[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Disclsoure and debate, the 1NC To: ceda-l@cornell.eduDisclosure in debate

John Meany believes that status quo disclosure practices are bad.  I 
think he's wrong.

The first argument I will answer is that Disclosure Conceals More 
Than It Reveals:
1. Not Unique - tag lines are cards are the in-round equivalent of 
this harm.  
2. No harm - I can summarize your plan text in one sentence 
"Claremont lets immigrants tell narratives."
    That tells me about as much as your plan text does without the 
wordiness.  It's also more quickly
    decoded by a receiver than is your plan text.
3. Take out - Full plan text still doesn't reveal advantages or 
tricks to the case.  For example: My Oceans
    case was for the U.S. to rejoin UNESCO.  Full plan text wouldn't 
have told you that I claimed 
    rejoining UNESCO ='s a multilateral signal to the tier nuclear 
states who would then join in indefinite
    extension of the NPT thus preventing the prolif advantage we 
talked about for the remaining 5 minutes
    of the 1AC.  
4. Advantages outweight - Okay, so what - I see the words "So-and-so 
is running CVD's".  I type in
   CVD's into lexis and find out it means countervailing duties.  I 
then cut article 1030 of 2200 and
   start writing my liquidity ratio disad.  I don't know what 
advantages they're running, I don't care.  I'm
   just happy I now have something to say when someone starts the 1AC 
with "CVD's Suck" or "CVD's
   are cool".  If I didn't have the case list I'd be scratching my 
head and grabbing my anarchy and T files.

Second argument is: case-list ='s false inferences.
1. Advantages still outweigh.  So I go out and research case X from 3 
angles when they're only running
   it from angle 2: I exercised my scissor cutting skills for an 
extra hour or two.
2. Take out - I'll infer correctly 9 times out of 10 what the "gist" 
of case could be by sitting down
    with my squad and saying "what could this be" and then reading 
the literature.  I have almost
    infinite prep time before a round to sit at school and work as 
opposed to the 10 minutes warning
    I'll have to come up with something.
3. Concede - this is passive information exchange.  But I would 
contend that passive signals that give
    me a vague idea of what something is would be superior to nothing.
  So, I make a wrong assumption
    about a case.  That error is usually corrected when I start 
reading the literature.  At worst I cut
    CVD's good and CVD's bad cards.

Third argument: case list is there to falsely manufacture a sense of 
fairness.
1. True, but only to an extent.  I don't think it's an organized 
agent of social control.  You have some
    really pretty rhetoric on this indict of the "system" but I 
wonder if there are any real world examples
    you could use clarify what you mean by "the case list serves to 
mask the venal competition at the
    core of yet another event.  It hides indifference [sic], 
pettiness [sic], and subjugation [sic], the 
    inescapable [sic], and yet unspoken [sic, sic, sick]."
2. And the harm is... what?  I'm no worse off if I "guess wrong" and 
hear the 1AC except for the
    invested research time.  If EVERYTHING I research about a case is 
wrong I just revert to the
    "back-up" strategy of "shit, what the hell are CVD's?" 10 minutes 
before a round...
3. Correlation but not intention.  I would contend that presumption 
be that the individuals taking the
    time to compile and post case-lists are not doing it for entirely 
self-serving reasons and that, perhaps,
    they really aren't trying to manufacture a false sense of 
fairness but, on the other hand, provide
    a service of some kind back to the activity from which a lot of 
people can benefit.

Fourth argument: case lists aren't pomo. :)
1. Concede - individuals are deprived of choice in representation.  
Bummer.  But has anyone asked to be
    taken off the list?
2. However, I don't think it manipulates the receiver.  It provides 
an object for interpretation.  You still
    have the choice NOT to use the case list.  Big ol' takeout.
3. I don't think misidentification can be so quickly thrown together 
with "manipulation".  I think a better
    way to approach your critique of the system is to 

       1) Try to establish the truth statement (which in this case 
would be 'Case lists don't tell you
            everything about what the case does') and then postulate
           
                  a) Examples which prove (e.g. plan texts are tricky,
 advantages stem from incidental actions,
                    the 'title' on the case list is overly broad)
                  b) The effects of these shortcomings 
(misidentification, incomplete negative research, etc)

       2) Try to establish a theory as to why these shortcomings are 
tolerated.

                  a) Intentional misdirection by the case list 
compilers and suppliers of information?
                  b) A secret plot by Mahoney to force debaters to be 
unprepared, thus sparking a rush
                      of new responses in rebuttals for which he can 
gleefully reduce the semester mean on
                      speaker points he awards.
                  c) A tool of the agents of social control lurking 
everywhere (Matt & Randi aside).
                  d) Simplicity and ease in assembling and 
disseminating (ding-ding, we have a winner)
                  e) Merely a product of the bad memories of debaters 
who haven't stolen UMKC's
                      post-round sheet.
                  f) A combination of d & e as well as a "I don't 
need to contribute to the list, someone will
                     else will tell Tuna or whoever what stuff I 
heard at this tournament).

Now to the plan debate...
1. No brightline: where does disclosure stop?  Just plan?  Just plan 
and the titles of advantages that
    I'm claiming (Ban Nafta, adv 1. Heg)?  Just the plan and the 
advantage tag lines?  Maybe I should 
    throw in my authors names as well... where do we stop?
2. No transition: A transition to "full-plan disclosure" would be 
impeded by 
    a) a desire for debaters to "wait and see someone else do it 
first".
    b) grad ass's and debaters who say "No way are we posting plan on 
the L... but thanks to everyone
        else who has, now we have a competitive edge."
    c) Fear that it might reveal fiat abuse and Kieran and Paul would 
don the Fiat Cop uniform and, after
        a talk with Bear, would figure out they really could could 
back to undergraduate debate.
    d) Damn laziness.

Counterplan
1. Everyone will send in their 1AC's, Extensions evidence, Negative 
front-lines, disads and counterplans.  
    Someone who likes typing all the MPJ stats on the L will enter 
all the information into a computer and
    we'll have a Virtual Nationals.  

Advantage 1: Tuna doesn't have to drive as far
Advantage 2: Korcok will see the info-tech and Mexico really do go 
together.

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