Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SFADebate

Disclosure

Recommended Posts

Oh and Shayan, I mean T-Dropper, please don't love me, trust me it is not mutual. I do hope though that you know I don't care if you disagree with me. Hell, I disagree with you all the time. Why not make your own reasons to disagree.

Ouch!

 

Wait until you get to school tomorrow...

 

You're dead.

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hahahahaha...

 

 

anyway..

 

 

 

doesnt the aff have an advantage over the neg teams though? most plan texts are different. i know if i told you what my case was, you would prep something completely different than how we run it. it also just makes the debate better if both sides are prepped and ready...better answers and better debate. and of course, if youve hit the team like 5 times you wont ask to disclose...either they are running the same case (which you have a strat for) or they are breaking a new one, and either way, they shouldnt need to disclose. and no, it shouldnt be a voting issue.

 

Sure, but still after a few tournaments you will know anyway. Yeah, you might not win those tournaments because you haven't extensively worked on them. Still though you will know their case. It's not like I'm and advocate for no disclosure. I think that we should, I mean why not, it is not that much of an advantage, I mean you save them a few seconds of prep time, BOOFRICKENHOOO There is no real reason not to, most of the time if you do for them then they will do for you and save you those precious seconds. And general case negs will have somethings that would work on multiple versions. I mean, while their general case neg might not work on your version, some cards probably will. I mean even if it is the 10th tournament and you hit some nowhere team that know one knows about and they run an aff you have never hit, then you will just have to act as if it is your first tournament. You will just have to be creative. Like I know at this one tournament we hit UN Debt. I had never hit that before, had no case negs, my A team probably did, but i didn't and I had to run some stuff that had nothing case specific, and we won, at the same tournament we hit them two three more times as neg and we won everytime with the samething, We didn't even run a spending DA;). They didn't disclose either. Yeah that case isn't hard to beat, I mean I don't think the consult russia cp or the lameduck politics da or t-support=military was hard either, but we just had to be creative on what to run. I mean most people have a generic strat with like case being almost the only thing that you change every round. There is no real need to disclose, but it does allow for a better debate. And makes the aff have to learn how to defend their case better. Like I said, its like open cx, someting understood but you have to ask to do it first, I mean the only teams that I have ever hit that didn't disclose were novices, not even all of them, only some didn't. I'm just saying that disclosing is not something that should be forced upon. And if you absolutely need disclosure to win then, wow, that sux. It just shouldn't be a voting priority that judges decide the debate on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trees right because also some teams have seperate cases so it isnt fair if 1 doesnt want to give there new case out to the public thats what case list our for makes it better to play a game when u have to prepare before hand thats whats better for debate in my opinoin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to consider disclosing the honorable and right thing to do, but abandoned it for several reasons. First, I participated in a tournament where the team came up, asked me to disclose, so I did, then proceeded to get evidence not only from other people on their team, but from other teams from other schools as well as engage in a 15 mintue discussion with their coach about our case.

 

It's also simply a possible handicap in the highly compedative world of debate. I simply can't afford it.

 

Beyond that, if I told you what I was running, it wouldn't help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a good number of you argue that disclosure doesn't change your ability to come up with an effective negative strategy.

 

That's fair. I won't argue that teams will have the ability to run their politics disads and their consult counterplans. That probably won't change.

 

Entertain this idea: what if you had a minute to write out a specific counterplan text that could help you better answer the permutation? what if you could taylor your 2nc overview to the specific plan, rather than just reading your UN links? what if you didn't have to waste cross-x just trying to figure out what the plan does, and had time to ask about specific warrants to cards? What if you could go into the 2NR with 1-2 extra minutes of prep time than usual: would that help at all?

 

Sure the round is a good place to figure out what's going on. But it's also a good amount of time to discuss other things. It seems we could have a better discussion of the arguments in the round if we didn't spend the first 20 minutes of the round just figuring out what the plan does and we could talk about the evidence.

From a judging stand point, speaker points usually depend heavily not just on the ability to comprehend whats going on, but to analyze and synthasize those arguments as well. Raise your hand if you've lost a debate because of some nit-picky thing in te 2NR or 2AR? that you feel you might have won if you had 1 more speech? So, that extra time to think can also be helpful in just getting the W.

 

So what if the other team has time to go ask coaches or other debaters? It's your aff and you should be ready to defend it; if you're worried about losing on the aff, then you should switch to an aff you are more comfortable with. Intelligence also goes both ways: why aren't you wandering around the halls trying to ask your coach or other debaters what this team's politics disad is that tournament or whether they are a heavy K or T team?

Aff teams aren't helpless in this process. Plus, why wouldn't you also want these advantages when you are negative?

There is nothing worse for a team than to feel completely helpless in a round.

 

cheers,

Jakob

Austin High (Austin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned throughout this thread, there really isn't any reason why disclosure is bad.

 

Even though it should be one's decision, meaning that you shouldn't be forced to disclose, that still doesn't offer one reason why it would be bad to.

 

In the end, I'll support that it's good. Most reasons why I think it is beneficial have already been mentioned, so I won't bother repeating what everyone has already said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scenario one of disclosure iffy-ness:

 

quarters at a small tournament - our other team needs semis to qual. quarters are about to start and before the flip both teams disclose affs to help preferences for sides. its all legit and we [the team not debating] prep out our other team vs. the aff disclosed in case we win the flip and go neg. so we win the flip and choose neg - and the other team decides that they'll break a new aff.

 

i'm all for the right not to disclose, but if you lie to 1. influence the other team's choice on sides, 2. to provide some extra shock value as opposed to just not disclosing the new aff, u might just be iffy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As mentioned throughout this thread, there really isn't any reason why disclosure is bad.

 

Even though it should be one's decision, meaning that you shouldn't be forced to disclose, that still doesn't offer one reason why it would be bad to.

 

In the end, I'll support that it's good. Most reasons why I think it is beneficial have already been mentioned, so I won't bother repeating what everyone has already said.

 

wow shayan that was a wasted reply dont u think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sfadebate, isnt that 1-2 extra minutes of prep time there for, to write out their plan texts, and also u can do that during their speeches, or u can actually have your partner do something to maximize your prep time and while u search for the stuff to run they write the plan text or vice versa. hmm yea.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sfadebate, isnt that 1-2 extra minutes of prep time there for, to write out their plan texts, and also u can do that during their speeches, or u can actually have your partner do something to maximize your prep time and while u search for the stuff to run they write the plan text or vice versa. hmm yea.

try again, only with grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I agree with Cwazylulu the most: this thread was originally intended to criticizw playing disclosure games with each other, similar to the situation you described. It's now a debate over disclosure good/bad- a fruitful discussion, but secondary to the original goal.

I don't care whether or not you disclose, just be consistant and be fair with it. In his/her situation, the other team should have disclosed their intent to run a new aff, should they flip that way.

Also, had she debated this same team round 1 of that tournament, would it had been fair for the same team to not disclose in the elim debate, or that they disclosed to one team round 4, but not to them in the elims?

 

In the situation they describe, had that come to my attention as a judge, I think it would have been fair for me to delay the round some for Cwazylulu and his/her partner to prepare something to say, even if its just something generic.

 

Shayan is right: there is no disadvantage to disclosing. It helps both teams.

 

The only objection is still this:

Cameron Vavari: your post is alittle incoherent. I think you're saying that the responsibilities should/could be divided between partners in the round.

However, I think we've all experienced a bit of unorganization in round and I think this method you present exacerbates the situation. If you're trying to quickly pull arguments to read during the 1ac, then there is very little chance that you have the ability to listen with any detail to the cards the other team is reading. You should be listening for hidden arguments, pre-empts, the impact calculus, and any other things you won't know just from the plan text. You'll sound better if you'll have read their cards rather than you and your partner scrambling through your tubs looking for disads to run.

 

PS: if you are participating at the TFA State tournament in El Paso there is a case list going around on CX.com created by the folks at Westlake for you to post any potential cases you might run at state that you have run at any previous tournament this year.

Also, Mr. Timmons at Greenhill is circulating a case list. If you Email him your plan text and advantages, you'll get back all the cases that everyone else submits, which should help you direct your preparations in these 2 weeks before the tournament. Please take advantage of these resourses.

timmonsa@greenhill.org

 

Cheers,

Jakob

Austin High (Austin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah disclosure's good and honorable and stuff but idk about handing your 1ac over to the other team's coach. this hurts schools like mine who have fairly large teams with an overstretched coach. our coach does a great job of preparing us for tournaments during the week but simply cannot go to two tournaments at once (i.e. upperclassmen at colleyville and sophs at lbj). this should be what the role of a coach is anyway: preparation. during the five minutes before a round is not the correct time to learn how to construct a neg strategy etc. that's for in the classroom (or in our case portable) during the week or at the very least during downtime during a tournament (downtime is a good time to get prepped out legitly by your coach; i believe coaches should be able to prepare their debaters as much as they want until both teams reach the door of the room where the round is taking place). I believe a tournament is them medium for application for knowledge one has acquired from their coach. the reason we have debate as a class (or in some cases an after school club) is to learn everything we need to know to be able to compete our best when we get to the room. thus, you don't take your opponent's plan text back to your coach and have them prep out the round for you, but rather use the skills you've learned from your coach to create a cohesive and devastating neg strat. this is the most beneficial to all debaters because this way they best acquire the argumentation skills that cause people that don't realize how cool the activity is (i.e. administrators) to see it as valuable and give it a chance (i.e. cash). also, it's intimidating and not a fun feeling to sit on the other side of the room waiting to start while two coaches have our plan text and are going through their debaters' tubs pulling out a 1nc (and no offense but this is exactly what happened in one of my rounds against sfa; third prelim round at lbj if anyone cared). Jakob is totally right that affs should always be able to defend their plan (and this must happen without a coach since negs almost never disclose), but conversely negs should be able to pick apart any plan (without a coach). if you don't know what to run against a plan after at least a week of preparation then maybe that's not a round you should win. if you do know what to run then have more confidence in your strat.

 

this is the kind of stuff forces teams into disclosure games

i think a great policy is disclosure on the condition that the neg's coach doesn't see plan text until after the round

that way negs get tons of time to prep with their own ideas and affs don't get that feeling i described above

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only objection is still this:

Cameron Vavari: your post is alittle incoherent. I think you're saying that the responsibilities should/could be divided between partners in the round.

However, I think we've all experienced a bit of unorganization in round and I think this method you present exacerbates the situation. If you're trying to quickly pull arguments to read during the 1ac, then there is very little chance that you have the ability to listen with any detail to the cards the other team is reading. You should be listening for hidden arguments, pre-empts, the impact calculus, and any other things you won't know just from the plan text. You'll sound better if you'll have read their cards rather than you and your partner scrambling through your tubs looking for disads to run.

 

Look, what I'm trying to say is that while one person does the job of finding files etc. the other can be there flowing the arguments, looking for the hidden twists and turns etc. that the other team will have. And look I am all for disclosure and I to agree with shayan about how their is no reason to not disclose. I'm just saying that hwile one person is getting their stuff ready the other can be there flowing the 1ac. Look I have never been in or seen a round that didn't have a little chaos. Even if their isn't chaos, disclosing doesn't guarantee it to be this way. I don't object to disclosure. I'm just against what you said earlier about how its so bad not to disclose and how you would basically vote it down. You have eight minutes of prep time, and the 1nr has an 8 min speech to prep during to add to that. and the 2n has a 5 min speech. If you want to run a cp then use like 3 sec of prep to write it down, hell do it during the 1ac if you want. If u r really worried about missing something in the 1ac then sit their both of u flow it and then think about what to run then with your organized tubs u need to pull out these 1nc shells write out if u haven't already the cp text and then go up there in the 1nc with like at least 7 minutes of prep left. Even if it takes up 2 minutes so that u have 6 left, who gives a crap boofrickenhoo. There is no reason for it to be a voting issue and no reason for it to be neccessary for the round. You should be able to debate without disclosure and with it. Im all for it and I do it. great good for me, it shouldnt guarantee me a win.

 

Oh and by the way,

 

its CAMERON VAZIRI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks like we've got ourselves a Student Congress competitor.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Student Congress would make me sick... I'm just an advocate for the grammar standard on t ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...