Effects of Disclosure Theory on Small Schools

My introduction to the "PF Wiki" came in December of my freshman year. I remember sitting at my desk, absorbed in my laptop as I stared at the multitude of disclosed cases. Little did I realize that what I encountered on Open Case list was simply the tip of the iceberg that is Theory. Just four short months later, at FFL Novice states, my limited understanding of progressive debate would be put to the ultimate test.

For clarification, supporters of disclosure theory argue that it promotes fairness, encourages research, and levels the playing field. They believe that disclosing cases and evidence before a debate round helps the focus remain on the quality of arguments rather than unexpected approaches. However, the practical implications for smaller schools can be exactly the opposite. I understand why theory was created and what it aims to accomplish, however, I think that we are all forgetting the reason Public Forum debate was created in the first place: accessibility. This idea has been muted over the years as it becomes more and more probable that novice debaters with limited resources will be facing progressive argumentation. But, let's dive into why most debaters even run these arguments in the first place.

Theory is centered around upholding the rules of debate while also pointing out critical issues. I think the motive behind it is beneficial, but running Ks and disclosure is not the way to accomplish our goal. In reality, most debaters run these arguments to try and get ahead rather than make a change. This is especially true when it comes to disclosure. The most common links behind disclosure deal with small schools not having resources and sharing cases lessening the intel disparity between debaters. However, most of the time smaller schools are the ones that don't disclose and get hurt the most by this norm. 

Smaller schools often have fewer coaches, and sometimes none at all. Larger schools have multiple experienced coaches who can help students navigate complex issues. When cases are disclosed, smaller schools lack the guidance and expertise to properly disclose or even know how to find the wiki. Less established programs are already facing an uphill battle in terms of resources and disclosure theory can discourage them from participating in debate, ultimately limiting the diversity and inclusivity of the activity as a whole. Theory only raises the entry barrier in an already complex event and reinforces the status quo of large school success. 

Oftentimes, private schools dominate the circuit because they have access to coaching and funding, leaving smaller schools to fend for themselves. Focusing on topicality rather than norms makes the circuit more inviting for less experienced teams. Additionally, disclosure brings up strategic challenges. Larger schools commonly have more prep than others. In order to overcome this, creating smarter arguments and relying on creativity can lessen the gap. By disclosing, schools don't have the opportunity for surprise. This also reduces the fun of the debate by creating an environment that doesn't allow for as much creativity with arguments. 

Supporters of disclosure often argue that resources are available to assist small schools, yet the reality is that they may not be as accessible as everyone thinks. Take, for example, organizations like Equality in Forensics, which can be extremely helpful to debaters when they know how to access them. However, these programs often remain hidden from schools in more remote areas, primarily because they tend to be spread through word of mouth. The lack of awareness concerning resources puts small schools at a significant disadvantage. It's not just about organizations; it's also about the information gap that prevents these schools from tapping into the support they provide. 

I'm not advocating for all theory to disappear, but we should limit the number of times it is run, especially against smaller teams, and make it less of a norm in Public Forum. Coming from a smaller PF school, I know what it's like to try and teach yourself progressive arguments and spend time writing your own counter intreps. I was lucky enough to have great mentors and connections, but only some debaters have that opportunity. As a community, we should strive for a balance between progressive argumentation and topicality to make the space more inclusive for all debaters, no matter their background. Instead of resorting to theory at novice states, we should focus on the actual topic provided no matter how much we may dislike it.