Taishen Siao, Wake Forest University

1987 - Latin American Politics: The Calculus of Instability

OVERVIEW

A general insight on ethics in debate provides the introduction to the position taken in this essay. After all, the activity exists because we all have mutually consented to certain practices that are expected to be honored. We agree that it is a competition with certain standards that cannot be compromised. The strictest of such, I believe, are the ethical uses of evidence in rounds. While a complete survey of the ethical and unethical' practices of debate is beyond this discussion, centering on the issue of ethical uses of evidence provides a good example of a non-compromising issue in debate.

Although problems of ethics are often complex, it is important for us not to lose sight of their importance. Professor Stanley G. Rives provides an excellent overview of this dilemma when he wrote,
How do we arrive at ethical judgments? It is difficult for one to evaluate his own practices by ethical standards and it is extremely difficult for one to evaluate the underlying values and intent as reflected in the practices of another person. The difficulty of the task, however, should not lead to conclude that it is impossible and nothing should be done about it. Such an answer too easily relieves of the responsibility to promote ethical behavior in academic debate.'

Interposed on the issue of evidentiary challenges in academic debate, one can see the difficulty in drawing the dimensions of ethical behavior. But it may be necessary to clarify that "gray area' between the types of evidence challenges that are seriously made and those which are made casually.

There is a need for further examination into this very controversial area. Whereas the majority of Debaters' Research Guide articles in the past primarily dealt with theoretical ramifications in academic debate, this essay presents two different purposes. First, one purpose is to examine the responsibility of argumentation in debate with particular focus on the ethical uses of evidence. In a way, this examination is a meta-perspective on a very basic responsibility in debate; the upholding of evidence integrity. And a second purpose is to try to provide some set of dispositions to deal with this evidence challenges when they arise in a debate. In this way, both the debater and the judges may be able to draw from the analysis of this essay.

To address this problem, the essay is divided into the following areas of analysis. First, the responsibility of ethical judgments about evidence is examined. Second, to illustrate the effect evidentiary challenges and distortions have on a round, three scenarios are provided. The effects on the debater and the judge will be analyzed in three possible strategies involving ethical considerations of evidence. The third section considers some current views of evidentiary challenges by debate judges. Finally, some suggestions are made as to how unfortunate evidence challenges can best be avoided.

THE DEBATER'S OBLIGATION: THE HIDDEN HONOR CODE

when asked why one participates in the activity of academic debate, individuals often cite the benefits to their participation. Some point to the gradual development of speaking skills that are associated with participation in the activity. Others cite the organizational skills that are developed. But what types of obligations or responsibilities does the debater have while participating? Essentially, I believe there are two primary attributes of this responsibility. First and foremost, a debater should never fabricate evidence or use fabricated evidence in a debate. Secondly, a debater should be careful not to make casual claims of evidence fabrication.

Although not officially spelled out as such, there is an honor code' of sorts in academic debate. This honor code is defined as 'refraining from fabricating evidence and the challenge thereof casually without demonstrated proof.' It simply means that an individual should not make up evidence and that the individual should not casually make statements about the integrity of the opponents without proof. I believe there are three primary derivatives of this hidden 'honor code'.

First, the origins are apparent in basic texts of argumentation. The ethical responsibilities of debaters have been widely recognized for a number of decades. I believe Professor Rives makes an important statement when he wrote in 1968 about the obligations of the debater before entering the debate.

The first ethical obligation of participants is, therefore, to research the proposition thoroughly in an honest effort to know as much of the truth as can be discerned. This is a moral responsibility if we are to be justified in our claim that academic debate is an educational activity.

Rives' statement is probably an accurate reflection of the ethical responsibilities expected of all participants in this activity. It is the overriding responsibility that all debaters are expected to honor. The debate takes place, and only should take place because both teams made an honest effort at researching the topic.

Secondly, the ethical uses of evidence appears in the guidelines of the American Forensic Association. The AFA Professional Relations Committee adopted the following standards in 1982:

I. Forensics competitors shall not use fabricated or distorted evidence.

A. Evidence is defined as factual material (statistics and examples) and/or opinions testimony offered as proof of a debater's or speaker's contention, claim, position, argument, point or case.
B. Fabrication of evidence refers to falsely representing a cited fact or statement of opinion as evidence when the material in question is not authentic. Fabricated evidence is so defined without reference to whether or not the debater or speaker using it was the person responsible for fabricating it.
C. Distorted evidence refers to misrepresenting the actual or implied content of factual or opinion evidence. Distorted evidence is so defined without reference to whether or not the debater or speaker using it was the person responsible for fabricating it. Distortions shall be judges by comparing the challenged evidence against the material as it appears in the original source. Distortions include, but are not limited to: (1) Quoting out of context; (2) misinterpreting the evidence so as to alter its meaning; (3) Omitting salient information from quotation or paraphrases. MLA standards will be considered advisory with respect to this standard; (4) Adding words to a quotation which were not present in the original source of the evidence without identifying such an addition. (5) Failure to provide complete documentation of the evidence (name of authors'), source of publication, full date, page number(s) and author(s) credentials where available in the original) when challenged.

These standards constitute what is generally accepted as being unacceptable or unethical uses of evidence. Most debaters will have had exposure to these guidelines at one point or another.

In addition to historical confirmation and the guidelines of sanctioning associations, there is a third source which define acceptable standards. They are the judging philosophies of those who have the final say on the ballot. They constitute perhaps the most visible warning of the penalties for the misuse of evidence and undocumented challenges. Specific data from Judging Philosophies is examined later in the essay.

Despite the uniformity of opinion that all evidence use be honest and forthright there are occasions where a round is stopped short because of an ethical challenge by one team on another. The following scenario illustrates the types of evidence challenges most likely to occur.

THREE POSSIBLE SCENARIOS

There are three primary ways that a dispute over evidence can be made. These are examined in terms of a hypothetical example. In all three instances, the affirmative team presents a piece of evidence saying that the quarterly inflation level has gone down. The evidence is used to substantiate the argument that the annual inflationary rate has gone down. One strategy that the negative team may choose is to simply argue that the evidence is not representative of an entire year's economic indicators. This seems to be a valid argument which is debatable.

A second strategy for the negative team may be to make the argument about the context of the card in relation to the original article. For example, they argue that the article does not necessarily conclude affirmative. The article may make mention of the quarterly economic indicator, but it may have concluded the other way. For instance, it later indicates that that the subsequent quarters showed a massive increase in inflationary rate. This option seems to be the most difficult to resolve on the ethical level. If the negatives argument is proven with another card from the same article or with a copy of the original article, then does affirmative get penalized with zero points and the loss? While the evidence can is taken out of context, it is not a direct fabrication of the evidence. In this case, I believe the argument should be disposed of by having the affirmative withdrawing the card from the debate. At this point, preferably, teams should exchange citations instead of cut evidence. Sometimes there may be mistakes, whether intentional or unintentional, in the research process. If it came from somebody else, you may not know of the mistake until the debate takes place. Then it may be too late. In addition, by trading citations instead of evidence, the debaters can read an entire article over again and get the full context of the card. If there is time, it certainly would not hurt.

CONCLUSION

The issue of ethical practices in debate, with particular attention to the use of evidence, is not dead. The goal of the activity should be to promote integrity, This would probably be an easier solution than trying to devise theories of making ethical challenges into a debatable issue. It may not be easy, but we need to start somewhere. The proper uses of evidence is an integral part of academic debate. The ramifications for this goal in academic debate is crucial to not only the activity itself, but to society as well. Rives sums up the position eloquently when he wrote,

We must continue to concern ourselves with ethics in debate if we honestly believe that argumentation and debate will continue to be a powerful instrument for the preservation of our free and democratic society, for the continuation of such a society does demand ethical conduct of its members.

While the number of evidence challenges are still relatively low, it really should not occur that often. The increase in ethical challenges in the uses of evidence reflects a serious blow to the state of our activity. In order to return the focus in debates to what it is supposed to be, a competition on debatable issues, students and coaches should be made aware of the seriousness of raising ethical challenges without cause and the fabrication of evidence.

NOTES

Stanley G. Rives. Ethical Argumentation,* Reading Argumentation. Jerry M. Anderson and Paul J. Dovre, editors. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968. page 12.
Ibid., page 15
Professional Relations Committee, American Forensics Association. Code of Forensics Program and Forensics Tournament Standards for Colleges and Universities. 1982.
Ed Hinck. National Debate Tournament Booklet of Judges. Walter Ulrich, edtr. 1987.
National Debate Tournament Booklet of Judges. Walter Ulrich, edtr. 1987.
Dallas Perkins. National Debate Tournament Booklet of Judges. Walter Ulrich, edtr. 1987.
Rodger Payne. 'Debate Research: 'If It's In Print Read It, Debater's Research Guide, 1983. page 13.
David Cheshier. National Debate Tournament Booklet of Judges. WalterUlrich, edtr. 1987.
Doug Sigel. National Debate Tournament Booklet of Judges. Walter Ulrich, edtr. 1987.
I guess this is an appropriate place here to discuss the "Punishment Paradigm.' In the 1984 edition of Debater's Research Guide, Doug Sigel stated that some coaches and debaters favor punishment as a way of stopping abusive practices. I think the approach taken in this essay is different in the debatable versus non-debatable distinction made earlier. Whereas conditionality, which is an issue in punishment paradigm, is debatable, the ethical uses and challenges of evidence is not.
11 Rives, page 21.