That disclosure survey

[DreinCali]

Jed, you asked about it...I just wanted to fill you in. The study was done by Leah Harmon from Concordia. I think I have a copy of some of the findings somewhere...Dan P was there too, we can tell you about some of it. As for getting a hold of her...well, she's the D4 student rep, and registered here!
The survey showed some really mixed opinions on disclosure, even among students, but I think that was partly the way the questions were worded. If I recall, districts 1 and 6 were a bit more pro-(post round) disclosure than most.
We also got into a pretty interesting discussion about the benefits and problems with a warm room. Lots of the same old crap, but no one got ugly. John Meany and this one coach who also does policy (I forget his name) held it down for post-round disclosure..it was cool.

Andrea

[Eagle of Meaux]

The discussion was, in my opinion quite interesting. most of the arguments I heard to disclosure were based on problems debaters of judges would have dealing with it and not the issue itself. I found it interesting to hear some of the coaches debating it out though I still feel the only solid arguments I've heard involve disadvantaging, psychologically certain competitors, competitors being rude to judges, judges feeling uncomfortable, and judges feeling rushed in their decisions.
If education is the preeminent value almost all of these fall apart pretty quickly, in my humble opinion.

The study was interesting, and yes I do believe the construction of some of the questions helped to lead to certain results.

I spoke in favor of disclosure there and I'll be more than happy to do so again here if we want to start that debate up.

Keith

[truthisjust]

I think, at least on this board, you will pretty much have a one sided conversation. Most of us are pro-disclosure. It would be like saying we should have a discussion on whether the student voice is important, which most of us are for as well..

[Dan6814]

That policy coach was Cary Voss, from Angelo State. And I do have the disclosure stats she handed out; if enough people are interested, maybe I'll put them up here (although, if Leah's here, maybe she's the best source).

Dan P.

[Western Amy]

I'm interested. . .

[truthisjust]

I too am interested

[Dan6814]

ok, I'll post it in a couple of hours, but wow, that was a quick response. Two posts within 90 seconds. Damn...

Dan P.

[truthisjust]

what does that say about my life... lol... screw this I am going to the bar...

[Western Amy]

Have fun. I'm going to keep abusing my school's computer lab by printing out law reviews on their printers. Mwahhaahahaaaaaa!

[Dan6814]

Ok, what I got from Leah was a collection of comments on disclosure that she gleaned from the parli-l and the disclosure survey, a statistical analysis of some of the quirks of the data, and a list of the mean response to each of the thirty questions she asked. I'm just going to post the questions and answers here. They're on a 1-7 scale; 1 means you completely disagree, 4 means you're ambivalent, 7 means complete agreement.

1. Disclosure is an important part of debate. 3.836
2. Disclosure improves the quality of educational debate. 3.8353
3. There are legitimate education reasons not to disclose. 4.379
4. Disclosure is unnecessary. 3.8876
5. Oral critiques are more important than disclosure. 5.3196
6. Disclosure can be threatening. 4.2886
7. A good debater is not affected by disclosure. 4.0565
8. Debaters should be able to question the decision of the judge. 3.2672
9. A good judge should be able to articulate their decision immediately. 3.4531
10. Disclosure increases pressure on competitors. 4.0202
11. Disclosure is ethical. 4.9512
12. Debate can be educational without disclosure. 5.6546
13. A judge should not be penalized for disclosure. 5.4315
14. Disclosure can damage the quality of competition. 3.7854
15. Disclosure motivates debaters. 4.0884
16. Disclosure decreases judges willingness to judge. 3.7449
17. Debate should be about education. 6.0202
18. A judge should have the choice to disclose or not to disclose. 4.6948
19. Debaters should be disqualified for arguing a decision with the judge. 3.7149
20. Knowing your record can damage your performance. 4.1084
21. All forms of debate and individual events should disclose. 2.9024
22. A warm room is superior to mandatory disclosure. 4.582
23. Good debaters do not need to know their record. 4.6305
24. Disclosure serves as an important cross check of the tab room. 3.9837
25. Disclosure is more valuable for experienced debaters than novices. 3.2713
26. Competition is the central point of debate. 3.8193
27. Oral critiques are useless without disclosure. 2.5951
28. Disclosure increases the diligence of a judge. 3.7895
29. An oral critique makes a ballot more useful. 4.8835
30. Debaters can learn without disclosure. 5.716

I'll comment in the next post...

Dan P.

[Dan6814]

Ok, here are my basic thoughts on this survey. First, it never asks the most basic question that most of us care about: 'Do you support disclosure?' Or, alternately, 'Do you support a warm room?' I think that's the critical question that has never been answered. The fact that students do not vote (we'll wait on the results of the mail-in ballots to see if the district reps get a vote) and have virtually no voice at NCA means that we are constantly misrepresented on the issue, and this survey did not serve to answer the most pertinent question.

Secondly, I think the wording is quite biased against disclosure. Questions suggesting problems with disclosure are phrased in terms of potentiality: "Disclosure can damage the quality of competition"; "Debate can be educational without disclosure"; "Disclosure can be threatening"; "There are legitimate educational reasons not to disclose"; "Knowing your record can damage your performance"; etc. I agree with all of these statements, but I am rabidly pro-disclosure. On the other hand, questions regarding advantages to disclosure are phrased in more absolute terms: "All forms of debate and individual events should disclose"; "Disclosure improves the quality of educational debate"; "Disclosure motivates debaters"; etc. It's significantly easier to give a 'yes' answer to the negative questions than the positive one, because all you're being asked is if it's conceivable. (There are exceptions, but this is the general rule.)

I don't mean to just criticize; I think this survey is very valuable, and gives a much clearer idea of how the community feels about disclosure, warm rooms, and oral critiques. But at the same time, I would be cautious about accepting these answers as fully representative of community opinion.

Dan P.

[oshannonmurpy]

I'm all for disclosure and most people know they can talk to me about any decision I make. However, I was a little disturbed about the way some teams reacted to the warm room at Nats this year. It seems many teams just gave up trying to debate anything substantive after being handed their fourth loss. If disclosure has any threat to education, this is it. I even hear tell that one team of seniors decided that debating in their boxers was the way to go after they were out...Can anybody verify this?

[Western Amy]

I can't verify that. . . .but I know of a CEDA team at nats who, when they had been handed their fourth loss, decided to pull out a new, interesting affirmative and debate it for fun. It's not always the case that people give up when they know they can't break. Someone might have looked on it as giving up, their 1AC was only a minute long, but they debated it hard and won with it.

And what's wrong with debating in your boxers?

[oshannonmurphy]

As one who debated with a balloon monkey on my head, I can't really indict someone debating in their boxers(I'm just wondering if its true). I just hope the sight wasn't too blinding. But I don't think the pro-disclosure lobby is helped when teams quit trying. And I think that while not all debaters quit, the ones that do need a good hard slap on the wrist.

[truthisjust]

As someone who has debated in their boxers before, I can say that does not mean you give up... that means you are going for it all...

[Western Amy]

I did my thank yous one time with a burger king crown on my head. . . .it was an out round and one of our judges was NOT amused.

[truthisjust]

our judge was a female who taught sexual harasment law. She didn't want us to do it but all four of us did anyway. It was a great round until the PMR when this young girl walked into the room for her Informative Round and caught a glimpse of Tony Le from fresno debating in his boxers. The strange thing was that we heard her scream "oh my gawd, there are people debating in the underwear in here." Then someone replied, "oh that must be the UOP vs Fresno round." We all got 30 speaks and the tabroom tried to get the removed because they were convinced that we were offered 30 pts by the critic to do the round in our underwear... not true. Ah memories.

[Daniel Grossberg]

I hope no one thinks of the survery as either scientific or representative.

-Dan

[USC MissingLink]

I even hear tell that one team of seniors decided that debating in their boxers was the way to go after they were out...Can anybody verify this?

You can't blame this on the warm room. My record was fine for all of the prelims and I was debating in my boxers the whole time. It's a lot more comfortable than going without and you don't have to worry about the zipper...

jEd

[Daniel Grossberg]

Include your boxers in the contest and you will double the entries.

-Dan

[pattybar]

Ummm... Jed, the unique thing about the round was that the teams were ONLY wearing their boxers... just because you wore yours under your pants does not make you special.....

BTW, I also heard this rumor, and at the time was told the names of the debaters (which I have since forgotten)... and was not shocked to hear that they had decided to be pant-less.

Patty