To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
a2 disclosure
Tournament: bus gc | Round: Finals | Opponent: genshin fans aryan | Judge: me AT Disclosure Counter Interp Can’t Force Disclosure Interp: If debaters run a disclosure theory shell, then the tournament must have a disclosure policy on new affs. If it does not, then a debater may not run theory on another for not disclosing new affs.
Standards
Competitive equity – allowing in-round theory debates on disclosure privileges good theory debaters. They don’t have to put up cases because they know they can beat back the disclosure good shell, but inexperienced or bad debaters will be more pressured to disclose because they can’t beat the shell. The good theory debaters get a competitive edges due to less prep outs of their cases, less people know them. This is unfair because certain debaters are advantaged over others due to events happening in other rounds they have no control over – increased aggregate impact to fairness, which outweighs their minor skews. Tournament rules solve because everyone either must or must not disclose, even good theory debaters. 2. Small schools: empirically in college and high school policy small schools have been pushed out because of disclosure. If everyone discloses everything then only schools with good coaching staffs or large teams have the time to prep anything. Small schools could theoretically prep everything, but in practice that only happens for a few special cases, and most of the time they just lose without a chance. Non-disclosure practices help schools who don’t have time to prep everybody or write five affs, who can use surprise to gain an advantage. That’s the biggest impact, a) it systematically drives debaters from the activity, decreasing participation in debate which is a prerequisite to their impacts by meaningless can enjoy it, and b) it’s the biggest fairness impact since people can overcome most small skews by getting faster, but this puts opponents at an edge so huge drills can’t solve it. Team Disclosed Counter-interp: Converse of your interp if my teammates disclosed a similar off on the wiki. Solves the TERMINAL IMPACT of your abuse - lake highland is a big team, if you prep out lake highland, you prep out my aff. Net benefit: 1 - creative thinking - disclosure creates a CULTURE where debaters can only negate if they know what AFF is, outweighs: (A) scope - as a general norm it’ll spill over to the entirety of debate (B) turns engagement - their interp kills legitimate engagement where debaters think on their feet. AT Standards Academic Integrity
No link to me – only an impact if you win I’m academically dishonest. And, no reason people are dishonest in the community, that’s unwarranted. 2. Doesn’t solve – don’t have enough time between rounds to cite track every card, and people could just read a different miscut card in the next debate and so on. 3. Squo solves – people get cites from others and rewrite cases they think are good anyway. And, people in the community crack down hard, for instance Cherian lost his job, so people would be deterred from being dishonest so solves nothing. 4. No impact – I wouldn’t do it in academia or in classes anyway, the impact only happens because of a spillover or since it impacts other practices I do, but that doesn’t happen. And, empirially confirmed: disclosure hasn’t existed for 30 years and no one’s been caught academically cheating in college or job and be kicked out. Excludes Small Schools
Creates harsher conditions for small schools by advantaging people with more coaches at tournaments. With more coaches, debaters can better use the wiki before round to gain advice on how to beat back cases. 2. No solvency – we don't know if small school debaters know about the wiki 3. The wiki makes it harder for small school debaters because big schools win from just having tons of prep. Small school debaters need to be more creative to win against a team with more prep. However, the wiki disincentivizes any creativity and makes the round just about who can prep better. Reciprocity
Everyone can just not disclose 2. I still meet this – you can prep out my plan text – still reciprocal 3. You can never ensure complete reciprocity i.e people with more coaches are going to higher the playing field for certain debaters Clash
Non unique to me – you can prep disads to my plan text that is disclosed. You don't need the cites for the tags in order to get clash 2. Either way people are going to use blocks so this is non unique 3. It is better if you think of responses on the spot rather than prepping it out. The net benefit is critical thinking – we get the best critical thinking if we both think of arguments on the spot. Predictability
I am just as predictable because I disclose plan texts. 2. Being predictable is bad because then you think less on your feet. 3. No bright line for what is or is not predictable. Norms Creation
I prove how this is a bad norm for debate – that's the impartiality shell 2. This arg is reliant on evidence ethics – all I have to do is win that standard first. Violation
Its not in your jurisdiction as a judge to vote on out of round violations. You have no clue whether I actually violated the shell without looking up online to see whether I violated interps. This means there is no violation. Otherwise it justifies the principle that I could lose for something I read in other rounds or a couple years ago. 2. If that’s false and you have out of round jurisdiction, then look up his wiki, I guarantee that his disclosure shell and case arent fully disclosed to the requirements he demands. At the very least, he doesn't solve the abuse because his disclosure shell didn't have any standards disclosed online. And, all analytic arguments in his case arent disclosed so I couldn't predict them Meta Theory Interpretation: Debaters MUST disclose their disclosure interpretations. Violation - your disclosure intern is not disclosed. Co-opts and impacts to norm-setting - if you want disclosure to proliferate, people should know the conventions of what your disclosure entails. Norm setting outweighs: (A) it means they can’t leverage their interp, even if disclosure is good, we should make sure your approach to it is the norm established (B) norm-setting is a meta-framing principle on ALL theory itnerps since competing interns itself begs the question of how we proliferate norms in a good way. Meta theory comes first - it’s theory on your theory, which excludes your ability to go for your shell similar to how theory excludes substance.