On lying about evidence.

I've literally had two people blatantly and clearly lie about evidence at state/nat quals:

RR -- Lied about her evidence saying that Syria and Ukraine were examples of successful political conditionality. The evidence literally did not say anything of the sort. When I pointed out that she had no examples of successful conditionality, she lied in her 1AR about those two countries and had the judges vote on that.

SH -- Lied about the Paldam evidence. She claimed that the Paldam evidence said that, out of 27 studies, conditionality worked. If you look at the physical evidence (which I literally read in my case) it clearly states that in those studies it failed. She literally read the setup and I read the conclusions.

I'll give them passes on these because I didn't call them out sufficiently.