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: 18%
no more tag found, sorry
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 &#