TOC Disclosure Prison (Bob Overing)

A Modest Proposal

It is a melancholy object to those who who walk through the halls of the University of Kentucky, when they see the rooms, the floors, and doorways, crowded with debaters refusing to disclose their cases, followed by three, four, or six debaters importuning every passenger for citations. These debaters, instead of being able to find evidence and work for honest strategies against newly affirmatives, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg friends or judges for their flows: some fortunate to rely on a large network, or else as many small schools grow up, turn to thieves for want of evidence, or otherwise make debate rounds hinge on non-skill factors.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious dearth of open sourced evidence is in the present deplorable state of debate a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, educational, and easy method of making evidence more accessible would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of debate.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for my own statuary, or only for the so-called creatively thinking negative; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole of the debate kingdom to create deep research skills and substantial topic education for those who demand it.

I have been assured by a very knowing Oxonian and former debater of my acquaintance, that the benefits of disclosure are so inestimable as to be unassailable, even by the few dastardly holdouts. For his wit and wisdom in this matter I owe a debt of gratitude.

The number of souls at the TOC being usually reckoned eighty, of these I calculate there may be about twenty who open source evidence and thus sixty who disclose lamentably; from which number I subtract fifteen debaters who disclose full-text exactly those positions they read, although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of debate; but this being granted, there will remain forty-five who do not yet disclose enough. I again subtract thirty-five for those who disclose tags with cites and first-three-last-three, or who disclose some such combination of these. There only remain ten debaters who disclose not at all, or close enough as makes no difference. The question therefore is, how this number shall be compelled to learn, to debate fairly, and above all to discourage ghastly, uneducational practices as excessive spikes and misrepresented evidence. For we can neither compel them with disclosure theory nor with judge preferences; we neither can trust theory debate to autochthonously pick the best norms nor have enough friends of disclosure to prefer: debaters in our kingdom, as I have been informed, may hide their arguments and escape scrutiny even from those with the quickest proficiency in debate.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I offer for public consideration that all debaters at TOC shall be locked up in a Disclosure Prison until such time as they post full speech documentation, including full tags and citations for every argument, analytic or evidenced, on their NDCA wiki page, especially and primarily those of great privilege who have such resources as to disclose freely and without compunction. I believe too that they should also henceforth disclose round reports and all theory interpretations, but I shall not fully take up the issue here. Plea bargaining for the Disclosure Prison ought to be abolished, so that no debater may barter a lesser sacrifice for their freedom.

I grant that this proposal may seem uncouth, but its advantages are obvious and many, as well as of the highest importance.

For first, as I have already observed, it would greatly lessen the number of rascals, with whom we are yearly overrun, being the principal tricksters and our most dangerous enemies; hoping to free ride on our good will and take advantage of our lack of temerity. Having been assured that morality is paramount in divining our best practices, this proposal might allow virtue to flourish and save these poor souls.

Secondly, Abolishing plea bargaining in this instance shall be a great inducement, and for those who would defect, shall provide the safety and protective environment of a lengthy sentence in Disclosure Prison, during which they may reflect on their iniquities and these obvious truths.

Thirdly, Whereas the maintenance of such a Disclosure Prison may seem unwieldy, the dozens which it might hold shall swiftly accede to our terms, as any worthy debater will recognize their value, both at the University of Kentucky and in other lands. As such, we may be most thrifty in construction.

Many other advantages might be enumerated. For instance, in times of economic distress, Disclosure Prison may provide means of employment for coaches and educators who find themselves at TOC with no students to coach or educate; great thinkers may proffer rules and penalties to make use of our invention, so that fairness and liberty might be secured for all. But these and many others I omit, being studious of brevity.

I can think of no one objection, that will possibly be raised against this proposal, unless it should be urged, that debaters will be unable to debate whilst in TOC Disclosure Prison. This I freely own, and ’twas indeed one principal design in offering it to the world. I desire the reader will observe, that the chief benefit of my remedy is in encouraging the universal practice of disclosure, and indeed of encouraging debaters to disclose wholly and often. And observe further that debate without disclosure is no debate at all: it is o’errun with spikes, theory, and deceptions that distract from topic literature and our policy proposals, and indeed remain a stain on my conscience, for one. Therefore let no one talk to me of discouraging debate: Of preventing debaters from accruing the values of preparation and competition: Of gaining the joy of fairly winning a hard-fought match: Of equalizing the playing field across wealth and informational disparities: Of curing the laziness of those among us: Of learning to love debate and research: Of hard debate; that is, of good debate.

Therefore I repeat, let no one talk to me of these and the like expedients, ’till they hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.

But, as to my self, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts on this blog, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real, of no expence and little trouble, full in our own power, and whereby we can incur no danger in disobliging debate.

I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of debate.

The End