Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Inherencyftw

Disclosure

Recommended Posts

sidenote- Michael, that little Indian avatar? #offensive #butalsololz (everyone who debates should get a twitter!)

 

I'm pretty sure that it was the Indians logo and I've gotta love the Indians, but if I'm wrong then I apologize for offending the Cross-X nation

Edited by the lone bandido

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is exactly why debaters from Kansas aren't learning the actual skills of argumentation and how to debate.

 

[raises eyebrow]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, as one of the teams who "roflstomps", let me tell you a secret- we didn't get good because we've mastered the strategy of secrecy.

 

As another "roflstomper", I'll be the first to tell you that secrecy works!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, as one of the teams who "roflstomps", let me tell you a secret- we didn't get good because we've mastered the strategy of secrecy.

 

As another "roflstomper", I'll be the first to tell you that secrecy works!

 

Ohai ego masturbation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He means they don't disclose and he thinks it works for them.

 

Danny, you don't win because people don't know that your aff is PMCs. Oops...

 

Also, I don't think owing your success to secrecy is something to be proud of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He means they don't disclose and he thinks it works for them.

 

Danny, you don't win because people don't know that your aff is PMCs. Oops...

 

Also, I don't think owing your success to secrecy is something to be proud of.

 

its not neolib pmcs is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was being facetious Ciera. Lighten up. We disclose pre-round if teams ask. It's common courtesy, especially if the other team does the same.

 

But just so the Kansas debate community is properly informed, PMCs is our aff for lay rounds. And no, it is not neolib.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was being facetious Ciera. Lighten up. We disclose pre-round if teams ask. It's common courtesy, especially if the other team does the same.

 

But just so the Kansas debate community is properly informed, PMCs is our aff for lay rounds. And no, it is not neolib.

 

Hmm, if only there were a place to put this information where it could be easily accessed and categorized... If only...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About 90% of Kansas teams are banking on the fact that the other team has no clue what the 1AC's about to spawn. Be it a dank Japan aff or a load of lol no one knows and no one wants you to know.
Gotta love made up statistics! And there are so many squirrly affs being run out there that it is clear that teams in Kansas are going for the surprise factor. I wish I would hear a team run something like withdrawl from Japan, removed drones or PMC's, or pull TNW's from Turkey. Oh wait, most people are running middle of the road cases. There is a difference between banking on surprise and expecting that you have researched the main part of the literature. Of course I could be wrong and you actually surveyed a sizable random sample of the teams in Kansas and to a 3rd degree of certainty can statistically say that 90% of Kansas teams report that their motive is to win rounds by surprise. I kinda doubt that though.

 

This is exactly why debaters from Kansas aren't learning the actual skills of argumentation and how to debate. They're more interested in their win-loss records than learning what should they should be doing to be one of the teams "who is going to roflstomp anyways". I feel like knowing the case before hand encourages teams to run arguments that are good rather than ones that are just surprising and stupid
Whole crap!!! Seriously?? You just indicted every debater and every debate coach in Kansas. You are the only one getting actual skills and know how to debate?? Forget smugness, this goes way beyond. And all the people before you, myself included, who never disclosed, we never actually learned the skills of argumentation or how to debate. I'm envisioning your coach, who also must not have leaned how to debate because disclosure was not common practice back then, smacking you in the back of the head for saying something so

completely ridiculous. I do want to thank you for linking back into my arguments on the other thread, because you nicely illustrate the mindset that I think needs to be checked within the community.

 

sidenote-

Michael, that little Indian avatar? #offensive #butalsololz (everyone who debates should get a twitter!)

Really? You find the Cleveland Indians mascot offensive? Or are you just that out of touch with the world to know that Chief Wahoo has been representing the baseball team in Cleveland for over 60 years. Dude, whatever you do, don't rent the movie "Major League". You may be tempted because it has the all-star (slight pun intended) cast of Charlie Sheen, Tom Berringer, Corbin Bernsen, and Wesly Snipes, but you will be offended beyond belief.

 

I'm pretty sure that it was the Indians logo and I've gotta love the Indians, but if I'm wrong then I apologize for offending the Cross-X nation
Not offensive. Being a Yankee fan is offensive, not an Indian fan.

 

Wow, gotta love forced disclosure. When you tell the world during by posting you neg strat against specific schools and the cases they ran, you are forcably giving a case list for other schools. You are so arrogant that you feel that you disclosing is more important than allowing others to make the choice for themselves. At least you were nice enough not to say which SMW team you hit at Emporia, but as a coach for that team I can say that we will always prefer to allow our students to make the choice for themselves. You know, you could have always posted that your strat was _______ when you hit ________ without posting which school ran that specific case. In any case, I guess there is nothing I can do about it other than point out to the community (including I hope judges in some very important rounds you will have) that you have no respect for the individual choices that other schools and debaters make for themselves.

 

But you guys are right, disclosure doesn't lead to extreme arrogance. Look at the wonderful education it has already created. I feel more educated about the character of the teams forcing disclosure of my teams.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danny did this himself...

Yes, but Volen's point is that in the neg disclosure of the other BVW team (Birzer & Saiedian), they call out their neg strat in each round they have debated this year and indicate which school they debated, which very clearly discloses what each team they have debated is running.

 

In other words they have already called out the cases that each of the 15 or so teams they have debated are running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely understand your point. I'll tell Ideen to remove all of the school names on his neg page to protect his opponents' rights of non-disclosure.

 

I can tell you that knowing Ideen, "forced disclosure" was probably not his intention. I'd bet that he was just mimicking the structure of the posts on the national case wiki and didn't think about the potential implications of his actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know whats kills education even more than not disclosing?

Wasting time posting on cross-x so the same 10 people who's opinions while important aren't going to be changed can argue with you

Yes I know I used to post.

And Yes I know I just posted so I am one of these buffoons.

BUT SERIOUSLY! GO CUT SOME CARDS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whole crap!!! Seriously?? You just indicted every debater and every debate coach in Kansas. You are the only one getting actual skills and know how to debate?? Forget smugness, this goes way beyond. And all the people before you, myself included, who never disclosed, we never actually learned the skills of argumentation or how to debate. I'm envisioning your coach, who also must not have leaned how to debate because disclosure was not common practice back then, smacking you in the back of the head for saying something so

completely ridiculous. I do want to thank you for linking back into my arguments on the other thread, because you nicely illustrate the mindset that I think needs to be checked within the community.

Yes the intention of my post was to say that I am the only person with any skills in all of kansas, I wasn't saying that relying on secrecy to win rounds and running stupid arguments for which people have no answers is bad. No I said no one has any skill... I thought the intention was clear: that with the technology available to have a caselist, of which most former DEBATERS DIDNT EVEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE, there's no real reason not to have one. My point was that with specific arguments against positions we will learn better the skills of rhetoric and we will have better debates with more evidence for/against positions. The point was that people are trending towards finding crazy arguments rather than working to be better at actually arguing things that make sense, but may have answers to them and have real clash. Maybe I'm wrong about this trend, but I feel like people are more interested in winning then ever, yet want to win on having something surprising, than on actually being able to defend whether its good or not. I feel like the caselist would help this and could help reverse this trend. Lets be clear, I'm not saying having tricky strategies are bad, however I am saying that relying exclusively on that is. Also, I think all of the current debaters opposed to the caselist are because they want to win and are scared because they can't answer specific attacks on their arguments. I feel that saying my coaches would smack me for saying disclosure is good is pretty funny because all of my coaches who have had the opportunity to use caselists have and their opinions were the impetus for my involvement on the caselist. What is the best way to check my "smug" mindset? Maybe USING THE CASELIST because it gives current debaters better opportunity to be prepared. I'm really sorry you misunderstood the intention of my post, because it wasn't that I'm the best in the world, that's simply not true, the intention was however to point out with the opportunity to use the wiki no one would be harmed by its use and support. I'm really not a smug person and I was honestly trying to have a discussion about whether or not the caselist is a good or bad idea and my position hasn't really been disproven, which was that it was a good idea and I have absolutely no idea why this thread became a personal indict of me, but if you look above I think I justified myself and my opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know whats kills education even more than not disclosing?

Wasting time posting on cross-x so the same 10 people who's opinions while important aren't going to be changed can argue with you

Yes I know I used to post.

And Yes I know I just posted so I am one of these buffoons.

BUT SERIOUSLY! GO CUT SOME CARDS!

 

The Truth hath spoken

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely understand your point. I'll tell Ideen to remove all of the school names on his neg page to protect his opponents' rights of non-disclosure.

 

I can tell you that knowing Ideen, "forced disclosure" was probably not his intention. I'd bet that he was just mimicking the structure of the posts on the national case wiki and didn't think about the potential implications of his actions.

 

Is there really anything wrong with forced disclosure? Are some teams really just relying on secrecy to win rounds?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE PURPOSE OF THE CASELIST WAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO SUPPORT IT TO CONTRIBUTE.

 

The group of proponents and critics will not change their decision with regards to disclosure. That said, I also don't beleive that those against a caselist should be viewing its contents if they are so opposed to having their teams partake in the project.

 

On a side not, I find it laughable, especially on this topic, that teams rely on secrecy to win. If you really expect to win rounds because negatives are unaware of your generic TNW affirmatives that every camp put out, you are a fool. On the other hand, if you actually succeed in winning rounds on "secret" cases, I'd be willing to bet that top teams in the state will block your case out before the next weekend, because in case you hadn't noticed, word spreads around the debate community. All the caselist does is provide easier access to schools, both large and small, who wish to prepare for educational debates, as opposed to relying on T and generic State Bad links.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE PURPOSE OF THE CASELIST WAS FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO SUPPORT IT TO CONTRIBUTE.

 

The group of proponents and critics will not change their decision with regards to disclosure. That said, I also don't beleive that those against a caselist should be viewing its contents if they are so opposed to having their teams partake in the project.

 

On a side not, I find it laughable, especially on this topic, that teams rely on secrecy to win. If you really expect to win rounds because negatives are unaware of your generic TNW affirmatives that every camp put out, you are a fool. On the other hand, if you actually succeed in winning rounds on "secret" cases, I'd be willing to bet that top teams in the state will block your case out before the next weekend, because in case you hadn't noticed, word spreads around the debate community. All the caselist does is provide easier access to schools, both large and small, who wish to prepare for educational debates, as opposed to relying on T and generic State Bad links.

 

Wait, so my TNWs case with Iran, M/E prolif and NATO advantages isn't revolutionary?! GASP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me. I'm going to put on this asbestos suit, here, and duck down into my bomb shelter for a couple of weeks...

A bomb shelter won't help you in december 2012.

I obviously did, and this obviously was my way of expressing our opinion on the matter with dramatic effect, unknown SME debater.

 

EDIT: also, for lack of a better place to post the link. Starting a new thread seemed superfluous.

What was dramatic about that post?

 

On a semi-related note, what does superfluous mean?

 

 

Anyways, back to the topic: Why shouldn't we disclose? All the pro teams do. It promotes better debate. It also takes away the element of suprise, which means that no ingenuity in round or creative analytics is needed, which is perfect for the preservation of Kansas debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only went into varsity tournaments this year, but I found that disclosure really didn't seem to do much either way. Maybe it was just me, but the fact that I tell them right before the round, hey, we are withdrawing all from south korea, or for japan, hey, we are withdrawing all from japan, really had no impact it seemed. Mostly because we were running generic i suppose, but also because if you disclose right before the round, its not as if they can suddenly research new links and so on. Also, even if you give plan text and advantages, it doesn't mean that they can isolate exactly what is necessary for them to be able to win those arguments.

 

On the whole argument about secrecy and surprise and what not. I'm pretty sure debaters have always been looking for new ways to win more and more, that's why people started going faster after all. We want to win more rounds, more arguments helps with that goal, so i will go faster. So its not as if this is a suddenly new thing. Also, harder and squirrelier aff's are easily shot down, its hard to get int. links that work for them, the lit is generally not as specific, and, once people find out about them, its generally easy to blow them out of the water as most evidence will indict them quite a bit. Also, a lot of the top debaters, don't seem to use those aff's, reed/rankin, generic drones, chu(think i messed that up)/nichols, generic withdraw all from a country. These teams generally went straight up debate and won it on skills alone. I know the team we had that ran the USS GW case, wierdest case ever, got worked over when they met better teams, and I'm pretty sure them disclosing would not have dramatically changed the playing field against those they beat really.

 

Overall, disclose, I do it, but it doesn't seem to affect anything, and secrets in debate really have no big impact.

  • 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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...