[eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?

JP Lacy lacyjp
Thu Jan 22 00:42:16 CST 2009


I think the basic rule "disclose what you would expect on the other 
side" works.

Avoid disclosure you would be frustrated with & we'll all be fine.

There are many circumstances where an affirmative is rightly "in flux" 
until the 1ac begins. I don't want disclosure to limit the potential for 
evolution. Last minute changes during pre round prep, or during the 1ac 
are part of that evolution. Debaters should adapt to the situation at 
hand. If a 1ac spikes out of your best strategy, you should be ready to 
beat them on that "spike." Anticipate and prepare for changes.

Honestly, I take all pre-coinflip disclosure with a grain of salt. I 
don't expect the aff to read the plan text they disclose. I expect them 
to think a move or two ahead to avoid the latest, best negative 
strategy. They should do that if you think debate is about finding the 
best ideas.

If you aren't prepared for plan changes, then you're doing it wrong.

I won't get into cosmetic plan changes except to say that debaters 
should be prepared to re-write important counterplans during a debate.

The best argument evolution happens during debates, not during the 
pre-round prep.

--JP







Paul Johnson wrote:
> Also, on a related note:
>
> can we make it a sort of community norm that you not just change the plan in a cosmetic, immaterial way just so you can say "new plan" before a debate? we have no way to enforce this, of course. but its just a dick move, and pretty much bush league. so how about we not do it? 
>
> Thanks,
> Paul Johnson
>
>
> --- On Wed, 1/21/09, Richard A. Garner <richardgarner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> From: Richard A. Garner <richardgarner at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?
>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 9:28 PM
>> 1. You can only hedge in very narrow situations, i.e., if
>> it's the loser's
>> choice (we'll go negative if you run your X aff or
>> we'll go aff. and run a
>> new aff.) ... maybe; subject to #2.
>>
>> 2. You have to say new aff or specify old aff (and which,
>> plan, advantages,
>> etc) before the flip; a team needs to prep new aff
>> strategies, generally,
>> and a team you're flipping against (i.e., in an
>> elimination round) probably
>> requires you to prep for their old aff, too, anyway. If you
>> call new aff.,
>> you have to run one.
>>
>> 3a. If someone on your team has run the same commodity, but
>> its a
>> substantially different aff. (substantially = 90%; here,
>> that 10% percent
>> might be 'fish prices low'), then "new
>> aff" is fine...maybe.
>> 3b. If its mostly different, but not totally, tough call. I
>> say, "Fish with
>> Japanese relations old advantage, the rest is new".
>> People specify that
>> someone on the team has run an aff because it's new to
>> them, but they sort
>> of deserve to break it as a "new aff" if it's
>> _their_ new version/research.
>> 3c. Last year Harvard had a new aff at the NDT which
>> consisted of a new plan
>> text, and a new advantage. The country was still Iran, with
>> one (two?) new
>> advantages stemming from the new plan text, and one (two?)
>> old advantages
>> that the new plan still solved. Disclosure was "new
>> aff, still Iran, still
>> proliferation, the rest is new," or something like
>> that.
>> 3d. When the topic writes the plan text, new advantages or
>> plan changes are
>> essentially new affs. The conception of what a "new
>> aff" is seems to have
>> been outpaced by events. However, it's still a new aff
>> for that team even if
>> someone else has run it somewhere else (so, wheat is still
>> a new aff. to
>> everyone else in the country except UNT and whoever else
>> has run it).
>>
>> RG
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Kris Willis
>> <kristopherwillis at hotmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>  We found ourselves in this situation recently. We
>>>       
>> initially said we had
>>     
>>> both a new and existing aff we could read, lost the
>>>       
>> toss, and then decided
>>     
>>> to read the current (Not New One) and disclosed.
>>> My preference would be a community that doesn't
>>>       
>> have to disclose the "new
>>     
>>> aff" but one that would at least commit to
>>>       
>> reading a new or existing one.
>>     
>>> My one recognition would be that if we were the
>>>       
>> negative, we would prep the
>>     
>>> old aff anyway so it might not make much difference.
>>> But I would prefer that one team not have potentially
>>>       
>> even more leverage in
>>     
>>> a flip situation or dare I say, even fake a new
>>>       
>> affirmative to try and get
>>     
>>> the other team to chose to read their own affirmative.
>>> Kris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> From: debate at ou.edu
>>>> To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>>>> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:56:15 -0600
>>>> Subject: [eDebate] New Aff? Pre round disclosure?
>>>>
>>>> I have a question and trying to find a community
>>>>         
>> opinion.
>>     
>>>> If one team wins the toss, how should these
>>>>         
>> scenarios play out.
>>     
>>>> Do you have to commit to an affirmative before
>>>>         
>> the other team chooses
>>     
>>> negative?
>>>       
>>>> Is it okay to say
>>>>
>>>> We could run a new aff or an old aff.
>>>>
>>>> or do you have to say the exact affirmative you
>>>>         
>> would run?
>>     
>>>>
>>>> The key question, do you have to commit to a
>>>>         
>> specific affirmative before
>>     
>>> the other team chooses their side? Does that take away
>>>       
>> the reciprocity the
>>     
>>> team stuck with aff would have in relation to the coin
>>>       
>> toss?
>>     
>>>> peace
>>>>
>>>> jackie
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> eDebate mailing list
>>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>>         
>>> ------------------------------
>>> Windows Live? Hotmail(R):?more than just e-mail.
>>>       
>> Check it
>> out.<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009>
>>     
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> eDebate mailing list
>>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>     
>
>
>       
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
>   




More information about the Mailman mailing list