Re: Reply to Tuna re regarding disclosure

[asnider@moose.uvm.edu (Alfred C. Snider)]

>I hope this is not your abbreviated defense of propaganda and disinformation.
>There are circumstances in which the absence of information is liberatory.

This is not such a defense. I do not find current case list information to
be propaganda as I define it.

> The current models of disclosure do not constitute "some
>information".

By your definition, I guess. I find them useful and helpful, though far
from adequate. I do not equate "lack of detail" with attempts to deceive. I
find it useful as "some information." I will consult a list if, for no
other reason, to remember who runs which case, and then I have the details
in my head from our previous dealings with it.

> Disclosure
>conceals much more than it reveals. It manipulates and deceives. It is
>_designed_ for false inferences. It is fraudulent speech that is doctrinally
>distinct from information exchange. It is a cliche of openness that represses
>meaningful alternative voices.

I have little confidence in your ability to read the inner motives of all
of those involved in "case lists" and then make a generalization out of
them.

>As noted in my original posting, fragmentary case lists are, at best, the
>equivalent of stark secrecy.

"Stark" may be a little harsh. Total secrecy could be thought of as stark.
Case information in the pre-disclosure days may also be seen as stark.

Otherwise, I agree that meaningful disclosure would involve sharing of plan
texts.

By the way, such a system would be easy to have. Each neg team can just
copy the precise text of the aff plan during prep time for aff rebuttals
and then email it to me and I will post them all on Debate Central.

By the way (yet again), a student on CX-L (HS listserv) was hounded out of
the activity by local coaches and his own coach for posting a case list to
CX-L. He now cannot debate in his senior year. Nice. That, John, is the
kind of system which really deserves your ire and descriptive vigor more so
than our current system. Of course, pointing to another wrong is no
defense, but it does provide an interesting comparison and allows us to be
more accurate in using the term "stark secrecy." But then, this example
might be "brutal secrecy."


Alfred C. Snider AKA Tuna
Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: Box 54225, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:
http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/dc.html
gopher://beluga.uvm.edu
LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION:
http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/ldu.html

---

• Prev by Date: CASE LIST request for certain teams.
• Next by Date: Disclsoure and debate, the 1NC To: ceda-l@cornell.eduDisclosure in debate
• Prev by thread: Reply to Tuna re regarding disclosure
• Next by thread: Reply to West re regarding disclosure
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page