Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pfdboyz

Traditional Debate Disclosure

Recommended Posts

A question of disclosure in traditional debate:

It has come to my attention that this year in policy, teams have been been dislcosing thier debate cases. I believe that this practice, while in my opinion not particularly suited for policy style, would be a great development in our thriving PFD and LD communitites. In Policy, you will always have something to say. For example, if they plan costs money you can say some made up disadvantage about how it collapses the economy and somehow leads to a nuclear war. The point is, you always have something to say. In PFD and LD, you never know what will happen next. Some teams are created and reinterpret the entire resolution! Some teams have value critereon that is impossible to predict. The point is, you can never know what to expect. I believe that this is ultimately bad and becuase we want more clash debates we should create some form of disclosure in our traidtional, intelectual (at least in some ways) debate types. This disclosure doesn't have to be an internet copy of the entire case, but maybe a website or wiki page where we can put up the contnetions, values, and criterions that we've created. Only people that want to would have to participate but hopefully as more and more sucessful debaters disclose the rest will follow. Let me know your thoughts :)

 

 

I am posting this anonymously because I am afraid that this may turn into something it shoulnd't. Should that happen I don't want it sourced back to me

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already an LD wiki.

 

Also, the practice of disclosure came up in Policy because of the wide breadth and requirement of research in the activity. PF, while requiring some research, is not as heavy on requiring qualified opinions, making disclosure less of an issue overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is already an LD wiki.

 

Also, the practice of disclosure came up in Policy because of the wide breadth and requirement of research in the activity. PF, while requiring some research, is not as heavy on requiring qualified opinions, making disclosure less of an issue overall.

 

I disagree on this point. As I stated before, Policy teams already have a million answers so there really isn't anyhting new to be prepaired for. There also aren't as many arguments in policy because there are only so many cards where as in LDD and PFD literally anything you can think of becomes an advantage. Lets be honest, no matter how many ways a team causes economy collapse they can still read the economy is bad cards every time. Talking about the national LD disclosure list, I don't think the Kansas community is ready for that. From what I've seen, most teams are frightened to post on there and it would be really helpful to have a place where just kansas teams could post

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree on this point. As I stated before, Policy teams already have a million answers so there really isn't anyhting new to be prepaired for. There also aren't as many arguments in policy because there are only so many cards where as in LDD and PFD literally anything you can think of becomes an advantage. Lets be honest, no matter how many ways a team causes economy collapse they can still read the economy is bad cards every time. Talking about the national LD disclosure list, I don't think the Kansas community is ready for that. From what I've seen, most teams are frightened to post on there and it would be really helpful to have a place where just kansas teams could post

 

One there actually is a wiki, it's the NDCA wiki. They have a section dedicated to LD (although it's generally populated by national circut debaters)

 

I hate to be frank, but this very wrong. We don't carry around answers for everything, that's beyond the scope of some smaller schools and even bigger schools. Ya I'm prepared to debate DSCOVR and Asteroids, but when you get in a round and the other team is running Asian Acstetic or a Jungian aff, chances are most of the files in the bin other than generic FW wouldn't be useful. There are teams that get in the round and litterally say 'Fuck the resolution' and read whatever they want, and some power tag their evidence to make some obscure and immpossible idea sound reasonable. Disclosure gives a chance for teams to be prepared for those types of things.

 

I feel your vastly oversimplifiying Policy arguments, they don't all end in "Econ collapse bad" or "Heg prevents nuke war". Your logic is that we'll always have some generic link ground, which is true, but there's a flip side to that coin your not taking into account here. The other team know about generic disads, which is why they'll A) have good answers specific to their case or B) Make a case that avoids such disadvantages. Disclosure and the sharing of case information allows the debates to transition from "Plan spends money, which is bad" to "Asteriod defense will be weaponized, leads to space war" or "EOS = panoptic control'. And just because we need cards to say something doesn't mean we're limited to the WP or NYT, we litterally have thousands of gigabytes of information that could make it's way into the round. Compared to what I've seen in most LD and PF rounds (And this is not meant to be offensive, my area just isn't that big in debate in general), advantages don't get too imaginative to the point where you wouldn't be able to debate it (most LD/PFers I've meet tend to write their cases day of/before). Also, the nature of LD and PF (1/2 month resolutions) check the depth of most of them. Year-wide resolutions means we have approx 12 times as long to gather evidence and alter cases as we learn what is and isn't effective, meaning debates tend become very in depth.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question of disclosure in traditional debate:

It has come to my attention that this year in policy, teams have been been dislcosing thier debate cases. I believe that this practice, while in my opinion not particularly suited for policy style, would be a great development in our thriving PFD and LD communitites. In Policy, you will always have something to say. For example, if they plan costs money you can say some made up disadvantage about how it collapses the economy and somehow leads to a nuclear war. The point is, you always have something to say. In PFD and LD, you never know what will happen next. Some teams are created and reinterpret the entire resolution! Some teams have value critereon that is impossible to predict. The point is, you can never know what to expect. I believe that this is ultimately bad and becuase we want more clash debates we should create some form of disclosure in our traidtional, intelectual (at least in some ways) debate types. This disclosure doesn't have to be an internet copy of the entire case, but maybe a website or wiki page where we can put up the contnetions, values, and criterions that we've created. Only people that want to would have to participate but hopefully as more and more sucessful debaters disclose the rest will follow. Let me know your thoughts :)

 

 

I am posting this anonymously because I am afraid that this may turn into something it shoulnd't. Should that happen I don't want it sourced back to me

 

As a former PFer, there's a lot more predictability of ground because of lay judges. There's a core of the resolution with maybe three to five discrete, good, persuasive arguments. Some args are good - as in accurate - but unpersuasive because of their technicality or articulation in the literature. PF is plenty predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One there actually is a wiki, it's the NDCA wiki. They have a section dedicated to LD (although it's generally populated by national circut debaters)

 

I hate to be frank, but this very wrong. We don't carry around answers for everything, that's beyond the scope of some smaller schools and even bigger schools. Ya I'm prepared to debate DSCOVR and Asteroids, but when you get in a round and the other team is running Asian Acstetic or a Jungian aff, chances are most of the files in the bin other than generic FW wouldn't be useful. There are teams that get in the round and litterally say 'Fuck the resolution' and read whatever they want, and some power tag their evidence to make some obscure and immpossible idea sound reasonable. Disclosure gives a chance for teams to be prepared for those types of things.

 

I feel your vastly oversimplifiying Policy arguments, they don't all end in "Econ collapse bad" or "Heg prevents nuke war". Your logic is that we'll always have some generic link ground, which is true, but there's a flip side to that coin your not taking into account here. The other team know about generic disads, which is why they'll A) have good answers specific to their case or B) Make a case that avoids such disadvantages. Disclosure and the sharing of case information allows the debates to transition from "Plan spends money, which is bad" to "Asteriod defense will be weaponized, leads to space war" or "EOS = panoptic control'. And just because we need cards to say something doesn't mean we're limited to the WP or NYT, we litterally have thousands of gigabytes of information that could make it's way into the round. Compared to what I've seen in most LD and PF rounds (And this is not meant to be offensive, my area just isn't that big in debate in general), advantages don't get too imaginative to the point where you wouldn't be able to debate it (most LD/PFers I've meet tend to write their cases day of/before). Also, the nature of LD and PF (1/2 month resolutions) check the depth of most of them. Year-wide resolutions means we have approx 12 times as long to gather evidence and alter cases as we learn what is and isn't effective, meaning debates tend become very in depth.

 

I don't really understand what you're trying to say... A changing resolution means that if you want to be truely prepared you need to do twelve times as much research as policy debaters. The arguemtns that are off beat in policy are easily answered by "this is obviously stupid" and generic theory. Any policy debate can be won by the same old "conditionality is bad and you should lose" back files from every year or even nuclear war is good. You also haven't given a reason why disclosure for ld and pfd is bad. Theoretical, intelectual arguments are much harder to prep than cards

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand what you're trying to say... A changing resolution means that if you want to be truely prepared you need to do twelve times as much research as policy debaters. The arguemtns that are off beat in policy are easily answered by "this is obviously stupid" and generic theory. Any policy debate can be won by the same old "conditionality is bad and you should lose" back files from every year or even nuclear war is good. You also haven't given a reason why disclosure for ld and pfd is bad. Theoretical, intelectual arguments are much harder to prep than cards

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of policy debate, not all of our debates come down to nuclear war bad/good or econ collapse. My first round as neg last tourny was about how traditional debate structure is racist and roleplaying as USfg reifies white supremacy. I would have loved it if I could have won that round simply by saying 'This is stupid' or my theory args. I'd also love to be the debater who could win every condo debate I was in, but most of the time those Indian elections disads can't really be answered with nuke war good especially when that's my own 1AC impacts.

 

Also I don't see how a changing resolution would mean more research when a short time for prep and limited use for those args clearly means there will be a lack of depth in the debate. Also, PF and LD judges are generally lay, which means you won't be doing anything ludicrously complicated anytime soon.

 

I'm not saying disclosure for LD and PF is bad, I think it would be nice (although to be entierly honest I don't see much a point for the latter). Considering any intellectual/analytical arguments would still need warrants to back it up, I don't see a reason why it makes it inherently more deep than carded evidence, especially considering how high school debaters probably aren't making any sort of argument that hasn't been thought up by P.h.D.'s, news conglomerates and think tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand what you're trying to say... A changing resolution means that if you want to be truely prepared you need to do twelve times as much research as policy debaters. The arguemtns that are off beat in policy are easily answered by "this is obviously stupid" and generic theory. Any policy debate can be won by the same old "conditionality is bad and you should lose" back files from every year or even nuclear war is good. You also haven't given a reason why disclosure for ld and pfd is bad. Theoretical, intelectual arguments are much harder to prep than cards

You're obviously an idiot who has no idea what policy debate is like. The reason there's disclosure in policy debate is because there's so many arguments, that it helps adequately prepare for them, the generics that the neg gets don't have strong unique links and the aff will always have specific answers to it that the neg doesn't have answers to.

 

Quit whining, LD is easy, that's why former policy debaters switching to LD qualify to the TOC their first year of LD, while former LDers transitioning to policy get face crushed.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're obviously an idiot who has no idea what policy debate is like. The reason there's disclosure in policy debate is because there's so many arguments, that it helps adequately prepare for them, the generics that the neg gets don't have strong unique links and the aff will always have specific answers to it that the neg doesn't have answers to.

 

Quit whining, LD is easy, that's why former policy debaters switching to LD qualify to the TOC their first year of LD, while former LDers transitioning to policy get face crushed.

 

Dude, what is wrong with you? Sure, he may misunderstand the details of policy debate, he's probably never done it. Quit being an asshole, there's no need for it.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of policy debate, not all of our debates come down to nuclear war bad/good or econ collapse. My first round as neg last tourny was about how traditional debate structure is racist and roleplaying as USfg reifies white supremacy. I would have loved it if I could have won that round simply by saying 'This is stupid' or my theory args. I'd also love to be the debater who could win every condo debate I was in, but most of the time those Indian elections disads can't really be answered with nuke war good especially when that's my own 1AC impacts.

 

Also I don't see how a changing resolution would mean more research when a short time for prep and limited use for those args clearly means there will be a lack of depth in the debate. Also, PF and LD judges are generally lay, which means you won't be doing anything ludicrously complicated anytime soon.

 

I'm not saying disclosure for LD and PF is bad, I think it would be nice (although to be entierly honest I don't see much a point for the latter). Considering any intellectual/analytical arguments would still need warrants to back it up, I don't see a reason why it makes it inherently more deep than carded evidence, especially considering how high school debaters probably aren't making any sort of argument that hasn't been thought up by P.h.D.'s, news conglomerates and think tanks.

 

 

 

I don't think the poster originally meant to attack policy debate, just to say that LD could use some of the same resources policy has, so you seem to be misunderstanding the central point to this thread and suggestion. Besides, you've said yourself national LD debaters use the wiki as well, which means there's some reason they feel they need it and should participate in open evidence -- even if you like policy, which duh, I understand, it doesn't mean LD is the worst thing ever. I don't think we need to be defensive either; the OP doesn't seem to understand that K affs exist, but that doesn't mean Kansas shouldn't have an extra way to prepare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.

Dude, what is wrong with you? Sure, he may misunderstand the details of policy debate, he's probably never done it. Quit being an asshole, there's no need for it.

 

Everyone...is....so....hypocritical....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the poster originally meant to attack policy debate, just to say that LD could use some of the same resources policy has, so you seem to be misunderstanding the central point to this thread and suggestion. Besides, you've said yourself national LD debaters use the wiki as well, which means there's some reason they feel they need it and should participate in open evidence -- even if you like policy, which duh, I understand, it doesn't mean LD is the worst thing ever. I don't think we need to be defensive either; the OP doesn't seem to understand that K affs exist, but that doesn't mean Kansas shouldn't have an extra way to prepare.

 

I don't see where I said any of those things. I was just stating he mischaracterized policy debate, and I while I'm all for disclosure, I seriously disagree with the notion that PF and LD require more evidence, research, or preparation than policy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see where I said any of those things. I was just stating he mischaracterized policy debate, and I while I'm all for disclosure, I seriously disagree with the notion that PF and LD require more evidence, research, or preparation than policy

 

Why are you so obsessed with trying to prove that policy is somehow better than LDD or PFD?  All I made this thread for was to implore the Kansas debate comunity to consider making a place for those afraid to post on the national website for debate cases.  Just because LDD and PFD require more intelectual arguments instead of a million cards you alrady have doesn't make it better, just makes it different.  You should probably stop posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a lot of love for PFD, but it doesn't require "more intellectual arguments." Instead, it requires more common-sense arguments. It doesn't require doing "twelve times as much research as policy debate" (even under this scenario it would require eight, or four in Kansas.) Instead, it often emphasizes analytical skills over research quality. Those are both arguably good things.

 

PFD has come a long way since it was introduced in 2002-ish as Ted Turner debate in an attempt to model the CNN show "Crossfire." The topics (Wikileaks, College Costs, Aid to Pakistan, etc.) are often pretty neat. At the highest levels the students work incredibly hard and display great skill. In Kansas these issues aren't zero sum: CX and PF occur at different times, so why the fuss?

 

I see where the disclosure idea comes from, but I don't agree with it for a few reasons: A) PFD predominantly caters to a crowd that is disenchanted with other forms of debate. It wouldn't want to model their norms. B. Disclosure is an evidence norm. It's for purposes of academic peer-review of the literature cited by student competitors. What makes PFD unique is that it doesn't require citing a volume of research or "cards." C) It would be burdensome. Teams would have to update it every month, and several times every month if they change their case.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In PFD and LD, you never know what will happen next. Some teams are created and reinterpret the entire resolution! Some teams have value critereon that is impossible to predict. The point is, you can never know what to expect. I believe that this is ultimately bad and becuase we want more clash debates we should create some form of disclosure in our traidtional, intelectual (at least in some ways) debate types. This disclosure doesn't have to be an internet copy of the entire case, but maybe a website or wiki page where we can put up the contnetions, values, and criterions that we've created.
Let me start off by saying that I'm not a fan of disclosure, but I think your argument is logical and has some truth. I thought it was respectful of the community and insightful.

 

I do have a question though that may lead to a counter argument. Why does surprise necessitate a lack of clash? Isn't it possible for a debate student to hear an argument or an interpretation they've never heard before and come up with clash on the spot? To me, that would be a pretty incredible skill, and something worth developing.

 

In business, when I'm in front of a client, it is very beneficial if I can listen to the issue, synthesis a solution, and respond on the spot. That is a skill that has benefitted the business I work for as well as my own career. Someday you will be in an interview, and they may ask a question that you were not prepared for (sometimes they do that on purpose), and if you are better skilled at thinking on your feet you just might win the job.

 

I understand the goal of having "better" debates that increase clash. I think though that may be a secondary priority to developing life long skills that will be of greater importance. in 5-10 years, no one will remember how good that individual round is, but the skills you learned will benefit you for a lifetime.

 

Being surprised and caught off guard in a LDD or PFD round might just be better for you long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you so obsessed with trying to prove that policy is somehow better than LDD or PFD?  All I made this thread for was to implore the Kansas debate comunity to consider making a place for those afraid to post on the national website for debate cases.  Just because LDD and PFD require more intelectual arguments instead of a million cards you alrady have doesn't make it better, just makes it different.  You should probably stop posting

 

I'm not trying to prove that either is better than the other, I state that clearly in my own posts. The way you described policy debate in the OP made it sound like all we do is regurgitate cards year after year and our debates come down to the same issues every time. LD and PF don't require more intellectual arguments just because you don't read carded evidence or have changing resolutions. Your OP says that policy debate doesn't need disclosure because all debates come down to the same issue and don't need intellectual or on the spot arguments.  Arguably, the lack of certified carded evidence makes surprising PF cases easier to handle analytically. Your essentially saying that 'Soccer requires more skill than Football because we don't have pre-written tactics', and I'm just defending my sport, so don't tell me to stop posting for trying to clear something up.As a fan of disclosure, I have no problem with people disclosing cases and in fact would advocate that, although I don't see much a need for one exclusive to Kansas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.., although I don't see much a need for one exclusive to Kansas.

Not that someone outside of Kansas would or should care, but extremely few students travel outside of Kansas for competition other than to CFL or NFL nationals. And who would blame them when they receive hostile posts to a rather innocent post. Not sure why you need to go to the Kansas forum to defend something that wasn't being attacked in the first place, but you aren't doing any favors as a "representitve" of those outside the state.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This line is the one that gave it away.

 

Yall-postin-in-a-troll-thread.jpg?1295567777

I disagree. Her/his argument is about research bredth rather than depth. PFD has to research 8 different topics rather than one. That isn't trolling. It may be incorrect, but it is a reasonable argument to make. If you read her/his position with an open mind and see that she/he isn't attacking policy debate but contrasting it against PFD to make an argument for disclosure in PFD, you'd see this isn't a troll thread. I actually disagree with the premise and don't want to see disclosure in PFD, but at least I recognize that it is a fair argument to make.

 

It truly isn't her/his fault that a bunch of people from the national circuit who have zero insight into the debate community in Kansas would be so self conscience about policy debate that they would misconstrue a comparison as an attack on their event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that policy does more work. I agree that LD does lots of work and has a diverse literature base.

 

Someone mentioned that they think learning to deal with surprises is good, and I agree with that idea in principle but not in practice. The problem is that the surprise is by definition one sided so no argumentative skills are developed. Say that Team A surprises Team B with a new argument, but Team B keeps a cool head and invests some prep time in answering Team A, making some decent answers. Then Team A uses zero prep time and brings up their prewritten blocks to the few arguments that Team B was able to think of, thus crushing them. That's not a situation where people learn to improvise well, but it's the situation that usually happens when one team is surprised by the other.

 

People also use generics to answer surprises, but surprise teams know this, so they intentionally develop a position well equipped to answer generics.

That means that even generics aren't a very good option. Plus all of the other reasons that generics are bad for debate.

 

Lastly, improvisation is inevitable even with disclosure because of argument interaction and rebuttals. This form of improvisation is fair and generates better education.

 

I support disclosure and even like disclosure theory, except that I think exceptions should be made for kids with stubborn coaches who won't let them disclose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that policy does more work. I agree that LD does lots of work and has a diverse literature base.

 

Someone mentioned that they think learning to deal with surprises is good, and I agree with that idea in principle but not in practice. The problem is that the surprise is by definition one sided so no argumentative skills are developed. Say that Team A surprises Team B with a new argument, but Team B keeps a cool head and invests some prep time in answering Team A, making some decent answers. Then Team A uses zero prep time and brings up their prewritten blocks to the few arguments that Team B was able to think of. That's not a situation where people learn to improvise well, but it's the situation that usually happens when one team is surprised by the other.

 

People also use generics to answer surprises, but surprise teams know this, so they intentionally develop a position well equipped to answer generics.

That means that even generics aren't a very good option. Plus all of the other reasons that generics are bad for debate.

 

Lastly, improvisation is inevitable even with disclosure because of argument interaction and rebuttals. This form of improvisation is fair and generates better education.

 

I support disclosure and even like disclosure theory, except that I think exceptions should be made for kids with stubborn coaches who won't let them disclose.

I agree that the strategy of competitively winning rounds by surprise is bad. I agree less skills are developed.

 

However the argument for disclosure wasn't to check teams from intentionally developing strategies to surprise their opposition and get cheap wins. The argument was that the nature of LDD and PFD with changing topics leads to unitential surprises and thus debates with less clash. That for some reason (and I disagree) that LDD and PFD don't have generics to fall back on thus the surprise is that much more competitively destructive.

 

Surprise is not one sided. If I intentionally or unintentionally surprise my opposition, I should still expect a response. Perhaps their response is predicatable, but perhaps it is not. LDD and PFD are not as grounded in the (flawed) concept that every argument must have carded quotes from an author for support. In LDD or PFD, if you surprise your opposition, they don't have to have prior research on their response, which allows for creativity and a counter surprise. Without the notition that everything they say must have been researched before the round starts, that allows for more improvisation. Thus they don't need to rely on generics that are predicitive and allow for a strategical advantage to the surpriser. Since the responses can be original, creative, and less predictive, the surprise strategy is less destructive in LDD and PFD. Thus the need to check intentional surprises with pretournament disclosure is actually leass needed.

 

Remember, LDD and PFD have shorter and less rebuttals that Policy debate, so any improvisation has to occur early in the debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that sometimes surprises can be responded to, but not all times. Surprises should be minimized because sometimes they can be formulated in such a way that no response is predictable. For example, on the assistance topic I utilized a naturalism case and ruthlessly took advantage of the fact that I was the only debater prepared to discuss human neurology and evolution. There was no way that my opponents could improvise their way out of that argument, so they were forced to debate me on the value level. I functionally only had to write blocks to half of my case because I knew that winning the criterion was essentially a given.

 

In case this seems hypocritical, I'm of the opinion that debate is a game. Unfair moves are sometimes strategic and debaters should be as strategic as possible. It's the responsibility of the other team to counter the strategic shenanigans of their opponent. So my previous actions are reasonably consistent with my advocacy of disclosure.

 

But yeah. Since rebuttals make improvisation inevitable, it makes more sense to try to maximize initial clash. Predictability helps to do that. So I like disclosure.

 

I think that it's even probable that when initial clash is strong, the quality of rebuttal improvisation is much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm of the opinion that debate is a game.
:) I get why students prefer the idea that debate is just a game. I get that leads to paradigms to evaluate debates about debate. Given that mindset, I completely understand valuing strategy and disclosure over developing persuasion and extemporaneous speaking and responding.

 

I see and understand the game, but value the skills much greater. I honestly would have quit a very long time ago and would happily spend more time with my dogs and fiance if I thought that debate was a game first and foremost. Coaching kids to play monopoly or risk would likely be fun, but definately not worth the amount of time I spend with students. Debate is much bigger and more important than just a game. I place 100x greater importance on the skills that students develope that will help them down the road and make them better citizens. That is how I make my community better and give back to the activity that made me a better and more productive employee, citizen, and human being.

 

The competition is fun. The game can be fun. But very few other activities that schools sponsor get teachers and classes as part of the academic schedule. If administrators, and honestly a vast majority of debate teachers, thought that debate was just a game, then I'm thinking most of the classes would no longer be offered and coaches would quit. Parents would be less willing to allow their children to spend so much time on it. In the end, the much needed support would dry up.

 

That isn't to say that you can't or even shouldn't view debate as a game. Go right ahead. The community is diverse enough to allow for multiple mindsets. I only am justifying my own. And since I don't view debate primarily as a game, I put much, much greater weight to impacts on education and skill development. It is much more important to me that a student loses a few rounds while developing improvisational critical thinking than them learning strategies to play a game and win a couple of rounds that in the big scheme of things no one will remember or care about. And when they do develope the skills, they will not only win later rounds but have something they can have confidence in for the rest of their lives. That's my mindset. So that's why practices of disclosure are just not that persuasive to me.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...