Tournament: TFA State | Round: 2 | Opponent: Langham Creek Justin Schnitzer | Judge: Ishan Rereddy
Interpretation: Debaters must disclose at least one (1) form of contact info on their page of the NDCA Wiki. This can be any way I can reach them before the round (Facebook, Phone number, Email, Discord, etc).
Violation: you didn’t. Screenshots prove the violation:
Standards-
1 Accessibility – If debaters require accommodations or need you to read trigger warnings there’s no way for them to request that until it’s too late. Kills accessibility because there’s no way to make the round accessible if they can’t ask you to.
2 Pre round prep – Contact info is key to ask for the aff or clarify disclosure. Without the aff I don’t know what the 1nc should be and can’t make one. 4 minutes of prep is not enough prep to put together a good 1NC to test the aff. Key to education because we won’t get clash. Also key to fairness because big schools have the connections to get the affs people read but small schools and independent debaters don’t.
Voters:
1 Education is a voter else schools don’t fund debate.
2 Fairness is a voter else we have no incentive to do debate
3 Accessibility is a voter and comes first since rejecting it is morally abhorrent and it’s a prereq to debate
Drop the debater
1 Rectify time spent on theory
2 Deter future abuse
3 DTA is incoherent I don’t indict their argument I indict their form
Prefer Competing interps
1 Reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention
2 Reasonability creates a race to the bottom where people try to find out how abusive they can be
3 Competing interps creates a race to the top where we try to create the best norms
No RVIs
1 Illogical – you shouldn’t win for being fair – it’s a litmus test for engaging in substance
2 chills abuse checking
3 Incentivizes people to be abusive to bait theory then win the RVI