Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kansas.debate

2010-11 KS Caselist

Recommended Posts

Upon recent discussions regarding the topic, I decided to make this. Hopefully it'll turnout better than last years :/

 

C'mon Kansas!

 

2010-11 Caselist/Judge Philosophy http://kansasdebate.wikispaces.com/

 

 

 

Because most Kansas schools are only involved in the Kansas district, I figured I'd model the national circuit wiki, but specific for Kansas. For now, I won't update the tournament results, seeing as though I'm not too sure how successful this project will be. I have added a Judge Philosophy list for judges I've seen around Kansas and that I could find their paradigms online. Sorry if I left out a few. If the project is sucessful, I will update results as well.

 

EDIT: Those of you who have strongly advocated a Kansas caselist should definetely participate. After all, you are the example that others will follow. If you all don't participate, it will be a failure like last year's wiki. If enough participate, we may just be able to start a new practice in KS.

Edited by kansas.debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy the enthusiasm! I really think this is something all teams should partake in. It can only lead to better, more educational debates. Consider this, have any of these four teams who disclose been negatively effected? No, probably quite the opposite actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I enjoy the enthusiasm! I really think this is something all teams should partake in. It can only lead to better, more educational debates. Consider this, have any of these four teams who disclose been negatively effected? No, probably quite the opposite actually.

 

Could it be that those teams who chose to disclose are going to roflstomp anyways, so there's no harm for them doing so? Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im glad to see people doing this. Even though the majority of the schools will not put anything on the wiki, it is still nice to see some participating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could it be that those teams who chose to disclose are going to roflstomp anyways, so there's no harm for them doing so? Just saying.

 

I dont understand this point of view. I dont really think everyone is going to have prepped out strategies for every team coming into a tournament... if you're not confident with your arguments why run them? The caselist is most helpful b/c we don't need to waste two minutes of prep time pulling answers; we can look at the caselist after seeing who were hitting and that way we can actually have intelligent arguments about the case/specific neg positions rathe than relying on a generic cap k or politics argument. Also it means you actually have to debate, whereas cutting some stupid case noone has answers to means you can win without having to make real responses, thus you actually become a better debater

Edited by the lone bandido
I put opposite of what I meant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont understand this point of view. I dont really think everyone is going to have prepped out strategies for every team coming into a tournament... if you're not confident with your arguments why run them? The caselist is most helpful b/c we don't need to waste two minutes of prep time pulling answers; we can look at the caselist after seeing who were hitting and that way we can actually have intelligent arguments about the case/neg generic positions. Also it means you actually have to debate, whereas cutting some stupid case noone has answers to means you can win without having to make real responses, thus you actually become a better debater

 

^agree

 

You don't deserve to win if you have to rely on secrecy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont understand this point of view. I dont really think everyone is going to have prepped out strategies for every team coming into a tournament... if you're not confident with your arguments why run them? The caselist is most helpful b/c we don't need to waste two minutes of prep time pulling answers; we can look at the caselist after seeing who were hitting and that way we can actually have intelligent arguments about the case/specific neg positions rathe than relying on a generic cap k or politics argument. Also it means you actually have to debate, whereas cutting some stupid case noone has answers to means you can win without having to make real responses, thus you actually become a better debater

 

He is not saying that... What he is trying to say is that the teams that have disclosed are already some of the best in Kansas. Meaning that the chances of them being affected are very low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is there seems to be a correlation between good teams and the penchant for disclosure. I'm not saying teams are good because they disclose, rather that often times the best teams are ones who do disclose and use the wiki. This is true at all levels of debate- college, Kansas, national circuit. Perhaps there is a reason for this.

 

Also, to debunk the potential myth that some teams can disclose because they're so good they won't be effected- Reid Waldman and I (Ciera Foreman) weren't good last year- we still had our whole aff on the wiki. I don't disclose because I know it's not going to hurt me, I do it so I can have more educational debates. That's the whole point of the activity after all, right?

 

Anti-disclosure is anti-educational. Bold statement. It's the truth. (no pun intended)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is not saying that... What he is trying to say is that the teams that have disclosed are already some of the best in Kansas. Meaning that the chances of them being affected are very low.

what I'm saying is that First: these teams may be better becasue they do things like disclose, which fosters better debate, and means they have to develop good habits and make better arguments than the other team vs what inherencyftdubs was talking about how teams don't deserve to win if they rely on reading dumb arguments. Also back to my original post I actually said specifically that it doesnt hurt anyone to your stuff up there. No one is cutting answers to everyone at a tournaments case and it doesnt hurt teams that aren't good b/c people dont want to cut answers against them anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling I am taking some bait and may regret this, but I will wade out into this swamp of smugness and narcisism to drop a napalm bomb of rhetoric that will destroy all meaning to this little love fest of upper echelon geekdom. STADB9, I hope you still are in your bunker...

 

Framework: No one should care about the fake and distorted "benefits" of disclosure. The education claimed by disclosure advocates is false, and the only real attainable value from disclosure is a feeling of superiority and coolness for pretending to be like college debaters. Debaters should abandon that mindset to value the debate on levels of skill development that will have much greater impact within the round, for the next round, for potential college debate career (the extreme minority), to be a more productive citizen after school, and for future career development.

 

Alternative: Not disclosing devolops critical thinking, better time management, and extemporanious speaking. It devolps listening skills when you are forced to actually listen to the 1AC for detail and think of responses quickly.

 

Kritik: Disclosure leads to smugness and elitism as found in this thread that alienates the debate community, creates false claims of education, and is a contributing factor in the style of debate that is self destructive to the activity.

 

Pre-empting on the Perm: We can have a community that both accepts and rejects disclosure, but it still links to the ridiculousness of the self rightous in this thread, so a world without disclosure is always net beneficial.

 

Solvency: Disclosure does not increase education. Practices of disclosure are to tell what has been run, not what necessarily will be run. Therefore disclosure does not increase the education of future rounds, only tells the community what they already know from debating rounds. Someone is running pull troops out of Japan, that is true, and knowing who specifically is running that doesn't effect the education or preparation.

 

Solvency: There are hundreds of debaters in Kansas and every weekend about 4 tournaments. The chances of you hitting any specific team in enough frequency to make disclosure beneficial is very unlikely. The reason it fails is that in a community that embraces more people participating in the activity, you will debate against so many different people that the permutations of one specific team hitting another are so slim as to become statistically irrelevant. Independant voter: those who support disclosure either need to embrace less participation in the activity or embrace a poor understanding of statistics.

 

D.A. Logistics: Link: Disclosure leads to "power huddles" in which teams basically steal in round prep time to instead be "coached" by one of the assistance coaches.

 

Brink: Tournaments already take forever, especially those in which disclosure is the norm, and thus take 3 days rather than 1 or 2, and if more teams did disclosre there would be so many case files to go through it would greatly increase the time needed between rounds.

 

Uniqueness: Kansas tournaments are run much more efficiently, much more on time, much tighter, which allows for more prelim rounds, and the possibility for salvaging some quality free time on the weekends.

 

Impact magnifier: Kansas coaches (especially ones that also coach/assist with forensics) go to way more tournaments than other coaches, thus already take more of their personal time.

 

Impact: Due to tournaments going on forever and coaches travelling every weekend, coaches get no personnal recovery time. They either go crazy or quit, either way destroying their program and eventually the activity.

 

Case side: Look at the claims in this thread. They are vacuums of thought and meaning. There are claims of "better" debates without defining what a "better" debate is. Thus they get no impact to "better" debates. There are claims of better education without warrant or evidence. What kind of education? At best there is some kind of education that might be increased, but it is not better than the kind of education that I warrant out which increase skills for better citizenary and career performance.

 

Case side: There is no evidence to prove that those who have disclosed or received disclosure are any more knowledgeable about the world. That is assurted all the time and NEVER proven.

 

Case side: The failure of the wiki last year is empirical evidence that disclosure does not produce benefits.

 

Case side: Comparisons to the national circuit and college are flawed. Kansas has such a higher amount of participation that other circuits function differently. This is not an indict of national circuit or college, just to properly identify that there are diffences and those differences affect whether disclosure can be beneficial.

 

Theory: Disclosure is infinitely regressive. To gain "education" you disclose your aff. To gain more "education" the neg discloses their strat. To be more "educational" the aff discloses their responses to extending case and against the neg strat. So on and so on, which means disclosure ends up being the debate round.

Edited by Corporate DB8er
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I feel like responding to this at 3:30 am or at all for that matter I have no clue, but here we go.

 

Framework: No one should care about the fake and distorted "benefits" of disclosure. The education claimed by disclosure advocates is false, and the only real attainable value from disclosure is a feeling of superiority and coolness for pretending to be like college debaters. Debaters should abandon that mindset to value the debate on levels of skill development that will have much greater impact within the round, for the next round, for potential college debate career (the extreme minority), to be a more productive citizen after school, and for future career development.

 

Wrong. disclosure allows for the possible destruction of generics. For years i hear claims of how politics DA's are dumb and XO and Consult are cheating and lazy. It's your practices that hold them in place. It's hard to carry 40 or 50 good case specific DA's and Files when you have no idea what to prepare for. All the different plan mechanisms that need to be learned for Case specific PICS. Advantage areas can be better researched and answered. As a judge do you really want to hear the Thursday file shell read agains the Thursday file answers because that was the easiest thing to grab against this crazy case they weren't expecting? How in any way does being suprised and running to find answers that aren't youe best and may not even gel togethier at all conducive to helping you be a productive citizen. If anything focusing of specific research skills and coming up with case specific strategies that are well thought out and actually provide clash solves back your arguments better.

 

Alternative: Not disclosing devolops critical thinking, better time management, and extemporanious speaking. It devolps listening skills when you are forced to actually listen to the 1AC for detail and think of responses quickly.
you ignore everything after the 1ac too? It’s just so unnecessary to listen to anything else once disclosure occurs. Nothing said in round after the first 8 minutes matters anyway as I’ve already signed my ballot. I mean I usually write down a word or two of things I think people may have said in the 2’s and rebuttals (sometimes it just turns out to be part of the day dream I'm having) How does not disclosing do any of what you claim. Better time management? It encourages throwing everything you have at a team, seeing what sticks or what they mess up on, and going for that. That is not critical thinking. That is not better time management.

 

 

 

Kritik: Disclosure leads to smugness and elitism as found in this thread that alienates the debate community, creates false claims of education, and is a contributing factor in the style of debate that is self destructive to the activity. .

TURN- Not disclosing leads to established coach smugness that alienates the debaters from embracing the changing way of the circuit and sets new debate developments back years as people are fearful of challenging the current structure.. Granted I haven’t read other posts here so there may be smugness, if so knock it off. Knowing what a wiki is doesn’t make you good) And Volen how is this style of debate self destructive to the activity?

 

 

Pre-empting on the Perm: We can have a community that both accepts and rejects disclosure, but it still links to the ridiculousness of the self rightous in this thread, so a world without disclosure is always net beneficial. .

 

I disagree, just tell stupid high schoolers they aren’t cool.

 

Solvency: Disclosure does not increase education. Practices of disclosure are to tell what has been run, not what necessarily will be run. Therefore disclosure does not increase the education of future rounds, only tells the community what they already know from debating rounds. Someone is running pull troops out of Japan, that is true, and knowing who specifically is running that doesn't effect the education or preparation. .

 

 

It does increase education. Pull my bit about case specific PICs based on wording or plan mechanisms. Plus you can get specific Advantage counterplans off of someone’s weird advantage. A lot of people may run Okinawa withdrawl but the cases aren’t all the same. Knowing the dynamics of each individual case (where the cards come from, the bias of the ev, the structure of the argument itself) helps to have a better debate over that specific case. Your interpretation allows for a bunch of Kansas kids carrying around Michigan 7 week’s Japan withdraw file and running the generic solvency frontline against every Japan aff. And even if they do make their own case specific file. It can’t be specific to every aff. The difference of one word in a plan text is all it should take to justify disclosure having educational and in round benefits of better clash.

 

Solvency: There are hundreds of debaters in Kansas and every weekend about 4 tournaments. The chances of you hitting any specific team in enough frequency to make disclosure beneficial is very unlikely. The reason it fails is that in a community that embraces more people participating in the activity, you will debate against so many different people that the permutations of one specific team hitting another are so slim as to become statistically irrelevant. Independant voter: those who support disclosure either need to embrace less participation in the activity or embrace a poor understanding of statistics. .

 

The same goes for the national circuit and yet a wiki still exists. There is no such thing as being too prepared in a debate round. I figured you would agree with that. And yet even if there is a smaller chance of hitting the same team twice it still continues to happen. We hit many teams 3 or 4 times in the 5 kansas tournaments we went to Senior year. And disclosure is supposed to help against teams you haven’t seen because you are getting background on their types of arguments. You said earlier that it’s not a guarantee that they will run those args, but even if they change the arg the disclosure of past arguments gives a team a sense of the style of debate the other team practices.

 

D.A. Logistics: Link: Disclosure leads to "power huddles" in which teams basically steal in round prep time to instead be "coached" by one of the assistance coaches. .

 

Lolwut? How does one steal in round prep to be coached. Has Kansas moved to letting teams take prep to talk to coaches? Are judges letting teams stall rounds to talk to coaches. This is not a disclosure problem. This is a problem with the way people are running tournaments.

 

Brink: Tournaments already take forever, especially those in which disclosure is the norm, and thus take 3 days rather than 1 or 2, and if more teams did disclosre there would be so many case files to go through it would greatly increase the time needed between rounds. .

 

Again, lolwut. High school kids must have really gotten bad at filing in these last two years. You’re supposed to have frontlines made. And I don’t even get how this backwards logic works. First these tournaments aren’t longer because they have disclosure. They are longer because they have more rounds and usually more competitors than a Kansas tournament. Second if anything disclosure would speed up the time of finding files as you know exactly what you are looking for. I would hope the debaters would know their files. IF that is what you are fearing, bad debaters not being able to find cards fast because now they know too much and don’t know their files, then I find this the funniest horror story ever written.

 

Uniqueness: Kansas tournaments are run much more efficiently, much more on time, much tighter, which allows for more prelim rounds, and the possibility for salvaging some quality free time on the weekends. .

 

I get it you have free time because you don’t go to Sunday. How do you have more prelim rounds though? Most tournaments are only 5. National circuit tournaments can cover that in 2 days as well.

 

Impact magnifier: Kansas coaches (especially ones that also coach/assist with forensics) go to way more tournaments than other coaches, thus already take more of their personal time. .

 

…..getting further from the point of disclosure here. I’m close to calling link of ommission

 

Impact: Due to tournaments going on forever and coaches travelling every weekend, coaches get no personnal recovery time. They either go crazy or quit, either way destroying their program and eventually the activity. .

And now we jump to the “what?” side. How in god’s name is disclosure going to do this. Please explain yourself. I will not stand such bold accusations that have no basis. Show me how disclosure lengthens tournaments. Usually if they were on the wiki I would say “are you still running this aff”. They say yes. I say “is it the same” they say no. I ask “what’s different” they tell me the minor changes and the round starts. We don’t need time to prep before round as one partner flows and the other prepares the 1nc. And bringing up the idea of flowing and listening to the 1ac as being critical parts of the debate experience for the debaters and that having the education and critical thinking impacts on them is hogswash. Nothing is gained from listening to the speech. You get the cards to read as the 1ac goes anyway and it’s not like you retain every word said.

 

Case side: Look at the claims in this thread. They are vacuums of thought and meaning. There are claims of "better" debates without defining what a "better" debate is. Thus they get no impact to "better" debates. There are claims of better education without warrant or evidence. What kind of education? At best there is some kind of education that might be increased, but it is not better than the kind of education that I warrant out which increase skills for better citizenary and career performance. .

 

I defined better debate. More case specific clash. Higher amounts of education in the related aff areas. All around smarter arguments and therefore a more entertaining and relatable round to a lay judge. I don’t care about college judges as we are fine listening to politics even if we think it’s dumb. Honestly would you rather listen to xo, politics, cmr, another generic, t or aspec, and some random solvency/adv takeouts that may not apply over a case specific pic or da?

 

EDIT: this can be ignored as part of the "round", but some how I missed this. "increase skills for better citizenary and career performance." I'm failing to find a picture that can properly describe my expression right now. Mix taken aback with down right astounded and utterly bewildered with a lot of confusion in there. What does this even mean. I mean honestly have we come to just making up things. How in anyway does not disclosing in a debate round lead to you being a better citizen. I must be the worst thing to happen to society in years. Here's a question. Do you want an open government that informs you of the things that have been going on? Or, do you want a government that likes to come up with bills and laws and keep them secret and just drop them on us. Your logic justifies the idea that ignorance is bliss. being surprised makes you a better person. What in this great world are you talking about?

Case side: There is no evidence to prove that those who have disclosed or received disclosure are any more knowledgeable about the world. That is assurted all the time and NEVER proven. .

 

Maybe we should give tests to people in a disclosure system and out about the topic to see who learns more. And the education that is spoken of is the potential education. By allowing a system of disclosure you allow for a system that would promote better debates. While it may not be every round. Those that take advantage of the disclosure system will become much better debaters and be prepared for any kind of round.

 

Case side: The failure of the wiki last year is empirical evidence that disclosure does not produce benefits. .

 

This is wrong, it is empirical evidence that there is a stigma against the idea of a wiki and against national circuit style debate in Kansas. It was even discussed last year that there was fear that coaches would ban students from posting. I’m not sure if that happened but if one instance of it happened where a kid wanted to disclose it disproves your claim. Plus all the Kansas teams that cared about disclosure were on the national wiki, so the Kansas wiki was a little redundant.

 

Case side: Comparisons to the national circuit and college are flawed. Kansas has such a higher amount of participation that other circuits function differently. This is not an indict of national circuit or college, just to properly identify that there are diffences and those differences affect whether disclosure can be beneficial. .

 

Look I’m not advocating Kansas become like the circuit or like college debate. I don’t see how disclosure is going to open the flood gates and sweep out the current dogmatic practices. I mean you coaches still have control right? Why would participation go down? Wouldn’t it increase? Wouldn’t you gain all the kids that are scared to hit an aff that they have never heard of and be embarrassed? I’ve seen tons of those 2 minute 1nc’s. They are painful as a debater to watch and even more painful as a judge. I would like to hope that having some pre-round knowledge on what was coming towards them would have calmed them or forced them to come up with a strategy.

 

Theory: Disclosure is infinitely regressive. To gain "education" you disclose your aff. To gain more "education" the neg discloses their strat. To be more "educational" the aff discloses their responses to extending case and against the neg strat. So on and so on, which means disclosure ends up being the debate round.

 

Lolocaust. Did you just make a slippery slope argument for disclosure. Give me an example of this ever happening past the I-spec argument (which I bet most people posting here have no clue about). Just…….really?

 

 

Btw if any of this seems offensive (I don’t think it is but just wanted to make sure as I never knew when I was being an “ass” in a debate round) it is not at all meant to be and I deeply apologize.

Edited by Githens09
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Githens on a 3-0 descision

 

RFD:

Framework goes to Githens. I hear alot of assertions in the first speech but not much to back it up. For instance, You say the education benefits are false but you don't really back it up.

 

As for the k, I don't think you can win this argument when you concede that the alt doesn't solve the case. I feel like the coach smugness turn has alot more evidence going for it because I'm not sure there has been any smugness from debaters on this thread. Sure people are encouraging disclosure, but I don't think that I've heard anyone imply that they're better for doing it

 

Logistics DA: I feel like Githens's "lolwut?" argument is very compelling here. I'm not sure that case disclosure is the reason for "powerhudles." If I'm hitting a team in an outround and I don't have their disclosed case I'm actually more likely to find a group and figure out what it is. If this argument had been able to access the Kansas coaches impact the first speaker would be in much better shape.

 

Good debate guys

Edited by Inherencyftw
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Githens09 on a 3-0 Corporate DB8er just has no answers to these arguments githens has ran the entire year. I cant believe he didnt disclose it would have made this debate much closer and led to more specific answers. I prefer Githens' framework arguments here. I'm also not positive why people don't listen to the 1AC in a world where people use the caselist it seems that everyone needs to listen to what cards actually say rather than what their tags say. I'm not gonna lie people won't become smug because of a caselist this assertion has actually no warrants from Corporate DB8ers speech. Also, as a current debater at a school that Volen classifies as "trying to look cool", I have a neg. side bias. I think the perm is the best option here with the argument that teams going in the so-called "Champ" or Varsity division should be expected to disclose whereas all other divisions are free to disclose or not as they wish. Pre-empting the answer: inevitably the "Champ" or Varsity debaters will or will not be smug, however disclosure doesn't affect this even a little bit. Like InherencyFTdubs I strongly agree with Githens09's arguments on the Logistics DA Flow; I still have no idea how in-round prep is stolen by disclosure... Also, in no way will tournaments take longer as a result of disclosure; how will knowing what people are running make tournaments take any longer? Corporate Db8er attempts to say it's proven by national tournaments but I prefer Githen09's arguments that the tournaments talked about have more teams and more rounds which makes all of Corporate Db8er's arguments absurdly non-unique. I also think Githens09's Alt cause arguments on uniqueness are logical unlike Corporate Db8er's claims that more prelims will happen as a result of disclosure??????????????????????? The impacts are in no way linked to use of a caselist.... no one will quit being involved in debate because of a caselist. I prefer Githens09's arguments on why debate is better. I'm also biased to believe that the wiki failed last year because people didn't participate, meaning this method hasn't been proven to be bad. In any sense. Overall I prefer Githens09's arguments on the case debate. Good round everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

D.A. Logistics: Link: Disclosure leads to "power huddles" in which teams basically steal in round prep time to instead be "coached" by one of the assistance coaches.

 

Explain? How does disclosure steal prep? Are coaches going to come INTO the rounds? I'm confused?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is referring to pre round coaching.

Edited by Limming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Case side: Look at the claims in this thread. They are vacuums of thought and meaning. There are claims of "better" debates without defining what a "better" debate is. Thus they get no impact to "better" debates. There are claims of better education without warrant or evidence. What kind of education? At best there is some kind of education that might be increased, but it is not better than the kind of education that I warrant out which increase skills for better citizenary and career performance.

 

Case side: There is no evidence to prove that those who have disclosed or received disclosure are any more knowledgeable about the world. That is assurted all the time and NEVER proven.

 

Case side: The failure of the wiki last year is empirical evidence that disclosure does not produce benefits.

 

Case side: Comparisons to the national circuit and college are flawed. Kansas has such a higher amount of participation that other circuits function differently. This is not an indict of national circuit or college, just to properly identify that there are diffences and those differences affect whether disclosure can be beneficial.

 

It's been awhile since I've seen someone go "case side"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been awhile since I've seen someone go "case side"...

 

 

Oddly enough, it characterizes Corporate DB8er's side of the debate quite well. Almost ironic.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really don't understand is hundreds of teams in a much smaller national community than even Kansas's high school community who all come from squads ranging from 1 team to dozens of teams and all levels of skill, funding, etc manage to post onto a wiki year after year without any problems. I don't think anything makes this different.

 

Also I just thought I should add that a large number of Volen's disads are no to the same type of disclosure and there's no reason that pre-round disclosure is a necessary extension of a wiki, and time? Really? I have a hard time believing that anyone is presented with such a daunting amount of coaching for the lightning intellect of all of the conversational, speaking skills oriented high school debate that free time is an unheard of notion. Also maybe this is too naive but I was under the impression that if you coached debate you enjoyed the activity not "OMG When can we get out of here? I'm just here for any food in the lounge and the paycheck and then I'm outtie." And since when do coaches not care about getting the most tailor made strategy to their opponents ready? What I'm hearing out of the anti-casebook coaches is that they're the type of folks that just hit the auto-select button every down of every game of Madden they play.

Edited by Felix Hoenikker
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had this debate many times before... it's quite played out.

 

Also, here's where I give my usual "I'm kinda on the fence, but empathize with the anti-disclose side" disclaimer

 

I don't feel that the con side has been adequately defended up to this point so here are a few points:

 

1. Caselists are not as important to the "quality" of debate in a local circuit. Especially ours where teams go out every weekend and destination tournaments are semi well-defined. Scouting information is easily accessible, much moreso than in the national high school circuit or in college.

 

2. Scouting is part of the game. Caselists take away part of the fun. Also, there are lots of teams in KS who are underprepared in the scouting department... a caselist rewards those teams, traditional scouting rewards those that hustle to get information.

 

3. KS teams have little incentive to participate until the majority of schools buy in. Even at that point, perhaps only disclosed cases should be shared with other teams who choose to disclose.

 

4. The aff has a vested interest in keeping their case a secret. There is no advantage disclosure would provide that outweighs catching a team unprepared. In an earlier post, someone was making fun of kids who hope to catch teams off guard... Secrecy is a very valid strategy, you see successful college teams breaking new arguments in big tournaments ALL THE TIME. College teams employ scouts at big tournaments for this same reason.

 

5. Caselists favor those with resources. Look, I see the other side of this argument as well, but I find this side more compelling. When I go into a round, I want to know that I'm debating John and Mary from Shawnee Mission Southnorth not Billy Badd Ass college debater/assistant coach with John and Mary sockpuppets on his hands... I get that this is somewhat inevitable, but caselists help this process greatly.

 

Ultimately, if a kid I was coaching asked me if they should disclose I would encourage them not to (until it became the norm), but would leave the decision up to them. I just don't see the benefits (for the individual).

 

Please don't make the "it makes your 2AC blocks better" argument. It's dumb. The Aff has infinite prep in which to brainstorm every argument and write quality blocks. Also, neg disclosure means virtually nothing to a well prepared aff team.

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...