Jump to content
Felix Hoenikker

Kansas Debate Caselist (Hopefully the last thread on this)

Recommended Posts

Mutual pre-round disclosure is kind of excessive. Unless you're just asking them what args they've been reading at the tournament. (Ex. often times teams at the collegiate level will ask a team what Ks or Politics DAs they've been reading)

 

I mean, my statement is completely unenforceable, I just don't want to see teams taking advantage of this. Whatever someones views are, I'm fine with, I just don't want someone to get to go both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been a huge fan of caselists or pre-round disclosure. For me, one of the biggest reasons is that it takes away some of the fun of the activity. I've always kinda looked at scouting as a game within the game. If everyone disclosed everything you would never really have those "wow we totally were prepped for that case, aren't we sneaky" moments or on the flip side the "holy crap what do we do now" moments. Turning one of those "holy crap" moments into a W by prepping a strategy on the fly to a case you've never even heard of is one of the most thrilling experiences you can have in debate. The other side of that would be a situation where you have a "holy crap" moment and come up with nothing and end up with a L. Even those situations can be good because they motivate you to work harder. When I debated I always wanted to know and be prepared for every case, but the thrill was in the chase.

 

I understand that not everyone shares my opinion and I certainly respect the viewpoints of those that don't. I totally get the arguments for caselists and as a judge I support anything that will raise the quality of the debates I see.

 

I applaud Alex for the way this has been handled so far. Have we discussed the idea of making the website private and available only for teams that disclose their own? It would seem to solve for any of the ethical concerns some are having. I understand that it kind of goes against the idea of openness, but do the ethical concerns outweigh? I know that if I were on a squad that chose not to participate the temptation would be high for me to get the information. Perhaps making people choose to disclose with the reward of getting information in return might help some who are on the fence participate in disclosure.

 

Mr Volen: Oral critiques are some of the best educational experiences that a kid can get... even if the judge is terrible and has an insane RFD, they still come away with some idea of what could have been done to win the round or adapt to the crazy judge. Real time feedback is always better than attempting to read the illegible yellow copy of the ballot with the light from your cellphone on a bus a 24-32 hours after the round took place. I agree with your point that no one should ever write "see oral" on the ballot, but that doesn't in any way invalidate oral critiques as a concept. Some judges are lazy. They can cause tournaments to run behind, but to me the positives outweigh by a mile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few comments. I'm sure that at least one of them has probably been posted, so I shall preface this by saying I have yet to read each and every post so far in this thread.

 

First, I don't see why people are arguing about this. It is up and available. If you want to use it, use it. If you don't, I don't know why you are complaining about it here. Just don't use it. I don't see what your problem is. I really think that not wanting to use it just comes down to laziness (See PK's post earlier).

 

Second, I saw someone talking about judging. I think that people should start posing philosophies up on the judgephilosophy wiki. (http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/) I have mine up. I think that if people know what their judges like, they would be more capable of winning the round. Using a judge wiki would probably help the smaller teams MORE than it would the larger teams. Like PK said earlier, if a large school like SME wants to find out info, it will do so. The same can be applied to judge philosophies. I would be somewhat surprised if at least one person at SME didn't know 95% of the judge's on the circuit, and what they like to hear. Using this judge wiki would enable the smaller schools who can't go to, say, 3 tournaments a weekend to still be able to find out what their judge likes to hear, and then run that argument.

 

Third, I know that chief has tried to get some form of judging philosophy from all the judges at KCKCC, but I think that if some tournaments would start doing a case list of schools competing that would help. In terms of national tournaments, I know Greenhill and St. Marks make one, and post them online. I don't see why the same can't happen in Kansas. If you have read an argument, you should post it so the world can see. Be proud of what you cut!

 

I keep hearing that Kansas doesn't like certain positions because they aren't "educational," yet when I walk down the hall at a tournament, I keep hearing teams asking for disclosure, and getting "We don't disclose" as their response. I think that not disclosing is the WORST thing possible for education. Running tricky shit that people don't have answers wont teach you anything. All you will learn is how to regurgitate the tags of your cards, not how arguments interact with each other.

 

If debate is really supposed to be an activity for learning, then I think that having a case list will greatly improve what debaters are learning about arguments.

 

Anyway, thats my three cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I don't see why people are arguing about this. It is up and available. If you want to use it, use it. If you don't, I don't know why you are complaining about it here. Just don't use it. I don't see what your problem is. I really think that not wanting to use it just comes down to laziness (See PK's post earlier).

 

This one is a head scratcher... Kansas Teams can't go to the TOC... by your argument means that we should never argue about it. Slavery exists, so why are people arguing about it? I mean people can always choose not to own slaves.

 

I don't want to speak for others but I'd guess that the reason that people are opting out of the idea of a caselist is a strategic one not one driven by lazyness.

 

Second, I saw someone talking about judging. I think that people should start posing philosophies up on the judgephilosophy wiki.

 

Agree with this

 

 

I think that not disclosing is the WORST thing possible for education. Running tricky shit that people don't have answers wont teach you anything. All you will learn is how to regurgitate the tags of your cards, not how arguments interact with each other.

 

I can sort of see your point, but again I think that there is much education that occurs when you are forced to come up with something on the fly. Also there is a strategic advantage for the Aff in keeping their case a secret. There is a reason why college teams don't disclose when breaking a new case. There is a reason why college teams hire scouts for the major tournaments. The competitiveness of the activity sometimes outweighs the educational value.

 

As I've said before, I fully understand the arguments for the caselist and I'm not necessarily against it... In my opinion, there is much greater necessity for a caselist for college and national circuit than there is for a local circuit. In a local circuit like ours, scouting information is more readily available which diminishes the need somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you guys shouldn't confuse disclosure of previously ran arguments with disclosure of new arguments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not letting me edit my post but I'd like to add:

 

To the idea that people not participating in a caselist is somehow caused by lazyness. In fact the reverse argument is more persuasive to me. The reason that people want a caselist is driven by lazyness. You will say that caselists make you work smarter and not harder. I would counter with that research is more difficult without caselists but it forces you to dig deeper and cover more ground than you normally would have to in a world with a caselist. You will say depth vs breadth, but I'd counter with the idea that traditional scouting methods in a local circuit create an acceptable middle ground for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that I'll be referencing later down. I really do understand the plight of a small-town school where very few people are doing the research for the whole team. My high school was similar. My senior year we had just 8 people doing all of the research. The reason our juniors got a bid last year was because they worked their asses off. Credit must be given where it is due. Those that work harder, do better. To quote my high school coach: If you don't know what is in your boxes, you shouldn't win any rounds. I've often felt that the smaller teams should be doing better because they are doing all the research for themselves, so they should know the arguments. Saying that larger teams will do better because they have more people for more research, I think, is just a cop-out to continue running squirrelly arguments in rounds, and hope the other team doesn't have answers.

 

First, I don't see why people are arguing about this. It is up and available. If you want to use it, use it. If you don't, I don't know why you are complaining about it here. Just don't use it. I don't see what your problem is. I really think that not wanting to use it just comes down to laziness (See PK's post earlier).

 

This one is a head scratcher... Kansas Teams can't go to the TOC... by your argument means that we should never argue about it. Slavery exists, so why are people arguing about it? I mean people can always choose not to own slaves.

 

I don't want to speak for others but I'd guess that the reason that people are opting out of the idea of a caselist is a strategic one not one driven by lazyness.

 

I think that it is in face driven by laziness. The larger teams are putting themselves at more of a disadvantage by allowing the smaller teams to see what they read before the round. Once again, I will quote PK here:

 

Also, people posting their negative positions leads to less contrived neg arguments winning a wreck of debates. I seriously doubt we could have beat people on arguments like the Death Cult, the Euphemism PIC, the "The" PIC or various other silly counterplans SME has read if people had known we read them earlier. Not only that, but it encourages teams to have 2ac blocks to arguments people actually read, rather than just to spending. But we don't write 2ac blocks you say? That culture of laziness is not an excuse not to- democratic information sharing would lead to more people writing more effective blocks, or at least it would open their way. Not only that, but it encourages a trickle-down effect, where young debaters can look at the 2AC cites that are posted on the wiki and use them to understand how they should answer an argument. This means that you suddenly don't need either camp or a strong coaching staff to write effective 2AC's. Suddenly the "champ" debate seems so much more open to everyone from a little school, doesn't it? Not only that, but having all of the affs posted means that a small school can cut links to everyone's affs for politics or another generic da, and thus have something to say to everyone.

 

Not to go hatin' on SME or anything, but those arguments PK mentioned are not the best in the world. All of them are rather easily answered, if you know about them ahead of time. Over the course of the year, not only would people have more clash on the issues at hand, but they could recut the arguments that other teams are using for themselves. In the end, I agree with PK, I don't really understand the problem with the caselist. I came from a smallish school (Grapevine High), where my senior year, we literally had 8 people doing all of our research. I understand the smaller school's perspective here, and I think that in the end, having a case list would be extremely beneficial to them.

 

 

Running tricky shit that people don't have answers wont teach you anything. All you will learn is how to regurgitate the tags of your cards, not how arguments interact with each other.

 

I can sort of see your point, but again I think that there is much education that occurs when you are forced to come up with something on the fly. Also there is a strategic advantage for the Aff in keeping their case a secret. There is a reason why college teams don't disclose when breaking a new case. There is a reason why college teams hire scouts for the major tournaments. The competitiveness of the activity sometimes outweighs the educational value.

 

As I've said before, I fully understand the arguments for the caselist and I'm not necessarily against it... In my opinion, there is much greater necessity for a caselist for college and national circuit than there is for a local circuit. In a local circuit like ours, scouting information is more readily available which diminishes the need somewhat.

 

First, you mentioned that people don't disclose a new case. I never said that you should immediately put that new aff you just cut up on the case list. I'm saying that once you have broken an aff, you should put the cites up on the case list.

 

Second, I won't say that the necessity for a case list on the college and national circuit isn't greater than the need on the local circuit, but that does not diminish the fact that a case list would be beneficial on the local circuit as well.

 

It's not letting me edit my post but I'd like to add:

 

To the idea that people not participating in a caselist is somehow caused by lazyness. In fact the reverse argument is more persuasive to me. The reason that people want a caselist is driven by lazyness. You will say that caselists make you work smarter and not harder. I would counter with that research is more difficult without caselists but it forces you to dig deeper and cover more ground than you normally would have to in a world with a caselist. You will say depth vs breadth, but I'd counter with the idea that traditional scouting methods in a local circuit create an acceptable middle ground for me.

 

Actually, I think the opposite is true. I hate to use SME as a recurring example, but I don't know much about the region, so I am going off of what PK et al tell me.

 

SME, with their oodles of debaters, have the capability to make a caselist, and they do. At the same time, they are volunteering to give up their cites to those who do not have the time or personnel to create such a caselist.

 

I'm always open for discussion on issues such as this. Before people start attacking me for what I said, please note that I am not from the Kansas region, but rather from Dallas.

 

-mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be somewhat surprised if at least one person at SME didn't know 95% of the judge's on the circuit, and what they like to hear.

 

With all due respect, I think this underlies a fundamental misunderstanding of the way debate works in Kansas. Even at the "top" tournaments which seek to have a high-flow judging pool, there are usually rounds judged by parents of the host school's debaters. Many other DCI-bid-level tournaments are judged almost exclusively by laypeople.

 

I think this is relevant to our overall discussion because I think that both - a judge wiki, and a disclosure wiki - could be beneficial for a few rounds each team experiences each year, but they are ignoring the fact that a vast majority of rounds just won't be impacted in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You now know all of my arguments, and I now know all of yours.

 

Why then am I putting my fat ass on a bus every weekend to drag kids halfway across the state to hear your dumb ass read the exact same crap you posted two weeks prior?

 

You now know what we're going to say, and we now know what you are going to say.

 

What is the point of attending tournaments if all the thinking is done before you get on the bus? You sure as hell aren't adding anything to the text with your double-clutching, your gasping, your half-bent wretching.

 

Why don't we just all stay home.

 

Don't talk to me about spontaneity as the reason we ought to still have tournaments; that's exactly what you're trying to kill.

 

You may piss all over the way debate used to be, but we're the ones who did in two minutes what it takes you to do in two weeks. Have fun prepping each other out in your basements, you louts.

Edited by RavenDB8n4N6
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You now know all of my arguments, and I now know all of yours.

 

Why then am I putting my fat ass on a bus every weekend to drag kids halfway across the state to hear your dumb ass read the exact same crap you posted two weeks prior?

 

You now know what we're going to say, and we now know what you are going to say.

 

What is the point of attending tournaments if all the thinking is done before you get on the bus? You sure as hell aren't adding anything to the text with your double-clutching, your gasping, your half-bent wretching.

 

Why don't we just all stay home.

 

Don't talk to me about spontaneity as the reason we ought to still have tournaments; that's exactly what you're trying to kill.

 

You may piss all over the way debate used to be, but we're the ones who did in two minutes what it takes you to do in two weeks. Have fun prepping each other out in your basements, you louts.

 

Uh what the hell? Congratulations Mr. Anderson. In probably the most offensive, mischaracterizing post in this thread you managed to convince me that this is a community I probably don't want to be a part of. This post doesn't even warrant a response. I know it means nothing to you but I have lost all respect for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh what the hell? Congratulations Mr. Anderson. In probably the most offensive, mischaracterizing post in this thread you managed to convince me that this is a community I probably don't want to be a part of. This post doesn't even warrant a response. I know it means nothing to you but I have lost all respect for you.

 

You now know all of my arguments, and I now know all of yours.

 

Why then am I putting my [non-respected] ass on a bus every weekend to drag kids halfway across the state to hear your [highly talented] ass read the exact same [camp evidence] you posted two weeks prior?

 

You now know what we're going to say, and we now know what you are going to say.

 

What is the point of attending tournaments if all the thinking is done before you get on the bus? You sure as [heck] [are] adding [quite a bit] to the text with your [amazing reading skills].

 

Why don't we just all stay home?

 

Don't talk to me about spontaneity as the reason we ought to still have tournaments; that's exactly what you're trying to kill.

 

You may [belittle] the way debate used to be, but we're the ones who did in two minutes what it takes you to do in two [hours]. [omit]

 

 

. . . ok, now you can respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, because teams know that you read a social security reform aff there's no chance of affirmatives being able to argue new add-on's, new entire aff's or even different solvency advocates?

 

I forget that disclosure kills debate. You know what else kills debate? Critiques. I hear that critique debaters use the same cards killing all education. Screw critique debaters and their hatred of the freedom of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, because teams know that you read a social security reform aff there's no chance of affirmatives being able to argue new add-on's, new entire aff's or even different solvency advocates?

 

Hey Felix, is this an accurate portrayal of how disclosure works? How do you feel about teams who disclose one thing and then run something completely different? What is the value of a disclosure system when teams never run what they disclosed?

 

I forget that disclosure kills debate. You know what else kills debate? Critiques. I hear that critique debaters use the same cards killing all education. Screw critique debaters and their hatred of the freedom of thought.

 

When someone questions the assumptions behind a disclosure system, they are, in fact, validating critiques and freedom of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh what the hell? Congratulations Mr. Anderson. In probably the most offensive, mischaracterizing post in this thread you managed to convince me that this is a community I probably don't want to be a part of. This post doesn't even warrant a response. I know it means nothing to you but I have lost all respect for you.
What the heck??? I thought the title of most offensive belonged to me!

What really sucks is that I for one don't believe he mischaracterized this thread at all. I have been saying that disclosure is bad for high school debate because it destroys the underlying importance of the activity.

And if someone disagreeing with you makes you not want to be a part of this community, well then the DEBATE community probably isn’t for you. Quit taking this so personal! I understand that you put a lot of effort into establishing a Kansas casebook, but you had to think that there would be some who disagreed with you. And if you didn’t, well that is pretty arrogant. You are a very intelligent, young, college debater who has a specific perspective. You ask others to be open minded to change, well, I’d ask you to be open minded that others have more experience than you and might just value things in debate that you don’t.

To Belske’s point, when can we get started on casebooks for LD, PFD, and Student Congress?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When does forensics season start again?

 

If you think I'm disclosing the DI we're breaking next February, you're mental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike ESkog, I'm a progressive Forensics Coach. SM West will be rolling with a Scooby Doo HI next semester.

 

Uh oh, someone is going to prep us out with their Casper the Friendly Ghost HI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting out of hand.

 

There are advantages to the caselist, especially for smaller squads who don't have the numbers to keep the kinds of caselists that bigger squads can. However, it shouldn't serve as a substitute for normal preparation.

 

Disclosure does have benefits in certain contexts, but its the basic right for anyone to choose not to disclose their affirmative or post it on a public forum. It should go without saying that a public forum that promotes the posting of team's affirmatives without their consent is not providing any sort of benefit.

 

What I think is more telling about this discussion is not it's attempt to resolve the question of whether caselists have any benefit for the community, but rather WHO is discussing it. If you look at the posts in this thread, an overwhelming majority of them have been made by old people, and by old people I mean people who aren't high school debaters anymore.

 

When we have these sorts of discussions, which I think are productive every now and then, it's important to remember what our role is. As coaches, judges, alumni of the community, etc., we are here to help facilitate the experience that we got as debaters, and within reason, the experience current debaters want as well. Instead, this discussion has been a lot more about old people saying what the community should be. That's really selfish and shouldn't dictate the types of decisions that are made on these sorts of issues. We are here to help promote good debate, and I think more often than not, old people make decisions based on what they believe and don't allow for the inclusion of the wants and needs of the actual students who make up the activity. We should remember why we still care about this activity. It certainly isn't about keeping debate exactly how we think it should be, or how it was for us. We've all lost touch, to an extent. That's unavoidable. Debate changes. It always has, and always will. Standing in the way of these sorts of changes just makes it that much harder for the students doing this activity to get what they want.

 

Let's stop making this about us, quit the bitching, and remember why we're here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spend more time on this than you spend actually preparing the negative strategies

 

is the kernel aff on the disclosure wiki?

 

This is the best question ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is getting out of hand.

 

There are advantages to the caselist, especially for smaller squads who don't have the numbers to keep the kinds of caselists that bigger squads can. However, it shouldn't serve as a substitute for normal preparation.

 

Disclosure does have benefits in certain contexts, but its the basic right for anyone to choose not to disclose their affirmative or post it on a public forum. It should go without saying that a public forum that promotes the posting of team's affirmatives without their consent is not providing any sort of benefit.

 

What I think is more telling about this discussion is not it's attempt to resolve the question of whether caselists have any benefit for the community, but rather WHO is discussing it. If you look at the posts in this thread, an overwhelming majority of them have been made by old people, and by old people I mean people who aren't high school debaters anymore.

 

When we have these sorts of discussions, which I think are productive every now and then, it's important to remember what our role is. As coaches, judges, alumni of the community, etc., we are here to help facilitate the experience that we got as debaters, and within reason, the experience current debaters want as well. Instead, this discussion has been a lot more about old people saying what the community should be. That's really selfish and shouldn't dictate the types of decisions that are made on these sorts of issues. We are here to help promote good debate, and I think more often than not, old people make decisions based on what they believe and don't allow for the inclusion of the wants and needs of the actual students who make up the activity. We should remember why we still care about this activity. It certainly isn't about keeping debate exactly how we think it should be, or how it was for us. We've all lost touch, to an extent. That's unavoidable. Debate changes. It always has, and always will. Standing in the way of these sorts of changes just makes it that much harder for the students doing this activity to get what they want.

 

Let's stop making this about us, quit the bitching, and remember why we're here.

 

What if you are wrong about WHY we oppose disclosure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My coach is old. He remembers when Stenger was in high school! He even remembers when Riffer, DuBois, Anderson, and Skoglund were in high school! I asked him what he thought about a caselist and he told me to leave him alone.

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...