Jump to content
tennisguy1313

Case Book

Recommended Posts

we may run it on the neg, too, for the sake of consistency and to increase solvency for the project...we legitimately are trying to stop the coup

 

but, we may also run consult china

 

Can you consult Naomi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called having an advantage, if someone knows where your from and knows all the details about your case ahead of time then there wouldn't be much to debate about, now would there? I'd rather put in the time and effort of cranking out NEG briefs every other night of cases I may never see then have a case right in front of me and based on the flow of it what the case contains as far as S.H.I.T.S goes. I like the challenge of it and that's why I like debate, because nothing is a given.

 

more clash from neg prep forces better research affs and more critical thinking

it's reciprocal

finds the best debaters - squirly affs by bad teams won't be good teams anymore, or at least they won't be met with supergeneric strats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People who do work get rewarded by doing specific focused research. Lazy folks get shafted. The terminal results are pretty much inevitable.

question: are you saying the lazy people tend to lose whether there's disclosure or not? this is my sentiment, but i'd hate to quote this and have the context wrong.

case disclosure becomes inevitable after your first aff round - the judge and neg team tell someone, they tell someone, ect. a caselist creates clash and negates inherent aff biases. judges probably prefer a round where teams have case specific links or a sweet PIC.

i disagree. case disclosure isn't inevitable. it might be in the world of the TOC tournaments but it sure as hell isn't in kansas. you can walk up to teams that have hit them all you want, you aren't going to get the precision of a caselist. you'll be lucky to get solvency warrants. or plantext. and judges? really? maybe in what many consider to be the ideal scenario where you're at a tournament where all the judges are "flow judges" this is true, but this "ideal" doesn't necessarily happen. i also disagree with a few other sentiments here; namely, that aff biases exist (they don't) and that caselists produce clash (only research does). as far as judge preference, this is an argument for disclosure that assumes that the pleasure of the judge is the focal point of the round. i'm sorry, but i think this is flawed. even if you aren't making that assumption but are rather working under the implication that doing what judges like is good for winning, it is on some levels, but not necessarily all. for example, it will usually benefit the negative side to have disclosure and rarely the affirmative (exceptions exist, but they are few and far between). so why then would an affirmative disclose? so the judge can hear that PIC debate?

Actually it makes for far better debates. If you disclose cites to, you can see if someone's full article has contradicting claims, or get footnotes to research even more in depth. There is plenty to debate about. 1. It forces better 2AC block writing and allows negatives to research in depth strategies like PIC's, case turns, and have more than 5 minutes to prep out an aff in Kansas. I do agree if you are in a traditional stock issue debate it is really hard to win if you are aff and someone can find a few solvency takeouts but with an offense-defense paradigm adopted not disclosing makes it hard to be neg, or forces teams to run consult, generic K's, and has led Kansas to running a lot of agent CP's.

as always, defenses of disclosure assume several things that shouldn't be dismissed. WHY does it make for "far better" debates? as a former debater in kansas, working with five minute prep time and never looking at a caselist for a tournament he attended in his entire life, i can assure you that you can do every single thing you just mentioned in prep time. essentially, pressing disclosure as a "good" strategy hands the negative a crutch upon which they can lean on should they fear a particular team or have a particularly long break before a round. why is giving the negative this crutch good? does it really force better 2ac block writing? hell no. you should know as well as everyone that correlation does not imply causation. teams that disclose routinely are teams on the national circuit, meaning their 2ac blocks are generally pretty damn good anyway. forcing this disclosure upon everyone doesn't improve the 2ac blocks at all. hearing new arguments might, but that's not a direct effect of disclosure. does it allow negatives more strategic options? NO. it merely allows negatives to have MORE TIME to find those options. so why do negatives need more time? i ask because this is all disclosure does. it's unnecessary. learn to debate in the round. when someone hands you eight minutes of prep or a caselist down the road in your career, any advantage they have in out-assistant-coach-card-cutting you or whatever other advantage those ridiculous schools have will be completely nullified by your ability to think on your feet and make the arguments in a 1nc you would make if you had a caselist and a half hour to prepare.

 

this all, of course, is without me going into why this idea is even worse in practice than in theory. which i believe is just completely crystal clear. especially in kansas. but if anybody has a solution i would love to hear it.

 

maybe it's not the sexy viewpoint to have on this but i feel like this is the side that is completely underrepresented. all you offense/defense advanced debater types just toss out your typical spread of unwarranted reasons for adopting a given policy without really thinking about the ramifications of this in practice, or why communities like kansas have never been able to really implement this caselist, or what relying on disclosure does to teams when they don't have their precious time. maybe the teams clutching to their "cheap screwy" cases are on to something. i tend to think they are.

 

p.s., mou, was that copy/paste off your theory blocks?

i'd make fun, but i've used a handful of yours before, so i will refrain from doing so.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think not disclosing case makes the debate more interesting the negative team does not have a set strat to run they have to tihnk on there feat and use creative ways to prove the aff wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for example, it will usually benefit the negative side to have disclosure and rarely the affirmative (exceptions exist, but they are few and far between). so why then would an affirmative disclose? so the judge can hear that PIC debate?

 

as always, defenses of disclosure assume several things that shouldn't be dismissed. WHY does it make for "far better" debates? as a former debater in kansas, working with five minute prep time and never looking at a caselist for a tournament he attended in his entire life, i can assure you that you can do every single thing you just mentioned in prep time. essentially, pressing disclosure as a "good" strategy hands the negative a crutch upon which they can lean on should they fear a particular team or have a particularly long break before a round. why is giving the negative this crutch good? does it really force better 2ac block writing? hell no. you should know as well as everyone that correlation does not imply causation. teams that disclose routinely are teams on the national circuit, meaning their 2ac blocks are generally pretty damn good anyway. forcing this disclosure upon everyone doesn't improve the 2ac blocks at all. hearing new arguments might, but that's not a direct effect of disclosure. does it allow negatives more strategic options? NO. it merely allows negatives to have MORE TIME to find those options. so why do negatives need more time? i ask because this is all disclosure does. it's unnecessary. learn to debate in the round. when someone hands you eight minutes of prep or a caselist down the road in your career, any advantage they have in out-assistant-coach-card-cutting you or whatever other advantage those ridiculous schools have will be completely nullified by your ability to think on your feet and make the arguments in a 1nc you would make if you had a caselist and a half hour to prepare.

 

this all, of course, is without me going into why this idea is even worse in practice than in theory. which i believe is just completely crystal clear. especially in kansas. but if anybody has a solution i would love to hear it.

 

 

I strongly disagree with you. I think that you have a warped understanding of the way that disclosure really works. You are imagining disclosure to just be someone's 1AC online, but in reality, and the way that the college circuit has been doing it, is that BOTH affirmative AND negative strategies are cited. This answers all of your "hands the negative a crutch" arguments because it allows BOTH the negative and the affirmative to research the other side more, which yes, that does improve your 2AC block if you have the exact cards/cites for the negative's off-case arguments.

 

I believe that debate is a search for truth, and that casebooks facilitate greater research. Your argument is that "we should learn to think on our feet" but that type of critical thinking is inevitable because you will run into a team that has heavily researched your aff and has a new, innovative strategy. Therefore, you have to think on your feet.

 

A world without casebooks encourages affirmatives to race to the bottom, writing more and more tenuous, squirrely, unpredictable affirmatives because negatives won't have a case neg. Disclosure weeds out shitty arguments. If your argument is transparent, and people are able to research it, then you better hope that it is airtight. If you notice, the most confident affirmatives don't mind disclosure, because they have already researched the negative's options. Sure, disclosure might allow for some PICS, but shouldn't an affirmative be prepared for a PIC? You wrote the plan text, and if you aren't prepared to defend it then spend your weekends partying or playing world of warcraft not debating.

 

I think that casebooks facilitate MORE research which results in BETTER arguments. Do Parli if you would prefer to rely on analyticals and abandon evidence. More research ALWAYS results in more education too. That should be an axiom in the debate community by now.

 

Lastly, I think casebooks are necessary because they provide an ETHICAL check. IDEALLY, debaters would never cut evidence out of context, cut strawmans, etc. But that's like saying ideally everyone on Wall Street could regulate themselves. Furthermore, there are times when a debater may be reading a piece of evidence out of context and they didn't even know it because they got the evidence from a camp file and someone else cut it. I personally know of a card that had words INSERTED into the middle of it, was distributed via the camp, and was read in hundreds of debates last year. Also, see the thread on Zimmerman 93. Totally out of context. Casebooks prevent bastardization of intellectual capital.

 

You really haven't given any reasons why casebooks are bad. If anything, they are inevitable because everyone on the nat. circuit and in college are using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think not disclosing case makes the debate more interesting the negative team does not have a set strat to run they have to tihnk on there feat and use creative ways to prove the aff wrong

 

So you think that a few shotty analyticals are better than a case specific link to a disad with a case specific counterplan that avoids the link??

 

You and I clearly have a different idea of what "interesting" is then.

 

Creativity is inevitable. You have to be creative to come up with a strategy ahead of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not exactly what i mean, i dont tihnk it would be interesting to disclose my case and have someone just pile up evidence on it it would be boring for me as a negative debater to just have set things to read i like making analyticals and so on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off i apologize for my partner, his beliefs are not necessarily sanctioned by the rest of the squad...

 

second. We at the academy (St. James) have been forced to debate a very lay format of debate for a while. therefore we are adept at analyticals... but we are still in transition to actual flow debate.... (well not me, the rest of my squad)

my partner since he is also a varsity football player doesnt usually prepare for the debates... he just happens to be a BAMF speaker. With that set aside, he just doesnt understand the advantage of having something prepared ahead of time.

 

 

I would argue depth not breadth against you jack.

 

If there is no casebook then we are stuck debating analyticals on a topic and not going deeper into a round while on touching the surfaces of cases...

 

if there was a case book you would be able to better research a case and provide a better debate in round.

 

so the depth would be better...

 

oh and you totally know i beat you in class today

Edited by Free_dom147

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If there is no casebook then we are stuck debating analyticals on a topic and not going deeper into a round while on touching the surfaces of cases...

 

 

ok so were not completly stuck with analyticals....

I think more or less this is a two edged sword... with this is that If there is casebook some people will in depth research and some people will just have some blocks to the aff. Its really kinda crazy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly disagree with you. I think that you have a warped understanding of the way that disclosure really works. You are imagining disclosure to just be someone's 1AC online, but in reality, and the way that the college circuit has been doing it, is that BOTH affirmative AND negative strategies are cited. This answers all of your "hands the negative a crutch" arguments because it allows BOTH the negative and the affirmative to research the other side more, which yes, that does improve your 2AC block if you have the exact cards/cites for the negative's off-case arguments.

danny, that's the format that all of the high school case list proposals i've ever seen on kansas area forums has taken. i don't think it's a bad assumption for me to believe that we're working with teams looking to find only affirmative cases. i think the dynamic of this debate shifts when negative teams disclose their negatives and i think it's quite obvious to everyone reading this that i'm not indicting the style which you advocate with these particular warrants. perhaps i wasn't explicitly clear in my post on the dichotomy between the problems i have with teams defending disclosure on the functional level and on the, i don't know, theoretical? level; for that i apologize. but go ahead, look at this thread; i feel like that's the best guideline to create assumptions about the nature of the case list being proposed here, since it is, you know, THIS THREAD. clearly the first poster is simply sharing the title of cases. i don't see any reason to believe the college circuit's method is the method of debate. especially since i have never heard of anyone trying to implement such a case list in kansas for high school. if you have a compelling reason for me to believe we should be having a discussion about both way disclosure in this thread as opposed to the kind we actually see here, then i will step away from the discussion.

I believe that debate is a search for truth, and that casebooks facilitate greater research. Your argument is that "we should learn to think on our feet" but that type of critical thinking is inevitable because you will run into a team that has heavily researched your aff and has a new, innovative strategy. Therefore, you have to think on your feet.

i don't think of debate as a search for truth. i don't see how you can view debate as a search for truth given the switch-side aspect. i mean, i suppose you could on some levels, but i don't think the overarching theme of debate is finding truth. rather, i think of debate as a game. which necessarily shifts some prejudices around a little bit. my argument is not that we should learn to think on our feet, but rather that the benefit gained by participating in a caselist is nowhere near what its advocates claim it is with regard to the debate as a whole. i am not going to explicitly disagree that casebooks may have an effect on research, but i don't see it as a PROPELLING force as much as an ACCENTUATING force [at best]. i don't think teams go "oh, we have a casebook, let's tear these shits up" if they weren't already planning on doing extensive research against affs they felt that they would likely see. teams that will do lots of work, as movingonup [i think] implied earlier, tend to beat teams that don't--regardless of the level of batshit insanity of a given case. but, come on now. stop using debate jargon to defend this. you say "that type of critical thinking is inevitable"--so why should we make it so that only the affirmative has to engage in this critical thinking? remember, i'm operating under the format that high school caselist proposals here use; there's no negative disclosure. so why should this "critical thinking" ONLY be something the affirmative has to do? it is my opinion that both sides should be at risk of having to do this in any given round. that makes for, for lack of a better term, a more fair environment.

A world without casebooks encourages affirmatives to race to the bottom, writing more and more tenuous, squirrely, unpredictable affirmatives because negatives won't have a case neg. Disclosure weeds out shitty arguments. If your argument is transparent, and people are able to research it, then you better hope that it is airtight. If you notice, the most confident affirmatives don't mind disclosure, because they have already researched the negative's options. Sure, disclosure might allow for some PICS, but shouldn't an affirmative be prepared for a PIC? You wrote the plan text, and if you aren't prepared to defend it then spend your weekends partying or playing world of warcraft not debating.

at the extreme end of the spectrum, yes. i will grant that a world without casebooks leaves a greater possibility that a negative team will walk into a round and hear a case they know nothing about. however, i have a couple problems with this. first, two can play that game; i can take the world with casebooks to its logical extreme and argue that a world with casebooks has everyone PICing out of a different word of a plan in every negative round with several justifications for doing so that the affirmative can't defend. you say "ooh, affirmatives should be prepared for PICs!" i say, "negatives should be prepared to debate any affirmative that gets put before them--this is why god gave us topicality". at the end, we're both making statements that are generally true, but even the greatest teams occasionally lose rounds to a PIC they don't expect or an aff they don't expect--casebook or not. we've gotten nowhere with the 'extreme example' strategy. so, second, does disclosure weed out shitty arguments? you'd like to think so. however, disclosure proponents seem to ignore the fact that it's merely one little check. it's not a catch-all bag. every round i handed a 1ac over to another team in my senior year, the other team grabbed it, looked at plan text, and started blocking out the ban space weapons counterplan. only one team ever looked at any of our cards, and that was after my 2ac was essentially one very long no link argument to an impact turn. maybe you'll say that having it in advance prevents shitty arguments. in theory, yeah, teams would have infinite time and go over all affirmatives. but they don't have infinite time. so they'll just pick the teams they know would kick their asses if they didn't. and, of course, those aren't the teams making shitty arguments in their 1ac [well, no more shitty than every 1ac ever made, at least]. again, in practice, the shit-weeder isn't a tangible benefit of disclosure systems. y'all try to say that availability means people are looking at it, and that's an assumption that is rarely true. in reality, it is not the CASEBOOK that weeds out shitty arguments but SMART DEBATERS that do. the casebook is an unnecessary tool.

I think that casebooks facilitate MORE research which results in BETTER arguments. Do Parli if you would prefer to rely on analyticals and abandon evidence. More research ALWAYS results in more education too. That should be an axiom in the debate community by now.

yay, warrants. and here we go with the extreme case again: you conflate my argument into "yay let's think on our feet and use analyticals!"...that's not at all what i'm saying. you say casebooks facilitate more research; i say that's impossible. the time constraints debaters put on research time don't expand or contract with the availability of opponents' arguments. if anything, the time spent poring over opponents cases costs time that could be invested doing, i dunno, affirmative research or generic updates or whatever else a team researches. i disagree with your 'axiom' as well; more research increases ONE form of education that can be attained in policy debate. but at what opportunity cost? you can research several other things and form coherent arguments--in essay form rather than 1nc shell form--and attain much the same form of education for an actual CLASS. meanwhile, practice debates hone skills that are hard to 'exercise' in other formats. just like making shit up on your feet is a skill you'll [hopefully] rarely have to resort to in a class in high school in front of an audience.

 

no, research isn't the end all and be all of education in this activity. but i'll go ahead and say what you meant: casebooks facilitate MORE SPECIFIC research. again, this is where i feel the burden gets unfairly placed on the affirmative. don't get me wrong--i know, if we frame this discussion as a "debate" with my "case" against yours, yours is currently "winning" because you've got this nifty little interpretation of how disclosure should work. and that moots the argument i'm hinting at in this paragraph. yes, i know. your idea of doing it is a better one. perhaps one that solves enough of the concerns i have with disclosure for me to endorse it someday. but THIS discussion isn't about that interpretation. and with this discussion, i have never heard a reason that the affirmative should be the only side that has to respond to new stuff.. so for those reasons, i'm still on the conservative side of this fence.

 

Lastly, I think casebooks are necessary because they provide an ETHICAL check. IDEALLY, debaters would never cut evidence out of context, cut strawmans, etc. But that's like saying ideally everyone on Wall Street could regulate themselves. Furthermore, there are times when a debater may be reading a piece of evidence out of context and they didn't even know it because they got the evidence from a camp file and someone else cut it. I personally know of a card that had words INSERTED into the middle of it, was distributed via the camp, and was read in hundreds of debates last year. Also, see the thread on Zimmerman 93. Totally out of context. Casebooks prevent bastardization of intellectual capital.

again, the concept of a check is overblown. casebooks aren't really ethical checks. certainly no more than coaches are. if teams are cheating, the fact that they posted their 'cheatingness' on a casebook doesn't make it any more likely that they'll get caught--if a card is conspicuously good, teams will go find it after a tournament. and don't even start talking about preventing bastardization of intellectual capital; the majority of critical authors are bastardized in debate and it's completely accepted. if it's so bastardized that you'd check the source out from a casebook, you'd do it if you hit the team, too.

You really haven't given any reasons why casebooks are bad. If anything, they are inevitable because everyone on the nat. circuit and in college are using them.

again with the debate slang. they're not inevitable IN KANSAS HIGH SCHOOL. nor does the inevitability of something which provides a benefit i perceive to be unfair make it "okay". i believe a coach in the kansas forum put it best: "nonunique" is not a compelling reason to keep doing something if it creates undesirable side effects in the real world. just because college debaters and the national circuit does it doesn't mean it's something that should be universally adopted.

 

just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called having an advantage, if someone knows where your from and knows all the details about your case ahead of time then there wouldn't be much to debate about, now would there? I'd rather put in the time and effort of cranking out NEG briefs every other night of cases I may never see then have a case right in front of me and based on the flow of it what the case contains as far as S.H.I.T.S goes. I like the challenge of it and that's why I like debate, because nothing is a given.

 

Go die.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
question: are you saying the lazy people tend to lose whether there's disclosure or not? this is my sentiment, but i'd hate to quote this and have the context wrong.

 

Lazy people are forced to work or get weeded out when there is a case list. It rewards effort for paying attention to the arguments being run and writing the blocks.

 

If there is not disclosure, lazy people are rewarded because they can hide behind squirrely cases, super generics from a handbook, and never update files.

 

 

namely, that aff biases exist (they don't) and that caselists produce clash (only research does).

 

case list doesn't assume aff bias exists, neg strats are disclosed/posted soon if an affirmative asks after the round to see 1nc shells.

 

 

as far as judge preference, this is an argument for disclosure that assumes that the pleasure of the judge is the focal point of the round. i'm sorry, but i think this is flawed. even if you aren't making that assumption but are rather working under the implication that doing what judges like is good for winning, it is on some levels, but not necessarily all.

 

whats this shit about focal points, assumptions, implications; you sound like cook

 

for example, it will usually benefit the negative side to have disclosure and rarely the affirmative (exceptions exist, but they are few and far between). so why then would an affirmative disclose? so the judge can hear that PIC debate?

 

reciprocal disclosure solves, aff gets 1nc shells, learns block tricks. few and far between sounds like a terrible way to say every aff round they get a benefit. at least this way the aff will have more to say to new disads than a few analytical card pimps and random impact defense or generic turns that probably aren't specific.

 

sorry, i'd rather hear a specific disad/cp than consult nato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't get me wrong--i know, if we frame this discussion as a "debate" with my "case" against yours, yours is currently "winning" because you've got this nifty little interpretation of how disclosure should work. and that moots the argument i'm hinting at in this paragraph. yes, i know. your idea of doing it is a better one. perhaps one that solves enough of the concerns i have with disclosure for me to endorse it someday.

 

 

Rather than responding to that incredibly long post, and going line by line (which i'm tempted to do because there are some things you say that i really disagree with), I'm going to propose a couple things that i think we can both agree on:

 

1) teams that don't do research USUALLY lose... regardless of a casebook

 

2) casebooks allow teams to narrow down research topics, allowing more in-depth/specific research

 

3) if KS is considering a casebook, they should at least do it right; by that, i mean disclose both affirmative and negative strategies

 

 

But in the end, i'm not going to put any more time/thought into this discussion because i know that regardless of who i convince or what i prove on this mere website, the fact is that a casebook will never really happen in Kansas. casebooks have no place in a community that values presentation over substance. if i were still debating, or if i still cared like i used to, i would be saddened by that. but i'll let someone else take up the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
casebooks facilitate MORE SPECIFIC research.

 

um

 

if this was a "debate"

this would be called a "concession"

 

and I don't see how you answer the fact that this appears to answer all your arguments about research

maybe you did, but the paragraph got a little convoluted after this sentence

 

it's the classic Dilbert idea: work smarter, not harder

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First let me say that I am not against casebooks or disclosure. Having said that...

 

1. Affs have a vested strategic interest in keeping their case a secret. This is why many college teams won't disclose when breaking a new aff.

 

2. Get your intel the old fashion way... ask people.

 

3. The idea that debate is about a search for truth laughable... debate is a game, and when I sign my ballot I vote for the team that played the best game for the last 90 minutes. In the real world when I think about alternative energy, Mead in '98 or Khalizad in '95 or the idea that it may further entrench capitalism, never enter my mind.

 

4. Debate should not be scripted. If you disclose the 1AC and the 1NC before the tournament you might as well just have the debate over email. Thinking on your feet is an important skill in HS debate, too many debaters become frontline dependent.

 

5. I've judged a bunch of rounds this year and I have yet to see an aff that wasn't put out by one of the major camps. I have yet to even hear of anyone running a case that wasn't put out by a camp. A lack of a case list has not hurt research at all. There are no amazing case specific link cards that would have not been found but for a case list.

 

6. The idea that a case list would somehow weed out the "bad" squirrely teams with squirrely cases is also silly. A) If a team is bad you should beat them. B) These teams see running small affs as a strat and would not participate in the list or would switch to a new case if their case is disclosed.

 

7. The idea that a case list would weed out cheaters is also silly. Why would a cheater disclose their case? Also, In over 10 years of judging debate I have never seen anyone get called out for cheating in a round.

 

8. Just because it's done in college doesn't mean that it should trickle down... I don't think that I need to enumerate any examples here.

 

As a judge, I like watching good debates and if disclosure or intel or a case list make that happen, I'm all for it. But it's not about me.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Debate should not be scripted. If you disclose the 1AC and the 1NC before the tournament you might as well just have the debate over email. Thinking on your feet is an important skill in HS debate, too many debaters become frontline dependent.

 

Exactly and this is what would happen if we did disclose our aff's. Every team would know what we were running and then could have a week to research it and by the time the tournament arrives, you get destroyed on Aff.

Edited by Ozmanks
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it makes for far better debates. If you disclose cites to, you can see if someone's full article has contradicting claims, or get footnotes to research even more in depth. There is plenty to debate about. 1. It forces better 2AC block writing and allows negatives to research in depth strategies like PIC's, case turns, and have more than 5 minutes to prep out an aff in Kansas. I do agree if you are in a traditional stock issue debate it is really hard to win if you are aff and someone can find a few solvency takeouts but with an offense-defense paradigm adopted not disclosing makes it hard to be neg, or forces teams to run consult, generic K's, and has led Kansas to running a lot of agent CP's.

 

You've got to be kidding me? This isn't novice at St. Thomas Aquinas where every aff. case has to be disclosed to the other teams, THIS IS OPEN/VARSITY! If you want to go back to being a novice that's fine, but I personally like the competition at the open/varsity level. You may be fine with having to write a new aff. case every week because teams are killing your present aff. but I personally like to see an aff. case that doesn't get thrown in the trash every Sunday.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disclosing case would help yes but it is not something that should be required i mean there has to be a challenge in the debate like person above me said.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Affs have a vested strategic interest in keeping their case a secret.

 

Same goes for the negative in keeping their strats a secret. If both participate, they cancel each other out.

 

2. Get your intel the old fashion way... ask people.

 

This doesn't provide a stable locus for research. Also, it is inefficient to try to track people down. Once tracked down, those people usually forgot (assuming they are even willing to tell you). Simply asking people doesn't foster the specific research that a casebook does. If you ask, what did the neg run, someone will usually say "Capitalism K" and will have forgotten everything else, or probably didn't even understand the argument. With a casebook, you know what their alternative is, their link story, whether or not they have a text to the alternative, etc etc etc. You tell me what allows for better preparation--should be obvious.

 

 

Too many in KS have these maudlin, nostalgic sentiments about the "old fashion way."

 

3. The idea that debate is about a search for truth laughable.\

 

You have to evaluate arguments in the game. Neg says you link, aff says no link. Who is right? What is true? Not only do you have to make truth assessments internally, but I think debate as an educational vehicle allows individuals to formulate opinions about the world based on their research.

 

But this is really beside the point.

 

4. Debate should not be scripted. If you disclose the 1AC and the 1NC before the tournament you might as well just have the debate over email. Thinking on your feet is an important skill in HS debate, too many debaters become frontline dependent.

 

Thinking on your feet is an inevitable aspect of debate. You have to do it in rebuttals, and you have to adapt your blocks mid-round.

 

"Scripting" debate is also inevitable. You write down your arguments during prep time. Few people just make shit up when they are speaking, and if they do, it is usually cave-man like incoherent babble. Casebooks just allow you to think through your arguments more ahead of time, and then to find evidence to support them.

 

5. I've judged a bunch of rounds this year and I have yet to see an aff that wasn't put out by one of the major camps. I have yet to even hear of anyone running a case that wasn't put out by a camp. A lack of a case list has not hurt research at all. There are no amazing case specific link cards that would have not been found but for a case list.

 

I'm curious as to what tournaments you were judging at. Either teams have been lazy, this topic sucks, or you got unlucky with the teams you had to watch. I have a really hard time believing that no one deviates from camps.

 

On the macro scale, sure, research hasn't been hurt. That's because there are like 3 or 4 high school case lists currently in operation. Unfortunately, that's where the Kansan Luddites abstain.

 

6. The idea that a case list would somehow weed out the "bad" squirrely teams with squirrely cases is also silly. A) If a team is bad you should beat them. B) These teams see running small affs as a strat and would not participate in the list or would switch to a new case if their case is disclosed.

 

This is just flat out wrong. Last year, Damien CG ran the most untopical aff. It was have the US fund Chinese Medical Teams to go to Africa. Every single debate vs them was about topicality. And let me tell you, they lost very, very few debates on topicality because they read about 30 cards supporting their interpretation.

 

Don't equate bad case with bad team. This was a bad case, but a great team. The fact was that if you had not prepared a case negative to their specific aff you were going to lose. No question.

 

And yes, Damien participated in the high school casebook.

 

 

7. The idea that a case list would weed out cheaters is also silly. Why would a cheater disclose their case? Also, In over 10 years of judging debate I have never seen anyone get called out for cheating in a round.

 

1) Make participation in the casebook mandatory.

2) 10 Years? That's weird because I personally called three people out in my time. Maybe people aren't being called out, because no one knows they are cheating??? Maybe a casebook allows people to know if they are cheating or not?? And thus, we are back to my argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly and this is what would happen if we did disclose our aff's. Every team would know what we were running and then could have a week to research it and by the time the tournament arrives, you get destroyed on Aff.

 

Look, if research destroys your aff, then you've got a bad aff. You should research the negative side of an affirmative when you are evaluating whether or not it is a viable argument.

 

So get a better aff, research the negative's positions (which you could find on a casebook), and then maybe win some debates.

 

I also find it ironic that you are being arrogant with kaut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's obvious to see that Kansas will never adopt a case book. At least not a mandatory one, and at least not in the forseeable future. I do whole heartedly support the idea of one though. Disclosure in every way makes for a better debate. It logically is going to force an affirmative to write better 2ac blocks. Thus increasing the amount of education that the activity is suppossed to give you. If a team has a great strat against you that you have nothing on, and you lose, then (by being a debater that values winning) you are going to go and cut answers to that argument so as not to lose again.

 

But with that being said. It's obvious that Kansas has intrenched itself in traditional ways. Which in every way is fine. We have some of the best teams across the country, and one of the most active debate circuits there is. Instead of an online or open casebook that everyone has access to, I instead propose a solution to help ease he idea of disclosure into our area.

 

Start out with pre round disclosure. The negative team will at most garner an extra 5 minutes of prep (if the tournament is running on time). The five minute prep time rule in this state does make it much harder to be neg, especially when you get into those more high speed debates. The aff loses almost no form of secrecy. What do you really gain by waiting that extra ten or five minutes. If your case is really all that, thn you should be able to win no matter what. This is the least radical disclosure idea that I can think of.

 

I don't know if Kansas will ever move to disclosure, I would hope that they would. And as Kendall said earlier, we will disclose plan text and advantages to anyone who asks before round. But always remember. it's reciprocal.

 

PS- seeing as lamp managed to post twice in the time it took me to write this, it looks like my idea isn't well liked. oh well

 

--PJ

Edited by Githens09
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...