Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[49]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[56]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[49]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-01-09 06:47:25.586
	1	+2017-01-09 06:47:25.0

Caselist.CitesClass[56]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,20 @@
	1	+Interpretation: All debaters must disclose all broken positions on the NDCA LD wiki. The disclosure must include tags, complete citations, including page numbers, and the first 3 and last 3 words from each piece of evidence. The disclosure must occur within 10 hours.
	2	+Violation: Their wiki has over 100 citations disclosed in a single block, with no distinction as to what is and is not in the AC – Only one of the first 15 cards has a page number and 0 of them have any tags.
	3	+Net Benefits.
	4	+1 Quality research: disclosure promotes quality research and in-depth engagement.
	5	+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
	6	+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 advocacies 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.
	7	+That’s key to substantive engagement
	8	+
	9	+Drop the debater:
	10	+1
	11	+2
	12	+
	13	+Competing Interps over Reasonability:
	14	+1
	15	+2
	16	+
	17	+No RVIs:
	18	+1
	19	+2
	20	+3

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-01-09 06:47:31.736

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Tom Evnen

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Valley TG

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+49

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Westwood Shhah Neg

Title

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

Tournament

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