There are two ways we could do this
- when a team reads the card THEY are viewed as responsible for its accuracy/contect
- Its the other teams job to be responsible for this
What do I mean by this? If Team A reads a badly underlined card, it may be very short- 5 seconds or less. Reading the parts that proves its bad may take much longer than this, so if the team pointing out evidence is bad has to spend their time reading it then we have created an incentive structure whereby teams SHOULD be reading MANY bad, short cards to FORCE the other team to waste time re-reading the other portions in a speech.
If the team who reads the card is responsible the judge looks at the end, and if its a good card you win, if its a bad card you lose. This encourages both good evidence and for teams to actually scrutinize the other teams evidence because there is an easy way to take advantage of it.
Is there some potential for abuse/waste of the judges time? Yes. Judges can fix this though by employing a “cried wolf” standard= if you look at a few challenges from Team X and they are all wrong you can ignore the rest, even in future debates if you like.
I hope this clears it up for everyone.