Disclosure Shells

First 3/Last 3
A. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all previously read positions before the
debate on their NDCA wiki page under their own name with full citations, tags, and
first three/last three words.
B. Violation: You didn’t - I have screenshots
C. Standards:
1. Evidence Quality – Disclosure generates an information database that encourages
debaters to find the best evidence on the topic. Key to education since we have better
debates with better arguments.
Nails 13 [(Jacob, NDT Policy Debater at Georgia State University), “A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third Party Disclosure)”,NSDUpdate,10/10/2013EM]
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.

2. Quality engagement --- disclosure allows in-depth preparation before the round
which checks back against unpredictable positions and allows debaters to effectively
write case negs and blocks. Not just in the context of this round, but for rounds in
general. Quality engagement is an independent voter because the constitutive reason
we debate is to engage and clash our arguments otherwise we would just be doing
oratory. It’s also key to fairness since I need to have prep to win. This means vote on
inclusion since debaters of lower skill level can have a chance to engage with better
debaters which makes debate less centered towards those with larger coaching staffs.
3. Academic Ethics --- disclosure deters mis-cutting, power-tagging, abuse of brackets
and ellipses, and plagiarism. This is an independent reason to vote you down because
it promotes better norms about academic engagement---debate is an academic
environment and must ensure that we become fair scholars. Even if you don’t lose on
fairness in the round, you will lose in college if you violate academic ethics which
establish a crucial real-world norm, and outweighs any in-round impact.
Framing: You can’t coopt any of the reasons why procedurals are bad in the context of
the affirmative since I don’t constrain your ability to read it– the contention is that this
aff should’ve been read, just disclosed. Also, your prep outs argument is nonsense a)
prep outs are a 2 way street b) they’re good as per the shell c) being a good debater
solves back.
 Open Source
Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with
highlighting on the 2019-20 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them.
Violation – screenshots in the doc prove I do and they don’t
1] Debate resource inequities—you’ll say people will steal cards, but that’s good—it’s
the only way to truly level the playing field for students such as novices in under-
privileged programs.
Antonucci 05 [Michael (Debate coach for Georgetown; former coach for Lexington High School);
“[eDebate] open source? resp to Morris”; December 8;
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-December/064806.html //]

a. Open source systems are preferable to the various punishment proposals in circulation. It's better to
share the wealth than limit production or participation. Various flavors of argument communism appeal
to different people, but banning interesting or useful research(ers) seems like the most destructive
solution possible. Indeed, open systems may be the only structural, rule-based answer to resource
inequities. Every other proposal I've seen obviously fails at the level of enforcement. Revenue sharing
(illegal), salary caps (unenforceable and possibly illegal) and personnel restrictions (circumvented faster
than you can say 'information is fungible') don't work. This would - for better or worse. b. With the help
of a middling competent archivist, an open source system would reduce entry barriers. This is especially
true on the novice or JV level. Young teams could plausibly subsist entirely on a diet of scavenged
arguments. A novice team might not wish to do so, but the option can't hurt. c. An open source system
would fundamentally change the evidence economy without targeting anyone or putting anyone out of
a job. It seems much smarter (and less bilious) to change the value of a professional card-cutter's work
than send the KGB after specific counter-revolutionary teams.

Open source does equal the playing field

Overing 18 – Bob Overing, LD Scholar (“Holiday Disclosure Post #6 – 10 Things Edition” JANUARY 12,
2018. http://www.premierdebate.com/disclosure-post-6/)

Open source improves on usual disclosure practices in the obvious way – you can read
their evidence for better preparation – and in a number of smaller ways too. It solves the
analytics problem I discussed above, so round-altering uncarded arguments are available
(though this doesn’t really apply to Harvard-Westlake), and it gives access to evidence from
paywalled articles. Every season I coach debaters who lack access to major databases;
for schools without robust online library offerings or teams without college coaches,
this matters a lot.
2] Evidence ethics – open source is the only way to verify pre-round that cards aren’t
miscut or highlighted or bracketed unethically. That’s a voter – maintaining ethical ev
practices is key to being good academics and we should be able to verify you didn’t
cheat
3] Depth of clash – it allows debaters to have nuanced researched objections to their
opponents evidence before the round at a much faster rate, which leads to higher
quality ev comparison – outweighs cause thinking on your feet is NUQ but the best
quality responses come from full access to a case.
 Round Reports
Interp: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2019-20 NDCA LD wiki for every
round they have debated this season. Round reports disclose which positions (AC, NC,
K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech.
Violation: screenshot in the doc – they have one
Standards:
1] Level Playing Field – big schools can go around and scout and collect flows but
independents are left in the dark so round reports are key to prep- they give you an
idea of overall what layers debaters like going for so you can best prepare your
strategy when you hit them. Accessibility first and independent voter – it’s an impact
multiplier
2] Strategy Education – round reports help novices understand the context in which
positions are read by good debaters and help with brainstorming potential 1NCs vs
affs – helps compensate for kids who can’t afford coaches to prep out affs.
 See OS Bad
A. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions in cite boxes on the
2019-20 NDCA LD wiki. To clarify, they can’t say check open source.
Debatecoaches no date

Violation: see the screenshot in the doc

Standards:
1] Pre-round prep: prep becomes atrocious when you make people sift through 20
word docs to figure out which links you’re reading and which impacts to prep.
Discourages tricks—you can just hide a bunch of blippy arguments. Also key for
inclusion since disadvantaged people have computers more prone to lag and even 3 or
4 can crash the program for them—outweighs accessibility is a multiplier for their
impacts. Disclosing in cite boxes solves—people can quickly get a summary of your
position and go to open source if they need more information
2] wiki rules—the wiki tells you to disclose like everyone else. Freeloading is bad and
o/w—it cultivates passive citizenship and turns any hope of actually solving their
impacts which is a voter for education.
 Full Text Bad
A. Interpretation: If debaters disclose full text, they must not post the full text of the
cards in the cite box, but must upload an open source document with the full text of
their cards. To clarify, you don’t have to disclose highlighting or underlining, you just
need an open source document with minimally the full, un-underlined text of cards

B. Violation: screenshots
C. Standards
1. Pre-round prep: prep becomes atrocious when you don’t make your tags bold and
just throw up massive amounts of text on the wiki page which makes it nearly
impossible to locate certain arguments.
Discourages tricks—you can just hide a bunch of blippy arguments in your massive
amounts of useless text which is prevented if tags are easy to sort out and you’re
more up front about your arguments.
Their model is awful because it’s extremely difficult to determine when a position
stops and starts.
Also key for disability inclusion because people with dyslexia struggle to read through
long blocks of text—outweighs accessibility is a multiplier for their impacts
Key to education since we aren’t able to engage your arguments properly since you’ve
intentionally made your wiki page a mess.
2. NDCA rules: see the screenshot – checks reasonability since its predictable