Evidence defined. Debaters are responsible for the validity
of all evidence they introduce in the debate. Evidence includes, but is not
limited to: facts, expert’s opinion, statistics, or examples attributable to a
specific, identifiable, authoritative source used to support a claim.
Unattributed ideas are the opinion of the student competitor and are not
evidence.
Oral source citation. In all debate events, debaters are
expected to, at a minimum, orally deliver the following when introducing
evidence in a debate round: author’s name (last), source, and year of
publication. Should two or more quotations be used from the same source, the
author, the source, and the year must be given orally only for the first piece
of evidence from that source. Subsequently, only the author’s name is required.
Written source citation. In all debate events, debaters are
expected to have and be able to provide all information required by full MLA or
APA citations, in addition to the qualifications of the author, for any evidence
they introduce into the debate round. Internet-based sources must also include
the title of the website, database, or access point; the date accessed; and the
web address. The additional citation required for online sources must appear on
all evidence, but need not be read.
Paraphrasing, authoritative source versus general
understanding. Evidence attributed to an authoritative source, whether quoted
or paraphrased, will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy. For
example, if a debater references a specific theory by a specific author, s/he
must meet this standard. However, if a debater speaks about a general concept
without attributing it to an authoritative source, that would not constitute
evidence. [Example: If a debater were to reference “social contract theory” in
general, a source citation is not required. However, if s/he references John
Locke’s social contract theory, evidence citation would need to be available.]
Ellipses prohibited. In all debate events, the use of
internal ellipsis (…) is prohibited unless it is a replication of the original
document. Debaters may omit the reading of certain words; however, the text
that is verbally omitted must be present in the text of what was read for
opposing debaters and/or judges to examine. The portions of the evidence read
including where the debater begins and ends must be clearly marked as outlined
in 7.1(g)(2).
Availability of original source. The original source or copy
of the relevant pages of evidence read in round must be available to the
opponent during and/or after the round. Additionally, the original source and/
or copy of the relevant pages must be available for the judge after the round,
if requested. In all debate events, for reference, any evidence that is
presented during the round must be made available to the opponent during the
round if requested.
Distinguishing between what parts of each piece of evidence
are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, debaters must
mark their evidence in two ways:
A. Oral delivery of each piece of evidence must be
identified by a clear oral pause or by saying “quote/ unquote.” The use of
“quote/unquote” is definitive and may be preferable to debaters. Clear oral
pauses are left solely to the discretion of the judge.
B. The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the
portions read in the debate. In the written text, the standard practices of
underlining or highlighting what is read, and/or minimizing what is unread, is
definitive and may be preferable to debaters. The clarity of other means of
marking evidence is left to the discretion of the judge.
Private communication prohibited. Private, personal
correspondence or communication with an author is inadmissible as evidence.
“Distortion” exists when the evidence itself contains added
and/or deleted word(s) which are not meant to clarify the author’s intent, but
alter the point the author is establishing (e.g., deleting the word ‘may’;
replacing ‘may’ with ‘will’; deleting ‘not’; adding the word ‘not’; and so-on).
Additionally, failure to bracket added words would be considered serious
distortion of evidence.
. “Non-existent evidence” means:
A. The debater(s) reading the evidence is unable to provide
the original source or copy of the relevant pages within 20 minutes of a
request by the judge or tournament official following the completion of the
round.
B. The evidence cited is not located in the original source
cited.
3. “Misrepresentation” occurs when:
A. Debaters claim the conclusion of the author is different
than its original intent;
B. Use of a “straw man” argument to indicate the argument is
the actual conclusion of the author;
C. Exaggeration of an author’s claim substantially changes
the impact of conclusion;
D. The debater claims to have read the complete text of
highlighted evidence when, in fact, the debater skips or omits portions of
evidence (e.g., clipping).
Technical violations” occur when a debater fails to meet one
or more of his/her responsibilities as outlined
in 7.1(b) (“oral source citation”), 7.1(c) (“written source
citation”), 7.1(e) (“ellipses prohibited”), 7.1(f) (“availability of original
source”), 7.1(g) (“distinguishing between what parts of each piece of evidence
are and are not read in a particular round”) and 7.1(h) (“private communication
prohibited”).
Judges are responsible for resolving disputes between
debaters regarding source citations and marking of evidence (technical
violations as outlined in 7.2(d)), exaggeration of evidence (as defined by
7.2(c)(3)), and “clipping” in the round (as defined by 7.2(c)(4)).
The judges’ decision in all of the above violations may not
be appealed, unless a rule has been ignored and/ or misinterpreted. An appeal
has to be presented in writing to the tabulation room within 20 minutes of the
conclusion of the tournament’s debate round by a coach or school-affiliated
representative. The appeal needs to specify which rule was in question in the
round, and how the judge ignored and/or misinterpreted the rule. The 20-minute
time period begins once the last ballot from all rounds (if flighted, both
flights) has been collected by the tab room. The ruling of the District
Committee is final. If the District Committee determines the judge has
misinterpreted a rule and mistakenly awarded a debater a loss, the District
Committee shall award a double-win in that debate.
Evidence violations involving the misrepresentation (as
outlined in 7.2(c)), distortion (as outlined in 7.2(a)), or claims on
nonexistent evidence (as outlined in 7.2(b)), except those specifically delegated
to the judge in 7.3(a) (violations of 7.2(c)(3) and 7.2(c)(4)), will be the
responsibility of the District Committee. A coach or school-affiliated adult
representative must submit a protest to the tab room within 20 minutes of the
conclusion of the debate round. The 20-minute time period begins once the last
ballot from all rounds (if flighted, both flights) has been collected by the
District Committee. The protest must be substantive and written to establish
the claim of the evidence violation. The challenged contestant and coach will
then be notified. If the District Committee finds the original protest to be
substantive, the coach or school-affiliated adult and debater(s) will be given
20 minutes to provide evidence denying the claim. If such evidence cannot be
offered, the challenged debater(s) will be given the loss in the round and may
be subject to additional penalties. In these instances, the District Committee
will assume a double-win and proceed with normal tournament procedures until a
decision is made.
8. The District Committee’s decision to disqualify a student
can be appealed to the national office referee, in writing, within 20 minutes
of the committee’s decision to disqualify. Both sides will be able to provide
written explanations and supporting evidence to defend their individual side,
and a decision will be rendered in a timely manner. This decision shall be
final and cannot be appealed. If the national office referee has not made a
decision by the end of the round following the round being protested,
competition in that event must not continue until a decision has been rendered.
(That is, no more than one round may occur between the round being protested
and the decision of the national office referee.)
