Summary

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

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[0]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-17 18:52:26.172
	1	+2016-09-17 18:52:26.0

Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
	1	+A. Interpretation debaters must disclose at least the full cites and first and last few words of every card in all positions at least 30 minutes before round either in person or on the wiki.
	2	+B. Violation, it’s not there, I checked and you can too. I also Had a conversation verifiable by Whitley Perryman where I asked what the aff was generally and she refused to tell me. Also sprit of the interp over text of the interp theory sets a president for each round, it isn’t a literal rule that gets written.
	3	+C. Are the standards
	4	+D. 1. Research: Disclosure creates an incentive to do deeper research, since debaters learn the stock arguments. Nails 13
	5	+`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. 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.
	6	+3. Academic honesty: Disclosure de-incentivizes miscutting since others will recut your ev. That outweighs since it retains activity’s integrity. Also outweighs since it affects us outside of debate if we don’t respect honesty we wont later on.
	7	+4. Clash: Allows me to pull up correct documents pre round and make more responsive arguments against the AC since I'll have time to understand it.
	8	+AND Voters education is a voter because schools house and fund debate and education comes first because it is the only skill we can take once we leave debate. And Fairness matters too since it keeps people within the academia- its not fair if one debater starts out with an advantage
	9	+
	10	+Drop the debater because
	11	+1. The entire round was skewed and we can't get that education back
	12	+2. It’s the only option; the argument would be the whole AC so they would functionally lose there.
	13	+
	14	+Evaluate with competing interpretations, otherwise theory becomes arbitrary, and impossible to adjudicate
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+Don’t give aff RVIs on anything. 1. It is illogical to let them win for being fair. 2. It disincentives people to stop cheating, making it open season for debater to do whatever they want. 3. This is a short Theory shell, they can respond to it with plenty of time. 4.Frivilous T isn't a thing since if it was frivilous they could make a counter interp and be out in 20 seconds. 5. They can still make arguments about precluding theory. 6. I am still debating for the most part substance so this is not abusive. 7. They can just argue for drop the arg if they wants. 8. They can run counter theory and gain offense on this level that way.
	18	+
	19	+AND ANYTHING I READ THAT WASN'T DISCLOSED WAS ONLY NOT DISCLSOED BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IT WOULD BE RELEVANT- THIS MEANS THE SHELL GOES 1 WAY THEM NOT DISCLOSING FORCES ME TO NOT MEET THE SHELL. ALSO IVE DISCLOSED ALL BROKEN POSITIONS.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-17 18:52:28.303

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+chris Taylor

Opponent

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

ParentRound

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

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Palo Alto Neg

Title

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

Tournament

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