Full Citation or Last name & Year?
Again, a round of thank yous to Dr. Kasle for organizing the RCC debate camp last month. It was a terrific experience for me the day I was there and helpful to a lot of students and coaches from around the country.
We had a great discussion at the camp regarding the rule regarding evidence citations in NFA-LD. Here is what the rules say:
The first time a source is presented, the debater must state the full source when introducing the evidence. A “full source” is assumed to include author’s name, author’s qualifications (when apparent in the original), full date, and title of source. Page numbers need not be read during the debate, but should be available upon request. Once a source has been cited, evidence subsequently cited from the source need only include the author’s and/or publication’s name as well as a phrase along the lines of “previously cited.”
Well many complain that the NFA-LD rules are too ambiguous in places (speed?) this seems pretty straight forward. The rules say the first time you introduce a source you should include:
- Author’s Name – first and last I presume
- Qualifications, if any
- full date – so, not just the year
- Title of source
So “Smith 2009″ would be an insufficient evidence citation in NFA-LD the first time you read the source. For the 1AC I posted earlier about the surface transportation act you’ll note that the evidence all has “Smith 2009″ in big bold letters as seen here:
I recommend keeping just the author and year on each card because you may rearrange your case as you see fit at tournaments. However, you’ll want to star the first time you read a particular citation in order to introduce the full qualifications the first time.
Why?
The importance of this rule brings us to a more fundamental question – why do we read evidence at all in the debate format? What benefit does citing research and evidence bring to a debate round? If I had to sum it up in one word it would be credibility.
Quoted evidence gives your argument more credibility for two reasons. First, you borrow the credibility of the author you are quoting. Sure, you may say that the states can do the plan better but if it’s not only you but Robert Poole,
President of the Reason Foundation, an engineering graduate of MIT, an advisor to the U.S. and California departments of transportation, the White House, and the President’s Commission on Privatization, and author of numerous policy studies
Your argument will have a lot more credibility – especially with a less technical audience.
The second reason reading evidence in rounds increases your credibility is that it demonstrates you have researched this field and found the evidence. Your time and effort to find this evidence shows that you have gained an understanding of the topic and have been able to synthesize all the research into a cogent argument.
And really, Why Not?
Time
Some people complain about the rule because of time, time, time… But I challenge anyone to justify the loss of 10 seconds per source given the immense increase in your credibility. You can also cut down the text of your qualification statement to be shorter to save yourself some time.
Rules
You never know when you may get a judge whose a stickler for the rules (ME!) and may very well vote against you for violating this rule if the other team brings it up… Might as well cover all your bases! There are also going to be lots of tournaments you attend where judges will be handed a copy of the rules right before judging the event. They may see this rule about evidence, see that you do not follow it, and drop you for it.
Furthermore, Why is the rule regarding evidence citation any different than the rule regarding speech order and times? I would certainly give a loss to a debater who did not stop speaking and make their first negative constructive 15 minutes rather than 7. I would certainly give a loss to a debater who did not follow the speed rule, even given how some see it as ambiguous (I do not – it seems straight forward to me!). This rule is equally as important as the other rules for the event and to disregard it because it’s “not what we do in other formats of debate” is a poor argument to me.
So, what are your thoughts on this rule? Is is a good or bad part of NFA-LD?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
I completely agree with you, Danny. And I completely agree with the intent of the rule. I will fight at your side until death, but I fear our cause is hopeless.
Trying to enforce these rules will probably be well-nigh impossible, especially after the “clarification” issued at NFA Nationals this spring, and given the “conventional wisdom” regarding argument construction. If you throw in MPJ, then just forgeddaboutit.
Even you suggested at RCC that the Affirmative constructive should about ten (10) pieces of evidence. To cite ten pieces of evidence – with full qualifications and in meaningful context – is a physical impossibility. The speech is only six minutes long, remember…
Moreover, people (with one notable archiac exception I know of) do not even appear to prepare cards in a manner to cite them properly. (Name/Quals/Date)… Nor are the “cut,” merely copied.
P.S. You know where the mostly likely place to hear a good First Affirmative is these days? Persuasive Speaking – NOT in any debate format.
Wistfully,
MHM
what? you didn’t like my native’s case (I swear I will e-mail you about that round soon)? I also thought that you (MHM) said something about nfa retracting that rule at nfa. What ever happened to that .doc?
Honestly, the whole full source citation does drain a lot of speech time. I lose almost a minute of each speech on that one rule alone. I also feel the aff is hurt by this rule a little more then the neg is. The neg will usually read less cards in the 1nc then the 1ac does unless they don’t address case (with cards) or run a procedural.
How many judges do you feel will actually vote on this position (rules violation) though? Probably a bunch. Who actually is hurt by not giving a full source citation? maybe the author’s feelings? Is it the collapse of ld as we know it?!? I don’t think so…
***Most important***
What do you see as the defense to this argument if someone forgets on 1 card and they run rules?
The full citation rule seemed to come about first, as I remember, in ADA. The frustration obviously came out of a wave of using non-traceable evidence. Believe it or not, over the years debaters have made up evidence – like, total fabrication. And believe it or not, from time to time debaters cite unidentifiable sources – actually quoting “anonymous” and expecting the text of the evidence to be accepted. The internet has created a new layer of concerns, namely that there is no author referenced on a website (but obviously there must be a person behind the words), that affiliations are not clear, and that credentials are not necessary. Sadly, many do not have standards when evaluating the sources, and standards vary from person to person. Many debaters jump right to the text of the card without even questioning the source, author, date, motivation, and so on. But the source does matter, so do the credentials of the author, and if the source or credentials are not identifiable, not only does the speaker’s credibility go down but the opponent does not know if there is a viable argument against the source, author, and so on. Once identified, the opponent can test the evidence in terms of relevancy, consistency, recency, bias, etc. But if the source isn’t identified, then none of that can happen and it creates an unfair advantage for the person reading the evidence.
While it is a pain to use full sources, it is a rule for a good reason. This is still an activity for college students, and the rules are set up to guide the student to make the right choices. The rules may be conservative, but they were created by educators who were attempting to set a high bar in an activity that had once seen better days. Similar to a child questioning his parent for telling him to look both ways before crossing the street, or check the nob on the stove first, many times rules frustrate people because they are not explained. Using a full citation increases your credibility as a speaker, *especially* in front of experienced judges. Granted there may be some judges who say, “I don’t care,” and even some who think it is cool to break the rules, but educators will tell any student that providing a full citation does increase credibility, and so does following rules. And the second time you cite the source you can just say “previously qualified” and move on. But it is a rule because it is your responsibility to provide traceable evidence, easily identified, and fully cited to boost your credibility and open up the possibility for your opponent to attack your source. If you are too afraid to give the information because your citations suck, then you shouldn’t be using that evidence in the first place. A debater with good evidence from great sources should be LOVING every minute of boosting his/her own credibility by providing the citation information.
As far as where to draw the line, I do think a debater can develop a reputation and eventually judges relax standards. If you are a debater who does his/her own research, and usually is quoting qualified sources (not staff writers on Yahoo news), then over time you will be able to give less citation information in front of certain judges, because they know you are not making up evidence and you have high standards when it comes to the evidence you will use. And if you do have that reputation, and generally give the citation information, then it is unlikely you will lose if you do not provide one full citation one time. Having the full citation with you in the brief is essential. It isn’t a good evidence card if it doesn’t have the full citation. Then, if you miss one, you have it and can provide it later and generally a reasonable judge will ignore a rules violation of that nature.
Once again I find it odd that the debaters are choosing their forum and then complaining about the rules. The speech times are set, the rules are provided, and that’s pretty much the end of the story. You will find that there are judges who do not support this or that rule, and you can adapt and break them to your heart’s content. But if you do not like the rules then there are other types of debate that you can do and then you don’t have to worry about this set of rules. And the fact that the Neg. doesn’t read more cards in the 1N than the 1A does is shameful and weird considering he/she doesn’t have to tell a story with rhetoric and doesn’t read a plan and has one more minute. Perhaps the Neg. should start getting some research with good citations and then he/she will want to read more of that evidence in the debate.
observation 1) Just because we read the full citation does not mean that the citation we are reading is magically valid. If people used to make up evidence they can still do it. If instead of “Smith ’09″ we read, “Jane Smith, prof. history department chair of USC, July 10th 2009, “DoT is not the way to go.” they both are false but there is no difference.
observation 2) the only way that change is made is through changing it themselves. So why be upset and complain about the aff time skew if you don’t think you can change it? I complain about stuff in parli all the time. I complained about stuff in policy when I did that, too. There will always be complaints and the reason why is that we like change sometimes.
observation 3) so you believe that we only have to follow the rules if we know the judge and are trustworthy? I always have as much info about the person I am citing as I can and I know others don’t but if I don’t call that out isn’t that my fault? Why have a rule that pretends to keep people honest that doesn’t work?
Regardless of why the rule exists or not, choosing to break it gives you an unfair advantage. While you’re blipping through “smith, 09″ and others are reading full cites, you’re winning the time tradeoff. Furthermore, if the other debater DOES wish to indict your sources (or at least question them), they have to scrutinize tags, using valuable prep minutes. So, there’s your fairness reason to prefer.
Effectively, your (that is, those who believe full cites to be frivolous) interpretation of the debate round says we should choose which rules we follow and which rules we don’t, not based on whether or not those rules are unjust, but based on what makes it easiest for you.
This is one case where I side with what seems to be the minority (at least now, I haven’t always), and I insist my underclassmen do the same.
Oh nerdy, maybe you just enjoy complaining 
. You may or may not, but you certainly seem to enjoy laying down the hyperbole. The rule is there to offer a standard and to serve as protection, like the law saying you can’t murder someone. Of course people do it, but many of them are caught and punished. The law is there for many reasons, as I stated above. The primary reason is that we are educators and we are telling the student that giving full citations helps your credibility. I’m not going to repeat myself here. The rule is there, and it is important. You cannot pick up a single textbook and find an author saying, “Don’t bother giving the citation information, it wastes your time and doesn’t mean anything anyway.” It helps your credibility, it allows the audience to trace your material, and so on. People may still fabricate, but are more likely to get caught because it is easier to disprove the existence of the thorough citation than the Smith ’09 one. And, what I said was you can relax your standards in front of certain judges, some of that can be because of built trust and some can be because a judge doesn’t give a darn. But, I didn’t say you relax the standards if you trust the judge. It has to do with the judges trusting you as a good researcher, and that comes in time.
And rest assured AFA Brandon, you are not in the minority. While this Discussion Board may draw some of the most extreme views, the mainstream view of citing sources (full citations), in and out of debate, is that it is inherently the right thing to do. Many successful debaters have won using Smith ’09, but that doesn’t mean the rule/standard should be changed. It just means that there are degrees of citations that are accepted in a very diverse community.
MY FAVORITE CARD…
Richard M. Cheney (former Vice President of the United States) in an NBC televised interview conducted in 2008:
“SO?”
The following is a verbatim text of the “Clarifying Statement” distributed at NFA Nationals this past April. Since (despite my requests to the contrary)it has not yet been placed on the NFA-LD website, I do not know what binding authority – if any – it has:
“FULL CITATIONS IN NFA L-D DEBATE
“There has been some concern in the community about how the National Tournament Committee and the Lincoln-Douglas Debate Committee interpret the L-D rule requiring debaters to read full citations for evidence in debate rounds.
“There is a difference between the rules for an event and the Code of Ethics. There are only 9 things listed in the Code of Ethics. The Code of Ethics under number seven says that debate evidence must be accurate and thoroughly referenced. It does not specify that the reference must be stated orally. The intention is to insure that any piece of evidence could be verified if there was a need to do so. Violations of the Code of Ethics are submitted to the National Tournament Committee and then the Executive Council. The L-D Committee does not arbitrate these issues. In the event that the Executive Council determines that an ethical violation has been committed the penalty ranges from a letter of reprimand to disqualification.
“Failure to read the full source, out loud, the first time you present a source is a violation of the rules of the event. Violating the full citation of sources rule is similar to violating the rule that speeches fall within specified time limits, the affirmative case must be topical, or speeches must be comprehensible. The rules do not stipulate a consequence for failing to read a full citation of sources. Violations of the rules are typically determined by the judge in the round. If the judge feels that a rule has been violated ten the judge decides what consequences might be employed. Giving the offending debater a loss for violating the rule is only one of several options available to the judge. If debaters are concerned about how any given judge is likely to adjudicate specific rule violations, they should ask the judge before the round starts.”
I have read and re-read this document at least fifty (50) times since I first picked it up at the judging table (it wasn’t even orally announced). I have definite opinions about what it means, but I would prefer to hear what others think before I start pontificating and bloviating.
Your thoughts?
It seems fairly clear that a full citation is required as per NFA rules. What a timesuck, though. As nerdy said, it’s slanted in favor of the Negative team (as they aren’t ‘required’ to say certain things, giving them flexibility). Unfortunately, short citations would require something of an honor system, and honor–especially among some debaters–is sometimes hard to find these days.
Hi Dandelo, haven’t seen you on here before – so welcome!
Ok, back to being the pain in your side I usually am: I don’t see a collapse of education and honor in the ceda/ndt community but there is going to be one in the ld community if we change our system to short cites? I believe that the info has to be on the card and that should be enough. In my mind, if neither team gives full cite in speech then neither team looses something. If one side does and one side doesn’t that is the one side’s choice, like running 3 ok inherency cards instead of one that’s good. If the aff/neg decide to suck their own time it is no different then spending to much time on T or something else. I cannot tell “you” how to spend your speech time; well I could but I doubt that “you” would listen to me.
So who does it really hurt to have short cites?
I feel the injustice is that instead of debating more important issues in round I have to spend a minute of each speech talking about some dude who isn’t there and propin up his non-existent ego. MLA, APA, and even Chicago have you say in text the name and year with the page number sometimes. Academics reference the same way that I wish to (which more strictly would be apa format) and they seem to be doing alright…
MHM, the paper that you read tells me that it is up for debate in round. NFA demands all information to be in the card but not necessarily given in speech. Therefore, if you can convince a judge to doc speaker points instead of a round win/loss then so be it. I also think that is what should happen in this case. If you all are so worried about credibility as a persuasive speaker then that should be reflected in the speaker points.
Yes, Dr Kasle, I do like to complain, especially about the SQO be it in or out of round.
While we may come to a modified agreement, it isn’t necessary to trivialize the importance of source identification, source qualification, and source willingness. We aren’t giving full citations to boost someone’s ego or to waste time or to try to suck someone’s time. I actually can’t believe that there is such a resistence, but all of the resistence is proof as to why college students do not make the rules, they are in the process of learning the rules. It is uncomfortable to learn, yes, but it is good for you.
There is no more important issue than the source of your evidence in an evidence-based activity. In any Argument class you learn about testing evidence before you learn about testing the claims in the evidence. We cannot look at the content of the evidence until we know the author, credentials, source, etc. You waste your own time as a debater arguing against your opponents’ points if you accept them on face value and do not question the author, source, motivation of author, and so on. There should have been ONE argument to the Russia DA last year, and the Venezuela DA as well – and it didn’t have to do with the story, it had to do with the external consistency of the evidence.
It is not appropriate to blur writing and speaking standards. If you write a paper using any of those formats, you have a textual reference as well as a bibliography. Unless you plan on reading your bibliography in your speech, you plagiarize if you do not give the full citation when you read the quote. You also lower your credibility.
There are all sorts of ways to cite, and the forum determines the rules. While you may be able to have 1/2 cites in certain rounds, and also in certain speeches, there are other times when you have to give a full cite. It depends upon the one evaluating the round, always. And the document really isn’t up for debate. You may not like it, but it is clear. It says you can violate the rule and it is up to the judge to determine what to do about it. So you can have a judge who votes you down if you do not have full cites, even if the other side doesn’t bring it up. And you can also win without having full cites. It seems you have the best of both worlds. I doubt that NFA is going to say “Don’t read a full cite, or you will lose.” So, I’d just be happy with the modified language and be done with it. And…as you have figured out…if you do not read the full cites then you should have the full cites. If you do not give the full cite and give your opponent the chance to criticize your cite, then I reserve the right to read your evidence and use my own standards for accepting the evidence. If I do not find your evidence credible, and you have failed to share the citations during the round, I’d most likely vote against you for having bad evidence. And yes, I’m only one judge who may or may not be judging at the tournaments you’re attending. So I wouldn’t sweat it .
Learning vs agreeing are rather separate. There are a lot of people who would say that I am conservative but I do not agree with the mantra of the GOP. I learned what it means to be a republican but that doesn’t mean that I agree with it. I learned what it means to follow the rules of LD, but that doesn’t mean that I agree with them either. However, this is my only option to do a policy debate style event. I do not have any choice in the matter because of the school I go to. I also believe that I learned that it is good to question everything. Questioning rules and power over me is especially good. I am just questioning the world around me to see if it could be made better.
I think the point I am trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with a short cite except for it being against the rules in some arbitrary manor. My argument is that it will make me want to go faster if I have to say more and still have the same amount of time to speak, which you also think is bad. On top of that I would be able to have more topic specific arguments that would be better for education. These are all (relatively) good points that no one seems to respond to…
You are right Dr. Kasle, there needs to be a focus on the evidence in ways other then “No it’s not!” by more debaters, myself included. However, there is no reasoning why people are not going to make up sources anyways except that it will magically make people not do it. Fiat only works in the 1AC not the mindset of the debaters preparing for the rounds. I don’t feel that it is fair that I get to be punished because someone I have never even met decided to cheat.
It is indeed appropriate to blur writing and speaking standards. What they do in ceda/ndt is give a citation that is accepted in academic circles and provide a bibliography (this is the full cite that is written at the top of the card). Right Now, in ld we do both, we give a long cite in the speech and have it provided at the top of the card. We do not plagiarize anymore then the authors do. Just because there is a bibliography does not mean that people read it… I do not know why it should be any different for debate. This is a mixed event, persuasion and argumentation, which means that we should be open to both sides. I just do not see the benefit of giving a full citation in an event with such evil time constraints. Add another minute to the 1ac/1nc and I will hop on the long citation train, but until that day comes I will be against it.
If short cites with a bibliography is academically accepted and it has been tested by others why not try it out, even for a year? Why not have a one (1) year period where that rule is suspended? I do not think the Earth will explode, but if it does it proves my 1ac, right Nick?
The way I do citations is the same way that I did them on the camp case I did for everyone. The only difference would be that I don’t read the parts I find unnecessary (ie anything but the author and year).
Would you drop a debater that went 15 sec over time in every one of his 3 speeches? I doubt it, but you would probably doc his speaker points.
As a lawyer as well as a coach and judge, I’ve gotta tell ya that this citation rule has more holes in it than a swiss cheese sandwich in the Albert Hall. In essence, it is left up to the individal judge, who is obliged to do absolutely nothing, to interpret and then enforce the rule. IMHO, that’s unfair to everyone, especially the poor schmuck who gets assigned the ballot. Indeed, nothing is even suggested by NFA other than awarding the decision on this rule, a blatantly overly-severe penalty I doubt that anyone (except perhaps me, if I ever develop a spine) would have the guts to use.
The citation rule is not anywhere near as stringent as the anti-spread language (eg. “antithetical to the purpose of the event”) and the spread is the order of the day everywhere except on my squad and maybe at RCC. Very few, if any, judges want to be “the bad guy,” and nobody wants to get flamed on the debate community websites. Ergo, this is probably another rule which doesn’t even rise to the level of a firm suggestion.
It never ceases to amaze me that the many of the same people who put rule enforcement at the judge’s discretion are the ones who coach their debaters who despise and excoriate “interventionist judges.” It’s a joke so transparent and cynical that even the Joker would admire it.
So here… we… GO! 
To be fair, I don’t think i’ve ever seen a critic flamed on web forums–most teams I think insist flaming be reserved for the van 
On a separate note,
Lemieux, Political Science Columnist, “Why Should We Follow Rules? From Shaving in the morning to restraining Leviathan”, Laissez Faire Electronic Times, 2 Dec 02
Another reason for following rules is that evolved rules are likely to incorporate useful implicit knowledge – i.e., knowledge that we don’t possess in the sense that we can’t explain it, but which represents an efficient adaptation to our ignorance. A simple example is given by the rules of thumb that had developed in shipbuilding, when engineering was not advanced enough to provide scientific formulas for, say, the optimal sizes and shapes of hulls.
not an argument i would make in a debate round, but i think it’s interesting.
The “rules” do have holes in them, that’s for sure. It is too bad that anyone would think that the rules were there to punish anyone. The rules are only there for a sense of fairness, and they seem to be rooted in some of the basic tenets of responsible advocacy. There are many things wrong with “Smith 09″. Sure nobody dies, but like I said, you are not providing context for your source and are not giving the opponent enough information so he or she can test your evidence. It isn’t fair. You plagiarize, which is unethical. I have listed a bunch of reasons, not at all begging the question. You can ignore those reasons, but really I have devoted more time than just saying, “It is wrong because it is against the rules.” I debated NDT, I read really fast, and I cited last name and year. When I went to the ADA tournaments I provided full citations, because those were the rules. I didn’t view it as a punishment, just a different standard. Our team thought it was a nuisance, but we adapted so we could still prevail. I think that nerdy can do whatever he wants in a debate, and probably will. Perhaps he will never agree that providing a full citation gives him more credibility. That’s okay. It will hardly make a difference later in his life. And hopefully in the meantime he gets a lot of critics who agree with his position. But this conversation is over for me. There are too many false comparisons, hasty generalizations, and slippery slopes. I suggest that nerdy write someone at NFA. These are not my rules. I am trying to do my job, coaching people to win LD rounds. My first order of business is to read the rules and to instruct my debaters to follow them. If I were a baseball coach I’d start with the rules as well. The change cannot occur on this level NFA-LD is national and there are many judges in the activity. I must coach my student to the standard set by the activity, not set my own standard and then coach that way. My debater must follow the rules in order to be successful in front of any judge. As an LDer you won’t be penalized by anyone if you do follow the rule of evidence citation. HOWEVER, if you choose to violate the rule then your fate becomes your own. As long as anyone reading this thread understands that, personal opinions by those not working for the NFA are largely irrelevant.
Remember – and respect – the Audience!
By giving full cites, you are giving the judges/opponents/audience enough information to read the source in its entirety, thereby stimulating them to build upon (and, I would hope) ultimately supplement your research. (Indeed, that is the process of research that’s been going on – in microcosm – on this Message Board. Thanks again, Danny!) Giving full cites is also completely consistent with the healthy trend towards “full disclosure” that the Board promotes.
Believe it or not, once upon a time, people came to watch high school and college policy debates to learn about the topic area, not just because of a judging commitment or to see who wins. At National Pro (University of Chicago) in the Summer of 1970, David Goss and I drew an average audience of 20+ non/judge observers in prelims, and all of our elimination rounds were in auditoriums and were SRO. We had from grandparents to toddlers in the audience. (The status/good reputations of our opponents was in large part the cause of high attendance, as well.)
BTW: Speakling only for myself, when a periodical is being quoted to support an assertion of fact (as opposed to an opinion), and the author is simply a reporter/journalist who works for the periodical, I don’t think the reporter/journalist has to be named. Ergo, “the New York Times reported on September 7, 2009 that ’8 Americans were killed today in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.’” works for me. (The page number or web address would be on the card, but not read unless requested.)
Also, keep in mind that “EVIDENCE” is a full-year course in all accredited American law schools and is part of every Bar Exam in the USA. Ergo, I have had the benefit of training that isn’t part of a typical debate course. (Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing is… debateable.) But I think teaching research and evidence takes several days – if not weeks – on intense instruction. Instead, these topics tend to get lip service at camps before the prepared briefs start circulating.
All this, would, I hope, at least partially explain why I think that the proper penalty for “illegal” citation of evidence [as opposed to an exthics violation] is for the judge to “exclude” (refuse to flow/ not consider) the evidence, and/or in the alternative to “strike”(disregard) the evidence upon objection by an opponent.
These kinds of things can, and should, be part of effective cross-examination.
P.S. Ask me about “the Doctrine of Judicial Notice” (both permissible and mandatory).
At the very least, you should cite full evidence on your solvency. Because what happens in a lot of debates is how your solvency cards relate to on case args and DA’s. Joe the blogger econ turn is going to suck compared to Warren Buffet solvency advocate card or whatever. And remember, there is only constructive speech. Saying Buffet 09 the first speech then explaining his qualifications in another may not fly with a lot of critics.
Or just cite your evidence on every card and do it faster so your able. Practice Practice Practice. If your debating lightspeed and you still cant get your full evidence in, then you have way too many cards.
Travis: I would say “Yes,” but I spent approximately 60 hours getting ready for the PSCFA Coaches Meeting, and instead spent the last Friday night barricaded in my car at the G&M Food Mart in National City. The point: you just never know. But I certainly PLAN and INTEND to be at RCC and every other NFA-LD tourney on Danny’s list!
My general rule is to use full cites in front of lay/communications/inexperienced judges and abbreviated cites in front of “contemporary” judges, unless otherwise requested. This is true no matter what the format of the debate is or what level the competition is at.
For the former group, who view debate as a communication-oriented activity and not a game, providing cites is vital. Danny is dead-on with his credibility argument, because you want to demonstrate that your sources are experts, and therefore the conclusions you draw are likewise valid. I also end up spending a lot more time doing comparative analysis of evidence not on the warrants of the cards, but on the authors – which is impossible to do if you don’t provide cites first time up.
In front of judges who are experienced and are contemporary, I skip cites to save on time. It lets me either underline more warrants in my cards or add another card entirely, which is amazingly useful with speech times as short as they are.
Additionally, in these kind of debates, comparison of evidence tends to be focused much more on the warrants rather than the qualifications. “Smith 09″ just tells the judge that the person is an outside source; strong warrants are more important than credibility. If a source is truly illegitimate, the opponent can point this out to the judge in cross-x and then proceed to effectively force the opponent to discard the evidence from the debate.
With regards to “well it’s a rule, so follow it,” I disagree. I hate rules. Really do. I believe that if you can’t justify it from a fairness standpoint, it shouldn’t be a rule.
At the very least, if an opponent is going to call someone out on a rule violation, they better demonstrate to the judge that the opponent’s violation of a rule negatively impacted their chances in the debate. This can be very easy – if someone gives a 15 minute speech, any debater with half a brain could describe why that’s bad.
With the cites rule, it’s different. If I read “Smith 09″ and you want to complain, I mean, what are you going to say? That your opponent made him or herself *less* credible? That’s not called an abuse story, that’s called your opponent jacking himself by his own free will.