Jump to content
Felix Hoenikker

Kansas Debate Caselist (Hopefully the last thread on this)

Recommended Posts

Ziegler, I’m not questioning how case lists work, I’m questioning why the practice is the way it is. I’m questing, under the practice that is detailed, why anyone would do this practice.

The justification for case lists is better preparation, correct? Why doesn’t that hold true for something you haven’t run before? Why is it okay to surprise people the 1st week, but not the 5th week? I don’t get that distinction. Why is it that just because it is “public knowledge” that I disclose to make people more prepared, but not before? What is the justification of that particular brightline. To me, it seems arbitrary and counter to the benefits of case lists not to disclose before you’ve ever read the argument. Isn’t it good strategic thinking to prepare for what they are GOING to run, not what they DID run but may not in the future?

I’m not saying in practice that they should be held down to always running the same thing. I’m saying that if the logic of the benefits for case lists holds true, then they should run what they have given people advanced notification on.

If the benefit of the case list is that teams can be more prepared and thus create a better debate round, then it seems devastating to the quality of debate rounds to tell opposition that you did run a case before, let them prep it out, and then run something new. That would create less preparation, not more. It seems like if you are doing case lists, you have to be consistent and always post what you are going to run.

As people have pointed out, case lists just might be inevitable. If that is the case, then I would advocate the practice be that teams would post what they are running at WaRu 2 weeks before WaRu. And if and when they change, then the update the Wiki 2 weeks before they make the change. Otherwise I think they are better off not pigeon holing their research effort based off what was read earlier in the season and continuing to be prepared for as much as possible.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning were not better than Marino IN HIS DAY. They weren’t even in college yet!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have had a team lie to me pre-round about what they were running. They literally said: "We are running X." And then they did not run X, and it was clearly intentional. That was annoying.

 

But we actually kind of deserved it though, in a way. Our novice year, we tried this tactic at an Open tournament:

 

We would have sitting on our desk a sheet of paper with an illustration and in big letters: "OIL DRILLING AFFIRMATIVE." Teams would see that when they were introducing themselves and shaking our hands pre-round or whatever. They would happily go back to their desks and get ready their oil drilling stuff. Then, BAM, we'd begin the 1AC with a completely different Affirmative.

Edited by Jedi Legend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
]As people have pointed out, case lists just might be inevitable. If that is the case, then I would advocate the practice be that teams would post what they are running at WaRu 2 weeks before WaRu. And if and when they change, then the update the Wiki 2 weeks before they make the change. Otherwise I think they are better off not pigeon holing their research effort based off what was read earlier in the season and continuing to be prepared for as much as possible. [/font][/size]

 

Of course it's useful. Most teams don't meaningfully change their affirmative every round. I don't think that's ever realistically a threat that teams are going to face in the world of a caselist.

 

Even when the aff that they read in-round isn't exactly the same as the caselist, there's still use to researching what they have read. Mostly because it's usually still applicable. To say it isn't tremendously useful is a bit silly. It might be true that there is a case for full disclosure, but the ability for teams to cut a few new affs and save them for important debates is a good incentive for creative research and proactive research.

 

Participating in a caselist isn't like disclosure in one critical sense. Teams are posting general information (aff outline, cites, negative generics, key cites) in exchange for receiving the same information. It's not a full disclosure of every card you've ever read or are ever going to read. The specifics of a high school caselist are, for logistical reasons, never going to approach the specificity of a college caselist. But in terms of debate prep, a little bit of info goes a long way. Knowing what advantages people are reading to what affs is a huge leg up for everybody in being prepared before a tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda felt the creation of the caselist was interesting, and should probably be a test case for the idea. That being said, only four schools in Kansas felt the need to disclose their affirmatives on the caselist:

 

Buhler

Blue Valley North

Shawnee Mission East

Shawnee Heights

 

Trends of those schools disclosing - 1/4 of those schools represent the small franchise of schools that would supposedly not be helped by the system. Every school with active wiki information will have a team at DCI (assuming 2 bids gets you there - correct me if I'm wrong). 3 of the 4 schools were top 15 in DCI bids as schools. The top two DCI bid schools were those that disclosed.

 

Read from that what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm procrastinating from writing a political analysis paper right now and while i definitely am behind in the class i'm still acutely aware that attempting to equate correlation to causation is generally a piss poor persuasive tactic [on the grounds that it's piss poor reasoning].

 

you're identifying a trend that's no secret; the teams that tend to do college-y things like go to camp and get flooded with college-y debate not only practice a lot and get better by the extra competition/research/head start on the semester/etc/etc/blah/blah/blah, they also find things like case lists appealing for several reasons, like the part where it's like camp debates, or the part where it's the "cool" thing to do, or the part where they prefer having strategic knowledge of rounds as far in advance as possible. the fact that they joined the case list does not mean it made them better, and the prevailing argument against forcibly including teams that do not wish to be included is that they have no intentions of making the type of pre-tournament effort, whether it be by stylistic choice or by a dearth of resources to take care of other priorities, and as such should not be forced to be subjected to the adverse side effect of other teams having that advanced knowledge on them since they will not gain a reciprocal advantage.

 

so, no. don't read from that what you will. read from that what's there. it sure as hell isn't a definitive rationale for the type of changes some of these jackasses push for. i don't think you think it is ziggy, but i also don't trust other people to resist the temptation to quote your implied support for such a system as grounds for forcible expansion and the complete and utter reform of kansas debate in a vacuous discussion we've all seen dozens of times.

 

that having been said, i hope the teams that did make the strategic decision to use the caselist found it a worthwhile endeavor and i hope they reaped benefits from it. that having been said, anecdotal support for the system better not turn into a groundswell for a goddamn forcibly included caselist again. baby steps, kansas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, take your whining to the sports forum where overgeneralizations are entertaining. The fact that only 4 schools in Kansas disclose in KS and do well neither confirms or denies the benefit of a case list - I just found the trend interesting, given Kansas. Your discomfort with just talking about what those facts mean is pretty piss poor reasoning - instead of being in denial of something that could follow from it, offer what it implies instead.

 

I won't really do a line by line analysis of your post, but...

 

Buhler - collegy - really? Shawnee Heights - collegy - really?????

 

And forcible expansion - really Chris, really? I wasn't so interested in the Ron Paul of caselists to warn me of the dangers of investing all my liberties into disclosure - just a question of what the records of the teams implied since the disclosure norm is relatively new. Have judges of these teams disclosing seen any differing trends, etc. I just wanted to analyze.

 

I hope UVA is serving you well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought i made it clear that i didn't think you were guilty of the mindset i was indicting, and i also thought it was clear that i was attempting to discourage the discussion that i anticipated coming from your post, whether it was your intention or not. i'm also a little amused at the whining characterization, because if you think i'm running around screaming the sky is falling like a crazy texan for no reason on the forced inclusion on case lists then you just haven't paid attention to the trends that discussions here take.

 

but whatever, fuck it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people discussing this, even in this forum, are only college students and coaches.

 

That should be enough to show you that there is little interest in disclosure in the state and that there is no "growing trend" to be had.

 

That is why it seems like meddling by expansionist college kids that want to be on the curve of what's "cool."

 

Tomorrow let's start a thread on paperless.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i thought i made it clear that i didn't think you were guilty of the mindset i was indicting, and i also thought it was clear that i was attempting to discourage the discussion that i anticipated coming from your post, whether it was your intention or not. i'm also a little amused at the whining characterization, because if you think i'm running around screaming the sky is falling like a crazy texan for no reason on the forced inclusion on case lists then you just haven't paid attention to the trends that discussions here take.

 

but whatever, fuck it.

 

Guilty. I haven't really given a shit that much. I just figured the results of first semester with the thing was worth discussing. But apparently I've crossed some sort of sectarian question?

 

The only people discussing this, even in this forum, are only college students and coaches.

 

That should be enough to show you that there is little interest in disclosure in the state and that there is no "growing trend" to be had.

 

That is why it seems like meddling by expansionist college kids that want to be on the curve of what's "cool."

 

Tomorrow let's start a thread on paperless.

 

Lack of discussion on a debate forum isn't correlative to community interest. Most people with the notion of disclosure are typically busy with life instead of hashing stuff out on the internet. And if this is your contribution to an analysis of the first semester of disclosure in Kansas, maybe you should be one of those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when, still, only 4 schools are doing it (and what, 6 teams?) and it only exists on this web forum, then, yes, I would think they would be on the same message boards.

 

I also like that those who support a caselist are automatically out doing things and that's why they won't discuss the caselist on here. It couldn't be because they don't give a shit because some kid from K State has an inflated view of how important this is to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lack of discussion on a debate forum isn't correlative to community interest....
No, but lack of participation is. I've been saying that things like casebooks only benefit a super small minority of Kansas debate and there is little interest among the actual participants. Now is the proof.

 

As far as evaluating DCI bids to participation in casebooks, let's see if there is any merit to that at all: There are 30+ teams qualified to DCI. If all six of the reported teams participanted in casebooks, that is less than 20%. There are 20+ schools qualified to DCI and only 4 participating in casebooks. Hmm, another 20%. So the conclusion I draw is that of all the success that is occuring in the state, not even a quarter of it could even possibly have any connection to the practice of disclosure. That is interesting indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i could just be another debater meddling in a topic that he isn't even part of. I figured that might as well post something that will prolly just make people shake their heads then quote me and tell me that im wrong because empirically it's not that way.

 

However, from what i have seen in the time that i have been debating (short, i know) it definitely is beneficiary to have the ability to scout. Even if the other team changes what they are running, the chances that i could predict the new argument is minimal or none especially on a topic that the limits debate is just a lie.

 

And while it might not be a trend in kansas, it definitely is a trend in pretty much every other state except kansas. Derek is right, attempting to modernize ( a community that even cross-x notices is different then all the rest) will help those of you who plan to debate in college.

 

And while u probably shouldn't even waste your time reading this because it's definitely not new information, or some awesome piece of uniqueness evidence that makes every other argument non-unique. It probably should serve to recognize that the concept of the case list isn't just beneficiary to those college debaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek is right, attempting to modernize ( a community that even cross-x notices is different then all the rest) will help those of you who plan to debate in college.

 

In my mind, this is the most true of all the arguments in favor of pre-tournament disclosure, but it continues to miss the reality of Kansas debate. To paraphrase from the commercial...

 

there are over 5000 NFL member students in the state of Kansas, and most - in fact, all - of them are going pro in something other than debate.

 

 

I know our state is about 1.5 times as big as Nebraska, population-wise, but we have 4 times as many NFL members. Additionally, because of our schedule, an overwhelming majority of those students participate in policy debate in the fall - which I know cannot be said of Nebraska. So you'll forgive me for not wanting to take advice on how to "fix" our activity from a state where the activity is on life support, comparatively speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And while it might not be a trend in kansas, it definitely is a trend in pretty much every other state except kansas.
You may be right, it might be the trend in every other state. And to borrow Eric's analysis, there is a trend in every other state: lower participation in policy debate. Perhaps, just perhaps, Kansas has it right and other places have it wrong.

 

I don't view my job as being the farm team to college programs, so getting kids ready for college debate, while a good thing to do, is very low on my personnal priorities.

 

But to the point, 6 teams, 12 total kids, out of 5,000 were interested in case books. That is less than 1/3rd of 1%. Wow!! That really proves the point, now doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the case list idea is great, but then again I'm a former college debater who lost to Kansas at the NDT after they researched my authors on the case list :).

 

I've linked to the case-list on my site @ http://www.infiniteprep.com/?p=546

 

Nothing but love!

 

-mike

 

________________________________

 

my blog: http://www.infiniteprep.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a caselist is like the evolution of video game consoles.

 

it's like, the third generation systems have better gameplay, more variety of games, better graphics, and are coming up with new stuff all the time.

 

the old one's are serviceable. limited depth, little room to save, less controllers, getting cheaper and easier

 

you don't have to upgrade, but the extra money might be worth it

 

sometimes you could play on your friends system for free and never half to get your own.

 

-edit-

 

also if you don't know "mike" you should figure out who he is.

Edited by movingonup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the old one's are serviceable. limited depth

 

Someone hasn't played NBA Jam: Tournament Edition on the SNES.

 

....yes, that's the only "contribution" I plan to make to this thread.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put my aff on the caselist because I'm awesome and I wanted everyone to know how awesome I am.

 

But really I just think that if I win a debate after a team has had the ability to research and plan a strategy against my aff it's more rewarding for me, and I'd rather hear something besides T and generic disads every round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't view my job as being the farm team to college programs, so getting kids ready for college debate, while a good thing to do, is very low on my personnal priorities.

 

What is the job of a debate coach then if not to help them prepare for debate? I mean there are clearly other benefits to the activity (critical thinking, good on college apps, etc.) but if a debate coach is saying that they don't want their students to have (rather I should phrase: their priorities are low on preparing them for a form of debate that collegiate debate participates) then maybe that they ARE NOT doing something 'right'.

 

This is like a football coach saying that he's won't show his guards how to pull because he believes in just old fashioned black and blue football (Even though every collegiate football program has guards that pull).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I put my aff on the caselist because I'm awesome and I wanted everyone to know how awesome I am.

 

But really I just think that if I win a debate after a team has had the ability to research and plan a strategy against my aff it's more rewarding for me, and I'd rather hear something besides T and generic disads every round.

 

It is more rewarding and also helps you strengthen your aff once you have their cites on the case list too! If a team researches a strategy against your aff and reads it against another team, now you have the intelligence to act on it and prepare for that debate.

 

There's also a great selfish reason to put cites on the case list - it makes it *that much more* likely that other teams will do the same, and that helps you many times over more than it hurts you.

 

The teams that can scout will do it anyway, but they'll just keep that information to themselves. Case list evens the playing field by taking something that already is done and making it communal.

 

My soviet emigre family would vomit if they saw me just say something "communal" is good. But, there you have it. That's how much I love case lists.

 

-Mike

 

__________________________

democratising debate: http://www.infiniteprep.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the job of a debate coach then if not to help them prepare for debate? I mean there are clearly other benefits to the activity (critical thinking, good on college apps, etc.) but if a debate coach is saying that they don't want their students to have (rather I should phrase: their priorities are low on preparing them for a form of debate that collegiate debate participates) then maybe that they ARE NOT doing something 'right'.

*My views are my own and don't reflect anyone else's.*

 

As a product of Mr. Volen's teaching as well as a recipient of many of his socially debilitating, yet hilarious, verbal lashings, it is offensive to me to suggest that he as a coach isn't "doing something right."

 

Great educators such as Mr. Volen recognize the difference between successful competition and successful learning and understand that the two are mutually exclusive. When you have a larger squad, it is asinine to assume that all 50+ kids on your squad are going to be best served into being pushed into a quicker, "college-style" form of debate. Many will not be able to adapt and be pushed away from the activity thus losing all of the amazing benefits of participating in high school debate.

 

Many will be competitors. They will want to move on to college debate. They will embrace things like case-lists and speed and heavily kritikal debate (this is rare in our region, to be honest) and Mr. Volen's squad also embraces this. If you'd like some empirical evidence, I'd love to point out all of the graduates in even just the past few years that have gone on to be successful college debaters, even one of the top ranked debaters in the nation. I'd love even more to point out those who chose a more "traditionalist" view of the activity who have thrived in our educations beyond high school because of debate. It is simply ignorant to pigeon hole Mr. Volen as a traditionalist coach that shuns his kids away from "progressive" forms of debating when really all he does as a coach is the exact opposite. He tries to get his kids to think beyond the box and is always offering new ways to look at things. That's what a coach should do. They should be an educator first and mold their kids first and foremost to be better, smarter people. They should adapt to the squad that they have and leave open the opportunities to advance on competitively, but always to advance on to a greater education and more information.

 

I don't think you meant your post the way that I read it, Tommy, but to be honest you have came off extremely offensively and even ignorantly. It's sad if you truly view the activity as only a push to another trophy at a higher level and the eventual push into college debate. That is the kind of thinking that makes some great coaches into very poor educators.

 

*My views are my own and don't reflect anyone else's.*

 

Beyond all that, my view on caselists is simply that they are to serve those who are competing in the activity. When the majority of posts are from college kids and coaches then I don't really see the benefit to the kids in high school. It's great if the kids at SME and Buhler like caselists. It's great that they have the guts to be the first in the state and essentially put their necks out on the line to have well researched defenses against their cases. I applaud that they want to become better competitors, but beyond that, have more informative debates. That is a product of great coaching that is also giving a greater education.

 

When we as college students try to prod younger kids into using caselists it serves no purpose. In the end, no matter what you say, you are simply trying to push a form of debate that you enjoy the most. You do not understand the educational needs of high school students as well as the hundreds of coaches in the state do.

 

You may continue to keep on doing it, but please rethink the purpose behind your efforts. Yeah yeah, caselists increase education and all that jazz, but it is the choice of the teams that are actually competing. Let's have them discuss this here, not us.

 

And of course Ziegler and Tommy and all, nothing personal at all.

  • Upvote 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...