Tournament: 0 | Round: Finals | Opponent: 0 | Judge: 0
A) Is the interpretation
Debaters must disclose all cases they plan on running in a given tournament with all cards for those cases cut on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD Wiki 30 min before round. Disclosure must include tags, and full text of the card.
B) is the violation they did not disclose
C) is standards
1) Inclusion – Two internal links. 1st Intel without disclosure schools with big programs who bring more students and judges and are better connected will scout more rounds and have more flows; disclosure equalizes that intel disparity since everyone knows what people are running, not only big schools. 2nd Research – disclosure forces big, wealthy programs to put their prep on the wiki – that means everyone has access to the best, paywalled evidence, and also keeps smaller programs up-to-date on the meta.
2) Argument quality – Two internal links.
1st Foreknowledge – A world without disclosure rewards debaters for running arguments not because they are good, but because their opponents won't know how to respond. Disclosure forces debaters to commit to quality; under my interpretation, debaters would have to write cases knowing that their opponents will have the opportunity for thoughtful preparation.
2nd Cross-pollination — Debaters can use and modify the best ideas from each other’s wikis, ultimately leading to development of the best version of the argument.
3)Evidence ethics – disclosure allows debaters to check each other’s evidence before the round instead of needing to use prep to do so, meaning it’s easier to find misconstrued evidence misconstruing evidence is academic dishonesty and prevents actual engagement with the literature.
4 reciprocity – I disclose which means you can prep me out and read my cases in other rounds, you should disclose for reciprocity. reciprocity is key to fairness because otherwise one team is disadvantaged competitively.
D) is voters
1st Education – it’s the reason schools find debate and the only portable skill of debate.
2nd Inclusion – it prevents teams from accessing any benefit of debate in the first place.
3rd Evidence ethics – misconstruing evidence is academic dishonesty and prevents actual engagement
with the literature.
Drop the debater – two reasons.
No Difference – It’s the same as dropping the argument since the argument is the entire case that wasn’t disclosed.
Norm-setting – Voting for us sets a precedent in favor of a positive model of debate—wins and losses determine the direction of activity.
competing interps over reasonability :
1`Reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention
Reasonability creates an incentive for debaters to run arguments that are as abusive as possible without crossing a threshold that they themselves established. Reasonability pushes the standard of reasonability down because arguments which are only marginally more unfair than other arguments can be construed as within the limits of reasonability
No RVIs:
RVIs Decrease the ability to check back abuse – RVI’s discourage people from running theory, even when there is real abuse in the round, because people know that if they are worse at theory than their opponent they will lose the round. This creates a disincentive to run theory, as people will fear losing solely because they are worse at the theoretical debate than their opponents.
baiting – RVI’s incentivize being maximally abusive and just prepping out theory, that kills topical discussion, which outweighs because we only have 1 month to debate each topic