Information exists to be shared, not monopolized.

On top of that, are they afraid that someone might use their card because it is good? Really? The best feeling I had as a debater was when 3 schools were running my natives Aff at nationals. Sure they tweaked it a bit, but they were still using my files.

To me, if someone does not allow a competitor/judge to take down the cite, electronically or otherwise, I think it shows a lack of conviction in their evidence. As in, they are afraid someone will make sure they are being truthful.
It is not like someone will fabricate evidence or tweak it a little to much for their benefit (cough cough HS TOC a couple years ago).

While I think that some rules in NFA are a bit lame, I am 100% behind the rules of ethical citation of scholarly/not quite so scholarly research on the cards (not so hot on having to read the long names that people give their articles, le sigh).

We need to have accountability for each other and this is something that if the scholars can do it and survive, so can we.

Silver (2nd Place)
Point Loma Nazarene University – Sydney Awakuni

Bronze:
California Baptist University – Alex Lamascus
California Baptist University – Richard Wickham

Congratulations to all the debaters!

Maybe people don’t understand that you can actually take cites?
Since most LD debaters in Cali are actually parli debaters who do LD (for various reasons) – evidence based debate formats are foreign to them and they do not understand what should be community norms.

I found the WKY debaters extraordinarily polite and willing to adjust. I also very much appreciate your point that sometimes as coaches we ask our debaters to debate a certain way, and when they sometimes don’t it should not reflect on the program, the coach, or the region. We are all works in progress.

To be sure, we have come a long way when you consider that your LDers of five years ago had no place at all to debate in Southern California, and now we can at least have this conversation.

This is certainly not the case for our debate team. (WKU) All debaters on our team also compete in IEs. I sympathize with the concern about speed, and I hope that none of my debaters reacted negatively to criticisms about their presentation. I’ve noticed an increase both in speed and use of technical language specific to the topic on our team after we made LD the only debate platform that we compete in. For most on our team that desire to speak faster comes from wanting to include more of their research into the round. Our team is instructed that the difference between “spreading” and merely speaking quickly is that spreading is an attempt to decrease clash by making as many arguments as possible with no filter in hopes that your opponent drops something. We also try to emphasize that speaking quickly should not come at the expense of persuasion. All individual events are done at different speeds. ADS is faster than INFO, and an Introduction in an interp is slower than a climax. I believe/hope that speaking quickly can be done in a way that enhances clash and is in line with the spirit of the NFA-LD charter. I appreciate your feedback Mike, and I will share your comments with my team at our next meeting.

Also, Thank You for your comments about taking pictures. We instructed our students to ask before they snapped pictures. We did receive some backlash, but on the whole I think most people shared your sentiment.