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.

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).

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 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!

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.

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 .