Jump to content
infernsoft

Disclosure BAD

Recommended Posts

I have seen exactly zero evidence that disclosure does anything to make better debate rounds.

 

Your experience is obviously different from mine as I've seen lots of evidence that it makes for better rounds (in my fifteen years plus years in the activity).

 

Even if the negative is running a generic strategy, they are much more likely to tailor their arguments specifically to the affirmative and/or come up with a coherant strategy against it. This benefits the affirmative in that they are able to focus the debate more around their specific case (as opposed to engaging a hodge-podge of disjointed generics). Such rounds are more fun to watch and a lot more fun for the participants to debate. Affs are supposed to want to debate their case.

 

Can disclosure harm the afiirmative? Absolutely-- almost always when the aff doesn't have its crap together (disorganized, thinly researched cases, few 2AC and/or 1AR blocks, etc.), but such affirmative teams almost always lose anyway to decent competition.

 

Does disclosure benefit big/well-funded schools more? Absolutely-- as they are more likely to have better evidence and/or coaching help to craft those killer strategies. However, the big/well-funded schools are almost certain to know (or be able to easily find out) what you're running anyway, and even if they can't, their super-generics are almost certainly extremely difficult to beat. As an affirmative debater I'd much rather hear a case-centered debate (at least the links) than a super-obscure, one-off Kritik that has me shaking my head in incomprehension at the end of the 1NC.

 

Does disclosure benefit smaller programs (on the neg)? Absolutely-- even if you only have one or two basic neg strats, you can start tailoring your links and anticipating their responses, setting aside the relevant blocks.

 

Matt

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not disclose?

 

If a team refuses to disclose, the neg can look through their pairings and go find whatever team/judge they know who has already seen them. That's what our team does. We can usually get a flow of the aff, or at least plan, advantages, internal links.

 

Or, if there's wireless, check the caselist wiki. Full citations.

 

The neg then knows even more than they would have known had the other team just handed over plan text and shared advantage names....

 

Ultimately, by not disclosing you don't gain anything if the other team uses their resources. You just come off as kinda rude, and it probably instills more confidence into the other team (because... if you were good, everyone would probably know your aff anyways and you'd be totally comfortable with disclosing).

 

---

 

The only exception is, of course, if you're breaking new. Then, I don't see why you'd ever be expected to disclose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think coach prep helps that much, honestly. If I had coaches I don't know what I'd do with them.

 

Yea but If two novices are debating and the neg gets 40 minutes of prep with a coach its hardly fair for the aff novices.

 

Also, I only disclose to negs that agree to tell me what they will run prior to the debate against my aff. seems fair to me

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea but If two novices are debating and the neg gets 40 minutes of prep with a coach its hardly fair for the aff novices.

 

Also, I only disclose to negs that agree to tell me what they will run prior to the debate against my aff. seems fair to me

 

i've had rounds where i've disclosed an aff an hour beforehand, and the other team had a college coach who had been in outrounds of the toc prepping them out the whole time. we won that round. you shouldn't be scared of losing due to disclosure. if that's how you feel, you might want to debate in a less competitive field and then move up.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just curious about the justification for not disclosing new affs. It seems nothing other then a strategic benefit to help win the round, but why don't all the same arguments for disclosing affs you've run apply?

 

I was in a smaller school in high school and our coach didn't let us disclose. And it definitely helped us competitively. Smaller schools can figure out what affs are being run online, which makes disclosure less important for them. Also many big teams won't know what a smaller school is running, evening out the coaching and resources discrepancies somewhat. At the high levels of debate, in a school with lots of coaching and resources, disclosure makes sense. It definitely produces better debates. But for a small school, there are certainly benefits to non-disclosure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to a medium school in High school and disclosed.(but one coach)

we still won rounds.

I go to a incredibly small school with one coach and one "open team" in College and disclose.

we are winning rounds.

 

 

It is all about WHAT you are reading. Because you go to a small school you need to..

1. know your argument better than the other team.

2. Read an argument that their answers can be predictable.

3. Sometimes you gotta read the crazy to throw people off their ground.

 

 

examples: Univ of Central Oklahoma, UTSA, Idaho State...there are plenty more. Who disclose. Who don't have coaches. Who don't have people cutting them tons of cards. and they win, alot.

 

I don't think this is different from high school. I think people just need to get over the fear of losing, it happens, it will happen. If your novices are going to lose from the 30 minute prep before a reason it is NOT because of some solid put together strategy, but the debating of the other team and the young'ness of the other team.

 

 

And jesus H Christ...you think people in high school debate (college even too) that their arguments from round to round different SO MUCH that their pre round prep is really that helpful? I think I've heard the same 5 disads, the same capitalism K, and a few of the same T arguments in every round here in Texas. I don't think so my friends.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what do ya'll think of disclosing advantages?

I was in a quarter finals round recently and the neg team flipped a bitch when we didn't disclose advantages even though we disclosed plan text. Is this legit?

 

imo, I don't think it's bad to just disclose plan text. You can usually tell some what by the look and experience of the team what their advantages are going to be, not to mention the case, there are pretty generic advs for affs.

 

But yeah disclosing is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what do ya'll think of disclosing advantages?

I was in a quarter finals round recently and the neg team flipped a bitch when we didn't disclose advantages even though we disclosed plan text. Is this legit?

 

imo, I don't think it's bad to just disclose plan text. You can usually tell some what by the look and experience of the team what their advantages are going to be, not to mention the case, there are pretty generic advs for affs.

 

But yeah disclosing is important.

In outrounds is generally accepted to disclose. I figure if you're better it doesn't really matter since you'll beat them in the rebuttals, even though its a bit frusterating when a team/coach tries to inquire about every single detail about your case (don't think thats happened to me more than twice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lies.

 

rule of thumb:

if youre aff--

and you're reading an old aff/plan text/subset of the topic, you disclose plan text and advantages (if asked).

 

if you're reading an old aff but new adv's you disclose plan text only

 

if you are neg--

 

you disclose politics scenarios (if asked), generic CP's (case specifics if you're nice) and the text to alternatives (if asked).

Edited by Iago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok.....Well good teams usually disclose everything if their ready to debate

trudat

If one is semi competent and has blocks on the aff disclosing plan text 10 minutes before the round so the neg can get their shit together prolly wont lose you the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In outrounds is generally accepted to disclose. I figure if you're better it doesn't really matter since you'll beat them in the rebuttals' date=' even though its a bit frusterating when a team/coach tries to inquire about every single detail about your case (don't think thats happened to me more than twice).[/quote']There's a coach in my area that's done that on a few occasions. I've seen him ask novices before an out-round "What are you running?" in a very aggressive, domineering manner whithout first asking if they even disclose. I find it disgusting when coaches try to impose some form of adult authority solely in order to win. When done to novices, it gets even more disgusting, because you're left with 2 fourteen year old kids facing a perceived authority figure telling them to do something (disclose) which they may well have been instructed not to do by their own coach, or even worse, they may have made the personal choice not to disclose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know a single successful debate team or school in high school or college that doesn't disclose. Think on that one for whatever advantage you're trying to get.

 

A lot of these big/small school advantage distinctions are based in nothing quantifiable and serve as trite excuses for impeding better debates in all regions.

Edited by Vince!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know a single successful debate team or school in high school or college that doesn't disclose. Think on that one for whatever advantage you're trying to get.

 

A lot of these big/small school advantage distinctions are based in nothing quantifiable and serve as trite excuses for impeding better debates in all regions.

Oh, I am all for disclosure. I just don't think it's a rule or legitimately enforceable by one team's coach over their opposition. Moreover, it doesn't need to be a rule. Like you said - all the best teams do it. In debate, when all the best teams adopt a strategy, virtually everyone else eventually follows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know a single successful debate team or school in high school or college that doesn't disclose. Think on that one for whatever advantage you're trying to get.

correlation does not imply causation..maybe successful teams have advantages that overwhelm any disadvantage that disclosure causes others. also, you're an idiot if you think ALL SUCCESSFUL TEAMS DISCLOSE.

A lot of these big/small school advantage distinctions are based in nothing quantifiable and serve as trite excuses for impeding better debates in all regions.

agreed. that distinction shouldn't come up. so why do big schools tell smaller schools on fora like this one that it's better for them if they do it because they get all these advantages?

I just don't think it's a rule or legitimately enforceable by one team's coach over their opposition. Moreover, it doesn't need to be a rule.

word

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh I have a really strong opposition to disclosing only at big tournaments. Someone on our team hit two chicks from fullerton, who had their coach in the room while the judge wasn't. The fullerton chicks asked for disclosure, and their coach nodded his head. Thinking that the coach was the judge, our jv team willingly disclosed. Well the "judge" pulls out a laptop and printer and starts printing shit like a maniac. Too much shady shit like that goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused - why does the judge being in the room make any difference about whether or not you're disclosing or if disclosure is good/bad? What magically happens when the judge gets there that makes disclosure substantially better than the 10 minute before that?

I've heard a lot of people say "we'll disclose when the judge gets here" but never a reason why that makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was that our team was inexperienced and disclosed because what they thought was the judge, a trustworthy authority figure, nodded his head with a form of approval or even expectancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard a lot of people say "we'll disclose when the judge gets here" but never a reason why that makes any sense.

 

the only time this makes sense is if you have multiple affs, and you want to get the judge's paradigm to see whether you should read a plan text.

but generally, this just ends up making tournaments run behind, and cuts the time you have before the round to prep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclose. I think that there is zero competitive advantage garnered from not disclosing - even if your popping a new aff in elims a good team can still beat you on generics/might even have a case neg anyways. Also, if you are a small, under resourced school at a TOC bid tournament most coaches will already know/will know someone who will get intel on you, and thus not disclosing does nothing.

 

When negative, I don't see any reason to disclose if not prompted to. If they ask, I think disclosing common neg arguments is good, exp. the politics scenario you most recently read. Never hurts.

 

Oh, and I've noticed at regional TOC bid tournaments large squads doing this "advantages for neg strat" disclosure deal. This is hella dumb - a 5 second search on the Google machine would have revealed that information for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When teams don't disclose for me, i get out my backfiles tub and flip between wipeout, cap bad, lacan, cube/ashtar, and other asinine arguments. The name "Pierre Schlag" comes out a lot. Or we impact turn the case. Point is, the 2NR is going to be a douchebaggy speech which your 1AC was not positioned in. I feel that's fair, since you were obviously unprepared to defend that 1AC.

 

I've known teams to drop off a copy of the 1AC before the round. Why is this slippery slope so bad? My cites are on the wiki, it should be easy to access my evidence, and I send out copies of cards people cannot find. I'd bet $$ I know my affirmative better than any other HS debater on the national circuit right now, and I am confident in that knowledge (and, of course, my partners bamf 2AC). Hell, we even disclose add-ons!

 

Same for the negative. Ask me before the round and I'll gladly give you a list of everything we read that tournament. Why not?

 

In my experience, when a team feels more prepared to answer you, they make safer answers. Disclosure on the aff and neg is beneficial for the person disclosing. People don't break out that old baudrillard K against your heg aff unless they get scared. The 2AC to cap is impact turns and alt solvency. The 2AC to Schopenhaur is a collection of 50 different random K cards and there's no way I have blocks to all that.

 

Of course, we send the maximum number of teams to every tournament possible, so I know everything you have ever read anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

allright listen. one thing i get more aggravated about than maybe anything in this entire community is when people make arguments but they're too afraid to attach their name to it. and maybe i'm just really out of it for various reasons at this moment but goddamnit you have got to be kidding me if, in response to the post i made on this thread, i got a neg rep [unsigned of course, because nobody wants to actually flesh this point out, probably because they, like so many before them, assume that what they do is inherently correct because all the college and advanced debaters that they looked up to for their entire debate career did it, so they can't fathom a counterargument because DUDE THOSE KIDS ARE SO TIGHT THEY MUST KNOW EVERYTHING] reading as such:

 

"all top national teams DO disclose"

 

well here's a news flash mr. anonymous: I DO NOT GIVE A FROG.

 

i'm not tryna spread my personal success story because i'm well aware the people posting on this site don't care about other people's experience with debate; they just wanna know how this site can either [a] help them win rounds or advance randomass, unfunny bchan or /4/ memes [yes that conflation was intentional you dumbapples] so i get that.

 

but that having been said. it's time for you idiots to actually have your preconceptions challenged by someone. so screw it, i'll go ahead and stick my name on this, i don't even care.

 

the assumption every "national circuit debater" [oh like that's a really awesome title to stick on your virtual debate resume, because everyone REALLY gives a damn] is that this "disclosure" makes rounds better. an interesting assertion, and perhaps in a utopian debate community everyone would disclose. maybe. i don't even care. because this is not a utopian community. this community does not aim for "the best debates". this community aims for "how do i get a ballot". and while many of you will attempt to uphold the persona you've created through your dealings with "elite" national camps and "national circuit relationships" that OH, DISCLOSURE IS GR8 4 DB8! [because, hey, all those kids you met at dartmouth camp sure thought it was swell to disclose in camp, so golly gee, it must be so!]

 

bottom line is, you all are looking for ways to compensate for your piss poor negative blocking. you want to be able to easily link your generic strategy to whatever case you hear during a tournament by piecing together the shells your assistant coaches made. and i don't give a damn whether you are on a team that has no assistant coaches, that crap is irrelevant, because the system is playing you for a fool. why the hell would you hand over a vital affirmative strategy of SURPRISING THE SHIT OUT OF THE OPPONENT and making them think on their feet for no strategic purpose on your own part? it makes no sense. zero.

 

listen, here's the thing. the aff gets two benefits. they get to dictate the debate, and they get to talk last.

 

the neg gets two benefits: they get to screw over the 1ar, and they get to dictate where the round post-1ac goes.

 

IT'S EVEN THIS WAY.

 

surprise factor for the aff: 1ac.

 

surprise factor for the neg: 1nc.

 

many of you say "no, surprises are bad for debate" and assume with ABSOLUTELY NO REASON that if the 1nc knows about the 1ac both sides are better off.

 

can i call a time out and question this assumption?

 

is there such an aff bias that the neg MUST know what the aff will say in advance so they have upwards of 20 minutes to prepare? does this not counter the general notion of a debate WITHIN A DEBATE ROUND [not the buildup to a round--literally, A DEBATE WITHIN A DAMN ROUND]? do none of you realize this? are you so caught up in your preconceived notions of what makes "better debates" that you forget the entire point is that each round is its own separate entity from other rounds? why should the negative get to know what the aff will say with more time to respond? why would we create a world where the negative is the only side that gets this reward?

 

but sevs! you say. but sevs! here's the awesome thing about disclosure. BOTH SIDES SHOULD DISCLOSE!

 

but insipid moron! i say.

 

but insipid moron, HOW IS THAT BETTER THAN NEITHER SIDE DISCLOSING?

 

all it does is makes rebuttals easier.

 

WHY ON EARTH IS THAT DESIRABLE? other than your personal, vested interest in preserving your speaker point average [gotta impress the debate chicks somehow, right?]

 

WHY would you want to make everyone's speech easier? keep in mind, this only happens in an equal distribution if the exact right amount of disclosure happens on both sides. which is stupid, because it implies two things that i believe are antithetical to this activity. keep in mind i think the two main aspects of this activity are research and arguing. that's not a stretch by any means. so with that in mind, here are the things this assertion [the popular one that all the "cool kids" endorse about disclosure being some holy grail that saves debate rounds from this vague evil that is NONDISCLOSURE] implies:

 

ONE. that disparities in research prior to a tournament can be overcome during a tournament between rounds.

 

TWO. that disparities in round arguing skills can be made up for by having assistant coaches explain [1] vital advantage preventing strategies and [2] vital connecting arguments [i.e. impact calc silver bullets etc]

 

it seems to me that the arguments for this practice are based more on tradition than actual care for or respect for the rules of the game. and i am MORE than well aware that my views on this topic are more than controversial, they're outright rejected on face by the majority of people on this site.

 

but to that, may i repeat my life's motto: i do. not. give. a. feather.

 

at a certain point i can't help but look at threads like these and think "there are kids reading this that are easily influenced and will believe that disclosure will make them cool"

 

and you know what? my one concession is this: it WILL make you 'cool'

 

if someone asks you to disclose at a national tournament [say, NFL nationals outrounds. not outta personal experience or anything...] and you disclose, they'll scramble off and get their assistants to tell you how to beat you. if you DON'T disclose, they'll act flabbergasted that you would dare lash back against what they hold to be a vital aspect of debate. so yes, comparatively speaking, disclosure will make you 'cool'

 

but it will also sacrifice your primary advantage as an affirmative team.

 

and in the game that is high school policy debate, you should have no problem in telling another team YOU DO NOT CARE WHAT THEIR OPINION ON DISCLOSURE IS. you are the affirmative. you do whatever the hell you want. and if they wanna bitch about it, let them go find out from other teams what you run. and when you beat them after their futile attempt at intelligence gathering, realize this: while they will gripe about it to their other "circuit friends", you're no less a better debater. if anything, you exposed the lifesaving raft that is disclosure to so many negative teams on the 'circuit'. you looked at that raft, considered throwing it to the flailing negative team you were about to face, and decided to leave it on your ship and arm the harpoons instead. because if you aren't going for the throat, the poseurs acting like they care about the activity will get yours. and when they're aff, they will provide only a facade of disclosure. which, if you're a truly capable team, you don't even need. because you know that before this tournament even convened, you had the goods on every conceivable case. and you're not about to hand a crutch to the teams that failed to get their shit done.

 

just because obama got elected doesn't mean you have to help out the less talented.

 

and i know many of you won't read this post. cuz it's huge. and others will anonymously neg rep it. and maybe one person will rehash all the arguments i've answered on the seven other similar threads primarily in the kansas forum regarding disclosure.

 

i don't care.

 

you won't make any arguments for disclosure i haven't already answered on cx and i feel no obligation to turn this into a debate round. i think you're wrong. you think i'm wrong. the difference is that i'm open to discussion and have weighed the pros and cons already, over a five year span. and you are just overly self confident bastards that epitomize every stereotype of this community. so keep on following the footsteps of your predecessors, and maybe someday there will be little mini-yous running around at your high school [just like you're someone's mini-them]. i don't care, because the kids at my alma mater are taught to think for themselves, and they can beat the shit out of your kids with 80% of the judging panels possible.

 

screw your preconceived notions. there are always two sides of the story. and debate's just more fun my way anyway.

 

PEACE

Edited by The Penguin
toned it down a bit
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tl;dr

better developed negative positions dont just help the neg:

i would rather debate someone's scrappy cp specific to our plan text/advantage internals that their coach thought would avoid a ptx link than have 10 rounds of statism or consult the j. better debate is better; its more interesting to actually defend your specific position instead of statist assumptions or lack of consultation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

screw your preconceived notions. there are always two sides of the story. and debate's just more fun my way anyway.

 

it doesn't really matter to me if you disclose or don't. i also can see your point about how saying "good NC teams disclose" is somewhat elitist and doesn't really imply the causation that you have to disclose to be good. i also agree with you that's it's annoying when people flaunt their debate record in online arguments like it means something substantive to the quality of their argument. and finally i don't really care for reviving some culture-war debate about NC vs local circuit, old school vs new school, etc..

 

i am merely stating that from my observation there just aren't teams that clear consistently at the bigger tournaments that do not disclose. there just aren't. i even know some schools that don't disclose for the school but their top team does disclose anyways. no team with at least two TOC bids hasn't disclosed this year. i understand that TOC bids aren't a measure of how good one is in 'debating' in the abstract, but it does measure competitive success. and that seems to me like a pretty persuasive fact to point out, but i guess i can't help it if some insist on somehow rationalizing their current practices anyways. so do what you want, no one is forcing you to disclose if you don't want to.

Edited by Vince!
  • 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...