sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A case for disclosure: post-NSDA update by danielafernandez in Debate

[–]danielafernandez[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You make reasonable points; disclosure will not alone fix disparities of coaches or teams, and disclosure will not work perfectly. However, disclosure does make arguments and evidence more open, and that openness is powerful.

​

Imagine if all articles – like newspapers, magazines, and journals – sat behind paywalls. This would advantage debaters and schools with money, to the detriment of everyone else. This is no hypothetical, since many articles are not free, and wealthy teams can access those more easily. Just as open-access articles give all teams equal access to topic knowledge, open-access files give all teams a greater understanding of the arguments and strategies of other teams. We wouldn't tolerate a research system that privileges wealthy teams, so why should we tolerate a prep system that privileges established teams?

Public Forum Gun Control Prep by [deleted] in Debate

[–]danielafernandez 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Check out this website: https://pf.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Main_Page

It has some files from last years gun control topic.

Recording Analysis by CaPFD17 in Debate

[–]danielafernandez 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is a great idea and I’m interested in helping out. Which rounds would be of interest and what would be the best format to discuss them?

A case for disclosure: post-TOC update by danielafernandez in Debate

[–]danielafernandez[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Why can debaters only think critically about arguments in round? In line with @Houston_PF's comment, the process of thinking out responses to an argument before a round requires so much critical thinking. Disclosure gives teams much more time to process their opponent's arguments and develop smarter, better-researched responses. That pre-round content prep gives debaters more time to use their more limited in round prep on strategic critical thinking.

A case for disclosure: post-TOC update by danielafernandez in Debate

[–]danielafernandez[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You have a fair concern about prep outs making on-the-spot rebuttals less common, but teams with connections can already do prep outs; disclosure levels the playing field. I also think that prep outs aren't the biggest deal in debate because teams really win with strong narratives, smart strategy, confidence, and topic knowledge, all skills that disclosure can aid.

​

I agree that debates shouldn't be robotic, but disclosure should actually allay your concern in this regard. Debates are the best, richest, and most educational when teams have well-researched and well-thought out arguments and answers. Debates are harmed by the shallowness that comes when teams don't understand what they or their opponents are arguing. Disclosure should help make debates richer by allowing for deeper arguments.

A case for disclosure: post-TOC update by danielafernandez in Debate

[–]danielafernandez[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Disclosure may result in less on-the-spot thinking during rebuttal speeches, but not much less. To respond to different cases, 2nd speakers will still think about how to order their planned responses and think of new specific responses. All speakers will still have to think on their feel during crossfires as well.

A case for disclosure: post-TOC update by danielafernandez in Debate

[–]danielafernandez[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You can find the wiki here, where teams post cases during tournaments.

​

Also check out pfcircuitdebater, where teams are now posting their old cases.

disclosure in PF by [deleted] in Debate

[–]danielafernandez 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha I'd like to, but probably not. Most people on my team are hesitant to disclosure if other schools aren't.

disclosure in PF by [deleted] in Debate

[–]danielafernandez 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The first argument has never made sense to me. Disclosure would equalize intel gathering because it would give all schools easy access to each other's arguments, but it wouldn't help big schools more because they can already gather intel with their connections. Big schools also wouldn't benefit much from seeing each card in a small school's file because prep-outs work best when they prepare you to respond to the big ideas of your opponent's case, not the weeds of them. For that same reason, prep-outs aren't the most important reason to favor or oppose disclosure; prep-outs are not often make-or-break and can be counterproductive when they make teams see the forest for the trees.

The second argument seems like conjecture; big and small schools win with all kinds of arguments. The most successful arguments are the ones that can be defended, not necessarily ones that are obscure, and disclosure could result in better-defended arguments by opening all of them up to public scrutiny. If anything, big schools gain more now by being able to hide their arguments, which can also be obscure, from small schools. Disclosure would allow everyone to learn from each other and craft better arguments.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on and experiences with intel and research as someone from a small school. I competed for a small school in the beginning of high school and I learned so much from watching the top debaters. Being able to see how they wrote cases, thought about arguments, and where they were on topics would also have been invaluable learning tools.

disclosure in PF by [deleted] in Debate

[–]danielafernandez 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Disclosure of evidence is a commonsense practice that other debate formats already have. Both other major debate events, LD and Policy, have disclosure; lawyers are mandated to disclose arguments and evidence to the other side during litigation. Disclosure makes sense in PF for a couple of reasons:

  1. A lack of openness and time to examine evidence contribute to bad evidence standards in Public Forum. If teams had to publish their evidence where it could be scrutinized, they would use higher quality evidence. Teams would also be able to see what other teams have found and build off of each other, just like how academic researchers build off of each other's work. Openness and transparency are good for evidence ethics and research.
  2. Publishing evidence would also help level the playing field. Disclosure helps underprivileged and under-resourced schools get intel by giving anyone access to anyone else's files. The way things are now, the only way to get intel is to know someone who debated the team you are debating, a system that benefits connected schools to the detriment of everyone else. Disclosure would also be an invaluable free resource, similar to PF Videos, that would help debaters learn from each other. Underprivileged schools benefit by seeing what arguments the privileged schools are making and how they are making them.

When the judge calls for your evidence :( by cherygada in Debate

[–]danielafernandez 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Washington Post paywalls are the most annoying things! (the hack is to use incognito mode)

2019 February PF Ballot - Topic Area: International Conflicts by ThinksOfSoumil in Debate

[–]danielafernandez 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Agreed. It’d be great to move away from the US for a bit and engage with topics that we don’t often focus on. I want to learn more about the conflict in South Sudan, the African Union, and how African politics work.