Evidence pools are an excellent resource if you don’t want to have to research the entire resolution on your own. This year, that task is impossible. As anyone who has been a part of an evidence pool can attest to, however, one of the primary annoyances is receiving briefs that look like they were made on the stone-age version of Microsoft Word. This video outlines some basic formatting requirements every evidence card should have. Anyone who watches it has no excuse to improperly format evidence. ; )
A ‘sequel’ video on Brief formatting may follow in the relatively near future.
~Peter Voell
peter[dot]voell[at]gmail[dot]com
Testing the comments.
Darn, Peter- all of my briefs are in “bad hangover” and “swirly.”
Hey Peter, what persona/theme are you using with that firefox?
Peter – do you read the entire tag you formatted on this brief? Can you give an example of how you would say this in a round?
Thanks
Joseph: I’m using Arcane. It’s pretty sweet.
Mrs. R: I never read the taglines from my cards in a debate round. I believe the purpose of taglines is to summarize evidence so that one can quickly locate the best card under a given argument inside a round. so. in a round, if I was reading that card…I would say something like this:
“The negative argued that hazardous waste regulation should be a federal responsibility. As stated in the 1AC, though, in order for the federal government to regulate something [i.e. hazardous waste], they must first prove that the issue falls within their constitutional jurisdiction. Does hazardous waste regulation meet this standard? Absolutely not. Jonathan Adler confirmed this position in 2008 when he argued, “”
I never actually READ the tag verbatim, but I used it as a guide to determine which card I should read in a given speech. Does that answer your question?