The 3NR

wtf is ld?

I think it would be funny if they read this shell and somebody up and crushed them on gendered language because that shell is full of it.

This is actually taken from a position Vermont ran last year, you can view the full cites here: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=989041

In fact all of the cites were cut by Nick Landsman-Roos, the current cites still show his name in the citation….

Has this position been successful? In what circumstances was it run?

That is cool that all of the cites were cut by Nick Landsman-Roos.

I agree with the concept. It seemed stupid at first, but it’s not just knowing what the 1AC is in preparation for the round, but I see what the concept is now.

I also don’t think it’s a voter.

1. Not k/t fairness: Disclosure is one of many things contributing to equity. People will still run abusive or potentially abusive arguments. Disclosing the 1AC doesn’t solve for fairness, neg just gets better prep.

2. Doesn’t solve education: Disclosing the 1AC doesn’t solve for shitty arguments in the 1n like [x]-Spec, “The” pic, word pics in general, consult, etc. People still run crap like wipeout and Spark even though they’ve disclosed the cites on the wiki.

3. Argument quality: Refer back to 2. Shit arguments still exist with disclosure of cites.

Just because you don’t disclose doesn’t mean the debate is unfair nor is it uneducational. In fact, you find out what the case is. Also, the 1AC doesn’t know what the 1n will run until the 1n starts spewing. While the aff should be disclosed, not disclosing doesn’t make it unfair. As for argumentative quality, debating about counter-intuitive arguments is still good, because you immerse yourself into that literature. Even if timecube is dumb, at least you learn about timecube.

Oh, this would actually solve for new affs being broken late year. That’s always a good thing.

Alex: These are all uniqueness presses against a linear impact?

Lattuca who is coaching me this year, said that he ran this argument once and received substantially more disclosure every round past that tournament. Aside from that its really not a great argument, theirs no reason to vote for something that the debaters did outside of round because that’s fairly regressive.

Side note: One of our debaters, being a contrarian, refused to post some argument and cut some answers about how Richard Stallman thought that the open source movement was really a way in for capitalism, and how open source needs to stop corporations from attaching themselves to the software.

Ideas aren’t material. Intellectual Property isn’t property.

Very true, Whit, which is why an industrial scarcity model is a regressive fail across the board.

All arguments are uniqueness presses against a linear impact–particularly questions of ethics and theory. And linear impacts are good–you throw the baby out with the bathwater if you get rid of linear impacts.

Opps…I misunderstood Nooch above. I still agree with Nooch at the end of the day on this question.

FAR, FAR, FAR more important: how can this be called disclosure if their aren’t tags for his typical arguments????? Let alone “full disclosure” After all….live in glass houses….or claim to as a claim to ethics should get their *&*(&( together. I think there is a clear bright line in having tags. (I don’t think this is a voting issue….but he/she should probably do a better job of practicing what the K “preaches”). Admittedly, a step in the right direction–and hopefully it will move the movement for disclosure in LD forward.

He gets extra-props for the Von Hippel quote–a little open innovation quote love.

And PS–Check the Kevin “I would have Foucault’s babies” Sanchez with the (implicit) normalization good argument.