Since the conversation started because of Big Bronx, let’s look at that invite.
“I believe that case disclosure evens the playing field for smaller teams in a manner similar to how posting brackets at the start of elimination rounds…evens the playing field. I believe that openness promotes deeper comprehension and preparation, and I believe that this openness promotes better clash and better debates. Requiring that all competitors participate in a case list helps eliminate the unequal power concentrated with programs that have plenty of resources, employ multiple coaches, or that are members of an ‘inner circle’ and that thus are able to more easily acquire information about other arguments being made by other programs.”
So the expressed goal of disclosure at this one tournament is a more even playing field. Cruz also talks about advance preparation being improved.
In his article for the May ’10 Rostrum, Bietz said this: “Since disclosure happens anyway, it ought to be open to all competitors regardless of the number of teammates, coaches, or friends one has at any given tournament. The current ‘system’ is exclusionary and often makes tournaments hurtful situations. It benefits large teams who either 1) bring many kids to tournaments or 2) have many judges in the judging pool, both of which go hand-in-hand. Finally, open disclosure provides the academic check and peer review of research that is common in all of academia.”
Bietz repeats the goals of the even playing field at tournaments and adds academic integrity, although his article does agree with Cruz on the idea that case disclosure in advance provides to all resources that are normally limited to larger or connected programs.
There seem to be two things going on here that are quite separate. One of them is the publication of case material as it affects debaters outside of tournaments, and the other is the evening of the playing field at the actual tournaments. Let’s look at the former in this posting.
When a new resolution is released, the debater must learn two things: what the resolution is about absent debate, i.e., what does it actually mean, and second, how should it be debated. These are quite different puppies. Let me use as an example our Modest Novice topic, which is about whether Civil Disobedience is justified. We throw this topic at high school freshmen, few of whom have given the topic a moment’s thought so far in their lives. When I brainstorm, either with my own team or at the MHL workshop, everybody seems to have plenty of ideas on the subject, although combined with a pretty shaky idea of what the subject actually is. For some of them, the Civil Rights battles of the 60s were before their parents were born. So we kick around a lot of material, trying to get a feel for what CD is, for what it means to deliberately and conscientiously break laws, to get some sense of the history of the idea. All of this is, of course, talk.
From this point, debaters must research. More to the point, 9th graders must research. The question is, now what? Well, of course they can go to Google and plug in Civil Disobedience, and they’ll get some answers. In fact, they’ll get “about 1,430,000 results,” which seems like more than enough. But wouldn’t it be better to have a place to begin that really gave you pertinent research? What if there were a case wiki on Civil Disobedience? And if I went to this wiki I would see a lot of quotes from various sources on Civil Disobedience that were used in actual cases? In this situation I would have the benefit of the work that has already been done as my starting place. I still ought to read my Thoreau, who does indeed come up on page one of a Google search, but I’ll probably get a lot of other leads as well.
The thing is, we use Civil Disobedience for the novice topic precisely because Thoreau comes up on page one. It’s easy to study. (Not to mention it’s a good way to learn about government.) But what about most topics, where there isn’t such a clear line of attack? I mean, who is the Thoreau of net neutrality (1,720,000 results, beating out CD by 300M)?
In addition to finding resources, the publication of cases will also provide approaches to the subject area. How are people analyzing the resolution and arguing it? One of my classic betes noires is the old civil rights for non-citizens including the right to vote, which to me is about as dumb as it gets. Letting non-cits vote is letting people on the bus without a ticket. I’ve bemoaned this at great length. But if you look at cases, and see that no one is running this idiocy, you don’t have to worry about it; if you see that everyone is running this idiocy, after you wonder if they’ve all hired Sarah Palin as their debate coach, you will at least be prepared to handle it. Disclosure would show us a general range of the material one can expect to see run at a tournament, and help us guide our own offenses and defenses accordingly.
In a big program, or if you have a lot of debate friends, you can pool your resources and come up with most of what you might find useful for cases in advance. If you are all by your lonesome, however, while everyone else is coming to grips with non-citizen voters or whatever, you can only guess how or even if that’s going to be an issue. In fact, you might have to go to a tournament and debate just to find out in which direction the prevailing winds are blowing (keeping in mind that they will shift over time). While I don’t worry much about academic integrity and people making up research and stuff (since it’s patently wrong, and I hope fairly rare, and for which making a seismic change in the debate community like disclosure seems like overkill), I do like the idea that my little team will have access to the discussions, even indirectly, that are taking place in the bigger programs. I don’t write positions, I don’t research, I don’t do any of that coachy stuff that a lot of other people do, so my team isn’t going to get it from me. And going into this season, with the tiniest fleet of Sailors ever, it would be nice if they could get it from somewhere. And even if the Panivore may be nicely connected with a network of debate friends, but what about young Zip, a sophomore with only a handful of small events behind him?
I have to say, then, that before a tournament, the publication of what’s being discussed and researched and presented on a topic seems to have no downside insofar as access to tools is concerned. I do imagine that there could evolve some limits on creativity, but I seriously doubt that that will happen given the competitiveness of the individuals involved. But keep in mind that I do not see any of what I’ve been discussing above as what people might actually run at a tournament. It is what people did run at a tournament. I take this body of information as an index of material on a resolution with no connection to competition. That is another thing entirely. Research on what the topic means, what sources are relevant, what ideas could be in play—that’s it. But that’s a lot. And it seems to me a good thing.
Tournaments, as I say, and competition, are another thing entirely.
26 comments:
Even though I'm against case disclosure for many reasons other than the "evening the playing field" issue, since that's what you talked about, I'll just address that.
First of all, I really don't think it's true that everyone has their cases anyway. Even if large schools near me have my cases, large schools across the country most likely do not. And hearing through a chain of friends across the country isn't going to produce an effective prep out that is going to screw me over, so I really just don't think it's true that "disclosure happens anyway".
Secondly, with case disclosure, big schools have the resources to write so many positions that they break new cases every round. What is the likelihood that a lone wolf debater, or, for that matter, Zip, the JV debater with limited experience, can write enough cases to combat the case disclosure? But large schools with an extensive coaching staff can have new cases for every round, meaning we probably don't have their cases anyway. On the resources argument, they also have the ability to prep out almost every possible position they could hit prior to the tournament. (On a side note: this is the reason that I am totally cool with posting brackets for elim rounds.)
Lastly, I've been discussing the issue with other kids at VBI, some of which are one of 2-3 debaters on their teams. Of those that I've talked to, almost every small-school debater does not like the idea of mandatory case disclosure. At the point that the justification for disclosure is to help these debaters, why do they all reject it?
As a caveat, I definitely respect Cruz's intentions in implementing the case disclosure policy at Bronx this year. Although I disagree with the methods, I look forward to seeing how it goes.
Sophie
to build off what sophie argued, I'm also strongly against case disclosure.
First, I think the appeal to education is honestly laughable for a few reasons. A. Debaters don't do their own research-- I've talked to a lot of kids at VBI who unapologetically announce that their block files consisted of cards from Catherine's cites. I think sharing articles is a good thing, but at the point debaters have to write the first few words and the last, debaters can literally just hit "control find" to cut cards. More, this encourages everyone to use the same authors. Especially in the middle of the topic when debaters are getting somewhat lazy and complacent, the wiki offers an easy out to actually learning how to research. Also, big programs can just hand their students prep outs of cases preventing any in round education from occurring. We all know the appeal to the theory voter "debate teaches us to think on our feet which we don't learn in school etc. etc." and I think that in round refutation is essential. Case lists destroy that since it becomes the battle of the prep out versus the frontlines.
Second, I think the recent fetish for policy style argumentation/heavy evidence comparison is hurting debate. I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I think the evidence focus causes negatives to turn to theory and D/As instead of substantively responding on case. This makes debate more about reading and less about on the fly responses, which, as I mentioned above, I think is really harmful for education. Disclosure seems to fuel this trend in a few ways. First, by simply posting the position debaters can claim their strategy is predictable and thus fair. This incentivizes plan debate since a lot of the usual objections to parametrics are "solved" by the case list. Second, when forced to disclose, schools are more likely to write evidence heavy, hyper-specific cases to avoid the amount of arguments that could be generated by a prep out on a more stock position.
Last, even if case lists are wonderful, there is a lot of resentment for them in the debate community that won't go away any time soon. Not to name names, but remember how some teams responded to disclosure theory before TOC. They disclosed, but they disclosed EVERYTHING-- including cases run in practice rounds at camp. I thought it was hilarious, personally, but it brings up the bigger question as to how to check whether teams are posting real cases or at least cases they intend to run. From my understanding, you only have to disclose upon breaking the case, but enforcing that seems difficult. Either a,. your opponent knew you ran the position and calls you out on it, indicating that the case list was not necessary for him/her to find out your position or b. they don't notice, and there is no punishment/deterrent.
-susanna vogel
My problems with disclosure are probably repeats of what has been said earlier.
One thing in particular that I find irritating about the situation and what many of my peers who are from smaller debate schools agree with, is that how insanely patronizing this debate has become. A lot of the larger schools are claiming that disclosure is better for the smaller schools because we have access to resources, but whenever students from smaller schools advocate why they won't benefit from these, they are just reassured by another claim that it'll be helpful to them. I feel like this argument can only be true if smaller schools advocate a case list, but I have yet to see a good number of small schools do that.
On the matter of whether the case list will actually help out smaller schools, I just don't think that's true. Personally, even though I do have a coach who is awesome and dedicated, we just do not have the time nor do we have the resources to use a case list effectively.
I'm a debater from Rancho Bernardo, a small debate school in San Diego.
I don't really have much to add to Sophie, Susanna, and Kanisha, but I just wanted to chime in and say I definitely agree.
Disclosure may help me a little bit in terms of seeing what other people are running, but I strongly feel that it hurts me more than it helps because I don't have the "secrecy" of my positions anymore. People will argue that that is non-unique because big schools will figure out what I'm running anyways, but my response is two-fold:
a) only big schools on my circuit will know, so it decreases the amount of people who have knowledge about what I'm running. However, if I disclose, not only will schools on the CA circuit know what I'm running, but so will schools on the Texas, Midwest, and Northeast circuit.
b) teams usually acquire flows from the debaters that flowed the round, but most debaters have very incomplete flows, whereas disclosing would provide the perfect flow. That means the quality of the prepout in a non-disclosure world is worse.
And also, it really does irritate me when people from big schools tell me that disclosure will help me. I really respect these people, but seriously, I am perfectly capable of deciding what I want.
-Paras
I appreciate Sophie's kind tone in her post. This tone has been missing in a lot of the case list discussion previously and I hope this conversation is more reflective of what will be coming in the future.
To answer the three points Sophie makes:
1. Large schools from across the country tend to have friendly relationships with other large schools from across the country. This has been a reality for some time and is the "inner circle" to which I refer in my letter about case lists on the web site.
2. This was initially the argument that made me hesitant until I became more familiar with what occurs in Policy Debate. Bronx Science "seems" like a resource rich team to many, but in terms of coach employment, we lag behind many similarly-large programs, particularly "per capita." (Yes, in LD, we have two dedicated coaches [Andrew and Matt] in addition to the overall program director [me], but we the size of our LD squad is much larger than most teams across events. Our policy coaching situation is similar.)
What I do think case disclosure rewards is hard work.
Case in point: in Policy Debate, Andrew and Zack were able to disclose everything online -- literally everything -- and still win the great majority of their debates. They didn't break new arguments in every single round, because they worked hard, ran strong arguments, and did drills to become very strong rebuttalists. Everyone knew their arguments, including teams with larger coaching staffs than ours. And "resource poor" teams -- far more resource poor than Bronx Science, which is, through extensive fundraising efforts, more well-off than others -- were able to defeat us with their own hard work.
The success of programs like Beacon and Whitney Young and others in Policy Debate I think are indicative that smart arguments, well-researched, supplemented by hard individual work by the debaters, makes for good, fair debate.
The bottom line is this: a case isn't worthless once there are responses to it; if that were the case, we'd all be breaking new cases in every single round.
Also, at most tournaments, in my experience, most large teams do NOT run lots and lots of cases. Instead, they spend time putting a lot of work and research into a few (even two) solid positions.
3. Sophie, in fairness, we must be talking to different groups of kids. Virtually all of the kids I've explained this to -- kids who are truly "small team kids" with out private coaches, etc. -- are in favor of it. This is one of the most important reasons, I think, for having the experiment at my tournament. For everyone anecdote I give, you can give a competing one; for every anecdote you give, I can give a competing one.
Despite your reservations, which I respect, I appreciate the open-mindedness with which you are approaching my own tournament experiment.
Now, to reply to Susanna:
1A. I'd clarify what you wrote by saying this: Good debaters, of any format, do their own research. Bad debaters do not. Regardless of whether debaters who do not do their own research are unapologetic does not mean that a case list is a bad thing. Google searches can promote laziness. Getting cases from older teammates can promote laziness.
I don't think tournament policy should necessarily be designed with the lowest common denominator (in this case, the laziest of lazy debaters) in mind. You're right, they probably won't benefit from a case list. But debaters who are too lazy to do work aren't very serious about debate to begin with.
If anything, if a lot of folks begin to run the same exact arguments, the incentive to research more to find more unique arguments would seem to increase.
1B. While it's true that a "big program" could "just hand their students prep outs of cases preventing any in round education from occurring," "small programs" could do the same. I also don't see these kinds of extreme, line-by-line prep out of every single argument happen in every single debate round featuring a large program.
More of the issues with this line-by-line problem are addressed in my reply to your second point.
2. This argument is fair, very fair, in fact. But the policy-style arguments have existed in LD long before case lists came were suggested. I don't think case lists actually reinforce this style of argumentation (more on that later). Why there is an obsession (for better or for worse) with policy-based evidence in LD is an issue that probably does need to be discussed, but I think it's unfair to conflate it with case lists. Case lists make allowances for non-evidence based positions in both LD and Policy.
I do have to say that I find it ironic that many debaters and coaches who say case lists will make LD "into" "Policy Debate" seem to have few problems with speeches delivered at the very fastest speeds, loaded with technical argumentation and laden with theory arguments that a lay person could not understand and that were not intended to be a part of LD to begin with. Why is a case list uniquely bad when these things are, apparently, not? (Note that I realize you are largely saying the same thing I am, Susanna. And I am glad you're saying it -- I just think that lumping case lists with these things is, from my perspective, in correct. There are some things modern Policy Debate does poorly. Efforts at openness and inclusion with regards to case lists is not one of those things.)
So, again: I don't disagree that LD sometimes suffers from a lack of on-the-fly thinking.
(All of that having been said, I think on-the-fly thinking still exists in a world with case lists, as it does in Policy Debate. You aren't required to disclose your answers to arguments ahead of time, and the answers that are made to your case, and answers are made to those answers, require opponents to think "real time." Cross-examination, which has been a dying art in many areas for a long time, is also a place for on-the-fly thinking and a section of the round that, when utilized well, promotes the kind of good debate Susanna is defending.)
I don't think it's true that schools are more likely to write evidence heavy, hyper-specific cases simply because of a case list. If a position is truly "stock," it's still going to link into lots and lots of generic responses that teams have prepared ahead of time.
If it's true that case lists will affect the way in which cases are written (again, I don't think that's true, but perhaps we'll see from this experiment),
Continued...
From the last post...
3. I totally agree and addressed this point in my letter. I think the discussion was largely made toxic. I am not pretending that this was a popular choice for my tournament. But just because there may have been problems with implementation in the one time case lists were tried before, or just because I disagree with the tone or arguments of some who favor case lists, doesn't mean that case lists themselves are bad. I dislike Dennis Kucinich personally and don't care for the way he frames some of his arguments, but it turns out that some of those arguments that he frames poorly are pretty good in the long run.
I really do appreciate the constructive tone that your post took.
I forgot to note in my reply to Susanna that one reason that case lists do not, I believe, promote a specific style of debate is that there are many, many critical/philosophical Policy Debate programs. Many have continued to run these more philosophically-based arguments even after the advent of case lists.
It's a great irony that there are sometimes tournaments where there is more nuanced philosophy being run in Policy Debate rounds than in Lincoln-Douglas Debate rounds. But that's not the fault of case lists, and I don't think case lists exacerbate that at all.
Kanisha:
You are right that the move in LD has come from larger/better-resourced teams. I suspect, but could be wrong, that part of this is because many of the coaches of these programs also have experience directing Policy Debate squads and have seen the positive, leveling effects that case lists can have. I suspect there are two main reasons why many smaller schools haven't yet advocated for case lists:
1.) Many smaller schools aren't familiar with case lists because their programs don't do Policy Debate.
2.) The "discussion" last year was highly polarized and based on very little real data or experience. Many smaller schools haven't yet actually participated in a case list and are mostly familiar with the arguments that are being made against them. (Side note: many of these arguments actually came from programs that weren't small or "lone wolf" debaters who were hardly alone, as they had one or more private coaches...a pretty good coach-to-student ratio.)
I know do know many "smaller school" debaters and coaches who a) do think the idea is good but aren't really interested in engaging in the discussion in online forums and b) are willing to try out the idea with an open mind.
I have tried very hard to avoid a patronizing tone and I do really apologize if you feel I have been patronizing. I believe very strongly in equal access because I debated for a small, local program and am often still reminded of these roots when at the TOC, at national circuit tournaments, and at camp. I loathe patronization as well, but I do try to think that an idea should be evaluated regardless of its source. (Then again, I have a knee-jerk reaction to reject anything Ayn Rand wrote. So I can understand being suspicious of sources. :o))
My hope is that folks who compete at my tournament will approach the case list with an open mind, and that folks who don't will approach the results of the survey with an open mind. I'm willing to tweak the policy in the future or change things all together if it turns out that I was wrong and I am destroying debate. But, to be honest, based on my own experience with case lists, I don't think I am destroying it.
But I will admit if I am after I see it implemented and get feedback. :o)
Sorry, I had to delete my previous post because I formatted the post incorrectly.
Paras:
a.) To clarify, why does it matter if kids who you are not debating know what you are running? (Or is this an intellectual property issue? I am confused so I just want to clarify.)
b.) I guess that's true, but again, I am not sure that it really has an impact on the debate if the debaters who have been prepped out are hard workers who have practiced defending their cases. Andrew Markoff and Zack Elias, my top policy debate team this past season, posted their cases verbatim on the wiki and still managed to have an extremely strong season. They are very, very talented, yes. They have dedicated coaches, yes. But they also did a tremendous amount of work on their own.
I apologize if, as the coach of a relatively big program, I have offended you. Please know that I debated locally, at small school. Speaking from the heart, I have personally come to my thoughts on case lists because I have had varied experiences in debate. I am not sure if that counts for anything, or if it should even count for anything, but there it is.
With case lists, as with many things in life, I am reminded by what my grandfather says about experiencing new food. "If you try it and you hate it, it'll last for a minute; if you try it and you hate it, it'll last for a lifetime." (I am not saying that to be patronizing; I actually think that's just good life advice. It's one of three or four thoughts by which I try to live my life...even if perhaps it's led to my need to lose some weight when applied to food. ;o))
I hope people will be willing to try this out at my tournament. If they hate it afterwards, at least the hatred will be based on what they actually experienced, and we can have a discussion based on that experience. Whether case lists are good or bad -- though yes, I think they are good -- I think that discussion is just plain good.
Also, I deleted the post right after my reply to Sophie's because it was an accidental double-post. I'm not being a revisionist, just trying to make this discussion easier to follow. :o)
Did I really write "in correct" instead of "incorrect"?
Forgive typos, please.
I will say that there are small schools that strongly support disclosure. The Blake School is one of them. Last year we had 2 debaters and 1 coach in LD. I have coached huge programs and I have coached brand new programs (i.e. starting with 2 debaters). I will stand behind three main ideas.
1) Disclosure increases education -- if people know what you are running then you have to make good arguments. Good arguments withstand the light of disclosure. Secrecy breeds can breed bad arguments and trick arguments. My stance find a good argument and get better than anyone else in the country that is the way to success in debate.
2) Disclosure rewards hard work -- if everyone knows what all the arguments are, then the people that work the hardest will have success. All the coach will write stuff is either Non-unique or in some cases of big school successful debaters just not true. I am willing to bet that most of the best 8 or 16 debaters at TOC do a good deal of their work regardless of the size of their program or the number of their coaches. If a squad with 2 debaters works harder than a squad of 20 debaters then they should be rewarded for their work and disclosure will reward them. The examples Cruz points out are proof.
3) Disclosure has NOTHING to do with various formats of debate. Good argumentation is good argumentation, that is what this is about. There are plenty of examples of bad LD, Policy, and PF debate and plenty of examples of GREAT debate in each of those formats.
I thank everyone for being respectful of the various opinions.
Shane Stafford
Director of Forensics
The Blake School
I agree that the heated arguments that occur on forums like lddebate.org and with absolutists that refuse to be open-minded are unnecessary and counterproductive. Still, I haven't been convinced yet.
These are just responses to Cruz's responses to my arguments, I'll respond to other responses later, I guess.
(Also - I just want to add before I respond to Cruz's answers that I agree with 100% of what Susanna, Paras, and Kanisha have said as well)
On my first argument:
Sure, there is a circle of large schools that make up an inner community that may share flows, prep, etc. I think that my argument implicitely responds to this point though:
"[H]earing through a chain of friends across the country isn't going to produce an effective prep out that is going to screw me over, so I really just don't think it's true that 'disclosure happens anyway.'"
In my experience, it just isn't true that when I debate someone from Whitman, they will necessarily have my prep because Greenhill gave it to them who got it from Harvard Westlake who got it from Bronx, which is on my local circuit. Further, I think Paras addresses this point as well:
"[T]eams usually acquire flows from the debaters that flowed the round, but most debaters have very incomplete flows, whereas disclosing would provide the perfect flow. That means the quality of the prepout in a non-disclosure world is worse."
On my second argument:
There are a few reasons I think that the situation in policy is extremely different than that in LD.
The length of both speeches and rounds in policy is much longer. This has a few implications. First of all, if there are more speeches per round, the initial prepouts do not have as big of an impact, because your opponent has no idea what will happen in later speeches. In LD on the other hand, when you disclose, you end up with half the round over, and then oh, you can't really make new arguments after that. This is why I think that prepouts are worse in LD.
Also, I'm not so sure that hard work is always what changes things. This is obviously not at all personalized or directed at your policy debaters - I don't really know them and I certainly don't know their debating, in fact I am sure that their hard work is what makes them so amazing - but certainly in LD, where caselists enable the prepping out of the first 21 of the 30 minutes in round, things are very different. Instead, when we can prep out so much of the round, a large coaching staff and resources can seriously change things.
(continued)
On my third argument:
Maybe the group of people we are talking about is different, and in this sense I think you might be bolstering my argument. Is it possible that the people you are referring to are those who debate strictly on a local circuit, where they will not even encounter the tournaments in which case disclosure is advocated? I ask this because the people I am referring to are those who debate on a small team with minimal coaching/resources, but still debate on a competitive regional or national circuit, ie, debaters attending VBI as we speak. I think these are the debaters that the case disclosure policy should be speaking to - the ones who are not so local that large schools don't know where to start, but rather the ones that large schools know who they are and are willing to invest the intense prepout on your posted cases.
Would it be okay if I requested that you name the small-school individuals you've spoken to that are pro-disclosure? I have yet to encounter many, other than the occasional one who warrants their love for disclosure with their ability to take evidence from other, more resource-rich programs, which I seriously don't think is the right reason to be in favor of it, do you?
Just to make sure I continue the disclaimer - I'm excited about the discussion, I respect the decisions you have made for your own tournament, and I admire your intentions - but I still strongly disagree with the implementation (but of course I will keep an open mind.
I don't mean to offend anyone because I know this is a controversial issue. I agree with Susanna that the caselist perpetuates the over-reliance on evidence. (This is a response to Cruz's argument about how the over-reliance on evidence is not related to disclosure). I think it is a problem when rounds are basically entirely centered around evidence, and analytics are not given weight in comparison to evidence, even if the card is not that warranted and is some obscure nuke war extinction scenario. Another reason that the over-reliance on evidence is bad is because it advantages who has more to read rather than the person who is the better debater. I think the caselist perpetuates this because it assumes that rounds are better when people have the chance to research responses to people's positions rather than thinking of creative responses in-round. I've heard arguments in favor of disclosure (such as in the disclosure theory shell) about how surprise in rounds is bad. This fuels the over-reliance on evidence because it stresses the necessity of having cards to read against cases and implies that it is impossible to respond to arguments spontaneously. (Sorry if any of this is repetitive, I haven't thoroughly read through everything on here).
Maddy Stein
Hey Jon,
I’m glad that this discussion is civil. Again, these are my two cents (which I’m not sure counts for much, but here it is nonetheless):
My argument here is that the prep out that happens at tournaments where multiple circuits meet together (big tournaments like Bronx, Glenbrooks etc.) is much, much less formidable in a non-disclosure world. I understand that big schools are usually friendly with each other, but in my opinion this is (pardon the debate terminology) mitigation at best. The prep out that happens because one debater says, “Oh, you’re hitting Paras? Yah, I know him! He’s running terrorism on the aff” is much less worrisome than the prepout that a big school will do if I have my cases on the wiki. They will know exactly what I’m arguing, including the minute details. So, from a competitive perspective, small school debaters have a big incentive to not disclose. Also, your argument is that debaters should just defend their case and if they know the case well they should win. What I don’t understand is why debaters like me should be forced to debate not only my opponent, but also their coaches? I have no problem defending my cases, but why is the onus on the small school kid to defend their case and not on the bigger school kid to respond to the case without the help of their coaches? From what I understand, Andrew and Zach were fantastic. But would they have been as successful as they were without the coaching staff on Bronx? They still would have done very well, but I highly doubt they would have done as well as they did.
Some people say that this is good for clash (and thus education) in debate, but is it really educational? I think part of the beauty of debate is having to respond to a case you don’t know much about before hand. Yah, it might make rounds less substantive and not as great as rounds in a world with disclosure, but I believe that’s because debaters are still learning how to think. What’s the educational benefit of making responses that your coaches helped think out for you? School isn’t conducive to learning how to think on your feet, and in that aspect debate ought to be unique. That’s why, quite frankly, a lot of debaters suck at responding to cases they don’t have blocks too. I know that I’ve grown tremendously in this regard, but am still not a great critical thinker. But I know that because I had to think critically about rounds and feel like crap for not being able to come up with good answers, I got better at thinking. In those few minutes I grew a lot as a thinker. That wouldn’t have happened if Cameron had written out responses for me, which he could have easily done. Again, those few uncomfortable minutes where a debater has to come up with responses to an argument they don’t have blocked out is where the real education in debate happens. That’s how we become good critical thinkers. So yes, I concede that a non-disclosure world decreases the quality of rounds, but my argument is that the educational value received from those rounds is invaluable.
I’ll add more if I see the discussion heading in a substantive way, which I hope this does.
-Paras
P.S: this is probably just me personally, but I am seriously considering not attending any tournaments that force disclosure. I just don’t see the value of spending so much money, time, and effort to go to a tournament where I am at a competitive disadvantaged not just because of my resources but also because of a caselist.
Hi Maddy:
It's prep time, so there's time for a quick reply.
To be honest, I guess I just don't agree that the case list perpetuates an over-reliance on evidence, as noted above. I think it's possible to prepare ahead of time but prepare analytic responses. Much of of the pre-round preparation we do at Bronx Science, when we do it, for example, has been based on analytic responses. This is something we'll have to wait and see about. I agree that it's a problem when analytics aren't point blank not taken as seriously as evidence-based responses, especially when the card has no warrant. I would question the competence of the judge in that round if they voted on a warrantless card that was sufficiently responded to through analytics. (There are, of course, sometimes reasons why evidence-based responses are better than analytics.)
Maybe we'll get a better sense of whether this issue about preparation is true or not after my tournament. I'd love to get your input later on some possible questions for my survey involving this point exactly.
Bronx Science doesn't run the "disclosure argument" in rounds, so I can't speak to that.
We just had what I thought was a really great discussion about case lists in the hallways here at VBI. Many of the folks posting on this discussion participated.
Discussion, particularly in an event dedicated to public discourse, is a very good thing.
I also enjoyed our discussion. Although I definitely maintain my stance on the disclosure debate, I feel a bit more aware of the good arguments on the other side, and I am now even more comfortable with at least giving it a chance. Thanks to Cruz and everyone else who participated for the discussion.
If you're wondering, I deleted a couple of comments because they were duplicates, not because of their content.
Post a Comment