positions because they’re tired of dealing with them.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 16th, 2008 11:33
I agree with what you’re saying about skepticism, I feel like it has little to do with the issue of prep-outs.
On the side though, while I think that there are answers to skepticism, I don’t think it provides any link-turn ground. How do you link turn, “there are no moral facts”? The logical converse of that is that there are moral facts, but that doesn’t affirm the resolution.
Also, just because there are answers to something doesn’t mean that it’s fair. My opponent could run 10 a prioris against me and I could have answers to them, but that doesn’t mean it was fair for him to run them or that I’m not in a disadvantaged position just because I have answers. The same thing applies to skepticism – it is a no-risk issue which questions an assumption of the resolution. The aff has no turn ground against it, forcing him OR HER to go for 100% defense against a game-over issue, making it an unfair position.
But again, none of this has to do with prep-outs. I should add that I agree with you that skeptic arguments are not counter-educational, I actually like them a lot.
Posted from: 24.6.237.64
May 16th, 2008 11:54
ken,
let’s say you and i are about to debate, and i’m affirming. let’s further say you prepped me out, so the NC doesn’t need to think on its feet, point out flaws in my arguments on the fly, etc etc. wouldn’t my 1AR have to point out the problems in your arguments, make strategic choices on the fly, answer arguments it’s never heard – in short,do all the things that you (correctly) think are educational in debate? as a result, i’m confused as to why there’s any “loss” in education thanks to prep-outs.
i’m actually fairly agnostic on this issue – used to be quite anti-prepouts, but have come around a good deal. the main reason for this shift is that so many cases right now are not written in a manner that allows for actual debate. in a lot of rounds i’ve judged, spikes and prestandards arguments are being spread at 300 WPM and/or hidden in random parts of the case, with the aff strat being “pray one gets dropped, and extend it to win.” that’s probably not a good thing for debate, and prep-outs of such cases can help check it back…
more later, perhaps, but i should really go take my final…
Posted from: 205.221.1.149
May 16th, 2008 12:27
this is just something to consider, but a lot of times people are aware that their cases are being prepped and they bust a new case in subsequent rounds; if anything, that tests the ability of the kid who has the prep out even more because s/he has to completely ditch the planned strategy and come up with arguments on the spot (i think there is a controversial round where this happened, andrew theis vs. chris elkinsroft or something? idk)
there isn’t really a way to gauge how common this occurrence is, but i am almost positive this has happened to a lot of people
Posted from: 128.36.76.42
May 16th, 2008 12:31
I agree with Ankur. Many Acs and NCs aren’t delivered in a way that its possible to follow what they are saying. I can’t even flow many debaters because their speeches lack basic organization, pausing, etc. that are needed in order to get the gist of what’s being said. I end up having to rely on backflowing to catch 1/2 of what’s said (since fast LDers tend to be infinitely less clear than CXers)
Anyone who spreads their AC as fast as they can, I don’t think has a right to whine about prep-outs. An anti-prep out position requires, at minimum, that one is delivering their case in a way so that upon first hearing, the case is understandable and clear. Nowadays on the circuit, very very few people meet that threshold.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 16th, 2008 15:13
Ankur:
You’re completely right about that. I addressed that on the other thread already, however, and said that while the person being prepped-out may garner some educational benefit, I don’t think that that benefit outweighs the loss of one’s ability to debate independently and on one’s feet over time. As I said in my first post, I understand that prep-outs can have some educational benefits, but I don’t think that those benefits outweigh the detriments.
Maeshal:
That’s true too and I’ve always loved it when I’m intensely prepped and I just run a different case. Even better is to run the same case and change the order of the arguments, or read the same case and add in 1 killer spike that they definitely will miss.
Anthony:
I agree that too many debaters these days load up the top of their ACs with spikes so that they won’t really have to debate in later speeches, but I don’t know why the only recourse the neg has against these kinds of cases is to prep them out. Specifically, I think that CX solves the problem – if you couldn’t catch pieces of your opponent’s case, you can ask them to go over them. You can also ask, “do you have any arguments that preclude…”. So, I don’t think that the position that speed is good (one that I hold much closer to heart than “prep-outs bad”) is irreconcilable with thinking that prep-outs are kind of lame and counter-educational.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 16th, 2008 15:15
let me add that I think that there’s nothing worse than a fast and unclear debater – this is why I try to let my judges know before I start going fast to say “clear” if they can’t understand me – but that practice itself is often regarded as controversial.
Posted from: 24.242.139.162
May 16th, 2008 17:41
i don’t know why everybody says there’s no turn ground to skeptical arguments. while the impacts don’t reduce neatly into the terms that we traditionally think of, we can make it so that the claim is a reason to support the opposing side of the resolution which more or less seems like a “turn” to me in some way or another.
so here’s an “impact turn” to skepticism:
it’s tru that we can’t find moral facts; thus moral agreement can’t be centered around something abstract but localized. these are reasons to prefer my standard of whatever because it’s sensitive to the way in which we construct moral norms and refer to them even if they aren’t facts in a separate world.
or! you could say that skepticism is bad. there are lots of arguments to that effect; that not only is it false to be a skeptic but that it is not a good idea to believe in such ways. wittgenstein has some very interesting things to say about skeptics (which is interesting because everyone in ld i guess regards him as this guy who hates on anything being true).
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 16th, 2008 17:48
I plan on posting why I’m now pro-case list in a few days. The posts have gotten a bit off target; what are others thoughts?
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 16th, 2008 17:59
How is that adequate turn ground?
Prefer my standard b/c it promotes a more localized conception of ethics? That presupposes that 1) your standard actually does prefer a more localized conception of ethics, which may not be true, and 2) that you can still prove the resolution true through a context-specific notion of ethics. A skeptic would still conclude that the resolution is on-face not provable, even within an extremely localized conception of ethics. I.e. even if within the U.S. our conception of ethics is that oppression is bad, a skeptic would still say that you can’t use that framework to prove ethical statements true.
Also, skepticism bad, nihilism bad, etc. are mostly discourse arguments, which still is not good ground.
Even if there is some ground against these args, it’s not nearly as offensive as “there are no moral facts so you negate independent of all other arguments”.
Posted from: 24.242.139.162
May 16th, 2008 18:05
sorry jesus i’ll stop ranting about this. this is so nontopical. ignore me.
Posted from: 69.180.210.210
May 16th, 2008 18:07
Michael, I’m not sure how your “impact turn” to skepticism is really an impact turn. Your argument seems not to turn the impact but just provide a reason to prefer the standard. But impact turns, like link turns, are arguments that have offensive value with respect to some framework within the round; they are not arguments that justify a framework.
I think your second suggestion of arguing skepticism bad is a better an example of an impact turn. But as Ken stated previously, the problem with this turn is that it doesn’t give you an impact that wins you the round, so in that sense it’s not an offensive argument, but just a neutralizer of the negative position. For instance, while you can impact turn a deterrence neg with deterrence bad and that argument has the potential to win the round, arguing skepticism bad doesn’t really garner offensive value on a topic about proliferation.
Ernie: I’m not sure what I think about a case list. But i am curious about the different levels of disclosure it would request for various types of cases. On the TOC thread Mr. Timmons mentioned how it would work similar to policy disclosures for policy-esque cases like counterplans, disads, etc., but how would it work for “traditional” LD cases. Would people who run framework heavy cases have to disclose all of their spikes? And it seems like most policy disclosure lists are centered primarily on cites–but many LD cases have more analytical arguments in the case proper, so how much of those arguments would be disclosed?
Posted from: 69.180.210.210
May 16th, 2008 18:08
Oops, I didn’t see that Ken had responded when I was typing my post, but I still think we’re make a few different observations.
Posted from: 128.36.76.42
May 16th, 2008 19:55
re Ken: I disagree about CX being the solution to the problem–I was talking about much more than ACs that load spikes at the top of their cases–I’m critiquing the very nature of the delivery itself, which is often impossible to follow, much less internally digest.
After all, given how unclear many circuit LDers are when they go 300wpm (from the audience point of view), it’s impossible to know what words were stated, much less be able to know what to ask about in CX. (“cross apply” the LDers aren’t clear point from above)
I don’t think it’s the job of an NC or AR cross-ex to do the work that the case deliverer should have–which is to communicate clearly, with organization, and with transparency so that people could know what was said from the first delivery of the speech.
It seems a bit of a cop-out for craptacular speaking to say ” CX clarifies!” Cx is only 3 minutes, in a speech where 5-5.5 minutes of it was incoherent,(which happens in like 30-40 % of rounds I judge on the circuit) or full of impossible to hear “aprioris,” CX loses its value as a time to test ideas and challenge warrants, impacts, etc.
After all, it’s not uncommon to hear from former debaters now turned judges how boring CX is, which is time to fill in meaning that wasn’t communicated in the initial constructives. It’s gotten so bad that I don’t even listen to CX when I see it’s going to be another 3 minutes of filling in a flow from 2 debaters who forget that they have to persuade a judge.
In terms of prep-outs, my argument I think stands: the “normative” argument against prep-outs is that you should be able to think on your feet and react to what’s been presented in front of you: that presumes that the presentation is in a manner that it is reasonable to expect you should be able to hear, internally digest and extemporaneously respond. To the extent that 300wpm speed is being spewed out in monotone bassackwards delivery styles, I think that test fails–prep-outs in that case gives people a fighting chance to understand the incomprehensible. Like forgive me from saying that Heidegger/Levinas, etc. at 300 wpm is unreasonable, when I know experts in those authors of stuff wouldn’t understand it if they listened to LD rounds.
Again, I’m probably an outdated dinosaur in these expectations and that’s fine, but when I’m judging, adapt or lose. :)
Posted from: 128.36.76.42
May 16th, 2008 20:02
I’d further add (briefly bc i have exams to grade), that I laugh when debaters ask me to yell “clear” and most of the time I don’t do it. Again maybe I’m too old in debate years, but I don’t think a debater should speak in a way so that they are unclear in the first place, they should *want* to be clear to both the judge AND opponent.
And when I say “unclear” this includes the inability to distinguish between different words, which is exactly what happens at a certain level of speed. Lack of pausing = unclear; no monotone + speed = unclear.
“Fast” debaters should audiotape themselves and listen to themselves speak to see how “clear” they are. Now I’m no anti-speed person, certain coaches in the country want my head on a pike for teaching kids to speak quickly and spread, but LD nowadays, seems to have lost the restraint I always made sure students had—making sure that speed did not come at the expense of comprehensibility. It seems that debaters don’t care at all about the latter anymore.
Posted from: 24.6.237.64
May 16th, 2008 21:18
just to clarify something real quick – anthony and i seem to agree on a lot, but i think we disagree on the speed element of things. i might just have been luckier in terms of who i judge than he’s been, but i don’t really see the problems with unclear speed as often as he seems to.
rather, i think there’s some diminishing marginal utility to speed – the faster you go, the less details i get. when arguments are literally one sentence long, and there’s no coherent flow from one to the next, understanding all of them at 300+ WPM is next to impossible. i don’t mind the speed, therefore, i just mind what i see as an improper use of it…
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
May 16th, 2008 21:47
This might have to do with the fact I come from a program with a coach that is extremely well connected, and we have the money to bring along multiple coaches/judges to allow for more prepouts.
On the issue of disclosure:
I think it is the single most important thing that can improve LD debate. Disclosure discourages kids from consistantly reading bizzare squirrely cases that don’t have much basis in anything, but just have a shock value. In policy, teams are expected to disclose the strategies they’ve read in the past. It leads to ideas being spread around the country, and teams piggy backing off of each other and making arguments better. It allows for more honest debate, and forces debaters to prepare better/write better answers/develop multiple strategies. I know Cherian has been very vocal in favor of disclosure, and I wish I remembered a quote of his to mention here, but sadly i can’t so I’ll just hope he posts.
On prep-outs:
It might just be that the two prepouts I’ve had this year resulted in me using strategies I wasn’t very comfortable with, but neither of them really helped me all that much. They both lead to a solid first speech (1NR and 1AR), but the wheels came off in the final rebuttal. If you can make a prep out work in your favor, more power to you. It’s a strategy like almost everything else, and I don’t see an issue for it. At Harker, my opponent was prepped out against me for Double Octas, and despite my loss, it was my fault for being overconfident in my answers to an a priori off case and not trying to mitigate the influence it should have had in the round. It’s like every other strategy: If you know what you’re doing better than your opponent, chances are you’ll still win.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
May 16th, 2008 22:36
this might be already said-
but in policy they disclose cases so they can gather information against it. If neg policy debaters went into rounds not having gathered information against the affs before they could not really have a debate. this is not true in ld where you are supposed to know how to think on your feet and deal with shock value cases and real cases. if everyone disclosed cases it is back to the idea of the schools with the most coaches/backfiles to prep out people’s cases. That way they don’t have to really debate in the round and they can just read off blocks and stuff that might not be written by them.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 16th, 2008 22:44
Anthony:
I don’t think that we really substantively disagree. I agree that going fast and being unclear is bad, and maybe it is unreasonable to expect judges to yell “clear”. But again, I really don’t think that being prepped-out is necessary to solve the problem.
I’ve had many many many rounds when my opponents have been unclear (even when going slowly), and I’ve never have needed to have had a flow beforehand in order to respond. Also, even if CX can’t clarify everything, it’s not like you need to (or are going to) respond to every argument in the AC to win. Also, if debaters don’t want to have to devote their CX time to clarifying shit, then they should learn how to flow speed. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect varsity debaters to be able to flow 300 wpm. Most good judges can flow at that pace, and so too can most good debaters.
In terms of a lack of clarity, of course nobody can be expected to flow an unclear speech. But you still don’t need to be prepped out to win because judges simply don’t vote for debaters that they can’t understand. I think I’m right in saying that when a judge can’t flow the AC due to a lack of clarity, 99% of the time, the neg wins.
For the future, I’ll be sure to watch your body -language extremely closely when you judge me. But, you already judged me once (last year) when I was going pretty fast and you picked me up, so I hope that I am not a source of the problem which you’re criticizing (and believe me, I do think that it is a problem).
Posted from: 66.157.148.133
May 16th, 2008 23:27
disclosure is necessary in policy because the aff gets to defend their plan rather than the whole resolution. since counterwarrants are exactly not in vogue, you have to know what the plan+advantages are gonna be or you will have a very tough time preparing.
this is not to say that disclosure isnt necessary in LD (i support it wholeheartedly), but i would caution advocates of disclosure against relying on the ‘policy does it therefore we should too’ arg.
also corey is right that ocon’s arg is not an impact turn.
Posted from: 66.157.148.133
May 16th, 2008 23:27
that should of course read “not exactly in vogue”
Posted from: 71.184.255.50
May 16th, 2008 23:30
While there aren’t “turns” in a conventional sense to a priori arguments there are definitely ways to redefine their implications to imply a vote for the other side.
For example, against an a priori which says that a certain part of the resolution doesn’t exist and therefore you can’t prove it true (i.e. no such thing as a just state so we can’t evaluate what it ought do) you can argue that since that part of the resolution doesn’t exist, it functions as a null set, therefore you can ascribe any attributes to the members of that set and the statement will be a vacuous truth. I.E. we can say that all purple unicorns eat monkeys and the statement would still be true, the truth would just have no content.
This is just an example of how one might “turn” and a priori and make it a reason to vote for the other side. I don’t think the argument is a good one but it shows how one might go about recontextualizing the implications of a prioris.
Posted from: 66.157.148.133
May 16th, 2008 23:36
oh and one more thing – its not just you bhill. i manage to flow top-level policy debaters but get lost a lot in LD rounds. i think thats because a lot of circuit LDers suck at going fast. when did subpoints/numbered structure go out of style in favor of having a huge undifferentiated pile of arguments? on a related note, varying your voice when youre going fast does not mean having that bizarre rising/falling pitch. the stereotype of the monotone policy spew exists for a reason – too much variation makes you impossible to understand. vary your pitch, speed and volume to emphasize rather than constantly fluctuating.
Posted from: 76.242.39.246
May 17th, 2008 02:09
Put it this way: you spread, you lose.
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 17th, 2008 02:26
I don’t think the criticism people are giving is that debaters spread. I think the argument is that debaters don’t spread well. I think debaters need to become more conscious of their clarity when making arguments, and need to be clearer about distinguishing arguments. I totally agree with mangus that having a bunch of arguments without of pause, a numbered list, or something to differentiate between the points makes it hard to flow. Besides, being clearer would probably win more rounds, and judges would probably boost speaks too. That goes for everyone, myself included.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 17th, 2008 09:35
has anyone else noticed that all of these “turns” to a prioris are god awful arguments?
Posted from: 65.81.137.139
May 17th, 2008 11:06
yes.
Posted from: 74.36.136.254
May 17th, 2008 11:22
A note on disclousure: is there anything special you have to do to post a case on mangus’ caselist? I posted an AC a couple days ago, and it doesn’t seem to be up anymore.
Posted from: 65.81.137.139
May 17th, 2008 11:28
christian, its possible that someone else removed your stuff (not sure why they would, but you never know). you *do not* have to register to post things. you can check the revision history yourself to see – i’m not sure when you posted or where.
Posted from: 70.231.154.68
May 17th, 2008 12:16
@ post 9:
While everyone enjoys breaking a new case to make someone else’s prepout useless, I don’t think that everyone will know that they are being prepped out. I mean, understandably in outrounds, it might be expected that it might happen, but unless you see them in the act or someone tells you or their coach/judge judged you last round, you can’t really know for sure.
Then someone will say something along the lines of, “well, if any of the above scenarios haven’t happened, then how can a prepout possibly occur?”
That’s where under-the-table flow sharing becomes an issue. Prep outs are more effective when no one knows that it is coming, but seems to be a little bit shady. At least take the time to inform your opponent that you’re about to prep them out.
On the issue of prep-outs proper:
To be honest, I’m a fan of prep-outs probably because they happen to my squad more than my squad does it to other people. It makes winning a round much more meaningful if I did it against a prep-out. Granted, I lose to prep outs quite a bit, but there was never a time where I wasn’t sure if I could’ve won the round if they didn’t prep me out.
Also, most people always assume that because a prep-out has happened, that quality answers are being made. Granted, this is sometimes the case, but prep-outs are certainly beatable. Additionally, if you don’t have a new case to break, you might want to try adding a few arguments here or there before the round, or reading the case in a different order, if only to try to regain some ground through their lost prep and additional strategic outs.
I think that prep-outs not only work because of the added advantage of knowing the case and possibly the 1AR 2NR strat beforehand, but also the psychological advantage of knowing that you’re prepped out. That level of confidence seems to do wonders for some people.
On disclosure:
To draw the parallel between policy and LD for prep-outs is a bit awkward. Primarily because there are still some teams who don’t disclose affs, and because they still have affs to break.
Also, sometimes disclosure isn’t just “here I’ll give you my 1AC cites and plan text, have a good time.” More often than not, negative teams are expected to give the 1NC strat to them within a reasonable amount of time before the round starts so that the 2AC can get their blocks together.
Doing the same in LD would be much harder, because we can’t always list our arguments in such a fashion. We can’t reduce our case to terms like, “Oh, I’m running Gag Rule with such and such advantages, plan text is this: The USFG should…” And negatives can’t always say, “Well, I’ll read T- w/o mat quals and LOST ptx and etc.” I just can’t imagine where it’d be this easy to disclose in LD.
On speed:
I hate unclear debaters. If you can’t go fast, don’t. Judges should start adopting a precedent of just not flowing people who can’t go fast well, or at least, y’know, make fun of them or something. Discourage them to some extent. These are just things I’d like to do, dunno how well they’d work.
Posted from: 65.81.137.139
May 17th, 2008 15:40
“knocks” says: “More often than not, negative teams are expected to give the 1NC strat to them within a reasonable amount of time before the round starts so that the 2AC can get their blocks together.”
ive never disclosed a negative strat prior to the 1NC, nor has anyone ever disclosed a negative strat to me. maybe the conventions arent the same in college as they are in high school, but i think most people i know would scoff at the idea that the neg has to tip their hand. the policy analogy is not great, but this arg is not the reason.
Posted from: 65.81.137.139
May 17th, 2008 15:44
ps: neg args do go on the caselist, but for the reason i mentioned above (plans rather than whole-res) that does not help the aff know what the 1NC in a particular debate will be.
Posted from: 70.231.154.68
May 17th, 2008 16:56
perhaps it’s just a silly tradition where i’m from.
Posted from: 74.36.136.254
May 17th, 2008 22:11
I’m pretty sure I just didn’t do something right the first time I tried to add one of my AC’s… does it show up now?
Posted from: 75.56.212.9
May 18th, 2008 00:20
No, but you guys are missing the point. The reality of spreading is simply speaking quicker in order to encompass more arguements in a short amount of time. Usually, some of the really lame debaters will hope that you don’t catch some of the arguements, and simply use those in extensions. Most of you are claiming it’s not the issue of spreading, but more like HOW people spread. Sure, I can see what you’re saying, but the way many of you claim how this needs to be addressed is with pauses, clearer arguements, etc. Really though, think about: if you are doing all of that in the first place, is there a need to spread? I mean at that point, if you’re speaking understandably enough for judges to comprehend your arguements, then why are you spreading? You’re not getting anywhere. Just cut down the really lame arguements, and impact more on the core stuff. By spreading, I think you’re giving judges more of the impression that you are focusing more on quantity rather than quality. So, even if you are speaking rather clear, what’s the point of going fast? Isn’t that kind of contradicting? Slow and understandable arguements…and then you go out and obsolete your attempts by attempting to spread….Seriously, I think the ethics to debate should really be considered. Which is why I’d reaffirm my previous statement: you spread, you lose. Learn to be word economic!!!
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 18th, 2008 01:58
@Matt:
There are lots of reasons why debaters talk quickly; to answer back other debaters spreading, to insert more evidence, to make more arguments against another debater’s case, to more holistically develop their own positions, etc.
What people on here have been doing is not inditing the spread because spreading is inherently incomprehensible, we’re inditing it because a lot of lders suck at it, and make it unintelligible. Obviously everyone has different thresholds for speed, but speaking clearly (not slurring words) with clear signposting is necessary no matter what speed, and some have forgotten that.
Moreover, we aren’t talking about ‘clear’ as in slow and oratorical, rather we’re using the term as in differentiating arguments and using proper signposting. The position isn’t contradicting, many judges will and should vote for debaters who go fast (note: that is NOT to say because they go fast, merely that they wouldn’t automatically down the debater)I and others just feel that it would be beneficial to those judges if debaters speaking quickly were labeling things better. I don’t see why going fast and labeling arguments properly is contradicting.
Additionally, just being word economic doesn’t wholly compensate for other debaters spreading, pieces of evidence, etc. Besides just saying debaters who talk fast aren’t word economic flat out isn’t true. There are plenty of debaters who have good word economy who go fast just so that they can fit in more arguments or respond to all of the arguments. Go watch David Wolfish’s semi’s round from the TOC, it’s a good example of a debater going quickly (at least not slow) with good word economy.
And last, if the argument is that all speed is bad, I’d just like to say it’s a really controversial topic, and I don’t want to get into a debate as to whether or not speed itself is an acceptable practice, I think everyone has their own beliefs on that point and bickering is going not to solve anything. If you just don’t like spreads wholesale, then that’s your opinion, and lets leave it at that. Everything above presumes ‘all speed bad’ isn’t your position, so if it is then you don’t need to respond to it.
Posted from: 67.40.152.116
May 18th, 2008 07:44
I wish the Westman boards were still up so that I could cross-apply about 5-6 postings I had there a few years back about this exact issue.
I’m glad to see that there are some people who were then opposed to having disclosure who are now working for it.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
May 18th, 2008 11:54
Glad to see this great discussion going up here. I’m pro-disclosure in principle, but with a nod of recognition to all the implementation issues that have been discussed ad nauseam. In other words, I’m still perplexed and definitely learning from what yall have to say.
Michelin’s post reminds me of an issue raised but never resolved in those original discussions: Neg skew.
Namely, the currents of this discussion — which are admittedly only currents and not final outcomes — seem to be suggesting a proposed system in which Affs-only would be disclosing a large textual portion (see, e.g. framework/analytics issues) of cases that have been read. Reserving any opinion whatsoever as to whether any aspect of this is a good or bad proposal except for what I am raising here, I wonder if that kind of proposal incrementally furthers the rather extreme Neg Skew we seem to be observing.
I could certainly be persuaded otherwise, but at least on first thought it appears that a system of Aff-only disclosure has to be a benefit to the Neg. And yet, we are already seeing Neg win ratios in later prelims of national tournaments and the TOC between 60-80%.
Again, I’m not making any comment at all on disclosure vis a vis resource, research, access disparties or any other aspect of this discussion which has been good if not redundant of prior ones. The devil is in the details, though, so I thought I would raise the issue of how a system of Aff-only disclosure (which is obviously not the only way to do disclosure but seems to be the favored approach here) would affect the side skew we are already observing. I’m guessing those who have thought about this more than I have may have some good thinking on this intersection, so just adding the issue to the discussion.
Posted from: 65.81.137.201
May 18th, 2008 12:26
anjan brings up a fair point. i have three things to say re: neg skew.
1) i dont think many people support aff-only caselists. i sure dont. i could go either way in terms of pre-round disclosure (i.e. telling the other debater what youre gonna run) in LD, although as i mentioned above i dont think negs should have to disclose pre-round in policy.
2) i think forcing negs to disclose their positions (cases, off-case arguments, and generic overviews) will make with world of caselists no worse than the status quo. if anything, its more important for affs to know what neg positions to prepare for because then you can craft word-economical blocks and devise aff strategies to preclude those positions (by this, i do NOT mean ‘add spikes to every neg arg on the topic’). given the time-pressure of the 1AR, aff should be able to do as much work prior to the round as possible.
3) i think other structural and paradigmatic reforms need to be made to correct neg skew. see the discussion from a couple weeks ago.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 18th, 2008 19:24
Why I am for case list (at least for TOC):
1. Flow-sharing networks have been getting more and more complex and, in some instances, secretive. More and more scouts/extra judges are at toc each year. This seems to lead to an incredible advantage for those with access to these type of resources.
2. Better debate. No longer are (multiple) debates won by surprise; more transparency = crap filter. You can’t win merely by reading shit arguments really fast; only strategies that are thought out and well done will survive.
3. Debaters can learn from it. Debaters without coaches/camp access can learn the rules of the game without spending thousands by seeing case outlines. I think this has the same effect as online videos (good work on that vbd.)
I’m keeping this brief because I think the stance in favor of case lists is simple. I’d like to see this experiment done somewhere next year; it is my opinion that the “no solvency” arguments that AT told me I would hear all fall when one sees that flow sharing at tournaments is inevitable. Really, the number one argument above is enough in itself; the others are added benefits. I’d like to see where others stand on this issue and who would be willing to participate in a case list next year. I used to be against case lists but the faster debates get and the more flow sharing that occurs, the more I change my mind.
-Ernie
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 18th, 2008 19:50
Maybe someone should try to convince J.W. Patterson to require all LD debaters at the TOC to submit their case positions to have published in a packet given to all competitors.
Posted from: 76.110.240.54
May 18th, 2008 20:13
What would be included in the case list? What information would you ask/require individuals to disclose? I find it interesting but also agree with what Anjan has said.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 18th, 2008 21:28
Obviously this is a little tricky with the way ld cases are structured. I think Mangus has it right when he says “put what you would put on a flow.” Debaters are going to complain about disclosing all the one sentence framework args they have–my hope is that a caselist will eliminate strats like this. So, you are putting down framework args, citations, gist of card/tag for card, impacts.
I see no reason not to hold negs to the same standard–they need to disclose neg cases/disads that theyve often run.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 18th, 2008 22:12
I hate sounding like someone who wants to prevent what could potentially be helpful change, but I have to say that I am adamantly opposed to the kind of case list being proposed.
Sure, I’ll post my cases online after TOC so that people can learn from them, but the idea of having a flow of mine show up on the internet every time I break a new case actually frightens me, and I think for legitimate cause.
Specifically, I think Rob’s post is disturbing. Since when is debate solely about who takes the most time to prepare for tournaments? Sure, you could theoretically prep-out all (let’s say) 1,000 cases that are going to be run at TOC, but does that really make you a great debater? Part of what goes into making a good debater is the ability to think on one’s feet and also simple raw intelligence. If everyone had access to everyone’s arguments at all the time, debaters would never be in a situation (or at least would rarely be in a situation) in which they’d have to try to answer something new, one of the most valuable things that can come of debate.
While private flow-sharing is bad, I think a world in which you know everything your opponent could potentially run against you down to each individual argument represents a world that isn’t even really concerned with “debate”.
All it comes down to is this: spontaneity is an extremely valuable part of debate, and its value should not be diminished. Do people really disagree with me on this? Is a world in which you know your opponent will run 1 of 3 prepped out affs really better than one in which you don’t know what you’re going to hit?
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 18th, 2008 23:04
Ken:
1. Do you think a case list would have prevented either of our teams from running the Congo aff at toc? No one had ran that (to my knowledge) up to that point.
2. Prep outs force debaters to adapt their arguments. You have never seen a policy debate if you think that in every round, everyone knows what everyone else runs. I think that, in reality, horribly abusive and just bad strats get flushed out.
Debaters bust new cases all the time. Cases can be modified with new intricacies. I have a hard time believing that a magnified, more inclusive version of what already occurs could lead to such a drastic lack of spontaneity.
btw, I’ll remember this next time you ask me what someone is running :)
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 18th, 2008 23:04
@Ken:
I think those issues could easily be reconciled with having disclosure. What if instead of disclosing everything down to the specific arguments, warrants, authors, impacts, etc. debaters just disclosed the case position/thesis (like a sentence or two explaining the case)? I think that would still solve a lot of the problems created by flow sharing, because even if another competitor from a big school gets a flow of yours, you’d still have some idea of what they could potentially pull out. At the same time, it prevents the debate from becoming who can write the most blocks, because people would only be given a general idea of what is run without knowing the specific arguments/warrants/authors/impacts/standards/etc.
No system is perfect, but I think at least some form of disclosure would help the current one. I’m just looking to see if there is something people can agree upon.
Posted from: 24.174.167.210
May 19th, 2008 00:22
I think that disclosure in policy is a completely different story than disclosure in LD. As a debater, I am not against them in LD, however I don’t support them as much as I do in policy. I feel that if an aff discloses in LD, the neg should disclose as well. The neg has the opportunity to create their own case, so if a neg thinks that they need some extra prep for the aff’s case because they think the aff has the upper hand, I’d say it’s equal since the only difference is the order which they’re presented. In LD, correct me if you think differently for I haven’t competed in LD for a while, but I think that an LD round revolves around *both* the aff and neg cases, which start out as two seperate things (sorry I couldn;t think of a better word than “things”). Whereas in policy, the round is basically surrounding the aff plan-including the neg’s speeches. Anything the neg says, starting with the 1nc, is pretty much a response to the aff. Yes there are neg strats that are prepared before the tournament, but it is still, by no means, comparable to what is needed for the on-case arguments.
On to Policy: Disclosure is almost always assumed in policy, at least during outrounds (except for super sketchy teams who don’t say anything before the AC.) In policy, it’s really convenient because as post 25 says, the aff is defending their plan rather than the entire resolution. Policy is grounded upon creating a course of action and the reasons behind it. Two teams can have the same plan and different harms, solvency, etc./other stock issues. When considering all that the neg has to do to reply *specifically* to this plan, it’s convenient to have dosclosed pre-round. However, I’m not sure if I buy the whole neg strat disclosure. I mean, the aff has the upper hand in presenting anything they want (within the scope of the res.),
if they’ve done their homework, they should be prepared to handle what’s thrown at them, and if not, they should have some general evidence prepared that could be fit to whatever they don’t have responses for.
Posted from: 66.157.156.189
May 19th, 2008 01:12
ken: why arent the answers to your arguments just (a) ’smarter debates write better blocks’ and (b) ‘disclosure only helps you with front-lines, not later rebuttals?’
also, when did people get the idea that only affs would participate in a caselist? i honestly have not seen a single person advocate aff-only caselists.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 19th, 2008 01:17
Just to make it clear–I AM advocating negs be required to post and I’m NOT advocating the minimalist type disclosure that post 51 advances.
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
May 19th, 2008 04:32
Michael, I think my confusion (can’t speak for any others) comes from post 36. Looking back on this, I can see now what you said in post 37, but I just want to be sure things are clear about what you (or anyone else) is advocating. Your clarification and Ernie’s are helpful.
There is no question that there are different ways any disclosure could be established. My point was that any form of disclosure advocated should take into account the effect on side bias, which is most problematic with aff-only disclosure, but is also a factor to be considered in any form.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 19th, 2008 04:44
Rob, what are you advocating? Would a disclosure just be like “the death penalty suppresses agency?” I don’t understand how that is informative.
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 19th, 2008 07:14
@wade:
Ideally I’d like to see the same kind of disclosure Ernie and Michael are advocating. I’m just trying to see if Ken or other opponents would be accepting of a mitigated form of disclosure.
The idea would be something more substantive than generic statements like that. Ex: “The death penalty suppresses agency by harming innocents, and disproportionately targeting blacks.”
Posted from: 67.40.152.116
May 19th, 2008 08:15
The way I’ve read case lists in college policy debate, the positions of the 1A and 1N are posted. There’s also information about the strategy about the pivotal momenets in the debate for both sides. This is how the “spike” question can be answered (i.e. the affirmative extends the line about “alternatives must have a text” to get out of the neg counter-suggestions).
As for negative bias, I actually think that this is a function of the way that topics are written. The writers of our topics should work to create true balance of defensible ground.
In terms of disclosure, I do think that this will help affirmatives deal better with negative strategies because they’ll have an idea about how to craft a 1AR prior to their limited prep-time in the debate. The best 1ARs I’ve ever seen have always been in scenarios wherein the debater had a very good idea about how their positions interacted with (and beat) the negative’s positions. In the current system, affirmatives are being prepped by flow networks and then have 3-5 minutes to prep for a dump that took an hour to craft. Unless they have a brand new aff that no one has ever run, there’s no basis for knowing what the neg will say. In a world of disclosure, this becomes a lot better.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 19th, 2008 09:11
ok I really didn’t want this to happen but it now looks like I have to answer a lot of shit.
Ernie:
Sure, debaters always have the option of making new arguments at tournaments or modifying their cases, but ultimately if you have a very good idea of what your opponent is going to run you have a better chance at winning. While making and fleshing out arguments should be encouraged, I don’t think debaters should have to write multiple new cases every tournament. I was running like 4 different negs at Blake, and I’d be extremely pissed if those ended up on the internet so everyone would immediately know what I was running.
Also, in terms of asking you for flows, just let me clarify my stance: I don’t think that prepouts are morally wrong or whatever, I just think that an excessive reliance on them is bad. I consider myself a pretty non-prepout-reliant debater, and if I do ask you for a flow or whatever in the future, it will probably be just to get the gist of my opponent’s arguments, rather than a line-by-line case.
Rob:
I think that you’re right that our opinions aren’t totally irreconcilable. For instance, saying on the DP topic, “oh this person was running an innocents aff” is different from giving someone a tag-card, tag-card prep-out, which is still even more different from a full text case (which is what you first suggested).
Michael:
While your arguments address the source of the issue that I’m getting at (educational value), they don’t really fully address the problem.
In terms of the “smarter debaters write better blocks” argument – this isn’t really true because often (very very often) coaches write blocks FOR their debaters. Having a system in which you know what your opponent is going to run against you makes debate into a contest of who has the better blocks, which in turn will more often than not turn into a contest of who has the better coach. (Note: I know the SQ doesn’t solve this problem, I just think case disclosure makes it worse).
I think that the idea that being prepped out doesn’t help you with later speeches is not really true. First, because it’s already easier to extend arguments than to make them (I think most would agree that extending args off the AC is easier than actually answering the AC on the first go-round), so prepouts eliminate the hardest part of the debate. Second, if you’re prepped out you probably didn’t use a whole lot of preptime, so you still have a ton of time to plan your second speech (so prepouts do help you with later speeches). Most importantly, however, even if prepouts don’t make the 2nd speech easier, they still make winning the game as a whole much easier and eliminate certain competitive elements of debate which shouldn’t be eliminated.
I think a neg case-list is fine, but knowing which neg your opponent is going to run is not nearly as helpful as knowing which AC your opponent is going to run (given that maybe 1 minute of the 1AR is usually devoted to answering the NC while 5 minutes of the NC are used to answer the AC).
This is the point that nobody seems to be able to address: spontaneity is critical to educational debate. How does anyone disagree with me on the notion that hearing something brand-new in round and writing answers in a short amount of time is much more educational (and personally fulfilling) than being prepped out with your coaches prior to the round? A complicated case-disclosure system in my view will just make debaters worse at actually debating on their own, and more reliant on their coaches and/or blocks.
Posted from: 66.157.156.189
May 19th, 2008 10:17
anjan: my bad there, two things to keep in mind:
(a) that was about policy, not LD – my point was that LD is unlike policy because the neg gets counterwarrants that they can read regardless of the aff.
(b) pre-round disclosure (my argument in this debate will be…) is not the same as pre-tournament disclosure on a caselist (the args ive run on this topic have been…).
i think michelin’s suggestion that we post strategy notes like an ndt/ceda caselist is unlikely to go over well with the vast majority of people in LD because of the arg ken is making. in fact, if caselists were taken to that extreme, ken would have a point. ndt/ceda policy has more speeches with way more time and way more arguments – those notes comprise a small fraction of what goes down in the debate. in LD, strategies are usually much more straightforward and require significantly fewer arguments to win.
however, with a ‘post a flow of your constructive args’ standard (including neg off-case args+generic overviews) then spikes are revealed without being totally castrated. those args would make it on a preflow but it wouldnt necessarily be possible to guess how they will be used the first time around. this seems like a fair compromise to me.
‘compromise’ is ultimately my arg for why ken is wrong.
first of all, many of the claims about coaches doing work for debaters are, in my experience, vastly exaggerated. if i was debating against coaches blocks all those years then frankly some of my colleagues aint too bright and you shouldnt worry about it. i think its more likely that the coaches wrote a small portion of the arg or suggested a general direction and what ended up on the page was ultimately a reflection of how well the student understood their coach.
even if coaches do most of the block-writing, just having some pre-written arguments will not win you a debate. you need a strategy, and you need to be able to execute that strategy in your second rebuttal. if coaches can somehow instill those abilities in their debaters regardless of the debaters skill, how do you explain these two phenomena:
1) debaters without coaches (or with uninvolved or incompetent coaches) winning
2) different debaters from the same school having consistently different degrees of success
more importantly (and this is the key argument) ken’s argument is a description of the status quo. like it or not, if they want to the big name coaches can probably have your cases within 1 week of you running them. allow me a brief policy debater moment: WE CONTROL UNIQUENESS ON ALL OF YOUR IMPACTS. the standard ernie and i both seem to be advocating (post a flow) is the status quo without the politics. any disadvantage to our position is non-unique and worse in a world without disclosure bc only a select few get access.
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
May 19th, 2008 10:33
1) i think caselists solve the terminal impact of spontaneity by encouraging better clash. blocks aren’t bad because they’re blocks; they’re bad because they’re usually extremely generic, and they’re generic because debaters have no clue what the nuances of their opponents’ arguments are so they have to be all-encompassing to compensate. spontaneity still happens with a caselist, but it’s process based rather than substance based–more transparency=a higher expectation of clash and argument development=more spontaneity in terms of articulating the nuances of arguments in the rebuttals and not just scripting the rounds off of blocks.
2) i also think that this argument is a moot point because bad scripted block debates are inevitable in the squo given a lack of information about opponents. you’re kidding yourself if you think that the current debate environment is at all spontaneous.
3) i also don’t know why spontaneity is an inherent good. oftentimes it’s just a code word for “people making shit up” or “people bullshitting 2 sentence analytical arguments that don’t mean anything”. try watching high school parli or bad college parli and you’ll see what i mean.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 19th, 2008 11:44
Michael:
I’m sorry if you’ve been asked this multiple times, but can you post exactly what would go on the case list per case? Like let’s say an AC is definitions, observations, spikes, a criterion, warrants for the criterion, multiple carded contentions with numbered impacts, and defensive preempts to case answers. Which of these elements would be posted on the case-list? It’s important to know exactly how much will be disclosed before we discuss further, since clearly the amount disclosed is directly related to the strength of our arguments.
In terms of coaches helping debaters win rounds, neither of us can really make a statement about how much influence coaches in general have over their kids’ prep/debating. But I do think that I can say that if a debater knows exactly what he’s going to hit in the next round, his coach can provide him with substantial help in preparing answers, and subsequently can give him an extreme advantage going into the round. Of course, this doesn’t matter so much in small doses (I’m not saying debaters shouldn’t talk to their coaches or w/e), but I worry that if a successful case-list emerges it will become an every-round reality, with debaters doing less and less critical thinking on their own.
More importantly, Michael, my argument is not about the status quo. If top-name coaches could have my shit if they wanted it, then why didn’t they? I had a neg at TOC which I’d been running since Blake but I never debated someone who had it prepped out. Also, I’d rather have 3 teams secretively share my flow than let the entire debate community have access to it. I think a world in which every time you break a case it ends up on the internet is much worse than a world in which some people know what you’re running and others don’t.
Again, I might not be completely against the idea, I just need to know exactly how specific an online description of a case will be before I criticize the system any more.
Smitty:
1) Let’s be honest, it’s not the same degree of spontaneity. Meeting a higher burden of clash (extremely hard to conceptualize in any meaningful sense, like will judges stop accepting “no brightline” once the case-list emerges?) is not nearly as hard as answering something that you’ve never heard before in 4 minutes of prep.
2)Am I really kidding myself if I think that the current debate environment isn’t spontaneous at all? Even so, it’s way more spontaneous than it will be if people have access to their opponents’ flows prior to the round.
3) Spontaneity is inherently good because it encourages debaters to essentially do their own critical thinking. The true test of a good debater is his or her ability to formulate answers based on their understanding of the world and relation of arguments on the flow, not on their ability to understand their coaches arguments and regurgitate them in round.
Posted from: 66.37.233.51
May 19th, 2008 12:46
Who governs and enforces the case list and how does it become accessible to all debaters, especially those in more rural environs? Certainly, I’ve always thought some kind of governance would be good for judges (a whole other topic for discussion), but it’s no small task to have transparent and accountable administration for something like this. The oversight, time and resources needed to pull off an all-encompassing case list – which ties in all of the underground work which appears to be going on currently (surprise to me) with everything not currently uncovered (including the work done outside mainstream debate) seems enormous upon my initial observation. What happens when debater from BFE attends their first TOC qualifier without ever having heard of any of this (for the sake of argumentation, assume this hypothetical debater has talent and intelligence)? Will we always have a system where some are unintentionally or intentionally operating outside the “system”? Is there a point where with the “best possible” scenario for case lists leads some to believe it’s in their best interest to neglect the list and in making that choice, there are no penalities?
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 19th, 2008 14:06
Ken, on spontaneity:
1. You can’t tell me the national circuit is fit for the type of world you describe. Debaters are going faster and faster, getting more and more technical and the strategy is to win by extending the fourth dropped spike out of the framework. This doesn’t lead to spontaneity; this leads to debaters winning because they hide crap. Your argument sounds like code word for “I like winning on dropped hidden spikes because my opponent can’t possibly respond to 800 independent sentences in three minutes.”
2. I was taught when I was a debater that anytime someone uses the word inherently, they are probably covering up a lack of warrant. You seem to assert that a world without caselist leads to some spontaneous critical thinking. I think most debaters (including my kids, and you when I saw you at toc) Spend time reading generic, not-quite responsive cards on affs. This isn’t spontaneous. Ask any judge who judged at toc and they’ll tell you a lot of time was spent reading generic evidence.
3. Open access trumps. I’d rather play a game which is marginally less spontaneous (though I don’t think you are even answering Michael’s argument about later rebuttals) and vastly more open. Certain schools are at a tremendous advantage in the world you envision.
Finally, an argument I heard from Dan Meyers seems appropriate here. It seems to me that the fact that there are 80-180 debaters at many bid tournaments prevents massive prepping. The amount of information out there prevents in-depth case prepping pre-tournament; remember, debaters still have to craft their own strategies. This system rewards hard working debaters while still eliminating the ability for pre-round prep to take out everything.
Ken, as someone with a team that can gather lots of flows, its easy for you to say you don’t mind “two or three” people having your prep. In most rounds, you are at an advantage still. Some schools get largely shut out in the squo.
Tomsu–
Good question. I think a couple things happen.
Community pressure solves. If it is a successful debater that is free-riding, their stuff is likely to be posted rather quickly by their judges or opponents. Moreover, case-lists can be designed so that only those who participate gain access to the flows.
I don’t think this requires a tremendous amount of oversight. A wiki such as Michael’s can be set up and tournament directors can include/describe the system in invites. At worst, software such as joy of tournaments could easily be designed to have a section for submitting to a case list.
No system is perfect–I can post info about the case list and someone will miss out on it. But 1. Its better than the status quo–less people are excluded; 2. It can be rectified quickly upon debaters attending the tournament.
Finally, as a side note: remember a case outline need not be posted until said case has been run. Debaters still have the ability to write and run new stuff without it being known prior to the round.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 19th, 2008 15:13
Ernie:
1) It’s not that I like winning b/c I load up my ACs with a ton of spikes which I then extend to preclude shit (come on, you know I answer the NC), it’s more like I like writing creative and good cases that are hard to answer b/c of their nuanced warrants, but if people had these cases a long time before the round they would lose their edge. I agree w/ you that debate is becoming more and more like “extend the two-word 27th spike from the AC framework, this precludes the NC”, but I don’t think prepouts are needed to (or even can) address the problem – what’s needed is for judges to actually require substantive warrants for spikes.
2) I actually agree about the use of the word “inherently”, and I only used it to answer Smitty’s assertion (61) that “spontaneity isn’t an inherent good”. As for that specific round and this topic in general, the reason why I read blocks against Wade’s case is b/c to be honest, I don’t know so much about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities nor do I know much about the capabilities of the specific terrorist nations who are trying to steal them. Wade was running a plan AC, and I don’t think many debaters in the field would’ve had the knowledge required to actually be spontaneous and answer them without the use of generic “terrorists can’t hit the U.S.” blocks. I feel like this is why both of our teams wrote the Congo plan, we realized that people wouldn’t have good answers, and we knew that we’d be able to beat-back generics.
But, I do think that spontaneity is alive and well in many areas of debate. Round 6 I hit Rebar who broke a (as far as I know) new case using a Hegelian framework to justify war categorically. I didn’t read a single block against his case when I answered it. Even if spontaneity is dying in LD, the case-list (if it’s as extensive at it seems that it will be), will speed up its death.
3) I agree that open access is good, but if it comes at the expense of witnessing a two-sided prepout every round, I don’t think it trumps at all. My answer to Michael’s later speeches argument was posted earlier and never responded to (59):
“I think that the idea that being prepped out doesn’t help you with later speeches is not really true. First, because it’s already easier to extend arguments than to make them (I think most would agree that extending args off the AC is easier than actually answering the AC on the first go-round), so prepouts eliminate the hardest part of the debate. Second, if you’re prepped out you probably didn’t use a whole lot of preptime, so you still have a ton of time to plan your second speech (so prepouts do help you with later speeches). Most importantly, however, even if prepouts don’t make the 2nd speech easier, they still make winning the game as a whole much easier and eliminate certain competitive elements of debate which shouldn’t be eliminated.”
On your last argument, I really don’t know about that. If I can go to Michael’s wiki and see what my opponents were running at other tournaments, then I do think there would be a ton more prep-outs. Even knowing what your opponent is gonna run 15 mins before the round can make a big difference.
In terms of Scarsdale specifically, we may have large numbers but I think everyone would agree that we are not a prep-machine. Whenever I get a flow from Vaughan (or anyone else) they usually just explain the gist of arguments to me, and I’ve never read a script my whole debate career, and I can only recall 3 occasions on which I’ve been thoroughly prepped out.
Posted from: 65.81.157.88
May 19th, 2008 15:49
if people are really uncomfortable with the risk of prep-outs, consider the anonymous disclosure system i suggest on the wiki. if you post flows without identifying information, no single student is at risk of major prep-out before a tournament. at the same time, the information is available for people to craft general strategies based on what arguments are popular on the topic. it also seems to have fewer of the problems of free-riders. this also solves the problem (alluded to by tomsu and mentioned to me by anjan as well) of national circuit teams getting preped out by anti-disclosure folks or accidental local circuit free-riders.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 19th, 2008 17:03
Michael:
An anonymous disclosure system would be fine. I don’t think debaters doing a lot of prep is a problem, the problem only arises when you literally know what your opponent is going to run every round. That system may garner the advantages of open disclosure while avoiding the disadvantages of every-round prepouts.
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
May 19th, 2008 17:25
For me, I think the anonymous disclosure system is bad. Obviously not every flow is going to be posted online before/during a tournament and I would hate to see the flow up online of my case by a judge or opponent without my discretion.
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 19th, 2008 17:30
@Ken:
Yea, but for the record I never advocated full case-text disclosure. What I said specifically was case positions, not the cases themselves.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 19th, 2008 17:51
ah, my bad Rob. I read “case positions” as full-texts, but I can see how it could mean other things.
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
May 19th, 2008 19:17
In response to #68… unless your case is 100% original in its thought process, I do not believe that you have the right to control it as a piece of information. After all, I can say quite confidently that you don’t contact the authors who wrote your evidence prior to writing the case and reading it in a debate.
When the case is read, that information becomes a part of the larger body of debate information. If someone chooses to post a case that you’ve written online, then that’s the risk you take for reading the case.
I think the basic assumption that underlies the pro-disclosure movement is the idea that we should not be fearful of debating our positions. As we develop an identity as a community more each year, it’s imperative that we make our answers, answers to answers, and the replies to those arguments more intelligent and insightful. Having the ability to get more of that information hashed out in advance will ensure that this can happen.
Michelin Massey
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 98.199.112.103
May 19th, 2008 19:46
@ Michelin
I agree that we need to make our arguments more insightful and intelligent, but I don’t think it is ok for people to post other’ people’s flows without discretion. Sure you take a risk reading it off and yes it might be told to other people later, but to see that your case was posted online (whether it is original or not) without permission does not usually make the debater happy. I know that not all debaters agree to the anonymous disclosure method and thus this method would not work unless everyone at the tournaments said it was ok. Yes we don’t contact the authors but that is not because we are in a competitive game with them as we are in debate where we don’t want our opponents having the ability to get their coaches to write huge prepped out responses to the case you spent a long time writing. If anything at all I think it discourages substantive cases because debaters will write a litany of cases so they don’t have to run one case more than once and thus they are more prone to writing BS cases and underdeveloped cases to beat the prep. And as I was saying, not everyone’s case would be posted online so it would be highly unfair if some people’s cases were posted and some were not.
Posted from: 137.165.249.115
May 19th, 2008 20:53
“If anything at all I think it discourages substantive cases because debaters will write a litany of cases so they don’t have to run one case more than once and thus they are more prone to writing BS cases and underdeveloped cases to beat the prep. And as I was saying, not everyone’s case would be posted online so it would be highly unfair if some people’s cases were posted and some were not.”
i think that this is pretty poor logic, because presumably weak cases don’t go very far anyways, or at least the best debaters that would win because of prep would also be able to beat the BS or underdeveloped cases. In the end, if a case is good enough, no matter how much prep is used, the negative can only speak for 7 minutes and good strategic cases are going to be able to beat out a spread.
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 19th, 2008 21:06
It’s all good Ken.
Posted from: 76.246.93.31
May 19th, 2008 22:02
Rob
Sure, I’m certain any number of debaters can come up with justifications for spreading. My purpose isn’t to question their intentions. It’s the act of spreading itself that should be condoned.
And if a lot of lders suck at it in the first place, then why has it grown as a new norm in the recent years? Fine, let those who can spread properly do so. At least they will be comprehensible. But as for everyone else, if the new trend for debate is to be crappy spreading, then why not condone the practice altogether? Surely those who go against what is commonly acceptedw ould have to do so with good reason, and that would be, in this case, because they are able to do so with clarity. Ok, so I grant that not every speech should be quote oratorical. That’s fine. Moreover, I never said that being word economic alone would solve the problem. However, if you ARE word economic, then shouldn’t you be able to fit in all of the necessary arguements that you want anyways? If an old-school judge were in your round, what would you do in that situation? Don’t you think that there is a reason why some people are against the practice? What about the common folk…your parents, peers, anyone else wanting to just listen in? How are they expected to keep up with the face paced speaking? (that is, assuming it’s incomprehensible) So now, this really goes back to my first question: if you are speaking clearly (meaning signposting, oratorical, or whatever process is able to make your speech understandable), then why are you spreading? Is it simply just to incoporate those last couple of arugements, or to keep up with your opponent? How about this: run theory on spreading and win. That’s it. Or if you’ve got an old school judge, then just be impressive. Obviously if he condones stuff like that, then you’ve already got the advantage. I think most of all what bugs me, is the fact that lders try to justify spreading in order to provide an excuse to throw in extra arguements that really aren’t needed. If I do recall, LD is a “value debate”, and not a “policy debate” where you need to throw in 5 responses to a single arguement.So with that in mind, how is anyone ever going to be able to weigh out the round when one is focused solely on the amount of responses one places on his opponent.
Posted from: 24.7.64.100
May 19th, 2008 22:12
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/condone
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
May 19th, 2008 22:32
Lol. smitty ftw
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 19th, 2008 22:39
1. If only those who could spread well did it, then they would dominate the field and no one would have a chance in front of flow judges. That’s why the ones who don’t do it well are doing it to, they at least want a shot at keeping up.
2. Good word economy isn’t going to make up a 100wpm difference, especially if your opponent is good and word economical too.
3. No one is saying that spreading in front of parent judges is good, often times it will lose you a round. It’s called judge adaptation, and I’m sure the people here realize it’s important. Spreading is only advantages in front of a certain set of judges, and good debaters only spread in front of those judges, I thought that was a given.
4. The problem with the ‘this isn’t policy’ argument is that a lot of people debate by utilizing the spread, CPs, Ks, etc. that came from policy. And you can say this is LD not policy all you want but when you lose because you got spread out in front of a flow judge, you have to start thinking of what works in terms of the ballot.
5. Most good debaters/teams already have blocks to speed bad theory. My coach coaches IEs only; I write, research, strategize, etc. all of my own stuff myself and even I have a pretty extensive theory file including a counter-interpretation saying speed good with 10 pts. and embedded weighing analysis.
6. I think the main flaw in your position is that you presume all judges look at clarity and impressiveness as game winning issues when a good chunk don’t. Maybe traditional, flay, lay, local, parent (whatever they’re being called now) judges do value those things. But there is a sizeable portion of the judging pool on the national circuit that look to argument function on the flow and not ‘impressiveness’ (whatever that means). Debaters aren’t going to drop the speed and say, “Hey, this is LD.” insofar as they are preoccupied with what wins rounds.
7. post 76 has a point
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 19th, 2008 22:40
advantageous*
Posted from: 69.115.223.185
May 19th, 2008 22:44
rob what the hell is a flay judge
Posted from: 76.175.197.13
May 19th, 2008 22:52
flow + lay = flay
Posted from: 24.205.209.139
May 19th, 2008 23:14
It’s the middle ground between the two. Like those judges who take very basic notes, or try to flow but do it really poorly. It’s better than staring awkwardly, but it’s still not flowing as most of us conceptualize it.
Posted from: 66.157.147.189
May 19th, 2008 23:39
michelin hints at something that i want to be really blunt about: if your case cannot stand up to scrutiny, youve written a shitty case. i still havent seen an answer to the arg that disclosure helps the aff more than the neg because the time-pressure of the 1AR makes it all the more important that you have the best and most researched answers to the neg possible, whereas most negs just spend 7 minutes dumping their generics.
statements like this one in post 72 are nonsense:
“not everyone’s case would be posted online so it would be highly unfair if some people’s cases were posted and some were not.”
why is that ‘highly unfair,’ but the current situation where only some peoples cases are collected and shared by political alliances is acceptable?
this seems to be a common theme in arguments i have on vbd: you need uniqueness to have a meaningful impact. access to information is skewed now; making information public decreases that skew, even if it doesnt totally fix it – this is the “inevitable in the sq” arg which ken either misinterprets or avoids. if something bad is happening now, any step to fix that thing is better than no step at all.
Posted from: 76.246.93.31
May 19th, 2008 23:46
Oh crap! I’m beaten….round em’ up boys!hsssssssssss……….noooooooooooo!!! must leave with what little dignity I still have….*runs out with tail in between legs
Posted from: 76.246.93.31
May 19th, 2008 23:48
Must never return to these forums again! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
Posted from: 76.246.93.31
May 19th, 2008 23:48
Must never return to these forums again! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
“Let’s blow this popsicle stand!”
-exits
Posted from: 66.157.147.189
May 19th, 2008 23:55
let me be really explicit about kens 2 key args even though i think myself and others are already handling them:
ken says:
“I think that the idea that being prepped out doesn’t help you with later speeches is not really true. First, because it’s already easier to extend arguments than to make them (I think most would agree that extending args off the AC is easier than actually answering the AC on the first go-round), so prepouts eliminate the hardest part of the debate. Second, if you’re prepped out you probably didn’t use a whole lot of preptime, so you still have a ton of time to plan your second speech (so prepouts do help you with later speeches). Most importantly, however, even if prepouts don’t make the 2nd speech easier, they still make winning the game as a whole much easier and eliminate certain competitive elements of debate which shouldn’t be eliminated.”
on the first: i already answered this argument – its not just about arguments, its also about strategies. coaches cannot script your strategies before round. also recall that your theory of “coaches write out blocks” cant account for coachless successes or well-coached failures. i also havent seen an answer to my arg that few coaches actually do this and that a lot of coaches are no better at writing blocks than a good circuit debater.
on the second: i did not have a bunch of coaches (in fact, i almost never had an argument coach, i almost never got outside help with researching, and i sure as hell never got blocks or cases handed to me by a coach) but i managed to save the majority of my prep time for the NR. this may be because when i was debating fewer affs had 80 spikes that you had to read in prep time (although this has been going on since at least 2005). i will be happy to give you some tips for conserving prep time if youd like because i think most debaters take far too much for their first speech now days. i often see debaters take 2+ minutes of prep for the NC, then stop time, then steal prep by pulling out their blocks, and then give a 7 minute speech that is almost entirely pre-written. seriously, wtf are you guys doing in those 2 minutes? and stop stealing prep. but anyway, that wasnt just a rant – it means that your arg does not have a unique link to a world with disclosure. regardless, if both debaters enjoy this advantage then why does it matter?
same question applies to your final arg about the game being easier overall. bullshit check: what competitive elements do we lose and why shouldnt we lose them? i think the gains of open access and better-developed, better-researched args and strategy outweigh anything you could claim is lost.
Posted from: 75.6.212.190
May 20th, 2008 00:29
“i often see debaters take 2+ minutes of prep for the NC, then stop time, then steal prep by pulling out their blocks, and then give a 7 minute speech that is almost entirely pre-written. seriously, wtf are you guys doing in those 2 minutes? and stop stealing prep.”
this is possibly the most true thing ever posted on vbd. i have seen debaters take 7 minutes of flex prep to answer stock cases with nothing but blocks.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 21st, 2008 15:41
Michael -
I’ll concede the points about later speeches just because I think that we already resolved the issue. Having an anonymous case disclosure system would grant you access to all the advantages that you and Ernie are claiming while avoiding any risk of the disadvantage which I’m suggesting, which is knowing exactly what your opponent is going to run next round.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 21st, 2008 16:14
Anonymous problem:
No accountability. Free riding.
Posted from: 71.167.185.200
May 21st, 2008 16:38
The flows are posted by judges/ opponents, not the person. Problem solved.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 21st, 2008 17:48
That sounds nice, but it leaves a lot of holes. Judges are lazy. Not everyone flows on their laptop. That system is inefficient. Sure Mangus and I would but how many others, if they flow on paper, would go out of their way to do it? I think community pressure works a lot better when we can attach names.
This system also solves for zero of the equal access arguments I’m making. Those schools with flow sharing networks will still be able to attach names to flows whereas no one else will. Some are still at a competitive disadvantage.
People seem afraid of hard work. Yes, if you write one case that doesn’t change throughout the topic, you are probably at a disadvantage. If you modify your cases and write new ones, you aren’t. Ken’s claim that your opponent will know what you’ll run every round is absurd unless people don’t run new things. Moreover, he’s never answering my claim directly about how there will be an overabundance of cases posted meaning line by line on everyone is impossible. You claim that even 15 minutes before round is a problem, but if someone has three affs (which I think most good teams do at a lot of tournies) than that gives them five minutes per case. In outrounds, where you haven’t flipped, even less.
In the status quo, certain people are at a huge advantage. This system solves that back. Anonymous posting is better but even Gordon’s solution doesn’t do enough to solve for the freerider problem–judges are lazy, not every judge cares enough about this issue, etc.
It seems like people are more interested in Indiana Jones than this issue so I’m going to stop posting until new arguments/voices get involved. I can talk to Ken on aim. I also think anyone engaging in this discussion needs to read Michael’s last post because its right on.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
May 21st, 2008 17:49
agree with Jon Gordon. judges just post what they saw. once someone runs a case it is in the public domain.
as long as people are consistent (ie posting EVERYTHING) they see, i don’t think there should be a problem.
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
May 21st, 2008 17:51
I’d be more than willing to post cases in rounds I judge if the website/public email/whatever gets off the ground next season.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
May 21st, 2008 17:52
if enough judges just say they will post stuff they see, it is a good way for the culture to be created. judges shouldn’t be worried about the politics of it, etc.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
May 21st, 2008 17:53
i also will w/ julian. i’m going to see if the NDCA will host it. it would be nice if all the stuff – the caselist/judge paradigms/etc were all in one place.
Posted from: 74.227.225.222
May 21st, 2008 18:08
while my idealistic side agrees with ernie’s “not far enough” argument, i think anonymous disclosure might be a necessary compromise given the current LD climate. when people have tried it and realize how much better a world with caselists is, it will be easier to persuade them to go all-out with it.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 21st, 2008 20:29
Ernie, I agree w/ Michael. This should be experimental. Why not try an anonymous disclosure system and if you deem it to be working well you can step it up to full disclosure.
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
May 21st, 2008 22:02
what stops people from taking down what was posted?
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
May 21st, 2008 22:03
also wouldn’t you then have the worst of both worlds? you would have people posting the cases of people they wanted to lose but never posting the cases of their friends?
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
May 21st, 2008 22:04
triple post!
i don’t understand why someone doesn’t just have the right to post something once they see it. also, what’s with kicking people out of the room that want to observe?
Posted from: 68.221.218.41
May 22nd, 2008 10:23
what stops people from lying? what stops people from haxx0rzing the website? what stops people from beating up a judge and taking the ballot? what stops people from holding a massive heist where they raid all the trophies from a tournament? what stops…oh wait all these things sound like crappy defensive ‘what if’ arguments. the risk of impropriety in the new system is a risk im wiling to take given the certainty of impropriety now. wikipedia seems to do just fine with unprotected and semi-protected pages; i trust that we can too.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
May 22nd, 2008 10:37
michael -
i agree with you that that is a silly objection i bring up. HOWEVER, insofar as people are willing to kick some people out of debate rounds from observing (while letting others watch), that they will be willing to share flows with some people and not others… what makes you believe people won’t just delete posts that have their own cases on them… anonymously?
Posted from: 68.221.218.41
May 22nd, 2008 12:09
its called revision history. its the beauty of a wiki-based system. delete all youd like, the data’s still there to be restored.
Posted from: 65.88.9.138
May 22nd, 2008 12:19
I have limited time now but feel like I need to chime in since I am an advocate of more openness in LD. For all the naysayers of more openness I have a couple questions:
A) Why have policy debate case list NEVER had most of these issues outlined above? Sure, some people (minority) may not be a fan of them or reluctantly participate, but are ANY of these reasons caselists may not “solve 100%” reasons they are not comparatively advantageous than the squo? I think not?
B) Why is is more liberal LD community willing to accept policy conventions like speed, counterplans, disads, kritiks etc, yet many of the debaters that engage in such strategies are UNWILLING to embrace things like caselists, disclosure and greater openness with cites/evidence among others?
I think I know the answer. I will share after people respond. A bit of foreshawdowing though, some people will not like my answer.
BTW, if people attempt to kick people out of rounds they should be disqualified/recieve a loss for that debate unless the observers are causing a disturbance beyond “people might get my cases”. Debates should be open. End of discussion.
Posted from: 63.161.12.200
May 22nd, 2008 14:17
Do people not understand that you dont have to post a case you’ve never run?
ie before greenhill you wouldnt have to post your cases.
if you change your v/c setup/contentions those wouldnt have to be posted until you actually ran them.
AT is just spot on when he says its ironic that ppl in this community are embracing speed/k’s/disads without, arguably, embracing the only way those other things came to fruition… an open caselist. the only reason policy teams are able to perform in the manner they do is because they can prepare specific arguments for specific teams. i just dont see any disadvantage to that.
it would be nice one of these days to hear a kritik that actually linked to the case that was run, or hear a disad that linked to the case, or hear a counterplan that solved all the case.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 22nd, 2008 20:36
why does borrowing some elements from policy debate mean that we need to borrow all of them? How is it at all contradictory to think that for instance, theory is good, and to think that a case-list is not good? The two are totally unrelated, and just b/c they both originated in policy debate doesn’t mean that we have to love them both. Just because we assume LD has some things to learn from policy doesn’t meant that it has EVERYTHING to learn from policy.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 22nd, 2008 20:48
A brief conversation with Palmer made me want to revive something discussed earlier:
How can anyone think that this sort of system would not massively advantage the neg? Yes, of course the neg will be expected to disclose their NCs too, but the neg still has huge advantages:
1) Prepping out the AC is NOT the same as prepping out the NC. Negs spend 5 mins answering the AC (sometimes more) in the 1NC, whereas Affs usually confine their response time to the NC in the 1AR to 1 min 30 seconds MAX. Also, the AC is typically 2 or 3 times longer than the NC (in terms of text and arguments), so knowing the AC going into the round means you know MORE of the aff’s arguments than knowing the NC when you go into the round.
2) If you know EXACTLY what your opponent is going to run next round, you have two unbeatable neg strats:
a) Prep an insurmountable number of answers to the framework and run a preclusive NC, or
b) Concede the framework and prep an insurmountable number of turns.
3) The neg retains MUCH greater flexibility in terms of choosing which NC they are going to run. I always base which NC I’m going to run on what the AC says (I run opposing frameworks, of course), but that’s NOT the limit of NC strat. Once the AC is ran the aff is stuck with that, then the neg gets to choose 1 of usually about 5 cases that they can use to destroy the AC. Having the AC prepped out gives a much greater advantage to the neg since they can easily pick the “right” NC and plan case-specific answers which relate to the NC.
So here’s my question for anyone who doesn’t think this system would give an unbelievable advantage to the neg:
When is it harder to overcome a prepout – on aff or on neg? The aff already is structurally disadvantaged with the 4 minute 1AR – if we give the neg the opportunity to prep answers to the AC every round, we’re going to see these disadvantages exacerbated.
Posted from: 66.41.255.202
May 22nd, 2008 21:42
group it:
do more work, have more cases, have contentions you can shuffle in and out, have different pieces of evidence you can use interchangably… all the ernie/mangus system will ultimately lead to is ppl preparing more for tournaments… not sure there is any disadvantage to that.
also, i havent read the thread, but this will help smaller schools SO much in terms of their ability to have greater access to research and greater knowledge of what is being run on the circuit.
frankly, it seems sort of naive to think that your cases wont be pretty known after the first time you run them anyway, if youre a successful debater, so why not let everyone have equal access to it and why not equal the playing field by making your opponent have to let you know what theyre running?
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 22nd, 2008 22:53
doing more work only solves slightly. How many ACs can you really be expected to have? I think I had 7 on the death penalty topic, but should I really have to write 7 cases every tournament or break a new case every round in order to avoid facing an insurmountable neg strat?
Doing more work doesn’t solve, and there is such a thing as an unreasonable expectation for how much work a debater should have to do to win (this is why predictability arguments exist).
I agree about help to smaller schools, but that just isn’t as important as avoiding inevitable aff loss after aff loss, even worse than it is now.
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
May 22nd, 2008 23:12
there is disclosure in policy debate and aff has a lot of advantage.
why wouldn’t people post neg cases and args they saw?
also, you say that prepping out doesn’t help much. but you are so concerned about being prepped out that you have 7 cases on the death penalty topic.
predictability is a theory argument, not a real-world argument.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 22nd, 2008 23:20
to be honest, I don’t understand the nature of the aff advantage in policy (other than that I know it exists), but I DO not that policy doesn’t give the neg the same structural advantages (in terms of tiem-constraints) that LD does.
Nowhere did I say that prepouts don’t help a lot. Obviously you have a huge advantage walking into the round when you’re being prepped out. I don’t really understand the sentence “but you are so concerned about being prepped out that you have 7 cases on the death penalty topic.”, but if you’re saying “why are you worried about being prepped out if you have 7 cases”, my response would be a) not all of the cases were so great, some were better than others and I’d prefer to be able to run good cases repeatedly without hitting prepouts, and b) if this system were put in to place, you would have to break a new AC every time you affirmed to survive a prep-out, meaning you’d have to write a shitload of ACs for every tournament.
I agree that predictability is not a real world argument, but it describes how debate should function in the real world. You can only reasonably expect debaters to do a certain amount of prep, and at the point where you’re saying the aff needs to run a new case every round to avoid a prepout, you’re simply asking too much.
My point about me having 7 cases was really just to illustrate that I’m not a lazy debater who only writes 1 case and immensely fears being prepped out.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 22nd, 2008 23:21
*second line should say “know” instead of “not”
Posted from: 24.240.252.34
May 22nd, 2008 23:33
One thing about top level policy debate is that people answer arguments ;) Cross apply post 83. This seems to address the last couple posts that oppose prep outs.
This is always and interesting discussion yet it seems to boil down to three arguments.
1. Case lists are comparatively advantageous over the status quo. I see no real response to this point. The minimal negative externalities seem to be outweighed by more information.
2. NO ONE is answering the uniqueness arguments. This has been repeated over and over.
3. The discussion of “case lists mean more work must occur”. This is a good thing in my mind. Some might call this an “impact turn”. In all honesty those that win major events should be the people who work the hardest and are the most talented. The idea that you can consistently win big debates by having a general, basic knowledge of the resolution and relying on “thinking on your feet only” will result in more losses than wins. Seriously, if you are an attorney and you are preparing for a trial with millions on the line, is the belief that you should stroll into court and just rely solely on “thinking on your feet” while the opposition is strapping in? This is a fast track to unemployment. The point has also been made that “you have to run a new case every round”. That doesn’t happen in policy debate where every detail is fleshed out. Why not just write good cases and work on extending them better?
After thinking about this and reading most of the posts, the reasons why people would say “no case lists in LD” in this thread, seem to replicate what I see from many judges in LD, voting negative on partial solvency arguments without turns/disads to the affirmative. This is a poor decision making model in my mind.
This time, this year, this discussion, (perhaps I have watched too many Obama speeches) I would like this issue actually debated out without distraction. What are people scared of?
At this point I plan to have a LD case list at the Greenhill tournament similar to the policy case list we have done for years. While I know “it is your party and you can do what you want, yada, yada”, what is the offensive reason this would be a bad idea?
Oh…and in top level policy debate OFFENSE is required to win most arguments ;)
Perhaps modeling that policy convention in LD might be in order!
Good discussion all.
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
May 22nd, 2008 23:51
I haven’t read the entire discussion, so I am sorry if this was already answered.
If novices (and this is not exclusive to the novices) get access to a list of cases written by some of the top debaters on the circuit, what will prevent them from stealing the cases and using them at tournaments? For example, my school (and probably many others) typically tries to stick to the policy of making novices write their own cases, so varsity debaters are discouraged from sharing their cases with others. However, as experience shows, when the novices do manage to get a hold of a varsity case, they oftentimes use it instead of their own, as this would help them win in the short term.
Mangus’s wiki would exacerbate this problem.
Posted from: 74.227.233.171
May 23rd, 2008 00:31
i’ll deal with the last post really quickly: no one is asking people to post the full text of their case prior to a tournament. full texts after toc is one thing; the general consensus for disclosure during the season seems to be ‘post what you’d put on a flow.’
now, ken makes three arguments:
“1) Prepping out the AC is NOT the same as prepping out the NC. Negs spend 5 mins answering the AC (sometimes more) in the 1NC, whereas Affs usually confine their response time to the NC in the 1AR to 1 min 30 seconds MAX. Also, the AC is typically 2 or 3 times longer than the NC (in terms of text and arguments), so knowing the AC going into the round means you know MORE of the aff’s arguments than knowing the NC when you go into the round.”
ive already answered this arg and you havent replied. time pressure heightens the need for disclosure because it means you better have your best stuff ready – well-researched, intelligent, strategic, evidenced answers to the NC and some built in answers in the AC would only help the aff given that right now you still have to give a very time-pressured 1AR against something you dont know before you read the AC.
in other words, let there be clash – if the aff can anticipate the NC and vice-versa thats better than the current system where the neg gets to catch the aff off-guard after hearing the AC.
the notion that negs do not somehow already know what aff args exist on the topic is also pretty outrageous. more on that in a second.
“2) If you know EXACTLY what your opponent is going to run next round, you have two unbeatable neg strats:
a) Prep an insurmountable number of answers to the framework and run a preclusive NC, or
b) Concede the framework and prep an insurmountable number of turns.”
first of all, this argument isnt exactly well-formed. what is an ‘insurmountable’ strategy? why cant my answer to this just be ‘well the neg should prepare an insurmountable AC and some insurmountable turns to the NC’? this argument is too vague to be taken seriously, but in case anyone is easily deceived i will reply anyway:
youre avoiding my earlier argument again. negs have this time advantage now, and since LD gives negs access to counter-warrants to the resolution (rather than disads to a plan) then you can dump generics for 7 minutes even if you dont have anything to say specific to the aff. perhaps negs could craft more specific blocks in a world of disclosure, but to be quite honest most affs are not nuanced enough to pose any barrier to a massive specific block dump now.
this is similar to the horizontal vs vertical spread distinction i mentioned in the article on value comparison last spring – either way the aff has a bunch of potentially round-winning args to answer in the 1AR. in fact, id rather debate a vertical spread if i were the aff. apparently they no longer teach the skill of “ballparking” the debate to your case so you get the “home field advantage”…
“3) The neg retains MUCH greater flexibility in terms of choosing which NC they are going to run. I always base which NC I’m going to run on what the AC says (I run opposing frameworks, of course), but that’s NOT the limit of NC strat. Once the AC is ran the aff is stuck with that, then the neg gets to choose 1 of usually about 5 cases that they can use to destroy the AC. Having the AC prepped out gives a much greater advantage to the neg since they can easily pick the “right” NC and plan case-specific answers which relate to the NC.”
this argument gets a serious “WTF” from me. the neg always gets to run a case based on the AC. thats how speech order works. the aff talks first. see my arg above about why disclosure actually helps bc it gives the aff a general idea of which AC to choose to clash best with the neg position. you may think youre clever but many debaters are extremely predictable on the neg. even if the aff is rolling the dice on which of your 5 negs youll read, that sounds a lot better than a blind guess to me.
with that out of the way, lets go big picture one more time in hopes that someone will finally offer a reply to the ‘inevitable now’ arg:
none of the args about why prep outs are bad are unique to a world of disclosure, nor has anyone made any argument that isolates an incremental link/impact. if there is even the slightest chance that disclosure solves any of these problems, it is better than the status quo – especially in light of the equal access advantage.
ken is right when he says neg doesnt have the same structural advantage in policy – it has even more of an advantage. 4 to 7 is a much more favorable ratio than 5 to 13 or 6 to 15.
one lesson to be learned from policy is that caselists and time limits are not the primary determiner of skew – judges and their paradigms are. despite a history of aff advantage, some data indicates that the neg is starting to get a narrow advantage in college policy. ive heard people blame this on the K, the PIC, performance strategies, etc. etc. im not here to defend one of those theories as the right answer, but i guarantee you no one would say the reason is “caselists have gotten better.”
so with that in mind, would someone please explain to me why, to put it in debate terms, the perm doesnt solve? try to fix neg skew through structural and paradigmatic reforms + use a caselist. given that ive offered several reasons to believe a latter is (at best) a component of the former or (at worst) compatible with the former, i dont see why this discussion isnt over already.
Posted from: 74.227.233.171
May 23rd, 2008 00:32
my hypothetical reply to ken should read “well the *aff* should prepare…”
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 23rd, 2008 03:08
Michael:
First, I’ll make the link to disclosure. I left this out because I thought it was obvious:
Prep-outs systematically advantage the neg. If the neg has the AC flow and if the aff has an NC flow, due largely to the status of conventional LD, the neg wins. Disclosure will force affs to face prep-outs every round, since their ACs will be posted for EVERYONE to see online, rather than just possessed by some teams.
Now, to answer the last bit of your post really quickly, the perm probably would solve, but I don’t see structural or paradigmatic changes occurring anytime soon. My argument here is not that case-lists are inherently bad, rather that in the SQ of 1) neg time skew and 2) the absurd burden I think that judges hold the aff to nowadays, they will only slant more rounds towards the neg.
So let’s look at the arguments.
First you say that time-constraints are a reason for disclosure b/c it let’s the aff have its best stuff ready, more strategically prepared to answer the neg, etc.
1) It doesn’t matter how good the AC is if it’s prepped out. The single best quality of an AC is shock-value. Any competent debater with competent coaches can just write really good and a lot of answers to the AC if they have the opportunity to prep it out, and it is extremely hard for the aff to overcome these strategies, even if they have a good case or practice their extensions a lot.
2) This is related to the predictability of neg arguments discussion. Let’s use my example and say that the neg has 5 NCs (a lot of people pack more). How the hell is the aff supposed to anticipate or in any way know which NC the neg is going to run? I understand you might think that “most negs are extremely predictable”, but I think that’s kind of an unwarranted assertion. Taking a 1/5 chance of what the NC says definitely isn’t a blind guess, but at the same time, those aren’t great odds. If you spend time before the round writing in answers to the NC in your framework, there’s an 80% chance that that invested speech time will become irrelevant.
Also, if I don’t know if most debaters think this way, but if I were hitting an AC that had a ton of spikes that would take out the negative position, I’d probably just change which NC I was going to run. At that point, the aff would be strategically even more screwed.
Most importantly, though, it seems that this system encourages the kind of debate that you and Ernie have said it would avoid (e.g. loading up the AC framework with spikes to extend to take out the NC), b/c that is one of the defense-mechanisms you suggested.
Second, in terms of the “insurmountable” neg strats, I don’t understand how I’m being vague at all.
In a world in which you know exactly or have really good odds of knowing what the aff is going to run, why can’t you just either a) prep a ton of answers to the FW (let’s say 4 minutes of straight answers) and run a preclusive NC, or b) concede the framework and just read 7 minutes worth of turns. These strategies are insurmountable because realistically, they are strategies which are very rarely beaten. My argument is that case-lists will increase the use of these strategies.
So, my point is this: I agree that negs have the time advantage now and that judges are too quick to grant negs access to generics, etc. But, I think to say that having the flow of the AC going into the round and having the flow of the NC going into the round is strategically of equal value to both debaters in status quo debate is absolutely absurd. Sure, you can try to improve your case to overcome the spread, but as I said, the neg just has so much more flexibility.
One final point. The biggest cause of neg losses is inability to anticipate the AC. If the AC is new shit that you haven’t heard, it can be really hard to write answers or make your generic arguments link. That’s clear. However, the biggest source of aff losses is NOT inability to predict the NC. It’s time-constraints. You can say that these aren’t warranted by empirical data, but I think that anyone who has been in the debate community for a reasonable amount of time (and you certainly have) would agree that this is true. Increasing the number of prepouts therefore eliminates the biggest source of neg-losses, while, in my opinion, also making the time-constraints on the aff worse by forcing them to overcome a huge spread.
Posted from: 66.41.255.202
May 23rd, 2008 06:03
just a general FYI this is what the NDT/CEDA caselist looks like-
http://opencaselist.wikispaces.com/
yeah its definitely not full text
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
May 23rd, 2008 08:00
re: 116
ok, that makes sense.
Posted from: 75.167.201.137
May 23rd, 2008 10:41
I’m going to post more later this weekend, but I think the aff disadvantage is largely a product of the way rounds are judged (AT points this out in his post). Negs win on shit two sentence arguments against mountains of Aff evidence. I think that AT is spot on that we are creating the worst possible system by adopting certain conventions of policy without others that make debates bearable. Theory and critiques are underdeveloped because of a lack of responsiveness–ld k’s are generic and awful almost universally. I’m tired of affs reading 60 seconds worth of shitty spikes at the top. I’m tired of negs that read one sentence blips over and over again. My hope is that along with case disclosure judges recognize the “higher burden of clash” that smitty talks about. I’ll answer more of the “line by line” later but I think that there are two things still not really dealt with:
1. Open access–Ken you have nothing here
2. Debaters are rewarded for increase complexity of argument and extensions. Ken you just say that you can only write so many affs, but the problem is affs generally aren’t that well developed. People write one draft and then move on to another case for the next tournament. Modify them, mold them to get around common neg objections.
Honestly, affs have done much better in debates where I know both debaters have each others cases. I think that the reason you see the majority of judges/coaches on one side is because we continually see debaters win because of one sentence hidden extensions that are claimed to take out 3 minutes of neg argumentation. Lets quit hiding things and actually be able to compare quality of argumentation. Status quo = affs have to compensate for generic neg strats by frontloading with spikes. New system = debaters compensate by writing more complex cases, editing them, and having true comparison of arguments.
Posted from: 75.167.201.137
May 23rd, 2008 10:43
The number one above should be equal access.
Posted from: 207.165.193.117
May 23rd, 2008 12:44
On balance I disagree with the idea of a case list. My reasons for disagreement fall into a couple of categories.
I. Logistics
Even though as LDers we have a natural disdain for “implementation problems,” it seems to me that the implementation problems associated with this idea are so numerous and far-reaching that they call into question the legitimacy of the project. 1) Who is responsible, 2) for posting what, 3) what is the mechanism of enforcement, especially when 4) the lack of speficity of requirement will allow people to “seem” like they are posting accurate material when they’re not. 5) How does this solve problems of fair access when not every team has wireless connectivity, and 6) this seems to exacerbate the problem of access by privileging those schools where not only does the TEAM have a wireless laptop, but each DEBATER has one. 7) This exacerbates problems like “blippy one-sentence framework arguments” because debaters can simply dip into the bottomless well of such arguments and run new ones each round, with the added benefit of catching their opponents off-guard because they have the case off the list. 8) There are vastly, vastly more LD debaters than policy debaters, generating vastly, vastly more positions; riding herd on this process would be a nightmare.
Strategic concerns:
1)This exacerbates a pre-existing bias for the negative. I have read the arguments posted on this point and I am unmoved by the responses. Even if negatives have to disclose all of their positional material, including cases and off-case positions, the affirmative disadvantage is still exacerbated because they have to post 6 minutes worth of their in-round material while the negative might well be posting only 1 or 2 minutes’ worth (given that common negative strategies involve very brief cases followed by massive spreads.) Now, those massive spreads will be better — but only to the disadvantage of the affirmative. This argument seems clearly unique since the thesis is that a pre-existing problem is exacerbated.
I am not adamantly against this idea, but it feels to me like something that would create a lot of work and confusion, and ultimately any changes that actually result will tend to re-entrench already existing disadvantages — ie for the affirmative and for less-connected debate teams.
I’m prepared to be convinced, but I’ve read this thread from top to bottom and I’m not convinced yet.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
May 23rd, 2008 12:50
How does the case list work mid-tournament? Do you post your cases after every individual round where a new case is broken or do you just have to get them posted before outrounds?
Posted from: 74.227.233.171
May 23rd, 2008 13:18
“There are vastly, vastly more LD debaters than policy debaters, generating vastly, vastly more positions”
…are you kidding?
more later, maybe.
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
May 23rd, 2008 14:40
“At this point I plan to have a LD case list at the Greenhill tournament similar to the policy case list we have done for years.”
How is this going to work if people don’t have to turn in their cases before they run them, Greenhill for many is their first tournament of the season, and not everyone has laptops with internet connection to submit the cases at the tournament?
also:
1. Policy debaters seem to be pretty good at flowing, so there might be some way around it, but it seems that a case list would deemphasize flowing skills, as you could print out the flow of your opponents case before the round.
2. Dave makes a good point about implementation problems.
3. Bigger schools would have an advantage at the point where their debaters that get to debate in second flight get about an hour to prep out their opponents with the help of their coaches and teammates.
This can also actually deemphasize pre-tournament preparation instead of encouraging it, because instead of working before the tournament to prep out common positions, one could wait till the postings are up, and then still have an hour to prep out the specific case he’ll hit.
Posted from: 75.167.201.137
May 23rd, 2008 14:41
Dave,
Your blip storm reminds me of some of the 1nc’s on the corporations topic. My original response is the exact same as Mangus; if you read through this thread, you find answers to at least half of your concerns (specificity, community pressure solves enforcement problems, etc.) Some of your questions have blatantly clear answers–eg the wireless question. Having cases before a tournament is still better than having none at all; outlines can be printed, saved to a laptop. Not everyone, of course, can afford printing/a laptop, but I think that those students are already so far disadvantaged that this isn’t increasing any harm. They can handwrite some outlines, at the very least. It is really difficult to engage in the line by line when people post things without answering what has already been said. I’ll attempt to answer more of this (and Ken’s concerns) when I have more time. And seriously, your number eight is one of the worst and most untrue arguments I’ve ever heard. You’ve seen how deep policy backfiles are. You (I hope) have some understanding of the amount of different affs on any given policy topic and I remember bitching with you about how ld’ers run the same crap every round.
Wade–
My guess is it would depend on internet access at the tournament. Post them when you get a chance.
Posted from: 75.167.201.137
May 23rd, 2008 14:48
Anon-
Your number one is ridiculous. You never say why flowing is valuable in itself. People still have to listen for changes in cases. The policy debaters on my team actually flow quite well (and so do most former policy debaters who crossover to ld.)
Your number three is problematic because
1. You never know if you are flight B or not so its not worth risking til your at the tournament to do work.
2. Those good schools generally have highly preferenced coaches, meaning they arejudging flight A.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 23rd, 2008 15:42
Ernie:
Don’t get me wrong – I do agree that open access is a huge advantage to the case-list. I just don’t think that outweighs the problems that will arise with having to surmount a prepout every round (on aff). Again, I understand your args that this system will encourage affs to do more than write a shitton of spikes, but again, the aff can only do so much. Once the neg has a flow of the AC and time to prep, it becomes extremely hard for the aff to win, esp. if the round is being judged in the way that debate rounds are being judged in the SQ.
Like Dave, I’m not COMPLETELY against the idea. Greenhill (since Mr. Timmons is very pro-disclosure) will be a good place to try this kind of case-list, but I think that if it causes problems (e.g. a huge percentage increase of neg wins, which is what I’m predicting), we shouldn’t hesitate to ditch it.
I also still think an anonymous case-list would work just fine, solving all of the politics arguments while avoiding the risk of the disadvantages I’m talking about.
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
May 23rd, 2008 15:59
“I do agree that open access is a huge advantage to the case-list. I just don’t think that outweighs the problems that will arise with having to surmount a prepout every round (on aff).”
why doesnt it outweigh?
i have never seen an insurmountable NC. i have also seen plenty of mind blowingly amazing NCs which werent prep outs.
Posted from: 75.25.130.115
May 23rd, 2008 16:16
1.
a) The policy observation is the same one I made.
b) I thought it’s quiet obvious why flowing is good. Apart from helping people to take notes , it forces them to quickly recognize which part of what they hear is the most important, since they have very little time and can’t write down everything. Being able to quickly understand the core of what you hear behind all the fancy rhetoric etc. is needed not only in debate.
2.
Community pressure would not work because
a) As this thread shows, the community is divided.
b) Community pressure would mostly affect the more well known debaters who have a reputation to lose.
c) Community pressure might force people to put AN outline of their case up, but there is no brightline of what makes a non-uber-shitty-useless outline.
d) Aside from people who disagree with the idea of the caselist (see b), there will be even more people who pretend like they don’t believe in caselists so that they don’t get prepped out and at the same time don’t look selfish.
e) These points add up.
3.
Granted, the rest of the answers (case changes, coaches judging etc.) are true, but they only show how the problems are smaller, not how they don’t exist.
For example, since not everyone is in flight two, that means that the caselist makes pre-tournament prep twice less usefull, not totally useless (yes, having general prep-outs would still have some value in both worlds, but we’ll say this is balanced out by the fact that people oftentimes have plenty of time between the postings and the round even when they are flight one), which is not as bad, but still pretty bad. The risk of not having blocks in round one would only concern the top-tier debaters, half the people at bid tournaments don’t have blocks at all.
Posted from: 24.240.252.34
May 23rd, 2008 18:23
Any offense yet on why case list are bad? Nope…
Any answers to the uniqueness/inevitablity arguments? Nah…
Sigh….
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
May 23rd, 2008 18:46
Umm. . . I mean, you don’t have to agree with them or anything, but several arguments have been posted to the effect that a case list would entrench the neg bias, and that it would operate to the disadvantage of students who don’t have access to wireless internet.
I mean, again, you might not agree with those points but they were *offered.* So the deep sighing probably isn’t necessary.
Posted from: 66.41.255.202
May 23rd, 2008 19:27
there will 100% be a caselist at blake next year as well.
Posted from: 71.167.185.200
May 23rd, 2008 19:44
Out of curiosity, does the case list in policy result in plagiarism at all (e.g. people appropriating the outlines of “good teams” cases and using the outlines to write the same case for themselves)? How does one spot plagiarism? What is the penalty for plagiarism? Is it even considered plagiarism/ watched out for?
Pre-empt: Yes, when one debates an opponent and flows their case one could conceivably plagiarize in the same way, but I’d contend that a case list makes the problem infinitely worse because with multiple versions of a case or with an accurate version of the case (e.g. proper spellings of author names etc.) if people were required to post their own flows it would be much easier to plagiarize than in a world where you only have your own or a single judge’s imperfect flow of an opponent’s case.
Posted from: 24.240.252.34
May 23rd, 2008 20:59
Dave,
See posts 83, 127 and 116. They seem to answer your arguments in my opinion.
Also, kids that don’t have internet don’t have it in the squo AND information is being shared now (there are those uniqueness and inevitability arguments again). The solution is to ask people who do have access to wireless access to see the caselist/get info when you get back to the hotel at the business center.
Basically these arguments are weak PMA’s/solvency arguments. They are great reasons the system is not perfect but don’t seem to be a reason to keep the squo.
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
May 23rd, 2008 23:41
how does anonymity solve the politics problem? aren’t people more likely to selectively post what they see if they are anonymous, whereas if their name is attached a public check is there to see if someone is, in fact, failing to post some cases and not others?
Posted from: 69.149.63.38
May 23rd, 2008 23:55
I’d love to see some posts explaining why the current system where only a select few have access to flows before rounds is rounds is comparatively better to a case list.
I see three themes that seem to be prevalent in many of the posts by people who oppose a case list.
1. People will cheat the system:
If people will cheat the case list, that seems to imply that people will also be unethical in the way they handle evidence/research case construction. A case list seems to offer a way of checking this behavior whereas allowing the current system to continue seems to ensure that this practice will continue.
2. AFFs will never win:
If the argument is that once a few intelligent people have some time to look at your AFF then you simply can’t win then there is something seriously wrong with either how people are writing AFFs or how people are judging rounds. Well warranted/evidenced arguments aren’t that hard to defend even when people are making lots of responses. 2 Lines of bad analytics doesn’t seem to deny the validity of a 20 year study (or at least it shouldn’t). Negs should have to disclose all evidence that they have read in past debates. Unlike Dave, I don’t see the harm of letting people have as many dumb 1 liners as they want. Bust a new one each speech if you want. I don’t think they win rounds against good opponents in front of intelligent judges. I am somewhat sympathetic to the problems that Ken is brining up but I think they are mostly a criticism of how poorly rounds are judged and not a case list.
3. This is IMPOSSIBLE to implement-
At Tournaments, have an extra copy of your cases/evidence and allow your opponent to view anything that has already been read in a round
before the round occurs. Those found to be holding back evidence/cases they’ve read can be disqualified from the tournament at the discretion of the tournament director. (Build in time to the tournament schedule is needed).
After tournaments, have a list of everyone that went at least 4-2 at the Tournament and have some system where they can post these FULL cases and any evidence read. It’ll be pretty easy to see who hasn’t posted. I think the community/judges would be able to ensure a fairly high compliance rate and in round observers/judges/opponents serve as additional checks.
Posted from: 70.216.49.177
May 24th, 2008 11:33
As a coach of a small squad that attends Texas TOC’s and two out of state tournaments a season, I enjoy looking at the Greenhill case book because it gives me access to how successful programs construct their cases, as well as access to citations for positions that my squad may want to develop as well. However, when one reads the case book they soon discover a wide variance as to what it means to disclose. From those who write out the tag lines, full citations, and even the part of the article from where they start reading to those who are extremely vague to the point of being useless. In policy prior to rounds some disclose case, some plan text, others plan text and advantages, others give the opposition a copy of the entire case. While some may feel pressured into disclosing, it seems to me that younger students are the most resistant and as they gain more confidence they begin to voluntarily disclose. I am in favor of disclosure but there should not be mandatory disclosure, nor should written/Internet disclosure be binding—it is just an indication of what a particular debater ran in a previous round. I do believe that verbal disclosure prior the round is binding. I also disagree with those who take umbrage with free riders. Some having access while others do not seems to be the strongest point those in favor of disclosure make, thus bring those on board who are leery by showing them the advantages of disclosure, not through denying them access.
As I work out my thoughts on the issue for LD, I do have four questions:
1.When discussions on disclosure began a few years back in the policy world, many stated that it would help the smaller squads. Some of those same arguments have been made on this thread in regards to LD. While I concede that disclosure improves rounds, has disclosure helped or harmed policy debate as an activity? It seems that there are are far fewer policy teams today then there were five years ago, with many of the smaller programs going by the wayside. To what degree, if any, have divisions over disclosure led to the decline of policy debate at the local level?
2.Perhaps in contradiction to my opening statement, is LD too nuanced to have effective disclosure? Or will disclosure have to be comprehensive to be meaningful?
3.Does written online disclosure open the door for verbal disclosure prior to the round? Is it allowable? Is it binding? Is it reciprocal? How long does this delay the start of the round as the negative disappears for 10-15 minutes. Does the affirmative get to disappear for 10-15 minutes once the negative returns and discloses the negative case?
4.If disclosure emerges as the norm in LD will counterwarrants be given less weight by judges?
M. Mundt
Crowley
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
May 24th, 2008 13:05
I think one problem with the reading of this thread is that there are a number of different “plans” that are all being referred to as a “case list.” These include (at least):
- having a central website where cases (or outlines) and other materials are posted after being read, DURING the tournament (ie, if A busts a new AC in round 2, they have to go online and post it by round 3)
- the above, but with cases posted between prelims and outrounds only
- having a central website where cases (or outlines) and materials are posted AFTER the tournament where they are broken (so if I bust a new case in Round 3 of Greenhill, I have to post it AFTER Greenhill is over)
- having a central website where cases (or outlines) are posted BEFORE they are broken, ie if I write 3 affs for Ghill I have to post them BEFORE I go to Ghill.
- have students swap materials before rounds (Duby’s idea)
There are probably others as well.
Aaron says:
“Also, kids that don’t have internet don’t have it in the squo AND information is being shared now (there are those uniqueness and inevitability arguments again). The solution is to ask people who do have access to wireless access to see the caselist/get info when you get back to the hotel at the business center.”
If, in the status quo, 10 percent of the debaters are accessing cases — the most connected debaters — and Plan allows cases to be posted during the tournament so that 50-60 percent of the debaters — everyone with a laptop and wireless — has access to cases during the tournament, then Plan is worse than the status quo because the likelihood of a debater without a wireless laptop hitting someone who has access to their positions increases. There are fewer in the “disadvantaged” group, but those who are, are far more disadvantaged.
This argument assumes that Plan involves debaters posting their cases during the tournament after they break them.
That plan would be further complicated by the fact that debaters who don’t have wireless access would be hard pressed to post their cases during the tournament.
If Plan only says that you have to post cases AFTER the tournament where you break them, then I don’t think this is a problem. As Ernie pointed out before, kids who don’t have laptops can print out materials to use for prep.
But I don’t see how that makes sense given that we’re talking about a case list for Greenhill. Since Ghill will be the first tournament for at least a majority of the students, if the requirement is that you post a case after the tournament where you break it, then there won’t be much on the case list.
The same would be true for Blake. If Plan is to post cases after the tournament where you break them, then there could not be a case list before Blake. If Plan is to post cases during the tournament AS you break them, then those kids without wireless access at Blake will be excluded — they can’t post their cases, they can’t access others’ cases. And don’t say “business center” because the Business Center at Blake has 3 computers that run very slowly. That would be a long line and would cause the tournament to run hours and hours behind.
(If this is the Plan, then it makes a lot more sense to use it at the TOC, as Ernie suggests, because everyone will presumably have cases to post by that point.)
If Plan says that debaters have to post cases before the tournament, then I have a number of problems with it – logistical and philosophical. The key logistical problem is that — at least historically — my debaters have been working on polishing their Ghill positions late into the night before Greenhill.
Given the practical issues unique to particular conceptions of the “case list,” I think everyone should be carefully clarifying which plan they’re defending as they defend it.
Based on the argumetns presented here, I would support a casellist based on the central-website plan where materials are to be posted after the tournament where they are broken.
Posted from: 74.227.233.171
May 24th, 2008 17:59
the policy solution to the ‘first tournament’ problem is to submit the cases you plan to run to the tournament, who then makes them available online as they are broken. i imagine that most people will be charitable enough to let people borrow their laptops, but theres always the old-school ‘paper copy’ option.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
May 24th, 2008 18:22
I think it’s being extremely optimistic to suppose that there are enough people with wireless laptops who are willing to let others borrow them long enough to peruse case lists before every round. I don’t even like to let other people *touch* my laptop, much less wander off with it to prep.
If Plan is to post cases “as they’re broken,” then I don’t get how the “paper copy” option would work. If I don’t have a wireless laptop, I am not going to be able to download and print cases, even assuming I have a printer.
Will the tournament be responsible for printing and distributing paper copies? That seems like an Herculean task.
Also, who, at the tournament, will be responsible for keeping track of which cases are broken by the 120-plus LD debaters and posting the appropriate ones? That doesn’t seem as difficult logistically – I know they manage it in policy – but it still seems like a big job. And there are fewer than 120 policy teams at Ghill, aren’t there?
Finally, your solution doesn’t answer back my point about last-minute case-writing. Heck, we often write cases mid-tournament. I suppose that’s not a huge problem if there’s just an email address to send stuff to; presumably, that email address would stay open throughout the tournament. But, again, you’re going to have to have at least one person, probably more, whose ONLY job at the tournament is to manage the case list.
– And the people without wireless laptops will still be more screwed than they are in the squo, because as I pointed out before, their chances of hitting someone who has access to their material will be greater, while they will still be excluded. Having disproportionate access to case prep is bad, but as long as there is an excluded group, it seems to me that the situation gets worse as the “included” group gets larger — at least from the perspective of the excluded group.
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
May 24th, 2008 18:32
…oh, and one more thing –
Getting back briefly to the “Plan entrenches neg bias” argument. I really think this is key.
Aaron suggests that Michael’s response deals with this. I don’t think it does.
Michael’s response (tell me if I’m wrong) is, roughly, that pre-round knowledge is more beneficial to the aff because of the nature of the 1AR — specifically, the time pressures involved.
Granted, but that doesn’t address the two important points made first by Ken:
1) Regardless of how difficult the 1AR is, the point is that the negative is *revealing less* than the affirmative under Plan. Since the NC may be only (in extreme cases) 30 seconds to perhaps 2 minutes of the first negative speech, the aff is at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage because while the negative now has a chance to run BETTER, more responsive blocks to the AC, the neg still has 5:00 – 6:30 of unique material that the aff won’t know anything about. So while the :30 – 2:00 worth of material the aff gets may be more valuable than the same amount of material on the neg’s side, the aff is forced to reveal *so much more* of their in-round content that Plan puts affs at a key disadvantage any way.
2) Assuming that the neg debater has posted multiple neg positions, the aff is still forced to choose a position in ignorance of the neg strat, while Plan enhances the negative’s ability to select a position well-suited to the AC.
Both of these make Plan less desirable than the squo, except in rounds where the aff busts a new AC.
Posted from: 74.227.233.171
May 24th, 2008 18:49
come now dave, you think i only made 1 argument? try as i might, you did end up in the back of my debates often enough to expect more of me. you might want to re-read my post more carefully, including the parts where i explain why its better to have a case debate than have to answer a horizontal generic-dump, why you can write more strategic cases if you can plan answers to specific neg args (rather than writing bad spikes to entire categories of ars), why having a 1 in 5 chance of guessing is better than a blind stab in the dark, etc. the raw “you revealed more than i revealed” measure is ridiculous.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 24th, 2008 21:08
I think Dave is completely right.
Michael:
why is the “you revealed more than I revealed” measure ridiculous?
Thought experiment: One debater tells his opponent 2 of the arguments in his case. The other debater responds by telling him only 1 argument in his case. Who has the strategic advantage in this scenario, even if miniscule?
Reality: ACs have tons and tons of arguments, whereas NCs are typically short and are often limited to only 2 arguments (or even just 1). Even rather long NCs almost always don’t contain even close to the sheer number of arguments contained in an AC.
So, the neg is getting much more info than the aff under this system, and therefore has a greater strategic advantage, even if the aff gets the so-called “benefit” of being able to insert new spikes into their framework before the round which may not even apply to the NC which the neg is going to run (I still think a 20% chance is pretty terrible). The blind stab in the dark when not prepped out is better than being prepped out and having a 1 in 5 chance of knowing what the NC will say.
Another question for Michael:
If the aff takes the time to insert spikes or w/e into the AC before the round, why wouldn’t the neg just run a case that they didn’t spike-out of?
Posted from: 69.149.63.38
May 24th, 2008 23:08
Few Quick Things
1. If you lose to stupid sentence fragments, you ain’t a very good debater.If you evaluate these sentence fragment spikes on the same level as warranted and evidence arguments you’re an awful judge. This “whole non-intervention I’ll listen to any argument” is a fallback position that people use when they are either incapable or unwilling to actually judge a debate and evaluate arguments.
2. Those who oppose the case list still seem to be failing to answer two concerns.
A. They auggest that people do some shady things to get a competitive advantage. I agree 100%. How does the current system allow for checking the fact that a large percentage of cards are either miscut or impossible to track down?
B. I’m unclear as to what this HUGE advantage the negative has if they have to post all the evidence and arguments they’ve read over the course of topic. I guess they can generate all the great 2 line analytics they can muster on a case. I still think if you lose to that garbage you probably don’t deserve to win and if you love voting on that garbage you probably don’t need to be judging meaningful rounds. I don’t understand the argument “But they have 5 1NCs” if they are posted then it seems that you can prep against them. In 9 years I really haven’t seen any debaters with more than 2 or 3 good positions on either side of the resolution.
I guess my question to those who oppose a case list is after a case is read in a round who should be able to ask for cites:
The Opponent?
The Judge?
People watching?
No one?
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
May 25th, 2008 03:34
once a case is run it is public and anyone should be willing to share their citations.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 25th, 2008 09:50
Sam, I’ll try to answer your two concerns:
A) It’s hard to track-down misrepresented evidence in the SQ, but not impossible. Judges can call cards to see if they are mis-cut and vote against debaters accordingly. Judges can also check citations and question shady sources. This new system would allow the community to check shady action better, but I myself (and some others) don’t think that outweighs other concerns.
B) The reason why the neg has a huge advantage is this: Prepping an NC is extremely different from prepping an AC. Michael says an aff can garner an advantage by putting preemptive answers in the framework of the AC. This is problematic b/c at the point where the neg may have 5 posted cases, it’s impossible to know which ones to spike out and the aff doesn’t have enough case time to spike them all out. In contrast, the neg can just prep 3 or 4 separate ACs and just run the right prepout after the AC is ran. Also, ACs quantitatively have over 3 times as many arguments than NCs (usually), so the aff ends up disclosing much more in total.
Posted from: 74.227.233.201
May 25th, 2008 10:00
for the record, i never said you put your preemptive answers in your framework. the fact that you think thats the only way to counter a neg is exactly the problem. you will note that i mentioned a couple times that i think spiking out of entire categories of argument is silly.
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 25th, 2008 19:56
“time pressure heightens the need for disclosure because it means you better have your best stuff ready – well-researched, intelligent, strategic, evidenced answers to the NC and some built in answers in the AC would only help the aff given that right now you still have to give a very time-pressured 1AR against something you dont know before you read the AC.”
so you have blocks against a potential NC and the chance to put spikes in the framework…that to me doesn’t seem to offset the strategic advantage of prepping out the AC.
Posted from: 74.227.233.201
May 26th, 2008 19:30
you still dont get it. you can write a case in a way that strategically engages a neg arg without having to write 1 sentence framework spikes. recall my original comment on this issue (post 44):
“if anything, its more important for affs to know what neg positions to prepare for because then you can craft word-economical blocks and devise aff strategies to preclude those positions (by this, i do NOT mean ‘add spikes to every neg arg on the topic’).”
some positions naturally clash with each other. you dont need framework spikes in your ac to have built-in answers to the neg. am i taking crazy pills?
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
May 26th, 2008 19:40
I’m only now getting a chance to really read through this thread — I think Michael and AT are making some very good points, and I’ll contribute my thoughts shortly — but I want to take a moment to highlight the second part of Sam’s first point. I’m afraid it’s going to get lost in this conversation, so I want to stress both how right he is and how relevant his point is to fears about how case lists will help neg strategies.
Same goes, for that matter, for the last point Michael made in the post just above mine. (No, you’re not taking crazy pills.)
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
May 26th, 2008 20:03
how do you write a case that “strategically engages a neg arg” in 15 minutes before the round begins in any way other than inserting preempts into the AC? How do you know that this neg arg will be the neg arg which the neg actually ends up running? Even if you do, why does increased clash help the aff so much? It might provide for better debate, but last time I checked the neg has a ton of more time to devote to line-by-line clash, hence skewing the system even more if they know what the AC will say.
I kind of feel like I am taking crazy pills when I meet resistance saying that in a world in which both sides a prepped out the neg wins more. Nobody seems to have answered this argument I made:
The majority of neg losses can be contributed to the shock-value of the AC. If the aff runs something the neg doesn’t have answers to, it’s harder for the neg to win. Conversely, most affs lose b/c of time-constraints. If we implement the case-list system, fewer negs will lose due to the shock-value of the AC and more affs will lose b/c of time-constraints (I still don’t see how surmounting a huge prepout is so easy to do if you have a shot of knowing what the NC is.)
Posted from: 66.41.255.202
May 26th, 2008 20:03
Im going to cover two areas that I think are important:
1) Implementation:
a- Mangus has a website in place that would be able to handle case outlines being posted to that site, that seems like a fairly communal way to go about getting these things online.
b- the haters say “uh ohz! not all ppl have WIRELESS laptops” really? do they even make laptops without wifi cards anymore? ill stop being a dick now and answer this issue:
if you see who your opponent is on a schem you can *easily* go up to them before the round and be like “yo whats your standard, important contention arguments, evidence your reading etc etc” its really not that difficult… or people could just have printed outlines of their cases for their opponents before the round. I think that solves back your problems about a) public access for breaking new affs and b) the necessity to post immediately.
in college i know that if a team breaks a new aff in rd 1 and runs it again in rd 3 it isnt on the wiki yet, in fact it will never be on the wiki that quickly, thats NOT the purpose of a caselist, but if you ask they will happily answer. the fact that you all have seemingly but all your marbles in the “uh ohz! not everyone has a laptop to post their cases immed!” basket is, well, pathetic and the most inane objection to the system possible.
its called communication people, talking to others, its a pretty simple means to ensure that people still have access to cases at
tournaments.
c- Maybe im missing the boat on this, but the point of this list wouldnt be to allow for everyone to prep for hours before every tournament but rather for everyone to have an equal opportunity to do so. to make sure that all schools had access to arguments being made and citations, not just a few select few. there has been no answer to that because there is no valid objection to a more egalitarian system of ensuring equal public access to arguments that are made in what is *supposed* to be an open setting.
d- the easiest way to get this started at tournaments is to have judges hand out sheets to the debaters at the end of all of their rounds and have the debaters fill them out to be given back to the judge and back to the tournament so that there can be some sort of streamline process. there are kids at valley/greenhill/st marks/glenbrooks who can just sit in front of a laptop and type these up as the tournament goes on which would help easily facilitate getting cases onto the list as soon as possible. this is how its done in college.
2) Neg bias
a- okay, so youre prepping for the glenbrooks, and there are 200 debaters there… lets say 150 post on the caselist, and on average each debater puts up 2 AC’s… youre gonna thoroughly prep 300 cases before the start of the tournament? Really? Is that even humanly possible(okay, im sure wolfish could)?
the answer is its not. just like in college you dont have a specific prepped out strategy for each nuance of an aff you hear. the purpose of having a caselist in terms of what actually happens in round, i believe, is two fold:
1) to allow debaters to do more specific research on arguments that they see often in the different case outlines… instead of having ultra generic blocks hopefully they could have blocks that answer warrants that commonly used authors on the topic are making.
2) to allow for people to write new Affs based off what they see negatives running. The purpose of a caselist is for students to have a more nuanced approach to case writing(like mangus, duby, erose et al have been saying). Having a caselist would seem to help affs a lot so that they can increasingly focus on having more succinct advocacies that will increase the clash in the debate without having to win on one line cheap shots.
additionally, if you see a debater has 5 different affs posted on a caselist you think that someone who has, best case for them, 45 minutes to prep for a flight b(or really no time at all for a flight a) can come up with a GREAT strat against a case if they split it up evenly and spend a whopping 9 minutes prepping each of your cases?
if thats the point we’ve gotten to in LD then… yikes.
Posted from: 216.80.145.126
May 26th, 2008 20:10
maybe caselists used during topic validity makes debate a bad knockoff of an essay writing contest with a new twist, fast talking.
omg how, lyke, totally educational and fun for evry1 !!!1!!!!11!!!!
: /
Posted from: 71.123.194.170
May 27th, 2008 00:17
I will let others answer the implementation args..
As is the usual in extended posts on issues on VBD (on any bulletin board really), people ignore arguments left and right. I am sure it is only me, but those on the side of no disclosure and are anti case lists are not only ignoring important arguments, but are behind in comparing competing claims with those in support of more openness. A few observations at the top:
1. The “uniqueness” argument has been explained again and again and I see no real answer to it in.
2. The “inevitability” argument is ignored over and over.
3. The “policy debate case lists empirically deny the pervasive nature of the abuses of those against case lists” arguments are not really answered as well. While it takes a while to change the culture and some hiccups exist, more openness had to start at some point. Comparative advantage…, comparative advantage…say it with me….
I am beginning to think either A) people don’t get the implications of these arguments or B) people think not answering them will make them go away.
Two other important things have gotta be answered to win the “case lists in LD = more neg wins” position.
1st – Policy 1ars are harder that LD 1ars. The policy 1ar is 5 minutes compared to the 13 minutes of the negative block which is 38%. In LD the 1ar is 4 minutes compared to 7 of the NC which is 57% of the negative speech time. Why do aff’s in policy win? Teams were flipping aff at TOC in policy elims, more times than not, regardless if they had a new case or not. Across the hall in LD that was NOT the case.
2nd – Top teams in policy don’t run new cases in every debate, yet disclosure is very prevalent in top level college and high school policy debates. If the correlation argument made by Ken and others to more information equaling more losses is true, the aff would never win. That is clearly not the case.
3rd – You can’t have your cake and eat it too…- Some are arguing that you can’t prep all the cases at a big event (that is debatable but whatever), if that is true why is the neg winning more again if the info isn’t used? If you are a top tier person people are prepping against you anyway (there are those uniqueness/inevitability arguments again).
The neg winning too much in LD is an important argument. I think saying prep outs/case list are the reasons are mis – assigning blame. I see the reasons including (but not limited to), judges having a limited view of theory that has cross over from policy debate (“solvency”, counterplans, what a net benefit really is, ect ) AND judges requiring the aff to answer every bit of ink put out by the negative, I am sure there are more but it is late.
Putting out more arguments without answering the “observations” above would seem to be non starters (more often than not).
Let’s get to the real issue why judges in LD vote neg more. Anyone care to speculate why that might be?
As an aside, since the concept of the spike has been used a bunch. Is it really good debate btw to say to the opposition “NONE OF YOUR ARGS APPLY because of X spike”?
I think not. That seems to avoid debate.
Posted from: 193.52.24.125
May 27th, 2008 11:52
It’s raining in Paris, so here goes.
I am opposed to a mandatory caselist.
I agree with most of the pro-caselist people on most of the arguments, but my main objection to the caselist deals with the fact that LD cases are often not as simple as a list of cards with some impacts and minimal notes on framework, which is all the flow-post disclosure site would supply. As a coach and a judge, I don’t want debaters operating on (mis)interpretations of cases that they read on the internet, and coming into rounds with a preconceived notion of what their opponent is going to argue. As an example, I could post a flow of one of the Trinity Prep cases which was never run at TOC. From the flow only, there are probably infinite interpretations of what it could be about. A friend or coach would have listened to the whole case and seen it play out in CX and rebuttal.
A demand for more extensive case posts would result in plagiarism.
Thanks to Mangus for not making me read the whole thread. He just prepped me on the important parts so that I wouldn’t have to think on my feet.
Posted from: 67.155.35.66
May 27th, 2008 13:58
“From the flow only, there are probably infinite interpretations of what it could be about.”
WHO WHAT?
Posted from: 67.155.35.66
May 27th, 2008 14:07
By the way this plagarism argument is just awful. There’s just no uniqueness.
1. A decently small percentage of the cases being run today are constructed by the debaters themselves.
2. A lot of the cases today are simply sentence/card/sentence/card. There isn’t anything to plagarize except those 2 line spikes.
3. The concept of plagarizing cases doesn’t really make all that much sense in that no one really interprets reading a particular case as authorship of that case. This seems to be particularly true with big squads when multiple debaters seem to run either the same case or cases that look the same. When two of the debaters from Valley or Hockaday sound similar, we don’t seem to think plagarism as occurred.
4. Case stealing occurs now. Believe it or not stealing Chris Theis’ case won’t in fact make you the next TOC Champ. People who don’t want to write their own case will just jack some case they find somewhere else. I think Woodward this year showed very well that uninexpereiencd debaters running the cases of their experienced teammates didn’t produce automatic wins or anything close to it.
Posted from: 69.118.234.129
May 27th, 2008 15:51
i only skimmed this thread, so i apologize if anything i’m saying has already been said. two things.
1) i support a system that would give everyone going to toc access to outlines of every case that has already been run on jan-feb by every other toc competitor. this sort of system makes sense to me for a few reasons- it would level the playing field between those who have travelled on jan-feb and those who haven’t, it would hopefully make it easier to develop new arguments, and it would allow prepping during the two month lead-up to the toc to be a little more guided and focused.
2) some have argued that since a caselist equalizes access to information, it limits the advantages of schools with the resources to hire additional coaches/scouts. this seems false. sure, if everyone has access to the caselist, it makes things more equal in a very basic sense. but it also seems pretty intuitive that a school that can hire several people to read through and write prepouts based on a caselist will have a huge advantage over a lone debater. in the status quo, the advantage of having multiple coaches is checked by the randomness of the pairings- even if your coaches scout other rounds during the tournament, there’s no guarantee you’ll hit the right person on the right side to make that intel useful. with a caselist, this check is eliminated- schools with multiple coaches can maximize the effectiveness of their resources. while the lone debater is definitely helped by a caselist, it seems schools with more resources benefit far more.
Posted from: 65.125.148.226
May 28th, 2008 19:56
Along with the ballot, judges should be given a sheet of paper that demands that they outline the case positions written by both debaters. They should include evidence citations and should give special care to include the information about highlighted/extended pieces of evidence for both debaters.
What many tournaments do (especially ones with large teams like Greenhill) is that they have their students compile the case list. Since the case list stuff is attached to the ballot, the judge will simply be required to complete that information along with their ballot. The students will then scamper off to run ballots and the others will begin compiling the case list — all in code order.
Judges can do a lot of this work during prep time. Instead of zoning out, texting, or instant messaging friends, judges will be engaged with the debate that they are in. This seems to make judging a lot better too.
The name of the posting judge can be identified. They will not have an incentive to under report because, if they do, bunches of students will approach them about what they did write.
In the end, I do not understand the fear that is attached to non-disclosure. We ought to be in a consistent search for the best in our activity. By allowing debaters to obviate this requirement, we make the process of improving debates worse.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 69.74.169.2
May 29th, 2008 05:39
Cruz asked me to cross-post this from my blog. Sure. Obviously I have not read this thread in great detail, and I certainly have no intention of engaging in further discussion (in the immortal words of Ethel Merman, Call me Miss Birdseye, because I am frozen). But it will I think demonstrate a fairly average response to the whole shebang.
—
“You show me yours and I’ll show you mine”
One thing I looked at as I tried to catch up with the universe’s activities in my absence was the thread over at WTF on prepping out and case disclosure. Or at least that’s how the thread seems to have started out; over its course, it’s covered many other things as well. Interesting stuff, although the thread itself, like any long and complicated discussion, has a lot of chaff to wheat your way through. Still, some thoughts.
First of all, as an aside, isn’t there something slightly wrong with the admission that a third to a half or $ircuit rounds are so fast that most of the judges don’t understand what is being said? This is ascribed as much as anything else as bad speed, rather than speed per se, and that may be true. One of the worst aspects of LD since as far back as I can remember is its rather inept cooption of various aspects of policy, and this would seem to be another example of that. I’ve watched policy breaks at TOC that I could flow, because there’s more to it than just talking fast. At any rate, I question the value of a speaking event in which the speaking is literally removed from event’s evaluative context. If an aff is going to spew at such intolerable speeds that we have to eliminate (or, excuse me, “flex”) CX so that the judge and opponent can read the cases to find out what was said, we’ve got a problem.
But the issue is prepping out and case disclosure. One needn’t be a professional mathematician to figure that a large organization will be able to scope out cases better than a small organization. If I have four or five judges and some loose coaches and whatnot, I can pretty quickly get a bead on all the major competition at an event. If I don’t have that vast backup army, I won’t be able to collect as many flows. So the advantage goes to the already advantaged, obviously. But case disclosure eliminates that advantage (or at least lessens this particular aspect of that advantage). If the goal of a debate is to argue ideas, and not win the round at any cost, then it makes sense that we would want to know that Debater A is running an aff based on such-and-such and so-and-so, or that Debater B is running a kritik based on this-or-that. We wouldn’t need the whole song and dance, of course, but enough so that every opponent goes into the room prepared for the subject matter at hand.
Aaron T sets a simple paradigm that this sort of thing can be done or not done by any tournament that wants to do it, and he will therefore do it at his. This makes sense to me. Given the number of $ircuit folks who travel down to his venue for that Octos bid, there is a logic to their being placed on as level a playing field as possible. And I’m sure the mechanics of the thing, as he’ll do it, will make sense; it’s funny how many people seem to want to quibble about implementation, as if this hasn’t been going on one way or another in Policy for the last thousand years. At the MHL, Kurt was kicking around not only disclosure but limiting novices to a handful of case approaches, simply to train them to figure out what the hell they were doing in the round, without having to worry about prepping out on an infinite number of case possibilities. The point was education, not victory; that would come later.
Most LD venues I’m a part of, I think, wouldn’t really lend themselves to AT’s approach, because the events are informed by other interests. That is, certainly a lot of people go to Yale or Lex or Bump looking for a bid, but the vast number of people are there for something else. The judge pools are good, but they’re not mostly $ircuit. People travel from around the country to the Texas tournaments and to Emory and Glenbrooks, and the field numbers at those tournaments are limited, and it’s a pretty special situation, and it’s a major financial investment. You can send exactly 2 LDers to Emory, by plane, for about the same price as sending 5 varsity LDers to Lexington, plus a herd of your novices, by bus. We tend to be looking for a different debate experience with these events. Not that they’re better or worse, but they’re different. To expect that all tournaments must aim at the same goals would be a rather limited view of the activity, regardless of what goals you would want those to be.
So I wouldn’t suggest that all tournaments be somehow “required” to have a disclosure process, but that some tournaments might require disclosure makes sense to me, especially if they are at the top tier of national events. A more parochial tournament might wish to do this too, and more power to them, but it’s not my particular cup of tea, and I certainly can’t imagine it at a novice or JV level. It probably does make sense that all round robins set up a disclosure process, however, given the nature of those events, their competitors and their judge pools.
So as far as disclosure goes, I’m all for it, where it makes sense. The element of surprise is the only thing gained by running something for which your opponent is unprepared. That’s not debate; it’s an ambush. Even if you win the round, you haven’t done so because you’re a good debater, but because you’re a sneaky s.o.b. Where’s the glory in that? And a level playing field of disclosure makes all teams potentially equal. I can’t argue with that either.
Posted from: 74.73.188.174
May 29th, 2008 17:32
i have just been skimming through this thread so i don’t know whether this has been mentioned but:
if the point of case disclosure is to avoid the only source of victory originating from running something that “ambushes” your opponent, isn’t it equally bad to “ambush” the disclosed cases with 30-point blocks etc. which are not disclosed? And, larger teams will still be advantaged in that they will have more staff members to write these blocks. all i’m saying is that disclosure does not entirely solve the major issues in consideration here.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 29th, 2008 18:14
Matt-
Please read the rest of the thread.
I agree quite a bit with Jim Menick. It does seem odd to have disclosure at many local tournaments, and even some bid tournaments. It does seem, however, that if we agree it might be a good thing for TOC (which your post, I think, implies) than it might be something to do at tournaments which are qualifiers for TOC, to avoid inconsistency. I also know that disclosure, in policy, happens at every local Iowa tournament. I’m sure there would be some transitional pains, but I’m not sure where we draw the line other than tournaments with a TOC bid. I know that a lot of the bid tournaments in the northeast have had a shift in judging and its becoming more and more in line with a lot of the “circuit” judging.
I think that as of now local tournaments/judging aren’t dominated by a style that necessitates disclosure for good debate, but I do know that the kind of scouting I’ve seen at toc can happen at, for example, the state tournament, so maybe disclosure is still appropriate.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
May 29th, 2008 18:40
I just realized there are probably many Matt’s on this thread; I was referencing the one posting right before me.
Posted from: 72.229.4.198
May 29th, 2008 20:31
I think I agree with Menick, which is why I asked him to cross-post here. While I am sympathetic to Ernie’s point about “consistency,” and I agree that disclosure happens a lot at local policy tournaments, I’m not sure that a (relatively) overnight shift to requiring that all qualifying tournaments have case lists is feasible or desirable — it seems like legislating case lists would be a sure-fire way to “turn off” those who are skeptical or unfamiliar with the idea of case disclosure — but it *does* seem that the “culture” at certain tournaments would be more immediately compatible with case lists than at others.
I’d be curious to know more about the history of disclosure at policy tournaments, and how gradually or quickly it became a generally accepted practice beyond the national circuit.
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
May 29th, 2008 21:03
why can’t people just always be open? why can’t judges just post what they see to the wiki always? i don’t understand.
Posted from: 66.108.83.60
May 30th, 2008 05:15
To note: I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment in 167; I’m talking more about tournament-organized case lists.
Posted from: 67.40.154.213
May 30th, 2008 07:34
Break out
———
Bietz: the reason why people can’t be open is because this activity is caught in a web of fear.
Here are many of the fears that can be summed up from the discussion above:
1) The fear of losing because someone will prepare replies to your cases;
2) The fear of someone “stealing” your ideas and incorporating them into their strategy arsenal;
3) The fear of the entire community scrutinizing your positions and the evidence within them;
4) The fear of “becoming policy” debate, whatever that means;
5) The fear of needing to work the hardest in order to be the best;
6) The fear of negatives winning more debates than they already do win; and, the largest, most underlying fear:
7) The fear of change.
It is not inhuman to have fear. It is real courage to stand up to those fears and confront them in a real way; to see your fears as such and overcome them. These fears are really deep seeded. I get that. It’s time to uproot them.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 208.118.184.3
May 30th, 2008 08:51
Okay, this rhetoric is starting to go a little over the top. Really? The politics of fear…I’m starting to feel like I’m in Top Gun, Indiana Jones, or whatever movie Cruz is promoting on VBD this week (SATC anyone?). This is high school debate, not the Last Crusade.
I have listened attentively and closely to all sides in this discussion. I have had off-line conversations with many of the major posters in the discussion to get a more nuanced sense of the issues. And, ultimately, I probably come out pro-disclosure but with significant reservations that are not simply addressed by labeling them as “fears” or “non-unique”. Instead of rallying around these verbal flags, let me raise some reservations that probably resonate with a lot of people who aren’t jumping for disclosure and that, frankly, give me some pause about it. Since I know this post will inevitably be attacked by about 10 different people trying to “win this debate on the flow,” please excuse my length so I can try to be thorough. My purpose is to raise real issues and see what minds more focused on this than mine have to say — not to engage in an internet debate.
Let me clarify further my position. Before continuing, I think the STRONGEST pro-disclosure position is for the TOC, where there are 2 months of prior debate and the question of entry barriers I discuss below is not as prevalent or is an assumed obligation.
THE POLICY ANALOGY: Others have, in my opinion, very aptly suggested that analogizing to policy is not a good idea for a number of reasons. I agree with them. Yet, any time someone mentions transaction costs, implementation issues, problems with analytic disclosure, etc., the refrain is seemingly “well the policy folks have done this for years.” Fine, but there is also a winnowing of the national circuit in policy and abandonment of many schools with prior strong policy programs. The egalitarian notion of “levelling the playing field” that is implicitly suggested here (the big schools will eat you in the SQ) doesn’t really appear to exist in any real sense. Maybe I’m wrong about this but it seems like the same 5-10 schools win almost every major tournament in policy; and at least anecdotally, I would be willing to suggest that the “diversity of champions” is greater in LD. I can’t provide hard data but I would be interested to see someone disprove the observations that (1) there are less students doing policy now than before; (2) there are less schools participating now then before; and (3) less schools are competitive for major championships now then before. If true, this would suggest that policy is – to borrow an analogy — the “miner’s canary”. Point being: If you want to make the analogy, make it wholesale.
RESPONSE 1: THOSE TEAMS ARE JUST BETTER. Definitely possible? Something in the water happens in Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta? More likely it is that (a) they have stronger coaching staffs; and (b) the students often work harder than most of their peers.
On their face, both of those seem to be meritorious suggestions: Teams with better coaches and harder workers should perform better. Or should they?
Now, at this point in the discussion you can throw away or keep the policy analogy as you see fit. The empirical progression over time in policy-land is just a further demonstration of two effects of disclosure I will make below. The suggestions do not depend on any policy analogy.
Here is where the response to disclosure “gains uniqueness”:
1. DISCLOSURE HEIGHTENS THE PRIMARY IMPACT OF ARGUMENT COACHES. AT and many others correctly observe that if the big fish really want to, they probably can get your flows at most tournaments. With the caveat that this actually just is not true at tournaments large enough like Harvard, CFL, etc.(especially if the “big fish” schools have multiple debaters they are concerned with), let’s take it as true for a second. It definitely is true, for example, at the TOC when there are only about 70 debaters. The point that isn’t mentioned is that kind of intelligence gathering is not perfect and takes time — that comes at a cost to those schools. Under a disclosure system, the cost of intelligence gathering gets transferred from the big fish coach/staff/school to the little fish debater who is being scouted or to the judge who is suppposed to take care of the aquarium (not sure where the Little Mermaid fits into this). So, in a non-disclosure world, you have resource disparities in coaching where Big fish schools have to commit time to intelligence gathering of all possible little fish. In a disclosure world, the whole Sea is illuminated. This means that the entire resources of Big Fish can be focused solely on prepping cases. I would posit that good coaches can have a much bigger impact in argument preparation than in intelligence gathering. I’m not saying that the illuminated sea is better or worse than the SQ sea but I am contesting the suggestion that they are the same or that the situation is non-unique. If you believe what I posit above — that good coaches can make more of a difference in argument preparation than in intelligence gathering — then you would see a comparative push of the illuminated sea to benefit Big Fish. In such a situation, especially when the little fish is a local debater and it is the JUDGE posting their flow, I wonder if we aren’t just setting up the little fish to bring a knife to a gun fight.
2. DISCLOSURE HEIGHTENS THE RESEARCH BURDEN OF STUDENT PARTICIPANTS. At first thought, you may go “duh!” but let’s be very real here: Preparation is NOT a maximization concept. You may well disagree with this, but there are many coaches, debaters, and parents out there who firmly believe that there can be too much of a good thing. Anyone who knows me or my debaters will be the first to attest (I hope) that we are no slouches. I believe strongly in the value of original research and we work hard. But that work comes at a cost. I don’t know how many times I have second-guessed whether it was worth it for this kid to lose this much sleep or worried that that kid was going to suffer in his classes. Being competitive in national circuit LD right now is already more burdensome to a student than I ever remember it (and remember, I chart back to 1994!). There is a point where the “research burden” goes too far and becomes unhealthy. And who gets hit least — in a comparative sense — Big Fish who have multiple coaches to pick up the slack when a kid just can’t do it. Don’t kid yourself on this: Once case lists go up, people WILL feel obligated to research everything, judges WILL have little sympathy for SURPRISE arguments because “it was posted on the case list”, and there will be a lot more work that is “required” to be a competitive circuit LDer. And that is not just for the champion, that is across the board as it will affect all incremental placements — who gets to break, who gets bids, etc. In theory, you all might be like “oh well that’s great b/c the hardest working kids will win.” But, at least for me, this is primarily about giving debaters a great experience that makes them better people — not one that works them to death. I am not suggesting disclosure necessarily crosses that threshold, but it could, and people should not be so dismissive and assume that “incentivizing work” is a maximal principle. Note: this discussion is all about the incremental effect of the comparative world of disclosure, hence my uniqueness belongs to me.
A “STEROID” SIDE NOTE: The immediate prior discussion assumes that all actors in the system will just increase their work to provide specific case-based answers so the quality of the debate will increase, but at the identified cost of increaased preparation. This isn’t necessarily so. Confronted with 120 cases to prep, what is the temptation of little fish especially? Just (1) trade with people; (2) write generic positions or offs that can be “responsive” to a great many cases; or (3) some combination of both. Were they to do otherwise, they fall directly into my “increased work” observation above. So, that means the more rational (or healthy) strategy for little fish in a disclosure world is to use “coping strategies” to artifically enhance their performance. The net effect than is that IF this were to occur, than a disclosure world would NOT result in the hardest-working fish left swimming, just the most connected one. That creates a problem for those arguing that disclosure gets us out of flow networks.
RESPONSE 2: DISCLOSURE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POLICY ANALOGY OBSERVATIONS. Sure, but that doesn’t escape the analysis of the effect of disclosure on the LD landscape, it just denies the efficacy of the policy comparison made above. I am the first to agree (with Michael among others) that the policy comparison is not an ideal one.
Ultimately, you can summarize these concerns into two categories:
(1) Disclosure furthers entry barriers based on resource disparities or on required competitive commitment; and
(2) It is not at all clear that disclosure escapes the network dilemma.
The second issue isn’t obviously unique, but the first set of concerns is.
I’m not saying there should not be disclosure; in fact, I am heavily leaning pro-disclosure. I’m saying, however, that should be considered seriously and those with concerns should not be dismissed as fearful. I hope these issues above seem serious enough to justify that point.
Long post yes, but complicated discussion.
Posted from: 65.88.9.138
May 30th, 2008 09:10
Matt Aks reminds me of why I enjoyed judging him so much and why he is coming to Texas this summer to work with us in Denton, he makes good solid arguments with warrants. In fact, Mr. Aks is actually arguing an impact that is linear. He argues in post 160, things will get worse for lone debaters if you have disclosure due to borgs ramping up the work effort, get a bunch of hired guns on board and doing hits on every student at the tournament. This is a reasonable concern. The TOC in policy (for example) is unlike any other tournament given the arms race that has ensued with college folks helping high school teams only at that event. That said, I respectful disagree with the terminal impact of Matt’s argument that case lists results in the demise of the lone debater at most events. Here are a few points to consider.
1. Several teams at TOC these days have former high school and college champions in their entourage. Some of these teams don’t clear despite the help.
2. **Regardless of the material you are handed before a debate, you still have to execute to win. The idea that debates are won and lost in rebuttals seems to have been forgotten in this thread. Even kids from borg schools must execute.
3. Hired guns can hurt the process if a debater is inundated with different positions and ideas and no one central voice exists before the round. His could be a hindrance as well as a help.
4. This is not really unique. People are prepping out what they see the major competition to be already. LD positions are limited enough so with research you can have generic hits that are applicable. In addition, even if you do have an entourage you focus on the opponents you see as the biggest threats given that time is finite.
5. Many smaller policy teams engage in consortiums to pool resources. The same could happen in LD.
While Matt does make a point worth considering as we flesh out the ideas of case lists, it still seems that they are comparatively advantageous.
I find it interesting that several posts exist on this thread and no one who says “case lists bad” have comparative arguments to explain why (given the inevitability and uniqueness arguments) they are NET WORSE that the status quo. Perhaps people are too reliant on “spikes” these days to avoid comparative arguments that they have forgotten how to do so.
One final point regarding implementation arguments and their terminal impact. In a Presidential debate the issue is whether we should increase health care for Americans. If a candidate says “some people in rural areas don’t have ready access to care, transportation is a nightmare. Stick with the status quo.” Would people see that as a solid argument? I would hope not. If issue is people don’t have care now (uniqueness), and are dying now (inevitability), wouldn’t that be a reason to vote to increase access to care and work on the access issues that are unique to a few areas of the country? Seems like it to me.
Michelin is right. People are just scared. Most of the positions that are winning cant withstand academic rigor/scrutiny. I personally think “sunlight is the best disinfectant”.
To make all of the arguments to those who are opponents of case lists unique why don’t we ban disclosure, ban flow sharing, forbid people from watching debates etc. Is that a world people are more comfortable with?
Aaron Timmons
Posted from: 205.221.1.146
May 30th, 2008 13:32
I think the health care analogy breaks down because “health” isn’t a competition. The rural population that lacks access a new health care system isn’t made to *suffer* by the advent of that system, they simply don’t gain enjoy equally in its benefits.
But debate is a competition. If the advantages of a caselist are easily accessible to well-off schools, then those schools who lack access do suffer from the advent of the caselist. It’s not JUST that they don’t get the benefits and are left stuck in their original position. Because their more well-heeled opponents DO get the benefits, and because debate is competitive, those less-well-to-do schools are WORSE OFF than in the squo.
That’s why any valid argument whose impact is “entrenches disadvantage” is a unique reason to reject the caselist idea.
Bietz – I don’t think we can or necessarily should require judges to type up and post their flows. That seems awfully time-consuming and very unlikely to happen. Maybe sporadically, and probably more likely in the case of judges who flow on laptops. But I don’t think most judges are going to be excited about taking on an additional, post-tournament obligation to transcribe and post case materials.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
May 30th, 2008 13:40
I guess I imagine a day where people can just say “what are you running” before the round and the person will tell them…
The culture of openness will make it worth the time of judges to contribute to the wiki. It will make opponents contribute. At tournaments, it won’t be secretive and groups of friends going off into a corner to share flows because we are just open with one another. That’s all.
Posted from: 69.118.234.129
May 30th, 2008 13:45
mr. timmons- thanks for the kind words and for taking the time to address my concern. ultimately, i recognize that the harm i outline in post 160 might not necessarily outweigh the benefits of greater openness and transparency. even if entourages can ramp up the workload, lone debaters will still get access to a lot of the work that those entourages do and won’t have to worry about secretive flow-sharing networks.
nonetheless, i’d like to broaden my concern: would a caselist/disclosure homogenize the attitude/approach debaters have to take towards the activity? i realize that’s probably a little vague, but let me clarify. in the lead up to toc my senior year, i did a ton of research- i read more boring shit about corporations than any person should ever have to. i ended up coming up with one “new” idea for each side. i converted those idea into 3 different versions of an aff (of varying word-lengths between 1200 and 2000) and 2 different version of a neg (of about 500 and 800 words each). the longer versions had a few extra spikes and secondary impacts. despite the differences in word length, i was basically running the same 2 cases throughout the tournament (i used an older, “backup” case in round 6, that was the only exception).
i was confident in doing this (having basically one case for each side) because the ideas/evidence the cases were based on came from well over 150 pages into two books that were many years out of print. i could not find the books in any local library, and i had to buy them (used) with my own money from amazon. i only knew of those two books because they had been footnoted in articles i had read.
so i guess my question is twofold:
1. would a caselist/mandatory disclosure make this sort of approach to the activity obsolete? wouldn’t a debater who goes in with one case on each side, and whose strategy rests primarily on having evidence that nobody else does, not really stand much of a chance?
2. if so, why should this sort of approach be eliminated?
two further notes
-i’m not trying to brag or toot my own horn here and act like i “got away with” only having 2 cases. the amount of hours i spent researching in the lead-up to toc was literally disgusting, and i’m sure i could have taken a different approach (i.e. writing 3 completely different cases for each side) and put in the same (ridiculous) number of hours.
-i ask both those questions in earnest. it’s possible that a caselist/disclosure wouldn’t threaten the kind of approach i embraced, or that the kind of approach i embraced was illegitimate- it relied on access to evidence that i don’t believe anyone else had. you could definitely make the case that i employed “gotcha” tactics, and that as a result, i wasn’t forced to defend my cases to the fullest extent. i’m very open to persuasion. but i’d like to hear someone make the case that my approach was so illegitimate that it deserves to be be threatened and very possibly made extinct.
Posted from: 69.118.234.129
May 30th, 2008 13:47
oh and although my post begins with “mr. timmons,” only the first paragraph is really addressed to him specifically. in fact, the rest of my post doesn’t really reply to anything he said.
Posted from: 76.211.226.11
May 30th, 2008 14:05
matt (aks),
I happen to think that we ought to encourage that kind of deeply positional strategy, so I see your concern as a reasonable one. However, I’m pretty sure that under any of the caselist proposals that have been considered, you’d only have to disclose those cases after the first time you ran them. If a caselist had existed last year at the TOC, therefore, you would NOT have disclosed these cases before the tournament – you’d have to disclose all your old cases, so that backup aff from round 6 might’ve been out there, but that’s it. As a result, I’m not really sure I understand why such a strategy would be rendered extinct…
Posted from: 24.242.139.162
May 30th, 2008 14:59
i think that if we have a disclosure wiki, we should also have judge voting records like the ndt does.
Posted from: 70.240.235.81
May 30th, 2008 15:00
michelin’s post is nothing short of bombastic and kind of humorous.
1. fear of losing: yeah, having to come home to parents, schools, etc, after blowing thousands of dollars to go to a tournament makes that a legitimate fear. there’s a difference between having courage and legitimate fears that may contain repercussions outside of the activity, or repercussions that hinder your involvement in the activity.
2. stealing: yeah, i’d be pissed if some lazy kid just case-jacked to win. it can and will happen.
3. scrutiny: ummm, debaters are not robots. i know i wouldn’t like to be seen in the eyes of others as legally retarded, especially in an activity riddled with those who take this same attitude to the classroom, to the home, etc. maybe this is some sort of pansy concern, but maybe it’s human, too. kids don’t like to be teased or made fun of. the funnier problem that this entails is the ‘hierarchy of intelligence’ in this activity. groups and cliques of debaters and their coaches and teachers may find some arguments to be the best argument ever; some, on the other hand, find it to be mindless dribble. i don’t think there is some sort of meta-standard that concerns the legitimacy of arguments anymore, if there ever was (even the ‘have a claim, warrant, impact’ adage seems to be disappearing rapidly). this non-existent standard, then, allows for debaters and coaches (within the caselist world) to dispel of arguments that are considerably legitimate because of the scrutiny kids have to go through when they run them. that is not a fear, that is something that is straight up not necessary. a lot of kids in this activity are mean and clique-y enough as it is.
policy debate fear: don’t care, moving on
fear of working: i’m gonna go ahead and cross apply your case jacking argument here for you. beyond that, there is also no standard for ‘hard work.’ is hard work being able to just link every position to some sort of theory arg (which would minimize work)? is being able to have a generic aff and neg that is relevant to most, if not all, topic specific lit, a way of minimizing work? is having a bunch of coaches aid you in covering the shit ton of lit a topic can possibly concern ‘hard work’?
fear of neg win count: this is just way too much nonsense for me. you DON’T get to pick which sides you debate. why increase the win chance of those who get to negate 4 times at a 7 round, 3 times at a 5 round, etc? answer: write better aff cases. counter answer: but they’re prepped. answer: oh well. counter answer: WTF. come on.
fear of change: also counterintuitive, but on a different scale. you’re talking fear of changing the way the activity works. but, to me, case list masks the fear of being caught off guard. so you want to talk about fear, maybe think about that.
don’t treat those who oppose caselist as some fear ridden group of individuals who can’t ‘man up’ or however you want to put it, because that just don’t make no sense.
Posted from: 24.242.139.162
May 30th, 2008 15:00
if … wiki, then we*
Posted from: 128.54.165.138
May 30th, 2008 15:04
bietz, you said that “I guess I imagine a day where people can just say “what are you running” before the round and the person will tell them…”
but there’s a really distinct problem with that that Petey did bring up a while ago. while I am for a more open debate community where cases are disclosed, its hard to summarize a LD posiiton in a couple of words. I can’t just say that I’m running Agamben or deont or something like that. I guess the disclosure could be of the framework, but i don’t know how that would work.
I mean, its one thing to pot flows for a caselist of cases that you have already broken, but its a completely different thing to disclose a case that you haven’t broken yet. I’m all for Mr. Timmons suggestion of a caselist before tournaments, but you don’t have to publish all your cases. I think you should just have to give a basic flow of one case that you have broken, or, in the case of greenhill, a case that you will break. we should still have the element of surpise open in debate, but it will be far more effective if we have some disclosure and not complete disclosure.
To bring up earlier points by Ken, I also think that there is a level of debate that the debater should do for him/herself. While I understand the importance of having plenty of evidence for a good researched debate I think we should find a compramise between the two. That compramise, I think, would entail the case-list I mentioned above which would also include a basic neg flow and aff flow and then have the rest be up to the debate-wiki to post flows of rounds that you’ve seen. That way kids only have to post cases that they have already broken before a tournament and the rest the community checks.
This would mean that one couldnt possibly prep all the positions a debater has, but be reasonably knowledgable on all of them and have good research and then have the round to craft an effective strategy.
Posted from: 71.123.194.170
May 30th, 2008 15:33
Quinn
Group everything you said in post 178 :) Is your argument the status quo is better that some version of the proposed alternative to openness/case lists/disclosure?
What is the (comparative) impact of the combined weight of your arguments against all the pro disclosure arguments. Even/if you are correct why vote neg (since prodisclosure seems to be that aff)?
AT
AT
Posted from: 65.81.143.130
May 30th, 2008 15:45
re: ocon – the ndt has judge voting records?
pretty sure ocons just thinking of the bruschke site, which is only functional because a ton of tournaments use it for registration and results. i believe there is a high school version already in place, but i dont know if it supports ld.
of course, encouraging bid tournaments to post a results packet online isnt a bad idea (recall this discussion re: the at large process).
quinns reply to michelin completely misses basically every point michelin makes, but i’ll leave that up to “the other mm” to clean up on his own. it seems that subtlety is a lost art – or maybe just reading comprehension.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
May 30th, 2008 15:57
kamil – i wouldn’t suggest that people have to disclose something they haven’t run before. in that case you just say “i’m running somehting new.”
i thought we were past that part of the argument. I don’t think any of the pro-disclosure side were suggesting that people have to disclose new cases.
Posted from: 69.118.234.129
May 30th, 2008 17:04
to reply to ankur, if i only had 1 case on each side, all my stuff would be “out” after presets. to what extent that harms debaters who take my sort of approach i’ll leave open for discussion.
Posted from: 216.80.145.126
May 30th, 2008 21:06
AT:
my argument is not [necessarily] status quo better. first, the bombastic nature behind michelin’s post is just aggravating.
caselist, in a vacuum, can be amazing. how it is used that will determine it’s unique goodness, i think. personally, i am a fan of post topic validity caselists as a means of better understanding strategies behind cases, rather than the content. strats get used over and over again, whereas cards aren’t necessarily (topical cards, that is). also, the benefits of a post topic caselist can include posting full cases rather than outlines, which in terms of learning about strategies, can be very helpful.
i might post more later, i’m distracted.
Posted from: 24.242.139.162
May 30th, 2008 21:13
i am and was thinking of the bruschke site; i meant that it was maintained on the ndt circuit, not by the ndt proper. i guess i just thought that it was a fairly commonly recognized resource among ndt-level competitors (“only functional because a ton of tournaments use it for registration and results”) and as such didn’t think that my shorthand was so absurd, but perhaps that makes me illiterate. it seems to be something that joy of tournaments might allow.
Posted from: 65.81.143.130
May 30th, 2008 21:29
my point re: ocons argument is that someone would need to implement a system capable of tracking those stats and the community would need to support it. that is a nontrivial task – a hell of a lot harder than installing mediawiki. it is a major time investment at the very least. and as a F/OSS fan, i dont really want to support the JOT model.
Posted from: 65.81.143.130
May 30th, 2008 21:30
(note that i am not opposed, just noting a level of difficulty orders of magnitude higher than implementing a caselist)
Posted from: 12.216.101.54
May 30th, 2008 22:13
I don’t see what the big deal is. Caselists are already in place and work in college policy (where I guarantee prep-outs are worse, people are a lot more competitive, there’s greater incentive to steal/cheat, and arguments are a lot more intricate/nuanced than high school LD), and to a lesser extent in high school policy.
Everyone seems to agree that caselists would be an improvement in a vacuum, they just fear that bad shit will happen, but all that bad shit is empirically denied.
It might take a few years, and some schools will be shady – even in college policy *cough*Kansas, K-State*cough* – but why wouldn’t you do it?
Posted from: 24.242.139.162
May 30th, 2008 22:44
i mean, i’ll consider doing it.
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
May 30th, 2008 23:04
if people here are agreeing that the majority of neg wins are resultant from how judges adjudicate rounds (as mentioned previously, dropped analytics taking precedence over well supported arguments) then why is that mentality crossing over into this discussion? most of the benefits of a fairly minimal and entirely reasonable caselist argued for here are either being ignored or mishandled in the face of speculative negative side effects which a) may not happen b) we dont know the extent to which theyll happen and c) are nothing to be worried about. i realize the analogy isnt perfect, but if we want to change how we evaluate arguments in a debate round can we at least start here on vbd?
p.s. i admit that im probably the worst when it comes to voting on bullshit one liners so in my defense i just want to state that i think the debater, not the judge, has the onus to posit that in spite of an argument being a drop, substantive and well justified positions should be prioritized in a decision calculus. it doesnt take much to justify that claim in front of me.
Posted from: 68.93.122.242
May 30th, 2008 23:35
Quinn,
Your post about having a caselist after the topic is over is merely debating a non-existent strawman argument that no one is making.
No one is asking you to “man up”. The lone request made is to explain an argument and defend it something you haven’t yet done.
Posted from: 166.128.130.248
May 31st, 2008 00:46
So three things have happened since I last posted hoping to further the substance of the discussion:
1. The two issues I raised as to why people could very reasonably oppose disclosure in high school LD were flat out ignored. I should feel honored, I guess. I am particularly happy to see that one of my issues is actually closely related to the point Matt Aks is raising; I always feel pretty good about whether I’ve looked at things correctly when Matt and I seem to be saying similar or at least closely related things.
2. There was a whole host of people jumping down Quinn’s throat for making the exact same criticism of Michelin’s post that I did. Go back and read post 169. It is nothing short of fear-mongering as is plainly denoted by the almost poetic repetition of “fear” If we could insert pictures, I would expect nothing less than a giant “Mission Accomplished” banner at the end. And Michelin can do better than that. And he knows it, and I know it and we all know it. So I would suggest that this not become a cyber-bully session but instead stay on point – discussing a substantive topic with thorough and thoughtful discussion.
3. Post 189 proves the exact point I was making with my observations about the policy analogy. I may be in the minority (heck, I’m always a minority) but to me simply going “hey, college policy does it so high school LD should” seems, at a minimum brash and dismissive. There may be — oddly enough — people who don’t think that participation in high school LD should model itself after college policy where debaters work 40 hours a week (and that’s significantly understating it), then to have coaching staffs of graduate students, there are significant entry barriers, etc. That may be a big deal. They may matter. The reasons they think this way may matter.
As I’ve continually maintained, at its best, this thread is very informative and on balance, I lean pro-disclosure. But that’s because the thread — especially Michael and Aaron’s posts — was willing to take concerns seriously and address them, not dismiss them.
Posted from: 71.123.194.170
May 31st, 2008 08:12
Some could argue that schools that have institutional funding have an advantage over debaters at institutions that don’t.
Some could argue that schools that embrace “argument coaches” may have an advantage at some events over debaters at institutions that don’t.
Schools that have the ability to travel to several bid tournaments a year have an advantage over individuals that don’t have that same ability.
In any game there is some inherent inequality that could be claimed. I think working to address the impact to those real (or perceived) inequalities is a better model of moving forward than “stick with the status quo” when the status quo is decidedly worse for “lone wolf” (HAVE I MENTIONED THE BORGS HAVE THE INFO NOW?). I DON’T THINK THOSE WHO ARE PRO DISCLOSURE SHOULD ANSWER ANY MORE ARGUMENTS UNTIL NAY SAYERS ADDRESS THIS POINT. Talk about dropped arguments sheesh…
***********Once again, information is being shared NOW about the lone wolf debater if they show up and are making appearances in big elimination rounds between “welled and well connected” opponents. ******* A system that allows “lone wolf” to see what the cool kids are doing makes sense to me. It is then about execution and not surprise.
To Anjan’s concerns:.
1. Little fish are bringing a knife to a gun fight in the squo. If a debater (lone wolf/little fish) beats a welled known opponent currently, after people ask who was judging (and then says it was an illegit decision), info about lone wolfs argument is shared with the next opponent if the next opponent is in the loop. I think we can agree that this practice occurs. In a system of pro disclosure you potentially let lone wolf not only know where the knives are located in an attempt to navigate around them, lone wolf can get a weapon or two of their own.
2. I understand your “rush to the argument coach” point (were information sharing more pronounced) and that it might lead to a desire or need for more coaches to coach arguments. I think this is a good thing (some might call this an impact turn). Much of the flavor of current competitive events has been lost due to more coaches who have done this event for a while opting not to coach arguments. I think this a bad thing for their students, the judge pool and the activity overall in that they have an old school “wtf” factor that is needed given the arguments I hear in debates. Coaches (as educators and not just administrators) need to take more ownership in what arguments their students are making. If coaches DON’T become more involved, their kids are at a disadvantage given the proliferation of theory and policy debate crossover arguments (many of which have been abandoned my top level teams btw). To preempt the “some coaches don’t have that experience to do that” argument, the expert in anything was once a beginner. I came from “debate nothing” and I will submit other people can do it as well if they want to work as hard.
3. Debating in 2008 is different than in 1997 when you debated. NO one (except Marc Wallenstein) ran plans, kritks or hyper specific advocacies back then (well maybe Chad Bush). The focus was not on theory arguments, multiple priori arguments, and “off case arguments” back then. Not every one had a computer and the internet was not the wealth of resources it was back then that allows infinite research at home or in the debate room as opposed to trips to the library. Lincoln Douglas is more research intensive than it was in 1997 (for better or worse) People didn’t have AIM, Face book or My space to distract away from family time, home work, debate work or VBD (YES I SAID IT) in 1997 :) Bottom line, I will defend the position that you must work harder in 2008 (or a heck of a lot smarter) than in 1997 to keep up and win at major events. I don’t remember having to talk to my debaters of that generation about every “spec” (OSPEC. APSEC, GSPEC, country spec et al), theory (long list here) among others. The game is the same. The way it is played is different in most rounds at big tournaments.
To Dave McGinnis:
I could defend my health care analogy but I will concede your argument about it not being applicable to save time. Answer two arguments that have been made and we can move forward.
First, INFO SHARED NOW AND THE SHARING IS INEVITABLE (explained above) and dropped too many times to mention by those against case lists.
Second – What is the linearity to your “entrenches disadvantage to lone wolf arguments”. WHY DOES IT GET WORSE with a case list when if they are beating big fish now, people know their arguments. If a case list is online, why can’t Lone Wolf look at it? The lone wolf doesn’t have a lap top argument again? Please…
I see a couple perspectives on this and where people fall
1. People who are against public case lists.
2. People who are on balance for case lists (and want to move forward with them) in LD but have concerns about logistics of how a system might best be implemented.
3. People who don’t care either way.
The bottom line is that neither system is without flaws. Few things I have seen “solve” 100%. It seems those who are against case list should have to win (to make this an analogy to a debate) lone wolf is disadvantaged more than they are now. Voting negative in debates when there is no offense (that is unique) is as bad of a decision making model I see doing the year in debates, as it is in this discussion.
Good discussion all.
Posted from: 209.183.51.46
May 31st, 2008 09:02
Aaron,
First, appreciate the real and substantive responses.
Obviously, there are already inequities. Anyone who denies that is not playing in reality with you. My points were not “resource disparities exist in caselist world”, they were “caselists incrementally or comparatively further resource disparities”
We can respectfully disagree on whether to embrace the “impact” of debaters needing more coaching/coaches to attain the same level of competitiveness under a disclosure proposal. I tend to believe that increasing professional/resource-based entry barriers to new programs/lone wolves/little fish/Little Mermaids/and the rest of the Disney chorus in this specific context is troublesome, you see it as encouraging. I wouldn’t see your point as successfully “turning an impact” in this discussion because I don’t think the answer is clear as to whether the impact is net positive or negative. I am glad we both agree though that disclosure increases the primary impact of argument coaches; I think that is clarifying.
Where I am not getting an answer is on the issue of research burden of the student. Your reply is “Anjan, debate in 2008 is not like 1997″ Completely non-responsive. In fact, my post itself said: “Being competitive in national circuit LD right now is already more burdensome to a student than I ever remember it (and remember, I chart back to 1994!).”
My point, however, was that AS A COACH in 2008, I observe that the strain on being a debater is much greater now than it ever has been — which, of course, was your very reply to me. I then question whether we should embrace a proposal that increasing strain or workload is always a good thing — that “workload good” is always a maximization principle. AS A COACH in 2008, I sometimes feel like I’m talking out of my mouth on both ends telling my debaters to “go get a life” and at the same time “work harder”. My point was that, OUTSIDE of the TOC (which I readily concede is a great venue for a caselist), is it worth it to keep speeding up the treadmill? When is enough going to be enough? One could easily conclude that any increasing workload created by a caselist does not cross this stress/strain threshold. My point was that others may conclude otherwise.
So, to return: Nobody here is denying that (1) disclosure comparatively increases the primary impact of argument coaches; and (2) disclosure comparatively increases the research burden of debaters.
I 100% agree with you that how you weigh these issues out is a whole different matter, and I tend think they are outweighed by the benefits that have been stated before. All of this said, as we concluded off-line, I’m still net pro-disclosure, and this is starting to get like shadow boxing for groups that just aren’t engaging in this discussion for any number of reasons. I’ll leave the weighing to them if they care to engage further.
Posted from: 76.167.241.163
May 31st, 2008 09:41
Anjan -
I will deny that the research burden increases with disclosure. At best, it is a wash. Right now before we go to our first tournament on a topic (such as Yale when many other debaters went to Greenhill), we have no idea what other people are running. So we have to prepare a huge variety of arguments and potential cases. With a case-list, we could probably pair down and know, at least to some degree, what the popular arguments are.
I have some advantage over the “lone wolf/small fish” debater given my place in the community. I couldn’t imagine not having the ability to IM you (anjan) or others who get to more tournaments than me and say “what are people running?” With a case-list we are given some ability to predict what people are running on a topic.
Posted from: 71.123.194.170
May 31st, 2008 10:41
Anjan says
So, to return: Nobody here is denying that (1) disclosure comparatively increases the primary impact of argument coaches; and (2) disclosure comparatively increases the research burden of debaters.
My response is:
Both are good things. The impact (in my mind) is net positive. The embedded clash in far too many posts explain why.
1. I explained why more coaches need to be involved in argument coaching above. Would a brand new high school coach of any activity expect to compete with you immediately? I would thik not. The question (at least for me) when I faced this question long ago was, be content with a certain level of knowledge or strap in. It is obvious which choice I made. The reality is in debate (or in any chosen profession) you will be left behind if you don’t strap in. Entry barriers to compete at the top levels are a reality in debate and life.
2. Your emimem “till I collapse” argument is empirically denied.Policy debaters have balanced traditional academic coursework and debate work that has been more research intensive for years. If LD is going to be a more researched based activity, ld debaters will need to do the same. QUALITY work might even improve debate.
I was coaching when you debated (long before that actually) so I have a perspective as well on this issue. I understand balance and its importance. My best debaters have had that balance. I try to personally find that balance. It is difficult yet not impossible.
I see your claim when you say “it incrementality worsens this issue”, I just dont see the warrant. What was your answer to uniquemess/inevitablity again?
Off to get that balance (yardwork)!
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
May 31st, 2008 21:55
First, INFO SHARED NOW AND THE SHARING IS INEVITABLE (explained above) and dropped too many times to mention by those against case lists.
I get that you feel like this argument is being dropped over and over again. I guess I feel like I’m being responsive, but I also suppose that I haven’t been clear enough.
The proposition seems to be that case-sharing takes place in the status quo, but only among a select group of “well connected” teams. I’m sure there is a continuum of “connectedness,” but the general consensus is that being “more connected” makes you more likely to have access to flow information.
My argument is that however much case sharing occurs in the squo, it is not infinite case-sharing. The amount of case-sharing that occurs can be increased. The function of the caselist is to increase it – AND EQUALIZE IT. As I understand it, the goal – or one goal – of a caselist is to eliminate the advantage of “connectedness” in terms of access to flows.
My argument is that if the caselist is something that is more easily accessed by more privileged or “connected” teams, then, at least in terms of “leveling the playing field,” it takes an already bad situation and makes it worse. So – granted that case sharing occurs in the squo and is inevitable – if the caselist is more readily accessible to already privileged programs, then it supercharges the impact rather than solving it back.
There are two arguments on the “flow” that explain why this might be true:
1) This argument applies only to the “version” of the caselist Plan in which debaters are expected to post cases during tournaments, AS they break them. ONCE AGAIN: GIVEN THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT POSSIBLE VERSIONS OF THE “CASELIST” IDEA, I THINK IT’S KIND OF POINTLESS TO DEFEND OR REFUTE IT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT. Anyhow, if the rule is that you must post your cases AFTER you break them but BEFORE the end of a tournament, then debaters without laptops/printers are at a disadvantage. This isn’t a problem for “lone wolves,” it’s a problem for “poor kids,” or even “moderately well off kids who don’t happen to carry wireless laptops to tournaments.” It’s been suggested (in response) that kids can hand out copies of their positions to their opponents before rounds (or copies of outlines or whatever). While this is more realistic than the “share laptops” idea, it still strikes me as unrealistic. Now debaters have to find a way to get online after every round where they bust a new case, post the case outline, then search out their next opponent and give them a copy of the case they’re going to run. I just don’t see that happening, but maybe I’m wrong.
If the version of the Plan is that we post cases after the tournament where we’ve broken them, then this wouldn’t be a problem, or wouldn’t be as much of a problem. But since Greenhill and Blake are the two tournaments whose directors have declared their intent to use a caselist next year, and since they are both “first tournaments on the topic,” that doesn’t really make sense, since such a caselist would have no function at either tournament.
2) Anjan makes the argument, which I find persuasive, that a caselist would simply shift the burden from “intelligence gathering” to “case preparation.” Teams with lots of coaching resources would still outgun teams with few coaching resources. Aaron’s response seems to miss the point: Aaron says that debaters have to “strap in” in order to do well, and that those kinds of pressures are appropriate. If that’s the case, I don’t understand the impetus behind the caselist – why not simply require everyone to “strap in” in terms of position scouting? Anjan’s point is that if School A has five coaches to one debater, and School B has one coach or zero coaches, then School A will reap benefits from a caselist that School B simply can’t reap (and if I’m wrong, hopefully Anjan will correct me.) No matter how much “strapping in” is done, assuming roughly equivalent capacities, one person is not going to be able to outwork five or six people, and probably won’t stay academically healthy in the attempt. Aaron says “policy debaters have done this for years,” but this ignores Anjan’s apt observation that policy debate has shrunk terribly in recent years, and that a very small number of schools seem to win all the big prizes. So it’s conceivable that a lot of potentially talented policy debaters are not debating or are not achieving success because they’re being outworked by programs who are vastly more “strapped” than they can possibly be.
Aaron says: Second – What is the linearity to your “entrenches disadvantage to lone wolf arguments”. WHY DOES IT GET WORSE with a case list when if they are beating big fish now, people know their arguments. If a case list is online, why can’t Lone Wolf look at it? The lone wolf doesn’t have a lap top argument again? Please…
I think this is all addressed above. First, my concern isn’t just with “lone wolves.” A lot of lone wolf debaters are quite well to do and have all the best technology including satellite hookups and shoe-phones. I’m talking about debaters who lack access, whether they’re alone or with a group. IT GETS WORSE (potentially) if the caselist functions more to make preparation more efficient for the already-advantaged teams than to level the playing field. Another point that Anjan made which has gone unanswered is that the scouting that occurs now brings with it opportunity costs in terms of hours spent scouting. The caselist eliminates that burden, freeing coaches up to write prep-outs.
And, really, if you’re going to be posting cases during a tournament, I don’t see how that doesn’t disadvantage kids without a laptop. If you’re only posting cases AFTER tournaments, that’s different, but I have no idea whether that’s the plan for Ghill, or Blake for that matter, because no one has posted specifics. I’d love to see specifics.
Posted from: 68.93.122.242
May 31st, 2008 22:19
Dave,
I have two questions
1. In your opinion, if a case is read in a debate round who is this information open/available to and should they be allowed to/obligated to give this information to those who inquire?
Opponent?
Judge?
Spectators?
No one?
2. As evidence seems to play a bigger role in debates, what mechanisms should be in place to allow for competitors to check the validity and understand the entirety of the position of the evidence that often times determines the winner in debates?
Posted from: 71.123.194.170
May 31st, 2008 22:45
Dave–
Why not just ban scouting, flow sharing, coaches and students from watching debates ect? Another alternative might be to have new topics for each round to minimize the importance of evidence? That seems to get close to a world that best ensures equality for all right? Would you be supportive of this alternative?
BTW, Anjan (despite some concerns) is still on balance pro case lists. Debating points aside where do you fall on this issue?
Frankly I don’t know how “well heeled” teams could have more info than some do now. It seems that lone wolf is left sitting alone without a laptop or friends in the squo. I say at least let them know where the knives/guns whatever are in the fight. At that point its about execution in the round. Coaches are out of the mix when the door closes and kids start speaking. NO amount of coaching or blocks can ensure execution. The Valley type blog may have more coaches and blocks and a case list results in a war room that preps even more than you do now. If lone wolf knows many of your arguments they at least have a chance to out debate the student who is more well coached where the surprise factor of the squo minimizes that chance.
More info sharing is not perfect. Nor does it address everything wrong with debate. It is better than secrecy.
AT. out
Posted from: 128.12.108.79
May 31st, 2008 23:17
I haven’t read any of this discussion except the last few posts. I just have a quick suggestion that might handle Dave’s concerns.
Why not have the tournament set up a few public computers with a printer, charge 10 cents per page, and limit usage to something like 5 minutes per person before they have to go to the back of the line? Kids can buy usb sticks or keep their stuff in their webmail, so it should be good enough for people to print positions of upcoming opponents or post their new case to wherever. It’s certainly less convenient than having a laptop, but the inconvenience should limit the users (and hence the lines) to the people who actually need it, which I would guess is a relatively small group.
There may be reasons against it. I’m just suggesting it in the event that it hasn’t yet occurred to anyone.
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
June 1st, 2008 01:52
a caselist would solve back the harms of a shift from “intelligence gathering” to “case preparation” since if people are more open about the positions they are running, including the positions which are tailored specifically for responding to other positions (like a DA or CP), then those would also find their way onto the caselist for everyone to have access to.
i guess a possible concern of this is that the problem is infinitely regressive and that teams with more coaches would still be advantaged when it comes to prepping these positions out, but this runs into the uniqueness and inevitability arguments made above. all this proves is that having more coaches is advantageous and this holds true in a world without a caselist as well. what this comes down to is:
CASELIST WORLD
knowing nearly all the arguments being run on the topic (as provided by the caselist), most likely knowing what your opponent is running, and potentially being prepped out by your opponent and their coaches
VERSUS
NON-CASELIST WORLD
knowing only the arguments youve been exposed to in rounds youve watched, participated in, or have exclusive access to via networking and potentially being prepped out by your opponent and their coaches
since “potentially being prepped out by your opponent and their coaches” cancel each other out, isnt it clear that a caselist world is better? its obvious that a debater would be better prepared for a prep out in a caselist world. as an aside, i think its unreasonable to assume that every debater is going to be prepped out every round in a world with a caselist, but even if thats the worst case scenario i dont see the big deal.
Posted from: 129.67.43.175
June 1st, 2008 08:39
I like Michelin’s idea about having judges fill out “case forms” along with ballots. This could be the best solution for the elite tournaments where most of the judging pools are composed of veteran judges and people who have seen and debated hundreds of rounds. It seems to most closely provide to those “outside of networks” exactly what they seem to be lacking: in-round intel on positions that are being run.
Posted from: 67.40.154.213
June 1st, 2008 10:20
Dear all,
First, I think it’s a false analogy to say that I am “fear mongering”. I am not playing on people’s inbedded fears to exploit them — sheesh; I am trying to expose their fears. I think the difference between the two is substantial. Thanks for the straw post Quinn O.
Second, the best arguments I’ve seen (which are the ones most oft repeated) are ones about the role of argument coaches increasing and “the little guy” having a disadvantage.
a) don’t teams with argument coaches kick ass right now? I think the inevitability argument that keeps being repeated makes this point moot. People already prep with argument coaches. People with advantages get the benefit of secrecy because they get information. Others do not have information.
Dave says that AT’s health care analogy is false because health isn’t competitive. That’s blatantly untrue! The reason why we have such a shitty health care situation is because of the unequal access to affordable comprehensive health care solutions for every American. That’s come directly because of rising costs and competition between health industries to deny coverage to create affordability for only partial coverage. Lest I digress.
The point remains the same: we have people compiling their own case lists and argument ideas right now. They do so in secret and do so with no interest/desire to share that information.
b) The “little guy” benefits when they have information. Having access to arguments makes it possible for students to craft their positions in reply to the arguments typically run on topics. Having access to arguments makes it possible to create coherent strategies in defense of their position in light of commonly made arguments.
OH, the other argument about research burdens is a little tough to apply mainly because the topics change every two months. The only time the topic doesn’t change that frequently is when people have a few extra months to prep for the TOC. To be perfectly honest, I have no problem with elite national tournaments requiring students to roll hard research-wise in order to win. As the system trickles down to smaller tournaments and disclosure is more rampant, the most well researched debaters win. If that’s bad, then I guess we need to find something else to do with our weekends and summer hours.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 216.9.250.98
June 1st, 2008 11:44
1. I think it would help this discussion if people addressed the idea that a case list would be appropriate at certain tournaments (TOC, Ghill, emory etc… ) and not at others (princeton, harvard, locals). I know there was some talk about consistency, but I think this type of system would greatly mitigate most concerns if not eliminate them.
2. This brings me to my second point (which dave has been advocating for awhile) people need to specify what type of system they are advocating b/c it makes the discussion hard to follow when two ppl pro disclosure can be claiming opposite benefits and vice versa.For example the system mentioned in point 1 wouldn’t work the same if we were just updating flows to a wiki as it would if we we had a tournament caselist that had the positions that would be run at that specific tournament.
Disc- I have read the vast majority of this thread, but that doesn’t mean I understand all of it (see points 1 and 2) if I misconstrue what u were said I apologize and (like anjan) I hope to help in this discussion not get into an online line by line debate.
I am talking under the system outlined in point 1 though I’m sure ill adress some points made in discussing other systems and some points that are inherent to all
Lone wolf (every other name u want to call this person). For the past two seasons I was the lone wolf being talked about so I have some first hand knowledge rather than just speculating. Anjan is right that a case list would in the end net harm the lone debater due to the increased influence of argument coaches. I would contend though that others (pretty sure AT and some1 else) are also right in that the lone wolf is significantly disadvantaged in terms of acquiring flows and common articles, DAs, etc…. Meaning that although from my experience Anjan is correct this is definately mitigated to a point at which the net harm to the lone wolf is almost small enough (in terms of these competing arguments) to not hold no importance in this debate.
The work load argument
I think anjan is completely right that work shouldn’t be a maximizing standard… But I believe that this argument is also pretty close to a wash an thus wouldn’t cross that magical brightline anjan talks about. Although it does give people the opportunity to do more work 1. It doesn’t force them to do so.. on many occasions a prepped out debater has beaten his/her opponent who he/she didn’t prep out. 2. For the lonewolf/less connected it actually helps a lot in terms of research b/c instead of google/lexus/jsot-ing random resolutional terms for many hours u get acess to a lot of articles/ arguments that even if ur working more ur being a lot more efficient. In the end I think it will probably be just a tradeoff in work (instead of writing that third ac you’ll prep the top debaters cases or common articles) or even if its an increase in work load its optional, slight, and more efficient.
The argument about increasing neg advantage (I believe) is just true. I see arguments made by mangus and others but I think ken’s analysis about shock value and limited time is how debate is currently functioning. But while understanding its a unique harm if it furthers a status quo disadvantage I don’t think the conclusion should be reject case lists. I think there should be a shift in the way we evaluate rounds with the addition of the case list. We shouldn’t stop making progress in other aspects in our activity b/c we have an ability to fix the neg advantage. Maybe the case list will show ppl how big the neg advantage actually is and serve as a catalyst for change.
Policy analogies should probably just stop bc there are so many differences between the two activities in the status quo and historically that there’s no reason why the addition or lack of case list would affect the activities the same. Also if ur strongest argument is policy can do it/ did it… Ur probably losing bc u should be able to address the specific implementation concern at hand (that doesn’t mean u can’t explain the solution policy used if it would be consistent with the current ld stucture).
In the end I come out pro disclosure as suggested in point 1. Jeeze this was long good way to waste time in the ride home from princeton.
Posted from: 65.81.157.91
June 1st, 2008 12:53
all this talk of disadvantaging debaters without big coaching staffs is off-target. i never had argument coaches but i think i have a pretty competitive debate resume. its called innovation and hard work (AT makes this point). i felt most disadvantaged at tournaments when i had no feel for the topic, not when i was prepped out – recall my argument from way back at the beginning of the thread that few coaches actually write out arguments for their debaters, and even among those who do most of them arent gonna blow you away with their quality. in the event that the best coaching mind in the activity has prepped you out extensively, they still cant give the rebuttals. good debaters win, period, and a lot of coaches arent any better than the best students.
and with that, yet another reiteration of an unanswered argument from way back, i hope to finally quit (this conversation has been ebbing and flowing for weeks now)
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
June 1st, 2008 17:17
I am in favor of a caselist that requires students to post materials after the tournament where they are broken. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
I would reserve judgement on a version of the plan that required us to post cases during a tournament, AS we were breaking them. If the logistics were set up such that equal access was guaranteed (something like what Bobby suggests, perhaps) then I’d be fine with that, too. I maintain that this would be very difficult to implement. I’m not sure who’d be responsible for the extra work of posting – particularly for students dependent on someone else’s computer.
I’d be against a requirement that we post cases before they are broken.
Michael: I don’t think your debate career is a very good test case. You were unique in a number of ways, talent-wise.
Posted from: 12.215.129.141
June 1st, 2008 18:35
Dave-
What if people asked for an outline when the schematic comes out? Do you think that would be reasonable?
Posted from: 12.216.167.34
June 1st, 2008 22:17
That would depend. If we were running something new, then I think an appropriate response would be, “We’re running something new.” If we were running something we’d previously broken, we could say, “it’s on the case list.” If we happened to have an extra outline kicking around, then sure, hand it over. If not, then describe it.
I don’t know for sure how I feel about a situation where someone asks for an outline of a case that we’ve just broken at the tournament. If the plan is that we are obligated to post to the caselist after the tournament where we break the case, then it might not be expected that we’d hand over an outline in those circumstances. Affirming is hard enough already… having an obligation to give the negative additional ammunition just seems like a bad idea, especially since the NC is typically so much less important in circuit rounds.
What would you do if Debater A is busting a new case and Debater B is reading an old one? Does Debater B have an obligation to hand over an outline in the absence of reciprocation on Debater A’s part?
If we’re going to have neg disclosure as well, what do you do if the neg doesn’t know what they’re going to run? Say you have six negs. The aff comes up and asks you what you’re going to run. Do you have to give them all six outlines? Or, say you make a decision based on the aff outline. You hand over the NC you have decided to run. But then once you flow the full text of the AC, you realize that a different NC will actually be much more strategic. But now, you’ve locked yourself into running a less competitive position.
What do you do if the aff is busting a new case but demands the outline of the NC? The neg can’t know what they’re going to read without seeing the AC, but unless we require disclosure even in the case of completely new material, there’s no way for the neg to even begin to assess what they should disclose.
Or, if the neg just discloses all of the cases they’ve broken up to that point, how valuable will it be to the aff to have a big sheaf of papers from the neg?
What if the NCs are all 30 seconds long? What benefit does the aff get from receiving those in exchange for the outline of six minutes of their in-round material? Does the neg have to disclose “outlines” of all of their generics, off-cases, etc?
Does everyone have to carry around dozens of copies of everything for distribution at tournaments?
I think having disclosure “in tournament” raises a whole lot of very sticky practical questions and would make life a lot tougher for the aff.
I realize this is a whole other can of worms, that has been touched on before only briefly, but I think there needs to be some discussion of just what material gets posted on the case list — or handed out in outline form — or whatever. A lot of ACs, particularly those that are self-consciously “critical” or “post-modern,” for want of better terms, are designed so that the meaning of the position is at least somewhat ambiguous until after the NC. I question the strategic value of having an ‘outline’ of a case like that. On the other hand, I think it would be *tremendously* valuable to have the full text of a case like that before a round.
Posted from: 12.216.111.70
June 2nd, 2008 02:32
“What if the NCs are all 30 seconds long? What benefit does the aff get from receiving those in exchange for the outline of six minutes of their in-round material? Does the neg have to disclose “outlines” of all of their generics, off-cases, etc?”
Your last question has already by answered: yes. And this seems to solve back the problems “you’ve outlined in your first ones; the neg is disclosing not just the NC but their DA’s, offcases and generic pre-written arguments. That equates to substantially more than 30 seconds of the NC. In many rounds I would even venture to say it constitutes a majority of the NC. Negs are dishing out a lot of pre-written material lately like kritiks, offcases, counterplans, DA’s *cough*scroll down*cough*. I also don’t understand why you are putting the word ‘outline’ in quotations. The use of the term in this case does not seem to be an abstraction. The object in question is quite literally an outline.
“Or, if the neg just discloses all of the cases they’ve broken up to that point, how valuable will it be to the aff to have a big sheaf of papers from the neg?”
This seems like the most reasonable option to me. Obviously the aff could not read everything in the neg’s expando, but there are strategic advantages to having outlines. It is not as if you have to read an entire flow to tell whether something is responsive or not to your position. Knowledge of the material in the negative expando might influence the aff to choose a particular case-position that is less open to attack from the majority of the neg’s material (for example: NEG debater has a lot of CP’s. AFF debater refrains from running an AC that embraces comparative justice, since that grants the legitimacy of counter-plan ground.)
I also think that the value of having the AC is being overstated. Having an outline of the AC doesn’t tell you the strategy the aff will implement in the 1AR. AC’s are increasingly complex and the interaction between arguments is not always explicit. A good example of this on the TOC topic might be: Aff reads self-defense AC but sprinkles sizable impacts and solvency arguments in the case. Neg reads util NC and then dumps on the AC framework. Aff kicks framework and uses the util impacts in the AC to outweigh the NC. Although this is sort of an extreme example (and perhaps brings an unrelated ’severance bad’ argument to the table), I think that the non-explicit 1AR/2AR strategies built into cases are often the most important part of what goes into constructing a good AC. This is also unique to the aff; a lot of NC’s are either designed to be directly responsive to specific kinds of AC’s (and thus there is more strategic value in having it since the function of arguments is more explicit) or generic responsive-to-everything type arguments (which are usually a) low-quality and b. are not more damaging to the AC in the world of caselist/disclosure)
“Michael: I don’t think your debate career is a very good test case. You were unique in a number of ways, talent-wise.” His point exactly. “good debaters win, period.”
Posted from: 205.221.1.206
June 2nd, 2008 06:46
Matt –
Understanding, at the outset, that the practice I’m criticizing is disclosure AT tournaments (ala Ernie’s post). These points don’t necessarily apply to online disclosure post-tournament:
First, the idea that the neg has to “disclose” their non-case materials is a nightmare. What do they disclose? Everything in their expando? Do they give over the full text of everything, or just “outlines”? Does that mean the neg has to create “outlines” of everything they read? I’m assuming not. So the neg’s burden is to hand over a copy of everything they’re likely to read against the AC. My point is that this makes neg disclosure pointless because of the information overload involved. Most negs will have a TON of potential off-case or otherwise generic answers; handing over copies of all of this would be practically difficult (imagine the wasted paper) and, more importantly, wouldn’t help the aff at all because they’d have no idea where to begin prepping, and no guarantee that any particular argument would actually be used. So, while there has been an “answer” to my question, I don’t think it is or was a good answer.
You admit that obviously, the aff can’t read everything in the neg expando, but it’s “strategically advantageous to have outlines.” Outlines of what??? Since when do negatives produce outlines of their off-cases and/or generics?
You ask why I put “outlines” in quotations. That’s because no one has provided any real suggestion for what goes into an outline — how detailed it has to be — or, more importantly, how *accurate* it has to be.
Which brings me to your second-to-last point: having the AC before round is pointless, because it’s not at all clear from an AC “outline” what the AC actually says. Thank you for reiterating my last point from the post. If your analysis is right, then having the AC might actually be a disadvantage to the neg because the outline form could be misleading.
Finally – I agree that there are always going to be a handful of truly top-notch debaters for whom all of this disclosure stuff is academic. These “Mangus-like” folks will succeed with or without because they are skills-wise head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the pack. But the vast majority of debaters slog it out somewhere in the middle ground, where advantages or disadvantages arising from new norms like disclosure might make a big difference.
Now go do Nationals work.
Posted from: 70.250.219.164
June 2nd, 2008 10:59
question, AT: will the greenhill case list require previously broken cases, or cases that have yet to debut as well. if the former is implemented, does that not put texas debaters who attend grapevine at more of a disadvantage than those who spend their first tournament weekend at greenhill?
all this talk about how i’m a strawman in relation to michelin’s argument is ridiculous. at the same time, i don’t think my argument[s] are congruent with anjan’s. i don’t think michelin’s argument functions to exploit the fears of others; rather, michelin’s arguments generate false impacts in relation to the alleged fear-based reason to reject case list. michelin says ‘x is a fear, fear is the reason we don’t / shouldn’t have caselist, uproot the fear.’ my argument is two-pronged: either X fear is a legitimate fear (ie scrutiny, something that would be uniquely increased by caselist), or, caselist re-entrenches X fear or arises out of new fears (ie ‘working harder’).
Posted from: 72.23.159.243
June 2nd, 2008 11:41
I think that what prep-outs do is take away from the debate. It’s been argued that they only serve to further the debate and allow deeper issues to be reached. This is a fundamental flaw in logic. As a debater one should have a working knowledge of the topic and should be able to be flexible and able to respond to any sort of arguementation. I’m not saying that you will always reach a deeper level by not prepping your opponent’s case at all, but that it isn’t and shouldn’t be neccesary provided you have an understanding of the topic. Which leads me to the second point: the idea that those who are against prep-outs are in essence lazy….I think prepping out other people’s cases is not entirely uneducational. However, the reason why people do this is to have a better chance of winning. I like to win just as much as anybody else, but the real satisfaction for comes from learning a resolution from front to back. I don’t want to write 7 cases, not because I’m lazy, but because I want to argue the position that I believe in. One could put in more work and learn more about the topic by researching it, rather than prepping out someone else’s case. Another point that has been brought up is debaters not listening to their opponent’s prepped out case…I realize you can switch around contentions to throw your opponent off, but it’s disrespectful in my opinion not to listen to your opponent speak. I think prep-outs just make debate much more of a competetion than it is an experience. Finally, I think when you’ve prepped things out it changes the debate. I’m a big fan of using cross examination, not neccesarily asking for warrants or impacts, or clarifying—but to frame the resolution. I want my opponent to be thinking on his feet, I want to see his mind turn. Prep-outs have turned rounds for me almost into a script, and I am not an actor. With all of this said, I am not categorically against prep-outs. Sometimes getting a first look at an opponent’s outline can help the debate along further. The line that I draw is where it’s practiced in secret, with teams forming alliances. I would only prep out a debater who I really respected. Prepping out the whole debate community is just unneccesary and serves to cheapen the joy of debating.
Posted from: 68.221.218.14
June 2nd, 2008 12:01
my point was merely that good debaters are smart enough to beat a lot of coaches, so coaches debating by proxy shouldnt be much of a worry. it was not an argument about disclosure writ large. i dont see whats wrong about people who are really good at debating winning and people who arent as good at debate not winning very much. that seems to be the correct outcome.
seriously though, think about it. where do coaches come from? how many mediocre debaters go on to be coaches? sure they might offer great motivational skills, strong fundamentals, etc. – but im of the belief that at the top level of this activity, raw talent is perhaps the biggest determiner of who wins. i think its very rare for someone to have an epiphany post-graduation and suddenly be able to write out unbeatable blocks. in other words, lets not assume that having an argument coach helping you out is any different than tagging in another average debater.
Posted from: 68.221.218.14
June 2nd, 2008 12:09
just to be very explicit so i dont get nailed to the cross on this one: my point is not that only successful debaters are useful as coaches. rather, my point is that unsuccessful debaters who go on to be argument coaches probably arent bringing any more nuanced or strategic arguments than they did when they were competing. in the vast majority of cases, their coaching talent is not derived from their ability to write blocks.
Posted from: 65.42.208.133
June 2nd, 2008 13:33
I’ve read only a few of the other posts, so i don’t know exactly where this thread has gone. To answer the initial question, however, I think that this isn’t a simple issue. I think that people who don’t want to be prepped out should write multiple cases so that they can run different arguments. Not only does this make adaptation easier (having a lay case in your accordian is always a good idea), it also makes prep-outs more difficult.
To touch briefly on the issue of case-disclosure, I think it’s okay so long as both debaters disclose cases and/or both people consent to the disclosure.
Back to the more controversial issue of prep-outs, I think that whether they are right or wrong is a somewhat irrelevant question. People want to win rounds, and so they’ll use prep-outs to make doing so easier. People who oppose the idea should make it more difficult to be prepped-out by having multiple cases, and not giving away arguments to potential opponents/their coaches.
There are a few situations where prep-outs seem outright unethical to me. The first is when the cases are obtained through some underhand or “dirty” means. This doesn’t imply simply stealing cases, but it does include other means such as e-mails, usb flash drives, files left on public computers, etc..
I think that if the prep-out is based on the flow from a observed round then it doesn’t give an unfair advantage to the debater, as the flow may not capture the essence of the argument. Also, perceptual issues such as how the case was presented can make a prep-out ineffective because the might, among other things, make someone think that unimportant arguments are important and vice versa. So basically, my position is that if someone uses a flow from a previous round to prep someone out, that’s legit, but other prep-outs aren’t.
Posted from: 76.17.167.243
June 2nd, 2008 13:43
I am in favor of a caselist where materials are posted after a tournament.
I am in favor of a caselist where materials are posted prior to a tournament. It is the tournament director’s choice and s/he can run the tournament as s/he wishes.
I am sympathetic to Dave’s claims regarding his hesitancy toward posting cases during a tournament.
Posted from: 98.194.191.107
June 2nd, 2008 15:39
i am always for people posting their cases after a topic is over. mangus’ caselist serves a valuable, educational purpose.
quinn raises a valid point in post 212: “will the greenhill case list require previously broken cases, or cases that have yet to debut as well. if the former is implemented, does that not put texas debaters who attend grapevine at more of a disadvantage than those who spend their first tournament weekend at greenhill?”
first, i am against REQUIRING that cases be posted ONLINE during a topic. if you want to swap immediately before the round, i don’t have a huge problem with that other than i think it skews more debates NEG, which is the argument continually be advanced. also, disclosure right before the round delays tournaments even more. and i agree with those making the claim that it increases the function of argument coaches.
my stance on the 2 options in quinn’s question:
1. i am vehemently against REQUIRING people to post their ACs that they’ve BROKEN when they have tournaments left on that topic, especially in the case of sept/oct when we would be required to post after grapevine, but we have 5 MORE big TOC tournaments on that topic. This severely disadvantages teams that travel a lot, especially debaters who are perceived “threats” because everyone else will use their finite pre-tournament prep to write detailed prep-outs to the “threats.” Lets not pretend that I am going to waste finite pre-tournament prep by writing blocks to people I know I can beat without disclosure. If you want to flow the AC at grapevine, take it home and write the prep-out, I am all for that because that occurs now. But I’m not posting the AC for all the people who weren’t at the tournament but who are going to prep the AC for the next weekend and the 4 weekends after that. Is disclosure more educational? Not necessarily. If it’s true that it increases the use and function of argument coaches, then it’s less educational in my opinion because the borg is being fed. Does disclosure make “better debate?” I have no idea what better debate is. Better debate, in my opinion, isn’t reading a crapspread block word-for-word that someone else wrote for you. If the disclosure policy is that people only have to post outlines, then how does that make better, more responsive debate? It’s an outline. If anything there’s a strong possibility of worse debate with only the requirement that people post outlines because NEGs are going to write a load of generics or things they think will apply and read them anyway even if they aren’t responsive. We’re just encouraging people to read more and think less. EVEN IF disclosure leads to more education and “better debate” (i dont think it does), it hurts my chance of winning if i travel a lot, am a “threat,” and am affirming. As a preeempt to “‘Threats’ should just write better cases or be prepared for the prepout” – No case is perfect. Most of the best ACs in the world have a hard enough time beating prepouts from good NEGs that were done 30 minutes before the round. I am against skewing NEG advantage any more. And no one should be expected to write brand new cases for every tournament they go to if they travel to 4-6 tournaments per topic. You want people to write 12 [good] ACs per topic? Not happening.
2. If disclosure requires EVERYONE post their cases BEFORE the tournament, this seems like LESS of a problem, but i’m still against it because it blows the strategy in shock value and/or running non-stock positions. I hate ACs that are intentionally confusing and change into something totally different in the AR or no one really understands until the 2AR, but a lot of judges for some reason still vote on these ACs because they like to think they are or appear to be experts on Laclau or someone, so as long as judges let kids get away with bastardizing postmodern whoever in 6 minutes, kids are going to keep doing it. Disclosure destroys this strategy. Non-stock cases or confusing cases make affirming less difficult and combat NEG skew. I admit that’s not compelling nor is it “good” for debate. But it wins unfortunately in front of too many people. The more compelling argument is that disclosure hurts “stock” debaters the least and penalizes people who come up with unique positions. If I have to disclose my position that advocates using military force as a very specific type of bunker-buster that doesn’t link into generic criticisms of bunker-busters, then I have lost a lot of the strategy in running the unique argument. Does disclosing the specific type of bunker-buster advocated in my AC allow for “better” debate? Maybe, but i’m not convinced. I am certain it decreases my ability to win affirming.
Maybe your system of disclosure does not have the harms outlined here. But I’ve been keeping track of this thread and i’ve yet to see how this disclosure system is actually implemented that allows for all of these benefits. I think a huge problem is disclosure just can’t effectively be implemented at big tournaments. At a round robin, i think it could be. Even if everything I just said is wrong (and it very well may be), this discussion can’t go much more until someone outlines the disclosure policy they propose for Blake or Greenhill or wherever and then we’ll talk about that.
I don’t feel very strongly about anything I just said because i don’t care very much since i don’t think disclosure will be implemented any time soon where it brings the benefits people are talking about. But I am against anything that makes it easier for NEGs to win. If disclosure helps NEGs more than AFFs, i think that is a compelling enough reason to be anti-disclosure given the current climate where NEGs are winning more now and only a handful of people flip AFF.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
June 2nd, 2008 15:54
As Mangus has suggested negatives winning has much less to do with time skew or other structural advantage than it has to do with judge paradigms. That is a different discussion.
Posted from: 67.40.154.213
June 2nd, 2008 20:17
I think it’s funny that Quinn O says that I’m calling something a fear is somehow wrong. Then he says that the fears I criticize are justified. I think that the fears of having to work harder or having to answer good arguments to your case are goofy. If you sincerely believe that it’s okay for debaters to artificially construct an advantage so that they can win, we just view debate differently.
I think that the top level arguments and strategies executed in the best ways should win tournaments. You’re saying that secrecy and conventions produce the best debate results. I think that your view is 100% antithetical to the purpose of making debates better.
As for this “let’s only post after a tournament” business… why do this half way? If you have a new case, then you’re not required to disclose. If you are running a case that you’ve run before, tell your opponent which one you’re running and debate. If the opposition to this simple declaration of your position doesn’t smack of a fear of losing to arguments, then I don’t know what does.
To be clear: if you are afraid that people will have good answers to your positions, then you do not deserve to be crowned the champion of a major tournament. That means you want to AVOID debate. It does not mean you did the best debating.
michelin massey.
Posted from: 67.40.154.213
June 2nd, 2008 20:28
Sorry for the double post… in response to Gary and others who agree with his sentiments…
Why is it a disadvantage to have to figure out how your cases interacts with positions that can be run against them? It seems to me that getting specific in-round experience is what allows students to get better because they can see what really works and what doesn’t.
I mean, do cases stay the same for 6-7 bid tournaments? I hope that’s not what wins elite national tournaments.
michelin massey.
Posted from: 194.250.89.25
June 3rd, 2008 06:15
Gary is correct.
Let’s stop debating (lol get it) and run an experiment. I don’t think it will wreck debate if we try it at one tournament and it fails. That tournament might suffer, but we’ll all regard it as a martyr, or possibly a messiah. Are any tournament directors willing to endorse Michelin’s system? Has it ever been done before?
Also, maybe we can have a real discussion about this at NFL. I’ll organize an agenda or something if people are interested.
-Petey
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
June 3rd, 2008 09:36
Agree. We are probably willing to give it a try at Harvard Westlake. What we will do, likely, is have each judge fill out a form about what was run and then post them on the wall after the first two rounds.
If someone breaks new a new case after that, good for them!
Posted from: 71.123.194.170
June 3rd, 2008 20:49
The system of case lists has been tried for years in policy debate. While some people don’t like the analogy or understand why policy is relevant, I think it proves that a culture that is more open can be developed over time.
I will say that a case list WILL fail if people are unwilling to contribute to the list in a complete and honest manner and continually update it. If that occurs Michelin’s point regarding fear may have some merit in my opinion.
I hope to post the model we might be using at the Greenhill tournament in the near future. As a bit of a preemption we will let lone wolf use a computer to look at or post on the wiki for the duration of the Fall Classic :)
One final point (and perhaps another thread) that might be worth discussing, It has been stated (and the data ignored) that policy 1ars are more difficult than LD 1ars yet the aff still wins (TOC finals in policy the last three years is a case in point). I would submit that judging is the reason and NOT the side or the format. I have my reasons that while obvious to me, I will share if anyone has thoughts on this inflammatory claim.
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
June 4th, 2008 07:22
As a former policy debater, I can also attest that policy 1ARs are, on balance, more difficult than LD 1ARs (simply because of the time skew). However, the overall burden on affs in policy seems lower, in my opinion, than affs in LD for a number of reasons. Chiefly among them is that most policy negs are in a very defensive position (save CPs) right from the start because they have to refute the AC plan, or advocacy, more specifically to win the ballot; whereas, in LD, negs aren’t put in such a defensive position because they have their own advocacy, or advocacies, to disprove the resolution on their own terms. Thus, on balance, the burden on affs in LD is greater because they have to defend multiple advocacies instead of presenting, or “owning,” the only one in the round.
Re: AT’s last post. One, I’m interested in hearing your “thoughts on [your] inflammatory claim.” Do you think that some judges disproportionately vote neg in close rounds because the community questions neg wins less? Additionally, if our current debaters pray in the hallway to flip neg, then won’t those same debaters carry that bias into rounds that they will judge in two or three years from now? I’m probably guilty of this myself–or at least just simply waiting for the NC spread-and-kill and then watching for 1AR drops.
Two: I’m leaning towards disclosure bad; however, I’m very open to experimenting with it at Greenhill in 08. If people whom I respect have ideas about how to improve the activity, then I feel like their ideas deserve a shot, especialy if on a trial basis only. Empirics over theoreticals.
Posted from: 71.123.194.170
June 4th, 2008 15:17
Travis says
“If people whom I respect have ideas about how to improve the activity, then I feel like their ideas deserve a shot, especialy if on a trial basis only. Empirics over theoreticals.”
Policy case lists seem to provide “empirics”…more later if needed. Their is a reason Greenhill, St Marks and Glenbrooks do caselists (in addition to one at TOC). I dont hear the same kinds of arguments from similarly
situated students and programs that I have heard on this thread.
Travis.. as a bit of a teaser, to use a policy analogy that will makes sense to you I offer the following. Many policy debaters dislike stocks issues judges. Many national circuit judges LD judges fit into a “stock issues” paradigm and they dont realize it ;)
How many times do we hear, “you don’t “solve” (100% most times) so I vote neg”. Many times without true offensive arguments on the negative. Another example, the 1ar drops X argument (that might diminish “solvency” a bit but isnt a 100% takeout) and people vote neg more times than not. THIS (and a run to bad procedurals and theory arguments) is a big reasons negs win so much. The data suggests that policy 1ars are harder, this has not been disputed. The difference is HOW people judge in LD versus judges in policy. The ideas of “comparative advantage” is lost on many ld judges. I understand some topics may not lend themselves to that paradigm, but many do.
I could go MUCH deeper on this issue. I look forward to hearing what people have to say.
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
June 4th, 2008 15:36
The problem goes a lot deeper than judges negating based on a solvency deficit. People also vote neg if there’s defense on the aff standard, defense on the aff’s extensions (nevermind a risk of offense), and even “you don’t define terms so we don’t know what you’re talking about” arguments. Judges need to evaluate the risk of offense and stop presuming neg every round.
Posted from: 206.251.74.247
June 6th, 2008 08:56
[...] our last discussion about case disclosure and case lists, a point was raised towards later in the 227-comment (and counting!) thread regarding judge [...]
Posted from: 206.251.74.247
June 13th, 2008 08:50
[...] our last discussion about case disclosure and case lists, a point was raised towards later in the 227-comment thread regarding judge paradigms and [...]
Posted from: 121.245.3.105
November 23rd, 2008 08:16
I don’t understand how my criticism of prep-outs applies to skepticism. Although I like debating skepticism, I do think that it’s an overused and oft rehashed argument that debaters fall back upon when they are not able to think on their feet.