Tournament: all | Round: 2 | Opponent: all | Judge: no
Interp: All debaters must disclose all broken positions on the NDCA LD wiki. The disclosure must include tags, analytics, complete citations, including page numbers, and the full text from each piece of evidence. The disclosure must occur within 30 minutes of the start of the round.
Violation: screenshots in the doc – they went to UK a bid tournament but haven't disclose affs
Quality research: disclosure promotes quality research and in-depth engagement.
Nails 13. Jacob Nails debated on the high school LD national circuit and now debates for Georgia State University, 10-10-2013, "A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third-Party Disclosure) by Jacob Nails," NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2013/10/10/a-defense-of-disclosure-including-third-party-disclosure-by-jacob-nails/ RS
I fall squarely on the side of disclosure. I find that the largest advantage
AND
, backfiles and briefs would have done LD in a long time ago.
Clash – disclosing solves predictability and allows debaters to prep for arguments before tournaments. Means, 1NC and 1AR blocks will become better because debaters can more easily form a coherent strategy. Strategy outweighs because it allows for in-depth argumentation and coherent rebuttals. Even if it's a new aff disclosure ensures a) you are actually reading a new aff b) helps use see what kind of debater you are. Key to education because it creates better argumentation.
Voter:
Education – only portable impact we can from debate and reason why schools fund
.
Drop the debater
Doesn't make sense because you were abusive out of round.
Sets a precedent
Competing interps
Reasonability causes a race to the bottom because debaters keep being barely reasonable, magnifying abuse.
No RVIs
RVIs center the debate on theory instead of substance because it's the only place the round can be decided.