Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kansas.debate

2010-11 KS Caselist

Recommended Posts

Scouting isn't permitted at many tournaments. Takes out your offense. I know this because when I went to Wichita East, Petersen asked me what affs people were reading. Obviously I had no idea. He said "it's kay, I'll just go around during rd 1 and 2 and get people's affs". Didn't happen because scouting wasn't allowed. I clearly wasn't negatively effected in this instance, but I know that there was a team reading a Heidegger aff, if I hit them I would have been totally unprepared. scouting solves in that instance.

 

How is scouting useful at all in a world where you don't have a printer with you (most teams don't travel with printers) or you aren't paperless (impossible to be paperless at many tournaments in KS)? You can ask some devastating CX questions and beat them with some slayer analytics?

 

Number 3 is not an argument against a caselist, it's a problem with the current overarching attitude in KS and a reason why everyone has to participate for effectiveness.

 

New affs are very strategic for the obvious reason. But I still don't understand how "catching a team unprepared" (what does this even mean, there are like 10 affs this year- EVERYONE has a case neg to your aff) can outweigh an educational debate? Great you won the debate because they didn't know what your aff was and didn't have a good strat ready, but did you learn anything? Probably not. Now I will give an example I'm sure is very "smug" worthy. I have had the same aff debate about 6 times in KS. It's boring, I'm not learning anything new, and I win every time. I don't think generics are incapable of providing deeper discussions and education but I have thus far not had a conversation about NATO that went farther than "Belgium and Poland say no" "but we say NATO says yes". Seriously, I put a link to my wiki online, I disclose before every round, all in the hopes that some one will please dear god read something other than consult NATO. I enjoy debate because of what I can learn from it and the kind of education I want is from teched out strategy debates. (That was a challenge to everyone reading this) Someone please answer this- what kind of education does not having a caselist provide that isn't also offered in a world of a caselist? In round strategic thinking? PJ's arg here is devastating. The on your feet thinking doesn't stop after you've got your 1NC. If we all agree debate is about the education we get, I fail to see how a caselist doesn't foster the best kind of debate.

 

The logic behind the coaching argument is wrong (this is also a response to the "power huddle" Volen was hating on, btw that's a good phrase I have integrated into my lexicon- I tip my hat at you sir). 1) My response should be predictable- pre round coaching means we have better debates. 2) Coaching before the round does not mean you're a sock puppet spouting off what your coach told you before the round. I'd like to think I have some of the best coaching in KS and am a pretty good example of a team who gets coached before rounds, let me tell you how it goes down. We find out we're hitting a COIN aff. Reid and I pretty much put a 1NC together- it has the Lacan K in it, Quigley tells us to take Lacan out because Mark Wilkins (our judge) won't like it. (reason 1 coaching before round is good- they know about your judges) We then proceed to discuss the reform COIN CP in greater detail making sure we both understand it and arguments the aff could make. (reason 2- I understand my arguments better, I have a more intelligent debate) Round starts, 2NC comes around- we play a recording of Quigley. Oh wait...that's not what happened. Coaching can only get you so far, our coaches will help us with a strategy or give us a strategy even but the debate is about our ability to deploy the strategy. The coach isn't there in the 2nr holding up cue cards for you. I understand your argument about favoring schools with resources- some schools don't have enough coaches to prep teams before rounds. I think this gets at an ideological difference. It's a question of whether you think some should be held back because others can't keep up. Just because a school doesn't have the resources to have coaching like mine doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to utilize mine to the fullest. As I said, an ideological difference we probably won't be able to resolve.

 

"Neg disclosure means nothing to a well prepared aff team." Wrong. I consider myself a well prepared 2a. I still would like to know what the politics DA is and what the 2nr's have been. I like having uniqueness- more clash in the debate. It's a lot easier to win a politics debate if the aff has NO uniqueness. I know the response is going to be, use your critical thinking skills or you should be able to win without the evidence, but the politics debate is just different. First of all, you can't generate any offense with out uniqueness- no link or impact turns. That means you're left with purely defensive args- no spillover (who's ever voted on that?), no link- this might be your best shot but it really sucks to only have one thing to go for in the 2ar. As far as 2nr disclosure goes- this serves as a backfile check. If a team tells me they went for the Global Local K last round I will promptly whip together a block, yes- with the help of my coaches. Also, it tells you what the team has the propensity to go for. If they like to go for the politics DA, maybe I'll make my block a little longer.

 

It's a goal of mine to convince everyone (who is capable of being convinced) that disclosure is a good thing. If you have an argument against disclosure that hasn't been answered by the pro-disclosure side, please share. If you have a specific question for the pro-disclosure side, ask it.

 

(I didn't go back and do a grammar check, so sorry)

Edited by cierbear
thought of something else while I was in the shower
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scouting isn't permitted at many tournaments. Takes out your offense. I know this because when I went to Wichita East, Petersen asked me what affs people were reading. Obviously I had no idea. He said "it's kay, I'll just go around during rd 1 and 2 and get people's affs". Didn't happen because scouting wasn't allowed. I clearly wasn't negatively effected in this instance, but I know that there was a team reading a Heidegger aff, if I hit them I would have been totally unprepared. scouting solves in that instance.

 

You wouldn't have hit us; we were doing pretty horribly that tournament =)

 

 

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.

Yeah, because we can all have a dozen judges affiliated with our school floating around the judging pool feeding us information, right?

 

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.

There's a disconnect here; how does a caselist make the innate ability of larger squads to have a dozen college debaters on file any worse? They're always going to cut ev for them anyways. If they don't know what other teams are running, they can still cut generics/updates/K's/new affs.

Edited by mdawgig
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I feel Ciera and Pj have pointed out a sufficient number of reasons why disclosure is generally a good thing but I felt it necessary to address this. I do agree that secrecy can certainly be a helpful part of any strategy, but no team's strategy should be secrecy for a few reasons. 1) It doesn't work all that well after a few tournaments, people will catch on eventually. 2) Banking every win off of a surprised 1N of T and some generic politics doesn't give anyone a good round, or a legitimate win (that second part is a matter of opinion). 3) You don't learn anything because you never engage your case, everything is about generic off-case that everyone bummed off of openev.

 

Also, have you looked at national and/or college circuits and the way their disclosure functions? Secrecy becomes even more valuable in those situations, so even if you rely one hundred percent on secrecy, with a caselist you are not completely out of the game, you just need to cut a new aff every tournament.

 

And no one in the college, national, or Kansas circuits posts their affs before they break them. I think you misunderstand the function of a caselist. Once someone breaks an aff, aka reveals it they then post it on the wiki, thus maintaining the viability and valuability of secrecy (is valuability a word?).

 

At the end of the day though, relying on secrecy is generally bad for debate, get a good case and learn it, pwn people because you can outdebate them and you know your case better, don't win because their campfiles don't have your case neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, if a kid I was coaching asked me if they should disclose I would encourage them not to (until it became the norm).

 

This is the problem.

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.

LOLZ. bandido....who do you think you are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been quite a while since SME has hit a thread like this!

 

Disclosure is important. There's nothing worse than a debate were a team is left with nothing but T, generic withdraw links, and a state bad K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disclosure is important. There's nothing worse than a debate were a team is left with nothing but T, generic withdraw links, and a state bad K.

 

Michael!!!! What's wrong with T? Mad about a sems round?????

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.
Because it is fun. It is clearly not productive, but I poked the bear with the format of my post because that is what I do, and as was predictable the post got flamed, and now I get to stoke more flames for more entertainment.

 

On Framework

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.
Really? Disclosure decreases generics. That is why in practice, communities that embrace caselists don’t have negatives that run generic DA’s and K’s? That is why within those communities the 1NC has 5 minutes of actually clash on case rather than 1 minute of blips and 4 off? That is why within those communities they can’t also disclose their generic neg strat regardless of the aff plan specification? That is why PIC text is written right before the round? That is why they don’t have to have last minute coaching sessions because they are so prepped on the team before they even show up to the tournament? From my experience, THAT FREAKING DOESN’T HAPPEN!! EVER!! You can come up with all the theory in the world on why disclosure and case lists would be beneficial, but in reality they never pan out. My framework is based in reality. Everyone should reject the theoretical world of the pro-disclosure, pro-case list rhetoric and evaluate solely on the reality that this practice creates. The reality is that knowing X team runs pulling TNW’s out of Turkey does not result in more clash, more research, more case side debate, less generic DA’s and K’s. It results in more entrenching in generics and finding a way to make them work. KCKCC was the only tournament this to sponsor the environment for disclosure, which is awesome for giving students an experience into a world they don’t normally get to be a part of, but I can tell you there was not any of the theoretical benefits of a case list or disclosure going on. Negatives were not more specific to the aff case. It is not the fault of the community, the tournament, the students, or anyone else. It is proof that the benefits of disclosure are false, and my framework should be adopted. At that point, when we look at the reality of the usage of disclosure and case lists we can find they are not net beneficial and reject them.

 

On Alternative

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.
Not sure if you were intentionally misrepresting my argument or not, but I have always known you to be honest and frankly more intelligent than me, so I’m going to assume that I mis-communicated and re-explain which makes your response non sequentor. In the world of disclosure, the teams believe they already know what the other team is going to say, and they attempt to use that time as prep time to come up with what they are going to say instead of listening. One of the greatest coaches I ever have been honored of listening to told me that he was never scared when the opposition pulled their files during his speech, because at that point their brains aren’t being creative and they are going through the motions. The scariest moment is when they listen, and then formulate a plan. Those who are pro-disclosure think the only education comes from research and being prepared. That isn’t true. I’m not against being prepared with research and agree it is educational, but I also believe that what actually happens in round must be more than the chess game of if you run this frontline, than I answer with this one, and you counter with pulling this author and I counter with pulling this warrant. There must be thought in the round. Being intelligent but unprepared should result in loses, but being prepared but not intelligent should be equally punished. A case list, I argue, does not actually in practice result in more preparedness, despite the theoretical arguments contrary, and actually hinders intelligence in round. The world of the alternative still has preparation, but allows for critical thinking and forces debaters to actually listen to what is being said. Not just the 1AC either, but all speeches because you don’t have a preconceived notion of how the chess game will be played.

 

Specifically, debaters who don’t participate in disclosure gain better time management and critical thinking by being forced to actually listen to the opposition and formulating responses. Worst case scenario, they woefully lack evidence in supporting their creative responses, but the alternative education takes place, and then after the first round they have all the same information that a team with a case list has, and can gain the other forms of education. Still, the 1st tournament of the year teams don’t disclose what they have previously run, because they haven’t run anything, and that is still a good debate and plenty of education occurs. And it isn’t like the negative wins every round, so the competitive equity is already there too. Simply put, the world of the alternative gets students skills in doing more thinking in round and that world does not lose the benefits of disclosure since they are illusionary and don’t manifest in the real world.

 

On the turn on the K

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?

1. No Link – Being right is not smugness.

2. No Link – At no point has a coach gotten on this thread and said, “I’m a better debater/coach/human being because I do/don’t do disclosure.” That hasn’t happened. I personally have given arguments against disclosure, but never claimed I’m superior as a person for it. Look back in the thread. Only the pro-disclosure camp has done that, thus only they link to smugness

3. Coach smugness is inevitable. Young wiper snappers need to stay off my lawn (or think they uniquely know what is best for all debate students)

4. Presumption goes neg because change is inevitably risky. Alienating debaters from change is not a bad thing, if the change is bad for the activity or the individual students. If change were to start physically assaulting students during debate rounds, then coaches who alienate those kids who embrace that change would be doing the community a service. Universally accepting change is bad and debate can become worse under the guise of development. Those who don’t understand the reason for structure will inevitable question it, and those with experience are uniquely in a position to answer the underlying reasons for that structure and defend it.

5. No link - Disclosure is not a style. It is a practice that is used predominately by a style. There are positives and negatives to the style that predominately uses disclosure, and I’m not debating that style. I am debating that regardless of the style, the practice of disclosure does not produce the benefits and does produce negative consequesnces.

6. Turn the turn - If there has been coach smugness, which I still deny or say to whatever level there has been that that level is inevitable, then it is only by response to the aff presentation and advocacy of pro-disclosure. There has never been a thread that started off, “We need to do less disclosure because…” If the representation of the pro-disclosure camp had not occurred, the smugness by coaches would not have occurred, thus turning the turn back.

 

On the pre-empting of the perm

I disagree, just tell stupid high schoolers they aren’t cool.
Hey all you stupid high schoolers who think you are cool, you are not.

 

Hmm, did that solve? I guess I’ll find out if there are any responses to this post…

 

On solvency

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.

1. Pull framework - Your bit about case specifics was answered in the framework. You are still talking about the theoretical. I wish you were right, but in the practice it just isn’t true.

2. Pull framework - In a world of disclosure, kids in practice still care around Michigan 7 week’s Japan withdraw file. That is really still happening even with case lists and disclosure. All case lists and disclosure do is tell the kids which Michigan file to pull to start the debate round or what the assistant coach will see when asking, “What do you have on Japan?” 10 minutes after when the round was supposed to start but didn’t because of power huddling.

3. Non unique. The fact that before the season teams know the case areas for camps to put out files shows that disclosure is not needed. I don’t need to know who is running withdrawal from Japan, just need to keep up on research on that because I know someone is running it. That type of research and updates happens in both worlds.

4. No solvency – The practice of disclosure is to say what you have run before. Thus if you make changes and updates as the season goes on, you don’t have to disclose that until it is broken. Thus you create bad debate when the team is running arguments on a previous flaw that you have fixed. Only in a world of non-disclosure do teams feel like they have to listen and thus respond to what is in this round, not previous rounds.

 

On Solvency - # of debaters

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.

1. National circuit is less populated and has less tournaments. There are not 4 national tournaments every weekend for 13 weeks straight for teams to choose from like there exists in Kansas. Thus hitting the same team multiple times is much more likely in that community, thus possibly making disclosure more beneficial (though in practice it has not). Again, this is not an indict of national circuit as much as a statement of apples and oranges when it comes to solvency.

2. Agreed, being prepared for debate rounds is good. I will support that. Disclosure does not do that because you can’t be prepared for all the hundreds of different teams in Kansas. Thus researching case areas and adapting in round to particular team’s nuances is more beneficial. It develops equal research skill and more critical thinking.

3. Your experience of hitting the same team 3 or 4 times was atypical. And still, there were hundreds of teams that you didn’t hit. And if you had had case lists on all of them and prepared specifically on all of them, you would have wasted a ton of time. You worked really hard as is, can you imagine having a specific strat for each and every team in Kansas on the chance you hit them? No. Instead you prepared for the teams you did hit, and thus had the same benefits.

4. Did you come from a world in which the theoretical benefits of disclosure were true? Did you know the arguments of all of your opposition before you walked into the tournament and thus had the great experience you had? I truly don’t know the answer, but I think it was no. I think you had a great experience and didn’t have disclosure. The best you can say is that it may have been better, but I’ll claim it could have been worse. We’ll never know. But I don’t understand why you would want to risk current and future students the benefits of the activity that you had in the same manner you had them. Either you are claiming debate as it was didn’t benefit you or you are claiming that you would risk it for others.

 

On Logistics DA Link

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.

1. What does LOLWUT stand for? I’m too dumb/not hip enough to figure it out

2. Decision making that should be done in prep time is done out side of prep time, thus giving you more prep time. You still get the 5-8 minutes of prep time in round, but now you are carving out 20+ minutes before the round. And this time is spent with assistant coaches who debate/debated themselves and are trying to debate through you (I’m just as guilty in those situations).

3. Before getting to the tournament, you don’t know who you are hitting. Only when the schedule comes out do you know, and thus the effects of case lists and disclosure are felt. In the world of disclosure, teams find out what their opposition does and then power huddle to come up with last minute strategy. In a world without disclosure, this doesn’t happen because you don’t have any info and just go into the round to debate and then react and adapt to what is being said in round. This causes the unique link to issues with logistics for tournaments. This probably could be solved with denying any extra time and handing out forfeits for teams that don’t immediately run to the room, but then that makes disclosure much less meaningful for most of those who actually practice it.

 

On the Brink of the Logistic DA

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.

1. This doesn’t happen in Kansas because of a lack of disclosure as a practice.

2. These tournaments are longer. Simply look at that schedule. Typically Kansas tournaments schedule rounds 1.5 hours apart. Tournaments in which disclosure is common place schedule 2+ hours apart. Some of that is because these same tournaments advocate oral critiques, which is a different issue, but they also allow for time to power huddle. And if they don’t, the tournament runs behind because rounds get started later because teams force the issue by power huddling. That is why these tournaments run longer.

3. Teams that practice disclosure do not know their files any better, thus look to my framework. In practice these kids hold up tournaments because they think that since they know the other teams arguments they must take some time for themselves to do last minute prep.

 

On Uniqueness of the Logistic DA

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.
I agree, I misspoke. There are the same number of prelim rounds. However a Kansas tournament does its prelim and outrounds in 2 days, were others do them in 3. I should have limited my statement to that. Thank you for correcting my overstatement and agreeing to what my limited statement should have been.

 

On Impact Magnifier of the Logistic DA

…..getting further from the point of disclosure here. I’m close to calling link of omission
Just to say that coaches in Kansas are already pushed far and that if tournaments get longer it has a bigger effect on them since they have less free weekends.

 

On Impact of Logistic DA

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.

1. The lack of personal time leads to burn out and thus the impacts.

2. Previously I showed that disclosure leads to power huddles which leads to three day rather than two days for tournaments.

3. In practice your example does not happen or you are omitting the power huddle aspect which is unique to disclosure since power huddles can’t occur if you find out everything in round.

4. I’m sorry you missed out on the critical thinking from listening to speeches (not just the 1AC, but all of them). Other students do indeed benefit from this. Your characterization of what the 1AC should be is a problem I have with debate that goes beyond this thread.

 

On Aff Case – Better debate

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?

1. Good definition of “better debate”. Disclosure in practice does not create this.

2. Smarter comes from listening more, which comes from not thinking you know what the opposition is going to say.

3. Knowing “aff areas” doesn’t come uniquely from case lists. It comes from the literature, from camps, from updates on both, from hitting teams, etc.

 

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?
Look back to my link on increased skills. I claim that listening and critical thinking are promoted by not thinking you know the opposition’s arguments prior to the round. You are prepared on the area, but not the specifics. Actually listening to the opposition and then formulating a response leads to better citizenry than jumping to conclusions and playing the game that if you say this than I say this to counter act.

 

On Aff case – evidence of education

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.

1. Since no one has don this test, I’m guessing you are agreeing that the “education” is theoretical and can not be proven.

2. No one gets more prepared due to disclosure in action.

3. Potential for education happens both ways.

 

On Aff case – empirical evidence of failure

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.

1. If coaches did scuttle the wiki last year, which I do not know one way or another, that still doesn’t answer that disclosure is a failure. And perhaps coaches actually do know best…

2. Personally, I do/would allow my teams to be dumb and disclose if they would like. They choose not to. That still lends itself to the empirical failure of the wiki

 

On Aff case – Comparisons

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.
You think there are a bunch of kids who are quitting debate or never become involved because coaches fail to prepare them without a wiki? Hmm. Sorry, just not buying that. First of all, kids who give 2 minute 1NC’s are often novice who are going to turn to their coach long before turning to a website to be prepared. And that is better anyway. Apparently you feel that coaches are not responsible to identify what their students should do to get prepared. No one is giving a 2 minute 1NC who would also be going to a website and putting forth effort to be more prepared.

 

On Aff case – Theory

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?
Things that are infinitely regressive are bad, and to maximize the benefits of disclosure you would have to be infinitely repressive. That is my argument. Not that this is the practice, just that the concept of disclosure is bad.

 

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.
I didn’t find anything you said offensive. You were playing the game with me. I give credit to your prior coaching and involvement in the Kansas community on why you can present arguments and not come across offensive. Not sure why we’d want to change a system that created someone of your talents that we can be proud of.

 

Githens on a 2-1 descision
Why vote after the 1NC? Don’t I get responses? Thanks for the split decision though.

 

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.
Since this is already your decision I will respect that, but if you had waited for my responses you may have seen that I do 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
Please look at the posts previously, especially by cierbear. I only started posting due to my impression of smugness. I didn’t think I was initiating 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.
I think in my responses I address the power huddle internal link. They only occur with greater frequency if at all in a world of disclosure.

 

Good debate guys
Thank you. And I appreciate your evaluation of our efforts.

 

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.
You too vote before the end of the debate? How unfortunate. Ah, such is life. Did I lose on 7’s or did I pick up a couple of speaker points?

 

My argument wasn’t that people become smug, that those who support become smog. There is a nuance there.

 

I agree the perm (which Githens doesn’t actually support, so you are intervening on his behalf) is very strong, and that is why I attempted to preempt the argument. Your answer of inevitable smugness by champ debaters is sad and probably very truthful.

 

Thank you for the evaluation of the round. I need to work on debating in front of a biased audience.

 

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.
I think there are problems that people ignore and that I’ve outlined as well as the benefits being only hypothetical and not existent in the real world.

 

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.
Come now, are you just trying to be insulting or truly believe that the only good coach is one that sacrifices everything in life for the activity? I think it is fair to say that sacrificing multiple Friday nights and Saturdays, not to mention after school coaching where the best preparation takes place anyway, is more than enough. Nothing I’ve said even came close to implying that I’m here for the chips and soda and paycheck. I don’t need a case list to get my students prepared in the time that I do sacrifice for their benefit. My argument is that a move to 3 days for tournaments is more of a sacrifice and would result in burn out. Just because I do enjoy the activity doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t also want to spend some time with my fiancé or my dog Rufus or my family or friends.

 

Scouting isn't permitted at many tournaments. Takes out your offense. I know this because when I went to Wichita East, Petersen asked me what affs people were reading. Obviously I had no idea. He said "it's kay, I'll just go around during rd 1 and 2 and get people's affs". Didn't happen because scouting wasn't allowed. I clearly wasn't negatively effected in this instance, but I know that there was a team reading a Heidegger aff, if I hit them I would have been totally unprepared. scouting solves in that instance.
Um, feeds my argument on power huddles. That is what you wanted to do during the tournament. And if you had found out someone was running a Heidegger Aff, what would you have done during the tournament to get more prepared? How does that increase education on the subject. T-money wasn’t supporting in tournament scouting, but your mindset is exactly what I’m kritiking.

 

How is scouting useful at all in a world where you don't have a printer with you (most teams don't travel with printers) or you aren't paperless (impossible to be paperless at many tournaments in KS)? You can ask some devastating CX questions and beat them with some slayer analytics?
Again, you link in and show that you don’t support disclosure for the education but for the fun of it.

 

New affs are very strategic for the obvious reason. But I still don't understand how "catching a team unprepared" (what does this even mean, there are like 10 affs this year- EVERYONE has a case neg to your aff) can outweigh an educational debate? Great you won the debate because they didn't know what your aff was and didn't have a good strat ready, but did you learn anything? Probably not. Now I will give an example I'm sure is very "smug" worthy. I have had the same aff debate about 6 times in KS. It's boring, I'm not learning anything new, and I win every time. I don't think generics are incapable of providing deeper discussions and education but I have thus far not had a conversation about NATO that went farther than "Belgium and Poland say no" "but we say NATO says yes". Seriously, I put a link to my wiki online, I disclose before every round, all in the hopes that some one will please dear god read something other than consult NATO. I enjoy debate because of what I can learn from it and the kind of education I want is from teched out strategy debates. (That was a challenge to everyone reading this) Someone please answer this- what kind of education does not having a caselist provide that isn't also offered in a world of a caselist? In round strategic thinking? PJ's arg here is devastating. The on your feet thinking doesn't stop after you've got your 1NC. If we all agree debate is about the education we get, I fail to see how a caselist doesn't foster the best kind of debate.

1. Yes, very smug.

2. How would a case list convince teams to change so you don’t hit the same aff 6 times and are bored with it? Wouldn’t a case list just make this occurrence happen more often?

3. Everything else you say seems to really link into my arguments even more.

 

The logic behind the coaching argument is wrong (this is also a response to the "power huddle" Volen was hating on, btw that's a good phrase I have integrated into my lexicon- I tip my hat at you sir). 1) My response should be predictable- pre round coaching means we have better debates. 2) Coaching before the round does not mean you're a sock puppet spouting off what your coach told you before the round. I'd like to think I have some of the best coaching in KS and am a pretty good example of a team who gets coached before rounds, let me tell you how it goes down. We find out we're hitting a COIN aff. Reid and I pretty much put a 1NC together- it has the Lacan K in it, Quigley tells us to take Lacan out because Mark Wilkins (our judge) won't like it. (reason 1 coaching before round is good- they know about your judges) We then proceed to discuss the reform COIN CP in greater detail making sure we both understand it and arguments the aff could make. (reason 2- I understand my arguments better, I have a more intelligent debate) Round starts, 2NC comes around- we play a recording of Quigley. Oh wait...that's not what happened. Coaching can only get you so far, our coaches will help us with a strategy or give us a strategy even but the debate is about our ability to deploy the strategy. The coach isn't there in the 2nr holding up cue cards for you. I understand your argument about favoring schools with resources- some schools don't have enough coaches to prep teams before rounds. I think this gets at an ideological difference. It's a question of whether you think some should be held back because others can't keep up. Just because a school doesn't have the resources to have coaching like mine doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to utilize mine to the fullest. As I said, an ideological difference we probably won't be able to resolve.

1. Glad I could help add to your lexicon. That is an accomplishment if nothing else that I’ll take.

2. Pre round coaching means the college kid assistant coach is debating through you. It does not improve education or skills. In the real world, not hypothetical, the kids think less for themselves and more go through the motions that their coach told them to read. Once I figured this out, my team’s success rate increased, since they will always be better debating their own concepts than mine. Plus I can tell them to do something, but that might not be right for the success for that round.

3. When other teams power huddle, our success increases. I’d like to believe that is because our kids don’t become sock puppets and are better at adapting to the round because they think during round, not just before it. Of course that isn’t universal, but I’m guessing you’d say that is because I’m not as good of a coach as Quigley.

 

It's a goal of mine to convince everyone (who is capable of being convinced) that disclosure is a good thing. If you have an argument against disclosure that hasn't been answered by the pro-disclosure side, please share. If you have a specific question for the pro-disclosure side, ask it.
Interestingly enough it is a goal of mine to convince everyone (who is capable of being convinced) that people who are in favor of disclosure are wrong. I don’t care if you do it or not, so if you have an argument for disclosure or actually do it, I hope that works for you. I’ll continue to have fun being in opposition.

 

It has been quite a while since SME has hit a thread like this!
Hmm, interesting observation about who has been posting on this thread. I’ve made some observations about this thread, but not that one. Interesting.

 

It has been a long time since our penguin loving friends from across the tracks have had a large number of active posters on CX. I hope this new tread continues because I do so love when they post. They add a perspective that I find very informative.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scouting isn't permitted at many tournaments. Takes out your offense. I know this because when I went to Wichita East, Petersen asked me what affs people were reading. [/Quote]

 

Wow, you're doing it incredibly wrong. Old fashioned social networking... make friends, talk to people. This is way easier today when facebook, etc exists.

 

How is scouting useful at all in a world where you don't have a printer with you (most teams don't travel with printers) or you aren't paperless (impossible to be paperless at many tournaments in KS)? You can ask some devastating CX questions and beat them with some slayer analytics? [/Quote]

 

In a world where wireless internet exists through the cell phone network and most hotels offer free internet, I'm not sure why you're NOT bringing a printer. Hell, we did it back in the day with dial up, when you had to telnet in to Lexis. Again, you're doing it wrong.

 

 

New affs are very strategic for the obvious reason. But I still don't understand how "catching a team unprepared" (what does this even mean, there are like 10 affs this year- EVERYONE has a case neg to your aff) can outweigh an educational debate?[/Quote]

 

Why do you need a caselist again then? I was going to make this argument on the anti-disclosure side but felt it was too anecdotal to really mean anything. Much like the rest of your rambling response was. You never answered my argument, catching a team unprepared with your aff is a viable strategy and outweighs any benefits of disclosure. You've already admitted to not understanding how scouting works which makes my argument even stronger. The more likely I am to gain an advantage by not disclosing the less likely I am to do so.

 

 

The logic behind the coaching argument is wrong (this is also a response to the "power huddle" Volen was hating on, btw that's a good phrase I have integrated into my lexicon- I tip my hat at you sir). 1) My response should be predictable- pre round coaching means we have better debates. 2) Coaching before the round does not mean you're a sock puppet spouting off what your coach told you before the round. I'd like to think I have some of the best coaching in KS and am a pretty good example of a team who gets coached before rounds, let me tell you how it goes down. We find out we're hitting a COIN aff. Reid and I pretty much put a 1NC together- it has the Lacan K in it, Quigley tells us to take Lacan out because Mark Wilkins (our judge) won't like it. (reason 1 coaching before round is good- they know about your judges) We then proceed to discuss the reform COIN CP in greater detail making sure we both understand it and arguments the aff could make. (reason 2- I understand my arguments better, I have a more intelligent debate) Round starts, 2NC comes around- we play a recording of Quigley. Oh wait...that's not what happened. Coaching can only get you so far, our coaches will help us with a strategy or give us a strategy even but the debate is about our ability to deploy the strategy. The coach isn't there in the 2nr holding up cue cards for you. I understand your argument about favoring schools with resources- some schools don't have enough coaches to prep teams before rounds. I think this gets at an ideological difference. It's a question of whether you think some should be held back because others can't keep up. Just because a school doesn't have the resources to have coaching like mine doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to utilize mine to the fullest. As I said, an ideological difference we probably won't be able to resolve. [/Quote]

 

I am fully aware of how pre-round coaching works. You kind of illustrate my point perfectly on this. It's clear you have good coaching help, that's great... why would I want to disclose to you? (Especially when I know that you are not good at scouting).

 

"Neg disclosure means nothing to a well prepared aff team." Wrong. I consider myself a well prepared 2a. I still would like to know what the politics DA is and what the 2nr's have been. I like having uniqueness- more clash in the debate. It's a lot easier to win a politics debate if the aff has NO uniqueness. I know the response is going to be, use your critical thinking skills or you should be able to win without the evidence, but the politics debate is just different. First of all, you can't generate any offense with out uniqueness- no link or impact turns. That means you're left with purely defensive args- no spillover (who's ever voted on that?), no link- this might be your best shot but it really sucks to only have one thing to go for in the 2ar. As far as 2nr disclosure goes- this serves as a backfile check. If a team tells me they went for the Global Local K last round I will promptly whip together a block, yes- with the help of my coaches. Also, it tells you what the team has the propensity to go for. If they like to go for the politics DA, maybe I'll make my block a little longer.

 

Just because you consider yourself well prepared doesn't mean that you are. I agree that there are cases in which neg disclosure could help, but again you should be scouting what others are doing which would solve this back. Neg disclosure does not offset the disadvantage you get from disclosing your aff. Who votes on defense on a disad? I do. I've been judging for a long time and trust me, offense on disads is rarely well developed. I could teach a class about how to effectively sell a defensive argument to a high flow judge.

 

 

It's a goal of mine to convince everyone (who is capable of being convinced) that disclosure is a good thing. If you have an argument against disclosure that hasn't been answered by the pro-disclosure side, please share. If you have a specific question for the pro-disclosure side, ask it.

 

(I didn't go back and do a grammar check, so sorry)

 

Look, I get all the arguments for disclosure... I really do. I'm not necessarily against it, I understand that it would increase the overall quality of debate. My overall point is that it isn't the only way. It is not as important in a local circuit. If you want others to disclose the best way is to provide a benefit to doing so, like only providing the caselist to teams that disclose.

 

I also reject the notion that disclosure is the only internal link to education. Social networking through traditional scouting is very educational (it is one of the most important skills you can have in life), thinking on your feet when you are caught unprepared is also educational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel Ciera and Pj have pointed out a sufficient number of reasons why disclosure is generally a good thing but I felt it necessary to address this. I do agree that secrecy can certainly be a helpful part of any strategy, but no team's strategy should be secrecy for a few reasons. 1) It doesn't work all that well after a few tournaments, people will catch on eventually. 2) Banking every win off of a surprised 1N of T and some generic politics doesn't give anyone a good round, or a legitimate win (that second part is a matter of opinion). 3) You don't learn anything because you never engage your case, everything is about generic off-case that everyone bummed off of openev.

 

Also, have you looked at national and/or college circuits and the way their disclosure functions? Secrecy becomes even more valuable in those situations, so even if you rely one hundred percent on secrecy, with a caselist you are not completely out of the game, you just need to cut a new aff every tournament.

 

And no one in the college, national, or Kansas circuits posts their affs before they break them. I think you misunderstand the function of a caselist. Once someone breaks an aff, aka reveals it they then post it on the wiki, thus maintaining the viability and valuability of secrecy (is valuability a word?).

 

At the end of the day though, relying on secrecy is generally bad for debate, get a good case and learn it, pwn people because you can outdebate them and you know your case better, don't win because their campfiles don't have your case neg.

 

People will catch on eventually... sure I agree. But if anything this thread has shown me that debaters don't understand how to effectively scout. It's like once someone learns about disclosure they think that that's the way things "should be" and shut down... and don't even try to learn how to scout the traditional way.

 

I understand how a caselist works. I get that people don't disclose when breaking new. I'm using breaking new illustrate the strategy of secrecy is viable.

 

What I think is lost in this thread is an understanding of WHY disclosure started in the first place... College teams started this trend because traditional scouting methods weren't as effective on a spread out nationwide circuit... The big programs who were able to travel to multiple locations had a big advantage in this area. It quickly became the norm, and the holdouts (believe me there were some) were eventually converted because they didn't want the reputation of being "that school". In Kansas, we aren't very spread out geographically and we don't have as big of a rich/poor gap. We also have fairly well-defined destination tournaments. Scouting should work just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just about to post some cites, but then I realized that this wiki is only for good teams, apparently. Muh bad.

Edited by mdawgig
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, because we can all have a dozen judges affiliated with our school floating around the judging pool feeding us information, right?

 

Well, yeah that's one way. Does everyone on your team keep all their flows? Does your team have a central database that lists all of your known cases? Would you be willing to trade this information with others? Do you watch tournament results to see the teams to watch out for (for NFL, CFL, State DCI etc) and then seek out information about them? Did you go to camp? Did you make friends there? Have you ever talked to people in the hallway between rounds? Again, it's becoming clear that there is a lack of effort in this area from teams in KS, which makes secrecy a viable strategy... and me less likely to disclose. Scouting really is part of the game and can sometimes be as fun and rewarding as debate itself.

 

I'm getting a weird vibe from this thread. It's like everyone is whining about not having disclosure, and how much debate would be better if we had it... but no one puts out any effort to scout at all. I know that this can't be the case. Please someone prove me wrong.

 

 

There's a disconnect here; how does a caselist make the innate ability of larger squads to have a dozen college debaters on file any worse? They're always going to cut ev for them anyways. If they don't know what other teams are running, they can still cut generics/updates/K's/new affs.

 

Why feed the big fish? They have the resources to know my case already, why reward them if they don't? My Aff listed on a caselist becomes a target for their machine. Until there is some reason FOR me to disclose, I don't see why I would.

Edited by t-money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yeah that's one way. Does everyone on your team keep all their flows? Does your team have a central database that lists all of your known cases? Would you be willing to trade this information with others? Do you watch tournament results to see the teams to watch out for (for NFL, CFL, State DCI etc) and then seek out information about them? Did you go to camp? Did you make friends there? Have you ever talked to people in the hallway between rounds? Again, it's becoming clear that there is a lack of effort in this area from teams in KS, which makes secrecy a viable strategy... and me less likely to disclose. Scouting really is part of the game and can sometimes be as fun and rewarding as debate itself.

 

I'm getting a weird vibe from this thread. It's like everyone is whining about not having disclosure, and how much debate would be better if we had it... but no one puts out any effort to scout at all. I know that this can't be the case. Please someone prove me wrong.

 

Again, larger schools are always going to have the advantage in this area. We take an average of 3-5 teams to one tournament a weekend. Now, myself and my partner are our only team in varsity, so we're the only ones (along with our coach when she judges) who can get information regarding cases used in varsity. So we're left with 2-4 teams that can get information regarding open/novice cases from whatever teams happen to be at whatever tournament we can go to.

 

Contrast that with larger schools that can send multiple groups of large numbers of teams to tournaments all over the state. They will always hit more schools/teams from all over the state because they can travel to more places and have a larger pool of spies (ie, debaters).

 

We can only scout so much, and I know for a fact I do a fair bit more networking/sleuthing than the majority of KS debaters. But simply saying "if you don't know what someone is running, you obviously don't try hard enough" isn't productive, and it's mostly downright rude. I can work my tail off getting tidbits of information off of whomever I can get to spill the beans, but I still won't be able to compete with 20+ teams hitting getting 20+ new cases/neg strats every round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, larger schools are always going to have the advantage in this area. We take an average of 3-5 teams to one tournament a weekend. Now, myself and my partner are our only team in varsity, so we're the only ones (along with our coach when she judges) who can get information regarding cases used in varsity. So we're left with 2-4 teams that can get information regarding open/novice cases from whatever teams happen to be at whatever tournament we can go to.

 

Contrast that with larger schools that can send multiple groups of large numbers of teams to tournaments all over the state. They will always hit more schools/teams from all over the state because they can travel to more places and have a larger pool of spies (ie, debaters).

 

We can only scout so much, and I know for a fact I do a fair bit more networking/sleuthing than the majority of KS debaters. But simply saying "if you don't know what someone is running, you obviously don't try hard enough" isn't productive, and it's mostly downright rude. I can work my tail off getting tidbits of information off of whomever I can get to spill the beans, but I still won't be able to compete with 20+ teams hitting getting 20+ new cases/neg strats every round.

 

hey, just double checking, were you that guy that always ran biopower in the 2nc last year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just about to post some cites, but then I realized that this wiki is only for good teams, apparently. Muh bad.

 

why would you assume that its only for good teams or htat you aren't one of hte "good teams?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey, just double checking, were you that guy that always ran biopower in the 2nc last year?

 

Uhm, no. Biopower is horrible. Just saying. I literally did not run biopower once last year.

 

why would you assume that its only for good teams or htat you aren't one of hte "good teams?"

 

Just an observation.

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...