Jump to content
SpeeMitch

Xylem Camp Files?

Recommended Posts

didn't xylum produce a similar satire file though..?

 

see - this is why bad disclosure is bad :P

touché

 

would you link me to the wikis of people that go to xylum and disclose well? 

I didn't attend this year so I don't know who exactly went and also people haven't yet started disclosing (the year hasn't quite started yet :P)- but I can tell you that last year the Assata Aff that was popular was innovated at Xylum and subsequently disclosed by UPrep.

 

Some of my teammates (and my partner) went and we disclose cites and occasionally opensource here: http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/Wilson/WebHome (Apologies for my disclosure last year, it was shabby, but I was only a highschool sophomore haha)

Here are wikis for two other schools that had debaters who went: 

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/Stuyvesant/WebHome

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/Denver+Arts/WebHome

 

I guess the two major points I went to emphasize in relation to disclosure is: 

1. It's mostly individual files in contrast to the largely communal files at other camps

2. Disclosure is a practice that attempts to level the playing field for smaller and less funded schools- that's why you see large schools with tons of coaches going completely opensource (like Northwestern) and smaller schools (like Towson) not, it's not due to an attempt to spread misunderstanding so that they can claim this misunderstanding is them being oppressed (which seems a bit conspiracy-ish). Xylum is mostly attended by smaller schools who need that competitive advantage. 

 

Edit: Also you have the exact same rep as posts

Edited by Miro
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are these posted somewhere? I know something about allegories and squirrels but almost nothing other than the name. Is there a set of resources I'm otherwise unaware of?

 

I'm not trying to press harshly on this - I'm genuinely interested in engaging these args. 

I haven't heard anything about allegories and squirrels other than the Maury file 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

touché

 

I didn't attend this year so I don't know who exactly went and also people haven't yet started disclosing (the year hasn't quite started yet :P)- but I can tell you that last year the Assata Aff that was popular was innovated at Xylum and subsequently disclosed by UPrep.

 

Some of my teammates (and my partner) went and we disclose cites and occasionally opensource here: http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/Wilson/WebHome (Apologies for my disclosure last year, it was shabby, but I was only a highschool sophomore haha)

Here are wikis for two other schools that had debaters who went: 

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/Stuyvesant/WebHome

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/Denver+Arts/WebHome

 

I guess the two major points I went to emphasize in relation to disclosure is: 

1. It's mostly individual files in contrast to the largely communal files at other camps

2. Disclosure is a practice that attempts to level the playing field for smaller and less funded schools- that's why you see large schools with tons of coaches going completely opensource (like Northwestern) and smaller schools (like Towson) not, it's not due to an attempt to spread misunderstanding so that they can claim this misunderstanding is them being oppressed (which seems a bit conspiracy-ish). Xylum is mostly attended by smaller schools who need that competitive advantage. 

 

Edit: Also you have the exact same rep as posts

 1. thought you were cool

 2.  clicked on your wiki

 3. saw you ran politics.

 4. Feels disgust .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 1. thought you were cool

 2.  clicked on your wiki

 3. saw you ran politics.

 4. Feels disgust .

Haha- that was back in our "disembodied" stage (c'mon it was our first tournament coming out of novice year).

We have never read politics since that tournament I'm pretty sure (I'm absolutely sure not the latter half of the year)

 

We also never went for except this one team just HAD to drop it in the 1AR.

Edited by Miro
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have you looked at the disclosure pages for successful performance teams last semester? Nearly no argumentative disclosure. Compare those pages to the pages of successful policy teams - which are largely open source. The inability to clash due to misunderstanding is an enormous factor in winning - how many threads does this forum have saying "What possible neg is there to X critical position"? 

I think one aspect of this goes back to the size of the program argument, look at a successful policy team (Westminster BG for example) they come from a school with a MASSIVE program (lots of people, high budget, etc.) which means that they can constantly scout other teams and prep heavily w/o much of a time tradeoff means that in order for smaller schools to succeed there usually has to be a certain shadiness. Even when not shady, the successful teams from smaller programs usually are "high theory"/postmodern K teams (Polytechnic AA comes to mind). While i'm not the biggest fan of non-disclosure, for small programs, its usually the only way to even the playing field against large programs.  

I think this argument is pretty infinitely regressive. What makes a small program? Which teams can disclose and which can't? I think the baseline for disclosure from camp should be the same during the year. If you read cards in a debate and someone emails you asking for what you read you should respond with the ev. 

 

This discussion is a distraction from Xylum's disclosure practices, though. Every single reason behind "disclosure good" is justification for sharing, clash, and discussion whether or not one or fifty debaters worked a file. I'm not arguing open source generally - just disclosure of base camp files (which are enough to get the thesis out there but not reveal all the cool twists; net beneficial because it keeps a strategic advantage to them but still permits engagement with the argument by explaining its basis). 

I don't really know if that's true, i mean people run the same K's every year, they just insert a topic/case link and call it a day, which means the only thing you'd really worry about at a K camp is cutting tricks/cool twists, it's not like a policy camp (UMich, GTown, Northwestern,etc.) that puts out some token, topic-specific K, this is just someone cutting Bifo cards for Baudrillard file tricks. 

If kids work with lab leaders and develop a file but don't read it at camp they should be allowed to "break" it out during the year imo.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Resolved to murder" is the most metal first-three-words of a speech ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Resolved to murder" is the most metal first-three-words of a speech ever.

I'm a bit melodramatic at time haha

 

The final version of our Aff isn't up there but it was my favorite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Have you looked at the disclosure pages for successful performance teams last semester? Nearly no argumentative disclosure. Compare those pages to the pages of successful policy teams - which are largely open source. The inability to clash due to misunderstanding is an enormous factor in winning - how many threads does this forum have saying "What possible neg is there to X critical position"? 

I think one aspect of this goes back to the size of the program argument, look at a successful policy team (Westminster BG for example) they come from a school with a MASSIVE program (lots of people, high budget, etc.) which means that they can constantly scout other teams and prep heavily w/o much of a time tradeoff means that in order for smaller schools to succeed there usually has to be a certain shadiness. Even when not shady, the successful teams from smaller programs usually are "high theory"/postmodern K teams (Polytechnic AA comes to mind). While i'm not the biggest fan of non-disclosure, for small programs, its usually the only way to even the playing field against large programs.  

I think this argument is pretty infinitely regressive. What makes a small program? Which teams can disclose and which can't? I think the baseline for disclosure from camp should be the same during the year. If you read cards in a debate and someone emails you asking for what you read you should respond with the ev. 

Not really, a small program would be a program with few debaters, likely fund their own trips, has a limited coaching staff (like 1 coach.) and zero/minimal access to databases (like LexisNexis, MUSE, etc.). It's not that a small team can't disclose, it's because large programs have a structural advantage(coaching, large squads, databases,etc.), small teams try to even the playing field by not posting things on wikis. In many cases, if you ask whatever team you're about to hit about affs/2nrs, they'll tell you, some even give out cites. If you email these teams, in many cases, they'll send you the card (whether the cite or opensource depends). 

 

 

This discussion is a distraction from Xylum's disclosure practices, though. Every single reason behind "disclosure good" is justification for sharing, clash, and discussion whether or not one or fifty debaters worked a file. I'm not arguing open source generally - just disclosure of base camp files (which are enough to get the thesis out there but not reveal all the cool twists; net beneficial because it keeps a strategic advantage to them but still permits engagement with the argument by explaining its basis). 

I don't really know if that's true, i mean people run the same K's every year, they just insert a topic/case link and call it a day, which means the only thing you'd really worry about at a K camp is cutting tricks/cool twists, it's not like a policy camp (UMich, GTown, Northwestern,etc.) that puts out some token, topic-specific K, this is just someone cutting Bifo cards for Baudrillard file tricks. 

If kids work with lab leaders and develop a file but don't read it at camp they should be allowed to "break" it out during the year imo.

In a lot of cases, this is what people do anyway, IME. 

 

 

Quick question, if a team has a wiki that remains constantly updated, but they only post cites and those cites don't have tags, is that ethical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, if a team has a wiki that remains constantly updated, but they only post cites and those cites don't have tags, is that ethical?

Not if they should otherwise be subject to disclosure norms; if you're arguing that they should qualify for the small schools exemption, maybe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, if a team has a wiki that remains constantly updated, but they only post cites and those cites don't have tags, is that ethical?

"small teams try to even the playing field by not posting things on wikis. "

I think this approach is bad. Are the only big schools Westminster and Pace? Like if you're not a big private school then you don't disclose? The advantage of not putting stuff on the wiki is prob bad because it prioritizes the W over the debate. Other teams having a shit ton of coaches is inevitable. If a team has a lot of coaches putting out a lot of files you should be prepared to beat even the best arg. obviously quality>quantity determines because even the richest kids can get spread out. Westminster kids will have 2 coaches putting out a neg to your aff but their best arg could be the same as a small school's best arg. 

What about small schools who debate small schools. Is nobody being prepared a good thing??

 

Edit: sorry to answer the part i quoted. In my opinion cites should be like this and if someone emails you asking for a full text you should give.

a.) Interpretation: Substantial means at least 50% change

UNEP 02 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2002, “Global Environment Outlook 3”, Ch. 4, pg. 398,  http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/584.htm, accessed 7/4/14, BCG)

 

Change in selected...are recorded separately.

 

I'm not calling anyone out lol

Edited by ethank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: sorry to answer the part i quoted. In my opinion cites should be like this and if someone emails you asking for a full text you should give.

a.) Interpretation: Substantial means at least 50% change

UNEP 02 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2002, “Global Environment Outlook 3”, Ch. 4, pg. 398,  http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/584.htm, accessed 7/4/14, BCG)

 

Change in selected...are recorded separately.

See I really don't like this model. I mean.. T-Substantially? Really?

 

But in all seriousness, I think if you don't disclose as much you're more likely to be debating against the debaters than their coaches.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"small teams try to even the playing field by not posting things on wikis. "

I think this approach is bad. Are the only big schools Westminster and Pace? Like if you're not a big private school then you don't disclose? The advantage of not putting stuff on the wiki is prob bad because it prioritizes the W over the debate. Other teams having a shit ton of coaches is inevitable. If a team has a lot of coaches putting out a lot of files you should be prepared to beat even the best arg. obviously quality>quantity determines because even the richest kids can get spread out. Westminster kids will have 2 coaches putting out a neg to your aff but their best arg could be the same as a small school's best arg. 

What about small schools who debate small schools. Is nobody being prepared a good thing??

 

Edit: sorry to answer the part i quoted. In my opinion cites should be like this and if someone emails you asking for a full text you should give.

a.) Interpretation: Substantial means at least 50% change

UNEP 02 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2002, “Global Environment Outlook 3”, Ch. 4, pg. 398,  http://www.unep.org/geo/geo3/english/584.htm, accessed 7/4/14, BCG)

 

Change in selected...are recorded separately.

 

I'm not calling anyone out lol

1. Thanks for answering my question

2. No, the only big schools aren't Westminster and Pace, they're just examples. 

3. The problem with having a shit ton of people prep you out w/o something reciprocal then in most cases, small schools will lose. 

4. Saying that out-spreading the rich kids solves my main point is wrong, because a.) 1 good/great card > 1,000 shitty ones and b.) that's way too much of a burden on small schools. Essentially that arg boils down to "well if you become the fastest debater out there, you're fine" do you know how hard it would be to just become insanely fast especially on short notice? That would be near impossible for almost everyone. 

5. Not necessarily true, even at the TOC finals i forgot who the judge was but they seriously said something along the lines of "...i know how hard it is for small schools to find great cards..." if your access to new/solid articles/books is limited to Google, while the other team can access legitimate databases (lexisNexis, Muse,etc.) there's probably going to be a gap in ev quality  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Thanks for answering my question

2. No, the only big schools aren't Westminster and Pace, they're just examples. 

that arg isn't that there are a lot/few small schools. It's that there's no brightline between big school and small school. If one team doesn't disclose bc size then the next smallest so on until no one discloses. I hate to say it but it's not what you do it's what you justify

3. The problem with having a shit ton of people prep you out w/o something reciprocal then in most cases, small schools will lose. 

i don't get it prob answered in 4.

4. Saying that out-spreading the rich kids solves my main point is wrong, because a.) 1 good/great card > 1,000 shitty ones and b.) that's way too much of a burden on small schools. Essentially that arg boils down to "well if you become the fastest debater out there, you're fine" do you know how hard it would be to just become insanely fast especially on short notice? That would be near impossible for almost everyone. 

I'm not saying small schools should get faster. I'm saying that these people will get more args (and possibly better ev [5]) but the quality of all possible arguments stays about the same. If a small school reads a heg aff big and small schools will respond with heg bad. With 3 personal coaches you might get a lot of args but you can cut the best arg without 3. At  best having a lot of coaches just gives a team more args to read, yes the more args a team has the more you have to respond to but the greatest threat could be the CP that everyone has. 

5. Not necessarily true, even at the TOC finals i forgot who the judge was but they seriously said something along the lines of "...i know how hard it is for small schools to find great cards..." if your access to new/solid articles/books is limited to Google, while the other team can access legitimate databases (lexisNexis, Muse,etc.) there's probably going to be a gap in ev quality  

I agree that the more people on a team/ greater the budget the greater chance you can get an article. I think asking for solves and that it shouldn't affect disclosure practices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Thanks for answering my question

2. No, the only big schools aren't Westminster and Pace, they're just examples. 

that arg isn't that there are a lot/few small schools. It's that there's no brightline between big school and small school. If one team doesn't disclose bc size then the next smallest so on until no one discloses. I hate to say it but it's not what you do it's what you justify

But there is a brightline (lots of coaches, huge squad, databases,etc.). 

 

3. The problem with having a shit ton of people prep you out w/o something reciprocal then in most cases, small schools will lose. 

i don't get it prob answered in 4.

4. Saying that out-spreading the rich kids solves my main point is wrong, because a.) 1 good/great card > 1,000 shitty ones and b.) that's way too much of a burden on small schools. Essentially that arg boils down to "well if you become the fastest debater out there, you're fine" do you know how hard it would be to just become insanely fast especially on short notice? That would be near impossible for almost everyone. 

I'm not saying small schools should get faster. I'm saying that these people will get more args (and possibly better ev [5]) but the quality of all possible arguments stays about the same. If a small school reads a heg aff big and small schools will respond with heg bad. With 3 personal coaches you might get a lot of args but you can cut the best arg without 3. At  best having a lot of coaches just gives a team more args to read, yes the more args a team has the more you have to respond to but the greatest threat could be the CP that everyone has. 

A. Sure, the truth value of an argument may be the same, but not necessarily ev quality. B. False equivalence, we're not talking heg affs, we're talking some kritikal position has nuances, pretty much all heg affs have the same point. C. You can't necessarily cut the same arg as a large school (coaches, databases, etc.) D. Sure, the CP could be a threat but if everyone has it then you should know about and then you can either prep accordingly, switch affs or continue to lose. 

 

5. Not necessarily true, even at the TOC finals i forgot who the judge was but they seriously said something along the lines of "...i know how hard it is for small schools to find great cards..." if your access to new/solid articles/books is limited to Google, while the other team can access legitimate databases (lexisNexis, Muse,etc.) there's probably going to be a gap in ev quality  

I agree that the more people on a team/ greater the budget the greater chance you can get an article. I think asking for solves and that it shouldn't affect disclosure practices. 

IMO it depends on how far out the tournament is, who's asking, the type of aff i run and whether you need cites or full text.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fyi to all the small schools out there -- disclosure helps your rep. your judges also work as coaches who keep up to date on the wiki - if you show that you're cutting original and good arguments then they will come into rounds expecting you to be better. obviously rep shouldn't factor into judging ethically, but it does, and you might as well use it to your advantage.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fyi to all the small schools out there -- disclosure helps your rep. your judges also work as coaches who keep up to date on the wiki - if you show that you're cutting original and good arguments then they will come into rounds expecting you to be better. obviously rep shouldn't factor into judging ethically, but it does, and you might as well use it to your advantage.

This is true and another thing i've noticed is that teams with a good wiki are usually feared, even if they aren't that good. At a couple tournaments I've heard people who are virtually scared shitless of teams with a well-maintained wiki, even though the team was so-so at best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...