Consider the situation from the NEG's point of view. Why does the NEG ask if the AFF will disclose? The NEG asks because it believes it can gain a substantial advantage. Debaters from really big teams will, upon hearing what case they are going to hit, dash out of the room only to return several minutes later wheeling two huge boxes of evidence responding specifically to that case. NEGs not so gifted with evidence will at least begin to discuss strategy, maybe pull out some old flows for review, maybe run and talk to a teammate that hit the same case earlier in the day. Regardless, they will be better prepared when the round starts than if they did not know what the case was.

So AFF, if disclosing is going to help the NEG, why do it? Two common reasons are usually given. The first is that some sort of exchange of evidence is perceived. The AFF tries to counter with "we'll tell you…if you tell us what you are planning to run against it."" Stupid, stupid, stupid. Whereas the AFF is totally committed to what they disclose, and can not change their mind halfway through the round, the NEG is free to reneg on their so-called "disclosures" and adjust in any way that they want (pssst, AFFs that say "well, we're thinking about running so-and-so," you're not fooling anyone! We all know that you only have one case). Always remember that, you of the AFF: the NEG isn't actually telling you anything. They're just scaring you.

The other reason given for disclosing (and I myself was once a subscriber to this theory, *sigh*) is that the AFF doesn't want to "look bad" in front of the judge. They just want to "be nice." Survival of the Fittest, my friends. If you want to be nice, and lose the round, that is your choice. But the judge will not think any less of you if you say "sorry, we don't disclose," because the judge knows that the NEG is trying to gain an advantage, and no one is blaming you for trying to prevent that. The other team will not think any less of you because they, more than anyone else, know that they are trying to gain an advantage. If they want to blame you for trying to stop them, they are jerks and you are therefore not obligated to be nice to them on those grounds.

Some debaters try to take the middle road, and disclose just-before-the-round-starts. This still gives the NEG an advantage, as they will still have precious moments to talk before the 1AC actually begins. On the other hand, there is some validity to telling the other team (and more importantly, the judge) what case you are running, before you begin reading, because it will allow everyone to better understand what you are talking about and this makes for a better round. In addition, the judge's flow of the 1AC can be one of the determining factors in a round, and notifying a judge of your plan, before you start with Observation I, can help in improving that flow.

Therefore, I recommend the following: open your 1AC with the title of your case. But make it a bit elaborate. For this year's topic, for instance, you would want to begin with "The Affirmative proposes that this year's resolution, calling for education reform, be upheld by (insert plan here, my example is:) stringent enforcement of Title IV. We begin with Observation I…" This gives everyone some important insight into what you are talking about, without giving them time to think about it. The NEG will know what is going on, but they won't be able to scheme because, technically, you will be on the clock and your 1AC will have already started. The judge, meanwhile, will have a better understanding of what you are advocating and will therefore give it more credence.

Does it waste some time? Sure, it wastes some time. But even if spoken slowly and clearly, it won't take more than five seconds, and it shouldn't be much trouble to go five seconds faster over the rest of your case if it is actually going to make a difference. Furthermore, for those of you who are squeamish about flatly telling the NEG that you will not disclose, you can plan to utilize this strategy and then respond to disclosure inquiries with "we only disclose at the beginning of the round."

Disclosing before a debate round is some fluke incidence of peer-pressure that is not replicated in any other competitive environment. Why debaters have perpetuated it for so long is beyond me, but now is the time to fight. Try disclosure-refusal at one tournament, and see what happens. Satisfaction guaranteed, or your money back.