A) Interpretation: Debaters must use direct quotes when introducing evidence for

the first time. To clarify: don’t paraphrase

B) Violation: The paraphrase ___ evidence – recordings prove

C) Net Benefits
1) Ethics – paraphrasing inevitably leads to argument misrepresentation. it is
impossible to accurately reword articles and research papers into a few
words and leads to bad debate practices—something much less likely if you
use the authors words. Key to education because we aren’t learning real
information.
2) Spinning evidence – Paraphrasing incentivizes teams to spin evidence to give
them a strategic advantage to win and forces teams to debate arguments
without true warrants. This skews the ground within the debate because it
allows for them to have access to infinite arguments while we are restricted
to the topic literature, which kills fairness.
3) More research – Paraphrasing encourages lazy research practices where
teams only find mediocre evidence and then misconstrue it in round rather
than digging deeper in the literature to find the best evidence. This destroys
education because debaters are learning less about the topic.
4) Time skew – If we want to know the quote of their evidence, not only does
it require us to use prep time while they don’t have to, but it also takes
longer to read through parts they paraphrased than our quotes. This
destroys fairness because it decreases our time to prepare in-round strategy
and argumentation.

Education is a voter – its intrinsic to debate

a) Its why schools fund debate
b) Its why people participate in debate

Fairness is a voter – debate is a competitive activity that requires objective evaluation.

Drop the Debater
1) A vote for us endorses a positive model of debate. Wins and losses determine
the direction of the activity, teams losing for bad practices incentivizes change
in the future.
2) A neg ballot signifies a remedy to the competitive advantage they gained from
paraphrasing

Competing interps over reasonability:

A. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom where we read increasingly unfair
practices that minimally fit the bright-line- we should set the best norms.
B. Competing Interps are about setting a best norm so you have to justify why
not disclosing is a better norm.
C. Reasonability is also extremely arbitrary and thus begs judge intervention.

2. No RVIs on Theory
A. They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive
practices, killing substantive clash on other flows.
B. They can run theory on me too if I’m unfair so theory is reciprocal because
we’re both able to check abuse
C. Illogical: being fair isn’t a reason you should win, it’s a burden for both sides.