There are many advantages that the classic institute strategy claims. First of all, that by going to different institutes, there will be more evidence for the team. Second, that by going to two different institutes, each team member will end up with different twists on the topic for the year, and thus would be more likely to understand the opponents perspective. Also, that it will be less likely for a team with a more diverse study of the topic to hit something in a round that would be a surprise.

These claimed advantages that people use does not make as much sense below the surface analysis. Admittedly the team who splits up for institute will have more evidence for the first tournament, but beyond that, the evidence advantage would be insignificant. Any team that is serious enough about to debate to pay the exorbanent price of institute is going to be doing research through the year. The evidence advantage one may have from institute would soon into the season become obsolete due to the individual research serious teams do throughout the year. Also, most institutes do pretty much the same things, they do topicality, and study of the resolution with DA's, on case, and even maybe a couple of Kritiks and counterplans. The two kids going to different institutes are not going to be getting anything significantly different on topicality, and most institutes do the same kinds of generic DA's too. While we're at it, I'm sure each institute made the same STATES COUNTERPLAN too- maybe slightly different at best. The point is that the evidence coming out of institutes, though valuable, is pretty much the same thing anywhere you go. SO, the evidence advantage from splitting up a team won't last long in the debate season, and it would be insignificant anyway.

The idea that the teams who spit up have a broader understanding of the topic is perhaps true, however, it is the different twists on a topic that may cause teams to misunderstand one another, and even cause discrepancy during rounds. If one team member makes an argument in a round, and the other team member has a different impression of the argument that came out of both institutes (i.e. STATES CP) they may explain or read the wrong cards in their speech. Though each states counterplan is the same argument at its core, there are about a million different ways it could be set up. This could well cause confusion. Having team members working from different places can cause major issues in round. The differences in Institute POV's is something that is insignificant in understanding the years debate topic, but that has potential to cause a far from seamless pass of the arguments from speech to speech-partner to partner. Think of it this way: We have all been in a round where the opponent reads an argument that we are familiar with, but when we read our frontlines the other teams gets up and explains how their argument addresses different issues than our frontlines said they did. It's the same issue- confusion. The confusion between opposing teams is enough to ruin a good round, why would you ever want that within a team, and yet that's what you get when team members are not normed to each other.

While there may be a slight evidence advantage at the beginning of the year, the negative outcomes of the CLASSIC INSTITUTE STRATEGY far outweigh such a fleeting evidence edge. Furthermore, there is one distinct advantage to teams going to institute together (other than avoiding the disadvantages of the classic institute strategy). Teams with a shared institute experience have had a prolonged period of time together to learn how to deal with one another, making them learn to work together. Spending such intensive time together at institute is probably the only time most teams would have such an experience to learn to work together, and I need not explain how important team dynamic is.

When you go to institute next year go as a team!