Evidence (policy debate)

Evidence in policy debate is organized into units called "cards". Cards are designed to condense an author's argument so that debaters have an easy way to access the information. A card is composed of three parts: the tag, the cite, and the body. The "tag" is the debater's summary of the argument presented in the body. A tag is usually only one or two sentences. The "cite" contains all relevant citation information (that is, the author, date of publication, journal, title, etc.). Although every card should contain a complete citation, only the author's name and date of publication are typically spoken aloud in a speech. Some teams will also read the author's qualifications if they wish to emphasize this information. The "body" is a fragment of the author's original text. The length of a body can vary greatly—cards can be as short as a few sentences and as long as two or more pages. Most cards are between one and five paragraphs in length. The body of a card is often underlined or highlighted in order to eliminate unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tag is read first, followed by the cite and the body.

As pieces of evidence accumulate use, multiple colors of highlighting and different thicknesses of underlining often acrue, sometimes making it difficult to determine which portion of the evidence was read. If debaters stop before finishing the underlined or highlighted portion of a card, it is considered good form to "mark" the card to show where one stopped reading. To otherwise misrepresent how much of a card was read—either by stopping early or by skipping underlined or highlighted sections—is known as "cross-reading" which is generally considered cheating. Although many judges overtly condemn the practice on their paradigms, it is hard to enforce, especially if judges permit debaters to be excessively unclear. Opponents will generally stand behind a debater whom they believe to be "cross-reading", as if waiting to take a card (see below), and silently read along with them in an attempt to get their opponent to stop or the judge to notice.

As cards are read in round, it is common for an opponent to collect and examine even while a speech is still going on. This practice originated in part because cards are read at a rate faster than conversational speed but also because the un-underlined portion of cards is not read in round. Taking the cards during the speech allows the opponent to question the author's qualifications, the original context of the evidence, etc. in cross-examination. It is generally accepted whichever team is using preparation time has priority to read evidence read previously during a round by both teams. As a result, large amounts of evidence may change hands after the use of preparation time but before a speech. Most judges will not deduct from a team's preparation time for time spent finding evidence which the other team has misplaced.

After a round, judges often "call for cards" to examine evidence whose merit was contested during the round or whose weight was emphasized during rebuttals so that they can read the evidence for themselves. Although widespread, this practice is explicitly banned at some tournaments, most notably National Catholic Forensic League naitonals and some judges refuse to call for cards because they believe the practice constitutes "doing work for debaters that should have been done during round". Judges may also call for evidence for the purpose of obtaining its citation information so that they can produce the evidence for their own school. Opponents and spectators are also generally allowed to collect citations in this manner and some tournaments send scouts to rounds to facilitate the collection of cites for every team at the tournament, information which is sometimes published online.

ample card

US hegemony is key to preventing proliferation and global nuclear war.

Khalilzad, 95 (Zalmay, [director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program @ RAND & former US Ambassador to Afghanistan] "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. proquest)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values — understood as democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

References

*Bauschard, Stefan. (2002). [http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cxBauschard0102.pdf Debate Research on the World Wide Web] . "Rostrum". Retrieved December 30, 2005.
*Cheshire, David. (2002). [http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cx%20cheshier%2011-02.pdf Improving Your Research Skills] . "Rostrum". Retrieved December 30, 2005.
*Ludlum, Marty. (1999). [http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/LudlumMay99.pdf Using Legal Materials in Debate] . "Rostrum". Retrieved December 31, 2005.
*Massey, Jackie. (2001). [http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/MasseyJune%2700.pdf Using Internet Research in Competitive Debate] . "Rostrum". Retrieved December 30, 2005.
*Dartmouth Debate Workshop (2008). [http://ddw.wikispaces.com/Lectures Evidence/Briefing instruction handouts]