FORMATTING

This is a document with the formatting you’ll need. A pocket in all caps is for the title of the document,
and should only be used once. This is used multiple times in this document to demonstrate different
document types. The formatting will vary between different “documents” in this document.

In this section, I’ll just go over important things independent of the structure of documents.

Abbreviations

Signposting
A2 Answer to
I2 Indict to
F2 Frontline to

Responses
DL: Delink
NU: Non-unique
TN: Turn
IM: Impact mitigation

Weighing
C/: Your (negative) impact causes their (positive or negative) impact
S/: Your (positive) impact solves their (positive or negative) impact
W/: Your impact outweighs their impact

Overviews
O-W: Weighing overview
O-R: Responsive overview
O-O: Offensive overview
O-F: Framing overview (Different from weighing, sets up a frame of reference for the round)

If something is “2” (e.g. A2) then there is no colon after the abbreviation (e.g. A2 Argument). If
something is any other abbreviation (e.g. DL) then there is a colon after the abbreviation (e.g. DL: Delink
to the argument). Think about it, there’s a natural pause after “Delink: China is warming to THAAD,” but
not after “Answers to Chinese Sanctions”

Card tags should be written concisely, and not what you will say verbatim. Communicate the essence of
the card, and all of its warrants, but don’t make it too long.

Here’s the format of a card:

Economy 18 of the CFR writes that recent arms sales are the norm and there has been
little change
Elizabeth C. Economy, 6-19-2018, Council on Foreign Relations, "Is Washington Boosting Ties With Taiwan?", (Elizabeth Economy is the C. V. Starr senior fellow and director for Asia studies at
the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an acclaimed author and expert on Chinese domestic and foreign policy, writing on topics ranging from China's environmental challenges to its role in
global governance.), accessed 6-23-2018, https://www.cfr.org/interview/washington-boosting-ties-taiwan //NY

China opposed the AIT’s opening ceremony and has regularly condemned U.S. arms sales to Taiwan as illegal and provocative. Does it have a basis for challenging them under international
law? China does not have a legal basis for challenging the existence of AIT or U.S. arms sales. In fact, U.S. law, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, explicitly established AIT to promote relations
between the United States and Taiwan, while recognizing that it is not an embassy and that the United States does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The law also states
that the United States will “make available” to Taiwan equipment and services that will enable the island to maintain the capability to defend itself. Have U.S.-Taiwan relations changed under
the Trump administration? There has been a subtle change in the Trump administration’s stance—but more in form than in substance. The United States has consistently provided arms to
Taiwan, and the Trump administration’s 2017 sale was not outside the norm. In March 2018, Trump signed into law the bipartisan Taiwan Travel Act. The legislation acknowledges and
encourages but does not mandate senior-level visits between officials from the United States and Taiwan. The AIT compound was already headed toward completion by the time the Trump
administration arrived, so it is not part of any design to ratchet up the relationship. However, the U.S. government has demonstrated a willingness to push back against China on Taiwan-
related issues. For example, in response to Beijing’s pressure on U.S. airlines to drop references to Taiwan as an independent entity, the U.S. government encouraged the firms to ignore such
demands; the Trump administration called Beijing’s effort “Orwellian nonsense” and threatened to retaliate against Air China if Beijing took action against U.S. airlines.

Here are some things to remember when cutting cards.

- Over-underline, under-emphasize: You should underline pretty much everything that’s relevant,
but ONLY emphasize a phrase or two that generally represents whatever the tag says. If the card
has several warrants or something, emphasize each warrant. If the tag is just saying one thing,
just emphasize the summary statement. Underline everything that’s important otherwise.
- Add creds when possible, don’t stress it.

I didn’t want to put the card formatting in every tag in this document, so just pretend it’s there.
DOCUMENT TITLE
Section of document
Section of document
 Section of document
SECTION
Card
BLOCKFILE
Top-level
Topicality
 Word in the resolution
Definition of the word
The tag should just be the definition as concisely as possible
Weighing overviews
 O-W: X impact first
Card in the overview
 Framing overviews
These should be overviews that significantly shape the round, e.g. resolutional interps or framing of
impacts1

1
Not weighing, more “we should prioritize impacts that are happening now over unlikely nuke war,” not about any
one specific impact being good
 O-F: Something
Card in the overview
A2 AFF
A2 Specific argument
 O-R: Topshelf, overall response
Card in the response (WRITTEN CONCISELY, NOT VERBATIM WHAT YOU WILL SAY)
Another card
 A2 Variation in the argument/individual warrant in the
argument/something in the argument
Card that responds to it
Another card that responds to it (If there are multiple cards in a response, then
combine the tags and put the card citations and text below the single tag, in order
A2 Trump causes war
 A2 Trump made changes
[DL] Economy 18 of the CFR: recent arms sales are the norm and there has been little
change.
Elizabeth C. Economy, 6-19-2018, Council on Foreign Relations, "Is Washington Boosting Ties With Taiwan?", (Elizabeth Economy is the C. V. Starr senior fellow and director for Asia studies at
the Council on Foreign Relations. She is an acclaimed author and expert on Chinese domestic and foreign policy, writing on topics ranging from China's environmental challenges to its role in
global governance.), accessed 6-23-2018, https://www.cfr.org/interview/washington-boosting-ties-taiwan //NY

China opposed the AIT’s opening ceremony and has regularly condemned U.S. arms sales to Taiwan as illegal and provocative. Does it have a basis for challenging them under international
law? China does not have a legal basis for challenging the existence of AIT or U.S. arms sales. In fact, U.S. law, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, explicitly established AIT to promote relations
between the United States and Taiwan, while recognizing that it is not an embassy and that the United States does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The law also states
that the United States will “make available” to Taiwan equipment and services that will enable the island to maintain the capability to defend itself. Have U.S.-Taiwan relations changed under
the Trump administration? There has been a subtle change in the Trump administration’s stance—but more in form than in substance. The United States has consistently provided arms to
Taiwan, and the Trump administration’s 2017 sale was not outside the norm. In March 2018, Trump signed into law the bipartisan Taiwan Travel Act. The legislation acknowledges and
encourages but does not mandate senior-level visits between officials from the United States and Taiwan. The AIT compound was already headed toward completion by the time the Trump
administration arrived, so it is not part of any design to ratchet up the relationship. However, the U.S. government has demonstrated a willingness to push back against China on Taiwan-
related issues. For example, in response to Beijing’s pressure on U.S. airlines to drop references to Taiwan as an independent entity, the U.S. government encouraged the firms to ignore such
demands; the Trump administration called Beijing’s effort “Orwellian nonsense” and threatened to retaliate against Air China if Beijing took action against U.S. airlines.
A2 Neg
A2 Specific argument
 O-O: Large turn or disad to the arg
Card in the response (WRITTEN CONCISELY, NOT VERBATIM WHAT YOU WILL SAY)
Another card
F2
A2 Other
A2 Weird argument or something
Indicts
I2 Author 18 of source “whatever the card is saying”
 CARDFILE
Still in the same doc, but independent anyway.

There is no real structure, but that doesn’t mean you can just randomly paste cards in whatever format.
Just make sure they’re in the right area.
 Background cards
When you do background research, cut all the stuff you read into here. You do NOT want to be caught
out without a card for what you thought was basic background knowledge.
 Aff cards
Self-explanatory
 Neg cards
Self-explanatory