Name: /100

Comm 144 – Persuasive Speech Grading Rubric

The persuasive speech must be between 5 to 6 minutes. Finishing the speech over time limit will

result in point deductions (2pts every five seconds), so please prepare accordingly. Must cite 5

credible sources (publisher and date of publication). Speeches will be evaluated based on the

degree to which the following requirements are satisfied.

Traditional Persuasion Structure

Intro (10 points)

• Offers captivating attention-getting-device (AGD) or hook

• Connects hook to the topic and clearly introduces/defines the problem

• Identities the significance of problem with credibility (i.e., citations/sources)

• Offers clear thesis statement (i.e., takes a position/side on the problem)

• Provides preview/roadmap (i.e., foreshadows the main sections of the speech)

Body (60 points)

• Uses signposts (i.e., “first,” “second,” etc.) to introduce effects, causes, solutions

• BP1 supported with credible evidence

• Uses clear transition statements between main speech sections

• BP2 supported with credible evidence

• Causes are directly tied to effects

• BP3 supported with credible evidence

• Solutions are directly tied to causes/effects

• Concrete/clear steps provided for solution enactment

• Solutions are thoughtful and feasible for topic

Conclusion (10 points)

• Offers review statement (i.e., reviews the main sections of the speech)

• Highlights importance of speech (i.e., ties implications of speech to audience)

• Concludes with memorable statement (i.e., connects back to introductory hook)

Delivery (20 points)

• Truly “extemporaneous” speaking (i.e., not reading off a script)

• Avoids nervous mannerisms (i.e., playing with clothing, hair, face, etc.)

• Uses intense, animated language

• Varies speech pace/rate (i.e., not the same speaking pace the whole time)

• Projects or speaks loudly (i.e., farthest person in the room can hear with ease)

• Sounds well-rehearsed (i.e., communicative fluidity)

• Enthusiasm about topic

• Makes eye contact for 70% of speech

• Physical composure (i.e., avoids moving side-to-side or up-and-down w/o purpose)

• Reactivity to distractions (i.e., works through unforeseeable contextual issues)

• Satisfies time requirement

Extra Credit (5 points)

• Correctly applies the speaker’s triangle

Name: /100

Monroe’s Motivated Sequence

Attention (10 points)

• Offers captivating attention-getting-device (AGD) or hook

• Connects hook to the topic and clearly introduces/defines the problem

• Identities the significance of problem with credibility (i.e., citations/sources)

• Relates the problem to the audience with evidence/examples

• Does NOT preview/roadmap

Need (10 points)

• Uses signposts (i.e., “first,” “second,” etc.) to clearly outline the needs

• Explicitly states unfulfilled needs of audience/effects of problem

• Points supported with credible evidence

• Does NOT reveal the solutions

Satisfaction (40 points)

• Clearly explains what the solution is and how it works

• Solution clearly ties to the unfulfilled needs identified previously

• Overcomes objections/counterarguments against proposed solutions

• Points supported with credible evidence

• Does NOT reveal steps for solutions

Visualization (10 points)

• Starts section with “Imagine a world in which…”

• Descriptions are concrete, vivid, and/or personal

Action (10 points)

• Steps to enacting solutions are specific, easy, and concrete

• Concludes with memorable statement (i.e., connects back to introductory hook)

Delivery (20 points)

• Truly “extemporaneous” speaking (i.e., not reading off a script)

• Avoids nervous mannerisms (i.e., playing with clothing, hair, face, etc.)

• Uses intense, animated language

• Varies speech pace/rate (i.e., strategically speeds-up or slows-down for emphasis)

• Projects or speaks loudly (i.e., farthest person in the room can hear with ease)

• Sounds well-rehearsed (i.e., communicative fluidity)

• Enthusiasm about topic

• Makes eye contact for 70% of speech

• Physical composure (i.e., avoids moving side-to-side or up-and-down w/o purpose)

• Reactivity to distractions (i.e., works through unforeseeable contextual issues)

• Satisfies time requirement

Extra Credit (5 points)

• Correctly applies the speaker’s triangle

Topic Selection &
Intro to Persuasion

Abdullah Salehuddin

PhD Student

Welcome Back Comm 130!

Today’s Schedule:

Intro to and Application of Monroe’s Motivated Sequence

The difference between persuasive and informative speaking is…

AUSTIN J. FREELEY
Late, John Carroll University

DAVID L. STEINBERG
University of Miami

Argumentation and Debate

Critical Thinking for Reasoned
Decision Making

TWELFTH ED IT ION

Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States

✵

Printed in the United States of America
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 11 10 09 08

Publisher: Lyn Uhl

Executive Editor: Monica Eckman

Assistant Editor: Kimberly Gengler

Editorial Assistant: Kimberly

Apfelbaum

Associate Technology Project

Manager: Jessica Badiner

Marketing Manager: Erin Mitchell

Marketing Assistant: Mary Anne

Payumo

Associate Content Project Manager:

Jessica Rasile

Art Director: Linda Helcher

Production Technology Analyst:

Jamison MacLachlan

Print Buyer: Susan Carroll

Permissions Editor: Mardell

Glinski-Schultz

Production Service: Newgen

Cover Designer: Ke Design

Cover Image: © Imagemore Co., Ltd.

© 2009, 2005 Wadsworth Cengage Learning

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the
copyright herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored,
or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or
mechanical, including but not limited to photocopying,
recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, Web distribution,
information networks, or information storage and retrieval
systems, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the
1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

For product information and technology assistance,
contact us at

Cengage Learning Academic Resource Center
1-800-423-0563

For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at

www.cengage.com/permissions.
Further permissions questions can be e-mailed to

[email protected]

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007941012

ISBN-13: 978-0-495-09590-3
ISBN-10: 0-495-09590-7

Wadsworth Cengage Learning
25 Thomson Place
Boston, MA 02210
USA

Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by
Nelson Education, Ltd.

For your course and learning solutions,
visit academic.cengage.com

Purchase any of our products at your local college store
or at our preferred online store www.ichapters.com

Argumentation and Debate:
Critical Thinking for Reasoned
Decision Making, Twelfth
Edition
Austin J. Freeley, Late
David L. Steinberg

To Dr. Austin J. Freeley and Trudy.
David L. Steinberg

✵

Brief Contents

Chapter 1 Critical Thinking 1

Chapter 2 Applied and Academic Debate 19

Chapter 3 Stating the Controversy 43

Chapter 4 Analyzing the Controversy 60

Chapter 5 Exploring the Controversy 86

Chapter 6 Evidence 105

Chapter 7 Tests of Evidence 126

Chapter 8 The Structure of Reasoning 152

Chapter 9 Types of Reasoning 169

Chapter 10 Obstacles to Clear Thinking 188

Chapter 11 Requirements of the Case 204

Chapter 12 Building the Affirmative Case 214

Chapter 13 Building the Negative Case 235

Chapter 14 Refutation 261

iv

✵

Chapter 15 Presenting the Case: Composition 280

Chapter 16 Presenting the Case: Delivery 300

Chapter 17 Evaluating the Debate 314

Chapter 18 Academic Debate Formats and Cross-
Examination 332

Chapter 19 Applied Parliamentary Debate 356

BR I E F CONTENTS v

Contents

PREFACE xi

Chapter 1 Critical Thinking 1

I. Debate 6

II. Individual Decisions 9

III. Group Discussion 11

IV. Persuasion 12

V. Propaganda 13

VI. Coercion 14

VII. Combination of Methods 15

VIII. Ethical Decision Making 16

Exercises 17

Chapter 2 Applied and Academic Debate 19

I. Applied Debate 20

II. Academic Debate 24

III. Ethical Standards for Debate 38

Exercises 41

Chapter 3 Stating the Controversy 43

I. Defining the Controversy 45

II. Phrasing the Debate Proposition 45

III. Presumption and Burden of Proof 48

vi

✵

IV. Types of Debate Propositions 55

Exercises 58

Chapter 4 Analyzing the Controversy 60

I. The Importance of Defining Terms 61

II. Methods of Defining Terms 63

III. Issues 72

Exercises 84

Chapter 5 Exploring the Controversy 86

I. Brainstorming for Ideas 87

II. Locating Materials 88

III. Reading with a Purpose 98

IV. Reading Critically 99

V. Recording Materials 99

VI. Organizing Materials 102

Exercises 104

Chapter 6 Evidence 105

I. Sources of Evidence 108

II. Types of Evidence 112

III. The Probative Force of Evidence 122

Exercises 125

Chapter 7 Tests of Evidence 126

I. Uses of Tests of Evidence 126

II. Tests of Credible Evidence 129

III. Tests of Audience Acceptability 145

Exercises 150

Chapter 8 The Structure of Reasoning 152

I. The Classical Structures 152

II. The Elements of Any Argument 163

III. Extending the Elements of An Argument 167

Exercises 168

Chapter 9 Types of Reasoning 169

I. The Degree of Cogency 169

II. Tests of Reasoning and Their Uses 173

CONTENTS vii

III. General Tests of Reasoning 174

IV. Types of Reasoning and Tests for Each Type 174

Exercises 187

Chapter 10 Obstacles to Clear Thinking 188

I. Fallacies of Evidence 190

II. Fallacies of Reasoning 191

III. Fallacies of Language 193

IV. Fallacies of Pseudoarguments 195

Exercises 202

Chapter 11 Requirements of the Case 204

I. Requirement to Present a Prima Facie Case 205

II. General Case Requirements 207

Exercises 212

Chapter 12 Building the Affirmative Case 214

I. Objectives of the Affirmative Case 216

II. Proposition of Value Affirmative Cases 216

III. Proposition of Policy Affirmative Cases 219

IV. Building for Optimum Capability 231

V. Alternative Debate Approaches 233

Exercises 233

Chapter 13 Building the Negative Case 235

I. Objectives of the Negative Case 235

II. Proposition of Value Negative Cases 237

III. Proposition of Policy Negative Approaches 240

Exercises 260

Chapter 14 Refutation 261

I. Shifting the Burden of Rebuttal 261

II. Purpose and Place of Refutation 262

III. Preparing for Refutation 263

IV. Arranging Material for Refutation 265

V. Selecting Evidence and Reasoning 265

VI. The Structure of Refutation 271

VII. Methods of Refutation 278

Exercises 279

viii CONTENTS

Chapter 15 Presenting the Case: Composition 280

I . Analysis of the Audience 280

II. Written and Oral Styles 285

III. A Philosophy of Style 286

IV. Factors of Style in Speech Composition 287

V. Rhetorical Factors in Speech Composition 291

VI. Editing 298

Exercises 299

Chapter 16 Presenting the Case: Delivery 300

I. Methods of Delivery 300

II. Steps to Good Delivery 305

III. Nonverbal Communication 306

IV. Special Considerations: Tournament Debate Delivery 311

Exercises 313

Chapter 17 Evaluating the Debate 314

I. Functions of the Judge 314

II. Judging Philosophies 320

III. Functions of the Ballot 329

IV. Special Ballots for Special Purposes 330

Exercises 331

Chapter 18 Academic Debate Formats and Cross-
Examination 332

I. Formats of Debate 332

II. The Audience 350

III. Adapting the Debate to Communications Media 352

Exercises 355

Chapter 19 Applied Parliamentary Debate 356

I . Sources of Parliamentary Debate Rules 357

II. The Order of Business 358

III. Presentation of Motions 359

IV. Precedence of Motions 360

V. Purposes of Motions 360

VI. Unanimous Consent 365

Exercises 365

CONTENTS ix

APPENDIX A: A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 368

APPENDIX B: NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE 404

APPENDIX C: NATIONAL INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE

PROPOSITIONS (NDT) 458

APPENDIX D: NATIONAL INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE

PROPOSITIONS (CEDA) 469

APPENDIX E: DEBATE BIBLIOGRAPHY 475

APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY OF TERMS IN ARGUMENTATION AND

DEBATE 503

INDEX 513

x CONTENTS

Preface

Now more than ever, debate is popular. During the 2008 election cycle,
more than 40 televised debates involving the candidates for president and

vice president will help to inform the voting public about the policies and per-
sonalities of the competing debaters. Election campaigns at every level, from lo-
cal to national offices, routinely involve formal debates. The Urban Debate
League movement has expanded local public school participation in competitive
debate, and international efforts have encouraged the growth of debate around
the globe. Academic debate on campuses is vibrant, and students get in line to
take debate courses.

The twelfth edition of Argumentation and Debate continues the features that
have led to its wide use by “generations” of students for over 50 years, while
reflecting the newest trends and knowledge in the practice and study of argu-
mentation and debate. To that end, David L. Steinberg continues to build
upon the groundbreaking work of Austin J. Freeley, the author of the first nine
editions. Dr. Freeley passed away on January 14, 2005. His words form the foun-
dation of this book and the inspiration for its evolution. Although the funda-
mental nature of educational debate was established in classical times by
Aristotle, Protagoras, and the scholars who followed them through the ages, con-
temporary debate continues to change and evolve at an ever-increasing rate.
Along with many updates and revisions, this edition provides timely material on:

■ Concept Boxes (key concepts set aside in boxes in bulleted lists or key word
format)

■ Updated examples
■ References to new research about debate and argumentation
■ Addition of new and tested classroom exercises
■ Expanded discussion of ethical decision making
■ Description of the research process in the wired era

xi

✵

■ Explanation of performance as argumentation
■ Updated presidential debate (2004) and expanded discussion of political de-

bates through the “YouTube” debates of 2007
■ Expanded links to debate resources
■ Expanded bibliography
■ “Flowcharts” identifying Speaker duties in Policy and Value Debate Formats

Most chapters provide a miniglossary of terms and conclude with a set of sug-
gested exercises designed to provide experiential learning of the chapter’s con-
cepts. Throughout the text many important materials are presented in insets
that we hope will prove helpful to the student.

This book is designed for all who seek to improve their critical thinking,
reasoned decision making, and advocacy skills. In particular this text is designed
for the undergraduate course in argumentation and debate. It is appropriate for
any course that empowers students as active citizens participating in the societal
demands of democracy.

Austin J. Freeley recorded his thanks to his professors, mentors, and friends
in the first edition of this book. The memory of their contributions is luminous
across the years.

David L. Steinberg would like to record his thanks to his debate mentors,
David Thomas, Norma Cook, Jim Brooks, Warren Decker, and Brenda Logue,
and his terrific assistant coaches for teaching him far more than he could teach
them. His sincere thanks go to each of them, including Dan Leyton, Dale Reed,
Ernie Quierido, David Cram-Helwich, Christopher Cooper, Nicole Colston,
Gavin Williams, Matt Grindy, Nicole Richter, Kenny McCaffrey, and Johnny
Prieur. Johnny’s work inspired and informed the updates on research and evi-
dence organization in Chapter 5.

He would also like to acknowledge his boys, Adam and John, who make
him very proud, and his supportive and caring wife, Victoria, with much love.

Steinberg is grateful to Dr. Freeley for giving him the opportunity to con-
tribute to this project and, thus, to be a small part of his tremendous legacy.

Thanks to all the wonderful people at Cengage who work hard to make this
book a reality, including Kimberly Gengler, Monica Eckman, Jessica Rasile, and
Smitha Pillai, who are exceptionally patient, professional, and understanding.

Finally, thanks to the many students we have taught and judged over the
years, and those who will carry the tradition into the future. They are our inspi-
ration, helping us refine our thinking and develop more cogent statements on
many matters, and have provided many of the examples found throughout this
text.

David L. Steinberg

xii PREFACE

1

Critical Thinking

After several days of intense debate, first the United States House of
Representatives and then the U.S. Senate voted to authorize President George

W. Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass de-
struction as required by United Nations’s resolutions. Debate about a possible mili-
tary action against Iraq continued in various governmental bodies and in the public
for six months, until President Bush ordered an attack on Baghdad, beginning
Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military campaign against the Iraqi regime of Saddam
Hussein. He did so despite the unwillingness of the U.N. Security Council to sup-
port the military action, and in the face of significant international opposition.

Meanwhile, and perhaps equally difficult for the parties involved, a young cou-
ple deliberated over whether they should purchase a large home to accommodate
their growing family or should sacrifice living space to reside in an area with better
public schools; elsewhere a college sophomore reconsidered his major and a senior
her choice of law school, graduate school, or a job. Each of these situations called
for decisions to be made. Each decision maker worked hard to make well-reasoned
decisions.

Decision making is a thoughtful process of choosing among a variety of options
for acting or thinking. It requires that the decider make a choice. Life demands de-
cision making. We make countless individual decisions every day. To make some of
those decisions, we work hard to employ care and consideration; others seem to just
happen. Couples, families, groups of friends, and coworkers come together to make
choices, and decision-making bodies from committees to juries to the U.S. Congress
and the United Nations make decisions that impact us all. Every profession requires
effective and ethical decision making, as do our school, community, and social
organizations.

We all make many decisions every day. To refinance or sell one’s home, to buy
a high-performance SUV or an economical hybrid car, what major to select, what to
have for dinner, what candidate to vote for, paper or plastic, all present us with
choices. Should the president deal with an international crisis through military inva-
sion or diplomacy? How should the U.S. Congress act to address illegal immigration?

1

✵

Is the defendant guilty as accused? The Daily Show or the ball game? And upon what
information should I rely to make my decision?

Certainly some of these decisions are more consequential than others. Which
amendment to vote for, what television program to watch, what course to take,
which phone plan to purchase, and which diet to pursue all present unique chal-
lenges. At our best, we seek out research and data to inform our decisions. Yet
even the choice of which information to attend to requires decision making. In
2006, TIME magazine named YOU its “Person of the Year.” Congratulations! Its
selection was based on the participation not of “great men” in the creation of his-
tory, but rather on the contributions of a community of anonymous participants in
the evolution of information. Through blogs, online networking, YouTube,
Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, and many other “wikis,” knowledge and “truth”
are created from the bottom up, bypassing the authoritarian control of newspeople,
academics, and publishers. We have access to infinite quantities of information, but
how do we sort through it and select the best information for our needs?

Miniglossary

Argumentation Reason giving in communicative situations by people whose
purpose is the justification of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values.

Coercion The threat or use of force.

Critical thinking The ability to analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas; to reason
inductively and deductively; and to reach factual or judgmental conclusions
based on sound inferences drawn from unambiguous statements of knowledge
or belief.

Debate The process of inquiry and advocacy; the seeking of a reasoned judg-
ment on a proposition.

Deontological ethics An ethical approach that is process- or act-oriented, and is
based on the notion that actions have moral value.

Ethics A set of constructs that guide our decision making by providing stan-
dards of behavior telling us how we ought to act.

Good reasons Reasons that are psychologically compelling for a given audi-
ence, that make further inquiry both unnecessary and redundant—hence justi-
fying a decision to affirm or reject a proposition.

Persuasion Communication intended to influence the acts, beliefs, attitudes,
and values of others.

Propaganda The use of persuasion by a group (often a closely knit organiza-
tion) in a sustained, organized campaign using multiple media for the purpose
of influencing a mass audience.

Teleological ethics An ethical approach that is results oriented, and would fo-
cus on the good or bad consequences of an action or a decision.

2 CHAPTER 1 CR I T I CAL TH INK ING

The ability of every decision maker to make good, reasoned, and ethical deci-
sions relies heavily upon their ability to think critically. Critical thinking enables one
to break argumentation down to its component parts in order to evaluate its relative
validity and strength. Critical thinkers are better users of information, as well as bet-
ter advocates.

Colleges and universities expect their students to develop their critical think-
ing skills and may require students to take designated courses to that end. The im-
portance and value of such study is widely recognized.

The executive order establishing California’s requirement states:

Instruction in critical thinking is designed to achieve an understanding of
the relationship of language to logic, which would lead to the ability to
analyze, criticize, and advocate ideas, to reason inductively and deductively, and
to reach factual or judgmental conclusions based on sound inferences drawn from
unambiguous statements of knowledge or belief. The minimal competence to
be expected at the successful conclusion of instruction in critical think-
ing should be the ability to distinguish fact from judgment, belief from
knowledge, and skills in elementary inductive and deductive processes,
including an understanding of the formal and informal fallacies of lan-
guage and thought.

Competency in critical thinking is a prerequisite to participating effectively in
human affairs, pursuing higher education, and succeeding in the highly competitive
world of business and the professions. Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the
National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking Instruction argued that the ef-
fective critical thinker:

■ raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely;
■ gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it

effectively; comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them
against relevant criteria and standards;

■ thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing
and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical con-
sequences; and

■ communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex
problems.

They also observed that critical thinking “entails effective communication and
problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and
sociocentrism.”1 Debate as a classroom exercise and as a mode of thinking and be-
having uniquely promotes development of each of these skill sets. Since classical
times, debate has been one of the best methods of learning and applying the

1. Michael Scriven and Richard Paul, “Defining Critical Thinking,” The Critical
Thinking Community, http://www.criticalthinking.org/aboutCT/definingCT.shtml.

CHAPTER 1 CR I T ICAL TH INK ING 3

principles of critical thinking. Contemporary research confirms the value of debate.
One study concluded:

The impact of public communication training on the critical thinking
ability of the participants is demonstrably positive. This summary of
existing research reaffirms what many ex-debaters and others in foren-
sics, public speaking, mock trial, or argumentation would support: par-
ticipation improves the thinking of those involved.2

In particular, debate education improves the ability to think critically. In a comprehen-
sive review of the relevant research, Kent Colbert concluded, “The debate–critical
thinking literature provides presumptive proof favoring a positive debate–critical
thinking relationship.”3

Much of the most significant communication of our lives is conducted in the
form of debates. These may take place in intrapersonal communications, in which
we weigh the pros and cons of an important decision in our own minds, or they
may take place in interpersonal communications, in which we listen to arguments
intended to influence our decision or participate in exchanges to influence the deci-
sions of others.

Our success or failure in life is largely determined by our ability to make wise
decisions for ourselves and to influence the decisions of others in ways that are ben-
eficial to us. Much of our significant, purposeful activity is concerned with making
decisions. Whether to join a campus organization, go to graduate school, accept a
job offer, buy a car or house, move to another city, invest in a certain stock, or
vote for Garcia—these are just a few of the thousands of decisions we may have to
make. Often, intelligent self-interest or a sense of responsibility will require us to win
the support of others. We may want a scholarship or a particular job for ourselves, a
customer for our product, or a vote for our favored political candidate.

2. Mike Allen, Sandra Berkowitz, Steve Hunt, and Allan Louden, “A Meta-Analysis of
the Impact of Forensics and Communication Education on Critical Thinking,”
Communication Education, vol. 48, no. 1 (Jan. 1999), p. 28.
3. Kent Colbert, “Enhancing Critical Thinking Ability Through Academic Debate,”
Contemporary Argumentation and Debate: The Journal of the Cross Examination Debate
Association, vol. 16 (1995), p. 69.

Critical Thinking

■ Life demands decision making

■ The ability to make reasoned decisions relies on critical thinking

■ Critical thinking enables analysis and evaluation of arguments

■ Critical thinking improves the use of information as well as advocacy

■ Teaching and learning critical thinking are important roles of education

■ Debate teaches critical thinking

4 CHAPTER 1 CR I T I CAL TH INK ING

Some people make decisions by flipping a coin. Others act on a whim or re-
spond unconsciously to “hidden persuaders.” If the problem is trivial—such as
whether to go to a concert or a film—the particular method used is unimportant.
For more crucial matters, however, mature adults require a reasoned means of deci-
sion making. Decisions should be justified by good reasons based on accurate evi-
dence and valid reasoning.

Argumentation is reason giving in communicative situations by people whose
purpose is the justification of acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values—a definition based on
language adopted at the National Developmental Conference on Forensics.4 British
philosopher Stephen Toulmin makes a similar point when he asks, “What kind of
justificatory activities must we engage in to convince our fellows that these beliefs are
based on ‘good reasons’?”5 Good reasons may be defined as “reasons which are
psychologically compelling for a given audience, which make further inquiry both
unnecessary and redundant—hence justifying a decision to affirm or reject a
proposition.”6

Note that what constitutes good reasons for one audience may not be good rea-
sons for another. When Taslina Nasrin wrote her novella Lajja (Shame), she became a
target of Muslim fundamentalists. Their fury mounted when she was quoted—or
misquoted, she insists—as saying that the Koran should be “revised thoroughly” to
give equal rights to women. After all, Islam’s central article of faith is that the Koran
is the literal word of God and is thus above revision. Nasrin’s challenge thus was seen
as blasphemy and prompted legal charges and Muslim fatwas, or religious decrees,
calling for her death:

A crowd of 100,000 demonstrators gathered outside the Parliament
building in Dhaka to bay for her blood.… One particularly militant
faction threatened to loose thousands of poisonous snakes in the capital
unless she was executed.7

4. James H. McBath, ed., Forensics as Communication (Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook,
1975), p. 11.
5. Stephen Toulmin, Knowing and Acting (New York: Macmillan, 1976), p. 138.
6. David Zarefsky, “Criteria for Evaluating Non-Policy Argument,” in Perspectives on Non-
Policy Argument, ed. Don Brownlee, sponsored by CEDA (privately published, 1980), p. 10.
7. Time, Aug. 15, 1994, p. 26.

Good Reasons

■ Argumentation relies on good reasons

■ Good reasons are audience-based justifications for or against propositions

■ Good reasons differ by audience and are therefore, impacted by culture

■ Argumentation guides decision making

CHAPTER 1 CR I T ICAL TH INK ING 5

This incident provides a dramatic example of cultural differences. To Muslim
fundamentalists in Bangladesh, even being suspected of calling for a revision of the
Koran is a “good reason” for execution.

In most of the world and for most Muslims, “blasphemy” is not perceived as a
good reason for death. In America, freedom of the press, enshrined in the First
Amendment to the Constitution, is perceived as a good reason for allowing an au-
thor to express just about any opinion. A debater needs to discover the justificatory
activities that the decision renderers will accept and to develop the good reasons that
will lead them to agree with the desired conclusion—or, of course, to reject the rea-
sons advanced by an opponent.

First we will consider debate as a method of critical thinking and reasoned deci-
sion making. Then we will look at some other methods of decision making and see
how they relate to argumentation and debate.

I . DEBATE

Debate is the process of inquiry and advocacy, a way of arriving at a reasoned
judgment on a proposition. Individuals may use debate to reach a decision in
their own minds; alternatively, individuals or groups may use it to bring others
around to their way of thinking.

Debate provides reasoned arguments for and against a proposition. It requires
two competitive sides engaging in a bipolar clash of support for and against that
proposition. Because it requires that listeners and opposing advocates compara-
tively evaluate competing choices, debate demands critical thinking. Society, like
individuals, must have an effective method of making decisions. A free society is
structured in such a way that many of its decisions are arrived at through debate.
For example, law courts and legislative bodies are designed to utilize debate as
their means of reaching decisions. In fact, any organization that conducts its busi-
ness according to parliamentary procedures has selected debate as its method.
Debate pervades our society at decision-making levels.

The ancient Greeks were among the first to recognize the importance of
debate for both the individual and society. Plato, whose dialogues were an early
form of cross-examination debate, defined rhetoric as “a universal art of winning
the mind by arguments, which means not merely arguments in the courts of
justice, and all other sorts of public councils, but in private conference as well.”8

Aristotle listed four functions for rhetoric.9 First, it prevents the triumph of
fraud and injustice. Aristotle argued that truth and justice are by nature more
powerful than their opposites, so when poor decisions are made, speakers with
right on their side have only themselves to blame. Thus, it is not enough to
know the right decision ourselves; we also must be able to argue for that decision
before others.

8. Plato, Phaedrus, 261. Translators Cooper and Jowett use slightly different terms in in-
terpreting this passage. This statement draws from both translations.
9. See Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, 1.

6 CHAPTER 1 CR I T I CAL TH INK ING

Second, rhetoric is a method of instruction for the public. Aristotle pointed
out that in some situations scientific arguments are useless; a speaker has to “ed-
ucate” the audience by framing arguments with the help of common knowledge
and commonly accepted opinions. Congressional debates on health care or tax
policies are examples of this. The general public, and for that matter the majority
of Congress, is unable to follow highly sophisticated technical arguments. Skilled
partisans who have the expertise to understand the technical data must reformu-
late their reasons in ways that both Congress and the public can grasp.

Third, rhetoric makes us see both sides of a case. By arguing both sides, we
become aware of all aspects of the case, and we will be prepared to refute our
opponents’ arguments.

Fourth, rhetoric is a means of defense. Often knowledge of argumentation
and debate will be necessary to protect ourselves and our interests. As Aristotle
stated: “If it is a disgrace to a man when he cannot defend himself in a bodily
way, it would be odd not to think him disgraced when he cannot defend himself
with reason. Reason is more distinctive of man than is bodily effort.” Similarly,
in the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill placed great emphasis on the value of
debate:

If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be ques-
tioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as
they now [in 1858] do. The beliefs which we have the most warrant
for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the
whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not ac-
cepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from
certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of
human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give
the truth the chance of reaching us; if the lists are kept open, we
may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the
human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we may
rely on having attained such approach to truth as is possible in our
day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being,
and this is the sole way of attaining it.10

Half a century ago the United States Senate designated as Senate Immortals
five senators who had shaped the history of the country by their ability as deba-
ters: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Robert M. La Follette, Sr.,
and Robert A. Taft. The triumvirate of Webster, Clay, and Calhoun especially
towered over all the others and were the near-unanimous choices of senators and
scholars alike. As John F. Kennedy, then a freshman senator, pointed out, “For
over thirty years they dominated the Congress and the country, providing lead-
ership and articulation on all the great issues of the growing nation.”11 For their
part La Follette and Taft were selected as the outstanding representatives of,

10. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (New York: Burt, n.d.), pp. 38–39.
11. John F. Kennedy, Senate speech, May 1, 1957, from a press release.

I . DEBATE 7

respectively, the progressive and the conservative movements in the twentieth
century. In honoring these “immortals,” the Senate recognized the importance
of debate in determining the course of American history.

Our laws not only are made through the process of debate but are applied
through debate as well. Today’s trial attorneys cite the famous dictum of attorney
Joseph N. Welch as a guide for contemporary legal practices:

America believes in what lawyers call “the adversary system” in our
courtrooms, including our criminal courts. It is our tradition that the
District Attorney prosecutes hard. Against him is the lawyer hired by the
defendant, or supplied by the court if the defendant is indigent. And the
defendant’s lawyer defends hard. We believe that truth is apt to emerge
from this crucible. It usually does.12

We need debate not only in the legislature and the courtroom but in every
other area of society as well. Most of our rights are directly or indirectly depen-
dent on debate. As the influential journalist Walter Lippmann pointed out, one
of our most cherished rights—freedom of speech—can be maintained only by
creating and encouraging debate:

Yet when genuine debate is lacking, freedom of speech does not work
as it is meant to work. It has lost the principle which regulates and jus-
tifies it—that is to say, dialectic conducted according to logic and the
rules of evidence. If there is no effective debate, the unrestricted right to
speak will unloose so many propagandists, procurers, and panderers
upon the public that sooner or later in self-defense the people will turn
to the censors to protect them. It will be curtailed for all manner of
reasons and pretexts, and serve all kinds of good, foolish, or sinister ends.

For in the absence of debate unrestricted utterance leads to the
degradation of opinion. By a kind of Gresham’s law the more rational is
overcome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will be
those which are held most ardently by those with the most passionate
will. For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained by
objecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, of
broadcasting, of the screen. It can be maintained only by promoting
debate.13

We need debate both to maintain freedom of speech and to provide a meth-
odology for investigation of and judgment about contemporary problems. As
Chaim Perelman, the Belgian philosopher-rhetorician whose works in rhetoric
and argumentation are influential in argumentation and debate, pointed out:

12. Joseph N. Welch, “Should a Lawyer Defend a Guilty Man?” This Week magazine,
Dec. 6, 1959, p. 11. Copyright 1959 by the United Newspapers Magazine Corporation.
13. Walter Lippmann, Essays in the Public Philosophy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1955),
pp. 129–130.

8 CHAPTER 1 CR I T I CAL TH INK ING

If we assume it to be possible without recourse to violence to reach
agreement on all the problems implied in the employment of the idea of
justice we are granting the possibility of formulating an ideal of man and
society, valid for all beings endowed with reason and accepted by what
we have called elsewhere the universal audience.14

I think that the only discursive methods available to us stem from
techniques that are not demonstrative—that is, conclusive and rational in
the narrow sense of the term—but from argumentative techniques
which are not conclusive but which may tend to demonstrate the rea-
sonable character of the conceptions put forward. It is this recourse to the
rational and reasonable for the realization of the ideal of universal com-
munion that characterizes the age-long endeavor of all philosophies in
their aspiration for a city of man in which violence may progressively
give way to wisdom.15

Here we have touched on the long-standing concern of philosophers and po-
litical leaders with debate as an instrument for dealing with society’s problems. We
can now understand why debate is pervasive. Individuals benefit from knowing the
principles of argumentation and debate and from being able to apply these princi-
ples in making decisions and influencing the decisions of others. Society benefits if
debate is encouraged, because free and open debate protects the rights of indivi-
duals and offers the larger society a way of reaching optimal decisions.

I I . IND IV IDUAL DEC IS IONS

Whenever an individual controls the dimensions of a problem, he or she can
solve the problem through a personal decision. For example, if the problem is
whether to go to the basketball game tonight, if tickets are not too expensive
and if transportation is available, the decision can be made individually. But if a
friend’s car is needed to get to the game, then that person’s decision to furnish
the transportation must be obtained.

Complex problems, too, are subject to individual decision making.
American business offers many examples of small companies that grew into major
corporations while still under the individual control of the founder. Some com-
puter companies that began in the 1970s as one-person operations burgeoned
into multimillion-dollar corporations with the original inventor still making all
the major decisions. And some of the multibillion-dollar leveraged buyouts of
the 1980s were put together by daring—some would say greedy—financiers
who made the day-to-day and even hour-to-hour decisions individually.

14. Chaim Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, Traite de l’argumentation, La nouvelle rhetori-
que (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958), sec. 7.
15. Chaim Perelman, The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument, trans. John Petrie
(New York: Humanities Press, 1963), pp. 86–87.

I I . I ND IV IDUAL DEC I S IONS 9

When President George H. W. Bush launched Operation Desert Storm,
when President Bill Clinton sent troops into Somalia and Haiti and authorized
Operation Desert Fox, and when President George W. Bush authorized
Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in
Iraq, they each used different methods of decision making, but in each case the
ultimate decision was an individual one. In fact, many government decisions can
be made only by the president. As Walter Lippmann pointed out, debate is the
only satisfactory way the great issues can be decided:

A president, whoever he is, has to find a way of understanding the novel
and changing issues which he must, under the Constitution, decide.
Broadly speaking … the president has two ways of making up his mind.
The one is to turn to his subordinates—to his chiefs of staff and his
cabinet officers and undersecretaries and the like—and to direct them to
argue out the issues and to bring him an agreed decision.…

The other way is to sit like a judge at a hearing where the issues to
be decided are debated. After he has heard the debate, after he has ex-
amined the evidence, after he has heard the debaters cross-examine one
another, after he has questioned them himself, he makes his decision.…

It is a much harder method in that it subjects the president to the
stress of feeling the full impact of conflicting views, and then to the
strain of making his decision, fully aware of how momentous it is. But
there is no other satisfactory way by which momentous and complex
issues can be decided.16

John F. Kennedy used Cabinet sessions and National Security Council meet-
ings to provide debate to illuminate diverse points of view, expose errors, and
challenge assumptions before he reached decisions.17 As he gained experience
in office, he placed greater emphasis on debate. One historian points out: “One
reason for the difference between the Bay of Pigs and the missile crisis was that
[the Bay of Pigs] fiasco instructed Kennedy in the importance of uninhibited de-
bate in advance of major decision.”18 All presidents, to varying degrees, encour-
age debate among their advisors.

We may never be called on to render the final decision on great issues of
national policy, but we are constantly concerned with decisions important to
ourselves for which debate can be applied in similar ways. That is, this debate
may take place in our minds as we weigh the pros and cons of the problem, or
we may arrange for others to debate the problem for us. Because we all are in-
creasingly involved in the decisions of the campus, community, and society in

16. Walter Lippmann, “How to Make Decisions,” New York Herald Tribune, Mar. 3, 1960.
17. See Theodore C. Sorensen, Decision-Making in the White House (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1963), p. 59.
18. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Imperial Presidency (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973),
p. 215.

10 CHAPTER 1 CR I T I CAL TH INK ING

general, it is in our intelligent self-interest to reach these decisions through rea-
soned debate.

When we make an individual decision, we can put it into effect if we con-
trol the necessary conditions. If we need the consent or cooperation of others to
carry out our decision, we have to find a way of obtaining the appropriate re-
sponse from them by debate—or by group discussion, persuasion, propaganda,
coercion, or a combination of methods.

I I I . GROUP DISCUSS ION

Decisions may be reached by group discussion when the members of the group
(1) agree that a problem exists, (2) have compatible standards or values, (3) have
compatible purposes, (4) are willing to accept the consensus of the group, and (5)
are relatively few in number. When these conditions are met and when all rele-
vant evidence and arguments are carefully weighed, group discussion is a rea-
soned means of decision making.

In February 1999, after the bitter and divisive House impeachment proceed-
ings and subsequent Senate trial, President Bill Clinton was acquitted on two
articles of impeachment. The vote on impeachment in the House occurred on
straight party lines. Although there were some Republican defectors in the
Senate vote, partisan tensions were heightened by the trial, as were tensions be-
tween the legislative and executive branches of the government. Despite the
clash of personalities and the difficulties inherent in such partisan and interbranch
differences, House and Senate leaders and President Clinton pledged to work
together for the good of the country. Indeed a strength of American politics is
that skilled leaders in both parties traditionally have been able to override politi-
cal differences and enact at least some important legislation on which both parties
could agree.

When a group has more than 15 or 20 members, productive discussion be-
comes difficult if not impossible. A group of senators can discuss a problem in
committee, but not on the floor of the Senate. The Senate is too large for dis-
cussion; there debate must be used. Of course, informal debate may take place

Standard Agenda for Group Decision Making

■ Define and analyze the problem

■ Research the problem

■ Establish criteria

■ Generate solutions

■ Select best solution

■ Implement and monitor solution

I I I . GROUP D I SCUSS ION 11

within the discussion process, and discussion may be a precursor of debate.19 If
the differences cannot be solved by discussion, debate is the logical alternative.
Or if the group, such as a Senate subcommittee, reaches a decision by discussion,
it may be necessary to debate it on the floor to carry the Senate as a whole.

Group decision making is best guided by a systematic procedure for problem
solving. The first step requires that group members define and analyze the prob-
lem they are to address. They should determine the nature of the problem and its
impacts, distinguishing causes from symptoms and measuring the relative impor-
tance of each. An important outcome of this step is an agreed upon statement of
the problem. Second, they should research the problem, gathering and evaluat-
ing available information relevant to the problem as defined. The third step is
perhaps the most important, and most often overlooked: establishing and priori-
tizing the criteria that will distinguish a successful solution. These criteria may be
given numerical value. Fourth, the group members should generate a list of pos-
sible solutions through a process of brainstorming; and fifth, they should apply
the criteria to the established list to select the best solution. Finally, the sixth
step is to implement and monitor the solution, leading to reevaluation and in
many situations, a return to step one.

Like an individual, a group may act on its decision only insofar as it has the
power to do so. If it needs the consent or cooperation of others to carry out a
particular plan, the group must use other means to secure their cooperation.

IV . PERSUAS ION

Purposeful persuasion is defined as communication intended to influence the acts, be-
liefs, attitudes, and values of others. Clearly, one method of persuasion is debate.
Persuasion is not, however, limited to seeking carefully reasoned judgments, as
is debate, nor does persuasion require logical arguments both for and against a
given proposition. The “Marlboro Man” advertising campaign, for example,
must have been judged as highly effective persuasion by the company that ran
it for many years, but it did not seek the kind of carefully thought-out judgment
that one associates with debate.

Frequently the persuader hopes to dominate the stage and avoid situations in
which another side of the argument might be presented. Consider the cigarette
companies, which accepted the ban on TV advertising without the prolonged
court battle that many expected. The reason for this may have been that the
TV stations were required to give equal time to public service announcements
about the hazards of smoking. The tobacco companies apparently found it pref-
erable to direct their advertising dollars to media that did not have an equal-time
requirement. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela recently made international
headlines and prompted national protests when he failed to renew the license of

19. See James H. McBurney, James M. O’Neill, and Glen E. Mills, Argumentation and
Debate (New York: Macmillan, 1951), p. 67.

12 CHAPTER 1 CR I T I CAL TH INK ING

Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), a popular television network, likely because
it had been critical of him, thus effectively eliminating local opposition to his
government.20

Persuaders select the type of persuasive appeals they believe to be best
adapted to their audience. These may include such diverse communications as a
picket line, a silent prayer vigil, a clever negative political commercial on TV, or
the stately formality of a debate before the Supreme Court. (Audience analysis is
considered in Chapter 15.)

Persuaders reach a decision on the problem before they begin the process of
persuasion. They continue the process of persuasion until they solve the problem
by persuading others to accept their decision or until they are convinced that
further efforts are pointless. In trying to influence others, they may find it neces-
sary or advantageous (1) to join with other persuaders and become propagandists
or (2) to face the opposition and become debaters. Thus they must be familiar
with the principles of argumentation and debate. This knowledge is also a de-
fense against the persuasion of others. If we subject their appeals to critical anal-
ysis, we increase our likelihood of making reasoned decisions. And if persuaders
advocate a decision we believe to be unsound, we may find it necessary to be-
come debaters and advocate the conclusion we favor.

Unintended persuasion occurs when we receive a message not intended for
us—for example, we overhear a private conversation in an elevator and are influ-
enced by it—or when we unknowingly communicate to and influence others in
an unintended way.

V . PROPAGANDA

Propaganda is the use of persuasion by a group (often a closely knit organiza-
tion) in a sustained, organized campaign using multiple media for the purpose of
influencing a mass audience. Historically propaganda has been associated with
religious, social, or political movements. Today the term has been expanded to
include commercial advertising campaigns. The term first came into common
use in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the Sacred Congregation for
Propagating the Faith. What, in the view of the faithful, could be more com-
mendable than spreading the faith? In 1933, when Hitler appointed Dr. Joseph
Goebbels as his minister of propaganda, the word took on a different connota-
tion. From the standpoint of non-Nazis, what could be more evil than spreading
Nazism? Even today propaganda often is perceived as a pejorative term. Imagine
an official of a women’s group saying:

We’ve been conducting an extensive educational campaign to inform
the public of the necessity of making abortion on demand available to

20. Christopher Toothaker, “Chavez Warns Foreign Critics,” The Miami Herald, July 23,
2007, p. 8A.

V . PROPAGANDA 13

women on welfare. It was going very well until the churches unleashed
a bunch of propagandists to work against us.

Thus, in everyday language, we educate or give information, while they propa-
gandize. Another example is President Chavez of Venezuela. He spoke to the
United Nations in 2007, referring to President George Bush as “the devil.”
Later Chavez threatened to deport international visitors from Venezuela who
were critical of him and his government.

Of course, the end does not justify the means. Propaganda, like persuasion,
may be viewed as good or bad only to the degree that it is based on true evi-
dence and valid reasoning. Examples of questionable methods may be found in
the Allied propaganda in the United States prior to America’s entry into World
War I. At that time extensive use was made of distorted or false atrocity stories.
Other examples may be found in communist propaganda from the former Soviet
Union, which made extensive use of the technique of the “big lie.” During
Middle East crises both Israel and the Arab countries have conducted propaganda
campaigns in the United States designed to sway public opinion in their favor.
Each side obviously thinks of theirs as good and the other’s as bad.

Examples of propaganda used for good purposes include the various cam-
paigns designed to get the public to drive safely, to recognize the symptoms of
cancer, and to practice safe sex; these examples are usually based on sound evi-
dence and reasonable inference. Other examples include campaigns by churches
to persuade people to act in accordance with the Ten Commandments and by
charitable groups to raise funds for the homeless or for people with AIDS.
Propagandists reach a decision on a problem before they begin the process of
propaganda. They continue their campaign until they solve the problem by per-
suading others to accept their decision or are convinced that further efforts are
pointless. In their efforts to influence others, propagandists may find it necessary
or advantageous to confront their opponents and become debaters. In such cases
they need knowledge of argumentation and debate. If their evidence is accurate,
their reasoning valid, and their appeals chosen carefully, the campaign will have
the greatest opportunity for success. If any of the conditions is lacking, however,
the chances for success are diminished.

Similarly, knowledge of argumentation and debate is an important defense
against the propaganda campaigns we constantly confront. Unless we subject
propaganda to critical analysis, we will be unable to distinguish the good from
the bad. We will lose our ability to make reasonable decisions and may fall
prey to “hidden persuaders.”

VI . COERC ION

Coercion is defined as the threat or use of force. Parents employ coercion when
they take a box of matches from a baby; society employs coercion when it con-
fines criminals to prison; the nation employs coercion when it goes to war. A
democratic society places many restrictions on the exercise of coercion. Parents

14 CHAPTER 1 CR I T I CAL TH INK ING

may not physically or mentally abuse their children; criminals may be sentenced
to prison only after they have an opportunity to defend themselves in court; the
United States may declare war only after the advocates of war win consent in
Congress. President Bush found it prudent to obtain congressional approval
for the use of force in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and
Operation Iraqi Freedom. In a democratic society coercion as a method of solv-
ing problems—by private individuals or the state—is generally prohibited except
in special cases in which it has been found necessary after debate. A totalitarian
society, by contrast, is characterized by sharply limited debate and by almost om-
nipresent coercion.21

Coercion may be employed to influence a decision. The coercive powers of
the state represent a strong logical appeal against a decision to commit a crime,
and for some individuals it may be the only effective appeal. In arguing in favor
of policy propositions, affirmative debaters often provide for coercion in the plan
of action they advocate. They may include an “enforcement plank” providing
for fines, imprisonment, or some other penalty for those who do not obey or
who try to circumvent the requirements of the plan. Alternatively they may ad-
vocate enforcement of the plan through existing legal structures.

A decision to employ coercion is likely to be socially acceptable and effec-
tive when that decision is made after full and fair debate. Baron Karl von
Clausewitz’s classic definition of war as the “continuation of diplomacy by other
means” suggests that war—the ultimate form of coercion—is a method of prob-
lem solving to be selected after a careful debate on the possible risks and benefits.

VI I . COMBINAT ION OF METHODS

It is often necessary to use a combination of methods in making a decision. The
social context will determine the most suitable methods in a particular case.

The solution to a problem requiring the consent or cooperation of others
may extend over a considerable period of time and may warrant use of all the

Methods of Decision Making

■ Debate

■ Individual Decision

■ Group Decision

■ Propaganda

■ Coercion

■ Combination of Methods

21. See Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (New York: Harper & Row,
1974).

V I I . COMB INAT ION OF METHODS 15

methods of decision making. For example, through individual decision a person
might determine that nonrefundable beverage containers cause unacceptable lit-
ter and should be prohibited.

Because that person is powerless to implement such a decision alone, he or
she must use persuasion to influence friends to join in the effort. They may use
the process of group discussion to decide how to proceed toward their objective.
They might find it necessary to organize a group for raising funds and to work
together for a period of months or years conducting a propaganda campaign di-
rected toward the voters of the state. During this campaign many individuals
might play a role in persuading or debating. Eventually a bill might be introduced
into the state legislature.

After discussion in committee hearings and a number of debates on the floor of
the legislature, a final debate determines the disposition of the bill. If the bill is
enacted into law, coercion will be provided to ensure compliance. The validity
of the law probably will be tested by debates in the courts to determine its consti-
tutionality. When the law is violated, coercion can be applied only as the result of
debates in the courts.

VI I I . ETH ICAL DEC IS ION MAKING

In addition to making well-reasoned decisions, it is important to make decisions
that are ethical. The consequences of a failure to consider ethical constructs when
making decisions range from business failures (ENRON) to incarceration
(Scooter Libbey), to the destruction of personal relationships. Ethics are a set
of constructs that guide our decision making by providing standards of behavior
telling us how we ought to act. While ethics may be based on or reflected in
laws, they are not the same as laws. Similarly, we learn value systems and thus
standards for ethical behavior from our communities and cultures, but that a be-
havior is a cultural standard or norm does not make it ethical.

According to Thomas White, there are two broad philosophical approaches
to understanding ethical choices: teleological and deontological. The teleo-
logical approach is results oriented, and would focus on the good or bad conse-
quences of an action or a decision. The deontological ethic is process or act ori-
ented, and is based on the notion that actions have moral value.22 Scholars at the
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University have suggested
that in making ethical decisions one ought to follow a framework through the
following steps:

■ Recognize an ethical issue
■ Get the facts

22. Thomas White, “Philosophical Ethics,” http://www.ethicsandbusiness.org/pdf/strat-
egy.pdf. Adapted from Thomas White, “Ethics,” in Business Ethics: A Philosophical Reader
(New York: Macmillan, 1993).

16 CHAPTER 1 CR I T I CAL TH INK ING

■ Evaluate alternative actions from various ethical perspectives
■ Make a decision and test it
■ Act, then reflect on the decision later23

Debate offers the ideal tool for examining the ethical implications of any
decision, and critical thinking should also be ethical thinking.

How do we reach a decision on any matters of importance? We are under
constant pressure to make unreasoned decisions, and we often make decisions
carelessly. But which method is most likely to lead to wise decisions? To make
wise judgments, we should rely on critical thinking. In many situations argumen-
tation’s emphasis on reasoned considerations and debate’s confrontation of op-
posing sides give us our best, and perhaps only, opportunity to reach reasoned
conclusions. In any case it is in the public interest to promote debate, and it is
in our own intelligent self-interest to know the principles of argumentation and
to be able to apply critical thinking in debate.

EXERC ISES

1. Individual decisions. For one week, keep a journal of decisions you make.
Separate them into trivial, somewhat important and very important deci-
sions. How did you make your decisions? Upon what did you base your
decisions? Can you identify a pattern based on level of importance?

2. SPAR debates (SPontaneous ARgumentation). This is a classic introductory
debate exercise.

Format
Affirmative (Pro side) opening speech
Cross-Examination by Negative (Con side)
Negative opening speech
Cross-Examination by Affirmative
Affirmative closing speech
Negative closing speech

90 seconds
60 seconds
90 seconds
60 seconds
45 seconds
45 seconds

Procedure
Debaters step to the front of the room in pairs. One debater calls a coin
flip. The winner may either choose the topic (from a list posted on the
board) or the side they will defend. After two minutes of preparation time
the debate begins. Each debater has a total one minute additional prepa-
ration time to be used during the debate. There should always be an on-
deck pair of debaters preparing their arguments.

EXERC I SES 17

23. Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J. Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R.
McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, and Kirk O. Hanson, “A Framework for
Thinking Ethically,” Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, http://www.scu.edu/ethics/
practicing/decision/framework.html (downloaded July 20, 2007). This article appeared
originally in Issues in Ethics, vol. 1, no. 2 (Winter 1988).

Possible topics
Honesty is always the best policy.
Slavery still exists today.
True love really does exist.
Violence is a necessary means to settle disputes.
Police are necessary for safety.
People should not eat meat.
The drinking age should be lowered to 18.
Smoking should be banned in all public places.
There is no such thing as Homeland Security.
Marijuana should be legalized.

3. Group discussion. Students should form groups of five to seven and using the
standard agenda for group problem solving, complete the following exercise.

As the most outstanding and well-respected students in your Ethics in
Communication course, your professor has asked you to formulate a recom-
mendation to her concerning a problem in the class.

It has come to the attention of Professor Young that one of the students
in the class plagiarized on an assigned paper. Sue M. Moral turned in a pa-
per, more than half of which was actually written by her good friend Ben
There. Ben had written the original paper for the same course two years
ago, and suggested to Sue that she use his paper for her assignment. Since
Professor Old had taught the course (since retired) when Ben took the
course, Professor Young would be unlikely to recognize the work. Ben
did not know that Professor Old had been so impressed with his paper
that he had given it to Professor Young as a sample paper for her to keep
on file. Professor Young also found out that Sue’s roommate, Bye Stander,
also a student in Ethics in Communication, knew about Sue’s plagiarism,
but did not inform Professor Young. In fact, Bye had agreed to photocopy
Ben’s paper for Sue, since she was making a trip to Kinko’s for other rea-
sons. The assignment counts 10 percent of the course grade. Sue has a “B”
average on all other work in the class. Bye has an “A” average. Ben is still a
major in the department. His “A” on the paper barely enabled him an “A”
in Ethics in Communication. He hopes to graduate next semester with a
“C” average.

What, if any, action do you recommend Professor Young take?

4. Persuasion. Prepare a two-minute impromptu speech in support of your claim
that “People should do ” or “People should NOT do .”
Offer three reasons in support of your claim.

5. Ethics. Identify an ethical dilemma for decision making. Follow the frame-
work suggested in the chapter to make a decision resolving the dilemma.
Identify your ethical approach as teleological or deontological. An excellent
source of hypothetical case studies is available at http://www.uvsc.edu/
ethics/casestudies/

18 CHAPTER 1 CR I T I CAL TH INK ING

2

Applied and Academic Debate

On his first day of class in argumentation and debate, his professor asked Charles
why he had chosen the course. Charles responded that “I always argue with my

parents and friends. In fact, I often call my favorite radio sports-talk show to argue
with the host. My mother is an attorney, and she sometimes practices her openings
and summations for me. And I practically live online, defending myself on the
Listserv I belong to and networking with my friends on the net. So I know all about
argumentation and debate, and I’m good at it!” Charles correctly recognized that the
principles of debate are important across many different fields of practical arguing.
But he was not yet aware of the richness and diversity of debate practice.

Debate can be classified into two broad categories: applied and educational.
Applied debate is conducted on propositions, questions, and topics in which the
advocates have a special interest, and the debate is presented before a judge or an
audience with the power to render a binding decision on the proposition or respond
to the question or topic in a real way. Academic debate is conducted on proposi-
tions in which the advocates have an academic interest, and the debate typically is
presented before a teacher, judge or audience without direct power to render a de-
cision on the proposition. Of course the audience in an academic debate does form
opinions about the subject matter of the debate, and that personal transformation
may ultimately lead to meaningful action. However, the direct impact of the audi-
ence decision in an academic debate is personal, and the decision made by the judge
is limited to identification of the winner of the debate. In fact, in academic debate
the judge may be advised to disregard the merits of the proposition and to render her
win/loss decision only on the merits of the support as presented in the debate itself.
The most important identifying characteristic of an academic debate is that the pur-
pose of the debate is to provide educational opportunities for the participants.

19

✵

I . APPL IED DEBATE

Applied debate may be classified as special debate, judicial debate, parliamentary
debate, or nonformal debate. After discussing each of these classifications of de-
bate briefly, we will consider academic debate in more detail.

A. Special Debate

Special debate is conducted under special rules drafted for a specific occasion,
such as political campaign debates. Examples include the Lincoln–Douglas de-
bates of 1858, the Kennedy–Nixon debates of 1960, the Bush–Clinton–Perot

Miniglossary

Academic debate Debate conducted under the direction of an educational in-
stitution for the purpose of providing educational opportunities for its students.

Applied debate Debate presented before a judge or audience with the power
to render a binding decision on the proposition.

CEDA Cross Examination Debate Association.

Ethical Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong
that govern the conduct of a profession or community.

Forensics An educational activity primarily concerned with using an argumen-
tative perspective in examining problems and communicating with people.

Judicial debate Debate conducted in the courts or before quasi-judicial bodies.

Mock trial debate A form of academic debate that emulates trial court
debating.

Moot court debate An academic form of judicial debate used by law schools to
prepare students for courtroom debate.

NDT National Debate Tournament.

Nonformal debate Debate that occurs in various contexts without formal or
prearranged procedural rules.

Parliamentary debate Debate conducted under the rules of parliamentary pro-
cedure (see Chapter 19). Also a form of competitive academic debate practiced
under the auspices of organizations like the National Parliamentary Debate
Association and the American Parliamentary Debate Association.

Special debate Debate conducted under special rules drafted for a specific oc-
casion—for example, presidential debates.

20 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

debates of 1992, the Bush–Gore debates of 2000, Bush–Kerry in 2004, and the
series of debates involving the candidates for the Democratic and Republican
Partys’ nominations during the 2007–2008 campaigns. These were formal de-
bates, yet they were neither judicial nor parliamentary; they were conducted un-
der special rules agreed on by the debaters. In an article published in the Seattle
Times, Paul Farhi and Mike Allen described the process that led to the special
rules for the Bush–Kerry debates in 2004:

After weeks of private and reportedly heated negotiations, representa-
tives of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry agreed earlier this week to
three televised debates, with another for Vice President Cheney and
Sen. John Edwards. The first presidential debate takes place Thursday at
the University of Miami.

And now, with the release of a 32-page ‘memorandum of under-
standing,’ we understand why it took so long. The document is
crammed with sections and subsections spelling out almost every imag-
inable rule of engagement and detail about how the debates will look.
Or will be prohibited from looking.

In its precision and seeming fussiness, in its attempt at control, it
often reads like an agreement between a concert promoter and a par-
ticularly demanding pop diva.…

While the most important part of such agreements certainly has to do with
the details governing the format and nature of questions or topics addressed, all
details are considered. The authors continued,

The agreement, for example, spells out the exact dimensions of the
lectern to be used (50 inches high on the side facing the audience, 48
inches on the side facing the candidates) in the first and third debates,
and how far apart those lecterns will be (10 feet, as measured from ‘the
left-right center’ of one ‘to the left-right center of the other’). It spe-
cifies the type of stools (identical, of equal height, with backs and
footrests) that Bush and Kerry will sit on for the second, town-hall-style
debate, as well as the arrangement (in a horseshoe) and nature of the
audience. It specifies that it will consist of an equal number of ‘likely
voters who are “soft” Bush supporters or “soft” Kerry supporters,’ soft
being a polling term for people who might be willing to change their
minds. There are details about the type of warning lights to be used if a
candidate runs over his allotted time, about the moderators’ conduct,
about the coin flip that will be used to determine who goes first (the
type of coin or number of flips isn’t specified). There’s even a codicil
that might be called ‘the perspiration clause,’ since it alludes to every
candidate’s worst fear: an outbreak of Nixon-style flop sweat. The
clause commits the nonpartisan producer, the Commission on
Presidential Debates, to use its ‘best efforts to maintain an appropriate
temperature according to industry standards for the entire debate,’

I . APPL I ED DEBATE 21

although it’s unclear what ‘industry standard’ temperature is, or even
what industry the agreement is referring to.1

Debates between presidential candidates are now well established in the
American political scene, and similar debates are often held between candidates
in elections at all levels, from student government president to mayor to vice
president. While the formats of these debates may leave much to be desired,
they at least bring the candidates together and give voters a better opportunity
to compare the candidates than they would otherwise have. Although this type
of debate is most often associated with political figures and campaign issues, it
may be used by anyone on any proposition or set of questions or topics.
Opposing advocates merely have to agree to come together under the provisions
of a special set of rules drafted for the occasion.

B. Judicial Debate

Judicial debate is conducted in the courts or before quasi-judicial bodies.
Governed by the rules of a court of law, its purpose is the prosecution or defense
of individuals charged with violation of the law or the determination of issues of
law alleged to be applicable to specific cases before the court. Court TV and
other television and even Internet access makes courtroom argument easily ac-
cessible to interested spectators.

Judicial debate may be observed in any court from the Supreme Court of
the United States to a local court. In its academic form, judicial debate is known
as moot court debate and is used by law schools to prepare students for court-
room debate. The impeachment trial of President Clinton during the winter of
1999 is a rare example of judicial debate held before the United States Congress
under special rules establishing the Senate as a jury and presided over by the chief
justice of the Supreme Court.

The principles of argumentation and debate apply to judicial debate. Because
judicial debate is also concerned with sometimes highly technical rules of proce-
dure—which may vary from federal to state courts, from one state to another,
and from one type of court to another within a given state—the specific meth-
ods of judicial debate are not considered here. Mock trial debate, which emu-
lates the form of trial court debating but without the emphasis on rules of pro-
cedure and admissibility, is considered in Chapter 18. Of course, moot court and
mock trial debates are academic and not applied, as their judges do not render
binding decisions on formal cases.

C. Parliamentary Debate

Parliamentary debate is conducted under the rules of parliamentary procedure.
Its purpose is the passage, amendment, or defeat of motions and resolutions that

1. Paul Farhi and Mike Allen, “Rules of Engagement: Presidential Debate Details” The
Seattle Times, Sept. 28, 2004; page updated 02:22 P.M., http://seattletimes.nwsource
.com/html/politics/2002048299_webdebaterules28.html.

22 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

come before a parliamentary assembly. The practice of parliamentary debate may
be observed in the Senate or House of Representatives, state legislatures, city
councils, and town governing bodies, and at the business meetings of various
organizations, such as the national convention of a major political party or a
meeting of a local fraternity chapter. C-SPAN allows television viewers access
to parliamentary debate in Congress, and local public television stations and radio
stations may offer city or county government and school board meetings for
public consumption.

In its educational or academic form parliamentary debate may be known as a
model congress, a model state legislature, a model United Nations assembly, or a
mock political convention. Intercollegiate debaters also compete in parliamentary
debate tournaments, adapting the rules of procedure to the tournament context,
with two-person teams competing. Of course, these simulations are not applied
debate.

The principles of argumentation and debate apply to parliamentary debate.
The special provisions of parliamentary procedure that also apply to this type of
debate are discussed in Chapter 19.

D. Nonformal Debate

Nonformal debate is conducted without the formal rules found in special, ju-
dicial, parliamentary, and academic debate. This is the type of debate to which
newspapers and television commentators typically are referring when they speak
of the “abortion debate,” the “immigration debate,” and other controversies that
arouse public interest. The term nonformal has no reference to the formality or
informality of the occasion on which the debate takes place. A president’s state-
of-the-union address—a highly formal speech—may be a part of a nonformal
debate. A rap session in a college dormitory—a very informal situation—may
also be part of a nonformal debate.

Examples of nonformal debate can be found in national political campaigns,
in community hearings or town hall meetings about water pollution or new
school bond issues, in business meetings about corporate policy, in college con-
ferences on matters of educational policy or the allocation of funds, and in elec-
tion campaigns for student body officers. Nonformal debates occur in scientific
and research realms, as in the debate over the ethics and implications of cloning.
Talk radio and television provide forums for nonformal debate over issues rang-
ing from lifestyle choice to sports, and many individuals participate in nonformal
debate through Internet lists, networks, and chatrooms, including YouTube,
Facebook, MySpace, and countless blogs and communities. For an example of
a Listserv facilitating nonformal debate involving intercollegiate debaters and is-
sues, visit http://www.ndtceda.com/. For nonformal debate about political cam-
paign debates, visit http://www.debatescoop.org/.

At the family level nonformal debates may revolve around issues including
the choice of a college or whether grown children should move back into the
family home.

I . APPL I ED DEBATE 23

I I . ACADEMIC DEBATE

As noted previously, academic debate is conducted under the direction of an ed-
ucational institution to provide educational opportunities for students. Many
schools and colleges conduct programs of academic debate. The issue here is
not whether we will participate in debate—our participation is inevitable, be-
cause, sooner or later, most educated people will take part in some form of de-
bate. The issue is whether our participation will be effective. Academic debate
can teach us to become effective in this essential art.

A. The Background of Academic Debate

A history of academic debate would fill many volumes, but a few salient facts
should be mentioned here. The origins of debate are lost in the remote reaches
of history, but we know that people were debating at least 4,000 years ago. For
example, Egyptian princes debated agricultural policy at the pharaoh’s court
(2080 B.C.). Chinese scholars conducted important philosophical debates during
the Chou Dynasty (1122–255 B.C.). Homer’s epic poems the Iliad and the
Odyssey (900 B.C.) contain speeches—which the Roman rhetorician Quintilian
cited as examples of the arts of legal pleading and deliberation—that may be re-
garded as embryonic debates. Aristotle’s Rhetoric (384–322 B.C.) laid the founda-
tion of argumentation and debate and is influential even today.

Although debate exists all over the world, it thrives in the context of demo-
cratic Western civilization. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger noted that
American foreign policy that encourages the spread of democracy faces daunting
problems in some cultures, such as Confucianism:

Unlike democratic theory, which views truth as emerging from the
clash of ideas, Confucianism maintains that truth is objective and can
only be discerned by assiduous study and education of which only a rare
few are thought to be capable. Its quest for truth does not treat con-
flicting ideas as having equal merit, the way democratic theory does.
Since there is only one truth, that which is not true can have no stand-
ing or be enhanced through competition. Confucianism is essentially
hierarchical and elitist, emphasizing loyalty to family, institutions, and
authority. None of the societies it has influenced has yet produced a
functioning pluralistic system (with Taiwan in the 1990s coming the
closest).2

Of course, Confucianism is not the only culture to put stringent limits on
debate. As we saw earlier, Muslim fundamentalists in Bangladesh favor executing
anyone who debates the Koran.

Academic debate began at least 2,400 years ago when the scholar Protagoras
of Abdera (481–411 B.C.), known as the father of debate, conducted debates

2. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994), p. 638.

24 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

among his students in Athens. Corax and Tisias founded one of the earliest
schools of rhetoric, specializing in teaching debate so that students could plead
their own cases in the law courts of ancient Sicily.

Debate flourished in the academies of the ancient world and in the medieval
universities, where rhetoric was installed as one of the seven liberal arts. What
may have been the first intercollegiate debate in the English-speaking world
took place in the early 1400s at Cambridge University between students from
Oxford and Cambridge. The debating programs at British universities, which
utilize a parliamentary format, have long been a training ground for future mem-
bers of Parliament.

Debating has always been an important part of the American educational
scene as well. Debating flourished in the colonial colleges; disputations were a
required part of the curriculum, and debates were often a featured part of com-
mencement ceremonies. Almost all the leaders of the American Revolution and
the early national period were able debaters who had studied argumentation in
the colonial colleges or in the community debating “societies,” “lyceums,” and
“bees” that flourished throughout the country: “From the Spy Club at Harvard
in 1722 to the Young Ladies Association, the first women’s debating society, at
Oberlin in 1835, the one common thread in literary societies was student interest
in debating important issues.”3

Intercollegiate debating began in the late 1800s, and interscholastic debating
soon followed. In the early 1900s, however, intercollegiate debates were rela-
tively rare. Normally a college would schedule only a few intercollegiate debates
during an academic year, and large audiences would assemble to watch the few
students who were privileged to participate in these unusual events.

Recognition of the value and importance of academic debate increased
steadily during the twentieth century. Tournament debating was introduced in
the 1920s, and by 1936 some educators were concerned about its increasing pop-
ularity.4 But tournament debating did not become predominant until the late
1940s. From the 1920s to the 1940s, contract debating prevailed. A college de-
bating team would send out contracts to other teams specifying details such as
which team would argue which side of the proposition, how judges would be
selected, and where the visiting team would be housed, and offering to recipro-
cate as host on some future occasion. When a sufficient number of signed con-
tracts had been returned, teams would depart by car, bus, or train for a few days
or a week or two of debating. Usually the schedule called for one debate a day,
although in major cities like Boston, New York, Washington, and Chicago, two
debates a day might be scheduled. On rare occasions teams traveled coast to coast
in private railroad cars. A yearlong resolution was selected and announced to fa-
cilitate debaters’ preparation, although individual tournaments might or might
not adhere to the national resolution.

3. Charles DeLancey and Halford Ryan, “Intercollegiate Audience Debating: Quo Vadis,”
Argumentation and Advocacy, vol. 27 (1990), p. 49.
4. Alfred Westfall, “Can We Have Too Much of a Good Thing?” The Forensic of Pi Kappa
Delta, Oct. 1936, p. 27.

I I . ACADEMIC DEBATE 25

In the post–World War II era, tournament debate became the predominant
mode of debating. In 1947 the U.S. Military Academy began the National Debate
Tournament (NDT) at West Point. Tournament debating proliferated, and teams
soon could choose among many tournaments at nearby or distant colleges on almost
any weekend between October and April. Swing tournaments evolved in which
two colleges relatively close to each other would schedule back-to-back tourna-
ments during the winter break so that, instead of one or two debates a day, teams
could attend two tournaments in a week. A tournament would offer as many as
twelve or more debate rounds in a single tournament. The NDT committee served
to select and announce the yearlong topic in the summer.

In 1967 the American Forensic Association assumed responsibility for the
NDT, which has been hosted by a different college each year since then. By 1967
the NDT had become the dominant force in intercollegiate debating, and virtually
all teams geared their programs to winning a place in the NDT or emulated the
practices of teams that were successful in the NDT. Debaters hoping to participate
in the NDT debated a proposition announced in the summer before the academic
debate season began. As in the NCAA basketball tournament, only a select number
of teams are selected to participate in the National Debate Tournament.

In 1971 the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) was established
to provide an alternative to NDT debating—in part to meet a perceived need by
placing greater emphasis on communication. (The use of cross-examination de-
bating is no longer a distinguishing feature between the two approaches; since
1974–1975 the NDT has used the cross-examination format.) CEDA, which ini-
tially employed non-NDT policy propositions, started using value propositions
in 1975. Two propositions per year—one for each academic semester—were de-
bated. CEDA also established a sweepstakes system, which recognized the top
debate programs in each region and in the nation. A point system was developed
to reward successful debaters, both novice and experienced. (The NDT later
adopted a similar point system with sweepstakes awards.) In 1986 CEDA estab-
lished a national championship tournament open to any CEDA member. After a
modest start as the Southwest Debate Association, CEDA emerged as the most
widely used mode of intercollegiate debating.

In 1996 the fall CEDA topic was reselected as the spring CEDA topic,
thereby creating a yearlong proposition, as was used by NDT. In addition, de-
spite the nonpolicy or quasi-policy nature of the CEDA propositions from 1975
until 1996, by the mid-1990s most CEDA debates involved discussion of poli-
cies. These debates were very similar in content to those occurring among
schools debating the NDT topic. Because CEDA debates had also adopted the
stylistic characteristics common to NDT debates, the two debate groups differed
little in debate practice. During their respective national tournaments in 1996,
the NDT leadership communicated to CEDA that if CEDA adopted a yearlong
policy proposition announced in the summer, NDT would adopt that proposi-
tion as well, creating a shared topic. CEDA did so, and thus the “merger” of
CEDA and NDT occurred. CEDA and NDT maintain their separate ranking
systems; however, teams now compete in tournaments previously closed to
them by style, topic, and membership. Some teams and a majority of member

26 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

schools in each organization compete in both the National Debate Tournament
and the CEDA National Championship. Participation in the NDT is selective:
Teams must qualify through a system of open bids and district competition. The
CEDA tournament is open to any team representing a member school (remem-
ber that CEDA is an organization while NDT is a tournament).

Other debate organizations sponsoring team debates coexist with CEDA
and NDT. The American Debate Association (ADA) was established in 1985 to
foster the growth of “reasonable” rule-based policy debate.5 ADA was concerned
with keeping debate accessible to new debaters and new debate programs while
maintaining academic integrity in its top-level debating. ADA has always debated
within the NDT structure and utilized the NDT proposition. The National
Educational Debate Association (NEDA) promotes debate with a focus on com-
munication style and educational practice. NEDA selects its own propositions.
The National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) and the American
Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) sponsor competitive intercollegiate
debate using a modified parliamentary format and featuring propositions chosen
for individual debates or debate rounds. Lincoln–Douglas, or one-on-one, de-
bate is organized through the National Forensic Association. The International
Debate Education Association (IDEA) and the International Public Debate
Association (IPDA) also work to promote academic debate. 1997 CEDA estab-
lished an additional debate format called “public sphere debate,” designed to
provide competitive audience-style debate evaluated by nontraditional debate
judges. The topic for public sphere debate was a narrowed or alternate version
of the CEDA/NDT proposition. In 1999 CEDA eliminated the public sphere
proposition and replaced it with a nonpolicy proposition (see Chapter 3). The
nonpolicy proposition never gained much popularity and was abandoned in the
2002–2003 academic year.

In academic debate students must know and adapt to the preferences and
expectations of the judges (see “Analysis of the Audience” in Chapter 15 and
“Judging Philosophies” in Chapter 17). While CEDA and NDT have essentially
merged as debate communities, new subcultures have developed based in part on
styles of judging and debating. Constant change in argumentation styles and ap-
proaches create new challenges of adapting to unfamiliar audiences. Varying ex-
perience levels also affect the preferences and expectations of judges and coaches.
Each of the various debate organizations and styles represents a set of unique
approaches to the practice of debate.

B. The Organization of Academic Debate

Academic debate is by no means limited to the classroom and the argumenta-
tion course. As the previous discussion outlines, many colleges conduct pro-
grams of academic debate by organizing debating teams, which give students

5. For a more detailed consideration of NDT, CEDA, ADA, and other debate formats,
see “Special Issue: A Variety of Formats for the Debate Experience,” Argumentation and
Advocacy, vol. 27, no. 2 (fall 1990).

I I . ACADEMIC DEBATE 27

opportunities beyond the traditional course offerings. Academic credit is often
given for participation in the debate program—a program usually open to any
qualified undergraduate. The director of forensics conducts the program to
provide training opportunities for students new to debate and to maximize
the challenge for more experienced students. CEDA, the American Forensics
Association, the National Communication Association, IDEA, and other pro-
fessional organizations, however, do promote scholarship and development of
argumentation theory and teaching for all those interested in academic debate.
They support research and learning to be applied in debate and argumentation
classes, on-campus debating, and across the curriculum.

As the designation “director of forensics” suggests, many debating programs
today have broadened their focus to include other forensic activities. “Forensics
is defined as an educational activity primarily concerned with using an argumen-
tative perspective in examining problems and communicating with people.”6

Recognizing that many forensics programs have been expanded to include a
wide variety of public speaking and individual events in addition to debate, the
1984 definition continues:

Forensics is viewed as a form of rhetorical scholarship which takes vari-
ous forms, including debate, public address, and the interpretation of
literature. Forensics serves as a curricular and co-curricular laboratory for
improving students’ abilities in research, analysis, and oral communica-
tion. Typically, forensic activities are conducted in a competitive envi-
ronment so as to motivate students and accelerate the learning process.
Forensics remains an ongoing, scholarly experience, uniting students and
teachers, in its basic educational purpose.7

C. Values of Academic Debate

Because debating is an ancient discipline that is thriving in modern educational
institutions, we should consider some of the values of academic debate. Although
not all these values are unique to debate, a successful academic debate program is
an important means of attaining them. Indeed, for many students it is the best,
and sometimes the only, means of obtaining the benefits outlined here.

1. Debate Provides Preparation for Effective Participation in a Democratic
Society. Debate is an inherent condition of a democratic society. Our
Constitution provides for freedom of speech. Our legislatures, our courts, and
most of our private organizations conduct their business through the medium
of debate. Because debate is so widespread at decision-making levels, a citizen’s
ability to vote intelligently or to use his or her right of free speech effectively is

6. This definition, adopted at the Second National Developmental Conference on
Forensics in Evanston, Illinois, in 1984, reaffirmed the definition adopted at the First
National Developmental Conference on Forensics, held in Sedalia, Colorado, in 1974.
7. Second National Developmental Conference on Forensics.

28 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

limited without knowledge of debate. As we know from history, freedoms un-
used or used ineffectively are soon lost. Citizens educated in debate can hope to
be empowered to participate in the shaping of their world.

2. Debate Offers Preparation for Leadership. The ultimate position of lead-
ership is the presidency of the United States. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger,
Jr., cites two indispensable requirements that an effective president must meet.
The first is “to point the republic in one or another direction. The second is to
explain to the electorate why the direction the president proposes is right for the
nation. Ronald Reagan understood, as Jimmy Carter never did, that politics is
ultimately an educational process. Where Carter gave the impression of regarding
presidential speeches as disagreeable duties, to be rushed through as perfunctorily
as possible, Reagan knew that the speech is a vital tool of presidential leadership.
His best speeches had a structure and an argument. They were well written and
superbly delivered. They were potent vehicles for his charm, histrionic skills, and
genius for simplification.”8

It is interesting to note that Schlesinger’s second requirement echoes the def-
inition of argumentation given on page 5. Although few of you will become
president, many will aspire to positions of leadership. And an indispensable re-
quirement of leadership—not only in politics but in almost all areas of human
endeavor—is that the leader explains why the direction proposed is right.

3. Debate Offers Training in Argumentation. From classical times to the
present, argumentation teachers have viewed debate as the best method of pro-
viding training in this discipline. Debate offers an ideal opportunity for students
to apply the theories of argumentation under conditions designed to increase
their knowledge and understanding of these theories and their proficiency in
their use. As an educational method debate provides excellent motivation for
learning, because students have both the short-term goal of winning a decision
or an award in a tournament and the long-term goal of increasing their knowl-
edge and improving their ability. This combination of short-term and long-term
motivations provides for an optimum learning situation. The constant monitor-
ing of student achievement with immediate feedback and evaluations by debate
judges gives frequent opportunities to encourage growth and progress and to de-
tect and remedy misunderstandings.

4. Debate Provides for Investigation and Intensive Analysis of Significant
Contemporary Problems. Thoughtful educators have long been concerned
that students and the general public often have only a superficial knowledge of
significant contemporary problems. In addition to acquiring knowledge of the
principles of argumentation, debaters also have a chance to investigate and ana-
lyze the significant contemporary problems and relevant literature that form the
basis of the propositions under debate. In the course of a debating career,

8. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Cycles of American History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1986), p. 293.

I I . ACADEMIC DEBATE 29

students will acquire a better-than-average knowledge of current problems, as
well as skill in applying methods that will enable them to critically analyze the
problems. As one authority points out, the true aim of rhetoric—the energizing
of knowledge—is correlated with inquiry and with policy.9 Through debate stu-
dents learn how to acquire knowledge and how to energize that knowledge.

5. Debate Develops Proficiency in Critical Thinking. Through study of
argumentation and practice in debate, students participate in an educational pro-
cess specifically designed to develop their proficiency in critical thinking. A num-
ber of studies have investigated whether college courses in argumentation and
debate improve critical thinking. One researcher, Kent R. Colbert, found that,
after a year’s participation in either CEDA or NDT debate, the debaters signifi-
cantly outscored the nondebaters on critical-thinking tests.10 Debaters learn to
apply the principles of critical thinking not only to problems that emerge in the
relative comfort of research or a briefing session but also to problems that arise in
the heat of debate.

6. Debate Is an Integrator of Knowledge. Educators are constantly searching
for methods of synthesizing knowledge. Debate is one way of achieving this
goal:

The exponents of a synthesis of knowledge and the broader view of a
problem can [learn] from the practical experience and method of the
arguer and discussant. Almost any problem at which the debater works
cuts across these fields of knowledge.11

For example, in debating a proposition dealing with the issue of guaranteed an-
nual wages, debaters must have at least a minimal familiarity with the principles
of argumentation, economics, political science, sociology, psychology, finance,
business management, labor relations, government, history, and philosophy.
They will, of course, learn the principles and details of these disciplines through
the appropriate departments of the college or through independent study; how-
ever, through debate they can integrate their knowledge of these various disci-
plines and bring them to bear on a significant contemporary problem. Debate
offers a uniquely dynamic and energized environment within which students
can learn. For many students debate is their first, and often their most intensive
and valuable, experience in interdisciplinary studies.

7. Debate Develops Proficiency in Purposeful Inquiry. Debate is preceded
by inquiry. Debaters must be well informed about all the relevant aspects of the

9. See Charles Sears Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic (New York: Macmillan, 1928),
p. 3.
10. Kent R. Colbert, “The Effects of CEDA and NDT Debate Training on Critical
Thinking Ability,” Journal of the American Forensic Association, vol. 21 (1987), pp. 194–201.
11. A. Craig Baird, “General Education and the Course in Argumentation,” The Gavel,
vol. 38, p. 59.

30 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

issue to be debated. The extent to which debate motivates students to undertake
purposeful inquiry into significant contemporary problems, to apply the princi-
ples of critical thinking to those problems, and to integrate the knowledge ac-
quired from various disciplines is suggested by a former college debater:

In my four years of college debating, we worked on such vital real-
world topics as aid for international development, the Constitutional
right of privacy, trade policies on the Pacific Rim, and federal energy
policies. Each of these big topics was subject to a range of interpretations
and required in-depth research on subsidiary issues as well.

Preparing to debate these subjects led me and many other debaters
to do our first serious research. Debate introduced me to Foreign Affairs,
the law reviews and indexes, Business Periodicals Index, the Public Affairs
Information Service, Dialog, Nexis, Datatimes, Dow Jones News/Retrieval,
and other databases.

While numbers aren’t everything, the fact is that the amount of
research my partner and I did in just one year of debate exceeded the
amount of research I did in preparing my master’s thesis. Undoubtedly
the research I had done for debate got me up to speed for the pressures
of grad school and the competitive world of business.

Indeed, debaters frequently work on the cutting edge of contemporary pro-
blems, studying matters before they emerge as subjects of general public concern.
As noted previously debaters seek out the scholarly journals in which significant
problems are often first reported and discussed. The general public draws its infor-
mation from television and the popular press, which may not report on these mat-
ters until months or years later. For example, many environmental concerns, such
as the “greenhouse effect” and loss of rain forest were considered “exotic” topics by
nondebaters who encountered them in the late 1970s. However, by the mid-1990s
stories on these subjects were common in mass-circulation publications.

An examination of the lists of national intercollegiate debate propositions (see
Appendices C and D) will reveal that debaters do in fact work on the cutting
edge, considering major contemporary problems in advance of the general public.
Perhaps the most striking example of foresight in discerning future public policy
issues may be found in the then highly controversial 1954–1955 NDT proposi-
tion on the diplomatic recognition of communist China. It was not until
President Nixon’s historic visit to China 17 years later that the United States ex-
tended diplomatic recognition to China.

Learning how to conduct inquiry in sometimes unfamiliar fields and gaining
practical experience in this kind of research will serve you well in many of your
later pursuits.

8. Debate Emphasizes Quality Instruction. Debate is based on a close tuto-
rial relationship between faculty and students as well as experiential learning.
Educators are worried about the negative effects of large classes and impersonal
teaching, and debate classes offer an alternative by providing a tutorial

I I . ACADEMIC DEBATE 31

relationship between faculty and students. Such classes usually are small and offer
many opportunities for interaction between students and professor as they pre-
pare for class debates or other class projects. This valuable process is enhanced by
the feedback that usually follows such projects. Also, most of the educational
activity of the debate program is carried out in a tutorial situation. The director
of forensics or an assistant works with the two members of the debate team as
they plan their research, develop their affirmative case, and plan their negative
strategies. The coach may also work with groups of four students after a practice
debate as they critique the debate in depth and plan for further improvement.
Because this tutorial relationship is rarely limited to a quarter or a semester, but
rather extends over four years, it provides a valuable opportunity for personalized
education in the all-too-often impersonal world of higher education. Students
benefit as well from interaction with their judges, who are talented educators
from other colleges and universities. For example, community college student
debaters may have hours of educational interaction with professors representing
the nation’s finest universities. Finally, in debate, the students are empowered
with the direct responsibility for their own learning process. One cannot learn
debate or acquire its skill sets without active, engaged participation.

9. Debate Encourages Student Scholarship. Debate establishes standards of
research and scholarly achievement that are rarely equaled in other undergradu-
ate courses. Some students worry that the time they spend on debate may have a
negative effect on their grades, but in fact the opposite is true. Intercollegiate
debaters report that their work in debate is a significant factor in helping them
do better on exams, write better term papers, and score higher on graduate
school admissions tests. This, of course, is the predictable result of the benefits
considered in this section. The scholarly skills that debaters develop in research-
ing, organizing, presenting, and defending a debate case are directly transferable
to many other academic pursuits.

Added to this is the challenge to do one’s best that debate provides. In the
classroom the professor typically makes “reasonable” assignments that the “aver-
age” student can fulfill. In intercollegiate debate, however, one’s opponent is rarely
“reasonable” or “average.” As we noted in point 7, good debaters will do far more
research than the average professor would ever expect for a term paper and will
present it with far more skill and defend it far more effectively than would be re-
quired on a class assignment. Preparing for and participating in major tournaments
can be a mind-expanding experience that encourages students to tap their full ca-
pabilities and enables them to realize their full potential.

Argumentation courses and intercollegiate debate are traditional training
grounds for pre-law students. One study of 98 law school deans found that
69.9 percent would advise pre-law students to take a course in argumentation
and 70.3 percent would recommend participation in intercollegiate debate. The
deans also indicated that pre-law students “needed training in the skills of public
speaking” (81.9 percent), “practical experience in the use of research techniques”
(84.2 percent), “training in the application of the principles of logical reasoning”
(89.6 percent), and “training in the techniques of refutation and rebuttal” (75.8

32 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

percent).12 Not only are such training and experience valuable for pre-law stu-
dents, they are important assets in many other areas of graduate study and in
business and professional endeavors.

10. Debate Develops the Ability to Make Prompt, Analytical
Responses. In the 1988 presidential campaign Michael Dukakis—who had an
18-point lead in the early polls—let George Bush’s attacks go unanswered. One
of Bush’s more effective salvos was to criticize Dukakis for vetoing a bill requir-
ing teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance each day. “‘Dukakis’ strategy of
shrugging off attacks suddenly stopped looking presidential and started looking
weak,’ said a top aide.… Months after Bush first raised the issue, Dukakis finally
responded.”13 This failure to respond promptly and analytically to this and other
attacks that Dukakis apparently judged to be frivolous was considered by many
observers to be an important factor in Dukakis’s defeat. In today’s world of in-
stant communication, candidates let attacks go unanswered at their peril (see
Chapter 3). Politicians, business executives, and ordinary citizens may also find
themselves in situations that require a prompt, analytical response. Students learn
to do this in debate; cross-examination requires an instant response, and the re-
sponse to an argument made in an opponent’s speech must be prepared during
the speech or in the brief time between speeches.

11. Debate Develops Critical Listening. In their pioneer research on listen-
ing, Ralph G. Nichols and Leonard A. Stevens found that “on the average we
listen at approximately a 25 percent level of efficiency.”14 If we allow our atten-
tion to wander while an opponent speaks, our reply will be ineffective and off
the mark. And if we miss 75 percent of our opponents’ arguments, we will surely
lose the debate. Debaters quickly learn to listen to their opponents with sharply
focused critical attention, recording their arguments precisely on a flow sheet (a
specialized note-taking system used by debaters) so that their own responses are
to the point—adapting the phrasing of their opponents and turning the subtleties
and limitations heard to their own advantage. The ability to listen critically
is widely recognized as an important attribute of the educated person. Nichols
and Stevens found that a top executive of a large industrial plant reported “per-
haps 80 percent of my work depends on my listening to someone, or upon
someone else listening to me.”15 Debaters begin to develop this important skill
of critical listening from their very first debate.

12. Debate Develops Proficiency in Reading and Writing. Many debates
are conducted in writing—for example, the daily “debates” on the editorial

12. From a paper by Don R. Swanson, “Debate as Preparation for Law: Law Deans’
Reactions,” presented at the Western Speech Communication Association convention
(1970).
13. Time, Nov. 21, 1988, p. 47.
14. Ralph G. Nichols and Leonard A. Stevens, Are You Listening? (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1957), p. ix.
15. Nichols and Stevens, Are You Listening? p. 141.

I I . ACADEMIC DEBATE 33

page of USA Today. However, as a practical matter we most often think of debate
as an oral argument. How then does debate develop proficiency in writing? Don’t
we merely “talk on our feet” when we debate? As we have seen, debate does
indeed develop the ability to make prompt, analytical responses (see Point 10).

However, as we will discover, much of the debate is written prior to deliv-
ery. The first affirmative constructive speech is almost invariably a manuscript
speech, which means that it is written and rewritten, revised and edited as the
advocates try to develop the most effective statement of their position. In the
same way many portions of other kinds of speeches and arguments are the pro-
ducts of careful writing and extensive rewriting, as well as skillful adaptation to
previous speeches. Debaters must use clear, concise, powerful language to defend
their positions. They build an extensive and precise vocabulary and develop a
sense of clarity, which they bring to their writing.

The writing proficiency developed in debate pays dividends first by enabling
debaters to present arguments more cogently and effectively. The skills learned in
writing for debate carry over to many other fields. Students will find that they can
apply the writing skills they learn from debate in writing term papers and in writing
better answers to essay exams in their other classes. And after graduation students
find that writing proficiency is highly valued in almost any business or profession.

Research conducted on Urban Debate League debaters has evidenced de-
bate as an excellent tool to promote literacy training and development of reading
skills. Reading aloud has the effect of building reading skills, even among those
with very low reading capabilities. Participation in debate also builds vocabulary,
as noted above, as students must learn to navigate complex academic, technical
and challenging resource materials.16

13. Debate Encourages Mature Judgment. Scholars tell us that many pro-
blems in human affairs result from a tendency to see complex issues in black-
and-white terms. Educational debate gives students a chance to consider significant
problems from many points of view. As debaters analyze the potential affirmative
and negative cases, they begin to realize the complexity of most contemporary pro-
blems and to appreciate the worth of a multivalued orientation. As they debate
both sides of a proposition, they learn not only that most contemporary problems
have more than one side but also that even one side of a proposition embodies a
considerable range of values. Sometimes at the start of an academic year, some de-
baters may, on the basis of a quickly formulated opinion, feel that only one side of a
proposition is “right.” After a few debates, however, they usually request an assign-
ment on the other side of the proposition. By the end of the year (or semester), after
they have debated on both sides of the proposition, they learn the value of suspend-
ing judgment until they have amassed and analyzed an adequate amount of evi-
dence. The need to advocate one side of the proposition in a debate also teaches
them that decisions cannot be postponed indefinitely. When they finally formulate

16. Linda Collier, “Argument for Success: A Study of Academic Debate in the Urban
High Schools of Chicago, Kansas City, New York, St. Louis and Seattle,” paper presented
at the National Communication Association National Convention, 2004.

34 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

their personal position on the proposition, it may or may not be the same as at the
beginning of the year. But now it will be a position they have reached after careful
consideration, one they can defend logically.

14. Debate Develops Courage. Debate helps students to develop courage by
requiring them to formulate a case and defend it against strong opposition, under
pressure. In debate students’ cases will come under attack, and they might be
tempted to push the panic button, beat a disorderly retreat, and avoid the con-
frontation. They cannot do this, however. The situation requires that they de-
fend their position. They must have the courage of their convictions. They must
discipline themselves, concentrate on the problem, organize their thoughts, and
present a refutation. Well-prepared debaters find that they can defend their posi-
tion, that their opponents are only human; as a result, they gain new confidence
in themselves and in their ability to function in a competitive situation.

15. Debate Encourages Effective Speech Composit ion and
Delivery. Because composition and delivery of the debate speech are among
the factors that determine the effectiveness of arguments, debaters need to select,
arrange, and present their materials in keeping with the best principles of public
speaking. Debating places a premium on extemporaneous delivery, requiring
speakers to think on their feet. Typically debaters will speak before many different
audiences: a single judge in the preliminary round of a tournament, a group of busi-
nesspeople at a service club, or a radio or TV audience. Each of these situations
provides new challenges. Constant adaptation to the audience and to the speech
situation helps debaters develop flexibility and facility in thinking and speaking.

Nervousness about public speaking is one of the most common fears for stu-
dents and professionals. It can serve as a real and significant barrier to effective
communication and ultimately to academic and professional success. Debate is
an ideal arena for students to develop coping mechanisms allowing them to man-
age their speech anxiety. Because debate both requires and allows for substantial
preparation, students develop confidence in their materials and passion for their
advocacy. Debate provides a focus on the content over style, so the attention is
on the arguments, not on the person. Student debaters may forget to be nervous
as they have so much else to think about. And repetition of experience helps the
students build confidence and learn to cope with their inevitable nervousness in
such a way as to prevent it from impeding their objectives.

16. Debate Develops Social Maturity. Intercollegiate debate provides an op-
portunity for students to travel to different campuses and meet students and fac-
ulty members from various parts of the country. It is not unusual for a team to
participate in tournaments on the East or West Coast, in the Deep South, in the
New England states, and in many points in between in the course of a year.
Formerly there were eastern, midwestern, southern, and western styles of debat-
ing. But mass transportation has allowed debating to take place on a national
scale, and so these regional differences have largely disappeared.

I I . ACADEMIC DEBATE 35

Exposure to both the businesslike atmosphere of the debate and the informal
social situations that accompany most debates and tournaments helps students ac-
quire social amenities, poise, and self-confidence. In the competition of a tour-
nament or a classroom debate, they learn that they must accept victory or defeat
gracefully and that they must respond courteously to the criticism of judge(s)
regardless of their decisions. The educational benefits that come from meeting
professors from a number of different colleges in informal settings can also be
significant. In the college classroom, debaters will directly engage one another
more than in most other courses. To debate is to express and to listen, to work
together and to build community. One need not travel to encounter others with
values and life experiences different from one’s own, and the interaction afforded
in the debate classroom and through the experience of sharing ideas through de-
bate fosters this relationship building.

17. Debate Develops Multicultural Sensitivities. As debaters learn to inter-
act effectively with their colleagues, coaches, and judges in the debate environ-
ment, they will have the opportunity to engage individuals representing diverse
cultural backgrounds. In the open debate context that celebrates free expression,
students learn to communicate with sensitivity in a multicultural environment
that may not be available on their home campus. Further, the nature of commu-
nication and argumentation demands that to be effective, debaters consider the
implications of culture, values, and worldview on their cases and on their strate-
gic approaches. To persuade a judge requires an understanding and sensitivity to
their perceptual screen, and it is inescapable that argument premises are based
upon foundations built at least in part by culture.

18. Debate Develops Computer Competencies. The research conducted by
debaters is frequently conducted online through various databases. Most debate
teams travel with laptop computers and log on as soon as they check into their
tournament accommodations. Debaters quickly become familiar with online data
acquisition and use of computers to file and organize their data.

19. Debate Empowers Personal Expression. In an academic environment,
debate offers the participant a unique opportunity to express their ideas, experi-
ence, and voice. Rhetorical space—the opportunity to be respectfully heard—is
guaranteed to the sincere participant. This opportunity to be heard is empower-
ing and inspiring. Participants are able to learn from each other’s experience and
develop and grow as individuals and members of larger communities.

20. Debate Develops Problem-Solving Skills. Policy debate demands that
participants investigate and evaluate important social problems and creatively
and critically apply solutions to those problems. Experience suggests that these
abilities enable debaters to systematically evaluate situations and by utilizing rea-
soned measurement and ingenuity, discover appropriate solutions. Research also
proves that debate training helps individuals find solutions to their own pro-
blems, and in particular, promotes nonviolent solutions to conflict. The

36 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

National Debate Project reports that debate reduces violence. Important new re-
search is demonstrating that a significant correlation exists between the increased
verbal skills associated with debate participation and decreased physical violence
in both peer and domestic relations.17

21. Debate Develops Essential Proficiencies. As we have seen, debate is
an educational activity that provides students with the opportunity to develop
proficiency in writing, thinking, reading, speaking, and listening. Educators and
educational groups view these competencies as being vital to intellectual devel-
opment. The consensus among major studies of education in the United States is
that proficiency in oral communication is essential to academic competency.
Consider the findings of the following studies:

1. The National Commission on Higher Education Issues identified the “fun-
damental competencies in reading, writing, speaking, mathematical techni-
ques, and reasoning” as the requisite intellectual skills for the pursuit of
higher education (Summary Recommendations of the National Commission on
Higher Education Issues).

2. The National Commission on Excellence in Education echoed the same
views and specified the same competencies, including both oral and written
communication in its enumeration of necessary skills (A Nation at Risk, U.S.
Department of Education, National Commission on Excellence in
Education).

3. The Education Commission for the States’ Task Force on Education for
Economic Growth, whose members include governors, business leaders, and
educators, assessed the critical needs of the education–commerce nexus and
concluded that educational preparation for the “very competitive world of
international commerce and trade” must include the essential language
competencies of “reading,” “writing,” ”speaking,” and “listening” (Action for
Excellence, Report of the Task Force on Education for Economic Growth,
Education Commission for the States).

4. In its 1988 report the College Entrance Examination Board also listed
“speaking and listening” among what it termed the “Basic Academic
Competencies”: “the broad intellectual skills essential to effective work in all
fields of college study. They provide a link across disciplines of knowledge
although they are not specific to any particular discipline. The Basic
Academic Competencies are reading, writing, speaking and listening, math-
ematics, reasoning and studying” (Academic Preparation for College, The
College Board).

5. In its proposal for strengthening public education, the Paideia Group speci-
fied the requisite intellectual skills for the educational process: “The skills to
be acquired are the skills of reading, writing, speaking, listening, observing,

17. National Debate Project, http://communication.gsu.edu/ndp/benefits.htm, down-
loaded July 20, 2007.

I I . ACADEMIC DEBATE 37

measuring, estimating and calculating. They are linguistic, mathematical and
scientific skills. They are the skills that everyone needs in order to learn
anything, in school or elsewhere” (Paideia Proposal, the Paideia Group).

6. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, in a report
prepared by the National Council on Science and Technology Education,
stated that students should be able to “distinguish good arguments from bad
ones” (Project 2061 Phase 1 Reports, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science).

Debate is distinctive because of its unique dialectical form, providing the op-
portunity for intellectual clash in the testing of ideas. The creation of an argu-
ment is one of the most complex cognitive acts students can engage in. To create
arguments, students must (1) research issues (which requires knowledge of how
to use libraries and databases), (2) organize and analyze the data, (3) synthesize
different kinds of data, and (4) evaluate information with respect to the quality
of conclusions it may point to. To form the arguments after this process, students
must (1) understand how to reason, (2) be able to recognize and critique differ-
ent methods of reasoning, and (3) comprehend the logic of decision making.
The successful communication of arguments to audiences reflects another cogni-
tive skill: the ability to communicate complex ideas clearly with words. Finally,
the argumentative interaction of students in a debate reflects an even more com-
plex cognitive ability—the ability to process the arguments of others quickly and
to reformulate or adapt or defend previous positions.18

I I I . ETH ICAL STANDARDS FOR DEBATE

Because we use debate as a means of influencing human behavior, the mature, re-
sponsible advocate will be concerned with ethical standards for debate. To be con-
ducted so that the benefits of debate are achieved, debate must be open, accessible,
honest, and fair. Debate empowers its participants, but the power associated with
debate participation carries with it personal responsibility. This responsibility in-
cludes honest and accurate representation of support materials and fair and open
treatment of everyone involved. Debate in a free society demands civil behavior
and fair treatment. To promote open participation, debaters should avoid language
and behavior that would exclude or discourage the voices of any participants.

A. Ethical Practice

Ethical standards for debate practice occur on multiple levels. Some standards
will vary by community and even by individual interpretations. For example,
what is considered to be comprehensible or reasonable presentational style will

18. Adapted from “A Rationale for Forensics as Education,” adopted at the Second
National Developmental Conference on Forensics, Evanston, Illinois, 1984.

38 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

Ethical Guidelines for Students

The Second Nat iona l Deve lopmenta l Conference on
Forens i c s

“Ethical Guidelines for Students”

Students participating in forensics are obligated to adhere to high ethical standards.
Here we are concerned with the ethical choices students make for themselves, not
with the standards to be applied by critics or judges. An ethical commitment by stu-
dents is essential because the value of forensics is directly dependent on the integrity
of those involved. For that reason, it is the duty of each student to participate hon-
estly, fairly, and in such a way as to avoid communicational behaviors that are
deceptive, misleading, or dishonest. Students should strive to place forensic competi-
tions in a proper perspective as ethical decisions are pondered. The goal of winning
must be evaluated within a framework that considers strategic choices in light of the
educational value of such choices. Forensic contests are not ends in themselves but
means to an end.

Furthermore, student participants must remember that forensics is an oral, in-
teractive process. It is the student’s duty to aspire to the objective of effective oral
expression of ideas. When ideas are expressed in an unintelligible fashion, the foren-
sic process is abused. The interactive dimension of forensics suggests that behaviors
that belittle, degrade, demean, or otherwise dehumanize others are not in the best
interests of forensics because they interfere with the goals of education and personal
growth. The ethical forensic competitor recognizes the rights of others and commu-
nicates with respect for opponents, colleagues, and critics.

Student advocates should compete with respect for the principles and objectives
of reasoned discourse. Students who invent definitions involving unwarranted shifts
in the meanings of words fail to maintain a respect for the integrity of language.
Students who deliberately employ specious reasoning as a stratagem fail to maintain
a respect for the integrity of the forensic decision-making process.…

Evidence plays an important role in forensic advocacy. Arguments can be no
stronger than the evidence supporting them. If the evidence is misrepresented, dis-
torted, or fabricated, the conclusions drawn are meaningless and ethically suspect. In
order to understand these implications, the advocate should be familiar with the role
of evidence in critical decision making, as well as with the methods of scholarship in
discovering and recording evidence. The content of, and citations for, evidence used
by advocates should be open to inspection by their opponents. Advocates should use
only evidence that is in the public domain and, hence, open to critical evaluation by
others.

Advocates should clearly identify, during their speeches, the source of all the
evidence they use. Such identification should include available information relevant
to the credibility of the author, the source of publication, and the date. Omitting the
source of evidence denies the audience the opportunity to evaluate the quality of
the information. Since the strength of evidence depends on the qualifications of the
individual being quoted, this information is critical to any evaluator of the argument.

Advocates are responsible for the integrity of all the evidence they utilize, even
when the evidence is not researched by the individual advocate. An advocate should
not introduce evidence that is distorted or fabricated. In determining whether evi-
dence has been distorted, the advocate should ask if the evidence deviates from the
quality, quantity, probability, or degree of force of the author’s position on the point
in question. Any such deviation should be avoided, because such alteration can give
undue rhetorical force to an advocate’s argument.…

I I I . E TH ICAL STANDARDS FOR DEBATE 39

vary. Some standards, however, are agreed upon, and provide guidance for prac-
tice in all academic debate arenas.

First, the importance of competition must be kept in perspective. Many stu-
dents enjoy debate largely due to its competitive nature. Because they are moti-
vated to compete effectively, they work hard and immerse themselves in their de-
bate preparation. This intensity of involvement results in great benefits to student
debaters in achieving educational objectives and skill development. However, it
should be remembered that competition is but a means to the more important ed-
ucational ends.

Second, honesty and integrity should be maintained at the highest levels.
The checks on honesty in the academic debate context are limited. In applied
debate, opportunities to evaluate the accuracy of claims and support are available
through methods including press coverage and legal checks on evidence history.
Academic debate is time bound. For fair evaluation of evidence and reasoning it
is vital that the highest standards of honesty be practiced.

Third, all participants should treat each other with respect. This may include
appropriate language, nonverbal messages, and even choice of argumentation.
The key is to honor each other’s right to rhetorical space and to encourage
open participation. To do so may require introspection, as disrespect may be
communicated in subliminal and unintentional ways. Argumentation should be
directed only at opponent’s arguments and support, not at individuals or peoples.

Students competing in forensic contests share a unique opportunity to learn and
to experience personal growth. This environment serves the goals of forensics best
when student participants recognize their responsibility to preserve and promote
opportunities for such a forensic education. Students should remember that forensic
contests are often subject to public scrutiny and that reaction to forensic practices
may aid or inhibit the future course taken by the forensic activity. Thus, students
should carefully consider the values inherent in the claims they advance and in the
behaviors they display. Communication that engenders ill will and disrespect for for-
ensics ultimately reduces the utility of forensics for all who participate in it and
should, therefore, be avoided.

As indicated at the outset, this document is intended to outline an ethic for the
entire forensic community. Although it explicitly identifies certain direct participants
in the activity, there are other, less centrally involved but nonetheless vitally impor-
tant members of the community upon whom ethical responsibilities fall. Because for-
ensics is an invaluable educational experience that can benefit all students, academic
institutions may be ethically obligated to offer this experience and to commit the re-
sources that will ensure its availability and quality. Similarly, alumni of forensic pro-
grams, having benefited themselves from this experience, may be ethically obligated
to work for the continued availability of the experience for others. The future of
forensics is in the hands of all members of the community.

Honest differences of opinion exist within the forensic community as to whether
certain practices should be considered ethical or unethical. The surest guide to the
debater and the director may be found in answering this question: “Am I more con-
cerned with enduring ethical standards and educational objectives than with the
short-term goal of winning a debate?” If the answer is an honest “yes,” the decision
about a particular practice will probably be an ethically sound one.

Ethical Guidelines for Students (Continued)

40 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

Fourth, evidence standards require complete source citations and verbatim
quotation. Fairness requires that evidence be gathered from published sources
available to all participants. An advocate in debate is at a minimum ethically
bound to provide reasons for their claims in the form of some type of proof.

B. Inclusion of All Participants

Debate provides a unique opportunity to learn from and about each other;
across gender, culture, class, education, geography, and other differences. The
opportunity to build bridges, however, can only be realized if participants be-
come self-aware and work hard to create openness in their communicative be-
haviors. Socialization is a result of communicative behavior, and is insidious.
However, the academic debate laboratory offers the opportunity to alter negative
socializations and to substitute empowerment and respect. This positive change
demands growth in awareness about those behaviors that devalue or discourage
equality of participation. Growth of community requires respect and equality.

Research and personal narrative indicate that bias against woman and minori-
ties exists in the community of intercollegiate debate. Any barriers to participation,
whether intentional or not, are unethical and counterproductive. Barriers preclude
the empowerment of many who would benefit from participation and denies those
who do participate the richness of diversity. Discrimination and repression, of
course, reflect practice in the academic world, business and industry, and in society
at large. Fortunately, debate offers an ideal forum to discuss and change old and
deep-seated bias. Tonia Green, a debater for the University of Louisville, presented
a portion of her personal narrative as part of a debate at the District 6 National
Debate Tournament Qualifier at Georgia State University in 2004.

People continuously create false solutions for this flawed institution
contributing to the pollution of the miseducation of life. I debate not
just for competitive success but for a true purpose, by recognizing and
not forgetting my social location as an African-American woman. My
values as an African-American woman reflect my values as an African-
American woman debater. “And that statement is more serious than the
atom bomb and Saddam,” as Lauryn Hill would say in her song,
Freedom Time.

The Second National Developmental Conference on Forensics adopted
“Ethical Guidelines for Students,” which are recorded on pages 39–40 for your
consideration. These guidelines provide a beginning outline for ethical practice.

EXERC ISES

1. View a debate. Many are available online. What type of debate was it
(applied or academic, etc.)? You may find debates at C-SPAN (http://
www.c-span.org/), You Debate (http://youdebate.blogspot.com/), and
countless other places.

EXERC I SES 41

2. Listening. Choose a story from the newspaper. Five student volunteers should
leave the room, while one remains. Have one volunteer return, and have
the in-the-room volunteer read the newspaper article aloud. No notes al-
lowed, and after the first reading, the article will be discarded. Then call on
the next person to return. The person who has just listened to the reading of
the article should recount the story, including all details, to the new student.
One at a time, have each student return and repeat the process. The rest of
the class should observe. After all five have returned, have the class discuss
what details were omitted, changed, or added.

3. Form teams of two to three people each. Each team should identify their
candidate for President of the Argumentation and Debate class. Negotiate
rules for a campaign debate. What should be the format, layout, etc.?

4. Working in teams, prepare a set of ethical standards to govern the debates in
your class.

5. Form an online community consisting of your class. Your instructor may
wish to do so through a course website, or you can create one. One easy
way to facilitate this is to form a group at Yahoo! (http://groups.yahoo
.com/). As a class, select a topic for debate and initiate an online debate.

42 CHAPTER 2 APPL I ED AND ACADEMIC DEBATE

3

Stating the Controversy

Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of opinion
or a conflict of interest before there can be a debate. If everyone is in agreement

on a fact or value or policy, there is no need for debate; the matter can be settled by
unanimous consent. Thus, for example, it would be pointless to attempt to debate
“Resolved: That two plus two equals four,” because there is simply no controversy
about this statement. Controversy is an essential prerequisite of debate. Where there is no
clash of ideas, proposals, interests, or expressed positions on issues, there is no debate.
In addition, debate cannot produce effective decisions without clear identification of
a question or questions to be answered. For example, general argument may occur
about the broad topic of illegal immigration. How many illegal immigrants are in the
United States? What is the impact of illegal immigration and immigrants on our
economy? What is their impact on our communities? Do they commit crimes? Do
they take jobs from American workers? Do they pay taxes? Do they require social
services? Is it a problem that some do not speak English? Is it the responsibility of
employers to discourage illegal immigration by not hiring undocumented workers?
Should they have the opportunity to gain citizenship? Does illegal immigration
pose a security threat to our country? Do illegal immigrants do work that American
workers are unwilling to do? Are their rights as workers and as human beings at risk
due to their status? Are they abused by employers, law enforcement, housing, and
businesses? How are their families impacted by their status? What is the moral and
philosophical obligation of a nation state to maintain its borders? Should we build a
wall on the Mexican border, establish a national identification card, or enforce exist-
ing laws against employers? Should we invite immigrants to become U.S. citizens?
Surely you can think of many more concerns to be addressed by a conversation
about the topic area of illegal immigration. Participation in this “debate” is likely to
be emotional and intense. However, it is not likely to be productive or useful with-
out focus on a particular question and identification of a line demarcating sides in the
controversy. To be discussed and resolved effectively, controversies must be stated
clearly. Vague understanding results in unfocused deliberation and poor decisions,
frustration, and emotional distress, as evidenced by the failure of the United States
Congress to make progress on the immigration debate during the summer of 2007.

43

✵

Someone disturbed by the problem of a growing underclass of poorly educated,
socially disenfranchised youths might observe, “Public schools are doing a terrible
job! They are overcrowded, and many teachers are poorly qualified in their subject
areas. Even the best teachers can do little more than struggle to maintain order in
their classrooms.” That same concerned citizen, facing a complex range of issues,
might arrive at an unhelpful decision, such as “We ought to do something about
this” or, worse, “It’s too complicated a problem to deal with.” Groups of concerned
citizens worried about the state of public education could join together to express
their frustrations, anger, disillusionment, and emotions regarding the schools, but
without a focus for their discussions, they could easily agree about the sorry state of
education without finding points of clarity or potential solutions. A gripe session
would follow. But if a precise question is posed—such as “What can be done to im-
prove public education?”—then a more profitable area of discussion is opened up
simply by placing a focus on the search for a concrete solution step. One or more
judgments can be phrased in the form of debate propositions, motions for parliamen-
tary debate, or bills for legislative assemblies. The statements “Resolved: That the
federal government should implement a program of charter schools in at-risk com-
munities” and “Resolved: That the state of Florida should adopt a school voucher
program” more clearly identify specific ways of dealing with educational problems
in a manageable form, suitable for debate. They provide specific policies to be inves-
tigated and aid discussants in identifying points of difference.

Miniglossary

A burden of proof The obligation to prove what one asserts. Applies to both
the affirmative and the negative, as any advocate forwarding a claim must pro-
vide support sufficient to overcome the natural presumption against that claim.

The burden of proof The risk of the proposition; the obligation of the affirma-
tive, in order to overcome the presumption against the proposition, to give
good and sufficient reasons for accepting the proposition.

Burden of refutation The obligation to refute, or respond to, opposing argu-
ments. Applies to both the affirmative and the negative. Failure to fulfill the
burden of refutation results in the acceptance of the unrefuted argument.

Presumption A predisposition favoring a given side in a dispute. Describes a
psychological state in which listeners and decision makers are predisposed to fa-
vor or oppose one side of a debate or an argumentative position.

Proposition A statement of judgment that identifies the central issue in a con-
troversy. May be a proposition of fact, value, nonpolicy, or policy.

Status quo The existing state of things; the present system.

44 CHAPTER 3 STAT ING THE CONTROVERSY

I . DEF IN ING THE CONTROVERSY

To have a productive debate, which facilitates effective decision making by di-
recting and placing limits on the decision to be made, the basis for argument
should be clearly defined. If we merely talk about “homelessness” or “abortion”
or “crime” or “global warming” we are likely to have an interesting discussion
but not to establish profitable basis for argument. For example, the statement
“Resolved: That the pen is mightier than the sword” is debatable, yet fails to
provide much basis for clear argumentation. If we take this statement to mean
that the written word is more effective than physical force for some purposes,
we can identify a problem area: the comparative effectiveness of writing or phys-
ical force for a specific purpose.

Although we now have a general subject, we have not yet stated a problem.
It is still too broad, too loosely worded to promote well-organized argument.
What sort of writing are we concerned with—poems, novels, government docu-
ments, website development, advertising, or what? What does “effectiveness”
mean in this context? What kind of physical force is being compared—fists, du-
eling swords, bazookas, nuclear weapons, or what? A more specific question
might be, “Would a mutual defense treaty or a visit by our fleet be more effec-
tive in assuring Laurania of our support in a certain crisis?” The basis for argu-
ment could be phrased in a debate proposition such as “Resolved: That the
United States should enter into a mutual defense treaty with Laurania.”
Negative advocates might oppose this proposition by arguing that fleet maneu-
vers would be a better solution. This is not to say that debates should completely
avoid creative interpretation of the controversy by advocates, or that good de-
bates cannot occur over competing interpretations of the controversy; in fact,
these sorts of debates may be very engaging. The point is that debate is best fa-
cilitated by the guidance provided by focus on a particular point of difference,
which will be outlined in the following discussion.

I I . PHRAS ING THE DEBATE PROPOS IT ION

In argumentation and debate a proposition is a statement of judgment that
identifies the central issue in controversy. The advocate desires to have others
accept or reject the proposition. Debate provides for organized argument for

The Debate Proposition

■ A proposition is a statement of judgment that identifies the central issue in
controversy

■ Those arguing in favor of the proposition present the affirmative side

■ Those arguing against the proposition present the negative side

I I . PHRAS ING THE DEBATE PROPOS I T ION 45

and against the proposition: Those arguing in favor of the proposition present
the affirmative side; those arguing against it present the negative side. To pro-
mote intelligent and effective argumentation, a debate proposition must have
certain characteristics.

A. Controversy

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, controversy is an essential prerequisite
of debate. Thus the debate proposition must clearly state the controversy or ref-
erence the point of controversy.

B. One Central Idea

The most elegant proposition provides for the best debate and ultimately the
most useful decision making. There should be a clear-cut yes/no answer to a
single point of controversy to enable productive and sensible debate.
Even though complexity is inevitable and many smaller questions will need to
be answered to provide an answer to the broader propositional question, if a
proposition has more than one central idea, it will lead to confusion. Consider
the proposition “Resolved: That the Philosophy Club deplores abortions and
lotteries as immoral.” While some people certainly would agree with this prop-
osition, there are really two subjects for argument here. Some might deplore
abortions and approve of lotteries; others might take the opposite view. Two
central ideas like these should be placed in separate propositions and debated sep-
arately. If this resolution were introduced into the Philosophy Club’s parliamen-
tary debate, any member of the club could move to amend the original motion
into two separate motions. If the amendment were seconded and passed, then
the two motions could be debated separately. The proposition addresses two
controversies.

C. Unemotional Terms

The proposition should be stated in unemotional terms, without loaded language
that might give a special advantage to the affirmative or the negative. Consider
the proposition “Resolved: That cruel, sadistic experimenters should be for-
bidden to torture defenseless animals pointlessly.” The heavily loaded, emotional
language gives the affirmative an unreasonable advantage. “Resolved: That vivi-
section should be illegal” states the proposition in dispassionate terms. Although
emotionally loaded terms have persuasive value, they have no place in a debate
proposition.

Although probably no word is completely neutral to everyone, one can and
must try to minimize the evaluative aspects of a proposition. The wording of the
proposition must be such that reasonable participants on either side will accept it
as accurately and dispassionately describing the controversy to be debated.

46 CHAPTER 3 STAT ING THE CONTROVERSY

D. Statement of the Affirmative’s Desired Decision

The proposition should represent a statement of the decision the affirmative de-
sires. It should set forth the decision clearly and precisely so that, if adopted, the
affirmative advocates will have achieved their purpose, yet maintain sufficient
leeway for the affirmative to address a range of possible interpretations. The
proposition “Resolved: That the power of the federal government should be in-
creased” is vague and indefinite. If the affirmative should win a debate on such a
proposition, what would have been accomplished? Nothing. After it was agreed
that the powers of the federal government should be increased, another debate
on the specific powers in question would be needed. For example, people who
favored increasing the power of the federal government by allowing it to make
military appropriations for three, rather than two, years might oppose an increase
in the power of the federal government that would allow it to abolish the states.
The phrasing of the proposition must be clear, specific, devoid of ambiguous
terms, and precise in the statement of the desired decision. In particular, the di-
rection of change should be identified, to draw a clear distinction for preparation
and debating as to which side occupies which argumentative ground. For exam-
ple, should there be more regulation or less?

Although the decision desired by the affirmative must be stated with precision,
the proposition sometimes gives the affirmative considerable latitude in its analysis
of the status quo—the existing state of things—and allows for the possibility
of several plans in implementing that decision. For example, the proposition
“Resolved: That the federal government should grant annually a specific percent-
age of its income tax revenue to state governments” indicates the general plan
but allows the affirmative considerable latitude in analyzing the status quo and in
developing the details of the plan. Thus some affirmatives might call for the plan to
improve the financing of state and local services. Others might focus on specific
problems, such as improved financing of the criminal justice or health care system.
Still others might develop a quite different analysis and call for the adoption of the
proposition as a means of checking the power of the military-industrial complex.

Such “open-ended” propositions realistically reflect the fact that different
persons may support the same policy for a variety of reasons. As the saying
goes, “Politics makes strange bedfellows,” and in applied debate we often find
unlikely combinations of legislators supporting a bill for widely different
reasons.

The statement of the proposition should be affirmative in both form and
intent. The proposition “Resolved: That the United States should not give direct
economic aid to foreign countries” is in negative form. The use of negative
phrasing is potentially confusing and needlessly complicates the advocates’ task
in presenting their case. By contrast, “Resolved: That the United States should
offer foreign aid in the form of developmental assistance programs” allows affir-
matives to clearly advocate particular aid programs.

The proposition “Resolved: That the jury system should be abolished” is
negative not in its form but in its intent. The flaw here is that the proposition
represents an interim goal and does not provide a clear, precise statement of the

I I . PHRAS ING THE DEBATE PROPOS I T ION 47

decision desired by the affirmative. If the jury system was abolished and nothing
provided in its place, all accused criminals would go free, because there would be
no means of trying them. But the proposition “Resolved: That juries should
be replaced by a panel of three judges” represents a statement of a decision
some affirmatives might advocate.

An important challenge for the framers of debate propositions is to find
an appropriate balance between a very loosely worded proposition that fails to
provide sufficient guidance for preparation and an overly restrictive or tightly
worded proposition that overlimits the creativity of the advocates in interpret-
ing the action required by the proposition. Considerations in selecting the appro-
priate degree of specificity may include the format, the context for debate, the
nature and expertise of the participants, availability of support materials, the in-
tended audience, and so on.

In addition to the criteria for a debate proposition, there are additional re-
quirements for propositions in academic debate. (See the inset “Phrasing the
Proposition for Academic Debate” on pages 49–50.) For CEDA and NDT debate,
once several well-phrased propositions have been offered to the forensic commu-
nity, a choice is made. (See the inset “Choosing the Proposition for Academic
Debate” on page 51.) Individual tournament hosts design propositions to be de-
bated in parliamentary debate rounds, and the National Forensic Association
(NFA) and National Educational Debate Association (NEDA) choose their own
propositions for Lincoln–Douglas and team debate, respectively.

I I I . PRESUMPT ION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

A. The Status Quo

In debates about propositions of policy, affirmative advocates support change,
usually favoring new governmental policy. Such supported change requires de-
parture from the status quo, usually described in terms of currently existing struc-
tures or laws. The status quo is the current system or the way things are now.
For example, at one time capital punishment was legal throughout the United
States; it was the status quo. Then the Supreme Court ruled that existing capital
punishment statutes were unconstitutional. The status quo then became one of
no capital punishment. Subsequently some states enacted new capital punishment

Characteristics of an Effectively Worded Debate Proposition

■ Controversy

■ One central idea

■ Unemotional terms

■ Precise statement of the affirmative’s desired decision

48 CHAPTER 3 STAT ING THE CONTROVERSY

Phrasing the Proposition for Academic Debate

The additional requirements for propositions used in academic debate involve signif-
icance, fairness, length, and ambiguity.

S ign i f i can t Contemporary Prob lem

In choosing an issue for educational debate, directors of forensics not only look for a
well-phrased proposition but also try to select one that will provide an opportunity
for exploring a significant problem of current interest to students, judges, and audi-
ences. Because the topic should be one on which information is readily available, na-
tional debate propositions deal with matters of current national or international
concern. Some debate coaches favored the civil rights proposition selected by CEDA/
NDT in 1998–1999 because they believed it helped to attract students, especially mi-
nority students, to debating. The 2003–2004 CEDA resolution, however, was criticized
as too diffuse and obtuse to be interesting at first glance to new debaters.

Educators also seek an issue that will remain in the news and stay interesting
during the academic year or semester so that debaters can continue to find new evi-
dence and arguments. When the Supreme Court’s right-to-privacy decisions were the
subject of a national debate proposition, the educators who chose this issue did not
expect that these decisions would be overruled during the year the proposition was
being debated. But had this happened, the status quo on privacy might have chan-
ged so substantially as to render the proposition unsuitable for academic debate.

Sometimes the status quo may change dramatically and require substantial
changes in affirmative cases without necessitating a change in the proposition.
During the academic year in which the proposition concerning “federal control of
the supply and utilization of energy” was debated, a number of such changes oc-
curred. Early in the season some affirmative teams argued that “the Arab nations
might embargo oil.” Negative teams confidently denied this possibility, but the Arabs
did in fact embargo oil early in the season. Some affirmative teams then argued for
gas rationing as the only means of dealing with the oil embargo. As the academic
year went on, however, it became apparent that, although some states had imposed
limitations on gas sales, no real-world support existed for federal rationing. During
that year many teams found it necessary to redraft their affirmative cases for almost
every tournament, for the status quo changed repeatedly as new policies became
operative or as new evidence became available. During the 2002–2003 academic de-
bate season, a portion of the resolution became undebatable before the end of the
debate year, as the SORT agreement, one of the policy actions called for in the
proposition, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 6.

Equa l Conf l i c t ing Ev idence and Reason ing

In applied debates the evidence and reasoning may strongly favor one side. In the
courts attorneys may defend clients when the evidence against them is almost over-
whelming. In legislatures the minority leader may fight for an almost hopeless cause.
In academic debate, however, the objective is not to secure or to prevent the adop-
tion of a proposition. Rather, it is to use the proposition to provide opportunities to
learn about argumentation and debate, as well as about the subject itself. For edu-
cational purposes preference is given to propositions that give both sides an approx-
imately equal opportunity to build a strong case.

S ing le Dec la ra t ive Sentence

In the interests of clarity, and because of the limited amount of time available, aca-
demic debate propositions should be limited to a single declarative sentence. In

I I I . PRESUMPT ION AND BURDEN OF PROOF 49

laws that met the Supreme Court’s criteria, and executions resumed in those
states. Thus the status quo is that some states permit capital punishment under
specific circumstances. But partisans on both sides are seeking to change this sta-
tus quo: Some want to expand capital punishment to all states, whereas others
want to abolish it.

B. Presumption

In debate presumption is a predisposition favoring a given side in a dispute. It
describes the psychological predisposition of a listener or decision maker.
Presumption may be viewed from two perspectives: the judicial perspective and
the policy perspective. The judicial perspective offers a constant understanding of
presumption: It always favors the status quo, or a presumed condition (for exam-
ple, presumption of innocence). The judicial perspective may be used when the
option exists of continuing the structure of the status quo. With this option there
may, of course, be minor repairs and other modifications, but the essential fea-
tures of the status quo will continue until good and sufficient reason is given to
justify a change. This perspective is mandated in the courts, for example, where

applied debates the proposition may be as long as necessary; for instance, a bill in
Congress is a specialized form of debate proposition and may extend for many pages.
Recent CEDA/NDT resolutions have violated this to some degree by offering lists of
options to the affirmative. The trend has been for those options to be increasingly
specific as to policies to be advocated, thus offering clarity for individual debates.
Criticism has been directed at the failure of some resolutions (for example, the 2003–
2004 CEDA/NDT Resolution) to offer a consistent theme and of some resolutions to
be overly restrictive in dictating affirmative advocacy.

Avoidance of Ambigu i ty

Those wording a proposition for academic debate should seek to avoid excessive
ambiguity while not unnecessarily limiting the debaters’ opportunities to be creative
in their interpretation of the terms of the proposition. The framers challenge, then, is
achieve a balance between being too vague and too prescriptive. It is generally more
effective to provide a clear direction of change in the wording of the proposition (for
example, increase gun control, rather than change gun laws). The Second National
Developmental Conference on Forensics made the following recommendations spe-
cifically for academic debate:

1. Take care when using any encompassing term such as all, every, or any.

2. Take care when using vague or compounding words or phrases such as greater
or any and all.

3. Consult linguistics experts on the phrasing and interpretation of debate
propositions.

4. Specify clearly the nature and direction of the change or decision.

5. Seek wording that will balance the need for maintaining interest over a period
of time with the need to limit the topic in order to create a meaningful level of
research and discussion.

Phrasing the Proposition for Academic Debate (Continued)

50 CHAPTER 3 STAT ING THE CONTROVERSY

the accused must be presumed innocent (the status quo) until proved guilty. As a
defendant is presumed innocent, the status quo is presumed acceptable until and
unless a compelling case is offered to the contrary.

From the judicial perspective presumption favors the status quo. That is, the
existing state of affairs will continue until good and sufficient reason is given for
changing it. In debates using the judicial perspective, the presumption favors the
status quo and the affirmative has the burden of proof—the risk of the propo-
sition. Because change involves risk (and cost), the advocates of change must
prove that it is worthwhile to take that risk. The advocates who affirm the prop-
osition are required to prove their case. They must provide good and sufficient
reason for adopting or accepting the proposition, and they must convince those
who render the decision. If they do not fulfill the burden of proof, they will lose

Choosing the Proposition for Academic Debate

Each year, CEDA solicits topic papers from members of the debate community. Each
topic paper provides an overview of a topic area, with discussion of the available lit-
erature, possible topic linkages and phrasings, and the relative merits of debating
that topic area. In the spring the topic selection committee of CEDA, utilizing the
topic papers to generate ideas, identifies at least three topic areas to be presented to
the membership of CEDA. The membership votes for their preference among the
problem areas, and the committee goes back to work to frame no fewer than three
policy propositions within the chosen topic area, to be presented to the CEDA mem-
bership for final selection. The yearlong proposition, to be used by CEDA and the
NDT, is announced in July. The ADA uses the CEDA/NDT proposition. NEDA and NFA
Lincoln–Douglas select their own propositions. Parliamentary tournament debaters,
as represented by APDA (American Parliamentary Debate Association) and NPDA
(National Parliamentary Debate Association), use topics selected for each round of a
given tournament as framed by the tournament hosts.

Research-based team debating in the tournament context makes use of national
debate propositions indispensable. If students had to debate a different proposition
for each tournament, or even if they attempted to debate a number of different
propositions during the year, they would acquire considerable experience in research
methods but might sacrifice the depth of research and experience in evidence-based
debating. The first few academic debates on a new proposition are often tentative
and experimental. After a number of debates on a proposition, the learning situation
provides more depth.

Of course, alternative debate forums, including Parliamentary Debate (NPDA
and APDA) offer different educational experiences and skill sets based on impromptu
development of ideas and broad-based reading and research about a wide range of is-
sues. Although such approaches may not offer the depth of research and argumenta-
tion, they are certainly valuable experiences in public advocacy and critical thinking.

Because much academic debating is on a national intercollegiate debate propo-
sition, it is useful to know how such propositions are chosen. The care devoted to the
selection of these propositions suggests something of the care that individual deba-
ters should exercise in phrasing propositions for their own use. Similar standards
should also be applied to resolutions for extemporaneous style debates such as those
practiced in Parliamentary Debate Tournaments.

I I I . PRESUMPT ION AND BURDEN OF PROOF 51

all that they hoped to gain from adoption of the proposition. These concepts
are aptly summed up in the maxim “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”1

The policy perspective is used when change is inherent in the status quo.
For example, in 2004 President Bush, the incumbent president, ran for reelec-
tion. That year the voters had the option of voting for Bush (the status quo) or
for his opponent, John Kerry. Constitutional restrictions barred Bush from run-
ning for a third term in 2008; thus change was inevitable. Voters in the year
2000 did not have the option of supporting the status quo (voting for Clinton)
but chose between two or more departures from the status quo, as in 2008. As is
typical in such cases, one choice represented a greater change in the status quo
than the other, as in 2000 the Republican candidate was perceived as more sub-
stantially different than the Democrat candidate.

From the policy perspective presumption favors the position that provides
the greatest advantages while incurring the least disadvantages, or incurs the least
risk due to the lesser degree of change. Put another way, presumption favors the
position that is less risky or that incurs the least risk of harmful consequences. In
debates on value propositions the presumption favors the position of the greater
over the lesser value. For example, in debates on the “testing for controlled sub-
stances” proposition, the issue in many debates is whether “privacy” concerns
outweigh “safety” concerns.

How does one determine the burden of proof in such cases? The classic rule
of burden of proof applies: One who asserts must prove. Let us now look at a
few examples to see how these concepts work. We will first consider some ex-
amples from the judicial perspective.

Do you favor a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the legal un-
ion of a man and a woman? A school prayer amendment to the Constitution? A
right-to-life amendment to the Constitution? A balanced budget amendment?
The status quo is the Constitution as it now exists. If you want to advocate a
change to the Constitution, you have the burden of proof. In this case you
must convince both branches of Congress to pass your amendment and then
you must convince 38 states to ratify it. This is the burden of proof we place
on those who want to change our Constitution.

The concept of presumption is a vital part of our legal system. Did Richard
Roe rob the Cook County National Bank? Our laws explicitly require that a
person be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The status quo is that
Richard Roe is innocent, and the police department and the district attorney
must convince a jury that he is guilty before he can be sentenced.
(Unfortunately this principle of law is sometimes distorted. The accused in a
well-publicized case may have a “trial by news media” and be “proved guilty”
in the minds of the prospective jurors before the courtroom trial begins. British
law is much stricter than American law in prohibiting pretrial publicity about the
accused.)

1. A conservative English statesman, Viscount Falkland, expressed this famous dictum in
1641 in more stately prose: “When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to
change.”

52 CHAPTER 3 STAT ING THE CONTROVERSY

The Richard Roes of this world move through the criminal justice system in
relative anonymity; their cases rarely attract the attention of the media. The O. J.
Simpson murder trial, however, drew unprecedented, worldwide attention. One
TV reporter, commenting on the problem of choosing a jury for the trial,
quipped; “Only someone who has been in a coma for the past few months
hasn’t heard about the O. J. case.” The trials of Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant,
Martha Stewart, Phil Spector, Robert Blake, and Zacarias Moussaoui have drawn
similar attention.

There are, however, some exceptions to this concept of presumption of in-
nocence. For many years in contested tax cases, the taxpayer was in effect guilty
until proved innocent—a clear violation of the presumption of innocence. This
inversion of principle, however, had become the status quo and stood until, in a
major ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals put the burden of proof on the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).2 The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of
1998, also known as the “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights,” legislatively shifted the bur-
den of proof in certain legal proceedings from individual taxpayers to the IRS.

C. The Burden of Proof

In our law courts different standards prevail for the burden of proof in different
circumstances. Before a grand jury only “probable cause” need be proved to se-
cure an indictment; in a criminal trial the prosecutor must establish proof “be-
yond a reasonable doubt” to secure a guilty verdict; in a civil case the verdict
commonly is based on a “preponderance of evidence.” Outside the courtroom
reasonable persons usually apply this standard and base their decisions in impor-
tant matters on a “preponderance of evidence.” The judge in legal proceedings
will instruct the jury as to what constitutes “probable cause” or “reasonable
doubt.”

The concepts of burden of proof and presumption made the front page of
the New York Times and other newspapers across the country when the Supreme
Court ruled that in gender discrimination cases “an employer has the legal bur-
den of proving that its refusal to hire or promote someone is based on legitimate
and not discriminatory reasons.” In the same decision the Court ruled that the
employer has to show only by “a preponderance of evidence” that its reasons
were legitimate, and not by the more rigorous standard of “clear and convincing
proof” as required by a lower court.3 Outside the courtroom we do not have
predetermined definitions of what constitutes a “preponderance of evidence.”
Therefore a definition of that phrase may become a critical issue in the debate
as the debaters try to convince the decision makers that theirs is a satisfactory
definition within the context of the debate. (See Chapter 4.)

In certain situations in parliamentary debate, the affirmative must obtain a
two-thirds or three-quarters majority to carry its burden of proof. In 1995 the
proposal was advanced that Congress should require a three-fifths vote to enact

2. “Taxing News,” Newsweek, July 8, 1991, p. 8.
3. New York Times, May 2, 1989, p. 1.

I I I . PRESUMPT ION AND BURDEN OF PROOF 53

new taxes. By contrast, to convict Richard Roe of robbing the Cook County
National Bank, the prosecutor must convince 100 percent of the jury. If one
juror is not convinced of Roe’s guilt, he cannot be convicted.

Sometimes the burden of proof may be greater than expected. In 1994 a
majority of California voters thought they had won a victory when they ap-
proved Proposition 187, the anti–illegal immigration initiative. Their opponents,
however, persuaded a federal court to delay enforcement of the initiative, argu-
ing that federal, not state, laws governed the status of immigrants. A federal dis-
trict court judge struck down the law as unconstitutional.

The burden of proof in enacting a new federal law is greater than that of
obtaining a majority of one state’s votes. To enact a new federal law, one must
convince a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, and the president. If
the president vetoes the law, then the proponents must convince two-thirds of
the House and two-thirds of the Senate. If the law is challenged in the courts,
then its supporters may have to convince a majority of the Supreme Court. Let
us now consider a few examples from the policy perspective.

In some cases, again, change may be inherent in the status quo. In such cases
there is a presumption in favor of a change but not in favor of any particular
change. A typical example may be found in the automobile industry, in which
most companies make annual model changes. Even though new models come
out every year, the designers advocating model X have the burden of proof to
convince their company that model X is better than model Y or model Z or any
other model under consideration. In some situations there is no status quo; for
example, when it comes time to elect freshman class officers, there are no
incumbents.

Thus, when the status quo provides for a change or when a change is inher-
ent in the status quo, the advocates of a new policy or of possible change have
the burden of proof. Similarly the advocates of a specific value (as in a debate on
a proposition of value in which the affirmative advocates the specific value called
for in the resolution) have the burden of proof. Again, the classic rule of burden
of proof applies to all of these situations: One who asserts must prove.

The affirmative—the one advancing an assertion—has the burden of proof.
The question then arises: What amounts to satisfactory proof? The answer de-
pends on the rules governing the debate and the judgment of the person or
group empowered to decide. At a minimum the affirmative must go more than
halfway in convincing the decision makers. Thus, for example, if 49 percent of
the members of your club vote for a motion and 51 percent vote against it, the
motion fails. If 50 percent vote for the motion and 50 percent against it, the
motion fails.

Note that there is a distinction between the burden of proof and a burden of
proof, and that this distinction applies to both the judicial and the policy perspec-
tive. The burden of proof always rests on the affirmative, who must prove that the
proposition should be adopted or accepted. However, a burden of proofmay rest
on either the affirmative or the negative. Whoever introduces an issue into the de-
bate has a burden of proof. The advocate must support the argument he or she
introduces. During a trial, for example, the prosecution may allege that Richard

54 CHAPTER 3 STAT ING THE CONTROVERSY

Roe committed a robbery in Chicago. Richard Roe may claim that he was in New
York at the time of the robbery. Richard Roe now has assumed a burden of proof;
he must prove his alibi. In a debate on the “testing for controlled substances” prop-
osition, if the negative introduces the argument that “privacy” concerns outweigh
“safety” concerns, they have assumed a burden of proof.

D. The Burden of Refutation

Either side may also have a burden of refutation—the obligation to refute, or
respond to, opposing arguments. This burden also referred to as the burden of
“clash” rests on the advocate whose case is weakened by an argument advanced
by an opponent. The advocate must refute that argument or suffer damage to the
case. In Richard Roe’s case, if Roe introduces evidence to establish that he was
in New York at the time of the robbery, the prosecution has a burden of refuta-
tion. That is, the Chicago district attorney must refute that evidence or Roe will
go free. In the “controlled substances” case the affirmative must refute the nega-
tive’s “safety” argument or face a serious loss.

A tie is thus impossible in academic debate. The affirmative either carries its
burden of proof or it does not. Even in a debate with one judge, a common
situation in academic debate, a tie is impossible. If the judge discerns that both
teams have done an equally good job, he or she must render a decision for the
negative because the affirmative has failed to carry its burden of proof.
Reasonable people follow this principle in making individual decisions. If the ar-
guments pro and con are equal—if they simply cannot make up their minds—
they decline to support the affirmative’s proposal.

IV . TYPES OF DEBATE PROPOS IT IONS

Debate propositions may deal with controversies of fact, value, or policy. We
will first consider propositions of fact, then value, and finally policy.

A. Propositions of Fact

A proposition of fact is a type of descriptive claim. In a debate on a proposition
of fact, the affirmative maintains that a certain thing is true, while the negative
maintains that it is false. Our law courts are almost entirely concerned with pro-
positions of fact. Examples of typical propositions of legal debates include
“Resolved: That Richard Roe is guilty of robbery,” “Resolved: That this is the
last will and testament of John Doe,” and “Resolved: That the plaintiff’s consti-
tutional rights were violated in this trial.” Examples of typical debates on propo-
sitions of fact outside the courtroom include “Resolved: That the stock market
will decline next year,” “Resolved: That life begins at conception,” “Resolved:
That human activity causes greenhouse warming,” and “Resolved: That others
conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate President Kennedy.” This latter

I V . TYPES OF DEBATE PROPOS IT IONS 55

proposition of fact had been the subject of extensive public debate for years, and
interest in it surged to new heights following the release of Oliver Stone’s film
JFK. Obviously a debate over a proposition of fact is not necessarily easy and
may be a rich and important debate. In 2002 and 2003, the debate over the
question of Saddam Hussein’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction
was a debate of earth-shaking importance.

Propositions of fact also may be debated as precursors, or as a part of debates
on propositions of value or propositions of policy, because it is frequently essen-
tial to establish relevant facts before reaching decisions about values or policies.

B. Propositions of Value

A proposition of value is a type of evaluative claim. Values are our beliefs about
right and wrong, good and bad. So a proposition of value essentially makes a
statement that something is good or bad. In a debate on a proposition of value,
the affirmative maintains that a certain belief, value, or fact is justified, that it
conforms to the definition or criteria appropriate to evaluate the issue.
Examples of typical propositions of value include “Resolved: That abortion is
immoral” and “Resolved: That television is a vast wasteland.” One of the most
prominent differences between a proposition of value and a proposition of policy
is that the policy proposition requires the affirmative to propose a plan to imple-
ment the policy. The proposition of value does not provide for a plan. Rather,
the affirmative seeks support for a claim that (1) endorses a value (for example,
“Resolved: That compulsory national service for all qualified U.S. citizens is de-
sirable”) or (2) chooses one value over another (for example, “Resolved: That
inflation is a greater threat to American society than is unemployment”) or (3)
rejects a value (for example, “Resolved: That the emphasis on competitive ath-
letics is deleterious to American society”).

Quasi-policy propositions are propositions that express a value judgment
about a policy. Examples of typical quasi-policy propositions include the “com-
pulsory national service” proposition just cited and many CEDA propositions
prior to 1996, such as “Resolved: That a unilateral freeze by the United States
on the production and development of nuclear weapons would be desirable.”
Although a plan is not explicit in quasi-policy propositions, it is implicit, and
the debaters may need to debate the policy implications of the proposition.
Between 1999 and 2002, CEDA selected both a policy and what they termed
a “nonpolicy” resolution for each academic year. They defined a nonpolicy res-
olution as one “phrased so as to generally affirm the truth or value of an idea,
condition, or action, but not to simply affirm the desirability or worth of future
change.”

A value may be a precursor of a policy. Once we have endorsed a value, the
next logical step in most cases is to support policies consistent with that value.
The intensity with which a value is endorsed or rejected will determine whether
we adopt a personal policy or urge a public policy. A woman who favored the
“abortion is immoral” proposition mentioned earlier might say, “Others may fol-
low their own conscience; my values would never permit me to choose

56 CHAPTER 3 STAT ING THE CONTROVERSY

abortion.” Intense partisans on both sides take a more activist stance and seek to
have their values enacted into law. Of course, debaters might engage in a pleas-
ant disputation on values that have no discernable policy implications—for ex-
ample, “Resolved: That Washington was a greater president than Lincoln.” A
negative win on this debate implies no policy that we should tear down the
Washington Monument or build Lincoln another memorial.

If we decide that “television is a wasteland,” we might adopt a personal pol-
icy of watching much less television. If, however, we urge that the public sup-
port the value we have chosen, then a certain type of programming should, as a
matter of policy, be eliminated from television and replaced with programming
more beneficial to the public interest. The implications of such a policy are
clearly a subject for examination by debaters and those who render the
decision.

An example of fact and value judgments leading to policy considerations oc-
curred in the first Bush–Dukakis presidential campaign debate in 1988. George
H. W. Bush, who was known to favor the “sanctity of life” (a value proposition)
and to regard abortions as “killings” (a fact position), was asked, “If abortions
were to become illegal, do you think women who have them should go to
jail?” (a policy position). Bush replied, “I haven’t sorted out the penalties.…
I’m for the sanctity of life, and once that illegality is established, then we can
come to grips with the penalty side, and of course, there’s got to be some penal-
ties to enforce the law.” This response was judged to be weak and ineffective by
some observers. Michael Dukakis promptly focused on the policy implications of
Bush’s values: “Well, I think that the vice president is saying that he’s prepared
to brand a woman a criminal for making this decision.”4

While we may sometimes debate facts, values, or policies by themselves, we
will find that on many occasions it is necessary to consider all of them together.

C. Propositions of Policy

A policy proposition is a type of advocate claim. It calls for change. CEDA de-
fines policy resolutions as those “phrased so as to affirm the value of future and
specific governmental change, and suggesting a broad but predictable array of
potential affirmative plans.” In a debate on a proposition of policy, the affirma-
tive maintains that a policy or course of action should be adopted. Most debates
in legislative bodies are on propositions of policy. Examples of typical debates in
Congress, state legislatures, and city councils include “Resolved: That the pro-
posed tax bill should be enacted” and “Resolved: That the Senate should advise
and consent to the nomination of Joseph Doakes as ambassador to France.” In
private organizations as well, most debates are on propositions of policy—for ex-
ample, “Resolved: That the National Communication Association should hold
its annual convention in Chicago” or “Resolved: That Compact Motors should
pay a quarterly dividend of 50 cents per share of common stock” or “Resolved:
That more dormitories should be established on this campus.”

4. See the New York Times, Sept. 26, 1988, p. 11, for the full text of this exchange.

I V . TYPES OF DEBATE PROPOS IT IONS 57

Recall that a plan to implement the policy is an essential part of the affirma-
tive’s case. In debates on policy propositions, propositions of value often arise as
important issues. For example, in debates on the proposition of policy
“Resolved: That the federal government should significantly strengthen the reg-
ulation of mass media communication in the United States,” it was sometimes
necessary to debate as essential issues “Resolved: That First Amendment rights
are the most important of all our rights” and “Resolved: That pretrial publicity
denies a fair trial to defendants in criminal trials” (both propositions of value).

The O. J. Simpson case raised many issues of fact, value, and policy. Was
O. J. guilty of murder? This was a question of fact the trial intended to an-
swer. During the pretrial hearings a friend of O. J.’s slain ex-wife wrote
a book. Did this create prejudice against O. J.? While in jail awaiting trial,
O. J. also wrote a book. Did this create prejudice in favor of O. J.? The me-
dia—from the tabloids to the mainstream press, from Court TV to the major
networks—reported all of the events, gossip, rumors, and opinions surrounding
the trial. Did the media’s First Amendment right to report about the trial and
events surrounding it outweigh O. J.’s right to a fair trial? Had O. J. been
convicted, his lawyers might have sought to argue some of these questions of
fact and value before the Supreme Court.

Had the prosecution sought the death penalty, the issue of whether to apply
it would have become a question of policy to be debated by the jury in separate
proceedings following a guilty verdict.

As another example, consider the Monica Lewinsky–Bill Clinton scandal.
The House impeachment proceedings against President Clinton focused on pro-
positions of fact. For its part the Senate considered the magnitude of the value
implications and, finally, the appropriate policy action: Should President Clinton
be removed from office? Just as questions of fact, value, and policy are interwo-
ven in one of the twentieth century’s most highly publicized murder trials and
the historic proceedings against a president, they are also interwoven in the great
debates on public policy and in the unpublicized debates that influence our ev-
eryday lives.

EXERC ISES

1. Examine the following “propositions.” Which are well phrased? Which vi-
olate the criteria of a well-phrased proposition? What criteria do they vio-
late? Rephrase the incorrect propositions so they meet the requirements for
academic debate.

a. Inadequate parking facilities on campus
b. The AIDS crisis
c. Should our college abandon intercollegiate athletics?
d. The present method of electing the president of the United States

should be improved
e. Affirmative action in college admissions

58 CHAPTER 3 STAT ING THE CONTROVERSY

f. Gay/lesbian rights
g. Is politically correct speech a violation of free speech?
h. Our college should not adopt a multicultural curriculum

2. Phrase one proposition of fact, one of value, and one of policy for each of
the following areas:

a. Health Care
b. Education
c. Civility
d. The War on Terror
e. Tuition

3. From the newspapers, newsmagazines, and radio and television broadcasts,
and Internet discussions of the past week, identify what problems are cur-
rently being debated in Congress or in the nation. Phrase propositions of
fact, value, and policy on five problems currently being debated nationally.
Phrase these 15 propositions in a manner suitable for academic debate.

4. From the newspapers, newsmagazines, radio and television broadcasts, and
Internet discussions of the past week, find five examples of quasi-policy
propositions currently being debated in Congress or in the nation.

5. Prepare a five-minute speech for delivery in class in which you state a
proposition of policy and demonstrate how it meets the criteria of a well-
phrased proposition for academic debate.

6. Consider the 2007–2008 NDT/CEDA debate proposition (see Appendix C).
Reword it to better meet the criteria for an effective proposition.

EXERC I SES 59

4

Analyzing the Controversy

As we discussed in Chapter 3, effective debate begins with the identification of a
controversy from which a proposition emerges or is framed. The proposition

provides debaters a focus for preparation and argumentation, and allows the audience
or judge a guideline for their decision. The proposition focuses the clash and ensures
that arguments are pertinent to decision making. The proposition for debate may be
formulated by one of the advocates in the debate, by agreement between the oppos-
ing advocates, or by someone other than the actual advocates. If a student at a busi-
ness meeting of a college organization introduces the motion “Resolved: That the
dues of this organization should be increased five dollars a semester,” he or she is
formulating a proposition for debate. Before Abraham Lincoln and Stephen
Douglas held their famous debates, they agreed on the propositions they would
use. The proposition may also be expressed in the form of a motion in parliamentary
debate, and in our current political environment, candidates involved in campaign
debates are presented propositions in the form of questions from moderators, audi-
ence members, or even YouTube contributors. Frequently an attorney first learns of
the proposition to be debated in a court case when he or she is retained by a client in
the form of formal legal charges or claims.

Regardless of how the proposition is chosen, our first task as advocates is to an-
alyze the proposition and the area of controversy from which it is derived. When a
chemist analyzes a compound, he or she breaks it down to its most basic elements to
identify its makeup. Similarly, as debate advocates we must break the proposition
down into its component parts, define the terms of the proposition, and then iden-
tify the issues involved. Words or terms in the proposition must be defined within the
context of the proposition. For example, we cannot define, or even pronounce, the
word polish until we know the context in which it is used. Analysis of the proposi-
tion’s relationship to the problem area—the political, legal, social, or other relevant
contexts from which it arises—may reveal other terms that require definition and
new concepts that will aid in the development of issues.

60

✵

I . THE IMPORTANCE OF DEF IN ING TERMS

The definition of terms—the advocate’s supported interpretation of the mean-
ing of the words in a proposition—is an essential part of debate. In some in-
stances the opposing advocates will agree right away on the definition of terms,
and the debate will move on to other issues. In other cases the locus of the de-
bate may be the definition of a key term or terms, and definitions become the
“voting issue” that decides the debate. In all debates, however, a shared under-
standing of the interpretation of the proposition is necessary to guide argumen-
tation and decision making.

Many intercollegiate debate propositions call for the “federal government”
to adopt a certain policy. Often the term is self-evident in the context of the
proposition, and no definition is necessary. In debates on the 2001–2002
CEDA proposition, “Resolved: That the United States Federal Government
should substantially increase federal control throughout Indian Country in one
or more of the following areas: child welfare, criminal justice, employment, en-
vironmental protection, gaming, resource management, taxation,” the affirmative
merely designated the appropriate federal agency (for example, The Bureau of
Indian Affairs or the Environmental Protection Agency) to carry out its policy,
and the debate moved on to other issues. However, sometimes other terms in
the proposition (for instance, Indian Country) become critical issues of the debate.
Not infrequently the negative will raise the issue of topicality and argue that the
affirmative’s plan is not the best definition, or interpretation, of the proposition.
In debates on propositions of value, the clash over definitions or criteria may be
crucial to the outcome.

In debates outside the educational setting, the same situation prevails. In
some debates the definition of terms is easy and obvious—they need only be
stated “for the record,” and the debate proceeds to other issues. In other debates,

Miniglossary

Definition of terms The advocate’s supported interpretation of the meaning of
the words in the proposition.

Fiat The convention in academic policy debate that, for the sake of argument,
participants may assume implementation of a reasonable policy. This allows de-
baters to focus on the question of whether a policy should be adopted and to
avoid as irrelevant arguments about whether the policy would be adopted.

Issues Critical claims inherent in the proposition. Questions identifying points
of controversy.

Stock issues Those issues common to most debates on given types of proposi-
tions. In value debate they are definitive and designative; in policy debate they
include harm, inherency, and solvency.

I . THE IMPORTANCE OF DEF IN ING TERMS 61

however, the definition may be all-important. For instance physicians, clerics,
and ethicists conduct long, hard-fought debates on the critical issue of when
life begins: At conception? When the fetus becomes capable of surviving outside
the womb? When the brain begins to function? Or at the moment of birth?

Exactly the opposite problem arose, and continues, in debates over the use
of organ transplants. Does death occur when breathing stops? When the heart
stops? Or when the brain ceases to function? Some states have debated this issue
and adopted new definitions of death; in other states the debate continues.
Similarly, environmentalists seeking protection from development for valued re-
sources debate the definition of wetlands in public hearings; owners of sports fran-
chises work to redefine players’ salaries to fit within predetermined salary caps;
and customers considering new product purchases study competing definitions
of value. In February 2004, President Bush called upon the Congress to
“promptly pass and send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our
Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman
as husband and wife.” This advocacy by the president was an attempt to define
“marriage” in such a way as to limit it to heterosexual couples. A public debate
about the meaning of marriage, and its alternative, “civil union,” ensued.
Definitional debates have political, moral, and personal implications. What is
poverty? Obesity? Adulthood? In 2007, the meaning of the term “surge” in ref-
erence to the United States military action in Iraq was hotly contested. Was this
an expansion of the war or simply provision of necessary resources to achieve
existing objectives? The 2007 immigration reform offered the opportunity for
illegal immigrants working in this country to achieve citizenship through a cum-
bersome and expensive process. The reform legislation failed in part because it
was termed “amnesty” by its opponents. Likewise, the definition of “terrorism”
creates significant problems in our foreign policy.

Terms that do not actually occur in the proposition itself but that an advo-
cate expects to use in the course of the debate may also require definition. For
example, the words cyclical, frictional, and hidden did not appear in the proposition
“Resolved: That the federal government should establish a national program of
public work for the unemployed.” Yet, because references to these types of un-
employment likely recurred in debates on the proposition, the debaters needed
to define them.

In debates on this same proposition, dictionary definitions of the individual
words public and work would have done little to clarify the meaning of the prop-
osition or to furnish a basis for argument. Advocates define the phrase public work
rather than the individual words, and, by referring to the use of this phrase in
legislation, they were able to provide a useful definition.

In analyzing the problem, advocates must carefully consider all possible de-
finitions of all the terms. In presenting their cases, however, they will define only
the terms that might be unfamiliar to their audience or about which they and
their opponents might differ. In debating the proposition “Resolved: That
Congress should be given the power to reverse decisions of the Supreme
Court,” it would probably be unnecessary to define Congress and Supreme
Court. But it would be necessary to define reverse and decisions, because legal us-

62 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

age of these terms differs from popular usage, and opposing advocates sometimes
interpret these words differently within the context of this proposition.

Consider the old brainteaser—when a tree falls in a forest but nobody hears
it, does it make a sound? The answer, of course, is totally dependent on your
definition of sound. If you define it as waves in the air, the answer is yes; if you
define it as the subjective experience of hearing, the answer is no. The terms of a
debate proposition may be defined in a variety of ways. To make the basis of the
argument explicit, advocates should choose the method or combination of meth-
ods best suited to the requirements of the proposition and to the interests of the
audience. It is important to define terms carefully to ensure a profitable debate.

I I . METHODS OF DEF IN ING TERMS

A. Basic Methods

1. Example. Giving an example is often an effective method of defining terms.
In debates on the “national program of public work” proposition, affirmative
teams sometimes defined their terms by saying, “By a national program of public
work, we mean a program similar to the WPA of the 1930s.” In this way they
gave their audience a specific example of the type of program they proposed.
Examples are generally discovered by debaters in the course of researching their
issues and thus, they tend to appear in the literature related to the proposition or
topic area.

2. Common Usage. In the interest of accuracy and precision, debate proposi-
tions sometimes contain technical terms. Often these terms can be defined effec-
tively by referring to common usage, or “common person” or “person on the
street” definition. For example, in debates on the proposition “Resolved: That
the requirement of membership in a labor organization as a condition of em-
ployment should be illegal,” some affirmative teams defined an important term
by saying, “By labor organizations we mean the type of organization popularly
referred to as unions.” This reference to common usage usually served to estab-
lish a definition acceptable to both teams and clear to the audience. Although the
word unions would have served well as a definition, it would not have been an
acceptable term for use in the proposition. Many important “unions” operate
under the legal title of brotherhoods, associations, federations, or other names; and
most important legislation regulating unions speaks of labor organizations. Had
the word unions been used in the proposition, it might have led to some pointless
quibbles as to whether such legislation would apply to organizations such as the
railroad brotherhoods.

To qualify as common usage, a term must be commonly understood across
lines of gender, age, and culture. The Senate confirmation hearings on Supreme
Court Justice Clarence Thomas triggered an extensive public debate about “sex-
ual harassment.” Both men and women opposed it, but in many cases they had

I I . METHODS OF DEF IN ING TERMS 63

substantially different definitions of the term. The hearings, which dominated
prime-time television and the front pages of newspapers, were generally ignored
or given minimal coverage elsewhere in the world. This seems to indicate a cul-
tural difference between the United States and many other countries in which
sexual harassment is not a crime and the sexual behavior of politicians and other
public figures is considered off limits to the media.

Similarly, when denying his involvement in a “sexual relationship” with
White House intern Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton argued that, for him,
oral sex did not constitute sex or a sexual relationship. He based his argument on
the assumption that, for many (including himself), there is a clear distinction in
common usage between the terms oral sex and intercourse, and that a definition of
the terms sex and sexual relationship would refer only to the latter.

Of course, we do not require common global understanding for a term to
be in popular usage in the United States. However, living in a multicultural so-
ciety, we must be aware that cultural differences may influence how a term is
perceived.

Sometimes terms in common usage are widely misunderstood. For instance,
the New York Times called 12 A.M. and 12 P.M. “the trickiest times on the clock.”
Does 12 A.M. designate midday or midnight? Is 12 P.M. lunchtime or bedtime?
Railroads avoid the problem by using schedule times such as 12:01 A.M. and
11:59 P.M. The military, too, avoids the problem by using 24-hour time; noon
is 1200 and midnight is 2400. According to the nation’s highest authority on
time, the U.S. Naval Observatory, “there is no 12 A.M. or 12 P.M., only noon
and midnight.”1 When time is critical, as it may be in contracts, on birth or
death certificates, and in interpretations of other documents, it is advisable to
use terms that are defined by a recognized authority.

Sources of common usage must be evaluated with care. One person’s com-
mon usage may differ with another’s for many reasons. An appeal to the judge or
audience may fail if their sense of common interpretation differs from the deba-
ters’. One source of common usage definitions is a general dictionary, including,
for example, Webster’s, Oxford Collegiate, and American Heritage dictionaries.
Wikipedia or other “wiki” sources may provide useful references for common
usage definitions, as they are generated and edited by a community of Internet
users, not necessarily scholars or experts.

3. Authority. Some terms may be defined most effectively by referring to an
authority qualified to state their meaning and usage. Dictionaries, encyclopedias,
and books and articles by recognized scholars are often used as authority for a
particular definition. In debates on whether “advertising degrades the quality of
life in the United States,” some debaters turned to the American Heritage
Dictionary for their initial definitions of degrades and quality of life. Failure to con-
sult the proper authority can lead to unexpected results. In one instance Time
magazine chided the Nebraska legislature for failure to consult a recognized au-
thority in drafting drug legislation, which resulted in a drug offender going free:

1. New York Times, Nov. 29, 1987, p. 19.

64 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

Burling was acquitted on largely lexicological grounds. The state legis-
lature misspelled the drug’s chemical name when it passed the bill that
outlawed it in 1986. Thus Burling could not be convicted of possessing
the substance specified by the lawmakers. The correct spelling is
methylenedioxymethamphetamine, not methylenedioxyethampheta-
mine [note the omission of the letter m] as the law had it. Next time
they ban a drug in Nebraska, they’d better consult a pharmacological
dictionary.2

What is the definition of AIDS? The federal Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) are the defining authority on matters of diseases. In 1993 the CDC
adopted a broader definition of AIDS to include those infected with HIV who
also had tuberculosis, pneumonia, or other illnesses. Under the new definition
the number of AIDS cases increased overnight by 111 percent. The power to
define a disease can create an epidemic or “eradicate” the disease.

We often hear that an appalling number of Americans are illiterate. What are
the facts? Who can provide an accurate picture? The U.S. Census Bureau says
that 95 percent of Americans are literate. (Of course, the Census Bureau can
make mistakes, but no other source even remotely approaches the ability of the
Census Bureau to gather population data.) Certainly this is primary evidence. But
should we accept it as conclusive evidence? We could never question millions of
individuals ourselves. But we might ask, how does the Census Bureau define
literacy? The answer might surprise you: Anyone who said they attended school
through the fifth grade was counted as literate!3 No effort was made to deter-
mine if these people could actually read or write. If we changed the definition
to people who said they attended school through the third grade, the literacy
rate would probably jump to 99 percent. If we required people to prove they
could read and write at the fifth-grade level, who knows what the figure would
be? The power to define literacy can change our nation’s literacy rate to serve
the interests of whoever defines the term.

Courts struggle every day to interpret the meaning of terms. Their precision
in defining words important to enforcement of statutes can provide a powerful
source of definition to the debater. In legal matters the only definition that
counts is the one upheld by the Supreme Court. For example, what does request
mean? Section 1915(d) of Title 28 of the United States Code states that federal
district judges may “request” lawyers who practice before the federal courts to
undertake uncompensated representation of the poor. Justice John Paul
Stevens, in a dissenting opinion, held that request should be understood to mean
“respectfully command.” Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., held in the 5-to-4 ma-
jority opinion that “in everyday speech request means to ask, petition or entreat,
not to require or command.”4

2. Time, Dec. 12, 1988, p. 33.
3. John Silber, “Illiteracy and the Crisis of Our Society,” Bostonia (spring 1994),
p. 48.
4. New York Times, May 2, 1989, p. 8.

I I . METHODS OF DEF IN ING TERMS 65

Another problem of legal definition is exemplified by application of the term
“obscenity” by courts in freedom of speech cases. To some extent, the term is
defined by local standards, which are open to interpretation and application by
the courts. Sources of definitions by authorities are wide and varied. Terms may
be defined within the text of laws, court decisions, books, articles, websites, and
other materials produced by experts and agencies. Field-specific dictionaries may
often be helpful.

4. Operation. Some terms are best defined if the advocate provides an opera-
tional definition and explains the function or special purpose represented by the
terms in a specific context. Debates on the proposition “Resolved: That the
nonagricultural industries should guarantee their employees an annual wage” re-
quired careful definition of the phrase guarantee … an annual wage. Some affirma-
tive advocates chose to provide an operational definition, defining these terms by
presenting their plan. One debater said:

We propose a plan whereby the employer places the sum of five cents
per employee hour worked in a trust fund until that fund equals 50
percent of the average annual payroll of that company for the past five
years. When an employee is laid off, he may then draw from his fund a
sum equal to 75 percent of his average weekly pay for the previous year
less such state unemployment compensation as he may receive for 52
weeks or until he is rehired.

The use of operation as a method of definition is often linked with
the presentation of a plan and is a helpful way of explaining a complex
matter.

5. Negation. Sometimes a term may be defined effectively by indicating what
it does not mean. In debates on the nationalization of basic industries, some teams
defined basic industries by combining negation with example. That is, they said,
“We do not mean the corner drugstore, we do not mean retail businesses, we do
not mean service businesses; we mean steel, autos, transportation, mining, oil,
and gas.”

6. Comparison and Contrast. Some terms may be best understood if they are
compared to something familiar to the audience or contrasted with something
within the common experience of the audience. In debates on the “mass media”
proposition, some negative teams offered a counterplan and proposed the crea-
tion of an agency “similar to the National Association of Broadcasters” to regu-
late newspapers. They then claimed an advantage from the fact that their plan
called for voluntary regulation in contrast to the affirmative’s proposal of federal
regulation.

7. Derivation. One of the standard methods of defining words is to trace their
development from their original, or radical, elements. Thus, in a debate on fair

66 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

employment practices, it would be possible to define the word prejudice by point-
ing out that the word derived from the Latin words prae and judicium, meaning
“before judgment.” Definition by derivation has limited use in argumentation
and debate, because the advocate is usually concerned with the contemporary
use of the word within a specific context.

8. Combination of Methods. Because most propositions of debate contain
several terms that must be defined, no single method is likely to be satisfactory
for the definition of all of the terms. If any term is particularly difficult to define,
or if it is of critical importance in the debate, the advocate may use more than
one method of definition to make the meaning clear.

B. Providing a Satisfactory Definition

A satisfactory definition is one that meets the expectations of those who render
the decision and provides reasonable guidance in interpreting the proposition.

In academic debate a judge may expect that a definition be reasonable or that
it be the best definition in the debate. In applied debate the decision makers often
have different expectations about decisions in different situations. As we saw in
Chapter 3, the courts have different standards for defining the burden of proof in
different situations. In our personal lives, too, we frequently apply differing stan-
dards. For example, our definition of “satisfactory medical care” would no doubt
vary depending on whether we had a sprained ankle or a life-threatening illness.

In academic debate advocates sometimes offer unusual definitions—defini-
tions that are not consistent with the expectations of the opposing advocates.
The use of “trick” definitions to catch an opponent off guard or to gain some
other advantage is specifically not recommended. A trick definition or the resultant
case is one that the affirmative hopes in the first instance will find the negative
unprepared and in the second instance will convince the judge to accept. One
example of this occurred in debates on the proposition “Resolved: That greater
controls should be imposed on the gathering and utilization of information about
U.S. citizens by government agencies.” Early in the season most negatives

Methods of Defining Terms

■ Example

■ Common Usage

■ Authority

■ Operation

■ Negation

■ Comparison and Contrast

■ Derivation

■ Combination of Methods

I I . METHODS OF DEF IN ING TERMS 67

expected that the affirmative cases would deal with abuses of computerized credit
information. But one trick case called for legislation to prohibit the gathering and
utilization of information about citizens who used marijuana. (The affirmative
argued that if the police and prosecutors were prohibited from gathering and
utilizing such information, they would devote their time and energies to more
important crimes.) Of course, once this case became well known, it lost an es-
sential characteristic of the trick case—it no longer found negative teams unpre-
pared. Advocates who depend on trick cases will find that usually they are
quickly exposed and defeated by competent opposition. Not every unusual defi-
nition, however, should be regarded as a trick definition. The apparently unusual
definition might take the opposing team by surprise only because they failed to
thoroughly analyze the proposition.

Debaters are sometimes advised to look for the “original understanding” of
the proposition. Such advice draws on important precedent: Attorneys arguing a
case involving a constitutional issue before the Supreme Court may consult the
debates that surrounded the adoption of the Constitution or the relevant amend-
ment to discover the original understanding of the Founding Fathers. Most de-
bate propositions, however, do not stem from constitutional issues, and there
may be little or no record to provide evidence of the original understanding.
Thus this well-intentioned advice is frequently of little value in academic
debate.5

How, then, can one prove that a definition is satisfactory? The key is to give
the decision makers good reasons to accept that definition.

What are some of the good reasons one might advance to prove that a spe-
cific definition is satisfactory? The reasons will differ with different propositions
and different decision renderers, but some of the most frequently used criteria are
listed in the inset on pages 70–71.

To prove that a definition is reasonable, one must establish that the definition
meets the relevant criteria or standards. To prove that a definition is the best in the
debate one must establish that the definition meets the relevant criteria in ways
that are superior to opposing definitions.

C. The Meaning of Should and the Convention of Fiat

Most propositions on matters of policy contain the word should (or ought)—for
example, “Resolved: That such-and-such should be done.” In a debate on a pol-
icy proposition, should means that intelligent self-interest, social welfare, or the
national interest prompts this action and that it is both desirable and workable.
When the affirmative claims a policy “should” be adopted, it must show that the
policy is practical—but it is under no obligation to show that it would be
adopted. The affirmative must give enough detail to show that if implemented,

5. The extent to which “original understanding” should be used in legal debate is itself a
subject of debate within the legal community. See Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of
America (New York: Free Press, 1990). Throughout the book, Bork makes his argument
for the use of “original understanding” and offers his critique of other methods.

68 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

it would work. It may be impossible, within the time limitations of the debate,
for the affirmative to give all the details, but it must at least show the outline of
its policy and indicate how the details could be worked out. For example, in a
debate on federal funding for education, the affirmative could not reasonably be
expected to indicate how much money each state would receive under its plan,
but it would be obliged to indicate the method by which the amount of the
grants would be determined. It would be pointless for the negative to seek to
show that the affirmative’s plan could not be adopted by demonstrating that
public opinion is against it or that the supporters of the plan lack sufficient voting
strength in Congress.

Consider that, at one time, public opinion and a majority of Congress were
opposed to the income tax, yet when the advocates of the income tax demon-
strated that it should be adopted, the Sixteenth Amendment was enacted. In the
same way it could be demonstrated that, at a given time, the Eighteenth,
Nineteenth, Twenty-first, and Twenty-sixth Amendments to the Constitution
could not possibly have been passed. Too many people were opposed to prohi-
bition, opposed to women’s suffrage, opposed to the repeal of the Eighteenth
Amendment, or opposed to lowering the voting age to 18. Yet all these amend-
ments were passed after the advocates of these measures won debates showing
they should be adopted. Thus in an academic debate on a policy proposition,
constitutionality is never an issue. If the affirmative proves that a certain policy
should be adopted, it has also proved that, if necessary, the Constitution should
be amended. In the same way, if the affirmative’s proposal is currently illegal or
outside the scope of existing law, it has, by showing that its proposal should be
adopted, demonstrated that the necessary enabling legislation should be enacted.

Thus in academic debate the negative cannot argue that “Congress will
never pass the affirmative’s plan” and proceed to prove that, because of attitudi-
nal barriers, political interest, or some other reason, the affirmative can never get
enough votes to enact its proposal. The affirmative may simply call upon “fiat,”
where for the sake of the argument they will assume the hypothetical enactment
of the proposal and focus on their advocacy that Congress should enact the plan.
The affirmative need only demonstrate that its proposal ought to be adopted; it
need not consider the political or attitudinal barriers that so far have prevented its
enactment, although it may have the obligation of defending the merits of its
proposal against the potential political and/or attitudinal consequences of
enactment.

The negative must avoid the “should-would” argument, which is pointless
in academic debate.6 The point is not would—but should—the affirmative’s pro-
posal be adopted. The negative may, of course, focus on the workability of the

6. “Should-would” arguments may be of considerable importance in applied debate. A
political leader might feel that a certain policy should be adopted but, recognizing that it
would be impossible to marshal sufficient support, decide not to fight for it, preferring to
conserve energy and credibility for more viable policies. For example, some of President
Reagan’s advisors urged that the Constitution should be amended to ban abortions and to
permit school prayer. Reagan sympathized with their proposals but declined to lead an
all-out legislative battle for them, apparently feeling Congress would never enact them.

I I . METHODS OF DEF IN ING TERMS 69

Criteria to Prove a Satisfactory Definition

Debate often focuses on the relative merits of competing definitions. Standards that
support the definitions offered as satisfactory provide valuable measures for com-
parison of differing interpretations. The debater is well advised to choose definitions
that meet valid criteria.

1. Prove that your definition is officially stipulated as the correct one for this
resolution. This criterion is of great value in the law courts, where many definitions
are stipulated by statute and have been upheld by the highest courts so often that
appeal is pointless. Elsewhere a kilogram is defined by an international agreement; a
watt is a standard unit of measure in the United States; drugs are defined by official
pharmacopoeias. Less common terms like black hole, gigaflop, pulsar, and quasar, al-
though not officially defined, have universally accepted definitions in the scientific
community. Of course, any definition could be changed, but changes in official or
universally accepted definitions come only after exhaustive debate.

2. Prove that your definition is grammatically correct. Presumably the framers of
the proposition are knowledgeable in the conventions of English grammar and syn-
tax, each word in the proposition is there for a good reason, and each word further
refines the meaning of the sentence. Thus you must prove that your definition con-
siders all the terms of the proposition and that none of the terms is redundant or
contradictory.

3. Prove that your definition is derived from the appropriate field. Many propo-
sitions contain specialized terms. If the subject is nuclear weapons, you must prove
that your definition is the one used by nuclear physicists. If the subject is economics,
you must prove that your definition is the one used by economists.

4. Prove that your definition is based on common usage. Many of the terms in
debate propositions are words in common usage. Because debate is a public activity,
you must be able to prove that your definition is consistent with the common usage
of the general public.

5. Prove that your definition is consistent with policy makers’ or value makers’
usage. Debaters are arguing that we, the public, should adopt or reject a certain
policy or value. You must prove that your definition is consistent with the usage of
the makers of policy and value in the public forums; for example, you would need to
prove that your definition is consistent with the definition used in congressional de-
bates on the subject.

6. Prove that your definition meets the original understanding of the proposi-
tion’s framers. (Cautions against this method are given in the section “Providing a
Satisfactory Definition.”) This criterion may be compelling to some judges and to
some legal scholars in applied debate in the courtroom. But the original understand-
ing of the people who framed a proposition for academic debate or for applied de-
bate outside the courtroom is often elusive, and it may even be impossible to
discover.

7. Prove that your definition provides a clear distinction between what legiti-
mately fits within the definition and what is excluded by the definition. It is impor-
tant that definitions clearly distinguish between affirmative ground and negative
ground.

8. Prove that your definition would provide a fair division of ground. That is,
prove that, if interpreted as you suggest, there would be fairly equal ground for
both affirmatives and negatives to use for development of their plans, counterplans,
and argumentative positions. Included here might be justification for your definition
based on the educational merits of such a definition: Is it better to provide a narrow

70 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

policy and try to demonstrate that a given policy, if adopted, would not work or
would produce significant disadvantages.

For example, in debating the “government control of the supply and utili-
zation of energy” proposition, the negative could not argue that Congress would
not pass gasoline rationing because it is so unpopular with members of Congress
and their constituents. The affirmative could simply fiat rationing—that is, argue
that it should be passed and assume, for the sake of argument, that it has been
implemented. However, the negative could argue that, because rationing is so
unpopular, it would not work; that there would be widespread violations and
black markets; that the system would break down; and thus that the affirmative
could not achieve any advantage.

Fiat is the convention in an academic policy debate that, for the sake of
argument, participants may assume implementation of a reasonable policy. This
allows debaters to focus on the question of whether a policy should be adopted
and to avoid as irrelevant arguments about whether the policy would (or will) be
adopted. The purpose of fiat is to require the debaters to debate the merits of the
proposition, and not the political machinations of how one might garner the
votes necessary for enactment. However, the political fallout of plan adoption
may be subject to debate. Fiat is generally thought to assume that the plan has
been implemented through “normal means.” Normal means in our governmen-
tal system includes deal making and compromise. Implementation of an affirma-
tive proposal might be argued to require use of political capital, which would
then be lost at the cost of the potential implementation of other policies or
actions.

Note, too, the limitations of fiat: Fiat is not a real power. The affirmative may
use fiat to focus on should, but fiat goes no further. The affirmative may not “fiat”
that advantages will flow from its plan; the advantages must be proved. The

but deep interpretation of propositional terms or a broad but shallow interpreta-
tion? In addition, you may want to suggest that, in the interest of fairness and prior
notice, a definition should provide clear and predictable limits within which advo-
cates may analyze and interpret the resolution.

Note that the debater will rarely use all these criteria to prove that the defini-
tion used is satisfactory. In fact, some of the criteria will contradict others. Initially
the definition is stated succinctly with only the minimum evidence essential to estab-
lish the claim. Only if the definition comes under attack does the debater move to a
full-scale justification of the definition. The most important function of these criteria
is to provide a way for judges to weigh competing definitions and decide which is
most satisfactory for a given debate.

To successfully attack an opponent’s definition, one must prove that the defini-
tion does not meet one or more of the criteria just discussed. Note, too, that the
criteria listed here, although widely used, are not all-inclusive. Depending on the na-
ture of the proposition, other criteria may be discovered and applied to prove or dis-
prove the claim that the definition is satisfactory.

Criteria to Prove a Satisfactory Definition (Continued)

I I . METHODS OF DEF IN ING TERMS 71

affirmative may not “fiat” attitudes; for example, the affirmative may not “fiat” that
all citizens will love gas rationing and will eagerly comply with the plan. Fiat is not a
magic wand; it may not be used to make a plan work. (Some additional uses and
limitations of fiat power will be considered in Chapter 12.)

Another way to approach fiat is to consider it as it relates to the “agency” or
ability to invoke change held by the debaters as activists and advocates. Such an
approach recognizes that the traditional use of fiat is hypothetical; at the end of a
debate when a judge votes for the affirmative, of course, the plan does not in
reality become law. The true agency or power of the debaters as advocates is
to influence the participants in the immediate debate itself. Therefore, the debate
as an act of advocacy should be the focus of the participants, and the decision
rendered by the judge is about the debaters rather than the hypothetical plan
they are debating. Based on such an approach, critical and philosophical implica-
tions of the rules and contexts of the debate itself, the performances of the de-
baters (including their advocacy and language use), and the underpinnings of the
structural framework of policy advocacy and debate practice are all subject to
debate. Critical and performance-based approaches built on the idea that “fiat is
illusionary” have grown in popularity in tournament practice. Proponents point
to debates that are more relevant to the lives of participants (judges and debaters)
and to a greater sense of involvement and activism by debaters. Opponents note
that debates may lack clear points of clash or concrete comparison (as is provided
by the policy comparison facilitated by traditional fiat).

I I I . I SSUES

Issues are those critical claims inherent in the proposition that the affirmative
must establish. They may also be thought of as places where groups of arguments
converge or points of clash subordinate to the proposition. Issues also suggest
checklists or categories of arguments to be addressed by the participants in a de-
bate or argumentative situation.

In a traditional policy debate, the negative must defeat at least one “stock”
issue to win (although, the stock issues will be measured in relation to one an-
other). Stock issues are those issues common to all debates on similar types of
propositions, or standard claims that are applicable to many propositions. Issues
may be readily recognized, because they are questions with answers that directly
prove or disprove the proposition. If the issues are established, then the proposi-
tion must prevail. As debaters begin analysis of the proposition, they phrase the
issues as questions—for example, “Did John Doe kill Richard Roe with malice?”
Issues in the analysis stage are phrased in the form of questions to which the
affirmative must answer yes. Of course, the negative must answer no to at least
one issue or there is no debate. When the issues are presented in a debate, the
advocate phrases them as declarative sentences—for example, “John Doe killed
Richard Roe with malice.” Stock issues will be considered in detail in the fol-
lowing sections.

72 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

Potential issues are all of the possible answers to the stock issue questions. In
any given debate, however, it is unlikely that all of the potential issues will be
used. (See the section “Discovering the Number of Issues” later in the chapter.)

Admitted issues are issues that one side concedes, or chooses not to challenge.
For example, in debates on the proposition “Resolved: That the federal govern-
ment should implement a program that guarantees employment opportunities for
all U.S. citizens in the labor force,” some affirmatives introduced the issue “mil-
lions of U.S. citizens are unemployed.” In view of the evidence the affirmative
could have produced to support this issue, many negative advocates readily ad-
mitted this issue. Some negatives introduced the issue “millions of unemployed
do not suffer economic hardship.” In view of the evidence the negative could
have produced to support this issue, many affirmatives quickly concede this issue.
It is usually a wise policy for debaters to concede those issues they cannot win
and concentrate on those issues they have a chance of winning.

The issues of the debate are the issues that actually are introduced into the
debate and on which the opposing advocates clash. For example, the potential
issues on a certain proposition might be: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. The
affirmative might introduce issues A–F. The negative might admit issues B and
C, introduce issue G, and seek to refute issues A, D, E, and F. The potential
issues H, I, and J were not introduced by either side and thus did not enter
into this debate. The issues of this debate were A, D, E, F, and G.

The ultimate issue or voting issue arises when there is only one issue remaining
in dispute, or when all remaining issues rest upon that single voting issue. In
some debates the clash may narrow down to one contended issue, which be-
comes the ultimate issue. In the preceding example the affirmative might have
won issues A, D, E, and F early in the debate, leaving only issue G in dispute.
Issue G thus would become the ultimate issue of this debate.

Contentions are statements offered in support of an issue. (Contentions may
also be referred to as observations or even “main points.”) Pertinent evidence is
organized into cogent arguments to support each issue. Usually several conten-
tions are offered in support of an issue. The affirmative may fail to establish some
of the contentions and still win its case, provided that the remaining contentions
have enough substantiating force to establish the issue.

A. Discovering the Issues

One of the first problems confronting the advocate in preparing to debate a
proposition is discovering the issues. In a courtroom debate the issues are often
stated explicitly in the law applicable to the case before the court. For example, if
the proposition before the court was, in effect, “Resolved: That John Doe mur-
dered Richard Roe,” in most jurisdictions the issues would be:

1. Richard Roe is dead.

2. John Doe killed Richard Roe.

3. John Doe killed Richard Roe unlawfully.

I I I . I S SUES 73

4. John Doe killed Richard Roe following premeditation.

5. John Doe killed Richard Roe with malice.

If the prosecution failed to prove any one of these issues, John Doe could not be
convicted of murder. However, he might be convicted of manslaughter or some
other lesser charge if some of the issues were proved.

In debates outside the courtroom, the issues are seldom so explicitly stated. It
is up to the advocates to discover them using one of several methods. First, a
careful definition of the terms of the proposition will aid the advocate in discov-
ering some of the issues of the debate. As the terms are defined, important as-
pects of the proposition will become apparent and reveal at least some of the
issues. For example, in debates on “a national program of public work for the
unemployed,” the definition of the word unemployed was important. If unem-
ployed was defined as including homemakers who were seeking part-time
work, this definition suggested the issue question “Do the unemployed have
the skills necessary for a public work program?”

Second, stock issues—the standard questions applicable to many propositions—
may be used profitably in the early analysis of the problem. As standard questions they
are not sufficiently specific to the issues of a particular proposition, but they often aid
the advocate in the formulation of the actual issues.

1. Stock Issues on Propositions of Value. The stock issues in a debate on a
proposition of fact or value are drawn from the two basic elements of the affir-
mative case: definition and designation. Because academic debate is more often
concerned with propositions of value than with propositions of fact, we will refer
to propositions of fact only briefly and consider propositions of value in much
more detail.

In their briefest form the stock issues may be phrased as follows:

1. Definitive issues
a. What are the definitions of the key terms? As discussed above, the terms

in the proposition must be defined in order to establish an interpretation
of the proposition itself. This will necessarily include definition of the
value(s) explicitly or implicitly identified as points of controversy.

b. What are the criteria for the values (or for interpretation of definitions)?
The values provide the points of clash for the debate, but in order to
consider competing values, criteria or devices for measurement of the
values must be provided. In the case of fact-based or descriptive defini-
tions, some method for testing the definitions may be called for.

2. Designative issues
a. Do the facts correspond to the definitions? Examples provided in support

of or in opposition to the proposition are relevant only inasmuch as they
are relevant to the terms as defined in 1a; advocates must present proof
that their examples are indeed consistent with the definitions and inter-
pretations they have provided.

74 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

b. What are the applications of the values? At this point, debaters must apply
the criteria established in 1b to the facts presented in 2a.

With this brief outline in mind, we can proceed to a more detailed consid-
eration of the stock issues.

Let us turn first to the murder trial of John Doe that we just considered. This
trial, of course, is a debate on a proposition of fact. The definitive issue in this trial
is the legal definition of murder. The designative issues in this trial are the five
issues—Richard Roe is dead, John Doe killed Richard Roe, and so on—that the
prosecuting attorney must prove in order to establish that the facts correspond to
the definition of murder, thus proving that Joe Doe is guilty of murdering
Richard Roe.

In a trial court debate on a proposition of fact, the issues are often neatly
spelled out in the applicable law. In most debates outside the courtroom, how-
ever, the issues must be discovered by a careful analysis of the proposition.
Consider the value proposition “Resolved: That commercial television is more
detrimental than beneficial to American society.” What are the definitions of the
key terms? We will certainly have to define commercial television and American soci-
ety. What are the criteria by which to define the value terms detrimental and bene-
ficial? (You may want to refer to the discussion on how to provide a satisfactory
definition.)

As we consider the application of the values, we may discover additional
issues. The affirmative might argue that “detrimental” applies to programming
that emphasizes sports, soap operas, and escapist entertainment, whereas “benefi-
cial” applies to programming that emphasizes classical drama, classical music, and
scholarly lectures. The negative might reply that the application of such values
would drive viewers away, which in turn would drive sponsors away. With little
or no advertising revenue, the television stations would have to turn to the gov-
ernment for revenue; thus the government should become the arbiter of televi-
sion programming. Such government control, the negative might argue, would
be far more detrimental than the programming the affirmative indicted. The af-
firmative might respond by arguing that the application of its values would raise

Stock Issues on Propositions of Value

1. Definitive Issues
a. Definitions

b. Criteria

2. Designative Issues
a. Correspondence

b. Application

I I I . I S SUES 75

the intellectual level of American society, that in time the public would come to
appreciate its “beneficial” programming, and that the quality of American society
would be improved.

Note that as the debaters began to consider the policy applications of the
values, they moved into a quasi-policy debate. In such debates the negative
may well offer “value objections” that are very similar to the policy issue of
“disadvantages.” Additional issues long associated with policy debate become es-
sential in quasi-policy debate. Because quasi-policy debate involves policy issues,
we will consider them next.

2. Stock Issues for Propositions of Policy. The stock issues for the proposi-
tion of policy are drawn from the three basic elements of the affirmative case:
harm, inherency, and solvency. In their briefest form, the stock issues may be
phrased as follows:

1. Harm
a. Does a compelling problem exist in the status quo?

b. Is the problem quantitatively important?

c. Is the problem qualitatively important?

2. Inherency
a. Are the causes of the problem built into the laws, attitudes, and/or

structures of the status quo?

b. Absent a significant change in policy action, is the problem likely to
continue?

3. Solvency
a. Is there a workable plan of action?

b. Does the plan solve the problem?

c. Does the plan produce advantages?

d. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

With this brief outline in mind, we can proceed to a more detailed consid-
eration of the stock issues.

Is there a justification for a change in the status quo? That is, are there spe-
cific needs, problems, undesirable factors, shortcomings, unmet goals or criteria,
unattained advantages, or alternative justifications that constitute good reasons for
changing the status quo? Are these conditions significant enough to warrant a
change in the status quo? (Significance may be demonstrated either quantitatively
or qualitatively, or, best of all, in both ways.) The HARM issue addresses exist-
ing evil in our world. We would not act to implement change unless we are
convinced that there is a cost to not acting. Harm requires advocates to address
the importance and compelling nature of existing problems.

The INHERENCY issue considers the likelihood that absent our positive
action, the HARM will continue. Advocates may need to address questions in-

76 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

cluding: Are these conditions inherent in the status quo? Are they caused by the
status quo? (Inherency may be demonstrated as being structural, attitudinal, or,
again best of all, in both ways.) Is it impossible to eliminate these conditions by
repairs, adjustments, or improvements within the framework of the status quo? Is
any negative proposal to repair or adjust the problems of the status quo unsatis-
factory? And most importantly, if we do not act, will the harms continue into
the future?

The issue of SOLVENCY considers the proposed solution and focuses on
policy comparison. Is there a plan to solve the problems cited as justification for
adopting the proposition? Is the plan topical—that is, is it directly related to the
proposition? Is the plan workable? Does the plan have solvency—that is, will it
solve the problems? Is any possible negative counterplan topical and thus capable
of being absorbed into the affirmative’s plan? Is any counterplan unworkable or
lacking in solvency?

Will the plan achieve the claimed advantages? That is, will it satisfy the jus-
tification offered by the affirmative, meet the needs cited by the affirmative, and
attain the goals or criteria cited by the affirmative? Will the plan produce no
disadvantages as great as or greater than those existing in the status quo? Will
any possible negative counterplan produce greater disadvantages than the status
quo or the plan? Are the advantages inherent in the plan—that is, will they nec-
essarily flow from the adoption of the plan? Are the advantages unique to the
plan—that is, can they be obtained without adopting the plan? Are the advan-
tages significant? Do they outweigh the disadvantages?

3. Using Stock Issues. After carefully defining the terms of the proposition
and the related terms from the area of controversy, and applying the appropriate
stock issues, the advocate will formulate a preliminary statement of the potential
issues of the debate.

Both the affirmative and the negative use stock issues in their analysis.
Affirmatives use stock issues as they seek to discover the issues they will advance.
Negatives use stock issues as they seek to anticipate the issues they must refute
and the issues they will advance, such as disadvantages.

A practical method for the advocate to follow in beginning analysis involves
two basic steps. Note that this is a checklist for the process of preparation, not for
actually debating the issues.

Stock Issues for Propositions of Policy

1. Harm

2. Inherency

3. Solvency

I I I . I S SUES 77

1. Phrase the stock issue as a question: Is there a justification for a change in the
status quo of the type called for in the resolution? Is the problem inherent in
the status quo? and so on.

2. Answer each of these questions with the statement of a potential issue of the
debate.

The following example shows how the stock issues may be used.
Some debaters started their analysis of the proposition “Resolved: the

United States Federal Government should establish an energy policy requiring a
substantial reduction in the total nongovernmental consumption of fossil fuels in
the United States.” Their preliminary research helped them quickly identify
many problems related to energy use. These problems included the risks inherent
in nuclear power generation, the dangers of reliance on foreign oil and the harms
to the environment caused by the burning of fossil fuels, including air pollution
and contributions to global warming. In addition, they found many advocates for
various solutions to these problems. As they defined the terms in the proposition,
they recognized that they would have to select an agent of implementation from
within the United States Federal Government, and that they would need to ad-
vocate a set of actions built specifically around energy policy. For example, new
tax credits to encourage use of alternative energy sources might not be consid-
ered “ENERGY” policy. And, their policy must reduce the CONSUMPTION
of a particular type of resources: FOSSIL FUELS.

As these debaters continued their preliminary research, they decided that a
major evil in the status quo was that through their unnecessarily high consump-
tion of gas, private automobiles needlessly generated excessive emissions of
greenhouse gases and created a dangerous reliance on imported oil. They also
found that even though a federal government policy existed to decrease con-
sumption of fossil fuels by placing CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy)
limits on the fleets of automobile manufacturers, those standards were too low
and there was an important loophole: Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) did not have to comply with CAFE standards.
These vehicles included very popular pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and
large vans, thus undermining the existing energy policy. Establishment of a
new policy in the form of stricter CAFE standards was warranted. This research
led them to formulate the following potential harm issue:

Excessive consumption of fossil fuels is a major problem. In analyzing the
harm, they recognized that although it was still debatable, in general, it was the
conclusion of a consensus of scientists that by creating auto emissions, humans
contributed to global warming, and that the consequences of that would be cat-
astrophic. In addition, human health was negatively impacted by the air pollu-
tion created by auto emissions, and independently, relying on a largely foreign
supply of oil put the United States at greater risk of economic disruption and
foreign policy danger, including wars.

They found these problems to be inherent, since the American economy
was dependent on the use of personal automobiles for transportation, and be-
cause the attitudes of consumers tended to favor less efficient cars. Therefore,

78 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

some regulation was called for, but existing restrictions had proved insufficient,
and were circumvented by the loophole on light trucks. More research indicated
that auto manufacturers could comply with a higher standard, including the
closing of the light truck loophole. The plan would work, and it would reduce
consumption of fossil fuels in the form of gas, thus reducing incrementally the
reliance on foreign oil and contributions to greenhouse warming.

These potential issues represented the debaters’ preliminary analysis of the
problem. At this point they had moved from general stock questions to potential
issues specifically adapted to the proposition. Their next task was to test these
potential issues by further research to determine whether the evidence would
in fact support the claimed issues. The debaters had to discover whether there
were effective objections to their plan—whether their plan would produce dis-
advantages greater than the claimed advantages. There would certainly be disad-
vantages to increasing CAFE standards. American automakers were behind their
foreign competitors in the production of high mileage cars. And, some safety and
convenience might be sacrificed in order to reduce emissions. On the basis of
further study, the debaters no doubt modified their potential issues and tried
them out in a few practice debates. Experience led them to rethink some or all
of the potential issues. They had, however, taken the essential first step: They
had moved from the general to the specific and had begun a meaningful analysis
of the proposition.

In similar fashion the advocate who is debating propositions of value must
analyze the subject area and move from the general stock issues to the specific
issues inherent in the proposition. Using the “commercial television” proposi-
tion, consider a real-world example of value (and later policy) debate that took
place a few years ago and continues to the present, although in a somewhat dif-
ferent form. Opponents of cigarette commercials on television argued that such
commercials were “detrimental,” and they established the criterion that “encour-
aging sales of products that caused illness and death was detrimental.” Turning to
the next issue, the affirmative sought to demonstrate that the subject met the
criterion by drawing on the Surgeon General’s Report, which claimed a link
between cigarette smoking and illness and death. Significance was established
by the same report, which claimed a link between cigarette smoking and many
thousands of deaths. The inherency issue gave the affirmative the most difficulty.
People had been smoking cigarettes for years before commercial television came
into existence, and cigarette manufacturers were also advertising lavishly in other
media. The debate came to an inconclusive end when the negative withdrew
from the field. The law required that equal time be given to antismoking com-
mercials, and the cigarette companies decided to direct their advertising to media
that did not have the equal-time requirement.

B. Introducing the Issues

1. Introduction by Either Side. In both value and policy debate the affirma-
tive must introduce the issues necessary to establish a prima facie case—one that

I I I . I S SUES 79

provides good and sufficient reason for adopting the proposition. As a starting
point a prima facie case must provide effective issue statements to answer each
of the stock issue questions. (See the first section in Chapter 11.) If the negative
detects flaws in the affirmative case, it has the responsibility of introducing the ap-
propriate issues to refute the affirmative. For example, the affirmative case should
be so clearly topical that it is unnecessary for the affirmative to prove that it is. In
such a case it is clearly pointless for the negative to attack it, and this issue will
not be argued. If the affirmative case is not topical, however, the negative may
“attack topicality.” (See Chapter 13 for a consideration of the issues the negative
may introduce.) If the affirmative is using a “needs analysis” case, it will certainly
introduce one or more “need” issues. In proving these issues, the affirmative
might argue that the status quo cannot be repaired, or it might wait to see if
the negative provides repairs and then argue the specific negative repairs.
Workability, for example, might become a critical issue, and it might be intro-
duced by either side. In debates on the Twenty-sixth Amendment, workability
was never argued (because it was self-evident that the voting age could be low-
ered to 18), the affirmative did not have to prove it, and it would have been
pointless for the negative to attempt to disprove it. In debates on the “further
development of nuclear weapons” proposition, workability invariably was a crit-
ical issue. The negative was almost certain to introduce the issue. Recognizing
this possibility, some affirmatives sought to preempt the argument by introducing
the issue first. The affirmative would claim “advantages” for their plan and be
prepared for a negative attack on this issue. The issue of “disadvantages,” how-
ever, was argued only if the negative introduced it.

Clearly advocates must discover and prepare to deal with all potential issues
of the proposition—not merely those they find it most convenient to deal with.
Any potential issue may become an issue of the debate.

Note that, although the affirmative must carry all of the stock issues, it is not
necessarily required to carry all of the contentions. In the example about wiretaps

Issues (Critical Claims Inherent in the Proposition)

■ Stock Issues are those issues common to all debates on similar types of proposi-
tions or standard claims that are applicable to many propositions.

■ In a traditional policy debate, the negative must defeat at least one stock issue
to win.

■ Potential issues are all of the possible answers to the stock issue questions.

■ Admitted issues are issues that one side concedes or chooses not to challenge.

■ The issues of the debate are the issues that actually are introduced in the debate
and on which the opposing advocates clash.

■ The ultimate issue or voting issue arises when there is only one issue remaining
in dispute or when all remaining issues rest upon that single voting issue.

■ Contentions are statements offered in support of an issue.

80 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

and organized crime, the affirmative had to carry the stock issue of advantage.
Simply carrying the first advantage contention (the plan would provide an effec-
tive weapon against organized crime) might be sufficient to do so, even if the
affirmative lost the second and third advantage contentions.

2. The Counterplan. One of the potential issues of any policy debate is
whether the plan proposed by the affirmative is the best possible way to solve
the problems of the status quo. The negative, however, may find it desirable to
admit that certain problems exist in the status quo and may introduce a counter-
plan to meet these problems, as is shown in Chapter 13. A counterplan is an
alternative policy action, different from the plan, which if accepted would be a
reason to reject the affirmative plan. In such a case the negative introduces this
issue, and the affirmative may then argue that the counterplan (1) is topical and
thus provides support for the affirmative resolution, (2) is not competitive with
the affirmative plan and thus is not a reason to reject the plan, (3) is not work-
able, (4) lacks solvency, or (5) produces disadvantages greater than the status quo
or the affirmative’s plan.

C. Discovering the Number of Issues

The number of issues varies from one proposition to another and can be discov-
ered only by careful analysis of the problem. In general, although there will be
many arguments in a debate, the number of issues is rather small. There are usu-
ally four to six issues in dispute in the typical intercollegiate debate. If advocates
claim a large number of “issues,” they may be confusing supporting contentions
with issues. It is usually to the advantage of the affirmative to try to narrow the
number of issues of the debate. If, for example, the affirmative can secure the
admission of the negative or can quickly establish three out of four issues, then
it can concentrate on proving the remaining issue. It is usually to the advantage
of the negative to seek to establish as many issues of debate as possible. By keep-
ing the maximum possible number of issues in dispute, the negative hopes to
force the affirmative to prove every issue and to deny the affirmative the oppor-
tunity of concentrating on a few issues of its own choosing. Either team, how-
ever, may find it advisable to drop a nonessential issue it is losing and concentrate
on the critical issues it feels it can and must win.

In debates on the “guaranteed employment opportunities” proposition, as
mentioned previously, the affirmative had excellent evidence to establish the is-
sue “millions are unemployed.” Many negatives chose to admit the issue and
concentrated on other issues. Some, however, adopted the strategy of clashing
with this issue: They argued that the figures were flawed, in that they included
millions of short-term unemployed who sustained no real harm from brief un-
employment. This contention, of course, forced the affirmative to spend time
reestablishing the issue at the cost of devoting less time to extending or defend-
ing other issues.

Neither side can manufacture issues simply to waste its opponent’s time—
capable advocates would quickly expose such a trick. Both teams have an

I I I . I S SUES 81

obligation to develop the issues essential to their position. It is wise strategy,
however, to drop a noncritical, lost issue and concentrate on the issues that can
be won. If an affirmative effectively answered the negative’s topicality attack or a
disadvantage argument, the negative might choose to drop those issues, concen-
trate on a disadvantage that it felt it was winning, and argue that this disadvan-
tage alone outweighed all of the affirmative’s advantages. Thus it is typical to find
fewer issues in contention at the close of the debate than there were at the
beginning.

D. Phrasing the Issues

The issues must be so phrased as to provide maximum logical and persuasive
impact on those who render the decision. First, each issue must be phrased to
preview and then bring into focus the line of argument to be developed.
Second, each issue must be phrased persuasively. Third, each issue must be
phrased concisely. Fourth, taken as a whole, the issues must be phrased to pro-
vide a coherent organization for the case and allow a smooth transition from one
issue to another. (Students will find it worthwhile to review Chapters 15 and 16
as they begin to put their phrasing of the issues into final form.)

Some students debating “Resolved: That executive control of U.S. foreign
policy should be significantly curtailed” wanted to limit executive control by pro-
hibiting the executive from carrying out covert operations in foreign countries.
They might have phrased the first need issue as “American foreign policy objectives
of combating terrorism, totalitarianism, protecting the innocent, and preserving
peace are seriously impeded when it becomes a matter of public knowledge
that the United States has in fact engaged in covert operations to overthrow hos-
tile regimes.” They might have phrased the second issue as “Neither reducing the
number of covert operations nor limiting covert operations to those most likely to
succeed will effectively avoid the adverse publicity that will follow when the op-
erations become public knowledge.” Instead, they wisely phrased the issues as
“Discovery of covert operations undermines American objectives” and “The only
way to prevent discovery is to end all operations.”

The phrasing actually used is clearly superior and meets the criteria consid-
ered earlier in this section. Most often, however, the issue will first occur to an
advocate in a rambling, disjointed form. The experienced advocate knows that
well-phrased issues are the result of careful rewriting and skillful editing.

Well-phrased issues give advocates in academic debate one of the best op-
portunities to “take control of the flow sheet” and lodge their arguments, exactly
as they want them stated, in the mind of the judge and on his or her flow sheet.
The flow sheet is the detailed set of notes taken by the judge as a record of the
debate.

The importance of phrasing issues with precision is by no means limited to
students in academic debate. In almost any circumstances advocates are more
likely to achieve their objectives if they state the issues crisply and coherently.
The importance of well-phrased issues becomes even more critical if advocates
attain enough prominence to be quoted on a radio or television news program.

82 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

These advocates soon recognize that their entire speech is almost never pre-
sented; rather, they are lucky if as much as a 20-second “clip” or “sound bite”
is used. In such circumstances wise speakers quickly learn to phrase their issues
effectively. The same considerations apply to newspapers, which often quote
portions of a speech but only infrequently publish full texts.

E. Phrasing the Substructure of the Issues

The same considerations that apply to the phrasing of the issues also apply to the
substructure of the issues. The contentions—that is, the supporting arguments
used to establish an issue—must be phrased with care so that they, too, have
the maximum logical and persuasive impact.

Consider the substructure of the issues cited in the previous section:

I. Discovery of covert operations undermines American objectives.
A. Discovery strengthens totalitarianism.
B. Discovery strengthens terrorism.
C. Discovery injures the innocent.
D. Discovery threatens peace.
E. Discovery encourages terrorists.

II. The only way to prevent discovery is to end all operations.

A. Discovery of some operations is inevitable.
B. Discovery is unpredictable.

The reiteration of the concept of “discovery” on which this advocate wished
to focus and the concise phrasing of the contentions helped the advocate to es-
tablish the case more effectively.

F. Considering the Decision Makers

Advocates must consider the attitudes and values of those who render the deci-
sion as they decide what issues they will introduce and how they will handle
them. In debating the “Comprehensive medical care for all citizens” proposition,
some debaters quickly discovered the issue “Comprehensive medical care for all
citizens will inflate taxes by prolonging lives.” The argument was irrefutable. If
the plan worked as well as the affirmative claimed it would, the negative could
prove that vast numbers of elderly indigents would linger on for years in an un-
productive state consuming more and more tax dollars in medical and welfare
costs. Despite the overwhelming logical force of the argument, the debaters de-
cided against introducing the issue. They felt the values of most American audi-
ences are such that they would reject the idea of denying poor people medical
care so that they might die earlier and thus save on taxes.

Before a group of business managers, the “cost issue” is one that the negative
will almost certainly argue if the plan requires the expenditure of tax monies.
The negative will maximize the tax burden, while the affirmative will seek to

I I I . I S SUES 83

minimize it. Businesspeople are well aware of their existing tax burden and are
predisposed to resist any new or additional taxes. Cost may well become the
critical issue of the debate and provide the negative with its best opportunity of
winning. Before student groups, by contrast, negatives often find that the cost
issue is less critical. Many students are beneficiaries of tax-spending programs
and have not yet felt the personal burden of paying heavy taxes. Before such
audiences the negative may decide to drop the cost issue or argue that the affir-
mative plan will “distort social priorities” because its cost is so great that it pre-
cludes or reduces other, more desirable programs. Thus, in arguing the “medical
care” proposition, some negatives maintained that more lives would be saved and
the quality of life improved if the money were spent to provide better food and
housing for the poor, rather than on medical care.

Even the highly qualified professional judges ideally found in academic de-
bate cannot totally divorce themselves from their value systems. Thus, if in a
debate on the “medical care” proposition, a negative introduced as a counterplan
the issue “euthanasia for anyone hospitalized more than once a year,” it must
expect that the judge will evaluate almost any affirmative objection as sufficient
to defeat the counterplan.

As students begin to make final selection of issues and to plan their handling
of those issues, they may find it helpful to study Chapter 15, especially the sec-
tion “Analysis of the Audience.”

EXERC ISES

1. Working in pairs, find competing definitions for each of the terms listed
below. Have a debate in which you each defend one of the definitions as
superior to your opponent’s. Alternate with four speeches, none to exceed
one minute.

Terrorism
Poverty
Sufficient Health Care
Family Values
Middle Class
Responsibility
Respect
Adult
Freedom
Privacy
Obesity
Beauty
Leadership
Quality of Life

84 CHAPTER 4 ANALYZ ING THE CONTROVERSY

2. Working in teams, select a policy proposition (this could be one you for-
mulated in Exercise 2 from Chapter 3). Define key terms and prepare an
interpretation of the proposition. Then outline a case addressing potential
Harms, Inherency, and Solvency.

3. From recent newspapers, newsmagazines, or news websites, find an example
of an argumentative speech on a proposition of policy by a public speaker. A
candidate’s answer to a moderator’s question in a political campaign debate
would be an excellent choice. Identify the “proposition” or central argu-
ment made by the speaker and state the issues set forth. If necessary, rephrase
the speaker’s words to form a clear and correct statement of the proposition
and issues; be careful, however, to preserve the speaker’s ideas. Do you agree
with the speaker’s choice of issues?

4. Prepare a three-minute speech for delivery in class in which you (a) state a
proposition of policy or value as determined by your instructor, (b) define
the terms, and (c) state the issues. The class will be asked to evaluate the
three parts of your presentation. Prepare an outline of this speech to give to
your instructor.

EXERC I SES 85

5

Exploring the Controversy

Once the controversy has been analyzed and the statement of the potential issues
has been formulated, the next step is to explore the controversy. Advocates

who want to present their position intelligently and to convince others to concur
with them must be thoroughly familiar with the controversy. They must undertake
an organized program of research so that they can explore fully all relevant aspects of
the issues. Careful research will provide a firm foundation for the case they will
build. And the potential issues formulated in the analysis of the controversy will
help to give direction to their exploration of it. The processes of analyzing and ex-
ploring the controversy are interwoven, and advocates will move from one to the
other as long as they are concerned with the proposition. They must be innovative
and creative in their search for evidence and issues, and they must be coolly and dis-
passionately analytical in evaluating findings and planning further research. On the
basis of their exploration, they may find it necessary to rephrase the issues they orig-
inally developed or to develop new issues, or even to revise the proposition.

In formal debate, a restatement of the proposition cannot be done unilaterally; it
requires the consent of all parties concerned. The intercollegiate debater, the trial
attorney, and other advocates often must debate a proposition not subject to revi-
sion. In informal debate in government and business, advocates—for persuasive pur-
poses—often attempt to change the wording and meaning of the proposition
unilaterally. For example, opponents of abortion prefer to speak of the “right to
life,” and supporters of euthanasia prefer to state their proposal as “death with dig-
nity” rather than as “mercy killing.” In parliamentary debate the proposition may
be amended by a simple majority vote; in many conference and discussion situa-
tions, the problem may be revised by informal action. In any event advocates con-
tinually explore the issues and revise the case on the basis of new information.

86

✵

I . BRAINSTORMING FOR IDEAS

Traditionally advocates try to develop cases by a careful, orderly, deliberate, log-
ical process. Although the case they ultimately present must be logically sound,
advocates sometimes find it advantageous to shorten the logical processes while
gathering ideas for their case. Sometimes the solution to a problem is found by
means of an “intuitive leap,” a “hunch,” a “lucky break,” an “inspiration,” or
“serendipity.” The advocate might simply happen to look into an obscure refer-
ence and make a critical inference or find exactly the piece of evidence
needed to complete a chain of reasoning. The advocate might consider a seem-
ingly improbable plan “just for the fun of it” and find that it meets his or her
needs perfectly. Or the advocate might follow up an apparently irrelevant lead
and uncover an important precedent, or consider an impractical proposal that
will lead to a highly practical solution.

A dramatic example of how one may use inferences to make a creative leap
from sketchy data occurred when an inference reader in the CIA was assigned to
read native-language newspapers of a hostile regime. The reader noted that a
small town’s soccer team, perennial losers, suddenly began winning games and
catapulted to the top of their league. At the inference reader’s urging, an over-
flight was made of the town, revealing a nuclear installation. The regime had
carefully camouflaged the installation but had forgotten that its technicians
would notably improve the town’s soccer team. Thus skilled inference reading
revealed an important secret.

It is for the express purpose of uncovering ideas that might otherwise be
ignored or delayed that the advocate uses brainstorming: a method of shared

Miniglossary

Brainstorming A method of shared problem solving in which all members of a
group spontaneously contribute ideas. Individuals may use brainstorming by
rapidly generating a variety of possible solutions.

Brief An organized set of prepared arguments with supporting evidence.

Card Debate jargon for a single item of quoted material used in support of an
argumentative claim.

Search engine A computer program that works to retrieve and prioritize infor-
mation within a computer system.

Think tanks Groups of experts who conduct research and prepare reports in
support of their inquiry and advocacy concerning issues of various concerns in-
cluding public and governmental policy, business, science, and education.

Wikis The term “wiki” is Hawaiian for quick. Wikipedia is the most famous.
Groups of readers contribute to the development of materials, including contri-
bution of content as well as editing.

I . BRA INSTORMING FOR IDEAS 87

problem solving in which all members of a group spontaneously contribute ideas.
Individuals also may use brainstorming by rapidly generating a variety of possible
solutions. Many situations arise in which it may be profitable to use brainstorm-
ing: in defining terms or discovering issues, in finding materials for an argument,
in connection with the problems of evidence or reasoning, and in building the
case. Although brainstorming is not a substitute for the ways of dealing with pro-
blems considered in other chapters, it is a supplement that can help in many
situations.

In a typical brainstorming session the participants make a deliberate effort to
create an informal atmosphere in which everyone is encouraged to contribute
and no one is permitted to criticize. They are usually most successful when fol-
lowing certain guidelines; the inset on page 89 summarizes the process.

Brainstorming is often deceptively simple—the ideas generated may evoke
the comment that “anyone could have thought of that.” This is often true.
The point is that, in many cases, no one had thought of the idea earlier, and
perhaps no one would have thought of that particular idea had it not been for
the brainstorming session. Many of the ideas that emerge in brainstorming ses-
sions are pure “fluff.” However, if only one important idea evolves that other-
wise might never have been considered, the time has been well spent.

One group of college students debating a “national program of public work
for the unemployed” found early in the season that their affirmative teams were
having difficulty with their plan, which called for a massive program of urban
renewal to provide jobs. Their negative opponents were defeating the plan by
pointing out that few of the unemployed had the skills necessary for construc-
tion work. The debaters held a brainstorming session from which evolved the
idea that the affirmative plan did not have to call for construction work. Then
they proceeded to develop a new plan that called for conservation, service, and
maintenance work that unskilled persons could easily perform. This plan might
have evolved by some other means, of course, but this particular group of ad-
vocates was unable to develop an effective plan until they brainstormed the
problem.

An excellent place to start when brainstorming and beginning research on a
CEDA/NDT resolution is the topic paper produced during the topic selection
process. These papers are readily accessible through the Cross Examination
Debate Association (http://cedadebate.org/), and specifically at the CEDA
Topic home page (http://www.cedatopic.com/). The topic paper reflects the
brainstorming and research already done by others and provides a bibliography
of primary sources relevant to the proposition. The topic blog also records the
community brainstorming and discussions guiding topic selection and wording.

I I . LOCAT ING MATER IALS

Whether in the library or elsewhere, research today generally begins on a com-
puter. Online research through Internet sources and databases can be productive,

88 CHAPTER 5 EXPLOR ING THE CONTROVERSY

and libraries generally have online research capabilities, which often can be ac-
cessed from remote sites. But one way or another, advocates are well advised to
turn to the library for their first sources of material. Because library computer
facilities, resources, physical arrangements, and loan policies vary enormously,

Guidelines for Brainstorming

1. Limit the size of the group. Brainstorming has been found to work better in
small groups. Fifteen is usually considered to be the maximum workable size,
and groups with as few as two or three members have been effective. It is even
possible for an individual to brainstorm alone.

2. Limit the time devoted to a brainstorming session. Because the objective of
brainstorming is to produce a large number of ideas and to avoid any critical
evaluation during the session, it is usually desirable to limit a session to one hour
or less. Many profitable sessions have been limited to between 20 and 40
minutes.

3. Announce the problem in advance. The person calling the brainstorming session
should state the problem he or she wants the group to consider, either at the
start of the session or a day or two in advance.

4. Encourage all participants to contribute. Because the objective is to secure the
maximum possible number of ideas, everyone should participate. The leader can
encourage contributions by creating a friendly, informal atmosphere.
Participants should not only originate ideas but also modify and extend ideas
presented by others.

5. Don’t follow any organized pattern. Whereas traditional discussion follows a
careful pattern of reflective thinking, brainstorming deliberately follows no pat-
tern. The objective is to provide an atmosphere for the trigger effect, in which
an idea, even a bad or irrelevant one, once expressed, may trigger a good idea.

6. Don’t permit any criticism or evaluation of ideas. Because criticism at this stage
tends to discourage contributions and decreases the possibility of the trigger ef-
fect, the leader must suppress criticism and strive to maintain an atmosphere in
which everyone feels free to contribute.

7. Record all ideas. In the most widely used method two or three members of the
group write ideas on a blackboard as rapidly as they are expressed. Other
methods include the “idea tree”—whereby a short pole is set in the center of
the table and participants write out their ideas and attach them to the “tree”
with adhesive tape—and the “cracker barrel”—whereby a basket is placed on
the table and participants write their ideas on pieces of paper and toss them
into the “barrel.” Whichever method is used, all ideas should be recorded and
forwarded to the person or group responsible for evaluation.

8. Subject all ideas to rigorous evaluation. Only when the brainstorming session is
over and the ideas have been recorded in some usable form should they be
subjected to thorough evaluation. Sometimes the ideas are duplicated and sent
to the participating individuals for their evaluation. In many cases they are for-
warded to a policymaking group or to the individual responsible for making de-
cisions for screening and testing. The ideas gathered during brainstorming may
serve as springboards for concepts that will be developed more fully during
evaluation.

I I . LOCAT ING MATER IALS 89

advocates are well advised to familiarize themselves with their library’s collections
and organization so that subsequent searches for information will be purposeful
and effective. Librarians are usually eager to assist individuals doing serious re-
search and can provide valuable aid.

A. Background Material

Gather background material to give you direction and help you learn about
your topic. Encyclopedias and dictionaries, including Wikipedia, can provide
a good start. The free online English dictionary, http://www.yourdictionary
.com, provides excellent resources and services including definitions, thesaurus
entries, spelling, pronunciation, and etymologies. The Oxford English Dictionary
and Oxford Reference are also available online, as is Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary. The objective of the researchers in this stage is not to gather proof
for argumentation, but to learn about the terms and issues relevant to the
proposition and develop ideas about their future research. Find relevant re-
source materials in the reference section of your library, and test out various
combinations of keywords across different search platforms. Exploration usually
begins with the acquisition of general information on the problem. As the
advocate acquires some general knowledge of the problem, he or she is in a

Questions to Ask in Locating References

1. Who is concerned with the proposition? Persons and organizations concerned
with a problem might include those with an academic interest in it, those inter-
ested in the potential influence of the proposition, and even those currently
unwilling to take a public stand on the problem. For example, in seeking infor-
mation on the “higher education” proposition, the answer to the question
“Who is concerned with the proposition?” would include the various associa-
tions of educators, economists, political scientists, businesspeople, labor organi-
zations, and organizations in other related fields. The scholarly associations and
their journals seldom take an official position for or against legislation, but their
journals contain important articles about contemporary problems in the area of
their special interest. The education journals, in particular, yielded a number of
significant articles on this proposition.

2. Who is interested in securing the adoption of the proposition? The answer to
this question will often lead to one of the most prolific sources of information.
A search for information on “higher education” would lead an advocate to the
Department of Education, for example, which took the lead in presenting the
administration’s arguments in favor of the proposition.

3. Who is interested in preventing the adoption of the proposition? The answer
will often lead to another prolific source of information. The advocate inter-
ested in “higher education” found, for example, that the National Association
of Manufacturers published a good deal of material opposed to the proposition.

90 CHAPTER 5 EXPLOR ING THE CONTROVERSY

position to develop more specific lines of inquiry and to seek more specialized
information.

B. Books

Use catalogs to find books. Obviously different sorts of publications provide dif-
ferent sorts of content. In general, books may offer the advantages of both depth
and breadth of information. Of course they may not be as current as newspapers
or magazines, or even scholarly journals. However, especially in the early stages
of researching a topic, books can provide important background. Every library
will have its own catalog, and you may wish to access the Library of Congress
catalog to help you discover relevant books. An excellent resource is WorldCat
(http://www.worldcat.org/), self-described as the world’s largest network of li-
brary resources. In addition, you may visit commercial online bookstores
(Amazon and Barnes & Noble are two such vendors) to identify books and
even read reviews then find links to other related books. Once you have secured
some relevant books, they can lead you to more. Follow the footnotes and seek
out the materials listed in the bibliographies of relevant books.

C. Periodicals

Use indexes to seek out periodicals. Because advocates are most often concerned
with a proposition of current interest, they may expect that information relating
to the proposition will appear from time to time in the daily newspapers, weekly
newsmagazines, and monthly magazines. Online availability makes information
dissemination possible immediately. In fact, in some cases debaters may wish to
subscribe to daily e-mail delivery of newspapers or relevant bulletins.
Resourceful advocates constantly scan current publications for articles related to
their problem. Their daily reading should include the New York Times and at
least one other metropolitan daily. The Sunday New York Times’ “Week in
Review” section is a helpful summary of current events. Weekly reading should
include newsmagazines like Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. If
the proposition is related to a particular field, advocates should add the special
publications of that area to their research list. For example, if they are concerned
with a business problem, they should read the Wall Street Journal,Business Week,
Fortune, the AFL-CIO News, and the Monthly Labor Review, together with some
of the trade papers and newsletters of the specific area under consideration.

Advocates should make a special point of reading publications with different
editorial policies. Much of their opponents’ evidence and argument may come
from publications with which they disagree. If they study this information in its
original source, they will be in a better position to deal with it in the debate.

Most major journals and periodicals are available (at least in part) on the
Internet. In addition, a number of quality journals are only available online.
The list of available sources is practically endless. For example:

I I . LOCAT ING MATER IALS 91

Newsweek

CNN
New York Times
Salon
Slate
The Economist
The New Republic
Time Magazine
Truthout
U.S. News & World Report
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/site/
newsweek/
http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.salon.com/
http://slate.msn.com/
http://www.economist.com/
http://www.tnr.com/
http://www.time.com/time/

Home Page

http://www.usnews.com/
http://www.wsj.com/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

A more productive way to locate periodical information is through a subject
or keyword search through one or more of your library’s general indexes. These
indexes will guide you to a wide range of newspapers, magazines, journals, e-
journals, and other sources. There are quite a few available services, but they
generally require membership for access, so you will have to investigate your
own access. Even when index services overlap, they each have their own unique
collections and idiosyncrasies. It is wise to conduct a variety of searches in differ-
ent locations. Some of the best available indexes include InfoTrac, LexisNexis,
NewsBank, Alternative Press Index, World News Connection, Wilson Web
(various collections, including Readers’ Guide Full Text and Readers’ Guide
Retrospective), ProQuest Research Library, Public Affairs Information Service
(PAIS) International, LegalTrac, OCLC FirstSearch, EBSCOhost, and
Expanded Academic ASAP.

More-specific indexes are available to guide you to more-focused discipline
specific materials and scholarly journals. Scholarly publications are distinct from
publications offering substantive or general interest news and are more credible
and usually more specific. One can often recognize a scholarly journal in a num-
ber of ways. Often its title includes the name of a specific professional organiza-
tion (Journal of the American Medical Association) and may even include the word
“journal.” Articles are likely to include an abstract, which is a descriptive sum-
mary of the article contents at the beginning of the article, and they will have an
academic appearance without exciting photographs or color graphics. They will
always cite their references in the form of footnotes and endnotes, and will list a
number of editors and reviewers. Articles in scholarly journals are “peer re-
viewed” and competitively selected for publication. They therefore represent ex-
tensive and high quality research and careful evaluation. This helps to ensure a
higher level of credibility and believability than other periodicals. Numerous
field-specific indexes, like Communications & Mass Media Complete and
Family & Society Studies Worldwide may guide researchers to scholarly journals
in their areas of interest. Be sure to check your library for available indexes in the
disciplines appropriate to your topic. General indexes for scholarly publications

92 CHAPTER 5 EXPLOR ING THE CONTROVERSY

include JSTOR: The Scholarly Journal Archive, Google Scholar, and ERIC
(Educational Resources Information Center).

D. Government Sources

Access Government Documents. Much useful research, information gathering,
policy analysis, and debate sponsored by and conducted by the United States
federal government are easily available and extremely useful to the academic de-
bater. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, White House documents became avail-
able online (http://www.whitehouse.gov/) and when Newt Gingrich became
Speaker of the House, congressional documents also became available online
(http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/). Indeed, increasingly, all sorts of govern-
ment documents are becoming available online at little or no cost (http://www
.gpoaccess.gov/index.html). These documents have long been available in hard
copy in government library depositories; check with your library for availability
and best means of access.

E. Databases

Seek out databases. Databases collect information from various locations and or-
ganize them for access and use. The debater is most interested in those databases,
accessible through libraries, in which publications and sources of information are
organized for easy access. A particularly helpful database for academic debaters is
CQ Researcher (and CQ Weekly). CQ stands for Congressional Quarterly. This
source provides excellent information by collecting reports about issues of public
policy and presenting them in a useful and readable format.

F. Think Tanks

Access think tanks. These are groups of experts who conduct research and
prepare reports in support of their inquiry and advocacy concerning issues of
various concerns including public and governmental policy, business, science,
and education. For some think tanks, their mission is primarily research; others
are unabashed promoters and lobbyists. They may be funded as nonprofit or-
ganizations, in which case they avoid political affiliation, or privately. Some
well-known think tanks (certainly not an exhaustive list), categorized by their
political inclinations are:

Conservative

■ American Enterprise Institute
■ Claremont Institute
■ Competitive Enterprise Institute
■ Project for the New American Century
■ Heritage Foundation

I I . LOCAT ING MATER IALS 93

Liberal

■ Brookings Institution
■ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
■ Center for American Progress
■ Center for Economic and Policy Research
■ Center for Progressive Reform

Libertarian

■ Cato Institute
■ Ayn Rand Institute

Nonpartisan

■ Aspen Institute
■ Atlantic Council of the United States
■ Center for Strategic and International Studies
■ Council on Foreign Relations
■ Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

G. The World Wide Web

Search the web. Many students are tempted to begin their research with an
Internet search. This is ill advised. The World Wide Web, or the Internet, is
the cumulative collection of images, text, video, and other materials that have
been organized and stored on computers called web servers by a wide range of
individuals, businesses, and organizations. The output of any keyword search is
likely to be huge. Web pages or websites range from collections of high-quality
research materials posted by nonprofit think tanks and academic associations to
social networking sites, personal diaries, and commercial materials. Much useful
information is available to the web searcher, but the challenge (and it is a huge
challenge) is to efficiently locate and identify material of worth and to critically
evaluate its quality. A debater accessing an article in a scholarly journal knows the
article has been carefully reviewed and edited and represents some level of reli-
ability and credibility. This is not so for a website. In this section, we will con-
sider how to search the web, how to assess the credibility of a website, and some
dangers to avoid.

Searching the web begins with a search engine. This is a computer pro-
gram that works to retrieve and prioritize information within a computer system,
in this case, the Internet. There are literally hundreds of available search engines;
as of 2007, 80 percent of users turned to the two most popular: Google and
Yahoo!. To use a search engine, begin with a keyword search. Enter relevant
terms into the search space. Use the “Boolean search operators” AND and OR
to limit your search in different ways. For example, George W. Bush AND “gay

94 CHAPTER 5 EXPLOR ING THE CONTROVERSY

marriage” will find material that contains references to both President Bush and
to gay marriage; using OR will find materials with references either to the presi-
dent or to gay marriage, or to both the president and gay marriage. Please note
that without the quotation marks, the above search will also turn up references
to Bush and gay, and to Bush and marriage. Many engines will also allow use of
NOT as an operator. This typically is offered as BUT NOT or AND NOT. For
example, George W. Bush BUT NOT gay marriage will turn up materials in-
cluding references to President Bush, but excluding any materials that also refer-
ence gay marriage. Another Boolean operator is the word NEAR. Bush NEAR
Iraq should turn up materials in which Bush appears within 10 or 25 (depending
on the search engine) words of Iraq in the text of the article. Even more useful
are the characters + (for the word AND), – (for the word NOT), and “” (to
enclose a phrase).

Websites are not equal in their credibility. Here are some types of websites:

■ Personal home pages. These are developed and posted by individuals. They
may include family pictures and hobbies, but they may also offer opinions
and even academic or research papers, resumes, and other informative ma-
terials. Personal home pages may include blogs (weblogs, or journals) or so-
cial networking sites.

■ Special interest sites. These may be posted by clubs, community organiza-
tions, or special interest groups. They are inherently biased, as they are cre-
ated to promote or facilitate their interest. For example, they may promote a
political issue (gun control), and community initiative (a proposed dog park),
or a hobby (paintballing).

■ Professional sites. Such websites are official functions of professional organi-
zations, institutions, or individuals. They may provide useful information
about the work of the web poster, and may offer quality research, advice,
information, and opinion. While they may exist to promote a for-profit
business, the information at the site is free and offered as a service.

■ Commercial sites. A large number of websites are advertisements, portals for
online sales, or catalogs. These include giant online businesses
(Amazon.com), brick and mortar businesses with web presence (Barnes &
Noble), and at-home entrepreneurship.

■ Publications. Newspapers, journals, and magazines generally publish online
in addition to their hard copy publication, and some journalistic publications
are strictly online (e-zines). For many, the web is simply another medium for
their credible journalism. However, anyone can publish his or her own
material to the web. The line between a personal home page and a respected
blog is a fine one.

■ Wikis. The term “wiki” is Hawaiian for quick. Wikipedia is the most famous.
Groups of readers contribute to the development of materials, including
contributions of content as well as editing. They can be extremely helpful in
understanding a concept, but are not necessarily credible as sources of qual-
ified information, research, or opinion.

I I . LOCAT ING MATER IALS 95

How does one navigate this wide range of varied information? Some standards
for all evidence will be explored in the next chapter. Some things to look for in-
clude: Is the author of the information clearly identified? What can you learn about
her/him? Are the author’s credentials sufficient to lend credibility to the subject? Is
the corporate author or sponsoring organization clearly identified? What is their
likely bias or reputation regarding the topic? Are the date of publication and the
date of the information available? Is it current? Is there a list of works cited? What
type of website is it? Are they selling a product or service? Can you learn anything
relevant about the site from its web address? For example, the last three letters will
indicate the following: .edu (education sites), .gov (government sites), .org (organi-
zation sites), .com (commercial sites), and .net (network infrastructures).

Finally, do not assume that because a website looks professional that it is
credible. Graphics are easy to navigate, and the Internet is accessible to everyone,
regardless of integrity. For example, if you click on http://www.wto.org/, you
will visit the legitimate website of the World Trade Organization (WTO). If you
visit http://www.gatt.org/, you will visit a sham website that has been made to
look like the WTO site, but offers subtle (and not so subtle) false stories in an
attempt to ironically criticize the WTO. If you happened onto the sham site
without any other knowledge about the World Trade Organization, you would
read stories that, among other things, promote formalized slavery. While the fake
site is a clever criticism of the WTO, it is not factually representative.

H. Direct Communication

Information may also be obtained through interviews and correspondence. The
answers to the three questions in the inset on page 90 will suggest people the
advocate should try to interview or correspond with.

Caution: Interviews and correspondence will provide both leads to evidence
and evidence that is admissible in the debate. It is important to know the differ-
ence between the two types.

1. Interviews. Interviews with subject-matter experts can be valuable sources
of information. The value of any interview depends to a considerable extent on
our advance preparation; carefully planned preliminary research will enable us to
ask meaningful questions. The student debater is in an excellent position to se-
cure interviews with faculty members. Furthermore, interviews often can be ar-
ranged with members of Congress, business executives, labor leaders, and others
who have special knowledge of the subject of the debate proposition.

Consider a hypothetical case: In the course of an interview with Dr.
Hamilton, an economics professor on your campus, you might ask about a study
that your opponents cited and that you found particularly difficult to refute. If
Dr. Hamilton replies, “The Back Bay Study is seriously flawed because it failed
to consider …,” you have a lead. You can’t quote Dr. Hamilton’s statement in a
debate because, within the limitations of academic debate, you cannot prove you
are quoting this professor accurately. At the first opportune moment, ask Dr.
Hamilton, “How can we document the flaws in this study?” If Dr. Hamilton

96 CHAPTER 5 EXPLOR ING THE CONTROVERSY

replies by citing a scholarly article in an economics journal, and if your examina-
tion of the article provides a detailed statement of the flaws in the Back Bay
Study, you are covered. By citing the article to which the economics professor
gave you a lead, you now have evidence that is admissible in the debate.

There are many other important interviews the advocate can study. Radio
and television stations often present interviews with national or world figures on
problems of contemporary importance. (Meet the Press, Hardball, Face the Nation,
and Frontline are examples.) Magazines also often publish interviews in which
prominent persons are quizzed about important problems; these can serve as im-
portant sources of information. Websites and blogs offer interviews as well as
personal statements by noted experts. Note that the same distinction between
leads and admissible evidence applies here. An interview in a magazine clearly
is admissible evidence; it is available in the public record and may be used with-
out any question on that score. However, your recollection of what the secretary
of the treasury said on Meet the Press last Sunday is just that—your recollection.
As such it constitutes a lead and nothing more. Of course, if the Monday news-
papers quote the secretary’s statement, you have admissible evidence. Otherwise
you must request a transcript of the program, and you cannot use the evidence
until the transcript arrives.

In academic debate, convention wisely requires that the advocate document
evidence from sources available in the public domain.

2. Correspondence. Correspondence is often a fruitful source of information.
A helpful starting point in the search for information is the list of associations and
societies in the United States published in Associations Unlimited. Hundreds of
organizations are listed, ranging from “Abolish Capital Punishment, American
League to” through “Zoologists, American Society of.” Most of these organiza-
tions, as well as many other special interest groups, will respond to thoughtful
letters or e-mail correspondence asking intelligent questions in the area of their
concern.

Often advocates will discover organizations that strongly support or oppose the
proposition under consideration. Some of these groups maintain elaborate propa-
ganda agencies. Through correspondence advocates may obtain press releases, spe-
cial papers, data sheets, pamphlets, booklets, and other materials not ordinarily
available through libraries. Here, too, it is important to note the distinction be-
tween a lead and admissible evidence. For example, suppose that, in response to
your request for a transcript of the House Hearings on Unemployment, your rep-
resentative not only sends you a copy but adds a personal note stating, “I feel these
hearings are unnecessarily gloomy. My view is that we will see a substantial drop in
unemployment beginning in the next quarter.” The hearings, of course, are admis-
sible evidence. But the letter is not because, within the limitations of academic de-
bate, it is impossible to authenticate the letter. It is, however, a valuable lead. Phone
your representative immediately and ask whether the prediction can be documen-
ted. If your representative refers you to a recent think-tank study that has gone
unnoticed in the press, you may—when you get a copy of the study—have valu-
able admissible evidence.

I I . LOCAT ING MATER IALS 97

I I I . READING WITH A PURPOSE

Advocates can make brainstorming work by preparing a carefully drafted outline
of the ideas and sources suggested in brainstorming. From this list they should
develop a bibliography to use in research and a list of publications to monitor.
While doing research and monitoring, they can revise and refine the bibliogra-
phy and list of monitored publications. This process of brainstorming, research,
and revising will continue until the first debate, which will often trigger further
brainstorming and research that will continue as long as the proposition is
debated.

When students are asked to monitor the daily press or weekly newsmaga-
zines, they sometimes protest, “But I don’t have time to read all those newspa-
pers and magazines.” Perhaps they do not have time to read an entire newspaper
every day, but when they read for the purpose of finding information on a spe-
cific problem, they do not need to read the entire paper. It takes only a few
minutes to scan the bulky New York Times to determine whether it contains an
article on, say, inflation, unemployment, population stabilization, or an interna-
tional conflict.

Whether research is conducted in through an online index, database, or
search engine, effective use of keywords is critical to productive gathering of in-
formation. The advocate must be familiar with the jargon of the relevant field
and the workings of the index or search aid to know what keywords to look
for, how to combine them, and how to broaden or narrow a search. The re-
searcher also must become familiar with the language used by those writing
about the controversy. As the researcher becomes more familiar with the relevant
literature, he or she will know better how to limit searches by dates and types of
materials and thus how to more efficiently zero in on relevant data.

Try to map out the argument as best you can before you start researching.
Keep a physical map of it (either on the computer or written down), and add to
it as your research progresses. The point is to be aware of all the different com-
ponents of the argument, so you recognize a card when you see it. Develop a list
of keywords or phrases that go along with your argument. Try to determine if

Sources of Debate Materials

■ Reference Materials

■ Books

■ Periodicals

■ Government Documents

■ Databases

■ Think Tanks

■ Websites

■ Direct Communication

98 CHAPTER 5 EXPLOR ING THE CONTROVERSY

the literature uses any other words or phrases interchangeably. This will give you
different options when you are looking for articles. Copy and investigate the
footnotes. Sometimes you might randomly find a title that looks interesting.
Or, if you find some helpful information, and there is a footnote for it, look it
up as it will probably help you. Search for similar articles by the same author.
Find their website, or the website of the publication they write for or organiza-
tion they represent. Or, just Google their name and explore. But if an author
writes about an issue, odds are there is more of their work somewhere.

IV . READING CRIT ICALLY

More literature is available on any contemporary, controversial problem than ad-
vocates could possibly read in the time available. Research, then, must be
planned for both breadth and discrimination, so that time is used efficiently.
Advocates must seek out sources representative of the various points of view re-
lated to the problem in order to understand possible lines of argument. Because
much writing on any contemporary problem is likely to be a restatement of
other writings, or a superficial treatment, discriminating advocates will seek out
original sources, articles in scholarly or professional journals, writings by qualified
authorities, and reports by competent and objective persons, giving preference to
sources with established reputations for accuracy.

An article on nuclear weapons appearing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
for example, is more likely to contain accurate and significant information than is
an article on the same subject in the Sunday supplement of a local newspaper.
The full text of the secretary of state’s speech on a foreign policy problem may
contain some carefully phrased qualifications that are omitted in the brief sum-
mary appearing in a newsmagazine.

Advocates cannot read everything written about the problem. So they must
be critical in their reading to select representative, authoritative, accurate, and
significant material for careful, detailed study.

V. RECORDING MATER IALS

In the early exploration of a problem, advocates should adopt a systematic
method of recording materials so they may readily use the information assembled
from many different sources. Advocates may use any method—index cards, legal
pads, filing cabinets, computer data files—that their needs dictate and their re-
sources permit. Many advocates develop a portable library that they can take
with them on the campaign plane or into the boardroom, the courtroom, or
the classroom. Intercollegiate debaters have developed a successful method of re-
cording materials by using thousands of file folders (or dozens of accordion-style
expandable files) stuffed with letter-sized briefs, assembled in boxes or tubs car-
ried with the aid of hand trucks or carts. Although the advocate may use only a

V . RECORD ING MATER IALS 99

relatively few briefs in any one debate, experienced CEDA/NDT debaters find it
desirable to have thousands of pieces of information immediately available
to meet the many possible arguments presented by their opponents. A few in-
dustrious debaters have successfully created electronic filing systems that they can
access quickly and easily for reference during the course of a debate. This is cer-
tainly the future!

At one time intercollegiate debaters stored their material on index cards,
filed in recipe boxes or long file drawers. Today debaters find it more efficient
to organize page-sized briefs into file folders and expandable files. However,
they often still refer to one item of information as a card even though it is gen-
erally a quotation or statistic read from a full-sized sheet of paper. As you con-
duct your research, your goal is to accumulate cards, and to organize cards so as to
construct argument briefs.

How much evidence does one need in applied debating? The short answer
is: whatever it takes to win the argument. In a class debate a few dozen well-
chosen evidence cards may be sufficient. By contrast, some lawsuits have re-
quired literally truckloads of evidence. Most advocates prefer to have too much
rather than too little evidence available to them. In academic debate, if some
seldom-used evidence becomes critical, you must either have it with you or
lose whatever issue the evidence might win for you if it were available.

While researching and reading source material, advocates should have a sys-
tem on which to record (1) all information that may help in supporting their
stand on the proposition and (2) all information that may be of help to oppo-
nents. Begin by organizing cards.

There are three parts to a card. The tag (a one sentence explanation of the
card), the citation or cite (the source of where the card comes from, including
author and publication), and the card itself. Make sure to get the full or complete
citation. This includes the author, where it was published, the date of publica-
tion, the volume or issue number, and the website if it is online. If you are
referencing a book, include the editor (if there is one). If it is one chapter of a
book, include the chapter name as well as the book name.

Make sure to get the person’s qualifications. Newspapers will often just have
a staff writer, which is their qualification. But in books or journals, those people
usually have credentials. Even if the credentials are not listed, search for them
online. Do a Google search for the name, or look in Who’s Who. If five minutes
of looking saves you a debate because your key evidence comes from a Ph.D.
professor of physics at Cornell University instead of some dude from the
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, it is well worth it.

If you are on an Internet source with no apparent date, look closely on the
website. Often there is a copyright symbol at the bottom and a year, indicating
when the material was last updated or “published.” If nothing is available after
rigorous searching, use the Date of Access (DOA). Make it clear in the citation
that the date referenced is the date that the material was accessed, and not nec-
essarily when it was published.

Put brackets around the beginning and end of the material to be quoted
in the card. This will help you process it later. If you are “cutting” cards on

100 CHAPTER 5 EXPLOR ING THE CONTROVERSY

Cutting Cards on the Computer

A. Creating and Using a Document Template

1. Open a blank Word document. Save the file as a template by clicking “File …

Save As.” Change the file name to “debate template” and where it says “Save
as type” choose “Document Template.”

2. Adjust the page margins. Go to “File … Page Setup … Margins.” For Mac, go to
“Format … Document.” Change the top and bottom margins to 0.5”, and both
side margins to 0.8”.

3. Open the Styles palette. On Windows, click “Format … Styles and Formatting.”
On Mac, click “Format … Style.” Either a new sidebar will appear on the right
(Windows) or another menu will pop up (Mac).

4. First, create the style that will normally appear whenever you put something
into Word. This is the Normal style. Find “Normal” on the menu and click
“Modify.” Under “Formatting” change to Arial, 11 pt. font. Make sure to click
“Add to template” or “Save to template” before clicking OK.

5. Next, create the style for block headings; this will be Heading 1. Scroll down the
menu to the “Heading 1” style. Click “Modify.” Under “Formatting” change to
Arial, 18 pt. font, Bold, single underline, and center aligned. Then give it a
shortcut key. Click on “Format … Shortcut key” and assign one. With Windows,
choose F2. With Mac, the function keys are already taken, so choose Control + 1.
Make sure to click “Add to template” or “Save to template” before clicking OK.
ONLY use Heading 1 for block titles. Right after you type a title and hit Enter,
make sure to switch out of Heading 1. This is very important for indexing.

6. Now, choose a style for citation headings. Under the Styles menu, choose
“Heading 2.” Click “Modify.” Under “Formatting” change to Arial, 12 pt. font,
Bold, and single underline. Then give it a shortcut key. Click on “Format …
Shortcut key” and assign one. With Windows, choose F3. With Mac, the function
keys are already taken, so choose Control + 2. Make sure to click “Add to tem-
plate” or “Save to template” before clicking OK.

7. Now, create a style for tags. Under the Styles menu, choose “Heading 3.” Click
“Modify.” Under “Formatting” change to Arial, 12 pt. font, Bold, no underline.
Then give it a shortcut key. Click on “Format … Shortcut key” and assign one.
With Windows, choose F4. With Mac, choose Control + 3. Make sure to click
“Add to template” or “Save to template” before clicking OK.

8. “Paste Special” is a function that allows you to copy large amounts of text (re-
trieved from a website, for instance) and paste it into the Word document
WITHOUT any of the graphics or other inserts from the web page. “Paste
Special” allows you to paste JUST the text, which is what debaters want. Once
you have something copied from another source (for example, a web page or
PDF file), click on “Edit” and then “Paste Special.” Then choose “Unformatted
Text” to paste it as text only.

9. That was a long process. For convenience sake, add “Paste Special” to your cus-
tomized toolbar. Under the “Tools” option, click on “Customize … Toolbars.”
For Windows, you can also just right click the toolbar and click either “Add
icons” or “Customize.” A new menu will pop up—click on the “Commands” sec-
tion. On the available menu, click on “Edit” and then find “Paste Special.” Drag
“Paste Special” to your toolbar at the top of the document. This should add that
button to your toolbar. Now, you can just click on that button directly to paste.

V . RECORD ING MATER IALS 101

the computer, when you are finished cutting the card, paste the citation above it
immediately. Do not put a tag that the card does not support. It is better to
acknowledge the card for what it is, and connect it with other cards that together
tell a story. That is much better than trying to claim that one card says the whole
thing, and then you look like a fool in a debate. If you are cutting cards from a
hard copy source (not on computer), you have to process them, which involves
printing up a list of citations, cutting out the cards, and pasting or taping them to
the appropriate cites. This is called processing. Make sure to process your evidence
shortly after you cut it.

You should tag your evidence as soon as you cut it. Don’t just leave it with
brackets on the side. If you are on the computer, you can type a tag right after
you cut the card. If you are reading a printed source, write the tag to the side.
You still have the option to change the tag before you print or block the card
(adding it to a brief), but having some sort of tag there is necessary to categorize
and sort.

VI . ORGANIZ ING MATER IALS

Not only must advocates have a wealth of information, but that information
must be instantly available to them. The method considered here is used by in-
tercollegiate debaters, but it may be adapted to any type of advocacy.

First, the advocate should classify information as affirmative or negative, and
classify the type of argument (disadvantage, case/solvency, counterplan, etc.),
perhaps indicating these classifications by an abbreviation placed on each card

10. Result: If you have done all of this correctly, your document should be nicely
formatted. When the Normal font is selected, and you Paste (Special) something
into it, the text will appear exactly as you designated. When you press F2 (or Ctrl
+ 1 for Mac), it should automatically center and allow you to create a block
heading. Continue using the commands to enter in tags, cites, and the “normal”
text for cards, and you will have a perfectly formatted file.

B. Indexing Files on the Computer

1. You should have used Heading 1 for each of your block titles. These will form
the index. Go to “Insert … Reference … Index and Tables … Table of Contents.”
Where it says “Show levels” scroll down to 1. Once you click OK, it will paste an
Index wherever the cursor was.

2. If there are all sorts of other things (not just brief titles) that come up on the
index, that means that you didn’t change out of Heading 1 before you moved
on from that block title. Simply find the page where the error was made, select
the text that is appearing as Heading 1, and change it to Normal. You may have
to re-underline it. But, the point is, make sure ONLY the file titles are in Heading
1 format.

Cutting Cards on the Computer (Continued)

102 CHAPTER 5 EXPLOR ING THE CONTROVERSY

or by different colors of cards. Next, the advocate should classify the cards ac-
cording to the issues developed. The affirmative file will consist of the issues nec-
essary to develop the affirmative case together with the evidence necessary to
establish the case in the first affirmative speech and to defend and extend the
case in the second affirmative speech and rebuttals.

A system of indexing the files should be developed to enable the advocate to
locate any brief quickly. After evidence has been “cut” (tagged and marked) and
“processed” (attached to its relevant citation), it is ready to be “sorted.” Here,
you go back to your map of the argument or file. Make sure you have categories
for as much of the argument as possible. Make separate piles for every category
(even for different subcategories), and organize your big stack of cards into each
pile. Sometimes a card will not fit under any category, and you have to create a
new one. It is important to physically see the file laid out so you can tell if there
are any holes to fill. Once the file is sorted, you are ready to block.

Blocking is the creation of argument briefs, prepared and evidenced argu-
ments ready to be presented in a debate. You may wish to begin by putting
your name in the top left corner. Put the title of the block in the top center of
the page. Put the name of the file on the top right of the brief. Put your tag,
cite, and card down on the page.

Make an index for the file on the top right, place the number for that page
in the block. For instance, if it is the first piece of paper under a four-page im-
pact extension block, put 1 / 4. If it is the second page in a six-page answers to
block, put 2 / 6. Place the page number on the bottom right of the file. Do not
number until you are certain the file is finished, or until you have produced an
index.

The objective is to provide as many subheadings as necessary (separate files)
while keeping related information together (within files and among groups of
related files) to make essential information instantly available. Color coding may
be used to indicate subdivisions, and highlighting and underlining will indicate
“cards” (selected quoted material) and portions of cards with particularly impor-
tant information. The examples shown here are drawn from the files of student
debaters, but any advocate who must organize a large mass of data must develop
some comparable system.

In some cases advocates will find that a given piece of information might
appropriately be placed under more than one classification. Multiple cards re-
cording the same information should be prepared and inserted in the proper
places, with cross-references to other locations to avoid repetition.

Careful exploration of the problem is essential to intelligent advocacy.
Reasonable and prudent people will give little time and less credence to advo-
cates who don’t seem to know what they’re talking about. Debaters who thor-
oughly study the appropriate sources of information, carefully conduct their
research, read purposefully and critically, record materials accurately, and orga-
nize effectively are taking an important step toward responsible and effective
advocacy. Only well-prepared advocates can hope to gain and hold the atten-
tion of a critical audience, perform well against well-informed opponents, and
secure a decision from reasonable judges.

V I . ORGAN IZ ING MATER IALS 103

EXERC ISES

1. Brainstorming. Working in groups of five, brainstorm a list of causes and
possible solutions to the problem of childhood obesity (or substitute any
significant social issue; you may wish to brainstorm an issue for classroom
debate). This should culminate in a “map” for your research.

2. Find one card from each of the seven sources of debate materials (excluding
direct communication) relevant to issues identified in Exercise 1 (or identify
a social issue and collect one relevant card from each type of source).

3. Treasure hunt. Find a recent book or scholarly article about the topic identi-
fied in Exercise 1 (or choose a topic of social importance). Use the bibliog-
raphy to identify another source, go to that source, and find another relevant
source in its bibliography. Continue until you have visited five sources.

4. Begin with a topic of social importance. Identify as many keywords and
combinations of keywords as you can to guide your online research of the
topic.

5. Begin with a topic of social importance. Locate one of the six types of
websites relevant to the topic. Evaluate the quality of each as a source of
debate information.

104 CHAPTER 5 EXPLOR ING THE CONTROVERSY

6

Evidence

In order to justify the invasion of Iraq rather than to continue a U.N.-sponsored
inspection regime in Iraq, President Bush in 2002 and 2003 offered “evidence” of

Iraqi-sponsored programs to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction
(WMDs), in violation of U.N. resolutions. This evidence included claims of intelli-
gence information that could not be detailed. Was the evidence offered by the Bush
administration sufficient? The war ensued with the support of the majority of the
American people, even in the face of opposition by many of our allies including
France and Germany. After the end of major combat was declared, when weapons
of mass destruction had not been discovered, contenders for the Democratic nomi-
nation to the presidency and other opponents of the war offered that failure to find
WMDs was evidence that the war was unwarranted. Was their argumentation well
founded?

Evidence is the raw material of argumentation. It consists of facts, opinions, and
objects that are used to generate proof. The advocate brings together the raw mate-
rials and, by the process of reasoning, produces new conclusions. We cannot under-
take critical thinking without a sound basis of evidence. The use of evidence is not
limited to debates—although debates give us an excellent means of learning about
evidence. Even in unstructured disputes in informal settings, we must necessarily
seek out evidence. Who won the first Heisman trophy? Just what does your war-
ranty cover? Did the campus paper really say that? Those and countless other matters
are best settled by referring to the appropriate evidence.

The impact that the evidence will have on the decision renderers will depend
on their perceptions and values. In intercollegiate debate judges are expected to eval-
uate evidence coolly and dispassionately, setting aside any preconceived notions and
weighing the data critically. This is a good model for us to follow when we are
called on to make important decisions. Yet we must recognize that, in almost any
situation, the judge or the audience will be influenced by the source of the message
(that is, the advocate or the publication the advocate quotes), the message itself, and
the channel (for example, face-to-face communication, radio, or television). The
judge will be affected by all these factors as a receiver (that is, the receiver’s values
and perceptions affect his or her evaluation of evidence). This is no less true in the

105

✵

Miniglossary

Casual evidence That which is created without an effort being made to create
it and is not designed for possible future reference.

Conclusive proof Evidence that is incontrovertible, either because the law will
not permit it to be contradicted or because it is strong and convincing enough
to override all evidence to the contrary and to establish the proposition beyond
reasonable doubt.

Corroborative proof Strengthening or confirming evidence of a different char-
acter in support of the same fact or proposition.

Direct evidence That which tends to show the existence of a fact in question
without the intervention of the proof of any other fact.

Evidence Consists of facts, opinions, and objects used to generate proof.

Evidence aliunde Evidence that explains or clarifies other evidence.

Extrajudicial evidence Evidence that is not admissible in court; such evidence
may be used outside the court.

Indispensable proof Evidence without which a particular issue cannot be
proved.

Judicial evidence Evidence that is admissible in court.

Judicial notice Evidence introduced into argument without the necessity of
substantiation; it is assumed to be so well known that it does not require
substantiation.

Negative evidence The absence of evidence that might reasonably be expected
to be found was the issue in question true.

Partial proof Used to establish a detached fact in a series of facts tending to
support the issue in dispute.

Prearranged evidence That which is created for the specific purpose of record-
ing certain information for possible future reference.

Presumptive evidence Evidence that tends to show the existence of a fact by
proving other, related facts.

Primary evidence The best evidence that the circumstances admit; original or
firsthand evidence that affords the greatest certainty of the matter in question.

Public records All documents compiled or issued by or with the approval of any
governmental agency.

Public writings A frequently used source of evidence that includes all written
material, other than public records, made available to the general public.

Secondary evidence Evidence that by its nature suggests the availability of
better evidence in the matter in question.

106 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

academic debate than in other argumentative contexts, despite judges’ best efforts to
divorce themselves from their own personal judgments.

We probably could establish, after some debate that the unemployment rate in
the United States is 4.5 percent. Once that fact was established, we would proceed
to the more difficult matter of establishing that 4.5 percent was an acceptable or un-
acceptable rate of unemployment. The college professor serving as debate judge
would probably feel empathy for the scholarly opinion of a professor of economics.
An unemployed audience member might attach the most weight to a labor leader’s
view. A banker in the audience might be most impressed by a statement from the
chair of the Federal Reserve Board. A student in the audience might evaluate the
evidence on the basis of personal experience: Is unemployment a remote concept
considered only in economics classes, or was one of the student’s parents just laid
off at the auto plant?

In previous chapters we considered how advocates assemble and organize infor-
mation as they analyze and explore the problem. In this chapter we will consider the
evidence itself, and in the next chapter we will consider tests to be applied to evi-
dence. Subsequent chapters will consider the composition of the case (Chapter 15)
and the delivery of the case (Chapter 16), thereby highlighting the interrelationship
of evidence with source, message, channel, and receiver. By understanding evidence
and its interrelation with communication, we will be in a better position (1) to eval-
uate arguments presented for our decision and (2) to construct good reasons to serve
as justification for the decisions we desire to secure from others.

Evidence may be classified as direct or presumptive. Direct evidence is evi-
dence that tends to show the existence of a fact in question without the intervention
of the proof of any other fact. For example, in a debate on “tax sharing,” the claim
that “43 states now have state income taxes” could be established or refuted by ref-
erence to the Internal Revenue Service, or some other reliable source. In argument
direct evidence is most frequently used to establish supporting contentions rather
than to prove the proposition itself. If irrefutable evidence existed in proof of the
proposition, there would be no point in debating it. At one time, for example, the
proposition “Resolved: That the United States can land men on the moon” was de-
batable. Today there is simply no point in debating the proposition (although a Fox
TV program and a number of websites have emerged that contend that the moon
landing was a hoax; see http://www.apollo-hoax.me.uk/index.html.

Presumptive evidence, or indirect or circumstantial evidence, is evidence that
tends to show the existence of a fact in question by proving other, related facts—
facts from which the fact in question may be inferred. In debates on the “hazardous
waste” proposition, for example, students had many occasions to argue presumptive
evidence. When someone lived (usually unknowingly at the time) near a site where
hazardous waste had been buried and contracted cancer years later, could it be pre-
sumed that the hazardous waste was the cause of the cancer? Many civil suits turned
on this issue, and many state legislatures enacted laws addressing this question. In
many cases the courts ruled that the presumption was strong enough to justify a ver-
dict for the plaintiff.

As a practical matter much time and effort is spent on presumptive evidence.
“But you can’t convict a person on circumstantial evidence!” students sometimes

CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE 107

protest. On the contrary, many people are convicted on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. If there is strong direct evidence of the guilt of the accused, the case sel-
dom comes to trial; under such circumstances the accused usually finds it advisable to
“plea bargain” (plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence).

I . SOURCES OF EV IDENCE

Evidence is introduced into an argument from various sources. By understanding
the uses and limitations of the sources of evidence, we will be more discerning in
reaching our own decisions and in developing arguments for the decisions of
others.

A. Judicial Notice

Judicial notice is the quickest, simplest, and easiest way of introducing evidence
into an argument. Judicial notice (the term is borrowed from the courts) is the
process whereby certain evidence may be introduced into an argument without
the necessity of substantiation; it is assumed to be so well known that it does not
require substantiation. In almost any argument it is necessary to refer to various
matters of common knowledge in order to lay the foundation for other evidence
to be introduced later and to set the argument in its proper context. Certain
matters, which we might reasonably expect any well-informed person to know,
may be presented as evidence simply by referring to them. Certain cautions,
however, must be observed in the use of judicial notice.

1. The Evidence Must Be Introduced. Advocates cannot expect those who
render the decision to build a case for them; they cannot plead, “But I thought
everybody knew that.” If certain evidence is important to an understanding of
the case, then the advocate must introduce that evidence. The Supreme Court
summed up this principle, which applies to legal pleadings and to other types of
argumentation, when it ruled, “A judge sees only with judicial eyes and knows
nothing respecting any particular case of which he is not informed judicially.”

2. The Evidence Must Be Well Known. The instrument of judicial no-
tice may be used only for those matters that are truly common knowledge. For

Evidence

■ Evidence is the raw material of argumentation

■ Direct evidence tends to show the existence of a fact in question without the
intervention of the proof of any other fact

■ Presumptive evidence, or indirect or circumstantial evidence, is evidence that
tends to show the existence of a fact in question by proving other, related facts,
from which the fact in question may be inferred

108 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

example, when the “energy” proposition was debated, the existence of an oil
shortage could be established by judicial notice; the extent of the shortage was
another matter, however. To establish this, the debater had to produce evidence
that would likely be attacked with conflicting evidence. If advocates introduce
little-known evidence merely by judicial notice, they may anticipate some doubt
in the minds of those who render the decision. The Supreme Court made this
sound principle of argumentation a part of our legal structure when it ruled,
“Courts should take care that requisite notoriety exists concerning the matters
on which they take judicial notice, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject
should be resolved in the negative.” (A “perfect example” of judicial notice is
considered in the Chapter 8 section “Modal Qualifications.”) Note that well-
known evidence is often perishable. For example, the bombing of Pearl Harbor
is burned indelibly in the minds of one generation of Americans; the assassination
of President Kennedy is firmly implanted in the minds of another generation of
Americans. They can tell you where they were, who they were with, and what
they were doing at the time they learned of these events. But you may or may
not remember the dates or any details of these events from reading about them
in school years after they occurred. You probably do, however, recall the date of
the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and the
Pentagon. Those events are well known to you.

3. The Evidence May Be Refuted. Evidence offered by judicial notice is usu-
ally presented in the expectation that it will be accepted without question by the
opposition. But such evidence, like all evidence, is subject to possible refutation.
In debates on “right-to-work” laws, for instance, some affirmative debaters
sought to establish by judicial notice that “there is widespread corruption in labor
unions.” Negative debaters, however, usually refused to allow this claim and in-
troduced evidence designed to refute it.

In presenting evidence through judicial notice, the advocates ask, in effect,
that their opponents and those rendering the decision suspend the tests of evi-
dence and accept their assertion as an established fact not requiring proof.
Opposing advocates allow such evidence to go unchallenged at their peril. If
the evidence actually is irrefutable, there is no point in raising an objection.
But if the evidence is refutable and the opposing advocates fail to raise an objec-
tion, then they have only themselves to blame if those who render the decision
accept the evidence as an established fact.

The use of judicial notice is not uncommon in academic debate. It is most
likely to be found toward the end of the academic year, when a certain body of
evidence and argument related to the current national debate proposition has
become common knowledge in the forensic community. In these circumstances
judicial notice will be effective if (1) the evidence is so well known to the op-
posing team that it will concede the point by not attempting to refute it, and (2)
the evidence is so well known to the judge(s) that it will weigh in the decision as
if it were fully developed rather than merely asserted.

Judicial notice is not limited to the courtroom or academic debate, however.
It may be used in any circumstances in which the evidence is, in fact, well

I . SOURCES OF EV IDENCE 109

known to those who render the decision. Thus an executive at a board meeting
might argue, “We can’t use this incentive plan—remember Ernst & Whinney’s
report on how it would affect our tax situation?” If the report is well known to
the board, and if all members accept its conclusion that the incentive plan would
hurt the company’s tax position, the proposal may well be defeated by this brief
use of judicial notice. The advocate must remember that what is well known to
the “in-group” may be unfamiliar to others. Thus the use of a critical piece of
evidence by judicial notice might be devastating in the final round of a major
tournament but ineffective in an exhibition debate before a Kiwanis club.
Similarly, the brief reminder that might clinch an argument before knowledge-
able board members might be meaningless at a stockholders’ meeting; the stock-
holders of a large corporation could not be expected to be familiar with the de-
tails of every report submitted to the board of directors.

B. Public Records

Public records are often used as a source of evidence. On many matters they are
the most important evidence, because private individuals or organizations lack
the authority or resources to assemble much of the evidence that can be found
only in public records.

Public records include all documents compiled or issued by or with the
approval of any governmental agency. In this category are such diverse materials
as the Congressional Record, federal and state statute books, birth certificates, deeds,
reports of congressional hearings, and the minutes of a town meeting. Official
records are usually highly regarded. The fact that they are public records, how-
ever, does not mean that they should be accepted uncritically. A public record
containing the report of a congressional committee might be the best possible
source of information on the amount of money the United States spent on direct
economic aid to foreign countries in a certain year, because the committee has
the power to compel officials to produce their records and testify under oath.
The same report might contain the testimony of witnesses on the value of this
economic aid. Their testimony would not necessarily be the best possible expert
opinion on that subject, however: They might be impartial authorities, or they
might be highly prejudiced lobbyists.

C. Public Writings

Public writings, another frequently used source of evidence, include all written
material, other than public records, made available to the general public. In this
category are such diverse materials as the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Weekly
World News, a college textbook and the campus humor magazine, the World
Almanac and The Great Gatsby, and a Brookings Institution report and an astrol-
oger’s chart. Some public writings command high prestige and are likely to be
accepted readily; others are more likely to be disbelieved than believed.
Obviously the value of public writings varies tremendously.

110 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

D. Private Writings

Caution: Private writings and testimony of witnesses, like the interviews and cor-
respondence considered in Chapter 5, will provide both leads to evidence and
evidence that is admissible in the debate. As noted previously, the advocate needs
to know the distinction.

Private writings include all written material prepared for private rather than
public use. Some private writings are designed to become public records at a
later date. Wills, for example, become public records when they are probated;
contracts become public records if they are brought into court for adjudication.
Any private writing may become a public record if it is included in the records of
a court or a governmental agency, or it may become a public writing if it is made
available to the general public. Most private writings, however, are prepared for
a limited circulation among selected individuals. In this category are such diverse
materials as a privately owned company’s financial statement prepared by a certi-
fied public accountant, a student’s class notes, a diary, and a personal letter.

Private writings may be carefully prepared documents designed to report
events with great precision and to reflect considered judgments, or they may be
incomplete and studded with offhand comments or facetious remarks. Because
private writings constitute an important source of evidence, care should be taken
to determine who prepared the document and under what circumstances. Note
that personal letters are not customarily introduced as evidence in academic de-
bate. The reason may be that it is usually impossible to authenticate a personal
letter within the limitations of an academic debate. Thus, if private writings be-
come public writings, they are clearly admissible in the form of public writings. If
they remain private writings, they are leads that may guide one to admissible
evidence.

Computers have created a gray area of public/private writing. E-mail or
comments on an electronic bulletin board are similar to postcards. That is,
they’re public in the sense that many people have easy access to them, but
they’re private in the sense that they are often intended for one person or a small
group of people. The test here is the context in which the evidence is found. If it
is stored in a database available to the general public, it is clearly a public writing
and admissible as evidence. If the evidence is only fleetingly available, it must be
treated as a lead. Note, too, that there is the problem of verifying such evidence.
(The Chapter 7 section “Verifiable Evidence” discusses this issue in more detail.)

E. Testimony of Witnesses

The testimony of witnesses is one of the most common sources of evidence.
Testimony in court or before a governmental body is usually given under oath
and is subject to penalties for perjury or contempt. Testimony outside the court-
room or hearing room is not subject to the same legal restrictions and is usually
more informal. For example, management officials usually give testimony on the
operation of their company at a stockholders’ meeting; the president of a com-
pany may ask the plant superintendent for an oral report on the utility of a new

I . SOURCES OF EV IDENCE 111

machine; the college freshman may ask a sophomore for advice on what courses
to take. In fact, much of our day-to-day business and social activity is based on
the testimony of witnesses.

The value of such testimony may vary considerably. Clearly the testimony of
a witness at a congressional hearing is readily admissible by citing the hearings.
The “testimony” of your political science professor in a classroom lecture is not
admissible in academic debate, but it may constitute a valuable lead that will en-
able you to find admissible evidence.

F. Personal Inspection

When personal inspection is used as a source of evidence, something is presented
for examination to the persons rendering the decision. For instance, the automo-
bile sales person may invite customers to lift the hood and inspect the motor; a
stockbroker may show the financial statement of a company to a client; or a sen-
ator may bring a bag of groceries into the Senate chamber for use during a
speech on nutrition. College students frequently are asked to perform personal
inspections. For example, the geology professor may offer a sample of rock for
the class to examine; the economics professor may sketch a supply-and-demand
curve on the board; or the music professor may play a portion of a recording for
a music appreciation class.

Personal inspection is frequently used in courtroom debates: Attorneys show
juries and judges the murder weapon, arrange for them to visit the scene of the
crime, or show them the plaintiff’s injuries. Evidence presented through personal
inspection has been carefully selected and arranged by someone to support a par-
ticular argument; it must therefore be examined with care.

I I . TYPES OF EV IDENCE

A. Judicial or Extrajudicial Evidence

Evidence is usually classified as judicial or extrajudicial. Extrajudicial evidence
is also known as “extralegal” or “incompetent” evidence. The word incompetent

Sources of Evidence

■ Judicial Notice

■ Public Records

■ Public Writings

■ Private Writings

■ Testimony of Witnesses

■ Personal Inspection

112 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

has no negative connotation when used in this sense, but merely means “not
admissible in court”; such evidence may be used outside the court. Thus extra-
judicial evidence is used to satisfy persons about the facts requiring proof in any
situation other than a legal proceeding and is subject only to the usual tests of
evidence. Judicial evidence, also known as “legal” or “competent” evidence,
is evidence that is admissible in court. Such evidence must satisfy not only the
usual tests of evidence but also the various technical rules of legal evidence.

In legal proceedings certain otherwise perfectly good evidence is excluded.
For example, if we are trying to decide whether a certain man’s testimony is
trustworthy, we are interested in knowing whether he has a criminal record.
Such evidence, however, is often excluded from courtroom debates. Thus, if
someone says, “That evidence couldn’t be admitted in court,” the objection is
irrelevant unless the debate actually is taking place in court.

The famous O. J. Simpson murder case educated the public on these terms.
For weeks there was intensive media coverage of the pretrial hearings. During
these hearings the defense and prosecuting attorneys debated whether the results
of DNA testing, O. J.’s history of spousal abuse, and other matters were judicial
evidence. If judicial, such evidence would be admissible to the trial. Similarly,
the admissibility of the prior sexual history of the alleged victim in the Kobe
Bryant rape trial was an issue for the court to consider and drew public
attention.

B. Primary or Secondary Evidence

Evidence is often classified as primary or secondary. Primary evidence is the
best evidence that the circumstances admit. It affords the greatest certainty of
the matter in question, and it is original or firsthand evidence. Secondary evi-
dence is evidence that falls short of this standard, because by its nature it suggests
there is better evidence of the matter in question. Thus an examination of this
chapter and Chapter 7 of this book is primary evidence that the book contains
two chapters on evidence; someone’s statement that this book contains two
chapters on evidence is secondary evidence.

In debates on a law enforcement proposition, for example, students came
across many newspaper and magazine stories quoting the FBI as reporting that
the crime rate had gone up 16 percent that year. These stories, of course, were
secondary evidence of the FBI’s report. Thoughtful debaters checked the pri-
mary evidence: the FBI’s report itself. There they found the caution that the
statistics should not be used for year-to-year comparisons. One reason for this
caution was that, in 1995, many police departments across the country switched
from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) system of reporting crimes to the na-
tional incident-based system. The incident-based system required the police to
report each crime that occurs during an incident. Under the UCR system police
reported only one crime per incident—the most serious crime. Thus, if someone
broke into a home and robbed and raped a woman the UCR would report that
event as a rape. In the incident-based system it is reported as three separate in-
cidents: as breaking and entering, as grand theft, and as a rape—and possibly

I I . TYPES OF EV IDENCE 113

other crimes as well. Indeed, up to 10 separate crimes could be reported for a
single occurrence in the incident-based system. The fact that the incident-based
system reported and counted many more crimes was not statistically valid evi-
dence of any change in the number of crimes actually committed. Many second-
ary sources omitted this caution, and debaters who depended on this secondary
evidence sustained embarrassing defeats at the hands of debaters who had sought
out the primary evidence.

Primary evidence is stronger than secondary evidence because there is less
possibility of error. Secondary evidence is weaker than primary evidence because
it does not derive its value solely from the credibility of the witness, but rests
largely on the veracity and competence of others. In any argument the prudent
advocate seeks to use primary evidence whenever possible.

C. Written or Unwritten Evidence

Written evidence is evidence supplied by writings of all kinds: books, newspapers,
and magazines, as well as less frequently used types of writing, such as Roman
numerals carved on the cornerstone of a building. Unwritten evidence includes
both oral testimony and objects offered for personal inspection.

In arguments outside the courtroom, written evidence generally is given
greater weight than oral evidence, because it is easier to substantiate. In a recent
intercollegiate debate a negative speaker introduced unwritten, secondary evi-
dence by saying:

Last week I had the opportunity to talk with the senator when he vis-
ited in my hometown, and he told me that …

Then the negative debater quoted a statement strongly critical of the affir-
mative’s position. An affirmative speaker replied to this by using written
evidence:

We have no way of knowing how accurately the negative quoted the
senator or of knowing what the senator said in a private interview.
However, we do have a record of the considered opinion of the senator
on this subject as he expressed it in an article in the New York Times
Magazine of last week when he stated …

The affirmative debater then quoted a carefully qualified statement that in-
dicated only minor reservations about the affirmative’s position. Which of the
speakers quoted the senator correctly? Perhaps both. The senator may have
changed his mind; or, more likely, the two statements represented the difference
between an offhand comment and a considered opinion. In any event the judge
accepted the statement of the affirmative speaker, because he could better sub-
stantiate his evidence.

On the other hand, we often accept and act on oral evidence even when it
is hearsay. If a professor says to some students, “Last night the dean told me that
the president told him that the trustees have decided to raise the tuition next

114 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

year,” the students might well decide immediately that they will have to raise
more money for next fall’s tuition. As noted in Chapter 5, although unwritten
evidence is not used in academic debate, it may provide valuable leads to written
evidence, which can be used in academic debate.

D. Real or Personal Evidence

Real evidence is furnished by objects placed on view or under inspection. In the
courtroom real evidence may consist of fingerprints, scars, or weapons. Outside
the courtroom a farmer may be asked to inspect test plots in which different
types of seed are used; a customer might be invited to taste a new food product;
a student might be invited to examine a famous painting in a museum; or a cus-
tomer might be asked to test drive a new car.

We are constantly offered pseudo- or real evidence in the form of print ad-
vertisements and TV and radio commercials. Vast sums of money are lavished on
producing evidence designed to convince us to buy a product or vote for or
against a candidate. Pictures of a car effortlessly speeding along a mountain road
or of an opposition candidate caught at a particularly inept moment are offered as
“real” evidence of the performance of the car or of the candidate’s qualifications.
It is important to realize that such “real” evidence is selected and prepared by
someone. Consequently, if we hope to make a critical judgment about this evi-
dence, we must apply the appropriate tests of evidence both to the evidence itself
and to the persons who prepared it.

Personal evidence is evidence furnished by persons, and it may be in the form
of oral or written testimony. The credibility we attach to personal evidence de-
pends in large part on the competence and honesty we attribute to the person
providing the testimony.

E. Lay or Expert Evidence

Evidence is usually classified as either lay or expert. As a practical matter, how-
ever, it is often difficult to distinguish between the well-informed layperson and
the expert. Representatives and senators, for example, may or may not be ex-
perts on the subjects they speak about. However, because their official position
gives them unusual opportunities to acquire special knowledge on many subjects,
audiences often regard them as experts. The able intercollegiate policy debater
who has spent an academic year in a superior forensic program studying a na-
tional debate proposition might be qualified as a minor expert on that
proposition.

Lay evidence is provided by persons without any special training, knowledge,
or experience in the matter under consideration. Such evidence is useful in areas
that do not require special qualifications. For example, in debates on “right-
to-work” laws, the testimony of “rank-and-file” union members or managers
of small businesses was frequently important. These people often had no special
knowledge of law, economics, sociology, or even unions. But they were able to
give important evidence as to how certain union practices had affected them.

I I . TYPES OF EV IDENCE 115

In general the courts will allow laypersons to testify on matters of fact but
will not allow them to testify as to their opinions. This limitation may apply in
argumentation outside the courtroom as well. Laypersons, assuming they meet
the qualifications of a good witness, are usually competent to testify on a matter
of fact they have observed; however, their opinion of the significance of the fact
is another matter. Thus the testimony of a rank-and-file steelworker as to how
many members of his or her local attended the meeting at which a strike vote
was taken would be good evidence, assuming that the steelworker was an honest
and competent person. However, his or her opinion about the effect of a steel
strike on the national economy could not be considered as more valuable than
that of any other layperson of comparable education and intelligence. Only an
expert, in this case probably an economist, could give a meaningful opinion.

Expert evidence is evidence provided by persons with special training, knowl-
edge, or experience in the matter under consideration. In the courtroom expert
testimony is permitted only when the inference to be drawn requires something
more than mere everyday experience. For example, an expert would be required
to infer the mental state of an accused person based on the accused’s behavioral
characteristics. Similarly, in argumentation outside the courtroom, expert testi-
mony should not be used unnecessarily.

The courts further require that the special competence of experts be estab-
lished before they are allowed to offer opinion evidence. It is advisable to follow
this practice in all argumentation. Remember that an expert is a maven in certain
areas only and is a layperson in all other areas.

The qualifications of a witness should be studied carefully before that indi-
vidual is accepted as an expert. That persons are well known or that their views
appear in print does not establish them as experts. Intercollegiate debaters are
constantly required to distinguish between the expert and the pseudoexpert.
Each year the national debate proposition deals with some subject of contempo-
rary significance, about which a number of articles appear in the press. Some are
thoughtful analyses written by experts; others are superficial treatments turned
out under the pressure of a deadline by writers who may know less about the
subject than the typical college debater.

“Argument from authority” is a phrase sometimes used to indicate that ex-
pert opinion is presented to establish a contention in an argument. Expert opin-
ion should be used only when some issue cannot be established readily by other
evidence. Intercollegiate debaters and others who cannot establish themselves as
experts often find it advantageous to introduce the opinions of experts to sustain
certain contentions. Thus in debates on the “compulsory wage and price con-
trols” proposition, some negative speakers contended that controls merely inten-
sified inflationary pressures, whereas affirmative speakers maintained that they
were the solution to inflation. The judges in these debates had little basis for
accepting the opinion of one college student over that of another.
Consequently the debaters found it necessary to introduce as evidence the opin-
ion of experts who commanded the respect of the judges.

In any matter likely to be the subject of a debate, there will probably be
expert opinion on both sides. Economists will differ on the merits of a certain

116 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

tax policy; physicians will differ on the merits of a certain drug; lawyers will dif-
fer in their opinion about whether a certain merger violates the antitrust laws;
advertising people will differ on the merits of a certain advertising campaign.
An important task in both applied and academic debates is establishing a prepon-
derance of expert opinion—not by simply marshaling more experts than the op-
position but by using testimony from better qualified experts whose opinions may
be related directly to the matter at hand.

The scientific study is a form of expert evidence that advocates eagerly seek
out in an effort to establish greater credibility for their claims. Arguments about
the credibility of studies are often crucial to the outcome of a debate. Debate
educator Sara Newell maintains that a study is unique in that we are provided
not only with opinions (the conclusions of the study) but also the facts (observa-
tions/data) on which those opinions are based; we are provided not only facts
but also with an explanation of how the observations were made; and we are
provided not only statistics but also with an expert interpretation of the statistics.
A study then is evidence which includes an argument for its own credibility. This
unique combination gives a study the potential to “carry more weight,” to be
more conclusive and more credible than other types of evidence.1

Advocates who introduce studies into a debate must be prepared to give
good reasons that the studies should be accepted; those whose case is harmed
by the studies must be prepared to give good reasons that the studies should be
rejected. Newell offers these recommendations:

Reasonably, the person who introduces the study into the round needs
to give some standard or warrant for the credibility of the study. Three
major factors determine the extent of proof necessary: (1) the contro-
versial nature of the study’s conclusion, (2) the existence of counterstu-
dies, and (3) the importance or controversy of the policy claim. The
warrant may range anywhere from general qualification of the expertise
of the researcher, to evidence from other sources proclaiming the study
to be good or acceptable, to specific explanation and support for the
external and internal validity.… The arguments indicating a study are
generally of five types. In hierarchical order, according to persuasive
power, they are (1) counterstudies disprove, (2) the study is flawed—
specific indictments by experts, (3) the study is flawed—general indict-
ments by experts, (4) the study is flawed—specific indictments by the
debater, and (5) general indictments by the debater. “The study is
flawed” just means that something is wrong with either the internal or
external validity.2

1. Sara E. Newell, “The ‘Study’ as Evidence and Argument in Academic, Policy Debate,”
in Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation, ed. Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell
(sponsored by the Speech Communication Association and the American Forensic
Association) (privately published, 1980), p. 296.
2. Newell, “The ‘Study’ as Evidence and Argument in Academic, Policy Debate,” p. 302.

I I . TYPES OF EV IDENCE 117

F. Prearranged or Casual Evidence

Prearranged evidence is created for the specific purpose of recording certain
information for possible future reference. Many public records and public writ-
ings are of this type. Political leaders often try to get their views “on the record,”
so that at election time they will have evidence that they supported measures of
interest to their constituents. The average person has a considerable amount of
prearranged evidence: birth certificates, driver’s licenses, marriage certificates,
deeds to property, social security cards, insurance policies, receipts, canceled
checks, contracts, military discharge papers, transcripts of college records, and so
on. Prearranged evidence is valuable because it is usually created near the time
that the event in question took place; also, because it is intended for future ref-
erence, it is usually prepared with care. At the same time, because this kind of
evidence is arranged, it may be subject to the influence of those arranging it.

Casual evidence is created without any effort being made to create it and is
not designed for possible future reference. For example, when a newspaper pho-
tographer snapped a human-interest picture of a “Good Samaritan” helping a
motorist whose car had broken down and was blocking rush-hour traffic, he
had no intention of creating evidence. It simply happened to be a light news
day, and the editor decided to run the picture with the names of the motorist
and the Good Samaritan together with a brief story about the traffic tie-up.
Some months later that casual evidence became important evidence in a criminal
trial in which the Good Samaritan was accused of bank robbery. The circum-
stantial evidence against the Good Samaritan was strong: His car matched the
description of the robber’s car, even to a similar dent on the left rear fender;
his physical description matched that of the robber; he had no alibi; and he could
not remember where he had been at the time of the robbery four months earlier.
His future looked bleak until his attorney, doing research on an unrelated case,
happened to come across the newspaper story, which established that, at the time
of the robbery, his client had been in a city 100 miles away. This casual evidence
led to a prompt acquittal.

Casual evidence is valuable because the party concerned did nothing to cre-
ate the evidence. In the robbery trial example the accused did not know a pho-
tographer was coming to the scene of the traffic jam, and he did not ask to have
his picture taken or published. As the accused did nothing to create the evidence,
the jury was all the more ready to believe it was genuine and not a prepared
alibi. The weakness of casual evidence is that its value is usually not known at
the time it is created, often no effort is made to preserve it, and later efforts to
recall events may be subject to uncertainty. In this case it was sheer luck that the
picture appeared in the paper together with the accused’s name and the fact that
it was taken at the height of the morning rush hour on a particular day.

Caution: Databases contain both prearranged and casual evidence.
LexisNexis, for example, may carry the text of a Supreme Court decision. This
decision was prepared with care by the justices and transcribed with care by a
staff familiar with legal usage and terminology. This is prearranged evidence pre-
pared with every expectation that it will be quoted in serious debate.

118 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

By contrast, a comment on that decision found on an electronic bulletin
board might be very casual evidence—a flamingly indignant, off-the-cuff, impas-
sioned outburst. The author, if one could be found, might well disavow it as a
momentary outburst not intended as a serious, scholarly, for-the-record critique
of the decision.

G. Negative Evidence

Negative evidence is the absence of evidence that might reasonably be ex-
pected to be found were the issue in question true. For example, if the name
of a person cannot be found in an official list of graduates of your college, this
is negative evidence that he or she did not graduate from the school. Negative
evidence played an important part in at least one presidential election. In 1884 a
New York clergyman called the Democrats the party of “rum, Romanism, and
rebellion” in a speech at a reception attended by James Blaine, the Republican
candidate. Blaine’s failure to repudiate this statement was taken by many voters as
negative evidence that he agreed with it. Some historians regard this as the criti-
cal turning point in the election in which Blaine was defeated and Grover
Cleveland elected.

Negative evidence was highly important in the investigations of the assassi-
nation of President Kennedy. Official investigations established that no evidence of
a conspiracy existed. Yet rumors of conspiracies persist and have spawned many
books, articles, and television programs, as well as the controversial Oliver Stone
film JFK. Is the absence of any evidence of a conspiracy proof that there was no
conspiracy? Or is it proof that the investigators were not thorough enough?

Negative evidence must be introduced into the argument with care.
Advocates should claim negative evidence only when they are certain there is
an absence of the evidence in question.

Even if careful investigation establishes that the evidence is indeed missing, is
it missing for the reason claimed? This difficulty of negative evidence can be il-
lustrated by a case from World War II. Germany developed and stockpiled huge
amounts of the deadly nerve gases Tabun, Sarin, and Soman.3 German scientists
who studied Allied scientific journals found no reference to these chemicals.
Because this absence of any reference to these chemicals was exactly what one
would expect to find as the result of efficient censorship, the Germans concluded
that the Allies also had developed the gases and probably had large supplies on
hand. The fear of retaliation apparently led the Germans to decide not to use
their gases during the war. Actually the chemicals were not mentioned in the
Allied journals simply because no Allied scientist had discovered them. Their ex-
istence was unknown until Allied troops stumbled on the German supplies after
V-E Day.

3. These compounds are designated GA, GB, and GD in the United States; their less vol-
atile liquid counterparts are known as V-agents.

I I . TYPES OF EV IDENCE 119

Richard Bernstein’s commentary on historian David Irving’s Hitler’s War
considers a perplexing problem of negative evidence.4 In his book Irving made
the extraordinary assertion that the Nazi’s extermination of the Jews was carried
out without the Führer’s knowledge. Irving argued that Hitler never committed
to writing any order implementing the “Final Solution.” In the absence of evi-
dence that Hitler did know, Irving concluded that he did not—a classic case of
negative evidence. Other historians have argued that this is a biased view because
Hitler used code words to make his wishes known to his followers.

A more recent problem of negative evidence arose when many veterans of
the Gulf War complained of a mysterious malady, the Persian Gulf syndrome,
which they attributed to Iraq’s use of chemical or biological weapons. When
questioned by a congressional committee, representatives of the Department of
Defense and the CIA testified that they had no convincing evidence that such
weapons had been used, but they were not willing to guarantee that exposure
had not occurred.

The intelligence community has an expression, “Absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence,” said John T. Kriese, chief officer for ground
forces at the Defense Intelligence Agency. I cannot say there was no
CW [chemical warfare] use or BW [biological warfare] contamination.
From everything I know my judgment is that it was not used. [But] I
think it’s impossible to prove a negative.5

Failure to discover evidence of Saddam Hussein’s development and stockpil-
ing of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after Operation Iraqi Freedom was
used to argue that American intervention had not been justified.

Fortunately we are rarely faced with such complex tasks as confront intelli-
gence agencies seeking to discover an enemy’s capabilities. Consider this typical
use of negative evidence in everyday affairs: An executive receives a tempting
offer to purchase some merchandise from an out-of-town firm. The price is fa-
vorable, but she does not know whether the firm will really deliver merchandise
of the quality claimed. The executive directs an assistant to look into the matter.
The assistant calls the Better Business Bureau in the firm’s city and inquires. The
reply indicates that the firm has been doing business in that city for 25 years and
that only six complaints have been received about the firm in the past year, with
all adjusted to the satisfaction of the customers. The executive would probably
take this lack of unsettled complaints as satisfactory negative evidence that the
firm is reputable.

H. Evidence Aliunde

Evidence aliunde, also known as “extraneous” or “adminicular” evidence, ex-
plains or clarifies other evidence. Often the meaning or significance of evidence

4. Richard Bernstein, “Culling History from Propaganda,” New York Times, Apr. 24,
1994, sec. 4, p. 4.
5. New York Times, May 26, 1994, p. A12.

120 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

is not apparent on the presentation of the evidence per se; therefore, that evi-
dence must be explained by the presentation of other evidence. In debates on
free trade, for example, some debaters introduced as expert evidence the opinion
of certain economists that free trade would be beneficial because it would permit
the operation of the principle of comparative advantage. Unless those who ren-
dered the decision understood the principle of comparative advantage, this evi-
dence would be of little value until the debaters introduced additional evidence
to explain the concept.

Evidence is used in extraordinarily complex combinations in argumentation.
One piece of evidence may often be classified under several types. For example,
in a debate on the “increase exploration and/or development of space” proposi-
tion, one affirmative speaker offered the following evidence from Time magazine
to establish an advantage:

One of the six crewmembers [of the aborted Discovery mission] is
Charles Walker, 35, an engineer with McDonnell Douglas and the
shuttle’s first ambassador for private enterprise. Walker’s in-flight task is
to concoct a mystery drug for Johnson & Johnson, using a technique
called electrophoresis, which in the zero gravity of space can separate
biological compounds 700 times as efficiently as on earth. Judging by
the many clues the principals have dropped, the substance could be a one-
shot cure for diabetes.

The identification of the types of evidence represented by this statement will
help us to analyze it. Obviously it is written evidence from a public record—that
is, Time. Clearly it is secondary evidence, because Time isn’t telling who the
“principals” are. It may be expert evidence, as suggested by the use of the word
principals, but we don’t know who made the statement or what the credentials of
the principals are. It is probably unwritten evidence; “clues” tend to be
“dropped” in off-the-record comments. Certainly, had the clues appeared in,
say, the New England Journal of Medicine, Time would have cited such a prestigious
source. This evidence in its current form is useless, as the affirmative debater who
used it—just once—quickly found out. Clearly evidence aliunde is needed to
clarify this evidence before it will have real impact in establishing the value of
preparing biological compounds in space.

I. Alternative Forms of Evidence

If the development of argumentation is considered outside the traditional logical
construct, importance of emotional content and alternative viewpoints may be-
come relevant. Classroom and tournament debaters derive most of their evidence
from published sources. These sources represent well-educated experts from aca-
deme, particular content fields, government, and other privileged positions. In
other words, the sources of most quoted evidence are economic and social elites
within their respective societies. Thus, they have access to traditional publication
in academic journals, periodicals, and other materials. They may be perfectly

I I . TYPES OF EV IDENCE 121

qualified to offer opinions and conclusions about problems of general concern,
but their viewpoints may be limited by standpoint. Therefore, it is beneficial at
times for debaters to offer their own nontraditional forms of proof, and those of
marginalized or disenfranchised persons. The form of such evidence may be in
narrative, poetry, prose, art, music, or hip-hop. The content, although challeng-
ing to measure, can be powerful and emotional, and can offer viewpoints ex-
cluded by traditional standards.

I I I . THE PROBAT IVE FORCE OF EV IDENCE

We are concerned not only with the sources and types of evidence but also with
its probative force. Evidence may only partially substantiate an issue, or it may be
strong enough to justify the claim conclusively in the minds of those who render
the decision. Baseball fans engaged in a pleasant disputation on the question
“Who won the Most Valuable Player award last year?” will probably settle the
matter conclusively by reference to a standard almanac. But if the question is,
“Who was the greatest baseball player of all time?” a conclusive answer is proba-
bly impossible; the game has changed too much over the years. Ty Cobb and
Babe Ruth unquestionably are greats of yesteryear, but there is no practical
way of comparing them with today’s greats. Thus the standards necessary to es-
tablish a conclusive answer probably could not be agreed on. The debate over
the 2003–2004 NCAA Division I-A national football championship would be
no less challenging. Both Louisiana State and Southern California made claims
to the championship, and the standards of the NCAA and its Bowl
Championship Series did not resolve the issue. If all involved could agree on
the standards, there would have been only one champion.

The often-heard question “If we can put a person on the moon, why can’t
we solve the problem of homelessness or clean up the inner cities?” provides an
excellent example of the probative force of evidence. Once the political decision

Types of Evidence

■ Judicial or Extrajudicial Evidence

■ Primary or Secondary Evidence

■ Written or Unwritten Evidence

■ Real or Personal Evidence

■ Lay or Expert Evidence

■ Prearranged or Casual Evidence

■ Negative Evidence

■ Evidence Aliunde

■ Alternative Forms of Evidence

122 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

was made to spend the money to put a person on the moon, the problem was
limited to its scientific and engineering aspects. The scientific and engineering
communities had developed agreed-on standards that allowed them to establish
conclusive proof that a moon landing could be made, and the mission was ac-
complished. Solving homelessness or cleaning up the inner cities, however, de-
pends not only on accepted scientific and engineering facts but also on complex
political and social problems involving conflicting values and perceptions. Thus
the decision renderers will determine the probative force of evidence, and the
task of the advocates remains that of discovering evidence that will have the de-
sired impact in justifying their claim.

A. Partial Proof

Partial proof is used to establish a detached fact in a series of facts tending to
support the issue in dispute. In debating the proposition of “guaranteed annual
wages,” affirmative debaters sometimes sought to introduce evidence of seasonal
fluctuations in employment as partial evidence in support of their need issue. In a
murder trial the prosecution usually has to introduce evidence to prove malice
on the part of the accused toward the murdered person—partial evidence in the
series of facts the prosecution will seek to establish in order to prove the charge
of murder. Evidence that only partially substantiates the advocate’s contention is
of little value in itself. However, when several pieces of partial evidence are
combined, their effect may be powerful. Indeed, taken together they might be-
come conclusive.

B. Corroborative Proof

Corroborative proof, also known as “cumulative” or “additional” proof, is
strengthening or confirming evidence of a different character in support of the
same fact or proposition. For example, in debates on “free trade,” some advo-
cates sought to show that free trade would harm domestic industry. Evidence
showing a specific industry that would be harmed was of some value in establish-
ing this contention. Evidence that a number of industries would be harmed
made the contention stronger. Similarly, a defendant in a trial might claim that
he was out of town on the day the crime took place. One witness who saw him
in another city on the day in question could furnish evidence of his alibi, but his
alibi would be stronger if he could produce several witnesses to corroborate his
story.

C. Indispensable Proof

Indispensable proof is evidence without which a particular issue cannot be
proved. In courtroom debates it is relatively easy to identify indispensable evi-
dence. In a murder trial, for example, the prosecution must introduce evidence
to establish the actual death of the person alleged to have been murdered.

I I I . THE PROBAT IVE FORCE OF EV IDENCE 123

In argumentation outside the courtroom, the indispensable evidence necessary
to establish the proposition is usually less well defined than in legal proceedings, but
careful examination of the proposition will indicate certain matters that must be
proved. For instance, in a debate on “wage and price controls,” the affirmative must
introduce evidence showing that such controls will work to control inflation.

D. Conclusive Proof

Conclusive proof is evidence that is incontrovertible, either because the law
will not permit it to be contradicted or because it is strong and convincing en-
ough to override all evidence to the contrary and to establish the proposition
beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence that may not be contradicted in legal pro-
ceedings varies from one jurisdiction to another. Outside the courtroom no evi-
dence is safe from refutation, and no evidence is conclusive or acceptable on its
merits alone. The advocate always seeks to find such evidence, but on matters
likely to be the subject of debate, conclusive evidence that applies directly to
the proposition is seldom available. Obviously, once conclusive evidence is pre-
sented on a proposition, that proposition is no longer debatable. More often such
evidence is found to support subsidiary matters related to the proposition. In de-
bates on “right-to-work” laws, for example, some advocates were able to intro-
duce conclusive evidence of corruption in labor–management relations; they
were not able, however, to introduce conclusive evidence that “right-to-work”
laws would eliminate such corrupt practices.

Evidence is an essential ingredient in all argumentation. We cannot make
intelligent decisions without evidence. The value of one piece of evidence, how-
ever, may differ considerably from that of another. Therefore, when we evaluate
evidence presented to us for our decision, we must accept the good and reject
the defective. Likewise, when we seek the decision of others, we must evaluate
evidence carefully so that we use sound evidence in our case. We must also be
able to evaluate the evidence of our opponents so that we can expose their de-
fective evidence. Those seeking to reach a reasoned decision on evidence will
find it desirable to apply the tests of evidence considered in the next chapter.

The Probative Force of Evidence

■ Partial Proof

■ Corroborative Proof

■ Indispensable Proof

■ Conclusive Proof

124 CHAPTER 6 EV IDENCE

EXERC ISES

1. Select one contention related to the current CEDA/NDT national inter-
collegiate debate proposition, as your instructor specifies. Bring to class two
examples of each of the following classifications of evidence:

a. Direct evidence to prove this contention
b. Presumptive evidence in support of this contention

2. From newspapers or newsmagazines published within the past week, find
examples of the use of the following sources of evidence to support a
contention:

a. Judicial notice
b. Public records
c. Public writings
d. A source that was originally a private writing
e. Testimony of a witness. Write a brief paper in which you classify the

evidence, identify the contention advanced by the writer, and attach a
clipping of the supporting evidence.

3. Obtain the text of a recent public speech by a well-known national figure or
an editorial in a newspaper or newsmagazine on a matter of current impor-
tance. Classify the evidence:

a. By type
b. By the probable probative force the evidence had on the audience ad-

dressed by the speaker

4. Attend an intercollegiate debate and take careful note of the evidence pre-
sented in the debate. Prepare a brief paper in which you classify evidence:

a. By type
b. By the probable probative force it had on the judge

Compare this with the paper you prepared for Exercise 3. Who used
more evidence, the public figure or the debaters? Why? Who did the better
job of giving the audience good reason for accepting the evidence?

EXERC I SES 125

7

Tests of Evidence

Evidence is the raw material of argumentation. It provides the building blocks
with which the advocate constructs the case. If the evidence is accurate, the ad-

vocate can construct a strong case; if the evidence is weak or flawed, the case can
never be sound. Furthermore the advocate is often confronted with conflicting evi-
dence. For instance, as the “University of California–Berkeley Wellness Letter” once
observed, studies have shown that caffeine raises, lowers or does not alter blood pres-
sure; increases, decreases or does not alter heart rate; stimulates respiration or does
not affect it; raises or does not raise metabolic rate; raises or does not raise glucose
concentration; raises or does not raise cholesterol levels.1

A Harvard University researcher found no evidence that normal caffeine con-
sumption poses any sort of health hazard. A Stanford University study found that decaf-
feinated coffee caused a 7 percent increase in cholesterol. And a Boston University
study suggested that five or more cups of coffee a day—regular or decaf—can cut the
risk of developing colon cancer by 40 percent. Conflicting evidence is not limited to
medicine but can be found in every field of human affairs. Thus we must consider the
tests of evidence.

I . USES OF TESTS OF EV IDENCE

The previous chapter considered the sources and the types of evidence; this
chapter considers tests that may be applied to evidence. These tests have three
important uses.

A. Testing the Credibility of One’s Own Evidence

In constructing their cases advocates will discover a great deal of evidence.
Before they use any of it, they should apply the tests of evidence, rejecting

1. AARP Bulletin, vol. 31, no. 1 ( Jan. 1990), p. 6.

126

✵

weak and inconclusive evidence and retaining only what stands up under exam-
ination. By applying the tests of evidence, they may also anticipate the probable
refutations of their opponents and prepare to meet them.

The tests of evidence should also be applied to problems outside the debate
situation. For instance, the political leader must weigh intelligence reports; the
executive must evaluate reports of market trends; and the college student must
appraise studies of employment opportunities in various fields. Throughout life
we all have to formulate propositions, gather evidence related to those proposi-
tions, and evaluate that evidence as a part of the process of making decisions.
Intelligent self-interest and our sense of responsibility to those affected by our
decisions require that we apply the tests of evidence with care.

B. Testing the Credibility of Evidence Advanced by an Opponent

While preparing their own cases, advocates must also look for evidence that op-
ponents will find useful, apply the appropriate tests to it, and plan a refutation. As
a debate develops, advocates will discover the actual evidence used by opponents
and be prepared to test and refute it during the debate.

Miniglossary

Clear evidence Proof that supports exactly what it is intended to support with
precision and definitional clarity.

Counterintuitive rejection of evidence Evidence the audience rejects in the first
instance because they “know” it is wrong—for example, that employment
causes harms.

Intuitive acceptance of evidence Evidence the audience accepts in the first in-
stance because they “know” it is right—for example, that unemployment causes
harms.

Psycho-facts Beliefs that, though not supported by hard evidence, are taken as
real because their constant repetition changes the way we experience life.

Reliable evidence Evidence from a trustworthy source, with a reputation for
honesty and accuracy in similar matters and consistency in commenting on the
matter.

Sufficient evidence A fair preponderance of evidence.

Verifiable evidence Evidence which may be authenticated, confirms, and/or
substantiated.

I . USES OF TESTS OF EV IDENCE 127

Note that the responsibility for applying the tests of evidence and for re-
futing evidence rests on the party whose case is damaged by the evidence. If
certain evidence used by our opponents adversely affects our case but we do
not refute it, the decision renderers may accept even weak evidence at face
value. The absence of refutation may actually enhance the value of the adverse
evidence.

C. Testing the Credibility of Evidence Advanced for a Decision

Although we may participate in only a few debates over a lifetime, we constantly
have to make decisions. As citizens, as consumers, and simply as social beings, we
are confronted with evidence that we must evaluate almost daily. Thus, if we do
not properly evaluate the evidence of a political candidate’s qualifications, we
may share the responsibility for a poor government; if we do not evaluate the ev-
idence of the merits of a product, we may be inconvenienced or may lose
money. In fact, whenever we fail to apply the tests of evidence, we run the risks
inherent in an unwise decision. The rewards of applying these tests are corre-
spondingly great. As we apply them, we increase our opportunities for making
sound decisions and gaining all the benefits that come with wise decisions.

Questions for Testing Evidence Credibility

In general, affirmative answers to these questions imply that the evidence is credible;
negative answers imply a weakness in the evidence.

Is there enough evidence?

Is the evidence clear?

Is the evidence consistent with other known evidence?

Is the evidence consistent within itself?

Is the evidence verifiable?

Is the source of the evidence competent?

Is the source of the evidence unprejudiced?

Is the source of the evidence reliable?

Is the evidence relevant?

Is the evidence statistically sound?

Is the evidence the most recent available?

Is the evidence cumulative?

Is the evidence critical?

128 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

I I . TESTS OF CREDIBLE EV IDENCE

The tests of credible evidence considered have their roots in the long history of
argumentation and should give advocates a reliable system for evaluating evi-
dence. The tests of evidence can be stated in the form of questions; the inset
on page 128 lists these questions. As indicated in the previous chapter, all evi-
dence obviously does not have the same degree of cogency, and thoughtful per-
sons test the degree of cogency that decision renderers are likely to assign to the
evidence. Let’s now discuss the tests in detail.

A. Sufficient Evidence

The advocate must provide enough evidence to support the issue being disputed.
How much is enough? When we begin our research, we may find some credible
evidence in support of our position. But in debatable matters there will be credi-
ble evidence on the other side as well. Advocates therefore must provide evi-
dence that is more convincing than the opposing evidence. Naturally they seek
conclusive evidence, but because this is often unavailable, they have to settle for-
sufficient evidence—that is, for a fair preponderance of evidence. In the
civil courts the verdict is based on a “preponderance of evidence.” In important
matters outside the civil courtroom, reasonable people also usually apply this
standard in making decisions. The national intercollegiate debate propositions,
for example, always have some evidence—but less than conclusive evidence—
available for each side. Usually the ability of the advocates determines which
side will establish a fair preponderance of evidence. Remember that in an argu-
mentative situation the advocates try to convince those who render the decision
rather than to convince their opponents.2 They need to persuade only those
who judge the debate that they have a fair preponderance of evidence.

B. Clear Evidence

The advocate must provide evidence that is clear or that, by means of evidence
aliunde, can be made clear. For instance, in a classroom debate on the “mass media”
proposition (“Resolved: That the federal government should significantly
strengthen the regulation of mass media communication in the United States”),
an affirmative team built a case to ban violence on television. The debaters were
delighted to discover a newspaper article by a psychiatrist and research director of
the National Coalition on Television Violence in which he said: “The surgeon
general’s expert panel concluded the evidence is overwhelming. Violent

2. In some argumentative situations the opponent may render the decision by conceding.
For example, in a civil suit for personal injury damages, the defense attorney may try to
convince the plaintiff’s attorney that his or her case is so weak that it would be better to
accept a modest out-of-court settlement than to run the risk of the jury’s awarding no
damages—or, of course, vice versa.

I I . T E STS OF CRED IBLE EV IDENCE 129

entertainment has a harmful effect on viewers.”3 At first the debaters thought they
had found an excellent source that seemed to be saying exactly what they wanted.
But was the evidence clear? Without evidence aliunde it is not clear. (See the
Chapter 6 section “Evidence Aliunde.”) What is meant by violence? Professional
football or professional hockey? Saturday morning cartoons? A drama featuring a
few murders? Nor is it clear what “harmful” meant—something trivial or some-
thing catastrophic? The negative would have quickly pointed out the lack of clarity
in this particular piece of evidence. The affirmative debaters wisely decided to seek
additional evidence to clarify this evidence in the mind of the judge. Their further
research turned up evidence that the surgeon general’s report was 16 years old.
They decided that if Congress had not acted on the report in 16 years, they must
have found the evidence unconvincing. The affirmative decided they would seek
evidence that was clear, primary (see Chapter 6), and recent (see the section “The
Most Recent Evidence” later in this chapter).

C. Evidence Consistent with Other Known Evidence

Advocates must determine whether their evidence is consistent with other
known evidence. If it is, they may be able to strengthen their evidence by cor-
roborative evidence. If it is not, they have to be prepared to show that their
evidence is more credible than other known evidence or that other known evi-
dence is not applicable in this particular case. For instance, if business executives
offer evidence that the unit cost of a certain product will decrease as production
increases; their evidence is consistent with the experience of many manufacturing
firms. Thus this evidence will be consistent with other known evidence.

This test, however, clearly does not prohibit the advocates from using or
considering evidence inconsistent with other known evidence. For example, in
debating the “guaranteed employment opportunities” proposition, some students
found evidence indicating, as we would expect, that unemployment was corre-
lated with ill health, divorce, child abuse, crime, and suicide. This finding was
consistent with other known evidence and provided the students with recent
studies on the very point they wanted to make. Other students, researching the
same proposition, came across other studies indicating that the stress associated
with employment and the hazards of on-the-job accidents were also correlated
with ill health, divorce, child abuse, crime, and suicide. Given the widespread
acceptance of the work ethic in American society, based on intuitive accep-
tance of evidence, most audiences would probably accept the evidence be-
cause they “know” that employment is good and unemployment is bad. When
offered such evidence, we tend to nod in agreement and think, “Sure, that’s
obvious.” Those debaters who used the second piece of evidence likely encoun-
tered counterintuitive rejection of evidence, whereby audiences reject the
evidence because they “know” it is wrong. When debaters find it necessary to
use counterintuitive evidence, they must demonstrate to the decision renderers

3. Thomas E. Radecki, “We Must Curb TV Violence,” USA Today, Oct. 24, 1988,
p. A10.

130 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

that their experts’ credentials are superior and that their experts’ evidence is more
recent. They also have to supply other good reasons why the counterintuitive
evidence—evidence inconsistent with other known evidence—should be ac-
cepted in the particular case.

Psycho-facts are related to intuitive and counterintuitive evidence.
Economist Robert Samuelson defines psycho-facts as “beliefs that, though not
supported by hard evidence, are taken as real because their constant repetition
changes the way we experience life.”4 For example, many people believe that
asbestos in schools poses a health hazard to schoolchildren. But as Supreme
Court Justice Stephen Breyer showed, the asbestos panic was a costly mistake.5

Samuelson noted that the risk of police dying on the job is 1 in 4,500, the risk of
dying from an airplane crash is 1 in 167,000, and the risk of dying from lightning
is 1 in 2 million—while the risk of dying from asbestos in schools is 1 in 11
million. (All data are annual.)

Advocates should not disregard evidence simply because it is inconsistent
with other known evidence or considered counterintuitive. Many beliefs now
widely held were once considered counterintuitive. However, the advocate
should recognize that this evidence has to be considered especially carefully.
The advocate must be prepared to have the evidence attacked by opponents
and must anticipate possible audience resistance. In most fields, of course, some
known evidence is available on either side of a proposition. For example, with
regard to trends in the stock market, there is probably some evidence indicating a
rise and some indicating a decline.

D. Evidence Consistent Within Itself

Advocates should study the evidence carefully and determine whether it is con-
sistent within itself. For example, in debating the proposition “Resolved: That
United States law enforcement agencies should be given significantly greater
freedom in the investigation and/or prosecution of felony crime,” some affirma-
tive debaters cited evidence of an alarming increase in the number of rapes (go-
ing on to argue that the affirmative’s plan for a change in the way rape trials were
conducted was necessary). Well-prepared negative debaters turned to the same
source and quoted the following:

The rates are for reported crimes only. In many cases society’s attitude
about a crime is a significant factor in whether or not it will be reported.
Rape is a classic example; only a few years ago the woman was assumed
“to have asked for it” and vast numbers of women were too ashamed to
report the crime. Today Rape Crisis Centers are widely available to help
and counsel the victim; “date rape,” a term unheard of until recently, is
now a recognized phenomenon.

4. Robert J. Samuelson, “The Triumph of the Psycho-Fact,” Newsweek, May 9, 1994,
p. 73.
5. Stephen Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle Toward Effective Risk Regulation (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 26.

I I . T E STS OF CRED IBLE EV IDENCE 131

Thus, while the statistical tables did show an increase in the crime of rape,
the text of the document itself contained a serious disclaimer about the accuracy
of the statistics. The evidence was not consistent within itself. The negative ar-
gued that the increased reporting proved that women were now willing to go to
trial and that the affirmative’s plan to change the way rape trials were conducted
was unnecessary.

Here’s another example: A group campaigning for a higher tax rate for a
local school district issued a pamphlet in which they maintained that the addi-
tional revenue would go for increased teachers’ salaries—an increase they argued
was necessary to maintain quality education in the school district (quality educa-
tion was a popular issue in this school district). Examination of the proposed
budget printed in the pamphlet, however, showed that most of the additional
tax revenue would go for the purchase of additional school buses and to pay
bus drivers and bus maintenance workers (busing was an unpopular issue in this
school district).

A newspaper editor’s nightmare may be found in the following example,
which appeared in a major metropolitan newspaper:

U.S. Report Riles Currency Market

Yen Falls to Post-War Low on News from Treasury

WASHINGTON—The dollar fell to a post–World War II low against
the yen yesterday after the U.S. Treasury issued a report saying a strong
yen would help reduce the swelling U.S. trade deficit with Japan.

Clearly the headlines and the text of the story are inconsistent with one
another.

E. Verifiable Evidence

Advocates must always be able to verify their evidence—that is, authenticate,
confirm, and substantiate it. In gathering evidence advocates should carefully
check evidence against other sources to satisfy themselves about its validity before
presenting it, and they should present whatever supporting evidence may be
necessary to their audience. They should also carefully identify the source of
their evidence so that those who render the decision can verify it themselves if
they wish. For example, in a debate on economic policy, a speaker might say,
“According to Newsweek, December 26, inflation fell from 13 percent to 4 per-
cent during the last eight years.” The audience could then consult Newsweek and
verify that the magazine did make that statement. In most debates this would
probably be enough to establish the claim about the budget. If the audience
were skeptical or doubted the magazine’s accuracy, the speaker might want to
offer a further opportunity for verification by citing the appropriate fiscal-year
reports of the Treasury Department’s Office of Management and Budget or the
appropriate Economic Reports of the President. Verification of a claim, of course, is
more impressive if one can demonstrate that various independent sources verify
the claim. (We discuss cumulative evidence in a later section.)

132 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

Caution: Some evidence from databases is easily verifiable; other such evi-
dence is highly perishable and may be impossible to verify. Suppose, for exam-
ple, that the critical piece of evidence in a debate is a quotation from last week’s
Wall Street Journal. The affirmative has a printout of the quote; the negative chal-
lenges the accuracy of the printout. If the matter is really crucial, the judge can
call up the quotation on a computer and determine the accuracy of the affirma-
tive’s printout. If, however, the quotation in question is from a week-old com-
ment on a computer bulletin board, it will probably be impossible to verify.
Such comments are routinely deleted after 48 hours. Thus we offer this admoni-
tion: Never use evidence that cannot be verified.

F. Competent Source of Evidence

Advocates must determine whether the source of the evidence is actually quali-
fied to testify on the matter at issue. When the source of evidence is a layperson,
the following tests should be applied.

1. Did the witness have an opportunity to observe the matter in question? A popular
journalist once spent a week in Cuba and on his return wrote an article
entitled “Castro’s Secret Plans for Central America.” One might reasonably
ask if the writer, who was an experienced journalist but a layperson on
matters of foreign policy and espionage, actually had an opportunity to learn
about secret decisions made by a tightly controlled totalitarian regime.

2. Was the witness physically capable of observing the matter in question? A trial wit-
ness once claimed that he would be able to identify a robber he had seen at a
distance of approximately 100 yards, yet he was unable to read a clock in the
courtroom 30 yards from the witness stand. One might reasonably ask if the
witness was physically capable of seeing the person he claimed he saw.

3. Was the witness mentally capable of reporting his or her observations? A defendant
at a certain trial testified in great detail about the routine events of a business
day five years earlier, but he was unable to recall any details of other business
days at approximately the same time. One might reasonably ask if the wit-
ness was mentally capable of recalling all of the details he claimed he
remembered.

A person’s power of observation may be influenced by circumstances sur-
rounding the event. A standard psychology class experiment involves two indi-
viduals who rush into the classroom, fight, and then rush out. When asked to
describe the incident, students often give widely differing reports. We must
know, too, whether the witness had any interest in making a mental effort to
observe and remember the event. How many people attended last year’s com-
mencement ceremonies at your college? Ask a few people who were present.
Probably very few made any effort to count the audience.

When the source of evidence is an expert, the following tests would be ap-
plied in addition to the tests applicable to a lay witness.

I I . T E STS OF CRED IBLE EV IDENCE 133

4. Does the witness have official signs of respectability? If claiming to be a physician,
does the witness have a medical degree? If claiming to be an economist does
the person have a doctorate in that field? In other words, does the witness
have expert credentials? The fact that a physician has all the proper creden-
tials of a surgeon does not, of course, guarantee that the operation will be a
success. However, even though some persons without proper credentials
have performed successful surgery, few of us would care to entrust our lives
to an amateur brain surgeon.

5. Is the witness well regarded by other authorities? If an expert witness is highly
regarded by others in the field in which he or she claims special competence,
then the opinions have added weight. If a physician is an officer of the ap-
propriate medical associations, is accredited in a specialty, has presented pa-
pers at medical conventions, and is a professor of medicine at an accredited
medical school, then it is reasonable to conclude that this person is well re-
garded by other authorities in medicine. Advocates should look for similar
signs of professional regard for other types of experts.

G. Unprejudiced Source of Evidence

Advocates must determine whether the source of evidence is prejudiced. In
many cases people testify about matters in which they have an interest, and in
some cases those who have a personal stake in the matter are the only witnesses
available. Are these individuals free from prejudice? Do they report matters ob-
jectively, or do they slant them in a manner favorable to their own interests? The
advocate must determine whether the witness has an interest in the matter at
issue and whether this interest is likely to influence his or her testimony.

Traditionally presidents are evaluated after their first 100 days in office.
When President Clinton reached that landmark, one major city newspaper ran
the front-page headline “Clinton Has Good Marks for His First 100 Days.”
Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? The critical question, of course, is who gave
Clinton the good marks? The first paragraph of the story gave the answer:
“President Clinton acknowledged yesterday that he had underestimated the
power of the Republicans who killed his jobs bill but gave himself good marks
overall for his first 100 days in office.” Obviously Clinton is not an unprejudiced
source of evidence on the question of how he did in his first 100 days in office. If
students were permitted to assign their own grades, membership in Phi Beta
Kappa would grow by several thousand percent.

In the famous Rodney King case in Los Angeles, King was arrested for
speeding and resisting arrest and was taken to a hospital after being beaten by
the police. King charged police brutality. The police responded that he was re-
sisting arrest and that they had to use reasonable force to restrain him. Another
man, who had no connection with King or the police and who just happened to
witness the arrest, videotaped the event. The tape was the crucial piece of evi-
dence in this case. In the lengthy legal proceedings that followed this incident,
two different juries interpreted the incident differently. No one, however, chal-

134 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

lenged the fact that the man who videotaped the event was unprejudiced. Note
also that this is an example of casual evidence (see Chapter 6). The man with the
camcorder did not set out to collect crucial evidence; he was merely trying out a
newly acquired gadget.

Whenever possible, it is best to seek out evidence from an unprejudiced
source. The reluctant witness is the witness who furnishes evidence against his or
her own interests or prejudices. This evidence, of course, is even stronger than
that from a disinterested source. For example, throughout his long fight against
impeachment, President Nixon had counted on Republican loyalists who had
ably defended him in the House Judiciary Committee proceedings. When new
evidence was released after the committee hearings concluded, Nixon at first
glossed over its importance. But within hours of the release of the transcripts,
all Republican members of the committee indicated that the new facts “were
legally sufficient to sustain at least one count against the president” and that
they would vote for impeachment. Apparently this reluctant reversal of their
previous position was a major factor in convincing Nixon his case was hopeless.
Three days later he resigned.

H. Reliable Evidence

Advocates must determine whether the source of evidence is trustworthy. Does
the source have a reputation for honesty and accuracy in similar matters?
Presidential elections afford interesting examples of the reliability of sources of
evidence. Official results of presidential elections are not known until several
days after the election. But the national news services have established such a
reputation for reliability in reporting results that we invariably accept and act
on their unofficial returns, which are announced the night of or the day follow-
ing the election. While the final result of the 2000 election was long delayed, the
media coverage of the historic court battles was generally considered to be reli-
able. Similarly the polls predicting the results of presidential elections have earned
a reputation for accuracy and are generally considered to be reliable evidence.
By contrast, evidence offered by the candidates themselves predicting the out-
come of elections is notoriously unreliable. Typically front-runners in the polls
will downplay the importance of the polls for fear their supporters will become
overconfident and fail to turn out the vote, which could lead to a defeat.
Candidates who are trailing in the polls also minimize the importance of the pre-
dictions for fear their supporters will become discouraged and fail to turn out to
vote, leading to a crushing defeat.

If advocates can demonstrate that the source of their evidence is reliable, they
increase the credibility of that evidence. If they can demonstrate that the source of
their opponent’s evidence is not reliable, they have cast doubt on that evidence.

I. Relevant Evidence

Advocates must determine whether the evidence is actually related to the matter at
issue. Sometimes evidence is offered that is not relevant to the issue or that only

I I . T E STS OF CRED IBLE EV IDENCE 135

seems to be relevant. For instance, the popular phone-in polls using the 900 area
code generate dubious evidence. The public is asked to call different numbers to
register yes or no votes, or to express preferences for different candidates. The defi-
ciency is that only those who feel strongly enough to pay for this toll call are likely
to phone in, and, of course, those who feel very strongly can make multiple calls—
not exactly relevant evidence of how the general public would vote.

J. Statistically Sound Evidence

Occasionally advocates may find it necessary to use evidence in the form of statis-
tics; however, such evidence should be introduced into a speech only when abso-
lutely necessary. President Reagan, for example—who could draw on all the
resources of the federal government for statistical evidence—would use statistics
in a speech only if he could not make his point without them. When he did use
statistics, he would “round off” and simplify the figures and dramatize them as
much as possible. This is a sound practice for all speakers to follow, because most
audiences find statistics uninteresting, difficult to follow, and easy to forget.
Statistical evidence is always prepared by someone, is almost always written evi-
dence, and is usually expert or allegedly expert; it is therefore subject to the usual
tests of evidence. Strictly speaking, there are no special tests for statistics that are not
implied in the other tests of evidence. However, because the form of statistical evi-
dence is specialized, certain tests will help advocates evaluate this evidence.

1. Have Accurate Statistics Been Collected? Many people are reluctant to
appear socially unacceptable or uninformed. When a pollster calls, they tend to
give what they think is a socially acceptable response—they say they intend
to vote when they don’t, offer what they believe to be less controversial opi-
nions, or express some arbitrary view to cover up their ignorance of an issue.
In one study almost a third of the respondents offered an opinion when asked
about the nonexistent “Public Affairs Act.” With regard to phone surveys, it
should be noted that women answer the phone 70 percent of the time. A poll
that doesn’t take this into account by making extra calls to get enough men is
likely to be skewed. Advocates have to search for evidence that will establish the
accuracy of the statistics collected.

2. Have the Statistics Been Classified Accurately? If you want the best place
to go skiing, what do you look for? The folks at Rand McNally ignored
Colorado’s world-class resort areas in their list of the 10 best cities for skiing,
ranking Detroit first, Los Angeles second, and Akron-Canton, Ohio, third.
“This is insane!” protested Colorado ski resort owners. Six of their state’s ski re-
sorts are among the nation’s 10 busiest, with Vail the top pick of skiers. But the
author of Sports Places Rated: Ranking America’s Best Places to Enjoy Sports said the
rankings made “perfect sense.” They were based on federally defined metropoli-
tan statistical areas, and all of Colorado’s world-class ski resorts are just out-
side such areas. The scoring was based on the total ski lift capacity within the
metropolitan area where the city was located. Detroit has five ski areas in its

136 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

three-county metropolitan area, but none of them are on mountains. Should we
classify the best places for skiing by chairlift capacity in metropolitan statistical
areas or by the size of the slopes?

Students debating a proposition on direct foreign economic aid learned the
importance of accurate classification of statistics. Some sources listed foreign aid
expenditures as amounting to billions of dollars; others listed these expenditures
as $700 million, $500 million, or other amounts. The difference depended on
how the person preparing the statistics classified military aid, defense support,
technical assistance, and other types of aid.

3. Has the Sampling Been Accurate? The ratings of television programs are
based on such tiny samples that some congressional observers wonder if they are
not meaningless. Some statisticians claim they can predict a presidential election
with only a few thousand respondents—if they have just the right proportion of
urban residents, farmers, northerners, women, African Americans, college gradu-
ates, manual laborers, naturalized citizens, and so on.

Getting such a representative sample, however, is difficult. Many pollsters
would rather interview prosperous-looking people who live in good residential
areas than go into the slums to find the requisite number of unskilled laborers.
Some ghetto dwellers view pollsters as representatives of “the Establishment” and
refuse to reply to questions or give misleading answers. A number of psychologi-
cal studies are based on responses given by college sophomores—mainly because
many sophomores are enrolled in psychology classes, and it is convenient to test
them. But are college sophomores representative of the general public?

4. Have the Units Been Accurately Defined? A kilowatt-hour is a reasonably
well-defined unit, but what is a “workweek”? Students debating a proposition
on guaranteed annual wages discovered that there are many different definitions
for this term. When Russia ordered an army division into Chechnya, some ob-
servers, thinking of the awesome Red Army divisions of the Cold War era, ex-
pected that the rebellion would be crushed in a few days. The Russian army
divisions, however, were not the same units as their predecessors, and the mili-
tary campaign was a fiasco. Even such seemingly familiar and easily understand-
able units as “the family” require accurate definition: That unit is defined one
way for tax purposes, another way in housing statistics, and in still other ways
in other statistics.

5. Are the Data Statistically Significant? Almost any set of statistics will show
certain variations. Are the variations significant? Statistical differences are consid-
ered significant only if the sample is sufficiently large and representative, and if
allowance has been made for the necessary margin of error, seasonal fluctuations,
and other factors. If one student scores 120 on an IQ test and another student
scores 121, the difference is not statistically significant. If you toss a coin 10 times
and it comes up heads 8 times, the result is not statistically significant. Figures
showing the extent of unemployment in December and June are not significant
unless seasonal differences have been taken into account.

I I . T E STS OF CRED IBLE EV IDENCE 137

6. Is the Base of the Percentage Reasonable? Whenever statistical evidence is
reported in percentages, the advocate must discover the base from which the
percentage was determined. Has the value of the American dollar gone up or
down? It all depends on the date used as the base. During the Summer
Olympics in Los Angeles in 1984, things were so peaceful that the police insisted
that crime in certain sections had somehow dropped 250 percent. Newsweek
noted wryly, “Anything over 100 percent seems to imply that some lawbreakers
had switched to performing good deeds.”

7. Do the Visual Materials Report the Data Fairly? Statistical evidence is
often reported in visual form. Visual materials are helpful in overcoming audi-
ence apathy toward statistics and, when prepared correctly, in clarifying complex
data. However, visual materials can distort statistical evidence. Therefore the ad-
vocate must determine whether the various charts, diagrams, and other visual
materials really interpret the data fairly. For example, assume that the following
figures for the production of widgets are absolutely accurate:

Now consider the graphs in the box on page 139 and the way they slant these
figures. In the first two the choice of units for the vertical axis of the graph pro-
duces two quite different pictures; in the third one the height of each bar is rea-
sonably accurate, but a distorted picture is created by using a much wider bar for
Japan. The caption above each graph adds to the distortion.

These few simple examples only begin to suggest the possibility of distortion
in visual materials. Advocates should carefully examine each visual aid presented
in the argument to determine whether it accurately represents the data.

8. Is Only Reasonable Precision Claimed for the Statistics? If greater pre-
cision is attributed to the statistics than they deserve, it may lead to unwarranted
conclusions. How many battered women are there in the United States? Time
reported that 4 million American women are assaulted by a “domestic partner”
each year. Newsweek reported that the number of women beaten by “husbands,
ex-husbands and boyfriends” was 2 million a year. As Newsweek noted, this is
terrible. Not only because of the implication that either Time or Newsweek is
wrong by a factor of 2, but because the divergence reflects society’s actual state
of ignorance on such an important and theoretically verifiable statistic. Nor is this
a problem unique to the question of how many men beat their wives. Great
issues of public policy are being debated by people who have no idea what
they’re talking about.6 Both Time and Newsweek acted in good faith and used

United States Japan

Last year 1,000,000 5,000

This year 1,010,000 10,000

6. “The Numbers Game,” Newsweek, July 25, 1994, p. 56.

138 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

credible sources. The problem was that even apparently credible sources can ar-
rive at widely different statistical conclusions.

In their desire to satisfy the demand for quantification, journalists, legislative
reference clerks, supposedly serious scholars, special interest groups, and others

Visual Materials: Examples

United States

0
500,000

1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000

2005.5 2006 2006.5 2007 2007.5

U
n

it
s

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

U.S. Japan

%
In

cr
ea

se

2007

U.S. Widget Production Skyrockets

U.S. Widget Production Levels Off

Series 1

Japanese Widget Production Gains Dwarf U.S.

1,012,000
1,010,000
1,008,000
1,006,000
1,004,000
1,002,000
1,000,000

998,000
996,000
994,000

2006 2007

I I . T E STS OF CRED IBLE EV IDENCE 139

often provide us with “imaginary numbers.”7 Thus we should view with a
healthy suspicion statistics that come from sources less interested in precisely
measuring a given problem than in showing that it’s even worse than anyone
thought. “People who want to influence public policy have a real strong feeling
that the end justifies the means,” says Cynthia Crossen, a Wall Street Journal re-
porter and author.8

Consider the following examples of imaginary numbers that have appeared
in the media:

Estimates of the number of homeless range from 223,000 to 7 million.

A U.S. senator announced that 50,000 children are abducted by strangers
each year. A Department of Justice study found fewer than 5,000
stranger abductions a year.

One source claimed that 150,000 women die annually of anorexia. Another
source reported there are 150,000 cases of anorexia a year, almost none
of them fatal.

The American Medical Association announced that family violence kills
nearly 10,000 women a year. An FBI report found that a total of 4,000
women were murdered a year.

Crossen noted that the “Survey of Childhood Hunger in the United States”
offered as its “key finding” that 11.5 million American children under
age 12 were either hungry or “at risk” of hunger. The “at-risk” cate-
gory is often a fruitful one for social action groups seeking to magnify a
problem. The term at risk can easily be defined to raise or lower the
number by several million.

When you read about such wide discrepancies in the statistics on such important
matters as these, do you wish you could find the truth of the matter?

9. Are the Data Interpreted Reasonably? Sometimes “the thing speaks for
itself” and no interpretation is necessary.9 Usually, however, someone reports
the data and draws conclusions from them—and that someone may support a

7. This term is used here to indicate numbers that come from the writer’s imagination,
with little or no warrant from the real world. In higher mathematics an imaginary number
is a multiple of the square root of –1.
8. “The Numbers Game,” p. 57.
9. The legal maxim is res ipsa loquitur. A classic example would be a surgical operation, af-
ter which a sponge is found in the patient’s abdomen. The patient, who was under anes-
thesia at the time, cannot testify that the surgeon did anything wrong. Usually there are
no witnesses to the wrongdoing; if any of the other physicians or nurses present at the
operation had noticed the error, they would have told the surgeon, who would have
corrected the situation before the incision was closed. The plaintiff’s lawyer would argue
res ipsa loquitur: Sponges simply are not supposed to be left in a patient’s abdomen; there-
fore the surgeon must have done wrong. The res ipsa loquitur argument, although power-
ful in this case, is not necessarily conclusive. Now, however, the surgeon’s lawyer would
have the burden of proving that the sponge had somehow been introduced into the pa-
tient’s abdomen by some other surgeon at some other time.

140 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

particular point of view. For example, assume that the following figures on the
cost of widgets are absolutely accurate:

With these data before them, the advocates maymake a number of accurate but
different statements. On the one hand they might say, “The price of widgets has
increased by 70 cents in eight months.” Or they might say, “The price of widgets
soared a staggering 70 percent in runaway inflation in just eight months.” On the
other hand, the advocatesmight take amore sanguine view and say, “Lastmonth the
price of widgets rose only 6.2 percent.”Or they might report, “Inflation is ending;
for the sixth consecutive month there has been a decreasing rate of increase in the
cost of widgets.”

As another example, consider which is safer, travel by air or travel by car?
The statistical method favored by the airlines examines passenger-miles traveled.
To reach this figure, multiply the number of passengers in a plane or car by the
number of miles flown or driven by each vehicle. Viewed this way, scheduled
commercial airline travel had 0.06 deaths for each 100 million passenger-miles
flown in the most recent 10-year period; cars had 2 fatalities for each 100 million
passenger-miles driven in the same period. This suggests that commercial air-
planes are 33 times safer than cars.

However, if you prefer driving to flying, you might prefer the vehicle-miles
method, which completely ignores how many people are in the vehicle. Viewed
this way, commercial airplanes had 6.6 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles,
while cars had only 3 fatalities for each 100 million vehicle-miles. This method
suggests that cars are more than twice as safe as commercial airplanes.

Clearly the advocate should review statistical data in as much detail as possi-
ble and determine if the interpretation is reasonable or if other equally reasonable
interpretations are possible.

10. Are the Questions Unbiased? Even polls taken by highly regarded pro-
fessional pollsters at almost the same time can produce dramatically different re-
sults depending on how the question is phrased. USA Today provided a striking

Month
Cost of
Widgets

Increase (%)
from January

Increase (%) from
Previous Month

January $1.00 — —

February $1.10 10 10.0

March $1.20 20 9.6

April $1.30 30 9.1

May $1.40 40 7.8

June $1.50 50 7.1

July $1.60 60 6.7

August $1.70 70 6.2

I I . T E STS OF CRED IBLE EV IDENCE 141

example of this. In a poll taken by Lou Harris Associates, commissioned by
Planned Parenthood, the question was:

Do you favor or oppose that Supreme Court decision preventing clinic
doctors and medical personnel from discussing abortion in family plan-
ning clinics that receive federal funds?

Oppose
Favor
Not sure

65%
33%
2%

In a poll taken by the Wirthin Group, partly paid for by the National Right to
Life Committee, the question was:

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled the federal government is not
required to use taxpayer funds for family planning programs to perform,
counsel, or refer for abortion as a method of family planning. Do you
favor or oppose this ruling?

Favor
Oppose
Don’t know/refuse

48%
48%
4%

Even so seemingly a minor change as using or not using a married woman’s
maiden name may produce a significant change in the public’s perception of her.
GOP pollster Fabrizio McLaughlin found that Americans gave “Hillary Clinton”
a favorable/unfavorable rating of 56.8 percent to 25.6 percent, while “Hillary
Rodham Clinton” got 49.4 percent to 30.6 percent—almost a 13 percent differ-
ence.10 Guess how GOP politicians referred to former President Clinton’s wife
thereafter.

The perspective, or spin, given to a question may have a profound effect
on the response elicited (see the Chapter 15 section “Emphasis”). We might be
surprised and worried if the same person expressed radically different judgments
depending on how the question was put to him or her. Yet that happens fre-
quently. For example, a group of doctors was asked:

Imagine that the United States is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual
disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to
combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific
estimate of the consequences of the program is as follows: If program A is
adopted, 200 lives will be saved. If program B is adopted, there is a ⅓
probability that 600 people will be saved and a ⅓ probability that no
people will be saved. Which of the two programs do you favor?

The vast majority of doctors (72 percent) opted for program A. Another
group of doctors was given the same “cover story” as the first, but they were
asked to choose among the following alternatives:

10. Time, Apr. 5, 1993, p. 15.

142 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

If program C is adopted, 400 people will die. If program D is adopted,
there is a ⅓ probability that nobody will die, and a ⅔ probability that
600 people will die. Which of the two programs do you favor?

Only 22 percent of the doctors opted for program C. The odd thing is that
C is merely a different way of phrasing A.11 And D, of course, is only a different
way of phrasing B. So the spin can really make a difference. Advocates should be
aware of spin control and give careful consideration to how the question is
phrased.

11. Are the Statistics Meaningful to the Audience? Tournament debaters
speak of millions, billions, and trillions as casually as if they were members of
the House Appropriations Committee. This is accepted in tournament debates,
because the evidence is usually familiar to all. Before a general public audience,
however, an effort must be made to make these numbers meaningful to the lay-
person. Consider this example:

It takes only about 11½ days for a million seconds to tick away, whereas
almost 32 years are required for a billion seconds to pass. And a trillion?
The Neanderthal man finally disappeared about a trillion seconds ago.
Thus when we speak of $2 trillion, we’re talking the dollar equivalent
of twice the length of the existence of human-kind, compared with the
11½ days worth of dollars most of us aspire to win in the lottery.12

As we saw earlier, statistics may be interpreted in a number of ways.
Naturally the advocate will want to put a favorable spin on the statistics (again,
see the Chapter 15 section “Emphasis”). When columnist George Will opposed
legislation that would have put a limit on the amount of money that could be
spent on political campaigns, he deprecated the proposal by saying that “in 1992
congressional races involved a sum equal to 40 percent of what Americans spent
on yogurt.”13 Most Americans spend only a trivial sum for yogurt—and 40 per-
cent of trivial really is inconsequential. Thus Will’s spin suggested that there was
hardly any need for the legislation he opposed.

K. The Most Recent Evidence

Old evidence may sometimes be more valuable than recent evidence. If we want
to know certain facts about the voyage of the Mayflower, a document dating from
1620 may be more valuable than one dating from 1920. A map made in A.D.
1000 was important evidence supporting the claim of many scholars that Leif

11. Leo Katz, Bad Acts and Guilty Minds: Conundrums of the Criminal Law (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 4–5.
12. Molly Ivins, “Getting It Sort of Right—By the Numbers,” Cleveland Plain Dealer,
Apr. 30, 1993, p. C6.
13. George Will, “So, We Talk Too Much?” Newsweek, June 28, 1993, p. 68.

I I . T E STS OF CRED IBLE EV IDENCE 143

Erikson’s Norsemen reached Labrador, the New England coast, and Martha’s
Vineyard long before Columbus “discovered” the New World.

Often, however, the most recent evidence is the best evidence. If the facts of
a situation can change, or if opinions about a certain matter tend to be revised,
we want the most recent information available. For instance, this month’s
Bureau of the Census estimate of the population of the United States is more
valuable evidence of the size of the population than a report issued by the same
bureau a year ago.

In many cases more recent evidence, simply because it is more recent, is
enough to refute older evidence. In debates on the “mass media” proposition,
some affirmative teams called for a ban on the advertising of diet drinks contain-
ing saccharin. Their justification was that a several-year-old Canadian study indi-
cated a 60 percent greater risk of bladder cancer among saccharin users. The
value of this evidence sharply depreciated when, three-quarters of the way
through the debate session, a series of new studies appeared that reported “there
is no saccharin-induced epidemic of bladder cancer in this country” and that
people who use moderate amounts of saccharin “can be assured that their excess
risk of cancer, if present at all, is quite small and little cause for concern.” Because
new evidence is constantly appearing on matters that are likely to be subjects of
debate, advocates should make a special point of gathering the most recent evi-
dence and allowing for it in their case.

L. Cumulative Evidence

Although one piece of evidence is sometimes enough to support a point, advo-
cates are usually in a stronger position if they can offer several pieces of evidence
from different sources or of different types to substantiate their contentions. In
debates on the issue of nuclear power plant safety, for example, the opinion of
one eminent scientist might be offered to establish a certain contention. This
contention would be more firmly established, however, if the advocate could
show that the same conclusion was shared by, say, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Institute of Nuclear
Power Operations, and the National Academy of Sciences.

M. Critical Evidence

We may have much evidence, but do we have the critical evidence—the evi-
dence we really need in a particular situation? In many cases evidence made
available to us is distorted. That’s the reason the Food and Drug Administration
has phased in new regulations governing food labeling and advertising. Time
magazine reported the following:

Budget Gourmet Light and Healthy Salisbury Steak, which are labeled “low
fat,” derive 45% of its total calories from fat.

Diet Coke contains more than one heavily advertised calorie per can (so
does Diet Pepsi).

144 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

There is no real fruit—just fruit flavors—in Post Fruity Pebbles.

Honey Nut Cheerios provide less honey than sugar and more salt than nuts.

Mrs. Smith’s Natural Juice Apple Pie contains artificial preservatives. The
word natural refers to the fruit juice used to make the pie.

If you can’t trust Mrs. Smith, whom can you trust?14

In the Persian Gulf War the critical question for Iraq was where the coalition
would attack. General Norman Schwarzkopf provided ample evidence, in the
form of air and naval bombardment, that the attacks would come from the south
and the east. Saddam Hussein thus concentrated his forces to meet attacks from
these directions. While escalating the bombardment in the south and the east,
Schwarzkopf, in what he later called his “Hail Mary play,” moved more than
200,000 troops across as much as 300 miles of desert in 10 days without
Saddam Hussein’s knowledge and attacked on Iraq’s weak western flank.

I I I . TESTS OF AUDIENCE ACCEPTABIL I TY

In addition to tests of evidence credibility, the advocate must also apply tests of
audience acceptability. Some evidence that might appear credible may not be
acceptable to the audience; therefore the advocate must consider not only how
the audience views the credibility of the evidence but also the acceptability of
the evidence to the audience. The audience, of course, may be a single judge
in an academic debate, the whole voting population of the United States in a
presidential election, or any group of decision renderers. One method of audi-
ence analysis is considered in Chapter 15; only certain tests of audience accept-
ability are considered here. These tests can be stated in the form of questions (see
the accompanying inset on page 146). Let us now discuss these tests in detail.

A. Evidence Consistent with Audience Beliefs

A negative answer to the tests of evidence previously considered implies some
weakness in the evidence. A negative answer to the question of consistency
with audience beliefs, however, does not carry such an implication; obviously
advocates occasionally have to use evidence inconsistent with audience beliefs.
But when they use such evidence, advocates should anticipate audience resis-
tance to it and take steps to overcome this resistance. This means that they
must analyze their audiences and determine their beliefs on the various pieces
of evidence they plan to use. (Recall the discussion of intuitive and counterintu-
itive evidence.)

An excellent example of how the audience’s beliefs condition their response to
political candidates occurred in the 1988 presidential election. In the Democratic
primaries Michael Dukakis proudly boasted that he was “a card-carrying

14. Time, July 15, 1991, pp. 52–53.

I I I . T E STS OF AUD IENCE ACCEPTAB I L I TY 145

member of the American Civil Liberties Union.” The liberal Democrats who
voted in the primaries saw this as evidence that Dukakis’s views were consistent
with theirs. This evidence was credited with contributing to his winning the
nomination. But in the general election George Bush accused Dukakis of being “a
card-carrying member of the ACLU.” In the general election many more con-
servative voters saw this as evidence that Dukakis’s views were inconsistent with
theirs. This evidence was credited with contributing to Bush’s victory.

The importance of audience beliefs is not limited to political campaigns;
there are ardent partisans for nonpolitical issues as well. Experienced advocates
recognize that many audiences will contain partisans who will interpret evidence
from the point of view of their own beliefs. Advocates need to find evidence
that will be acceptable to as many members of the audience as possible.

B. Source Acceptable to the Audience

The level of source acceptability does not imply any weakness in the evidence
itself; rather, it indicates a problem advocates have to overcome. We know that
audiences tend to believe some sources more than others. If evidence comes
from a source that has high prestige in the minds of audience members, they
are likely to accept it automatically; if it comes from a source without special
prestige for the audience, it has to stand on its own merits; if it comes from a
source the audience has little or no respect for, it may be discredited regardless
of its intrinsic merits. Advocates, then, should try to use sources of evidence that
are acceptable to the audience. If they find it necessary to use sources with low
prestige, they must establish the credibility of the sources, at least in this special
case. When they find it absolutely essential to use sources the audience is hostile
to, they have to overcome this hostility.

An excellent example of this problem occurred when the proposition
“the federal government should control the supply and utilization of energy”

Questions for Testing Audience Acceptability

In general, affirmative answers to these questions indicate that the evidence will
probably be acceptable to audiences; negative answers indicate that it probably will
not be acceptable.

Is the evidence consistent with the beliefs of the audience?

Is the source of the evidence acceptable to the audience?

Is the evidence suited to the level of the audience?

Is the evidence consistent with the motives of the audience?

Is the evidence consistent with the norms of the audience?

Is the evidence documented for the audience?

146 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

was debated. When the Arabs embargoed oil and raised prices in the 1970s,
many parts of the country experienced serious shortages, and prices rose sharply.
How much of the shortage was due to the embargo? How much of the price
increase was caused by the increase in the price of imported oil? The oil compa-
nies had one answer; governmental agencies had another; consumer advocates
had a third answer. Which source would the audience believe? It depended al-
most entirely on the audience’s attitude toward the various sources. One debater
solved the problem by citing figures from consumer advocate Ralph Nader and
argued that, because even Nader admitted that imports were down X percent,
the audience should accept that figure as accurate. The proconsumer members of
the audience felt they had to agree with their hero; and the probusiness members
of the audience, while believing the actual figure to be much higher, were
pleased to see an old rival admit there was some truth on their side. As Carl
Hovland and his colleagues pointed out:

The debater, the author of scientific articles, and the news columnist all
bolster their contentions with quotations from figures of prestige.…
When acceptance is sought by using arguments in support of the advo-
cated view, the perceived expertness and trustworthiness of the com-
municator may determine the credence given them.… Sometimes a
communication presents only a conclusion, without supporting argu-
mentation, and its acceptance appears to be increased merely by attrib-
uting it to a prestigious or respected source.15

If, for example, advocates wished to cite certain evidence that had appeared
in the New York Times, National Geographic, Ladies Home Journal, and Field and
Stream, they would be well advised to cite the source with the highest prestige
for their audience. Hovland and colleagues found that the credibility of a mes-
sage seems related to the particular magazine in which it appears.16 Students de-
bating the “law enforcement” proposition found confirmation of this fact. Some
excellent articles relating to the proposition, written by highly regarded, well-
qualified sources, appeared in Playboy magazine. When the debater said, “As
Superintendent Parker said in last month’s Playboy …,” audiences usually inter-
rupted the quotation with chuckles. Apparently the audiences associated the
magazine more readily with the pictures of naked women for which it is famous
than with the quality articles it sometimes publishes. President Carter learned
that lesson when an interview he had granted appeared in Playboy shortly before
the presidential elections. The interview generated more negative publicity for
Carter than almost any other single incident in the campaign and led him rue-
fully to admit during the third television debate of the campaign, “If I should

15. Carl L. Hovland, Irving L. Janis, and Harold H. Kelley, “Credibility of the
Communicator,” in Dimensions in Communication, 2nd ed., ed. James H. Campbell and
Hal W. Hepler (Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth., 1970), p. 146.
16. Hovland, Janis, and Kelley, “Credibility of the Communicator,” p. 147.

I I I . T E STS OF AUD IENCE ACCEPTAB I L I TY 147

ever decide in the future to discuss my deep Christian beliefs … I’ll use another
forum besides Playboy.”17

C. Evidence Suited to Audience Level

It’s important that the evidence not be too technical or too sophisticated for the
audience to understand. In debates on the issue of nuclear power plant safety,
some of the primary evidence was so technical that it could be understood only
by a physics maven. When debating before lay audiences, the advocates were
forced to discard the primary evidence and turn to secondary evidence that
made approximately the same point in simpler terms. One debater summed up
such evidence by saying, “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand
that if a nuclear plant blows up, there goes the neighborhood—Maine, Vermont,
New Hampshire.”

D. Evidence Consistent with Audience Motives

Advocates occasionally have to use evidence not in keeping with the values and
attitudes of the audience. In these cases they should expect audience resistance.
Some advocates debating the “mass media” proposition used cases calling for re-
straints on publication of information about the identity of CIA agents (giving as
their justification that events in Iran and Afghanistan necessitated increased U.S.
intelligence-gathering capabilities). Some judges, thinking of earlier CIA abuses,
ignored the affirmative’s carefully qualified plan and said, “I simply cannot vote
to give the CIA unchecked powers.”

E. Evidence Consistent with Audience Norms

Certain audiences have well-defined norms for evaluating evidence, and the ad-
vocate must be aware of and adapt to these norms. Someone arguing a point of
law before a group of lawyers will find that they have definite ideas about how
legal arguments should be made. In the same way scientists, physicians, accoun-
tants, policymakers, philosophers, and others usually impose specific standards for
evaluating evidence. For example, the norms that a group of scientists imposes
on evidence used to establish a scientific hypothesis will be much more rigorous
than the data needed to establish a proposition before a lay audience.

F. Evidence Documented for the Audience

We saw earlier that evidence must be verifiable. To give the audience the op-
portunity to verify evidence, a speaker has to provide documentation within his
or her speech at the time of evidence presentation. In an academic debate the
judge expects this documentation, and a good debater will fulfill the judge’s ex-

17. See Paul F. Boller, Jr., Presidential Campaigns (New York: Oxford University Press,
1984), p. 352.

148 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

pectations. In fact, the National Debate Tournament, the American Debate
Association, the American Forensic Association, and the Cross Examination
Debate Association provide guidelines for ethical and fair use of debate evidence.
CEDA’s constitutional bylaw (bylaw XV, Section I-C of the CEDA
Constitution, revised March 7, 2007) is particularly clear:

C. Use of Debate Materials. The primary creation of argument and the
primary research effort in CEDA debate must be the student’s. Students
who rely on briefs written or evidence researched by faculty or graduate
assistants, on handbook evidence rather than library research, or mate-
rials and evidence traded among programs fall short of the goal of
maximizing their development as competent arguers and users of evi-
dence. Evidence plays a key role in debate. It is important, therefore,
that debaters use evidence responsibly. Responsible use of evidence in-
cludes accurate recording and documenting of material, as well as
avoidance of plagiarism, misrepresentation, distortion, or fabrication.
Debaters are responsible for the integrity of all the evidence they use.
Debaters should clearly identify and qualify, during their speeches, the
source of all the evidence they use. Omitting the source of evidence
denies opponents, judges and the audience the opportunity to evaluate
the quality of the information. Claiming another’s written or spoken
words as one’s own is plagiarism, a very serious offense against respon-
sible scholarship. Debaters should use only evidence which is in the
public domain and, hence, open to critical evaluation by others.
Debaters should not fabricate, distort, or misrepresent evidence. If evi-
dence is misrepresented, distorted, or fabricated, the conclusions drawn
from it are meaningless and ethically suspect. Fabrication of evidence
refers to falsely representing a cited fact or statement of opinion as evi-
dence when the material in question is not authentic. Distorted evi-
dence refers to misrepresenting the actual or implied content of the
factual or opinion evidence. In determining whether evidence has been
distorted, debaters should ask if the evidence deviates on the particular
point in question. Any such deviation should be avoided because such
alteration can give undue rhetorical force to an advocate’s argument.
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 quotations or paraphrases;

4. adding words to a quotation which were not present in the original
source of the evidence without identifying such as addition;

5. failure to provide within a reasonable time complete documentation of
the evidence [name of author(s), source of publication, full date, page
numbers, and author(s) credentials when available in original] when
challenged.

I I I . T E STS OF AUD IENCE ACCEPTAB I L I TY 149

To avoid any misunderstanding, the full source information should be presented
in the speech. As any student of communication theory knows, not only the de-
bate judge but the general public as well reacts to documentation. As Paul
Rosenthal points out:

Verifiability is the primary linguistic factor in enforcing a statement’s
credibility, not because the listener will verify the statement but because
he or anyone else can verify it.… This opens up the possibility that
measurement of the degree of verifiable content in a message may pro-
vide an index of its credibility to the receiver.18

An experimental study by Helen Fleshler and her colleagues led them to
conclude:

It is evident that message documentation was the primary variable that
determined evaluations of message and speaker. Concrete message doc-
umentation resulted in significantly more positive evaluations of the
message and the speaker.19

Here’s an example of how people respond to documentation: Peggy
Noonan, a speechwriter for Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, used
the image of “a thousand points of light” in the elder Bush’s acceptance speech.
The phrase captured the public’s imagination, and for months the media specu-
lated about its origin. Noonan described her reaction to a newspaper story about
the phrase:

C. S. Lewis had used the phrase “a thousand points of light” in one of
his science-fiction books, which did surprise me. I hadn’t read it, but I
assume the Times was right because it cited the page number of a specific edition,
a show of confidence that suggests the writer had the book in his hands as he
wrote. People ask me now if that’s where it came from. I say no.20

EXERC ISES

1. Find three advertisements in newspapers published during the past week in
which advertisers use evidence to support their arguments. Apply the ap-
propriate tests of evidence to the advertisements. Attach copies of the ads to
your paper.

18. Paul I. Rosenthal, “Specificity, Verifiability, and Message Credibility,” Quarterly
Journal of Speech, vol. 57 (Dec. 1971), p. 400. Italics in original.
19. Helen Fleshler, Joseph Ilardo, and Joan Demoretcky, “The Influence of Field
Dependence, Speaker Credibility Set, and Message Documentation on Evaluations of
Speaker and Message Credibility,” Southern Speech Communication Journal, vol. 39 (summer
1974), p. 400.
20. Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution (New York: Random House, 1990),
p. 313. Emphasis added.

150 CHAPTER 7 TESTS OF EV IDENCE

2. Find three editorials in newspapers published within the past week in which
the writer uses evidence to support his or her argument. Apply the appro-
priate tests of evidence to the editorials.

3. Find three examples of the use of statistical evidence in newspapers or
newsmagazines published during the past week. Apply the appropriate tests
of evidence to the statistics.

4. Find three examples of the use of graphic aids to present statistical evidence
in newspapers or newsmagazines published in the past week. Apply the ap-
propriate tests of evidence to the visual aids.

5. Prepare a three-minute speech for presentation in class in which you de-
velop an argument supported by carefully chosen evidence. Other class
members will be invited to apply the tests of evidence to see if your evi-
dence is sound. Prepare an outline of your speech in which you indicate the
types of evidence used, and give this outline to your instructor.

6. One point debates. Divide into teams of two. The first debater will make a
claim supported by evidence (select one of your cards blocked in the previ-
ous chapter). The second speaker (the opposing team) will challenge your
evidence applying the appropriate tests of evidence to discredit it. The third
speaker will defend the initial card against the challenges made, supporting
the original point, and the fourth debater will answer the arguments made
by the third debater.

EXERC I SES 151

8

The Structure of Reasoning

For centuries philosophers, rhetoricians, debaters, and others have been concerned
with the structure of reasoning. In this chapter we consider what are now the

two most common structures. We turn first to the structures of Aristotle, whose syl-
logism and enthymeme have been standard tools of reasoning for centuries and
are still the basis of much reasoning. Next we turn to a contemporary logician,
Stephen Toulmin, whose concept of the elements of any argument—claims,
grounds, warrants, backing, modal qualifications, and possible rebuttals—has come
into common use.

The formal structure of these methods of reasoning gives us special opportunities
to make astute analyses of lines of reasoning and to test their validity. The methods
and terminologies of both the classical and the contemporary structures are now
widely used in argumentation, and students should have a working knowledge of
both.

I . THE CLASS ICAL STRUCTURES

Two special forms of deductive reasoning are the syllogism and the enthymeme.
Plato was the student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle. Plato was also a
critic of rhetoric. He was suspicious of the power and influence of rhetoric over
unsophisticated people. He preferred the philosophical method of formal inquiry
known as “dialectic.” Dialectic, in which a question-response process is fol-
lowed, is guided by rules of formal logic in which interlocutors begin with a
set of questions in their search for answers and ultimately, truth. Rhetoric, which
involves uninterrupted argumentation or speech, begins with an answer and then
provides proof to persuade an audience of the probable truth of that answer.
Aristotle recognized the importance and value of both dialectic and rhetoric in
a democratic society, and argued that for the dialectical syllogism, there was the
counterpart of the rhetorical enthymeme. Both are useful to the debater in dif-
ferent ways.

152

✵

By understanding the structures of syllogism and enthymeme for the purpose
of analysis, we can apply the appropriate tests of formal validity and of rhetoric to
the reasoning we encounter as we explore a problem, to the reasoning we de-
velop for our own case, and to the reasoning we meet in our opponent’s case.

A. Syllogisms

Syllogisms are deductive forms of argument, proceeding from generalization to
specific application. We will discuss three types of syllogisms: (1) categorical, (2)
disjunctive, and (3) conditional. First, however, we should consider the structure
of all types of syllogisms. The syllogism is a systematic arrangement of
arguments:

Miniglossary

Backing Additional evidence and reasoning advanced to support a warrant.

Categorical syllogism A syllogism in which the major premise is an unqualified
proposition. Such propositions are characterized by words like all, every, each,
and any, either directly expressed or clearly implied.

Claim The conclusion we seek to establish by our arguments.

Conditional syllogism A syllogism in which the major premise deals with un-
certain or hypothetical events. Usually identified by if, assuming, supposing, or
similar terms, either expressly stated or clearly implied. Also known as a hypo-
thetical syllogism.

Disjunctive syllogism A syllogism in which the major premise contains mutually
exclusive alternatives. Usually indicated by such words as either, or, neither, nor,
but, and although, either expressly stated or clearly implied.

Enthymeme (1) A truncated syllogism, in which one of the premises or the
conclusion is not stated. (2) A syllogism based on probability, signs, and exam-
ples, whose function is rhetorical persuasion. Its successful construction is ac-
complished through the joint efforts of speaker and audience.

Grounds Evidence and reasoning advanced to establish the foundation of a
claim.

Modal qualification The degree of cogency we attach to our claim.

Rebuttal Evidence and reasoning introduced to weaken or destroy another’s
claim.

Syllogism A systematic arrangement of arguments consisting of a major prem-
ise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.

Warrant Evidence and reasoning advanced to justify the move from grounds to
claim.

I . THE CLASS ICAL STRUCTURES 153