The 3NR

There is a lot of chit chat about this, and I have some rather unconventional thoughts so I wanted to make a quick post here: To be clear I would not do this, and would discourage anyone I knew who was considering doing it.  I guess I’m a K debater at heart because I don’t want to defend the practice but I do want to criticize the response with a vague textless alt. 

1. Anyone involved in debate should be able to write and publish (in any way) anything a non debate person would be able to so long as they attach their name to it. 

2. This happens a lot more than people think- A LOT MORE. It’s the nature of the internet and the sheer number of people who are/at some point are involved in debate.  The number of debates I have judged where a card was read from a message board, an email, a blog, or a “comment” on an article/blog has climbed dramatically and I would say is now over 50% at most tournaments. 

3. I am much, repeat MUCH less concerned about a coach/debater writing an article than I am about card clipping, prep time stealing, tab room shenanigans and other clearly unethical behavior that may not influence a win or loss as much (poor disclosure/incomplete citations, opaque judge conflicts etc). 

3+4= very few people have any business attacking the “unethical” practices of others. 

4. If you are aff you should have a solid defense of your case that comes from peer reviewed journals and is written by qualified authors. You should also be able to explain why evidence that does not meet rigorous academic standards should be discarded- if you can’t you will lose to way more University Wire/Sac bee cards than cards written by other participants.  Part of the reason this is a problem is because of the delcining standards of what constitutes evidence, the “cult of evidence” that thinks any card auto beats an analytic, and because debaters are taught to just read cards and not critically think and deconstruct arguments ( a definate failing on the part of coaches).