Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[0]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[0]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-10 04:58:34.740
	1	+2016-09-10 04:58:34.0

Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,26 @@
	1	+Interpretation: Debaters who have attended at least 1 bid tournament must disclose all of the positions they have read full text on the 2015-2016 NDCA wiki.
	2	+
	3	+Violation:
	4	+
	5	+Net benefits:
	6	+
	7	+1. Education
	8	+
	9	+a. Evidence Quality – Disclosure creates a public information database which streamlines case writing and encourages debaters to find the best evidence on the topic.
	10	+Nails 13 (Jacob, NDT Policy Debater at Georgia State University), “A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third Party Disclosure)”, NSD Update, 10/10/2013 DD
	11	+I fall squarely on the side of disclosure. I find that the largest advantage of widespread disclosure is the educational value it provides. First, disclosure streamlines research. Rather than every team and every lone wolf researching completely in the dark, the wiki provides a public body of knowledge that everyone can contribute to and build off of. Students can look through the different studies on the topic and choose the best ones on an informed basis without the prohibitively large burden of personally surveying all of the literature. The best arguments are identified and replicated, which is a natural result of an open marketplace of ideas. Quality of evidence increases across the board.
	12	+b. Incentivizes Research – Disclosure allows debaters to craft specific responses to their opponent’s positions which promotes deep discussion.
	13	+Nails 13 (Jacob, NDT Policy Debater at Georgia State University), “A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third Party Disclosure)”, NSD Update, 10/10/2013 DD
	14	+In theory, the increased quality of information could trade off with quantity. If debaters could just look to the wiki for evidence, it might remove the competitive incentive to do one’s own research. Empirically, however, the opposite has been true. In fact, a second advantage of disclosure is that it motivates research. Debaters cannot expect to make it a whole topic with the same stock AC – that is, unless they are continually updating and frontlining it. Likewise, debaters with access to their opponents’ cases can do more targeted and specific research. Students can go to a new level of depth, researching not just the pros and cons of the topic but the specific authors, arguments, and adovcacies employed by other debaters. The incentive to cut author-specific indicts is low if there’s little guarantee that the author will ever be cited in a round but high if one knows that specific schools are using that author in rounds. In this way, disclosure increases incentive to research by altering a student’s cost-benefit analysis so that the time spent researching is more valuable, i.e. more likely to produce useful evidence because it is more directed. In any case, if publicly accessible evidence jeopardized research, backfiles and briefs would have done LD in a long time ago.
	15	+c. Argument Responsibility – Disclosure discourages cheap shot strategies which rely on obfuscation to win rounds.
	16	+Nails 13 (Jacob, NDT Policy Debater at Georgia State University), “A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third Party Disclosure)”, NSD Update, 10/10/2013 DD
	17	+Lastly, and to my mind most significantly, disclosure weeds out anti-educational arguments. I have in mind the sort of theory spikes and underdeveloped analytics whose strategic value comes only from the fact that the time to think of and enunciate responses to them takes longer than the time spent making the arguments themselves. If these arguments were made on a level playing field where each side had equal time to craft answers, they would seldom win rounds, which is a testimony to the real world applicability (or lack thereof) of such strategies. A model in which arguments have to withstand close scrutiny to win rounds creates incentive to find the best arguments on the topic rather than the shadiest. Having transitioned from LD to policy where disclosure is more universal, I can say that debates are more substantive, developed, and responsive when both sides know what they’re getting into prior to the round.
	18	+2. Evidence Ethics – Full text disclosure allows debaters to ensure that evidence has been accurately tagged and cut.
	19	+Tambe and Ghandra 14 (Arjun, ToC Quarterfinalist) and (Akhil, Three time ToC qualifier), “Evidence Ethics in LD Debate: A Proposal by Akhil Ghandra and Arjun Tambe”, VBriefly, 10/24/2014 DD
	20	+First, we think debaters should disclose the full text of their positions on the NDCA wiki. Many articles have already been written on the importance of disclosure, so we won’t repeat those arguments here. However, we think disclosure can help address the issue of miscutting or fabricating evidence since debaters can verify whether a piece of evidence read by their opponent has been cut ethically by reading the article the evidence is cut from. Full text disclosure would also elevate the quality of disclosure. Providing the first and last three words of an article can make it difficult to reconstruct a debater’s case since not everyone has access to all the databases articles may have been accessed from. Full text disclosure expands access to debaters’ evidence.
	21	+
	22	+3. Accessibility
	23	+
	24	+a. Resource Inequality – Full text disclosure puts everyone on an equal playing field by ensuring that debaters with fewer resources can still access evidence cut from expensive online libraries and databases.
	25	+
	26	+b. Prep Burden – Larger schools have the ability to scout more rounds at tournaments by virtue of the fact that they have larger teams and more connections on the circuit. Disclosure solves because it gives everyone access to the same intelligence.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-10 04:58:36.543

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+--

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+--

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+0

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Quads

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+0 - Disclosure Theory

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+--