Topics discussed include:

• The Spirit of Disclosure Award: Should analytical arguments be disclosed? What level of disclosure should be expected? What makes for an effective wiki page? Woodward PP: worst wiki page in the country?


• Flowing: A lost art?


• Should The 3NR create other awards recognizing effective research, innovative strategies, etc.?


• Speaker Points: Are they too high? Were the debaters “back in the day” better than those of today? Is Roy a hopeless curmudgeon or does he have a point? Should we transition to a 100-point or 30/.1 scale?


• Why do 2N/1A’s receive higher points than 1N/2A’s? Should they?


• Low Point Wins: Should they be banned? Scott says yes. Is he right, or are there situations where low point wins make sense?


• Double Losses: Should they be allowed? Scott says yes—we discuss this idea and some alternatives.


• Pairing Criteria: Is the current system (high-low within brackets using high-low adjusted points) effective? Should opponent wins be used to pair debates? Should high-high rounds be more common? Should side constraints be ignored for undefeated teams when pairing the last prelim?


• The Politics Disad: sweet or not so sweet? Should the aff be losing debates to the politics disad? Should negs be relying on it to construct their post-season strategies?


• “The DA Turns The Case”: the last refuge of scoundrels? What can the aff do to protect themselves from “the low risk DA turns the case, I voted neg” decisions?


• Conditionality Gone Wild: is each plank of a multi-plank counterplan conditional? Is it okay to kick independent planks? Whose burden is it to establish the meaning of “conditionality” (or, more generally, the disposition of the counterplan)?


• “A2:” or “AT:” (or “They Say:”) as a label for blocks: which one is best? (Yes, we actually got into an argument about this.)

In this episode: Bill Batterman, Roy Levkovitz, Scott Phillips.