Content-Manager, Administrators
203
edits
Difference between revisions of "Introduction to Circuit Debate"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Introduction to Circuit Debate (view source)
Revision as of 04:00, 13 March 2022
, 04:00, 13 March 2022→Evidence and Evidence Ethics
m (grammatical edits) |
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 194: | Line 194: | ||
=== Evidence and Evidence Ethics === | === Evidence and Evidence Ethics === | ||
Because most circuit LD rounds require a lot of evidence, it is important to make sure your evidence is accurate and cited properly. There is generally a norm in the community for what constitutes a piece of evidence that is cited "correctly." When citing evidence, debaters usually have a short summary of the evidence called the "tag" (which they write themselves); the source; and finally the card (which is the name for the body of evidence), which is highlighted and underlined in certain places in order to emphasize its important parts. | Because most circuit LD rounds require a lot of evidence, it is important to make sure your evidence is accurate and cited properly. There is generally a norm in the community for what constitutes a piece of evidence that is cited "correctly." When citing evidence, debaters usually have a short summary of the evidence called the "tag" (which they write themselves); the source; and finally the card (which is the name for the body of evidence), which is highlighted and underlined in certain places in order to emphasize its important parts. | ||
[[File:Evidence Ethics.png|thumb|Fig. 1: An example of properly cut and sourced evidence.]] | |||
In Figure 1, which is to the right, demonstrates an example of good evidence. The citation contains: | |||
-- | * a tag (the bolded sentences at the top) | ||
* the author ("Stilz") | |||
* the date ("'09") | |||
* the author qualifications ("Anna Stilz is Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Politics and the University Center for Human Values. Her research focuses on questions of political membership, authority and political obligation, nationalism and self-determination, rights to land and territory, and collective agency") | |||
* access date ("12-18-2021"), although this is not necessary | |||
* the publisher ("Project MUSE - Liberal Loyalty") | |||
* the website/book name/page number ("<nowiki>https://muse.jhu.edu/book/30179</nowiki>") | |||
When evidence lacks a source or is framed in a way to say something it doesn’t, it is called miscut evidence. | Sometimes, cards will have initials or a name attached at the end of the citation to show who cut them. There is an unspoken "decorum" when it comes to evidence – when you are using evidence that isn't yours, if the cards has the initials of other people you should leave them on. Similarly, even if you "recut" a piece of evidence (which is to highlight and underline the card by yourself), you should keep the original initials (if applicable) and if you were to add your own, you would note that it was "recut," which is often abbreviated as "rct." | ||
Continuing on to the body of the evidence, it contains: | |||
* highlighting (most people use blue, green, or yellow) | |||
* underlining (some people bold or box their underline) | |||
* small/shrunk text | |||
* the entire paragraph: when citing evidence, even if you are only taking specific sentences, you should include the entire paragraph from which you take your evidence. | |||
When people read cards aloud in debates, they read the tag, the author name, and the highlighted parts of the card. Most debaters will use a Microsoft Word extension, [https://paperlessdebate.com/verbatim/ Verbatim], to make cutting cards easier because it has built-in macros that will shrink text, highlight evidence, create tags, and other things that are handy for making sure you have properly cut evidence. There are also various citation creators that automatically create citation blocks for you, like [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cite-creator/jampigcbgngjedogaoglhpeckidccodi Cite Creator] and [https://cardrdebate.com/ Cardr]. For those that use Google Docs, there is [https://workspace.google.com/marketplace/app/debate_template/712515658695 Debate Template], which replicates some of the features found in Verbatim. | |||
[[File:Miscut Evidence.png|thumb|Fig. 2: An example of miscut evidence.]] | |||
When evidence lacks a source or is framed in a way to say something it doesn’t, it is called miscut evidence. Figure 2 shows an example of miscut evidence. It contains many problems, but some of the main points are that it: | |||
* does not contain the full author name | |||
* lacks author qualifications | |||
* is not properly highlighted/underlined | |||
Bad evidence can lose rounds. In close debates where the judge must compare evidence, not properly citing your authors can lose you the round. Evidence is also an important part of [https://www.vbriefly.com/2022/01/06/why-doc-formatting-matters-by-lawrence-zhou/ judge perception.] | |||
==== Evidence Ethics: Stakes vs Theory ==== | ==== Evidence Ethics: Stakes vs Theory ==== | ||
When you notice miscut evidence, there are two things you can do: you can stake the round or run theory on them. | When you notice miscut evidence, there are two things you can do: you can stake the round or run theory on them. | ||